Posted on May 4, 2014
If you are non deployable, you shouldn't be able to get promoted. What do you think?
101K
1.31K
422
46
-5
51
I think being non deployable is the worst thing in the Army. Nothing worst than watching your Soldiers board the plane to deploy and you are in the rear.
I used to work for a SFC that was non deployable and couldn't even wear her vest lol. I was like seriously, why are you even here? Why are you training us on anything and will not be there when it matters the most?
In my eyes if you are non deployable i don't see why the Army doesn't start a chapter packet on the SM or Leader and send them to the house.
There is another way for the Army to downsize right there.
I think you shouldn't be able to get promoted either. Deploying is the biggest and main part of the being a Soldier. Going to war when needed. If you can't go to war or the freaking field for a field problem then why should you be promoted?
I used to work for a SFC that was non deployable and couldn't even wear her vest lol. I was like seriously, why are you even here? Why are you training us on anything and will not be there when it matters the most?
In my eyes if you are non deployable i don't see why the Army doesn't start a chapter packet on the SM or Leader and send them to the house.
There is another way for the Army to downsize right there.
I think you shouldn't be able to get promoted either. Deploying is the biggest and main part of the being a Soldier. Going to war when needed. If you can't go to war or the freaking field for a field problem then why should you be promoted?
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 192
In today’s Army not everybody is being sent forward to get the job done. In my MOS I am fortunate to be able to conduct my business from the rear and not always have to be sent into combat, however I am part of a team and it is rare for the entire team to have to go forward. Usually it is a strong leader in the front and a strong leader in the rear. this being said I do believe that it should be a stipulation on specific positions you can fill and units you can be assigned. I am all for the army weeding out the people that can’t cut it anymore however in my opinion physical profiles is definitely not the place to start looking to separate one from the military especially if that is where they were injured.
(0)
(0)
While I can understand how one would argue that "non-deployable" Soldiers are essentially "dead weight", let's not forget how quickly you can become non-deployable (profiles and flags can cause this easily) and postpartum Soldiers are non-deployable.
Surely, you mean to talk about those who are on permanent profiles or have other medical conditions that put them on a "permanent, non-deployable" status?
It seems you have a lot of emphasis on whether or not the individual can deploy, while ASSUMING that being non-deployable means the Soldier has no combat experience or competency.
I would have to ask you if you felt that this should mean that senior leaders who make a mistake that would normally result in a PFC being chaptered should also be chaptered (w/o retirement)?
Since you brought up personal experiences, I had a 1SG who, on the -morning- we are boarding the buses to hit the tarmac and leave for deployment, flipped his truck (due to DUI). the MSG who assumed the duties was on his first deployment ever.
Did we help the Army "downsize"? Of course not. 1SG lost his diamond and stayed in the Army (deployed with the next BN in our Bde, as a MSG).
None of this really means anything, in the long run, on how Soldiers' experiences can help units prepare for deployment. Hell, sometimes you still have deployable Soldiers on rear-D because that's where they are needed. Not deploying with your forces might suck or otherwise make you feel bad, but being on rear-D is certainly not a "bad thing."
Surely, you mean to talk about those who are on permanent profiles or have other medical conditions that put them on a "permanent, non-deployable" status?
It seems you have a lot of emphasis on whether or not the individual can deploy, while ASSUMING that being non-deployable means the Soldier has no combat experience or competency.
I would have to ask you if you felt that this should mean that senior leaders who make a mistake that would normally result in a PFC being chaptered should also be chaptered (w/o retirement)?
Since you brought up personal experiences, I had a 1SG who, on the -morning- we are boarding the buses to hit the tarmac and leave for deployment, flipped his truck (due to DUI). the MSG who assumed the duties was on his first deployment ever.
Did we help the Army "downsize"? Of course not. 1SG lost his diamond and stayed in the Army (deployed with the next BN in our Bde, as a MSG).
None of this really means anything, in the long run, on how Soldiers' experiences can help units prepare for deployment. Hell, sometimes you still have deployable Soldiers on rear-D because that's where they are needed. Not deploying with your forces might suck or otherwise make you feel bad, but being on rear-D is certainly not a "bad thing."
(0)
(0)
Sarge, a status of "non-deployable" isn't a career ender, and shouldn't be. In many cases, even a 999M isn't a permanent designation.
I do agree with you on promotion, though. A non-deployable soldier should not be promoted, until his or issue is resolved.
I do agree with you on promotion, though. A non-deployable soldier should not be promoted, until his or issue is resolved.
(0)
(0)
Not a good reason. Working as a former Paralegal, I have seen all sorts of issues. There are many reasons why a Soldier cannot deploy. You have to consider the reason, the length, and their work performance. For example, if a Soldier was injured jumping out a plane conducting Airborne Operations and could not deploy for 20 weeks, you would punish them? Worse, it compounds the issue and the Soldiers may no longer be motivated and cause further problems. Just because a person deploys, does not mean they are a good Soldier. A system is already set to to handle a range of issues. It's not the best, but to say no across the board dampens the overall morale.
