Stripes

by Colonel Gary M. Tobin Having had the opportunity to serve as panel chief for two Career Management Field 19 (CMF 19) noncommissioned officer promotion selection boards, I’d like !o present some facts to dispel rumor, and to better prepare you for promotion consideration, selection for schooling, and even selection for retention. I’ll also pass along some less obvious information which comes from my experiences and from my interaction among others who have served on promotion boards. Most of what I tell you is open information contained in other offiial sources. My purpose if to make certain that all Armor soldiers have the information from our professional journal. Also, I want to make certain that leaders have the facts which will enable them to better serve as raters, senior raters, and reviewers in the NCOER process and to advance the truly deserving to ranks of greater responsibility. How Boards are Organized Department of the Army enlisted selection boards are organized in panels which correspond to a CMF or a grouping of CMFs. For example, CMF 19 is combined with the engineer CMFs 12.51, and 81 to make up panel B of the promotion board. The combination of CMFs to comprise a panel is an attempt to even the workload of the board members working on the panel. Composition of each of the panels will normally include a colonel, as panel chief, who has commanded or is commanding a brigade, a lieutenant colonel who has commanded or is commanding a battalion, and at least one command sergeant major for each CMF. For the CSM/SGM/SMC selection board, usually three of the panel chiefs will be brigadier generals and the board president will be a major general. For other selection boards the board president will be a brigadier general. In selecting command sergeants major for service as promotion board members, various major commands (MACOMS) are tasked to provide a command sergeant major who has served in a position to rate or senior rate the soldiers in the zone of consideration. Therefore, if the board is selecting soldiers for promotion to command sergeant major and sergeant major, the command sergeants major serving as panel members will be command sergeants major of senior commands, usually division level and hiiher. The panels having the most soldiers in the zones of consideration will have the most members. The Infantry CMF, for example, will normally have more members than the Armor and Engineer panel, based upon the sue of the zone.

How Boards are Prepared Each DA enlisted selection board is well prepared for the task at hand. The DCSPER or his delegated r e p -sentative will personally brief each selection board on the personnel system and the force structure impacts upon advancement and retention. A PERSCOM representative briefs the board on the NCOER. During this briefing, panel members are reminded of regulatory requirements of the NCOER prepamtion and use. Usually, members come away from this briefing with a realization that there may have been personal shortcomings with the understanding of the NCOER and how to preserve its quality as a tool to serve personnel decisions. Finally, each CMF proponent provides a detailed CMF information packet for the members of the panel bringing them up to date on the latest CMF-particular information. The information packet normally covers career patterns for the CMF 19 soldier, the different duties a CMF 19 soldier will characteristically perform, and information on matters which affect the opportunities for soldiers to seek and get assignment to critical CMF 19 jobs.

As the board convenes, members swear to an oath acknowledging the serious nature and the integrity of their assignments.

ARMOR - May-June 1993 What Tools Boards Use Here we finally reach the heart of the matter, what you must do to improve your chances for selection. All of the information available on a soldier in a zone of consideration will appear before the board members in a file folder called the Individual Board Record (IBR), a color folder batched by social security number. Each IBR is configured in the same manner, containing all authorized documents received by the Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center (EREC). On the outside of the folder is a plastic pouch which contains the Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) on microfiche.

On the inside cover will be another plastic pouch which contains the official, 3"xll". full-length photograph (hard copy). In the folder itself are a Personnel Data Sheet, the PQR (DA form 2-1 and 2A). and any hard copy documents which have not been at EREC long enough to be copied to microfiche.

