ils 08-09 board observations poc: ltcol lindemann (703) 693-1761 [email protected]
TRANSCRIPT
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 StatsEligible Primary % of Eligible Alternate % of Eligible
MOS Population Selects Population Selects Population
0180 20 3 15% 2 10%02XX 35 8 23% 5 14%0302 113 30 27% 14 12%0402 68 13 19% 6 9%0602 31 9 29% 4 13%0802 32 11 34% 5 16%1302 16 5 31% 2 13%1802 6 2 33% 1 17%1803 5 2 40% 2 40%3002 34 3 9% 1 3%3404 13 2 15% 2 15%4302 9 2 22% 1 11%4402 29 3 10% 1 3%5803 7 2 29% 1 14%6002 12 2 17% 1 8%6602 8 2 25% 1 13%7202 27 6 22% 4 15%
FW Pilot 89 17 19% 10 11%NFO 13 6 46% 0 0%
756X R/W 106 26 25% 11 10%8059 3 1 33% 0 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.