Posted on May 1, 2015
Officer Ranks about to be Thinned Substantially because of 2 x Non-Select Due to New Promotion Process for Officers?
18.4K
25
14
3
3
0
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.
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.
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
4
4
0
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 (Join to see), cleaning house is a good thing!
I agree with MAJ (Join to see), cleaning house is a good thing!
(4)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SGM Oldsen,
It seems to be an obvious trend that the Army relaxes and tightens policies dependent on many variables, like increased demand for troops (because of war, etc.). Whether Soldiers agree with this or not, there is no denying that this happens 'based on the needs of the Army'.
Should a standard like this EVER be relaxed, though?...even in a time of war, where increased amounts of officers are needed at every rank, should toxic leaders still be allowed to progress in times where the DA simply needs officers to fill slots?
(I have a sneaking suspicion that alot of officers WOULDN'T have promoted, had these additional background screens been in place when they promoted. It seems like, in the face of huge demands for officers to simply fill slots, that the Army comprises a bit on the quality/character of the individuals serving in leadership roles, simply to meet a greater good...should this be happening?)
It seems to be an obvious trend that the Army relaxes and tightens policies dependent on many variables, like increased demand for troops (because of war, etc.). Whether Soldiers agree with this or not, there is no denying that this happens 'based on the needs of the Army'.
Should a standard like this EVER be relaxed, though?...even in a time of war, where increased amounts of officers are needed at every rank, should toxic leaders still be allowed to progress in times where the DA simply needs officers to fill slots?
(I have a sneaking suspicion that alot of officers WOULDN'T have promoted, had these additional background screens been in place when they promoted. It seems like, in the face of huge demands for officers to simply fill slots, that the Army comprises a bit on the quality/character of the individuals serving in leadership roles, simply to meet a greater good...should this be happening?)
(0)
(0)
CSM (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see)
Sir - as long as the Army keeps "inventing" positions we will continue to have an excess of officers and NCOs. I work in a division headquarters and there is a SGM/E-9 for every staff section, some sections have multiple SGMs. I find it hard to believe we need that many SGMs, the officers are just as bad, how many LTCs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
I lived through the Clinton era cuts. Lieutenants were RIF'd out by the droves, along with involuntary separations of mid and senior level NCOs. The Army tends to cycle like that every 10-20 years or major conflict, which ever comes first.
The need for Soldiers to fight and win wars/conflicts is greater than the need for "quality" of said Soldiers. Probably isn't the best option but if the "standards" were maintained or followed we could possibly not have enough Soldiers to sustain the fight.
Sir - as long as the Army keeps "inventing" positions we will continue to have an excess of officers and NCOs. I work in a division headquarters and there is a SGM/E-9 for every staff section, some sections have multiple SGMs. I find it hard to believe we need that many SGMs, the officers are just as bad, how many LTCs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
I lived through the Clinton era cuts. Lieutenants were RIF'd out by the droves, along with involuntary separations of mid and senior level NCOs. The Army tends to cycle like that every 10-20 years or major conflict, which ever comes first.
The need for Soldiers to fight and win wars/conflicts is greater than the need for "quality" of said Soldiers. Probably isn't the best option but if the "standards" were maintained or followed we could possibly not have enough Soldiers to sustain the fight.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SGM,
It would seem that the Army's inability to simultaneously increase troop strength, WHILE maintaining a high 'quality' of Soldier, seems to be more a reflection of society than anything else. It is sad that, with each war, that the Army must consistently lower its standards (sometimes, dramatically) to just get heads in the door.
At the end of each war, we always find ourselves in the position of having to rapidly 'correct' the personnel situation--of all the people we lowered the standard to accept into the service, and promote, in the first place--that we self-created just to meet troop strength goals.
I guess it just "is what it is".
To another point, SGM...
You had mentioned the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) as a method/mechanism being used to separate.
....I will have do some more research on this, but I think there may be a difference in treatment of benefits (like Post-9/11 GI Bill) dependent upon the MECHANISM by which Soldiers are separated.