The Microfiche. Most soldiers are aware that their records are filed on microfiche. Not all soldiers are aware that separate microfiche records may be held on any one soldier. All administrative data determining pay grade and enlistment data will be contained on what is commonly known as the S-fiche or service Computation data fiche. A second fiche for all soldiers is the P-fiche or performance data fiche. It is broken into two areas. The top area will contain performance information, in the form of filmed NCOERs, SEERS, and the older EERs. The second area is at the bottom of the P-fiche and it contains commendatory and disciplinary data which have been directed for filing on the OMPF and not on the third possible fiche, the reshicted data fiche or the R-fiche. Not all soldiers are aware that they may have a R-fiche. Most assume that only negative, derogatory information is contained on the R-fiche. Not so. Some soldiers may have most of their entire career on a R-fiche. These soldiers may work in sensitive, classified positions and have their NCOERs on the R-fiche. Many soldiers have had background investigations for security clearances performed. The results of the investigations may be filed on the R-fiche. However, the most commonly understood use of the R-fiche is for filing results of Article 15 UCMJ proceedings which have been filed in the restricted data file at the direction of commanders.

All soldiers have head from time to time about the use of the R-fiche in personnel actions, such as the selection board process. But rarely are soldier R-fiche data made a matter of record for a board. In the normal process, board members review the commendatory and disciplinary data on the P-fiche. If no indication of indiscipline is evident, the board member has no reason to ask to see if R-fiche data exist for that soldier. Should there be some indication within the P-fiche information that R-fiche data may exist at a particular career point, the board member may request to see specific R-fiche data, limited to only the specific time period in question. For example, a board member may note that a good conduct medal award has been revoked for a soldier and the revocation is not an administrative adjustment. The board member might reasonably suspect that there is evidence of indiscipline and request to see if any R-fiche data exist for the time period corresponding to the revocation. If such data exist, the president of the board may request that DCSPER release only those specific data to the panel for review. Upon DCSPER approval, hard copy is made of the information to ensure that nothing else in the R-fiche is seen by the board members. A letter is filmed on the soldier's R-fiche letting him know that the specific part of his R-fiche was reviewed by the board. This R-fiche review is rare in the context of the overall board proceeding. Another exception to the exclusivity of the R-fiche data is the rule concerning R-fiche data in the selection process of command sergeants major. After development of the Order of Merit List (OML) (the ranking of scores after voting is completed), R-fiche data are screened for all the soldiers selected in the best qualified category. Derogatory information pertaining to actions in the first three yean of the soldier's service is protected, but the rest is released to the panel which developed the OML. That panel will determine then if there should be an adjustment to the vote for any individual. In this case, such R-fiche data might lead to a revote upon the file of the soldier, this time with the R-fiche data taken into consideration. Ultimately, this might mean an adjustment to the OML. In my experiences, it is evident that most soldiers understand what the fiche is, and what they must do to make certain that it reflects their a-reers in the best light. The records of those who don't understand are very evident to the panel members and usually do not compare well to those of conscientious soldiers. The lesson is clear. Every soldier must frequently review his OMPF. He should do so by kiting the Commander, USAEREC ATTN. PCRE, Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana 46216, to request a copy of the his fiche. Soldiers may also all the Interactive Voice Response System (IRVS) by dialing DSN 699-3714 and make the same request. Any corrections and entries required must then be submitted through the local personnel activity, or in person at USAEREC. So, for all soldiers within driving distance, call for an appointment. Get to Ft. Ben Harrison and review your OMPF in person, and make the necessary corrections or additions. The photograph is a very important item in the file, and you should make certain that it represents you in the best way possible. Remember, only a paper representation of you and your capability and potential appears before the board I won't go into needless detail about how to get the best photo. Enough information is available already, but despite this, it amazes me ARMOR - MayJune 1993 that many soldiers have outdated or substandard photos. I’ll examine one area with you which puts a different spin on the importance of the photograph. Many - in my opinion, too many -of our soldiers appear to be overweight, yet fal! within body fat standards as delineated in Army Regulation 600-9. No problem, right? Not if the photo is a positive representation of a soldier who meets the Army standard. If not, the soldier suffers. When there is a question, the only choice for the board member is to initiate an inqujr and cause the soldier’s chain of command to re-weigh and re-tape the soldier to certify that he meets the standard. It is especially important for soldiers who “ride the fence,” that is, those who are consistently over the DA screening weight, to have a very current and good photograph.

