Does the ‘Up-Or-Out’ Promotion System hurt the Military?

2016-12-31T14:44:36-05:00

A broken system leads to careerism and costs the military valuable people, knowledge, wisdom, and experience. Services must separate retention from promotion. The rest of the world acknowledges that some people excel at leading and managing others in the accomplishment of goals, while others excel at the work itself.

A great read:
http://taskandpurpose.com/military-needs-abandon-promotion-boards/

The ‘Up-Or-Out’ Promotion System Hurts The Military

A broken system leads to careerism and costs the military valuable people, knowledge, wisdom, and experience.

Response by CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2016 2:47 PM

2016-12-31T14:47:20-05:00

I believe it does. Some very skilled people are forced out because they did not want to promote in some cases. Some people are worker bees and not supervisors.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2016 2:47 PM

2016-12-31T14:47:31-05:00

On a lighter note, I think all of the guys on this board share the same barber.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2016 2:48 PM

2016-12-31T14:48:17-05:00

It has it good and bad points overall.... a look at the system and how to modernize it is always a good thing.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Dec 31 at 2016 2:56 PM

2016-12-31T14:56:39-05:00

I've preached this for years. I believe the Army went wrong when it got rid of the senior SPC ranks. Not everyone is a leader. There are some very good technical soldiers out there and many of them are piss poor leaders. They should not be set aside just because of this. Especially now that there is so much hi-tec stuff in the military. Leaders should be trained and moved up. Technical proficient soldiers should be put forward in schools of their MOS and not moved out because they are not leaders.

Response by SFC Bill Snyder made Dec 31 at 2016 4:08 PM

2016-12-31T16:08:27-05:00

When I first enlisted in the 50s, there was no up or out. Some of the best teachers were those "old solders" with up to 30 yrs service who were just happy to be a Truck Driver, Cook, Combat Engineer, or whatever and being a CPL was just fine with them. They weren't taking anything away from those who wanted to climb the ladder. The first Retirement Parade participated in was for a CPL with 25 years with WWII and Korea behind him. He was satisfied with his position and proud of his service and his 2 stripes.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Dec 31 at 2016 4:12 PM

2016-12-31T16:12:32-05:00

Mixed feelings on this. I have known SMs that were extremely proficient at their jobs, but lacked leadership skills. If I had to get a job done skillfully and quickly, they would be appreciated. Not so much when I had to explain their conduct to my seniors.

Response by Lt Col Jim Coe made Dec 31 at 2016 4:26 PM

2016-12-31T16:26:54-05:00

If the up-or-out is strictly applied, it hurts the military because some people with critical skills and knowledge are released from duty only because they are not promoted. The Services can promote only as many people as the budget allows. The Service budget governs how many people can serve in each grade. The promotion system can only promote as many people as needed to fill in the quota for that grade. For example, if the Air Force has budgeted for 2,000 colonels, and the personnel system projects that 900 will remain on active duty at the end of the FY, then up to 1,100 Lt Cols can be promoted for that FY. The 1,101 Lt Col on the promotion board evaluation list will not be promoted. The difference between the record of number 1,100 and 1,101 is probably very small. If your name falls below the "red line" twice, then you're invited to retire if you have at least 20 years of service, or to resign. The sum of that person's knowledge and experience leaves the Service with them; herein lies the problem with up-or-out.

The Air Force allows some twice-passed-over officers to continue to serve to the 20-year mark. Pilots and other aircrew are often offered this opportunity. The waiver to the two-strikes rule usually allows the officer to continue to compete for promotion, but the chance of making major, Lt Col, or colonel on the third or fourth try are very small. In essence, these people become limited duty officers, i.e., they continue to work in their specialty, but aren't tracked into opportunities that would improve their opportunity to be promoted. This creates a de facto two-track officer career path--although it's very small.

The two-track career path may answer the problems with up-or-out. Around the 7 year point, officers could choose to compete for promotion to O-4 and the job opportunities that lead to further promotions, such as unit command. The officers who opt out would continue in the O-3 grade/rank and be allowed to continue to serve in that grade and their specialty to the lowest tenure required for retirement, currently 20 years. They would be reviewed for continuation every 5 years to ensure their performance, knowledge, and experience still benefits the Service. These limited-duty officers would be prohibited from filling certain billets designated as upward mobility bullets, such as operations officers, commanders, some headquarters branch or division chiefs, etc. They would be able to achieve positions of responsibility in their specialty, such as instructor pilot. They would get longevity raises.

