Should we bring back MOS testing as part of a promotion criteria?

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 16 Feb 2014 07:53:00 -0500

So I've heard that a long time ago an evaluation of your MOS-competency, in addition to the board, was a part of getting promoted. I strongly feel something similar should come back. Being good at pt or knowing the regs are great but actually being knowledgeable in your MOS would seem to be just as important if not more so. Does the future look like it may return to this?

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Feb 17 at 2014 11:09 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:09:15 -0500

Well, we can certainly hope so...

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 18 at 2014 7:22 PM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 18 Feb 2014 19:22:50 -0500

I have a unique perspective on this issue having come out of the Air Force. For us to get promoted we had the SKT (Skill Knowledge Test) and the PFE (Promotion Fitness Exam). The SKT test was a more in depth test on your CDCs (Career Development Course), these CDC taught how things were to work in my case it taught me all the controlling offices for satellite communications.
The problem that we had was if you study hard and scored pretty well on the test you could get promoted. So you had people that could do well on test but could not troubleshoot a faulty modem to save their lives. I do agree that there should be a skills test in order to get promoted and it should be a basis for if a Soldier goes to the board or not.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 3 at 2014 10:57 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 03 Mar 2014 22:57:48 -0500

I totally agree, MSG Cunningham is correct, it was called the Skills Qualification Test (SQT). If you did poorly as an E-4(P) or E-5(P) you were removed from the promotion list.

I believe that it should be brought back. I understand that some do not do well on written tests but then there can be a hands on portion as well.

The last decade has seen some poor quality getting promoted. Some too quickly and without the proper experience. You can read all day long but nothing cam replace time in doing a particular skill.

Response by SSG Ed Mikus made Aug 6 at 2014 5:46 AM

SSG Ed Mikus — Wed, 06 Aug 2014 05:46:50 -0400

please, please, please bring it back! im sick of Sr NCO's who dont know anything about their MOS making decisions that are counter productive and criple the mission.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 6 at 2014 9:34 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 06 Aug 2014 21:34:46 -0400

When I joined the Army in 73 we had what was called Annual MOS Testing. It was annual for your primary MOS and biannually for secondary MOS. It included both written and hands-on testing. Testing began at the rank of PFC and higher. The test was covered under AR 611-205. Back then testing was very competitive as it had great bearing on local promotion boards. Back then it was unusual to have a hands-on componet during the Battalion/Squadron promotion board. Depended on the CSM President of the board.
Anyway, the hands-on portion to the MOS test went away and was eventually replaced with SQT. I much perferred the old MOS test (as a leader) with the hands-on application. As many can tell you how to do something and then are unable to perform it when required. However, opinions vary as we all know.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Feb 24 at 2015 8:58 AM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 08:58:09 -0500

SGT Ronalyn Holland,
Yes years ago it was called a SQT, Skill Qualification Test. And yes the scores were a very important part of getting promoted and leadership positions. I really think the army went wrong when these test were taken away.
I remember as a 12B, even when I was issued a calculator, for the SQT I was required to do all my demo formulas by hand. This was to insure I knew how to do it because a calculator might not work and the mission must be completed.

Too bad it was done away with.

Response by SGT James Elphick made Feb 24 at 2015 6:16 PM

SGT James Elphick — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 18:16:58 -0500

YES! So much yes! I feel this would be beneficial for many reasons. I even believe it would help with retention, but not just retention, the retention of good soldiers because they could move up and be promoted based on skill and merit, not because they showed off at the right place and right time or study a few basic questions for the board. I can think of numerous leaders in my unit who would not have made it very far and the discouraged soldiers who had to serve under them would know they could either pass them or they would be weeded out for failure to keep up with their MOS.

Response by MSgt Stephanie McCalister made Feb 24 at 2015 6:20 PM

MSgt Stephanie McCalister — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 18:20:02 -0500

In my opinion from slightly outside the box, it should be.

As an Air Force Flight Engineer, I was required to be very up on my knowledge of my career & my job skills as pertaining to my AFSC (MOS) as well as my weapons system/platform.

