DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY - ncosupport.com · encl 6 department of the army secretariat for department...
4
ENCL 6 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SECRETARIAT FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SELECTION BOARDS 1600 SPEARHEAD DIVISION AVENUE FORT KNOX, KY 40122 AHRC-PDV-S 26 February 2018 MEMORANDUM FOR Director of Military Personnel Management, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff G-1, 300 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0300 SUBJECT: Field After Action Report- Fiscal Year 2018 (FY18) Regular Army (RA) and Army Reserve Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Master Sergeant (MSG) Promotion Boards 1. References. a. AR 600-8-19, Enlisted Promotions and Reductions, dated 14 September 2016. b. Department of the Army Pamphlet 600-25, dated 07 December 2017. c. DAPE-MPE-PD, Memorandum of Instruction (MOI) dated 18 January 2018, Subject: Instructions for the Fiscal Year 2018 Regular Army/ U.S. Army Reserve Active Guard Reserve Master Sergeant Promotion Boards. 2. General: The FY18 RA and AGR MSG Promotion Selection Board convened at the DA Secretariat, Fort Knox, Kentucky on 06 February 2018, to select the best qualified noncommissioned officers for the purpose of promotion to Master Sergeant (MSG). 3. Board Issues and Observations. a. Senior Rater Comments. (1) Discussion: Senior rater comments written by company grade officers were often unclear and sent a confusing message to board members. Senior raters often failed to enumerate their NCOs when they were unable to use the "Most Qualified" rating due to profile restrictions. Additionally, strong rater comments along with a "Most Qualified" senior rater mark were often accompanied by senior rater comments with no enumeration. Civilian senior raters comments were consistently unclear, without enumeration, and not aligned with rater comments. Moreover, senior rater's narrative did not support the respective rating (i.e., "Highly Qualified" does not equate to "average performance and potential"). (2) Recommendation: Raters and senior raters should put more effort into writing the Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER). Enumerations for the NCOERs are clearly understood when used up front (i.e., my #1 of 7 SFCs that I senior rate). Leaders should ensure the entire rating chain has a clear understanding of how
Transcript of DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY - ncosupport.com · encl 6 department of the army secretariat for department...
ENCL 6
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SECRETARIAT FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SELECTION BOARDS
1600 SPEARHEAD DIVISION AVENUE FORT KNOX, KY 40122
AHRC-PDV-S 26 February 2018
MEMORANDUM FOR Director of Military Personnel Management, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff G-1, 300 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0300
SUBJECT: Field After Action Report- Fiscal Year 2018 (FY18) Regular Army (RA) and Army Reserve Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Master Sergeant (MSG) Promotion Boards
1. References.
a. AR 600-8-19, Enlisted Promotions and Reductions, dated 14 September 2016.
b. Department of the Army Pamphlet 600-25, dated 07 December 2017.
c. DAPE-MPE-PD, Memorandum of Instruction (MOI) dated 18 January 2018, Subject: Instructions for the Fiscal Year 2018 Regular Army/ U.S. Army Reserve Active Guard Reserve Master Sergeant Promotion Boards.
2. General: The FY18 RA and AGR MSG Promotion Selection Board convened at the DA Secretariat, Fort Knox, Kentucky on 06 February 2018, to select the best qualified noncommissioned officers for the purpose of promotion to Master Sergeant (MSG).
3. Board Issues and Observations.
a. Senior Rater Comments.
(1) Discussion: Senior rater comments written by company grade officers were often unclear and sent a confusing message to board members. Senior raters often failed to enumerate their NCOs when they were unable to use the "Most Qualified" rating due to profile restrictions. Additionally, strong rater comments along with a "Most Qualified" senior rater mark were often accompanied by senior rater comments with no enumeration. Civilian senior raters comments were consistently unclear, without enumeration, and not aligned with rater comments. Moreover, senior rater's narrative did not support the respective rating (i.e., "Highly Qualified" does not equate to "average performance and potential").
(2) Recommendation: Raters and senior raters should put more effort into writing the Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER). Enumerations for the NCOERs are clearly understood when used up front (i.e., my #1 of 7 SFCs that I senior rate). Leaders should ensure the entire rating chain has a clear understanding of how
AHRC-PDV-S SUBJECT: Field After Action Report- Fiscal Year 2018 (FY18) Regular Army (RA) and Army Reserve Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Master Sergeant (MSG) Promotion Boards
to write an effective NCOER. Honest assessments and feedback from the rater and senior rater are paramount to the effectiveness of the NCOER and selection process.
b. Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) and Soldiers Record Briefs (SRB) inaccurate and/or out of date.