I can't speak to how this principle could be applied to enlisted ranks. Perhaps some other RP member could pick up on that idea.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Dec 31 at 2016 4:30 PM

2016-12-31T16:30:59-05:00

I'm more in the necessary evil camp from a systems viewpoint. If you were allowed to have folk camp out at say E-4, over time that group gets constipated and shuts off promotion for E-3s. Same happens at all transition points, officer and enlisted. There's always a "fresh meat" requirement to keep the age demographics on par. Some pockets are exceptions. Officer recruiters who are capped at O-4 and do 20 then out. Petroleum engineers, given so few billets,used to be that way, but since the other pedigree stuff is so prominent, they blend back into the general engineer population. Bottom line, there will always be something wrong about up or out and likewise the hang in there program. The trick with up or out is to make sure real leader potential is promoted over mandated demographics. Saw that big time on the nurse side with all the male only FMF billets. Sent a bunch of great women home while carrying along the mediocres. In a camp out program, you'll have to run "dismissal boards" to clean out enough basement to have sufficient flow. The premise would be different than retention boards. Pretty brutal stuff.

Response by Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen made Dec 31 at 2016 4:32 PM

2016-12-31T16:32:03-05:00

In the long run probably. There are many who would continue to serve at their current rank but are forced out by the up or out system. Given the current shortages in certain specialties it seems counterproductive to force s skilled individual out solely because they weren't promoted.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2016 4:44 PM

2016-12-31T16:44:58-05:00

My concern is the loss of experience solely for the sake of "up-or-out" is that way we do things.

Response by SSG Robert Webster made Dec 31 at 2016 4:59 PM

2016-12-31T16:59:49-05:00

Though the intentions of it were good, if we applied the same criteria to the careers of the individuals that lead us in WWII, we very well could have lost that conflict. I also believe that the Up or Out system is the reason that our involvement in the Vietnam Conflict/War and our current 'War on Terror' lasted or is lasting as long as they did/have. It has also led to the micro-management of war by politicians in the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch of our government.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2016 5:01 PM

2016-12-31T17:01:14-05:00

We have to be a progressive military.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2016 5:14 PM

2016-12-31T17:14:48-05:00

Yes it does there are soldier that are good soldier great at there job just because they can't/don't want to move up does not mean that they are not doing good things for the military. It can cause us to lose some great joes. It only make sense to me at the highest ranks to keep them from getting clogged and letting soldiers move up. Look at the reserves and guard are able to keep soldiers without the force out for not moving up it can be of benefit.

Response by SPC Casey Ashfield made Dec 31 at 2016 5:49 PM

2016-12-31T17:49:48-05:00

I am not a fan of the Up or Out system of promotions. Especially in the NCO ranks. Some of the best leaders I ever served with were very content being E4/5/6 with no aspirations to move up. Because of these promotion methods, they either had to retire out or get promoted to a position they flat out do not want. It is pretty agreeable that once you reach certain ranks, the military becomes more political and less about the mission.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2016 6:28 PM

2016-12-31T18:28:14-05:00

It does both. It hurts the military because it takes away expertise and leaders who may not be ambitious/looking to get promoted.....yet do job well above and beyond the standard. It helps the military because it forces future leaders to mature when that gap of the senior expert develops. They have no viable choice other than to fill the void left behind or the mission fails.

Response by 1SG Al Brown made Dec 31 at 2016 7:32 PM

2016-12-31T19:32:29-05:00

Although it has the equality flaws, up or out promotes competitiveness and lean numbers. The manning "volume" problem stems from the draw down in 1992 until present. Fluid conflict manning caps, Division numbers, and Brigade type and composition have literally been all over the map. You can't be personnel lean and allow Soldiers to languish in grade because of their knowledge retention. What do you give up to regain fat manning numbers....civilian cooks, admin, security, drivers, mechanics, etc.?

