HUMAN RESOURCES COMMAND - Military Guidethe-military-guide.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/235750833-HRC... · • Korea Rotation Business Rules and Manning Timeline ... JRTC CPT -9

1

HUMAN RESOURCES COMMAND

Briefing to

to

General Odierno CSA

10 July 2014 v5 10 JUL14

Overall Classification of this brief is:

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

2

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

3

Officer Separation Board Follow Up

4

MAJ Selectees with 2 or More ACOM OERs

NAME BR YEAR

GROUP CURRENT TITLE Last OER 2nd Last OER 3rd Last OER 4th Last OER Overall

HENDERSON, LAWRENCE AQ 2003 CONTRACTING

OFFICER CONTRACTING

OFFICER CH RCO (FWD AFG)

MIL TM LD/CONT OFF

(#1/8)

BN S1 (best )

Strong as CPT in AG; weak in AQs

PRESLEY, RICHARD T AR 2003 KNOWN LOSSES BN TNG OFF BN TNG OFF

(top 25%) WTR/INSTR

SGL (one of the best)

COM file; no KD reports

THOMAS, BILL SCOTT 48 2002 INCOMING PERSONNEL

FAO TNG/CHINA OPS OFFICER

(top 25%) CDR

(top 5%) CDR

(top 5%) Strong KD OERs, others weak

evals

MCCARTHY, DIANNE EN 2003 SOLDIER IN TRANSITION

PROJECT ENG CDR CDR

(top 3)

BN CIVIL ENGINEER (top 25%)

2 of 4 ACOMs with strong comments/No KD

Weakly written OERs and/or Outdated DA Photos

ACOM COM 5th ACOM officer was overweight

5

Centers of

Excellence

CPT

-33 Commanders

-10 Instructors

-49 Staff Officers

MAJ

-3 Instructors

-59 Staff Officers

Recruiting

Command

CPT

-18 Commanders

-4 Staff Officers

MAJ

-5 Staff Officers

Cadet

Command

CPT

-29 APMS

MAJ

-5 APMS

-1 Staff Officer

TRADOC 80% ACMG

• 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

•1 Deep Positions

• Assess High Risk

• Required to identify 1 Deep Positions

• Assess High Risk

Generating Forces

6

DIV EAST

CPT

-14 OC/T

-11 Staff Officers

MAJ

-2 OC/T

-2 Staff Officers

DIV WEST

CPT

-16 OC/T

-12 Staff Officers

MAJ

-3 OC/T

-5 Staff Officers

First Army 70% ACMG

Generating Forces

• 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

7

CMTC

CPT

-1 OC/T

-4 Staff Officers

MAJ

-1 OC/T

-2 Staff Officers

JRTC

CPT

-9 OC/T

NTC

CPT

-1 OC/T

MAJ

-4 OC/T

CTC 80% ACMG

100% for OC/T


• Gains programmed 1Q/FY15

• May be near term gap

•Assess Low Risk

Generating Forces




•Assess Low Risk




•Assess Low Risk

8

AFPAK Hands

OSB-ESERB

• CPT OSB: 11.7% overall vs. 16.7% AFPAK

• LTC CSL Selection:

– FY13 LTC CSL: 18% ACC vs. 3% AFPAK

– FY14 LTC CSL: 27% ACC vs. 6% AFPAK

• 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

• 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

• MAJ OSB: 6.5% overall vs. 12.4% AFPAK

• COL Promotion

– FY13: 42% ACC vs. 11% AFPAK

– FY14: 40% ACC vs. 3% AFPAK

• Utilization as staff officer vice AFPAK Hands

• Joint environment without JDAL credit

• Out-of-theater assignments not related to AOC

• 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

PROMOTION/SELECTION

ISSUES

DISCUSSION

A/O 091800 Jul 14

9

Command Selection List (CSL) Audit Update

10

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

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

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

11

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 Link to “LTC/COL CSL Position Changes”

12

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

Link to “FY 15/ / 16 Operations Command Balance” w / 2 follow on

slides (Graphs)

Link to “Importance of LTC CSL Positions”

13

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

14

Command Selection List (CSL) Briefing Due Outs

15

82d Airborne and 1st Cavalry Division Analysis

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

CSA Observation: Lack of 82nd ABN and 1CD battalion

commanders selected for FY15 BCT commands

BN Command Location FY14 BCT Selects FY15 BCT Selects

1CD 3 (BZ) 1

82nd ABN 5 (BZ) 0

BCTs Slated 20 13 Less opportunities

Selectees from

2 ABCT (OML #8)

Division LTC CSL Location Promotion

Non-SEL

Promotion

Select

Total

Compete Select Rate

SR Population

(in 2012)

82 ABN DIV 6 5 11 45.5% 74

1st CAV DIV 13 6 19 31.6% 63

Total 19 11 30 36.6% 69 (avg)

Divisions w/Corps Total 30 13 43 30.2% 59 (avg)

Divisions w/o Corps Total 70 47 117 40.2% 78 (avg)

Grand Total 100 60 160 37.5%

Link to

82nd / 1 CD

Analysis

16

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

Professors of Military Science (PMS) as CSL

17

PMS CSL Alternatives

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

USACC’s primary concern is turbulence, not quality

18

FY15 Declinations – Early Read

Principal Declinations Personal PMS Disapproved

Deferment Total

FY14 Total 13 4 1 18

FY 15 (as of 25 Jun 14) 4 8 0 12

Although trending higher at this point than FY14, the FY15

declinations are within historical norms

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

19

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

20

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

21

Branch Monitoring Update

22

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.

23

Branch Monitoring Introduction

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?

Minorities in the Combat Arms

24

Combat Arms Diversity Monitoring

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

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

YG97 Continuation Rates by REDCAT for ACC and Combat Arms

ACC Caucasian ACC AA Combat Arms Caucasian Combat Arms AA0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

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

YG97 Continuation Rates by REDCAT for ACC and Combat Arms

ACC Caucasian ACC AA Combat Arms Caucasian Combat Arms AA

In order to increase the representation of Combat Arms Senior

Leaders, there are two focus areas outlined below

ACC African American Population – 12%

Combat Arms African American Population – 6%

1. Point of Accession

2. VTIP Window

1. Point of Accession 2. VTIP Window

• Recent year groups have an average of 14% AA

officers at accessions

• Sources of Commission Demographics

• Role Models & Mentoring can influence branching

behavior

• Role Models & Mentorship Efforts

• Limited VTIP Approval

Accessions increase of 4 AA Officers = 1 additional at 20 years

Accessions increase of 40 AA Officers = 1 additional at 30 years

YG 97 depicts common

trends, but more recent

year groups exhibit an

increase in AA VTIP rates

out of Combat Arms

25

Accessions Diversity Monitoring

CaucasianAfrican

American

OCS 396 90

ROTC 2068 221

USMA 737 54

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

REDCAT Distribution by Source of Commission • An equitable distribution of Combat Arms branch

allocations to each SOC will increase the number

of AA officers accessed into those branches

• 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

• USMA Population historically remains constant

in size and composition

25%

61%

15%

12%

65%

23%

Year Group 2013 is the most recent complete

dataset and mirrors recent year groups trends.

