8
8
0
Here's a problem I've always had with the Army. Not sure if the other forces do it too, but here goes. I don't understand their thinking of 'move up or get out.' They force people to be leaders. Even now at a time when it is evident that quick promotions are hurting the Army leadership. Even though self improvement is a good thing, it doesn't mean everyone wants to be the one in charge. When I compare this line of thinking to the civilian world I believe the civilian world is doing it right. If a soldier or employee is happy where they are at, then let them stay in that position. If they look for a promotion then promote them.
So lets compare. We have a soldier who is a mechanic and a civilian who works at the local repair shop. They both like their job. They both know their job. And they both are happy right were they are. Neither are looking to run the shop. They both just want to turn wrenches and be thankful for their paycheck. Now the boss comes by and says, 'Hey we have an opening for promotion.' They both say 'Thanks, I'm good where I'm at. The civilian gets to keep their job and the soldier gets forced out. The civilian company keeps a trained employee while the military looses one, who they paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to train, feed and house. The civilian company doesn't have to hire a new employee, while the military does, which costs even more money.
I could never figure the Army reasoning out. So will someone please try to explain the benefits of this. There will always be somebody who wants to wear the crown. Let them. And let the others do what they want to do. Thanks and have a good one.
So lets compare. We have a soldier who is a mechanic and a civilian who works at the local repair shop. They both like their job. They both know their job. And they both are happy right were they are. Neither are looking to run the shop. They both just want to turn wrenches and be thankful for their paycheck. Now the boss comes by and says, 'Hey we have an opening for promotion.' They both say 'Thanks, I'm good where I'm at. The civilian gets to keep their job and the soldier gets forced out. The civilian company keeps a trained employee while the military looses one, who they paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to train, feed and house. The civilian company doesn't have to hire a new employee, while the military does, which costs even more money.
I could never figure the Army reasoning out. So will someone please try to explain the benefits of this. There will always be somebody who wants to wear the crown. Let them. And let the others do what they want to do. Thanks and have a good one.
Posted in these groups: 
Promotions
Promotions
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 15
10
10
0
SSG Adam Reed
What you described is exactly what is wrong with the Army. You have young Soldiers and NCOs that think of the service as a job. They don't think of themselves as specialists or sergeants, they think of themselves as E-4s and E-5s. It's just a paycheck not a responsibility.
Developing leaders is Army doctrine. Like COL Jean (John) F. B. said, one needs to be prepared to take charge and lead other Soldiers regardless of MOS. If you are a great mechanic the Army wants you to teach others to be great mechanics. If that mechanic remains stagnant he/she is holding a position that prevents others from moving up that want to lead.
What you described is exactly what is wrong with the Army. You have young Soldiers and NCOs that think of the service as a job. They don't think of themselves as specialists or sergeants, they think of themselves as E-4s and E-5s. It's just a paycheck not a responsibility.
Developing leaders is Army doctrine. Like COL Jean (John) F. B. said, one needs to be prepared to take charge and lead other Soldiers regardless of MOS. If you are a great mechanic the Army wants you to teach others to be great mechanics. If that mechanic remains stagnant he/she is holding a position that prevents others from moving up that want to lead.
(10)
(0)
Cpl Michael Strickler
CSM (Join to see), I agree with the majority of your response on principle, however simply being content with one’s status is not a sign of seeing the service as a job. Consider this mechanic requesting deployment on a continuous basis, teaching those in his shop the trade he knows, being the first to raise his hand, etc. He does it for the pride in his work and the benefit it has as a cog in the wheel of our great military. I would take that service member over someone itching for advancement any day, because I know he is more concerned with his mission than the next stripe (and usually pay increase).
One of the many reasons I left the service was because one of the senior leaders in my unit told us that our positions were exactly a job and nothing more. That it was a job like any other. He was not there to be a part of the tradition and history that made the United States Marine Corps what it is today. He is one of the many counter examples of how simply wishing for advancement does not help keep the values and esprit de corps alive.