Response by Sgt Lowell Tackett made Dec 31 at 2016 8:48 PM

2016-12-31T20:48:33-05:00

The military promotion/career model seems to draw its' greatest influence and inspiration from the Peter Principle...

Response by SPC Terry Martin made Dec 31 at 2016 9:06 PM

2016-12-31T21:06:21-05:00

Yes, Some are very proficient in their positions and ranks as well as happy at their levels, not wanting promotion. When they are put out the military loses that expertise.

Response by MSgt John McGowan made Dec 31 at 2016 9:27 PM

2016-12-31T21:27:16-05:00

I say yes, like it was stated, some lead better, some work smarter with more knowledge. Someone has to do the work. As a Branch Chief I found out that there were some on the work floor that knowledge wise knew more than I did. People I had to depend on.

Response by LTC Kevin B. made Dec 31 at 2016 10:01 PM

2016-12-31T22:01:56-05:00

I don't think it hurts the military. The military can't allow people to loiter for too long in a certain pay grade or it would clog up the promotions process all the way down the line. As long as a slot is filled at a specific rank, a promotion to that rank can't occur. Plus, you have a trickle-down effect at all of the lower ranks. I like the idea of forcing people to leave the service after serving in a rank for too long. It normally means they have peaked, at least from a competitive perspective. Plus, you can't really disentangle promotions and retention. Congress appropriates the personnel budgets, and those personnel budgets are based on overall end-strength and the force structure of that end-strength. If you keep (for instance) non-competitive E-5s on the team, they take up the budgeted E-5 slots, which means E-4s can't be promoted into those slots (because if they were promoted anyways, it would blow up the budget due to having too many E-5s on the team, and that would be a violation of fiscal law).

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Dec 31 at 2016 11:08 PM

2016-12-31T23:08:52-05:00

Some people are GREAT at their job, like their job and have no desire to be more. What is wrong with that? So long as they are combat effective let a guy stay a Specialist for 20 years. It is better to have a Great Career Specialist than to have a marginal career Sergeant.

Response by SFC George Smith made Jan 1 at 2017 12:16 AM

2017-01-01T00:16:43-05:00

There could be a few positions that could be career positions ... And They Should Bring Back The Specialist ranks For Those Positions...

Response by 1stSgt Eugene Harless made Jan 1 at 2017 4:34 AM

2017-01-01T04:34:32-05:00

Speaking only from my time period and service and MOS the Up or Out Policy might not have been perfect, but it generally was effective in weeding out the ranks. The USMC is a bit different, especially in Combat Arms MOS's. Every one is expected to be adept in basic leadership as well as technical skills. Most of the Marines who were weeded out were under 12 years, saw the writing on the wall and realized that they weren't cut out to be career Marines. Once a Marine made SSgt E-6, as long as they maintained standards they could get their 20 in as long as they weren't passed over twice. It actually took a lot of major dick stomping to do that. I knew of 7 SSgts who got out before 20. It wasn't just promotion boards. Their commands didn't recommend them for reenlistment. Two of them had CM's and another 2 had major disciplinary action. The other three were consistently getting bad fit -reps for a myriad of reasons, mostly centered on poor judgement, lack of integrity and outright incompetence.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 1 at 2017 8:46 PM

2017-01-01T20:46:42-05:00

Maybe we should bring the old system back.

SMA
CSM/SGM/SP9
1SG/MSG/SP8
SFC/SP7
SSG/SP6
SGT/SP5
CPL/SPC
PFC
PV2
PVT

Though I would advocate for some slight changes in name, for example at one time in the 1950's one of the Specialist Ranks an E7/E8 was referred to as Master Specialist.

So perhaps something like Senior Specialist, Master Specialist, Command Specialist for the E7 - E9 ranks.