YG 2013

26

Cyber Branch Update

27

Cyber

Stakeholders

DA Staff,

TRADOC,

ARCYBER,

CYBERCOM,

Other Cyber

Units

SUPPORTS (Assist, Coordinate,

Inform, Monitor,

Influence, Support)

Branch Chief

LTC (O2A)

Functional Focus: The duties of a Enlisted Professional Development

NCO (PDNCO) and a Warrant Officer / Officer Assignment Officer (AO).

HRC Cyber Branch

Organizational Focus: Assignments

into and out of Cyber Units.

Officer AO

MAJ (FA29)

WO AO

CW4 (290)

Cyber Coord

Officer

CPT (25)

Account

Managers Parent

Branches

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.

Cyber Branch Priorities • 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

ENL PDNCO

MSG (29E)

Make use of already existing tasking and

support relationships.

Cyber Coord

PDNCO

SFC (35)

Cyber Branch Manages 323 Officers

211 Warrant Officers

1,229 Enlisted Soldiers

1,763 Total Soldiers

28

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

29

Korea Rotation Business Rules and

Manning Timeline

30

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

Korea Rotation Personnel Rules (1 of 2)

UNCLASSIFIED / FOUO

31

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

Korea Rotation Personnel Rules (2 of 2)

UNCLASSIFIED / FOUO

32

UNIT READINESS

UNIT DATA

CURRENT READINESS READINESS PROJECTION

AUTH ASG ASG % AVAIL % SG% MOS - Q NON

AVAIL MRE DATE

ASSUME /

LAD DATE

PROJ OH

SEP 2014

PROJ OH

DEC 2014

2/1 CD 4303¹ 4573 101% 88% 90% 88% 538² MAR 15 JUN 15 104% 105%

2-20 FA³ (41st FIRES)

233 237 102% 79% 84% 94% 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 3rd 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

2nd Brigade 1st Cavalry Division

Rotational Deployment Timeline and Manning Readiness

UNIT DEPLOYMENT TIMELINE

2014 2015 2016 JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN

GUNNERY (Tables I – XII)

NTC

PREP /

LOAD

OUT

NTC 15-05 DIRECT

ACTION (15 FEB to 15 MAR)

GUNNERY

(TABLE VI)

BLOCK

LEAVE ROTATION to KOREA POST

DEPLOYMENT

MAJORITY OF

REPLACEMENTS

ARRIVE

ADDITIONAL

PERSONNEL

ARRIVE

STABILIZATION PERIOD (18 MONTHS) UNIT REMAINS P1

CURRENT READINESS: USR JUN 14

PROJECTION: COPS AS OF 06 JUN 14

UNCLASSIFIED / FOUO

Unit Achieves P1

Installation cross-leveling and take outs complete

33

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

Must begin building 3/1 CD now for next rotation…..no flex at Ft. Hood

UNCLASSIFIED / FOUO

Branch TOTAL SL 10 SL 20 SL 30 SL 40 SL 50

Infantry (CMF 11) 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

TOTAL 1011 700 215 77 14 5

34

Building NCOs for 2035

35

Building NCOs for 2035

SL 30 SL 40 SL 20 SL 10 2014 2035

IBCT IBCT IBCT ALC SLC IBCT

11 B

Career Path

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

How to build and develop the broadened NCO for 2035 (UQ13)?

Military / Civilian Education

Career paths 2-4 develop agile and adaptive NCOs to meet future requirements

Recruiter/Drill SGT/AIT PLT SGT/Institutional/O/C

1

2

3

ABCT IBCT ALC Airborne SLC ABCT

SBCT SBCT ALC IBCT SLC Airborne

Airborne ABCT ALC ABCT SLC IBCT 4

Where we are at Where we need to go • Unit manning readiness

Versus

• Individual professional development

• Location stability • New environment more often

• Same unit type at each grade • Different types of units at each grade

• More operational time • More developmental time

• Regionally aligned • Wide variety of regional experience

36

Optimize Army Readiness

Adaptive and Agile Leaders for a Complex Environment

New OER OSD Awards

Review

DSC/SS Review

Panel

New NCO-ER

Career

Intermission

Program

Talent

Management

2025

New AER

Advanced Civil

Schooling

Review

HR Optimization

IRR Readiness

Audit Readiness

OCS

Criteria/Review

Cyber Force

Development/

Management

CSM CSL

Change

Integrated Pay

and Personnel

Transition

Other Key Initiatives

Adapt, adjust; be flexible and responsive!

Total Army – Total Victory!

37

Discussion / Guidance

38

Backups

Officer Separation Board

39

FA48 MAJs OSB Data

83%

92%95%

69%

74%

106%

72%76%

85%

80%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FAO HRC (O3-O5) Current

FAO

O3

-O5

Ave

rag

e

48

C E

uro

pe

48

D S

ou

th A

sia

48

E E

ura

sia

48

F C

hin

a

48

G M

idd

le E

ast

48

H N

ort

hea

st A

sia

48

I So

uth

east

Asi

a

48

J A

fric

a

48

B L

ati

n A

mer

ica

Notes: • 4.1% OSB Selection Rate

• 12/14 had GOMAR/Art 15/NLJ/BCOM

- 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

• 1/14 CAD Officer

Overall FA48 Operational Strength is at 83.2%

• 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

14 FAOs Selected for OSB

(5) Training Pipeline

(8) Operations

(1) Discharged (MEB)

-2 -5 -1 -1 -2 -3

40

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

41

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.

42

Overview

• 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

Separations

Way Ahead

• 550 selected (1 Officer in DASR Population)

• Project notifications to begin first week of Aug 14

• 1 May 15 separation date

• 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)

Selections

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

43

417

87

ACOM >1

ACOM X1

Pure COM

550

7957

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

7000

7500

8000

8500

All Consisered

FY14 MAJ OSB and ESERB

Select Performance Breakout

6.5%

Total Considered and Select

DEROG

NLJ

OER

• 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

41%

(226*)

34%

(190)

20%

(108)

OSB/ESERB Select File Assessment

BCOM

OER

5%

(26)

124 – MAJ

58 – CPT

8 - LT

*One DASR

80% of selects had derog or

negative evaluations

44

213

63

131

143

7.2%

10.8%

4.7%

6.6%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

0

50

100

150

200

250

No KD Experience

KD Experience LT 14 Mon

SERVING IN MAJ KD

MAJ KD COMPLETE


KD Experience Breakout

Number Selected and Selection Rate by Experience

39% of selects had no KD experience; 24% were currently serving in KD; 26% had

completed KD; Failure to complete a full KD was a strong factor.

