Posted on Nov 26, 2014
Should personnel on permanent profiles be allowed to go Warrant or Officer?
30.7K
164
33
4
4
0
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.
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.
Warrant Officers
Officer
Military Career
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 17
11
11
0
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.
- 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.
(11)
(0)
CMSgt James Nolan
COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM Yes Sir. My simplistic way of thinking is: There comes a point in every career anyway, where we are not necessarily interested in physical abilities, but in what you have upstairs. Quite frankly, you may not be able to Ruck anymore, but you can lay out an effective plan for (name your topic of choice).
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM Sir, I think many of your arguments are valid when considering accession to Officer but not warrant officer.
I agree completely with your first point. The Army has already invested quite a bit into NCOs before they are eligible to become a technical warrant, and if those individuals are highly qualified to serve as warrants I think it is a waste of that investment to not allow them to do so.
I agree that physical fitness can be used to measure overall potential, but I don't believe that being unable to complete the three part APFT means a soldier lacks potential. A soldier that performs great in every aspect of their job and maintains their physical fitness despite a profile shows just as much potential to me. The OER doesn't even include a numerical score for APFT and there is no way to distinguish between a soldier taking an alternate event and one taking the standard APFT by looking at the form.
The Army has already determined the minimum PULHES for each MOS based on the physical requirements for that MOS in a combat environment. A doctor has determined that soldiers who meet these requirements are fully deployable. An NCO on permanent profile deployed downrange is more likely to run into physical issues than a technical warrant or officer in the same unit.
I agree completely that this is a business, but it is a waste of valuable resources to ignore extremely capable individuals based on a standard that does not affect their ability to do the job. I would rather have a technically and tactically capable person by my side than one who runs fast and doesn't know his job. The NFL example doesn't fit because unlike sports the Army needs people who have more than just physical ability.
I agree completely with your first point. The Army has already invested quite a bit into NCOs before they are eligible to become a technical warrant, and if those individuals are highly qualified to serve as warrants I think it is a waste of that investment to not allow them to do so.
I agree that physical fitness can be used to measure overall potential, but I don't believe that being unable to complete the three part APFT means a soldier lacks potential. A soldier that performs great in every aspect of their job and maintains their physical fitness despite a profile shows just as much potential to me. The OER doesn't even include a numerical score for APFT and there is no way to distinguish between a soldier taking an alternate event and one taking the standard APFT by looking at the form.
The Army has already determined the minimum PULHES for each MOS based on the physical requirements for that MOS in a combat environment. A doctor has determined that soldiers who meet these requirements are fully deployable. An NCO on permanent profile deployed downrange is more likely to run into physical issues than a technical warrant or officer in the same unit.
I agree completely that this is a business, but it is a waste of valuable resources to ignore extremely capable individuals based on a standard that does not affect their ability to do the job. I would rather have a technically and tactically capable person by my side than one who runs fast and doesn't know his job. The NFL example doesn't fit because unlike sports the Army needs people who have more than just physical ability.
(1)
(0)
SGT(P) Khalid Wise
Thank you for your thorough asessment of the only relevant factors in the accession decision-making paradym, Sir. As one who went TDRL-PDRL fighting to stay in, I am as thankful to those Doctors and Commanders now (as I was hopping MAD at them six years ago for their perceived standing in the way of my own WO accession) that others I helped mold could access to WO and O as I could no longer. Sometimes we (the profiled) cannot see the inherent dangers of decreased survivability we could bring to the equation until our cooler, more rational mind appears IMHO.
(1)
(0)
8
8
0
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.
I hope one day our Armed Forces focuses on leadership capabilities, and technical and tactical aptitude over the nonsense we are currently stuck with.
(8)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
CW5 Ivan Murdock - by bringing up the sports I only meant to illustrate that although I can not run two continuous miles, I am able to do far more as long as I can stop every now and then to let my legs recover from the continuous impact. Saying that not passing the alternate APFT is synonymous with not meeting Army standards is absolutely wrong. That's equivalent to saying that someone doesn't meet Army standards if they fail height/weight but can easily pass tape. As was mentioned before and in various other replies to this question, it is completely understandable to limit profiles for fields such as aviators and combat arms. But to completely disallow permanent profiles from going commissioned or warrant if there is no mission degradation from the individual having a profile leads to a lot of unfulfilled potential.
For example, I am a UAS repairer. My maintenance chief is also on a permanent profile. But he is not only the most knowledgeable NCO I've ever met in this career field, he's also probably the best leader I've had or met in my military career. He can also bench press a house. He's extremely fit/lives in the gym. The only problem is he's just like me and can't run long distances due to pain. But...there's no time when a UAS tech should ever HAVE to run two miles, save maybe the occasional company/BN/BDE/DIV run.
For example, I am a UAS repairer. My maintenance chief is also on a permanent profile. But he is not only the most knowledgeable NCO I've ever met in this career field, he's also probably the best leader I've had or met in my military career. He can also bench press a house. He's extremely fit/lives in the gym. The only problem is he's just like me and can't run long distances due to pain. But...there's no time when a UAS tech should ever HAVE to run two miles, save maybe the occasional company/BN/BDE/DIV run.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
So ultimately the Army has to decide whether they want someone in the leadership position who is a phenomenal leader and a true SME who may have some physical limitations that don't hinder their actual performance, or someone with no physical limitations who may not be suitable for the position.
(0)
(0)
CW5 Ivan Murdock
SGT (Join to see) - no where did I imply that the alternate was not a passing score for an APFT It is scored as pass fail. Even in non combat arms the basic standards are minimum tests for all a soldiers. As we learned over the last 15 years and now as we shrink our force that guard duty, patrols can be called on by soldiers who wouldn't necessarily do that all the time to supplement the force. As we cap numbers into theatres everyone will have mixed roles and cross over would need all deployed to be able to function. Coming from a special operations organization we deployed capabilities not company's so often we had to do or assist each other at all jobs. Restrictions were needed to ensure the deployed packages could function with the smallest footprints. As we thin the force the flexibility is even more important. It is not a slight to anyone's ability, technically our civilian maintainers are critical to our deployabilty and they are often the true experts as rank never takes them from what they are great at.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I understand your point and I agree on many aspects of it. IMO ultimately it should depend on the individual profile itself. If the soldier can pass a commissioning/woc physical which to my understanding many on permanent profiles can, they shouldn't be precluded from commissioning or going warrant. If they can pass the physical odds are they're able to do anything required of them even in the events you just described. For many of us, no piece of paper nor any amount of pain will keep us from performing our duties. From going on a foot patrol. Etc. But if I don't have to run I'd definitely rather not since my issue is degenerative. I guess the main problem is identifying those who would still do anything asked of them and those who would ride the profile. So yeah, I guess I understand the reasoning behind it. I just wish the few bad apples didn't spoil the bunch.
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
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.
One of the greatest presidents of the century was pretty much confined to a wheel chair and leg braces.
(7)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google