Officer Separation Board (OSB) Statistics: What do you think we all can learn from this?

2014-08-03T09:07:11-04:00

This 31 slide deck breaks down which FAs/Branches had the most cuts. It talks about the selection criteria. It appears that the majority of officers either had derogatory events or never got higher than "Center of Mass" (COM) evaluations. What are your thoughts? [edit: My assessment (FWIW) is now in the comments]

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B87O4lCzt8ZDTFdlaWRoT0t0ajQ/preview?pli=1

I also want to link this discussion posted by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member because it deserves more air play. https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/strategic-messaging-branding-of-officer-separation-boards

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 3 at 2014 9:21 AM

2014-08-03T09:21:01-04:00

Until they passed the new rules that only a certain % could get above center mass, you had to jack up royally to get center or below center of mass.

Response by LTC Yinon Weiss made Aug 3 at 2014 9:43 AM

2014-08-03T09:43:35-04:00

Thank you for posting. This is really thorough data, and I'm also impressed with the level of transparency the Army is putting forward. It is a pleasant surprise. The roll up is analytically impressive, and I would have thought it was done by a consulting group like McKinsey, if it were not for the usual Army powerpoint style used.

The transparency into race also stands out to me. You would never see this in the private sector... can you imagine a company publishing the race of employees involved in layoffs? I believe the transparency helps strengthen the military as an institution. I wish there was more of it.

Thanks for sharing.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 3 at 2014 9:55 AM

2014-08-03T09:55:07-04:00

CPT Wolfer, thank you for sharing the information. I can see how difficult it was for them to select those who had to be cut. Your information provided an answer for how they calculate the pay of Officers that retire with less than 8yrs.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 3 at 2014 10:32 AM

2014-08-03T10:32:46-04:00

Thanks for the re-posting of my post.

Not so sure if the statistics are helpful at this point: now I"m trying to devine my status out of these 31 slides!

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 3 at 2014 10:46 AM

2014-08-03T10:46:25-04:00

Slide 2, bottom right says "1/14 CAD."

What does CAD mean?

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 3 at 2014 11:06 AM

2014-08-03T11:06:03-04:00

Thank you for sharing!

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 3 at 2014 11:28 AM

2014-08-03T11:28:41-04:00

If you are paying attention, this is just round one of the cuts. In the next rounds, all of the low-hanging fruit will be gone. I think it is important to look at who was selected and try to make yourself look as different from those Soldiers as possible.

Some take-aways:
- Derogatory events, no matter how old, can come back to bite you. I know people who didn't feel they were guilty but chose not to fight. BAD MOVE.
- Get your military education squared away. (I am totally guilty on this one.)
- Fight for KD positions. If you are a branch qualified CPT or MAJ and haven't done your KD time, talk to your leadership now.
- 01A positions (branch immaterial) were hit hard. I'm not saying I would advise against those, but I would if you are not KD. Some of the 01A positions are the coolest out there, but as I'm constantly saying, don't chase shiny objects. Make sure you are squared away by your branch standards first.
- For MAJs/Sr CPTs, the FAs that were hardest hit were ones that are completely dominated by DoD Civilians and Contractors. Green suiter roles are being phased out. In other words, there might be nothing wrong with you as an officer, but you might draw the short straw because there just aren't enough jobs to go around.
- MI and MI related FAs were spared along with Aviation and acquisition; I was shocked by the JAG cuts.
- Heads up to CPTs: Sr CPT is projected to by way under-strength (76%) post cuts, but MAJ will still be over-strength (110%); I would translate this into longer windows in promotion to MAJ. You are more needed as a CPT than as a MAJ.
- Combat experience was not helpful. 74% of CPTs had more than a year of combat experience and 88% of MAJs had more than 2 years. The bigger determinant was lack of KD experience. So if you chased deployments and didn't get to school and get your KD time, you were worse off than a non-deployer who had schools and KD squared away.
- I think the commissioning source data is kind of a red-herring. There are more OCS because prior service OCS have the highest TIS. They had to survive the early retirement review and the OSB. If you have a high TIS, you should anticipate that you are going to be viewed more critically.
- I also wouldn't put a ton of stock in the minority data. Unfortunately, for reasons I don't understand (tradition?) there are clusters of minorities in certain branches and career fields. When those fields take cuts, the minority numbers will appear to rise.
- Note the lack of any mention of specialty training (other than SF) being a factor. Please, please, please stop trying to beg your way into airborne training or ranger school and make sure you have the basics covered.

