Posted on May 11, 2023
Can I be denied receiving a 'Go' for a promotion board if I accidentally use gender pronouns? Should I get the IG involved?
52.5K
844
276
178
178
0
I recently just attended the E-5 promotion board and absolutely nailed it. Uniform, confidence, presence was on point. Answered questions correctly and to the best of my ability. Walked out of the board feeling like a million bucks. I am waiting for my sponsor to come out, and he says I received a 'No-Go' because on the first question I was asked I referred to a soldier as "he should" instead of "the soldier should." This apparently was the decision that prevented me from being promotable according to my sponsor, despite answering the other 9 questions I was asked to a T.
Is there anything on Army regulation about this? Should I get the IG involved? What if this belief is against my religion and I don't agree with it? I know the SGM has a transgender kid. I do not want to cave to using these terms if it does not align with my beliefs. I know the worlds' headed in this direction but this seems absolutely insane to me that despite acing a board, I can be prevented from promoting due to using gender pronouns. What
Is there anything on Army regulation about this? Should I get the IG involved? What if this belief is against my religion and I don't agree with it? I know the SGM has a transgender kid. I do not want to cave to using these terms if it does not align with my beliefs. I know the worlds' headed in this direction but this seems absolutely insane to me that despite acing a board, I can be prevented from promoting due to using gender pronouns. What
Promotion Board
Inspector General
Equal Opportunity (EO)
Enlisted
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 139
92
91
1
I am so glad that I am retired and don't have to put up with this BS. Fact: there are only two sexes/genders male and female. The percentage of people who are born hermaphrodite is .018. All these other "genders" are made up and not based on science just wishful thinking. I'll probably get some hate mail but this is the truth.
(92)
(1)
MAJ Tex Hall
SrA Cecelia Eareckson - You're mixing things up. I agree with recognizing women serving, but requiring a servicemember to be "gender neutral" when referring others is crap. It's also bad English.
(0)
(0)
SrA Cecelia Eareckson
Easy to say when you have not experienced the ignorance and outright hostility towards women veterans. BTW, was your use of the word "servicemember" crap or bad English?
The MSU debacle was about their basketball teams recognizing veterans prior to the playing of the national anthem. They only ever brought men on court. Now,they do manage to find women as well. BTW, refusing to mention or show a population is called "symbolic annihilation."
The MSU debacle was about their basketball teams recognizing veterans prior to the playing of the national anthem. They only ever brought men on court. Now,they do manage to find women as well. BTW, refusing to mention or show a population is called "symbolic annihilation."
(0)
(0)
SrA Cecelia Eareckson
MAJ Tex Hall - Oops! See above. And I never had a problem with being an Airman.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Tex Hall
SrA Cecelia Eareckson - Actually the word "servicemember" and the words "service member" have traditionally been used to cover all persons of any uniformed service. So it's not only crap free, it's also good English. :) That is much better than most civilians saying "soldier" for anyone in any uniform, lol.
I'm not familiar with MSU's failures, but I hope that you've made sure to let them know why your dollars won't go to them! I applaud that, and happy to see their change.
Anyway, here's another thought that might cause (or be better served in?) another thread. It's Extremely important to know and understand that there are two (and only two) sexes/genders/latest fad word of the day. More especially so in the military. In one of my assignments I had an absolutely Awesome AF SMSgt as my operations NCO. In that field, it didn't matter what sex Ruth was. In her prior years she was a ground support Airman/NCO for aircraft and had to do numerous tests to make sure all systems worked properly before going up to fight again. Ruth never got within the "cone of danger" when the radars were tested. She was one of the first females in that specialty so the restrictions were the same as for males. When she started developing cancer in her 'female parts' it raised some concerns. Some male airmen who crossed into that danger zone developed testicular cancers. Luckily the powers that be were able to differentiate between males and females and started tracking all females in that specialty and other related specialties. Finding higher incidents of cancer in the women working in that specialty, the AF finally closed that specialty to women.
You aren't just an airman: I see Senior Airman on your profile and I salute that! Keep getting all service men and women recognized. Yes, even the navy everyday except for tomorrow (and one day out of each year).
