Posted on Feb 27, 2014
The Army adopting the Navy's promotion test to advance in the ranks?
6.78K
9
13
1
1
0
What do you think about the Army using the Navys way to promote with written tests? Using more MOS related topics, rather than just a few Q&A about regulations, weapons, pt etc.. What you do think ?
Posted in these groups: 
Promotions
Promotions
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 8
2
2
0
The way I see is that the Army builds leaders, well we want those leaders to be at the top of their field you can't always have the best of both worlds. The promotion board allows leaders to view a soldier's potential, their dedication to succeed, and how they perform under pressure. Many things a test would not identify. I work with a lot of Navy folks and they do not build leaders the way the Army does. Yes, you may know the knowledge, but can you apply that knowledge? That is what is important.
(2)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I understand that, yes you may be able to lead, but if you dont have the knowledge, then are you leading blind? There has to be a mix of both, written and boards. Some get promoted just off PT alone, and dont answer one question in a board. In combat MOS's there seems to be more of the PT guy that cant conduct MOS training at his level but he has the potential to learn his job at the SSG, SFC level? When he should be already there before being put in that positon, if not Soldiers will suffer MOS skills, but at least they will be able to score a 300 on the APFT.
(0)
(0)
SGT Kristin Wiley
This is why a lot of people want the specialist system back in place. You can be a great leader and a poor technical expert, and you can be a great technical expert and a poor leader. We want the best of both worlds, but it doesn't always exist. The key is finding a way to emphasize and build both. I personally think leadership qualities are more important than technical expertise.
(0)
(0)
SPC Michael Dugan
Right on, SGT. As a one-time Spec. 4, I saw very clear differences between Specialists and Noncommissioned Officers. I saw the intangibles you mention as not lending themselves to formal written tests. The only viable promotion test I could see would be given to Spec. 4s., but that obviously would involve another $One Billion, or whatever outlandish expenditure, and probably would not survive a cost-benefit analysis. Our Army used to have Spec. 5's, 6's, and 7's, in addition to Spec. 4's. *Were* that the case today, I could see bringing in a Navy-style test for that much larger segment of the Army personnel force. But, alas, such is not the case.
(1)
(0)
TSgt Stephen Potter
Since I am prior Navy. I figure if Army can't beat the Navy, they'll join them. 14 years a running. Lol! Really, I do not think it will take away from the Army's promotional process. It is actually a tool in your arsenal to promote the best leaders. The Navy has several boards. Enlisted Surface Warfare Specialist board, it knowledge of all the different rates, which helps you know your ship from top to bottom and forward to aft. Plus, the submariners and aviation boards if you're on a sub or carrier. Ship board firefighting board, because everyone is a firefighter on a ship at sea. Trust me, if I could get out of a written promotional process I would too.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
So I'll share a few experiences I've had on this topic and then my opinion on whether or not we should or should bring a test of some sort to determine skill level in the Army.
When I was working as a satellite controller in Okinawa we had to pass an on the job training (OJT) portion before we were considered qualified to work at any given position without supervision. This was due to the nature of the job and the fact that you controlled millions of dollars of equipment and real time communications. Our Operations Analyst had his old SQT book from back in the 80's that he kept on his desk as a reminder of where we came from. You marked in it in pencil and it stayed with you and it got updated every year.
Working with some Air Force and Navy personnel I saw that there test was a lot more difficult. They don't get to study for a specific job. They have job fields they need to qualify in. A much broader area of knowledge was required for them even if they didn't work in that particular section. For instance, the Air Force Wideband Radio field covered everything from HF up to Radar and the tests got pretty specific.
An issue I see currently with us as an Army moving to a test like this is an establishment of a standard. As a Signaleer when I went out to the field back in the MSE days there was an ARTEP standard with a given time for exactly how long everything should take to set up so you knew where you needed to be and when. Because we are constantly changing the equipment we are working with it is very hard to maintain those standards. Until we have a fair level of stability across the force with equipment I don't believe we could expect our Soldiers to reliably test with predictable results.
When I was working as a satellite controller in Okinawa we had to pass an on the job training (OJT) portion before we were considered qualified to work at any given position without supervision. This was due to the nature of the job and the fact that you controlled millions of dollars of equipment and real time communications. Our Operations Analyst had his old SQT book from back in the 80's that he kept on his desk as a reminder of where we came from. You marked in it in pencil and it stayed with you and it got updated every year.
Working with some Air Force and Navy personnel I saw that there test was a lot more difficult. They don't get to study for a specific job. They have job fields they need to qualify in. A much broader area of knowledge was required for them even if they didn't work in that particular section. For instance, the Air Force Wideband Radio field covered everything from HF up to Radar and the tests got pretty specific.
An issue I see currently with us as an Army moving to a test like this is an establishment of a standard. As a Signaleer when I went out to the field back in the MSE days there was an ARTEP standard with a given time for exactly how long everything should take to set up so you knew where you needed to be and when. Because we are constantly changing the equipment we are working with it is very hard to maintain those standards. Until we have a fair level of stability across the force with equipment I don't believe we could expect our Soldiers to reliably test with predictable results.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google