Posted on Apr 4, 2016
Should it be easier to give a demotion due to history inefficiency or poor performance?
21.2K
129
93
16
16
0
We have an automatic promotion system in the early stages in the military. Sometimes soldiers promote far too fast. If there continually fail at this new position shouldn't a demotion be an option to correct the situation?
Personally I have seen soldiers that were far out of their level of competency. They may have been a great person in all but you can tell they are out of their league. After multiple attempts of mentoring and counseling have failed shouldn't a demotion be as simple as a promotion. Especially in the case when a subordinate leader is doing their job? I have seen a junior soldier put in charge of NCO that out ranks them due to the inability of the Senior NCOs ability to lead. It's not ideal but what options are left?
Have you dealt with this or seen this take place?
Personally I have seen soldiers that were far out of their level of competency. They may have been a great person in all but you can tell they are out of their league. After multiple attempts of mentoring and counseling have failed shouldn't a demotion be as simple as a promotion. Especially in the case when a subordinate leader is doing their job? I have seen a junior soldier put in charge of NCO that out ranks them due to the inability of the Senior NCOs ability to lead. It's not ideal but what options are left?
Have you dealt with this or seen this take place?
Promotions
Rank
Leadership
Edited 10 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 38
17
17
0
If you have the counseling and the failure to meet standard, consult with a lawyer. Overall though, if you want it to be easier to demote NCO's, than it should be the same for officers. I have probably met more sorry officers than NCO's in my tenure.
(17)
(0)
SGT(P) (Join to see)
JAG is always involved for demotions regarding E5 and higher. Since they all have to be done through HRC, If I am not wrong. E4 and below is just a DA Form 4187 away.
(0)
(0)
CPT Mark Gonzalez
SGT(P) (Join to see) - Research the difference between company and field grade article 15. That should clarify your comment. If you can find it there are also CG Art 15's, but they are rare.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
9
9
0
No. We should use the tools in place to promote properly. The reason soldiers get promoted into positions they aren't capable of filling, is because they weren't rated properly.
(9)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Very true. I am a fan of utilizing merit but even then we can get it wrong at times.
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see) - In my experience, either the rater doesn't have the balls to address shortcomings in the soldier, or E4evals and NCOERs were let go to the last minute and a bunch of cookie cutter evals get written which leads to good troops getting shorted, and lesser troops getting promoted to soon.
(2)
(0)
MGySgt James Forward
Doesn't the solider have to RECOMMENDED for promotion? In the USMC if you are not recommended for promotion, you get a Page 11 entry and the you are counseled as to why and given a track to correct your deficiency. In many units a promotion to LCPL, CPL and SGT requires a board to make sure you can handle the position. As for demotion, you need to determine the cause to affect a correction. Continued Page 11 entries will eventually lead to a board to demote, or in some cases provide you with ammunition for discharge. I hate automatic promotions based on time is grade. Leadership has failed when people who should be a Lcpl, get promoted to NCO.
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
Unfortunately there is a "cultural" aspect involved. A demotion is effectively a "Career Killer." So let's rephrase your question.
"Should it be easier to kill a career?"
I don't think anyone would say yes. Unless we were to MASSIVELY change our culture to the point where being Relieved/Fired/Demoted/etc was not the de facto end of someone's military career, should it be easier to do so. Our current system has A LOT of safeguards in place because of that.
It also slows down promotion through rigidization because of that as well. That doesn't mean people won't get promoted too fast, but "what are the numbers?" Would the juice be worth the squeeze?
"Should it be easier to kill a career?"
I don't think anyone would say yes. Unless we were to MASSIVELY change our culture to the point where being Relieved/Fired/Demoted/etc was not the de facto end of someone's military career, should it be easier to do so. Our current system has A LOT of safeguards in place because of that.
It also slows down promotion through rigidization because of that as well. That doesn't mean people won't get promoted too fast, but "what are the numbers?" Would the juice be worth the squeeze?
