INFORMATION PAPER

2019 CMF 11 Sergeant First Class Selection Board

ATSH-IP
1 July 2020
MSG Vickery/SFC Roberson

1. Purpose: To provide information related to the FY19 Career Management Field

(CMF) 11 Sergeant First Class (SFC) selection list.

2. The FY19 SFC Promotion Selection Board convened on 5 June 2019 to consider
eligible Soldiers for promotion to Sergeant First Class. The board reviewed the
records of 2572 Infantry Staff Sergeants (SSGs). The Army established the
following eligibility criteria:

a. Primary Zone: Date of Rank (DOR) of 1 June 2016 and earlier.

b. Secondary Zone: DOR is 2 June 2016 thru 6 June 2017.

c. Advanced Leaders Course (ALC) and Structured Self Development Level

3 (SSD-3) completion were firm eligibility requirements for consideration.

3. Analysis of DA 600-25 Selection Criteria:

a. MOS 11B: An exceptional SSG that is determined to be best qualified for

promotion will have at least 24 months’ rated time in an authorized leadership position;
will have earned the EIB; will have scored at least 270 on the Army Physical Fitness
Test (APFT); will have completed some college classes; will have graduated from at
least five MOS-enhancing courses; will have graduated from either Bradley Master
Gunner Course, Battle Staff NCO Course, or the Ranger Course; and will have served
in both priority Operational Force and priority Generating Force assignments.
Selected
Population
Served a minimum of 24 months in authorized leadership positions
(Only 50.4% met the proponent goal of 24 months as a Rifle Squad 57.5%
Leader)
Scored 270 or higher on the APFT 62.1%
Earned the EIB 79.9%
Graduate from five MOS-enhancing Courses 91.9%
Master Gunner, Battle Staff, or Ranger Course Graduate
(Only 0.01% of eligible population possessed one or more of these 22.3%
qualifications.)
Served in both Operating and Generating Force 59.7%
Table 1: MOS 11B DA Pam 600-25 “Exceptional” Definition Comparison

b. MOS 11C: An exceptional SSG who is determined to be best qualified for

ATSH-IP
INFORMATION PAPER: 2019 CMF 11 Sergeant First Class Selection Board
promotion will have at least 24 months’ rated time in an authorized leadership position;
will have earned the EIB; will have scored at least 270 on the APFT; will have completed
some college classes; will have graduated from at least five MOS-enhancing courses;
will have graduated from the Infantry Mortar Leader Course; will have graduated from
either Battle Staff NCO Course, or the Ranger School; and will have served in both
priority Operating Force and priority Generating Force assignments.
Selected
Population
Served a minimum of 24 months in authorized leadership
positions
81.8%
(Only 74.2% met the proponent goal of 24 months in a SSG level
Squad Leader/ Section Leader positions)
Earned the EIB 63.6%
Scored 270 or higher on the APFT 53.0%
Graduate from five MOS-enhancing Courses 92.4%
IMLC Graduate 98.4%
Battle Staff, or IMLC, or Ranger Course Graduate 98.4%
Served in both Operating and Generating Force 34.78%
Table 2: MOS 11C DA Pam 600-25 “Exceptional” Definition Comparison

4. Selection Rates: Information for this analysis came from the Enlisted Distribution
and Assignment System (EDAS) and individual Soldier Records Brief (SRB)
obtained via eMILPO.
a. CMF 11 had an overall selection rate of 31.8% (818/2572). MOS 11C
SSGs had a selection rate of 39.7% (66/166) and MOS 11B had a selection rate of
31.2% (752/2406). The rate of both MOS 11B and the CMF selection rate was
significantly lower than the Army’s overall selection rate of 44.9%.1
50% 44.9%
40% 39.7%
31.8% 31.2%
30%
20%
10%
0%
CMF 11 by MOS
Army CMF 11 MOS 11B MOS 11C

