If you are non deployable, you shouldn't be able to get promoted. What do you think?

I'd agree that a non-deployable Soldier's ability to be promoted should be negatively impacted because of the experience gained. The PPW does that for promotions to Sgt and SSG. It's a numbers game, though. Sometimes, you have to have the numbers.

You know I really try to digress from posts such as this but SFC Thomas you touched an area that you obviously are not the expert in. First, I would agree that there are some Soldiers, NCOs and Officers that are non-deployable who should be processed for separation from military service, however with that being said have you ever witnessed the medical board process? Probably not! Are you well versed on the MAR2 process and if you have subordinates have you shared with them how it works? Probably not! How many deployable Soldiers are left in the rear detachment because well someone has to do it and as a leader that should be a decision so hard that you lose a little bit of sleep over, why? Because you have to leave competent personnel back to handle all of the issues and rear detachment affairs. Do you think because the unit is forward that everything stops? My point is simple don't lump all Soldiers in the same category because of your experience. I don't think you would like it if the Army did to you what you are professing is the thing to do. Now if a Soldier is legitimately a bad Soldier that needs to take off into the civilian sector then ensure his or her counseling reflects that but if a Soldier is injured because,of what happened to them downrange then the Army should do everything possible to get that Soldier into the fight or ensure they are set up for success after their service to our nation. I see too many Senior NCOs such as yourself that tend to be the problem and not the solution. Maybe I'm wrong but you opened the can!!

Respectfully
CSM (R) Gerald L Williams

Why are you covering your face in your picture while you post crap like this? Are afraid that people will know your opinion in your unit? Seems like a coward move to me!

Why was this person not deployable? Is the problem a short-term medical problem? Need more info to determine whether or not they should be allowed to be promoted.

Just because a service member isn't deployable doesn't make him/her useless...While we do train to deploy and go to war which is the military's main objective there are also other needs of the military. Someone has to be ashore while we're out in the field....so the military uses them to train service members to go to the field...they become our recruiters, drill sergeants, and instructors so they are useful to the military's needs despite not being deployable.

SFC (Join to see) I absolutely agree with you, but with checks and balances. Should a soldier become non deployable for a period longer than 90 days (I'll explain why in a second) they shouldn't be promotable, eligible for military school.. Similar to a fat or weak body flag (gonna catch hear for phrasing it that way). Unlike the fat and weak body flags, the SM should retain eligibility for Civilian Ed TA and military awards.

Why I say 90 days as that's usually more than enough time to have acute injury and recover even with the slow process that army medicine moves at (for this I apologize, if I had the power to change it I would) over 90 days the SM has a serious issue that they should be focusing on and return to full fighting health.

Exceptions should be made. Pregnancy should be exempt from this or we'd edge on pushing good solid female soldiers out for wanting a family, that I'll never support. Even if a small few use pregnancy as a means to deployment dodge it's never worth it to risk losing a good soldier over those bad ones.
Non-deployment due to hospitalization should be exempt to from the flag on promotion.
Last non deployable due to special duty- DS duty, recruiter, etc.

I also wish the army would do a better job at seeking those with zero deployments and start actively slotting those they can into units to deploy. This way we'd have less e7s-e8s walking around with a lot fuzz on that right sleeve.

I have to disagree with you on that one SFC. There are a lot people who are non-deployable but still assist in the fight. Deployments, in my opinion shouldn't play that big of a role in promotions. What about pregnancy, what about people who are still allowed to serve with prosthetic limbs, there are a lot of what about/ifs. I do agree deploying is a part of the job, basically it is your job. But I don't think just because someone can't go doesn't mean they deserve the boot.

I only partially agree here. If a SM is nondeployable permanently than yes boot their asses. However; if it is temporary as in a pregnancy or injury then no let them heal or have the child then catch up. I do agree that if they are nondeployable they should not be eligible fro promotion.

Even though I'm not in this category, I think it's bull-crap to separate a soldier because they are non--deployable. Most non-deployable soldiers become so simply due to wear and tear on their bodies from Military involvement. If a career soldier is put out because of non-deployability what do we expect them to turn to?
This tallies with the ideology that we are all being used and dumped. there are several areas where they can be useful, after all all soldiers will never deploy that's the factual reality. So instead of separation because a soldier does not meet a criteria, they can be used in many other criteria that they fill, or re-classed if their current MOS is a combat MOS. Instead of wasting their talent.
This is why most Commanders keep some soldiers around even when they cannot make their APFT, but find usefulness in other areas.
Now to balance my point, I think if the soldier is a complete douche-bag that does not even make effort to improve themselves or find themselves other use, that's a completely different category.

Respectfully, I have to disagree with this as a blanket statement. There are a wide variety of reason which may lead to being non-deployable, some of them are short term causes, others not so much.
Additionally, through a number of wars we have used non-deployable military members who are otherwise capable of performing their duties (e.g. these could include family reasons, medical reasons, duty position time gate requirements, etc...), to free others for deployment and to back fill positions so,others may go forward. Being Non-deployable has a number of causes. There is a difference between being non-deployable and unable to perform the duties required for your MOS.
Consider this, would you accept not being promoted when your number came up because you were non deployable due to attending a school, undergoing medical treatment, or some other issue that amounts to bad timing?

