SPC Private RallyPoint Member 4362678 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I&#39;m sure this is already a dead horse topic, but indulge me, I constantly hear the phrase &quot;we promote based on potential&quot; in regards to a soldiers leadership ability, however, as we all know the Army promotes using Boards, as opposed to the technical tests of other branches. <br /><br />As a 42A, I sit in on these said boards and watch as countless SM&#39;s are promoted, sometimes, in my opinion, way before their ready. Joe Snuffy may have a near perfect firing card, and a 300 APFT score, and can cite everything in AR 670-1, but working for an intel unit, I see a lot of shut ins, introverted personnel who don&#39;t seem to have the social skills, to hold a conversation, let alone guide soldiers beneath them. I know points are huge part of the process, but you can rack up near 500 points with a solid PT card, Weapons Card, and a Degree. <br /><br />I guess my concern, and question overall is, should the Army switch to the way the other branches promote? Using technical tests, that grade you on the knowledge of your job, regulations regarding your job, etc? Keep in mind the tests are not PASS/FAIL, you usually have to score in a certain percentile (ex. only the top 10% get promoted) or should we stay the course and continue to promote using the Board System? 2019-02-12T19:23:12-05:00 SPC Private RallyPoint Member 4362678

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I&#39;m sure this is already a dead horse topic, but indulge me, I constantly hear the phrase &quot;we promote based on potential&quot; in regards to a soldiers leadership ability, however, as we all know the Army promotes using Boards, as opposed to the technical tests of other branches. <br /><br />As a 42A, I sit in on these said boards and watch as countless SM&#39;s are promoted, sometimes, in my opinion, way before their ready. Joe Snuffy may have a near perfect firing card, and a 300 APFT score, and can cite everything in AR 670-1, but working for an intel unit, I see a lot of shut ins, introverted personnel who don&#39;t seem to have the social skills, to hold a conversation, let alone guide soldiers beneath them. I know points are huge part of the process, but you can rack up near 500 points with a solid PT card, Weapons Card, and a Degree. <br /><br />I guess my concern, and question overall is, should the Army switch to the way the other branches promote? Using technical tests, that grade you on the knowledge of your job, regulations regarding your job, etc? Keep in mind the tests are not PASS/FAIL, you usually have to score in a certain percentile (ex. only the top 10% get promoted) or should we stay the course and continue to promote using the Board System?

2019-02-12T19:23:12-05:00 2019-02-12T19:23:12-05:00 SPC Private RallyPoint Member 4362693

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Ill start, I believe the Army should switch, or incorporate testing into the Promotion Process. I can be a PT Stud, Eagle Eye shot, and knowledgeable about certain regulations, but that doesn&#39;t make me proficient in my MOS or show promise as a leader of soldiers. <br /><br />NCO&#39;s are leader of soldiers first and foremost, and I don&#39;t believe a board adequately prepares me to lead by example to the joes that would be underneath me. I need to know my job, have experience leading peers and subordinates, as well as the knowledge of how to help or support Soldiers in key/emergency events in their lives.

2019-02-12T19:26:14-05:00 2019-02-12T19:26:14-05:00 WO1 Private RallyPoint Member 4362756

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Little do you know the Aviation Branch is using technical Proficiency exams as early as this year to determine whether one is fit for the job and or the next higher level.

2019-02-12T19:47:36-05:00 2019-02-12T19:47:36-05:00 LTC Jason Mackay 4362769

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>In the past, we had SQT testing that contributed to the centralized board decision to&#39;promote. They were a train wreck, especially for technical MOSs as they could not keep up what was happening, especially for 63H/91H now. You also had to March people in at gun point to get them to test because it was a big fat hairy deal&#39;if they didn&#39;t. Some of your best and most competent guys failed these quirky tests all the time. Then one day in a whiff of Ozone they died the death they needed to. The local boards you refer to only impact E5 and E6. Centralized boards handle E7-E9. <br /><br />I think the issues you discuss don&#39;t point to technical competence but ability to lead and work with soldiers. How does am Army multiple choice test assess the ability to communicate at the interpersonal level or counsel a soldier about financial trouble encountered by marrying a bar girl without a green Card he met three days before? That is where the command&#39;s recommendation comes in. They know the soldier and have groomed them to advance. The board is a formality at that point. The CSM and the board members are really just doing a taste test on the results. If the guy/gal implodes at the board, that first line supervisor gets the feedback and the blowback. It reflects on their ability to coach, train, and mentor.

