ARMY PROPONENT NOTES--March 1997
by MAJ Mac Heston
With the release of each selection board's results, rumors fly around the FAO community about how badly
FAOs once again did in relation to the rest of the Army. As is often the case, many of these rumors are exactly that:
rumors, based on misunderstanding and filled with partial truths. It is a fact FAO did indeed do worse than the
Army average to O-6 in the last promotion board. But, there is considerably more to the FAO selection story than
just the results of one board.
It is time we start setting the record straight on how FAOs really fare on Army selection boards. Up to this
point, we in the FAO Proponent have concentrated our efforts on educating the Army's senior leadership about
FAOs and too often have not put this same word out to the FAO community. This has left FAOs in the field
without the facts on how they are doing. Familiarity with the complete facts is very important, especially when we
are talking with our peers in other career specialties who tend to look at the same statistics differently than we do.
Let me start out by addressing selection rates to major and lieutenant colonel. In both these cases, FAOs have
virtually always been selected for promotion above the Army average. FAOs are consistently selected for
promotion to major at least 5% above the Army average and for lieutenant colonel about 3% or better above their
peers. These statistics are important for two reasons. First, the selection rate to major is based solely on the
officer's basic branch performance, specifically in company command, and is a key indicator of the quality of
officers we access into the FAO program. Second, times have changed and so has the measure of success in a
smaller Army. In today's Army, any officer who attains the rank of lieutenant colonel is considered to have had a
successful career. In fact, many successful officers today will find themselves retiring as majors. This is new and a
bitter pill to swallow for most of us who remember the big Army we joined way back when, but it is a fact
nonetheless.
Does this mean that all is well and rosy in FAO land? No, we have some significant problems, but it is meant
to show that in relationship to the rest of the Army, FAOs do well through the rank of lieutenant colonel.
Where the system breaks down for FAOs is in our selection rates for schools, battalion command and, most
importantly, selection to colonel. The critical breakdown for FAOs, and an Army-wide issue being studied by the
OPMS XXI Task Force, is the selection rate for resident Command and General Staff College (CGSC). The same
groups of FAOs that have consistently been selected for promotion to major at least 5% above the Army average,
now finds themselves being selected for resident CGSC 10%, or more, below the Army average. We in the
proponent are very concerned about the FAO CGSC selection rate, especially since it has gotten worse since the
beginning of the drawdown. YG 82 FAOs, the most recent group to have completed all four board looks, was
selected for resident CGSC a record 17.1% below their peers.
Why is the FAO Proponent so concerned about our selection rate for resident CGSC? Because under the
current OPMS, selection/non-selection for resident CGSC has a significant impact on an officer's chances of
eventually making O-6. Under our current system, non-resident CGSC graduates are at an increased disadvantage
in competing for the critical branch qualifying jobs of battalion XO and S3. These jobs are critical for future
promotion. However, despite the fact that most FAOs are non-resident CGSC graduates, a review of FAO ORBs
shows the majority are able to fight their way back to these key positions and therefore get selected to lieutenant
colonel above the Army average. Unfortunately, less than 10% of O-5 level command selectees are non-resident
CGSC graduates and without battalion level command, resident Senior Service College (SSC) selection is almost
out of the question. Without battalion evel command and resident SSC, an officer's prospect of selection for
promotion to colonel is clearly limited under the current system and this manifests itself in the FAO selection rate to
O-6. In the last decade, FAOs have averaged about 5% below the rest of the Army in selection to colonel.
If I said earlier that the mark of a successful career in today's Army was making lieutenant colonel, then why
are we so very concerned about the selection rate of FAOs to colonel? The answer lies in the top-heavy structure of
FAO authorizations and where the payoff to the Army is. Roughly 22% of FAO authorizations are at the rank of
colonel. The vast majority of these positions are politically quite sensitive with these FAOs working directly for
ambassadors, regional CINCs and other senior military leaders. Of the 163 authorized FAO O-6 positions, 83% are
in the Joint arena and almost all are in key policy making positions.
OK, so what does all this mean? It means that in the big Army picture, the average FAO ends up being a
successful officer, frequently doing better than his or her peers. On the other hand, because of our top-heavy
requirement structure, it also means many FAOs have an expectation of success that is above that of the institutional
Army. Over the years, this had lead to a belief among many FAOs that the system is stacked against them and that
we FAOs don't do as well as the rest of the Army at every level. Individuals hear or think they have numbers to
back up their beliefs, and the memos, faxes and e-mails start flying around the Army about how badly FAOs have
been treated once again. Too often, we end up being our own worst enemy in promoting these beliefs to the rest of
the Army and the other Services. All this hurts the work we here in the proponent have been doing.
We have spent the last several years briefing and meeting with senior leaders throughout the Army and have
made significant inroads on many of our problem areas. Along the way, we have built our case and credibility by
dealing in facts and playing the honest broker. So, next time you have a question about how FAOs are faring, or
hear one of these FAO rumors, take the time to get the facts. Incomplete information hurts the entire FAO
community. If you have a question, call the FAO Proponent office. We have detailed statistics and have studied the
issues effecting FAOs from every conceivable angle. We want everyone to know exactly what the real facts are
because you as an educated, informed consumer can then better represent the FAO case to the rest of the Army.
1997,
Foreign Area Officer Association
Springfield, Virginia
Maintained by LTC Steve
Gotowicki.
http://www.faoa.org