Transcript Slide 1

ILS 08-09 Board Observations
POC: LtCol Lindemann
(703) 693-1761
[email protected]
Overview
• Purpose: use personal observations from participation in
the AY 08-09 ILS board to provide insights regarding:
–
–
–
–
Summary of ILS board outcome
The record review process
Comments on fitness report writing
Thoughts on intelligence officer and Foreign Area Officer career
progression and competitiveness
 While many observations are generic to any MOS,
primary audience for this briefing is the USMC
intelligence community.
Things to Know About this Board
•
•
Every board is different and inherently subjective. Boards receive various
levels of precepts and guidance but the judgment of the voting members is a
significant variable. The next ILS board will inevitably see things somewhat
differently than we did…as will promotion and command screening boards.
ILS selection is fairly selective; this year overall rate was 23% for designation
as primary and an additional 11% for alternates.
– Limited numbers of slots for large number of deserving officers
– Board occasionally concluded that it was in the best interests of an otherwise
well-qualified officer to NOT attend resident PME due to time away from operating
forces or MOS.
•
•
Unlike promotions, ILS is heavily influenced by desire for MOS-spread in
order to build optimal USMC C&S student body composition.
Did not receive a great deal of precepts to influence board decisions
–
–
–
–
Give fair consideration to “less than perfect” records
Give favorable consideration to “non-traditional” billets in OIF such as MTT/BTT
Will address officers who had no OIF/OEF deployments later in this briefing
No board precept or guidance to balance Intel “feeder” MOS in ILS; board
reviewed each record on its own merits.
Summary ILS 08-09 MOS Stats
MOS
Eligible
Primary % of Eligible
Population Selects Population
Alternate
Selects
% of Eligible
Population
0180
02XX
0302
0402
0602
0802
1302
1802
1803
3002
3404
4302
4402
5803
6002
6602
7202
FW Pilot
NFO
756X R/W
8059
20
35
113
68
31
32
16
6
5
34
13
9
29
7
12
8
27
89
13
106
3
3
8
30
13
9
11
5
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
6
17
6
26
1
15%
23%
27%
19%
29%
34%
31%
33%
40%
9%
15%
22%
10%
29%
17%
25%
22%
19%
46%
25%
33%
2
5
14
6
4
5
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
4
10
0
11
0
10%
14%
12%
9%
13%
16%
13%
17%
40%
3%
15%
11%
3%
14%
8%
13%
15%
11%
0%
10%
0%
TOTALS
676
155
23%
74
11%
Summary of O2XX Results
• Total population of 35 eligible officers from 02XX MOS
–
–
–
–
0202: 31
0203: 2:
0204: 1
0206: 1
• Outcome:
–
–
–
–
–
02XX was 5% of overall ILS eligible population
Selected 8 primary (23% of eligible 0202, 5% of ILS primaries)
Designated 5 alternates (14% of eligible 0202, 7% of ILS alternates)
Overall selection rate (37% of eligible 0202, 6% of overall ILS seats)
Only one officer w/o 0202 selected for ILS, will be expected to attend
MIOC prior to attending ILS
– Overall balanced representation of “feeder” MOS in eligible
population and among officers selected for ILS, except for 0204
First Look at Records
• Does the officer wish to attend ILS?
– Submit the official questionnaire; it shows you care about attending.
– Consider a short letter to address any likely questions about your record.
– If you are only willing to accept a specific choice in schools, be honest
but recognize that it will decrease your attractiveness as a candidate.
• Questionnaire statistics:
– 67% of eligible officers submitted a questionnaire
– Of those, 95% selected as primaries received one of their top 3 choices
– 73% of those selected as primaries were assigned to their top choice
• Questionnaire also provides option for requesting/declining follow-on
assignment to joint duty. Marine Corps Command and Staff is
primary pool for follow-on Joint duty. Selecting “yes” or “no” for joint
duty was not significant factor in determining selection to school.
Joint duty was generally assigned by review of selecting combination
of individuals from USMC C&S roster who had preferably
volunteered and who didn’t have previous joint experience or were
ready for external billet.
First Look at Records (Con’t)
• Initial record flags:
– Date gaps
– Adverse reports
– PFT failure/failure to test. Other than 1st class PFT without
extenuating circumstances (pregnancy, injury) viewed
adversely
– Overweight / outside authorized %BF
– No photo on file or poor appearance does reflect adversely on
Marine; a current photo was not required but most recent
photo is viewed by board.
