HRC-Brief-to-CSA-10-JUL-2014-v140710-0730-v5

Transcription

HUMAN RESOURCES COMMAND
Briefing to
to
General Odierno
CSA
10 July 2014
v5 10 JUL14
Overall Classification of this brief is:
UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO
1
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Officer Separation Board (OSB) Follow Up
Command Selection List (CSL) Audit Update
CSL Briefing Due Outs (7 Apr 14)
Branch Monitoring Update
Cyber Branch Update
Korea Rotation Business Rules and Manning Timeline
Building NCOs for 2035
Other Key Initiatives
2
Officer Separation Board Follow Up
3
MAJ Selectees with 2 or More ACOM OERs
Weakly written OERs and/or Outdated DA Photos
NAME
BR
YEAR
GROUP
HENDERSON, LAWRENCE AQ
2003
PRESLEY, RICHARD T
AR
2003
THOMAS, BILL SCOTT
48
2002
MCCARTHY, DIANNE
EN
2003
5th ACOM officer was overweight
CURRENT TITLE
Last OER
2nd Last OER
3rd Last OER
4th Last OER
Overall
MIL TM
CONTRACTING
BN S1
Strong as CPT in AG; weak in
CH RCO (FWD AFG) LD/CONT OFF
OFFICER
(best )
AQs
(#1/8)
BN TNG OFF
SGL
KNOWN LOSSES
BN TNG OFF
WTR/INSTR
COM file; no KD reports
(top 25%)
(one of the best)
INCOMING
OPS OFFICER
CDR
CDR
Strong KD OERs, others weak
FAO TNG/CHINA
PERSONNEL
(top 25%)
(top 5%)
(top 5%)
evals
CONTRACTING
OFFICER
SOLDIER IN
TRANSITION
PROJECT ENG
ACOM
CDR
CDR
(top 3)
BN CIVIL
ENGINEER
(top 25%)
2 of 4 ACOMs with strong
comments/No KD
COM
4
Generating Forces
TRADOC
80% ACMG
Recruiting
Command
CPT
-18 Commanders
-4 Staff Officers
MAJ
-5 Staff Officers
•1 Deep Positions
• Assess High Risk
Cadet
Command
CPT
-29 APMS
MAJ
-5 APMS
-1 Staff Officer
• Required to identify 1 Deep Positions
• Assess High Risk
Centers of
Excellence
CPT
-33 Commanders
-10 Instructors
-49 Staff Officers
MAJ
-3 Instructors
-59 Staff Officers
• 97% Current Strength
• SMC limited ability to fill commanders
• Assessing MAJ billets and SMC ability
to cross level
• Low to high risk; working priorities with
TRADOC
5
Generating Forces
First Army
70% ACMG
DIV EAST
DIV WEST
CPT
-14 OC/T
-11 Staff Officers
CPT
-16 OC/T
-12 Staff Officers
MAJ
-2 OC/T
-2 Staff Officers
MAJ
-3 OC/T
-5 Staff Officers
• 83.4% Current Strength
• 76.6% with OSB
• Will work to 1A to redirect inbounds
• Assess OC/T as medium risk
• 78.9% with OSB
• Will work to 1A to redirect inbounds
• Assess OC/T as medium risk
6
Generating Forces
CTC
80% ACMG
100% for OC/T
JRTC
CPT
-9 OC/T
NTC
CPT
-1 OC/T
MAJ
-4 OC/T
• Gains programmed 1Q/FY14
• May be near term gap
•Assess Low Risk
•Assess Low Risk
CMTC
CPT
-1 OC/T
-4 Staff Officers
MAJ
-1 OC/T
-2 Staff Officers
•Assess Low Risk
7
AFPAK Hands
OSB-ESERB
• CPT OSB: 11.7% overall vs. 16.7% AFPAK
•
MAJ OSB: 6.5% overall vs. 12.4% AFPAK
PROMOTION/SELECTION
• LTC CSL Selection:
– FY13 LTC CSL: 18% ACC vs. 3% AFPAK
– FY14 LTC CSL: 27% ACC vs. 6% AFPAK
•
COL Promotion
– FY13: 42% ACC vs. 11% AFPAK
– FY14: 40% ACC vs. 3% AFPAK
ISSUES
• 42-45 months in program impacts officer timeline
• High deployment OPTEMPO; few volunteers
• Assignment Officer feedback is that Officers in the
field have a negative view of AFPAK Hands
• Utilization as staff officer vice AFPAK Hands
• Joint environment without JDAL credit
• Out-of-theater assignments not related to AOC
DISCUSSION
• Reassess value of program considering breadth of
Afghan experience within current officer corps
• Establish an AFPAK proponent
• Establish marketing strategy to eliminate negative
stigma of program
• Reengineer program to 2-3 year max with
broadening assignments as CPT & MAJ within
current timeline
• Consider advanced degree and JCS/ARSTAFF
assignment following theater tour
• Consider VTIP opportunity into FAO program
8
A/O 091800 Jul 14
Command Selection List (CSL) Audit Update
9
FY 15 ACC CSL Audit
CSL Audit Purpose: validate billets on CSL in light of evolving
missions and responsibilities; Improve subcategory alignment;
Shape CSL to meet CSA’s intent
CSL Purpose: Ensure our best qualified officers fill our
most important billets
End State: Shape officers to become postured as future
strategic leaders of the Army
FOCUS AREAS
• Validate LTC/COL command and key billets meet CSL definitions, meet scope of
responsibility requirements, and are consistent between echelons
• Assess how the total number of LTC/COL CSL positions has changed over time,
and why
• Analyze the year-to-year imbalance in CSL opportunities, and examine COAs to
improve balance
• Statistically validate the importance of LTC CSL positions based on FY09-FY13
SSC, COL Promotion, and COL CSL Board outcomes
• Evaluate the feasibility and potential impact of reducing 36 month commands to 24
months to include potentially removing the 2+1 option for IMCOM
10
Focus Area Findings (1 of 2)
Focus Area 1: Validate LTC/COL command and key billets meet CSL definitions,
meet scope of responsibility requirements, and are consistent between echelons

80% of evaluated billets meet all CSL definitions and criteria for their respective category
•
Principle empirical friction point is “scope of responsibility,” based on authorization documents
•
Primarily in the Strategic Support Command Category
•
Small-sized units with large fiscal, materiel, facilities, and personnel responsibilities (e.g.
Depots/Arsenals/Port Battalions)

Basic Branch key billets are largely consistent at Division and Corps Level

Distribution of Functional Area key billets is in accordance with Proponent priorities
Focus Area 2: Assess how the total number of LTC/COL CSL positions has
changed over time, and why

A combination of force structure impacts (+/-) and key billet and functional areas add have
resulted in an overall 9% increase in CSL billets from FY03-FY14

Functional Areas as CSL
11
Focus Area Findings (2 of 2)
Focus Area 3: Analyze the year-to-year imbalance in CSL opportunities, and
examine COAs to improve balance

Constant factors: unit activations/inactivation's; patch chart; reliefs and individual extensions or
curtailments
•
Overall balance =47% in FY15; 53% in FY16
•
Operational Force = 47% in FY15; 53% in FY16 → 49% in FY17; 51% in FY18
•
Generating Force = 50% in 15; 50% in 16
•
Wholesale BCT/ Battalion changes in the same FY generates significant imbalance within
Divisions
Focus Area 4: Validate the importance of LTC CSL positions based on FY09-FY13
SSC, COL Promotion, and COL CSL board outcomes

CSL: ~13% LTCs selected for CSL; of those, ~72% select to COL, 73% to SSC, 36% to COL CSL
•

Direct correlation exists between LTC CSL and promotion to COL, SSC, COL CSL
Non-CSL: ~10% selected for COL; <1% for COL CSL
Focus Area 5: Evaluate the feasibility and potential impact of reducing 36 month
commands to 24 months to include potentially removing the 2+1 option for IMCOM
•
•
Complete: Depot & Arsenal commands 36 to 24 months (effective FY15); IMCOM 2+1
(terminated for FY15)
Pending: EN USACE (O6) districts 3 year command tours
12
Additional Focus Area Findings
 Nest board guidance with the Army Leader Development Strategy
to recognize performance in CSL position in both operating and
generating force
 Reassess coding of select command to correct imbalance in
command opportunities
• Redesignate all hard-coded Installation Commands to Branch Immaterial
• Redesignate 18 Combat Arms Immaterial Installation Commands to Branch
Immaterial
• Redesignate 15 Infantry Training Commands to Combat Arms Immaterial (02A)
– Initial Entry Training Battalions and Brigades outside Fort Benning
• Further assess Special Forces (SF) Opportunities – preponderance serving in
non-SF commands
13
Command Selection List (CSL) Briefing Due Outs
14
82d Airborne and 1st Cavalry Division Analysis
CSA Observation: Lack of 82nd ABN and 1CD battalion
commanders selected for FY15 BCT commands
BN Command Location
1CD
82nd ABN
BCTs Slated
FY14 BCT Selects FY15 BCT Selects
3 (BZ)
5 (BZ)
20
1
0
13
Selectees from
2 ABCT (OML #8)
Link to
82nd / 1 CD
Analysis
Less opportunities
 One select from 1CD in FY15 BCT; 3 BZ selects in FY14
 Zero selects from 82nd in FY15; 5 BZ selects in FY14 - officer pool for FY15
reduced
 Less BCT opportunities in FY15 is a factor
 Examined all COL promotion data from like divisions, no pooling identified:
• SR sampling from 2010-2012, home station only
• Senior rater population generally consistent; variables such as TRA, SMC roles may
have imposed variances
Division LTC CSL Location
82 ABN DIV
1st CAV DIV
Total
Divisions w/Corps Total
Divisions w/o Corps Total
Grand Total
Promotion
Non-SEL
Promotion
Select
Total
Compete
Select Rate
SR Population
(in 2012)
6
13
19
30
70
5
6
11
13
47
11
19
30
43
117
45.5%
31.6%
36.6%
30.2%
40.2%
74
63
69 (avg)
59 (avg)
78 (avg)
100
60
160
37.5%
15
Professors of Military Science (PMS) as CSL
CSA: “Should LTC PMS be CSL? Consider options, we are not getting the
quality that we need”
G1 Additional Guidance: “Relook the process to identify a hybrid approach
so that certain PMS billets are a CSL selection. Identify premier schools for
CSL selection (approximately 25); possible 24-month deferment of CSL if
selected for PMS. Relook the timing which may be resolved with an earlier
announcement.
 PMSs selected through Centralized Selection Board; officers opt-in
 HRC does not recommend PMS as CSL:
• Current leader development model disadvantages PMS officers (2 yr)
• Adding to CSL potentially weakens the overall talent pool of operational force
• Forces a career path choice
• Sets a course for generating force at COL level
• Potential promotion risk

