Army Up-or-Out standards
The Colorado Springs Gazette reports that the Army has announced it’s newest standards for soldiers to remain in service in regards to their ranks;
Privates will get five years to move up or move out. Specialists and corporals will have an eight-year pull date and three-stripe sergeants will have 14 years.
The move narrows the promotion windows for career-minded soldiers as the Army works to trim 80,000 troops from its ranks by 2018.
The first rank that will allow a soldier to reach the 20-year retirement mark is staff sergeant.
The only enlisted rank that can make the 30-year mark is sergeant major. I remember the last time they did this, the Army notified an E-8 friend of mine with 28 years of service that he needed to retire immediately. He had tears in his eyes as he told me that he didn’t know what he was going to do without the Army. That’s why my advice is to go out on your terms. Make plans to get out when you want to get out and don’t deviate from your plan.
Category: Big Army
Isn’t this pretty much already the standard?
@1, Twist, no,when I got out of the Army, the RCP (retention control point) for E-4 was 10 years. I remember when the RCP for E4 was originally 8 years and they upped it to 10 years back around 96 or 97. There was a long line of sad looking Specs standing outside the brigade retention office. They had all missed the cut off date for having 8 years so they all had to either get out or extend their enlistments out to the new RCP. Most of them were dirt bags who were just floating along in the Army hoping they could reach RCP and get paid to get out.
Thanks, Andy. I never had to worry about RCP so I don’t know a whole lot about it.
As an Officer, I think we need to do something about getting some of these COL’s that refuse to retire out of the way.
Navy has had High Year Tenure for decades. Ours is 12 years for E5, 20 for E6, 24 for E7, 26 for E8. You used to be able to retire as an E5 at 20. I think it makes the Navy stronger. Do they force out good Sailors? Yes. But at the same time, it’s survival of the fittest. Most times, better people can get promoted because of it. Not everyone is cut out to be a Chief, Senior Chief, or Master Chief. I sure am not cut out to be a Master Chief. Maybe a Senior Chief. However, the current promote rate from E7 to E8 in my rating is 2 out of 35. My chances of making it in the next 2 years is very slim. But, I’ll retire and find something new to do.
I reread the post and realize I missed that the new cut off for Buck Sgt is now 14. I seem to recall the Army would let E5 non promotables retire at 15. Guess that’s gone. E6/SSG has always been able to retire at 20 during the time I served.
Funny personal story. When I got to my first unit in early 93, there was a Buck Sgt in another company that was coming up on 20 years service. He had joined in his 20’s and was over 40, and after 20 years humping a rifle, he looked every bit of it. Seems every time the Army moved the RCP for E5 he would just miss the cut off and got to keep serving. He wasn’t a bad guy, and everyone liked him.
SOUNDS LIKE SGT SINTCHA ANDY,78TH ENGR BN ETTLINGEN GERMANY,RHEINLAND KACERNE
I do not really have a problem with this set-up.
Fosters competition.
Also, this is not usually something you see in the Infantry except in rare cases. And by then, everyone knows that the individual in question is a shitbag.
Just saying.
@4 they either are holding or have already held a board to force a couple hundred LTCs and COLs to retire. Results should be out in a couple months. Their focus is the guys who haven’t had command at their rank and likely never will, but are staying in as long as they can.
So, this means no more milking it to the last drop?
They are already doing this for Officers.
A promotion board is also a retention board.
It’s sad, but I can understand why they’re putting this in place. The Army is getting slashed, and they can’t afford that many people anymore. I do agree with an above comment, Colonels that are sticking around and not getting promoted should also get slashed. They’re probably not contributing that much if they’re not getting noticed for a promotion.
20 was plenty for me. Any longer with the cr@p that goes on now and I would have been mustered out anyway.
“The first rank that will allow a soldier to reach the 20-year retirement mark is staff sergeant.”
They should lower this to 15.
20 years and not a E-7 or higher?
This is unacceptable.
112 days until retirement (not that I’m counting or anything).