TABLE 3: CMF 11 by MOS

1
For the purpose of this analysis, the term “significant” indicates that there is a statistical difference in
selection rates between the compared populations. Given the varying population density of the individual
segments analyzed, raw percentages are at times misleading. The level of significance was set at 0.1 for
this analysis. Unless otherwise indicated the base population (mean) for comparison highlighted in blue on
each table. Data elements highlighted in red had statistically lower rates and those in green had
statistically higher rates.
2
ATSH-IP
INFORMATION PAPER: 2019 CMF 11 Sergeant First Class Selection Board
b. Primary versus Secondary Zone Selections: There was no significant differences
within CMF11 between the selection rates in the Primary and Secondary Zones of
Consideration. This reverses a recent trend of Infantry selection panels promoting a
greater percentage from the secondary zone.
Primary Zone Secondary Zone
Eligible Selected Rate Eligible Selected Rate
CMF 11
1643 491 29.8% 860 322 37.4%
813/2503 (32.4%)
MOS 11B
1553 458 29.4% 790 289 36.5%
747/2343 (31.8%)
MOS 11C
90 33 36.6% 70 33 47.1%
66/160 (41.2%)
TABLE 4: Primary versus Secondary by MOS

c. Selection Rates of Operations Division (OD) CMFs: The following table is for
general information only. Comparison between CMFs is impractical due to maturity of
CMF, senior NCO pyramids, and the varying impact of the recent Grade Plate Analysis
and pending force structure changes.
MOS CONSIDERED SELECTED RATE
Operation Division NA 6172 2423 39.2%
CMF 11 Total NA 2572 818 31.8%
11B 2406 752 31.2%
Infantry
11C 166 66 39.7%
PSYOP 37 230 139 60.4%
Air Defense 14 271 136 50.1%
Aviation 15 1056 301 28.5%
Special Forces 18 534 418 78.2%
Armor 19 627 289 46.0%
Artillery 13 882 322 36.5%
TABLE 5: Operations Division CMFs

d. Operating Force versus Generating Force: There was no significant

difference in the selection rates of MOS 11B or 11C NCOs between the Operating
and Generating Forces.
CONSIDERED SELECTED RATE
MOS 11B 2343 747 29.8%
OPERATING FORCE 839 294 35.0%
GENERATING FORCE 1504 453 30.1%
MOS 11C 160 66 41.2%
OPERATING FORCE 75 37 49.3%

3
ATSH-IP
INFORMATION PAPER: 2019 CMF 11 Sergeant First Class Selection Board
GENERATING FORCE 85 29 34.1%
TABLE 6: Operating /Generating Force Comparison

e. Operational Force Analysis:

i. MOS 11B NCOs assigned to Special Operations Forces (SOF) (i.e. 75th
Ranger Regiment) continue to have a significantly higher selection rate than their
General Purpose Force (GPF) counterparts.

CONSIDERED SELECTED
MOS RATE
POPULATION POPULATION
11B 839 294 35.0%
Operating Force
11C 75 37 49.3%
11B 43 33 76.7%
75th Ranger
11C 6 6 100.0%
11B 124 39 31.4%
IBCT (ABN)
11C 11 6 54.5%
11B 126 43 34.1%
SBCT
11C 20 8 40.0%
11B 262 75 28.6%
IBCT
11C 21 11 52.3%
11B 144 26 18.0%
ABCT
11C 14 5 35.7%
11B 24 13 54.1 %
Special Forces (SWC)
11C 2 1 50%
11B 116 65 56%
SFAB
11C 1 0 0%
TABLE 7: Selection Rates by BCT/Separate Brigades

f. Generating Force Analysis:

i. There was no significant difference between MOS 11C and 11B NCOs
assigned to the Generating Force.

ii. MOS 11B Soldiers assigned to 1st Army and US Army Recruiting
Command had significant lower selection rates compared to their peers.

iii. MOS 11B/C NCOs assigned as Drill Sergeants had significantly higher
selection rates.