It is about the individual’s pride, not their desire for more power, stripes, money, position, etc. that determines their worth in our services. One of my biggest pros to staying in was being the guy that makes it to the top and has the ability to make change and bring back some of that tradition. Toughing it out for thirty years or whatever so that future generations could benefit instead of letting it spiral away and saying it is not my problem.
Part of me feels ashamed for getting out and “leaving my men to the hounds” but having seen so many great Marines pushed out and so many average Marines propelled into prominence (among other things) I felt alone in my desire to bring back the “old core.”
One of the many reasons I left the service was because one of the senior leaders in my unit told us that our positions were exactly a job and nothing more. That it was a job like any other. He was not there to be a part of the tradition and history that made the United States Marine Corps what it is today. He is one of the many counter examples of how simply wishing for advancement does not help keep the values and esprit de corps alive.
It is about the individual’s pride, not their desire for more power, stripes, money, position, etc. that determines their worth in our services. One of my biggest pros to staying in was being the guy that makes it to the top and has the ability to make change and bring back some of that tradition. Toughing it out for thirty years or whatever so that future generations could benefit instead of letting it spiral away and saying it is not my problem.
Part of me feels ashamed for getting out and “leaving my men to the hounds” but having seen so many great Marines pushed out and so many average Marines propelled into prominence (among other things) I felt alone in my desire to bring back the “old core.”
(1)
(0)
CSM (Join to see)
Cpl Michael Strickler
I agree with your philosophy but I think your answer is directed more toward specific "bad" leaders. If you truly are a subject matter expert and a good leader those traits should follow you throughout your career path. I understand it's not always the case and some leaders feel they are entitled because "they have been there, done that".
I still believe that you should always strive to better yourself, whether by earning rank in the military or climbing the corporate ladder in the civilian world. The more people you are responsible for, the more opportunity you have to share your knowledge and experience.
I agree with your philosophy but I think your answer is directed more toward specific "bad" leaders. If you truly are a subject matter expert and a good leader those traits should follow you throughout your career path. I understand it's not always the case and some leaders feel they are entitled because "they have been there, done that".
I still believe that you should always strive to better yourself, whether by earning rank in the military or climbing the corporate ladder in the civilian world. The more people you are responsible for, the more opportunity you have to share your knowledge and experience.
(1)
(0)
Cpl Michael Strickler
CSM (Join to see), I feel the same way. I also think that some people just are not "built" to lead. Some people may be great in their job or whatever, but may not be able to direct people for some reason. Just like someone may be a great leader, but have no clue what their people "do."
(1)
(0)
7
7
0
SSG Adam Reed
The first problem with your argument is that you are trying to compare the military with a civilian occupation. That could be pertinent if the military was an organization that was perpetually in a garrison environment, which, of course is not the case.
All military personnel need to be prepared to assume leadership roles, as pointed out by SMSGT Thomas. One never knows when the situation will require that mechanic you discussed to take charge and be responsible for other soldiers.
In addition, the military needs people who are motivated to better themselves, not just be content with the status quo. It is not enough to simply want to be the best mechanic.
Our military needs a constant stream of young, healthy soldiers in the lower ranks, not a bunch of older, less fit and unmotivated individuals.
People who have no ambition for advancement have no place in the military beyond their initial enlistment.
The first problem with your argument is that you are trying to compare the military with a civilian occupation. That could be pertinent if the military was an organization that was perpetually in a garrison environment, which, of course is not the case.
All military personnel need to be prepared to assume leadership roles, as pointed out by SMSGT Thomas. One never knows when the situation will require that mechanic you discussed to take charge and be responsible for other soldiers.
In addition, the military needs people who are motivated to better themselves, not just be content with the status quo. It is not enough to simply want to be the best mechanic.
Our military needs a constant stream of young, healthy soldiers in the lower ranks, not a bunch of older, less fit and unmotivated individuals.
