The Enlisted Promotion System
Author | : United States. Department of the Army |
Publisher | : |
Total Pages | : 28 |
Release | : 1967 |
Genre | : Career development |
ISBN | : |
Download The Enlisted Promotion System full books in PDF, epub, and Kindle. Read online free The Enlisted Promotion System ebook anywhere anytime directly on your device. Fast Download speed and no annoying ads. We cannot guarantee that every ebooks is available!
Author | : United States. Department of the Army |
Publisher | : |
Total Pages | : 28 |
Release | : 1967 |
Genre | : Career development |
ISBN | : |
Author | : United States. Department of the Army |
Publisher | : |
Total Pages | : 40 |
Release | : 1974 |
Genre | : |
ISBN | : |
Author | : United States. Congress. House. Committee on Armed Services. Special Subcommittee on Enlisted Promotion Policy Review |
Publisher | : |
Total Pages | : 24 |
Release | : 1968 |
Genre | : United States |
ISBN | : |
Author | : United States. Department of the Army |
Publisher | : |
Total Pages | : 0 |
Release | : 1967 |
Genre | : Career development |
ISBN | : |
Author | : |
Publisher | : |
Total Pages | : 0 |
Release | : 1999 |
Genre | : United States |
ISBN | : |
This document summarizes the requirements for promotion of enlisted personnel within each of the services of the U.S. military. This document is not a historical review and does not assess or evaluate the promotion systems. Furthermore, this document does not address the enlisted promotion systems used for the reserves. There is marked variety in the specific requirements for promotion across services. However, there is similarity in the tiered structure of the services' promotion systems. For example, each service developed a tiered enlisted promotion system (Figure S.1). Basically, the first level of the promotion systems controls the promotion of enlisted personnel up to paygrades E-3/E-4. At this level, advancement is noncompetitive and requirements are minimal; generally enlisted personnel need only meet time-in-service (TIS) and time-in-grade (TIG) requirements for advancement. The middle tier covers a wider range of enlisted personnel between paygrades E-4 and E-5/E-7 with competitive advancement based primarily on point systems. The advancement requirements in the top level vary across services. However, at this level, promotion decisions are made primarily by board reviews.
Author | : United States. Congress. House. Committee on Armed Services. Special Subcommittee on Enlisted Promotion Policy Review |
Publisher | : |
Total Pages | : 104 |
Release | : 1968 |
Genre | : United States |
ISBN | : |
Author | : United States. Congress. House. Committee on Armed Services. Special Subcommittee on Enlisted Promotion Policy Review |
Publisher | : |
Total Pages | : 870 |
Release | : 1968 |
Genre | : United States |
ISBN | : |
Committee Serial No. 38. Investigates armed services promotion requirements and procedures, and the alleged inadequacy of present promotion system. Includes report by Secretary of Navy: "Report of the Secretary of the Navy's Task Force on Navy/Marine Military Personnel Retention" (Jan. 25, 1966, p. 6531-6591).
Author | : |
Publisher | : |
Total Pages | : 53 |
Release | : 1999 |
Genre | : United States |
ISBN | : |
This document summarizes the requirements for promotion of enlisted personnel within each of the services of the U.S. military. This document is not a historical review and does not assess or evaluate the promotion systems. Furthermore, this document does not address the enlisted promotion systems used for the reserves. There is marked variety in the specific requirements for promotion across services. However, there is similarity in the tiered structure of the services' promotion systems. For example, each service developed a tiered enlisted promotion system (Figure S.1). Basically, the first level of the promotion systems controls the promotion of enlisted personnel up to paygrades E-3/E-4. At this level, advancement is noncompetitive and requirements are minimal; generally enlisted personnel need only meet time-in-service (TIS) and time-in-grade (TIG) requirements for advancement. The middle tier covers a wider range of enlisted personnel between paygrades E-4 and E-5/E-7 with competitive advancement based primarily on point systems. The advancement requirements in the top level vary across services. However, at this level, promotion decisions are made primarily by board reviews.
Author | : United States. Congress. House. Committee on Armed Services. Special Subcommittee on Enlisted Promotion Policy Review |
Publisher | : |
Total Pages | : 84 |
Release | : 1968 |
Genre | : United States |
ISBN | : |
Committee Serial No. 63. Considers the introduction of regular technical testing into the AF promotion review process to standardize the review process.
Author | : |
Publisher | : |
Total Pages | : 0 |
Release | : 2008 |
Genre | : |
ISBN | : |
The U.S. Air Force has three major independent systems that affect the health of its enlisted force: the manpower system, the strength management system, and the enlisted promotion system. Because the current organizational structure lacks broad coordinating and control mechanisms, this independence spawns policies and procedures that occasionally work at cross-purposes. We discuss these systems at length in Air Force Enlisted Force Management: System Interactions and Synchronization Strategies (Schiefer et al., 2007). That monograph proposes multiple follow-on efforts, and this study fulfills one of those recommendations. Specifically, we examine the practice of not standardizing the test scores that are part of the enlisted promotion system. This practice produces results that are inconsistent with two overarching policies. First, Air Force Policy Directive 36-25 requires that the enlisted promotion system identify those people with the highest potential to fill positions of increased grade and responsibility. We show that not standardizing test scores means that the Air Force emphasizes longevity and testing ability differently across and within specialties to identify individuals with the highest potential. Our second concern deals with differences in promotion opportunity. While the testing dimension of the enlisted promotion system allows members to influence their own destinies, not standardizing scores means that members of specialties in which testing carries more weight have more control than members of other specialties do. This produces random promotion opportunity differences across Air Force specialty codes (AFSCs), thus violating an equity principle that can be traced to a 1970s-era strategic plan for enlisted force management known as the Total Objective Plan for Career Airman Personnel (TOPCAP).