Steep decline in promotion rates? What does it mean for the Army?

2015-05-27T12:47:43-04:00

I have some friends who are up for the FY15 LTC Army Competitive Category (ACC) board. The **rumor** is that the board results were pulled back because promotion rates were below 50%. Compare this to the 2012 story below where promotion rates to LTC were 83%. Is this the "new normal"? Why would promotion rates be so low? Is reduced force structure to blame? Too many O-5s and O-6s still on active duty? Is the Army trying to get rid of the generation that fought the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

http://archive.armytimes.com/article/20120729/NEWS/207290315/O-5-selections-plummet-lowest-rate-decade

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 27 at 2015 12:52 PM

2015-05-27T12:52:55-04:00

That is unfortunate when the military draws down after a war. Same thing after Vietnam. The young Lts. And Cpts. who are battle seasoned get the shaft. It also hurts the military then the next conflict comes we have to build up and train troops.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 27 at 2015 12:57 PM

2015-05-27T12:57:18-04:00

Less than 50% is very de motivating. If this is true, seems like a cop out for the Army, as they'd essentially be separating 8 or 9 times as many officers through non-select for promotion as they did in the OSB. They said they would continue to shape the force through normal procedures, but below 50% is ridiculous. But, then again, the class of 1999 did not go through OSB or SERB.

Do you by chance mean FY15 board results, as The Fy 16 board meets this coming January?

How reliable is your source of info?

Force reduction is the "why" to this, though. As we promoted everyone to LTC for the last 15 years (last year's board excluded), we can't just continue to promote everyone when the jobs just don't exist.

Alternatively, maybe those in primary zone, generally commissioned in 1999, just had bad records. I find this hard to believe for an entire cohort, though.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 27 at 2015 1:08 PM

2015-05-27T13:08:14-04:00

In the Veterinary Corps, the 2014 Selection Board promoted five out of 17 in PZ (29%), two AZ, one BZ. Overall, that's less than half the historical total. Since the VC doesn't parse out by AOC, three of those eight were 64D (pathologists), even though the VC is overstrength on 64D LTCs. Two of them went into PhD programs where they will be leading nobody for three out of the next five years before their PZ look. I'm unfortunately in very large and good company. I estimated about 22 PZ this year and 31 AZ, but the rule of thumb of half the PZ+AZ is not likely to apply, leading to another abysmal year. Oh yeah, and today is day 110 since the Board recessed. The only silver lining in the VC is that most are getting SELCON. Mine is to 24 years, which means they need me to stay in with the PhD and board certification in veterinary preventive medicine, they just don't want to pay me as an O-5 for it. MRT anyone? Five ACOMs in a row, Army Acquisition Corps with two level 3 certifications, Iraq deployment, and I'm not hopeful.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made May 27 at 2015 1:28 PM

2015-05-27T13:28:58-04:00

This happens every time following major conflicts. As drawdown of forces occur, the need for the various ranks are reduced, particularly those at the top. While those at the top are career officers, they are less likely to leave early and, as a result, the military gets top heavy, which affects promotion rates to those higher ranks.

The only way to alleviate the situation is to convene SERB Boards with the promotion boards. Promotion boards select the best qualified for promotion, while the SERB boards identify and select the least productive/qualified personnel for early retirement, freeing up the slots for those selected for promotion.

Maybe the Army should consider the "temporary promotion" policies that were used in previous times (like WW II), whereas people are temporarily promoted during time of war, but revert back to their "permanent rank" in peacetime.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made May 27 at 2015 1:42 PM

2015-05-27T13:42:46-04:00

I would say the 33% delta is due to a shrinking army. I hope those who do not get promoted will get their retirement.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made May 27 at 2015 1:58 PM

2015-05-27T13:58:54-04:00

While I doubt the promotion rates will be like they were 5-6 years ago, the low ones you are seeing now are a product of the drawdown and should't be expected to last more than a few year groups until the Army stabilizes at the desired end strength and rank distribution. Yeah, it's gonna suck for the next couple year groups, and there's really nothing you can do about that. Timing sometimes works for you, sometimes works against you.....

