Posted on Apr 26, 2014
Fact or Fiction: "Hands-on" Tasks are not authorized for SGT/SSG Promotion Board
9.83K
38
32
3
3
0
In addition to whether this is true or not, why do you think it is the way it is?
Posted in these groups: 
Promotion Board
Promotion Board
Posted 12 y ago
Responses: 7
4
4
0
CSM, it is true unfortunately. AR 600-8-19, para. 3-13 clearly says question and answer only and no hands-on tasks are to be performed.
I think it is that way to ensure every Soldier appearing before the board has the exact same "test" and are asked the same questions to prevent unfairness and bias. When you integrate hands-on evaluations it can become very subjective. That's the only reason I can think of, it does NOT make much sense to me though. We have hands-on evaluation grade sheets for AWT testing. I just talked myself into changing my own opinion there, sorry. I guess I am unsure as to why it is not allowed.
I think it is that way to ensure every Soldier appearing before the board has the exact same "test" and are asked the same questions to prevent unfairness and bias. When you integrate hands-on evaluations it can become very subjective. That's the only reason I can think of, it does NOT make much sense to me though. We have hands-on evaluation grade sheets for AWT testing. I just talked myself into changing my own opinion there, sorry. I guess I am unsure as to why it is not allowed.
(4)
(0)
CSM Mike Maynard
1SG Hansen, you are correct, the AR and MILPER 12-242 state you cannot have hands-on tasks.
Honestly, I don't think that a SGT/SSG promotion board should be hands-on "only" as we're trying to assess leadership capabilities, but I'd like to know if they can Q/C a 5988, fill out a BF worksheet, assess a zero target, put together an ASU, etc.
I'm at a loss to figure out why hands-on tasks are off limits............
Honestly, I don't think that a SGT/SSG promotion board should be hands-on "only" as we're trying to assess leadership capabilities, but I'd like to know if they can Q/C a 5988, fill out a BF worksheet, assess a zero target, put together an ASU, etc.
I'm at a loss to figure out why hands-on tasks are off limits............
(2)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
RE: CW3 (P) Dean
The steps necessary to disassemble an M16 and reassemble would only be hands on if the person being reviewed were to do it. If however, they were to talk a board member through the process, much like they would a PVT during PMI before IWQ then that would be Q&A, wouldn't it?
The steps necessary to disassemble an M16 and reassemble would only be hands on if the person being reviewed were to do it. If however, they were to talk a board member through the process, much like they would a PVT during PMI before IWQ then that would be Q&A, wouldn't it?
(2)
(0)
CSM Mike Maynard
SSG Sherbondy - great comment. Whenever certain terms are used in ARs, it's always prudent to look in the back to see what they think the definition of that term is in that AR.
Sadly, "hands-on tasks" is not listed as a term in that AR to help us determine what latitude we have in defining what that precisely is.
Sadly, "hands-on tasks" is not listed as a term in that AR to help us determine what latitude we have in defining what that precisely is.
(2)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
CSM pose this question (for example). Can you effectively instruct 1SG (insert name) on how to fill out a body fat worksheet, disassemble an M16 etc.? If they say yes, then have them walk the 1SG through the steps. That wouldn't be hands on for the Boardee, just simple yes or no answer, and the substantiating proof to back up his/her answer.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I have never attended a board that was not hands on. I like the fact that they were able to assess more than who could memorize answers to questions. My SSG board gave me situational questions on dealing with Soldier problems and suicidal ideations. I personally think hands on should be allowed to a point. What that point is, I have no clue.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SSG Zelbst,
What kind of hands-on tasks were you asked to do at your promotion boards? Do you consider situational questions to be hands-on?
What kind of hands-on tasks were you asked to do at your promotion boards? Do you consider situational questions to be hands-on?
