You can run fast, but you can't turn on a computer. Should you be getting promoted?

SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:13:27 -0500

I know APFT is an easily quanitfiable promotion standard, and I think its important. That being said, why do we have to put up with mid level leaders being promoted into slots and having no idea how to do the job? Why do we have SSG's in highly technical postions but can hardly operate an email inbox? Shouldnt an inability to do your job be MORE like a flag than not being able to do 40 pushups?

I dont mean to call out a specific rank, as this happens regardless of rank. But as long as they can do 19 minutes of exercise to standard incompetent soldiers are just not performing thier jobs.

Response by LTC Richard Becker made Jan 29 at 2014 3:39 PM

LTC Richard Becker — Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:39:44 -0500

Sometimes there is a lack of perspective that results simply from not being included in the chain of command's decision making. Not every time, but some times leaders need NCO's who are the type of leaders that can motivate certain Soldiers or ensure they're completing tasks assigned with less regard given for their technical skills. Case in point, if my S1 shop can't get their reports in on time and are constantly missing suspenses, I don't need a 42 series to manage them, I just need a leader that can ensure they are completing their tasks on time and to standard.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 29 at 2014 9:56 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Jan 2014 21:56:32 -0500

I am a slow learner, I just found out that the earth goes around the Sun. You learn something new everyday.

Response by SFC Randy Purham made Jan 30 at 2014 9:56 AM

SFC Randy Purham — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:56:25 -0500

I understand your frustration as even from my foxhole I see the same issues with peers and other seniors. Somewhere along the lines we (holistically) have lost that sense of "I will strive to remain tactically and technically proficient." when it comes to NCOs. I often find myself wondering how they managed to get through school or other previous positions. But, from a professional standpoint - it is your duty to train, teach, coach and mentor regardless of rank and suggest that they may need to brush up or take some additional training on such menial tasks. As long as it is done with tact and respectfully, it shouldn't be take offensively. Sometimes the urge or just a simple mention helps us to see our faults.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 30 at 2014 12:27 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 12:27:22 -0500

I have seen it and to be honest I feel that the fault lies with the boards. Specifically Army E-5 and E-6 boards. I think that they, those boards need to be geared more towards MOS knowledge and scenarios, not "What is ADP 2-0". APFT and marksmanship is still very important, no matter what job you do you could end up like one of my old SGT's on a football field sized COP in Kandahar City and the army needs to know that you can pull your weight in carrying a wounded soldier to safety or medical help. Or that you can effectively shoot and take out an enemy combatant.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 30 at 2014 12:39 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 12:39:05 -0500

First, we can't use the APFT vs job proficiency. PRT promotes health and good health promotes better brain functioning, therefore, people with good physical condition are more alert. Just as MAJ Becker outlined, you may have one NCO that can do the job better than the one is supposed to know better. Leadership and job proficiency are two different things. I could know my job really well but won't be able to manage others. Also as the S4, I need to have a general understanding of what my other sections do. Because after all I won't be reinventing the wheel and all my guidance will come from my Higher HQs and there is always a good example for everything we do in the Army. A good leader must be a good leader as a whole, by maintaining and enforcing all Army Standards and doing your job.

Response by SPC Robert Patrick made Jan 30 at 2014 1:39 PM

SPC Robert Patrick — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 13:39:54 -0500

Coming from personal experience with having an NCO directly over me at one point who had no clue how to do his job and his response when I was doing as I was told and getting him site certified was,w"y should I be site certified when I have you Soldiers to do the work."  I was dumbfounded because an NCO's first and formost job is to train the troops.  How can you train your soldiers if you do not know what you are doing yourself.  I think the Army needs to go back to MOS specific testing for promotions I know it had been done in the past and had went away but now more than ever with so many more technical MOS's out there those NCO's need to know know their Jobs so they can train their soldiers.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 30 at 2014 6:09 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 18:09:27 -0500

SPC Z.,

Many years ago (Back in the late '80's, early 90's), the Army did test the Soldier's knowledge in their particular MOS by having them take the Skill Qualification Test or SQT. From what I recall, all enlisted MOSs in all skill levels had to take the SQT. At one time, it was even added to the Soldier's promotion points for E-5 and E-6. The SQT's stopped counting to the Soldier's promotion points after 1990 (I think) and did away with the SQT all together either in 1993. I had taken the SQT twice, once when I was a PFC and the last time when I was a SGT.
I know that I'm no longer serving, but I believe that the Army should bring the SQT back, especially when they're trying to downsize.

