Posted on May 11, 2023
SPC Delayed Entry Program
62.5K
1.05K
292
265
265
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
Edited 2 y ago
Avatar feed
Responses: 148
Votes
  • Newest
  • Oldest
  • Votes
LTC Jorge Cordero
0
0
0
If your account is correct, perhaps the board was justified in denying your promotion. How are you going to treat a transgender person when they get assigned to your squad/team? If your religion already makes you prejudice against them how are you going to treat them fairly, like you want the board to treat you?
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
LTC Jorge Cordero
0
0
0
If your account is correct, perhaps the board was justified in denying your promotion. How are you going to handle a "Transgender" person when they are assigned to your squad/team? If your religion already makes you prejudice against them how are you going to treat them fairly, as you want the board to do with you?
(0)
Comment
(0)
PFC Lisa McDonald
PFC Lisa McDonald
>1 y
Transgender is an activist word and should never been allowed into DOD parlance. In fact using the word Transgender violates legal changes of sex and the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution. There is no legal right or has ever been to refer to a person that has legally changed their birth certificate as "transgender" without their consent. Transgender is not a diagnostic term in either mental health or physical health. Again its activist language and really sexually predatory language.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
PFC Lisa McDonald
0
0
0
Edited 2 y ago
Last I checked everyone in the Army is a soldier! Honestly, I am not a fan of "Transgender" I do however think its more important to focus on soldering more than the gender of the soldier. I think its as important to women and maybe more so than it is to "transgender" activist.
Soldier is an umbrella term and is neutral. Again honestly, I cannot see a legitimate religious complaint about calling a soldier a soldier or a SGT a SGT etc. No need for gender pronouns and better without them.
(0)
Comment
(0)
PFC Lisa McDonald
PFC Lisa McDonald
>1 y
SFC Kelly Fuerhoff - I have a dual degree with greek honors in psychology and human services. I take it you were an English major and are one of those spelling Nazis. You totally can't comprehend military jargon or any professional jargon breaks with traditional language and its rules.
(0)
Reply
(0)
PFC Lisa McDonald
PFC Lisa McDonald
>1 y
SFC Kelly Fuerhoff - Also I am verified as a Veteran by Rallypoint. So I guess there also goes your troll accusation up in smoke.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
TSgt Gary McPherson
0
0
0
I'm just happy I retired when I did as I would never join the military today.Everything is upside down.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Dennis Rodriguez
0
0
0
Is this where we are headed? Insane! God help us all.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SGT Gifford Allaire
0
0
0
I'm old school....but the whole "woke" bullshit is, in my opinion, exactly that. That being said, getting the IG involved is the last option. This is just my thoughts, but if that is where the army is going, get out. Ain't worth compromising your morals.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Signals Acquisition/Exploitation Analyst
0
0
0
If it were me, i would advise the 1SG and my plan and then I would request a meeting with the CSM and ask that question the the CSM, point blank. Most CSMs will be open to giving direct feedback. Additionally, ask to see the board member appraisal worksheets. If that is indeed the case, ask to speak to BC and BDE vommand teams before going to IG. Hope this helps.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SPC David C.
0
0
0
100% fight this bullshit! The SGM's family issues aren't your problem. If this isn't stopped now, it absolutely WILL only get worse.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SSG Eric Blue
0
0
0
That sounds like a very bullcrap thing for the board to do. But at least your NCO support channel didn't tell you to get all of your stuff prepared for the promotion board and to show up on the day of the board and wait for your sponsor to show up and they never show. That's what happened to me.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SGT Juan Robledo
0
0
0
You answered the way you know how, if the SGM has a problem then he is using his own personal experience and that’s a conflict of interest and he or she should recuse themselves
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
CPT Ian Stewart
0
0
0
COL Cudworth gave a very complete answer, but I think we need more information from the SPC. How did the board phrase the question? Unless they provided some clarification (i.e. biologically male soldier transitioning into female or vice versa), the SPC using standard English grammatical rules answered correctly and therefore should have received a "Go".
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
PO1 Robert Ryan
0
0
0
Edited 2 y ago
If what this soldier states is true.is this how politically correct the Armed Forces has gotten. I can't believe that a persons induvial rights to their own beliefs as long as they don't advocate any discrimination is wrong.. Sorry for being a dinosaur in this new world.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SSG John Gillespie
0
0
0
Edited 2 y ago
As of 2015, when I retired, DA was encouraging gender neutrality in professional communications, though "he/him" was still the default reference to a non-personified "Soldier;" particularly pertinent in TRADOC publications and revised Field Manuals to that date. There were a few contemporary publications which flipped the default to "her/she", but these were obvious outliers and did not fit with the unified doctrine and official language of the Department of the Army at that time. Given the historical and contemporary composition of the Armed Services and the basics of English grammar, it makes sense for the non-personified reference to a Soldier to remain "he/him," though there are always malcontents on the periphery who always wish to control how and what you think and say on political grounds.