4
ATSH-IP
INFORMATION PAPER: 2019 CMF 11 Sergeant First Class Selection Board
CONSIDERED SELECTED
MOS RATE
POPULATION POPULATION
11B 1504 453 30.1%
Generating Force
11C 85 29 34.1%
11B 74 14 18.9%
Infantry School
11C 2 1 50.0
11B 62 32 51.6%
Ranger Training Brigade
11C 1 1 100%
11B 79 20 25.3%
1ST Army (AC/RC)
11C 3 16.6%
11B 34 10 29.4%
316TH Cavalry Regiment
11C 1 0 0.0%
11B 226 95 42.0%
Drill Sergeant (FBGA)
11C 8 4 50.0%
11B 123 43 34.9%
Drill Sergeant (FJSC)
11C 2 0 0.0%
11B 51 33 64.7%
Drill Sergeant (FLMO)
11C 1 1 100%
11B 40 19 47.5%
Drill Sergeant (FSOK)
11C 0 0 0.0%
11B 362 81 22.3%
Recruiting
11C 25 9 36.0%
11B 35 0 0.0%
NCOA Cadre
11C 3 0 0.0%
11B 418 106 25.3%
Other Generating Force Units
11C 24 10 41.6%
TABLE 8: Generating Force by Brigade or Higher Unit
iv. MOS 11B Soldiers assigned to the ARTB had significantly higher selection
rates. The higher selection rate is tied to Ranger qualified Ranger Instructors. Similar
to the Operational Force, an analysis of non-Ranger qualified NCOs revealed no
difference in selection rates between Generating Force units.

5
ATSH-IP
INFORMATION PAPER: 2019 CMF 11 Sergeant First Class Selection Board
g. Skill Qualification Identifiers (SQI) Analysis:

i. Ranger qualified NCOs have higher selection rates than their non-Ranger
peers. Infantry Promotion Panels continue to recognize Ranger qualified NCOs as
having greater potential for service at higher grades. Although performance
remains a requirement, it is clear that Ranger qualified NCOs are significantly more
competitive than a non-Ranger qualified NCO. IAW DA PAM 600-25, “An
exceptional SSG that is determined to be best qualified for promotion will have
graduated from either Bradley Master Gunner Course, Battle Staff NCO Course, or
the Ranger Course”. Commanders and CSMs at the BCT level should provide
qualified Infantry NCOs the opportunity to attend the Ranger Course. The Army
allocates annually, approximately 100 seats per Ranger Class for Enlisted
Soldiers. The majority of these seats go unfilled.

ii. Former and current MOS 11B Recruiters continue to have significantly
lower selection rates. NCOs selected by the Army to serve as Recruiters must
meet stringent moral and aptitude requirements that the majority of their peers do
not possess. The Army continues to increase the demands on the Infantry to fill
requirements in USAREC that are proportionally greater than the CMFs overall
portion of the force structure and relies on the Infantry to make up for shortages of
other CMFs exceeding TDA authorizations.

iii. Infantry NCOs who are not qualified for any SQI remain less competitive
and continue to have significantly lower selection rates.
MOS CONSIDERED SELECTED RATE
11B 2343 747 29.8%
CMF Selection Rates
11C 160 66 41.2%
11B 155 109 70.3%
V Ranger-Parachutist
11C 8 8 100%
11B 9 7 77.7%
G Ranger
11C 1 1 100%
11B 558 231 41.3%
X Drill Sergeant
11C 17 8 47.0%
11B 650 151 23.2%
4 Non-Career Recruiter
11C 28 11 39.2%
11B 926 328 35.4%
8 Instructor
11C 32 14 43.3%
11B 768 229 29.8%
P Parachutist (Non-SQI U OR V)
11C 39 22 56.4%
11B 401 105 26.1%
O No Identifier
11C 48 17 35.4%
TABLE 9: Skill Qualification Identifiers (SQI)
h. Additional Skill Identifier (ASI) Analysis:
6
ATSH-IP
INFORMATION PAPER: 2019 CMF 11 Sergeant First Class Selection Board
i. MOS 11B Bradley Fighting Vehicle Master Gunners have significantly higher
selection rates than their peers. Although still only half the rate of Ranger
selections, this is a positive continuing trend. As previously noted, IAW DA
PAM 600-25, “An exceptional SSG that is determined to be best qualified for
promotion will have graduated from either Bradley Master Gunner Course,
Battle Staff NCO Course, or the Ranger Course”.

ii. IMLC (ASI “B1”) was essentially “required” for promotion (98.4% of selectees
versus 95% of eligible).

