Posted on Jan 27, 2014
Should the Army implement testing for promotion in your job like the Air Force does?
9.41K
78
33
4
4
0
Posted in these groups: 
Knowledge
Knowledge
Posted 12 y ago
Responses: 11
4
4
0
3
3
0
Absolutely. At the very minimum, the SQT needs to come back and be a gate before a name is validated to go before a board. (and there needs to be an O version as well)
There are several posts along the lines of "you can't test leadership." To which I respond, yes, you can. At the very least, you can test for comprehension of the Army's Leadership Framework. And even if you couldn't, you could still ensure that the individual going before the board is minimally tactically and technically proficient in their MOS/AOC.
There are several posts along the lines of "you can't test leadership." To which I respond, yes, you can. At the very least, you can test for comprehension of the Army's Leadership Framework. And even if you couldn't, you could still ensure that the individual going before the board is minimally tactically and technically proficient in their MOS/AOC.
(3)
(0)
TSgt Joshua Copeland
COL Vincent Stoneking, under our new promotion system for E5-E7. Your "testing score" will have a maximum score of 375. That is broken in to 4 parts. (see the image)
For the performance reports, your last reports are graded. If you are in the top 10% you can earn a 5. If you are in the top 11-30% you can earn a 4. Everyone else will get a 3, 2, or 1. The difference between 5 and 3 is 50 points.
For the Air Force Knowledge, you are required to test on a 100 question exam based on this book: http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a1/publication/afpam36-2241/afpam36-2241.pdf
For the Job Knowledge test, you are required to test on 100 question exam based on your CDC's and applicable AFIs/AFMANs.
Both tests have a minimum score to be promoted of 40, but also have a aggregate score of at least 90 on both test combined to even be considered/
Decorations are worth up to 25 points as follows:
1 pt – Achievement Medal (all versions)
3 pts – Commendation Medal (all versions)
3 pts – Aerial Achievement Medal
3 pts – Air Medal
5 pts – Meritorious Service Medal
5 pts – Defense Meritorious Service Medal
5 pts – Purple Heart
5 pts – Bronze Star
5 pts – Airman's Medal
7 pts – Distinguished Flying Cross
7 pts – Defense Superior Service Medal
7 pts – Legion of Merit
9 pts – Defense Superior Service Medal
9 pts – Silver Star
9 pts – Distinguished Service Medal
9 pts – Defense Distinguished Service Medal
11 pts – Air Force Cross, Navy Cross, or Distinguished Service Cross
15 pts – Medal of Honor
Promotion to MSgt changes a little bit in that you now also face a records review board. This changes the game a bit in that only the top 60% actually meet the board. If you are not in the top 60% or even if you are but didn't meet a minimum score for the two test, you are automatically not selected. Once you proceed to phase 2, you EPR points drop but are replaced by your board score.
For E8/E9, the process is similar, but drops to just 1 test on Air Force Knowledge, adds in points for TIS/TIG.
For the performance reports, your last reports are graded. If you are in the top 10% you can earn a 5. If you are in the top 11-30% you can earn a 4. Everyone else will get a 3, 2, or 1. The difference between 5 and 3 is 50 points.
For the Air Force Knowledge, you are required to test on a 100 question exam based on this book: http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a1/publication/afpam36-2241/afpam36-2241.pdf
For the Job Knowledge test, you are required to test on 100 question exam based on your CDC's and applicable AFIs/AFMANs.
Both tests have a minimum score to be promoted of 40, but also have a aggregate score of at least 90 on both test combined to even be considered/
Decorations are worth up to 25 points as follows:
1 pt – Achievement Medal (all versions)
3 pts – Commendation Medal (all versions)
3 pts – Aerial Achievement Medal
3 pts – Air Medal
5 pts – Meritorious Service Medal
5 pts – Defense Meritorious Service Medal
5 pts – Purple Heart
5 pts – Bronze Star
5 pts – Airman's Medal
7 pts – Distinguished Flying Cross
7 pts – Defense Superior Service Medal
7 pts – Legion of Merit
9 pts – Defense Superior Service Medal
9 pts – Silver Star
9 pts – Distinguished Service Medal
9 pts – Defense Distinguished Service Medal
11 pts – Air Force Cross, Navy Cross, or Distinguished Service Cross
15 pts – Medal of Honor
Promotion to MSgt changes a little bit in that you now also face a records review board. This changes the game a bit in that only the top 60% actually meet the board. If you are not in the top 60% or even if you are but didn't meet a minimum score for the two test, you are automatically not selected. Once you proceed to phase 2, you EPR points drop but are replaced by your board score.