@11
In fairness to all the promotion stagnated colonels/captains…making 0-7 BG/RAML is the single hardest promotion by far – its a bitch. Maybe 3 to 5% of 0-6s will ever pin on a star. I’m sure there lots of exceptional hardworking officers wearing eagles, but not nearly enough promotion slots. Consolation is to allow them to serve out to 30 yrs if possible.
While we are devaluing our currency, lowering standards, and reducing forces, China is training.
These things come and go. Depending on the MOS and service it makes sense.
I can honestly say that pretty much every case I ran into when someone was forced out due to high year tenure in the Corps they needed to go. The best thing I could say about a few was “they were good guys”.
The ongoing trend with most is that they were usually propped up by the guys working for them, aways had “personal” issues”, avioded PT like the plague, ducked field ops and couldn’t lead of starving men to the chow hall.
So true, currently happening now. There is a running joke about the individuals that are never at work, have the worst personnel problems in the world, always sick or on appointment but always at the right place at the right time.
These are: “1 over 1” Among the Best!
Meanwhile with the worker bee: Somehow working hard and doing the right thing goes to the burnt out individual who is constantly covering down for those who are not a valuable asset. Lord forbid, if they were sick or had to take care of their personnel issues, in truth they are time-bombs ready to explode because of it.
They are called the 2 or 2 and somehow are given awards prior to their NCOER? Little of a oxymoron don’t you think?
Definition: You have to know how to kiss ass.
Don’t know if it is still like this, but I remember meeting a very sharp admin type (71L?) in a medical unit who had been on the promotion list longer than I had been an NCO, and had been an NCO longer than I had been in the Army (7 years at that point.
I hit the E-7 list two years later and I believe he was still trying to make E-6…but the cutoffs were maxed in his MOS.
Ah, the replay of the early 90’s post Desert Storm has begun – can’t wait to see where the next Mogadishu will pop up. Now we just have to begin the back stabbing and ass kissing for the perfect NCOER/OER and the cycle will be complete.
@7, are you entirely sure about that? I had a Platoon Sergeant in my former unit (Infantry Scout/Sniper) who didn’t want to lose his platoon. He fought tooth and nail to keep from being promoted into a new slot that would have taken him out of his position. He wasn’t what I would call a shitbag.
The only problem that I can see with this is with the higher ranks. They should make it similar to officer cut-offs. O-7 and higher don’t have any up or out that I’m aware of and neither should E-7 and higher, maybe E-8.
I wonder how this will work with some of those Privates who are high speed, but are assigned to shit-ball units with asshole S-1s?
@4: Hear, hear. As a fellow AMEDD officer,I agree. We need to cut some serious weight from the ranks so we can promote people who actually meet standards and WANT to be there. The people who just are ‘waiting it out’ need to go.
@19, you forgot senior NCOs and officers in command positions worrying that if they don’t get a NTC rotation in during their rated period, they won’t be competitive for that next promotion/assignment. Ah, the 90’s.
A million years ago, I knew a guy who lost a stripe due to a DUI. He was on the list for E-8 and was blasted down to E-6. He had 19 years. They tried to delay the article 15 after he got promoted to E-8, but the general (who had 3 prior DUIs!) nixed it. The NCO was outed at twenty as an E-6. He was a good guy.
I do think you need an up or out program. There are circumstances in some cases that needs looking at (multiple combat deployments vs education?). Anyway…seen it before. It is the cost of doing business…it is called cutbacks.
@18: David, it’s happening in the officer corps already. When I was up for O3, I couldn’t promote, due to lack of slots, and the We-MARSG cracking down on double and triple slotting for promotion purposes. I ended up having to make a lateral transfer in my battalion to a unit a couple hundred miles away to a medical support unit to promote. I don’t know if it’s happening in other areas, but AMEDD (officer side) is WAY over strength; the NC in particular. I don’t know as much about the enlisted side, but I know a lot of my good medics had to transfer to other units to make E6.
I’m not sure how much credence I’d put in this article representing a “tightening up” of anything. As Twist noted, these appear to be about the same RCPs that have been in place since 2011:
http://www.armyreenlistment.com/Messages/MILPER/RCP_Changes_11_096_20110325.pdf
If there’s a later MILPER message out there with different RCPs, I haven’t found it.