People who have no ambition for advancement have no place in the military beyond their initial enlistment.
(7)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
I agree someone can be uninterested in promotions and still be motivated. My opinion is that the military is the wrong place for a person with that attitude.
I knew many outstanding young soldiers who had no interest in advancement and were simply in the Army to get money for college or to bide their time and get experience and veterans preference so they could be civilian law enforcement officers when they met the age requirements. Many of those, by the way, changed their minds and decided to stay in and became outstanding NCOs.
The military is unique and cannot be easily equated to civilian careers. I will stick to my opinion that soldiers who do want to progress in rank and responsibility have no place in the military after their initial enlistment.
I knew many outstanding young soldiers who had no interest in advancement and were simply in the Army to get money for college or to bide their time and get experience and veterans preference so they could be civilian law enforcement officers when they met the age requirements. Many of those, by the way, changed their minds and decided to stay in and became outstanding NCOs.
The military is unique and cannot be easily equated to civilian careers. I will stick to my opinion that soldiers who do want to progress in rank and responsibility have no place in the military after their initial enlistment.
(0)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
SGT David Schreiner
You make some very good points. Very well stated.
I totally agree with you. People should not be promoted who are not prepared to lead. That does not mean that people should not work towards getting promoted. I have stated in a great many promotion ceremonies that the promotion is not a reward for what an individual did in the past, but a recognition of what he/she can do in the future.
I, too, have seen way too many people promoted who were not ready. That is not good for that person and it is not good for the unit he/she leads. That is not to say that a leader must be fully prepared for that position; you can really never be until you are in it. With the help and support of others and personal dedication to learn every facet of the position, a motivated person can succeed.
You make some very good points. Very well stated.
I totally agree with you. People should not be promoted who are not prepared to lead. That does not mean that people should not work towards getting promoted. I have stated in a great many promotion ceremonies that the promotion is not a reward for what an individual did in the past, but a recognition of what he/she can do in the future.
I, too, have seen way too many people promoted who were not ready. That is not good for that person and it is not good for the unit he/she leads. That is not to say that a leader must be fully prepared for that position; you can really never be until you are in it. With the help and support of others and personal dedication to learn every facet of the position, a motivated person can succeed.
(0)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
SGT David Schreiner
Certainly not a waste of my time to read your well thought out logic and opinion. I agree with most of what you say.
Specialists and Warrant Officer ranks were created for exactly what you stated and, if not for the growth of the civilian support of the military, those ranks could have easily become just as you describe.
You make a compelling argument and I clearly see your point. I still believe, however, that the military is unique and the current policy best serves it. While I certainly agree there are exceptions to the rule, having a stagnant enlisted force of "technicians", not "leaders", is detrimental to military readiness. I guess I'm just "old school" about that.
Certainly not a waste of my time to read your well thought out logic and opinion. I agree with most of what you say.
Specialists and Warrant Officer ranks were created for exactly what you stated and, if not for the growth of the civilian support of the military, those ranks could have easily become just as you describe.
You make a compelling argument and I clearly see your point. I still believe, however, that the military is unique and the current policy best serves it. While I certainly agree there are exceptions to the rule, having a stagnant enlisted force of "technicians", not "leaders", is detrimental to military readiness. I guess I'm just "old school" about that.
(0)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
SGT David Schreiner
I hear you and understand, however, I disagree. A soldier is a soldier. If he/she wants to be like a civilian, so be it. We already have a service in the service, so to speak, and they are called DA/DOD civilian personnel and contractors.
