Should deployment matter to the HRC Promotion Board?

I've seen quite a few SFC's (E-7) stay on rear detachment and get picked up for E-8. It looked better to have 1SG time in the rear than PSG time under fire. Of course just because both were in the primary doesn't mean that was the only reason, but working above your grade never seems to hurt.

I think it is very important in a lot of other places as well. Like for instance recruiting. There a lot of full time recruiters (79R MOS) that have never been deployed at all. I think it is important for them to have some experience of what it is like to be deployed when they are talking to kids about joining the Army. I am a detailed recruiter (DA selected) and I really find it offending when I have slick sleeve senior NCOs who have never even left the United States talking about combat and deployments to this kids. I definitely agree that it should matter when it comes to centralized promotions because it shows that you are diversified and you have a lot of experience underneath you.

Putting aside the sexist tenor of the reasoning provided to you, the reality is that minimizing the value of deployments (as well as other risk taking like Command and Staff assignments) is a method of retaining 'favored sons and daughters.' If we promoted people based on their ability to perform and accomplish their mission, we would have an organization of combat veterans and leaders focused on success. But, not everyone in our ranks has been tested or could describe success beyond their ability to wear the uniform smartly, max the fitness test and manage a great network of senior leaders. Failing to promote these individuals could result in an organization with leaders who value skills over appearance, competence over relationships and the truth/reality over political correctness.

So, we promote slick sleeves and individuals who can soft shoe with the best of them to ensure we have leaders with the political skills to sell our organization to Congress. We have leaders who couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag in our ranks because being politically correct in places like DC or during an interview are valued more during peacetime or in the rear with the gear than a bluntly spoken hardened warrior. To be clear, this is not new. Custer, Patton, Chesty Puller, Nimitz, Halsey and many others were hardened warriors, best suited for the battlefield but slaughtered in DC or for their bluntness.