For E8/E9, the process is similar, but drops to just 1 test on Air Force Knowledge, adds in points for TIS/TIG.
(3)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
COL Vincent Stoneking Sir: Why did the Army stop doing SQTs? I can't find anything on this, but I'm sure the Army had a good reason. Any insight?
Regarding the need for a test, I'd suggest the current NCOER Part IV(b) provides enough opportunity to provide information regarding competence/MOS proficiency/technical knowledge. Part IV(e) of the new NCOER covers the same data. It seems an SQT-type assessment would be redundant (and, in an era of budget constraints, extremely and unnecessarily costly to develop/maintain/score/etc for each MOS).
Regarding the need for a test, I'd suggest the current NCOER Part IV(b) provides enough opportunity to provide information regarding competence/MOS proficiency/technical knowledge. Part IV(e) of the new NCOER covers the same data. It seems an SQT-type assessment would be redundant (and, in an era of budget constraints, extremely and unnecessarily costly to develop/maintain/score/etc for each MOS).
(0)
(0)
COL Vincent Stoneking
I heard a lot of stories about the SQT going away, but nothing official. I think the thinking was similar to your current objection (budget constraints, extremely and unnecessarily costly, evals cover it anyway).
I, across the board, disagree.
The SQT gave an objective measurement of a Soldier's performance against an objective standard - not someone's assessment of "good enough." Right now, there is no way that the assessment of anyone's knowledge in any one unit can be fairly compared to an assessment of anyone's knowledge in another unit. There is simply no baseline in practice (in the regs and other doctrine, yes, but not in reality). That baseline would increase the quality of our promotion process geometrically.
The flat out fact of the matter is that NCOERs and OERs are grossly inflated across the force. They are much more likely to tell you about how liked the person is than anything about how well they actually do the job. Ask yourself why there needs to be a policy that states only 49% can be ACOM or 1/1 under the new NCOER (I think that might cover 2/2?). Most people in most organizations are average for that population. You would never know that looking at a system that finds that EVERYONE is a superstar. Look at the butthurt that flows from a COM OER or a 3/3 NCOER. Ask yourself what well-liked and popular individual as gotten a BCOM or a 4/4 or 5/5. It it simply does not happen.
I respect your opinion, and your right to it. It is squarely in line with the dominant thinking in the Army. I just sincerely disagree 100%. Until we are willing to actually step up and evaluate people objectively, evals will continue to be a joke.
(as preemptive anti-sour grapes, my profile over the last 10 evals is 8 ACOM, 2 COM.)
I, across the board, disagree.
The SQT gave an objective measurement of a Soldier's performance against an objective standard - not someone's assessment of "good enough." Right now, there is no way that the assessment of anyone's knowledge in any one unit can be fairly compared to an assessment of anyone's knowledge in another unit. There is simply no baseline in practice (in the regs and other doctrine, yes, but not in reality). That baseline would increase the quality of our promotion process geometrically.
The flat out fact of the matter is that NCOERs and OERs are grossly inflated across the force. They are much more likely to tell you about how liked the person is than anything about how well they actually do the job. Ask yourself why there needs to be a policy that states only 49% can be ACOM or 1/1 under the new NCOER (I think that might cover 2/2?). Most people in most organizations are average for that population. You would never know that looking at a system that finds that EVERYONE is a superstar. Look at the butthurt that flows from a COM OER or a 3/3 NCOER. Ask yourself what well-liked and popular individual as gotten a BCOM or a 4/4 or 5/5. It it simply does not happen.
I respect your opinion, and your right to it. It is squarely in line with the dominant thinking in the Army. I just sincerely disagree 100%. Until we are willing to actually step up and evaluate people objectively, evals will continue to be a joke.