Response by SGT Aaron Atwood made Jan 1 at 2017 10:02 PM

2017-01-01T22:02:06-05:00

I sure do. Especially in my MOS I watch many musicians compromise their abilities on their respective instrument the moment they end up in a staff/leader position. It is something I'm not looking forward to myself because I've spent far too many years mastering the French horn just to compromise my abilities on it. Alas though if I want to be part of this club until retirement I have to choose a leadership position to pursue. In the civilian world on the other hand I can remain a horn player until I can no longer play well or I retire because I can and want to.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2017 10:38 AM

2017-01-02T10:38:23-05:00

in the long run you have great leaders those that can and do, but you also have great trainers those people that are highly professional and technically proficient at their jobs, they may not know how to do a SITREP or even know what 670-1 is, but they can fix your vehicle, stop you from bleeding to death or even get you the supplies you need, so bringing back the old tech or spec rank might be the right thing to do, after all not everyone can be audie murphey

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2017 5:15 AM

2017-01-03T05:15:18-05:00

While this system does pass over some who some feel should be promoted there is an issue when leaders get to a certain point (ie. E8 or E9 on enlisted side and O-6 for officers) when there is really nowhere to go but retire. There tends to be backlog and the question is at what point do they sit in a slot waiting for that one E9 or O7 slot or do we push them out? It is a balancing act. No system is perfect and either way you will lose some good and keep some bad.

Response by SGT David T. made Jan 3 at 2017 8:19 AM

2017-01-03T08:19:02-05:00

I have been saying this for years that the Up or Out system is hurts the military. Some folks simply do not want to be leaders or are not good leaders. I had a Soldier in my last unit before I got out who was an amazing SPC. He worked hard, was great at his job, but wasn't NCO material. He had no desire to be one. He was eventually hit the RCP and was sent home. I have heard some horror stories about when there were multiple SPC ranks. I think the way to fix that is to simply adjust the E-4 pay to allow for greater raises as a SM hits each bracket. This way, they can still get pay increases at a good level and make a decent living over the course of their career. Then we wouldn't see the issues of a CPL locking up a SP5 or higher.

Response by Cpl Justin Goolsby made Jan 3 at 2017 10:01 AM

2017-01-03T10:01:53-05:00

To a degree yes... the biggest issue though is that if we didn't utilize this system, then we'd end up with stagnation within the ranks. Let's not forget that the military system is much different than the civilian world. If a civilian sucks... here's your pink slip... get out. If a service member sucks... they've got a 4-6 year contract. Now you've got dead weight within your ranks. Sure you can make them scrub toilets for the next 4 years, but for the most part he's useless.

Remember, during the early ranks, retention has zero to do with job proficiency and everything to do with your physical fitness and how well you shoot. So you can have a hard charger advance into the mid-tier ranks and still not know a lick about his job. But he just reenlisted for 4 years. If he could stay right where he was, he'd probably jump at the opportunity. All he has to do is stay within regs and he's got an easy paycheck.

The problem is that as long as he's around and others like him, the people under him won't have a chance at promotion because no one is getting out. Then you have the upper tiers getting out but there aren't any bodies to replace them because the mid-tier ranks decided they like where they sit.

Response by SSG Matthew Koehler made Jan 3 at 2017 11:35 AM

2017-01-03T11:35:10-05:00

I've seen too many piss poor performers get promoted thru the ranks. I'm all for bringing back the ranks of SP-4 thru SP-7

Response by PO3 John Wagner made Jan 3 at 2017 2:53 PM

2017-01-03T14:53:00-05:00

It hasn't ever done any favors for unions...keeps a lot of very bad drivers in the seat and keeps better ones from "advancing" to more lucrative positions. What should I expect my teamsters retirement is worth its weight in confederate currency.

Response by SSG John Jensen made Jan 3 at 2017 2:53 PM

2017-01-03T14:53:03-05:00

Loved being a Spec/5 Medic, and at the end was in a slot that in the old system would have been Spec/6 Truck Driver and was just fine with at the end, but then I'm a participatory leader, and the whole command wanted me to be an asshole authoritarian, but the whole company came to me for technical questions and I was widely acknowledged as the best instructor in the company even though I refused to use powerpoint, E-7 would have been fantastic, but I'm happy with my career

Response by SFC Dennis A. made Jan 3 at 2017 5:46 PM

2017-01-03T17:46:08-05:00

I watched a lot of very talented soldiers leave the Army because I/we could not convince them to got to the board and get promoted. They were happy at the skill level that they were at and were very good at it. The wanted to serve their country and follow order and not give them.

