Does the current Structured Self Development course system efficiently promote Professional development?
Sir, as long as we the Leaders manage our time effectively (something we should be doing when it comes to taking care of our Soldiers) then I believe face to face SSD training can work.
Sitting down with Soldiers would be great, in an ideal world, free of SERE 100, AT-Level 1, GAT Survey's, SHARP training, EO training, MAL's, UMR's, LAYOUT's, and regular details like...Area Beautification, common areas, ASP guard, and DFAC register. The list goes on forever, because when they're not doing anything, YOU have things to do like counseling, fixing packets, prepping for training, inspecting for training prep, CQ, Staff Duty, and supervise all of the things that your guys are doing.
Even if you could get them all together in one place long enough to start this, you would have to travel to a place with multiple computers(library, computer lab, but good luck teaching above a whisper in there), internet that actually stays on for more than two minutes.
Think back when we were young(er) Soldiers...did you always have enough discipline, self-drive, and motivation to complete everything on time?
There may have been times that I needed motivation in my career or times I really didn't understand the second and third order effects of something that I didn't see as important at a certain time. We are older and wise now and can appreciate the importance of just about anything.
Soldiers need to be pushed...some more than others. SSD should not be the sole determining factor for promotion recommendation.
No, SSD should not be forced. If a Soldier takes this job seriously, then they will do the work. If they dont, they get pushed out. I agree with putting the information on the counseling statement, but forcing an unmotivated, uncaring service member to be competetive for promotions in a time when the Army is looking for those very same unmotivated people to push out seems counter productive.
The Army is drawing down, we all know this. If our top leaders are saying identify them so we can get them out, then we should identify them. Let them be lazy and uncaring, they'll be shown the door while those who want to get promoted do the work. This process leaves the door open for better Soldiers to fill those positions.
A case in point, I have a Soldier who wants to go to the promotion board, says hes ready. But hes not competetive, barely breaks the minimum point requirement in an MOS that averages promotions at points 150-200 above what he owns. Should I send him to the board because he meets the TIS/TIG requirements? I dont think so. Hes been counseled, we worked out a plan together and hes working on that plan. The point being, if I can be motivated (and I was), then so can those behind us. And to hold those behind us to higher standards will only strengthen the force while we face uncertain operational requirements in the future.
SSD is the hot topic of the Army these days. I received an email a few weeks ago that outlined the numbers for the MSGs who were ineligible to be considered for promotion for the upcoming SGM board because they have not completed SSD IV. For my MOS alone, it was almost a third of the population who would not be looked at if the board convened today (it convenes this June). So this is not just a Soldier issue, it is a leader issue also.
I do not believe in the "mandatory" piece though. I, much like 1SG Hansen, believe that SSD and how it is linked to promotion and NCOES should be outlined in monthly/quarterly counseling's. A plan of action should be developed to complete the required SSD. If that plan of action is not followed, then that should be recorded. Afford your Soldiers and NCOs the tools needed to be successful. If they choose not to use them, then so be it. The direction the Army is moving nowadays, natural selection and attrition will weed those folks out who do not want to complete what is required of them for advancement.

I understand the compatibility and technical issues, but TOO MUCH information?
Since I had erroneously enrolled myself into level III initially I decided why not complete it as well while I had the chance. Since I had used IE for level I I naturally thought I would be required to use it also. Wrong again, I needed to use chrome to access things properly and IE was completely useless.
In overall terms yeah lots of user friendly issues with each level I took. I can't speak for level IV or V but I will presume they are not without issues of their own. I figure if *I* thought they were dry and lacked imagination what will a young Soldier half my age think?
As far as the content I learned and relearned several things while going through the lessons. And yes I actually went through them rather than cheating and checking the block. I figured all I'd be doing is cheating myself if I did it that way. My problem with this among other things is my own comprehension of the minor details. I am not normally able to spout off information off the top of my head about things I read about two years ago. Instead, I used the lessons and wrote down the references in my "book of cheat sheets" so I know where to go should the question arise.
BLUF: All was not lost on me with SSD I or III but there are many tweaks that could be done to improve content as well as compatibility.
SSD was the answer to a question no one was asking.
You will only learn what they covered n SSD4 is thru doing it. And I your a TDG (Traditional Drilling Guardsmen)or a TPU Soldier, your not using ATTRS or DTS , etc. I am familiar with everything here and that's because my wife is AGR (BN S-3) and I have spent a few yrs on ADOS orders. Some Lt or CPT probably needed a bullet comment for their OER and came up with this crap.