(as preemptive anti-sour grapes, my profile over the last 10 evals is 8 ACOM, 2 COM.)
(2)
(0)
MSgt Bj Jones
Thank you TSgt Joshua Copeland for posting the detailed and graphic description of the Air Force promotion system. I knew I should have read the comments below the comments before I posted. Thank you also for giving me a reason to be glad I retired in 2012 before MSgt became a records board review.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
No. The Air Force seems to thrive on a culture that values technical proficiency (ie, pilots, and written tests for promotion) over leadership. The Army needs leaders who also are technically and tactically proficient.
(3)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
TSgt Joshua Copeland Good points, all around. Perhaps the perception of the concept of leadership in the Air Force is based on perceptions of the "fighter pilot mafia" versus the whole of the Air Force. The author of the article I cited is a retired Army O-5, who is an instructor at the Air Force Academy. Based on that, it might be likely that he has a decent view of the whole of the Air Force, and comes at this issue from an Army background.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
CMSgt James Nolan I've edited the original post to remove the possibility of a perception of a slant against the Air Force. Thanks for bringing that bit to my attention.
(3)
(0)
CMSgt (Join to see)
Agreed. In my opinion, the Air Force needs to take another look at their Weighted Airmen Promotion System (WAPS) testing anyway. We have a great deal of educated individuals with absolutely zero leadership skills and we are currently suffering from it. An Airmens technical proficiency comes from achieving the appropriate skill level for their rank, which includes tests specifically created for their career field. The WAPS testing only shows that an Airman can study for a test - NOT display and interpret the characteristics of a good leader.
(3)
(0)
TSgt Joshua Copeland
CMSgt (Join to see), that was the root cause for the change for promotion to E7 now having a board.
MAJ (Join to see) , USAFA is far and away not a effective view of the Air Force as a whole. It isn't even the largest source of officers. Even in the pilot community, those that don't show leadership will stall at Major and will not command. Considering that we have squadrons of up to 200 members where only a dozen or so are enlisted. That will show you that leadership is valued for promotion.
MAJ (Join to see) , USAFA is far and away not a effective view of the Air Force as a whole. It isn't even the largest source of officers. Even in the pilot community, those that don't show leadership will stall at Major and will not command. Considering that we have squadrons of up to 200 members where only a dozen or so are enlisted. That will show you that leadership is valued for promotion.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
If it is in addition to the current process I say yes. Local boards for junior NCO's especially. The way a leader carries him/herself is just as important as all other factors.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
As someone who was around when the SQT was still performed, I can tell you exactly why is was discontinued. It is very common in the Army to be assigned to an area or job that has nothing to do with your MOS, think Recruiter or Operational/ Strategic HQ Staff NCO, but you are still tested for promotion based upon technical skills. This led to those jobs being undesirable, but important for a properly functioning Army. NCOERs are given regardless of MOS and more properly reflect the management skills that we need for senior NCOs.
Frankly, I think that was the right decision. I have met plenty of officers who are technical experts in say, engineering, but couldn't lead themselves out of a paper bag. If a Major or SFC doesn't remember how to place a Claymore, I am fine with that. Leave that job to the E-4.
Frankly, I think that was the right decision. I have met plenty of officers who are technical experts in say, engineering, but couldn't lead themselves out of a paper bag. If a Major or SFC doesn't remember how to place a Claymore, I am fine with that. Leave that job to the E-4.
(1)
(0)
TSgt Joshua Copeland
BG (Join to see), the AF prevents that by testing based on your control AFSC. If you are serving as a MTI, recruiter, MTL, or any of the other special duties you are assigned a new control AFSC and test only against those in that Control AFSC and is usually on the general AF knowledge. If you happen to cross train during promotions, you test on General AF knowledge against all other retrainees.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I'm inclined to say "NO!" as a knee jerk reaction from the testing I had to endure in the Navy (took the test 8 times and couldn't BUY a promotion because my rate was so top heavy, lol), but I CAN see merit in the idea. Perhaps a combination of testing to cover the technical aspects of one's MOS and a board to gauge the leadership aspects for the next higher rank?
