27
27
0
I was promoted to Colonel and I question the necessity. I was not selected to command and neither were 60% or more of my peers. If a Colonel is not going to command, why not keep them a Lieutenant Colonel and save all those millions of dollars. Maybe pay Sergeants more. Are we so concerned over rank that we promote people because they work for a General? Is it time to take officers down a rank?
Rank
Personnel
COL
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 28
Great question! I was at AUSA last year and I asked myself the same thing. I suppose part of it may be talent retention. If a really smart medical officer, linguist, CA/FSO officer, etc doesn't get promoted and thus paid, what is stopping them from leaving the Army?
(2)
(0)
LtCol William Bentley
The pay jump from LtCol to Col is massive above the 22 year mark where LtCol's tap out. At some points, perhaps $1,000 more per month, and that doesn't include the potential of continuing pay raises beyond 30 years for those few so inclined and anointed to remain in service that long. Agreed that for those who would stay anyway, the pay raises are just gravy on a tasty meal. But, they do serve a purpose in not just recognizing long service but in retaining the presumed skills and wide-ranging experiences that such an officer possesses and (again presumably) brings to the table with every encounter and experience or assignment.
The argument here becomes more one of "well, that's nice, but what do they DO, anyway"? Ahh...some do literally nothing. Some work very hard at insanely difficult tasks in command or staff positions.
Most COULD perform well under pressure as required, but the performance bar is far from even across the Services.
Merit should be much more important at these grades, and the ranks within...why continue to promote almost solely on seniority, leavened with performance and a sprinkling of "who knows you on the promotion board" or "which GO wrote you a spectacular evaluation or letter of recommendation."
My experiences with officers above O-5 was not vast before I deployed to AFG for a year with a combined unit...my, my, my, we had O-6's from all the services getting fired fairly frequently, including a Marine or two. Regulars, reservists, retired recalls, supposedly fast promoting and really old and grizzled. That was my wake up call that promotion to O-6 was not always for the best and brightest, but was sometimes at least simply, as COL Halvorson said, to fill the promotion quotas. The jobs were not all outrageously hard, but some of the O-6's just couldn't perform at the levels the GO's demanded. And so they went out.
I will add that there is, in the USMC at least, a big difference between a junior Colonel with 22 or so years and a new chicken on his lapels, and a 30+ year survivor of a couple of Division-sized unit Chief of Staff billets. The survivors of years of GO pounding and coordination skills involved in knife-fighting and parliamentary maneuvers have earned their retirements and pay even when not promoted to GO. Many of these types of jobs at the 1- and 2- star commands (and above) could not effectively be done by lesser grade officers because they simply don't know how...or have the juice to stand and deliver in a MMA contest between their featherweight bodies and the heavyweights around them pounding away.
And, another poster added a pearl of wisdom: under the current way the DOPMA promotion system works, "up or out" is not strongly enforced in the field grades partially because the system actually wants there to be slack...excess capacity. It's not a Lean Six Sigma manufacturing process where every possible inefficiency must be wrung out of the system: we need replacements for casualties on the scale of WWII and Civil War. IS this realistic? Who can say?
What we CAN say is that in the exceedingly and ever more complex warfighting environment of today and the future, we cannot always grow qualified junior or mid-grade officers overnight into those who have a decade or more of additional experience.
A final point, the cadre issue remains on the table. If you've ever looked at the actual US laws that govern just how many of the "Controlled grades" (broadly, E-8/E-9, and O-4 and up for officers) each of the Services is authorized, and in turn how many their Reserve Components are authorized, and then how many they may be able to actually "man," there is a strong correlation between "authorized" and "actually manned." Nobody likes to leave those juicy promotions on the table, and have to tell entire year groups of officers that "Sorry, this year the rules have changed and we need to cull your herd and put a whole bunch of you down. We're going to pass over the lot of you, except you, you, and you way over there, and leave all those authorized promotions vacant..."