Surprisingly, though, there are a number of photos that are six or seven years old. An old photo says a lot about the soldier to board members. One thing it will not say is - ‘‘Promote me.” A ‘promote me’ photo is one which is of good quality and is very recent -I suggest less than two years old, if possible, regardless of the definition of current by Army standard. Those who will argue that the Army standard is good enough must realize that personalities sit as members of the board and that my definition of recent is representative of the understanding of many board members.

A copy of the locally maintained 2A and 2-1 is available to the board member as he or she reviews a particular file. Upon verification by the soldier that the information in the 2-1 and 2A (known as the PQR) is correct and complete, the servicing PSC forwards it to EREC for inclusion into the board file. If the soldier is available to review the PQR, the PSC is required to forward it with a statement to that effect.

The most important thing the soldier must do is make certain that all the information contained in the form is correct. Sounds terribly self-evident, but the number of soldiers who allow their records to appear before the board containing obvious errors and/ or omissions consistently amazes board members. Even more startling is the number who authenticate such errors or omissions by signature. Either those individuals don’t care about themselves and their promotability or they just don’t know what they are authenticating. The 2A contains information that is important to the board members as they consider a soldier’s record Probably the single most important area, in my opinion, is the assignment history. The board member uses this to see the soldier’s level of challenge and responsibility in his career history. The board member who opens or ‘‘breaks’’ the fie will do a very deliberate appraisal of the job or assignment history. He will make evaluations of his appraisal and will note those on the Personnel Data Sheet (PDS) provided by EREC for the board mission. Each member will also review the awards section and will note the awards authorized, making another assessment. He may comment upon the level or number of awards, taking quality and substance into account, as either being consistent or inconsistent with a soldier’s career at that stage. The member who fmt reviews the file will normally compare the awards authorized for wear with those worn in the official photo. Obviously, soldiers with up-to-date photos will have records more consistent with the photo than those whose photos are not current. In this case, documentation for the awards will be reviewed on the performance fiche.

Education is another important area documented on the 2A. Completed courses, military and civilian, are shown in the education summary blocks of the form. Civilian education not completed will be shown in other sections of the form after being au-thenticated by personnel officers. Attained semester hours leading toward degree completion may be entered onto the 2A. Soldiers must present official transcripts, with raised institutional seals, to the personnel officer. Soldiers may also receive college hour credit for NCOES courses completed, and should have the credit hour correlations entered on the 2A as well. In any case, the record of an individual’s attempts to improve his or her educational ,status will be a matter of interest to boards. The 2A is a very important source of information concerning that effort. My recommendations are very straightforward. Know how boards might use the PQR. Make certain that your PQR is accurate and reflects the most current information. Enter all education improvements on the form. When honoring the appointment to review the PQR, make good use of the time. Have documentation available to substantiate needed entries. Most importantly, read and understand what you authenticate with your signature. The Board Voting Process Each panel of the board develops standards which will be used by the panel members to assist them in voting individual records. The standards are usually developed on the fmt work day of the board. Each panel considers such areas as performance, potential, military and civilian education, awards, discipline, and other areas that the panel members deem important, and will write specific standards for each arcxi to apply in determining how to vote a file. The standards are necessarily specific to discriminate between files. Board members will award each file a vote from 1 to 6 points, with plus (+) and minus (-) as possible modifiers. The table at Figure 1 will illustrate the correlation between vote and value. Remember, the objective standards of each panel will determine the objective vote of each member. At least three members of the panel must vote each file. The three voters are randomly selected by computer and, therefore, may or may not be of ARMOR - MayJune 1993 the same CMF as the soldier being considered CMF 19 soldiers are considered by a panel composed of armor and engineer voting members. The votes in the figure above right are used to determine the fully qualified and best qualified files. Fully qualified files are those that accrue a minimum of 21 absolute points. Absolute points are taken from the “raw” score value, which is the vote of the panel member. The “raw” score is converted to the absolute value by computer which uses the table below (Figure 2).

For example, a soldier receiving three votes of 6+ receives an absolute score of 54 points (3 votes x 18). The absolute score determines the ranking of the file in what is known as the Order of Merit List (OML). The higher the absolute value score, the higher the placement on the OML. The OML is ordered in descending order 1 through N (the file having the highest score being at 1 and N being the total number of soldiers in the zone of eligibility). Depending upon the needs of the Army and future strength projections, HQDA establishes the ‘select objective.’ The ‘select objective’ will be the number of selections permitted from the OML only out of those that are fully qualified for promotion.