Tex
I'm not familiar with MSU's failures, but I hope that you've made sure to let them know why your dollars won't go to them! I applaud that, and happy to see their change.
Anyway, here's another thought that might cause (or be better served in?) another thread. It's Extremely important to know and understand that there are two (and only two) sexes/genders/latest fad word of the day. More especially so in the military. In one of my assignments I had an absolutely Awesome AF SMSgt as my operations NCO. In that field, it didn't matter what sex Ruth was. In her prior years she was a ground support Airman/NCO for aircraft and had to do numerous tests to make sure all systems worked properly before going up to fight again. Ruth never got within the "cone of danger" when the radars were tested. She was one of the first females in that specialty so the restrictions were the same as for males. When she started developing cancer in her 'female parts' it raised some concerns. Some male airmen who crossed into that danger zone developed testicular cancers. Luckily the powers that be were able to differentiate between males and females and started tracking all females in that specialty and other related specialties. Finding higher incidents of cancer in the women working in that specialty, the AF finally closed that specialty to women.
You aren't just an airman: I see Senior Airman on your profile and I salute that! Keep getting all service men and women recognized. Yes, even the navy everyday except for tomorrow (and one day out of each year).
Tex
(0)
(0)
First, if everything is as you related (no offence, I have no clue if that's the complete story or your interpretation of it), then my feeling is that that was a very chicken**** thing for the board to do. However, my reaction is probably not for what you're thinking. My reaction would be because the situation was that you were being denied a "GO" because of a 'gotcha question' which I'll come back to in a bit.
To your specific question, "Is there anything in the regulations about this" - Yes and No.
If "this" refers to 'local policy', 'Commander directives', or other 'non-traditional' methods of evaluation of a Soldier appearing before the board, then the answer is no. The only prohibition is that hands-on tasks cannot be used in the board (i.e., "Ok Soldier, we want to see how fast you can disassemble your weapon and put it back together again"). The general GUIDANCE that HRC gives on the conduct of the board is that the "Questions should focus on leadership, awareness of military programs, and knowledge of basic Soldiering and world affairs. The Board should consider the Soldier's overall personal appearance, bearing, self-confidence, oral expression, conversational skills, and attitude when determining each Soldier's potential to serve at the next level of NCO responsibility."
HRC issued additional guidance for semi-centralized promotion boards in ALARACT 068/2021 which states, "To reinforce team and squad leader understanding of how our army cares for its soldiers, promotion to sergeant and staff sergeant will include situational questions in the areas of sexual harassment, suicide prevention, misuse of drugs and alcohol, physical and mental fitness, failure to attend a noncommissioned officer professional development system course, and a subordinate’s decision to reenlist. The purpose of these questions is not to have soldiers appearing before the board quote back army regulations pertaining to these subjects, but to provide the board an assessment of how that individual would react with their soldiers when leading them through these issues and questions. These situational questions reinforce the “this is my squad” initiative within our noncommissioned officer corps and those soldiers about to become noncommissioned officers."
So, CAN the local promotion board consider things outside of the categories of leadership, awareness of military programs, and knowledge of basic Soldiering and world affairs? Sure. They could ask you questions regarding the military's policies regarding transgender Soldiers serving and how you would handle a transgender Soldier in your unit. They could ask question you about how the Army goes about lodging those Soldiers in the barracks or handle personal hygiene with other Soldiers. They could even ask you if you will support the Army/DoD policies regardless of your personal beliefs and/or feelings towards those policies.
However, this may or may not apply in your situation. Getting back to your comments above, you stated that you received a "NO-GO" because you used a gender specific term instead of using a generic term of "Soldier". Is there local policy or training that you went through regarding this or statements by leadership saying so? As far as I know, there hasn't been any instruction regarding using generic references in the Army* (only case I know of is that that US Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) issued directions to stop using gender pronouns in written communications), but that doesn't mean that you weren't told to do so at a local level.
Regarding your possible objections to it based on beliefs, it's a non-issue because they weren't giving you a hypothetical situation and asking you to "misgender" someone - the reason for the "NO-GO" that was given to you was for not using "Soldier" instead of a gender specific term. You may not agree with that approach (again, IF it was local policy), but I'm not aware of any religious denomination that would have an objection to using neutral language.
