Changes for NCOs: New requirements and promotion points. Have You Heard?

Well there is more to this news than just eliminating points from combat experience and NCOES. To address those two particular variables you selected (Combat Experience & NCOES) and not quibble and cavil about it, I would start by saying: I totally agree with the direction SMA Dan Dailey is stirring us (to include the changes to the NCOERs but that's reserved for another topic).

I deduce that the elimination of points from those two variables you selected for this discussion simply says "just because you've been deployed doesn't make you're a better leader or more qualified than your peers". Furthermore, it says "Oh you completed some NCOES? Good for you. Nothing special about it; as everyone should be on top of their NCOES anyways". What is happening appertains the evolution of our complex battle space. We may not always agree on changes but this particular change I think is worth challenging the status quo and how we've conducted business as usual (especially during the peek of OIF and OEF). These new measures are excellent in determining true quality and value.

I think it's a good change especially since the war has simmered down. Now those that won't have the opportunity to get combat experience can have a chance to get the points elsewhere. Plus I don't think that going to combat necessarily means that you're ready for leadership.

While the lack of emphasis on actual combat experience (in the Army of all places) breaks my heart, the changes to NCOES make me a VERY happy panda..

We are slowly migrating towards a new generation of Soldiers who will not likely see a combat deployment during their career (pending another major conflict). Sounds like higher ups are trying to level the playing field a bit.
I don't necessarily agree with it. I think we need to add SOME value to combat experience. It brings perspective and much needed application to training. If they want to reduce the points, fine. Don't eliminate them altogether. That sends the wrong message in my opinion.

Combat experience has morphed from engaging the enemy to being at a FOB near an engagement. This is why there is so much disagreement of a portion of skiers being awarded a CIB. It is a shame it cannot be cut and dry. In order to be fair (tongue in cheek) that is why, or at least what I think. This is based upon how I follow the military and the decision making progress. If there is a better way just mention it here and someone can get it to the appropriate people.

Looks like with some of things they are doing with the system, they are going back to the way it was prior to all of the current wars that have been going on. I think that it's a good idea and it forces soldiers to now get so sort of degree and better themselves. What's going to hurt some is if they have the points to get promoted and they have been to the Warrior Leaders Course, they will be passed over until they can attend the course. Question is are they going to set a time limit on this.

What about those Soldiers who are injured and on a permanent profile? You know, the ones that can only do 1 event or less? The ones that can't because of something that happened during one of those "don't count" deployments, what about those people? I would like to see Big Army make a change to make it "more fair" to those folks. This change will negatively affect those in a combat MOS due to the time they spend in the field training. Look where our SMA comes from and you shouldn't be that surprised.

They werent actually combat promotion points. They were more along the lines of deployment points. When you say deployment points instead of combat, then you start to hear how ridiculous it is. I get the same amount as some person who was living it up in BAF. Don't get me wrong I maxed out in these points for SSG. Looking back though it is an unfair point system. You got bronze stars, ARCOMs and AAMs for deployment.

If your an admin clerk then not a big deal; your combat experience wouldn't relate to your job. It does show resiliency in some aspects. If you earned a Silver Star then that would have been reflected on your awards portion. As a grunt I believe that combat experience is vital to you showing your basic warrior tasks. That being said I'm torn because it shouldn't be the main thing to focus on. Combat time only shows months deployed and not actual "combat". So these points should have been called deployment points and therefore sound stupid.

NCOES is a requirement so points shouldn't be awarded in the first place. Combat experience opportunities are now much harder to acquire due to the cutback of deployments. Why should a Soldier be penalized or held back from being promoted by being assigned to a unit that hasn't deployed?

If I were on a promotion board and was attempting to decide who would be the best person for the job, first and foremost would be successful performance in the field. Combat experience would get the highest credit, since that is what we are preparing for at some point. If I had two equally qualified individuals, the higher level of education would come into play. So tell me how a O-1 fresh from the academy or college and a SNCO with combat experience and a college degree can be compared?

I think that it is wrong, to take away all of the credit for the things that the people that have time with boots on the ground away totally. Reduce the points, make it a fair fight. Just like with Veterans preference points. I just don't think because someone has 500 college credits and someone else might have 250 that was in combat, should have the better chance at getting promoted before them. If they are a better leader then fine, but just because someone is butt hurt that Someone else has 5 or even more deployments that they should LOOSE all credit. You have got people who have DODGED deployments and went to school and they are Crap bags that will now be promoted over good people just because they are now on the down side for being deployed! COLLEGE ISN'T EVERYTHING! just because someone took bowling or archery and gets the credit hrs doesn't mean they are BETTER! Doesn't mean just because someone knows a BOOK that they are smarter or better as a leader. You have things in deployed personnel that a BOOK or COMPUTER can't teach!

It's time to up your PT and get that schooling done!!

What is the purpose of the system, the basis of being of soldiers is learning to survive in a combat situation, and taking that experience and passing it down to future soldiers.

