Promotion Board
Promotion Board
Posted on May 11, 2023
Can I be denied receiving a 'Go' for a promotion board if I accidentally use gender pronouns? Should I get the IG involved?
61.6K
1.04K
292
260
260
0
I recently just attended the E-5 promotion board and absolutely nailed it. Uniform, confidence, presence was on point. Answered questions correctly and to the best of my ability. Walked out of the board feeling like a million bucks. I am waiting for my sponsor to come out, and he says I received a 'No-Go' because on the first question I was asked I referred to a soldier as "he should" instead of "the soldier should." This apparently was the decision that prevented me from being promotable according to my sponsor, despite answering the other 9 questions I was asked to a T.
Is there anything on Army regulation about this? Should I get the IG involved? What if this belief is against my religion and I don't agree with it? I know the SGM has a transgender kid. I do not want to cave to using these terms if it does not align with my beliefs. I know the worlds' headed in this direction but this seems absolutely insane to me that despite acing a board, I can be prevented from promoting due to using gender pronouns. What
Is there anything on Army regulation about this? Should I get the IG involved? What if this belief is against my religion and I don't agree with it? I know the SGM has a transgender kid. I do not want to cave to using these terms if it does not align with my beliefs. I know the worlds' headed in this direction but this seems absolutely insane to me that despite acing a board, I can be prevented from promoting due to using gender pronouns. What
Promotion Board
Inspector General
Equal Opportunity (EO)
Enlisted
Edited 2 y ago
Posted 2 y ago
Responses: 148
113
113
0
I am so glad that I am retired and don't have to put up with this BS. Fact: there are only two sexes/genders male and female. The percentage of people who are born hermaphrodite is .018. All these other "genders" are made up and not based on science just wishful thinking. I'll probably get some hate mail but this is the truth.
(113)
(0)
MAJ Tex Hall
SrA Cecelia Eareckson - Well that explains it: a personal experience that has contributed to a sense of victimhood.
(0)
(1)
SrA Cecelia Eareckson
Yikes! That's a lot of unsubstantiated attribution. Let's see where that sense of victimization has led me. I have a degree from a world class university, which I achieved while caring for an aged p who had a stroke. Graduated into an awful economy, took the only job available, and succeeded in outside sales. Developed PTSD following an incident at work that replicated enough of the attempted murder on active duty.
My experience was quite some time ago, but I do what I can to advocate for women who have served. We are not well treated, either by the VA, or the VSO's. Women veterans have higher rates of homelessness and suicide. Maybe you can write that off to some trifling sense of victimhood, I cannot.
What I mentioned above was only two incidents. The exploitation of young enlisted women goes on, and has gotten worse, in large part because of that sort of dismissive attitude.
My experience was quite some time ago, but I do what I can to advocate for women who have served. We are not well treated, either by the VA, or the VSO's. Women veterans have higher rates of homelessness and suicide. Maybe you can write that off to some trifling sense of victimhood, I cannot.
What I mentioned above was only two incidents. The exploitation of young enlisted women goes on, and has gotten worse, in large part because of that sort of dismissive attitude.
(0)
(0)
Capt Lawrence Daniel
Anyone who states "there are only two genders" doesn't understand science or genetics at all and bases "the truth" on ignorance and a lack of reading actual science. Actual science includes genetic testing has revealed XX and XY ARE NOT the only combinations of chromosomes. ACTUAL genetic studies have revealed that more than two combinations exist. Further, geneticists have discovered sometimes an X or Y chromosome does not activate. Finally, gender is a social construct, not a scientific identification. Society has defined the roles of men and women, not science. Historically in other societies, women were great warriors including entire tribes such as the Dahomey Amazons and the Massagetae. Great women warriors have existed throughout history. Many graves of originally misidentified as male because of the warrior status of the objects in the grave and the bias of the researchers have later been properly identified as women warriors. None of what I have posted is hate, but actual TRUTH.
(0)
(0)
CWO4 Miles Weaver
Capt Lawrence Daniel - Women can actually be great warriors, though most are not. You did not mention which of the other sexes you mention could also be good warriors. And we are not talking about the "roles" of men and women but what sex people are. There are two -- In it's simplest terms, if you can actually birth a child, you're a female. If you can impregnate a woman, you're a male. Deciding in one's mind that they are something else does not make it so.
(1)
(0)
First, if everything is as you related (no offence, I have no clue if that's the complete story or your interpretation of it), then my feeling is that that was a very chicken**** thing for the board to do. However, my reaction is probably not for what you're thinking. My reaction would be because the situation was that you were being denied a "GO" because of a 'gotcha question' which I'll come back to in a bit.