Being a reservist brought it even more to the forefront, as people often thought of us as 'weekend warriors' .. my response? I flew & was on duty just as much as (at times, more than) some of my active duty counterparts, because frankly, would you trust yourself to an aircrew, if they only trained two days a month & two weeks a year, to fly the aircraft whether it be in peace time or war?

I had to test not only at least twice a year (simulators & aircraft check rides), but often we had unannounced check rides even out 'in the system' as spot checks, which included more than our weapons knowledge, they also checked our technical knowledge 'back to basics'. I was expected to be an expert on my weapons system and everything to do with my mission.

My job & leadership skills were more than being part of an aircrew, as I was also a SNCO with unit duties on the ground, including administrative as well as training. It was integral to our squadron that for us to have cohesiveness & efficiency as a team when flying, we were a solid unit on the ground as well.

Having an indepth knowlege of your skill craft, should be an integral part of a service member's core training. Not as in high school where you pass a test, make a grade, & then can forget the subject! The safety of others depends upon each of us, lack of knowledge in future leadership is negligence of the worst kind, again, in my opinion.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 11 at 2015 9:47 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 11 Apr 2015 09:47:48 -0400

I have been tested the past 2 years and going on my 3rd year this year to promote to the rank of E5 in the USAF. Regrettably i have not made it obviously due to one particular reason. I for one have a hard time studying for a length of time and remembering what the books have in them. I have a job that allows me to be creative and learn with my hands and use my mind on a job site. I also think on my feet to figure out and solve problems to resolve an issue that arises within my career field, what is my carrer field you ask, that would be structures. As many of you know we are hard working individuals that sometimes doesn't have the same recognition as others cause we are precived as just blue color workers and our job isnt as important as yours may be. While I agree with that statement our job may not affect any mission at times. But when it comes to resolving and figure out problems engineers are among the best in that aspect because without us the nice offices you have wouldn't have that professional look, your heater may not work making you freeze during the winter months and the air conditioning may not keep your office cool during the summer months. We have electricians that ensures you have the power source required to run your equipment to complete your mission, we have plumbers that takes care of all the nasty jobs that most would feel that are too good to still even do at their own residence. We also have the dirtboys, while that have equipment that does alot of the manual labor when they can't use that equipment they work very hard doing manual labor, from any where to fixing fences keeping those that shouldn't come in from entering to repairs to parking lots so your not tripping in gaps in the asphalt or driving in pot holes ruinning your vehicles. And then for my job, we do carpentry, welding, drywall, tile,concrete, roofing, cabinetry and finish work, flooring as well as maintain personal doors, safes, windows, runways and garage doors. We have a variety of jobs that expects us to fix problems and think on our feet. My problem along with others like me is that im a hands-on and visual learner. I have books called Career development Courses (CDCs) while some information can be helpful to refer to, alot of it can be avoided as the material is outdated in some aspects. Our jobs require us to be thinkers and resolve issues we tend to learn easier and better ways to do things than what the book may tell us to do a repair. But when it comes to testing i have an issue with that. I know how to repair an issue i dont need a book test to make sure that I know my job. While testing my brain acts differently than while i am performing a task. We get tested on our knowledge of the career we are in, but answer me this, how can one be accurately tested in a hands-on career field if the test is out of a book. Our job isnt full of book smart people. I for one aren't amoung that group of book smart people in my career. I may not be book smart but i do know how to do my job and i do it very well might i add. While we have some that are book smart but can't seem to come to terms with how to do the job but yet they get promoted without being able to do a job in the field. But lets promote him because he tested high on his test, you sir did not so you will not be promoted although you can accomplish the task given to you. There will always be those that disagree with this but i would like to see the option to be tested on skill and not the book. Here is how i would have the task set up, we have more than one career field in our group of maintainers give us a task to perform and complete and grade upon that aspect have a joint career test, here is the reasoning what i do affects the other career, so working together helps support the mission and task while also building good leadership skills by working together to resolve issues to accomplish a task

Response by SGT John Wesley made Apr 11 at 2015 9:51 AM

SGT John Wesley — Sat, 11 Apr 2015 09:51:00 -0400

I've been gone too long... Why did they remove SQT's? I can't imagine promoting someone within their MOS without proving they have the skills within that MOS.... SMH....

