Should the Army start taking MOS proficiency test along with the promotion board in order to get promoted

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 10 Jan 2014 13:09:18 -0500

Do you think the Army should start taking MOS proficiency test to get promoted? I know the Navy has a program in place where the individual has to take a test showing that they have the knowledge in their MOS to perform their duties at the rank they are trying to attain. I've seen NCOs (Staff Sergeants in particular) that cannot perform their MOS at their level.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 10 at 2014 1:14 PM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 10 Jan 2014 13:14:41 -0500

I def believe that their should be a test. The other branches have one. So should we<br>

Response by SGT Benjamin Dutill made Jan 10 at 2014 1:33 PM

SGT Benjamin Dutill — Fri, 10 Jan 2014 13:33:08 -0500

I definitely believe that the Army should. Speaking from previous experience, the written exams/tests are less stressful and the exams are conducted in a more relaxed envrionment. However, the exams are NOT that easy. Just like any other exam or test you will have to study for. And as far as promotions go, the Navy uses the same percentage method as the Army does (only so many will be selected to advance in rank)..

Response by SGT Thomas Lucken made May 2 at 2014 1:59 PM

SGT Thomas Lucken — Fri, 02 May 2014 13:59:55 -0400

That is what the old SQT was. Skills Qualification Tests! It was worth up to 200 points, if you max it. And that was for the old 999 point system.

The Army did away with SQT and went to a SDT I think, but that was E-5 and E-6. A high percentage was failing, so they did away with it.

This was back in the early 90s.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 2 at 2014 2:17 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 02 May 2014 14:17:51 -0400

I definitely agree that the Army should require some kind of proficiency exam for the MOS you are looking to get promoted in. I have seen a lot of incompetent people get promoted that know how to answer questions in board but do not know enough on their MOS. Therefore there are a lot of leaders young Soldiers cannot look up to for advice or guidance. With that being said, the Army should get rid of Battlefield Promotions. Seen the wrong people get a Battlefield Promotion to SGT who are extremely incompetent. Also was given to a less deserving Soldier.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 22 at 2014 10:58 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Jul 2014 22:58:57 -0400

I say throw the board out and just do a proficiency test. If you don't know your MOS (especially if you've been in long enough to potentially be boarded for promotion) then you shouldn't be promoted anyway.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 23 at 2014 10:17 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:17:58 -0400

I agree that a test could be instituted across the board (especially with Army's push to trickle the numbers), but the difficulty would be nature of these tests. Different MOS have varying lengths of experience. For Public Affairs, we have experience in not only the media engagement, press and news releases, and more, but also the video/print experience of producing products. To be able to sum up our experience and test our knowledge in a standardized form would be extremely difficult.

Practical exercises or FTX like scenarios that test the skills required to juggle all those skills would be the best kind of test, and could be something that all MOS could adapt their requirements around.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 29 at 2014 12:50 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 29 Aug 2014 12:50:50 -0400

I believe that they should institute a test or even a practical exercise based off the MOS. That would definitely show more competence than being quizzed on a list of predetermined questions.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 3 at 2014 5:33 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 03 Sep 2014 17:33:40 -0400

SSG Robins: that means there is a failure in leadership above them for even placing them in the ranks if they cannot perform their MOS. So-simple solution. If they can t perform, deny the opportunity to advance until they show some tactically proficiency at their level. If they stagnate its their own fault. We as leaders should step up and help that individual get to a level of proficiency, work on their skills, and get them going as best they can so they get back on the level expected and perform consistently at that level.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 4 at 2014 12:09 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Sep 2014 12:09:49 -0400

I think there should be some thought to 'need' of proficiency tests. Army Times constantly puts out articles for Soldiers to transfer to another MOS to easily promote; but, is that MOS getting a good Soldier, or just one who can fulfill the minimal requirements? For Public Affairs, getting a Soldier with little practical experience in print editing, writing, public speaking, and press releases, could spell doom for the Soldiers under their watch. Just because a Soldier transfers over and passes the course at the base MOS level does not immediately qualify them for that position (unless they have prior experience in a similar job field, and even then). Long story short, a test/board could help those evaluate the qualifications of the Soldier and their readiness to accept additional responsibilities.