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
I don't consider situational questions to be hands on since they were more geared towards being a leader overall in the military. I was a scout so we did a lot of hands on with weapons and land nav. I also went to a Soldier of the Month board where I had to give a 1SG an IV.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
CSM,
1SG Hansen is correct, however this is a very unfortunate rule. I think allowing it would give 1SGs and CSMs the opportunity to view their future SGTs/SSGs in action. Especially since these first line leaders have an inherent task of training Soldiers. However, who's to say the Soldier's Sponsor (hopefully their First Line Leader) has not already required the Soldier to show their abilities "hands on".
1SG Hansen is correct, however this is a very unfortunate rule. I think allowing it would give 1SGs and CSMs the opportunity to view their future SGTs/SSGs in action. Especially since these first line leaders have an inherent task of training Soldiers. However, who's to say the Soldier's Sponsor (hopefully their First Line Leader) has not already required the Soldier to show their abilities "hands on".
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I think they should absolutely be authorized. Anyone can memorize answers, but I think you have to be very careful with what types of hands-on tests you use. If you stick with CTT type tasks just make sure you give every soldier the same task. An example is having them plot points on a map or disassemble/reassemble and function check on weapons. Now if all board participants are the same MOS you can get into more specific areas of the hands-on tests. I think it can give board members a better idea of what skills a soldier has not just their memorization skills.
(1)
(0)
CSM Mike Maynard
1SG Hansen - you are correct.
There is a list of tasks that a Soldier needs to be proficient in to be considered "qualified" in their MOS.
There used to be a time where the bulk of these tasks were completed at AIT. With the shortening of AIT, a lot of those tasks have been moved to the "train at first duty station".
Each branch does these "task boards" yearly or every other year to determine which tasks should be trained/assessed at AIT and which ones fall upon the responsibility of the unit to train utilizing OJT.
There is a list of tasks that a Soldier needs to be proficient in to be considered "qualified" in their MOS.
There used to be a time where the bulk of these tasks were completed at AIT. With the shortening of AIT, a lot of those tasks have been moved to the "train at first duty station".
Each branch does these "task boards" yearly or every other year to determine which tasks should be trained/assessed at AIT and which ones fall upon the responsibility of the unit to train utilizing OJT.
(0)
(0)
CW2 (Join to see)
But is it not the leaders responsibility to remain both tactically AND technically proficient?
(1)
(0)
SSG Shay Thiede
I'd say yes. My last unit held NCO/Soldier of the month boards that involved doing CTT tasks, like land nav, weapons assembly and reassembly, stuff that's common to all MOS's. If you didn't pass the tasks, you didn't go before the CSM and 1SGs.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I have seen "Hands-on" tasks for SOM Boards but not promotion boards. I believe that it should be part of the promotion board. I've known many Soldiers who can memorize answers to questions but ask many questions when it comes to their ability to perform their mission.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Fact, as has been previously stated. I do differ in opinion about needing a "hands on" task for a promotion board.
Hands on tasks are wholly unnecessary as a Soldier must be fully trained prior to gaining a recommendation from the commander. That being said, others have already brought up WT/BD/CTT/MOS tasks, which all have an evaluation component that should have already been used for determining a Soldier's Knowledge, Skills, and Attributes (KSAs). If this has to be redone at a promotion board, doesn't that point to an ineffective training model at the unit level?
Also, it would be a bit much to have a hands on task as a component for a promotion board. If a board is only assessing five or six Soldiers maybe, but I for one would hate to be a panel member assessing 25 or so Soldiers (and yes I know of boards that have had to assess that many individuals). Then there is logistics of ensuring boards Army-wide use the same tasks, in the same manner, and evaluated in the same way. We would be introducing more points of failure to the process for no valid reason.
Hands on tasks are wholly unnecessary as a Soldier must be fully trained prior to gaining a recommendation from the commander. That being said, others have already brought up WT/BD/CTT/MOS tasks, which all have an evaluation component that should have already been used for determining a Soldier's Knowledge, Skills, and Attributes (KSAs). If this has to be redone at a promotion board, doesn't that point to an ineffective training model at the unit level?