(7)
(0)
SMSgt Thor Merich
Changing the system so that a demotion isn't a career killer would go a long way. Especially with senior NCO's or field grade officers.
(1)
(0)
7
7
0
Promotion is too fast in the officer ranks and the penalty for many issues is a GOMR killing careers. We have become a risk adverse force.
(7)
(0)
CW3 Kevin Storm
Having spent a lot of time with the German Army, I admire their policy of having career Captains and LT's. I have worked with some of these officers and can tell you I wish we did the same thing. The up or out mentality is not a good one IMHO.
(1)
(0)
6
6
0
I thought there was a system in place for this, sir. That is why we document document document.
(6)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see) - Here is where the reg covers inefficiency AR 600-8-19
Section III
Reduction for Inefficiency
10–5. Policy
Inefficiency is a demonstration of characteristics that shows that the person cannot perform duties and responsibilities
commensurate of the Soldier’s current rank and MOS. For the purpose of administrative reduction, inefficiency must be
predicated on a pattern of acts, conduct or negligence that clearly shows the Soldier lacks the abilities and qualities
normally required and expected of the Soldier’s rank and experience. Although CDRs may consider misconduct,
including conviction by civil court, as bearing on inefficiency, misconduct alone will not be the basis for an
administrative reduction under this paragraph. Soldiers may be administratively reduced under this authority for
longstanding unpaid personal debts that he or she has not made a reasonable attempt to pay. An administrative
reduction for inefficiency is limited to SGT and above and to one grade (unless formally declined by the affected
Soldier, reduction boards are required as provided for in para 10–1c).
10–6. Criteria
a. A Soldier must have served in the same unit for at least 90 days prior to being reduced for inefficiency.
b. The CDR initiating the reduction action will present documents showing the Soldier’s inefficiency to the
reduction authority. This may include:
(1) Statements of counseling and documented attempts at rehabilitation by chain of command or supervisors.
(2) Record of performance, acts, conduct, or negligence during the period concerned.
(3) Correspondence from creditors, attempting to collect a debt from the Soldier.
(4) Adverse correspondence from civil authorities.
c. Documents will establish a pattern of inefficiency rather than identify a specific incident.
d. Reduction for inefficiency will not be used for the following:
(1) To reduce Soldiers for actions for which they have been acquitted because of court-martial proceedings or civil
proceedings.
(2) In lieu of UCMJ, Article 15.
(3) To reduce a Soldier for a single act of misconduct.
e. The CDR reducing the Soldier will inform him or her, in writing, of the action contemplated and the reasons. The
Soldier will acknowledge receipt of the memorandum by endorsement and may submit any pertinent matter in rebuttal.
Any matter submitted by the Soldier must be considered by the reduction board and reduction authority prior to
rendering a decision.
Section III
Reduction for Inefficiency
10–5. Policy
Inefficiency is a demonstration of characteristics that shows that the person cannot perform duties and responsibilities
commensurate of the Soldier’s current rank and MOS. For the purpose of administrative reduction, inefficiency must be
predicated on a pattern of acts, conduct or negligence that clearly shows the Soldier lacks the abilities and qualities
normally required and expected of the Soldier’s rank and experience. Although CDRs may consider misconduct,
including conviction by civil court, as bearing on inefficiency, misconduct alone will not be the basis for an
administrative reduction under this paragraph. Soldiers may be administratively reduced under this authority for
longstanding unpaid personal debts that he or she has not made a reasonable attempt to pay. An administrative
reduction for inefficiency is limited to SGT and above and to one grade (unless formally declined by the affected
Soldier, reduction boards are required as provided for in para 10–1c).
10–6. Criteria
a. A Soldier must have served in the same unit for at least 90 days prior to being reduced for inefficiency.
b. The CDR initiating the reduction action will present documents showing the Soldier’s inefficiency to the
reduction authority. This may include:
(1) Statements of counseling and documented attempts at rehabilitation by chain of command or supervisors.