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made May 27 at 2015 2:17 PM

2015-05-27T14:17:42-04:00

In a perfect world, Id like to see promotion rates stay moderately high and involuntary separations/ forced retirements go through the roof to meet end strength goals.

From an impartial review board.. visit every MSC, three step process. Review records, interview those affected and hear testimony /mitigation. Then hand out pink slips and move on to next MSC.
Start at the top with GO and Senior NCO.. then work your way down to private and LT

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made May 27 at 2015 2:43 PM

2015-05-27T14:43:42-04:00

It's the same old story..too many officers too few slots. I went thru this at least 3 times..post VN, following the collapse of the USSR and following ODS..I got lucky. But I did spend 7 yrs TIG as a a Major.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 27 at 2015 3:07 PM

2015-05-27T15:07:12-04:00

I've been telling myself I will know in August. I hadn't heard any rumors about this list one way or another.

Response by SGT Robert Hawks made May 27 at 2015 3:47 PM

2015-05-27T15:47:57-04:00

With the downsizing there will be less opportunity at all the senior ranks from senior NCOs to Field Grade officers saw the same concerns in 1996 and 1997 during the downsizing under President Clinton many majors where QMPed for not making LTC as where many SSG's and SFC's for not be promoted in a timely manner I know that some regulations regarding retention have change since then but I would still say with the services shrinking due to budget cuts promotion will become very competitive and harder to achieve.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 27 at 2015 5:31 PM

2015-05-27T17:31:31-04:00

I'm at year 18 -- when I came in in 1996, it was a big deal to retire as a LTC -- because so few folks made it that far.

Looking at your profile, this probably is unheard of for you. But just as we've dropped the "no major left behind" program at CGSC & are back to actually boarding all attendees, we have no need to keep or promote every person we have on the rolls.

Yep, that could feel like a sucker punch, but in reality, your year group came in on a high note and just hasn't seen a time when career progression was reality instead of a bubble.

Agree that it's annoying to see less-than-stellar individuals leading, but talent management has plenty of discussion streams here on RP -- a much bigger issue.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made May 27 at 2015 6:39 PM

2015-05-27T18:39:58-04:00

Great post and this is very relevant to the Warrant Officer cohort as well. Promotions starting in 2012 saw a sharp decrease in the percentage of promotions per MOS and rank. This has happen partly because of the downsizing of the Army as a whole. Also, for Warrant Officers, promotions and accessions were very high for about 10 years during the height of OEF/OIF and this has caused a bottle neck between the CW3/4/5 ranks and now we are severely over strength in many MOS's causing current promotions to be lower than normal. For example, prior to 2012, promotions to CW3 across the board were in the 80% range with some MOS's promoting at a 95% rate or better compared to 64% for last year’s board and 54% for my MOS as an example. As a plan to help fix this issue, between 2012 and 2014, the year groups considered for those promotions boards were reduce from 12 months to 8, also any 2 time non-selects were actually being forced to retire, attempt to receive the TERA retirement option or to separate. In years past, many 2 time non-selects were given SELCON status for an additional 3 years or more. For this year’s board, the 12 month year group for consideration was brought back and the zones for promotion has shifted to the right. Now each Warrant Officer will get their primary zone look at 4 years TIG and pin on in 5 and there are no below the zone looks. Every senior Warrant Officer from the BDE level all the way up to DA believe that it will be this way for a while.

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made May 27 at 2015 10:06 PM

2015-05-27T22:06:41-04:00

As many others have already replied, it is just a fact of life in a shrinking Army. Fewer promotions are needed to fill a given number of slots. Simple math.

Especially in an economy like we currently have. Most especially given the (relative) governmental austerity, were there are going to be fewer working for/consulting for fed.gov positions (where a lot of LTCs and COLs seem to go). The Officers in those slots are going to tend to stay right up to their MRDs, all things being equal. Result: Even fewer slots needing fills.

The QSBs, etc are aimed at SUBSTANDARD PERFORMERS (with the paper to back it up). At senior levels, they aren't going to garner many. Their records are at least average, at least on paper, where it counts. The decision was made to use these force shaping tools to get rid of the easy low-hanging fruit.

