Posted on Aug 3, 2014
Officer Separation Board (OSB) Statistics: What do you think we all can learn from this?
48K
140
90
12
12
0
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 (Join to see) because it deserves more air play. https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/strategic-messaging-branding-of-officer-separation-boards
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B87O4lCzt8ZDTFdlaWRoT0t0ajQ/preview?pli=1
I also want to link this discussion posted by MAJ (Join to see) because it deserves more air play. https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/strategic-messaging-branding-of-officer-separation-boards
Posted in these groups: 
Officer Separation Board (OSB)
Officers
Officer Separation Board (OSB) Officers
Edited 10 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 22
11
11
0
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!
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!
(11)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I'd actually agree with that. In my career, the worst written OERs I've had were written by RC Officers, while the best ones were written by AC Officers. There's a style to writing an eval - regardless of whether the actual eval rating is good or bad - and in my experience the RC does a horrible job training it. You're left to the luck of whether that particular RC officer cares enough to educate themselves on writing evals.
The CAD group was Reserve, but suddenly finds themselves being compared against AC equivalents with - often - much better written evals, but the system doesn't take account of their RC past.
The CAD group was Reserve, but suddenly finds themselves being compared against AC equivalents with - often - much better written evals, but the system doesn't take account of their RC past.
(2)
(0)
COL Randall C.
CPT (Join to see) looks like MAJ (Join to see) answered the OER question for me :)
Regarding the FA29s, the Army established the branch not to be expert EW folks, but rather to be the coordinator/integrator of EW effects at the unit level (http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cew/FA29.asp).
While the civilians with the PhDs would be the ones to develop the EW systems, the FA29s are the ones that will be downrange with the units using them and will be trained in how best to effectively integrate them with operations and plan for their use on the battlefield.
Again, after all the pain that went into creating the branch, I was just surprised to see that critical shortages in branches didn't seem to have much impact (maybe it's karmic payback for their attempted takeover of cyber...)
Regarding the FA29s, the Army established the branch not to be expert EW folks, but rather to be the coordinator/integrator of EW effects at the unit level (http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cew/FA29.asp).
While the civilians with the PhDs would be the ones to develop the EW systems, the FA29s are the ones that will be downrange with the units using them and will be trained in how best to effectively integrate them with operations and plan for their use on the battlefield.
Again, after all the pain that went into creating the branch, I was just surprised to see that critical shortages in branches didn't seem to have much impact (maybe it's karmic payback for their attempted takeover of cyber...)
US Army Combined Arms Center and Fort Leavenworth Public Home Page
The Electronic Warfare Team consists of all unit 29-series, which includes the 29A Electronic Warfare Officer (EWO), the 290A Electronic Warfare Technician (EWT), 29E Electronic Warfare NCO, the ASI 1J and 1K (identified and EW school trained Soldiers from other MOSs), and the 25E Spectrum Manager. As a team they have one major overarching task: To integrate EW into all unit operations to achieve the commander’s desired effects and end-state....
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
COL Randall C., CPT (Join to see),
I think this raises a larger issue of the eval system, and how well it actually measures an Officer's potential versus their Rater and SR's writing skills. Despite hating to learn a new eval system, I like the fact that the new eval breaks into groups based on your responsibility level, but I don't feel it really addresses the issue that a good COM rating by a skilled writer is worth far more than an ACOM rating by a poor writer. The CAD group may have gotten screwed by this (I'm IMA Reserve, and my experience is surely anecdotal, but I've long heard the same problem from many other Officers with a mix of RC and AC raters).
I think I may break this out into its own topic question, or perhaps a survey...
I think this raises a larger issue of the eval system, and how well it actually measures an Officer's potential versus their Rater and SR's writing skills. Despite hating to learn a new eval system, I like the fact that the new eval breaks into groups based on your responsibility level, but I don't feel it really addresses the issue that a good COM rating by a skilled writer is worth far more than an ACOM rating by a poor writer. The CAD group may have gotten screwed by this (I'm IMA Reserve, and my experience is surely anecdotal, but I've long heard the same problem from many other Officers with a mix of RC and AC raters).
I think I may break this out into its own topic question, or perhaps a survey...
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
COL Randall C. I missed your post earlier, sir. I am aware of the EWO role as designed on paper. There are other factors that seemed to prevent the desired endstate. There are a lot of days on my civilian job, sir, where I really feel we need a full halt to check our 6 to see if anyone is still following us.
(1)
(0)
6
6
0
Thanks! Funny that I found out that I was safe under the ethnicity slides.
(6)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Wow! Funny, but not, sir. I'm in a similar boat demographically. I feel like whenever I fill out the introductory info on a survey, it could easily be traced back to me.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
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.
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.