To your specific question, "Is there anything in the regulations about this" - Yes and No.
If "this" refers to 'local policy', 'Commander directives', or other 'non-traditional' methods of evaluation of a Soldier appearing before the board, then the answer is no. The only prohibition is that hands-on tasks cannot be used in the board (i.e., "Ok Soldier, we want to see how fast you can disassemble your weapon and put it back together again"). The general GUIDANCE that HRC gives on the conduct of the board is that the "Questions should focus on leadership, awareness of military programs, and knowledge of basic Soldiering and world affairs. The Board should consider the Soldier's overall personal appearance, bearing, self-confidence, oral expression, conversational skills, and attitude when determining each Soldier's potential to serve at the next level of NCO responsibility."
HRC issued additional guidance for semi-centralized promotion boards in ALARACT 068/2021 which states, "To reinforce team and squad leader understanding of how our army cares for its soldiers, promotion to sergeant and staff sergeant will include situational questions in the areas of sexual harassment, suicide prevention, misuse of drugs and alcohol, physical and mental fitness, failure to attend a noncommissioned officer professional development system course, and a subordinate’s decision to reenlist. The purpose of these questions is not to have soldiers appearing before the board quote back army regulations pertaining to these subjects, but to provide the board an assessment of how that individual would react with their soldiers when leading them through these issues and questions. These situational questions reinforce the “this is my squad” initiative within our noncommissioned officer corps and those soldiers about to become noncommissioned officers."
So, CAN the local promotion board consider things outside of the categories of leadership, awareness of military programs, and knowledge of basic Soldiering and world affairs? Sure. They could ask you questions regarding the military's policies regarding transgender Soldiers serving and how you would handle a transgender Soldier in your unit. They could ask question you about how the Army goes about lodging those Soldiers in the barracks or handle personal hygiene with other Soldiers. They could even ask you if you will support the Army/DoD policies regardless of your personal beliefs and/or feelings towards those policies.
However, this may or may not apply in your situation. Getting back to your comments above, you stated that you received a "NO-GO" because you used a gender specific term instead of using a generic term of "Soldier". Is there local policy or training that you went through regarding this or statements by leadership saying so? As far as I know, there hasn't been any instruction regarding using generic references in the Army* (only case I know of is that that US Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) issued directions to stop using gender pronouns in written communications), but that doesn't mean that you weren't told to do so at a local level.
Regarding your possible objections to it based on beliefs, it's a non-issue because they weren't giving you a hypothetical situation and asking you to "misgender" someone - the reason for the "NO-GO" that was given to you was for not using "Soldier" instead of a gender specific term. You may not agree with that approach (again, IF it was local policy), but I'm not aware of any religious denomination that would have an objection to using neutral language.
Now, with all that out of the way, to the crux of your situation. Again, IF everything regarding the situation is as you stated, then was the board conducted fairly? My OPINION is that it was not. Again the reason for the board is to gauge your leadership, awareness of military programs, and knowledge of basic Soldiering and world affairs.
However, if your leadership has put out policy and has been reinforcing it with their view of the importance of using gender neutral references to Soldiers ... maybe it was fair. Have you ever been instructed or counseled about using 'Soldier' instead of gender specific pronouns? What I'm getting at is if there is some guidance or official direction from leadership about doing so, then you might not have much to stand on.
If on the other hand there exists no such policy or guidance, then you probably do. The one thing that the regulations DO state is that the voting board members must be unbiased and you would have an argument that the SGM could be biased (if he was in fact a voting member of the board).
I would take advantage of the open door policy and talk to your commander. Assuming there is no policy detailing the use of gender neutral terms for all Soldiers, express your concerns as well as what you were told. Again, IF there is local policy, then you don't have much of a leg to stand on regarding being evaluated by the gendered pronoun (yes, I do still view it as a nit-noid gotcha approach if they used that instead of asking you about policies and such).
--------------------------------------------
* HQDA Memo - https://www.hrc.army.mil/asset/26313
* Army policy regarding transgender Soldiers is that whatever is reflected in their DEERS records is the gender they are treated as an referred to as.
To your specific question, "Is there anything in the regulations about this" - Yes and No.