I hear you and understand, however, I disagree. A soldier is a soldier. If he/she wants to be like a civilian, so be it. We already have a service in the service, so to speak, and they are called DA/DOD civilian personnel and contractors.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
If the person wants a job working for the Government, particularly in a support field as you describe, then he or she should leave the military and become a civil servant. Civil servants can work for many years, actually decades, at the same job never concerning themselves about promotion if they want. They get good pay and benefits, and guaranteed increases in pay for longevity. The Army and Air Force civilian employees I worked with were generally very good people who knew their jobs, did them well, had solid integrity, personal generosity, and sincerely cared about the military members and the country. There were exceptions, but they were a small percentage of the workforce. Good supervisors knew how to get rid of the folks who didn't our wouldn't do their job. (Yes, it is possible to fire a civil servant.) A good civilian or military supervisor will challenge good employees to grow in their career field, improve their skills and education, and encourage them to apply for positions in increased grade and responsibility. Ultimately it's up to the employees to pick up the challenge or not. If they don't, they can still count on the good pay, etc., mentioned above.
CSM Oldsen and others in this string addressed the need for leaders better than I can. It's the strongest case for up or out.
CSM Oldsen and others in this string addressed the need for leaders better than I can. It's the strongest case for up or out.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
I think this has something to do with combat related attrition. Imagine a Infantry platoon engaged in a fire fight and they lose their platoon Sargent. If the sarge goes down then the next guy needs to fill those boots and do so rather quickly. The platoon really can't just wait around for someone to want to take the lead. This factor seems to be a big part of Ranger School where they want to assess an individual's leadership skills. You want your troops vying for that opening. I think this philosophy coming out of combat arms has been picked up by the other non-combatant branches. While it makes more sense in the combat arms environment than non-combat arms in terms of quick replacement and the need to lead, as everyone in the Army is a soldier first I think this doctrine is a necessity as really all need to be able to take the reins.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
The British military figured this out long ago. You can easily be a 20 year mechanic in the UK. The US military seems to think that all of us need to be trained for CJCS, when in fact 99.9% of us will never make it to that level.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
I can see your argument. It definitely makes sense. I felt that way when my LT was taken away from us to be promoted and the new commander of a different unit. He always told us he was not big on the office side of things and he much more preferred being out with his Marines. Taking that promotion was one more step away from that.
But a counter argument is that our military is supposed to be the best. Being the best requires advancement and progress. Though that one mechanic may have been great at his job, the best even, he was only in a position to help the others in his shop. If he had taken on the responsibility of two shops (or how ever it would have worked out) he could have shared his experience with more and built up more just as good as him.
The big issue with the push for advancement in my opinion is that (i believe all services) allow someone to advance simply because of rank or time served. In my opinion the USMC loses a lot of great infantry leaders because they promote/ or put in leadership roles guys who come from security forces simply because they have more time served or a higher rank. Experience should be the deciding factor. Book knowledge only takes you so far and those Marines that get passed up chose to be on the front lines, not a cop.
*No offense to SFs intended*
But a counter argument is that our military is supposed to be the best. Being the best requires advancement and progress. Though that one mechanic may have been great at his job, the best even, he was only in a position to help the others in his shop. If he had taken on the responsibility of two shops (or how ever it would have worked out) he could have shared his experience with more and built up more just as good as him.
The big issue with the push for advancement in my opinion is that (i believe all services) allow someone to advance simply because of rank or time served. In my opinion the USMC loses a lot of great infantry leaders because they promote/ or put in leadership roles guys who come from security forces simply because they have more time served or a higher rank. Experience should be the deciding factor. Book knowledge only takes you so far and those Marines that get passed up chose to be on the front lines, not a cop.
*No offense to SFs intended*
(3)
(0)
Cpl Michael Strickler
That is true, but like I said above. If he his only i the position to help the few others in his shop his overall value is being wasted. If he is replaced by someone that may be a little less efficient, creative, knowledgeable, etc., but IS capable of spreading that experience to the masses it is more of a benefit for all.
The analogy I also kinda keep coming back to in my head is for the Marines; it doesn't fully fit, but hopefully you understand what I am trying to say.
Every Marine is a rifleman. You can be the best speech writer, mechanic, underwater basket weaver around, but if you can not shoot a rifle you do not help the entire organization exceed expectation.
