Should deployment matter to the HRC Promotion Board?

2014-08-23T19:46:04-04:00

Should deployment matter to the HRC Promotion Board?

In recent years retention and promotion boards have been told to downplay or even disregard the number of deployments a soldier has made. I was told by one Officer that the main reason for this was to ensure that women who chose to have children and could not deploy were not discriminated against on the board.
My belief is that deploying is a priceless military experience. Should it matter to the retention and promotion Boards?

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 23 at 2014 7:59 PM

2014-08-23T19:59:09-04:00

LTC Private RallyPoint Member. Are you kidding me? Yes, absolutely, and without any question . . . deployment experience matters . . . What is the pregnancy rate among otherwise deployable women today? If this rate is high, what should be done about it? Warmest Regards, Sandy

Response by CW2 Joseph Evans made Aug 23 at 2014 8:09 PM

2014-08-23T20:09:00-04:00

My last deployment included two slick sleeve senior NCOs. Both were relieved for cause 2 weeks in country. I'm gonna argue that deployment time is a critical skill multiplier and it shows.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 24 at 2014 4:05 PM

2014-08-24T16:05:56-04:00

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.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 11 at 2015 1:57 PM

2015-06-11T13:57:56-04:00

I think it might be inaccurate to suggest that deployments are not taken into account by promotion boards.

The HRC mock board training that was recently circulated shows that board members are able to view deployment data on the ORB during the board; the only thing that is blocked out on the ORB is the dwell time and the number of combat/operational/long/short tours---but one can just add that up from the column that shows all the overseas service, and from the assignment history, and from the DA photo. I think deployment should and does matter, and is taken into account.

Have you seen board instructions that direct board members to disregard deployment information?

I think a way to test if deployments matter to HRC boards is to look at the data on promotion rates for those with deployments and those without deployments; you could probably differentiate between promotion rates for those with combat and/or non-combat deployments. I'd guess that promotion rates for non-deployers are lower than for deployers. Pretty easy to test---who's got the data?

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Jun 23 at 2015 2:12 AM

2015-06-23T02:12:07-04:00

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.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Jun 23 at 2015 2:24 AM

2015-06-23T02:24:28-04:00

I know you're talking Army but be careful how you describe what's going on. I sat a lot of boards at Millington. The common terminology is "the member shall not be disadvantaged because of" type statements.

There has been an ebb and flow on this stuff for 30 years. It used to be don't disadvantage because of joint tours and then not because of joint tours. There was severe dislike of lesser qualified male nurses making O-4 vs. women because of the number of male only FMF billets.

I find what you describe is too simplistic and too pat. The services are getting hammered on diversity, inclusion, etc. and politics drive certain aspects of the convening board precepts at the Secretariat level. Some times good sense drives them too. Bottom line, the look and feel of the demographics are fairly much stipulated. Welcome to the Government.

Response by Jordan Gaudard made Jun 23 at 2015 10:34 AM

2015-06-23T10:34:18-04:00

Last I checked, we still have a fair amount of troops in deployed locations and I don't see a reason why those Soldiers can't get some deployment time in. You shouldn't be called senior until you have a vast amount of experience under your belt, and that should include a combat zone. Especially for the medical and combat fields.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2015 4:19 PM

2015-06-23T16:19:24-04:00

While I understand the individual right to family planning, part of that planning would be the impact on your career. You have the right to make the choice. It is naive to think that your life in the service will not be affected by having children. That is why I believe the idea of a sabbatical is a good one.

If deployments (doing your actual job) is not considered a plus to promotion, then what else is? Keep it a multiplier but also part of the whole package and not end all. There needs to be a balance. The one who seeks multiple deployments ought to complete their PME and attend some college courses as well.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2015 9:45 AM

2015-11-20T09:45:50-05:00

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.