Response by SPC William Bryan made Jul 24 at 2017 10:44 PM

SPC William Bryan — Mon, 24 Jul 2017 22:44:48 -0400

Yes, without testing how can you find out if soldiers are qualified to do there job. This will also keep the best of the best in the positions they need to be in. It should be the biggest part of the promotion board.

Response by MSgt Mark Bucher made Aug 21 at 2017 7:45 PM

MSgt Mark Bucher — Mon, 21 Aug 2017 19:45:52 -0400

The Army doesn't currently do that? WTFO! How can you determine if a troop can actually perform their' job? I knew lots of people who could do all sorts of things but NOT their' job. Fortunately, the AFQT weeded those idiots out.

Response by SGT Mike Taylor made Aug 21 at 2017 10:58 PM

SGT Mike Taylor — Mon, 21 Aug 2017 22:58:51 -0400

Priorities have shifted between the drawdown and the hollow Army that so many warned about. Absolutely, priorities should be shifted towards MOS competency over a pretty record and college degree.

When a infantry Staff Sergeant (11B or 11C) has a CIB, EIB, PH, 4-5 combat tours, and two additional skill badges...however is passed over for a fellow infantryman that has perhaps one combat tour, but has tons of staff time in S3 or in Korea, Irwin, Honor Guard, and/or Polk and a college degree...you would think combat experience would matter more. This is tested in garrison (outside of EIB) in the field, however it is difficult to quantify on an evaluation that one individual is "better" than another.

While you are in an entirely different CMF, it is telling where priories are in the modern military. Being skilled at your MOS should be priority #1.

Response by MSG Robert Jenkins Jr. made Aug 22 at 2017 3:50 AM

MSG Robert Jenkins Jr. — Tue, 22 Aug 2017 03:50:38 -0400

MOS-SQT was THE one item that, not only kept everyone honest, but also served as an evaluation tool for all ranks. It also allowed the leaders at all levels in their units to evaluate where their strengths and weaknesses were, as a unit, when coupled with additional training events (STXs, FTXs, etc.) (The ARTEP was not to be screwed with!!) This also placed emphasis on senior leaders ensuring that training was being completed (to the required standards). Leaders weren't exempt and had to know their level as well. I was sad to see these go and wish that they could reinstitute the program(s). It truly was a great tool, for separating who knew their jobs and duties, among other things.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 22 at 2017 7:49 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Aug 2017 07:49:35 -0400

Hey I am for it, I can attest, the unit I was cross leveled into had another 92L and he did not know jack about his MOS never bothered or wanted to get up to date and would bitch about the LTC wanting us to actually do our MOS, he made the promotion list and once I was transferred out opening up the SFC slot he got promoted. Progressing thru the ranks is all about schools not about how well you know your job.

Response by SSG Damon Alexander made Aug 22 at 2017 8:05 AM

SSG Damon Alexander — Tue, 22 Aug 2017 08:05:14 -0400

When they phased out the SQT, it was a sad day for the military, as I served with an individual that I shall not name, that was a complete idiot, did not know his job, nor could perform it, but was a PT stud, and he wound up making SGM...all by making 300+ on PT tests, and kissing ass...And I understand that the Final year of the SQT, he FAILED IT. You know whom you are, as you were an Engineer...I on the other hand was not a PT stud, always middle of the pack...260s to 280s, but never, EVER failed an SQT, a true measurement of your MOS knowledge.

Response by Sgt Wayne Wood made Aug 22 at 2017 9:59 AM

Sgt Wayne Wood — Tue, 22 Aug 2017 09:59:18 -0400

Wow! Why did they ever get rid of it? Must have hurt someone's feelings to take the test...