For example, an AF officer was separated, via 2 x non-select at (I believe it was...) his MAJOR promotion board. Prior, he had transferred his Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to his wife (incurring a 4 year additional obligation), she had used around $24,000+ of the benefits, and then the AF involuntarily separated him, by way of 2 x non-select. By virtue of being non-select and involuntarily separated, he was inherently unable to complete the 4-years service required to transfer his benefits. Because of that inability to meet his service obligation, it was determined that he must re-pay that $24,000+ his wife had used, as an "overpayment" in benefits.
I wrote more about that HERE:
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/additional-post-9-11-gi-bill-service-obligation-to-transfer-benefits-meets-involuntary-separation-your-thoughts
I will have to do more research on this, but, I believe with a QMP, the Soldier would retain their benefits. So, had a Soldier transferred their benefits to their child/spouse, agreed to an additional 4 year obligation, and was subsequently involuntarily separated by QMP (before being able to complete their 4 year additional obligation), I don't believe that they would be on the hook for repaying the benefits used.
By using 2 x non-select at promotion boards as a means/mechanism to separate-- and, with the addition/change to policy at least for officers, it seems like this will be happening ALOT more soon--I think the argument is more easily made that it was the Soldier's "fault" for being separated (because they weren't competitive against their peers)...therefore, their having to repay any benefits used/transferred.
I can't speak to whether involuntary separation, by way of 2 x non-select at promotion boards is DELIBERATELY being used to accrue cost savings...but, the very nature of it appears to be having that effect, with the relinquishing and/or requirement to repay benefits that were used prior to being involuntarily separated by a promotion board.
It would seem that the Army's inability to simultaneously increase troop strength, WHILE maintaining a high 'quality' of Soldier, seems to be more a reflection of society than anything else. It is sad that, with each war, that the Army must consistently lower its standards (sometimes, dramatically) to just get heads in the door.
At the end of each war, we always find ourselves in the position of having to rapidly 'correct' the personnel situation--of all the people we lowered the standard to accept into the service, and promote, in the first place--that we self-created just to meet troop strength goals.
I guess it just "is what it is".
To another point, SGM...
You had mentioned the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) as a method/mechanism being used to separate.
....I will have do some more research on this, but I think there may be a difference in treatment of benefits (like Post-9/11 GI Bill) dependent upon the MECHANISM by which Soldiers are separated.
For example, an AF officer was separated, via 2 x non-select at (I believe it was...) his MAJOR promotion board. Prior, he had transferred his Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to his wife (incurring a 4 year additional obligation), she had used around $24,000+ of the benefits, and then the AF involuntarily separated him, by way of 2 x non-select. By virtue of being non-select and involuntarily separated, he was inherently unable to complete the 4-years service required to transfer his benefits. Because of that inability to meet his service obligation, it was determined that he must re-pay that $24,000+ his wife had used, as an "overpayment" in benefits.
I wrote more about that HERE:
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/additional-post-9-11-gi-bill-service-obligation-to-transfer-benefits-meets-involuntary-separation-your-thoughts
I will have to do more research on this, but, I believe with a QMP, the Soldier would retain their benefits. So, had a Soldier transferred their benefits to their child/spouse, agreed to an additional 4 year obligation, and was subsequently involuntarily separated by QMP (before being able to complete their 4 year additional obligation), I don't believe that they would be on the hook for repaying the benefits used.
By using 2 x non-select at promotion boards as a means/mechanism to separate-- and, with the addition/change to policy at least for officers, it seems like this will be happening ALOT more soon--I think the argument is more easily made that it was the Soldier's "fault" for being separated (because they weren't competitive against their peers)...therefore, their having to repay any benefits used/transferred.
I can't speak to whether involuntary separation, by way of 2 x non-select at promotion boards is DELIBERATELY being used to accrue cost savings...but, the very nature of it appears to be having that effect, with the relinquishing and/or requirement to repay benefits that were used prior to being involuntarily separated by a promotion board.