Of course, the next round of cuts might take totally different factors into account, but I would consider this a good set of indicators. Good luck everyone!

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 3 at 2014 12:21 PM

2014-08-03T12:21:51-04:00

Another interesting fact: No mention at all of APFT.

Personally, I applaud this because APFT is already addressed in the OER. No brownie points for 300+. Good. I would disagree with letting a high APFT compensate for derogatory information, weak OERs, lack of KD experience, or failure to attend schools. In the future cuts where all of these other factors are equal, maybe it would make sense to use it as a discriminator, but I would put civilian education and 360 evaluations ahead of APFT because I feel that a high APFT is not a particularly strong indication of leadership ability or potential for an Officer. APFT failure is an indicator, but would already be addressed in the OER.

Response by MAJ Javier Rivera made Aug 3 at 2014 1:30 PM

2014-08-03T13:30:29-04:00

Great information from CPT Wolfer. So bad that the Army as an institution hasn't diceminated this information to the force.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 4 at 2014 1:21 PM

2014-08-04T13:21:14-04:00

I echo the comments on here that the transparency in these slides is great, but also that the strategic communication of this has been jacked up. As mentioned earlier, if I'm the attache in Yemen, I'm not very pleased right now.

Also, I understand getting on board with the ASU, but by mentioning that an officer was in greens in his DA Photo (which we know are authorized until 4th QTR FY14), the slides are stating that was a factor in selecting that officer for separation. That troubles me. That officer may have had other issues such as weak OERs or derogatory information on file, but why would you put that out there? By putting it out there, it means the board factored it into their decision, when the officer was still within the law of the land.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 4 at 2014 2:04 PM

2014-08-04T14:04:53-04:00

Thanks! Funny that I found out that I was safe under the ethnicity slides.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 5 at 2014 2:16 PM

2014-08-05T14:16:32-04:00

Had the Army owned this process and taken a more pro-active, positive approach, perhaps the headlines wouldn't be focusing on the apparent racial disparity in the demographics.....

"Black officers dismissed at greater rate than whites."

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/08/05/374106/us-army-lays-off-blacks-at-greater-rate/

PressTV-US Army lays off blacks at greater rate

The forced culling of majors from US Army ranks is taking a bigger toll on black officers than those from any other ethnic group.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 5 at 2014 2:50 PM

2014-08-05T14:50:17-04:00

"Until they passed the new rules that only a certain % could get above center mass, you had to jack up royally to get center or below center of mass."

I have not found this to be remotely true, at least since I've commissioned. COM was the norm for most everybody, including many far better than me.(I've received ACOM enumeration/verbage on an immature profile but no ACOM yet in 3 block checked OER's) They seemed to be saving it for Audie Murphy. We'll see how that plays out in a different unit, post career course now.

Response by LCDR Doug Nordman made Aug 5 at 2014 4:54 PM

2014-08-05T16:54:56-04:00

I've been following the OSB since one of the O-3Es wrote me about his situation. As I was looking around for more information on the HRC brief to the CSA, I found the entire brief (85 slides) was posted Sunday 3 Aug on Scribd:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/235750833/29/Other-Key-Initiatives
I have no idea whether "Alexander Bruce" is a person or just military jargon for "anonymous leaker".
I'm slightly encouraged by the comment "review dependent" on slide #61 next to the bullet that "310 O-3Es could potentially revert to enlisted rank". Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but perhaps the Army leadership is going to extend these O-3Es long enough to achieve eight years commissioned service and an officer pension.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Aug 5 at 2014 6:45 PM

2014-08-05T18:45:30-04:00

On a related note, the CPT pick-up rate this last go around averaged around 65%. A FAR cry from the 95% + we've had in during the last 12 years or so. MAJ rates should be dropping significantly as well....