Response by CSM Richard StCyr made Aug 22 at 2017 12:15 PM

CSM Richard StCyr — Tue, 22 Aug 2017 12:15:30 -0400

The Army stopped doing SQT (Skills qualification testing) because it cost money to prepare and field the test annually.
In the form I first encountered the test had hands on and written portions, then the hands on portion was eliminated due to the cost burden in the early 80's. The written version followed suit late 80's early 90's. It was a good tool for evaluating someone's general MOS knowledge. The sniveling was ear splitting from many who decried "book knowledge" (read that; those with poor reading comprehension).

Response by SGT Christopher Lachcik made Aug 22 at 2017 1:21 PM

SGT Christopher Lachcik — Tue, 22 Aug 2017 13:21:14 -0400

It would be nice. I have never been asked a question pertaining to my MOS (31B) at a promotion board or any other boards. It'd be nice.

Response by CW2 Ernest Krutzsch made Aug 22 at 2017 9:16 PM

CW2 Ernest Krutzsch — Tue, 22 Aug 2017 21:16:23 -0400

No, what should be done is soldiers should be promoted on ability, there are real good test takers that can't do squat. Being able to answer questions about your MOS is different than doing your MOS..I would support this only if there was a written test that counted 20-30% and the rest was Practical Hands on test to go with it!

Response by SSgt Bob Mobbs made Aug 23 at 2017 1:06 AM

SSgt Bob Mobbs — Wed, 23 Aug 2017 01:06:56 -0400

When I was assigned to my first Permanent Party duty station in 1972 I worked under an E-5 who had 18 years in. He made E-5 in under 5 years (under the old board system) but when the AF went to a written test system he didn't do well. He could sit down with you and explain the most intricate details of how to do his job and he did it every single day without making mistakes or having to be supervised. He never received a PFE score under 9 in his career.

But, sit him at a desk put paper and a pencil in front of him and he froze. He was forced out at 20 and the AF lost a great man who brought knowledge, pride and devotion to his job. Testing is good but it shouldn't be the be all and end all of fitness for promotion. The person and their ability to do their job needs to be given more weight in the selection process.

Response by PO3 David Davis made Aug 24 at 2017 12:17 AM

PO3 David Davis — Thu, 24 Aug 2017 00:17:39 -0400

I know in the Navy we took test for promotion and we either passed the test but not advanced because they met their quota and you didn't test on enough. Not sure what the Navy does today

Response by 1SG Michael Farrell made Aug 24 at 2017 7:48 PM

1SG Michael Farrell — Thu, 24 Aug 2017 19:48:58 -0400

It's odd that the Army decided against keeping the SQT requirement in promotions. Problem with the testing was normally that the material tested wasn't current, and that made tests invalid statistically at times. Oddly, anybody who's ever taught a class and discovers that the test material is wrong would know how to fix that. I think we just have a lot of very inflexible fools in certain leadership positions. The other services, last I checked, all paid attention to proficiency for promotion. In fact, it used to be the basic requirement for enlisted promotions south of chief back in the day for the Navy.

Response by PO2 Erick Busch made Aug 17 at 2018 6:20 PM

PO2 Erick Busch — Fri, 17 Aug 2018 18:20:26 -0400

Yes ... you dont know your job ...dont anvance ,,,,

Response by SGT Nick Webber made Aug 17 at 2018 6:36 PM

SGT Nick Webber — Fri, 17 Aug 2018 18:36:26 -0400

It should be based on your MOS. Too many people that got away from their MOS, and moved to company needs bypassed more capable soldiers to the nco rank. This is because they sat in front of a computer and could knock out correspondence courses all day, while their counterparts are out turning wrenches actually doing the job. It is an unfair system.

Response by SGT Larry Reed made Aug 18 at 2018 9:34 AM

SGT Larry Reed — Sat, 18 Aug 2018 09:34:28 -0400

I joined the infantry in 1979. We had the SQT tests. Must have been a reason for the change?

Response by MSG Robert Ford made May 10 at 2019 11:22 AM

MSG Robert Ford — Fri, 10 May 2019 11:22:06 -0400

That test was a waste money and time since the army was not keeping up with current MOS skills that why they ended the SQT Test... you E 7 and E8 failing those test cause the test materials was so old not what the NCO was doing today...