Additional Post-9/11 GI Bill Service Obligation to Transfer Benefits Meets Involuntary...
Generally, an individual who served a minimum of 90 days on active duty after September 11, 2001, is eligible for educational assistance under the Post 9/11 GI Bill. Active duty is defined as active duty served as a member of the Armed Forces or as a result of a call or order to active duty from a Reserve Component (RC). Reserve Component Soldiers who are mobilized under contingency operations in accordance with section 688, 12301(a),...
(0)
(0)
CSM (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see)
Wow sir, that hurt my head. You are definitely very thorough I'll give you that. I said it "looks a lot like the QMP" I didn't say it was the QMP.
I would be calling my Congressperson if I got the boot and the Army wanted me to pay back money they said I could transfer for a extenuation of service.
Wow sir, that hurt my head. You are definitely very thorough I'll give you that. I said it "looks a lot like the QMP" I didn't say it was the QMP.
I would be calling my Congressperson if I got the boot and the Army wanted me to pay back money they said I could transfer for a extenuation of service.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
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
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I agree, Ma'am.
It seems like, almost daily, we are seeing senior field grades and GOs being relieved of command for one reason or another. By expanding the process to include these background checks, I think we'll do our troops a greater service, by catching those officers early and prohibiting those officer's from eventual progression up to and through the FG/GO ranks.Though it seemed a little controversial (some of her troops said she was a great leader...), I recently read about an O-6 being relieved of command essentially due to an unhealthy command climate/toxic leadership.
This addition to process seems to be following suit with other sudden changes to policy designed specifically to thin the herd....like the now unmasking of junior officer OERs., which I beleived, occurred in/around January, this year.
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/the-army-is-removing-the-automatic-masking-of-oers-do-you-think-this-is-a-wise-move
In that discussion/thread, some of the Field Grade responders saw the sudden unmasking of OERs as necessary, however, they also had concerned about it being, in some ways, a 'betrayal of trust'....especially since junior officers were TOLD those OERs would be masked. (LTC Stoneking had a very interesting comment about that, on that unmasking OERs thread...)
I wonder if others see this change/addition to promotion board policy to be similar to the treatment of the unmasking of OERs?
It seems like, almost daily, we are seeing senior field grades and GOs being relieved of command for one reason or another. By expanding the process to include these background checks, I think we'll do our troops a greater service, by catching those officers early and prohibiting those officer's from eventual progression up to and through the FG/GO ranks.Though it seemed a little controversial (some of her troops said she was a great leader...), I recently read about an O-6 being relieved of command essentially due to an unhealthy command climate/toxic leadership.
This addition to process seems to be following suit with other sudden changes to policy designed specifically to thin the herd....like the now unmasking of junior officer OERs., which I beleived, occurred in/around January, this year.
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/the-army-is-removing-the-automatic-masking-of-oers-do-you-think-this-is-a-wise-move
In that discussion/thread, some of the Field Grade responders saw the sudden unmasking of OERs as necessary, however, they also had concerned about it being, in some ways, a 'betrayal of trust'....especially since junior officers were TOLD those OERs would be masked. (LTC Stoneking had a very interesting comment about that, on that unmasking OERs thread...)
I wonder if others see this change/addition to promotion board policy to be similar to the treatment of the unmasking of OERs?
The Army is removing the automatic masking of OERs. Do you think this is a wise move? |...
Army Directive 2015-07, Unmasking of Army Officer Evaluation Reports, dtd. 27 JAN 2015, has just been published. It will cause a large shift in how OERs are seen by future boards for all Army Officers. Traditionally, Army boards do not see evaluations from an Officer's time as a Lieutenant or from a Warrant Officer's time as a WO1. This was done on the assumption that new Officers make some "growing pains" mistakes that should not be viewed...