Getting rid of those who simply are not exceptional therefore logically (and correctly) falls to the promotion boards. You promote those who have demonstrated the ability for greater responsibility, and don't promote those who haven't. Again, based on their paper record, which is the only one that counts in a centralized system like ours.

End result: Lower promotion rates. Like LTC Private RallyPoint Member , I've been in a while and recall when it was the NORM for Officers to punch out at MAJ because LTC just wasn't happening. In fact, being non-select for CGSC was what they call a "clue"... I fully expect this to become a reality again. I likewise expect that the average TIG for CPT to MAJ will go up, as will MAJ to LTC, for those who make it. I expect at least another 18-24 months at CPT, and another 24-36 months at MAJ, unless we have another war. Peacetime armies have slower promotions. It's just a fact of life.

I can understand some frustration in feeling that people who "got lucky", "skated by", or "won the lottery" are the ones sitting on boards making the decisions. Again, it's just a fact of life, especially in a rapidly shrinking force. First, by policy/law (I think it's law, but I'm too lazy to look now) members of promotion boards must be at least LTC. Second, members of the board must outrank the considered population. The later is just basic common sense. How can someone consider your potential for service at a higher grade if they are not intimately familiar with service at that higher grade? The end result, no matter your current rank, you board will always be composed of people at least 2-3 years senior to you. In a rapidly shrinking force, that will mean they got "breaks" because of the different optempo and manning requirements. It's not good or bad, it just is. Seniors will always be seniors, doing senior things.

I would be surprised if it was 50%, but I would be unsurprised by 60-65%.

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made May 27 at 2015 10:07 PM

2015-05-27T22:07:42-04:00

Very Simple.

The Army will loose way way too many good leaders who put mission ahead of politics who will be let go, and too many that punched their tickets will be retained.

Then, we will get our asses kicked, too many good men will die, until we train and develop good leaders again. We do this all the time, GUT THE MILITARY in favor of some social program that will neither ensure our security NOR WILL IT solve any societal problem. We should gut Socialist Bull crap and maintain the strongest military that we can grow.

Leaders are grown and not born and we tend to loose great ones every time they want to cash in on "The Peace Dividend"

Response by COL Charles Williams made May 27 at 2015 11:02 PM

2015-05-27T23:02:35-04:00

It means the Army is downsizing and we are going back to pre-911 timelines for both NCOs and Officers. Eisenhower was commissioned in 1915. In 1936 he was promoted to LTC... 1944 he was promoted 5 star. This is way of the Army. The Army ebbs and flows with what is going in our world.

http://www.nps.gov/features/eise/jrranger/chronomil1.htm

This happened too after the cold war and Desert Storm (92-94), when the Army went (in short order) from 800k to 450k. I was 85, and I missed the cuts, but 86 and 87 were destroyed...

Response by SGT Lawrence Corser made May 28 at 2015 9:26 AM

2015-05-28T09:26:48-04:00

trying to rcp people?

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made May 28 at 2015 9:31 AM

2015-05-28T09:31:35-04:00

This is a personal viewpoint, but the military seems to have more flag officers than during WWII, when we were at one point in time, fighting on three different continents/regions of the world, with more service members than we have seen since. Things worked out fine. Have things gotten that more complex that we need that many more officers? I understand that the world is much more complex and dynamic, and we may never fight a conventional WWII style war ever again, but I think low promotion rates in general, for officers and enlisted, are a good thing. It seperates the outstanding servicemembers from the mediocre/awful ones.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 28 at 2015 1:39 PM

2015-05-28T13:39:23-04:00

I can almost guarantee that at least part of that is due to lack of completion of the appropriate level of PME. Last I heard, your file can still be seen by the board with a waiver, but that's no guarantee that you'll be selected if you don't have that graduation certificate.