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 7 at 2014 2:17 PM

2014-08-07T14:17:12-04:00

Doctrine Man has some interesting points on the process, on facebook at Doctrine Man!!

Thomas Ricks ran a story in FP as well: http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/08/07/a_letter_from_a_major_fired_by_the_army.

Its a letter from a major separated by the OSB. Worth reading. Begs the question: when will the instructions to the board "leak" from HRC? It would be interesting to know what board members were instructed to highlight. For example, were they told to separate those with bad paper over all others? What if a guy had a DUI as a 2LT but then ACOMs for the next 15 years?

What about investment: in this case, the Army sent this officer to SAMS and selected him as a GO aide; that represents a substantial investment. Does a DUI outweigh that? As this process of OSB/ESERB is going to continue for the near future, these seem to be things the Army should be explaining to the target population, rather than the weak attempt HRC made today on Facebook by sharing this link: http://www.thebayonet.com/2014/08/05/643291/hrc-head-offers-army-reshaping.html#.U-OUxVEjVIk.facebook.

Doctrine Man also has a post about HRC harassing them because the slides that "leaked" were apparently FOUO.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 10 at 2014 3:29 AM

2014-08-10T03:29:52-04:00

The stats that get me from the OSB stats slides are that only 138/232 majors with Below Center of Mass OERs were selected for separation, meaning 94 majors with BCOM on one or more OERs has been allowed to stay in the military over higher rated officers and/or over someone with DEROG of some sort or other; while 59 majors with files assessed as "COM +" and 13 majors assessed as "ACOM" are getting the boot. Some of these COM+ and ACOM officers probably had bad paper, which probably justifies separation; some of this bad paper probably is outweighed by the "body of work." Of those with "COM" assessed files, only 339 of 4070 were separated.

One would assume that guys assessed as BCOM were identified as high-risk and counseled, as well. Thus, while maybe they didn't have a GOMER, they still had bad paper (in the form of one or more BCOM).

I'd like to see more data on the 550 to better understand what is acceptable / not acceptable and the Board's rationale. What isn't clear is the number of officers with bad paper that got to stay in the Army over officers with no bad paper. But the slides do say 80% of selects had BCOM or DEROG. 80% of 550 = 440. 550-440 = 110. So, 110 majors with no bad paper and no bad evals are getting separated. That is illogical when there are 94 majors with BCOMs and x majors with bad paper that are staying in.

For the next round of OSB/eSERB (coming in February, I understand), the 94 BCOMers not selected this round are probably squarely in the target group and still at high-risk, and some will still probably get to stay over officers in the COM, COM+, or ACOM category. Bad paper (BCOM and/or DEROG) will probably continue to be weighed heavily. But as we continue with force shaping, the ratio of those with no DEROG and no BCOM getting separated will increase substantially from the 20% witnessed in this round.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 18 at 2014 10:17 AM

2014-08-18T10:17:30-04:00

From SMA Chandler: (http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140818/NEWS/308180012) "So far this fiscal year, about 44,600 soldiers have left the Army through normal attrition, but about 13,200 have been separated for not meeting Army standards. This could be for misconduct or unsatisfactory performance. The goal is to drop to 490,000 by the end of fiscal 2015 and drop to 450,000, or as low as 420,00 if sequestration returns in 2016." 44,600 + 13,200 = 57,800. That's a lot of folks. No data on new recruits, though.