(0)
(0)
I can understand your reasoning SFC Thomas and I respect your opinion, but I have to respectfully disagree with your opinion in regards to starting a chapter packet for non deployable SM.
Its true that being a soldier and deploying go hand in hand, but if the SM or Leader was proficient in their MOS it would be a waste to get rid of this soldier who has the skills necessary to help develop the soldiers appointed under them into leaders and teachers themselves.
As for promoting these non-deployable SM its fair to have that shortcoming taken into account when considering promotion.
Its true that being a soldier and deploying go hand in hand, but if the SM or Leader was proficient in their MOS it would be a waste to get rid of this soldier who has the skills necessary to help develop the soldiers appointed under them into leaders and teachers themselves.
As for promoting these non-deployable SM its fair to have that shortcoming taken into account when considering promotion.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Valid point, sir. I remember one of my Drill Sergeants stated that deploying wasn't necessary for their MOS and that's why they never did.
(0)
(0)
I'm assuming you mean soldiers outside of a standard "nondeployable unit".
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
My opinion is that if you are nondeployable you should not promote past E-6 or 0-3 senior leadership in the active component should understand how to go down range, why we train like we do and what it means to check the prepared for deployment box
(0)
(0)
On top of it all, you ONLY deployed ONCE during over 13 years of combat?!?!?!? AND that was to Iraq in 2009-2010 when there were slim to NO HOSTILITIES?!?!??!?! WOW What a JOKE!!! LMAO!!!
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
MSG,
And I'm unprofessional. So because i didn't list all my deployments on my profile I am a joke? If you want me to Ill list all my deployments up there. Its not a big deal to me. Do i need to send you a copy of my ERB also?
This is a prime example of people taking topics and opinions personal. Its not that serious, i stated my opinion others stated theirs. I either agree or disagree. Its really that simple.
And I'm unprofessional. So because i didn't list all my deployments on my profile I am a joke? If you want me to Ill list all my deployments up there. Its not a big deal to me. Do i need to send you a copy of my ERB also?
This is a prime example of people taking topics and opinions personal. Its not that serious, i stated my opinion others stated theirs. I either agree or disagree. Its really that simple.
(0)
(0)
1SG Shawn Herzog
It's not personal with me either, however it IS MY profession and MY opinion as well. As for your deployments, no I don't need an ERB, I could care less honestly. I only stated that as it seems you spent some good time updating everything else on your profile (including dates of rank, etc...) so I figured that MAY be your only deployment, not very impressive... why would you list only that one? Just curious. Nevertheless, I'm done with this conversation, not going to argue or debate, again simply stated my opinions.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
We'll have numerous deployments under my belt. I know what I have done, can, and will do. I feel one way about this topic and u feel another. I standby my opinion
(0)
(0)
SFC Thomas, I have to say that I admire your passion and commitment to the Army's mission, but to be that short sighted is quite concerning. I have deployed four times in my career. Twice as an 11B and twice as a 27D. Three of those deployments where on a P2 Profile. I went on Permanent Profile in 2005 due to injuries sustained during my first tour. I have dealt my whole career since with other saying that Soldier's on Permanent Profile where useless or wouldn't make good leaders. I seriously disagree with that. If anyone told me that I was less of a Leader or less of a Soldier simply because I was on Permanent Profile I would punch them in the throat.
I fully agree that deploying in support of the Army's mission is one of the most important things that a Soldier can do and you're right, it is main purpose behind being a Soldier. However, just because a Soldier is non-deployable that doesn't make them useless. There are certainly those among our ranks that actively try to not deploy and those are the Soldiers that should be barred from reenlistment, but there are other contributing factors that have to be taken into consideration. To simply say that if you haven't deployed or non-deployable that you should not be promoted or afforded other opportunities is a pretty toxic frame of mind.
I fully agree that deploying in support of the Army's mission is one of the most important things that a Soldier can do and you're right, it is main purpose behind being a Soldier. However, just because a Soldier is non-deployable that doesn't make them useless. There are certainly those among our ranks that actively try to not deploy and those are the Soldiers that should be barred from reenlistment, but there are other contributing factors that have to be taken into consideration. To simply say that if you haven't deployed or non-deployable that you should not be promoted or afforded other opportunities is a pretty toxic frame of mind.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SFC Van Natta,
I never said they were useless. My opinion is that if you are non deployable you shouldn't be in front of the formation because you will not be with your Soldiers down range. Its plenty of places people can serve who can't deploy.
I also don't think its fair that people on rear D get to attend classes, promotion boards, and all of that stuff.
I never said they were useless. My opinion is that if you are non deployable you shouldn't be in front of the formation because you will not be with your Soldiers down range. Its plenty of places people can serve who can't deploy.
I also don't think its fair that people on rear D get to attend classes, promotion boards, and all of that stuff.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
So the NCO's chosen to take the Rear D Leadership positions should not be allowed to progress simply because they had to fill a role selected by the command?
