Posted on Jan 14, 2019
Does affirmative action still exist regarding promotions?
6.67K
28
16
2
2
0
Posted in these groups: 
Promotions
Promotions
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
Suspended Profile
2
2
0
I'll give you some historical perspective on my board sitting experiences which I assume would apply to Army as the Services had the same DoD directives with some allowance for Service variation. I was sitting active/reserve officer promotion boards in the early 2000s and was a recorder prior to that. For sure, it was all merit based, but there were some draconian checks and balances which disappeared over time. If you read any of the precepts it'll say race, creed, religion, etc. is off limits. They were worried that some individual members could skew a result by purposely voting a lower level of confidence in The Tank. So, if you were say a minority who didn't make it past the 3rd crunch, then your record was put side by side on the main screens next to the lowest selected member's. We had to do a separate report on why the minority/woman, etc. wasn't selected. Over time that process went away and more reliance was put on analytics which would take a look at trends. We knew before our report was submitted how the racking, stacking, etc. of minorities, women, etc. worked out and if there was something triggered for additional review.
I remember recording for an O-4 board (my first) and watched that earlier process. Turns out, an exMil who failed to select to O-5 was now a coworker in my Navy unit as a civil servant. He had some bitterness obviously. I used the term draconian because my experience with the boards was straight up performance. What that process did to the minorities, women, etc. was to say "We said NO, now it's HELL NO!!" So the board didn't discriminate but like anything else, a prior Reporting Senior might with a FITREP, NCOER, or whatever showing a diminished result. My experience is there's many eyes and multiple record review people at the boards. Discrimination there is easily uncovered. We've had a couple Whiskey Tango Foxtrot questions directed towards a low confidence score with the opportunity for whoever to think/correct. Too visible. Turns out it's the prior knowledge bias that can creep in. We all had to fight that one off.
I remember recording for an O-4 board (my first) and watched that earlier process. Turns out, an exMil who failed to select to O-5 was now a coworker in my Navy unit as a civil servant. He had some bitterness obviously. I used the term draconian because my experience with the boards was straight up performance. What that process did to the minorities, women, etc. was to say "We said NO, now it's HELL NO!!" So the board didn't discriminate but like anything else, a prior Reporting Senior might with a FITREP, NCOER, or whatever showing a diminished result. My experience is there's many eyes and multiple record review people at the boards. Discrimination there is easily uncovered. We've had a couple Whiskey Tango Foxtrot questions directed towards a low confidence score with the opportunity for whoever to think/correct. Too visible. Turns out it's the prior knowledge bias that can creep in. We all had to fight that one off.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
SFC Kenneth G.
I researched and found this out there for all to see. There is in effect an Affirmative Action Program in the military as I previously stated. I am sure it is not only the Navy and Marines that do this.
Goals & Timetables: The Navy and the Marine Corps, historically less successful than the other services in this arena, have responded in recent months by setting explicit goals to increase minority representation in the officer corps. Both services seek to ensure that, in terms of race and ethnicity, the group of officers commissioned in the year 2000 roughly reflects the overall population: 12 percent African American, 12 percent Hispanic, and 5 percent Asian. Department of the Navy officials point out that this represents a significantly more aggressive goal than had been the case, when the focus for comparison had been on college graduates; the more aggressive goal implies vigorous outreach and other efforts (see below). Moreover, the Navy and the Marine Corps have set specific year-by-year targets for meeting the 12/12/5 goal.
Goals & Timetables: The Navy and the Marine Corps, historically less successful than the other services in this arena, have responded in recent months by setting explicit goals to increase minority representation in the officer corps. Both services seek to ensure that, in terms of race and ethnicity, the group of officers commissioned in the year 2000 roughly reflects the overall population: 12 percent African American, 12 percent Hispanic, and 5 percent Asian. Department of the Navy officials point out that this represents a significantly more aggressive goal than had been the case, when the focus for comparison had been on college graduates; the more aggressive goal implies vigorous outreach and other efforts (see below). Moreover, the Navy and the Marine Corps have set specific year-by-year targets for meeting the 12/12/5 goal.
(0)
(0)
SFC Kenneth G.
Here is the Army version.
Selection Procedures: All of the services emphasize racial and gender diversity in their promotion procedures. The Army, for example:
- instructs officer promotion boards to "be alert to the possibility of past personal or institutional discrimination -- either intentional or inadvertent";
- sets as a goal that promotion rates for each minority and gender group at least equal promotion rates for the overall eligible population; if, for example, a selection board has a general guideline that 44 percent of eligible lieutenant colonels be promoted to colonel, the flexible goal is that promotions of minorities and women be at that same rate;
- establishes a "second look" process under which the files for candidates from underrepresented groups who are not selected upon initial consideration are reconsidered with an eye toward identifying any past discrimination; and
- instructs members of a promotion board carefully so that the process does not force promotion boards to use quotas. Indeed, as Exhibits 5-7 illustrate, the minority and women promotion rates often diverge considerably from the goal. Am I wrong in assuming that there is a promotion of minorities in percentages?
Selection Procedures: All of the services emphasize racial and gender diversity in their promotion procedures. The Army, for example:
- instructs officer promotion boards to "be alert to the possibility of past personal or institutional discrimination -- either intentional or inadvertent";
- sets as a goal that promotion rates for each minority and gender group at least equal promotion rates for the overall eligible population; if, for example, a selection board has a general guideline that 44 percent of eligible lieutenant colonels be promoted to colonel, the flexible goal is that promotions of minorities and women be at that same rate;
- establishes a "second look" process under which the files for candidates from underrepresented groups who are not selected upon initial consideration are reconsidered with an eye toward identifying any past discrimination; and
- instructs members of a promotion board carefully so that the process does not force promotion boards to use quotas. Indeed, as Exhibits 5-7 illustrate, the minority and women promotion rates often diverge considerably from the goal. Am I wrong in assuming that there is a promotion of minorities in percentages?
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SFC Kenneth G. yes, you are wrong in assuming that. If you would have read what you posted you wouldn't have had to assume anything. You posted, "instructs members of a promotion board carefully so that the process does NOT FORCE PROMOTION BOARDS TO USE QUOTAS."
The recruiting goals for commissioned officers was a goal and an attempt to maintain a divers pool of applicants.
So, what's the bottom line up front?
Do you have an issue with affirmative action goals to correct past and current discrimination?
Dis you not get promoted and 19nuears later still believe you didn't get promoted because the board selected someone less qualified than you because of affirmative action?
What, if anything, is your point.
Personally, if you're in the top 10%-15%, and IF there were promotions based
Solely on race or gender, you're still getting promoted. If someone didn't, they should have been better.
The recruiting goals for commissioned officers was a goal and an attempt to maintain a divers pool of applicants.
So, what's the bottom line up front?
Do you have an issue with affirmative action goals to correct past and current discrimination?
Dis you not get promoted and 19nuears later still believe you didn't get promoted because the board selected someone less qualified than you because of affirmative action?
What, if anything, is your point.
Personally, if you're in the top 10%-15%, and IF there were promotions based
Solely on race or gender, you're still getting promoted. If someone didn't, they should have been better.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google
I responded to his question by posting the board stats.
Like you, I see that up to the top 25% of NCOs considered were the NCOs who secured promotions.
Til the end, top!