I don’t have a problem with a 38-year old private as long as he can hump his pack and shoot his rifle. Maybe my standards are too low, but the whole idea of a private soldier, from where the the rank gets its name, was that he showed up, relatively sober with the proper kit and a minimum skill set. The Brits I’ve served with managed this well but their force is smaller.
I think there would be some economies in shit canning up-or-out if evals were accurate, promotions were competitive and we ditched the 20-years or nothing retirement model.
I crack myself up!
#24 I’m in the ARNG, and I see the same thing in my unit (Engineer). UMR has an E4 and E6-E7 slots, but no E5. Where the hell are they supposed to go to advance? Only MOS slots in the state are in this unit :). They usually reclass for their 5 and then jump back in for 6. Hell of a way to build proficiency in a job.
@20 Flagwaver
GO/FOs have strict time in grade, total yrs service, age restrictions…they are on the clock to keep getting promoted or face retirement.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/10/A/II/36/III/635
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/10/A/II/36/III/636
To expand on Devtun’s earlier comment, officer “RCPs” in effect exist, but are defined by law vice Army Regulation. They’re found in 10 USC 630-636. Summary is as follows:
O1 – discharged 18 mo after found unqualified for promotion (10 USC 630).
O2 – must be discharged NLT 6 mo after 2x nonselected for promotion (10 USC 631)
O3/O4 – must be discharged NLT 6 mo after 2x nonselected for promotion (10 USC 632)
O5 – unless selected for and awaiting promotion, must be retired on the 1st day of the month following the month the individual attains 28 years of commissioned service (10 USC 633).
O6 – unless selected for and awaiting promotion, must be retired the 1st day of the month following the month the individual attains 30 years of commissioned service (10 USC 634).
O7 – unless selected for and awaiting promotion, must be retired the 1st day of the month following the month the individual attains (a) 5 yrs TIG, or (b) completion of 30 years of commissioned service, whichever is later. (10 USC 635)
O8 – unless selected for and awaiting promotion, must be retired the 1st day of the month following the month the individual attains (a) 5 yrs TIG, or (b) completion of 35 years of commissioned service, whichever is later. (10 USC 636)
O9 – unless selected for and awaiting promotion, must be retired the 1st day of the month following the month the individual attains (a) 5 yrs TIG, or (b) completion of 38 years of commissioned service, whichever is later. (10 USC 636)
O10 – must be retired the 1st day of the month following the month in which the individual attains (a) 5 yrs TIG, or (b) completion of 40 years of commissioned service, whichever is later. (10 USC 636)
O9s and O10s who are removed from their current position must be reappointed to another O9/O10 position or they revert to the grade O8 (MG/RADM).
O1-O6 may be involuntarily discharged or retired via board action during a drawdown (RIF board/SERB). Not positive if that’s true for GOs/FOs.
If you’re an E-3/4/5 in a closed MOS/NEC, that’s one thing–if you’re the same guy who just can’t make rank or is a dirtbag, there’s the door.
But it took me 6 1/2 years to make E-6, so what do I know?
@20.
Possible, but that is a rare case.
And to be clear, this individual did not want to get promoted?
NHSparky: during “tight” personnel times, some Army technical MOSs can be extremely difficult ones in which to make E5 and E6. E5s with 8 or more years in service weren’t that rare in some MOSs due to promotion cutoff scores that stayed at 886 or 995 (the max – the max changed during the early 1980s) for literally years.
If I recall correctly, one of the really good E5 team chiefs in one of my units took over 10 years to pin on E6. He’d been on the list when the max score changed – and the month the max score changed, he exceeded the old max. Some months later, scores finally fell one month and he got to pin on.
The guy damn near cried (he’d been on the list for somewhere around 3 years, as I recall).
“Privates will get five years to move up or move out.”
5 years?
WTF?
“The promotion timelines, released in a Pentagon memo, apply to the regular Army, Army reserve and National Guard.”