If "this" refers to 'local policy', 'Commander directives', or other 'non-traditional' methods of evaluation of a Soldier appearing before the board, then the answer is no. The only prohibition is that hands-on tasks cannot be used in the board (i.e., "Ok Soldier, we want to see how fast you can disassemble your weapon and put it back together again"). The general GUIDANCE that HRC gives on the conduct of the board is that the "Questions should focus on leadership, awareness of military programs, and knowledge of basic Soldiering and world affairs. The Board should consider the Soldier's overall personal appearance, bearing, self-confidence, oral expression, conversational skills, and attitude when determining each Soldier's potential to serve at the next level of NCO responsibility."
HRC issued additional guidance for semi-centralized promotion boards in ALARACT 068/2021 which states, "To reinforce team and squad leader understanding of how our army cares for its soldiers, promotion to sergeant and staff sergeant will include situational questions in the areas of sexual harassment, suicide prevention, misuse of drugs and alcohol, physical and mental fitness, failure to attend a noncommissioned officer professional development system course, and a subordinate’s decision to reenlist. The purpose of these questions is not to have soldiers appearing before the board quote back army regulations pertaining to these subjects, but to provide the board an assessment of how that individual would react with their soldiers when leading them through these issues and questions. These situational questions reinforce the “this is my squad” initiative within our noncommissioned officer corps and those soldiers about to become noncommissioned officers."
So, CAN the local promotion board consider things outside of the categories of leadership, awareness of military programs, and knowledge of basic Soldiering and world affairs? Sure. They could ask you questions regarding the military's policies regarding transgender Soldiers serving and how you would handle a transgender Soldier in your unit. They could ask question you about how the Army goes about lodging those Soldiers in the barracks or handle personal hygiene with other Soldiers. They could even ask you if you will support the Army/DoD policies regardless of your personal beliefs and/or feelings towards those policies.
However, this may or may not apply in your situation. Getting back to your comments above, you stated that you received a "NO-GO" because you used a gender specific term instead of using a generic term of "Soldier". Is there local policy or training that you went through regarding this or statements by leadership saying so? As far as I know, there hasn't been any instruction regarding using generic references in the Army* (only case I know of is that that US Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) issued directions to stop using gender pronouns in written communications), but that doesn't mean that you weren't told to do so at a local level.
Regarding your possible objections to it based on beliefs, it's a non-issue because they weren't giving you a hypothetical situation and asking you to "misgender" someone - the reason for the "NO-GO" that was given to you was for not using "Soldier" instead of a gender specific term. You may not agree with that approach (again, IF it was local policy), but I'm not aware of any religious denomination that would have an objection to using neutral language.
Now, with all that out of the way, to the crux of your situation. Again, IF everything regarding the situation is as you stated, then was the board conducted fairly? My OPINION is that it was not. Again the reason for the board is to gauge your leadership, awareness of military programs, and knowledge of basic Soldiering and world affairs.
However, if your leadership has put out policy and has been reinforcing it with their view of the importance of using gender neutral references to Soldiers ... maybe it was fair. Have you ever been instructed or counseled about using 'Soldier' instead of gender specific pronouns? What I'm getting at is if there is some guidance or official direction from leadership about doing so, then you might not have much to stand on.
If on the other hand there exists no such policy or guidance, then you probably do. The one thing that the regulations DO state is that the voting board members must be unbiased and you would have an argument that the SGM could be biased (if he was in fact a voting member of the board).
I would take advantage of the open door policy and talk to your commander. Assuming there is no policy detailing the use of gender neutral terms for all Soldiers, express your concerns as well as what you were told. Again, IF there is local policy, then you don't have much of a leg to stand on regarding being evaluated by the gendered pronoun (yes, I do still view it as a nit-noid gotcha approach if they used that instead of asking you about policies and such).
--------------------------------------------
* HQDA Memo - https://www.hrc.army.mil/asset/26313
* Army policy regarding transgender Soldiers is that whatever is reflected in their DEERS records is the gender they are treated as an referred to as.
(69)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
SPC Matt Ovaska - And you can be cognizant of the fact that we are an intergrated Military; I was once a "WAC" when I first joined the Army; in 1976 I was deemed part of the Regular Army, as a Soldier. It's a shame that your way of thinking is so antiquated; the "only solution" is not to 'admit the mistake and return to the WACS", but for you to remember that this is a All Volunteer Military, and women are full members of the Military, the same as you.
(0)
(0)
SPC Matt Ovaska
I'm real old fashioned. I don't care for coed schools either. Sports should be competitive between all male or female teams to be fair. I don't want my daughter/ grand daughter in a fox hole with some guy. It has worked well for thousands of years. I can truly say thank you for your service as a WAC, along with Queen Elizabeth and my mom who was a spy during the Winter war. Do males carry stress cards in todays military?
