Posted on Feb 17, 2016
Why not bring back the SQT. So future SSG and SFC actually know their job at their current and next skill level before promotion?
11.1K
23
21
12
12
0
Posted in these groups: 
1SG
88M: Motor Transport Operator
1SG 88M: Motor Transport Operator
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 17
4
4
0
We live in a sad military where reports and charts are more important than the realities behind them. In the USAR specifically there is zero support to conduct MOS training simply because it's not part of the Senior Commands evaluation factors. An MOS based assessment test, I'd like a three part, MOS technical, MOS performance (judged by practical evaluation) and MOS based PT requirements would provide quantifiable metrics that would be used to identify and fund specific training. That way we can get support for field training exercises rather than spending all our time discussing flu shots and dental records. Obviously that means we need a good test that measures can you actually do the job not the simple what is on page 5 of this FM crap that is so common is correspondence courses. Good thing there is a CTRL F.
(4)
(0)
2
2
0
Absolutely YES. Were there flaws in the "old" SQT system? Yes, but lets takes the base of what it was intended for and IMPROVE on it and re-institute it. And it also needs to be reflected on NCOERs also. They talk the "Whole Soldier Concept" that would be the WHOLE concept wouldn't it?
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Not too many current Soldiers even remember the old MOS tests. But I do remember why they went away. They were very cumbersome to manage at the unit level, and it became a farce as pencil-whipping them was rampant - at least in the USAR.
While administrating them in the internet age would be easier, the last thing I want is more DL training requirements. At least this one is relevant.
If I could trade this one for the ridiculous Internet Security Awareness training, you have a deal.
I miss the days when you actually has to know skills to a certain degree in order to progress in rank. This is something I believe the Navy still does.
While administrating them in the internet age would be easier, the last thing I want is more DL training requirements. At least this one is relevant.
If I could trade this one for the ridiculous Internet Security Awareness training, you have a deal.
I miss the days when you actually has to know skills to a certain degree in order to progress in rank. This is something I believe the Navy still does.
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I did an intra-service transfer in 2006, but you're correct - the Navy takes "advancement" exams twice a year for ranks of E3 to E5, who are within their appropriate time in rate for advancement. When I took it, it was a 200 question exam - I believe you had 3 (maybe 4) hours to complete it. The exam was split between Basic Military Requirements (AR 670-1ish stuff, D&C, courtesies and customs) and rate (MOS) specific questions. For the young Sailor going up for E4 - the exam was heavy on rate specific questions and light on BMR questions (I want to say 140-150 rate specific questions and the rest were BMR related) and as you moved up to the E-6 exam - it was a mixture. I transferred to the Army the year I was supposed to take the test for E-7/CPO - but I heard it was mostly BMR and light on rate questions (since you should technically be the SME in your rate at that point). The E-4 to E-6 advancement exams were given twice a year, once in March and once in September and the E-7 exam was once a year and I can't recall which month. Overall, advancement was based on your exam score, evals, awards and time in rate. If you didn't make the promotion list but you passed the exam - you were given Passed Not Advanced (PNA) points for your next promotion cycle.
Sailors - please correct me if I misspoke or if the information is different now than it was then.
Sailors - please correct me if I misspoke or if the information is different now than it was then.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google