Wienies build a wienie NCO Corps
The big benefit to the Army of a decade of war is the experience those back-to-back deployments gave those junior NCOs. They led troops in the most difficult times, they dealt with leadership problems that soldiers who never deployed will never understand. So, let’s just devalue that experience, shall we? From the Army Times;
The Army has moved closer to launching a new promotion system for NCOs with the early-December redistribution of promotion points for specialists, corporals and sergeants competing for E-5 and E-6 stripes.
[…]
The Army also is eliminating the points (up to 60 for sergeant and 90 for staff sergeant) that were available for combat experience in the “Military Training” section of the worksheet.
So, you see, being a wienie has it’s benefits now. I’ll admit that schooling and all of that is important but serving in combat is at least as important – well, unless you’re a wienie. And the Army’s Sergeant Major wonders how 50,000 soldiers are non-deployable.
Category: Big Army
I am glad I’m out. Damn, the US is really screwed now. . . . again.
They started doing that on officer boards in my organization a few years ago. Before the change, a combat patch was pretty much a prerequisite for promotion. When the leadership directed the boards to not make deployments a factor, then started REFRAD boards, suddenly deployments were a detriment because the guys who deployed passed up key and developmental jobs stateside, took hits on their OERs, and didn’t have the face time with the organization’s leadership.
This reminds me of the Battle E competition in 2003. For those not familiar with Navy awards, the Battle E is awarded to the most battle-ready ship in its squadron each year. In 2003, with OIF raging, almost every submarine in Squadron 2 was deployed and operating in actual combat in either the Med or Gulf, save one. Guess which boat won Battle E that year? Yup, the one boat parked in front of Squadron 2’s HQ building all year because it never deployed and the CO had plenty of shmoozing time with the Commodore.
Most of the time our B-E winners were always deployed at least half the time in a combat AOR. It is a one year cycle and usually is part of a deployment cycle that is part of the grade. At least that is how the Dirt Sailors do it.
Here we go again with the Army wanting to jettison its Grunts that aren’t afraid to do the right thing in favor of the Gazelles that only care about politics and ticket punching just like after Vietnam and Desert Storm! History repeats itself yet again, I wonder if B. Hussein 0bama & Company aren’t trying their damnedest to gut the U.S. Military worse than former President Clinton and her husband Bill did?
And a damn fine job they are doing of it. Jimmy Carter just keeps smiling as his legacy looks better and better with each passing day.
No worries. There’s going to be Grunt females soon. Does the 30% more muscle mass for a given weight matter? Of course not. Do instincts matter? Nope. Women are now equal to men when it comes to physical abilities, because Progressives said so. Facts and science don’t matter. Apparently being in the Infantry, or any Combat Arms, is justtttttt like being supply.
Making room for the social justice warriors. Why keep the war fighters around?
Kinda like when I went to WLC after I made E5 where maybe ten percent of the instructors sported a combat patch while at least ninety percent of the class did and they treated us like we were in the first week of BCT. They also kept students that failed height/weight and the PT Test and I remember the days when either would get one thrown out of the school, it looks like they’ve made self esteem a higher priority than Combat Readiness.
I do believe you have nailed it with your comment “…it looks like they’ve made self esteem a higher priority than Combat Readiness”. I went in the Army in 1966 and retired in 1993. I always loved soldiers and soldiering, but it became clear early in my career that Big Army was as much the enemy as the bad guys, and it has only gotten bigger and bigger.
The military is being transformed into an organization that exists to serve the whims and wants of the individual, rather than the individual serving the needs of the organization.
Why do you think the Army pushed three through Ranger School?
There were a handful of Female Officers bitching about the Competitive Promotion System and always getting passed over by male counterparts because of the Tab.
Folks can argue that all they want, but that it what I have heard for some time now.
The good of a few outweighs the common sense and the good of the many.
And just wait until we have the first Infantrywoman with a CIB.
That CAB debacle will look like a waste of time. “How do I get a CIB without having to do whole Infantry thing first?” will be on the minds of many (men as well).
I will leave how that happens up to your respective imagination(s).
Bullshit.
No matter how you slice it the women who made it through that course are exceptional soldiers who did their country proud. Those three soldiers just wanted to be the best, and all you can do is denigrate their accomplishment.
I was not infantry; but
I stood next to Infantrymen in formation while they were awarded CIBs for combat actions in which they were FAR behind me on the battlefield while I got a firm handshake.
I earned CAB in Iraq for combat action in which Inwas almost killed but I know CIB wearing infantrymen that never fired or even heard a shot fired in anger. I also know a Signal Corps Soldier who was hit in the head by an RPG (and survived). He submitted his Purple Heart citation as justificationfor his CAB and his is MITT team commander initially denied it because he ‘didn’t engage the
Enemy’
Doesn’t this elimination of combat experience as a promotion evaluation tool eliminate the urgent need to place women in combat roles?
No. In fact, it may well make women more competitive for promotion – just like it does those men who avoided deploying during the GWOT.
Perhaps a two-tiered system? Points for females, because they’ve been “held back”, and no points for males? 🙂
Oh, I get it. Women weren’t generally deployed to Vietnam, because it was a war zone. We were kept stateside to release men for duty in combat zones.
