G-1 After Action Report – FY12 Master Sergeant Promotion and Selection Board
1. References.
a. DAPE-MPE-PD, Memorandum of Instruction (MOI) dated 27 September 2011, Subject: MOI for the FY12 Master Sergeant
Promotion and Selection Board.
b. Army Regulation 600-8-19 c. Department of the Army Pamphlet 600-25
2. General. The FY12 Master Sergeant Promotion and Selection Board convened at the DA Secretariat, Fort Knox, Kentucky
on 18 October 2011 to select the best qualified noncommissioned officers for promotion to Master Sergeant. The board also
screened files on Soldiers referred to it under the Stand-By Advisory Board (STAB) process and conducted a Qualitative
Management Program QMP) Board.
3. Board Issues and Observations.
a. DA Photo: Members of the board viewed the DA Photo as a key indicator of performance and commitment. Some uniforms
appeared to have shoulder padding not IAW Army regulations and lapels covering awards. In some cases, NCOs were not
wearing the Drill Sergeant and Recruiting Badge IAW latest MILPO / ALARACT messages. Understanding that the OPTEMPO
is high, many Soldiers with dwell time of 12 months or more did not provide an updated photo. Photos of NCOs wearing SSG
rank or not wearing uniforms in accordance with established guidance left an unfavorable impression. No photo on file without
a justification, (deployed to area where no photo lab is available), demonstrated in the eyes of the board members a lack of
concern by the NCO and consistently received lower ratings. Although as leaders we recognize it is the NCO’s responsibility to
update the board file photo to ensure it is within the last 5 years, has current rank, that the uniform fits correctly and is
properly assembled, recommend Human Resources Command emphasize the importance of the photo through a targeted
media driven information campaign at least six months prior to the board. Notifications could be sent to the population in
consideration via AKO as well as highlighted on key Army and installation websites.
b. Board Enlisted Record Briefs (ERBs): Not verifying a board file was seen as a negative discriminator by members of the
board. Far too many ERBs were inaccurate, missing information, neither updated, nor validated. In some cases, job title
entries on the ERBs did not match the jobs on the NCOERs. A significant number of ERBs had missing data, “incoming
personnel”, “surplus Soldier”, and “known loss” instead of actual duty position annotated. Often the ERBs did not match AHRC-
PDV-S SUBJECT: G1 After Action Report – FY12 Master Sergeant Promotion and Selection Board 2
the NCOERs in terms of duty description and time in position. It is helpful to have duty titles clearly spelled out on the ERB or
as best as it can be using allocated space. Overseas tours were not properly entered with the correct code(s) on the ERB
showing the type of tour completed. The ERB and OMPF should mirror each other as much as possible. Training, awards, and
education were frequently not substantiated with documentation in the OMPF. Those with accurate ERBs were able to inform
board members of the skills, knowledge and experiences outlined in board and proponent guidance and were typically looked
upon more favorably. Recommend including the DD 214 in the records for NCOs with a break in service.
c. NCO Evaluation Report: The rated NCO is responsible for correcting all administrative data. Soldiers who took the time to
update their records set a positive tone. On the other hand, missing or old information set a negative tone. There were gaps in
NCOERs and reports missing on the official military personnel file. Numerous times board members found the administrative
data on NCOERs to be incorrect or inconsistent. Common discrepancies included date of rank inconsistent, use of jargon, and
evaluations not signed by rated Soldier with no explanation provided in the senior rater comments. Raters and senior raters
need to be more descriptive of the NCOs performance, both positive and negative. In several cases the NCOER bullet
comments said little about the NCOs performance or potential. Additionally, areas of special emphasis were not addressed by
the rater in their comments. The height of some NCOs changed repeatedly as they gained and lost weight. Rater and senior
rater evaluation comments varied by wide margins and block checks did not convey a consistent message. These
discrepancies caused board members to question the validity of the evaluations and compliance with standards. There appear
to be too many senior NCOs placed on special assignments before getting Platoon Sergeant’s time. Senior NCOs that
circulated throughout the full spectrum of their career file (to include deployments in support of Overseas Contingency
Operations) fared better than those with prolonged or back-to-back special duty assignments.
d. Education: Board members tended to give positive consideration for military and civilian education. Candidates who
pursued higher education demonstrated in the eyes of the board a strong determination for self-improvement. Those NCOs
with completed degrees were considered the best and board members gave favorable consideration to NCOs working towards
a college degree. Candidates with marginal ratings in military courses were not favorably considered by the board.
e. My Board File: NCOs should review their record on “My Board File.” Board members know who did and did not review their
record. Lack of review demonstrates a perceived lack of commitment by the NCO. Letters to the board were helpful in
explaining missing or gaps in information.