To truly be a force to be reckoned with we need versatility, and if John only knows engines I cannot expect him to step up in a sticky situation, say we are on convoy and attacked, lose all the higher ups, he is next in line. All he needs to do is get the twelve trucks up and running, but he is not good at disseminating orders and wants to fix them all himself. There is no time for that. In this case I would take the 90th percentile with the ability to lead over the 99th percentile mechanic.
The analogy I also kinda keep coming back to in my head is for the Marines; it doesn't fully fit, but hopefully you understand what I am trying to say.
Every Marine is a rifleman. You can be the best speech writer, mechanic, underwater basket weaver around, but if you can not shoot a rifle you do not help the entire organization exceed expectation.
To truly be a force to be reckoned with we need versatility, and if John only knows engines I cannot expect him to step up in a sticky situation, say we are on convoy and attacked, lose all the higher ups, he is next in line. All he needs to do is get the twelve trucks up and running, but he is not good at disseminating orders and wants to fix them all himself. There is no time for that. In this case I would take the 90th percentile with the ability to lead over the 99th percentile mechanic.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Michael Strickler
I understand your point (peep my comment to the top response you have so far), but I guess my comment more borders on the scenario I mentioned. Say the convoy is attacked and everyone is running around without direction. Our mechanic is the most senior left and getting the trucks moving is the best shot at getting out of there. (Quick stupid scenario) if he can't lead the rest of his shop to get the trucks working they can't get out of the kill zone. In that situation I would without question take the lesser mechanic/better leader.
The military is first and foremost a gun club. In my opinion all other "jobs" come second. As an armed military leadership is required to save lives and get the mission accomplished.
Not saying he would not be a great asset to the organization, just that I prefer my tight ends to be able to catch as well as block.
*hopefully this reads ok. My first post reply with the app on my phone...
The military is first and foremost a gun club. In my opinion all other "jobs" come second. As an armed military leadership is required to save lives and get the mission accomplished.
Not saying he would not be a great asset to the organization, just that I prefer my tight ends to be able to catch as well as block.
*hopefully this reads ok. My first post reply with the app on my phone...
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
The Air Force does the same thing and I'm personally very happy with it. If you would like to stay a technician there is a place for you but you won't like the pay check there. From E-5 on we expect Airmen to supervise others, grow their Airmen into better Airmen and look out for the well being of them.
So what you want is to stay an E-4 or below and basically have no responsibility other than yourself, of course that is fine, just don't expect to get paid more or promoted. On that note, why do we need someone with no drive to better themselves or those around them when others right behind you are willing to do more?
So what you want is to stay an E-4 or below and basically have no responsibility other than yourself, of course that is fine, just don't expect to get paid more or promoted. On that note, why do we need someone with no drive to better themselves or those around them when others right behind you are willing to do more?
(2)
(0)
SMSgt (Join to see)
I don't necessarily disagree with you but there is not a lot of room in the service now anyway and to add positions for those people that don't want to do all that is required of them is not a effective way to operate. In the Air Force that exact thought process is why we have added civilian jobs in some locations and cut military. There is no upward progress for those civilians.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
I believe getting rid of the Spec branch of the enlisted promotion tree did a disservice to the military. Not everybody is fit to be a leader, some being great soldiers that are excellent at their jobs and a boon to the Army, but just not with aptitude in leadership. We both lose valuable technical expertise and get poor leaders because we force leadership on those who aren't fit for it but are still valuable soldiers.
(2)
(0)
CSM (Join to see)
I like your comment and it's a very good concept but, even when the Army used the specialist rank structure those SP7s were still leaders. Regardless if you were leading an Infantry platoon or an S-1 shop, you were still a leader.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
LTC Yinon Weiss
TSgt Joshua Copeland - I agree to a certain extent. However, it is a bit odd that out of a 20 year career, an officer can expect to be in a command position for only 3-4 years.