So the military is being turned into a bunch of girls.
That’s a lot more clear now. Thanks!
Women have served honorably in many jobs, and some of them were combat oriented. However when your job depends on heavy physical ability the average woman just can’t keep up. I’m all for woman serving, but being an 11B etc. just isn’t the right fit. The weight you’re carrying doesn’t get any lighter, but it does get easier the more muscle mass you have.
And you entirely missed my point, Brian, which was that during the Vietnam war, women were recruited to fill slots in the US and release men to combat duty overseas in-country.
Since, as the article states, combat points are being discounted, my response that the military is being turned into a bunch of girls is an apt reference.
It as nothing to do with women in combat now.
You are correct; I did misread your point. My apologies.
Damn. I feel sorry for the Army. (Honestly…)
I hope the good idea fairy who put this in the mind of whoever leaves the Marine Corps the f@ck alone.
But we never gave points towards cutting scores for combat experience. Minus combat meritorious promotions, combat has always been a non factor in promotions in the Corps.
Clarification: Non factor for Sgt and below, combat Fitreps do generally hold more weight in certain MOS’es for selection boards.
(That’s sorta what I was referring to. I should have been more clear).
Roger that Master Guns, tracking.
I would be okay with this if it were just limited to soldiers with a blatantly non-combat MOS like clerks or cooks. But for combat arms, and combat support jobs that are likely to come under direct fire, these points should remain.
My God! How can the Army get rid of points for combat? What the hell?
My thinking has always been that, if you join the military, you should be chomping at the bit to get in the field, whether it’s combat arms in the Army, going to sea in the Navy, flying in the AF.
My first tour out of A school, I was landlocked. Every time my Chiefs and officers asked what I wanted to do, I always said, “I want to go to sea.” I couldn’t imagine being in the USN and not having sea time.
The powers that be finally got sick of me saying that and got me into a seagoing billet. I pretty much spent the next two years deployed. Whoo hoo!
When I was a CPO, I had a boot Seaman check into the A school where I was a Division CPO who told me that she “never ever wanted to even see a ship.”
She said that to the wrong person. She at least kept her mouth shut after that.
I was in 24 yrs. with 0 sea time. Have deployed 12 times. 4 in combat zones and 4 Civil Humanitarian Recovery Operations and the other 4 regular 6-7 month deployments to Europe and Asia. Not everyone in the Navy goes to sea but they will deploy..
Mistake Katrina does not count as deployment so 11 not 12. Don’t want SV coming after me because I said 12 and it was 11….
While I think operational time should in some fashion towards promotion, I don’t believe the Army’s crediting for “combat service” was accomplishing the goal, as it was tied to receipt of the Combat Zone Tax Exclusion, which we have beaten to death here on the board over the years.
Why should a soldier who was in Kuwait and a soldier who was serving in Iraq/Afghanistan get the same number of points? Why should a soldier who deploys to a hostile fire/Imminent Danger Area that is outside the combat zone tax exclusion area (Lebanon or Syria anyone) not get any?
Or, perhaps one of the reasons why the points are no longer calculated is that everyone who is an E-5 going to E-6 in any specific MOS likely has maxed out those points anyway?
Today the number of deployment opportunities for junior soldiers (E1-E4) is greatly reduced from years past, based upon how we are executing the fight and deploying units. Do we penalize the E-4 who finds that we was assigned to 1st BDE 1st Infantry Division and his unit was tasked with deploying to Africa during his enlistment period, over his buddy in 2nd Bde who was deployed to provide security in Kabul? Neither one had an option, they just did what the Army told them to do.
Glad I am out.
The E-5 spoon is now equal to the Tabbed and CIB SGT.
Roger the fuck that.
Way to go Army!
It takes a big person with some steel in their spine to advance someone for a job when the person being considered has more experience than the person responsible for the placement. In lesser individuals, that invokes a job protection response. I would think that lack of moral fiber would be disastrous for the military, particularly when our troops are being deployed into dangerous areas around the world.
On the other side of the coin I have heard that the Infantry has put renewed focus on the EIB.
I think the reason they are removing the 60 point for combat experience is because it no longer serves the original purpose statistically.
In the past the combat experience was seen as valuable experience, as valuable as the civilian education (which is awarded points), and, often soldiers deployed were not able to pursue civilian education.
However, now, so few soldiers are deploying that the majority of those competing at the E-5/E-6 grade are not combat veterans. And many of the one that are combat veterans are one that have been holding their grade for some time.
Additionally, since such a large percentage of the military had deployed the non-deployed pool tended to be non-deployable folks or people that avoided deployed intentionally. While I few motivated soldiers had not deployed were are talking about overall characteristics of large pools of soldiers.
So the statistics now have shifted overall, the “best” soldiers are not necessarily the combat soldiers since the one’s at that grade are ones that have lingered there. While top young soldiers are at a competitive disadvantage because they have not deployed. So instead of promoting a top young soldier they are promoting a mediocre combat soldier.
I know there are fantastic combat soldiers that have recently deployed. But this policy is meant to address the promotion system overall. It is dealing with large numbers and 60 points is a huge statistical advantage not necessarily given to the best candidates.