f. Assignments: There was a consensus that leaders and career managers, along with the NCOs themselves, should ensure
they are working towards diverse and relevant assignments. NCOs that sought diverse assignments across the full spectrum
of their career field to ensure a good mix of TOE and TDA assignments were typically judged more favorably. In the opinion of
the board members, branch managers should manage their CMF in a way that develops well rounded NCOs. It was not
positive to board members to see SFC records up for promotion consideration with zero months as a Platoon Sergeant. Board
members felt that Senior NCOs considered for promotion to MSG need Platoon Sergeant time, or equivalent level of
responsibility, even if they are not working within their career field.AHRC-PDV-S SUBJECT: G1 After Action Report – FY12
Master Sergeant Promotion and Selection Board 3
4. Concluding Comments: The FY12 MSG Promotion Selection Board was very competitive. Those selected were the best
qualified and represent an exceptional NCO Corps. Board members were impressed with the quality of those NCOs selected.
The process is fair and consistent. The NCOs that performed well in a variety of challenging, demanding, or high risk positions
were considered more favorably than those that stayed in, or were assigned to, less demanding or less critical duties. Rater
and senior rater comments that were quantifiable, direct to the point, and enumerated were extremely helpful to board
members. A commitment to military and civilian education was seen as a positive indicator. Ongoing record review and
validation by the NCO remain critical in the board preparation and selection process.
1. References.
a. DAPE-MPE-PD, Memorandum of Instruction (MOI) dated 27 September 2011, Subject: MOI for the FY12 Master Sergeant
Promotion and Selection Board.
b. Army Regulation 600-8-19 c. Department of the Army Pamphlet 600-25
2. General. The FY12 Master Sergeant Promotion and Selection Board convened at the DA Secretariat, Fort Knox, Kentucky
on 18 October 2011 to select the best qualified noncommissioned officers for promotion to Master Sergeant. The board also
screened files on Soldiers referred to it under the Stand-By Advisory Board (STAB) process and conducted a Qualitative
Management Program QMP) Board.
3. Board Issues and Observations.
a. DA Photo: Members of the board viewed the DA Photo as a key indicator of performance and commitment. Some uniforms
appeared to have shoulder padding not IAW Army regulations and lapels covering awards. In some cases, NCOs were not
wearing the Drill Sergeant and Recruiting Badge IAW latest MILPO / ALARACT messages. Understanding that the OPTEMPO
is high, many Soldiers with dwell time of 12 months or more did not provide an updated photo. Photos of NCOs wearing SSG
rank or not wearing uniforms in accordance with established guidance left an unfavorable impression. No photo on file without
a justification, (deployed to area where no photo lab is available), demonstrated in the eyes of the board members a lack of
concern by the NCO and consistently received lower ratings. Although as leaders we recognize it is the NCO’s responsibility to
update the board file photo to ensure it is within the last 5 years, has current rank, that the uniform fits correctly and is
properly assembled, recommend Human Resources Command emphasize the importance of the photo through a targeted
media driven information campaign at least six months prior to the board. Notifications could be sent to the population in
consideration via AKO as well as highlighted on key Army and installation websites.
b. Board Enlisted Record Briefs (ERBs): Not verifying a board file was seen as a negative discriminator by members of the
board. Far too many ERBs were inaccurate, missing information, neither updated, nor validated. In some cases, job title
entries on the ERBs did not match the jobs on the NCOERs. A significant number of ERBs had missing data, “incoming
personnel”, “surplus Soldier”, and “known loss” instead of actual duty position annotated. Often the ERBs did not match AHRC-
PDV-S SUBJECT: G1 After Action Report – FY12 Master Sergeant Promotion and Selection Board 2
the NCOERs in terms of duty description and time in position. It is helpful to have duty titles clearly spelled out on the ERB or
as best as it can be using allocated space. Overseas tours were not properly entered with the correct code(s) on the ERB
showing the type of tour completed. The ERB and OMPF should mirror each other as much as possible. Training, awards, and
education were frequently not substantiated with documentation in the OMPF. Those with accurate ERBs were able to inform
board members of the skills, knowledge and experiences outlined in board and proponent guidance and were typically looked
upon more favorably. Recommend including the DD 214 in the records for NCOs with a break in service.