Response by LTC Nancy Bodyk (Retired) made May 28 at 2015 2:47 PM

2015-05-28T14:47:58-04:00

When I was Commissioned in 1992, the drawdown from Desert Storm was near an end. The Army took the minimal number of 2LTs on Active Duty, the Reserves, and the Guard. Promotion rates in the ranks were not high at this time. I remember a Battalion Commander telling me in 1995 that at that time to consider making it to MAJ as career success because promotion rates were that low. 50% is not low considering the military is in the midst of a drawdown from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Part of the reason why you saw high promotion rates were a second order effect from the previous drawdown before OEF/OIF. There were significant shortages in officers from year groups 1991-1994 because the Army only Commissioned the bare minimum required in each of those years. They didn't take in to account that a lot of officers in those year groups elected to get out after their initial term was up or prior to the 10 year mark. It resulted in shortages in my year group throughout my time in the military. Promotion rates were high because of this. They went higher because we increased the size of the Army to be able to keep up with the manning requirements to support OIF/OEF.

The promotion rates go in cycles. At some point they will go up again because the Army will cut numbers and as a result of this additional officers will get out along the way because we have a history of doing "more with less people" and at some point some Soldiers will say enough is enough and get out rather than stay in during declining morale and being asked to do more and more work. It's happened during the 1990's and it'll happen again.

This is not about getting rid of officers with combat experience, it's a simple numbers game to get down to the approved strength. While the intent is to focus on those who have derogatory information in their files, PT failures, overweight, etc.; good people will be put out as well along the way. I lost some very good SPCs in my first unit because they had hit the 8 year mark and couldn't get promoted because the promotion points were at the max level for their MOS. I hated to see them go, but the points were not dropping below 798 and these guys had done everything they could to get points and still couldn't achieve the 798. It's a sad reality of drawing down the military, some good people will be put out too.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 29 at 2015 3:00 AM

2015-05-29T03:00:50-04:00

Hearing that the results were scheduled for release prior to 29 May, but were delayed, and now are expected to be released in the second half of June.

Response by MAJ Raúl Rovira made May 29 at 2015 2:50 PM

2015-05-29T14:50:36-04:00

The Army is shrinking and this is out of our circles of control or influence. Promotions vary regardless what DOPMA states (Defense Officer Personnel Management Act). 70% for LTC. It can be higher in war as we have seen and it will certainly be low during reductions just like the rate last year.

I tell folks, if you are a non-select on the PZ board start ACAP so when the AZ results come out you are not at -6 months.

On the positive side, there are so many fortunate officers that in the event of twice non select, but over 15 years of service, they can retire under TERA until SEP 2018.

In the end, this is the reality of where we are at now.

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made May 30 at 2015 3:34 AM

2015-05-30T03:34:22-04:00

the guillotine is rolling out.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 4 at 2015 9:33 PM

2015-06-04T21:33:42-04:00

This is the new normal. The army is nearing the end of the most current phase of ARSTUC (army force restructuring) inactivating 11 BCTs, and is going to announce (in the near future) that they will likely cut another 2-5 BCTs. The 11 BCTs each held roughly 77 MTOEd LTC positions. Staff sections are shrinking at all levels. The boards are becoming more selective, and selecting less because there are just not enough authorized positions available anymore.

Response by SSG Kenneth Lanning made Jun 8 at 2015 9:08 PM

2015-06-08T21:08:47-04:00

50%? Wow; officers have it good O.o

Response by Maj Chris Nelson made Jun 9 at 2015 9:03 AM

2015-06-09T09:03:41-04:00

I feel that it is the same type of thing that has happened in the past.... Slash and burn..... "done" with war, cut the numbers..... do it NOW. Then, in a year or 2, they will discover that they cut the numbers so effectively, that "oh shit.... we need more" Air Force is doing it also... I think every branch has done it before, doing it now/soon, and will do it again in the future.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 25 at 2015 12:26 AM

2015-06-25T00:26:12-04:00

The DoD does not want to have an official RIF (reduction in force) Because they entitles soldiers to additional privileges and benefits. So in an era where budgets are tight it is easy to attack the 1% who serve for savings because the military is expensive. So they cap the number of promotions/slots/billets and kick people out because "they failed to promote". Failing to promote is "on the soldier" and the actual RIF continues without the commensurate statutory obligations that are attached to a RIF. Prepare for a time when the military is mostly part time and very few are allowed to reach the stage where they can receive retirement benefits. Many would say this is "disloyal and a beech of the leader led relationship". But it definitely will save millions of no one were allowed to stay long enough to retire.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 28 at 2015 10:42 AM

2015-08-28T10:42:04-04:00

Overall promotion rate of 61% for PZ, total promotion selection rate of 70% (including AZ and BZ numbers). Some branches and functional areas WAY below the average, though. I haven't seen the final breakout of data on by-MOS promotion rates; does anyone have one? I'd also note that its easier to get promoted to colonel in some MOSs than to LTC (ie, some MOSs had higher promotion rates to COL than to LTC).

