DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SECRETARIAT FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SELECTION BOARDS 1600 SPEARHEAD DIVISION AVENUE FORT KNOX, KY 40122 AHRC-PDV-S 29 June 2016 MEMORANDUM FOR Director of Military Personnel Management, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff G-1, 300 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0300 1. References. a. AR 600-8-19, Enlisted Promotions and Reductions, dated 18 December 2015. b. Department of the Army Pamphlet 600-25. c. DAPE-MPE-PD, Memorandum of Instruction (MOI) dated 21 April 2016, Subject: Instructions for the FY16 RA/USAR AGR SFC Promotion. 2. General: The Fiscal Year 2016 (FY16) Regular Army (RA) and Army Reserve Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Sergeant First Class (SFC) Promotion convened at the DA Secretariat, Fort Knox, Kentucky on 1 June 2016, to select the best qualified noncommissioned officers for the purpose of promotion to Sergeant First Class. Also, the board selected eligible candidates for involuntary separation from active duty in accordance with references 1a and 1c above. The board also screened packets on Soldiers referred to it under the Stand-By Advisory (STAB) process. 3. Issues and Observations. a. Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) rater and senior rater comments. (1) Discussion: The new NCOER provided the board members a better understanding of the NCO s overall performance and potential. The rater and senior rater comments were utilized to help identify the best qualified NCOs for promotion. The use of clear enumeration by the senior rater provided the board with a strong word picture of where the NCO stood in the population, e.g. 1 of 5. Senior rater enumeration without explaining the population was less helpful to board members and provided a vague, less useful word picture. members viewed several NCOERs with inconsistent rater and senior rater comments (e.g. rater assessed as Fully Capable and senior rater assessed as a 2/1 or 1/1). members found these
inconsistencies in comments to be difficult to interpret without additional clarification from the reviewer. (2) Recommendation: Continue to educate the force on the new NCOER. Ensure all leaders understand the importance of clear, concise statements and the value of enumerating the NCO. Raters and senior raters should utilize the evaluation tool to differentiate the NCOs who deserve to be promoted. Terms like promote ahead of peers are omnipresent and do little to assist board members in determining the quality of the NCO. The evaluation should remain a neutral, unbiased record of performance and potential, and inclusive of direct language to identify the NCOs who will lead Soldiers in the future. The chain of command should reference AR 623-3 and DA Pam 623-3 to ensure evaluations are written correctly. b. Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) Soldier refuses to sign. (1) Discussion: NCOs who refused to sign their evaluations were regarded less favorably by board members. Signature on the evaluation indicates the NCO has confirmed the administrative data is correct. The board concluded many NCOs may believe that not signing is a way of protesting or appealing the evaluation. (2) Recommendation: NCOs should refer to AR 623-3, Evaluation Reporting Systems, for the proper way to appeal an evaluation. Senior leaders should provide NCOER professional development briefs to broaden NCOs understanding of the Army evaluation reporting system. Regular information briefings will reduce misconceptions regarding the NCOER process. c. DA Photo (1) Discussion: Files contained no photographs, old photographs, NCOs wearing unauthorized non-permanent awards, incorrect appurtenances or awards in improper order of precedence. Several photos were not in accordance with AR 670-1, e.g., shaving, haircuts, hairstyles, etc. (2) Recommendation: All Soldiers are required to adhere to Army Regulation 670-1, Uniforms and Insignia Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia and Army Regulation 640-30, Personnel Records and Identification of Individuals Photographs for Military Human Resources Records. Recommend Soldiers have supervisors inspect their uniform prior to taking an official photograph. d. Diverse and challenging assignments. (1) Discussion: members noted the length of time spent in broadening assignments and special mission units. Broadening assignments, such as Recruiter, 2
Drill Sergeant, Observer/Controller-Trainer, AIT Platoon Sergeant, and Instructor/Writer can increase the competitiveness of an NCO's promotion file. There were several files where NCOs appeared to have in excess of five years serving within a special mission unit or an identical duty position within traditional operational billets. NCOs who had a variety of assignments, showing diversity, agility, the ability to lead in an array of organizations and under different circumstances made it easier for the board to identify demonstrated leadership potential for advancement. Diversified files of with a range of experiences and with consistent outstanding performance typically indicated higher promotion potential. (2) Recommendation: Continue to assign high potential NCOs to broadening positions following successful completion of key developmental assignments. Allow these NCOs to operate in positions typically held by those of higher rank when the opportunity is available. Ensure NCOs are given the opportunity to complete key developmental assignments to remain competitive. e. Noncommissioned Officer Education System (NCOES) and Civilian Education. (1) Discussion: Those who displayed lifelong continuous learning in military schools and earned additional skills identifiers (ASIs) as well as MOS specific certifications for self-development were viewed favorably by the board. NCOs who earned Honor Graduate, Distinguished Leadership Award, and exceeded course standards in all rated areas during NCOES stood out amongst their peers. NCOs were viewed favorably if they were inducted into prestigious professional clubs such as Sergeant Audie Murphy or Sergeant Morales. The appropriate civilian education glide path is clearly stated in DA Pam 600-25. Many records were found to be inconsistent with regard to college credits annotated in the Army Military Human Resource Record and the Enlisted Record Brief (ERB). Several NCOERs included comments from Academic Evaluation Reports (DA Form 1059) that were viewed by the board as unjustified and of minimal value. (2) Recommendation: NCOs should familiarize themselves with DA Pam 600-25 to ensure they understand the appropriate level of civilian education for each rank and or level of responsibility. Soldiers seeking to set themselves apart from their peers should seek membership in distinguished organizations such as the Sergeant Audie Murphy/Morales clubs. Soldiers should ensure college credits, transcripts and diplomas match the information annotated on their ERBs. NCOERs should not include comments that are covered on the DA Form 1059. f. Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) scores. (1) Discussion: Raters who identified outstanding APFT scores and NCOs who showed a consistent adherence to Height/Weight (HT/WT) standards helped board 3
