Should Officer Promotion use the Enlisted "Point" System?

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 30 Mar 2014 21:38:20 -0400

While the promotion point system has its flaws, it is a more tangible objective system designed to promote for merit rather than the Board does. With the changes in the military, including new OER formats that look increasingly like NCOERs, Would it be beneficial or not to have the Officer promotion system mirror that of enlisted?

For use for Junior Officers (O1-O3 or O1-O4).

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Mar 30 at 2014 10:46 PM

SGM Matthew Quick — Sun, 30 Mar 2014 22:46:19 -0400

What ranks are you talking about? All ranks?

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 30 at 2014 11:05 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 30 Mar 2014 23:05:56 -0400

Again, I will reiterate how different the jobs of NCOs and Officers are. What would you give points for? Should I be more eligible for promotion because I took the Forklift Operator's course? Do you want to reward me for chasing after schools or for being an effective officer? If various jobs became worth points, then people would job grub and attempt to dodge positions that weren't worth as many points. Higher point jobs would become revolving doors as officers try to get whatever the minimum time is in to get the points.

TIG is the wrong answer for officers too, but I prefer the vagaries of a board to an easily gamed point system. I don't really see that officer promotion is all that affected by "connections." Maybe at the O-5 to O-6 level and beyond, but at that point connections matter. Assignments, on the other hand, are a different story and certainly if you never get chosen for Company Command it will affect promotion, but it would behoove a Soldier to figure out why he/she is not being chosen rather than to complain about the system.

A one-size fits all answer will always have a lot of flaws.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 30 at 2014 11:38 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 30 Mar 2014 23:38:01 -0400

Im pretty sure all officers would max out civilian ed from the get go

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Mar 31 at 2014 11:30 AM

COL Vincent Stoneking — Mon, 31 Mar 2014 11:30:43 -0400

I agree that the O promotion protocol could use some revamping. I'm not absolutely opposed to some sort of baseline "points" system being used as screening criteria. However, as others have already pointed out, it would be really tricky to determine what counts, how much, and where that line should be drawn. Also, the luck of the draw on assignments could lead to lopsided results, where BDE A goes out of its way to ensure the junior Os get all the points opportunities possible while BDE B goes with the "suck it up" model.

There should ALWAYS be a board that subjectively evaluates the Officers going for promotion. I said subjectively on purpose. We need to bring considered thought to the process. Else, we promote people because "the reg says so." Subjectivity sucks when it negatively effects me. That said, leadership & potential for greater responsibility can really only be evaluated subjectively.

After shooting down your initial suggestion, I will throw out a few more to generate more discussion:

1. Enforce a bell curve for Rater & SR blocks. What does this mean?

Top Block: 5% (+1 year group for board purposes (see below))

2nd Block: 15% (BZ consideration population)

3rd Block: 60% (this would be "center mass")

4th Block: 15% ("retain, subject to needs of the Army, -1 year group for board)

5th Block: 5% (consider for show cause)

Failure of the Rater/SR to maintain their profile makes ALL OERS "center mass"

2. Make year group, or "relative DOR" a calculated, modifiable, value.

I go back and forth on this one, especially since YG doesn't mean as much for a reservist as it does for AC.....

Basic concept, Board eligibility is based on DOR. Allow people who perform significantly above expectations to be considered early for PZ and BZ promotion.

Criteria could include the 5% top block, awards (though that would require reworking of the awards system to ensure fairness....) and other things that might be considered under a "points" system.

3. BZ is a designated group with entrance criteria, not just "the follow-on year group." Again, this is where I would see the "points" system come to play.

My initial belief is that this system would allow top performers to truly stand out from their peers in both documentation and promotion, it would counter the perception (and in large part reality...) of lock-step promotions. It would give the boards some "meat" to sink their teeth into. It would encourage & reward efforts above and beyond "meeting standards."

It would also, most likely lead to an additional 3-4% of attrition across all Officer ranks in each year group (based on the assumption that some percent of O attrition already comes from the bottom of the deck). This, in turn, would allow more room in the next rank for the "star players" to move up. Overall, this should progressively improve the candidate pool at each successive grade.

In theory, under a system like this, someone who got ALL top blocks and for whom all the stars aligned could shave 1+ years off time in each grade. In reality, if they were promoted before they were really ready, they would end up getting center-mass, until they were top performers again. (Or asked to leave, if they suck).

Ready... Fight! :-)

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2014 9:20 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 01 Apr 2014 21:20:17 -0400

The problem with a promotion points based system for Officers is that it's not based on performance and leadership potential. Points are based an accumulation of Awards, Education (Military and Civilian), APFT Score (A small portion of performance), Marksmanship scores (Another small portion of performance), etc.