Response by LTC Nancy Bodyk (Retired) made Nov 12 at 2015 12:48 PM

2015-11-12T12:48:13-05:00

It's called being in the midst of a draw down. The same thing happened after Desert Storm. I came in at the tail end of the Reduction in Force after Desert Storm. The promotion rates were very low as a result. The positive for my year group is it created shortages that followed me up through my career so the promotion rates for MAJ and LTC were very high, plus add in two wars and a temporary increase in strength and the rates were above 90%. Yes, the military will make cuts to the minimum level and it will result in another year group shortage. It goes in cycles.

Response by MSG Robert Mills made Nov 18 at 2015 12:53 AM

2015-11-18T00:53:35-05:00

Ya think they are trying to do that lol what's your first clue Sir? Trying? ohh no They are doing it. But that's fine, there is a shit ton of COL's, LTC's that need to be told don't go away mad, just go away. The same holds true for some enlisted as well.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Nov 21 at 2015 1:34 PM

2015-11-21T13:34:58-05:00

Most seem to be nailing the force reduction piece. In my viewpoint over the past 40+ years, 83% to O-5 is real fat. Flow points in stabilized times were 75% to O-4, 60% to O-5, and 40% to O-6. Although I was staff corps, our rates were tied to the unrestricted line numbers. The worse end I saw was a 15% promotion to O-4 for YG-76-77 as Big Navy pushed a bunch of O-3 Surface Warfare Officers in and push-buttoned them. So those who spent 10 years doing great work got tossed. That came back to haunt the system as corporate experience took a dive. Two things happen on downsizing with the zones. The percentage gets dropped and also the width at times. I've seen 6-9 month zones with precepts for no above/below picks. I've also seen promotables stay that way for 2+ years because there were no billets. That torques some off so they leave, but that reduces the pressure on those still in. Military members have less "protection" than civil service given no bump or retreat options. Put me in the got tossed category.

Response by LTC Andrae Evans made May 24 at 2016 9:05 AM

2016-05-24T09:05:04-04:00

The old normal is back. It is unheard of to move from LT to MAJ in eight years. We are paying that price now. For this war, where attrition was so low, there was no need to increase the pace of promotion following 9-11. What it mean to those in this year group should another conflict arise is that they will be looked at as slugs since they did not rocket through the ranks. Yes, it is stupid, but the military has never been about quality just image. We will suffer because we will have convinced young brash officers that the actually know what they are doing, and we will offer their souls to the god of ignorance and overconfidence just as we have for the last 14 years. Our political system will also pay the price as the decision they make will cause and have caused unwarranted CIVCAS, diplomatic missteps, organization failures, and billions of dollars in misappropriated funds like the gas station in Afghanistan, and the many unbuilt schools or failed wells. The officer core today is delusional. Those promoted are not the best, or the brightest, or the bravest. We must do a better job than picking our buddys and roommates, or the guy I trust because he looks like me, to lead our Nation into the abyss the future holds. Now I will read the article.

Response by SPC Ron Hines made May 26 at 2016 11:43 PM

2016-05-26T23:43:22-04:00

Smaller army less promotions

Response by LTC Lockhart Simpson made Oct 2 at 2016 3:45 AM

2016-10-02T03:45:03-04:00

Promotion rates in the Active Army have always been cyclical. The rate was high a few years ago because of the wars. Now we are in a time of cutback. The selection rate for Major has been below 60% and above 90%.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Jun 14 at 2018 10:46 PM

2018-06-14T22:46:00-04:00

Promotions go down when force structure goes down- fewer troops=fewer Officers. It is simple.