Resubmission Requirements for Disapproved Promotion and/or Award Requests

[Cato the Younger]

This is from a memo that was in my email today! Instead of providing information and guidance on how to properly prepare a promotion or award package,  we are now supposed to wait six month between submitting paperwork for disapproval!

What am I suppose to tell people now?

This system is broken. Why not tell us how to submit a proper request, Bob? It would make your job easier.


3 August 2008

MEMORANDUM FOR ALL WING/CC, GLR/CAP

SUBJECT: Resubmission Requirements for Disapproved Promotion and/or Award Requests

FROM: Chairman, GLR/PAC
1. For approximately the last twelve (12) months, the Great Lakes Region Promotions and Awards Committee (GLR/PAC -the Board) has received many "resubmissions" for reconsideration of disapproved promotion requests to the temporary grade of Lt. Colonel or of disapproved award requests. In a number of cases, these resubmissions for reconsideration have been received within an extremely short period of time after the recommendations of the Board have been published. Many of these resubmissions have been received containing mostly irrelevant information,
2. Effective immediately, resubmissions for disapproved promotion and/or award requests will not be acceotedby the Board for a oeriod of six (6) months from the date of notification of disapproval by the Region Commander.
3. Any resubmissions that are received by the Board within that six (6)-month period will be returned.
4. Wing CCs are requested to distribute this memorandum to the Wing DPs.

Robert M. Karton, COL, CAP Chairman, GLR/PAC

Distribution:
GLR/CC
GLR/CY
GLR/CS

[Eclipse]

Prepare your initial submissions better and wait six months before resubmission.

[IceNine]

You could try to fight this as a broken system.. and I would back you IF

you had not received proper notification as to the findings of the board, and why the promotion/award had been denied.

As long as they are following those 2 simple rules there is absolutely no reason the review board should have to endure the same poorly written submissions over and over. 

So I guess the moral of the story here is, they are going to put it into the circular file.  They have just decided to notify us first

[lordmonar]

I don't understand what the problem is.

The regional board is just saying...that if they deny an award/promotion package....they don't want to see a resubmission for six months.

That is not a broken system.

If you submit a package and it gets kicked back.....go ahead and contact the board for some feed back....fix the package and resubmit after six months.

[Cato the Younger]

Why should we have to use the trial and error method? They way they are doing it now is submit paperwork and justification and get a critic's review of the package and your are told to wait six months. There is no readily available standard or benchmark to use as a guide or example.

Why not explain the expectation? It is easier to do the job correctly the first time if you know the criteria used to evaluate the request. Are they looking for a CAP version of a USAF OPR? Are they looking for a five paragraph essay on why I think Major Payne walks on water? How far back are they looking? Bob mentions irrelvant information without giving an example.

Take for example the duty performance promotion. Region has failed to provide clear and concise expectations for what it means to "be performing in an exemplary manner meriting promotion to the grade recommended." One man's exemplary is another man's poor performance.

[lordmonar]

So.....as I said....ask for some feed back.

[Cato the Younger]

Like Bob said in his memo this has been going on for 12 months now. Plenty of people have asked for feedback and instead of being proactive and fixing the problem by outlining expectations, we get a memo that is effective immediately.

This is very much like Heller's Catch 22. If you submit the paper work you get denied and you have to wait six month before resubmitting again but, if you don't submit you don't get denied and can submit at any time to be denied.

I guess I was not clear in my original post. This is the first codified feedback the field has received concerning this issue. Talk about demoralizing. I have to imagine this is the conversation most unit commanders are having, "Major Payne you are doing a great job but, because we don't know what the region promotion board is looking for we have to submit your promotion in the blind and hope for the best. Once it is denied, they are always denied,  we will know what they are looking for so, I want you to look at this as a six month warning  you might get promoted. Keep up the good work and how about working on a wing project to really show the promotion board you really want to be promoted?"

[lordmonar]

Okay......sounds good to me.

If you got a problem with the regional promotions board....have you taken this up with you wing CC or the regional CC?

