Posted on Feb 6, 2019
What does the Army have to do to improve retention?
8.27K
52
27
13
13
0
As a medic e4 who just transitioned, I can say that the grass is greener. One of the driving factors behind my ets was that the promotion system had absolutely zero to do with job skills. I’ve seen soldiers flirt their way to the top and some use/sell dope and still move up because they are a pt stud or ranger qualified. Also we had a psg who dropped a recruiter packet the day after a deployment to Afghanistan was announced. In 14 years he had only ever been to the UAE (his words not speculation). There doesn’t seem to be any accountability on the things that really matter and I wasn’t alone. Where I was stationed we were hemorrhaging soldiers of all ranks and jobs. What do we have to do to improve this? This isn’t meant to be a rant from a disgruntled e4 this is a serious question that we should look at and see what we can do to change this. It seems as though we are over due for a gut check
Re-enlistment
Re-integration
Morale
Toxic Leadership
Promotions
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 10
8
8
0
Actually, Army retention is great. The Army is retaining record breaking numbers of soldiers. Last fiscal year we retained 90% of eligible Soldiers. The SECDEF didn't believe it was possible and wanted to see the proof.
Everything you described isn't a retention problem, it's a leadership problem. Sorry you had a crappy first unit, my first one was incredible.
As for promotion, I don't think you're very familiar with the recent changes to lower promotion levels that force soldiers to the boards because of leaders arbitrarily holding back soldiers. Also, E5 and E6 promotion is a matter of points because there has to be some type of way to set up an Army wide OML. The Marines are small enough to review every packet the way we do centralized boards. The Army has to use points.
Everything you described isn't a retention problem, it's a leadership problem. Sorry you had a crappy first unit, my first one was incredible.
As for promotion, I don't think you're very familiar with the recent changes to lower promotion levels that force soldiers to the boards because of leaders arbitrarily holding back soldiers. Also, E5 and E6 promotion is a matter of points because there has to be some type of way to set up an Army wide OML. The Marines are small enough to review every packet the way we do centralized boards. The Army has to use points.
(8)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SPC Scott Browne that's "your" opinion of skills - not the Army idea of skills. Your skill set means less the more rank you gain. Most MOSs merge at E7 or E8 further reducing the need for a specific skill set and emphasizing Soldier skills and Army knowledge. E7s and O4s run the Army, filling in non MOS specific jobs in operations and training that the Army would come to a grinding halt without.
Your mistake is believing that you were being trained to be an E5 in your MOS. That's a filler job while you learn about the Army in the big picture at the higher ranks. From an operational and strategic level, the Army doesn't care who fills those E5 and E6 positions. It's more important that they are filled by someone who meets the standards. Even when that standard is a 180 APFT and 23 weapon score.
You're welcome to devise a better system than promotion points. Leaders have been refining that system and making changes for decades. Whenever people had suggestions, the Army listened and made changes. What change would you make?
Your mistake is believing that you were being trained to be an E5 in your MOS. That's a filler job while you learn about the Army in the big picture at the higher ranks. From an operational and strategic level, the Army doesn't care who fills those E5 and E6 positions. It's more important that they are filled by someone who meets the standards. Even when that standard is a 180 APFT and 23 weapon score.
You're welcome to devise a better system than promotion points. Leaders have been refining that system and making changes for decades. Whenever people had suggestions, the Army listened and made changes. What change would you make?
(1)
(0)
SPC Scott Browne
SFC (Join to see) Well I think the standards should include MOS skills. Take medics for example, sick call, cls, tccc, clinic time and so on all become perishable the second we put emphasis on something else. If we focus more on the quality of the product as opposed to just the ability to “plug and play” we are able to keep some standard of skill set and flexibility as far as administrative concerns. I understand the concept that senior officers/nco’s need to be able to flex to ops and various other positions but they are also the mentors for the young soldiers. If we allow certain aspects to degrade then what happens then? Shouldn’t a leader still be held to the same functional standard (on the MOS skills) as a subordinate?
(0)
(0)
SPC Scott Browne
LTC Stephen Conway Well Sir that is an option that I should consider. I would love to be a part of the solution. I have already started school and look forward to what the future holds.
(1)
(0)
SPC Kelley McMahan
SFC Boyd;
I served a very long time ago in fact it is quite likely that in a manner of speaking we are talking about two completely different armies. That said, I had "leaders" that in two cases had to be removed and put elsewhere because of personal bias against those they were supposed t train and lead. I will state one such (sanitized to protect privacy) Someone at division saw fit to put a career long tanker in as 1st SGT in a squadron of anti tank attack helicopter crews. He flat out told us he hated attack choppers and had zero use for us. He made these words evident as action when he began to promote award and personally shepherd our motorpool and admin people over everyone in the air crews including the aviation maint folks. It wasn't until he got caught hiding award and promotion packets in his desk that he was transferred out of our AO. By that point it was too late for many of us to get anything meaningful in the pipe before rotating back stateside.