Also, it would be a bit much to have a hands on task as a component for a promotion board. If a board is only assessing five or six Soldiers maybe, but I for one would hate to be a panel member assessing 25 or so Soldiers (and yes I know of boards that have had to assess that many individuals). Then there is logistics of ensuring boards Army-wide use the same tasks, in the same manner, and evaluated in the same way. We would be introducing more points of failure to the process for no valid reason.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Sir, I don't agree with the current method of selecting promotables for that very reason of not having standardization other than the board format and procedures themselves. I suppose I should clarify my position by stating that I don't find it beneficial to add to an already arbitrary selection process.
(0)
(0)
CSM Mike Maynard
Gentlemen, boards only give a "GO" or "NO GO".
I would agree that standardization would be desirable if there was a "point" component to the board to ensure fairness across the Army.
I would agree that standardization would be desirable if there was a "point" component to the board to ensure fairness across the Army.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
CSM, my heartburn with the board process is the fact that is is highly subjective in nature and and widely varying levels of interpretation are used in its application. I have witnessed "hard" and "soft" promotion boards; promotion boards where an assessed Soldier's "Go/No Go" was a foregone conclusion and the most rudimentary of questions were asked (if any) to ones where earning a favorable nod at the DA level Soldier of the Year board would have probably been an easier feat to accomplish.
I liken the board process to the weapons qualification range. Soldiers that have access to optics are at a clear advantage over those that do not. Same range, same basic procedures, but anyone that has ever shot with optics knows exactly to what I am referring.
I liken the board process to the weapons qualification range. Soldiers that have access to optics are at a clear advantage over those that do not. Same range, same basic procedures, but anyone that has ever shot with optics knows exactly to what I am referring.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I think a hands on evaluation for promotion would be a good thing. SFC Day is correct in saying that if it based on WT/BD then it can be done fairly. If everyone is the same MOS it can also be done fairly.
Now if you have a bunch of motor pool guys/gals going up against supply guys/gals then it may or may not work.
A question and answer board for promotion or SOM/ NCOM board is needed to see how Soldiers of any rank can react to board members of higher rank, if they are easily frustrated or if they freeze up.
The one thing I would personally like to see removed from the promotion boards is the DA photo. What is everyone's thoughts on that
Now if you have a bunch of motor pool guys/gals going up against supply guys/gals then it may or may not work.
A question and answer board for promotion or SOM/ NCOM board is needed to see how Soldiers of any rank can react to board members of higher rank, if they are easily frustrated or if they freeze up.
The one thing I would personally like to see removed from the promotion boards is the DA photo. What is everyone's thoughts on that
(0)
(0)
1SG Shane Hansen
I disagree SSG Niemiec. The DA photo is a good thing. It prevents personnel who lie about their height/weight on their ERB and NCOER from doing so and getting away with it (as mentioned in every board AAR). It serves as a representation of you for that board. It shows that you know how to wear your uniform correctly and that you wear the correct uniform. It allows the board members to cross reference what you are wearing with your OMPF and ERB to make sure you are not wearing something you are not authorized. It keeps honest people honest basically.
(1)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
Battle, If they are standing in front of you and you have their ERB why look at a DA photo? We are still talking about a SGT/SSG board right?
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
1SG Hansen, I see your point of view. I just think it should be the first thing looked at and if the Soldier doesn't fit a look for the board member be passed on. Don't get me wrong I have not been overlooked because of this. I am just eligible now.
MSG Ellis I was making reference to E7 and up with the DA photo reference
MSG Ellis I was making reference to E7 and up with the DA photo reference
(0)
(0)
1SG Shane Hansen
MSG Ellis, SSG Niemiec was referencing the DA centralized boards with the DA photo. As far as the SGT/SSG boards, there is no reason for a DA photo as you have the actual Soldier standing in front of you.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google