c. NCO Evaluation Report: The rated NCO is responsible for correcting all administrative data. Soldiers who took the time to
update their records set a positive tone. On the other hand, missing or old information set a negative tone. There were gaps in
NCOERs and reports missing on the official military personnel file. Numerous times board members found the administrative
data on NCOERs to be incorrect or inconsistent. Common discrepancies included date of rank inconsistent, use of jargon, and
evaluations not signed by rated Soldier with no explanation provided in the senior rater comments. Raters and senior raters
need to be more descriptive of the NCOs performance, both positive and negative. In several cases the NCOER bullet
comments said little about the NCOs performance or potential. Additionally, areas of special emphasis were not addressed by
the rater in their comments. The height of some NCOs changed repeatedly as they gained and lost weight. Rater and senior
rater evaluation comments varied by wide margins and block checks did not convey a consistent message. These
discrepancies caused board members to question the validity of the evaluations and compliance with standards. There appear
to be too many senior NCOs placed on special assignments before getting Platoon Sergeant’s time. Senior NCOs that
circulated throughout the full spectrum of their career file (to include deployments in support of Overseas Contingency
Operations) fared better than those with prolonged or back-to-back special duty assignments.
d. Education: Board members tended to give positive consideration for military and civilian education. Candidates who
pursued higher education demonstrated in the eyes of the board a strong determination for self-improvement. Those NCOs
with completed degrees were considered the best and board members gave favorable consideration to NCOs working towards
a college degree. Candidates with marginal ratings in military courses were not favorably considered by the board.
e. My Board File: NCOs should review their record on “My Board File.” Board members know who did and did not review their
record. Lack of review demonstrates a perceived lack of commitment by the NCO. Letters to the board were helpful in
explaining missing or gaps in information.
f. Assignments: There was a consensus that leaders and career managers, along with the NCOs themselves, should ensure
they are working towards diverse and relevant assignments. NCOs that sought diverse assignments across the full spectrum
of their career field to ensure a good mix of TOE and TDA assignments were typically judged more favorably. In the opinion of
the board members, branch managers should manage their CMF in a way that develops well rounded NCOs. It was not
positive to board members to see SFC records up for promotion consideration with zero months as a Platoon Sergeant. Board
members felt that Senior NCOs considered for promotion to MSG need Platoon Sergeant time, or equivalent level of
responsibility, even if they are not working within their career field.AHRC-PDV-S SUBJECT: G1 After Action Report – FY12
Master Sergeant Promotion and Selection Board 3
4. Concluding Comments: The FY12 MSG Promotion Selection Board was very competitive. Those selected were the best
qualified and represent an exceptional NCO Corps. Board members were impressed with the quality of those NCOs selected.
The process is fair and consistent. The NCOs that performed well in a variety of challenging, demanding, or high risk positions
were considered more favorably than those that stayed in, or were assigned to, less demanding or less critical duties. Rater
and senior rater comments that were quantifiable, direct to the point, and enumerated were extremely helpful to board
members. A commitment to military and civilian education was seen as a positive indicator. Ongoing record review and
validation by the NCO remain critical in the board preparation and selection process.
Custom Search
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Around the web |
Custom Search
| Frequent Searches 1. DA 4856 6. Counseling 2. DA Form 31 7. DA 4187 3. Disrespect Counseling 8. Military Law 4. APFT Calculator 9. Leader's Book 5. Memorandum for record 10. FM 6-22 |
Did you make cut-off for promotion
this month? Find out your army
promotion point cut off scores >>
this month? Find out your army
promotion point cut off scores >>
Modern Army Combatives Program
The Army Combatives Level 1 Course
teaches Soldiers the basic skills of hand to
hand combat. Army Combatives Techniques >
The Army Combatives Level 1 Course
teaches Soldiers the basic skills of hand to
hand combat. Army Combatives Techniques >
Are your Soldiers out of control?
As Non Commissioned Officers, it is our
responsibility to counsel our Soldiers on a
monthly basis and when they fail to follow
instructions.
Counseling Soldiers on a DA Form 4856 >>>
As Non Commissioned Officers, it is our
responsibility to counsel our Soldiers on a
monthly basis and when they fail to follow
instructions.
Counseling Soldiers on a DA Form 4856 >>>
- What goes in your OMPF?
- The new Basic Training
- 2011 Military Pay
- How to get advance pay
- How to evaluate a casualty
- The truth about investing in Stocks
- New Army Service Uniform ASU.
- Retire on a military budget
- 2011 Army Promotion System
- How to apply a Chitosan Bandage
- Rules for Article 15 punishment
- NCOER Questions and Answers
- How to treat Snake bites
- BAH Rates Drop in 2011
- Make extra money on active Duty
- Cooking in the Barracks
- Stop loss retroactive Pay
- How to get your military records
- How to request a Color Guard
- How to buy military surplus
This is not a Government Sponsored website Contact Privacy
ncopromotionboard.com usmilitarymobile.com daform31.com
ncopromotionboard.com usmilitarymobile.com daform31.com
