Posted on Jan 29, 2014
You can run fast, but you can't turn on a computer. Should you be getting promoted?
16.6K
73
40
19
18
1
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.
APFT
Promotions
Competence
Proficiency
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 21
10
10
0
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.
(10)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
one could argue that if the troops are certified, the training box is checked off.
(0)
(0)
9
9
0
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. :)
(9)
(0)
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca
I always had to run fast with a computer on me at all times. Such is the life of an S-6
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SFC Laws, was I the inspiration behind that "Lawsism"?
MAJ Petrarca, one of my good S-6 Battle Buddies used to say "You can talk about us... but, you can't talk without us."
MAJ Petrarca, one of my good S-6 Battle Buddies used to say "You can talk about us... but, you can't talk without us."
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I often feel that way when the network is so slow that I will get on the phone or walk to a co-workers AO to get an issue resolved.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
I am a slow learner, I just found out that the earth goes around the Sun. You learn something new everyday.
(5)
(0)
SPC(P) (Join to see)
SSGT OLSON,
With all the respect that you have earned, My concern does not lie in what you know or what you do not know, it lies in the army's acceptance of soldiers being promoted that do not know their job skills. The enemy does not care if we are slow to learn, if we are slow to embrace new TTP's or if we are not good with computers. When a mortar in impacting in your LSA, when troops are in contact and need a proficient Air Ground Operations team to provide fire power support, or when a Air defense wpn system locks on to a friendly blue suit thinking its an enemy target, soldiers unable to perform their jobs according to MIL STD, are going to get troops killed. I ask for what, so someone could get a slot, so someone could retire at the next rank, so a section could get rid of a pesky soldier by promoting up and out?
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
As a forecaster I held the life of a pilot in my hands and even if there is no declared war you have to make snap decisions. Part of that is training but part is experience or perhaps a special insight or a hunch. At some point no regulation can explain anything and it is up to us.
I would also be concerned if an unqualified person were pencil-whipped as being competent. The Air Force tried to lower standards on forecasters when they learned, really? A political agenda trumps the lives and welfare of our troops.
Also thanks for your input because my rank does not necessarily mean I am right and I thank you for your input.
(0)
(0)
SPC(P) (Join to see)
Ha I know, but it still is a valid point that our expierenced soldiers have a lot of technical things to learn sometimes.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
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.
(5)
(0)
SPC(P) (Join to see)
MAJ Becker,
SIr, I mean no disrespect, I am new to having open discussion via message board with senior ranking soldiers. I also would like to note that this is not a SPC whining about not having a slot, I am very fortunate to have great leadership to groom our section in the best interest of the mission. I have the slot I feel I deserve and just waiting on recovery from a surgery. If I come off offensive I bid you my most sincere apology and hope that you will correct me.
I too believe that your troops need motivation and be held accountable for their tasks and that NCO does not need to hold that MOS. My issue, is that if there is an issue that is keeping your troops from accomplishing their tasks unrelated to individual performance, how is that going to surface and be remedied if their mid level management doesn't understand what is going on. Admin I think is a lesser evil in that sense, but what about Mission Command critical jobs, like Fire support, Air space de-confliction and AMD's role in air interdiction. How is it accepted that a troop is managed by someone holding a 30 level position, and can not provide insight and guidance to remedy an issue. If the issue is higher than 10 level, the command assumes that the 30 level will be able to fix it. This is why we have that 30 level position. I look at the infantry for an example. If an E-5 could not shoot, could not complete his table 8, or lead his troops on a ruck march, he would not be considered for promotion. My army battle command systems are my weapons, connecting my systems is my table 8, and presenting my portion of the COP is how I navigate in the battle. Army wide I have seen leaders in these positions that can not complete those 10 level tasks, and whats worse embrace the fact that they are from another time and will not understand. Where is the quantifiable qualifications in jobs like these for soldiers to prove they are able to complete the mission. If I don't complete a run on a pt test I am unfit to be promoted, but if I can not perform my skill level of my MOS, I am not hindered from promotion. Where we have quantifiable testing, soldiers do not over looked for those deficiencies, so my long winded retort comes to this.
MOS skills should be testable at every skill level and be a company level hindrance to career progression.
MOS skills should be testable at every skill level and be a company level hindrance to career progression.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
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.
(4)
(0)
MSG(P) Michael Warrick
I do not believe that you should. It should be based on several things such as APFT, Weapons Qualification, Civilian Education, Military Education, Promotion Board, Awards, and etc...
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
SPC Robert Patrick
I agree with you SFC Juan. But part of being a NCO in the Army is also training Soldiers so if a NCO does not know their job how are they supposed to accomplish their primary objective which is to train soldiers.
(1)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
100% correct a NCO must familiarize with everything. Things that aren't known must be researched and that includes to stay updated with job, regulations and policy changes.
(0)
(0)
SPC Christopher Salustro
SFC Juan, I was with you until you stated "people with good physical condition are more alert". As I read the statement again, it is true yes, but I think that this statement is the founding for the Thought Theory "If you're good at PT nothing else matters!" As someone who has always struggled at PT I hate that thought process. I agree with SPC Z here, I've seen many a mid-level leader get promoted and not know anything about anything. I work currently in a very top-heavy shop (S2, generally 35F's and other intel guys) and points have always been easy for them, if you breathe and don't jack up you're promoted. That can't be good for up and comers who are trying to learn the ropes when their NCO got promoted not on "Job Performance" but on purely the fact that he didn't muck up?
(0)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
Thanks for your response. And you're 100% correct, all I was trying to bring across is that we have to have an equal balance in everything we do in the Army but we must think past the Army because we are all heading in that direction. A job will be important but our good health will be far more important.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca
If operating a computer and/or certain software is mission/task essential then it should be part of MOSQ. Problem resolved, no issue
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
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.)
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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....
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
-
Ask questionGet expert advice and
tips for your questions. -
Post updatePost pictures, personal updates, plans, or anything you like!
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google 