(2) Record of performance, acts, conduct, or negligence during the period concerned.
(3) Correspondence from creditors, attempting to collect a debt from the Soldier.
(4) Adverse correspondence from civil authorities.
c. Documents will establish a pattern of inefficiency rather than identify a specific incident.
d. Reduction for inefficiency will not be used for the following:
(1) To reduce Soldiers for actions for which they have been acquitted because of court-martial proceedings or civil
proceedings.
(2) In lieu of UCMJ, Article 15.
(3) To reduce a Soldier for a single act of misconduct.
e. The CDR reducing the Soldier will inform him or her, in writing, of the action contemplated and the reasons. The
Soldier will acknowledge receipt of the memorandum by endorsement and may submit any pertinent matter in rebuttal.
Any matter submitted by the Soldier must be considered by the reduction board and reduction authority prior to
rendering a decision.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SFC (Join to see) - Thanks for posting that. Have you ever seen it successfully used?
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
I'm afraid not. All the demotions I have seen have been through Article 15. I wonder if this method used earlier would have prevented a couple of those punitive demotions.
(1)
(0)
1SG Charles Rivenburgh
CSM Charles Hayden Passed 7/29/2025 I agree totally. An adverse EER is a correct way to do it. This is after all "the report card" with which we recognize an enlisted soldier's work. Why demote and carry dead weight. Better to "kill a career", then have them kill good soldiers because of their shortcomings.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
I don't know about making it "easier". Have you heard the saying, "Promote to the next level of incompetence, or the Peter Principle?" It takes time for a NCO (Or Officer for the matter when promoted above the zone...) to figure things out... It appears that the root cause of the problem is that by the time they figure things out, they're on to their next promotion...
The Peter Principle was first introduced by (L. Peter in a humoristic, 1969) where he describes the pitfalls of bureaucratic organization. The original principle states that in a hierarchically structured administration, people tend to be promoted up to their "level of incompetence". The principle is based on the observation that in such an organization new employees typically start in the lower ranks, but when they prove to be competent in the task to which they are assigned, they get promoted to a higher rank. This process of climbing up the hierarchical ladder can go on indefinitely, until the employee reaches a position where he or she is no longer competent. At that moment the process typically stops, since the established rules of bureaucracies make that it is very difficult to "demote" someone to a lower rank, even if that person would be much better fitted and more happy in that lower position. The net result is that most of the higher levels of a bureaucracy will be filled by incompetent people, who got there because they were quite good at doing a different (and usually, but not always, easier) task than the one they are expected to do.
The Peter Principle was first introduced by (L. Peter in a humoristic, 1969) where he describes the pitfalls of bureaucratic organization. The original principle states that in a hierarchically structured administration, people tend to be promoted up to their "level of incompetence". The principle is based on the observation that in such an organization new employees typically start in the lower ranks, but when they prove to be competent in the task to which they are assigned, they get promoted to a higher rank. This process of climbing up the hierarchical ladder can go on indefinitely, until the employee reaches a position where he or she is no longer competent. At that moment the process typically stops, since the established rules of bureaucracies make that it is very difficult to "demote" someone to a lower rank, even if that person would be much better fitted and more happy in that lower position. The net result is that most of the higher levels of a bureaucracy will be filled by incompetent people, who got there because they were quite good at doing a different (and usually, but not always, easier) task than the one they are expected to do.
(5)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I was actually waiting for someone to say that. I didn't want to steal all the thunder. While working in management on the civilian side I have seen it. It is also present in the military. The issue is really what do we do when we find this to be the case. You hit on the point that I am getting at. The person may be much better suited for a reduced position. This would enable the next potential leader to move up to their level competence and also keep the person that is struggling with their position from making a mistake that could effect the organisation. I just don't see this being practiced much.