Response by CPT Richard Fematt made Jan 3 at 2017 9:12 PM

2017-01-03T21:12:14-05:00

The system has been broken for quite some time costing the Army its combat leadership leaving poor leaders in place especially in the reserves. I have seen combat tested enlisted and officers passed over for promotion even though fully qualified and the board selects soldiers who can't pass height/weight, pass an APFT nor have any leadership capabilities. The Army fails its soldiers when they place into commands non-qualified personnel who have never been deployed, nor maintained the standards set forth by the Army, but complete their schools and are then selected to their next rank. This is especially true in the Nurse Corps where I have seen epic failure in selecting officers both male and female. The system needs an overhaul starting with getting the current board members who are stuck in the way they select soldiers for promotion.

Response by SGT James Colwell made Jan 4 at 2017 8:43 AM

2017-01-04T08:43:58-05:00

I believe it does hurt the military, when good troops are separated, as they take all their experience with them. On the other hand, there are some who can't get promoted for a variety of reasons, and their attitude can have a negative impact on others in the unit. Most of those will not reenlist, but some recognize that the military offers them the best option. The up or out policy needs to be refined. Rather than simply separating those who don't get promoted, take the time to find out why. Also, bring back the specialist pay grades for the more technical MOS. In some cases, such as combat arms, the up or out policy might have some merit. My opinion.

Response by SFC Bill Snyder made Jan 10 at 2017 3:15 PM

2017-01-10T15:15:04-05:00

Many years ago, while stationed in France, we had a friend who was a SGT E-5 in the Air Force stationed at SHAPE. He was saying that an Air force Personnel Tem came around and he was informed that in his MOS (Supply of sometype) he could not be expect a promotion until he has almost 20 yrs in. Well, since Vietnam was starting to gear up, the Army had a shortage of WOs in the Supply Field, so he applied and was accepted. Retired at 20 yrs as a CWO-2. The Air Force lost and he won.

Response by SSG Gregg Mourizen made Jan 19 at 2017 10:42 AM

2017-01-19T10:42:50-05:00

The military looses more soldiers due this concept. I have seen many talented soldiers simply give up on promotion, due to the GOB system or impossibly high promotion standards. Very little is done to help that over weight soldier, or help turn around a good soldier with minor flaws. When how you look in a uniform is more important than how well you do your job, one can only imagine how many good techs and leaders can be lost.
I remember several soldiers being jump through the ranks, only to turn out to be total dirt bags, or worse completely incompetent. As an E-4, I often found myself doing the jobs of my NCO's simply because the either couldn't do it, or simply did not want to. Many times I found myself, having to train the people I knew were going to be skipped over me. Some were good, many were not. In the mean time, I saw many good, competent and skilled soldiers get bypassed.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2017 11:12 AM

2017-01-24T11:12:57-05:00

Yes to a certain extent. Competiton should breed excellence, but people should also be put where they can do the most good. I think maybe relaxing some of the high-tenure regs a bit would be alright, especially when we've been downsizing since 2003.

Response by SSgt James Carter made Jan 25 at 2017 3:56 AM

2017-01-25T03:56:53-05:00

Up or out also exists in private industry, so rather than simply focus on the impact to the military let's consider the policy in general - because up or out policies have a detrimental affect almost everywhere. Consider there simply may not be enough open positions to allow promotion of capable and qualified individuals who have reached some arbitrary point in time. Up or out policies then typically cause the separation of those individuals even though the folks have proven their continuing value to the organization. Consider that different individuals have different goals and the most successful organizations are those that align corporate needs with individuals' goals. As recently as a few short years ago, the Federal Aviation Administration had a rule in place that dictated that pilots for air carriers no longer fly past a certain age. Not because of individual physiological issues, but simply because there was a policy / rule that defined "end of usefulness" to be a specific point in time. There was no measurable benefit to the initial policy, it simply was a form of up or out and had been that way for a while. The airline industry found this archaic policy to be detrimental to their operation to the point that the FAA had to modify the policy (ironically a new arbitrary point in time was set). The most successful organizations are those that place the individual in the position that most closely align their shared goals, which means that not everyone should be measured against an up or out policy. Rather they should be measured against performance requirements, personal capabilities, job satisfaction, and overall value to the organization.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 25 at 2017 8:44 PM

2017-01-25T20:44:59-05:00

My thought has always been - surely there are some who are good at their current rank, but would not succeed at the next. Why do we get rid of them?

