Should the military re-evaluate its "up or out" system and career timelines?

2015-06-16T09:53:48-04:00

I get that we have a system that encrourages forward progression and personal growth, and the whole system needs to move as one (if a MSG doesnt move on, an E-1 can not get promoted.
However, its so regimented - you will only get 3 looks (officers), you will get those 3 looks during these years only. If you fail to get promoted, you arent needed in any capacity.

Response by CDR Terry Boles made Jun 16 at 2015 11:05 AM

2015-06-16T11:05:48-04:00

I can speak from a point of view where the PHS is the ONLY service that does not have high-year-tenure or 2-3 and out. A PHS officer can retire at 30 years of active duty without any concerns of not being promoted and they will meet the annual promotion board every year until the officer decides to retire. This is no way diminishes the promotion percentage for each board and yes the higher your rank the fewer promoted. PHS promotion percentages are very similar to the Air Force, if that gives one a standard to look at. For my career field, 2-3 are promoted to 0-6 (captain) each board and there are a lot of 0-5s banging on the door. As a result of not having a means to have officers move on with their life using methods the other 6 services use (high-year-tenure, 2-3 and out) this creates a log jam with very few 0-6 billets for junior or senior officers to move into, especially so when an 0-6 is promoted on time around the 18-20 year mark and they hang around until 30-years of service. I am already hearing grumblings from 0-4s having a difficult time getting promoted to 0-5 and this chain reaction will continue down the ranks since there is very little movement within the ranks and there is no high-year-tenure or 2-3 and out. In essence, an 0-6 promoted on time at about 18-20 year mark can fill that 0-6 billet until they retire at 30 years and that is far to common within the PHS and this ripples down the ranks.

So, I would tread carefully before suggesting doing away with high-year-tenure or 2-3 and out because it would apply to all ranks, enlisted and officer alike. Service members could easily become disenfranchised with the promotion opportunities and decide the military is not a career for them simply due to lack of opportunity to move up the career ladder even more so. Some could argue only the best and brightest should get promoted, well that applies already and doing away with high-year-tenure or 2-3 and out, stagnation could become the new norm.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jun 16 at 2015 12:05 PM

2015-06-16T12:05:47-04:00

Unfortunately it's a pyramid shaped structure, which necessitates an "up or out" otherwise you end up with a logjam somewhere.

The problem is that "higher tenure" is based on Time in Service, not Time in Grade.

As an example, if you get promoted to E9 at 14 years, you sit there for 16 years. That is BAD for the pyramid structure. If you get promoted to E7 at 9 years, and your higher tenure is 22 years, that is equally bad, because you are waiting for E9s to get out so E8s can get promoted to open up slots for you to get promoted. This in turn affects everyone down the chain, especially when there are "feeder MOS" involved.

So how do correct this?

You remove people from logjam.

But you don't kick them out. Shift them to a different bucket.

As an example, once an E7+ hits 20 years Active Duty, does it matter if they are an Active Duty or Reservist on Active Duty? Basically your folks who want to continue serving, but are no longer "promotable" but are just riding time. They aren't going to get any more retirement %, just higher base pay from years in service, and rank.

I don't know the "legal" implications of doing this, but theoretically, it should open up promotions for active duty, by shifting non-promotables to serving positions (lower priority?). It should change the administrative burden tremendously.

Just my 2c.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Jun 17 at 2015 5:14 PM

2015-06-17T17:14:46-04:00

Personnel management is one of the greatest weaknesses of our military.

Response by MAJ Jim Steven made Jun 18 at 2015 8:50 AM

2015-06-18T08:50:43-04:00

I am not so much as saying that it is broken and absolutely needs to be changed...
just wondering if we sometimes put people out (because they didnt get promoted), to bring in new talent that is developing, not developed - unlike the person we just put out.

I would re look the mindset that not getting promoted to one rank makes you useless at your current rank - and no one, anywhere, needs you to do anything.

it also creates an environment where there is no room for error in your own career management - to the point, you need to tell the Army where you need to go, not necessarily go where the Army needs you "no thanks on your 01A assignment, its not good for my career..."

Response by SGM Omer Dalton made May 7 at 2020 10:41 PM

2020-05-07T22:41:32-04:00

I believe a good performing service member should not be forced out. A great company commander may become a below average major, however why waste a great commander by pushing him or her out. This holds for any grade. The trouble is stagnant promotions also push good serving members out so it is a catch 22. During my time in the army I saw good folks passed over and wondered why while I saw some promoted I felt were not deserving. One of the problems is the evaluation systems which is too subjective and very often inflated. A board just sees records and never knows the members they are passing judgement on. As an NCO I had to evaluate other NCOs and as a senior DA civilian I evaluated officers up to the LTC level. I had to make a choice to be objective and tell it like I felt it was or take a chance on damaging good member’s career. Also what most folks don’t under is the congressional mandated end strength the services has to deal with which is driven by the budget. There is a lot that has to be taken into consideration when making promotion policy and execution. Bottom line I don’t like the idea of forcing good service members out but not smart enough to figure out how to change things.

Response by SGT John Ball made Feb 28 at 2022 3:04 PM

2022-02-28T15:04:29-05:00

Some people are born to lead and most people are awesome at their jobs. Those individuals should be allowed to serve as a career SPC instead of having to get out at their RCP date. That would make sense, but the Army isn't to big on that. They would very much rather promote someone up to their level of incompetence.