Is the QMP/OSB wrongly being implemented? Have you seen Soldiers/Officers that shouldn't have been effected by this process?

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 May 2016 10:34:34 -0400

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made May 1 at 2016 10:46 AM

SGM Matthew Quick — Sun, 01 May 2016 10:46:37 -0400

What do you mean by "wrongly being implemented"?

If an NCO is separated through QMP for their own failures to maintain standards, how can this be wrong?

Response by SPC Paul Jennings, J.D. made May 1 at 2016 11:11 AM

SPC Paul Jennings, J.D. — Sun, 01 May 2016 11:11:04 -0400

QMP took on a new meaning when they decided to start separating soldiers with 16-18 years. These soldiers receive no benefits and likely would have fought derogatory information in their files had they known QMP procedures would be changed in the draw down. After all, previously QMP just meant that you were forced into retirement. Now, it means your forced out with no benefits mere months before you reach entitlement to a full retirement. Fix this issue and the QMP process becomes far less controversial.

Response by CPT Mark Gonzalez made May 1 at 2016 12:26 PM

CPT Mark Gonzalez — Sun, 01 May 2016 12:26:57 -0400

A few points. 1. OSB is wrong, due to a lack of clarification on how potential is defined and terrible talent management. If people knew they were in the 70% or less it wouldn't be a surprise, but currently there is no expectation management. Where do you really fall compared to your peers? I guess you can ask informal leaders, but with an inflated evaluation system the best they can do is make an educated guess. Is the Army really doing the best it can to manage talent and expectations? Two guys with a similar record, but one is prior service and has more time in service. The older guy is going to get the boot as the younger one has greater long-term potential. It isn't that the younger guy is better, but the older guy's 20 year mark hits first and the younger guy has more potential because of it. It may not be fair, but this is reality and ageism.
2. QMP, if all QMP Soldiers were for solid Army Values issues there is no arguement from me and no one is going to feel bad for you. However, have a dust up with your rating chain and if they slam you on the eval, you are done. No need for an investigation and no due process. One falling out between an NCO and maybe a toxic leader and the NCO is going to be shown the door. How is that reasonable? Allowing that creates a culture of yes-man, where you are more concerned about career preservation than taking care of your Soldiers. Because if you speak out and the leader allows it wonderful, but if he doesn't you can be toast.
Overall these processes treat people as numbers and not people. I wasn't cut by the OSB or any action so I don't have an axe to grind. I feel that many that say these processes are fair do so from a point of view that it is only catching shitty Soldiers and the ones who are not shitty, are just the cost of doing business. Loyalty during a draw down is an interesting concept.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 1 at 2016 5:03 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 May 2016 17:03:58 -0400

I think if the command felt that what the Soldier did was separation worthy, it would have been done at the time of the incident.

Response by SGT David T. made May 1 at 2016 9:28 PM

SGT David T. — Sun, 01 May 2016 21:28:07 -0400

I think an easier way to draw down is to cut those who are already slated for chapter. Next ask everyone in the target demographic if they want to early out and let them go. If the number is still to high then there might be a need for it.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made May 2 at 2016 7:25 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 May 2016 19:25:10 -0400

My case was over 40 years ago. That said, I had the head of AF personnel tell me people were being eliminated because their command picture showed them with the oak leaf clusters turned the wrong way on their ribbons. Pretty sad to lose a career for such a "serious" problem. But, it happened.

I sincerly hope they are at least doing it better today.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 6 at 2016 5:57 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 May 2016 17:57:52 -0400

QMP is wrongly implemented, I would get kicked out for something 5 years ago over a dead man profile Soldier. Why not put 15 to 17 years Soldiers under QSP not everyone in the Good ol boy club and Toxic leadership applies to the ones in leadership as well.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 9 at 2016 10:21 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 09 May 2016 22:21:39 -0400

I'll say this. The QMP process & outcome is greatly flawed. In a court of law a defense is aware of why he specifically is being charged & they even prove it in her/his face. This way is cowardly & has a quota to meet.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 17 at 2016 10:08 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 17 May 2016 22:08:30 -0400

QMP == Totally wrong idea.
A pattern of bad behaviour or misconduct would reflect on more than two NCOER rather than just one. Criteria should not focus on senior rater ratings. That's how I got selected.
>:(