Should personnel on permanent profiles be allowed to go Warrant or Officer?

2014-11-26T19:46:42-05:00

As it currently stands, a Soldier cannot commission as an officer if they have a permanent profile, and can only become a warrant if their profile was combat related. Despite this, many warrants and officers have profiles and are retained and promoted. Should we restrict highly qualified Soldiers from career progression solely based on a profile that doesn't interfere with their ability to complete the mission?

A technical warrant officer is normally the last person in a unit to be in front of the formation leading PT, so why should someone's inability to run matter. While officers are more likely to be in front of the formation, there are already officers on profile who are retained. I understand that certain branches or flight warrants may need to set higher standards, but in the majority of career fields inability to run isn't a deal breaker.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 26 at 2014 7:53 PM

2014-11-26T19:53:20-05:00

I'm voting that SMs should be allowed to go both Warrant and Officer, SSG Private RallyPoint Member, especially if the injury was a result of combat. On the whole, I agree with the points you make in your initial post.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 26 at 2014 9:22 PM

2014-11-26T21:22:58-05:00

If the MEB / MMRB has retained the Soldier, then they should be allowed to go Warrant or Commission.

I wouldn't say that there are higher standards, just different standards, and when the Soldier is assessed into a specific branch, the Permanent Profile would be taken into account and they could be assessed appropriately.

Response by SFC Dr. Joseph Finck, BS, MA, DSS made Nov 26 at 2014 9:37 PM

2014-11-26T21:37:49-05:00

SSG Private RallyPoint Member Great question. I have been led by Warrant Officers who had profiles who were the best leaders and experts in the field possible. I do not see where a permanent profile, as a result of a service connected injury or illness, should restrict or impact a career in the least.

In fact, Soldiers who continue to serve in spit of adversity, may even be better leaders in some ways because of the drive and determination to move onward and upward with a disability.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 9 at 2014 1:27 PM

2014-12-09T13:27:57-05:00

SSG Private RallyPoint Member , I agree with your points here. I think that we should not have a hard and fast rule against Soldiers becoming a Warrant or Commissioned Officer because of a profile, but I also think that both the assessment and following promotion boards are going to competitive. When the Army is growing, we would take these people, but when the Army is downsizing, Officers with a profile would be among the first to go. The stats from the last two WO promotion boards are indicative of this. People with permanent profiles did not do well.

Response by 1SG Michael Blount made Dec 9 at 2014 2:33 PM

2014-12-09T14:33:25-05:00

Soldiers on permanent profile need to consider whether the Army is in their long-term career interests.

Response by SGT Kristin Wiley made Dec 9 at 2014 4:58 PM

2014-12-09T16:58:08-05:00

The Army uses Warrant Officers as technical experts. How does a permanent profile effect one's technical expertise? If the Army decides to retain soldiers with permanent profiles they should not be limiting their opportunities. Job assignments, maybe. Even then a recommendation against running does not mean that soldier isn't going to suffer pain and reinjury to run like hell if necessary. Apparently tattoos and injuries/illnesses all mean that you aren't good enough for the Officer Corps, who knew? <-sarcasm

I hope one day our Armed Forces focuses on leadership capabilities, and technical and tactical aptitude over the nonsense we are currently stuck with.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 9 at 2014 5:06 PM

2014-12-09T17:06:19-05:00

I think that if they are going into a technical warrant, they should be considered. Not all of the Tech Warrants MOS' have the same physical requirements.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 9 at 2014 6:33 PM

2014-12-09T18:33:57-05:00

I am on the fence about this one. I voted they can go WO, but not CO...but I add the caveat, if it is combat related, the military should bend over backwards to give the soldier what they want. Not sure an officer that cannot PT is going to go over well in any combat arms unit. Just saying....

Response by COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM made Dec 11 at 2014 1:39 PM

2014-12-11T13:39:38-05:00

A few thoughts on should permanent profile personnel be allowed to go Warrant or Officer.
- Investment vs retention. There is a difference between investing in a person not previously invested in vs retaining a person for whom the military has already sunk a lot of investment into. For example, the military does not access anyone too young, too old, or with certain disabilities (no legs) but we do retain NCOs, Warrants, and/or officers who have no legs for example. The former is a risk whereas the latter is a way to obtain return on investment. Therefore permanent profile should be considered.
- Potential vs performance. A Soldier is paid for doing their job and given awards for going above/beyond in their job. A Soldier is promoted for showing the potential to perform at a higher rank. High performance is a separate issue and indicator from potential. Therefore permanent profile should be a consideration in determining potential.
- Garrison vs Combat. Many people use ability to do a job in garrison as justification for being allowed to progress to higher rank. This is not the metric that should be used. The Army's mission is to shape, deter, and defeat our enemies. This is generally done outside the United States. Therefore the standard should be ability to do the job in combat. If a permanent profile Soldier can do the job in combat then they should be allowed to compete for WO and O. If not then they should not.
- Business not personal. Some people forget that the Army is a business, it is not personal. There are limited slots in the Army and those slots should be for deployable and capable personnel. Think of the NFL. If the assessment is that a player can not recover and play again then a team gets them off the roster ASAP to make room for someone else. Same principle apples for the Army.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Dec 11 at 2014 5:29 PM

2014-12-11T17:29:14-05:00

What is this trend with profiled soldiers and their ability to perform in the military? Just like in the civilian world, the extent of your physical abilities should not define or confine one's potential for upward mobility or increased responsibility.

One of the greatest presidents of the century was pretty much confined to a wheel chair and leg braces.

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Dec 11 at 2014 6:34 PM

2014-12-11T18:34:50-05:00

The only question that should be asked is:

Can they do the job to the standard?

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 11 at 2014 10:58 PM

2014-12-11T22:58:04-05:00

I have seen this profile thing before. Can someone please explain what it is.

Response by SPC Matthew Birkinbine made Feb 27 at 2015 2:19 PM

2015-02-27T14:19:18-05:00

If the servicemember is a technical expert in his/her field, and otherwise is eligible for retention why shouldn't s/he be considered for recommendation to warrant or commissioned officer, if that potential is noticed? My vote is yes, without a doubt.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 27 at 2015 2:39 PM

2015-02-27T14:39:23-05:00

The military puts ware and tear on all of us. Our bodies are pushed and with age things become harder. Those that have been in for a while should not be denied a chance at furthering their career based on a permanent profile.

Response by PO1 Michael Fullmer made Feb 27 at 2015 5:48 PM

2015-02-27T17:48:48-05:00

It sounds to me, like things should remain as they are. IF the system isnt broken dont try to fix it until it is (although that IS the military way of working).

Response by CW5 Andrew J. Foreman made Jun 9 at 2016 10:46 PM

2016-06-09T22:46:24-04:00

Actually the regulation allows for all officers to be selected with profiles, the officer cohort just choose to not select leaders who cannot mean the Army's physical standards. As a senior field grade warrant officer I an tell you warrants are not just technical. The are technical leaders. Warrants often take command and I was a platoon leader as a WO1. I think we should follow suit and not recommend or select those with permanent profiles. The old days of overweight non-pt crusty warrants officers is gone.

Response by 1SG Michael Blount made Jun 16 at 2016 4:18 PM

2016-06-16T16:18:30-04:00

Absolutely not - sends the wrong message. I'm sorry if you have a disability that prevents you from running, but to waive that requirement for one while making others compete and be considered for the same position is patently unfair. What requirement(s) are we going to waive next? Rifle quals?