– Date gaps: a large date gap will generally automatically
disqualify someone from selection. Subject to any board
president guidance, a board member may choose to consider a
candidate with a short date gap and otherwise sterling record
but its very subjective. Make every effort to ensure you have
no date gaps. If a gap is unavoidable, consider writing a short
letter to explain -- it probably won’t hurt and might help.
Detailed Look at Records
• Evaluation of individual career and record
–
–
–
–
Getting sense of “who is this officer”?
Will this officer contribute to Command and Staff?
Is school a suitable next assignment for this officer?
Is sending this officer to resident PME a good investment?
• Record Completeness
– Awards: ensure your award citations and (preferably) summary of
action are included in your record. If the citation is missing, it
may raise questions about what awards you really rate or
when/where/for what they were awarded. If the citation and
summary of action is present, it can provide useful insight into
noteworthy accomplishments in a given billet.
– Schools: ensure your completion certificates are in your record
and the master brief sheet reflects competed coursework. For
those attending AWS non-res, both Phase 1 and Phase 2 should
be reflected in your record. Don’t make your briefer spend
excess time trying to prove you’ve completed PME.
Evaluation of Record: Performance
• The single most defining factor in every record is performance
• Performance is evaluated in several ways:
–
–
–
–
RS/RO markings and relative strength
Word picture
Billet accomplishments
RS and RO recommendations
• There really is a bell-curve in performance marks of officers with a small
number who are consistently ranked ahead of peers, the majority who
are occasionally ahead but generally “in the pack”, and a small number
who are often ranked in bottom 1/3 of RS.
• The number of officers who are consistently ranked in the upper 1/3 of
RS profiles is (like a bell curve) actually less than 1/3 of the officer pool,
and consequently, less than the 33% selection rate for ILS.
• Key take away: the hardest work for the board is not identifying
the relatively few “water-walkers”, it’s trying to choose from
among the large number of good Marines that constitute the large
middle of the curve. Middle of the pack marks does not by itself
make someone non-competitive.
RS/RO Markings and Relative Strength
• RS score relative value by fitrep at time of processing and cumulative
• Aggregate of marks from all RS: how often is MRO in top 1/3, middle
1/3, and bottom 1/3 of aggregated RS by grade?
• Comparison of each RO score at time of processing and cumulative
• System aggregates all RO profiles to calculate how many times an
RO marks above MRO, how many marks with MRO, and how many
RO marks below MRO.
• Fitreps from RS with established profile tend to have more value to
board but board should also note cases where one RS or RO who
has written very large number of reports may excessively skew an
individual record.
• Trends (improving/declining) are readily noted. “Welcome aboard”
and “new to rank” average/just below average fitreps are common
and recognized as such.
• Individual marks may not be scrutinized closely unless overall RS
intention/views are unclear.
Evaluation of Record: Career Path
•
•
There was no single “right” career track for any MOS noted. There were
several very different intelligence career paths that competed successfully on
the ILS board.
All ”feeder MOS” were well represented, except 0204
– Marines from each feeder MOS did well in entry-level and subsequent billets.
– Board did not demonstrate any bias for/against a particular discipline.
•
Generally, an intelligence officer career path may be labeled: subject matter
expert in a given discipline, intelligence “generalist”, and/or MAGTF officer.
– Board did not show favor for “generalist” vs discipline specialist career path.
– 0202/MIOC was not a “litmus test” on this board, it will likely be on future boards.
Most officers were 0202, only one non-0202 was among the 13 officers selected.
– Board valued operating forces experience at each grade.
– Looked for mix of command or leadership billets and staff work at varying echelons.
– Personal observation: For junior Majors, there was recognition that there is only so
much opportunity for variety of billets. However, if you consider the previous two
criteria above, the natural outcome in progressing through field grade will generally
be increasing exposure outside of a specific discipline and opportunity to develop as
a MAGTF officer. I would expect it to become progressively more difficult (but not
impossible) to compete with a predominate single-discipline career path or without
extensive MAGTF experience in LtCol board and beyond.
Career Path (Con’t)
• Drill field, OCS: help show leadership development in a career path.
