Recommendation following grading board

Discussion in 'Reports & Promotion' started by mungeous, Apr 13, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Is it Army policy to only recommend individuals for promotion if they place in the top third of a grading board?

  2. I cannot confirm it but I would understand it.

    Why would you even want to promote someone who is only mediocre or even below average.
    Before anyone else says it, I must be the exception to the rule ;)


    "edited due to funny words appearing at the bottom"
  3. No. Recommendation for promotion is entirely subjective; there is no reason why an officer cannot recommend every subject that he or she writes on (or not recommend for that matter).
  4. Surely it depends on the grade they receive? If they are 'performing above the level expected in all areas' etc? Of course, they won't promote being middle third but it doesn't mean to say that they are rubbish. You might have a lot of stars in that particular troop/platoon. It happened in my unit 2 years ago. One bloke came top of the grading board but a year later he was being outshone by 4 really strong blokes who had been posted in so he slipped down the rankings but he was still good enough for promotion.
  5. Check JSP 757, in one of the annexes there is a really useful table that spells out clearly what each recommendation by 1RO & 2RO actually means. If i could do that clever clicky linky thing i would (i'm sure somebody can help!); but note there is a difference in meaning between the same recommendation given by 1 & 2 RO. I would say, from experience, top of middle 3rd and above get a 'yes', top half of the top 3rd get 'high' and occasionally and 'excep' may be given to the most outstanding individuals.
  6. SC

    Recommendation refers to potential - bizarre as it may sound an individual may have performed above the standard required in all areas, but have limited potential, whereas another may have only performed to the standard required in all areas, by virtue of lack of seniority or experience, but may have much greater potential.
  7. Thanks for the reply

    If there has been a lack of recommendation for purely mechanical reasons can anything be done? Also, is there policy, JSP etc, that states report writing must be subjective?

  8. All report writing is subjective (within the parameters of JSP 757) because its subject to individual interpretation, up and down the reporting chain.
  9. Would you regard the statement "we are only recommending those that board in the top third of the unit" as subjective.
    It strikes me as a purely mechanical decision, a tad unfair and open to redress.
    Is it?
  10. Lower third.
    Limited potential.
    Not recommended for promotion.

    Sorry, couldn't resist!

    Especially as you have summarised it pretty neatly!

  11. Nope.....if that's what the CO has decided then that is a decision he can make. As an example - if you are a Cpl in a unit that has a total of 75 Cpls on strength then I'd suggest that the top third (25 blokes) is probably more than should be recommended.

    Multiply the top third of each unit by the strength of the particular rank range in the Corps and the job for the blokes in Glasgow becomes colossal (not to mention the mind numbing amount of time spent by promotion board members).

    In short, reporting officers need to be robust, yet fair, with grading and recommendations for promotion. In this way those being reported on will have a realistic outlook when the board results are released.

    The answer to you question regarding recalling SJARs is that yes it can be done. The RCMO or his deputy (or clerk) can speak with Glasgow and get the report in question released to the unit for amendment. However, in your case there is absolutely no point is going through this rigmarole in order to try and get a recommendation for promotion if you are middle or lower third.
  12. Is this the table Danny?

    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 1
  13. Upper third.
    Exceptional potential.
    Strongly recommended for promotion.


  14. You make a very good point about the poor buggers who trek up to Glasgow iot spend hours cooped up in a small room reading and grading OJARs and SJARs. It isn't an easy task and it is made much worse by Reporting Officers who fail to grade clearly in the pen picture.

  15. I can see the sense in doing that, especially with the current workload on those in Glasgow. I don't have any sympathy for those 'poor buggers' going up to Glasgow to sit on the boards as it is a highly sought after privilege in my experience and can only assist you in your job.
    There appears to have been either a complete lack of transparency in the recommendation process or a snap decision has been made locally.
    Either way, what can be done?