This is actually much worse on the reserve side. The number of "Ready Reserve" Colonels that the USMCR, for example, is authorized is often about what we actually have...even though we may have several hundred USMCR Colonels but only about 60 total paid reserve billets for them...assuming most USMCR Colonels who have a paid billet will keep it for at least two, and often 3-4 years, that means many of the USMCR Colonels will NEVER be able to have a paid billet. So what do they DO? Good question.
But the mobilization concept of the USMCR would have them fall into newly created units, fill currently "wartime billets only" jobs, and otherwise find gainful employment inside the USMC and the Joint world. Or be found unfit for duty and bounced out when they report for mobilization minus an arm, or with a serious disease or disability(ies), or they quite literally are mentally unflexible and get fired straight away.
All of this does not defend the Colonel's original question, about why do we NEED so many? Well, we don't. We still need a certain number, but not as many as we have. And pushing them into the reserves isn't helpful because there are WAY more there with less value and skills for the organization in the long run...great question!
The argument here becomes more one of "well, that's nice, but what do they DO, anyway"? Ahh...some do literally nothing. Some work very hard at insanely difficult tasks in command or staff positions.
Most COULD perform well under pressure as required, but the performance bar is far from even across the Services.
Merit should be much more important at these grades, and the ranks within...why continue to promote almost solely on seniority, leavened with performance and a sprinkling of "who knows you on the promotion board" or "which GO wrote you a spectacular evaluation or letter of recommendation."
My experiences with officers above O-5 was not vast before I deployed to AFG for a year with a combined unit...my, my, my, we had O-6's from all the services getting fired fairly frequently, including a Marine or two. Regulars, reservists, retired recalls, supposedly fast promoting and really old and grizzled. That was my wake up call that promotion to O-6 was not always for the best and brightest, but was sometimes at least simply, as COL Halvorson said, to fill the promotion quotas. The jobs were not all outrageously hard, but some of the O-6's just couldn't perform at the levels the GO's demanded. And so they went out.
I will add that there is, in the USMC at least, a big difference between a junior Colonel with 22 or so years and a new chicken on his lapels, and a 30+ year survivor of a couple of Division-sized unit Chief of Staff billets. The survivors of years of GO pounding and coordination skills involved in knife-fighting and parliamentary maneuvers have earned their retirements and pay even when not promoted to GO. Many of these types of jobs at the 1- and 2- star commands (and above) could not effectively be done by lesser grade officers because they simply don't know how...or have the juice to stand and deliver in a MMA contest between their featherweight bodies and the heavyweights around them pounding away.
And, another poster added a pearl of wisdom: under the current way the DOPMA promotion system works, "up or out" is not strongly enforced in the field grades partially because the system actually wants there to be slack...excess capacity. It's not a Lean Six Sigma manufacturing process where every possible inefficiency must be wrung out of the system: we need replacements for casualties on the scale of WWII and Civil War. IS this realistic? Who can say?
What we CAN say is that in the exceedingly and ever more complex warfighting environment of today and the future, we cannot always grow qualified junior or mid-grade officers overnight into those who have a decade or more of additional experience.
A final point, the cadre issue remains on the table. If you've ever looked at the actual US laws that govern just how many of the "Controlled grades" (broadly, E-8/E-9, and O-4 and up for officers) each of the Services is authorized, and in turn how many their Reserve Components are authorized, and then how many they may be able to actually "man," there is a strong correlation between "authorized" and "actually manned." Nobody likes to leave those juicy promotions on the table, and have to tell entire year groups of officers that "Sorry, this year the rules have changed and we need to cull your herd and put a whole bunch of you down. We're going to pass over the lot of you, except you, you, and you way over there, and leave all those authorized promotions vacant..."
This is actually much worse on the reserve side. The number of "Ready Reserve" Colonels that the USMCR, for example, is authorized is often about what we actually have...even though we may have several hundred USMCR Colonels but only about 60 total paid reserve billets for them...assuming most USMCR Colonels who have a paid billet will keep it for at least two, and often 3-4 years, that means many of the USMCR Colonels will NEVER be able to have a paid billet. So what do they DO? Good question.