I realize that being a leader and being in a leadership role is not the same thing, and that people can be leaders within their unit even when they have a desk job. However, my observation was simply that I continuously see good officers getting out because they are frustrated spending most of their career behind a desk and not in a leadership position.
The system "works", as in it "functions" -- but it forces a lot of great leaders out. Though to be fair, I guess that is a different topic than the original question. My challenge is more based on the fact that "upward promotions" are often undesired because the new role often offers less leadership opportunity than the current position. Most people won't be O-5 and O-6 commanders, not to mention that O-4s, with few exceptions, spend many years not commanding anything.
I realize that being a leader and being in a leadership role is not the same thing, and that people can be leaders within their unit even when they have a desk job. However, my observation was simply that I continuously see good officers getting out because they are frustrated spending most of their career behind a desk and not in a leadership position.
The system "works", as in it "functions" -- but it forces a lot of great leaders out. Though to be fair, I guess that is a different topic than the original question. My challenge is more based on the fact that "upward promotions" are often undesired because the new role often offers less leadership opportunity than the current position. Most people won't be O-5 and O-6 commanders, not to mention that O-4s, with few exceptions, spend many years not commanding anything.
(1)
(0)
COL Vincent Stoneking
LTC Yinon Weiss You are correct here - but the EXACT same thing is what happens with the "up or out" system for those who just want to be good Soldiers, but do NOT aspire to be leaders.
As I've posted on several threads on RP already, I personally know 2 people intimately who fell into this situation. One is an uncle of mine, was a helicopter mechanic in the Vietnam era. LOVED being a mechanic. Showed up early, stayed late, would train the new guys in the shop. No job too tedious. After his active stint, he went into the reserves, where he was a great mechanic, while also working as a mechanic (auto, this time!) as his day job. Eventually, the Army insisted that he be a SGT. Miserable. ETS. Gone. The Army was out all that training, knowledge, and motivation to do a good job. To this day, still a mechanic, still shows up early, stays late, teaches the new guys in the shop. (Tried once to run his own shop, noticed he still hated it.) Almost exactly the scenario that the OP posted. You can't tell me that the Army wasn't the net loser in this situation.
The other one was my best friend in high school. Enlisted to be a nuke, so he was of course made an airframe repairman (whatever the right title is). Worked in corrosion/paint/other "keep the airplane healthy" jobs (sorry, don't know navy terminology all that well. He always used english....). Exact same deal, show up early, stay late, show the new guys the ropes. Exactly zero interest in promotion. Considerable pressure to promote. He hit on the expedient of just not taking the exam (I think the Army should adopt that system, btw). Eventually, his bosses decided to take the choice away from him and stuck him in a shop foreman/lead role. Then his ETS came round...
The Military needs good leaders. It needs leaders who are in a direct role and an indirect role. It needs those who are motivated to advance. It also needs those who are motivated to excel in their current role.
I will never be convinced that the military is well served by getting rid of dedicated Soldiers just because they don't want to be the dude in charge.
As I've posted on several threads on RP already, I personally know 2 people intimately who fell into this situation. One is an uncle of mine, was a helicopter mechanic in the Vietnam era. LOVED being a mechanic. Showed up early, stayed late, would train the new guys in the shop. No job too tedious. After his active stint, he went into the reserves, where he was a great mechanic, while also working as a mechanic (auto, this time!) as his day job. Eventually, the Army insisted that he be a SGT. Miserable. ETS. Gone. The Army was out all that training, knowledge, and motivation to do a good job. To this day, still a mechanic, still shows up early, stays late, teaches the new guys in the shop. (Tried once to run his own shop, noticed he still hated it.) Almost exactly the scenario that the OP posted. You can't tell me that the Army wasn't the net loser in this situation.
The other one was my best friend in high school. Enlisted to be a nuke, so he was of course made an airframe repairman (whatever the right title is). Worked in corrosion/paint/other "keep the airplane healthy" jobs (sorry, don't know navy terminology all that well. He always used english....). Exact same deal, show up early, stay late, show the new guys the ropes. Exactly zero interest in promotion. Considerable pressure to promote. He hit on the expedient of just not taking the exam (I think the Army should adopt that system, btw). Eventually, his bosses decided to take the choice away from him and stuck him in a shop foreman/lead role. Then his ETS came round...