Response by SFC John Brooks made Apr 16 at 2014 9:44 AM

SFC John Brooks — Wed, 16 Apr 2014 09:44:32 -0400

SPC Zandlo, as a SSG in a highly technical position, I can definitely agree with your assessment, but I have some caveats.

For ever Soldier, Sailor, Airman, and Marine in our armed forces, there are that many sets of circumstances. Sometimes leader reclassifies to a new MOS and has to rapidly absorb a huge amount of information to bring them to a point where others int he field consider them "competent." Sometimes they are thrust into a position outside of their scope and have to deal with it as best they can. There are leaders who will go the extra distance and gain that technical understanding, and there are those who will do the bare minimum.

As far as Army NCOs go, we have a creed. In that creed is the line "I will strive to remain technically and tactically proficient." While it may seem at times that the technical isn't being taken into account, I can assure you that at some point, it will come into play. Granted, nobody gets "flagged" for lack of technical competence, but it will take them longer to promote, and limit how far they will go. In the meantime, I see your frustration and the best advice I can give you is to TACTFULLY do what you can to let those leaders know they are lacking, offer any assistance you can, and when all else fails, drive on. A good leader needs to know their limitations and work to overcome them.

Response by SSG Trevor S. made Apr 16 at 2014 9:50 AM

SSG Trevor S. — Wed, 16 Apr 2014 09:50:33 -0400

It is a generational thing for the most part. Some of the soldiers in my generation grew up when the Nintendo NES was "state of the art". The technology gap is improving each and every year. Can you believe this? When I came in, typing was a marketable skill. A large percentage of soldiers could not type. In fact, my first counseling statements were hand written.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 4 at 2014 7:13 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Jun 2014 19:13:27 -0400

Why do I need to be able to turn on a computer? If I can run fast, I can run that message to whoever I need it go to. :)

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 4 at 2014 7:27 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Jun 2014 19:27:11 -0400

You can be dumber than a bag of hammers and continue to get promoted if you have the right badges and a high PT score.

I don't like it but it's just the way it is. It's too easy for leaders who do not know their soldiers capabilities to judge them by their PT score.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Jun 5 at 2014 3:31 AM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Thu, 05 Jun 2014 03:31:51 -0400

Probably not in Todays Armed Forces. When all else fails you damn right you better be able to run, shoot whatever but we are a very modern technical Armed Force and if you are technically illiterate we probably have little to no use for you. Of course we always need folks to operate a Needle Gun and chip the Paint off ships but I don't see that as very career enhancing.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 5 at 2014 3:38 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Jun 2014 15:38:07 -0400

In the 21st century, operating a computer is a necessary skill. I don't think it should be a determining factor in promotions, but being computer illiterate is definitely not going to help one get ahead.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 6 at 2014 2:41 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Jun 2014 14:41:16 -0400

That's a great statement and I think it is an issue that need to be addressed. One of the things I love about the military is it slow change and history. However, the world around the military changes at a rapid pace. A soldier that does not know how to operate a computer will have a very hard life. Not only in the military but civilian word as well. Second, we do an injustice to soldiers of all ranks by not giving them these skills. Think about how many systems in the military today utilize some type of computer; now add a Soldier, SGT, SSG, MAG, ETC to the equation, that has no idea of the equipment capabilities beyond the label. Computer skills not only impact MOS that directly work with them but Mechanic need computer skills, Supply, 12Bs, 11B, Everyone. Third, Competition of Civilian sector VS Military personal. While some service members can slip by without know anything about a computer in the military, in civilian life that may not be the case. Many job require MS office, Excel, ETC. Plus a leader that does not have to rely on a younger solder to turn on his computer would be more efficient at his or her job.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 3 at 2014 8:46 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 03 Aug 2014 20:46:54 -0400

When I was deployed as a junior Captain, I worked with a Major who was the G1 for the command. Wonderful as a person, but she had a permanent profile that kept her from doing much of any PT *and* even as G1 was so deficient in computers that she had to take remedial courses in Microsoft Office just to do her job.