But the mobilization concept of the USMCR would have them fall into newly created units, fill currently "wartime billets only" jobs, and otherwise find gainful employment inside the USMC and the Joint world. Or be found unfit for duty and bounced out when they report for mobilization minus an arm, or with a serious disease or disability(ies), or they quite literally are mentally unflexible and get fired straight away.
All of this does not defend the Colonel's original question, about why do we NEED so many? Well, we don't. We still need a certain number, but not as many as we have. And pushing them into the reserves isn't helpful because there are WAY more there with less value and skills for the organization in the long run...great question!
(2)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
SSG Carlos Madden - I did, which is why I was set to pondering about the subject. I wasn't selected for command though. On the alternate list.
(1)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
LtCol William Bentley - Great comment. The overall pay jump from a LTC at 20 to a COL at 22 is $1,500somthing. Not chump change by far. I stand by my original point though that most COL's could get out and make at least what they are making now and still pocket half of their salary from the military in retirement (not counting benefits). Financially...it makes sense to get out. So fear, honor or interest keeps them in. Not the money. Lots of great points in here. You must have worked at the Pentagon at some point. I'd argue that no matter how old a turd gets, it doesn't get any better...it just gets hard. I don't think all of those not selected to command are turds by any means (I'm one of them), but I don't think they need to be COL's in the first place. This is about expectation management at the GO level. Find the right guy for the job, regardless of rank.
(1)
(0)
LtCol William Bentley
Right, sir. No, I was never cursed with a direct billet inside the Puzzle Palace. I was close, though, for my one tour at Quantico, where I worked reserve policy, mobilization, and strategic planning issues that inevitably required me to spend a lot of time talking to and making day trips up to the Pentagon...and every day thanking my stars that I didn't have to work there, or commute there very often!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
We did some of this kind of stuff after WWI and WWII. Service members who were colonels or even generals were reduced to lower ranks if they wanted to remain in the Army. I think that's where the permanent and temporary rank system came from; it was abolished with DOPMA.
The military does need to look at its distribution of resources among field and headquarters units. We do have a lot of field grade officers at unified and combined commands. That is due at least in part to the law requiring an officer to have had a joint duty assignment to become a general officer.
I can't answer why there are the number of O-6 billets in many headquarters. The colonels and captains appear to be regarded differently than O-5s and O-4s without regard to their position. I've seen O-5 Division Chiefs "uninvited" to Division Chief-level meetings because they aren't "colonels." Same for GS14 Division Chiefs being excluded when a GS15 is allowed. The command I worked for was at a distinct disadvantage because we had few GS15/O-6 billets. Only a handful of our officers could credibly attend meetings at the next higher headquarters because their counterparts there were all O-6s or GS15s. Not logical! Our Commander had to have a talk with the Commander at the higher headquarters to explain that his O-5/GS14 managers were speaking on the Commander's behalf and fully empowered to represent the organization.
The military does need to look at its distribution of resources among field and headquarters units. We do have a lot of field grade officers at unified and combined commands. That is due at least in part to the law requiring an officer to have had a joint duty assignment to become a general officer.
I can't answer why there are the number of O-6 billets in many headquarters. The colonels and captains appear to be regarded differently than O-5s and O-4s without regard to their position. I've seen O-5 Division Chiefs "uninvited" to Division Chief-level meetings because they aren't "colonels." Same for GS14 Division Chiefs being excluded when a GS15 is allowed. The command I worked for was at a distinct disadvantage because we had few GS15/O-6 billets. Only a handful of our officers could credibly attend meetings at the next higher headquarters because their counterparts there were all O-6s or GS15s. Not logical! Our Commander had to have a talk with the Commander at the higher headquarters to explain that his O-5/GS14 managers were speaking on the Commander's behalf and fully empowered to represent the organization.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
First, congratulations. I'm going to take a step back for a moment and reflect on the purpose of having rank in the first place. Theoretically, rank is established to distinguish between levels of experience & competence and imbue those who do well with greater authority. In my world, each position should start with some thought into how much expertise is required to do the job. The greater the challenge, the greater the authority, but should default to the lower rank.