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 26 at 2017 11:34 AM

2017-01-26T11:34:39-05:00

Could agree more. I'm no fan of cruise and collect but if you're in an E-5 billet that's competitive (MOS or NEC) and have some hard-charging E-4s that are below you and want to stay where you are, you'll have plenty of incentive to be the best at your job. I've known some great 'Iron Majors' in my time.

Response by SPC Byron Skinner made Jan 30 at 2017 3:53 PM

2017-01-30T15:53:28-05:00

Sp4 Byron Skinner Short answer, YES. Many good and talented military personal are stuck in jobs with rank caps. Hit that rank cap and its time to think of leaving the military. In the Army the old Specialist ranks solved this problem.

Response by SP5 Roger Sedell made Jan 31 at 2017 5:19 PM

2017-01-31T17:19:08-05:00

Yes it does, if you have a person that knows his/her job. Very well and they aren't leadership material but like i said know there job well why does the military need to kick them out, bring back the spec ranks and keep the good people in the military,

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 14 at 2017 8:52 PM

2017-02-14T20:52:56-05:00

Response by PV2 Glen Lewis made Feb 14 at 2017 10:39 PM

2017-02-14T22:39:21-05:00

Any form of this type policy should be on a case by case basis at best. Everyone isn't meant to lead and who are you going to lead if you push your followers out anyway?

Response by CW5 John Vassar made Feb 23 at 2017 12:28 PM

2017-02-23T12:28:07-05:00

The Army Warrant and old-style Specialists/Technical Ranks represent an excellent system to retain and reward those conscientious troops who wished to remain as Individual Contributors/Subject Matter Experts. Any necessary pruning of the ranks can be accomplished by RIF Boards that are fair to the troops. As I have said before, using Promotion Boards as de-facto RIF Boards is obscene and insulting to the otherwise good patriots that we lose through this broken and defective system.

Response by LTC John Griscom made May 2 at 2019 8:39 AM

2019-05-02T08:39:39-04:00

The Army loses the experience, knowledge and capability of soldiers who are great at what they do at the level they have reached. There is an inherent cost in re-acquiring the level of expertise of the personnel removed under this policy. Also leads to proof that the "Peter Principal' is a valid concept.
I observed how some of our allies' systems worked. Mandatory retirement for a Captain on the UK Army was 52. He stayed in that long unless he really fouled up.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 18 at 2020 10:07 PM

2020-07-18T22:07:54-04:00

Yes, the main and only reason I ETS'ed as an officer. I had 4 OERs left before my MAJ board and had to make 3 out of my last 4 OER top block to be promoted to MAJ. I submitted to two different Functional Areas and was rejected because all my OERs were HQ and I had no MQ OER. I thought I had a good chance to go into one of these Functional areas because of my degree in computer science, knowledge of network engineering and software engineering and IT certs. At the end it came to MQ OER. After the second rejection I made the determination of ETSing. If I could not make it to one of the functional areas because I did not have an MQ OER, I would have definitely not make it to MAJ, which for my branch there was a 61% promotion rate. So I decided to call it quits. Now I will be working at the state level doing networking and software engineering stuff. It kinda sucks that these functional areas in the army that require these skills are not based on skills like in the civilian sector, nor no test given like in the civilian sector (for my interview test I had to build a program from scratch and answer some networking questions). Yet if someone who has no idea about networks has lots of evaluations with MQs, they are chosen. I think for choosing candidates for the functional areas should also be fixed, were candidates skills nd knowledge are considered over evaluations and no up or out is applied since these jobs are based more on specialties rather than being a leader. This way the Army is not going like crazy trying to find civilians who have certain IT skills to be promoted to O6, and others don't end up leaving with that knowledge. Anyways just my two cents. Not time to keep building my Android app to put on the google app store :).

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 17 at 2020 1:22 PM

2020-10-17T13:22:26-04:00

No. The good ole boys picking and choosing irregardless of lack of experience is the biggest issue. They are passing over good Soldiers able to promote in order to promote their buddies.