FY 2012 Sergeant Major Selection List
MEMORANDUM FOR Director of Military Personnel Management, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff G-1, 300 Army Pentagon, Washington, D.C. 20310-0300
SUBJECT: Field After Action Report - FY12 United States Army Sergeants Major Academy (USASM_A) Training, Over-Strength Qualitative Service Program
(OS-QSP) and Promotion Stagnation Qualitative Service Program (PS-QSP) Selection Boards 1. References.
a. AR 600-8-19, Enlisted Promotions and Reductions, dated 30 April 2010.
b. Department of the Army Pamphlet 600-25.
c. DAPE-MPE-PD, Memorandum of Instruction (MOI) dated 18 April 2012, Subject: Memorandum of Instruction (MOI) for the FY12 United States Army
Sergeants Major Academy (USASMA) Training, Over-Strength Qualitative Service Program (OS-QSP) and Promotion Stagnation Qualitative Service Program
(PS-QSP) Selection Boards.
2. General: The FY12 USASMA Training, OS-QSP and PS-QSP Selection Boards convened at the DA Secretariat, Fort Knox, Kentucky on 4 June 2012, to
select the best qualified noncommissioned officers to attend the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Course (USASMC) for the purpose of promotion to Sergeant
Major. The board selected eligible candidates for involuntary separation from active duty in accordance with references 1a and lc above. The board also
screened packets on Soldiers referred to it under the Stand-By Advisory Board (STAB) process and conducted a Qualitative Management Program (QMP)
3. Board Issues and Observations.
a. The quality of the offidal photograph (DA Photo).
(1) Discussion: A good official photograph is crucial to the board promotion/selection process. In far too many instances, competitive board files were lacking
an updated official photograph and, in some cases, contained no photograph at all. Ideally, a candidate's board file -would contain a photograph taken within
six months of the board. Older photographs, especially those with an outdated rank or in an old service uniform often detracted from the candidate's overall
file. Missing photographs in aboard file led the board members to search for additional clues, such as adverse action or increased weight and generally
-resulted in a lower board score. Lastly, many photos were non-compliant with AR 670-1, displaying unauthorized awards, incorrect awards precedence, etc.
(2) Recommendation: A current, updated photo on file is an important part of the board's ability to assess the Soldiers professionalism and attention to detail.
Prior to accepting an official photograph in DAPMIS, it is recommended to let a peer/leader review awards and uniform.
b. Physical Fitness and APFT scores.
(1) Discussion: Board members considered APFT scores of 270 (90-points/event) and above having a positive impact on a board file; scores -below 270
tended to have less positive impact. Reports that included comments highlighting above average physical stamina and fitness (with examples) were also
perceived positively. Reports that highlighted what the NCO did to improve the fitness of others was also a positive indicator.
(2) Recommendation: Continue to educate the force on the importance of physical fitness, the APFT, and height/weight to the promotion/selection process,
and their contribution to unit readiness.
c. Records update and review.
(1) Discussion: Multiple records had not been updated or reviewed. It was not uncommon to see incorrect/outdated entries under the assignment history
section on the ERBs, with duty positions not matching those on NCOERs. These inconsistencies in duty descriptions were confusing. For example, Operations
Sergeant was consistently used as ajob title for positions from ODA level to joint positions. In those instances, anincorrect ERB data impacted negatively.
(2) Recommendation: An accurate and complete ERB review is a key component of a successful board preparation. It reflects on a Soldier's discipline,
professionalism, motivation, and attention to detail. Periodic record reviews should be emphasized,-as well as board file validation prior to a board convene
date. Soldiers who desire to be promoted must do a better job of scrubbing their own records. They cannot depend on their S-is or HRC to do it for them.
d. NCOER quality.
(1) Discussion: Approximately 90 percent of NCOERs stated "promote now," yet most of the evaluations did not quantify achievements and ratings, nor
clearly defined potential. Many raters and senior raters were inconsistent in their ratings, while reviewers concurred with those conflicting comments. Senior
rater bullets often did not convey a clear indication of potential (e.g. "promote to MSG"). Additionally, APFT data was incomplete or missing on many reports, or
revealing inconsistencies with height/weight data. Some NCOs had an increase in height during a span of five to eight years, growing proportionally to their
weight increase. Numerous NCOERs had excellence bullets without substantiation or justification.
(2) Recommendation. Candidates and their rating chains should ensure bullets support ratings, and mistakes on the evaluation reports are corrected prior
e. Military and civilian education.
(1) Discussion: Soldiers who demonstrated excellence in military courses i.e. distinguished graduate, honor graduate or commandant's list, clearly stood out.
Most NCOs considered for promotion had at least an associate degree or a minimum of 60 college credits. Those candidates without at least two years of
college were seen as less competitive. Despite frequent deployments, many NCOs did a good job of getting the desired amount of both military and civilian
(2) Recommendation: Continuous pursuit of military and civilian education at a bachelor's and master's level demonstrated a commitment to lifelong learning
and made NCOs stand out among their peers. NCOs should seek out opportunities for a military as well as civilian education, is an integral component for
f. Career management and duty positions.
(1) Discussion: NCOs that performed well in a variety of challenging, demanding, and/or high stress/risk positions were considered more favorably than
those who remained in or were routinely assigned to less demanding or less critical duties. NCOs who circulated throughout the full spectrum of their career
field, to include deployments in support of overseas contingency operations, fared better than those with-prolonged or concurrent special duty/TDA
assignments. Consequently, the candidates that did not circulate throughout their career field and did not take an opportunity to serve in special-duty
assignments had lesser chances for promotion.
(2) Recommendation: Soldiers should seek out diverse, -relevant and demanding assignments and perform well in those positions. These qualities result in
better chances for promotions. Branch managers should provide "promotion qualifying" opportunities for the NCOs, especially for Those CMFs where such
opportunities are concentrated in few locations.
4. Conclusion or general comments.
a. A strong-promotion packet should include a current/updated DA photo, consistency between an NCOER and ERB, excellent performance in hard and
demanding jobs, physical fitness and a steady record of seeking professional development opportunities.
b. NCOs should rely on DA Pamphlet 600-25 to guide their careers and to serve as a reliable source of information. Both career managers and NCOs need
to get a better understanding on exactly what DA Pamphlet 600-25 says about their specific CMF. Soldiers should take an aggressive approach in managing
their careers while leaders and career managers should educate the force.
c. Letters to the board were helpful provided that they were concise, free of grammatical errors, and highlighted information not easily found in or missing
from the OMPF.
d. NCOERs that clearly articulated individual excellence and achievement, coupled with comments on their impact on unit readiness were noteworthy, and
directly impacted the board's ability to assess performance and potential.
KEVIN R. WENDEL
Major General, U.S. Army Board President
This is not a Government Sponsored website