Evaluations of the Soldiers performance (how well he/she performed his daily job and how well he/she led Soldiers) are not considered for promotion. Certainly the Soldier's performance and potential is considered when a supervisor recommends a Soldier for a centralized promotion board, but that Soldier's performance is not the main weight that determines selection for promotion. That Soldier will sit in front of a panel of 1SGs and the BN CSM and the board's determination on his/her promotion potential will be weighed on his/her ability to recite memorized facts, recite the NCO Creed, perform small Drill movements, and the appearance of their uniform. And in the end we've all been told (I was a former SFC myself), it's not about how much you know but how confident you look in front of the board (although you have to appear as though you did some studying).

When you look at a de-centralized (non-points based) promotion system, the main weight that determines an Officer's or Senior NCO's selection for promotion is their performance and leadership potential (among a few certain discriminators), which is captured in the evaluation reports. The de-centralized promotion system is a very effective system... as long as leaders capture the true performance and potential of Officers and Senior NCOs. The problem with the system is not the system itself, but raters and senior raters that will not be the honest broker and give an honest evaluation of an subordinates performance.

Response by 1SG Frank Rocha made Apr 6 at 2014 10:07 PM

1SG Frank Rocha — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 22:07:34 -0400

All systems are inherently flawed if created by man, even if my the smallest of degrees, but that's just my humble opinion. That said, there will always be an element of subjectivity in any system designed to judge or evaluate. One rater may scrutinize and evaluate more harshly and conservatively , and another may be more liberal. You have lazy ones, and focused motivated ones. They come in all shapes and sizes. So the basis of points for performance, at least the part regarding your evaluation can cause your points to fluctuate a bit.

Its not unlike a scenario where you may see something happen and your perspective is obtained, well imagine someone witnessing the same event from a different location, that person will have an entirely different interpretation of the events based on their own life experiences, or frame of reference. for that same reason one board may have you high and the next have you low.

However, if the system being used is fair and just than you shouldn't fall or rise to far from where you should be based on your overall performance.

I understand where your coming from, its easy to want to latch onto something concrete, something you can set your watch to, something you can measure.

The Army National Guard recently moved to a "whole Soldier" concept with senior enlisted promotions. No points are awarded for anything.

In conclusion, the best way to fix the system is let your voice be heard at the proper time and place (timing is important). When move up into a position where you can make a positive change for the better then remember this moment.

Response by LTC Jason Mackay made Jul 24 at 2014 1:22 PM

LTC Jason Mackay — Thu, 24 Jul 2014 13:22:23 -0400

In addition to CPT Wolfer's response, I would say the point system is a way to deal with the high volume/continuous accession nature of enlisted promotions, much higher volume than say CPT-MAJ which follow annual cycles based on commissioning source flow. 1 LT/CW2 promotions work nearly the same as the Company Grade approved promotions (E1-4), except the BC is the approval authority. Don't forget, that the enlisted point system changed drastically over the last 20 yrs to encompass some sort of leader assessment with the 200 points by the commander. This powers down some of the promotion authority to the Company and Battalion level where that seniority of personnel primarily operate. Senior NCOs, Warrants, and Commissioned officers are expected to operate beyond that level.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 2 at 2014 7:27 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Sep 2014 19:27:52 -0400

I would hate to see this. Officers are so few vs Enlisted there needs to be a better system. Officers are much more competitive for promotions. If you were make a point system you would in part automate the promotion system and take out the influence of commanders. An example of this if an Infantry officer got an assignment to a LRS unit he would have the abillity to get Airborne, Halo, Scuba, Air Assault, and pretty much any school under the sun. Then again in 82nd an officer would be able go get Airborne, JM, and Pathfinder. If an officer was in 3RD ID he wouldn't get these schools. By default you would promote officers by their ability to get points. This would be the same for a unit that doesn't deploy vs a unit that would deploy often. The one that doesn't deploy would have the ability to further his education and get more points. You are judging the person for their achievement not for their leadership skills. Points rate the individual and not their leader ability or potential. You can't put points on something that is not tangible.