It's obvious you have never filled a Rear-D NCOIC position SFC Thomas. Having done that and being deployed as a PSG I would much rather be deployed as it's a lot less stress, less headaches, and less BS.
It's obvious you have never filled a Rear-D NCOIC position SFC Thomas. Having done that and being deployed as a PSG I would much rather be deployed as it's a lot less stress, less headaches, and less BS.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SsG Schroeder,
Nope didn't say that. i also stated earlier in one of my replies. That there are slots that need to filled on rear D who are selected by CSM and the commander. Rear D leaderships.
You are right I have never filled a Rear-D leadership role and i never said it wasn't hard either.
Nope didn't say that. i also stated earlier in one of my replies. That there are slots that need to filled on rear D who are selected by CSM and the commander. Rear D leaderships.
You are right I have never filled a Rear-D leadership role and i never said it wasn't hard either.
(0)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
SFC Thomas, if I read your original post correctly you said "In my eyes if you are non deployable I don't see why the Army doesn't start a chapter packet on the SM or Leader and send them to the house". So yes you did imply that non-deployable Soldiers are useless. I agree that NCOs should lead from the front and lead by example, but being on a permanent profile or non-deployable does not make someone any less of a Leader or Soldier. Deployment is not a prerequisite for promotion nor should it be. Time in service, time in grade, education (both military and civilian), and leadership experience is what matters. Leadership experience doesn't have to come from downrange. Combat Arms MOSs are different on that aspect. As a former 11B I fully understand that, but deployments to not create Leaders. We all know a Soldier or two that deployed, did a horrible job, maybe even got an Article 15, got demoted, and disgraced his or her unit. So, those deployment stripes on their uniform don't mean a damn thing. Deployable or not, Soldiers/NCOs can still lead and train their subordinates, they can still mentor their peers, and they can still advise and support their superiors. Every Soldier that is deserving of a leadership role should be afforded that opportunity regardless of deployable/non-deployable status.
(2)
(0)
Has anyone ever heard of CPT Scotty Smiley? In 2005, he was wounded in Iraq and lost his eyesight. He is the Army's first legally blind active duty officer. A medical review board found him both physically and mentally fit to continue serving on active duty.
Despite his blindness, he earned a Master of Business Administration from Duke University's Fuqua School of Business. A graduate of the U.S. Military Academy, he went on to teach military leadership at West Point and to command the Warrior Transition Unit at West Point's Keller Army Medical Center. He also earned the Army's prestigious MacArthur Leadership Award, which recognizes junior officers who demonstrate the ideals espoused by Gen. Douglas MacArthur: duty, honor, country.
He is now a Major and since 2012, has been serving as Assistant Professor of Military Science at Gonzaga University in Spokane, WA.
There are plenty of jobs a non-deployable SM can do that will benefit the Army and prepare those who are deployable.
Despite his blindness, he earned a Master of Business Administration from Duke University's Fuqua School of Business. A graduate of the U.S. Military Academy, he went on to teach military leadership at West Point and to command the Warrior Transition Unit at West Point's Keller Army Medical Center. He also earned the Army's prestigious MacArthur Leadership Award, which recognizes junior officers who demonstrate the ideals espoused by Gen. Douglas MacArthur: duty, honor, country.
He is now a Major and since 2012, has been serving as Assistant Professor of Military Science at Gonzaga University in Spokane, WA.
There are plenty of jobs a non-deployable SM can do that will benefit the Army and prepare those who are deployable.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SFC Fox
I didn't say non deployable Soldiers were useless or benefit the Army. I did say that they should not be in leadership position with Soldiers they are not going to deploy with. I did say that should be part of the criteria when it comes to downsizing. I did say that they are other parts of the Army they could be used at.
I didn't say non deployable Soldiers were useless or benefit the Army. I did say that they should not be in leadership position with Soldiers they are not going to deploy with. I did say that should be part of the criteria when it comes to downsizing. I did say that they are other parts of the Army they could be used at.
(0)
(0)
If you are non-deployable, I don't see any reason why they can't get promoted. But, if they cannot be deployed, then they should be getting medically retired or just getting put out on regular medical, depending on why they are non-deployable.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Well how about this SGT Bailey. How about if you don't deploy with your unit, you shouldn't be able to get promoted or attend NCOES until the unit returns.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Well SFC Thomas, your topic can go so many directions. After reading several of the other posts even considering what I have said, I still stand by if a SM in the US military is non-deployable, they should be put out on a medical discharge. Now privileges of promotion and NCOES, that would depend on are they a dirtbag or are they an outstanding Soldier. I have known people who are nondeployable and they are outstanding Soldier, and I have known some straight up dirtbag. Now an NCOES School such as ALC, someone who is nondeployable, why would they want to go, depending on your MOS, it is extremely demanding, and someone in that situation couldn't make it if they were really that broke.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next


Deployment
Promotions