6.5%

Nu

mb

er

MA

Js S

ele

ct

Ra

te S

ele

ct

OS

B/E

SE

RB

Category

Selection

Rate 0

50

100

150

200

250

No KD Experience KD Experience LT 14 Mon

Serving in MAJ KD MAJ KD Complete

7.2%

26

YG99

33

YG00

44

YG01

57

YG02

53

YG03

45

229 107 3 21 190

11.1%

8.1%

5.9%

2.5%

4.5%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

0

50

100

150

200

250

CCC Graduate 50% ILE MEL 4 Enrolled MEL 4 Attending MEL 4


Military Education Level

6.5%

Nu

mb

er

MA

Js S

ele

ct

Ra

te S

ele

ct

OS

B/E

SE

RB

Category

Selection

Rate

70 YG03

79 YG02

47 YG01

25 YG00

8 YG99

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.

46

95

91

74

63

41

32

2321 21 21

19 18

13

75 5

1

10.4% 10.4%

3.2%

4.0%

5.1%

11.0%

8.7%8.3%

15.3%

7.7%

8.6%

2.5%

0.7%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

FY14 MAJ OSB and ESERB Readiness Impacts Where Selects Assigned

Nu

mb

er

MA

Js

Se

lec

t

Ra

te S

ele

ct

OS

B/E

SE

RB

Overall

6.5%

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

Unit Selection

Rate

14

47

20.0%

13.4%

11.8%11.2%11.1%11.1%

9.7%

8.6%8.2% 8.2% 7.9% 7.7%

7.1% 7.0% 6.9% 6.6% 6.5% 6.4% 6.1% 5.9%

5.0% 4.9% 4.8% 4.5% 4.3% 4.3%3.6% 3.4% 3.1%

1.6%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

20.0%

22.0%

FY14 MAJ OSB and ESERB Selection Rates by Control Branch

Overall

6.5%

• 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.

ELECTR

ON

IC W

AR

FAR

E

SYS AU

TOM

ATIO

N O

FFICER

S

SPAC

E OPER

ATIO

NS O

FFICER

CH

EMIC

AL C

OR

PS

INFO

OPER

ATIO

NS O

FFICER

PSYCH

OLO

GIC

AL O

PERA

TION

S

PUB

LIC A

FFAIR

S

LOG

ISTICS

INFO

SYSTEM EN

GIN

EERIN

G

FIELD A

RTILLER

Y

MILITA

RY PO

LICE C

OR

PS

CIVIL A

FFAIR

S

AR

MO

R

SIGN

AL C

OR

PS

NU

CLEA

R W

EAPO

NS

STRA

TEGIC

AN

D FO

RC

E DEV

AIR

DEFEN

SE AR

TILLERY

AD

JUTA

NT G

ENER

ALS C

OR

PS

OPS R

ESEAR

CH

/SYS AN

ALYSIS

CO

RPS O

F ENG

INEER

S

INFA

NTR

Y

SIMU

LATIO

NS O

PERA

TION

S

FINA

NC

E CO

RPS

MILITA

RY IN

TELLIGEN

CE

STRA

TEGIC

INTEL O

FFICER

FOR

EIGN

AR

EA O

FFICER

AVIA

TION

AC

QU

ISITION

MA

NA

GEM

ENT

SPECIA

L FOR

CES

STRA

TEGIC

PLAN

S AN

D PO

LICY

Branch / FA

# Selects # Considered

% Selected

29 53 40 CM 30 PO 46 LG 24 FA MP CA AR SC 52 50 AD AG 49 EN IN 57 FI MI 34 48 AV AC SF 59

6 25 9 15 16 9 11 104 8 35 22 11 23 31 7 6 12 23 12 25 27 5 7 33 5 14 19 17 11 2

30 187 76 134 144 81 113 1209 97 428 278 141 325 444 102 91 185 361 196 425 540 102 146 728 115 327 521 501 353 128

20.0% 13.4% 11.8% 11.2% 11.1% 11.1% 9.7% 8.6% 8.2% 8.2% 7.9% 7.8% 7.1% 7.0% 6.9% 6.6% 6.5% 6.4% 6.1% 5.9% 5.0% 4.9% 4.8% 4.5% 4.3% 4.3% 3.6% 3.4% 3.1% 1.6%

48

9.8%

8.3% 8.0%

5.9% 5.7%

3.2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

AFRICAN AMERICAN

AMERICAN INDIAN

HISPANIC ASIAN CAUCASIAN OTHER

6.6%

5.7%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

MALE FEMALE

10.3%

9.7%

7.3%

5.4%

2.6%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

OTHER ROTC Non_SCH

OCS ROTC SCH USMA

6

56

188

207

92

9.7%10.1%

6.9%

5.9% 6.0%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

0

50

100

150

200

250

Not Deployed and Never

Deployed

< 1 YEAR < 2 YEARS < 3 YEARS > 3 YEARS

Demographics

Gender Selection Rates Race/Ethnic Selection Rates (Percent of Considered Pop)

Combat Experience Source of Commissioning

6.5%

Overall

6.5%

Overall

483 67

(Rates Include all DASR Considered)

128 4 52 26 330 10

23 187 127 178 35

23% of selects were African American

23% of selects were OCS

88% had 2 or more years

combat/deployed experience

123% of selects were Female

49

9.1%

7.1%

7.7%

5.1%

4.3%

4.9%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

10.0%

AFRICAN AMERICAN

HISPANIC AMERICAN INDIAN

ASIAN OTHER CAUCASIAN

11.6% 11.9%

0.0%

11.9%

9.8% 10.0%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

AFRICAN AMERICAN



9.7%

8.0%

6.4%

5.8% 5.7% 5.6%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

10.0%

AFRICAN AMERICAN



Race/Ethnic Selection Rates

Overall

6.5%

OSB/ESERB Combined

OSB Only ESERB Only

OSB

5.6%

ESERB

10.5%

• Greatest variance exists between African

American and Caucasian Overall

• ESERB overall select rate was higher than OSB;

AA made up 24% of ESERB considered population

• 20% of AA selects had no DEROG or poor Evals

compared to 22% of all selects without DEROG/

poor EVALs

AA = 14% of considered pop AA = 24% of considered pop

(Rates do not include DASR Considered)

50

Detailed Source of Commission Select Rates

16.0%

9.8% 9.7%

7.3%

5.4%

2.6%

0.0%0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

InterService TRF Vol Call to AD ROTC Non_SCH OCS_Regular ROTC SCH USMA ACADEMY OtherInter-