iii. Although Pathfinder, Air Assault, and Jump Master qualified Soldiers had
higher rate, the majority of those selected were also Ranger qualified. An
analysis of non-Ranger, Pathfinder did not reveal a significant promotion
rate.

iv. NCOs that had not attended any ASI-producing course had significantly
lower selection rates. NCOs selected without an ASI possessed multiple
SQIs or had exceptionally large quantities of MTO&E leadership time.

v. As noted with regards to the Ranger Course, IBCT Commanders and

Command Sergeants Major, send a greater number of Infantry NCOs and
Soldiers to ASI producing courses in spite of the fact that requirements for
many ASIs (e.g. Sniper, IMLC, etc.) do not differ significantly across BCTs.

MOS CONSIDERED SELECTED RATE

11B 2343 747 31.8%

CMF Selection Rates
11C 160 66 41.2%
11B 771 300 38.9%
2B Air Assault
11C 54 28 51.8%
11B 194 93 47.9%
5W Jumpmaster
11C 15 13 86.6%
11B 137 64 46.7%
F7 Pathfinder
11C 9 6 66.6%
11B 101 26 25.7%
2S Battle Staff OPS NCO
11C 5 2 40.0%
J3 BFV SYS Master Gunner 11B 49 18 36.7%
B4 Sniper 11B 126 38 30.1%
B1 IMLC 11C 149 65 43.6%
11B 745 175 23.4%
No ASI
11C 5 0 0%
TABLE 10: Additional Skill Identifiers (ASI)

7
ATSH-IP
INFORMATION PAPER: 2019 CMF 11 Sergeant First Class Selection Board
i. Expert and Combat Infantryman Badge(s) Analysis:

i. Approximately 78.2% of Infantry NCOs considered by this board were

recipients of the CIB. It was not significant factor in selection.

ii. CMF 11 Soldiers who earned the EIB have significantly higher section rates
than those who have failed to earn the award. Units that do not conduct the
EIB test annually or make efforts to send their Infantry Soldiers to alternate
testing locations, place their Soldiers at a disadvantage for promotion.
100%
86.1%
80% 77.7% 78.0% 77.2% 79.9%
63%
60%
40% 37.3% 34%
20%
0%
CIB EIB
11B Selects 11B Non-Selects 11C Selects 11C Non Selects
Table 11: CIB / EIB Data

j. Service and Key Assignment Data:

i. Time in Grade / Service Data:

ii. MOS 11B Soldiers selected had less time in service and time in grade than
the non-selects. This is due to the influence the selection rates of NCOs
serving in the 75th Ranger Regiment have on the CMF as a whole an
Infantryman’s best chances for selection remain in the secondary zone or
their first look in the primary zone. CMF 11 Soldiers see significantly lower
selection rates as they drop farther into the primary zone.
14
12.4
12 11.5
10.3 10.2
10
8.4
8
6
4 3.9 3.9 4.2
2
0
TIG (In Years) TIS (In Years)
11B Selects 11B Non-Selects 11C Selects 11C Non Selects

8
ATSH-IP
INFORMATION PAPER: 2019 CMF 11 Sergeant First Class Selection Board
Table 12: Time in Grade (TIG) / Time in Service (TIS)

k. Key Developmental and Combat Service Data:

i. Assignment in the key operational assignments for MOS 11B (Rifle

Squad Leader) remain above the proponent recommended threshold (24
months).

ii. Service during Combat Operations was not a key indicator for
selection. Combat Service remains similar between the select and non-select
populations as well as between MOS’s. The Average Infantry SSG has spent
20.4% of his career in a combat deployed status. Combat Service time for
both MOS 11B and 11C dropped compared to FY16 reflecting a reduction in
combat deployments across the force.

40
29.4 24.3 26.4 24.5
20 18.2 16.3 20.1 18.6
0
Key Operational Assignment (In Combat Service (In Months)
Months)
11B Selects 11B Non-Selects 11C Selects 11C Non Selects

Table 13: Key Operational Assignments / Combat Service Data

l. APFT Data: The average APFT score for the MOS 11B select population was
approximately 36 points higher than the non-selects. In MOS 11C the difference was
less, (~25 points) and the average scores were the same as MOS 11B.