This sounds like this’ll apply across the board, but the memo states that this’ll affect Army Reserve and National Guard that are on the AGR program. Army TPU isn’t affected, but they’re looking at return to the enforcement of the maximum years of service for TPU participation.
The new RCP is slightly different for some ranks in the February 1, 2014 memo as opposed to those listed in the ALARACT that changed the RCPs back in 2011:
2011 RCP: http://www.armyreenlistment.com/Messages/ALARACT/020_2011_RCP_Changes.pdf
2014 Memo: http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/ad2014_03.pdf
This’ll affect regular Army and reserve/guard Soldiers on AGR.
@ Green Thumb
I can’t speak to Flagwaver’s specific situation, but I can comment on my own.
In my 20 yr career I turned down promotion to E5 once, and E6 twice. I retired as an E6 after a pretty good career, and enjoyed the respect of the majority of my peers.
I realize the Gaurd/Reserve, and the active side are considerably different in character, and maybe that’s the rub, but I find it pretty insulting to hear people berate soldiers who’s only crime may be that they loved what they were doing too much to give it up. I spent 17 years drilling out of the same building, and frankly if the powers that be were going to force me up the ladder when I really didn’t want it, they could have gone and screwed themselves, I’d have left.
There are always going to be MOSs that are extremely slow promoting. In the Corps it seemed like Motor T had that reputation of having decent Marines getting out at 20 at SSgt or Gunnery Sergeant.
Then there are Snafus where they promote a bunch of people then change the T/O.
Prime example, in my career was when the Marine got the M198 howitzer in the early 1980s. They changed the T/O to make the section Chief an E-6 SSgt instead of an E-5, Sgt. That meant they has about 108 openings for Staff Sgt 0811s. They selected a buttload in 1983 ( I think the time in Grade as a Sgt was 2 years to be in zone), Then they changed the T/O back to Sgt.
They then jumped through the hoops again by pushing a lot of 0811 SSgts and Sgts to the 0844 field, which spread the misery. Bottom line was that both MOSs needed 5 years in grade to be selected. And Motor T was worse,
thebesig: seen the new memo yet; thanks for the link.
Only differences seem to be for promotable CPL/SPC, SGT, and promotable SGTs. In the new guidance, RCP for nonpromotable SGT went up, from 13 to 14 years, while RCP for promotable SGT went down from 15 to 14 years. Big change was for promotable CPL/SPC, which went down from 12 years previously to 8 years now.
All the other RCPs (E1-E3 and E6-E9) seem to have stayed the same.
@36.
I have never seen someone turn down promotion.
That leads to stagnation. If that was your call, then that was your call. I do understand the Guard is a different animal, I do.
But I stand by my comments.
I don’t think this should apply to the National Guard AGRs. I was an AGR and the slot I was in was promotable up to E-5. If I wanted to get E-6 I had to drop paperwork and apply for a position when/if that position became vacant, and even then if say an E-6 from another unit that was going through drawdowns decided he wanted that position he got first dibs on it. You could be squared away and still get boned under the way the guard works.
GT- my father, in 1979, turned down promotion to Major. He had to ‘resign’ it due to no slots available; the process back then was to slide to enlisted, and work from there. His retirement rank is W-5, even though he was promoted to O-4. Another factor in this was he was full-time for the ARNG.
Second, the 2-time pass was ‘waived’ for the last several years for officers. This I know personally; I will retire with 33 yrs TTIS in June (enlisted in 1981; officer as of 1986) and had 2 ‘bad’ promotions to O-4 (process they have is effed up) so I was retained.
There are exceptions to nearly every rule in the book
@41.
Good point.
My comments are obviously somewhat biased as I have always been AD.
But I have never seen a senior NCO or Officer turn it down. Passed over; yes. E-7 and above not get picked up; yes.
And I could also see, maybe, turning it down at 18-19 plus so that you do not have to serve the required next three to maintain the rank upon retirement.
Although, as you pointed out, there are exceptions in every case, I have never seen it.
To me, and maybe just to me, I always remember the old CPL and CPT for life paradigm. And both of those nine times out of ten were terrible to work with/under/for in the Army.