(0)
(0)
SFC Alfredo Gonzalez
More difficult to do in the civilian side of the house, if you're referring to the federal government; Civil Service... I was considered a fairly good civil servant who took my Army grunt mentality into my civilian career, and even attended the Army Command and General Staff College as a DA civilian. Pretty stressful for a retired enlisted (E-7) man with NO officer foundation courses/background... Sure I was familiar with doctrinal terms such as JOPES, CPOF, COIN, etc prior to attending CGSC/ILE (Core) but try being graded as a staff member in a school environment when your peers or all O-4's and a few O-5 International Students! l also attended the Army's Management Staff College, a prerequisite to attend CGSC and had excellent evals... I'm not saying this IOT toot my own horn, but to give you an idea of how difficult it is (In my opinion) to move up the ladder in Civil Service... There are no 'quarterly promotion boards' e.g. E-5 and E-6 boards etc in civil service. Your CofC is NOT recommending you for a promotion, regardless of how much of a 'fast tracker' you and your immediate CofC feels you are... There has to be vacancy within the organization and you must be apply... Obviously you also have to qualify for the position... Sure, there are lateral promotions, but they are far and inbetween... If one feels he's good enough to warrant and promotion, then you may have to apply for positions outside of the organization, like DC... Of course, if a job happens to open up in your current organization but has a 'positive education requirement' such as Instructional systems specialist (1750) one must have at least a Bachelor's or Master's specific to, Education. Hence even if you're super high achiever and a vacancy opens up in your organization for a GS 1750, you must apply and meet the education requirement... In this scenario even if you are super high achiever and have a Masters in Human Resources, you would not qualify for the position. I say this aforementioned based on my experience, not expertise.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
I can think of three times when junior Soldiers have had to be leaders over seniors. During my 2LT Days we had a former SSG Chaplains assistant that changed MOS to 13 F Fire Support Team Chief. Fortunately he wasn't a dirt bag and knew he was inexperienced. I had to have him work at the Platoon level while I had a very experience senior E-5 Run the track and teams while I had to rode with the Company Commander. The Second time while serving as Company Commander I couldn't get any LT's willing to put in some extra time without pay to help get the unit in better straights. i ended up naming my CW4 as my Company XO. I even had it official on appointment orders. I had a Senior 1LT that was respectfully pissed at me because he felt he"out ranked the man" When i asked was he willing to help without pay just retirement points he flat told me no. I said well then he'd have to get used to taking directions from my XO then. My BN Commander supported me all the way. The last one involved my Dad in WWII. He was serving as Squad Leader for most of the war. One of his privates was evacuated vis sick call due to severe illness. When he returned he was wearing the rank of SSG. When the LT brought him back he told my Dad he (my dad) was still in Charge. It left my Dad wondering from 1945 until 2002. The AT Company had a reunion and for the first time his former LT attended the reunion. He learned (this was in the days before all the groups that help Soldiers now) that his former private was having difficulty supporting his wife and Child so the LT solvedit the best way he could he let the private get paid E-6 pay in order to take care of his family. My Dad at the time was unmarried and no dependents.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
Demotion is difficult for a reason, barring major infractions. Promotion is based on the faith of your potential. There are administrative methods of reduction of rank that are not UCMJ, and of course UCMJ. There are several methods to remove officers, NCOs, and junior enlisted from a position. It's cumbersome for a reason...bc has everything really been tried? Your perception may not accurately define the situation. Checks and balances are provided at all levels. What a senior leader sees at the large scope is hard for a junior leader to see or understand just due to experience.
I would not submit a junior SM to supervising a senior SM.
But we rarely look for the root cause of an issue.