Need the opportunity to do both – PMS and CSL
16
PMS CSL Alternatives
USACC’s primary concern is turbulence, not quality
 Operationally defer CSL selects; two year minimum tour; all
eligible to compete
 Re-sequence PMS board after CSL announcement; only CSL
alternates and non-selects compete; two year minimum tour;
alternate activations remain a possibility
 Former CSL officers as PMSs for select universities;
Nomination process (Shotgun) shapes selection criteria
 Sustain current PMS/CSL board selection processes and
eligibility criteria
17
FY15 Declinations – Early Read
Although trending higher at this point than FY14, the FY15
declinations are within historical norms
Principal Declinations
FY14 Total
FY 15 (as of 25 Jun 14)
Personal
PMS
Disapproved
Deferment
Total
13
4
1
18
4
8
0
12
 FY14 declinations represents the entire FY; FY15 data is as of 25 Jun 14
 Declinations trending higher in FY15, yet within statistical norm for last 5
FYs - too early to see clear patterns
 PMS declination rate already double of entire FY14 – something to watch
18
Discussion
 Countering the effect of the 90s drawdown (avoid
principal select backlog)
•
Staying in close synch with the Army G3 (did not happen in the 90’s)
•
To some extent, under-selecting principals (did not happen in the
90’s)
 CSA AMEDD/AAC slate approval; working authorities
19
CSM CSL Branch Consolidation Update
Effective Changes:
 CSM CSL Branch merged with Command Management Branch
 Board process and slating for battalion and brigade level CSMs to mirror
officers
 Changes effective fall 14 boards (FY16 CSL):
•
•
•
•
•
Opt-In/All-In
One vote, one score
Single alternate Order of Merit List (OML)
Slating conducted by Enlisted Personnel Management Directorate branch chiefs
SMA slate guidance includes broadening
 SMA briefed on 19 Jun 14 and concurs
Way Ahead:
 Continued synchronization effort to align command sub-categories with
officer CSL
 Adjust policies and procedures where needed
 Assess need to realign management of BDE CSMs to SMA SMMO
20
Branch Monitoring Update
21
Branch Monitoring Introduction
Task:
CSA Guidance to monitor minorities by branch
from the beginning of their career as an officer.
Methodology:
In order to determine which decision points
along a career timeline should inform senior
leaders’ decision making process, we explored
two areas:
1. Accessions into ACC and Combat Arms
2. Branch Transfers out of the Combat Arms
Recommendation:
Equitable distribution of Combat Arms
allocations for all sources of commission.
22
Branch Monitoring Introduction
Minorities in the Combat Arms
 The following analysis highlights trends that we consistently see in recent year
groups for Caucasian and African American (AA) populations. Key findings:
• Point of Accession (Lower AA accessions into Combat Arms – 6% of the Combat Arms
population made up of AA officers vs 12% of the overall AA ACC population)
• Combat Arms Retention (At 20 years of service, 38% of Caucasian and 45% of AA
officers that began their careers in Combat Arms transferred to other branches)
• Competitiveness (Rates for Promotion & CSL at least 5% lower than Caucasian rates)
 The use of historical data allows us to pose the questions that will inform the
decisions for the Army’s upcoming graduating classes from each source of
commission:
• What would we have done differently to change the composition of the more senior
year groups?
• How do we increase the population of minority officers in the combat arms?
• How do we mentor and influence minority officers in their initial tours to remain within
the combat arms?
23
Combat Arms Diversity Monitoring
In order to increase the representation of Combat Arms Senior
Leaders, there are two focus areas outlined below
ACC African American Population – 12%
YG97 Continuation
Rates
by REDCAT
ACC and
Combat Arms
Combat Arms
African
Americanfor
Population
– 6%
120%
YG97 Continuation Rates by REDCAT for ACC and Combat Arms
120%
100%
100%
Accessions increase of 4 AA Officers = 1 additional at 20 years
80%
80%
60%
Accessions increase of 40 AA Officers = 1 additional at 30 years
60%1.
Point of Accession
40%
YG 97 depicts common
trends, but more recent
year groups exhibit an
increase in AA VTIP rates
out of Combat Arms
40%
20%
20%
2. VTIP Window
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
10
11
ACC Caucasian
0%
7
8
9
12
13
14
ACC AA
1. Point of Accession
ACC Caucasian
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
20
21
Combat Arms Caucasian
14
ACC AA
• Recent year groups have an average of 14% AA
officers at accessions
• Sources of Commission Demographics
• Role Models & Mentoring can influence branching
behavior
15
16
17
18
19
Combat Arms Caucasian
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
25
26
27
28
29
30
Combat Arms AA
22
23
24
2. VTIP Window
Combat Arms AA
• Role Models & Mentorship Efforts
• Limited VTIP Approval
24
Accessions Diversity Monitoring
YG 2013
REDCAT Distribution by
Source of Commission
100%
90%
12%
80%
25%
70%
60%
50%
65%
61%
40%
30%
23%
0%
Caucasian
OCS
ROTC
USMA
396
2068
737
• ROTC remains the SOC with the largest volume
of minority officers and the DA Branching Model
establishes demographic goals for all branches
• OCS Active Duty allocations decreased in 2014
and for the foreseeable future
20%
10%
• An equitable distribution of Combat Arms branch
allocations to each SOC will increase the number
of AA officers accessed into those branches
15%
African
American
90
221
54
• USMA Population historically remains constant
in size and composition
Year Group 2013 is the most recent complete
dataset and mirrors recent year groups trends.
25
Cyber Branch Update
26
HRC Cyber Branch
Serve as entry point into Human Resources Command for Cyber Stakeholders.
Provides focused Career Management across all cohorts in the Cyber Mission Force
(any BR/Specialty), all Electronic Warfare (FA 29 series), and Cryptologic Network
Warfare Specialist (35Q). Remains aligned with Army decisions on Cyber Branch
development. Provide bridge to protect early Cyber Soldiers.
Branch Chief
LTC (O2A)
Cyber Coord
Officer
CPT (25)
Cyber Coord
PDNCO
SFC (35)
Organizational Focus: Assignments
into and out of Cyber Units.
Account
Managers
ENL PDNCO
MSG (29E)
Cyber
Stakeholders
WO AO
CW4 (290)
Officer AO
MAJ (FA29)
Functional Focus: The duties of a Enlisted Professional Development
NCO (PDNCO) and a Warrant Officer / Officer Assignment Officer (AO).
SUPPORTS
(Assist, Coordinate,
Inform, Monitor,
Influence, Support)
DA Staff,
TRADOC,
ARCYBER,
CYBERCOM,
Other Cyber
Units
Parent
Branches
Make use of already existing tasking and
support relationships.
Cyber Branch Priorities
Cyber Branch Manages
•
•
•
•
323 Officers
211 Warrant Officers
1,229 Enlisted Soldiers
Manning of Cyber Mission Force
Establishment of control measures/business practices
ASI / SI E4 (Cyber Mission Force Service) management
Facilitating identification of Soldiers with Cyber talent
1,763 Total Soldiers
27
HRC Cyber Branch Developing Topics
Dual Branching
• Successful example in Aviation/MI (15C35) but…
• Cyber/MI or Cyber/Signal could work as skill sets are related. Cyber/Branch
Immaterial?
• Proponent concerns with challenge in maintaining competency in both branches
HRC Position: Do not dual branch. Early establishment of Cyber Branch and establishment of
Cyber Mission Force Service Skill Identifier (E4) provide the tools needed to manage Cyber
talent.
Establishing CSL Opportunities in Cyber
Recommend against this initially:
• Very limited Cyber talent pool and insufficient force structure
• Dependant upon centralized board decisions
• Initially, CSL or lack thereof will not be the discriminator it is in other branches
HRC Position:
• Hand select commanders of Cyber formations for now…
• Define CSL positions once talent pool and force structure sufficiently mature
• Pursue CSL credit for previously selected commanders
Potential CSL Positions
2 x Bde
2 x Bn
28
Korea Rotation Business Rules and
Manning Timeline
29
Korea Rotation Personnel Rules (1 of 2)
 Rotational Unit Manning Levels
• Manned at NLT P1 from D-180 (Dec 14) through R+90 (Jun 16) to allow for non-deployable
and unprogrammed losses
• Initial HRC resourcing NLT D-180 and installation cross leveling enables the Senior
Commander (SC) to achieve and maintain P1; build beginning Sep 14
• SC responsible for non-deployable Soldier disposition and maintaining P1 throughout
deployment
 Rotational Unit Stabilization
• Stabilization begins at D-180 and ends at R+90 (Dec 14 to Jun 16)
• Soldiers must meet Service Remaining Requirement (SRR) to remain assigned to the