I made E5 in 34 months (signal corps, promoted 1990) then struggled to make E6 until 1999. Maxed everything but PT. I made the cutoff 30 days Prior to ETS, I had given up. What was then 31 series was arse deep in lackluster dipshit E6 slot wasters waiting on 20. I made E7 first look, it was easy. I had a stellar record of carrying the load as an E5 in an E7 slot.
@42:
I saw an SFC turn down MSG. He’d submitted his retirement but the CSM held onto it knowing the SFC would be selected for MSG. Upon selection, the CSM asked the SFC to reconsider retirement. The response from said SFC to the CSM was pretty much f**k you and the horse you rode in on, the fact you played this game makes me want out quicker.
You rock, Frank. Big Red is still tearing up the trails.
Green thumb, one thing that used to be common in the NG, was units containing members many of whom had served together for a decade or more. I know a lot of NG units had bad reps for years, but I never experienced any of the horror stories. We were extremely professional in uniform, and most of the guys I served with had professional lives, a plumber here, a contractor there, a bank loan officer over in the corner, and our long time Platoon Sgt. who was a state welfare fraud investigator who traveled over 100 miles for every drill for over two decades specifically to stay in our unit.
While most military personnel have experienced the sense of camaraderie and family that’s often talked about, the unit I spent 17 years in really WAS family, including brothers, and two married couples.
I couldn’t have asked for a better military experience, but as is usually the case, moving up the ranks required moving around to different units throughout the state, something a lot of us had no desire to do, and many couldn’t afford to do. Fortunately during my time in it never became an issue to move up or get out. I saw plenty of people pass on promotion over the years.
Funny, in the Cal Army NG, we had to fight for promotions in many MOS’s…until the deployments started…then people seemed to go away
90s deja moo all over again.
Up or out timelines were bascially the same for the USMC.
CPLs out at 10, SGTs out at 13. In the 03 field, promotion for Staff Sergeant was 7 years TIG and 12 years TIS so a lot of Sergeant were shown the door. Unfortunately, a lot of Staff Sergeants were seeing the writing on the wall and retiring, so they had to offer reenlisment bonuses for Staff Sergeants. Brilliant. And trying to get Involuntary Seperations Pay was a joke. “You’re not eligible for Involuntary Seps pay because you’re eligible to reenlist. Okay, I want to reenlist. Sorry, you’re at your high year tenure and can’t reenlist.” I’m not saying the Career Planner was assaulted in anyway, but he did have a significant limp and a suspicious black eye for a while….
Great advice, Jonn. Been working on my exit strategy for about 15 years & the exciting thing is that I will probably get to pursue my passion for hockey as opposed to taking a gubmint GS or contractor job working in a similar career field. Eff that. Fine for those who want that, but I am going to make a clean break and go sit in cold rinks looking for the next Sidney Crosby for a living.
MrBill: don’t think the legal requirement for separation for 2x passover was “waived” per se. 10 USC 637 gives the services the authority to “selectively continue” officers facing separation if needs of the service dictate.
Selective continuation (SELCON) is not automatic. By law (also in 10 USC 637), SELCON requires board action and selection. The law allows selective continuation of O3s twice passed over to a maximum of 20 years commissioned service, at which they must be discharged if still an O3. O4s passed over twice may be continued until 24 years commissioned service. Those are maximums, and services have authority to SELCON individuals for a lesser period of time. At the end of the SELCON period, the individual must either (a) be selected again for SELCON, (b) be discharged, or (c) retire if qualified to retire.
The same section of Federal law also gives services the authority to defer retirement otherwise required by Federal law for O5s through O8s due to meeting maximum time in service if needs of the service require, and gives the President authority similarly to defer mandatory retirements for O9s and O10s.
For a number of years after 9/11, my impression is that SELCON policies were pretty liberal (particularly in the USAF). However, during the last 2-3 years the policies have tightened up substantially.
One thing I remember from the early 90’s RIF was that they wouldn’t let you reclass into a low cutoff MOS – ask me how I know :). Wonder if history will repeat itself?