Given the number of files that are considered by each panel, it is obvious that some soldiers will receive the same absolute score. These soldiers fall into what may constitute a ‘gray zone.’

Should the ‘select objective’ fall in a ‘gray zone’ of the OML where it is impossible to determine the cutoff through comparison of absolute scores, it is likewise impossible to select the files to meet the HQDA objective. To rectify this situation, the instructions to the board will necessitate a revote of all of the records in the ‘gray zone.’ In the case of a revote, all of the panel members will vote each file, rather than just the three members required for the initial vote. The revote score takes the place of the initial vote score, and the OML is reworked to determine the select zone. Now, once the initial votes have been OML-ordered, the board recorder will also issue recommendations to each panel chief concerning the Department of the Army equal opportunity goals for his particular CMF(s) to ensure that all soldiers are given equal opportunity for selection. For example, should the zone of eligibility be made up of 100 soldiers and 50 of the eligibles are white, 30 are black, 10 are Hispanic and 10 are “other” (our example keeps the math simple to both reader Raw Score/Absolute Value Conversion Table Raw Absolute Raw Absolute -Score Score -Score Score 6+ 6 6-5+ 5 5-4+ 4 4-Flgure 2 Correlation Between Vote and Value Score Word Picture Meaning of Vote Select Now Definitely Select Should Select Select if Room Refer to QMP 6+/6-Exceptional Performer 5+/5-Excellent Performer 4+/4-Strong Performer 3+B-Fully Qualified Performer 2+/2-Qualified in Current Grade Retain in Grade 1 +I1 -Substandard Performer Figure 1 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 3+ 3 3-2+ 2 2-1+ 1 1-ARMOR - May-June 7993 and me) the select zone should represent the zone of eligibles in terms of racial and ethnic distribution. If the select objective were to be 10, ten soldiers would be recommended for promotion. Ideally, this select objective would equal the goal to promote 5 white sbl-diers, 3 black, 1 Hispanic and 1 “other.” The ‘gray zone’ must give opportunity to revote files of sufficient ethnic and racial diversity to allow the recommended EO goal to be met, if this is possible within those fully qualified for promotion. As an example, should the ‘gray zone’ consist of 30 files, all having an absolute score of 51, but which does not include sufficient files of Hispanic soldiers to give that ethnic group a fair opportunity, the next three highest scoring files of Hispanic soldiers with less than 51 points might be included for revote. The effort here is to ensure that the negative effects of racial or ethnic prejudice in the rating process are countered by a fair and balanced opportunity for consideration for promotion. However, in no way may quality be sacrificed in application of the EO procedures. Recognize that the focus of the entire article to this point is upon promotion selection and that each board that is convened to select soldiers and to recommend their promotions will also perform several other key personnel functions. Selection boards for promotion to sergeant fmt class will also select the best qualified staff sergeants for Advanced Noncommissioned Officers Course schooling. Additionally, all selection boards will convene a QMP board to consider all files recommended for QMP during the promotion selection process, and will vote Special Category files for QMP as well. In the case of the sergeant first class board, for example, the Special Category files will include all staff sergeants with one year in grade, among others. Focus upon this last point! Most soldiers have a habit of preparing their files as they enter into one of the zones of eligibility. The point they miss is that their re-Continued on Page 48 STRIPES (Continued from Page 25) cords may be reviewed at other than expected times for very important reasons, and that all soldiers should keep their files in continuous readiness. Voting of the records is a very serious business and one that is not taken lightly by board members. It is impossible for any one board member to advance the chances of any individual for selection. Each member must vote each file in accordance with the standards developed by the panel. Each member is sworn to perform the duties in a manner which precludes “talking out of school” or influencing other panel members and their vote on any file.