Service

TRF

Vol Call

to AD

ROTC

Non_SC

H

OCS_Re

gular

ROTC

SCH USMA

Academy

Other

Grand

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%

51

FY14 MAJ Selects Awarded Purple Heart

• All Male

• 14 Caucasian, 3 African American

FY14 MAJ OSB_ESERB Selects with

Purple Heart

Number

SelectFSD 1

MATERIAL ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT 1

OPS 12

ARMOR 2

CIVIL AFFAIRS 1

CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1

FIELD ARTILLERY 1

INFANTRY 5

MILITARY POLICE CORPS 1

SPECIAL FORCES 1

OSD 4

FOREIGN AREA OFFICER 1

SPACE OPERATIONS OFFICER 2

SYSTEMS AUTOMATION OFFICERS 1

Total Select 17

FY14 MAJ OSB_ESERB

Selects with Purple Heart

Number

SelectArticle 15 1

GOMOR 6

LTR REP - carrying concealed POW on USAF base 1

Referred report APFT Failure 1

No DEROG 8

Total Select 17

FY14 MAJ OSB_ESERB


Number

SelectBCOM One or More 2

Straight COM 6

Single ACOM 3

Muli ACOM 6

Total Select 17

FY14 MAJ OSB_ESERB


Number

SelectLess then 1 year CBT Experience 2

1 Tour 2

Less then 2 years CBT Experience 4

2 Tours 1

3 Tours 3

Less then 3 years CBT Experience 8

2 Tours 4

3 Tours 2

4 Tours 2

Less then 4 year CBT Experience 3

3 Tours 1

4 Tours 2

Total Select 17

FY14 MAJ OSB_ESERB


Number

SelectMEL 4 6

MEL 4 Enrolled 1

50% ILE 2

CCC Graduate 8

Total Select 17

FY14 MAJ OSB_ESERB Selects with

Purple Heart

Number

SelectAMC 1

DIV/BCT/CAB 4

EUROPE_OTH 1

Joint 1

OTHERS 2

THS 4

TRADOC 3

USAREC 1

Total Select 17

FY14 MAJ OSB_ESERB


Number

SelectNo KD Experience 7

SERVING IN MAJ KD 7

MAJ KD COMPLETE 3

Total Select 17

FY14 MAJ OSB_ESERB


Number

SelectOCS 5

OTHER 1

ROTC Non_SCH 4

ROTC SCH 5

USMA 2

Total Select 17

52

FY14 MAJ OSB and ESERB Selection Rates by Control Branch

Control Branch

Non-

Select Select

Total

Considered % Select

ELECTRONIC WARFARE 24 6 30 20.0%

SYSTEMS AUTOMATION OFFICERS 162 25 187 13.4%

SPACE OPERATIONS OFFICER 67 9 76 11.8%

CHEMICAL CORPS 119 15 134 11.2%

PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS 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%

MILITARY POLICE CORPS 256 22 278 7.9%

CIVIL AFFAIRS 132 11 143 7.7%

ARMOR 302 23 325 7.1%

AIR DEFENSE ARTILLERY 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%

ADJUTANT GENERALS CORPS 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%

SIMULATIONS OPERATIONS 97 5 102 4.9%

FINANCE CORPS 139 7 146 4.8%

MILITARY INTELLIGENCE 695 33 728 4.5%

STRATEGIC INTELLIGENCE OFFICER 110 5 115 4.3%

FOREIGN AREA OFFICER 312 14 326 4.3%

AVIATION 503 19 522 3.6%

MATERIAL ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT 484 17 501 3.4%

SPECIAL FORCES 341 11 352 3.1%

STRATEGIC PLANS AND POLICY 126 2 128 1.6%

53

Aggregate Projected Impacts (ACC Officers)

Control Grades AUTH Projected

%

Projected

Estimated

OSB/

ESERB

Impact

%

Projected

after impact

COL 2,343 3,086 131.7% 0 131.7%

LTC 6,389 7,119 111.4% 0 111.4%

MAJ 10,063 11,909 118.3% 382 114.5%

Sr CPT 6,686 5,359 80.2% 305 75.6%

Jr CPT 10,732 10,140 94.5% 456 90.2%

LT 9,218 13,897 150.8% 0 150.8%

Grand Total 45,431 51,510 113.4% 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)

54

MAJ OSB/ESERB Selection Rate Based on Manner of

Performance Evaluation

138

339

59

13

59.5%

8.3%

2.2%0.9% 0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

BELOW COM COM COM PLUS ACOM

Nu

mb

er

MA

Js

Se

lec

t

Ra

te S

ele

ct

OS

B/E

SE

RB

• 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)

One select

had no MOP

assessment

55

Average Time KD For Those MAJ KD Complete Non-Select vs Select OSB/ESERB

• 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)

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

Overall Average

Non-Select

Average Months

Non-Select

Average Months

Select

Overall Average

Non-Select

56

Select Officers Separated and On Separation Orders

AS OF 19 JUN 2014

13

23

32

41

52

63

50

40

31

22

11

0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Current JULY 14 AUG 14 SEP 14 DEC 14 APR 15

On SEP Orders

Separated

57

FY14 MAJ OSB/ESERB Branch by YG

Division\Branch

#

Consider # Select Rate

#


#


#


#


#


FSD 401 28 7.0% 487 33 6.8% 455 31 6.8% 497 34 6.8% 377 25 6.6% 2217 151 6.8%

ADJUTANT GENERALS CORPS 61 3 4.9% 91 7 7.7% 71 6 8.5% 79 6 7.6% 59 1 1.7% 361 23 6.4%

FINANCE CORPS 26 2 7.7% 33 1 3.0% 34 2 5.9% 31 1 3.2% 22 1 4.5% 146 7 4.8%

LOGISTICS 217 20 9.2% 263 21 8.0% 254 20 7.9% 277 25 9.0% 198 18 9.1% 1209 104 8.6%

MATERIAL ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT 97 3 3.1% 100 4 4.0% 96 3 3.1% 110 2 1.8% 98 5 5.1% 501 17 3.4%