Majors: 550
Captains: 1,188
Senior NCOs (E-6 and up): 666 (his numbers, not mine, in 2012 and 2013)
Senior NCOs (E-6 and up): 880 (scheduled for 2014)

He also says the Army might offer voluntary separations, if needed.

One wonders what the quota for cuts will be for other ranks in FY2015.

Untitled

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 22 at 2014 3:31 PM

2014-08-22T15:31:27-04:00

Saw this today;

http://www.army.mil/article/131280/Army_Statement_on_Major_Officer_Separation_Board/

"ARLINGTON, Virginia (Aug. 5, 2014) -- The Officer Separation Board for majors was composed of colonels and generals that represented a diverse cross section of our Army leadership. The board was given objective criteria to guide their selection of officers to retain or release from active duty based on performance and requirements for the future Army as we meet drawdown milestones. With respect to diversity, board members are reminded in a memorandum of instruction that the strength of our Army comes from our diversity and that we need leaders who understand that unit effectiveness depends on the ability of people of different backgrounds to work together. The Army Leadership is aware of the lack of diversity in some specialties. To that extent, the Secretary of the Army and Chief of Staff of the Army issued an action plan in March 2014 to address diversity trends through analysis of available data, implementation of appropriate solutions, and continuous monitoring of the trends.

These are tough decisions involving people. There is no single force shaping method among the choice of accessions, promotions, retention and separations that will achieve the Army's end strength goals, without the use of involuntary separation measures both now and in the future.

We recognize that this is a particularly challenging time and, as such, have instituted a process by which these Soldiers will be notified and then given maximum time to transition to civilian life. The first general officer in the individual's chain of command will notify each officer in person regardless of duty location to ensure they can take advantage of the time and all resources available to make informed decisions about their transition goals. Officers serving in Afghanistan and deployed abroad elsewhere will be brought home within a month, regardless of the length of their deployment. Though the Army will decrease our overall size, what will remain constant is our absolute commitment to taking care soldiers and their families."

Question: What were the objective criteria?

Also saw on facebook that there were 16 generals and colonels on the board and that the board lasted a week. 8500 majors in the target population. 16 generals and colonels. 1 week (let's assume 5 days, 8 hours a days). 5 x 8 x 16 = 640 work hours. 8500 / 640 =13.3 files / hour = about 4.5 minutes per file. A few assumptions in my math here, but that's about twice as long as what I expected.

Army Statement on Major Officer Separation Board

ARLINGTON, Virginia (Aug. 5, 2014) -- The Officer Separation Board for majors was composed of colonels and generals that represented a diverse cross section of our Army leadership.

Response by LCDR Doug Nordman made Oct 17 at 2014 10:08 PM

2014-10-17T22:08:45-04:00

If you're an officer affected by the OSB, and most especially if you have less than eight years of commissioned service, then a journalist from the New York Times would like to speak with you. He's writing about the situation and would like to make sure that he gets the facts straight. I've already loaded him up with the HRC presentations on this thread and connected him with a few of my readers.

I've worked with a lot of the media over the last few years, and this one appears to be legit. He's trying to go through official channels and he says "I'm getting no help from big Army on stats, so the more folks I can talk to, the better."

Please contact me through RallyPoint or NordsNords at Gmail and I'll forward his phone number and e-mail to you. He didn't mention a specific deadline but he's probably trying to put this together by Monday 20 October. If you're not comfortable speaking with him directly then I'd be glad to forward your anonymous feedback.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 25 at 2014 6:15 PM

2014-11-25T18:15:22-05:00

My thoughts are that no one is safe. We had highly experienced instructors with multiple deployments get cut on this RIF. People that no one in the unit would have picked for separation.

Response by Allen Wang made Apr 11 at 2016 9:24 AM

2016-04-11T09:24:42-04:00

I think the link to your google document no longer works. Would you mind reposting your slides? It sounds really interesting.