The Military needs good leaders. It needs leaders who are in a direct role and an indirect role. It needs those who are motivated to advance. It also needs those who are motivated to excel in their current role.
I will never be convinced that the military is well served by getting rid of dedicated Soldiers just because they don't want to be the dude in charge.
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
TSgt Joshua Copeland, I agree. A leader w/ a narrow scope of vision can only lead what is in that scope of vision. However, a leader that has expanded their scope of vision can more easily see the big picture & how actions affect not just their command, but the outlying support, as well!
(1)
(0)
TSgt Joshua Copeland
LTC Yinon Weiss, I can speak intelligently on Army desk assignments, but I know AF desk assignments (outside of exec duty) generally has you running large programs at the HHQs. Not only are you leading but effecting change at a much broader level than you would as a direct leader in an rank equivalent billet. The real difference is a lack of desire to do "the needs of the Army"' the same thing we preach to lower level troops when they don't get the assignment/school/whatever they wanted. That is something I DON'T want in my leaders. Tell your troops one thing, but when it applies to you, you pull chalks.
COL Vincent Stoneking, I will agree that there was likely a short term loss to the service, but long term, there is no net loss. No individual is irreplaceable, your job is to train your replacement so that when you are gone (promotion/ETS/other) so there isn't a gap or lose.
COL Vincent Stoneking, I will agree that there was likely a short term loss to the service, but long term, there is no net loss. No individual is irreplaceable, your job is to train your replacement so that when you are gone (promotion/ETS/other) so there isn't a gap or lose.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
If a person cannot promote within a specified time limit, than maybe they should get the boot (for possibly being stagnant lower achievers). But in my case, I had just PCS'd to an ROTC in California. I was select for E-9 promotion. I hadn't been in California for six months. They said I had to leave in a few months to attend the SGM Academy in Fort Bliss, TX. I had no problem with that. My problem was, I wanted to come back to California to finish out my (supposed) three year tour/cycle. The Army told me "No". You'll go to the SGM Academy and then be assigned somewhere else, but not California. But concern was, My kids barely knew our family in California. I wanted them to get to know their family. I just got there, my 7th duty station in 18 years. I felt my family deserved a little normal family roots bonding with family. Anyhow, I greatfully declined the promotion, in order to stay my three years in California. And to my surprise, the Army told me that I would have to Retire if I did not accept this promotion. I asked why, If I am not a sub-standard performer, then why are you forcing me out of the military. They claimed that those are the policy. I could not understand, I stated, let me get this straight, I am selected to get promoted ahead of my peers, but because it does not fit into my personal life at this time, you are going to make me ETS? They said Yes. I said, well, what if I do not have enough time to retire, then what? (I only had 18 years in at the time). They looked through the Regs, and had me sign something that said as soon as I have 20 years in, I would have to retire. I smartly said Roger That, I guess I have two years to find a job. That's my story, right or wrong. I loved the Army, every bit of it, I had a very good career, very fortunate. But I felt selfish towards my children. I was always deployed or in some school somewhere, not at home. I felt they needed me, before it was too late. I retired from the Army and started my second career at a young age of 38. I believe every thing happens for a reason, God was looking out for me. I am planning on retiring from my second career in about three years at the ripe old age of 53. I can only thank the Army for all the training and good friends. But I am still a little soar at being forced out for not accepting a promotion.
(1)
(0)
1SG David Lopez
My son got to attend high school for the entire four years. I got to see him play football and wrestle all four years. I am happy.
(0)
(0)
(1)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
The idea of moving someone just months after the previous move, due to a promotion, is ridiculous. Are you really telling me there wasn't a single E-9 slot on the whole base?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google