Issue Paper #34 Promotion Version 3 The Active-Duty Officer Promotion and Command Selection Processes Considerations for Race/Ethnicity and Gender MLDC Research Areas 1 Definition of Diversity Abstract gender. The MLDC in turn requested that the military Services and the Coast Guard Legal Implications Two MLDC charter tasks directed the com- describe their promotion and command selec- Outreach & Recruiting missioners to evaluate whether the officer tion processes so that the MLDC could study promotion and command selection systems whether certain features of these systems Leadership & Training provide fair opportunities to both men and might affect the selection of officers based on Branching & Assignments women and members of all race/ethnicity their race/ethnicity or gender. A summary of groups. Using Service briefings and other the presentations from the fall 2009 and win- Promotion information provided to the MLDC, this ter 2010 MLDC meetings, along with relevant Retention Issue Paper (IP) describes key features of material provided by the Services after the meetings, is presented.2 Implementation & the promotion and command selection proc- Accountability esses and discusses how they may accentu- There are three main ways in which ate or mitigate the potential for bias in the promotion and command opportunities may Metrics selection of officers for promotion or com- be unfair. First, a lack of fairness may develop National Guard & Reserve mand. Overall, the promotion and command before officers are actually evaluated for selection board processes include a number promotion or command selection; this occurs of features that attempt to impart fairness if race/ethnicity or gender affects the assign- and to mitigate the impact of bias on the ment of officers to key positions that enhance part of an individual board member. For the chances for promotion or command selec- example, selections are made not by a single tion. Second, a lack of fairness occurs if individual but by multi-member boards that commanding officers make race/ethnicity or are, to the extent possible, demographically gender a factor when evaluating subordinate representative of the pool of candidates. officers. Third, a lack of fairness may occur Furthermore, the guidance to these boards— during the actual promotion or command which can be in the form of precepts, in- selection process if race/ethnicity or gender is structions, or actual laws—requires that taken into consideration for selection. This selections be made based on the needs of issue paper (IP) considers the third concern, This issue paper aims to aid in 3 the Services and the best and fully qualified which we discuss for active-duty officers. the deliberations of the MLDC. It does not contain the recommen- criterion, without regard to race, ethnicity or dations of the MLDC. gender. No matter how carefully designed, Background however, the board processes cannot ad- The process of selecting officers for promo- dress the impact of unfairness that occurs tion is an integral part of the up-or-out feature before they begin. Specifically, the competi- of the military personnel system. Ultimately, tiveness of an officer’s record depends on officers who continue to be promoted become Military Leadership Diversity his or her career and assignment history and the senior military leadership. The number of Commission on supervisors’ assessments of his or her promotions allowed in a given year is based 1851 South Bell Street performance in each position. on the needs of the Services and on the officer Arlington, VA 22202 endstrength allowances in Title X of the (703) 602-0818 he MLDC has been directed to United States Code (10 U.S.C.). Typically, make recommendations on two there are more officers eligible for promotion charter tasks concerning the than can be selected, so selection depends critically on identifying the ―best and fully fairness of officer promotion and 4 Tcommand selection opportunities, particu- qualified‖ officers. The process of selecting larly with regard to race/ethnicity and officers for command is similar to that used http://mldc.whs.mil/ for making promotions. To achieve the highest possible level theless, policy set forth by the Secretary of the Air Force of performance, the Services must select the best fully quali- holds that the board composition should be similar to the fied officers eligible for command. For officers, selection for race/ethnicity and gender mix of the pool of eligible officers, command is a key career milestone that is critical for advance- and Army and Marine Corps guidance calls for ethnic and ment to the highest ranks. The integrity of the selection proc- gender representation on boards to the extent that the officer esses for both promotion and command must be maintained population allows. The Coast Guard and Navy briefings to by selecting the best fully qualified officers by evaluating the MLDC did not indicate that the racial/ethnic and gender training, experience, and performance and not such criteria as mix of their