Average APFT 270 or higher 300

11B Selects 269 52.0% 10.0%
11B Non-Selects 233 32.3% 3.5%
11C Selects 269 33.3% 16.6%
11C Non-Selects 244 12.5% .02%
Table 14: APFT Data

m. Civilian Education: Civilian education did not appear to be a factor in selection.

9
 ATSH-IP
INFORMATION PAPER: 2019 CMF 11 Sergeant First Class Selection Board
100% 92% 91%
88% 88%
80%
40%
30%
20%
10% 7% 8% 6% 3% 5% 4% 5%
2%
0%
Associates Degree Bachelor’s Degree No College
11B Selects 11B Non-Selects 11C Selects 11C Non Selects

Table 15: Civilian Education

5. Analysis of NCOER/DA1059 Data: Infantry Branch collected data on several categories

of performance as indicated on the DA Form 2166-9-2 (NCO Evaluation Report) and DA
Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report). They reviewed only those
NCOERs on the DA Form 2166-9-2 and not the DA Form 2166-8. They looked at the
last three NCOERs and the last DA Form 1059 and pulled data only from those
documents. The categories analyzed were Rater Overall Performance, Senior Rater
Overall Potential (including the Comments) and Performance Summary.
a. Rater Data: Table 16 shows the overall performance rating as indicated
by the Rater on the DA Form 2166-9-2. This data indicates that those who simply
met the standard or did not meet the standard were selected at a very low rate and
that the majority of those who far exceeded the standard were among the selected
population.
Far Exceeded Exceeded Did Not Meet
Met Standard
Standard Standard Standard
CMF11 Select 36% 55% 8% 0%
CMF11 Non
13% 56% 31% 1%
Select
Table 16: Rater Overall Performance

10
ATSH-IP
INFORMATION PAPER: 2019 CMF 11 Sergeant First Class Selection Board
b. Senior Rater Data: Table 17 shows the overall potential rating as indicated by
the Senior Rater on the DA Form 2166-9-2. This data is reinforced by the data on Table
16 and shows very similar trends. That is to say that those Soldiers who were simply
qualified were selected at very low rates and the majority of those who were most
qualified were among the selected population.
Highly
Most Qualified Qualified Not Qualified
Qualified
CMF11 Select 26% 68% 6% 0%
CMF11 Non
8% 64% 27% 1%
Select
Table 17: Senior Rater Overall Potential

c. Senior Rater Scoring Data: Table 18 shows a breakdown of Senior Rater

narrative comments as scored IAW the rubric example on Table 17. The rubric example
was used to measure the strength of the Senior Rater narratives.
Very Strong Strong Average Weak
CMF11 Select
42% 34% 20% 4%
CMF11 Non
13% 32% 39% 15%
Select
Table 18: NCOER Senior Rater Scoring Data (See NCOER Scoring Rubric below)

11
ATSH-IP
INFORMATION PAPER: 2017 CMF 11 Sergeant First Class Selection Board

Table 19: NCOER Scoring Rubric Example

d. DA 1059 Performance Summary: Table 20 simply shows the

performance summary given to a Soldier as indicated on the DA Form 1059.
The only 1059’s that were reviewed was the Soldiers ALC record. If the Soldier
already attended MSLC then that 1059 was reviewed instead of ALC.

Exceeded Achieved Marginally No 1059 for

Course Course Achieved Last ALC or
Standards Standards Standards MSLC
CMF11 Select 27% 71% 1% 1%

CMF11 Non
12% 85% 1% 1%
Select
Table 20: NCOES Performance Summary

e. Selected Soldier Senior Rater Data Comparison: Table 21 was

included to show a visual comparison between 11B Non-Ranger/Non-Master
Gunners, Rangers, Master Gunners, and 11C’s. The table indicates a relatively
consistent rate of selection between the four groups based on Senior Rater
potential.
12
ATSH-IP
INFORMATION PAPER: 2017 CMF 11 Sergeant First Class Selection Board