(2)
(0)
SFC Barbara Layman
SPC Matt Ovaska - You may not be aware of the 'recent' history of military women.
1 - In 1944/45, during WWII, strength as at a point where practically ALL military aged men had been either drafted or voluntarily enlisted. The War was anticipated to continue and casualty rates were high. SO, the US Congress had on the table legislation to begin drafting women. Drafting them in addition to the numbers who had voluntarily enlisted so that the men could go to the warfront. Well, the War in Europe ended before the legislation had passed through committees to be sent for POTUS signature.
2 - When the military draft expired in June 1973, recruiting numbers 'collapsed.' For this reason, it was decided that WOMEN could fill the strength numbers and fill certain career fields that were not directly combat related and would not require them to be at the front directly facing the enemy. SO, it took a couple of years, the WAC Standard was retired and the ladies became SOLDIERS. It has been so ever since. Understand, the primary reason was because the males in this country refused to step up to the plate, while their sisters were quite willing to do so.
As to myself, I volunteered my service in 1965, just prior to full involvement in Vietnam, filling a position that freed a male to go to the warfront. I served in the Women's Army Corps (WAC), USAR (reservist), the ARNG (guardsman), the Regular Army (soldier) as well as the Retired Reserve. Always proud and honored to have served.
"I'm real old fashioned. I don't care for coed schools either. Sports should be competitive between all male or female teams to be fair. I don't want my daughter/ grand daughter in a fox hole with some guy."
I don't necessarily disagree. However, when it comes to coed schools and fox holes, for the most part, what happens between individuals is largely up to those involved. Do you feel the same about female police officers or firefighters?
1 - In 1944/45, during WWII, strength as at a point where practically ALL military aged men had been either drafted or voluntarily enlisted. The War was anticipated to continue and casualty rates were high. SO, the US Congress had on the table legislation to begin drafting women. Drafting them in addition to the numbers who had voluntarily enlisted so that the men could go to the warfront. Well, the War in Europe ended before the legislation had passed through committees to be sent for POTUS signature.
2 - When the military draft expired in June 1973, recruiting numbers 'collapsed.' For this reason, it was decided that WOMEN could fill the strength numbers and fill certain career fields that were not directly combat related and would not require them to be at the front directly facing the enemy. SO, it took a couple of years, the WAC Standard was retired and the ladies became SOLDIERS. It has been so ever since. Understand, the primary reason was because the males in this country refused to step up to the plate, while their sisters were quite willing to do so.
As to myself, I volunteered my service in 1965, just prior to full involvement in Vietnam, filling a position that freed a male to go to the warfront. I served in the Women's Army Corps (WAC), USAR (reservist), the ARNG (guardsman), the Regular Army (soldier) as well as the Retired Reserve. Always proud and honored to have served.
"I'm real old fashioned. I don't care for coed schools either. Sports should be competitive between all male or female teams to be fair. I don't want my daughter/ grand daughter in a fox hole with some guy."
I don't necessarily disagree. However, when it comes to coed schools and fox holes, for the most part, what happens between individuals is largely up to those involved. Do you feel the same about female police officers or firefighters?
(0)
(0)
PO1 Mark Floyd
Women were NOT drafted for WWII. FDR asked Congress to do so because he needed nurses not for combat but when the need was made public women volunteered and Congress never extended the draft to include women.
(0)
(0)
42
42
0
This question is very much in the Present. I definitely would like to hear more details as I am unaware of use of pronoun regulations. The only slight inference in your narrative is that the SGM has a transgender kid and thus I infer there maybe local preferences -- this could be a situational awareness thing, but to give a no-go is not a sword I'd fall on. Keep RP posted with updates
(42)
(0)
Suspended Profile
Army EO still recognizes on male and female genders. However EO encourages use of gender neutral terms in case a male would "prefer" to be referred to as a female and vice-versa
PO1 (Join to see)
"local preferences" are not the same as "local regulations" or "local directives".
(1)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
TSgt James Warfield - You only heard one side of the issue. Let's see if this is truly a reason for denial before we get the fires burning.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I know I am late to the party, but, if in fact that was the reason to be denied a "GO" on the promotional exam, for rebutting such a decision, I would dig out the multitude of Active, Current regulations and FM's that use the collective "He" along with the term "manning" or "man" instead of "staffing" and "staff" to illustrate the validity of the use of these terms for the collective "soldier" in an organizational process.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google 