(1) Discussion: SRB and AMHRR records were inconsistent. There were multiple discrepancies for assignment history, duty position, civilian and military education, certifications and awards. Army Physical Fitness Test scores were missing, outdated and/or miscalculated for Soldiers with profiles. AGR populations in particular had the most inaccurate and disjointed SRBs.
(2) Recommendation: It is the individual responsibility of every Soldier to review and ensure the accuracy of their records. In addition, it is highly encouraged that Soldiers seek a mentor to review their records.
c. Letter to the President of the Board.
(1) Discussion: Letters to the board were considered favorably when they highlighted recent achievements or unusual circumstances that the SRB did not reflect (i.e., impact awards, degree completion, or prolonged periods of medical issues) however, letters to the board were considered less favorably and not particularly helpful when Soldiers stated information that was already captured in their SRB and/or AMHRR.
(2) Recommendation: Soldiers submitting letters to the president of the board should be properly formatted, free of grammatical errors, and present relevant information not already captured in the SRB and/or AMHRR.
d. Department of the Army (DA) Photo - Uniform.
(1) Discussion: There were many inconsistencies identified between the DA photo and SRB, causing board members to doubt the fidelity of the Soldier. For example many Soldiers were wearing numeral 4 on the NCO development ribbon which represents them completing the Master Leader's Course; however, no supporting documentation was shown on their SRB or within the AMHRR. In some instances, the Soldier's DA photo gives the impression of height and weight inconsistencies with the AMHRR.
(2) Recommendation: Current photos are considered more favorably than outdated or nonexistent photos. Soldiers should review AR 670-1 each time they don their uniform and ensure someone else inspects them prior to DA Photos and attendance at formal events.
2
AHRC-PDV-S SUBJECT: Field After Action Report- Fiscal Year 2018 (FY18) Regular Army (RA) and Army Reserve Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Master Sergeant (MSG) Promotion Boards
e. Healthy Balance for NCO Career Development.
(1) Discussion: Files highlighting NCOs in various leadership positions within their MOS were viewed more favorably by the board (i.e., platoon sergeant, detachment sergeant, first sergeant and section chief). NCOs serving in broadening assignments for extended periods of time, greater than 36 months, were viewed by the board less favorably (i.e., sexual assault response coordinators (SARCs), equal opportunity advisors (EOA), instructors, and small group leaders (SGLs)).
(2) Recommendation: In order to ensure career balance, Soldiers and their rating chain should review DA PAM 600-25 for guidance. Soldiers should seek opportunities to serve in leadership positions and broadening assignments for only the prescribed time of the duty position/assignment.
f. Education and Certification.
(1) Discussion: NCOs pursuing higher levels of civilian education and technical certifications were viewed favorably by the board members. NCOs not taking advantage of educational opportunities and those who allowed technical certifications to expire were viewed less favorably. The board also viewed military training transferred to civilian credits without completing a course or enrolled in a degree producing program less favorably.
(2) Recommendation: At this level, NCOs are expected to have some college credit hours, seeking a degree and/or professional certifications/licensures, or at least showing continuous self-development in order to prepare for higher levels of res po nsibi I ities.
4. Conclusion or general comments.
a. The most competitive candidates were selected based on quantifiable enumeration and for their performance and demonstrated potential in various leadership and high demanding positions. Additionally, a high physical fitness level, continued military/civilian education, and a professional appearance ensured the best qualified NCOs were selected.
b. All soldiers under consideration for QMP need to be encouraged to draft a letter to the board with the inclusion of recommendations for continuation of service.
3
AHRC-PDV-S SUBJECT: Field After Action Report- Fiscal Year 2018 (FY18) Regular Army (RA) and Army Reserve Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Master Sergeant (MSG) Promotion Boards
c. The board noted that while this board was focused on selecting the most qualified SFCs for promotion to MSG, it is also the first opportunity to identify those that have the talent and potential to serve as future Sergeants Major or Command Sergeants Major. This places much emphasis on senior rater comments, especially highlighting individuals who clearly exhibit the qualities we seek as SG SM.
Brigadier Genera , Board President
4