OPS 657 43 6.5% 748 48 6.4% 723 45 6.2% 807 51 6.3% 620 38 6.1% 3555 225 6.3%

AIR DEFENSE ARTILLERY 34 3 8.8% 38 1 2.6% 45 3 6.7% 42 3 7.1% 26 2 7.7% 185 12 6.5%

ARMOR 63 5 7.9% 68 4 5.9% 53 2 3.8% 80 6 7.5% 61 6 9.8% 325 23 7.1%

AVIATION 84 9 10.7% 105 0 0.0% 109 2 1.8% 124 4 3.2% 99 4 4.0% 521 19 3.6%

CHEMICAL CORPS 27 2 7.4% 27 3 11.1% 31 6 19.4% 25 2 8.0% 24 2 8.3% 134 15 11.2%

CIVIL AFFAIRS 24 3 12.5% 19 2 10.5% 28 2 7.1% 34 3 8.8% 36 1 2.8% 141 11 7.8%

CORPS OF ENGINEERS 83 7 8.4% 88 9 10.2% 88 3 3.4% 103 5 4.9% 63 1 1.6% 425 25 5.9%

FIELD ARTILLERY 79 4 5.1% 95 5 5.3% 83 11 13.3% 89 6 6.7% 82 9 11.0% 428 35 8.2%

INFANTRY 109 3 2.8% 116 4 3.4% 119 5 4.2% 122 8 6.6% 72 7 9.7% 538 27 5.0%

INFORMATION OPERATIONS OFFICER 21 2 9.5% 28 2 7.1% 30 3 10.0% 41 7 17.1% 24 2 8.3% 144 16 11.1%

MILITARY INTELLIGENCE 1 0 0.0% 1 0 0.0% 2 0 0.0%

MILITARY POLICE CORPS 54 4 7.4% 77 10 13.0% 46 1 2.2% 64 4 6.3% 37 3 8.1% 278 22 7.9%

PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS 13 0 0.0% 20 3 15.0% 16 4 25.0% 17 2 11.8% 15 0 0.0% 81 9 11.1%

SPECIAL FORCES 65 1 1.5% 66 5 7.6% 75 3 4.0% 66 1 1.5% 81 1 1.2% 353 11 3.1%

OSD 541 35 6.5% 528 35 6.6% 545 35 6.4% 661 41 6.2% 461 28 6.1% 2736 174 6.4%

CIVIL AFFAIRS 1 0 0.0% 1 0 0.0% 2 0 0.0%

ELECTRONIC WARFARE 6 0 0.0% 4 1 25.0% 4 0 0.0% 10 2 20.0% 6 3 50.0% 30 6 20.0%

FOREIGN AREA OFFICER 65 3 4.6% 72 1 1.4% 62 4 6.5% 77 4 5.2% 51 2 3.9% 327 14 4.3%

INFORMATION SYSTEM ENGINEERING 15 1 6.7% 15 2 13.3% 16 1 6.3% 32 3 9.4% 19 1 5.3% 97 8 8.2%

MILITARY INTELLIGENCE 137 5 3.6% 149 6 4.0% 151 6 4.0% 168 6 3.6% 121 10 8.3% 726 33 4.5%

NUCLEAR WEAPONS 24 3 12.5% 18 0 0.0% 25 2 8.0% 20 1 5.0% 15 1 6.7% 102 7 6.9%

OPERATIONS RESEARCH/SYSTEMS ANALYSIS 38 4 10.5% 38 1 2.6% 38 2 5.3% 47 4 8.5% 35 1 2.9% 196 12 6.1%

PUBLIC AFFAIRS 17 2 11.8% 13 2 15.4% 27 3 11.1% 39 4 10.3% 17 0 0.0% 113 11 9.7%

SIGNAL CORPS 103 10 9.7% 99 10 10.1% 96 5 5.2% 77 1 1.3% 69 5 7.2% 444 31 7.0%

SIMULATIONS OPERATIONS 18 0 0.0% 21 3 14.3% 19 1 5.3% 26 1 3.8% 18 0 0.0% 102 5 4.9%

SPACE OPERATIONS OFFICER 18 1 5.6% 12 5 41.7% 14 2 14.3% 19 0 0.0% 13 1 7.7% 76 9 11.8%

STRATEGIC AND FORCE DEVELOPMENT 17 1 5.9% 19 0 0.0% 15 2 13.3% 22 2 9.1% 18 1 5.6% 91 6 6.6%

STRATEGIC INTELLIGENCE OFFICER 21 2 9.5% 23 2 8.7% 18 0 0.0% 30 1 3.3% 23 0 0.0% 115 5 4.3%

STRATEGIC PLANS AND POLICY 30 0 0.0% 25 0 0.0% 21 0 0.0% 30 1 3.3% 22 1 4.5% 128 2 1.6%

SYSTEMS AUTOMATION OFFICERS 32 3 9.4% 19 2 10.5% 38 7 18.4% 64 11 17.2% 34 2 5.9% 187 25 13.4%

Grand Total 1599 106 6.6% 1763 116 6.6% 1723 111 6.4% 1965 126 6.4% 1458 91 6.2% 8508 550 6.5%

99 00 01 02 03 Total

58

FY14 MAJ OSB/ESERB Branch by Race/Ethnic

RACE/ETHNIC

Branch

# Con-

sider

#

Select Rate

# Con-

sider

#

Select Rate

# Con-

sider

#

Select Rate

# Con-

sider

#

Select Rate

# Con-

sider

#

Select Rate

# Con-

sider

#

Select Rate

# Con-

sider

#

Select Rate

ADJUTANT GENERALS CORPS 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%

AIR DEFENSE ARTILLERY 124 7 5.6% 28 2 7.1% 17 2 11.8% 13 0 0.0% 3 1 33.3% 185 12 6.5%

ARMOR 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%

AVIATION 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%

CHEMICAL CORPS 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%

CIVIL AFFAIRS 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%

CORPS OF ENGINEERS 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%

ELECTRONIC WARFARE 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%

FIELD ARTILLERY 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%

FINANCE CORPS 68 3 4.4% 49 3 6.1% 20 1 5.0% 6 0 0.0% 3 0 0.0% 146 7 4.8%

FOREIGN AREA OFFICER 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%

INFANTRY 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%

INFORMATION OPERATIONS OFFICER 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%

INFORMATION SYSTEM ENGINEERING 58 4 6.9% 17 3 17.6% 12 1 8.3% 9 0 0.0% 1 0 0.0% 97 8 8.2%

LOGISTICS 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%

MATERIAL ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT 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%

MILITARY INTELLIGENCE 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%

MILITARY POLICE CORPS 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%

NUCLEAR WEAPONS 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%

OPERATIONS RESEARCH/SYSTEMS ANALYSIS 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%

PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS 61 6 9.8% 4 1 25.0% 9 2 22.2% 6 0 0.0% 1 0 0.0% 81 9 11.1%