members to identify the best qualified NCOs. Statements concerning the Physical Fitness Badge award, improvement on Physical Training (PT) scores and/or exceeding unit standards for PT scores helped indicate NCOs who remained disciplined and focused on maintaining physical fitness standards. Scores of 200 or less, Needs Improvement and/or failed Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) were viewed unfavorably. (2) Recommendation: Unit physical fitness training programs should be scrutinized by unit leaders for accountability and adherence to Army standards. Physical fitness readiness is an Army mandate. Senior NCOs should take personal responsibility and hold themselves accountable to the standard. g. Height/Weight inconsistencies. (1) Discussion: members noted several files reflected inconsistencies in HT/WT on consecutive NCOERs. Discrepancies were noted between a Soldier s NCOERs and AERs. Several files showed NCOs who were either enrolled in the Army Body Composition Program, had failed the APFT, or a combination of both. Numerous files reflected significant trends where the NCO consistently struggled to maintain physical fitness standards. Failure to maintain consistency within the Army standards IAW AR 600-9 resulted in board members questioning the credibility of the evaluation. (2) Recommendation: Raters should ensure HT/WT standards are consistent across rating periods. Units should enforce the standardization of the Army Body Composition Program and appoint quality trained personnel to assist with managing the program. Unit level leadership should ensure that readiness standards are maintained and that all information provided on the NCO's evaluation report, to include the APFT and HT/WT is complete, accurate, and in accordance with AR 600-9. h. Completeness of Army Military Human Resources Records (AMHRRs) and ERBs. (1) Discussion: The board found that many Soldiers lacked source documents in their AMHRR for awards, decorations, and schools. members found it challenging to validate decorations when documentation was not present in the file. Many ERBs lacked updated duty position data, e.g., incoming personnel, known loss, or excess. (2) Recommendation: Each NCO, assisted by their chain of command, should make every effort to update both the ERB and AMHRR. Continual updates and file reviews will potentially alleviate missing documents and inconsistencies in the Soldier s file. 4
i. Army Values reflected on the NCOER. (1) Discussion: Raters should provide an explanation of no entries in the Army Values section on the NCOER. Raters and senior raters who did not clearly state the negative event or behavior left board members attempting to make their own determination of the Soldier s situation. (2) Recommendation: Raters and senior raters should follow the guidance in DA PAM 623-3. Raters and senior raters should explain any no entries and clearly state the failure in upholding values, character, or performance shortcomings within the bullet comments. j. Quarterly counseling not annotated. (1) Discussion: The board noted omission of counseling dates on many of the NCOERs reviewed. This trend may indicate that raters are failing to take regular opportunities to actively coach, mentor, and train junior NCOs during the course of the rating period. (2) Recommendation: Soldiers are encouraged to sit down with senior leadership to complete the evaluation process. Raters should continue to seek opportunities to conduct counseling sessions and provide Soldiers an accurate assessment of their performance. 4. Conclusion or general comments. a. Civilian education coupled with exceptional performance demonstrated a perception of critical thinking, adaptability, and dedication to self-improvement. Soldiers with associate s degrees or higher were viewed favorably by the board members. b. The NCOER is the most important document to determine and quantify the Soldier s potential to serve in positions of increased responsibility and skill level. Raters and senior raters must be quantifiably expressive in their comments and appropriately rate subordinates to reflect effective talent management. Complete the Record evaluations are an effective means, when used within the regulation, to communicate to the board the rated NCO s potential for promotion and the chain of command s commitment to expressing this to the board. c. Letters to the President of the were carefully considered and identified those NCOs who appropriately addressed issues that impacted their promotion file. Files inclusive of letters supported by the ERB, NCOERs, and other appropriate documents were viewed favorably by the board. 5
d. It is highly recommended that the NCO seeks advice from their immediate supervisor for a record and photo review before validating their board file. e. The selection and promotion board process is unbiased. NCOs should ensure their records reflect the most up to date DA Photo, ERB, and NCOERs. Military and civilian schooling develops a more complete leader. NCOs should ensure they reference DA Pam 600-25 and follow their respective career map to include broadening and successive assignments to ensure they are on track with proposed career progression. g. Soldiers hold the responsibility to manage their own careers. They should seek assignment diversity to demonstrate the ability to accept greater responsibility and potential for further promotion. //Original Signed// DANIEL G. MITCHELL Brigadier General, U.S. Army President 6