Is this a fair change to Centralized Promotions?

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 09 Sep 2014 07:16:46 -0400

Here's the scenario: A centralized promotion board is meeting and the members receive a pile of records. In those records are an ERB, and the past 5 evaluations.
Catch: No where on those records or ERB is there any mention of gender or race. Evaluations that have gender describing terms such as "him, her, his" are redacted. This way you are only referencing what that person has accomplished. Thee is no photo in the record.
Once you have determined based on evaluation of performance and potential who you are selecting for promotion will you be advised on their gender, race and see their photo.
Is this fair?
I pose this question to students all the time so based on replies I will add other key points.

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Sep 9 at 2014 7:22 AM

SGM Matthew Quick — Tue, 09 Sep 2014 07:22:01 -0400

Why can't gender and race be displayed? The Army isn't selecting based on this...don't see the big deal.

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Sep 9 at 2014 7:25 AM

TSgt Joshua Copeland — Tue, 09 Sep 2014 07:25:25 -0400

The Army has a photo in your promotion selection process?!?

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 9 at 2014 9:53 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 09 Sep 2014 09:53:05 -0400

I think the photo plays a key part in the selection process. Especially when the photo shows an obviously overweight individual yet the DA 705 tells a different story. Not to mention you can see who took time to set up their uniform properly and have it accurately reflect the ERB. Better yet, who took the time to even update their photo rather than use an outdated one.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 9 at 2014 12:29 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 09 Sep 2014 12:29:51 -0400

While the photo may be important in the selection process, I can see where you're going with this SFC Private RallyPoint Member have a two part screening process, weed out the non-performers via evaluation first, and then do a second round for appearance out of those who made it. Makes sense to me, the question would be then: Do we not trust our Senior leaders making the selections to make their selections unbiased by racial and sexist discrimination? If the answer is no, then removing the information thats easy to read from being immediately available won't solve the issue. Were one so inclined, one could translate accomplishments into assumed gender.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 9 at 2014 1:17 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 09 Sep 2014 13:17:18 -0400

I do think that it is fair. By removing gender, race, etc... you remove cognitive bias from the equation of those sitting on the board.

Response by 1SG Dustin Springer made Sep 9 at 2014 2:53 PM

1SG Dustin Springer — Tue, 09 Sep 2014 14:53:35 -0400

I think the photo does play a factor when it comes to the centralized boards. I have read a few AAR's of those boards and year after there are still SSG's that are trying to get promoted that can't even get there photo right, placing awards in the wrong precedence and so on also as there weight increases as does there height on the DA 2166-8. I do believe they should focus more on the performance of the individual. From what I hear they only have 3-5 minutes to look at your records consisting of ERB, photo and evaluations and here recently they can view all your evaluations to include the restricted file. Not sure how true on the restricted portion but I think that the board should be able to look at the total package and not just a portion. Allow them more time to adequatly look at the record instead of thumb through it.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 9 at 2014 8:22 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 09 Sep 2014 20:22:43 -0400

I would support it.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 9 at 2014 8:33 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 09 Sep 2014 20:33:30 -0400

It's not "perfectly fair" because some evaluations may be inflated for some and realistic for others. On the other hand, there's no perfect system, no way really to "beat" the inflation problem.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 10 at 2014 11:00 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Sep 2014 11:00:30 -0400

The Army has already found that leaders are not properly conducting Height and Weight to standard. Somewhere in the leadership chain, certain individuals are getting over on their evaluations. Especially on the APFT and HT/WT portion. Inputting numbers that are not factual. It's not that we cannot trust our leaders, however with everything that we do, there should be a process of QA/QC. The 8th Troop leading procedure states Supervise and Refine. Create a process and supervise it. Conduct AAR's to refine the process to make it better. I have not issue with the current process, however I do feel that having the DA photo is very important. As my fellow peer pointed out, there are still leaders out there that cannot put their uniform together properly. This should be addressed way earlier in the chain of command.

Response by CW5 Sam R. Baker made Sep 10 at 2014 5:31 PM

CW5 Sam R. Baker — Wed, 10 Sep 2014 17:31:30 -0400

When sitting an accessions board I did not vieew the DA Photo until I was completely done assessing the packet before me, frankly I did not look at the race, sex or religion of anyone assessing for warrant officer, I looked and concentrated on POTENTIAL based upon recorded performance (NCOERs and civilian evaluations), APFT scores, and college (to include GPA and currency). These are merely indicators to one's ability to grow in the next rank if afforded the opportunity. I think the Army has done a good job in the process, the fact that folks see people promoted whom they have heartburn with is a function of manning the force more than the board itself.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 10 at 2014 7:16 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Sep 2014 19:16:25 -0400

Good idea. What would you think about adding your 1059s from NCOES since it is an eval from an outside source... 1/1s should have all superiors and etc... A check on reality?

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 28 at 2021 8:23 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 28 Feb 2021 08:23:11 -0500

Add to this removing names (so as to avoid guesswork on sex, race, etc), and you'll have pure lack of bias. If there is NO singularly identifying information and promotion is based solely on the character and capabilities of the individual, then you have a fair and unbiased look at who deserves promotion and who does not.