Don't harp on a broken system.....if you have not used said system.

As for the policy letter goes.....it sounds like sound management practices.

[Eclipse]

Any document which requires Region approval has generally moved through at least 3 other levels of echelon, presumably with an increasing level of experience and knowledge.  Don't blame Region if documents aren't completed correctly after 3 CC's have signed them.

I've personally received F2's with no indication of what they are for, incomplete or missing narratives, poor grammar, spelling, etc.

I can't speak for other wings, but mine provides advice and guidance on the correctness and completeness of various forms before sending them up.  Something I appreciate ad which has helped me the next time.

Narratives need to be complete and appropriate to the increased responsibility being anticipated with respect to a promotion.  Decorations need the same or more detail on why a respective action was "outstanding".

The days of the check-box promotions are over, at least in GLR.  You're not going to get any argument from me on this.

[Cato the Younger]

Yes, I have discussed this issue with the wing commander. He said he did not know why region was being stingy with promotions.

He is in a tough spot. You can't be a Chief if you have no Indians, people will leave because they are not being recognized in a timely manner for their contributions.

Speculation on the street is that GLR is squashing promotions because the region commander champions the NCO corps and thinks everyone should start out with stripes and that he is going to do the same thing they did in Iowa and kick all the LtCols and Majors, not on wing staff, back down to squadron grade. Also someone on wing staff said there are too many LtCols. so GLR is holding everyone back to thin out the herd. If any of that is true they should at least tell us so we know the "rules" and can readjust accordingly. If none of it is true GLR should at least recognize there is a void in the knowledge base of the general membership and it is being filled with rumor instead of fact.

Right now, the whole process is ambiguous and subjective and ripe for abuse.  In order to handle this situation ethically and with integrity GLR  must outline the expectations and supplement the regulations. To do otherwise, diminishes those finally recognized because some in the general membership will think advancement is not a matter of  what you know but, rather who you know.

[Cecil DP]

When a promotion is denied, the denying authority is required to provide a reason for the denial. If they have just correct the fault and carry on. It could be as simple as the member completed Level IV and it hasn't been processed at National. In addition the remarks box should be full of reasons why the person should be promoted. I've seen many CAPF2's that had nothing in the remarks. If the commander can't say anything good about the individual, why promote him?

Awards on the other hand should be well written and full of verbs rather than adjectives,. Tell them what the person did, how it was extraordinary, and the positive results of his/her actions. I've seen too many CAPF1 20's saying "John Smith has been a member for 10 years and is the greatest guy on earth, without telling me what he did to merit the award.  

[lordmonar]

Well...that's a whole other rant...than just a new policy letter.

[sarflyer]

You need to find out what the reason for denial was.  Work your way up the chain of command and find out why.

Don't assume, find out.  Then you can fix it. 

[afgeo4]

When a promotion is denied, the denying authority is required to provide a reason for the denial. If they have just correct the fault and carry on. It could be as simple as the member completed Level IV and it hasn't been processed at National. In addition the remarks box should be full of reasons why the person should be promoted. I've seen many CAPF2's that had nothing in the remarks. If the commander can't say anything good about the individual, why promote him?

Awards on the other hand should be well written and full of verbs rather than adjectives,. Tell them what the person did, how it was extraordinary, and the positive results of his/her actions. I've seen too many CAPF1 20's saying "John Smith has been a member for 10 years and is the greatest guy on earth, without telling me what he did to merit the award.  

So let's see... if the proper documentation hasn't yet shown up at NHQ website and they deny the promotion and then a few days later the documentation finally appears (say an internet or admin backlog at NHQ), you have to wait for 6 months before re-submitting?

They have to put conditions into these policies. The shouldn't just say six months and that's that. There are all kinds of cases out there.

I also see abuse of the system. I'll bet the IGs are going to see a lot more complaints since that's the only avenue of appeal.

[DNall]

Just to clarify... this is talking about special appointment to LtCol, NOT standard duty performance/TIG; and, region level approved awards. Is that correct?