Now, with all that out of the way, to the crux of your situation. Again, IF everything regarding the situation is as you stated, then was the board conducted fairly? My OPINION is that it was not. Again the reason for the board is to gauge your leadership, awareness of military programs, and knowledge of basic Soldiering and world affairs.
However, if your leadership has put out policy and has been reinforcing it with their view of the importance of using gender neutral references to Soldiers ... maybe it was fair. Have you ever been instructed or counseled about using 'Soldier' instead of gender specific pronouns? What I'm getting at is if there is some guidance or official direction from leadership about doing so, then you might not have much to stand on.
If on the other hand there exists no such policy or guidance, then you probably do. The one thing that the regulations DO state is that the voting board members must be unbiased and you would have an argument that the SGM could be biased (if he was in fact a voting member of the board).
I would take advantage of the open door policy and talk to your commander. Assuming there is no policy detailing the use of gender neutral terms for all Soldiers, express your concerns as well as what you were told. Again, IF there is local policy, then you don't have much of a leg to stand on regarding being evaluated by the gendered pronoun (yes, I do still view it as a nit-noid gotcha approach if they used that instead of asking you about policies and such).
--------------------------------------------
* HQDA Memo - https://www.hrc.army.mil/asset/26313
* Army policy regarding transgender Soldiers is that whatever is reflected in their DEERS records is the gender they are treated as an referred to as.
To your specific question, "Is there anything in the regulations about this" - Yes and No.
If "this" refers to 'local policy', 'Commander directives', or other 'non-traditional' methods of evaluation of a Soldier appearing before the board, then the answer is no. The only prohibition is that hands-on tasks cannot be used in the board (i.e., "Ok Soldier, we want to see how fast you can disassemble your weapon and put it back together again"). The general GUIDANCE that HRC gives on the conduct of the board is that the "Questions should focus on leadership, awareness of military programs, and knowledge of basic Soldiering and world affairs. The Board should consider the Soldier's overall personal appearance, bearing, self-confidence, oral expression, conversational skills, and attitude when determining each Soldier's potential to serve at the next level of NCO responsibility."
HRC issued additional guidance for semi-centralized promotion boards in ALARACT 068/2021 which states, "To reinforce team and squad leader understanding of how our army cares for its soldiers, promotion to sergeant and staff sergeant will include situational questions in the areas of sexual harassment, suicide prevention, misuse of drugs and alcohol, physical and mental fitness, failure to attend a noncommissioned officer professional development system course, and a subordinate’s decision to reenlist. The purpose of these questions is not to have soldiers appearing before the board quote back army regulations pertaining to these subjects, but to provide the board an assessment of how that individual would react with their soldiers when leading them through these issues and questions. These situational questions reinforce the “this is my squad” initiative within our noncommissioned officer corps and those soldiers about to become noncommissioned officers."
So, CAN the local promotion board consider things outside of the categories of leadership, awareness of military programs, and knowledge of basic Soldiering and world affairs? Sure. They could ask you questions regarding the military's policies regarding transgender Soldiers serving and how you would handle a transgender Soldier in your unit. They could ask question you about how the Army goes about lodging those Soldiers in the barracks or handle personal hygiene with other Soldiers. They could even ask you if you will support the Army/DoD policies regardless of your personal beliefs and/or feelings towards those policies.
However, this may or may not apply in your situation. Getting back to your comments above, you stated that you received a "NO-GO" because you used a gender specific term instead of using a generic term of "Soldier". Is there local policy or training that you went through regarding this or statements by leadership saying so? As far as I know, there hasn't been any instruction regarding using generic references in the Army* (only case I know of is that that US Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) issued directions to stop using gender pronouns in written communications), but that doesn't mean that you weren't told to do so at a local level.
Regarding your possible objections to it based on beliefs, it's a non-issue because they weren't giving you a hypothetical situation and asking you to "misgender" someone - the reason for the "NO-GO" that was given to you was for not using "Soldier" instead of a gender specific term. You may not agree with that approach (again, IF it was local policy), but I'm not aware of any religious denomination that would have an objection to using neutral language.