statutory boards was specifically considered, race/ethnicity or gender. although other Navy sources suggest that the racial/ethnic For the purposes of this IP, the promotion and command and gender mix of the board is a concern (Navy Personnel selection processes comprise the time between convening the Command, Bureau of Naval Personnel, 2010). board and selecting officers for promotion or command, The Services do not have to follow the exact statutory respectively. Promotion boards are statutory selection boards board composition direction in 10 U.S.C. when convening a because the rules governing them are found in 10 U.S.C.5 command selection board. Nevertheless, the seniority and Such features as the basic composition of statutory selection occupational specialty of the officers on the command selec- boards are established by 10 U.S.C., and a Department of tion board are key considerations. In addition, the briefings Defense Instruction (DoDI) that accompanies the law provides by the Services suggest that the racial/ethnic and gender mix guidelines on preparing instructions to the boards. However, of command selection boards is also a consideration. each Service can refine the promotion board composition and is allowed to draft the actual instructions to promotion boards Precept Language to the Board (within the 10 U.S.C. guidelines).6 DoDI 1320.14 grants authority to the Secretaries of the Command selection boards are administrative selection military departments to issue written instructions to boards and are governed by internal Service authority selection boards and gives guidance on what those written (typically, the Service personnel chiefs) rather than by federal instructions may include. In particular, Services may include law. Nevertheless, many features of the command selection ―guidelines to ensure the consideration of all eligible officers board process closely follow the statutory promotion board without prejudice or partiality‖ (U.S. Department of Defense, guidelines. For brevity, this IP describes the promotion board 1996, p. 6). processes that are generally for paygrades O-4 to O-6. At the October 2009 MLDC meeting, Department of Defense (DoD) and Service legal representatives briefed the Composition of the Promotion Board MLDC on providing equal opportunity instruction to selec- The basic composition of promotion boards is defined in 10 tion boards. Equal opportunity guidance from the Services U.S.C. Sec. 612. All promotion boards must consist of five or to their selection boards has been problematic in the past and more officers on the active-duty list who must be serving in a has resulted in costly legal rulings against some of the Ser- grade higher than the grade of the officers under considera- vices. The Army and the Air Force representatives briefly tion.7 Each board member must be serving in grade O-4 or reviewed three court cases from the past two decades in higher, and each board must include at least one officer from which the military Service in question was found to have the competitive category of officers to be considered for instructed selection boards in ways considered to be biased promotion. There are also provisions for reserve and joint against particular racial/ethnic or gender groups.8 representation. Officers may not sit on consecutive boards. The military Services’ current practices regarding In addition, most Services maintain that the race/ethnicity providing equal opportunity instructions to promotion and gender mix of the promotion board members should boards vary slightly, although all adhere to DoDI 1320.14. be a consideration. The Service briefings presented at the fall Some of the Services expand on the DoD guidelines. For 2009 meetings do not explicitly say why this is a considera- example, Department of the Navy guidance allows Navy tion, but there may be an underlying assumption that a and Marine Corps promotion board precepts to include the demographically diverse board is more likely to evaluate a following language: ―[T]o determine those officers who are demographically diverse candidate pool fairly than is a best and fully qualified, you must ensure that officers are not homogeneous board. disadvantaged because of their race, religious preference, Constructing a demographically representative promotion ethnicity, gender, or national origin‖ (U.S. Department of the board can be a challenge, particularly for the smaller Services. Navy, SECNAVINST 5350.16A). The Army instructs its Several issue papers show that the officer corps is majority boards that they may take into consideration the fact that white and male and that the senior officer corps is proportion- there has been past institutional discrimination but that they ally more white and male than the junior officer corps may not consider or grant any preferences based on past (Military Leadership Diversity Commission, 2010b). Never- discrimination. The Air Force brief indicated that the Air Force does not expand on DoDI 1320.14 in instructing its boards on equal opportunity matters.