Fast forward 8 years and we are now seeing an obvious political agenda being pushed to change the culture of the Army, largely to the detriment of the professional nature of the Service, to include creating obvious readiness and cohesion issues which have no reason for existing other than interference by political actors whom have no experience in or practical knowledge of our particular cultural subset of Americana. They are doing it because they can largely get away with it, under penalty of law for dissent.

For your particular situation, the Hatch Act (Specifically, 5 USC §7324. Political activities on duty; prohibition) forbids personnel in duty uniform or while acting in an official capacity from engaging in political speech or activity. Unless there is a specific AR inclusion governing pronoun usage in speech in recent years, or a specific and published Command Policy letter in your chain which can be traced to being backed by a Federal Law in this regard, then the situation as described would seem to be a blatant violation of 5 USC §7324.

IF (and I stress IF!) you were given a No-Go on your promotion board recommendation due to using standard English language in correctly answering a question, which may be deemed politically inappropriate or incorrect by some actors, and IF the political incorrectness of your use of language was used to determine your performance as unsatisfactory, then the only logical conclusion to be made is that the decision was politically motivated and thus in violation of Federal Law.

Carry on from here, Soldier, just be damned sure of what you do with this information as it WILL burn bridges and you'd better be able to back it up with testimony and evidence if you proceed on these grounds.


[Edit:]
Also, the world is NOT heading in this direction - the political establishment in power is. That is not the same thing.

The issue of alternate pronouns is completely nonsensical in most other Indo-European languages and seems to be tailored to destabilizing culture and society in English speaking countries, specifically.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
MSG Michael Gay
0
0
0
It seems that any attempt to get past this will be on shaky ground. The pronoun issue is a major issue from the Commander in Chief through everyone that desires any favorable action.
(0)
Comment
(0)
SSG John Gillespie
SSG John Gillespie
2 y
5 USC §7324 disallows political speech or activity in uniform or while acting in an official capacity. The suits at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave may be able to ignore it but no Servicemember can.

Requiring alternate gendered / non-gendered pronoun usage is compelled speech on political grounds in support of a religious cult.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SSG Lucien Hecker
0
0
0
I don't believe, based on the information you provided, that you should have received a 'No-Go' for one question the board deemed incorrect.
That alone shouldn't sink your promotion. I too think you answered the question incorrectly, but I understand your implication in the answer. I would have answered with the "he/she" qualifier. But I was in from 1985 - 2009. It was definitely a different time.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SSgt Christophe Murphy
0
0
0
First off we don’t truly know if that’s the only thing that got the no go. You asked one person.

Second, boards grade you against the other participants and their single intent is to eliminate all but one. They may have got you on a gotcha question. Maybe.

Did they violate UCMJ, local policy or Big Army policy? More than likely no from what you have shared.
(0)
Comment
(0)
SSG John Gillespie
SSG John Gillespie
2 y
U.S. Army promotion boards are not competitive. They are Go / No-Go based on selection criteria and guidance from the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy. Recommendation for promotion (Go status) places the Soldier on the list for promotion eligibility for the next higher grade. From there, the Soldier must meet the specific promotion criteria currently in effect for his / her duty MOS in order to be promoted to the next higher grade.

The scenario which you described does not pertain, in any way, to U.S. Army Enlisted promotions. It does, however, perfectly encapsulate organizational competitive boards, which have long been used to promote esprit de corps at all command levels and to prepare Soldiers for sitting before a promotion board due to the specific demands of board performance being commensurate.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
MAJ Public Affairs Officer
0
0
0
If your answer and the subsequent decision based on that answer is officially documented, by all means approach the IG. In other words, you're going to have to prove it with some sort of concrete evidence.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SPC Sarah Wingo-Story
0
-1
1
"The soldier" can also imply female soldiers not just trans. So maybe get used to being inclusive of others or get out?
(0)
Comment
(1)
Cpl David Schaffer
Cpl David Schaffer
>1 y
Because somebody use's common terminology that was once taught in the US schools and is still taught around the world, they are not "inclusive" enough? Growing up we were taught a group of women were ladies, a group of men were guys and if it was a mixed group it was acceptable to say guys, but not ladies. To use the masculine sense to cover a group of people has always been considered proper etiquette. To me it sounds as if you are the one not being "inclusive" by ignoring common language practices to enforce your own view.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SPC Sarah Wingo-Story
SPC Sarah Wingo-Story
>1 y
Language changes, cultures change. Why should I consider it "respectful" to accept being called a guy, but a man can't accept it being respectful to be called one of the "ladies"? English and many languages consider masculine terms to be the norm and to use female term as an insult. "They" would have been a fine term to use instead of "he" because no gender is implied. "Proper etiquette" is changing too, why should we do the same thing as "its always been that way" - when 1. it hasn't and 2. it doesn't work well anymore.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

How are you connected to the military?
  • Active Duty
  • Active Reserve / National Guard
  • Pre-Commission
  • Veteran / Retired
  • Civilian Supporter