For this I would vehemently urge against it. In the OER Form we are rated against another. That way the best move up. It is not perfect but it takes away the ability to say everyone is awesome when in fact that is near impossible. Someone has to be better.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 2 at 2014 7:48 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Sep 2014 19:48:06 -0400

CPT Wolfer is right on target here. It would have to be significantly edited, to the point where it would no longer look anything like what exists for NCO's. There are retention plans to account for the fact that some guys will not achieve the necessary points to move on. The officer corps just doesn't have that kind of attrition planned. The first promotion of an officer is purely administrative. No offense. The second requires a board...a significant board if you've been playing along with the home game. NCO's don't see a board until they are going for E7. Using the same logic, the first board we would have would be to Colonel. You'd have to modify the OER...again. We are also evaluated against our peers. NCO's are not...yet. What you see happening right now (finally) is that the NCO system is merging with ours. Not the other way around. The process for selection and promotion in a smaller population (officers) is easier to modify and change, and thus it has matured faster than the NCO system. Moving almost anything in the officer personnel system towards the NCO system would be a huge step backwards. Trust me. You didn't see the old system 20 years ago.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 2 at 2014 9:12 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Sep 2014 21:12:30 -0400

On a side note That is a great question.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 18 at 2014 12:06 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 00:06:20 -0400

Although I know very little of the Officer promotion system, I would say NO!!!

In my (not always humble, I'll admit) opinion, the Enlisted point system is broken, promoting the box-checkers, and holding back the ones that are more concerned about doing their job and doing it well...

For example, I once knew an NCO who barely lifted a finger around the office because he was always locked away in his office working on civ or military ed. He was a CRUMMY officemate, and nearly incompetent at his job, but he was good at PT, had some deployment time, and got lots of education credits. He now has more than TWICE the promotion points I do, despite the fact that he knows HALF what I do about how to do our job!

In other words, if you want to promote the officers who are good at jumping through hoops, then by all means, implement a point system.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 22 at 2014 11:51 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Oct 2014 23:51:42 -0400

Senior NCOs, which is arguably more likely to do officer jobs than E5-E6 anyway, ie: if the unit does not have an officer or the officer is away on TDY, leave, etc., has similar boards to us. There may be "points" but they are determined for each board to meet the needs of the Army during that particular time of the year for that grade. So if you need more degreed engineers that might be in the plus column. Also, as CPT Private RallyPoint Member said about broke system, my take on that is each commander has a different opinion on awards. Some give them out like candy, others do not give them out at all, others are rank dependent, etc. So why penalize someone who received say a MSM instead of a BSM in theater. Though they are "the same level award" it is not viewed the same by most. BSM is worn higher and only offered in theater, yet many MSMs are given in theater instead of BSMs. Where do you start drawing lines for points?

I think the point system and the current system has flaws. All systems do. Since the board directions are guarded secrets and change with each board to meet the needs of the Army it is hard to pinpoint what needs to change or stay the same. Just stay current on your schooling, APFT, ht/wt, ORB, and DA photo and you shall be fine up to a point.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 10 at 2014 4:38 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Dec 2014 16:38:26 -0500

The issue in the Air Force, from my perspective, is you only have one shot at promotion to major. We promote based on year group, not on who is or is not ready. So, if you are great at your job, but you are in the same year group as a fast-burner being mentored by senior leadership, you may not get promoted. Then the next year, a mediocre officer may be promoted because there is no one in his group being groomed for the fast track.

Technically, you can get promoted above the zone...but the percentage of guys who get that are in the single-digits.

Does the Army system allow for multiple board looks?

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2015 9:16 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 08 Jan 2015 21:16:56 -0500

No, absolutely not. The last thing we need is officers pursuing schools and awards for the purpose of point accumulation.

The best way to select officers in my view is a combination of "best qualified" (education, assignment history, and performance) and achievement (proven ability in position, awards/ accolades, and experience in their branch). This is pretty close to what they do now.

The biggest flaw I see in the current officer promotion system is that it fostered a ton of inflation within the OER system and to a lesser extent, issuing awards. I think the new OER system addresses the former problem pretty well.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made May 11 at 2015 2:41 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 May 2015 14:41:06 -0400

This would be a terrible idea and I hope it never gets implemented. Officer promotions need to be revamped but this is NOT the answer. And really the only issue I have is with the National Guard where only the cool kids go to the cool schools and get promoted on time. In the Regular Army if you're really, really go, you'll get promoted below the zone.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made May 6 at 2016 9:59 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 May 2016 09:59:09 -0400

No.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 21 at 2017 2:12 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 21 Aug 2017 14:12:55 -0400

The enlisted promotion system shouldnt use the point systems, so that is an obvious thumbs down.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 10 at 2018 7:13 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Jul 2018 19:13:58 -0400

Apples and oranges.

Response by MSG John Duchesneau made Jul 11 at 2018 12:36 AM

MSG John Duchesneau — Wed, 11 Jul 2018 00:36:46 -0400

Oddly enough, its harder to get promoted to SSG than it is to CPT.

Response by SFC David Reid, M.S, PHR, SHRM-CP, DTM made Aug 4 at 2019 6:07 AM

SFC David Reid, M.S, PHR, SHRM-CP, DTM — Sun, 04 Aug 2019 06:07:06 -0400

No keep it like it is.