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Jun 28 at 2015 9:47 AM

SSG Roger Ayscue — Sun, 28 Jun 2015 09:47:56 -0400

HELL YES!
We used to do this, it was called the Skills Qualification Test...SQT. It was hands on AND written. you had to pass both. It was part of your promotion packet and was a fantastic tool in makeing sure THAT YOU WERE QUALIFIED TO GET PROMOTED. One cound not get promoted without passing the SQT both written and the Hands On

Response by SFC Jason Heritage made Jun 28 at 2015 9:58 AM

SFC Jason Heritage — Sun, 28 Jun 2015 09:58:17 -0400

I agree with the testing wholeheartedly, I have received a few junior enlisted that have been in more than a few years but they have no clue on how to perform their job. Being in the maintenance realm it is left on me to train, I have no issue with this. I have an issue with them having the rank that they do, what did they do to earn it if they don't know their job. Even some of the straight out of AT guys tell me that they didn't really train on their job, they got told over and over, "You'll learn that at your Unit."

Response by CPO Gregory Smith made Jun 28 at 2015 11:50 AM

CPO Gregory Smith — Sun, 28 Jun 2015 11:50:50 -0400

Our advancement exams in the Navy cover all aspects. Rate (MOS) knowledge, administrative, leadership, and warfare. Above all the test totally kills the homie hook up. Doesn't matter how much you like a Sailor in your unit, if he can't pass the test, he doesn't get promoted.

Response by SGT Alicia Brenneis made Jun 28 at 2015 12:17 PM

SGT Alicia Brenneis — Sun, 28 Jun 2015 12:17:42 -0400

YES! The best example I can give as to why was when I was working in an emergency room. My "team Leader", who was a new E-5, was working intake. I saw a elderly lady's name and complaint pop upon the board. Pace maker is malfunctioning. I prepped her a bed in the bay (bay for the critical patients) . when she didn't cone back I went looking for her. My team leader as an E-5 medic just sat her in the waiting room. He didn't bother to get or request an EKG, get vitals, or even a patient history. I asked him (politely) What the Hell? His response... "she looks fine, this guy is vomiting". I pulled her to the back and as it turns out her pacemaker was trying to put her into cardiac arrest by shocking her normal beats. it had to be replaced. I later asked him what his standard of triage was. He pulled out a !flip book! with a chart that had visual appearance(ie color, sweating, ) as "first clues". It was like a first aid book. Another example was a female who liked to try IVs at a 90 degree angle. I didn't pass her on her CPR resert because she gave full two fisted compressions to a "toddler" and wouldn't take corrective directions. She is now an NCO. Lord help her soldiers.

Response by MSG Scott Milne made Jun 29 at 2015 2:52 PM

MSG Scott Milne — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 14:52:15 -0400

We used to have it, they got rid of it. it was for promtion points and standings for the higher up. they tried to get cute with it and make it a leadership test as well. to many are running around and can't pour piss out a boot, but damn the look good and can run there ass off.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2018 3:16 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Apr 2018 15:16:24 -0400

They used to have tests (11B). We took them every year. You had to pass to move up as part of your board package. My opinion is they were useless for 11B. If you scored below a 95 you might as well donate your brain to science- with that score you might had already done that. Maybe I should have started with “You young wiper-snappers.”

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2018 4:38 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Apr 2018 16:38:44 -0400

Yes. Bring back SQT and start getting rid of walking chest muscles who have no brains and no MOS proficiency.

Response by SPC Jeffrey Reese made Dec 24 at 2019 1:12 PM

SPC Jeffrey Reese — Tue, 24 Dec 2019 13:12:39 -0500

Years ago SQT(skills qualification test)testing every year was Included in your promotion package.

Response by CPT Daniel Cox made Mar 4 at 2020 6:23 PM

CPT Daniel Cox — Wed, 04 Mar 2020 18:23:22 -0500

I believe that passing a proficiency test should be part of the promotion checklist. The problem is, are all people of the same rank in positions that the proficiency of their jobs is equal. I don't know how to say that differently (or better). Are all Sergeants equal? I remember when I was enlisted, there was a lot more to be proficient as a Dental Assistant than being a Military Police Officer (both jobs I held at the same rank). Military Police Officers had a lot more leadership required than Dental Assistants, while Dental Assistants were more technically oriented.