rotational unit through the stabilization period
• Soldiers who do not meet the SRR will be reassigned / cross-leveled prior to stabilization
period
• Soldiers on assignment to essential requirements will be replaced and depart the unit prior
to stabilization
• Special category assignments (sexual assault victims, threat to life, compassionate , etc.)
will continue on a case-by-case basis
UNCLASSIFIED / FOUO
30
Korea Rotation Personnel Rules (2 of 2)
 Rotational Unit Command Tours
• No CSL leadership changes during the stabilization period
• Brigade CSM may compete for nominative positions but will not be available until end
of rotation
• Unit has authority to change KD positions / company leadership during the stabilization
period
 Rotational Unit Retention
• D-365 (Jul 14): Soldiers who do not meet SRR (~2000) identified and allowed to
reenlist / extend
• D-330 (Aug 14): Soldiers with ETS prior to end of stabilization period reassigned /
cross leveled
• Retirement requests during stabilization period may be approved with retirement date
NET R+90
 Inactivating Units on the Korea Peninsula (1st Rotation Only)
• Standard rules for Inactivating Units apply with caveats:
– 341 Soldiers in 1/2 ID may be extended up to 180 days with approval from HQDA DCS, G-1
– Soldiers not required for readiness in other Korea units will be curtailed up to 90 days
– 1/2 ID will remain at P1 until May 2015
UNCLASSIFIED / FOUO
31
2nd Brigade 1st Cavalry Division
Rotational Deployment Timeline and Manning Readiness
UNIT DEPLOYMENT TIMELINE
2015
2014
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
GUNNERY
(Tables I – XII)
MAJORITY OF
REPLACEMENTS
ARRIVE
DEC
JAN
NTC
PREP /
LOAD
OUT
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
NTC 15-05
DIRECT
ACTION
AUG
SEP
2016
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
ROTATION to KOREA
GUNNERY BLOCK
(TABLE VI) LEAVE
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
POST
DEPLOYMENT
(15 FEB to 15 MAR)
ADDITIONAL
PERSONNEL
ARRIVE
STABILIZATION PERIOD (18 MONTHS)
UNIT REMAINS P1
Installation cross-leveling and take outs complete
Unit Achieves
P1
CURRENT READINESS: USR JUN 14
PROJECTION: COPS AS OF 06 JUN 14
UNIT READINESS
CURRENT READINESS
READINESS PROJECTION
UNIT DATA
2/1 CD
AUTH
ASG
ASG %
4303¹
4573
101%
88%
90%
88%
233
237
102%
79%
84%
94%
2-20 FA³
(41st FIRES)
AVAIL %
SG%
MOS - Q
NON
AVAIL
MRE DATE
ASSUME /
LAD DATE
PROJ OH
SEP 2014
PROJ OH
DEC 2014
538²
MAR 15
JUN 15
104%
105%
55
APR 15
JUN 15
97%
99%
GREEN BOLD = Meets standard for rating
ORANGE BOLD = Fails to meet standard
¹ Unit authorizations increase to 4,580 in August 2014 due addition of the 3 rd maneuver battalion
² Excludes ~2000 Soldiers without SRR
³ 2-20th Fires cross levels within 41st Fires – MOS 13M and 13P filled to Army Averages
UNCLASSIFIED / FOUO
32
Impacts of Stabilization
 Stabilizing Korea Rotational Units for 18 months at P1 requires the
movement of 2,072 additional Soldiers to 2/1 CD
• Increases turbulence in other 1CD brigades and Fort Hood as units cross level
• Stabilizing one brigade mission set (Korea Rotation) is sustainable based on current projections
• Stabilizing additional brigades under the same construct is not sustainable without negatively
impacting the remainder of the operating force or depleting the generating force
• On average it requires a minimum of an additional 720 personnel (16.6% of a BCT) to stabilize a unit
for 12 months
 Stabilization was resourced from inactivating units, diverted AIT students,
and from cross leveling on Fort Hood
 Majority of the replacement personnel are skill level 10 Operations
(Combat Arms) Soldiers
Branch
Infantry (CMF 11)
TOTAL
SL 10
SL 20
SL 30
SL 40
SL 50
461
315
103
36
6
1
Engineer (CMF 12)
54
38
8
3
3
2
Artillery (CMF 13)
208
148
36
20
4
0
Armor (CMF 19)
288
199
68
18
1
2
1011
700
215
77
14
5
TOTAL
 Must begin building 3/1 CD now for next rotation…..no flex at Ft. Hood
UNCLASSIFIED / FOUO
33
34
How to build and develop the broadened NCO for 2035 (UQ13)?
2014
SL 10
SL 20
SL 30
SL 40
2035
11 B
Career Path
IBCT
1
IBCT
ALC
IBCT
SLC
IBCT
Recruiter/Drill SGT/AIT PLT SGT/Institutional/O/C
2
ABCT
IBCT
ALC
Airborne
SLC
ABCT
3
SBCT
SBCT
ALC
IBCT
SLC
Airborne
4
Airborne
ABCT
ALC
ABCT
SLC
IBCT
Military / Civilian Education
 To develop the Soldier of 2014 into an agile and adaptive 1SG/CSM of 2035, leader development
must allow NCOs to build experience in multiple environments versus single tracking in one
formation with little to no broadening (CMF11, 12, 13 and 19)
 Promotion boards must recognize and reward this experience and diversity
Where we are at
•
•
•
•
•
Unit manning readiness
Location stability
Same unit type at each grade
More operational time
Regionally aligned
Where we need to go
Versus
•
•
•
•
•
Individual professional development
New environment more often
Different types of units at each grade
More developmental time
Wide variety of regional experience
Career paths 2-4 develop agile and adaptive NCOs to meet future requirements
35
Other Key Initiatives
Optimize Army Readiness
Adaptive and Agile Leaders for a Complex Environment
New OER
OSD Awards
Review
New NCO-ER
Career
Intermission
Program
New AER
Advanced Civil
Schooling
Review
DSC/SS Review
Audit Readiness
Panel
CSM CSL
Change
Talent
Management
2025
OCS
Criteria/Review
IRR Readiness
HR Optimization
Cyber Force
Development/
Management
Integrated Pay
and Personnel
Transition
Adapt, adjust; be flexible and responsive!
Total Army – Total Victory!
36
Discussion / Guidance
37
Backups
Officer Separation Board
38
FA48 MAJs OSB Data
Overall FA48 Operational Strength is at 83.2%
14 FAOs Selected for OSB
(5) Training Pipeline
•
The hardest hit AOC is 48G (Middle East) – 9.1%
selection rate (18.2% for YG01)
•
Minor Gaps (no operational impact/Officers in pipeline
to backfill)
•
Biggest GAP Concern: Army Attaché in Yemen;
backfill slated for Jan 15. Gap will depend on when
OSB Officer wants to depart
•
48Gs will be difficult to replace due to long training
timeline and lack of non-FAO Arabic speakers in Army;
FAO may have long term difficulty filling 48G billets
(8) Operations
(1) Discharged (MEB)
FAO HRC (O3-O5) Current
100%
92%
80%
-
2 w/ COMs files; one Officer in Greens for DA Photo
• The hardest hit YG is YG01 – 8.2% selection rate
• 2/14 REDCAT Officers
-1
• 1/14 CAD Officer
48J Africa
48I Southeast Asia
-1
48H Northeast Asia
-5
48G Middle East
-2
48F China
-2
48D South Asia
48B Latin America
10%
48C Europe
-3
FAO O3-O5 Average
20%
76%
69%
60%
30%
72%
74%
70%
40%
• 12/14 had GOMAR/Art 15/NLJ/BCOM
85%
83%
80%
50%
• 4.1% OSB Selection Rate
95%
48E Eurasia
90%
Notes:
106%
0%
39
ESERB / AFCS Requirements
 The SecArmy has reduced the AFCS Requirement from 10 years to 8 years
– the maximum extent IAW USC 10
 101 CPTs selected for ESERB will not have obtained a minimum amount of
commissioned service (8 years) to retire as an officer
 150 MAJs were selected for ESERB; all have obtained the minimum
required 8 years AFCS
 Sec Army may defer for not more than 90 days the retirement of an officer
otherwise approved for early retirement in order to prevent a personal
hardship to the officer or for other humanitarian reasons. Any such deferral
shall be made on a case-by-case basis considering the circumstances of
the case of the particular officer concerned. The authority of the Secretary to
grant such a deferral may not be delegated.
 22 CPTs can request the SecArmy defer the retirement date from 1 Apr 15
to 30 June IOT gain 8 years AFCS and retire as an officer
40
How is retirement pay calculated
 Commissioned officers with less than 8 years commissioned service who
retire as enlisted members with more than 20 years but less than 30 years
can’t use any of their officer basic pay in the computation of the average of
their highest 36 months of basic pay.
 How calculated: DFAS will use the highest enlisted grade held and that
basic pay corresponding to the soldier’s years of service for the 36 months
before retirement.
 For example, a CPT with 7 years of commissioned service retires as an E-7
on 1 April 15 with 20 years of active duty. The highest 36 months of basic
pay would be based on one month as an E-7 with over 20 years (1-30 May
15), 24 months as an E-7 with over 18 years (1 Apr 13 through 1 May 15),
and 11 months as an E-7 with over 16 years (1 Apr 12 through 31 Mar 13).
 Under the provisions of Title 10, United States Code section 3964 (10 USC
§3964), if you are an enlisted (E-1 through E-9) or warrant officer (W-1
through W-5) retiree with less than thirty years of active service who
