Posted on Aug 23, 2014
Should deployment matter to the HRC Promotion Board?
26.2K
3
21
1
1
0
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?
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?
Promotion Board
Retention
Officer Separation Board (OSB)
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 9
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Actually doing your job is sometimes secondary to appearing to get your job done while doing nothing. As a Company grade officer, I was always in awe of the obviously incompetent leaders, whose subordinates overcame the challenge of a poor leader to succeed, while the leader walked away smelling like roses. These leaders had the skill of a magician to appear to be leading through the mere fact that they were placed in charge. When they were called on to provide a briefing, they dressed smartly, nodded appropriately but rarely knew the material beyond what was on the slides (no depth). When assigned a duty, they delegated and afterwards took responsibility for the success or placed blame for the failure. These leaders were akin to the smooth operators (man or woman) skilled in the ability of persuading someone to sleep with them but incapable of living up to their advertisement.
(0)
(0)
CW5 (Join to see)
If only we could hire leaders that were interested in actually being a professional rather than appearing to adopt the Army Profession. No MEPS can screen for that nor are there any other gates. Peer reviews in the officer corps may weed it out such as in the SF courses but it seems that, so far, the idea of the 360 has stalled. We expect people to actually read and learn from them but there is no forcing function to do so.
That said, there is a type of leader than can get by through the recognition of their weaknesses and ensuring that there are those around them that fill those gaps. Sort of like why a CDR has a staff and chief of staff. He can't know everything on his/her own. That does not mean that this person is a toxic or ineffective leader either.
Sir, I only hoped that during your time of service that you evaluated subordinate leaders within your sphere of influence effectively. I have been preaching the need for this to my peers for a while. NCOERs and OERs need to show areas of improvement. No one is Audie Murphy.
That said, there is a type of leader than can get by through the recognition of their weaknesses and ensuring that there are those around them that fill those gaps. Sort of like why a CDR has a staff and chief of staff. He can't know everything on his/her own. That does not mean that this person is a toxic or ineffective leader either.
Sir, I only hoped that during your time of service that you evaluated subordinate leaders within your sphere of influence effectively. I have been preaching the need for this to my peers for a while. NCOERs and OERs need to show areas of improvement. No one is Audie Murphy.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
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.
COL (Join to see)
If this were accurate, after nearly 20 years of conflict, we would have no one above the rank of SGT with slick sleeves.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SSG Jordan Gaudard , I've tried for three years to volunteer for a deployment. I just now got on an operational deployment where I am doing way more than the intel analysts in the actual combat zone. When we return as a unit, guess who will have a slick sleeve and guess who was able to sit back and chill out for 6 months (but still have a deployment patch)? I will be rocking a slick sleeve for a hot minute because my unit doesn't visit combat zones and this deployment was a stroke of luck out of nowhere for me. I am open to all kinds of suggestions though. If you can tell me how to get to deploy without just waiting to get randomly assigned to a unit about to deploy, I am always ready to listen.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
I think your statement about the involvement of politics (political correctness, diversity, inclusion, etc.) supports my point that service members should not forget the involvement of variables beyond performance of duties and completion of training on promotions.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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?
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?
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Sir, I was told that by some folks at HRC. I was told the reason deployments were not supposed to be counted as a benefit was that some soldiers, through no fault of their own never had the opportunity to deploy. In addition I was told that it could be partial in a negative manner to women who had chosen to have children and not be able to deploy and that would be unfair as well so no additional weight or benefit was to be given.
On the topic of promotion criteria, I wrote HRC and requested the metrics aka the criteria by which Officers Are measured and judged at my rank/MOS and was told that the criteria or instructions to the board are 'secret or confidential'. I was also told the statistics rearding the makeup of chosen candidates such as: MOS, age, education, gender, race, years of experience, deployments, enlisted time etc., was confidential as well. I am not sure what the benefit would be to having confidential criteria for promotion. In fact it would seem to undermine the entire validity of the process. Transparency should be the norm for positions paid for with tax dollars. Certainly knowing the metric for promotion would lend a focus to what tasks, skills and trait the Army considers important for promotion and potential for future leadership.
On the topic of promotion criteria, I wrote HRC and requested the metrics aka the criteria by which Officers Are measured and judged at my rank/MOS and was told that the criteria or instructions to the board are 'secret or confidential'. I was also told the statistics rearding the makeup of chosen candidates such as: MOS, age, education, gender, race, years of experience, deployments, enlisted time etc., was confidential as well. I am not sure what the benefit would be to having confidential criteria for promotion. In fact it would seem to undermine the entire validity of the process. Transparency should be the norm for positions paid for with tax dollars. Certainly knowing the metric for promotion would lend a focus to what tasks, skills and trait the Army considers important for promotion and potential for future leadership.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Thanks for the response. Two thoughts: 1) data should be released----confidentiality is code for a lack of transparency and 2) the likely reason behind not releasing such data routinely is probably that the metrics would reflect poorly on the Army.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
LTC (Join to see). 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
LTC (Join to see)
as a Medical Officer I feel that pregnancy should not count against a soldier but that does not mean that a soldier who has chosen to defer getting pregnant should not be given credit on the board versus her peers who chose not to do so
(0)
(0)
Mike Jay
So indirectly it would count against a Soldier if she is competing against someone who chose to defer or never plan to have children....
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google