2
2
0
Since the release of MILPER MSG 14-083 that reinstates the language requirements in AR 11-6 requiring language proficiency be addressed on evaluation reports for language dependent MOS (specifically 35P), there have been many questions about how exactly to rate a Soldier who is sub-proficient in their Control Language (CLANG). A linguist who is sub-proficient in their CLANG has IMREPR Code 9P (loss of qualification in PMOS) placed on their records, so that being said:
- Can a rater justify anything other than a needs improvement in the block with the sub-proficient DLPT score?
- Can a senior rater justify anything other than a 4 or a 5 in the performance section?
Thank you all for your input.
- Can a rater justify anything other than a needs improvement in the block with the sub-proficient DLPT score?
- Can a senior rater justify anything other than a 4 or a 5 in the performance section?
Thank you all for your input.
Posted in these groups: 
35P: Cryptologic Linguist
35P: Cryptologic Linguist
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 2
3
3
0
What the heck, my response disappeared.
This is a very passionate topic for me. As a 35M with a DLI language, this doesn't really apply to me but I feel for those that it does.
If anyone is like me and hasn't received language training in almost five years, how can we punish them for not passing?!?
If you kept someone from shooting their M4 for 5 years how could you expect them to qualify at the range? Or if you kept someone from doing any physical training for 5 years how could you expect them to pass an APFT?
The answer is, you can't, and the language branch can't justify to me what they are doing in these situations. We have a ton of 35Ps that are sitting in FORSCOM BCTs not using their language and not getting language refresher. I've watched it happen. It's usually due to budget or "mission".
And sometimes you can't study on your own. Often in many languages certain words or phrases can't be looked up in the dictionary. In my language, it's very hard to find new words and their pronunciations because most dictionaries online and real don't show diacritic marks so you have no clue how to pronounce without a native speaker.
By the regulation yes the person is subpar, but you can't really rate above a 4/4 if you give a needs improvement. If the Soldier stinks and isn't doing anything to help themselves, fine. But if we are failing as the Army and leaders, how are we going to kick someone out for something that's OUR fault!?!
This is a very passionate topic for me. As a 35M with a DLI language, this doesn't really apply to me but I feel for those that it does.
If anyone is like me and hasn't received language training in almost five years, how can we punish them for not passing?!?
If you kept someone from shooting their M4 for 5 years how could you expect them to qualify at the range? Or if you kept someone from doing any physical training for 5 years how could you expect them to pass an APFT?
The answer is, you can't, and the language branch can't justify to me what they are doing in these situations. We have a ton of 35Ps that are sitting in FORSCOM BCTs not using their language and not getting language refresher. I've watched it happen. It's usually due to budget or "mission".
And sometimes you can't study on your own. Often in many languages certain words or phrases can't be looked up in the dictionary. In my language, it's very hard to find new words and their pronunciations because most dictionaries online and real don't show diacritic marks so you have no clue how to pronounce without a native speaker.
By the regulation yes the person is subpar, but you can't really rate above a 4/4 if you give a needs improvement. If the Soldier stinks and isn't doing anything to help themselves, fine. But if we are failing as the Army and leaders, how are we going to kick someone out for something that's OUR fault!?!
(3)
(0)
CW2 (Join to see)
I also actually bitched about this in another thread, I'll have to try to find it.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
CW2 (Join to see),
In total agreement. I've seen entire SIGINT platoons sans one or two people fail their DLPTs after never receiving the necessary training. Instead of the Commander (whom is ultimately responsible for training in his unit), you see the Soldiers and NCOs getting punished. They are told they needed to do it on their own, drive on, etc.
This methodology is false. You don't tell an 11B they need to "drive on and work on it themselves" when they don't know how to clear a building with their squad or if they fail to perform during platoon level live fires if they have not received proper training. The blame rests solely on those that either through incompetence or negligence failed to do their part and ensure the opportunity existed.
It's a growing problem in the MI Corps and it's driving me nuts. You should read some of the comments from USAICoE from their observations of 10 CTC rotations (I can shoot it over to you Monday on Global if you like).
