Officer Ranks about to be Thinned Substantially because of 2 x Non-Select Due to New Promotion Process for Officers?

2015-05-01T05:58:23-04:00

Very interesting things have been occurring as of late, with regards to the expected promotion 'process' and 'timelines' for officers.

Yesterday, THIS thread was posted, which the original poster mentioned his receiving an email about "officer promotion delays" and "additional wait-time added" to the promotion process (6 to 9 months total) due to the current DA process being 'revised' to include background checks.

https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/officer-promotion-delays-6-9-months-added-for-background-checks?urlhash=632610

Though I can't say that I've received anything "official", in the form of a MILPER as of yet, I have been occasionally receiving emails, forwarded from friends, from a variety of different sources.

After CW2 West had posted that thread, a friend forwarded me an email, which appears to have been put out by a Major, from Army G-1, regarding the DA Select promotion board process being 'refined' with this background check for all officers (0-1 to 0-6)/WOs (WO-1 to CW-5) (Again, I haven't seen anything 'official'...nor has anyone in my command...so, I can only guess as to who the 'distro list' was actually comprised of.)

This particular email--received AFTER CW2 West had posted his thread--essentially goes on to elaborate on the initial email he had received, that he had referenced in that thread.

In this email, the email writer called this addition to the officer promotion process a "Post Board Screening Process".

The email goes on to say that now, for all 0-1 to 0-6 and WO-1 to CW-5 promotion selection boards, the following things will also be considered:

--Unit flags for anything other than height and weight
--DA IG cases
--15-6 investigations
--CID investigations

....At first glance this caught me by surprise that these things actually weren't looked at in the first place. With this new process just now being introduced, it seems to imply that, by promotion boards not looking at these things in the past, that it is a reasonable assumption that quite a few officers, quite possibly, progressed up the ranks without any of this stuff actually being looked at or noticed.....it is possible that those officers looked stellar on paper, however, there appears to be a much deeper 'rabbit hole' here that doesn't seem to have been followed, at least until now.

So, what does everyone think about this?

With the drawdown, we all know that troop levels HAVE to come down. A friend had told me that this is all reminiscent of the drawdown in the Clinton era (I wasn't in the military then....).

Anyone here remember that era?

....So, what does everyone think?

Is this a necessary 'evil' now?
Do you think/feel that this extra process shouldn't be done, for whatever reason?

If I recall correctly, I remember reading that some of the MAJs and CPTs selected for separation last year, were separated because the board went into their restricted file--something that doesn't appear to have been traditionally done by boards, until now--and identified GOMORs/Article-15s/or any other adverse information that was moved to the restricted file. For a long time, it seemed like a Soldier having adverse information moved to their restricted file was, in essence, a VICTORY (under the assumption that promotion boards wouldn't see that document)....however, it appears like ANYTHING is fair game now.

Lastly, what impact do you think this will have on the officer corps?

Do you have a suspicion that a lot of officers promoted to the ranks of CPT/MAJ or Higher, without consideration of those things that the board appears to now be looking at?

....My gut feeling is that, by making EVERYTHING fair game, the powers-that-be are really looking to thin the officer ranks dramatically, and rapidly, at that....essentially by driving people into involuntary separation via 2 x Non-select at promotion boards.

Officer Promotion Delays; 6-9 months added for background checks? | RallyPoint

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.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 1 at 2015 6:11 AM

2015-05-01T06:11:40-04:00

There have been a few upper ranking officers fired within the last year for behavior that had probably been 'swept under the rug'.

Looking in a few extra places to ensure our leadership isn't covering anything up is good for the military-no more toxic leadership, no more do as I say not as I do.

If you are doing the right thing and haven't had any bad conduct, then what is there to worry about? They can run my driving history too if they want. I have nothing to hide. The board process takes forever with or without a few added screenings. You'll get your orders eventually.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made May 1 at 2015 6:25 AM

2015-05-01T06:25:23-04:00

I think the officers are taking a page from the enlisted handbook. What you describe looks a lot like the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) that is used to separate a stagnant NCO, or a NCO that has some subpar performance history.

I agree with MAJ Private RallyPoint Member, cleaning house is a good thing!

Response by CH (MAJ) William Beaver made May 1 at 2015 7:06 AM

2015-05-01T07:06:41-04:00

I am 50 and I joined the Army less than four years ago. I have the life experience of a senior officer but the Army knowledge of a Captain. But one thing I noticed - guys are guys. We all take our boots off the same way at the end of the day. I've seen NCOs who are better officer material than some 0-4s I've known in the character department. I've seen some LTs who carry themselves as LTCs. Rank means realm of responsibility and job experience. But not much beyond that. It 's the guy or gal inside the uniform that earns my respect. Just because I salute a superior doesn't mean he or she has earned my respect. Each of us must maintain highest standards throughout our career. And we are only good as our last OER

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made May 1 at 2015 9:49 AM

2015-05-01T09:49:12-04:00

I think this is good. For the record, they already do this check for O6 and above as well as for BN Command boards. It only makes sense to do it at this point (when competing for promotion at all levels).

Especially if we are going to have OSBs/QRBs/SERBs, etc.... I am reminded of the very indignant open letter from a MAJ who was selected for non-continuation by one of those boards. He was indignant because "I was good enough to be promoted, but now....." He had a point, just not necessarily the one he wanted.

At the end of the day, we are going to have to thin the ranks. I would rather have it done for things that actually violate standards or raise flags than because "we are holding a special board that will cut X%." As in the case of the MAJ above, we shouldn't send false messages.

Also, tightening up the selection process on the Officer side can (that's a weasel word there, son!) lead to a better Officer Corps. Officers should NOT be able to just assume that they will be able to get promoted and earn a retirement based on the ability to fog a mirror.

Regarding the weasel word.... It is also possible that such an approach will mean that those who get promoted are those who just manage not to get any bad paper, despite bringing no actual value (or even being a net negative) to the Army. But that isn't exactly a new issue.

All told, yes, I was around for both the fall of the Soviet union (commissioned not long after, SMP at the time), which greatly affected my career plans, as well as the Clinton draw down. This is a cyclical thing. We will work aggressively to thin the herd and try to retain the absolute best. Then we will perceive a threat, and work to aggressively grow the force....

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made May 1 at 2015 11:22 AM

2015-05-01T11:22:41-04:00

They might not have looked at investigations previously because an investigation does not mean guilt. Tons of investigations are found without merit.