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I hope that LTC Stoneking won't mind that I cut/paste this, but HERE was his post on that thread. It seems like, this addition/expanding of promotion process, COULD be seen in a similar light as the unmasking of OERs....
(i.e. a sudden change in policy, clearly implemented to help assist in reducing troop strength levels, after officers may--or may not have--been told that those items would be seen by promotion boards....)
"I am of two minds here.
On the one hand, I never liked the whole masking thing. I thought it was a bad idea. Many here have already captured the various ways it is bad. I don't think OERs should be masked. They are what they are and should be part of the permanent record, even if you were young and stupid.
On the other hand, raters and senior raters may well have rated differently, knowing that they would be masked. AND Officers were TOLD that they would be masked. This strikes me as breaking faith with those Officers, and being directly contrary to several of the Army values. The Army should keep its word. We all know that it doesn't always, but every time it doesn't - even for the best of reasons, it degrades trust. After all, once I know you will lie about ONE thing, now I have to wonder if you will lie about this particular thing.
On the other other hand, all of my LT evals were top block (I had one or two problematic ones, but they were never masked). So to the extent that it makes a difference, I personally am OK with it."
(i.e. a sudden change in policy, clearly implemented to help assist in reducing troop strength levels, after officers may--or may not have--been told that those items would be seen by promotion boards....)
"I am of two minds here.
On the one hand, I never liked the whole masking thing. I thought it was a bad idea. Many here have already captured the various ways it is bad. I don't think OERs should be masked. They are what they are and should be part of the permanent record, even if you were young and stupid.
On the other hand, raters and senior raters may well have rated differently, knowing that they would be masked. AND Officers were TOLD that they would be masked. This strikes me as breaking faith with those Officers, and being directly contrary to several of the Army values. The Army should keep its word. We all know that it doesn't always, but every time it doesn't - even for the best of reasons, it degrades trust. After all, once I know you will lie about ONE thing, now I have to wonder if you will lie about this particular thing.
On the other other hand, all of my LT evals were top block (I had one or two problematic ones, but they were never masked). So to the extent that it makes a difference, I personally am OK with it."
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
My 2LT/1LT OERs were good, it benifits me to have them available.
When applying for a command position you will typically get asked for your last 3 evals, some new CPTs won't have that if the LT evals are hidded.
For NCO promotion boards they look at the last 3-5 evals, so if a Soldier had 1 bad review or didn't get along with the rater it got disreguarded and the board looked at the rest to determine if the SM should advance. Why shouldn't it be the same standard for officers? There may be a larger learning curve because NCOs have 2-3 years learning time prior to rating ... but conceptually the boards should be held to the same standard regardless of rank when looking to advance Soldiers.
When applying for a command position you will typically get asked for your last 3 evals, some new CPTs won't have that if the LT evals are hidded.
For NCO promotion boards they look at the last 3-5 evals, so if a Soldier had 1 bad review or didn't get along with the rater it got disreguarded and the board looked at the rest to determine if the SM should advance. Why shouldn't it be the same standard for officers? There may be a larger learning curve because NCOs have 2-3 years learning time prior to rating ... but conceptually the boards should be held to the same standard regardless of rank when looking to advance Soldiers.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
They might not have looked at investigations previously because an investigation does not mean guilt. Tons of investigations are found without merit.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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....
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....
(2)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
..and wash, rinse, repeat. I was a Clinton era guy, too, Sir. I was just a PVT then, so I didn't see it at the level I do now. Great observation.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I recall that letter, Sir.
I believe Allen West had given him a platform....posting his letter, and then some of his own commentary on it. The comments were interesting.
I see both sides of the argument, but, honestly, I don't see any other way you would effectively trim troop numbers WITHOUT going back and doing this.
It's unfortunate that some of these Soldiers are getting the axe now, especially after honorably serving with distinction AFTER their unfortunate screw up as a young officer or even as a prior service enlisted Soldier....but, again, I don't see any more fair way to do this. Why penalize the guy that stayed clean, and has zero blemishes on his record?