Right now I am non deplorable as a recruiter and to say that we shouldn't get promoted is assinign. The troops that are non deployable hace a purpose here state side weather it be for a special duty or regular duty. For most it is not our choice to be non deployable.

So SFC Thomas, if i get blown up, fighting for my country and become non deployable, then I should be thrown out because I'm no longer worthy. Somehow, becoming non deployable make me less of a soldier. I hope and pray you never end up like me and a bunch of my brothers and sisters in arms have, injured either training to fight or actually fighting. Because, I'm sure you would be crying another tune. I personally led soldiers in combat, only to return and face a Med Board for an injury that prevented me from completing a standard PT test. The injury did not prevent me from doing my job or leading soldiers. When I was asked why I should be retained, I said I led soldiers in Combat, am I less of a leader now than before. Mine was shortest Med Board in the history of the installation, 1 question, 1 answer. But according to you, I should have been throw out, along with all that good leadership experience. BTW, I retired several years later after leading and mentoring the next generation of war fighters.

DISAGREE 100%! I was medically retired in 2012 after nearly 16 years of service. During this time as I was going through a Med-Board (IDES) I was a Plt. Sgt., Training Room NCOIC, Supply Room NCOIC mind you all at the same time.
We were in the process of changing missions from our normal MOS to another in able to support the overall mission.
I was going to Bn. Briefings, serving as Rear-Detachment NCO, taking all the normal phone calls, emails that the 1SG take to include the 3 a.m. phone calls about "Johnny Joe" needing picked up from the station and/or going to get a Soldier that was in a spat with is wife.
As I am writing this I read the response below by SSG Brian Jones that stated he "would take a non-deployable professional NCO over an unprofessional, toxic leader." I want to say I am not tooting my own horn but some will see that I am and that's okay.
While being afforded the opportunity to attend all medical appointments during this harsh time in my life I continued to serve professionally and assume all duties that were given to me. This was the only way I knew and the only way that I served because I was a team and mission guy. So in the end I whole-heartedly disagree. In my opinion once your records dictate that you are in a med-board process you would not be promoted anyways. You are not able to PCS etc.
Personally I took a lot of flack, but to this day I still get phone calls and emails from former Soldiers still asking advice and wanting to barrow on my experience and leadership. In your question I think you need to step back and look at the question asked. If you are barrowing off experience than so be it.
This is why I like the site though, you can ask questions and get truthful, honest answers.

While deployability is important that doesn't mean the person isn't good at what they do and doesn't have something to offer. Someone who works hard and gets results should be rewarded for them regardless of where they can and can't go.

If the man can do a job for the Army, then that's all I care about. Where he does it doesn't really matter to me.

I disagree completely. According to your post anyone who is non deployable should not be allowed to promote... Where I am stationed my unit is non deployable simply because our home mission is just as important if not more important than being out in the field and we have a separate unit with the same job that is designated for deployments. So if what you said was in effect we would not promote simply due to our mission at home. Also sometimes those people you see who can't do something have temporary medical profiles that restrict them from doing certain things. What if that woman is pregnant and you just can't tell yet so they instruct her not to wear a vest. Also why are you going to punish someone who has a TEMPORARY set back. Sometimes you have to look at a situation past what your eyes show you and as a whole, ask her why she can't wear a vest and take into account what her situation is rather than spewing hate about it.

If you can't do the Job, you need make room for someone who can do the job. I've got a friend who deployed over 75 months since 9-11. He has a blood issue requiring a thinner. He is non deployable with a chest full of medals. He got promoted to e-8 with 3 years until retirement. He is training soldiers with his vast knowledge. I sure there are other soldier who couldn't carry his boots that need to be discharged. Before we get rid of these guys & gals, let replace the thousands of band members with an ipod.

i think it would depend on the indiv. and what they bring to the party as a skill set. and how they became non-deployable, but I have to agree with you. i have seen some sad donut punchers that were IMO an embarrassment to the svc, And also some stove up warriors who at 70% still soldiered better than most of the rest. I think it all depends on the circumstances.

This post makes me sick. I see some like to quote the part of the Soldiers creed "I stand ready to deploy, engage..." And yet they forget about the other part "I will never leave a fallen comrade".
A good leader knows how to use ALL his Soldiers to accomplish the mission. Their weaknesses and their strengths. If we have Soldiers who get hurt in the line of duty, how can we even for a second turn our backs on them???
The new SMA stated there are 50,000 nondeployable Soldiers that need to go. So the plan is to get rid of these 50,000, recruit another 50,000, break them, wash-rinse-repeat. Do we really think there is an endless supply of civilians willing to take their place? Do we really think we have the money to continue this expensive cycle?? Can we really afford to let the experience of those 50,000 go?? Are you kidding me?? I can't say enough how disgusted I am with the ones who think deployability is everything.
And by the way, this is why there is regulations that prevent leaders from sending a Soldier packing based strictly on deployability. Check out AR 635-40. A soldier will not be referred to MEB solely based on deployability.

It depends, if someone is in an MOS that needs to be done "in theatre" then yes, they can't do their job and shouldn't be promoted.

HOWEVER, if someone is indispensable and in an MOS that can be done effectively without deployment (I'm thinking network geek or global hawk pilot) then why not? We don't want to loose high demand, training intensive (and expensive) personnel because they have no future in the military.