PUBLIC AFFAIRS 66 6 9.1% 31 3 9.7% 5 2 40.0% 6 0 0.0% 5 0 0.0% 113 11 9.7%

SIGNAL CORPS 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%

SIMULATIONS OPERATIONS 68 2 2.9% 17 1 5.9% 11 1 9.1% 4 1 25.0% 2 0 0.0% 102 5 4.9%

SPACE OPERATIONS OFFICER 65 9 13.8% 5 0 0.0% 2 0 0.0% 3 0 0.0% 1 0 0.0% 76 9 11.8%

SPECIAL FORCES 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%

STRATEGIC AND FORCE DEVELOPMENT 62 4 6.5% 17 0 0.0% 7 1 14.3% 3 1 33.3% 2 0 0.0% 91 6 6.6%

STRATEGIC INTELLIGENCE OFFICER 105 4 3.8% 4 0 0.0% 2 0 0.0% 2 0 0.0% 2 1 50.0% 115 5 4.3%

STRATEGIC PLANS AND POLICY 104 2 1.9% 9 0 0.0% 6 0 0.0% 6 0 0.0% 3 0 0.0% 128 2 1.6%

SYSTEMS AUTOMATION OFFICERS 82 8 9.8% 62 10 16.1% 20 4 20.0% 18 3 16.7% 5 0 0.0% 187 25 13.4%

Grand Total 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%

African AmerCaucasian Other TotalAmer IndianAsian_Pac IsHispanic

59

FY14 MAJ OSB/ESERB Selection Rate by Board and

Race Ethnic Category 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%

ESERB OSB Total

60

CPT OSB and ESERB Analysis

OPMD, HRC

9 July 2014

As of: 091800Jul14

61

Overview

• 14% (164) retirement-eligible

• 4% (52) sanctuary-eligible (18-20 years)

• 7% (77) TERA-eligible (15-18 years)

• 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

Selections

• 1,188 selected (10,165 Considered)

• 11.7% combined OSB/ESERB

• Project a June notification window for selected

officers

• 1 APR 15 separation date

Separation Methods

Agenda

• Impacts entire force, especially Generating

Forces where majority of KD CPT authorizations

reside

• Manning Cycle 15-01 to prioritize backfills for KD

CPTs; CCC precision distribution will mitigate Pre-

KD CPT challenge

• SCs have authority to cross level to fill critical

billets within their formations

• Impact to the Force

• Demographics

• Performance of Selected Officers

• Key Developmental Job

• Race/Ethnicity Comparison

• Commissioning Source

62

OSB/ESERB Select File Assessment

1,188

8,942

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

ALL CONSIDERED

FY14 CPT OSB and ESERB

Select Performance Breakout

12%

Total Considered and Select

88%

DEROG

BCOM or NLJ

OER

• 71% of selects had derogatory/adverse information or negative evaluations

•Board considered the officer’s total body of work

•

36%

(421)

35%

(420)

21

76

250

ACOM> 1

ACOMX 1

PureCOM

29%

(347)

13 selected has Derog

information from

enlisted service

63

392

201

153

9683

56

3632 30 29 28 24 21

7

10%

25%

4%

17%

10%

23%

7%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

FY14 CPT OSB and ESERB Readiness Impacts Where Selects Assigned

Nu

mb

er

CP

Ts

Se

lec

t

Ra

te S

ele

ct

OS

B/E

SE

RB

• Largest number are assigned to Divisional Units or FORSCOM separates

• Highest select rate is 1A, 26% (53 CPTs)

Overall

12%

Select Rate

In Category

64

45

264

619

222

38

15.9%

13.8%

10.7%

11.8%13.4%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Not Deployed and Never Deployed

<1 Year < 2 Years < 3 Years > 3 Years

11.9%

10.8%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

MALE FEMALE

20.0%

16.2%

14.6% 14.3%13.2%

9.4%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

AFRICAN AMERICAN

HISPANIC OTHER AMER INDIAN

ASIAN CAUCASIAN

Demographics

Gender Selection Rates Race/Ethnic Selection Rates (Percent of Considered Pop)

Combat Experience Source of Commissioning

19.2%

16.8%

12.0%

8.6%

6.2%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

OCS OTHER ROTC Non_SCH

ROTC SCH USMA

•Race and SOC trends historically consistent

•Lack of deployment is a slight indicator

65

26%

23%

20%

18% 17%

16% 16% 16% 15%14%

14% 13% 13%12% 12%

10% 10%

8%7% 7% 7% 7%

6% 5% 5%

3%

1%

0% 0% 0%0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Selection Rates by Control Branch

Overall

12%

• Significant variance of select rate on ends of the spectrum

• Functional Area officers select rate comparable to Basic Branch in Aggregate

ELEC

TRO

NIC

WA

RFA

RE

PU

BLI

C A

FFA

IRS

SYST

EMS

AU

TOM

ATI

ON

OFF

ICER

S

INFO

RM

ATI

ON

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

OFF

ICER

AD

JUTA

NT

GEN

ERA

LS C

OR

PS

AR

MO

R

AIR

DEF

ENSE

AR

TILL

ERY

SIM

ULA

TIO

NS

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

LOG

ISTI

CS

STR

ATE

GIC

AN

D F

OR

CE

DEV

ELO

PM

ENT

CH

EMIC

AL

CO

RP

S

CO

RP

S O

F EN

GIN

EER

S

INFA

NTR

Y

MIL

ITA

RY

PO

LIC

E C

OR

PS

FIEL

D A

RTI

LLER

Y

SIG

NA

L C

OR

PS

MIL

ITA

RY

INTE

LLIG

ENC

E

INFO

RM

ATI

ON

SY

STEM

EN

GIN

EER

ING

CIV

IL A

FFA

IRS

FIN

AN

CE

CO

RP

S

NU

CLE

AR

WEA

PO

NS

STR

ATE

GIC

INTE

LLIG

ENC

E O

FFIC

ER

PSY

CH

OLO

GIC

AL

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

MA

TER

IAL

AC

QU

ISIT

ION

MA

NA

GEM

ENT

AV

IATI

ON

FOR

EIG

N A

REA

OFF

ICER

SPEC

IAL

FOR

CES

OP

NS

RES

EAR

CH

/SY

STEM

S A

NA

LYSI

S

SPA

CE

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

OFF

ICER

STR

ATE

GIC

PLA

NS

AN

D P

OLI

CY

66

453

120

308 307

14.6%

30.5%

7.3%

12.6%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

No KD Experience KD Experience LT 12 Months

Serving In KD KD Complete

CPT OSB/ESERB Selection Rate by KD Experience

Number OSB/ESERB Select and Rate by KD

Category

• Officers who vacated a KD

billet with less than 12 months

in the position had a

significantly higher selection

rate

Overall

11.7%

67

31.8% 32.7%

27.3%

80.0%

35.0%

26.2%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

AFRICAN AMERICAN


ASIAN CAUCASIAN

16.7%

15.0%

12.0%

8.6%

12.4%

8.8%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

AFRICAN AMERICAN


ASIAN CAUCASIAN

20.0%

16.2%

14.6% 14.3%13.2%

9.4%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

AFRICAN AMERICAN


ASIAN CAUCASIAN

Race/Ethnic Selection Rates

Overall

12%

OSB/ESERB Combined

OSB Only ESERB Only

OSB

10.5%

ESERB

30.0%

• 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%.