I served a very long time ago in fact it is quite likely that in a manner of speaking we are talking about two completely different armies. That said, I had "leaders" that in two cases had to be removed and put elsewhere because of personal bias against those they were supposed t train and lead. I will state one such (sanitized to protect privacy) Someone at division saw fit to put a career long tanker in as 1st SGT in a squadron of anti tank attack helicopter crews. He flat out told us he hated attack choppers and had zero use for us. He made these words evident as action when he began to promote award and personally shepherd our motorpool and admin people over everyone in the air crews including the aviation maint folks. It wasn't until he got caught hiding award and promotion packets in his desk that he was transferred out of our AO. By that point it was too late for many of us to get anything meaningful in the pipe before rotating back stateside.
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
Thats unfortunate that you had a bad experience. By design it is not supposed to be like that. You cite several examples of how others were not qualified yet got promoted, but failed to testify to your own accomplishments. The promotion system is not difficult to navigate, the army gives you the answers to the formula. If you never made it past SPC that points out a flaw in your unit level of leadership because they are the ones that reccoment based off performance and leadership potential. It is a shame you didnt get to serve in a unit that recognized that in you. Good luck on the outside and remember, you may be the only exposure to something great to these “outside” folks. How you paint the Army picture is up to you.
(7)
(0)
SPC Scott Browne
Thank you for the input MSG. I didn’t cite anything I have done because I didn’t want to come across as the “nobody was better than me” guy. I understand that there are flukes (as with any organization) and I’m not so much salty about not promoting past e4. As I had mentioned on this thread to someone else my first unit in Korea was awesome. The mentor ship that I had, the training, the work I was doing all seemed to embody what the Army is supposed to be about. Yeah we had times that weren’t so fun or fulfilling but they never kept looking over the unit. But when I came back COUNS it seemed to be a different Army. Standards turned into suggestions and people just did what they wanted to do. I can’t bring myself to bash the Army to “outsiders” due to the positive expirence that Korea was but I do inform them of both outcomes.
(2)
(0)
CSM Michael Chavaree
By no means am I saying the Army is the greatest experience in the world, because I know it does have some bad apples. It frustrates me when folks get out because they did not enjoy the time they had or didnt have a chance to serve with a leader that actually cares about them and their lives. I do my best to talk to the heavy lifters of the organizations I serve and see what really can be done to make the Army a great experience for them. Soldiers like to be trained and learn skills that make them elite. They dont like to be micromanaged nor treated like a child. I hope you are transitioning well. If you ever need anything, drop a line. SPC Scott Browne
(2)
(0)
SPC Scott Browne
Yes the Army was a pain in the backside but I wouldn’t have stopped myself from walking into that recruiting station even knowing what I do now. Thank you MSG it is greatly appreciated. CSM Michael Chavaree
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
After reading through some of the comments I think I understand your question but correct me if I'm wrong. You're seeing soldiers get promoted over other soldiers who are better at what they do, right? This can be an issue for sure. But at the end of the day, the Army works off numbers and checklists. Your PT score doesn't determine the type of medic you are, but it counts toward promotion. It's assumed a guy with a Ranger Tab is more knowledgeable and more "driven" than one without. Or at least he's shown it on paper whereas the other guy hasn't. We both know those things have little to no bearing on how good a soldier actually is, but when comparing soldiers on paper, that's what gets looked at. The Army's too big to look at everyone individually so we look a things that can be quantified like checked boxes and PT scores. Plus, the better those numbers are, the better the unit looks, again on paper. As a company commander I can tell you that a lot of what drives what we do is the numbers. We need x% to do this, x% to do that. Do I want the best and brightest? Yes, but the numbers have to be there.
(1)
(0)
SPC Scott Browne
Yes Sir that’s pretty much it. I understood the numbers game and how that essentially plots the course. But to play devils advocate here, if we were to put the emphasis on keeping the best and brightest although a painful process, I think it would become easier and yield better results in the long run. But again, I understand where you are coming from and the nature of the beast will continue this way
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SPC Scott Browne - I agree. I've always said that when I deploy I want to take the best soldiers, regardless of anything else. There will always be issues when selecting some and not selecting others no matter what system you use. If we select who we think is the best, it becomes subjective to the one doing the selection. A hybrid approach would be best in my opinion.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Does the Army really want or need to improve retention? Consider this...The more years a soldier puts in the more expensive they get. You start out usually single, young, healthy. But as you continue your career 6,8,10 years you get a spouse, family, etc. That's money --BAH, Tricare, BAS, etc. Likewise the older you get, the more medical stuff comes along. You also rise in rank, more money. So at 15 years you cost WAY more money, and are physically way more broken than that young, cheap single soldier. And that isn't even getting into the cost of retirement, pension, and Tricare for 40,50 years of life past service. So again...does the Army really want or need to improve retention?
