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

Boy do we have short term memory. Just a few years ago you didn't get points for deployments. You got them for the board, PT, Civ ED, Mil ED, and marksmanship. This was just in 2010, in 5 years you can't tell me people don't remember this? If you want to get promoted I guess you better start hitting the books.

This is stupid. This is nonsense. WE are a military at war. So tell me how speaking Spanish and going to college helps you lead a squad.

The army is starting the transition back to the professional force. They want to see people actually perusing as opposed to receive credit. For the most part deployments and NCOES aren't things we volunteer for, we just kind of get told to do it. College education and special schools show the desire for promotion. "It is what it is".

Personally I think combat should still provide points because that does show that you can't maintain calm and still provide leadership, I've always looked up and respected leaders who have deployed because they have that experience that has made them better at what they do.

Here is what I am looking at. We are transitioning from an Army at War to an Army at Peace preparing for War. Yes we are still deploying troops to Afghanistan and Inherent Resolve, however in all reality, we are not that OIF Army. Therefore, the Army is actually putting more emphasis on what is going to be important to our troops when they LEAVE the Army. It makes sense. While I do not totally agree with them not giving ANY points to those that deploy, where is the line going to be drawn? Those troops that wen to Afghanistan? My roommate here at ARC was one of the first group of troops in Iraq for Inherent Resolve setting up communications in those COPs and FOBs. They were literally fighting ISIS so they should get credit too right? Ok so give them credit, what about those that are sitting on the border of Kuwait waiting to go North if the need be? They should get credit correct? What about the troops that go on rotations such as the Pacific Pathways? They deploy for months at a time so they should get credit as well?
It is not that I am trying to make a case for or against the points for Combat Experience. What I AM making a case for is making the Civilian Education MORE important, because THIS is what is going to count in the end. When the Soldier leaves the military service either in 4 years or 20 they NEED that education. They NEED that Bachelors degree. One of the classes that they were giving today was from a retired CSM and he told us of one of his fellow SGMs that was leaving the service, who was in charge of either a Brigade or Division, yet when he went to get a job with someone offering 6 figures a year they at the last minute pulled the offer. WHY? Because he only had an Associates Degree. It is CRITICAL that education be put on the pedestal that it deserves and if it means people losing out on promotion points because they are not taking advantage of what the military offers education wise then, they have to re-evaluate things. It is time to reshape our thinking folks, it is time to look at the new Army and the way forward.

What about awards? Any awards earned still are worth points right?

Im all for it. If you cant show initiative to improve beyond just doing the minimum, then you dont need to be promoted either.
Now before anyone blasts me, i earned 1.1. On my language qualification for Russian. Personally completed more college credits during a deployment than all other Soldiers in the battalion combined over a 15 month deployment all the while a battalion night battle nco. Busted my rear but stayed away from mwr and xbox/Playstation. Dedicated 3 off duty hours per day 4 days a week to studdies even if that meant only 3 hours of sleep.
I constantly did dime drills with my assigned weapon as well as making my soldiers do it too.
Always looking at maps and pace counting even if a gps device was in possession.
These are the things you need to do to be good. They should have implemented these rules years ago.
There are too many opportunities for Soldiers to succeed now days, they choose to play games and drink. Those ones will never be great leaders. Im sorry if that seems harsh but im not the only one that feels that way else these new rules would have never been presented much less adopted.
The best leaders i ever served with or under were always looking to improve themselves and their teams. We need that quality in these times where entitlement and minimulistic standards run amok

A deployment is important, but not for all MOS in my opinion. Take 42A for example, you think it is really necessary for them to have multiple deployments? Does that make them a better S1 Clerk, or NCO in general? They already will get an end of tour award for the deployment, if not a Combat Action badge. Just my two cents

Have we forgotten a time before they awarded promotion points for deploying?

I think there should be a bigger emphasis on civilian education.

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?