Modeling Army Officer Promotions
Abstract
What are the chances I ll get promoted? Where do I rank amongst my peers? What effect will my next evaluation have? Officers ask such questions not because a random process determines promotions and standings, but because they seek to quantify and assess the apparent chaos that determines their future. Every Army officer s performance file consists of copious evaluation reports, awards and schools. The system we use to determine promotability in boards may in fact, have stochastic (random) properties that can be modeled. The mechanism used by the US Army is the Officer Evaluation Report (OER), DA 67-9. A lion s share of the performance emphasis rests with the Senior Rater evaluation as the quantifiable measure. Essentially, there are just two common rating options: 1) Above Center of Mass (ACOM); or, 2) Center of Mass (COM). For this analysis I ll assume a Below Center of Mass rating takes a file out of contention. Initial guidance from the Department of the Army to senior raters was to place approximately one-third of officers in the ACOM pile. The OER process itself limits a senior rater to no more than 49% ACOM reports in each grade for their population pool. Through April of 2002, 63% of reports received were COM for all ranks and all specialties [US Army Human Resource Command, Management Support Division, Information Paper]. While every performance file is multidimensional and unique, most analysis of board results point to the ratio of ACOM reports as a primary driver for selection. As the number of the new OERs increase in files, the Army expects that determinations will become less subjective.
Document Details
- Document Type
- Technical Report
- Publication Date
- Dec 01, 2005
- Accession Number
- ADA635630
Entities
People
- David Briggs