In the army an E4 and O3 are the same thing.
Retention and Recruitment Crisis
- Thread starter RackMaster
- Start date
When did E-5 stop being automatic?
It’s never been, at least not in the Marine Corps. But there’s a board for Sergeant.
Devildoc
Verified Military
E5 isn't automatic in the Navy either. There is not a board, but there is a rate exam and of course you have had to have attended all the appropriate NCO schools.
Last edited:
Locksteady
Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2012
- Messages
- 609
One of the few (and probably the biggest) drawbacks of our rating was the advancement rate.
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
Always needed points and to pass a board in the Army.
Devildoc
Verified Military
I was always confused by this: 110-125% manned, but several undermanned NECs.
When the recruiter found out I had a degree in political science he pushed me to go IS. But no, I had my heart set on HM. Then I realized if I'd gone IS I could have made chief in a little over 10 years. Getting promoted was so hard.
A while back, during the surge, E5 and E6 could be automatic if you met certain TIS/TIG requirements, especially in certain MOS’s.
There were a couple of techs in my unit who were champing at the bit to pick up their 6 and roll as team leaders. We were classmates, and they couldn’t understand for the life of them why I happily declined that promotion every month. There was no way in hell I was going to assume the mantle of a TL in Baghdad with only a year of badge time (eight months of which were spent in the states ramping up to deploy, including block leave). I’m surprised their hubris didn’t turn deadly.
There were a couple of techs in my unit who were champing at the bit to pick up their 6 and roll as team leaders. We were classmates, and they couldn’t understand for the life of them why I happily declined that promotion every month. There was no way in hell I was going to assume the mantle of a TL in Baghdad with only a year of badge time (eight months of which were spent in the states ramping up to deploy, including block leave). I’m surprised their hubris didn’t turn deadly.
Locksteady
Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2012
- Messages
- 609
Funnily enough, it was the opposite direction for me; I got interested in it later on but their manning levels didn't dip low enough for me to transfer before I left.
What percentage is the board rejecting?
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
As long as your Platoon Sergeant is backing you and you don't appear a fool? I'd say we're on the 95% rate in a CY but the CSM may have a burr in his saddle and deny a guy one quarter and then he's NCO of the quarter the next.
So, the board is a gimme and the point threshold is probably low. A pulse and the will to live means you're a virtual lock to make E-5 in the Army.
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
Honestly the point threshold fluctuated enough that if you didn't have significant awards or additional schools that it could stop someone. But you also managed this at PLT or section level. Although one of my section leaders took one guy to the board (before I got there) who was an absolute shit head. But wouldn't take another who was a legit leader because he hadn't done one specific thing for him. We bring in a new section leader and the kid goes to the board 4 months later.
Point is that it's not automatic like the Air Force in taking a test. I would also say BLC is too short. 3 weeks? That's not enough time.
Devildoc
Verified Military
So, there's no MOS-related test in the army? We also had points re: awards and schools.
When the Navy pushed awarding authority of the NAM to the unit level every swinging dick was getting a NAM just for promotion points. It really denuded the quality of the award.
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
Unlike the Marine Corps, the army does not have meritorious promotions.
No. And the E5 NCO school is MOS immaterial. E6 NCO course is MOS driven, though. E7 NCO school, at least for Intel, is branch driven.
Devildoc
Verified Military
Yeah, we didn't have that in the Navy either.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 12,839
It’s not just a job, it’s an adventure!
True dat, home-slice…
U.S. Army Ends Free Storage of Belongings for Deployed Soldiers
Deployed U.S. Army soldiers will no longer be able to store their belongings free of charge while they are away from home, the Army Sustainment Command announced Wednesday.
A spokesman for the command, which is the primary provider of logistics support to Army units, told Military.com that it was discontinuing the use of funds to store soldiers’ vehicles and other goods while they are away for prolonged periods of time.
It was not specified whether the announcement applies to all deployment types or just to soldiers on temporary duty.
The storage policy ended in October, but the order was not “widely distributed” to soldiers or the press, the outlet reported.
That new “policy” was only mentioned after Military.com first reached out to the Army about the issue in early December, the outlet noted.
It is unclear when or in what manner that future policy will take form.
An internal memo from Col. Heather Carlisle, director for support operations at the Army Sustainment Command, said that the Army is not required to provide storage for its soldiers
HQDA G1, the proponent for [storage] entitlements, recently determined that the Army would no longer support [storage] entitlements because there is no Army policy explicitly authorizing storage in support of soldiers deployed for contingency operations.
True dat, home-slice…
U.S. Army Ends Free Storage of Belongings for Deployed Soldiers
Deployed U.S. Army soldiers will no longer be able to store their belongings free of charge while they are away from home, the Army Sustainment Command announced Wednesday.
A spokesman for the command, which is the primary provider of logistics support to Army units, told Military.com that it was discontinuing the use of funds to store soldiers’ vehicles and other goods while they are away for prolonged periods of time.
It was not specified whether the announcement applies to all deployment types or just to soldiers on temporary duty.
The storage policy ended in October, but the order was not “widely distributed” to soldiers or the press, the outlet reported.
That new “policy” was only mentioned after Military.com first reached out to the Army about the issue in early December, the outlet noted.
It is unclear when or in what manner that future policy will take form.
An internal memo from Col. Heather Carlisle, director for support operations at the Army Sustainment Command, said that the Army is not required to provide storage for its soldiers
HQDA G1, the proponent for [storage] entitlements, recently determined that the Army would no longer support [storage] entitlements because there is no Army policy explicitly authorizing storage in support of soldiers deployed for contingency operations.
Devildoc
Verified Military
That almost reads like a Babylon Bee article, especially the last two paragraphs.
So I guess you have to have a policy that specifies that you take care of your soldiers and their welfare.
Reminds me of that scene from A Few Good Men when Kaffee was interviewing the enlisted Marine on the stand, ask him to point out in the book where the chow hall was, and his reply was it wasn't in there, so Kaffee asked asked if they didn't get fed then.
So I guess you have to have a policy that specifies that you take care of your soldiers and their welfare.
Reminds me of that scene from A Few Good Men when Kaffee was interviewing the enlisted Marine on the stand, ask him to point out in the book where the chow hall was, and his reply was it wasn't in there, so Kaffee asked asked if they didn't get fed then.
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
Yeah that's been circulating for a few weeks. Pretty freaking wild. ETA: Had 20 years to fix this policy, how we didn't I don't know. Why the Colonel at G-1 rescinded the exception is because some idiot with a star told him to. Doesn't impact single officers that much. You can pack your apartment and store your gear and get BAH.
Last edited:
