Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hey Guys/Gals,

As many of you will no doubt be familiar with, the US military has a "move up or move out" policy. Basically, you're expected to increase in rank and responsibility or be booted from the force. The Army has a policy for officers that if you are passed over for promotion twice, you are separated from the force. My question to you out there is do you agree with this policy? I'm from an aviation unit. Recently (within the last year) I had the displeasure of separating a great crew chief. He was a phenomenal mechanic, knew the helicopter inside and out, and was a very knowledgeable flight instructor. He was an E-6 at the tail end of his career (National Guard) and the EQRB deemed him not qualified for retention. Do you agree with this policy?

I believe that some soldiers find their ceiling and they should not be separated for realizing that they are unsuited for higher service. There is no shame in being a squad leader, or a Battalion staff officer (okay, maybe there is some shame in being a staff weenie). Do you think it is a good idea to force people to move up to higher positions of responsibility and authority that may not suit them when they excel at the job they currently occupy?

Discuss? Looking forward to seeing what the rest of Dakka's Veteran Brigade think.

More a historian/Army brat, I find it a useful policy. It allows the military to remove the old guard over time and prevent an already conservative (conservative as in one that is naturally disinclined to change) leaning organization from being even more so. It also helps stem the Peter Principle from hitting an environment where people in a position higher than their competence has fatal consequences. Instead of just leaving those men/women in that position, it forces them out and brings in new blood which is risky but probably better in the long run.

Those things still happen of course but I think the policy helps keep it from being worse. The biggest downside is that if you have 5 capable officers but only 3 positions up the chain, two of them will be removed from the force simple because the other 3 were better (more or less) which kind of sucks for those 2.

shame in being a staff weenie

Staff weenies can be insulted but often their the ones who keep the whole show moving Much of Rommel's success in Africa can be attributed to his staff officers excellent abilities in their roles. Napoleon, Augustus, and the first Crusaders were all men who benefited a great deal from excellent staff (Crusaders didn't call them Staff).

Its very different in Canada.

Many members will happily stay at their occupation's working rank for a loooong time, and only accepting a promotion to a staff job at their place of retirement for the pension benefits.

As a junior officer in a flying position, many, many qualified pilots will stay as Captains (the working rank for pilots, majors don't fly much, and infinitely less the higher up you go) for two decades, if not more.

As a small military, it works well overall, keeping a lot of good experience where its needed most at the unit level, while still allowing the motivated to move up to the relatively few command and staff positions.

Personally, I'll probably turn down my first few shots at being promoted. I'll want to fly for many years, though I can see myself taking a senior officer position a few years before retirement. I also don't want to work in Ottawa.

Yeah, yeah I know. I just feel there's a place for for old platoon sergeants and staff sergeants (and majors and light colonels) who have reached their potential and can still contribute to the force.

Maybe I'm being nostalgic or melancholy as I transition from one of the new guys to one of the old timers, or maybe it's just a facet of the changing nature of the Guard (I'm full time Guard), but sometimes I can't help but feel that we prematurely throw away experience in exchange for vitality.,


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
Its very different in Canada.

Many members will happily stay at their occupation's working rank for a loooong time, and only accepting a promotion to a staff job at their place of retirement for the pension benefits.

As a junior officer in a flying position, many, many qualified pilots will stay as Captains (the working rank for pilots, majors don't fly much, and infinitely less the higher up you go) for two decades, if not more.

As a small military, it works well overall, keeping a lot of good experience where its needed most at the unit level, while still allowing the motivated to move up to the relatively few command and staff positions.

Personally, I'll probably turn down my first few shots at being promoted. I'll want to fly for many years, though I can see myself taking a senior officer position a few years before retirement. I also don't want to work in Ottawa.

I just took a promotion to Chief Warrant Officer 3, and I look around and think to myself "man, everyone is so YOUNG." Seeing the platoon sergeants and old crew dogs fading away I guess has got me feeling old.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:


I just took a promotion to Chief Warrant Officer 3, and I look around and think to myself "man, everyone is so YOUNG." Seeing the platoon sergeants and old crew dogs fading away I guess has got me feeling old.

I can't comment or relate to that, seeing as I'm still a lowly, young 2Lt, but up north we keep a lot of the experienced guys around in the units. Its fairly common for instructors here to end up working for their former students, as the latter gets promoted constantly while the instructor turns it all down just to continue teaching.

The Air Force changed a few years back where E-5's were forced out at 15, instead of going all the way to 20.

A guy in my unit will be saying good bye to the AF in a few months because of that.

Doesn't seem fair, that after giving 15 years of your life, you are then shown the door with nothing to show for it, but at the same time... if you can't make the rank by that time, then we really don't need you.

I just wish they hadn't grandfathered folks. We had a few real shitbags get to stay in because they were at 15 years when the policy was enacted.

In technical trades, it's a bad idea as you lose a lot of the institutional knowledge.
I speak as an ex airframe tech from the RAF.
The guys who've been on type for years have so much information to pass on, lose them, and you lose a lot of your squadron's effectiveness.

When you say passed over twice what timescale are you talking about?

If its 2 years thats a little harsh, especially if there isn't any positions to be promoted to.

In the Uk armed forces there isn't such a policy but people who aren't performing are made well aware of who they are and why they aren't progressing.

Retention Control Point. For enlisted it 12 years to make E5/SGT to stay longer
Officers that are passed up twice for promotions have to leave or go enlisted. I had a former CPT turn E6/SSG in my platoon way back.

Two edge sword Scruffy. Keep the experience or clog the promotions slots. With the US military downsizing its going to get more cut throat. Combat Experience going to no longer matter. There has to be slots for upward promotions.