previously held a higher grade, you can apply for advancement to that
higher grade on the retired list after obtaining 30 years of combined active
and retired time. Retirement Pay will be adjusted but no back pay issued.
41
Overview
Way Ahead
• 550 selected (1 Officer in DASR Population)
• Project notifications to begin first week of Aug 14
• 1 May 15 separation date
Selections
• 6.5% select rate (OSB 5.6% & ESERB 10.5%
combined)
• Officers who VTIP to Functional Areas had lower
selection rate. (5.2% verses 6.5%)
• EW, Sys Automation, Space OPS, and PO branch
selection higher than average (relatively small
population sizes)
Separations
• 17% (95) retirement-eligible
• 15% (80) sanctuary-eligible (18-20 years)
• 31% (171) TERA-eligible (15-18 years)
• 37% (204) < 15 years of service (sep pay)
• 63 separation: 13 have separated and 50 on
separations orders
Readiness
• MAJ Grade spread out across the Army, although
aggregate strength is not projected as an issue
individual shortfalls may need to be addressed
• There are 131 OSB/ESERB selects currently
serving in KD positions
• SCs may cross level to fill critical billets
• HRC backfills critical billets when necessary and
feasible
42
FY14 MAJ OSB and ESERB
Select Performance Breakout
Total Considered and Select
80% of selects had derog or
negative evaluations
OSB/ESERB Select File Assessment
8500
8000
7500
20%
(108)
7000
6500
5500
7957
NLJ
OER
4000
3500
2500
*One DASR
124 – MAJ
58 – CPT
8 - LT
2000
1500
1000
0
41%
(226*)
34%
(190)
3000
500
DEROG
ACOM ACOM Pure
>1
X1 COM
5000
4500
17
4
6000
87
550
6.5%
All Consisered
• Board considered the officer’s total body of work
• Board weighted derog heavily
• One Controlled population Officer select and 158 Considered omitted in this analysis
BCOM
OER
5%
(26)
43
KD Experience Breakout
250
250 Number Selected and Selection Rate by Experience
12.0%
213
10.8%
10.0%
53
YG03
8.0%
150
150
100
100
Rate Select OSB/ESERB
Number MAJs Select
200
200
7.2%
7.2%
57
YG02
143
6.5%
131
6.6%
44
YG01
4.7%
6.0%
4.0%
63
50
50
00
33
YG00
2.0%
26
YG99
0.0%
No KD
Experience
KD Experience LT SERVING IN MAJ
14 Mon
KD
MAJ KD
COMPLETE
Category
Selection
Rate
No KD Experience KD Experience LT Serving in MAJ KD MAJ KD Complete
14 Mon 24% were currently serving in KD; 26% had
39% of selects had no KD experience;
completed KD; Failure to complete a full KD was a strong factor.
44
Military Education Level
250
12.0%
11.1%
Number MAJs Select
70
YG03
8.1%
8.0%
150
6.5%
5.9%
79
YG02
6.0%
4.5%
100
4.0%
47
YG01
2.5%
50
2.0%
25
YG00
0
10.0%
200
8 229
YG99
107
CCC Graduate
50% ILE
3
21
MEL 4 Enrolled MEL 4 Attending
190
MEL 4
0.0%
Category
Selection
Rate
34% of selects were CGSC complete (MEL4) – represents 5% of the officers considered who were
CGSC compete; 42% of selects were CCC Graduates without CGSC (MEL4) enrollment –
represents 11% of the officers considered who were CCC graduates without CGSC; 21 officers
attending resident CGSC (MEL4) were selected; 2officers attending SAMS were selected.
45
Readiness Impacts Where Selects Assigned
100
18.0%
95
91
90
16.0%
15.3%
80
70
12.0%
Number MAJs Select
63
60
11.0%
10.4%
10.4%
10.0%
50
8.7%
Overall
6.5%
41
40
8.6%
8.3%
8.0%
7.7%
32
6.0%
30
23
20
10
0
4.0%
3.2%
5.1%
21
21
21
19
4.0%
18
14
13
2.5%
7
5
5
1
14.0%
74
2.0%
0.7%
0.0%
Unit Selection
Rate
Largest number of selects are assigned to Division/BCT/CAB – but represents 6.5% of the MAJs
considered that were assigned to these formations; TRADOC selection rate (10%, 63 officers);
“OTHERS” include ARSOUTH 8 of 54: 14.8%, ARNORTH 5 of 48: 10.4%, MEPS 3 of 26: 11.5%;
Highest select rate is 1A, 15.3% (14); HRC assessing critical risks and developing mitigation
strategy; Commands can expect gaps
46
Selection Rates by Control Branch
22.0%
20.0%
20.0%
18.0%
16.0%
14.0%
13.4%
11.8%
11.2%11.1%11.1%
12.0%
9.7%
10.0%
8.6%
8.0%
8.2% 8.2%
7.9% 7.7%
Overall
6.5%
7.1% 7.0% 6.9%
6.6% 6.5% 6.4%
6.1% 5.9%
6.0%
5.0% 4.9% 4.8%
4.5% 4.3% 4.3%
3.6% 3.4%
3.1%
4.0%
1.6%
2.0%
AC
17
501
3.4%
SF 59
11 2
353 128
3.1% 1.6%
• Significant variance of select rate on ends of the spectrum
• Functional Area (FA) officers select rate comparable to Basic Branch in Aggregate;
losses in FA will take time to mitigate due to training time.
STRATEGIC PLANS AND POLICY
SPECIAL FORCES
IN 57 FI MI 34 48 AV
27 5
7 33 5 14 19
540 102 146 728 115 327 521
5.0% 4.9% 4.8% 4.5% 4.3% 4.3% 3.6%
ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT
AVIATION
FOREIGN AREA OFFICER
STRATEGIC INTEL OFFICER
MILITARY INTELLIGENCE
FINANCE CORPS
EN
25
425
5.9%
SIMULATIONS OPERATIONS
49
12
196
6.1%
INFANTRY
AG
23
361
6.4%
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
AD
12
185
6.5%
OPS RESEARCH/SYS ANALYSIS
SC 52 50
31 7
6
444 102 91
7.0% 6.9% 6.6%
ADJUTANT GENERALS CORPS
AR
23
325
7.1%
AIR DEFENSE ARTILLERY
CA
11
141
7.8%
STRATEGIC AND FORCE DEV
CIVIL AFFAIRS
MP
22
278
7.9%
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
MILITARY POLICE CORPS
FA
35
428
8.2%
SIGNAL CORPS
FIELD ARTILLERY
24
8
97
8.2%
ARMOR
INFO SYSTEM ENGINEERING
LOGISTICS
PUBLIC AFFAIRS
PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS
INFO OPERATIONS OFFICER
CHEMICAL CORPS
SPACE OPERATIONS OFFICER
SYS AUTOMATION OFFICERS
29
53
40 CM 30 PO 46 LG
6
25
9
15
16
9
11 104
# Considered
30 187 76 134 144 81 113 1209
% Selected 20.0% 13.4% 11.8% 11.2% 11.1% 11.1% 9.7% 8.6%
Branch / FA
# Selects
ELECTRONIC WARFARE
0.0%
47
(Rates Include all DASR Considered)
Demographics
Race/Ethnic Selection Rates
(Percent of Considered Pop)
12%
10%
Gender Selection Rates
7%
23% of selects were African American
9.8%
8.3%
8.0%
8%
5.9%
5.7%
5%
4%
3.2%
3%
6.5%
Overall
5.7%
6%
6.5%
Overall
6%
6.6%
123% of selects were Female
4%
2%
2%
128
4
52
26
330
10
ASIAN
CAUCASIAN
OTHER
0%
AFRICAN AMERICAN HISPANIC
AMERICAN INDIAN
Source of Commissioning
12.0%
10.3%
9.7%
10.0%
1%
67
MALE
FEMALE
0%
Combat Experience
250
23% of selects were OCS
12.0%
207
10.1%
9.7%
200
8.0%
483
10.0%
188
8.0%
7.3%
150
6.0%
6.9%
5.4%
6.0%
5.9%
6.0%
92
100
4.0%
4.0%
56
2.6%
50
2.0%
23
187
127
178
35
2.0%
6
0
0.0%
OTHER
ROTC
Non_SCH
OCS
ROTC SCH
USMA
0.0%
Not Deployed
and Never
Deployed
< 1 YEAR
< 2 YEARS
< 3 YEARS
> 3 YEARS
88% had 2 or more years
combat/deployed experience
48
9.7%
10.0%
OSB/ESERB Combined
(Rates do not include DASR Considered)
9.0%
8.0%
Overall
6.5%
8.0%
7.0%
• Greatest variance exists between African
American and Caucasian Overall
6.4%
5.8%
6.0%
5.7%
• ESERB overall select rate was higher than OSB;
AA made up 24% of ESERB considered population
5.6%
5.0%
4.0%
• 20% of AA selects had no DEROG or poor Evals
compared to 22% of all selects without DEROG/
poor EVALs
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
AFRICAN
AMERICAN
HISPANIC
10.0%
9.1%
AMERICAN
INDIAN
ASIAN
OTHER
CAUCASIAN
ESERB Only
OSB Only
9.0%
12.0%
7.7%
8.0%
OSB
5.6%
7.1%
7.0%
11.6%
11.9%
ESERB
10.5%
11.9%
10.0%
9.8%
10.0%
OTHER
CAUCASIAN
6.0%
5.1%
5.0%
4.9%
8.0%
4.3%
4.0%
6.0%
3.0%
4.0%
2.0%
1.0%
2.0%
0.0%
AFRICAN
AMERICAN
HISPANIC
AMERICAN
INDIAN
ASIAN
OTHER
CAUCASIAN
0.0%
0.0%
AFRICAN
AMERICAN
AA = 14% of considered pop
HISPANIC
AMERICAN
INDIAN
ASIAN
49
Detailed Source of Commission Select Rates
18.0%
16.0%
16.0%
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
9.8%
9.7%
7.3%
5.4%
4.0%
2.6%
2.0%
0.0%
0.0%
InterService TRF Vol Call to AD ROTC
ROTC Non_SCH OCS_Regular
ROTC SCH
USMA
ACADEMY Other
InterService Vol Call Non_SC OCS_Re ROTC
Academy Grand
TRF
to AD
H
gular
SCH
USMA
Other
Total
Number Considered
25
194
1929
1740
3290
1322
7
8507
Number Selected
4
19
187
127
178
35
0
550
Rate
16.0%
9.8%
9.7%
7.3%
5.4%
2.6%
0.0%
6.5%
50
FY14 MAJ Selects Awarded Purple Heart
FY14 MAJ OSB_ESERB Selects with Number
Purple Heart
Select
FSD
MATERIAL ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT
OPS
ARMOR
CIVIL AFFAIRS
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
FIELD ARTILLERY
INFANTRY
SPECIAL FORCES
OSD
SYSTEMS AUTOMATION OFFICERS
Total Select
FY14 MAJ OSB_ESERB
Selects with Purple Heart
Less then 1 year CBT Experience
1 Tour
Less then 2 years CBT Experience
2 Tours
3 Tours
Less then 3 years CBT Experience
2 Tours
3 Tours
4 Tours
Less then 4 year CBT Experience
3 Tours
4 Tours
Total Select
FY14 MAJ OSB_ESERB
1
1
12
2
1
1
1
5
1
1
4
1
2
1
17
Number
Select
Number
Select
Article 15
GOMOR
LTR REP - carrying concealed POW on USAF base
Referred report APFT Failure
No DEROG
Total Select
FY14 MAJ OSB_ESERB
MEL 4
MEL 4 Enrolled
50% ILE
CCC Graduate
Total Select
FY14 MAJ OSB_ESERB
1
6
1
1
8
17
FY14 MAJ OSB_ESERB
Number
Select
6
1
2
8
17
No KD Experience
SERVING IN MAJ KD
MAJ KD COMPLETE