The NCOER Panels have their own personalities and idiosyncrasies. But, because of the checks and balances, some generalities may be made about their performance from board to board. One of those generalities concerns the treatment of the NCOER and its value to board members in the selection process. In my opinion, the most important areas which will enhance the chance for promotion or school selection are performance and potential. Where does the board member see information which deals with these two very important areas? The answer, obviously, is in the NCOER. Consequently, I have several observations and/or recommendations to make which may help all involved in the rating, senior rating, or reviewing process understand just how critical their understanding of the NCOER is to the Army and to the individual soldier. Job description. Since promotion boards dealing with selections for SFC, MSG or CSWSGM are recommending soldiers for key leadership positions, members of these boards will look for evidence of sound leadership, full success in positions requiring leadership, and for success in demanding leadership roles. Why? Sergeants fmt class are platoon sergeants and will be expected to perform as leader trainers. Master sergeants may be fmt sergeants responsible to lead and to supervise leaders of company-sized organizations. The rationale continues for those eligible for consideration for sergeant major/command sergeant major. Soldiers with the best potential are those who have excelled in leadership positions. In preparing the job description, raters must focus upon the leadership aspect of the rated duty. NCOs must be leaders, no matter what the duty position and its special, often technical requirements. Often, raters neglect this very important fact when the traditional duty description is for a staff or administrative function. Raters and senior raters must focus on the leadership required of an NCO while serving in these roles. Evaluate how well the NCO has sewed as a leader, no matter what type of organization.

ValuedNCO Responsibilities. This is an area which is often taken for granted or ignored, probably because counseling is not where it should be in many organizations. Boards often see evidence of misconduct of a serious nature in other areas of a file but, see no reflection of any acknowledgment of that misconduct in the rating process. Although no direct statement concerning UCMJ Article 15 action is allowed on the NCOER, patterns of misconduct should be captured in the Values section. When the poor behavior is not reflected, it is probably because the soldier has not been counseled through performance counseling that misconduct is a breach of the corps NCO values. Raters miss the opportunity to send a clear picture to the board about the performance of the soldier. Or, raters send a message that such misconduct is really not an indication of poor performance. Although we cannot refer to action taken as a result of UCMJ, clear unambiguous comment may be made about the performance characteristics which cause the need for a ‘NO’ mark. Any mark of ‘NO’ in the values portion of the NCOER must be substantiated by clear and understandable reasons as bullets.

Anything less than EXCELLENCE block checks means I won’t get promoted, right? Wrong! In fact, if you receive all EXCELLENCE ratings and don’t deserve them, your NCOER will have marginal and, perhaps, a negative impact upon your chances. It is my experience that board members treat unsubstantiated EXCELLENCE ratings as SUCCESS (meets standard) at best. When soldiers deserve EXCELLENCE ratings, raters must check the EXCELLENCE block and substantiate that rating by giving clear and irrefutable evidence of that rating in the bullet comments. The evidence must come from the counseling record and must be specific and clear. Vague, general, and trite comments will usually be ignored by board members and the unsubstantiated ratings, most probably, will be mentally thought of as SUCCESS. The most successful soldiers have clear patterns of excellence yet have most of their ratings in SUCCESS. Part Va&b (Overall Performance and Potential). The most competitive files were of soldiers who were consistently rated as AMONG THE BEST by the rater. What board members look for is a consistent pattern of performance while reviewing the NCOER. No one NCOER will make or, necessarily, break the chances for any NCO. However, demonstrated excellence in a variety of challenging jobs will enhance those chances. I can say, though, that those NCOs who are selected are almost always rated as being AMONG THE BEST by different raters in different units or rating chains.

The rater’s evaluation of potential is one area that is probably the least effectively used by raters. Reading the fine print on the NCOER form tells the rater to list three positions in which the rated NCO could best serve the Army at his/her current or next higher grade. Most raters dutifully do just that. After taking pains to properly rate the NCO and trying to portray that NCO as one of the best in the Army, raters often fail to continue 4% ARMOR - May-June 1993 that effort. Raters dutifully list the current duty assignment of the NCO as the first recommendation for his best contribution to the Army. What the rater is doing is sending a mixed signal to the board members. Board members wonder if the rater has inflated his rating or if he just doesn’t understand the system. Raters, don’t leave your intention unclear. Don’t leave any interpretation up to the board member. List as the,first duty the most significant at a higher grade. For example, list platoon sergeant of an MlAl tank platoon as the duty recommendation for a staff sergeant 19K as the first position recommended. Should that staff sergeant be serving with excellence as a tank commander or section sergeant and the first recommendation is for tank commander, the board may misinterpret and decide the NCO needs more mahnation as a 19K tank commander before recommendation for promotion.