If that's the case... no more than one-tenth of one percent of members should ever be even considered for special appointment promotion, and the overwhelming majority of those should be disapproved. It would be the exceptionally extreme rare case I could ever imagine approving that for - like one person every 20 years.

As far as awards, we've talked in the past about the standards for each level not being well enough defined, and the standards being applied unevenly across the org. If your award rec is disapproved and it's really a factor to get the person an award right now versus six months from now, then just downgrade it a wing approved award (the Wg/CC has already signed off on the action) and you're good to go. Otherwise, fix your recommendation & resubmit in six months. I don't see what the big deal is. If you members are really motivated by that crap then there's problems. I gotta start wondering about spotlight rangers making ribbons over the back of unrecognized hard workers.

[RiverAux]

If that's the case... no more than one-tenth of one percent of members should ever be even considered for special appointment promotion, and the overwhelming majority of those should be disapproved. It would be the exceptionally extreme rare case I could ever imagine approving that for - like one person every 20 years.

Are you saying you don't want to see special appointments (like for the legislative liasion) or are you thinking about special appointments not so explicitly approved by the regs (hey, its my buddy, lets see if we can make him a Lt. Col.)?  Either way, I agree. 

If the region isn't explaining why they've been turning down these things, they deserve to get bombarded with the same things time and time again. 

[IceNine]

GLR/CC has openly stated that promotions to Lt. Col will require undeniable substantiation for promotion whether said promotion is organic or abstract makes no difference.
 

[DNall]

By "organic or abstract" do you happen to mean by duty performance/TIG (ie the right way) and special performance (as in my buddy, or this lawyer/doctor)?

I really don't have a problem with normal duty performance promotions requiring a narrative to evidence active service & deserving of being advanced, but that is not required by regs & adding promotion requirements is explicitly forbidden.

If it's just special appointments, as the memo seems to indicate, those should almost always be disapproved anyway.

Regarding the legislative liaison issue... it is reasonable that the person in that position should be a LtCol. It'd be more appropriate if they were full Cols, based on the level of national guard officer members of the legislature are used to dealing with. It's also reasonable that the person that should be representing CAP to the state govt should have a career experience with CAP necessary to put him on that grade level anyway. I do understand that you'll sometimes get a lobbyist recruited that may be better suited in personality & positioning to do the actual work. It's not appropriate to promote that guy out of the blocks to LtCol. It's appropriate to make him the asst legislative liaison answering to a more experienced officer.

The kind of situations where I'd be willing to apply special appointments is where you get a member who has chosen never to advance past Capt (or who has stayed an NCO, etc), but has completed the PD & TIG to be a LtCol, and is now assuming a position where the grade of LtCol is more appropriate. Other then that, I'm hard pressed to see the need for the provision to even exist. Everyone else serves their time, even the most exceptional and active among us.

[IceNine]

By "organic or abstract" do you happen to mean by duty performance/TIG (ie the right way) and special performance (as in my buddy, or this lawyer/doctor)?

You got it. 

One clarification, he is not adding requirements he is using the narratives a tool to aid the promotion review board in making an informed decision.

The narratives must answer AT LEAST these 2 questions

What has the member done in CAP since the last time s/he was promoted?
What does the member plan to do in CAP in the future?

After that it goes to the membership review board and they make their recommendations.

[Cato the Younger]

I really don't have a problem with normal duty performance promotions requiring a narrative to evidence active service & deserving of being advanced, but that is not required by regs & adding promotion requirements is explicitly forbidden.

It is my understanding from PM's and emails received today that duty performance promotions are being denied outright the first time through. I was told today there are members with 20 years plus in the organization that have been denied duty performance promotions. I was even informed about RSC graduates that have been denied duty performance promotions because it is not what you have done while making yourself eligibile for promotion that matters, it is what have you done since you became eligible. If the clock on exemplary performance/ TIG  is only being started once you are eligible for promotions than there is a really big problem.