Now, with all that out of the way, to the crux of your situation. Again, IF everything regarding the situation is as you stated, then was the board conducted fairly? My OPINION is that it was not. Again the reason for the board is to gauge your leadership, awareness of military programs, and knowledge of basic Soldiering and world affairs.
However, if your leadership has put out policy and has been reinforcing it with their view of the importance of using gender neutral references to Soldiers ... maybe it was fair. Have you ever been instructed or counseled about using 'Soldier' instead of gender specific pronouns? What I'm getting at is if there is some guidance or official direction from leadership about doing so, then you might not have much to stand on.
If on the other hand there exists no such policy or guidance, then you probably do. The one thing that the regulations DO state is that the voting board members must be unbiased and you would have an argument that the SGM could be biased (if he was in fact a voting member of the board).
I would take advantage of the open door policy and talk to your commander. Assuming there is no policy detailing the use of gender neutral terms for all Soldiers, express your concerns as well as what you were told. Again, IF there is local policy, then you don't have much of a leg to stand on regarding being evaluated by the gendered pronoun (yes, I do still view it as a nit-noid gotcha approach if they used that instead of asking you about policies and such).
--------------------------------------------
* HQDA Memo - https://www.hrc.army.mil/asset/26313
* Army policy regarding transgender Soldiers is that whatever is reflected in their DEERS records is the gender they are treated as an referred to as.
(66)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
COL Jim Ainslie - Concept of "America" or the concept of the "United States of America"?
Also (sadly, I might add), you missed the point of what SFC Davis was trying to make. And your use of the 1st Amendment was and is out of context. If you want to use context properly, then you should be referencing the Declaration of Independence. But then again, you would have to use Deism and the Age of Enlightenment to support your stance, which you did not do.
Also (sadly, I might add), you missed the point of what SFC Davis was trying to make. And your use of the 1st Amendment was and is out of context. If you want to use context properly, then you should be referencing the Declaration of Independence. But then again, you would have to use Deism and the Age of Enlightenment to support your stance, which you did not do.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Ronnie Reams
SSG Robert Webster - Part of Board for not knowing that the masculine is used for mixed genders.
(1)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
SPC Matt Ovaska - And you can be cognizant of the fact that we are an intergrated Military; I was once a "WAC" when I first joined the Army; in 1976 I was deemed part of the Regular Army, as a Soldier. It's a shame that your way of thinking is so antiquated; the "only solution" is not to 'admit the mistake and return to the WACS", but for you to remember that this is a All Volunteer Military, and women are full members of the Military, the same as you.
(0)
(0)
SPC Matt Ovaska
I'm real old fashioned. I don't care for coed schools either. Sports should be competitive between all male or female teams to be fair. I don't want my daughter/ grand daughter in a fox hole with some guy. It has worked well for thousands of years. I can truly say thank you for your service as a WAC, along with Queen Elizabeth and my mom who was a spy during the Winter war. Do males carry stress cards in todays military?
(1)
(0)
39
39
0
This question is very much in the Present. I definitely would like to hear more details as I am unaware of use of pronoun regulations. The only slight inference in your narrative is that the SGM has a transgender kid and thus I infer there maybe local preferences -- this could be a situational awareness thing, but to give a no-go is not a sword I'd fall on. Keep RP posted with updates
(39)
(0)
Suspended Profile
Army EO still recognizes on male and female genders. However EO encourages use of gender neutral terms in case a male would "prefer" to be referred to as a female and vice-versa
PO1 (Join to see)
"local preferences" are not the same as "local regulations" or "local directives".
(1)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
TSgt James Warfield - You only heard one side of the issue. Let's see if this is truly a reason for denial before we get the fires burning.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I know I am late to the party, but, if in fact that was the reason to be denied a "GO" on the promotional exam, for rebutting such a decision, I would dig out the multitude of Active, Current regulations and FM's that use the collective "He" along with the term "manning" or "man" instead of "staffing" and "staff" to illustrate the validity of the use of these terms for the collective "soldier" in an organizational process.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google