Total Select
FY14 MAJ OSB_ESERB
FY14 MAJ OSB_ESERB Selects with Number
Purple Heart
Select
2
2
4
1
3
8
4
2
2
3
1
2
17
BCOM One or More
Straight COM
Single ACOM
Muli ACOM
Total Select
AMC
DIV/BCT/CAB
EUROPE_OTH
Joint
OTHERS
THS
TRADOC
USAREC
Total Select
1
4
1
1
2
4
3
1
17
OCS
OTHER
ROTC Non_SCH
ROTC SCH
USMA
Total Select
Number
Select
2
6
3
6
17
Number
Select
7
7
3
17
Number
Select
5
1
4
5
2
17
• All Male
• 14 Caucasian, 3 African American
51
NonTotal
Control Branch
Select
Select
Considered % Select
ELECTRONIC WARFARE
24
6
30
20.0%
162
25
187
13.4%
67
9
76
11.8%
CHEMICAL CORPS
119
15
134
11.2%
72
9
81
11.1%
INFORMATION OPERATIONS OFFICER
128
15
143
10.5%
PUBLIC AFFAIRS
102
11
113
9.7%
LOGISTICS
1105
104
1209
8.6%
INFORMATION SYSTEM ENGINEERING
89
8
97
8.2%
FIELD ARTILLERY
393
35
428
8.2%
256
22
278
7.9%
CIVIL AFFAIRS
132
11
143
7.7%
ARMOR
302
23
325
7.1%
173
13
186
7.0%
SIGNAL CORPS
413
31
444
7.0%
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
95
7
102
6.9%
STRATEGIC AND FORCE DEVELOPMENT
85
6
91
6.6%
338
23
361
6.4%
OPERATIONS RESEARCH/SYSTEMS ANALYSIS 184
12
196
6.1%
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
400
25
425
5.9%
INFANTRY
511
27
538
5.0%
97
5
102
4.9%
FINANCE CORPS
139
7
146
4.8%
695
33
728
4.5%
STRATEGIC INTELLIGENCE OFFICER
110
5
115
4.3%
312
14
326
4.3%
AVIATION
503
19
522
3.6%
484
17
501
3.4%
SPECIAL FORCES
341
11
352
3.1%
126
2
128
1.6%
52
Aggregate Projected Impacts (ACC Officers)
Control Grades
COL
LTC
MAJ
Sr CPT
Jr CPT
LT
Grand Total
AUTH
Projected
2,343
3,086
6,389
7,119
10,063
11,909
6,686
5,359
10,732
10,140
9,218
13,897
45,431
51,510
%
Projected
131.7%
111.4%
118.3%
80.2%
94.5%
150.8%
113.4%
Estimated
OSB/
%
ESERB
Projected
Impact
after impact
0
131.7%
0
111.4%
382
114.5%
305
75.6%
456
90.2%
0
150.8%
1,143
110.9%
Senior (Post-KD) CPTs available to fill requirements is actually lower
due to Officers being coded as senior CPT within 6-8 months of KD
completion; true available strength estimated 68% without impact and
63% with impact.
• Projected overall impact to MAJ is minimal, MAJ grade available strength projected
over 110% at end of March 2015
• Projections based on estimate Officers available to fill authorizations (Total is less
than the total OSB/ESERB selects because not all would be projected to requirements)
53
MAJ OSB/ESERB Selection Rate Based on Manner of
Performance Evaluation
70.0%
400
339
Number MAJs Select
350
60.0%
59.5%
300
50.0%
250
40.0%
200
30.0%
150
138
20.0%
100
One select
had no MOP
assessment
59
50
10.0%
8.3%
13
2.2%
0
BELOW COM
COM
COM PLUS
0.9%
0.0%
ACOM
• Highest rate of selects was MOP “B”: Below COM assessed Officers (138 of 232: 59.5%)
• Most Selects were assessed as MOP “C”; COM Files (339 of 4070: 8.3%)
• There were 72 selects that had above average file assessments (59 of 2648: 2.2% COM
Plus and 13 of 1467: 0.9% Above COM)
54
Average Time KD For Those MAJ KD Complete
Non-Select vs Select OSB/ESERB
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
Average Months
Non-Select
Average Months
Select
Overall Average
Non-Select
18
16
Overall Average
Non-Select
14
12
• Those Officers KD Complete and Select OSB/ESERB had 1.5 months less KD Time
• Overall Average KD time 23.6 months (22.2 for Non-Selects and 23.7 for Selects)
55
Select Officers Separated and On Separation Orders
70
0
60
11
22
50
31
40
40
50
On SEP Orders
63
30
Separated
52
41
20
32
23
10
13
0
Current
JULY 14
AUG 14
SEP 14
DEC 14
APR 15
AS OF 19 JUN 2014
56
FY14 MAJ OSB/ESERB Branch by YG
99
Division\Branch
FSD
FINANCE CORPS
LOGISTICS
OPS
ARMOR
AVIATION
CHEMICAL CORPS
CIVIL AFFAIRS
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
FIELD ARTILLERY
INFANTRY
SPECIAL FORCES
OSD
CIVIL AFFAIRS
ELECTRONIC WARFARE
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
OPERATIONS RESEARCH/SYSTEMS ANALYSIS
PUBLIC AFFAIRS
SIGNAL CORPS
Grand Total
00
01
02
03
Total
#
#
#
#
#
#
Consider # Select Rate
401
28
7.0%
487
33
6.8%
455
31
6.8%
497
34
6.8%
377
25
6.6%
2217
151
6.8%
61
3
4.9%
91
7
7.7%
71
6
8.5%
79
6
7.6%
59
1
1.7%
361
23
6.4%
26
2
7.7%
33
1
3.0%
34
2
5.9%
31
1
3.2%
22
1
4.5%
146
7
4.8%
217
20
9.2%
263
21
8.0%
254
20
7.9%
277
25
9.0%
198
18
9.1%
1209
104
8.6%
97
3
3.1%
100
4
4.0%
96
3
3.1%
110
2
1.8%
98
5
5.1%
501
17
3.4%
657
43
6.5%
748
48
6.4%
723
45
6.2%
807
51
6.3%
620
38
6.1%
3555
225
6.3%
34
3
8.8%
38
1
2.6%
45
3
6.7%
42
3
7.1%
26
2
7.7%
185
12
6.5%
63
5
7.9%
68
4
5.9%
53
2
3.8%
80
6
7.5%
61
6
9.8%
325
23
7.1%
84
9
10.7%
105
0
0.0%
109
2
1.8%
124
4
3.2%
99
4
4.0%
521
19
3.6%
27
2
7.4%
27
3
11.1%
31
6
19.4%
25
2
8.0%
24
2
8.3%
134
15
11.2%
24
3
12.5%
19
2
10.5%
28
2
7.1%
34
3
8.8%
36
1
2.8%
141
11
7.8%
83
7
8.4%
88
9
10.2%
88
3
3.4%
103
5
4.9%
63
1
1.6%
425
25
5.9%
79
4
5.1%
95
5
5.3%
83
11
13.3%
89
6
6.7%
82
9
11.0%
428
35
8.2%
109
3
2.8%
116
4
3.4%
119
5
4.2%
122
8
6.6%
72
7
9.7%
538
27
5.0%
21
2
9.5%
28
2
7.1%
30
3
10.0%
41
7
17.1%
24
2
8.3%
144
16
11.1%
1
0
0.0%
1
0
0.0%
2
0
0.0%
54
4
7.4%
77
10
13.0%
46
1
2.2%
64
4
6.3%
37
3
8.1%
278
22
7.9%
13
0
0.0%
20
3
15.0%
16
4
25.0%
17
2
11.8%
15
0
0.0%
81
9
11.1%
65
1
1.5%
66
5
7.6%
75
3
4.0%
66
1
1.5%
81
1
1.2%
353
11
3.1%
541
35
6.5%
528
35
6.6%
545
35
6.4%
661
41
6.2%
461
28
6.1%
2736
174
6.4%
1
0
0.0%
1
0
0.0%
2
0
0.0%
6
0
0.0%
4
1
25.0%
4
0
0.0%
10
2
20.0%
6
3
50.0%
30
6
20.0%
65
3
4.6%
72
1
1.4%
62
4
6.5%
77
4
5.2%
51
2
3.9%
327
14
4.3%
15
1
6.7%
15
2
13.3%
16
1
6.3%
32
3
9.4%
19
1
5.3%
97
8
8.2%
137
5
3.6%
149
6
4.0%
151
6
4.0%
168
6
3.6%
121
10
8.3%
726
33
4.5%
24
3
12.5%
18
0
0.0%
25
2
8.0%
20
1
5.0%
15
1
6.7%
102
7
6.9%
38
4
10.5%
38
1
2.6%
38
2
5.3%
47
4
8.5%
35
1
2.9%
196
12
6.1%
17
2
11.8%
13
2
15.4%
27
3
11.1%
39
4
10.3%
17
0
0.0%
113
11
9.7%
103
10
9.7%
99
10
10.1%
96
5
5.2%
77
1
1.3%
69
5
7.2%
444
31
7.0%
18
0
0.0%
21
3
14.3%
19
1
5.3%
26
1
3.8%
18
0
0.0%
102
5
4.9%
18
1
5.6%
12
5
41.7%
14
2
14.3%
19
0
0.0%
13
1
7.7%
76
9
11.8%
17
1
5.9%
19
0
0.0%
15
2
13.3%
22
2
9.1%
18
1
5.6%
91
6
6.6%
21
2
9.5%
23
2
8.7%
18
0
0.0%
30
1
3.3%
23
0
0.0%
115
5
4.3%
30
0
0.0%
25
0
0.0%
21
0
0.0%
30
1
3.3%
22
1
4.5%
128
2
1.6%
32
3
9.4%
19
2
10.5%
38
7
18.4%
64
11
17.2%
34
2
5.9%
187
25
13.4%
1599
106
6.6%
1763
116
6.6%
1723
111
6.4%
1965
126
6.4%
1458
91
6.2%
8508
550
6.5%
57
FY14 MAJ OSB/ESERB Branch by Race/Ethnic
RACE/ETHNIC
Branch
ARMOR
AVIATION
CHEMICAL CORPS
CIVIL AFFAIRS
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
ELECTRONIC WARFARE
FIELD ARTILLERY
FINANCE CORPS
INFANTRY
LOGISTICS
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
OPERATIONS RESEARCH/SYSTEMS ANALYSIS
PUBLIC AFFAIRS
SIGNAL CORPS
SPECIAL FORCES
Grand Total
Caucasian
African Amer
Hispanic
Asian_Pac Is
Amer Indian
Other
Total
# Con- #
# Con- #
# Con- #
# Con- #
# Con- #
# Con- #
# Con- #
sider Select Rate sider Select Rate sider Select Rate sider Select Rate
sider Select Rate
sider Select Rate sider Select Rate
169
12 7.1%
107
7 6.5%
46
2 4.3%
28
1 3.6%
3
0
0.0%
8
1 12.5%
361
23 6.4%
124
7 5.6%
28
2 7.1%
17
2 11.8%
13
0 0.0%
3
1 33.3%
185
12 6.5%
274
18 6.6%
20
3 15.0%
16
0 0.0%
7
0 0.0%
1
0
0.0%
7
2 28.6%
325
23 7.1%
455
16 3.5%
17
3 17.6%
23
0 0.0%
21
0 0.0%
1
0
0.0%
4
0 0.0%
521
19 3.6%
82
7 8.5%
26
3 11.5%
15
4 26.7%
7
1 14.3%
1
0
0.0%
3
0 0.0%
134
15 11.2%
106
8 7.5%
11
3 27.3%
14
0 0.0%
8
0 0.0%
1
0
0.0%
3
0 0.0%
143
11 7.7%
317
18 5.7%
47
3 6.4%
30
3 10.0%
20
1 5.0%
5
0
0.0%
6
0 0.0%
425
25 5.9%
19
3 15.8%
6
2 33.3%
2
0 0.0%
1
1 100.0%
1
0
0.0%
1
0 0.0%
30
6 20.0%
327
25 7.6%
53
5 9.4%
25
3 12.0%
13
1 7.7%
2
0
0.0%
8
1 12.5%
428
35 8.2%
68
3 4.4%
49
3 6.1%
20
1 5.0%
6
0 0.0%
3
0 0.0%
146
7 4.8%
230
12 5.2%
7
1 14.3%
48
0 0.0%
24
1 4.2%
2
0
0.0%
16
0 0.0%
327
14 4.3%
456
23 5.0%
28
1 3.6%
23
1 4.3%
19
2 10.5%
3
0
0.0%
9
0 0.0%
538
27 5.0%
98
9 9.2%
20
2 10.0%
12
1 8.3%
10
3 30.0%
1
1 100.0%
3
0 0.0%
144
16 11.1%
58
4 6.9%
17
3 17.6%
12
1 8.3%
9
0 0.0%
1
0
0.0%
97
8 8.2%
683
53 7.8%
331
33 10.0%
108
12 11.1%
62
3 4.8%
6
1 16.7%
19
2 10.5% 1209
104 8.6%
276
3 1.1%
131
12 9.2%
49
2 4.1%
33
0 0.0%
4
0
0.0%
8
0 0.0%
501
17 3.4%
512
19 3.7%
96
9 9.4%
56
3 5.4%
44
1 2.3%
2
0
0.0%
18
1 5.6%
728
33 4.5%
202
14 6.9%
38
2 5.3%
18
5 27.8%
13
1 7.7%
2
0
0.0%
5
0 0.0%
278
22 7.9%
81
5 6.2%
7
1 14.3%
4
0 0.0%
6
0 0.0%
3
1 33.3%
1
0 0.0%
102
7 6.9%
151
7 4.6%
17
3 17.6%
10
0 0.0%
11
2 18.2%
4
0
0.0%
3
0 0.0%
196
12 6.1%
61
6 9.8%
4
1 25.0%
9
2 22.2%
6
0 0.0%
1
0 0.0%
81
9 11.1%
66
6 9.1%
31
3 9.7%
5
2 40.0%
6
0 0.0%
5
0 0.0%
113
11 9.7%
271
16 5.9%
103
12 11.7%
27
1 3.7%
34
2 5.9%
2
0
0.0%
7
0 0.0%
444
31 7.0%
68
2 2.9%
17
1 5.9%
11
1 9.1%
4
1 25.0%
2
0 0.0%
102
5 4.9%
65
9 13.8%
5
0 0.0%
2
0 0.0%
3
0 0.0%
1
0
0.0%
76
9 11.8%
319
9 2.8%
7
0 0.0%
10
1 10.0%