I don't think the Army does a great job of defaulting to the lower rank. Human nature being what it is, there is always the desire to grow an organization and to give rewards to good people. This situation is also a result of the "up or out" promotion policy. To keep competent officers beyond 20 years or so, you have to promote them.
Also, there is more glory to supervise a dozen Colonels than six each of COLs and LTCs. Although many of those in a position to set the structure don't think this way, enough of them do. Add to this a fairly unimaginative adherence to rigid structures and we get a lot of General Officers, Colonels and so on.
Enjoy your remaining time in the Army, it goes by pretty fast.
I don't think the Army does a great job of defaulting to the lower rank. Human nature being what it is, there is always the desire to grow an organization and to give rewards to good people. This situation is also a result of the "up or out" promotion policy. To keep competent officers beyond 20 years or so, you have to promote them.
Also, there is more glory to supervise a dozen Colonels than six each of COLs and LTCs. Although many of those in a position to set the structure don't think this way, enough of them do. Add to this a fairly unimaginative adherence to rigid structures and we get a lot of General Officers, Colonels and so on.
Enjoy your remaining time in the Army, it goes by pretty fast.
(1)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
COL Dan Fuhr, I concur with all...especially your last paragraph. There are congressional requirements and law backing this system up as well...so there is institutional breastworks in place to keep it as-is.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I think it's a discussion worth having sir. As others have mentioned, we had 90 divisions during WWII and less general officers. Obviously there's been significant institutional changes and restructuring since then, but our current structure still seems excessive. Ultimately I think we would have to do away with our current "up or out" career progression model to enact any meaningful change.
(1)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Up or out needs to go. We need to get rid of the 20 year retirement. The move to a 401K is a step in the right direction, but arguably that may have hurt our long term retention. We'll see. If we break the 20 year progression, personnel resourcing can open up. We can send officers to get a doctorate and bring them back with no detriment to their career. We can train with industry, send officers off to foreign study and military assignments, and then bring them back stronger, smarter and more experienced in the world. That's what we're looking for right? According to our GO's that's what we are looking for. Now, what really matters? What really gets you promoted? Staying on track. Doing the right jobs at the right times. Being an Aide De Camp instead of working on as a staff officer. Getting back to the right jobs. And the bottom line is tactical performance over a short term. You might be the most intelligent officer on the planet with some of the best ideas about reform and modern military thought...but you didn't meet X numbers by Y time. Thanks for playing.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Sir,
I'm sure it won't be the last time we receive conflicting guidance from our higher headquarters. Admittedly I would have a hard time giving up the 20 year retirement. As an AGR Officer I can retire with a relatively generous pension in addition to my personal IRA. Eliminating that benefit would significantly reduce the incentive to stay in uniform, especially if our retirement would be entirely contributions based.
I do think there's value in altering our career progression model however. I've personally observed Soldiers qualified to lead and/or perform at a higher level held back by TIG requirements. I've also observed incompetent people get promoted simply because there was no one else who met the requirements for PME and TIG. If broadening is truly a priority of our General Officers, then we need to eliminate the linear model. However, such a change would require considerably more diligence and career management at the personal level to be effective. CPT is supposedly the rank with the highest separation point in the Army, so my recommendation would be to start there.
At an rate it's an interesting topic to discuss.
I'm sure it won't be the last time we receive conflicting guidance from our higher headquarters. Admittedly I would have a hard time giving up the 20 year retirement. As an AGR Officer I can retire with a relatively generous pension in addition to my personal IRA. Eliminating that benefit would significantly reduce the incentive to stay in uniform, especially if our retirement would be entirely contributions based.
I do think there's value in altering our career progression model however. I've personally observed Soldiers qualified to lead and/or perform at a higher level held back by TIG requirements. I've also observed incompetent people get promoted simply because there was no one else who met the requirements for PME and TIG. If broadening is truly a priority of our General Officers, then we need to eliminate the linear model. However, such a change would require considerably more diligence and career management at the personal level to be effective. CPT is supposedly the rank with the highest separation point in the Army, so my recommendation would be to start there.
