Posted on Jun 16, 2015
Should the military re-evaluate its "up or out" system and career timelines?
5.71K
21
13
6
6
0
I get that we have a system that encrourages forward progression and personal growth, and the whole system needs to move as one (if a MSG doesnt move on, an E-1 can not get promoted.
However, its so regimented - you will only get 3 looks (officers), you will get those 3 looks during these years only. If you fail to get promoted, you arent needed in any capacity.
However, its so regimented - you will only get 3 looks (officers), you will get those 3 looks during these years only. If you fail to get promoted, you arent needed in any capacity.
Posted in these groups: 
Promotions
Retention
Promotions Retention
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 6
2
2
0
I am not so much as saying that it is broken and absolutely needs to be changed...
just wondering if we sometimes put people out (because they didnt get promoted), to bring in new talent that is developing, not developed - unlike the person we just put out.
I would re look the mindset that not getting promoted to one rank makes you useless at your current rank - and no one, anywhere, needs you to do anything.
it also creates an environment where there is no room for error in your own career management - to the point, you need to tell the Army where you need to go, not necessarily go where the Army needs you "no thanks on your 01A assignment, its not good for my career..."
just wondering if we sometimes put people out (because they didnt get promoted), to bring in new talent that is developing, not developed - unlike the person we just put out.
I would re look the mindset that not getting promoted to one rank makes you useless at your current rank - and no one, anywhere, needs you to do anything.
it also creates an environment where there is no room for error in your own career management - to the point, you need to tell the Army where you need to go, not necessarily go where the Army needs you "no thanks on your 01A assignment, its not good for my career..."
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Unfortunately it's a pyramid shaped structure, which necessitates an "up or out" otherwise you end up with a logjam somewhere.
The problem is that "higher tenure" is based on Time in Service, not Time in Grade.
As an example, if you get promoted to E9 at 14 years, you sit there for 16 years. That is BAD for the pyramid structure. If you get promoted to E7 at 9 years, and your higher tenure is 22 years, that is equally bad, because you are waiting for E9s to get out so E8s can get promoted to open up slots for you to get promoted. This in turn affects everyone down the chain, especially when there are "feeder MOS" involved.
So how do correct this?
You remove people from logjam.
But you don't kick them out. Shift them to a different bucket.
As an example, once an E7+ hits 20 years Active Duty, does it matter if they are an Active Duty or Reservist on Active Duty? Basically your folks who want to continue serving, but are no longer "promotable" but are just riding time. They aren't going to get any more retirement %, just higher base pay from years in service, and rank.
I don't know the "legal" implications of doing this, but theoretically, it should open up promotions for active duty, by shifting non-promotables to serving positions (lower priority?). It should change the administrative burden tremendously.
Just my 2c.
The problem is that "higher tenure" is based on Time in Service, not Time in Grade.
As an example, if you get promoted to E9 at 14 years, you sit there for 16 years. That is BAD for the pyramid structure. If you get promoted to E7 at 9 years, and your higher tenure is 22 years, that is equally bad, because you are waiting for E9s to get out so E8s can get promoted to open up slots for you to get promoted. This in turn affects everyone down the chain, especially when there are "feeder MOS" involved.
So how do correct this?
You remove people from logjam.
But you don't kick them out. Shift them to a different bucket.
As an example, once an E7+ hits 20 years Active Duty, does it matter if they are an Active Duty or Reservist on Active Duty? Basically your folks who want to continue serving, but are no longer "promotable" but are just riding time. They aren't going to get any more retirement %, just higher base pay from years in service, and rank.
I don't know the "legal" implications of doing this, but theoretically, it should open up promotions for active duty, by shifting non-promotables to serving positions (lower priority?). It should change the administrative burden tremendously.
Just my 2c.
(2)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Sir, my suggestion would be to take those who are "riding out" that time while ALREADY non-promotable and put them in a different bucket. I'm pro keeping them in. We should use that resource. We should just shift it out of the list where promotions are pulled from.
As an EXTREME example, the SMMC doesn't need to be "Active Duty" when he could be "Reserve on Active Duty" if that makes sense. He's not going to gain anymore stripes. Keep him on AD status for the full 30, just shift his component so he's not jamming promotion brackets below him.
As an EXTREME example, the SMMC doesn't need to be "Active Duty" when he could be "Reserve on Active Duty" if that makes sense. He's not going to gain anymore stripes. Keep him on AD status for the full 30, just shift his component so he's not jamming promotion brackets below him.
(2)
(0)
SFC William Swartz Jr
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS actually once an individual passes 20, each year they remain on AD adds to their retirement %, 2.5% each year to be exact, unless they took the CSB, then they would receive 3.5% per year after 20. So shifting someone from AD to a reserve status would impact their retirement pay. I retired at 26 years, and receive 61% because I took the CSB, had I not I would be receiving 65%. Reasoning behind all of this is that based upon being able to serve up to 30 years allows for 75% retirement which, unless I am missing something for those allowed to stay over 30, is the highest % one can receive.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SFC William Swartz Jr It had been so long since I had looked at the systems, I had thought they had gotten rid of the 75% top-out. For some reason I was thinking the cap was 55%. Not sure why. Brain fry most likely.
Thank you for the correction.
As I said though, I'm pro keeping folks in, and pro keeping them on active duty. The goal isn't to get folks out, it's to keep folks in, and in longer. Just move them to a better "bucket" which opens up more promotions for all.
Thank you for the correction.
As I said though, I'm pro keeping folks in, and pro keeping them on active duty. The goal isn't to get folks out, it's to keep folks in, and in longer. Just move them to a better "bucket" which opens up more promotions for all.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I believe a good performing service member should not be forced out. A great company commander may become a below average major, however why waste a great commander by pushing him or her out. This holds for any grade. The trouble is stagnant promotions also push good serving members out so it is a catch 22. During my time in the army I saw good folks passed over and wondered why while I saw some promoted I felt were not deserving. One of the problems is the evaluation systems which is too subjective and very often inflated. A board just sees records and never knows the members they are passing judgement on. As an NCO I had to evaluate other NCOs and as a senior DA civilian I evaluated officers up to the LTC level. I had to make a choice to be objective and tell it like I felt it was or take a chance on damaging good member’s career. Also what most folks don’t under is the congressional mandated end strength the services has to deal with which is driven by the budget. There is a lot that has to be taken into consideration when making promotion policy and execution. Bottom line I don’t like the idea of forcing good service members out but not smart enough to figure out how to change things.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google