(5)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
MAJ (Join to see) , my comment came directly from my branch during a branch brief. They STRONGLY suggested having a DA photo in the new ASU and were telling officers who had current photos in the old A's to take new photos....even if the uniform was current.
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Sir: Roger--as FAOs, at least, we had very similar direct guidance to ensure the DA Photo was in ASUs. The OSB results have emphasized the importance of wearing the "right" uniform (even if both the Class A and the ASU continue to be authorized for wear).
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
When I was going through my BZ board for Major I actually called branch to ask them how they weighted the DA photo in greens or blues. She told me officially you can wear either uniform until the wear out date. Then she told me most board members look at this as someone who doesn't want to get on board with the current policies where the Army is heading. This was back in 2012.
To play the devils advocate here what circumstances would have kept you over the past five years the Army released that they were getting rid of the greens to get a photo in the blues. This didn't happen six months ago but several years.
To play the devils advocate here what circumstances would have kept you over the past five years the Army released that they were getting rid of the greens to get a photo in the blues. This didn't happen six months ago but several years.
(4)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I agree with all the above comments, and I can definitely buy that, at this point, if you don't have the ASU, it is foot dragging. Naturally an officer in the old uniform in their photo is likely going to send a signal to the board member. My bigger issue, I suppose, was that it was listed by HRC on the slides as a reason. I totally understand that bias existing, but just think it was a poor move to officially come out and say it, even if those slides were never supposed to see the light of day. Ending someone's career for being in the right according to the law of the land (assuming the A's were the only issue, which as I've already said, likely was not the case) is just wrong. Long story short/lesson learned; don't drag your feet.
(2)
(0)
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.
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.
(4)
(0)
LTC Yinon Weiss
SFC Kenny O'brien Thanks for the explanation. I didn't think the presentation implied that race or gender was taken into account in the board's decision making (at least I hope not), but I thought it was informative that the information was presented nonetheless. I didn't interpret it as saying anybody is less or more equal... it's just data that provides transparency, which I think is almost always a good thing. But I can also see how somebody might think that such data shouldn't even be calculated in the first place.
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Perhaps we should remind ourselves that there is no intended transparency with this data. Transparency implies some sort of intent to actually inform the population of the organization's actions. In this case, the only reason we're seeing this data is because it somehow "leaked" out of what appears to be an HRC briefing to the CSA. There was/is absolutely no intent on the part of the Army to be transparent about the results of OSB/ESERBs, or any other personnel related action. Rather, the Army, led in this case by HRC, intended to hold all of this information as securely as possible; for example, the Army intended only to notify those selected by the OSB and not the around 95% of those that squeaked through.
Unless you believe that the Army/HRC intentionally "leaked" this info, I don't see how one could assess the Army/HRC intended to be transparent with the OSB results. In any case, this also goes back to the related discussion about the Army's strategic messaging or branding of the OSB process; why can't Army senior leaders understand that forthrightness and transparency in communicating information such as OSB results would go a long way towards increasing (rather than decreasing) the sense of loyalty towards the institution?
Additionally, perhaps we shouldn't be too hard on the slide-makers for presenting demographic info to the CSA. I'm sure they were told to do so, and that the intent behind the demographic info was to show that no EO/EEO basis existed in the OSB actions and that those selected for involuntary separation were selected based solely on merit or lack there of. The veracity of my assessment is debatable, of course. Especially as, according to the data, it seems if one was a white male commissioned from West Point the chances of not being selected were substantially higher than any other category.
Unless you believe that the Army/HRC intentionally "leaked" this info, I don't see how one could assess the Army/HRC intended to be transparent with the OSB results. In any case, this also goes back to the related discussion about the Army's strategic messaging or branding of the OSB process; why can't Army senior leaders understand that forthrightness and transparency in communicating information such as OSB results would go a long way towards increasing (rather than decreasing) the sense of loyalty towards the institution?
Additionally, perhaps we shouldn't be too hard on the slide-makers for presenting demographic info to the CSA. I'm sure they were told to do so, and that the intent behind the demographic info was to show that no EO/EEO basis existed in the OSB actions and that those selected for involuntary separation were selected based solely on merit or lack there of. The veracity of my assessment is debatable, of course. Especially as, according to the data, it seems if one was a white male commissioned from West Point the chances of not being selected were substantially higher than any other category.
(3)
(0)
MAJ Daniel Buchholz
It did lead to media jumping onto this tidbit quickly. Saved the reporters from having to more than a bit of cut and paste...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/04/army-black-majors-dismissed-higher-rates-than-whites/13587821/
https://time.com/3081680/us-army-black-majors-retrenchment-layoff/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/04/army-black-majors-dismissed-higher-rates-than-whites/13587821/
https://time.com/3081680/us-army-black-majors-retrenchment-layoff/
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Agreed, this is a great brief but only because it was given to the CSA several weeks in advance (at least according to the version I saw last week). Lots of good data here, particularly for those of us who will be hanging around. One take away is that MAJs are still projected at 114% of strength after the cuts, so you can bet on 2-3 more years of this depending on whether we go to 450k or 420k.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
Great information from CPT Wolfer. So bad that the Army as an institution hasn't diceminated this information to the force.