Response by SFC David Xanten made May 10 at 2019 11:42 AM

SFC David Xanten — Fri, 10 May 2019 11:42:29 -0400

I started MOS (11E) Testing in 62 (?) as an E4, I never fail to get Pro Pay. If I remember correctly you had to score in the upper 2/3rds of the MOS in order to get an additional $30 a month. Once I got my secondary MOS (11D) I also scored high enough to be in the upper 2/3rds. I always thought it was a good measure of proficiency and I never thought the Army should get rid of it because of that. I do know that in 1962 my Battalion was testing the Expert Armor Badge, it was never approve because of the Infantry Board didn't want to make their award less special. Only 5 people in the Battalion passed the test, which was very thorough and measured every aspect of being a tanker by testing hands on map reading, weapons field stripping, marksmanship with tank weapons and maintenance of the tanks. Passing it got me promoted to E5, but more important, it got me to become a better tanker.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made May 10 at 2019 11:59 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 10 May 2019 11:59:23 -0400

The replies in here are the reason or was phased out “knowing nothing” about your MOS is a matter of opinion that wasn’t supported by evidence and should be treated as so

Response by SSG Damon Alexander made May 10 at 2019 12:17 PM

SSG Damon Alexander — Fri, 10 May 2019 12:17:00 -0400

Oh I absolutely agree! I was an E5(P) in panama, had an E6 squad leader come in, he FAILED his SQT, and on top of that Absolutely COULD NOT perform his job! Unfortunately he wound up getting promoted to E9, all because he kissed ass, and was a PT Stud. Me solid 270s, yet could build anything...WTF

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made May 10 at 2019 12:20 PM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 10 May 2019 12:20:20 -0400

As an nco knowing your mos is part of your job. Since I became sqd ldr, I have done very little in the ways of my mos & more leading soldiers, directing, training, etc. Most mos are simple easy jobs that doesn't take any real thought to do. Nco must know their mos but also need to learn how to lead. Knowing your mos helps with that but isn't biggest part of a leader. Company commanders are often not mosq in the field that their unit assignment has. My CO is a artillery officer in a company of 88M & Mechanics. So the mos part is honestly a small part of your job as a leader. Not the end all be all.

But also you should be able to know how your mos functions or works in order to lead troops in that mos but remember you lead more than 1 mos.

Response by SFC Francisco Rosario made May 10 at 2019 2:58 PM

SFC Francisco Rosario — Fri, 10 May 2019 14:58:11 -0400

I remember having to take the SQT when i was a young private in the 82nd. As an Infantryman you had to pass it in order to be able to qualify for the EIB testing. I think these exams are greatly needed after so many years of the "War on Terror". They should institue them for promotion to E-5 and above.

Response by SSG Mark Matteson made May 11 at 2019 9:10 AM

SSG Mark Matteson — Sat, 11 May 2019 09:10:25 -0400

Sat test score of 80 or above meant you could be promoted, 79 or below meant you stayed at your current rank

Response by SSG Mark Matteson made May 11 at 2019 9:11 AM

SSG Mark Matteson — Sat, 11 May 2019 09:11:14 -0400

SQTTest I meant

Response by SFC David Reid, M.S, PHR, SHRM-CP, DTM made Aug 2 at 2019 10:58 PM

SFC David Reid, M.S, PHR, SHRM-CP, DTM — Fri, 02 Aug 2019 22:58:26 -0400

This should return ASAP!

Response by SP5 Gary Smith made Aug 6 at 2019 9:10 AM

SP5 Gary Smith — Tue, 06 Aug 2019 09:10:25 -0400

Why did they stop? Any guesses?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 6 at 2019 2:02 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 06 Aug 2019 14:02:58 -0400

I work with a MSG who has only been in the Army for around 14 years. Yes she is a real nice lady but there is no way she should be an E8

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 7 at 2019 10:47 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 07 Aug 2019 10:47:49 -0400

a board similar to the sgt morales board should be the board part.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 7 at 2019 11:37 AM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 07 Aug 2019 11:37:24 -0400

They still do this in the navy and it’s a great idea. While working a joint mission with them I saw a E-5 going for their E-6 that required a report on a specific subject in their MOS.

