Posted on Apr 29, 2015
Officer Promotion Delays; 6-9 months added for background checks?
30.5K
7
27
2
2
0
Heads up: Received an email that the current DA process has been revised. There is now a background check added into the lengthy time frame, especially for RC officers. I am told that this delay is 6-9 months and affects all officers and all components.
Army Reserve
Army National Guard
Officers
Promotions
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 11
1
1
0
Don't know if this is connected or not, but thought I'd share since this thread mostly seems to consist of "dunno...just heard it."
I just had my 5-year PR interview for renewal of a TS clearance I've held since 1988. Total of 3.5 hour interview. I've never had one last more than 30 minutes prior to this. Granted, I had a divorce during this period so it was "bigger" than usual, but...damn.
The investigator shared that OPM has implemented almost draconian procedures in response to finding out at least one of their contract investigation companies was "going through the motions" in conducting investigations. Hence, they are re-doing a vast number of them and, from now on, the rigor of the investigation is as important as what they find in determining whether a clearance is granted. If OPM rates the rigor as unacceptable, my investigator shared that her company fines them...so, she is extremely motivated to be thorough. She literally read every word of the questionnaire back to me to re-ask the question - including one place where I had a typo in my name - asked if that was a name I regularly used, ISYN.
Again, no idea if these are connected or not and I'm obviously a civilian vice AD.
I just had my 5-year PR interview for renewal of a TS clearance I've held since 1988. Total of 3.5 hour interview. I've never had one last more than 30 minutes prior to this. Granted, I had a divorce during this period so it was "bigger" than usual, but...damn.
The investigator shared that OPM has implemented almost draconian procedures in response to finding out at least one of their contract investigation companies was "going through the motions" in conducting investigations. Hence, they are re-doing a vast number of them and, from now on, the rigor of the investigation is as important as what they find in determining whether a clearance is granted. If OPM rates the rigor as unacceptable, my investigator shared that her company fines them...so, she is extremely motivated to be thorough. She literally read every word of the questionnaire back to me to re-ask the question - including one place where I had a typo in my name - asked if that was a name I regularly used, ISYN.
Again, no idea if these are connected or not and I'm obviously a civilian vice AD.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
I'm awaiting FEDREC for CPT, and have been eligible since JUN 15. I'm at 150 days presently, according the G-1 Gateway website. I've noticed that my # of day status line color has changed from Green to Yellow. Does anyone know what this means, or is that standard for everyone at a certain point?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Anyone have any more updates on this? On average, how long are you sitting on the scroll?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
For anyone who sees this, it looks like another email was put out, today (30 APR), regarding the new treatment of promotions for WO1 thru CW5, and O1 thru O6...
In the email, they talk more specifics about the process, and the things that will be 'fair game', in deciding whether or not to promote.
In the email, they talk more specifics about the process, and the things that will be 'fair game', in deciding whether or not to promote.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Anyone else see that email?
As we RC 1LTs patiently await the results of the FY15 RC CPT APL board, it seems like we have been getting piecemeal, second hand, information from different sources, almost daily.
Nothing "official" that I can see, though.
Wouldn't big changes in promotion process/procedures, such as what appears to be occurring now with the drawdown, warrant someone putting out a more OFFICIAL communication, like a MILPER?
This last email I saw really conveyed what at least appears to be pretty big changes/additions to the promotion process, as well as, impact on all officer ranks up to O6.
I would think something like this would warrant a MILPER.
As we RC 1LTs patiently await the results of the FY15 RC CPT APL board, it seems like we have been getting piecemeal, second hand, information from different sources, almost daily.
Nothing "official" that I can see, though.
Wouldn't big changes in promotion process/procedures, such as what appears to be occurring now with the drawdown, warrant someone putting out a more OFFICIAL communication, like a MILPER?
This last email I saw really conveyed what at least appears to be pretty big changes/additions to the promotion process, as well as, impact on all officer ranks up to O6.
I would think something like this would warrant a MILPER.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I know the title here says "officer promotions", but would anyone know if these background checks are now being done for enlisted promotions, as well?
Anyone know if they plan to release an official communication, via MILPER, for this?
It would just seem like something like this would be very MILPER worthy....right?
Anyone know if they plan to release an official communication, via MILPER, for this?
It would just seem like something like this would be very MILPER worthy....right?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Also, when a fellow 1LT had inquired, this week, about the status of the FY15 CPT APL board results, he was told that files for our board were undergoing an "enhanced selection/screening process".
A different 1LT had told me that he had heard that they increased scrutiny of files is namely to identify EO/SHARP issues.
