Do we really want to promote people to chief petty officer in the Navy on the basis of test-taking ability?
Presently, candidates for chief participate in an examination on rating/military knowledge to determine whether they will be eligible for consideration by a selection board. In addition, candidates must complete all the requirements outlined in the appropriate Personnel Command instruction and must be recommended by their commanding officers. After the exams are graded and it has been determined that the candidate has passed, he or she is ranked according to a final multiple with other personnel in the same rating for board eligibility. The top 60% in each rating are eligible for the selection board process.
Determination of board eligibility is advertised at 60/40: 60% based on test score; 40% on performance. In reality, it is more like 95/5. How does this happen?
In the final multiple system, a candidate can attain up to 132 points. There are only two factors considered. The first is the test score, where a candidate can score a total of 80 points (or 60% of the final multiple). The second is the performance mark average, which can be as high as 52 points (or 40% of the available score). The performance mark average is computed by taking the average of all promotion recommendations for all E-6 evaluations over the previous three years (e.g., early promote = 4.0; must promote = 3.8; promotable = 3.6; progressing = 3.4; and significant problems = 2.0) and then multiplying the average by 13. So a candidate with an overall trait average of 4.0 for the previous three years would receive all 52 points. Note that a 3.8 (an average of must promote) would receive 49.4 points; a 3.6 (promotable) would receive 46.8.
So the difference between the best performing sailor, the one who is consistently recommended for early promotion, and the average sailor who falls in the promotable category is less than six points—or about 4% of the 132 available. Being a consistent top performer certainly does not earn one much of an edge.
Some might say that the test should count for more because it is a reflection of rating knowledge. Yet one need answer only approximately 70% of the exam questions correctly to max out on the test score (i.e., get 80 of the available 80 points), and an individual answering half or less right normally will make the cut to go before the selection board. If in fact the exam is a reflection of rating knowledge, I am not sure that I want to promote anyone who knows only half of what would be expected of him in his rating. The problem is the test is used not necessarily to determine rating knowledge, but rather as a discriminator—i.e., test questions are devised to create a broad separation of test scores.
The board then would be expected to emphasize performance over other factors, but many superb 5.0 sailors never make it before the board because of their poor test-taking abilities. Remember also that many superb sailors are working out of their rating for several years at a time in recruiting, recruit training, security, or detailing. Their rating knowledge has to deteriorate over time.
It is important to remember that the six-point difference between a consistently early promote sailor and a promotable one can be made up by answering six or seven more questions correctly. That hardly seems the equivalent of three years of top performance.
The very least we could do is expand the performance differential so that the difference between an average promotable sailor and the consistent top performer equates to the advertised 40%. Then perhaps performance will have at least some impact on who goes before the board.
Rear Admiral Hinkle is the former Deputy Chief of Naval Personnel/Commander Navy Personnel Command.
Nobody Asked Me, But...Let's Put the Salt Back into Making Chief
By Rear Admiral James B. Hinkle, U.S. Navy