If this post's title seems like gibberish, it's "Fiscal Year 2015, Primary Zone, Army Competitive Category, [promotion to] Major Board." Once a year, the Army conducts a centralized promotion board that selects which captains will be promoted to major, and this year's results just came out.
The board considered year group 2006 officers to be in the "primary zone." I'm in year group 2009, so I'll be in the primary zone in 2018.
The board selected 1521 out of 2184 officers for promotion -- 69.6 percent. For comparison, consider that in 2012, it was 1906/2152 (88.6%).
Back when YG06 lieutenants were up for captain, they had a 99.4% selection rate. Since then, however, 291/2674 (10.9%) have been selected for separation.
Those in functional areas fared slightly better than those in basic branches -- 252/354 (71%) vs. 1269/1830 (69%). Advanced degree holders, too, had a slight advantage -- 73% vs. 68% for those without at least a Master's degree.
The board also considered 709 YG2005 officers who'd been passed over by last year's board, and selected 142/709 (20%) for an "Above the Zone" promotion. (Those who didn't make the cut will be separated.) The board also chose 78/2887 (2.7%) YG2007 officers for "Below the Zone" promotions.
The selection rate rebounded -- gratefully -- from a 65.6% selection rate last year. The target promotion rate established by the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOOPMA) for majors is 80%. This year's board met that percentage almost exactly, though the math is a little odd.
To get the 79.7% DOPMA rate, you add up the number of people selected for promotion (142 AZ, 1521 PZ, and 78 BZ) and divide by PZ considered (2184). There have been years in the past where the selection rate was over 100%, due to the abnormally high rates of below-the-zone selections. Sadly, those days are long gone, but then again the chances of getting killed in a combat zone are a lot lower, too.
Were there any branches that had higher-than-average selection rates? Yes -- Armor (79.8%), Artillery (77.9%), and Infantry (72.9%) officers enjoyed the three highest selection rates. Logisticians were right on the average. Finance (54.5%) and Chemical (43.2%) officers had the lowest selection rates.
Among the functional areas, the Operational Research/Systems Analysis (FA49) had the highest selection rate -- 21/24 (87.5%). Foreign Area Officers were selected at a better than average rate, too -- 59/74 (79.7%). Given the much smaller populations, though, I'm not sure if the differences are significant.
Among the biggest determinants for selection is the number of "Above Center of Mass" evaluations (out of the past five) that a person has gotten. Those with three or more ACOMs were selected at a 97.7% rate (929/951). Those with two had a 78.6% selection rate. Those with only one were selected at 26.7% (109/408).
This slide interests me the most, because in the past I haven't really understood how my senior raters have worked -- what's important to them? How do I distinguish myself? How do they determine who gets what kind of block?
All three of the evaluations I've gotten as a captain were Center of Mass. The first one makes sense, since I'd just been promoted about a month earlier. The second came after I'd spent about a year on battalion staff and was just before I took command. Having spent only three months in the S4 position I was in at the time, I can see how I would not have been considered for a top block.
The third came after I'd completed a year in command, and I can understand that, too. Having come into the position from outside the battalion, I didn't clue in too well on what the expectations were, nor did I establish close relationships among the staff. There were still a lot of things that I didn't understand.
Strangely, it's only now that I seem to be cluing in on what's important: the ability to influence people. How do I make things better -- not just within my job scope, but within the organization? How can I help others?
Doing well in extra duties and taking care of projects may make me popular with my rater, but if it's my senior rater's opinion that really matters then I need to look for ways to change things on a wider scale.
It's too bad it took me so long to learn that, but at least I still have three more years to apply it.
No comments:
Post a Comment