Good marks in this environment are highly regarded, average marks
generally don’t hurt. Suitable option for those who will have MOS time
in operating forces for grade, but not a “must do” to be competitive.
• Joint: Primary question as Captain/junior Major should be “am I
interested in this location/duty, will I develop from this billet in ways
useful for future duties?” From standpoint of screening records for
ILS, joint duty is icing. It may make a good record look more
appealing but it was not a “must have” at this level.
• OIF/OEF time: board specifically seeks to not punish otherwise good
officer who has been placed in assignments resulting in not making it
to OIF/OEF. Board members typically took close look at career path,
overall performance marks etc to assess. Bottom-line though, it’s
“every Marine into the fight”. While some of the MTT/BTT fitreps were
harder to compare to MAGTF OIF/OEF fitreps, they were addressed
by the precept as important combat deployments.
• Homesteading: back-to-back tours in single geographic area,
particularly in conjunction with lack of OIF/OEF deployments is
significant adverse flag.
Notes for RS/RO
• Say what you mean and actively manage your RS/RO
profile
– Too many fitreps reflect strong comments and mediocre markings.
– Board left to guess what RS/RO really means.
• Billet Accomplishments: too many fitreps from every MOS
leaves reader wondering “ok, what did this officer really
accomplish” followed by “how important was that”? Explain
things in simple/plain language, provide metrics where
possible, provide context. Say what was accomplished,
then say how the board should view this accomplishment.
• Command is valuable experience in eyes of any board. If
MRO is an OIC, ensure it its captured and given context.
Information on numbers, actions, and OIC duties that help
board members equate billet to other commands is
valuable.
Notes for RS/RO (Con’t)
• Word picture: while superlatives are still “out”, subjective
comments are “in” for the RS block I, and RO comments.
Comments that hammer home an officer’s performance and overall
future value to the Corps are useful. Comments on ranking such
as “top 1/3 of Majors I have reviewed” or “top 20% of officers I
evaluate” are very helpful comments – if borne out by your profile.
• RS and RO should both make recommendations on future value to
Corps, promotion, schools and future billets
– Given frequency of mismatch between comments and marks, and of
differing views between RS and RO – both should be clear on what
they recommend. Redundancy in recommendations is not a waste.
– If RS or RO is from other service or civilian but has reviewed number
of Marines of this grade, explain that in comments to give more weight.
• Don’t write a fitness report for the MRO, write the fitness
report for a board member who is not an intelligence officer!
Observations on FAO
• Foreign Area Officers were selected to ILS at rate commensurate with
eligible population.
• FAO’s generally have difficulty in competing given impact of extended
time away from operating forces and MOS.
• Key to individual FAO success:
– Demonstrate value to USMC in FAO billet. FAO’s selected for ILS were
largely Arabic specialists who had extensive deployed time in MNF-W
with fitreps reflecting successful operating forces tours as FAO’s.
– Timing is critical to split FAO time between Capt and Major and gain
observed time in MOS in operating forces at both ranks – particularly if not
deployed as FAO.
• Recommendations:
– Maximizing employment of FAO’s in MARFOR vice joint billets, particularly
for initial payback tours.
– Recommend recruitment, selection of FAO based on review of fitreps in
addition to academic criteria. Even if never returning to primary MOS,
previous fitreps with operating forces will carry more weight with future
selection boards than non-observed school and joint fitreps in payback tours.
Closing Comments
• Briefer seeks to give you benefit of doubt and present your best
case for selection but has limited amount of time; help them help
you by ensuring your record is as complete as possible.
– Ask Career Counselor or officer with board experience to help you
review your record and understand how a board will see it.
• There are a variety of successful “career paths” a board may value:
– Be in the operating forces at every rank
– Deployments are important. Combat fitreps with operating forces carry
more weight when evaluating an individual record.
– Whether your career path can be characterized as “intelligence
generalist” or “discipline specialist”, in field grade ranks it becomes
increasingly important to be recognized as a “MAGTF officer”, at home
in a MAGTF staff and in charge of units supporting MAGTF elements.
• Population of 02XX before board was well regarded
– numerous unsolicited favorable comments from board members
– half of 02XX primaries were further designated to represent USMC in
unique foreign and University ILS billets.
• Performance is the bottom-line measure.