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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.