• Selected officers with no DEROG or Poor

Evaluations comparison; AA = 28% , all others =

29%

AA = 11% of considered pop AA = 45% of considered pop

68

20.3% 20.0%

17.1%16.3%

12.0%

10.5%

8.6%

6.2%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

CALL TO ACTIVE

INTER-SERVICE TRANS

OCS_IN SERVICE

OCS_COLLEGE OPT

ROTC Non_SCH OTHER ACADEMIES

(AF, NAVY, CG)

ROTC SCH USMA

CALL TO

ACTIVE

INTER-

SERVICE

TRANS

OCS_IN

SERVICE

OCS

COLLEGE

OPT

ROTC

Non_SCH

OTHER

ACADEMY

(AF, NAVY,

CG) ROTC SCH USMA Total

Number Considered 138 10 2111 1279 1809 19 2987 1777 10130

Number Selected 28 2 361 209 217 2 258 111 1188

Rate 20.3% 20.0% 17.1% 16.3% 12.0% 10.5% 8.6% 6.2% 11.7%

Detailed Source of Commission

69

Backups

CSL Audits and Due Outs

70

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

oversee processes that operate in a leadership environment. ** (Sources: *Army G-1, ** DA PAM 600-3)

Definitions of Command Categories

Slide 10

71

Assess how the total number of LTC/COL CSL positions has changed

over time, and why

2 Primary driving forces:

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

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

LTC/COL CSL Positions Changes

(KD adds)

Slide 11

72

0

23

35

20

22

10

33

10 11

3 5

3

10 10

7 7

5

31

4 0

22

50

18

21

7

31

10 9

4 5

2

20

15

8 7

6

48

7

AR IN CAB EN FA AD AV SF MP PO CA CM SC MI AG FI AG/FI LG 01A

CO

MM

AN

D T

OT

AL

S

BRANCHES

FY15/16 LTC OPERATIONS COMMAND BALANCE

FY15 FY16

Current Imbalance

47% in FY15; 53% in FY16

Engage ACOMS, ASCCs to effect

balance in CSL opportunities

Fix through curtailments

73

0

23

43

20

22

9

33

10 10

4 5

3

12 13

7 6 6

38

4

0

22

42

18

21

8

31

10 9

4 5

2

18

12

8 8

6

42

7

AR IN CAB EN FA AD AV SF MP PO CA CM SC MI AG FI AG/FI LG 01A

CO

MM

AN

D T

OT

AL

S

BRANCHES

FY17/18 LTC OPERATIONS COMMAND BALANCE

FY17 FY18

Proposed Rebalance

49% in FY17; 51% in FY18

Next step – inside BCTs

74

0 10

0 12 14

10

19 12 10

15

102

20 18

14

2 7

11

2

14 11

6

105

1AD 1CD 1ID 2ID 3ID 4ID 10M 25ID 82AB 101AB TOTAL

FY15/16 BCT Battalion Command Balance

FY15 FY16

Current BCT Balance

Overall balanced in total

Significant imbalance within

formations

ARFORGEN and other factors will

keep the target moving

Slide 12

75

87% LTC CSL Non-Select

10% COL

13% LTC CSL

72% COL

Considered Population

73%

SSC

Importance of LTC CSL Positions

For Command-Centric Basic Branches, the path to COL is through

LTC CSL

36% COL CSL <1% COL CSL

* All Percentages based on

an average of 2002-2009

selection rates 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

76

82d ABN / 1CD Analysis – a step further

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

Confirm or Deny Commanders are Pooling

Division LTC CSL Location Non-SEL Select Total Compete Select Rate SR Population

Divisions w/Corps (in 2012)

82 ABN DIV 6 5 11 45.5% 74

1st CAV DIV 13 6 19 31.6% 63

7th INF DIV 11 2 13 15.4% 40

Total 30 13 43 30.2% 59 (avg)

Divisions w/o Corps

10 MTN DIV 4 8 12 66.7% 89

4 INF DIV 5 7 12 58.3% 92

25 INF DIV 8 8 16 50.0% 52

1st AR DIV 14 8 22 36.4% 80

101st AA DIV 11 6 17 35.3% 94

2nd INF DIV 6 3 9 33.3% 69

3rd INF DIV 9 3 12 25.0% 87

1st INF DIV 13 4 17 23.5% 60

Total 70 47 117 40.2% 78 (avg)

Grand Total 100 60 160 37.5%

Slide 15

77

Backup

Branch Monitoring

78

Year Group 2002 Long Term Impact of OSB

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

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

YG 2002 Impact of OSB with Forecasted Attrition (Aggregate)

YG02 YG02 w/OSB

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

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

YG 2002 Impact of OSB with Forecasted Attrition (Caucasian)

Caucasian YG02 Caucasian YG02 w/OSB

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

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

YG 2002 Impact of OSB with Forecasted Attrition (African American)

AA YG02 AA YG02 w/OSB

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

YG02 4435 4363 4123 3522 2828 2518 2347 2242 2150 2048 1887 1807 1722 1664 1613 1558 1508 1460 1414 1234 1009 828 713 619 541 450 356 265 192 96

YG02 w/OSB 4435 4363 4123 3522 2828 2518 2347 2242 2150 2048 1887 1807 1596 1542 1495 1444 1397 1353 1310 1143 935 767 661 574 502 417 330 245 178 89

AA YG02 620 612 577 508 447 425 408 400 387 380 372 349 333 321 312 301 291 282 273 238 195 160 138 120 105 87 69 51 37 19

AA YG02 w/OSB 620 612 577 508 447 425 408 400 387 380 372 349 293 283 274 265 256 248 240 210 171 141 121 105 92 76 61 45 33 16

Caucasian YG02 3164 3116 2939 2497 1960 1719 1590 1509 1443 1370 1275 1251 1192 1152 1117 1079 1044 1011 979 854 699 573 494 429 375 312 247 183 133 67

Caucasian YG02 w/OSB 3164 3116 2939 2497 1960 1719 1590 1509 1443 1370 1275 1251 1130 1092 1059 1023 990 958 928 810 662 543 468 406 355 295 234 174 126 63

OSB

(-126) OSB

(-62)

OSB

(-40)

• 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

• The forecast predicts a reduction of 28 (-12%) and 3 (-

16%) AA officers at 20 & 30 Years of Service

respectively

• Caucasian officers had a reduction of 44 (-5%) and -4

(-1%) at 20 & 30 Years of Service respectively

79

Year Group 2007 Long Term Impact of OSB

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

Caucasian YG07 3837 3790 3625 3305 2985 2709 2575 2393 2246 2131 2037 1948 1856 1794 1739 1680 1625 1574 1524 1330 1088 892 769 668 584 485 384 285 207 104

Caucasian YG07 w/OSB 3837 3790 3625 3305 2985 2709 2575 2179 2045 1940 1854 1773 1690 1633 1583 1529 1480 1433 1388 1211 990 812 700 608 531 442 349 260 189 94