I'm still scratching my head here, though, because as far as I understood the process, I thought the whole reason a promotion board is held in the first place was to identify those issues to begin with. EO/SHARP issues should be like a glaring red thumb popping out of an OER.
I don't know if, for the FY15 RC CPT APL board, in particular, if they had a feeling they possibly missed some in the actual board proceedings....and, they were going back to rescreen all the files again.
A different 1LT had told me that he had heard that they increased scrutiny of files is namely to identify EO/SHARP issues.
I'm still scratching my head here, though, because as far as I understood the process, I thought the whole reason a promotion board is held in the first place was to identify those issues to begin with. EO/SHARP issues should be like a glaring red thumb popping out of an OER.
I don't know if, for the FY15 RC CPT APL board, in particular, if they had a feeling they possibly missed some in the actual board proceedings....and, they were going back to rescreen all the files again.
(0)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
Well, if it walks like a duck...
That sounds like the reason, LT. Thanks for the info. As soon as I get in the webmail here, i'll forward you what I have.
That sounds like the reason, LT. Thanks for the info. As soon as I get in the webmail here, i'll forward you what I have.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
CW2 West,
If it is the email I am thinking about, it was released around 20 March.
It had said that boards, even "pending release" would be impacted.
Last year the FY14 RC CPT APL board released on 25 March 2014, so, you can imagine our surprise when this email popped up almost on the eve of when many of us were expecting results (at least, in relation to when the previous year's results were released).
Is that the email you are speaking of?
....now, I did contact HRC to see if it would impact the FY15 CPT APL board, in particular, and they said "No", although that is still in the back of my mind as a possibility.
If it is the email I am thinking about, it was released around 20 March.
It had said that boards, even "pending release" would be impacted.
Last year the FY14 RC CPT APL board released on 25 March 2014, so, you can imagine our surprise when this email popped up almost on the eve of when many of us were expecting results (at least, in relation to when the previous year's results were released).
Is that the email you are speaking of?
....now, I did contact HRC to see if it would impact the FY15 CPT APL board, in particular, and they said "No", although that is still in the back of my mind as a possibility.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Thanks, Chief. Can you find me on the global?
In response, I'll send you the email I have. (It was actually initially posted, by another 1LT, on the HRC Facebook page.)
In response, I'll send you the email I have. (It was actually initially posted, by another 1LT, on the HRC Facebook page.)
(0)
(0)
What I wonder is what pushed higher for this to happen. There must have been some issues that arose for this to be a part of our promotion process.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
My friend and I were talking about this today.
It would seem--and, I'm just guessing here--that officers were slipping through the cracks for promotion because, basically, they looked stellar on paper....but, later, they probably found that they had a criminal conviction/felony or something like that.
As far as I can remember, I think SECRET Clearances only need to be updated every 10 years. So, I think the concern may be that officers, after receiving their clearance, obtained criminal convictions, and never disclosed it. (Aren't you even suppose to disclose speeding tickets, to your unit, when they happen?)
Ten years is alot of time for people to mess up, and not really have to be accountable for it until they have to disclose it on the 10 year update.
It would seem--and, I'm just guessing here--that officers were slipping through the cracks for promotion because, basically, they looked stellar on paper....but, later, they probably found that they had a criminal conviction/felony or something like that.
As far as I can remember, I think SECRET Clearances only need to be updated every 10 years. So, I think the concern may be that officers, after receiving their clearance, obtained criminal convictions, and never disclosed it. (Aren't you even suppose to disclose speeding tickets, to your unit, when they happen?)
Ten years is alot of time for people to mess up, and not really have to be accountable for it until they have to disclose it on the 10 year update.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
1LT Rosa,
I received another email today (30 APR). There was alot to it, but basically it said that they will now be digging much deeper into areas that, I don't believe, were typically fair game for past promotion boards. The wording of the email, I think, is a little challenging to understand, and still lends to alot of questions--they mentioned now looking at things like 15-6 investigations, CID investigations, and DA IG cases.
It looks like they are looking to rapidly thin the officer ranks, with separations via, it seems, the mechanism of twice non-select at promotion boards.
I received another email today (30 APR). There was alot to it, but basically it said that they will now be digging much deeper into areas that, I don't believe, were typically fair game for past promotion boards. The wording of the email, I think, is a little challenging to understand, and still lends to alot of questions--they mentioned now looking at things like 15-6 investigations, CID investigations, and DA IG cases.
It looks like they are looking to rapidly thin the officer ranks, with separations via, it seems, the mechanism of twice non-select at promotion boards.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
I was just working for reserve support at my last command as assistant security manager. Please bear with the system as it has undergone significant changes and revisions in receiving clearances. This is coming from the upper DoD echelons due to protocol violation last year, so be patient.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google