Whats going on leaders? Who is held accountable for this SNAFU?

Definitely makes the Army (specifically HRC) look bad, VERY bad. The article (purposely?) makes it difficult to tell where the problem lies. Were the candidates not properly screened prior to selections being made (obviously not)? Did they use a 'zone' list rather than the 'opt in' list that should have been used (not sure how that could happen)? Obviously the final selection list that was released was not given a 'post selection' screening to verify eligibility (something I would think would have been in place for all centralized boards, but apparently not).

I don't see anything other than excuses coming out o this, since this is, in my opinion, a classic example of someone (or a group of someones) not doing their job.

To preclude situations such as this in the future, I would recommend that a 'post selection screening' be conducted to verify eligibility prior to the release of ANY and ALL centralized selection board results. (again, I would think this would have been the norm already). Just my two cents.

This is unprofessional, like they say it's who you know..lots of laughs. I am glad I don't have to get my hopes up no more with the results. Stay positive Soldiers.

Meh, has happened a few times before with boards and lists, gotta pull 'em to review 'em to make sure that proper %'s of ethnicities are accounted for, typical of HRC over the years.