Selected Soldier Senior Rater Comparison

90% 82%
80%
67% 68% 69%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30% 26% 26% 24%
18%
20%
10% 7% 6% 7%
0%
0%
Most Qualified Highly Qualified Qualified
11B Non Rgr/MG Ranger Master Gunner 11C

Table 21: Selected Soldier Senior Rater Comparison

f. Performance and Potential Data Summary: The above data shows that that
Soldiers who received NCOERs indicating their performance far exceeded the
standard and whose potential was seen as most qualified were significantly more
likely to be selected than those who simply met the standard and were qualified.
Additionally, Senior Rater narratives that were scored as being very strong made up
nearly half of the NCOERs reviewed from the selected population. While exceeding
the standard on NCOES performance was more than double in the selected
population, marginal or missing 1059’s were roughly the same in both populations.
As an additional note, nearly 1% of the non-selected population contained an
NCOER with derogatory information in it.

6. DA Photo: Infantry Branch reviewed and categorized DA Photos from both the
selected and non-selected population. They looked at three categories during the
photograph review; when the photo was taken, the quality/standard of the photo,
and the appearance of the Soldier (i.e. did the Soldier give an overweight
appearance). The rubric in Table 22 is the example rubric used to measure the
quality of the DA Photo.

13
ATSH-IP
INFORMATION PAPER: 2017 CMF 11 Sergeant First Class Selection Board

DA Photo
Exceeds Standards:
• Current rank
• Photo within 1 year
• No questions or mistakes
• Army poster worthy
Meets Standards:
• Current rank
• Photo within 5 years
• Questions about uniform or height
and weight
Below Standard:
• Rank not current
• Photo greater than 5 years
• Glaring, obvious errors IAW DA
Pam 670-1

Table 22: DA Photo Quality

a. Photo Quality Data: Table 23 shows the data collected on the

quality/standard of the DA Photo. The data shows a similar trend line as the
NCOER which is that the selected population had a significantly higher number
of photos that were determined to exceed the standard and a significantly lower
number of photos that were considered to be below the standard. Additionally,
89% of the selected population had a DA Photo taken within 12 months prior to
the promotion board compared to just 55% of the nonselected population.
Although subjective, roughly 15% of the non-selected population’s photos were
determined to have presented an overweight appearance compared to 7% of
the selected population.
Exceeded Below
Meet Standard No Photo
Standard Standard
CMF11 Select 28% 63% 9% 0%

CMF11 Non
7% 61% 15% 17%
Select
Table 23: DA Photo Standards Review

7. Non-Select Characteristics: These characteristics remain constant across FYs and

all Infantry CMF Senior Promotion Boards:

a. Lack of rated time in key proponent directed positions (i.e. Rifle

Squad Leader/Section Leader/Mortar Section/Squad Leader) compared to their
peers. The proponent recommends a minimum of 24 months in these positions
14
ATSH-IP
INFORMATION PAPER: 2017 CMF 11 Sergeant First Class Selection Board

however, promotion boards continue to select individuals who have significantly

more.

b. Low APFT score

c. DA Photo Missing or inaccurate

d. Attendance at few Military Training Courses

e. Possession of few or no SQIs / ASIs

f. NCOERs contain unsupported comments: Excellent and Needs

Improvement1

g. NCOERs contain inconsistent rater/ senior rater assessment of

performance and potential

h. Missing NCOER’s

i. Incomplete, Inaccurate, or Missing ERB Data

j. Significant Height and Weight fluctuations

8. POCs: Please direct all inquiries to:

a. Commandant, U.S. Army Infantry School, ATTN ATSH-IP (Mr. Fox), 1

Karker Street, Fort Benning, GA 31905, or Commercial (706) 545-8791,
Defense Switched Network: 835-8791.

b. Commander, US Army Human Resources Command, ATTN: AHRC-

EPA-I (LTC Kurtzman), 1600 Spearhead Division Ave Fort Knox, KY 40121, or
Commercial (502) 613-4878, Defense Switched Network: 983-4847
AUTHENTICATED BY

c. Mr. Gary Fox and LTC J. Kurtzman

1
Data points in 5.f. through 5.j. were from Official Board AAR.
15