13
1 7.7%
1
0
0.0%
3
0 0.0%
353
11 3.1%
62
4 6.5%
17
0 0.0%
7
1 14.3%
3
1 33.3%
2
0 0.0%
91
6 6.6%
105
4 3.8%
4
0 0.0%
2
0 0.0%
2
0 0.0%
2
1 50.0%
115
5 4.3%
104
2 1.9%
9
0 0.0%
6
0 0.0%
6
0 0.0%
3
0 0.0%
128
2 1.6%
82
8 9.8%
62
10 16.1%
20
4 20.0%
18
3 16.7%
5
0 0.0%
187
25 13.4%
5891
332 5.6% 1315
128 9.7%
647
52 8.0%
450
26 5.8%
47
3
6.4%
158
9 5.7% 8508
550 6.5%
58
FY14 MAJ OSB/ESERB Selection Rate by Board and
Race Ethnic Category
ESERB
OSB
Total
YG/Race_Ethnic # Con # Sel Rate # Con # Sel Rate # Con # Sel Rate
99
326
34 10.4% 1273
72 5.7% 1599
106 6.6%
Caucasian
222
24 10.8%
936
46 4.9% 1158
70 6.0%
African Amer
57
6 10.5%
146
14 9.6%
203
20 9.9%
Hispanic
25
1 4.0%
82
8 9.8%
107
9 8.4%
Asian_Pac Is
10
2 20.0%
59
3 5.1%
69
5 7.2%
Amer Indian
9
0 0.0%
9
0 0.0%
Other
12
1 8.3%
41
1 2.4%
53
2 3.8%
00
336
36 10.7% 1427
80 5.6% 1763
116 6.6%
Caucasian
217
23 10.6%
988
48 4.9% 1205
71 5.9%
African Amer
67
5 7.5%
197
20 10.2%
264
25 9.5%
Hispanic
32
6 18.8%
101
7 6.9%
133
13 9.8%
Asian_Pac Is
6
1 16.7%
84
3 3.6%
90
4 4.4%
Amer Indian
2
0 0.0%
7
1 14.3%
9
1 11.1%
Other
12
1 8.3%
50
1 2.0%
62
2 3.2%
01
278
29 10.4% 1444
82 5.7% 1722
111 6.4%
Caucasian
164
17 10.4% 1007
53 5.3% 1171
70 6.0%
African Amer
64
6 9.4%
199
16 8.0%
263
22 8.4%
Hispanic
26
4 15.4%
94
7 7.4%
120
11 9.2%
Asian_Pac Is
6
2 33.3%
81
5 6.2%
87
7 8.0%
Amer Indian
4
0 0.0%
9
0 0.0%
13
0 0.0%
Other
14
0 0.0%
54
1 1.9%
68
1 1.5%
02
303
32 10.6% 1662
94 5.7% 1965
126 6.4%
Caucasian
148
12 8.1% 1103
50 4.5% 1251
62 5.0%
African Amer
93
15 16.1%
256
25 9.8%
349
40 11.5%
Hispanic
33
2 6.1%
135
11 8.1%
168
13 7.7%
Asian_Pac Is
14
0 0.0%
93
5 5.4%
107
5 4.7%
Amer Indian
1
0 0.0%
8
2 25.0%
9
2 22.2%
Other
14
3 21.4%
67
1 1.5%
81
4 4.9%
03
181
19 10.5% 1277
72 5.6% 1458
91 6.2%
Caucasian
106
10 9.4%
857
47 5.5%
963
57 5.9%
African Amer
51
7 13.7%
178
14 7.9%
229
21 9.2%
Hispanic
12
2 16.7%
109
4 3.7%
121
6 5.0%
Asian_Pac Is
6
0 0.0%
84
5 6.0%
90
5 5.6%
Amer Indian
1
0 0.0%
7
1 14.3%
8
1 12.5%
Other
5
0 0.0%
42
1 2.4%
47
1 2.1%
Grand Total
1424
150 10.5% 7083
400 5.6% 8507
550 6.5%
Caucasian
857
86 10.0% 4891
244 5.0% 5748
330 5.7%
African Amer
332
39 11.7%
976
89 9.1% 1308
128 9.8%
Hispanic
128
15 11.7%
521
37 7.1%
649
52 8.0%
Asian_Pac Is
42
5 11.9%
401
21 5.2%
443
26 5.9%
Amer Indian
8
0 0.0%
40
4 10.0%
48
4 8.3%
Other
57
5 8.8%
254
5 2.0%
311
10 3.2%
59
CPT OSB and ESERB Analysis
OPMD, HRC
9 July 2014
As of: 091800Jul14
60
Overview
Selections
Separation Methods
• 1,188 selected (10,165 Considered)
• 14% (164) retirement-eligible
• 11.7% combined OSB/ESERB
• 4% (52) sanctuary-eligible (18-20 years)
• Project a June notification window for selected
officers
• 7% (77) TERA-eligible (15-18 years)
• 1 APR 15 separation date
• 75% (897) < 15 years of service (sep pay)
 310 could potentially revert to enlisted rank
(review dependent)
 107 already pending separating; 83 have
separated
Impacts/Mitigation
• Impacts entire force, especially Generating
Forces where majority of KD CPT authorizations
reside
Agenda
• Impact to the Force
• Demographics
• Performance of Selected Officers
• Manning Cycle 15-01 to prioritize backfills for KD
CPTs; CCC precision distribution will mitigate PreKD CPT challenge
• SCs have authority to cross level to fill critical
billets within their formations
• Key Developmental Job
• Race/Ethnicity Comparison
• Commissioning Source
61
FY14 CPT OSB and ESERB
Select Performance Breakout
Total Considered and Select
OSB/ESERB Select File Assessment
11000
10000
250
29%
(347)
9000
8000
76
7000
6000
13 selected has Derog
information from
enlisted service
DEROG
21
8,942
5000
88%
ACOM ACOM Pure
>1
X 1 COM
36%
(421)
4000
BCOM or NLJ
OER
3000
2000
1000
1,188
12%
35%
(420)
0
ALL CONSIDERED
• 71% of selects had derogatory/adverse information or negative evaluations
•Board considered the officer’s total body of work
•
62
FY14 CPT OSB and ESERB
Readiness Impacts Where Selects Assigned
30%
450
392
25%
350
Number CPTs Select
25%
23%
20%
300
17%
Overall
12%
250
201
15%
200
150
100
153
10%
96
10%
10%
83
56
50
4%
36
7%
32
30
29
28
24
21
0
• Largest number are assigned to Divisional Units or FORSCOM separates
• Highest select rate is 1A, 26% (53 CPTs)
5%
400
7
0%
Select Rate
In Category
63
Demographics
25.0%
20.0%
Gender Selection Rates
14.0%
(Percent of Considered Pop)
11.9%
12.0%
20.0%
•Race and SOC trends historically consistent
•Lack of deployment is a slight indicator
10.8%
10.0%
16.2%
14.6%
15.0%
14.3%
13.2%
8.0%
9.4%
10.0%
6.0%
4.0%
5.0%
2.0%
0.0%
AFRICAN HISPANIC
AMERICAN
OTHER
AMER
INDIAN
ASIAN
CAUCASIAN
0.0%
MALE
Source of Commissioning
Combat Experience
700
25.0%
FEMALE
18.0%
619
20.0%
16.0%
15.9%
600
19.2%
13.8%
16.8%
13.4%
500
15.0%
300
8.6%
6.2%
14.0%
12.0%
10.7%
400
12.0%
10.0%
11.8%
10.0%
8.0%
264
222
6.0%
200
5.0%
4.0%
100
0.0%
OCS
OTHER
ROTC
Non_SCH
ROTC SCH
USMA
45
38
0
2.0%
0.0%
Not Deployed
and Never
Deployed
<1 Year
< 2 Years
< 3 Years
> 3 Years
64
0%
12% 12%
0%
0%
0%
14% 13% 13%
16% 16%
16% 15%
OPNS RESEARCH/SYSTEMS ANALYSIS
SPECIAL FORCES
5%
AVIATION
6%
7%
7%
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
7%
FINANCE CORPS
CIVIL AFFAIRS
SIGNAL CORPS
FIELD ARTILLERY
INFANTRY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
14%
CHEMICAL CORPS
15%
LOGISTICS
ARMOR
PUBLIC AFFAIRS
ELECTRONIC WARFARE
30%
25%
26%
23%
20%
20%
18% 17%
Overall
12%
10%
10% 10%
8%
7%
5%
5%
3%
1%
• Significant variance of select rate on ends of the spectrum
• Functional Area officers select rate comparable to Basic Branch in Aggregate
65
CPT OSB/ESERB Selection Rate by KD Experience
Number OSB/ESERB Select and Rate by KD
Category
500
35.0%
453
450
30.5%
30.0%
400
• Officers who vacated a KD
billet with less than 12 months
in the position had a
significantly higher selection
rate
25.0%
350
308
307
300
20.0%
250
14.6%
12.6%
200
150
120
15.0%
10.0%
Overall
11.7%
7.3%
100
5.0%
50
0
0.0%
No KD Experience KD Experience LT
12 Months
Serving In KD
KD Complete
66
OSB/ESERB Combined
25.0%
20.0%
20.0%
16.2%
14.6%
15.0%
14.3%
13.2%
Overall
12%
9.4%
10.0%
• ESERB overall select rate was higher than OSB;
AA made up 45% of ESERB considered population
• 8.6% of considered population considered high
risk for DEROG, BCOM Files, NLJ reports: AA =
13.5%,
CAU = 5.3%.
5.0%
0.0%
AFRICAN HISPANIC
AMERICAN
18.0%
16.0%
OTHER
AMER
INDIAN
ASIAN
CAUCASIAN
• Selected officers with no DEROG or Poor
Evaluations comparison; AA = 28% , all others =
29%
ESERB Only
OSB Only
16.7%
90.0%
80.0%
15.0%
80.0%
14.0%
12.4%
12.0%
12.0%
OSB
10.5%
70.0%
60.0%
10.0%
8.8%
8.6%
8.0%
50.0%
40.0%
31.8%
6.0%
27.3%
30.0%
4.0%
35.0%
32.7%
ESERB
30.0%
26.2%
20.0%
2.0%
10.0%
0.0%
AFRICAN HISPANIC
AMERICAN
OTHER
AMER
INDIAN
ASIAN
CAUCASIAN
0.0%
AFRICAN HISPANIC
AMERICAN
OTHER
AMER
INDIAN
ASIAN
CAUCASIAN
67
Detailed Source of Commission
25.0%
20.3%
20.0%
20.0%
17.1%
16.3%
15.0%
12.0%
10.5%
10.0%
8.6%
6.2%
5.0%
0.0%
CALL TO
ACTIVE
CALL TO
ACTIVE
Number Considered
138
Number Selected
28
Rate
20.3%
INTER-SERVICE
INTERTRANS
OCS_IN
SERVICE
SERVICE
TRANS
10
2
20.0%
OCS_IN
SERVICE
2111
361
17.1%
OTHER
OCS_COLLEGE ROTC Non_SCH
OTHER
OCS
ACADEMY
OPT
ACADEMIES
(AF,
NAVY,
CG)
COLLEGE
ROTC
(AF,
NAVY,
OPT
1279
209
16.3%
Non_SCH
1809
217
12.0%
CG)
19
2
10.5%
ROTC SCH
USMA
ROTC SCH
2987
258
8.6%
USMA
1777
111
6.2%
Total
10130
1188
11.7%
68
Backups
CSL Audits and Due Outs
69
Definitions of Command Categories
 Installation Command: Supports tenant units or activities in a designated geographic area by
organizing, directing, coordinating, and controlling installation support and service activities.
Located in TDA organizations, both CONUS and OCONUS; dedicated to supporting and protecting
Army Soldiers, civilians, and their families; accountable for critical mission areas such as
mobilization, public works, real property management, and local civil authorities/host nation
rapport.*
 Operations Command: BN and BDE sized units, expeditionary in nature and
deployable worldwide with approved TO&E, joint organization, and special mission units (SMUs).
Provides the fighting power to combatant or joint task force commanders with a primary mission of
deploying to a theater of combat operations.*
 Recruiting and Training Command: Typically fixed-site, non-deployable, and in TDA
organizations. Focuses on generating Soldiers into conventional and SMUs of the US Army and
sister services. Supports the training of units from the Army and sister services. No individual
weapons qualifications requirements exist for cadre and non-training Soldiers.*
 Strategic Support (SS) Command Category: BN and BDE sized units (mainly approved TDA