The personnel branch does pretty much everything on computers, and she was worse than useless as she dragged the rest of the shop down by her lack of skills (lucky there was one fantastic SFC who stepped up to get things done).

I'm still trying to figure out how she made it to Major at all, given that she lacked either the physical requirements of the army or the professional requirements of her field... And for the record, the remedial courses didn't help.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 8 at 2014 7:28 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Aug 2014 19:28:53 -0400

If you can't do your primary MOS? No, absolutely not, you should not get promoted. The Army is downsizing, and it doesn't need to retain useless people.

That being said, this is the military. Everybody is expected to be in fighting shape, regardless of MOS, because there's always the remote chance that someone will try and kill the Admin guy inside the wire. We're soldiers first; everybody gets some kind of tactical training through either basic or commissioning source, and physical fitness is so inextricably tied to performing those basic soldier functions that we can't not take it into account when deciding who to promote/retain.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 18 at 2014 10:18 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Dec 2014 22:18:28 -0500

SPC Zandlo, sadly it seems as if it's come to the point in the army where APFT/Weapons qual is more of a judge of a Soldiers ability than actual MOS/Job performance.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 12 at 2015 12:53 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 12 Jan 2015 12:53:42 -0500

As an HR professional, I am to be a technical expert in processing actions for the units I manage. I am expected to have a knowledge base of regulations and procedures to accomplish my Commander's mission to meet and maintain manpower needs. When new changes occur, I need to adapt and integrate personnel actions that support the Commander's intent. If I encounter an obstacle, I need to be able to negotiate it so that I can meet expectations. This is part of the Adjutant Generals creed.

The Adjutant Generals Corps creed also reads:

"I will be prepared to fight as infantry when my Commander calls."

I am a Soldier too. We all went through an initial training first before we all trained to do our daily job, but we're also expected to be able to shoot, move, and communicate.

I believe that combat arms professionals have a symetric role in the military. Their job is to bring the fight to the enemy as that is what they've learned in basi and their AIT. I would expect leadership; however, to be able to do skill level one tasks on a computer.

Response by SGT Tyler G. made Feb 23 at 2015 3:52 AM

SGT Tyler G. — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 03:52:45 -0500

in the second paragraph of the NCO creed: I will be technically and tactically proficient.

There is no excuse for an NCO to not both know their job and be technically competent enough to perform it. Yes we must maintain physical fitness as well, but I agree that your ability to do your actual primary job should be our first concern.

While this isn't 'easily quantifiable', there is a section on the NCOER for technical competence. Sadly though, too many raters are quick to give out high ratings to undeserving NCOs, which even though it seems like they're helping them, only hurts their self development. It quickly becomes a game of trying to get bullets throughout the year for those ratings of excellent. This should be addressed, but I won't even pretend to know where to begin other than promise that I'll try to do better when I'm responsible for rating a soldier.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 9 at 2016 1:10 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 09 May 2016 13:10:42 -0400

It has always been so. Strong as a gorilla, fast as a horse, dumber than a sack of rocks. But he/she will still be looked upon more favorably that someone who excels at their job but only scores a 190-200 APFT....

Response by SFC Louis Willhauck, MSM, JSCM, and ARCOM made Nov 27 at 2016 3:19 PM

SFC Louis Willhauck, MSM, JSCM, and ARCOM — Sun, 27 Nov 2016 15:19:21 -0500

I am right there with you on this... Technical jobs need BRAINS not muscle! (Though I will say that having BOTH is definitely a plus!) the brains in this instance should count higher. I have something of a personal issue in this situation (if you are at all curious as to why, read my profile) but I learned to live with it and in the end, karma ruled the day! Anyway, good luck trying to make that point these days... (At one time, Specialists and Technical Sergeants had a meaning just that! Too bad it all got lumped into the same pool.)