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I agree to a certain extent. A future leader should be technically proficient in their field. But as some have pointed out, it is not a viable means to measure leadership capability. I think it should be a requirement, but a Soldier's promotion to a leadership position or rank should also be evaluated on their performance in other areas as well. Just because a Soldier is good in their Specialty does not necessarily qualify them in leadership.
(1)
(0)
TSgt Joshua Copeland
SFC (Join to see) , that is why there are two tests and count for less than half of the total score. Additionally those considered for SNCO promotions have to meet a board that makes up almost 2/3rd of their score.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
As long as there is more considered than just their technical ability, I don't see a problem with it. With that being said, my biggest concern would be the technical proficiency being the major factor. I have seen many lower enlisted personnel that were at the top of their specialty that lacked the maturity, experience, and capability to lead Soldiers. I've also seen where Soldiers achieve a 300 on their APFT that were recommended for promotion to the NCO ranks that were obviously not ready for the responsibility of leadership.
As Senior NCOs and Officers, we have a responsibility to ensure that these future ranks are capable and competent to lead. We owe it not only to ourselves, but to current and future ranks as well. The foundation we lay today can have a major impact tomorrow.
As Senior NCOs and Officers, we have a responsibility to ensure that these future ranks are capable and competent to lead. We owe it not only to ourselves, but to current and future ranks as well. The foundation we lay today can have a major impact tomorrow.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
WO1 Mckinley,
Every board I sit in I ask Soldiers MOS questions as well those the CSM has instructed me to ask.
I need to know if these soldiers are ready to answer questions there subordinates will ask them or questions the will be challenged to answer on their own.
V/r
1SG Haro
Every board I sit in I ask Soldiers MOS questions as well those the CSM has instructed me to ask.
I need to know if these soldiers are ready to answer questions there subordinates will ask them or questions the will be challenged to answer on their own.
V/r
1SG Haro
(1)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
MSgt,
I get the MOI for the board about three weeks before the event which informs me of the ranks and MOSs these soldiers are going to to be questioned for. So that being said ever month I change my questions so if their going for SGTs (E-5 team leader responsibilities) same for SSGs (squad leaders or section sergeants). So I have to find MOS specifics questions for those jobs.
V/r
1SG Haro
I get the MOI for the board about three weeks before the event which informs me of the ranks and MOSs these soldiers are going to to be questioned for. So that being said ever month I change my questions so if their going for SGTs (E-5 team leader responsibilities) same for SSGs (squad leaders or section sergeants). So I have to find MOS specifics questions for those jobs.
V/r
1SG Haro
(1)
(0)
TSgt Joshua Copeland
So questions are purely based on the whims of the board? That is quite different from our process where functional experts write the SKT question and a panel of E9s write the PFE questions and both are reviewed and vetted by occupational psychologists to ensure they are valid and meet national standards for question composition. Once a question is used, it can not be used again for 3 years and then only after re validation. Further the same questions are used across the Air Force for each AFSC so that the process is equatable for all personnel up for promotion.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
No No NO did I say no! Testing is not a good way to determine leadership capabilities. Filling in a bubble to see if your technically proficient combined with a live board maybe. Since we got rid of the boards as a whole and went to the paper board our quality of leadership has taken a major hit. Our leaders today are more technically proficient in their jobs but lack tactical proficiency. How can a test determine your ability to lead troops? That can only be done by leaders on the ground and live boards. I realize this will lead to some bashing about old school but I am sorry if it wasn't broken why did we find the need to fix it? So lets combine old with new and make it 2 phase. Just my 1.75 cents worth
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Chief - Way back in 1994, was the last time I recall having to take an SQT (Skills Qualification Test). It was very similar to the standardized testing public schools have used for years. I am fully against testing being that there have been those that became Orderly Room clerks, for what ever reason, that could pass their skill level test without effort. However, take them to the field for say an ARTEP( I know I dated myself with that example) and said Soldier/NCO would be lost like last year's Easter Eggs with the practical application of aforementioned skill set. This wasn't always the case, yet, I would venture a guess at better than 7 out of 10. For me, the bigger issue was that theseems type of individuals would be promoted over those that had "boots on ground" knowledge. This scenario caused irreparable damage to those leading troops as the troops usually had a good idea as to who was "in the know".
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google