I have mixed feelings. I'm glad they aren't awarding points for the NCOES anymore because it puts me at a disadvantage since my command hasn't allowed me to attend. I serve in a Joint Command, and I don't think they realize the importance of this school for an NCOs career. For this reason, I think making it a requirement will really put some amazing NCOs at a disadvantage. There are also those who are constantly deployed and TDY who are limited on time to attend. I agree with having it as a requirement, but the Army needs to put pressure on the units to ENSURE their NCOs get the opportunity to attend. Overall it would increase by promotion point standings by roughly 85 points, but if my command continues to postpone my ALC attendance I will be unable to get promoted despite having a high score. My command has already prevented me from attending the promotion for nearly two years, I can imagine them holding off on this school for the same nonsensical reasons.

Yes, and I hope I get selected the next board as I'll have to wait two additional years for promotion. My MOS is two phases, and I'd be lucky to get them done in two years.

It's more than deployment points, I have been deployed and that is not what stings the most. I have not been able to attend ALC....I have not dodged it nor I have not said "no" to it. The issue is that I have been DENIED going for four years now. Believe it, don't believe it, either way doesn't bother me because I have lived it and I know plenty of others that have too. Twice it got pulled from me because I was needed for other "more important" mission oriented tasks, once because it did not fit into our RED/YELOW/GREEN cycle training calendar....now I'm deployed so that is 9 months gone. I have 639 points and scratching at the door for making the cut off, but not any more because I need ALC. I joined in 2008 and since then have earned 2 ARCOMS, 6 AAMS, 2 AGCMs and 4 COAs (none from competitive boards). I received these awards because I busted my ass for my units. I did not have any college when I joined, but now have 110 hours. I also have 920 Army correspondence hours (needed 800 when I joined) 28 Residential course hours, 38/40 weapons qualification, a 280 APFT and a deployment. Tell me does it sound like I have sat on my ass for the past 7 yrs and 5 months. I have been a shift leader, section leader, squad leader and interim Platoon SGT. I have dedicated myself to the Army, when instead I should have whined and filed a complaint because my leadership wasn't allowing me the "education" that is required for career progression in the Army. Yes, I am pissed that the finish line was changed, especially when I am so close.... but what really irritates me is all the excuses and silly reasoning I see on here and other places.... If you want good leaders, then you have to select ones that have led...ALC makes a good leader my ass! So I will be passed up and Soldiers with less points will get picked up. These people will have less TIG/experience or have more TIG and maybe a piece of garbage Soldier....but thank goodness they have been to ALC! and yes deployments should equal points, because you can't get that experience in garrison. Think of a deployment as one long, drawn out residential course.

Whats the difference? I'm awarded combat experience points for deploying yearly (literally) and you are rewarded points for being able to attend civilian education courses? I'm not awarded civilian ed. points for not being able to attend.. and you are not awarded combat experience points..for not being able to attend. The only difference I can see is that I'm (previously) limited to 30 points, despite the amount of deployments.

Idk if I am that stokked about it. I think combat experience really helps define leaders but I agree that civilian and military education is highly important at the same time. So giving no points for it isn't what I would have desired.

I got this off the net. From reading it, it sounds like a good program, but it's designed for new NCO's and leaders according to what I read. I will not be convinced, in any form, shape, or fashion, that NCO combat experience trumps computer learning. How is the combat NCO supposed to be able to stay caught up with the NCO's who aren't deployed to advance in rank? College educations are great. I suppose the NCOES school is for bettering an NCO and giving them a chance to get a degree so when they are vets, they will be ready for employment. Am I wrong, or right?
Skip Navigation LinksAUSA Home » Resources » NCO & Soldiers Programs » Training and Mentoring » Quotes for Winners » Training and Teamwork Print Email
Noncommissioned Officer Education System (NCOES)

NCOES is one of the key things that made the NCO Corps what it is today. The Corps is the envy of every Army in the world. NCOES will remain a viable pillar of NCO Leader Development- a solid foundation to build the skills needed to lead and train the Army of all the tomorrows. We’ll continue to send soldiers to NCOES courses, maybe not during an operational deployment, but we have the time and the duty to provide NCO Leader Development training. The bottom line is that we will continue to have an NCOES that provides progressive, sequential training to our NCO Corps. I believe, also, that not only will it be at the same high standards as years past, but as we leverage technology and distance learning where it makes sense, it will serve the Army and the NCO Corps of the 21st Century well. It’s exciting times for educating the NCOs of the future. We are harnessing and leveraging new technologies which will afford new avenues and unlimited possibilities for educating our NCOs.

SMA Robert E. Hall


NCOES provided the foundation for building an Army that is second to none and a quality NCO Corps that is admired and respected by countries throughout the world.

SMA Richard A. Kidd


- See more at: http://www.ausa.org/resources/nco/training/quotesforwinners/trainingandteamwork/Pages/NoncommissionedOfficerEducationSystem(NCOES).aspx#sthash.xsXiQLGq.dpuf