Posted on Feb 12, 2019
SPC Human Resources Clerk (S1)
11.5K
89
21
7
7
0
I'm sure this is already a dead horse topic, but indulge me, I constantly hear the phrase "we promote based on potential" 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.

As a 42A, I sit in on these said boards and watch as countless SM'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'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.

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?
Edited >1 y ago
Avatar feed
See Results
Responses: 12
Votes
  • Newest
  • Oldest
  • Votes
LTC Jason Mackay
8
8
0
In the past, we had SQT testing that contributed to the centralized board decision to'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'if they didn'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.

I think the issues you discuss don'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'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.
(8)
Comment
(0)
SPC Human Resources Clerk (S1)
SPC (Join to see)
>1 y
Sir,
Great insight and input. I wasn't aware of the SQT Testing you mentioned, however, I think with the Army's new MLI standard, "Soldiers will go to the board once they hit their primary zones" is a bust. I have seen people within my own shop, that are borderline incapable/incompetent get the go ahead to advance. Its a scary thought, but we have all had toxic/ineffective leadership, and while it may not just at the fault of the board, its certainly is an issue needing to be addressed in my eyes.

Thats also not to say other branches dont have bad members advancing cuz theyre great at taking these tests. Like I said below, I feel there should be some form of integration with the standard set in place. Boards, with testing in some form or another. Im aware everything looks better on paper, I just hate to think theres a better way out there and we just havent figured out what it is yet.
(2)
Reply
(0)
LTC Jason Mackay
LTC Jason Mackay
>1 y
SPC (Join to see) - the system depends on people doing their jobs at all levels. The compulsory board is an over reaction to in years past where the NCO channel would hold on to people and not prepare them because they didn't feel they were ready. "Ready" meant different things to different people. Knowing their job. Memorizing a bunch of stuff. Trying them out as Assistant Squad Leaders etc. a sharp Specialist that hadn't gone full Sham Shield was a hot commodity. Many I remember from my PL era are Warrants now.

There were also Specialists who,loved being a specialist. So much so, they'd ride right up to their RCP without even a passing thought of boarding for promotion until the last possible minute followed by a painful sprint for PLDC (now WLC?) We are also only reenlisting "the best" so it's forcing people to "develop".
(3)
Reply
(0)
SPC Human Resources Clerk (S1)
SPC (Join to see)
>1 y
LTC Jason Mackay Understood Sir. I just feel there's a better way, it'll never be perfect, but there is always room for improvement. Ive brought it up at AG Week to the HRC CSM's including HRC's CSM of Promotions. He politely declined to speak on the subject, saying he wasn't really able to speak on it, which in my eyes as a prying SPC, that its at least in the talks of a possibility.

I'm more or less just curious as to what some of here on RP think about it, hence the survey poll Sir.
(2)
Reply
(0)
LTC Jason Mackay
LTC Jason Mackay
>1 y
SPC (Join to see) the system can’t be on auto pilot
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SPC Infantryman
5
5
0
Edited >1 y ago
It should be both really, that'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'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?).

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 "move up or out" model with a more performance-based system that also removes the TiG/TiS requirements.
(5)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
CSM Information Operations Planner
5
5
0
It's not clear to me how a technical proficiency test will address the issue you're identifying, that Soldiers who are "shut ins, introverted personnel who don't seem to have the social skills, to hold a conversation, let alone guide soldiers beneath them" are getting promoted. Will these test be assessing social skills and the ability to talk to others better than boards do?
(5)
Comment
(0)
LTC Jason Mackay
LTC Jason Mackay
>1 y
My point as well....just choose C on the test...
(3)
Reply
(0)
SPC Human Resources Clerk (S1)
SPC (Join to see)
>1 y
CSM (Join to see) SGM, I understand, I addressed it below in my comment to open the discussion regarding my initial question above, I guess I should've been clearer in the OP. I usually wont post a discussion on here without first stating where I stand in the comments to start said discussion.

To clarify, I feel a SM isn't ready to be promoted until they HAVE led peers, had soldiers beneath them. Could be a squad leader, or team leader, or being the go to E4 in their respective shop. Its not just being good at your job, correct. Its being able to lead and mold soldiers into future leaders first. I feel this isn't addressed in most of the boards Ive recorded for. A SPC needs experience, guiding, counseling and being a leader before they become one officially as an NCO in my opinion.

This is something that can be addressed in the board, the testing should focus on the job aspect of the process, your technical skills within your MOS. While the board should focus on your leadership abilities, and the intangibles of being a well rounded soldier/NCO. Handling Soldiers problems, emergencies and guiding them to better both themselves and their unit. I feel that should be the focus of the board, gauging that potential we say we promote off of, if that makes sense.

I hope that clears up my views on the question at hand SGM.
(2)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
Avatar feed
Should the Army use the same sort of promotion system as other branches?
See Results
1SG Retired
4
4
0
I believe the Army system is workable.
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'm not certain their system yields better results.
Air Force exam appears to include both technical and military knowledge subject areas.
I'm not convinced those are better tools to select folks for promotion.
I test well, very well. I know others who don'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't lead a team to the Class 6 store if it was in sight.
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.
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.
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'm certain they have similar complaints of NCOs being promoted "too early," or with poor leadership skills.
I don'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, "old school," 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'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.
That's what needs to change. NCOs, every single one, needs to know the standards, demonstrate the standards, and enforce the standards. You don'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.
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're about the same, with 10-20% of NCOs being hard charging, example setting, leaders.
(4)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SSG Recruiter
4
4
0
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.
(4)
Comment
(0)
SPC Human Resources Clerk (S1)
SPC (Join to see)
>1 y
I'm glad you agree SGT, and I see what you mean about points, they can get crazy. And it can be tough to get put into the schools, trainings, and programs to become competitive with our peers. However, with the PT Test/Weapons Card and a Degree any soldier can build a fair amount of points, then its just a matter of maxing correspondence and getting those course mentioned earlier in this comment in my honest opinion. Its hard, but points are always attainable with enough push and support from your superiors.
(2)
Reply
(0)
SSG Recruiter
SSG (Join to see)
>1 y
You make very good points I commend you on your way of thinking brother. SPC (Join to see)
(2)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
WO1 Ierw Student
4
4
0
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.
(4)
Comment
(0)
SPC Human Resources Clerk (S1)
SPC (Join to see)
>1 y
As they should, kills me to see the incidents where a chopper goes down due to someones gross negligence. Not always the case, but makes me sick to my stomach knowing someone got put in that position, that should've never been there to begin with.
(2)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SPC Human Resources Clerk (S1)
2
2
0
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't make me proficient in my MOS or show promise as a leader of soldiers.

NCO's are leader of soldiers first and foremost, and I don'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.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
CSM Darieus ZaGara
1
1
0
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.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
Sgt Jude Eschete
1
1
0
I say technical tests, but go have a look at the USMCs promotion system.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SGT Military Police
1
1
0
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's going on?
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
WO1 Ncoic, Water And Fuels Maintenance
1
1
0
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 "aha, gotchu" 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'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.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
LCpl D R
1
1
0
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't want leadership responsibility
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.