At an rate it's an interesting topic to discuss.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I read an interesting article about a year ago or so when SECDEF Carter was trying to pass his officer promotions reform that speculated that a good majority of positions maybe coded for certain grades not necessarily because that grade is required, but because the experience commensurate with that grade is required. It basically hypothesized that if we did away with the up or out system of promotions that we would be able to re-code many staff positions for a lower grade just with x-years of experience. It was something I hadn't really though of before but after reading the article it made a lot of sense to me. The only thing that got me wondering was if you did re-code, for example, a majority of Division and Corps level staff positions from COL to LTC and LTC to MAJ if there would be any difficulty with talent retention at the necessary experience levels if you weren't offering promotion as an incentive. That probably wouldn't be as big of a problem for LTC's that are working their way to 20, but it might be a bigger deal for that MAJ who isn't being promoted. Of course that will become even more complicated in the coming years with the doing away of the 20-year retirement.
I know on the WO side of the house there are plenty of pilot's that would be more than happy to stay a W-2 or W-3 and stay flying rather than promote themselves out of the cockpit. That brings up a similar question though, with the cost flight training as high as it is, how many 100s of millions of dollars could be saved just by retaining pilots longer rather than forcing them out if they're not promoted? With the 20-year retirement there are many that would be happy to stick around as a W-2, but who's to say with the new retirement if there would be any incentive to stay.
I know on the WO side of the house there are plenty of pilot's that would be more than happy to stay a W-2 or W-3 and stay flying rather than promote themselves out of the cockpit. That brings up a similar question though, with the cost flight training as high as it is, how many 100s of millions of dollars could be saved just by retaining pilots longer rather than forcing them out if they're not promoted? With the 20-year retirement there are many that would be happy to stick around as a W-2, but who's to say with the new retirement if there would be any incentive to stay.
(1)
(0)
TSgt Kerry Hardy
New retirement would be better as you get something for the years you put in. You can retire as a W-2 but if you plan and make good TSP choices you could retired with W-4 or 5 pay. Military will need to train new SMs on how to be smart with your money and not piss it way on stuff you can live without or on partying in town ever payday....
(0)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
A couple of great points, CW4 Keith Dolliver. I like the system you talked about here. I think that combined with the loss of the 20 year retirement might do some damage on retention, but considering how many pink slips we have given out in the last 4 years, I think we'd still be doing alright. I've made a couple of other points about the timeline system in other places that are relevant here as well.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Yes. Compare WWII, at its heighth there were [conservatively] 8 times as many soldiers as today led by 1/8 the officers.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I agree 100% with you. Colonel and Generals should be Commanding not in administrative position, just collecting a check. Each one has extremely valuable skills and knowledge that could benefit the people below them! Sometimes rules need to be looked at and adjusted! We have a military designed for peace time not war! I see that in the paper/news all the time from the Generals at the top! No more Eisenhower, Mac Arthur, or Patton this type of officer is weeded out at the lower level because they see a problem and try to be creative and fix it. When this happens it threatens the current structure and order of how things are done! This can't happen in a bureaucracy because it requires order! In war creativity is needed to win or you take heavy losses that will either cost you the war or you are so superior that creativity doesn't matter and you can keep doing thing inefficiently and still win. I saw the latter in both of my deployments to Afghanistan. Creativity and ideas where ignored time and time again! It cost lives because Command ignored people with experience below them! They would say how could you know anything about this? You are just a? So we will just carry on! Then people died! Same with promotions. Good people don't always get all the boxes checked because they are trying to get The Most Important Thing Done "The Mission". So they are over looked. I have seen this also! People who are focus on their career promote but they did not focus on the mission like some of the others. So good people are forced out for good leadership and putting mission first! Yet others put themselves first and where promoted. To make it to Full Bird Colonels the person who can put mission first, lead, take care of their personnel and career without stepping on others while being in a command position should promote to a command position. I have met a very select few who I felt met this criteria. I have seen many who just checked the box. People who care don't make it very often or they get jaded along the way, maybe even bitter. It is a sad state. We should be helping each other, mentoring! I hope God helps us all to show more Love and Compassion towards each other in the future.