 Jihadin wrote:
Retention Control Point. For enlisted it 12 years to make E5/SGT to stay longer

So they have to be pretty gak not to reach that grade then. We just get rid of bad officers, eventually at least

 Palindrome wrote:
When you say passed over twice what timescale are you talking about?

If its 2 years thats a little harsh, especially if there isn't any positions to be promoted to.

Depends on the rank. Going from 1st LT to Cpt in the US Air Force, if you don't make your boards the first time, you have a year until you're up for it again. If you don't make it that second time, you're gone.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
He was an E-6 at the tail end of his career (National Guard) and the EQRB deemed him not qualified for retention.

Was he able to get to 20 years, or did they separate him before that? Is it like an ad sep or do they just not let him re-up?

I don't know of a single branch that won't let an E-6 go to retirement...

But being deemed not qualified for retention doesn't mean you've hit your higher date of tenure. It could mean your a shitbag, and we don't think your worth paying a pension to for the rest of eternity.

 djones520 wrote:
I don't know of a single branch that won't let an E-6 go to retirement...

That's why I was wondering. As far as I know, an E-6 can retire in the Corps, and I thought it was the same for all the others. I wasn't sure if it was different in the Guard though.

He got his 20 year guard retirement, but not his 20 year AGR. Great NCOERs, 2 tours in Iraq, one in Bosnia, plenty of extra duty, NCOES as far as I know was up to date, mediocre PT, but never failed a test.

He wasnt high on the promotion list, but i think lack of college screwed him there.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
He got his 20 year guard retirement, but not his 20 year AGR. Great NCOERs, 2 tours in Iraq, one in Bosnia, plenty of extra duty, NCOES as far as I know was up to date, mediocre PT, but never failed a test.

He wasnt high on the promotion list, but i think lack of college screwed him there.

That sounds crappy. But it also sounds like there might have been things he could have done to make himself look better for promotion (better PT, more college). Unfortunately with the drawdown, a lot of it is going to come down to things like that, and it's only going to get worse before it gets better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
Napoleon, Augustus, and the first Crusaders were all men who benefited a great deal from excellent staff (Crusaders didn't call them Staff).

I'm interested in the bit you mentioned about staff in the crusades. What did they call them? Can you recommend any good starting points for more information on that?

 marv335 wrote:
In technical trades, it's a bad idea as you lose a lot of the institutional knowledge.
I speak as an ex airframe tech from the RAF.
The guys who've been on type for years have so much information to pass on, lose them, and you lose a lot of your squadron's effectiveness.

Here in the US, most of those extremely knowledgable guys end up on the Civilian side, making at minimum, double what they were in the service, doing the same work as before.

The only real reason I'm not is that due to the requirements of most of my contractor counterparts, I cannot get those jobs (they require the person to deploy for months at a time, and I'm being booted from the army for that exact reason)

I think that if our civilian contractors, and civilian "support staff" werent such a huge part of the military today, we'd see more leeway in how long people could stay in certain ranks/positions.

I think it also comes down to individual cases.... If you have someone who is a great Specialist, can be relied on, is THE expert in their field, etc. but wouldn't be a very good NCO, then they should get to stick around at that level. On the flip side, if you have leadership people, like some that I have had, who are at or close to their 20+ year mark, and cannot be arsed to do what is necessary for their subordinates to progress in their careers (as has happened to me on multiple occasions), are stuck in the "old army" way of doing things, then yeah, they need to be let go of. It's definitely a fine line, and one that the US military obviously feels they have the "proper" handle on.

 Hordini wrote:



I'm interested in the bit you mentioned about staff in the crusades. What did they call them? Can you recommend any good starting points for more information on that?

Squires People don't know just how much work those little guys did for their knights. Knights went in to battle needing multiple lances, swords, suits of armor, and several horses and the squire basically handled all of them. EDIT: And horses, lances, and armor, often needed replacement or heavy repair work. Large groups of knights (namely the Norman's under Bohemand) had their own horse care takers, smiths, foragers, etc. Putting a knight in the field was ludicrously expensive and required a huge support network.

They were the staff officers of their time, ferrying orders, commands, and organizing the back line of a force while their Knights fought from the front. The Crusades functioned because of a large number of (name's unknown) but hugely talented force of squires supporting the Knights that led the First Crusade.

I learned it from a lecture series called The Era of the Crusades by Professor Kenneth W. Harl from The Great Courses. It might be in a book he wrote (assuming he has, I assume he has XD).

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 marv335 wrote:
In technical trades, it's a bad idea as you lose a lot of the institutional knowledge.
I speak as an ex airframe tech from the RAF.
The guys who've been on type for years have so much information to pass on, lose them, and you lose a lot of your squadron's effectiveness.

Here in the US, most of those extremely knowledgeable guys end up on the Civilian side, making at minimum, double what they were in the service, doing the same work as before.

That's what I'm doing now.
On the job I was doing last night, (replacing a bearing on an inboard pylon) there was over 100 years of experience between the guys doing the task.

I had a mate in the army who was in for 12 years.

He was a corporal for much of it (sigs). He wasn't someone who wanted to become a sarge, let alone higher. Besides, he didn't play the game (there was a lot of "mates" deals going on in the forces back then).

I spent most of my 5 years as a corporal. I didn't want leadership - but I was transferred to Qies after an injury (instead of medicalled out - they used the other skills I had instead). I was only in for those 5 years, though.

From the tech side of it, getting rid of your highly skilled forces because they won't accept a promotion (or go for it) is bad for that side. Those skills are now lost to you.

There were talked of bringing back the Spec ranks for the tech side late 90's. Didn't really fly being a Spec/6 be making like a 1st SGT pay without the responsibilities. Which I thought was BS.