Coming out of OEF/OIF, we were forced to promote a lot and too quickly. Not just in the enlisted ranks. I commanded for 2 years...when I took command I had a fresh batch of 2LTs, by the time I left command, they were just about to pin CPT. I've seen officers, 2LTs not promoted bc they continually failed, and 1LTs not promoted bc of stupid crap they did. And so on. But in the NCO ranks, that backbone sure has a lot of ruptured disks and some osteoporosis. If the NCOs aren't the subject matter experts, the trainers, then the force in-whole suffers. I see below comments of seeing more crappy officers than NCOs. I think it's about even, especially given the selfishness and "gimme" of our society today.
At the enlisted level, well really all levels, it's more about the failure of leaders to properly council and train bc they don't have the proper counseling and training. I've been in the Army 18 years now. I've only been counseled three times at OER time, and once was by a general signing my OER as SR who met me that day. Counseling is "negative," or seems like it, but it is the only way a subordinate gets feed back one on one with his supervisor, and hopefully vice versa. Unfortunately, it takes time...and we never seem to have enough of that. Time is the one thing we can never get more of, so giving the 30 minutes, or 10, to a Soldier to tell them bad, good, and a way forward and get feed back, or hear about problems, can save you months of trouble, climate issues (no Obama pun intended), investigations, and UCMJ. I confess I've been just as neglectful in the past. Perhaps the method of reaching the member in need of redirection is the incorrect method...try a different strategy. After all, it's not about you as the leader, but about the Soldier needing assistance. Learning different ways to reach Soldiers, learning to read people, to help and or redirect them is a leader's job. But embarrassment is never a good option...okay, sometimes punishment has to be public. But it has to be used sparingly.
In addition, bc the Army is a cross section of the American culture and population, what constant praise and trophy giving for the standard or minimum that resides in our society, of course resides in our ranks.
Just bc someone looks like a POS to you, doesn't mean they are. I'm sure there are others around you who do not think you're the best. I know there are many who think I'm not. Your personal expectations of yourself don't have to be the same other SMs has of themselves. Perhaps the expectations are wrong, not too high, but wrong or negative of that particular individual. Don't expect everyone to be like you. Everyone has different abilities and capabilities, and we do not do well tapping into those with our regimented dress-right-dress lifestyle. Just bc a Soldier is an 11B doesn't mean he can shoot or run, just bc a Soldier is a 25B doesn't mean he really knows anything about computers, etc.
There may be one standard, though we tend to color that all sorts of shade, there are different kinds of leaders and influence. Not everyone responds to the loud and fast paced leader.
I would not submit a junior SM to supervising a senior SM.
But we rarely look for the root cause of an issue.
Coming out of OEF/OIF, we were forced to promote a lot and too quickly. Not just in the enlisted ranks. I commanded for 2 years...when I took command I had a fresh batch of 2LTs, by the time I left command, they were just about to pin CPT. I've seen officers, 2LTs not promoted bc they continually failed, and 1LTs not promoted bc of stupid crap they did. And so on. But in the NCO ranks, that backbone sure has a lot of ruptured disks and some osteoporosis. If the NCOs aren't the subject matter experts, the trainers, then the force in-whole suffers. I see below comments of seeing more crappy officers than NCOs. I think it's about even, especially given the selfishness and "gimme" of our society today.
At the enlisted level, well really all levels, it's more about the failure of leaders to properly council and train bc they don't have the proper counseling and training. I've been in the Army 18 years now. I've only been counseled three times at OER time, and once was by a general signing my OER as SR who met me that day. Counseling is "negative," or seems like it, but it is the only way a subordinate gets feed back one on one with his supervisor, and hopefully vice versa. Unfortunately, it takes time...and we never seem to have enough of that. Time is the one thing we can never get more of, so giving the 30 minutes, or 10, to a Soldier to tell them bad, good, and a way forward and get feed back, or hear about problems, can save you months of trouble, climate issues (no Obama pun intended), investigations, and UCMJ. I confess I've been just as neglectful in the past. Perhaps the method of reaching the member in need of redirection is the incorrect method...try a different strategy. After all, it's not about you as the leader, but about the Soldier needing assistance. Learning different ways to reach Soldiers, learning to read people, to help and or redirect them is a leader's job. But embarrassment is never a good option...okay, sometimes punishment has to be public. But it has to be used sparingly.