The Senior Rater Performance and Potential Block Checks. Use of this area of the NCOER is probably the least well-used of all areas because there is not sufficient guidance to senior raters on how the blocks should be used. Senior raters should develop a consistent senior rating “philosophy” that they adhere to in senior rating all NCOs within their responsibility. One such philosophy might be to distribute all senior rated NCOs over a bell curve. Those on the lower left thud would be all who should be promoted before anyone else and would receive a 1 block rating from the senior rater. Those in the middle third, clearly the majority of the NCOs, are highly recommended for promotion and would receive a 2 block rating. To the right of the bell curve are those who should be promoted if there is room. These NCOs would receive a 3 block rating. Any NCO not recommended for promotion but recommended for retention in grade would receive a 4 block rating, and an NCO recommended for dismissal under QMP provisions would receive a 5 block rating. As a philosophy, this system is practical and will probably work for the senior rater. The problem is that there is no such guidance to the community as a whole, and resulthgly, there is no standard for a system. The important point to a senior rater is that he must develop a personal system and be consistent in its application. The senior rater must use his bullet block to describe the rated NCO’s potential. A rule of thumb might suggest that 60 percent of the comments should be upon potential. If the senior rater uses five bullets, three ought to deal with potential. The most important function of the senior rater is to describe the potential of the rated NCO. Officers tend to take a more critical view of the senior rater’s responsibility in the preparation of the NCOER because officer OERs and ratings are heavily impacted by the senior rater portion. Since one-third of the panel members normally dealing with CMF 19 selections are officers, all NCOs should realize that those officers may place a heavier weight on the senior rater portion of the NCOER than their NCO board member counterparts.

Where to Go From Here Most of the information which you have just read is neither new nor secret. It is available in official publications and now in the journal of our specific profession. In our profession of arms, all of our training effort is directed toward increasing combat proficiency -in short, our warfighting ability. Consistent with that effort, leaders, commanders, and individual soldiers must advance those soldiers who possess the most favorable characteristics of the warrior ethic to positions of greater responsibilities and challenge. Raters, senior raters, and reviewers are encouraged to understand the use of the NCOER during promotion board proceedings and to benefit from the observations concem-ing its value and importance. Individ-ARMOR - MayJune 1993 ual members of the Armor community’s great NCO corps are encouraged to take the appropriate actions I have suggested. What you should do is review your own standing as a soldier who is both a participant in the NCOER rating and reviewing process and as a soldier who is rated. I’ve touched upon information that is important to you in each of the categories. Use the advice. Review your file. Correct the problems you discover. Let no obstacle stand in your way. Counsel your soldiers. Focus upon leadership. Understand how promotion boards work, and be serious about your service. In the coming months, these efforts will have a telling impact upon our branch and Army as a whole as we adjust to the realities of the new world and fiscal environments.

Colonel Gary M. Tobin was commissioned in Armor in the Regular Army out of ROTC. He has commanded tank and cavalry units, most recently the 3rd Squadron, 7th Cavalry in Schweinfurt, Germany, and has commanded a Training Brigade at Ft. Knox, Ky. His assignments have been to air cavalry, attack helicopter, and armor units and have included positions as armor battalion executive officer, armored division brigade S3, French War Plans officer on the CENTAG war plans staff, and division chief of Combat Maneuver Division, Force Development Directorate, ODCSOPS, HQDA. He has served twice as panel chief for the Armor and Engineer panel of senior NCO promotion selection boards. He has attended the Armed Forces Staff College, the Command and General Staff College, and the U.S. Army War College.