Taylor: that argument might hold water for reducing the points given for E5 (typically around 4 to 4 1/2 years). Even then, I’m not sure I buy it – my experience was that units typically don’t send known poor performers to a Bn-level promotion board, so the problem you posit (e.g., poor soldiers with lots of deployment time having an advantage over those good young solders without a deployment) would be largely self-correcting or a non-issue entirely. I could be wrong.
Not sure I buy it at all for E6.
Promotion to E6 in the Army happens at around 8 1/2 years on average. 8 1/2 years ago would be mid-2007. We had a helluva lot of troops deployed in the 2007-2009 time frame. (I know – I was one of them.) And as I recall, when Iraq started ramping down in 2009, Afghanistan started ramping up substantially.
So no, I don’t think most of those being considered for E6 are “out of the window” for having had a deployment yet. Even if they deployed while very junior, I think that experience is rather important – and should be considered when it comes time for promotion.
Hondo good points. I have a dumb question how can you be in the Army and never deployed in the past 14 yrs.?
The reason I ask this or say it is why did the Navy, Air Force and yes Marines have to fill in as Individual Augmentees assigned to help Army unit’s and Joint Task Forces?
Yes I know that Army filled some of those gap’s also. We were told it was to help the Army because they were undermanned. I do understand that with the drawdown the chances of deploying will be going away for the majority of the Army. So changing the system to some point may be the thing to do.
The Navy does advancement based off of a test system up to E-6. This system takes into account overall score on exam and has a system of giving points for evaluation’s (same as ORE’s) E-7 and above goes to a board and if you have not completed a Deployment or a Sea duty assignment in the past three years forget it you will not make it. If your not in a operational unit it will count against some time in your carrier sea shore rotation.
The Navy should never have this bad of a problem. We will always deploy that is how the Navy is set up to be forward deployed for power project around the world.
A couple of reasons.
1. Service and unit authorized end strength is based upon the peace time structure and not the war time required structure.
2. The conflict required the building of new units that needed augmentation of experienced personnel (you just can’t recruit them off the street).
3. Our mobilization models were based upon a much shorter conflict, not a 10 year sustained effort. In short, the assumption with mobilization planning was that we would mob once for a much shorter duration.
4. All of the other requirements that the service(s) had, didn’t go away. We still had to maintain a division plus of manpower in Korea, along with other deployments around the world.
5. While eventually the Army end strength was adjust (from 490K to 570K) it still took 100K additional soldiers on active duty (mobilized RC) to meet all the requirements.
6. Lastly, some enabling functions were present in multiple services (EOD is a great example along with Intel) that the nation could call on to support further forward.
I am curious what the make-up of the stay behind/non deployable is going to look like in the modern Infantry brigade in the near future. An all star cast of broke dic#s and pregnant folks. As a caveman I am sure being Infantry and pregnant every time the grunts deploy will not effect promotion’s in the least. That actually sounds like the title for a realty T.V “Infantry and Pregnant” tonight on Fox. I have to trade mark that, its all mine.
The new point system is already in effect.
Also, not only did they get rid of points for deployments. They also got rid of NCOES points AND NCOES is required to even go to the board now. No grandfathering.
But on the upside, they raised college points. So while mine went down 45, it went up over a hundred.
Too bad I have to go to ALC now before I can get my rocker.
‘way back when, I remember a lot of issues over requiring NCOES – it was a resident-only course then, but many units had very limited slots – we got literally one slot per quarter.
I’m so glad I’m out and my 214 blanket protects me from all this bullshit Lol….
and as far as the destruction of the Army well they should have thought about that when they said there was no chemical weapons in Iraq instead they played politics with the issue… shame shame shame
From the 2014 E5 boards for Signal
SpecA was deployed in 2012 and came back in 2013 his records show many signal classes and awards relating to signal performance and is about a year into college.
SpecB did not deploy, his records show minimal training class in signal and no awards relating to his performance and went to college and thus has an Associate’s degree in humanities
SpecB got the promotion… and did not know how to lead troops effectively in the ways of Signal thus degrading his squad’s effectiveness while SpecA was discouraged and eventually transferred out
I’m proud of my daughter for serving but she was voted “most popular” in basic training (no shit, i’m not making that up) by her platoon so graduated and E-4. Now after 3 yrs in without PLDC or any schooling they just gave her stripes and offered her recruiting duty.
I think what most of us family members of people serving on active duty would like to know is.. where can one buy the promotion points gift cards? I’d hate for my relatives to be left out!!
I’m on the fence on this issue. Having made multiple deployments, I would love to have had those points counted……. however I also personally know multiple people that “deployed” but never left Kuwait, ERB still shows the ‘combat’, they were still authorized the pay and patch…. but let’s face it while Kuwait is an annoyance, it’s not exactly hostile….. I also never understood why the Army would grant points for a school that was a requirement for promotion (when I made e5 you had to have PLDC before you could pin (and Europe was almost a full year behind on available school slots)). If a person has a NCOES school ahead of their grade (say ALC while being an E5) grant points for that, but not for a school that is required to be that grade.