(3)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
That's true. I wonder where the info came from. Saw it the first day she posted it.
(0)
(0)
SFC Jeffrey Couch
As a retired SFC I always found it to be a struggle to get needed information to pass along to my troops because of lack of leadership within our ranks
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I agree SFC Jeffrey Couch . I passed out LCDR Doug Nordman information to as many LTs and CPTs I have come across. Even sent to a few field grades and were amazed that such info existed.
(2)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
The APFT is just a minor aspect and consider that is why it is not factored. It could become something in the longer run maybe if the all of the left over OERs are the same in a few years (highly doubt, but you never know)
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
LCDR Doug Nordman , I really wonder. In a sense, if the 09 group is up, there are some that will have issues with OERS, GOMARs and etc. I forget when they started the Senior Rater comment/rating with the OERs (because I heard the older one were block checks), I think that will also nail some people on the head. Luckily, I had great Senior Raters who understood to provide strong comments while I was an LT.
(0)
(0)
LCDR Doug Nordman
Well, for starters, maybe they'll call it the "Officer Retention Board" and put out more detailed analysis of who was kept versus who was separated.
Hopefully they'll address the issue of eight years of commissioned service up front this time instead of "pending review".
Hopefully they'll address the issue of eight years of commissioned service up front this time instead of "pending review".
(0)
(0)
Mike Jay
@ LCDR Doug Normand, appreciate the info, as I may be in the boat to get TERA I looked up your retirement guide book, it's excellent. Ironically I am finding more info about cuts and retirement from you (Navy guy) than any Army dude, even more ironic as I am prior service Navy....
(0)
(0)
LCDR Doug Nordman
Glad to help, Mike Jay!
I haven't heard about anyone getting a chance at TERA in a while. Please let us know how it works out.
I haven't heard about anyone getting a chance at TERA in a while. Please let us know how it works out.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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/
"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.
(2)
(0)
COL Randall C.
MAJ (Join to see)/CPT (Join to see), while I agree that the Army could (and should) have had a better control on the messaging, I don't think it would have had an effect on the title of an article like the one mentioned appearing.
If it wasn't "Black officers dismissed at greater rate than whites", then it would have been "Army shows sexist side - Females given the boot at higher rate than males", "Army discriminates against combat tested soldiers", or some such.
If it wasn't "Black officers dismissed at greater rate than whites", then it would have been "Army shows sexist side - Females given the boot at higher rate than males", "Army discriminates against combat tested soldiers", or some such.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Sir: I do agree that the release/leak of this demographic would have likely resulted in "bad" headlines...and I also agree that the Army could/should have controlled the message (and the process) better.....
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Sir, thanks for your response! However, I was actually referring to the number 10 as referenced in the OSB ppt slide on slide 11, top left quadrant. It depicts 10 officers of the "other" category of demographic. I was trying to validate the numbers, but as a result of your response, I was able to resolve what I thought was erroneous reporting.
Again, thanks for your feedback!
Again, thanks for your feedback!
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
They really should take the "race" out of the ORBs. I am an other, but technically black and white.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
LTC Yinon Weiss Point taken... my only point was that I knew almost nobody who got below/center mass unless they really annoyed somebody.
(0)
(0)
MAJ(P) (Join to see)
The general consensus among Sr Leaders in the units I've been in is that the eval system was so watered down with 1 blocks or ACOMS that if you evaluated a middle of the road or only slightly above average NCO or Officer honestly, you were sentencing them to early separation. This in turned continuously fueled the diluting of the meaning of evaluation 1 blocks and ACOMS when those Sr. Leaders rated their NCOs and Officers higher than deserved. I don't know if that was universal, but I saw it almost everywhere I've been. For those organizations doing the right thing, I feel bad for their Soldiers now.
(3)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Unfortunately this has been my observation too. We were Lake Wobegon: Everyone was "above average." But now stupidness is happening. I had a very late COR OER that caused it and my annual to be in the same review period. The result was that I had to eat a COM on the COR in order to have a ACOM on my annual or I would have blocked myself from an ACOM on my annual. Does this make sense? I'm still me.
(2)
(0)
MAJ Daniel Buchholz
A lot of people are going to get their feelings/pride hurt under this new OER system. But that is a good thing, everyone in the Army is not a superstar compared to everyone else in the Army.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google