From ADP 7-0 page 1: "Commanders are responsible for training units and developing leaders. Commanders exercise this responsibility through formal and informal chains, assisted by other officers and noncommissioned officers, through the development and execution of progressive, challenging, and realistic training. Commanders are responsible for the objective, professional assessment of the results of unit training and leader development."
Bottom line, NCOs need to train their Soldiers and small formations, but Command's need to provide the necessary resources to enable that training. The only thing I hate more than not getting training, is getting sub-par training or ineffective training.
/Rant
V/R
SGT Mullet
In total agreement. I've seen entire SIGINT platoons sans one or two people fail their DLPTs after never receiving the necessary training. Instead of the Commander (whom is ultimately responsible for training in his unit), you see the Soldiers and NCOs getting punished. They are told they needed to do it on their own, drive on, etc.
This methodology is false. You don't tell an 11B they need to "drive on and work on it themselves" when they don't know how to clear a building with their squad or if they fail to perform during platoon level live fires if they have not received proper training. The blame rests solely on those that either through incompetence or negligence failed to do their part and ensure the opportunity existed.
It's a growing problem in the MI Corps and it's driving me nuts. You should read some of the comments from USAICoE from their observations of 10 CTC rotations (I can shoot it over to you Monday on Global if you like).
From ADP 7-0 page 1: "Commanders are responsible for training units and developing leaders. Commanders exercise this responsibility through formal and informal chains, assisted by other officers and noncommissioned officers, through the development and execution of progressive, challenging, and realistic training. Commanders are responsible for the objective, professional assessment of the results of unit training and leader development."
Bottom line, NCOs need to train their Soldiers and small formations, but Command's need to provide the necessary resources to enable that training. The only thing I hate more than not getting training, is getting sub-par training or ineffective training.
/Rant
V/R
SGT Mullet
(0)
(0)
CW2 (Join to see)
Awesome post, and I'd love to see your comments. You're 100% spot on.
There are certain things I believe can be done on your own. There are other things that the Army has a responsibility for training because it's not feasible on your own.
For example, it's not feasible for 35 whatever MOS private who only gets to shoot 40 rounds a year (plus 18 for zero) to get better on his or her own buy buying their personal AR15 and Beretta 92FS...it's the Army's job.
And it's just stupid. We are going to spend hundreds of thousands to train one linguist then never give them language training again, kick them out, and then spend another couple hundred grand to train their replacement.
What a bunch of fraud waste and abuse. And I've brought this up to the language branch, and the language branch are filled with good people...but I've still haven't gotten a good answer.
There are certain things I believe can be done on your own. There are other things that the Army has a responsibility for training because it's not feasible on your own.
For example, it's not feasible for 35 whatever MOS private who only gets to shoot 40 rounds a year (plus 18 for zero) to get better on his or her own buy buying their personal AR15 and Beretta 92FS...it's the Army's job.
And it's just stupid. We are going to spend hundreds of thousands to train one linguist then never give them language training again, kick them out, and then spend another couple hundred grand to train their replacement.
What a bunch of fraud waste and abuse. And I've brought this up to the language branch, and the language branch are filled with good people...but I've still haven't gotten a good answer.
(2)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
It sounds to me like the problem is a lack of an effective command language program. I am also a 35M, and I am currently taking the CLPM course. The money IS out there, you just have to know how to find it and effectively resource it. I learned quite a few other things in the CLPM course. For example, SFC Matthew Jones did you know that both you and I as DLI trained 35Ms, as well as DLI trained 351Ms, or any other 35Ms who are current on their DLPTs must (regulation states will) take an OPI annually per AR 11-6 5-8 a, part 3C?
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
SFC (Join to see), I submit that a "needs improvement" by the rater is almost required, because the Soldier clearly does need improvement in the area of language proficiency.
Tougher call for the senior rater, but I think rating the Soldier a 4 or a 5 in the performance section would also be proper.
Tougher call for the senior rater, but I think rating the Soldier a 4 or a 5 in the performance section would also be proper.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google