Posted on Jan 18, 2021
What is the proper use of the "(P)" promotable after one's rank?
16.9K
32
20
7
7
0
What is the proper use of the "(P)" promotable after one's rank? I think it is most often being used incorrectly. I think folks are using it when they meet the conditions for promotion, but really are not on a promotion list waiting for a slot to be moved into to accept the grade/rank.
I recall being told in BOLC (correspondence instruction), that (P) should only really be used in the cases where the position the officer is in is for a rank above his/her's but the (P) effectively means they have that required authority to execute the duties of the position.
For instance, while as a Sr.Rater that was a 1LT at the time, all my comments had to be checked by a reviewer that was a CPT+, with the exception if I was 1LT(P).
So where I am going with this is I see it being used a lot at the lower ranks LT's and SGTs. But in those situations one doesn't even know they are on a promotion list long enough to merit using (P) before POOF they literally are promoted.
When I got SGT, POOF I just got orders. My name wasn't floating around on a list. When I got 1LT POOF I just got orders and there wasn't a list floating around.
When I got CPT, yes, there was a list, but it only took about a month to get the promotion order. So it was a really narrow period of time I would "correspond" with (P).
I do understand MAJ+ using (P) because I have seen those positions in limbo before they land somewhere they can accept the grade.
I recall being told in BOLC (correspondence instruction), that (P) should only really be used in the cases where the position the officer is in is for a rank above his/her's but the (P) effectively means they have that required authority to execute the duties of the position.
For instance, while as a Sr.Rater that was a 1LT at the time, all my comments had to be checked by a reviewer that was a CPT+, with the exception if I was 1LT(P).
So where I am going with this is I see it being used a lot at the lower ranks LT's and SGTs. But in those situations one doesn't even know they are on a promotion list long enough to merit using (P) before POOF they literally are promoted.
When I got SGT, POOF I just got orders. My name wasn't floating around on a list. When I got 1LT POOF I just got orders and there wasn't a list floating around.
When I got CPT, yes, there was a list, but it only took about a month to get the promotion order. So it was a really narrow period of time I would "correspond" with (P).
I do understand MAJ+ using (P) because I have seen those positions in limbo before they land somewhere they can accept the grade.
Posted in these groups: 
Promotions
Officer
Promotions Officer
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 16
8
8
0
SPC/CPL and SGT are promotable once they appear before a promotion board and are selected. They're not actually selected for promotion and depending on the MOS and promotion points they may end up being promotable for a decade or longer. Below E4 are never promotable, they are simply asldvanced the same as WO1 and 2LT. At SSG and above they are actually selected by a list.
As for you actual point you're getting at, the Army stance is that it's never used except when it's important, as you pointed out. It's never supposed to be used in correspondence except it absolutely pertains to the position. For instance, a SFC(P) filling a 1SG position (although they ould usually be frocked anyway).
That's for AD, I don't know enough about RC promotions to speak on that
As for you actual point you're getting at, the Army stance is that it's never used except when it's important, as you pointed out. It's never supposed to be used in correspondence except it absolutely pertains to the position. For instance, a SFC(P) filling a 1SG position (although they ould usually be frocked anyway).
That's for AD, I don't know enough about RC promotions to speak on that
(8)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
Pretty much the same, except way too many Reserve folks want to put that "P" in every single bit of correspondence.
(2)
(0)
3
3
0
For evaluation purposes, I would refer to AR623-3.
The only other time I remember it ever being a "thing" was when signing memoranda. Since no one really writes memoranda near as much (the one page memorandum was the email of the 80s and early 90s).
Back in the day, you had to send orders and memoranda for companies to do things. Twice a day, companies went to the S1 and picked up their taskings, orders, and memoranda from the HQ. The staff had to carefully screen what they sent, what they did themselves on Company behalf, and what they tasked. You had to focus on weekly and monthly reporting requirements and windows for information. Now Command and staff just blast email broadsides all day.
The only other time I remember it ever being a "thing" was when signing memoranda. Since no one really writes memoranda near as much (the one page memorandum was the email of the 80s and early 90s).
Back in the day, you had to send orders and memoranda for companies to do things. Twice a day, companies went to the S1 and picked up their taskings, orders, and memoranda from the HQ. The staff had to carefully screen what they sent, what they did themselves on Company behalf, and what they tasked. You had to focus on weekly and monthly reporting requirements and windows for information. Now Command and staff just blast email broadsides all day.
(3)
(0)
SSG Kenneth Lanning
Amazing how the ease of communication has caused the reliability and effectiveness of it to decline...
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
It makes the person feel just a little superior. Don't lose sleep over it. It means nothing.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google