(1)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Agree with you. It's hard to evaluate morals and ethics. We say that we value Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage. The problem is, we reward mission success. It's easy to evaluate mission success. It's not easy to see real morality. Thus...
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Just curious, isn't there also theory going on here (similar to Airborne School) to have a surplus of higher ranking officers in case we need to expand the force rapidly or need to replace casualties?
(1)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
That leads to a lot of bloat if that's the case. Not to mention the fact that the mortality rate for a Colonel is pretty dang low. If I was going to have a bunch of replacements ready, I'd have privates through SFC and a ton of LT's.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
First, Sir, congrats on the promotion! Other than that, I have no argument with your commentary.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I was always told there are so many colonels because of the senior staff positions in the G shops and directorates. Keeping folks at the LTC level would cause downgrades of all the staff positions, and in my humble opinion the years of service and experiences needed to advise commanders is held by those folks.
What incentive would there be other than patriotism to retain senior staff officers in those positions as they are run through the ringer and generally underappreciated if not the promotions.
My recommendation would be to leave things that work alone, and concentrate on fixing the numerous things that are broken. Like the time it takes to change a training POI for example.
What incentive would there be other than patriotism to retain senior staff officers in those positions as they are run through the ringer and generally underappreciated if not the promotions.
My recommendation would be to leave things that work alone, and concentrate on fixing the numerous things that are broken. Like the time it takes to change a training POI for example.
(1)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
CSM, I'd argue that as a LTC I could easily do the job of a Colonel on a Division staff as a primary within my field or within an 01A or 02A position. Division G3's are often senior LTC's. The branch specific jobs at the Division and Corps level are all "KD" jobs (G1, G2, G4). Those are supposedly equivalent to brigade command positions. That's a different discussion. Those guys have been selected. They need to be colonels. In that situation, the LTC G3 may call them sir or ma'am, but he/she isn't a lightweight on the staff because they are a LTC. That's a heavy hitter right there. At the Corps and Army and Component level, it's the same story. Any of those positions are KD. I'm talking about the rest of the Colonels. The ones that haven't been in a KD position who are just Colonels because they have been promoted, and haven't been through a command position. Look at a pre-command captain. When they come out of the back side of that experience, they are something different. Almost majors. In over half of the Colonel flying around...you don't have that...and you never will. I think I said it before somewhere, but if you are staying around for the additional $260 per month, you need to seriously reevaluate your financial planning skills.
(0)
(0)
CSM Richard StCyr
COL (Join to see) - Well partner you and I probably just hold Bird Colonels at different levels of esteem being as you are one and I was but a lowly and humble CSM.
Even the flock of non KD folks have value in that it gives you a bench to draw on.
My opinions are also driven by the loss of the COL as Div Eng and reallocation to LTC, that in my opinion didn't work out well and I would hate to see that spread over the force.
In any case it's a conversation worth having.
Even the flock of non KD folks have value in that it gives you a bench to draw on.
My opinions are also driven by the loss of the COL as Div Eng and reallocation to LTC, that in my opinion didn't work out well and I would hate to see that spread over the force.
In any case it's a conversation worth having.
(0)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Agreed with your assessment on the DIVENG. The problem is that it was a "one-off" move to free up space for an Engineer Brigade Command somewhere in the force. I remember that one. The same thing has happened for some other branches at the Division level. Those "one-offs" are not as effective. If the entire staff bumps down a grade however...even playing field. And yeah...I'm not all that impressed with Colonels. Post Brigade Command Colonels are a different story usually. Different after that experience and they are operating and thinking at another level usually. Best of the best sort of thing. Everyone else is just a LTC with delusions of grandeur.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google