units) focused on providing support (e.g., analysis, intelligence, etc.) to a theater. Conducts actions
in a CONUS or OCONUS garrison environment supporting the war fighter or trainer, primarily in a
fixed-site. Though the command is non-deployable, it may have subordinate unit slices that deploy
to a theater of combat operations.*
 Key Billet: A duty assignment at the lieutenant colonel or colonel rank requiring specific, highly
developed skills and experience that is deemed so critical to a unit’s mission that an officer is
selected for assignment by Headquarters Department of the Army. Key billet officers exercise
judgment and recommend actions to the commander. They principally manage resources and Slide 10
oversee processes that operate in a leadership environment. ** (Sources: *Army G-1, ** DA PAM 600-3)
70
LTC/COL CSL Positions Changes
Assess how the total number of LTC/COL CSL positions has changed
over time, and why
2 Primary driving forces:
Force Structure
 Increase in number of BCTs and
changes to structure
 2 year interval with CSL MITT
 Overall 9% increase in CSL Billets
 12% increase in LTC CSL (KD adds)
Key Billets
 Separate battalions inactivated in
2005.
 General Staff Key Billets (G1, G2,
G6, G8) introduced to CSL to mitigate
the loss of basic branch commands.
 Key Billets for select Functional
Areas beginning 2009
*Does not depict projected force reductions
Slide 11
71
FY15/16 LTC OPERATIONS COMMAND BALANCE
Current Imbalance
COMMAND TOTALS
50
 47% in FY15; 53% in FY16
 Engage ACOMS, ASCCs to effect
balance in CSL opportunities
 Fix through curtailments
35
48
31
33
31
22
21
23
18
20
22
20
15
10
10 7
10
9
8
11
5
4
0 0
AR
3
IN
CAB
EN
FA
AD
AV
SF
MP
PO
10
5
CA
7
10
7
2
7
5
3
CM
7
6
SC
MI
AG
FI
AG/FI
4
LG
01A
BRANCHES
FY15
FY16
72
FY17/18 LTC OPERATIONS COMMAND BALANCE
43
Proposed Rebalance
42
42
 49% in FY17; 51% in FY18
 Next step – inside BCTs
38
COMMAND TOTALS
33
31
23
22
22
20
21
18
18
12
9
10 10
8
10
7
CAB
EN
FA
AD
AV
SF
MP
PO
8
5 5
3
0 0
IN
12
9
4 4
AR
13
CA
8
6
7
6 6
4
2
CM
SC
MI
AG
FI
AG/FI
LG
01A
BRANCHES
FY17
FY18
73
FY15/16 BCT Battalion Command Balance
Current BCT Balance
105
 Overall balanced in total
 Significant imbalance within
formations
 ARFORGEN and other factors will
keep the target moving
102
20
18
14
10
0
1AD
1CD
14
12
0
1ID
11
2
7
2ID
3ID
12
10
2
4ID
FY15
14
19
10M
FY16
25ID
11
10
82AB
15
6
101AB
TOTAL
Slide 12
74
Importance of LTC CSL Positions
For Command-Centric Basic Branches, the path to COL is through
LTC CSL
Considered Population
13% LTC CSL
87% LTC CSL Non-Select
73%
SSC
72% COL
36% COL CSL
* All Percentages based on
an average of 2002-2009
selection rates
10% COL
<1% COL CSL
Note: Changing the number of looks for command from 6 to 3 will reduce the
size of the total considered population. This will result in an increased
selection percentage beginning with the FY 15 slate.
Slide 12
75
82d ABN / 1CD Analysis – a step further
Confirm or Deny Commanders are Pooling
Division LTC CSL Location
Divisions w/Corps
82 ABN DIV
1st CAV DIV
7th INF DIV
Total
Divisions w/o Corps
10 MTN DIV
4 INF DIV
25 INF DIV
1st AR DIV
101st AA DIV
2nd INF DIV
3rd INF DIV
1st INF DIV
Total
Grand Total
Non-SEL
Select
Total Compete
Select Rate
SR Population
(in 2012)
6
13
11
30
5
6
2
13
11
19
13
43
45.5%
31.6%
15.4%
30.2%
74
63
40
59 (avg)
4
5
8
14
11
6
9
13
70
100
8
7
8
8
6
3
3
4
47
60
12
12
16
22
17
9
12
17
117
160
66.7%
58.3%
50.0%
36.4%
35.3%
33.3%
25.0%
23.5%
40.2%
37.5%
89
92
52
80
94
69
87
60
78 (avg)
 SR sampling from 2010-2012, home station only
 Senior rater population generally consistent; variables such as TRA, SMC
roles may have imposed variances
 No pooling identified
Slide 15
76
Backup
Branch Monitoring
77
Year Group 2002 Long Term Impact of OSB
YG 2002 Impact of OSB with Forecasted Attrition (Caucasian)
YG 2002 Impact of OSB with Forecasted Attrition (Aggregate)
3500
5000
4500
OSB
(-126)
4000
3000
OSB
(-62)
2500
3500
3000
2000
2500
1500
2000
1500
1000
1000
500
500
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
YG02
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
YG02 w/OSB
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Caucasian YG02 w/OSB
• YG 2002 had increased attrition rates during the peak
war years, but stabilized prior to the OSB.
• The higher rate of selection for the AA population will
impact the year group more significantly during the next
ten years
YG 2002 Impact of OSB with Forecasted Attrition (African American)
OSB
(-40)
500
1
Caucasian YG02
700
600
0
400
• The forecast predicts a reduction of 28 (-12%) and 3 (16%) AA officers at 20 & 30 Years of Service
respectively
300
200
100
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
AA YG02
YG02
YG02 w/OSB
AA YG02
AA YG02 w/OSB
Caucasian YG02
1
4435
4435
620
620
3164
3164
2
4363
4363
612
612
3116
3116
3
4123
4123
577
577
2939
2939
4
3522
3522
508
508
2497
2497
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
AA YG02 w/OSB
5
2828
2828
447
447
1960
1960
6
2518
2518
425
425
1719
1719
7
2347
2347
408
408
1590
1590
8
2242
2242
400
400
1509
1509
9
2150
2150
387
387
1443
1443
10
2048
2048
380
380
1370
1370
11
1887
1887
372
372
1275
1275
12
1807
1807
349
349
1251
1251
• Caucasian officers had a reduction of 44 (-5%) and -4
(-1%) at 20 & 30 Years of Service respectively
13
1722
1596
333
293
1192
1130
14
1664
1542
321
283
1152
1092
15
1613
1495
312
274
1117
1059
16
1558
1444
301
265
1079
1023
17
1508
1397
291
256
1044
990
18
1460
1353
282
248
1011
958
19
1414
1310
273
240
979
928
20
1234
1143
238
210
854
810
21
1009
935
195
171
699
662
22
828
767
160
141
573
543
23
713
661
138
121
494
468
24
619
574
120
105
429
406
25
541
502
105
92
375
355
26
450
417
87
76
312
295
27
356
330
69
61
247
234
28
265
245
51
45
183
174
29
192
178
37
33
133
126
78
30
96
89
19
16
67
63
Year Group 2007 Long Term Impact of OSB
YG 2007 Impact of OSB with Forecasted Attrition (Aggregate)
YG 2007 Impact of OSB with Forecasted Attrition (Caucasian)
6000
4500
4000
OSB
(-601)
5000
OSB
(-362)
3500
4000
3000
2500
3000
2000
2000
1500
1000
1000
500
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
YG07
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
• The OSB significantly impacted the YG 2007 AA
population. The AA Combat Arms population will
reduce by 20%.
YG07 w/ OSB
Caucasian YG07
YG 2007 Impact of OSB with Forecasted Attrition (African American)
700
600
• The OSB will have significant long term impacts to the
YG.
OSB
(-109)
500
400
• The forecast predicts a reduction of 61 (-24%) and 4
(-21%) AA officers at 20 & 30 Years of Service
respectively
300
200
100
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
AA YG07
Caucasian YG07
AA YG07
AA YG07 w/OSB
YG07
YG07 w/ OSB
1
3837
3837
603
603
5282
5282
2
3790
3790
596
596
5218
5218
3
3625
3625
583
583
5010
5010
4
3305
3305
566
566
4620
4620
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
AA YG07 w/OSB
5
2985
2985
533
533
4212
4212
6
2709
2709
508
508
3861
3861
7
2575
2575
484
484
3684
3684
8
2393
2179
450
341
3424
3424
9
2246
2045
422
320
3213
2612
10
2131
1940
400
303
3048
2478
11
2037
1854
383
290
2914
2369
12
1948
1773
366
277
2787
2266
• Caucasian officers had a reduction of 119 (-1%) and
-10 (-10%) at 20 & 30 Years of Service respectively
13
1856
1690
349
264
2656
2159
14
1794
1633
337
255
2566
2086
15
1739
1583
327
248
2488
2023
16
1680
1529
316
239
2403
1953
17
1625
1480
305
231
2325
1890
18
1574
1433
296
224
2252
1831
19
1524
1388
286
217
2181
1773
20
1330
1211
250
189
1903
1547
21
1088
990
204
155
1556
1265
22
892
812
168
127
1276
1038
23
769
700
145
109
1100
894
24
668
608
125
95
955
776
25
584
531
110
83
835
679
26
485
442
91
69
694
564
27
384
349
72
55
549
446
28
285
260
54
41
408
332
29
207
189
39
30
297
241
79
30
104
94
19
15
148
121
Reduced Accession Long Term Impact
African American Accessions Required Increase @ 30 Years
Reduced Accessions Impact Over 30 Years
700
4500
4000
600
3500
500
3000
400
2500
300
2000
1500
200
1000
100
500
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
AA Accessions
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Accessions Increase for increase of 1 @ 30 Years
Current Accessions
Drawdown Reduced Accessions
• With reductions in Accessions due to drawdown, the AA population has potential to decrease faster than
other REDCATs due to historical OML standing.
• USMA traditionally has the lowest raw number of AA officers.
• OCS historically produces a high percentage of AA officers, but accessions decreased to 500 for FY14.
• ROTC is currently the largest potential source of raw numbers for AA officers and DA Branching Model will