That Major, if I recall correctly, was trying to make the case that he was selected for advanced schooling and went on to achieve great things afterwards. Even still, how would we even compare a guy who received a p-fiche filed GOMOR for a DUI in the early days of his career, versus someone who just happened to receive all COM OERs? Not exactly an exceptional performer, but no disciplinary blemishes either.
If some of these individuals were prior service enlisted, its possible that they could very well have enough time in service to qualify for their pension anyway, or at least the 18 year sanctuary mark. I believe, if some of them made it to 15 years, they'd at least have a shot at TERA....and, even then, I think they were still looking at granting waivers, for individual cases for TERA, for those who were being chosen for involuntary separation a few weeks or a few months before they would hit the 15 year mark.
(I believe officers also have to hold their commissions for 10 years to retire with an officer pension--but, I believe Secretary McHugh temporarily lessened that to 8 years until it is suppose to expire in, I believe, 2018--so, there is that milestone they would have had to hit, as well as the 18-20 years of total service milestone.)
I'm not sure that a Major, WITHOUT prior service would get to any of those mark, especially with Soldiers achieving the next rank more quickly, courtesy of less time in grade in requirements accompanying the war effort.....but, if they did have prior enlisted service, its possible that they could have hit one of those critical milestones.
Even though involuntarily separated, some of those Majors, and even CPT, I am sure, still left the service with TERA, or pensions intact.
I'm not sure where the Major with the letter fell...
I am sure he would have been less inclined to write it and less vocal about his perceived injustice, though, had he actually qualified for his pension.
EDIT: I revisited the letter. It looks like that MAJ had 22 years in the service. As a MAJ, I would think that he had the 8 years required to retire with an officer's pension...
I believe Allen West had given him a platform....posting his letter, and then some of his own commentary on it. The comments were interesting.
I see both sides of the argument, but, honestly, I don't see any other way you would effectively trim troop numbers WITHOUT going back and doing this.
It's unfortunate that some of these Soldiers are getting the axe now, especially after honorably serving with distinction AFTER their unfortunate screw up as a young officer or even as a prior service enlisted Soldier....but, again, I don't see any more fair way to do this. Why penalize the guy that stayed clean, and has zero blemishes on his record?
That Major, if I recall correctly, was trying to make the case that he was selected for advanced schooling and went on to achieve great things afterwards. Even still, how would we even compare a guy who received a p-fiche filed GOMOR for a DUI in the early days of his career, versus someone who just happened to receive all COM OERs? Not exactly an exceptional performer, but no disciplinary blemishes either.
If some of these individuals were prior service enlisted, its possible that they could very well have enough time in service to qualify for their pension anyway, or at least the 18 year sanctuary mark. I believe, if some of them made it to 15 years, they'd at least have a shot at TERA....and, even then, I think they were still looking at granting waivers, for individual cases for TERA, for those who were being chosen for involuntary separation a few weeks or a few months before they would hit the 15 year mark.
(I believe officers also have to hold their commissions for 10 years to retire with an officer pension--but, I believe Secretary McHugh temporarily lessened that to 8 years until it is suppose to expire in, I believe, 2018--so, there is that milestone they would have had to hit, as well as the 18-20 years of total service milestone.)
I'm not sure that a Major, WITHOUT prior service would get to any of those mark, especially with Soldiers achieving the next rank more quickly, courtesy of less time in grade in requirements accompanying the war effort.....but, if they did have prior enlisted service, its possible that they could have hit one of those critical milestones.
Even though involuntarily separated, some of those Majors, and even CPT, I am sure, still left the service with TERA, or pensions intact.
I'm not sure where the Major with the letter fell...
I am sure he would have been less inclined to write it and less vocal about his perceived injustice, though, had he actually qualified for his pension.
EDIT: I revisited the letter. It looks like that MAJ had 22 years in the service. As a MAJ, I would think that he had the 8 years required to retire with an officer's pension...
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google