2019-02-12T19:51:00-05:00 2019-02-12T19:51:00-05:00 SSG Private RallyPoint Member 4362785

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I think it should stay as is but add the test in the process as well. Just like you said. One has to show profiency in their MOS in order to prove they can be a good coach, leader, and mentor. The board appearance will help determine readiness in a communicative and oral fashion. If I may add one last opinion, change the point system or make the points cap something attainable.

2019-02-12T19:58:49-05:00 2019-02-12T19:58:49-05:00 CSM Private RallyPoint Member 4362837

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>It&#39;s not clear to me how a technical proficiency test will address the issue you&#39;re identifying, that Soldiers who are &quot;shut ins, introverted personnel who don&#39;t seem to have the social skills, to hold a conversation, let alone guide soldiers beneath them&quot; are getting promoted. Will these test be assessing social skills and the ability to talk to others better than boards do?

2019-02-12T20:20:35-05:00 2019-02-12T20:20:35-05:00 SPC Private RallyPoint Member 4362911

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>It should be both really, that&#39;s how its done in the corporate world... well at least in my experience. You get a degree and start out at the bottom, then you gradually add certs followed by decent evals to get noticed, and then you go through a series of interviews for advancement (similar to the board) to test not only your knowledge but also your maturity/goal alignment w/ the company. If your company likes your interview results you&#39;re assigned a temporary but higher role (designed to be harder than it needs to be so the company sees how you react to failure/stress/uncertainty), if you pass you get the new job title after so many months of successfully doing the job for x amount of months (note its not about proficiency rather potential... in other words can you handle more responsibility?). <br /><br />Of course that was during 2 different engineering firms and 1 fast food job so your results could be different. Also, both these industries have high turn over rates and so advancement is readily available unlike the Army. Note I never got far in the Army promotion-wise (because I was a dead beat) so I never really understood the whole promotion system. Plus, the Army has different types of promotions. Decentralized Promotions (E-2 thru E-4), Semi centralized Promotions (E-5 and E-6), and Centralized Promotions (E-7 thru E-9). Each type is very different than the other. I believe (not 100% certain) that semi centralized promos are based on input from your records and from the results of your board interview. So maybe the E5/6 is using the test and board thing. I did read somewhere the Army is replacing the &quot;move up or out&quot; model with a more performance-based system that also removes the TiG/TiS requirements.

2019-02-12T20:49:11-05:00 2019-02-12T20:49:11-05:00 1SG Private RallyPoint Member 4363586