In addition, bc the Army is a cross section of the American culture and population, what constant praise and trophy giving for the standard or minimum that resides in our society, of course resides in our ranks.
Just bc someone looks like a POS to you, doesn't mean they are. I'm sure there are others around you who do not think you're the best. I know there are many who think I'm not. Your personal expectations of yourself don't have to be the same other SMs has of themselves. Perhaps the expectations are wrong, not too high, but wrong or negative of that particular individual. Don't expect everyone to be like you. Everyone has different abilities and capabilities, and we do not do well tapping into those with our regimented dress-right-dress lifestyle. Just bc a Soldier is an 11B doesn't mean he can shoot or run, just bc a Soldier is a 25B doesn't mean he really knows anything about computers, etc.
There may be one standard, though we tend to color that all sorts of shade, there are different kinds of leaders and influence. Not everyone responds to the loud and fast paced leader.
(3)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Holy cow. This is one of the best answers I have ever seen on RallyPoint. I love to read a well thought out response like this. They are indeed rare to find. But I agree with you that we fail to prepare soldiers. We promote on potential but I think we miss what that means. Just because you can do your job doesn't mean you will necessary be able to do another. But the Army is correcting this. The new STEP system should address this. Is it perfect, no. But no system really is. It will aid the NCO Corps to move in the right direction and with the guidance of GEN Milley we will also lose those that can't deploy. Promoting a soldier into leadership that can't deploy is harmful for a unit. I don't think any one program can fix everything but with what we have now we are on the right track.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Are leaders using all tools at their disposal now? Why a demotion and not chapter?
Either way, with a sustained counseling packet of one's unwillingness or inability to perform duties and implementation of bar to reenlistment, this Soldier should not be a drain on the unit for more than 6-months.
Either way, with a sustained counseling packet of one's unwillingness or inability to perform duties and implementation of bar to reenlistment, this Soldier should not be a drain on the unit for more than 6-months.
(3)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
The Army is moving to a much more leaner cleaner fighting force. I do think that a chapter might even be an option but if a soldier was successful as an SGT but not as an SSG should we not give them a chance to retain them in a position to which they could perform. In essence it would be like a probationary period for promotion. If you don't grasp the inherent duties of that position in which you were promoted too why let them keep that rank. Is it there fault the points may have been so low that month or that a 1SG sent them to the board without really knowing what their potential was?
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
LT, I know you are prior enlisted, but I was on active duty when they changed the TIG requirements to automatically promote from 2LT (18 months) to 1LT (18 months) to CPT. We had the same comments then. How can an officer be ready to command after only having 3 years experience at the Platoon level? In many cases, the young officer has not even really learned his basic job much less be able to competently lead others. It has obviously worked out unless they reverted back to the old time in grade requirements.
I agree that just because they can be promoted, doesn't necessarily mean they should. In my opinion, there is less of an issue with NCOs as there is with officers. The only reason I say this is because there are so many more NCOs available in a Company to only about 5 officers. Unfortunately, the incompetent officers have a much broader impact than the NCOs do. Of course, if they are really screwed up, the Battalion Commander can fix the problem very quickly and shuffle the young officer off to some obscure job.
It's all about mentoring and training that most often comes from experience.
I agree that just because they can be promoted, doesn't necessarily mean they should. In my opinion, there is less of an issue with NCOs as there is with officers. The only reason I say this is because there are so many more NCOs available in a Company to only about 5 officers. Unfortunately, the incompetent officers have a much broader impact than the NCOs do. Of course, if they are really screwed up, the Battalion Commander can fix the problem very quickly and shuffle the young officer off to some obscure job.
It's all about mentoring and training that most often comes from experience.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google