Response by SP5 Hank Vandenburgh PhD made Aug 7 at 2019 11:52 AM

SP5 Hank Vandenburgh PhD — Wed, 07 Aug 2019 11:52:49 -0400

My MOS was messed up by transferring combat arms NCOs into it at the senior level in the 60s. If you were well-trained they had it in for you.

Response by SGT Tim Finnell made Aug 7 at 2019 1:47 PM

SGT Tim Finnell — Wed, 07 Aug 2019 13:47:42 -0400

This would not work these days. Their are a lot of jobs that work outside there MOS when deployed. Especially in rapid deployment units. So it would make those service members less qualified. I could see this working if we were not in a time of conflict but not at this point in time.

Response by SPC Jonathan Fretwell made Aug 7 at 2019 3:59 PM

SPC Jonathan Fretwell — Wed, 07 Aug 2019 15:59:57 -0400

I knew soldiers who started in the infantry, than switched MOS to a more technical MOS like aviation. Naturally, soldiers who had less rank than the infantry soldier would have greater knowledge concerning Aviation. However, we also went on patrols when deployed. On those patrols, I followed the soldiers who were in a combat MOS. They kept us a live because they had the experience in that MOS. In the end, it’s about all around.

Response by Sgt Dan Catlin made Aug 7 at 2019 5:44 PM

Sgt Dan Catlin — Wed, 07 Aug 2019 17:44:59 -0400

Frankly, I think all branches should have testing for promotion, even at E-5 and below. Test in knowledge, and hands on competency in your MOS. Then test in combat knowledge and skills as well. PT scores should be evaluated too. And leadership skills. That should get you on the list. Then you'd need a recommendation and go before the boards if and/or when a billet opens up. Promote the best you have, when and where you need them.

Response by PO1 Danny Lewis made Aug 7 at 2019 6:16 PM

PO1 Danny Lewis — Wed, 07 Aug 2019 18:16:57 -0400

The navy still requires rating knowledge tests in order to promoted.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 7 at 2019 6:40 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 07 Aug 2019 18:40:50 -0400

Have a SQT, PME, and board score combined for an overall score.. Or Have the SQT and PME scores combined to qualify to get to the board. Then say you’re promoting 20% of SPC to SGT. The top 20% of SPC promote to SGT. Those who have been out of the career field for special duties, Commander Support Staff, etc (Where you aren’t performing your typical duties for your MOS) for 1-2 years have them take the PME score and double it in place of the SQT score.

Response by SFC Rick Walton made Aug 7 at 2019 9:26 PM

SFC Rick Walton — Wed, 07 Aug 2019 21:26:13 -0400

I may be wrong. I believe the reason these went away was because of Soldiers working outside of their MOS. I was an Ammo guy for 4 years before I really had any Ammo MOS jobs. I worked in a 2,4&7 warehouse, I worked in the orderly room and my final "job" was driving for the commander. I think the SQT should definitely be brought back. If a NCO is not motivated to stay current on their job, even when working another duty position, perhaps that is not the best person to be an NCO. No one is more Professional than I. Competence is my watchword.

Response by SP5 Dennis Loberger made Aug 7 at 2019 11:07 PM

SP5 Dennis Loberger — Wed, 07 Aug 2019 23:07:27 -0400

This was true for us in 1973. I appeared in front of an E5 board. Demonstrating knowledge in your MOS should be a part of the determination of whether or not you get promoted

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 8 at 2019 7:22 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 08 Aug 2019 07:22:49 -0400

Personally Almost every nco I’ve worked with that knew their job was a great nco

Response by PO1 Pete Rodriguez made Aug 8 at 2019 10:28 AM

PO1 Pete Rodriguez — Thu, 08 Aug 2019 10:28:52 -0400

Navy has testing in each rate(Mos)