ensure representation in Combat Arms branches.
• In order to increase AA population by 1 in a 30 year forecast, accessions must increase by 40.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Current Accessions 4100 4078 3979 3675 3203 2787 2552 2372 2226 2112 2019 1931 1840 1778 1724 1665 1611 1560 1511 1318 1078 884
Drawdown Reduced
3850 3830 3737 3451 3007 2617 2397 2228 2090 1983 1896 1813 1728 1670 1619 1563 1513 1465 1419 1238 1012 830
Accessions
AA Accessions 579 576 562 519 452 394 360 335 314 298 285 273 260 251 243 235 228 220 213 186 152 125
Accessions Increase for
619
increase of 1 @ 30 Years
616
601
555
484
421
385
358
336
319
305
292
278
268
260
251
243
236
228
199
163
134
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
762 662 578 481 380 283 205 103
716 621 543 452 357 266 193 96
108
93
82
68
54
40
29
15
115 100 87
73
57
43
31
16
80
Case Study 1: YG97 Accessions by Source
USMA
OCS
YG97 USMA Branching Results by REDCAT
YG97 OCS Branching Results by REDCAT
100%
100%
90%
90%
80%
80%
70%
70%
60%
60%
50%
50%
40%
40%
30%
30%
20%
20%
10%
10%
0%
Operations
Force Sustainment
Operations Support
Caucasian
576
64
68
African American
39
8
12
Asian
26
5
13
Hispanic
29
3
4
Other/Blank
11
1
3
0%
Operations
Force Sustainment
Operations Support
Caucasian
157
45
47
59
ROTC
African American
23
11
8
Asian
3
0
0
Hispanic
6
2
2
Other/Blank
6
3
2
42
1. Accessions
YG97 ROTC Branching Results by REDCAT
• ROTC has the largest minority population out of the
three Sources of Commission (SOCs).
100%
90%
80%
70%
• ROTC & OCS made up 78% of the overall YG97
cohort with 86% of the AA population, but received
70% of the Combat Arms branch allocations for 1997
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Operations
Force Sustainment
Operations Support
Caucasian
1190
494
440
African American
155
84
73
Asian
68
39
30
Hispanic
76
31
29
Other/Blank
33
13
13
• With a lower quantity of AA accessions into the
Combat Arms, all subsequent efforts will fight that
shortfall for 20-30 years.
312
81
Case Study 1: YG97 Select Ethnicity Comparison
2. Continuation In the Combat Arms
Year Group 1997 (Combat Arms)
1800
1600
180
Branch Details
Expire
160
1400
140
1200
120
1000
100
800
600
80
VTIP / CFD
Window
60
400
40
200
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1. Continuation rate trends are generally the same.
2. Mentorship to stay in the combat arms may have minor impact, but will not
increase from the starting population for the year group.
CA YG97 Caucasian
YG97 Caucasian
3. USMA
made
CA YG97 African
American up 22% of the cohort, only had 14% of the AA officers in the
cohort,
but
received 30% of the Combat Arms allocations. ROTC is the only
YG97 African American
source of commission (SOC) with a mechanism(DA Branching Model) and a large
enough population to impact demographic goals. RECOMMENDATION: Equitable
Accessions Allocations based on proportional split by SOC.
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
21 2 33 4 45 6 57 8 69 10711 12813 14915 16
1017 1811
12 13 14 15 16
Years Service
CA
YG97 Caucasian
Caucasian
Combat Arms Continuation Rate
YG97
Caucasian
Caucasian
Continuation Rate (After Leaving Combat Arms)
CA
YG97American
African American
African
YG97
African
American
African
American
3. Competitive Promotion & CSL
Caucasian
African American
Overall
7 Year Average COL
Promotion Rate
49%
42%
48%
7 Year Average LTC
Promotion Rate
88%
76%
86%
7 Year Average MAJ 7 Year Average CSL
Promotion Rate
Principal Select Rate
93%
14%
87%
9%
91%
13%
1. AA Promotion Rates & CSL Selection Rates Historically ≥ 5% lower than Caucasian Rates throughout the career timeline.
2. Current branch transfer rates, promotion/command selection rates, and reduced accessions reduce the likelihood of
increasing the number of AA senior leaders originating from the Combat Arms.
82
Case Study 2: YG07 Accessions by Source
USMA
OCS
YG07 USMA Branching Results by REDCAT
YG07 OCS Branching Results by REDCAT
100%
100%
90%
90%
80%
80%
70%
70%
60%
60%
50%
50%
40%
40%
30%
30%
20%
20%
10%
10%
0%
0%
Caucasian
African American
Asian
Hispanic
Other/Blank
Caucasian
African American
Asian
Hispanic
Other/Blank
Operations
599
27
48
53
20
Operations
683
102
29
45
67
Force Sustainment
46
9
6
5
2
Force Sustainment
249
154
27
30
41
Operations Support
101
9
15
11
5
Operations Support
279
70
18
17
33
45
ROTC
326
1. Accessions
YG07 ROTC Branching Results by REDCAT
100%
• OCS population increase served as a lever to grow
the force during peak war years
90%
80%
70%
• ROTC & OCS made up 82% of the overall YG07
cohort with 92% of the AA population, but received
74% of the Combat Arms branch allocations for 2007
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Caucasian
African American
Asian
Hispanic
Other/Blank
Operations
1041
70
52
79
24
Force Sustainment
417
105
38
49
11
Operations Support
408
50
43
54
11
225
• Disproportionate distribution of Combat Arms
branch allocations at point of accession will set the
conditions, from the start, for long term struggle to
balance a year group.
83
Case Study 2: YG07 Select Ethnicity Comparison
2. Continuation In the Combat Arms
Year Group 2007 (Combat Arms)
2250
170
Branch Details
Expire
2000
150
1750
130
1500
110
1250
90
1000
70
African American Combat Arms Continuation Rate
VTIP / CFD
Window
750
30
0
250
10
0
0
-10
1
2
3
4
5
African American Continuation Rate (After Leaving Combat Arms)
50
500
0
Caucasian Combat Arms Continuation Rate
2. In addition to normal attrition, the OSB will amplify YG07’s attrition trends as the
YG matures.
Caucasian Continuation Rate (After Leaving Combat Arms)
0
0
1. The continuation rate trend chart for YG07 is similar to other year groups and
already depicts the early signs of AA officers departing the Combat Arms and moving
to other branches at a higher rate than Caucasian officers.
6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Years Service
3. USMA made up 18% of the cohort, only had 7.6% of the AA officers in the
cohort, but received 25% of the Combat Arms allocations. ROTC is the only
source of commission (SOC) with a mechanism(DA Branching Model) that will ensure
achievement of demographic goals. RECOMMENDATION: Equitable Accessions
Allocations based on proportional split by SOC.
CA
YG97 Caucasian
Caucasian
YG97
Caucasian
Caucasian
CA
YG97American
African American
African
YG97
African
American
African
American
3. OSB Impact
Caucasian
African American
All Branches
Population
2575
484
All Branches
Selected
362
109
All Branches
Select Rate
14%
23%
Combat Arms Combat Arms Combat Arms
Population
Selected
Select Rate
1374
179
13%
90
19
21%
1. OSB more deeply impacted the AA population of officers in YG07 in the aggregate (9% higher select rate compared to
Caucasian officers) as well as in the Combat Arms (8% higher select rate compared to Caucasian officers)
2. OSB will impact the AA Combat Arms population with approximately a 20% decrease in population size
84
FY14 USMA Manning and Branching Results
USMA Staff & Faculty Distribution of REDCAT
100%
- USMA’s staff and faculty is very diverse across all grades, but becomes more
predominantly Caucasian at the grade of Colonel.
90%
80%
70%
- The increasing representation of Operations Support branches as rank increases within the
staff and faculty is due to the population of Academy Professors (FA47) and Functional Area
officers.
60%
50%
40%
- USMA’s branching results for FY14 depict a higher than average rate of African American
officers’ receiving Force Sustainment branches.
30%
20%
10%
0%
Caucasian
Other / Blank
Asian
Hispanic
African American
COL
63
2
4
LTC
128
1
3
10
11
MAJ
310
6
15
16
18
CPT
45
1
3
3
8
USMA Staff & Faculty Distribution of Branches
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
FY14 USMA Branching Results by REDCAT
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Caucasian
10%
0%
Operations
Force Sustainment
Operations Support
COL
7
1
58
LTC
48
11
83
MAJ
179
46
133
CPT
20
10
17
Operations
Force Sustainment
Operations Support
569
99
95
African
American
40
16
8
Asian
Hispanic
Other/Blank
52
15
15
60
11
9
23
2
4
85

HRC-Brief-to-CSA-10-JUL-2014-v140710-0730-v5

Transcription

Similar documents

Kronospan OSB

02 Coat of Arms, Family Crest, Shield

Designing and Testing a Structural Insulated Panel (SIP) with the

CSL 2010 Annual Report

here - RoyOMartin

A good time to modernize NonStop applications?

Chief of Police Daniel L. Joling Lieutenant Terry

Banco de Germoplasma Vegetal Banco de

folleto esfas - Ministerio de Defensa

caucasian shepherd dog

benedictines - Mount St. Scholastica

PDF