AA YG07 603 596 583 566 533 508 484 450 422 400 383 366 349 337 327 316 305 296 286 250 204 168 145 125 110 91 72 54 39 19

AA YG07 w/OSB 603 596 583 566 533 508 484 341 320 303 290 277 264 255 248 239 231 224 217 189 155 127 109 95 83 69 55 41 30 15

YG07 5282 5218 5010 4620 4212 3861 3684 3424 3213 3048 2914 2787 2656 2566 2488 2403 2325 2252 2181 1903 1556 1276 1100 955 835 694 549 408 297 148

YG07 w/ OSB 5282 5218 5010 4620 4212 3861 3684 3424 2612 2478 2369 2266 2159 2086 2023 1953 1890 1831 1773 1547 1265 1038 894 776 679 564 446 332 241 121

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

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

YG 2007 Impact of OSB with Forecasted Attrition (African American)

AA YG07 AA YG07 w/OSB

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

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

YG 2007 Impact of OSB with Forecasted Attrition (Caucasian)

Caucasian YG07 Caucasian YG07 w/OSB

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

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

YG 2007 Impact of OSB with Forecasted Attrition (Aggregate)

YG07 YG07 w/ OSB

OSB

(-601) OSB

(-362)

OSB

(-109)

• The OSB significantly impacted the YG 2007 AA

population. The AA Combat Arms population will

reduce by 20%.

• The OSB will have significant long term impacts to the

YG.

• The forecast predicts a reduction of 61 (-24%) and 4

(-21%) AA officers at 20 & 30 Years of Service

respectively

• Caucasian officers had a reduction of 119 (-1%) and

-10 (-10%) at 20 & 30 Years of Service respectively

80

Reduced Accession Long Term Impact

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

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

African American Accessions Required Increase @ 30 Years

AA Accessions Accessions Increase for increase of 1 @ 30 Years

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

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

Reduced Accessions Impact Over 30 Years

Current Accessions Drawdown Reduced Accessions

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

Current Accessions 4100 4078 3979 3675 3203 2787 2552 2372 2226 2112 2019 1931 1840 1778 1724 1665 1611 1560 1511 1318 1078 884 762 662 578 481 380 283 205 103

Drawdown Reduced

Accessions3850 3830 3737 3451 3007 2617 2397 2228 2090 1983 1896 1813 1728 1670 1619 1563 1513 1465 1419 1238 1012 830 716 621 543 452 357 266 193 96

AA Accessions 579 576 562 519 452 394 360 335 314 298 285 273 260 251 243 235 228 220 213 186 152 125 108 93 82 68 54 40 29 15

Accessions Increase for

increase of 1 @ 30 Years619 616 601 555 484 421 385 358 336 319 305 292 278 268 260 251 243 236 228 199 163 134 115 100 87 73 57 43 31 16

• 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.

81

Caucasian African American Asian Hispanic Other/Blank

Operations 157 23 3 6 6

Force Sustainment 45 11 0 2 3

Operations Support 47 8 0 2 2

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

YG97 OCS Branching Results by REDCAT


Operations 1190 155 68 76 33



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

YG97 ROTC Branching Results by REDCAT


Operations 576 39 26 29 11



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

YG97 USMA Branching Results by REDCATUSMA

Case Study 1: YG97 Accessions by Source

• ROTC has the largest minority population out of the

three Sources of Commission (SOCs).

• 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

• With a lower quantity of AA accessions into the

Combat Arms, all subsequent efforts will fight that

shortfall for 20-30 years.

ROTC

OCS

312

59 42

1. Accessions

82

Case Study 1: YG97 Select Ethnicity Comparison

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

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

CA YG97 Caucasian

YG97 Caucasian

CA YG97 African American

YG97 African American

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Years Service

Year Group 1997 (Combat Arms)

7 Year Average COL

Promotion Rate

7 Year Average LTC

Promotion Rate

7 Year Average MAJ

Promotion Rate

7 Year Average CSL

Principal Select Rate

Caucasian 49% 88% 93% 14%

African American 42% 76% 87% 9%

Overall 48% 86% 91% 13%

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.

3. USMA made 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

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.

2. Continuation In the Combat Arms

3. Competitive Promotion & CSL

VTIP / CFD

Window

Branch Details

Expire

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

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

CA YG97 Caucasian

YG97 Caucasian



Caucasian Combat Arms Continuation Rate

Caucasian Continuation Rate (After Leaving Combat Arms)

African American Combat Arms Continuation Rate

African American Continuation Rate (After Leaving Combat Arms)

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.

83


Operations 683 102 29 45 67



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

YG07 OCS Branching Results by REDCAT


Operations 1041 70 52 79 24



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

YG07 ROTC Branching Results by REDCAT


Operations 599 27 48 53 20



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

YG07 USMA Branching Results by REDCATUSMA

Case Study 2: YG07 Accessions by Source

• OCS population increase served as a lever to grow

the force during peak war years

• 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

• 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.

ROTC

OCS

225

326 45

1. Accessions

84

All Branches

Population

All Branches

Selected

All Branches

Select Rate

Combat Arms

Population

Combat Arms

Selected

Combat Arms

Select Rate

Caucasian 2575 362 14% 1374 179 13%

African American 484 109 23% 90 19 21%

-10

10

30

50

70

90

110

130

150

170

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

2000

2250

1 2 3 4 5 6





Case Study 2: YG07 Select Ethnicity Comparison

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Years Service

Year Group 2007 (Combat Arms)

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.

2. In addition to normal attrition, the OSB will amplify YG07’s attrition trends as the

YG matures.

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.

2. Continuation In the Combat Arms

3. OSB Impact

VTIP / CFD

Window

Branch Details

Expire

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

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

CA YG97 Caucasian

YG97 Caucasian







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

85

COL LTC MAJ CPT

Operations 7 48 179 20

Force Sustainment 1 11 46 10

Operations Support 58 83 133 17

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

USMA Staff & Faculty Distribution of Branches

COL LTC MAJ CPT

Caucasian 63 128 310 45

Other / Blank 1 6 1

Asian 3 15 3

Hispanic 2 10 16 3

African American 4 11 18 8

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

USMA Staff & Faculty Distribution of REDCAT

FY14 USMA Manning and Branching Results

- USMA’s staff and faculty is very diverse across all grades, but becomes more

predominantly Caucasian at the grade of Colonel.

- 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.

- USMA’s branching results for FY14 depict a higher than average rate of African American

officers’ receiving Force Sustainment branches.

CaucasianAfrican

AmericanAsian Hispanic Other/Blank

Operations 569 40 52 60 23



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FY14 USMA Branching Results by REDCAT

Documents

HUMAN RESOURCES COMMAND - Military Guidethe-military-guide.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/235750833-HRC... · • Korea Rotation Business Rules and Manning Timeline ... JRTC CPT -9