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I believe the Army system is workable.<br />Navy Times reported an online 100 question exam is replacing professional military knowledge questions. Supposed to permit them to focus on rated-related subject matter. The original, or last one used, only had 25 military knowledge questions. So, I&#39;m not certain their system yields better results.<br />Air Force exam appears to include both technical and military knowledge subject areas.<br />I&#39;m not convinced those are better tools to select folks for promotion.<br />I test well, very well. I know others who don&#39;t do well on written exams, but who are technical SMEs, tactically proficient, and great leaders. I also knew Soldiers who excelled on exams, but couldn&#39;t lead a team to the Class 6 store if it was in sight.<br />I took the last Skill Qualification Test (SQT), which is likely the equivalent of the Navy rating exam, and technical portion of the Air Force exam. I scored in the 98th percentile. Other NCOs that I knew scored much lower, but I knew their knowledge was equal to mine.<br />Another problem with the SQT was multiple test tracks for some MOSs. As I recall, my MOS (54B, now 74D) had no less than 5 tracks (smoke, decon, recon, etc.) The primary study source was the corresponding skill level SMCT. Tests results were dismal, and the program was scrapped. I know some look at scrapping it as lowering the bar due to poor results. However, I question whether the test actually measured what it was intended to measure, or if the results of the test were a true measure of the technical knowledge and capability of the tester versus their test taking skills.<br />I believe the combination of a promotion board, NCOES (military/leadership knowledge and technical MOS knowledge), and the other methods of earning promotion points is no less of a system than what the Navy or Air Force use (based on my limited knowledge of their systems). I&#39;m certain they have similar complaints of NCOs being promoted &quot;too early,&quot; or with poor leadership skills.<br />I don&#39;t believe a test is what is needed to fix issues in the NCO Corps. If you reflect, the NCOs in a unit that enforce standards, instill discipline, and train their Soldiers to standard, are frequently viewed as assholes, overbearing, &quot;old school,&quot; and other terms of endearment (SGT AR 670-1) not only by their peers, but sometimes by the COC and even the NCOSC. Yet, when the unit needs something done right, that&#39;s who gets the tasking. Their Soldiers likely have the best PT scores, actually get supervised, and may even have more discipline and espirit-de-corps.<br />That&#39;s what needs to change. NCOs, every single one, needs to know the standards, demonstrate the standards, and enforce the standards. You don&#39;t have to smoke Soldiers, recommend Art 15s for every minor offense, or be oppressive. You have to be present, set the example, build and mentor, get your folks awards, schools and promotions, and continuously learn and improve.<br />I will acknowledge that every generation of NCOs has complained that the one behind them is less disciplined than they were. I suggest that they&#39;re about the same, with 10-20% of NCOs being hard charging, example setting, leaders.

2019-02-13T01:01:37-05:00 2019-02-13T01:01:37-05:00 LCpl D R 4363728

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I think the Army should bring back Specialist rates back to E7 again for the soldier who wants to serve do his job but didn&#39;t want leadership responsibility

2019-02-13T03:34:48-05:00 2019-02-13T03:34:48-05:00 WO1 Private RallyPoint Member 4366853

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I am in the Air Force, and tested up to MSgt(E-7) and I can assure you people will do the same AR670-1 cites you refer to in those test. For instance, you will end up with someone making the test looking to get the &quot;aha, gotchu&quot; style questions. They are not always good questions, and we test 100 questions based on our job materials and 100 on the Air Force. If you don&#39;t know what our CMSAF favorite color is you might be missing a question. I do think the promotion boards can help rectify some things and have merit. I think as you pointed to, you tend to promote Type A personalities with in person boards, especially with the PT and weapons points reflecting that type of person.

2019-02-14T01:32:01-05:00 2019-02-14T01:32:01-05:00 SGT Private RallyPoint Member 4368473

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>PT test should not be for points. Either you meet standard or not, go/no-go block. Skills should be the most important part of a promotion, because it is the NCO who trains and leads the junior soldiers. How can an NCO train Joe if he has no idea what&#39;s going on?

2019-02-14T15:50:14-05:00 2019-02-14T15:50:14-05:00 Sgt Jude Eschete 4370995

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I say technical tests, but go have a look at the USMCs promotion system.

2019-02-15T15:49:05-05:00 2019-02-15T15:49:05-05:00 CSM Darieus ZaGara 4379042

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>The other argument is that it requires the chain of command to send an Army Soldier to a board, that COC works with them daily and knows if they have the technical skills required to perform their duties. It is more about their leadership being assessed, being able to reference is fine, all to often general knowledges needs to be called upon for the split second decisions made daily, a lack of knowledge (open book, multiple choice testing) does not ensure that sort of recall. Anyway, it is a good topic, and could go on for a long time. Thank you for your service.

2019-02-18T15:37:55-05:00 2019-02-18T15:37:55-05:00 2019-02-12T19:23:12-05:00