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

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

No, it shouldn't count because what does a deployment have to be with being a leader? Promotion should be based off stuff you can control and deployment is not one of them. I didn't deployment until I was a SSG, but it was not from lack of trying. However I know SPC with 3 deployments. So even though this new system does not affect me personally I'm glad to see the change.

No, it shouldn't count because what does a deployment have to be with being a leader? Promotion should be based off stuff you can control and deployment is not one of them. I didn't deployment until I was a SSG, but it was not from lack of trying. However I know SPC with 3 deployments. So even though this new system does not affect me personally I'm glad to see the change.

No, it shouldn't count because what does a deployment have to be with being a leader? Promotion should be based off stuff you can control and deployment is not one of them. I didn't deployment until I was a SSG, but it was not from lack of trying. However I know SPC with 3 deployments. So even though this new system does not affect me personally I'm glad to see the change.

No, it shouldn't count because what does a deployment have to be with being a leader? Promotion should be based off stuff you can control and deployment is not one of them. I didn't deployment until I was a SSG, but it was not from lack of trying. However I know SPC with 3 deployments. So even though this new system does not affect me personally I'm glad to see the change.

No, it shouldn't count because what does a deployment have to be with being a leader? Promotion should be based off stuff you can control and deployment is not one of them. I didn't deployment until I was a SSG, but it was not from lack of trying. However I know SPC with 3 deployments. So even though this new system does not affect me personally I'm glad to see the change.

No, it shouldn't count because what does a deployment have to be with being a leader? Promotion should be based off stuff you can control and deployment is not one of them. I didn't deployment until I was a SSG, but it was not from lack of trying. However I know SPC with 3 deployments. So even though this new system does not affect me personally I'm glad to see the change.

They are changing it because we are supposed to "be at peace" now and many Soldiers would not have a chance to earn points for combat. I am all for the points going toward things Soldiers can control such as education and APFT. Let the motivated Soldiers earn as many points as they can.

I don't believe that anyone should have ever gotten points for just being deployed. That sends a bad message, people who worked in an office on a huge fob for 8 hrs a day and then hit the gym and played their xbox get points for that? We all know more than 1 shitbag that's been deployed a few times. No, that was a bad call. NCOES....again, not jecessary to give points for them. You have to graduate course x to be promoted to rank z, that is the same accross the board...so why give points which are arbitrary when anyone going for that promotion has those same points...it's a wash and being tracked for nothing. Personally though, I don't believe that college or other outside education should count towards anything for enlisted personnel. As an enlisted man your military education is all that should be looked at...and even then only of it directly relates to your MOS. PT and marksmanship I don't necessarily agree with either....but this is a huge organization and there are only so many things we can standardize and then measure...

Maybe it's something having to do with this new Garrison Army we've been transitioning to for the past couple of years. I don't agree with it but hell I'm only an E-5

Chances are this will change again when the next conflict kicks off...