(1)
(0)
SGT Dave Tracy
While--on the surface--you make good point, I think I would still prefer to have a high percentage of trained and experienced (keyword), though costlier, soldiers stepping into the breech instead of legions of cheep military newbies, devoid of experience.
The takeaway is that while costs go up, so does experience, and it might be best to consider experience as having not just a tactical but economic value; just as you would in the civilian working force.
Obviously--and this alludes to what I think you may be implying--the Pentagon bean-counters disagree with this view cost/benefit analysis; but then again, how many pitched battles do they lead in the filed?
The takeaway is that while costs go up, so does experience, and it might be best to consider experience as having not just a tactical but economic value; just as you would in the civilian working force.
Obviously--and this alludes to what I think you may be implying--the Pentagon bean-counters disagree with this view cost/benefit analysis; but then again, how many pitched battles do they lead in the filed?
(1)
(0)
MSgt Michael Smith
Absolutely! Bean counters is right! The bean counters only care about the money, not the mission. I can't tell you how many times I've heard the term RIF, VSI, SSB, or a million others that mean you're fired. In the long run I think that is part of the reason why government is so inefficient. They are constantly counting beans, trying to save money by shifting stuff around, only to find out that it was the way it was for a reason. Just look at the total mess that BRAC made. The military would not be in the situation it is now if the last Administration would not have tried to downsize personnel to save money! I'm a Democrat and I'm saying that. Tricare was originally all about saving money. So is the new pension system. It really is shitty.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
MSgt Michael Smith - MSgt, I totally agree with your original post. My father and I had a conversation about this before. We were talking about stress; mostly about the unnecessary stress that the military can introduce, and the stupid games that are played. My father brought about the point that maybe that unnecessary stress is part of the design, because a lot more people would retire if it was all just "too easy". Before he gave that perspective, I don't think that ever really crossed my mind.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I agree that the promotion system doesn’t value experience or competency very much and doesn’t reflect qualities that don’t have promotion points attached to them.
As a medic, the board doesn’t care I have my paramedic license, worked 5 1/2 years of EMS, train new EMTs and paramedic students, etc, and unless they specifically ask they may never know. I am sure others can attest to similar situations.
A promotion packet isn’t a CV or resume, but perhaps it should be modeled more on one and the army expands things it will look at for promotion points. That’s not to say military education, PT, and weapons qualification isn’t important, but I can shoot really well and still be a bad medic and be terrible at training and managing other medics.
As a medic, the board doesn’t care I have my paramedic license, worked 5 1/2 years of EMS, train new EMTs and paramedic students, etc, and unless they specifically ask they may never know. I am sure others can attest to similar situations.
A promotion packet isn’t a CV or resume, but perhaps it should be modeled more on one and the army expands things it will look at for promotion points. That’s not to say military education, PT, and weapons qualification isn’t important, but I can shoot really well and still be a bad medic and be terrible at training and managing other medics.
(1)
(0)
SPC Scott Browne
That is a conversation I had with the head treatment nco at my last unit prior to leaving. He and I were in charge of the aid station during the pre deployment jrtc rotation. Neither of us were going. He was heading to civil affairs and I was 5 months from ets but since the promotable e4’s were lacking in certain skills, he and I were doing most of the operations and treatment (not trying to sound arrogant there). That is in my eyes, one of the main flaws with the system. The wasted time/opportunities to train and mentor soldiers is spent learning things for the promotion board that will in all reality be forgotten by the time they change out of their asu’s. It showed itself during the rotation when we had mock casualties coming into the aid station with little to no interventions correctly preformed.
When I was a senior line medic I was basically told that I was spending too much time going over sick call, tccc and aid station ops with my medics and I should spend more time on correspondence courses.
When I was a senior line medic I was basically told that I was spending too much time going over sick call, tccc and aid station ops with my medics and I should spend more time on correspondence courses.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
The issues described are unfortunate. I lay the blame on poor leadership, who failed to hold Soldiers accountable and failed to accurately rate and counsel. If supervisors are afraid to accurately address deficiencies, it becomes difficult on paper to separate good Soldiers from mediocre. So, it becomes the responsibility of the individual Soldier to stand out among peers and persevere until their character, competence, and commitment are recognized.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Some things will never change and some things will change just to evolve into more problems.
You have a good skill set now. I would just put the army and all of its problems in the rear view mirror.
You have a good skill set now. I would just put the army and all of its problems in the rear view mirror.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
I’ve been to several assignments and had incredible leadership and all it takes is one chef to spoil the soup been through both busted once by a scummy E7 but boarded in quatar and got my stripes back before we invaded Iraq. Don’t get discouraged! It’s no different than the civilian work place. Pull your shoulders back and troop up. And don’t “play the game because then you are no better than they are.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Just my take and I have been long retired. The army’s attitude on retention can best be summed up as, nothing is too good for the troops, so give them nothing.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
While it did little for retention, the old Specialist ranks took care of the pay for medics that took pride and excelled in their jobs as medics.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google