army officer assignment process

• Senior Fellows
• Research Fellows
• Submission Guidelines
• Media Inquiries
• Commentary & Analysis

Upcoming Events

• Past Events
• October 2021 War Studies Conference
• November 2020 War Studies Conference
• November 2018 War Studies Conference
• March 2018 War Studies Conference
• November 2016 War Studies Conference
• MWI Podcast
• Urban Warfare Project Podcast
• Irregular Warfare Podcast
• Social Science of War
• Urban Warfare Project
• Irregular Warfare Initiative
• Project 6633
• Shield Notes
• Rethinking Civ-Mil
• Competition in Cyberspace Project
• Book Reviews

Select Page

Winning in the Marketplace: How Officers and Units Can Get the Most Out of the Army Talent Alignment Process

Kyle Greenberg , Mark Crow and Carl Wojtaszek | 11.05.20

Not too many years ago, if the Army had wanted you to have an opinion about your next assignment, it would have issued you one with your duffel bag. The same had been true for units, as well. Leaders at every level largely left it to the Army to fill their formations with individuals based not on talent, but on having the right rank, branch, and availability date. In 2019, this changed when the Army introduced a market into its assignment system. Gone were the constraints that offered familiar comfort to both units and officers but that also prevented maximizing the talents and productivity of our officer corps. Within the assignment marketplace, some found the competition and ability to tell their own story liberating. Others cursed the comparative chaos and extra work it created. However, in the end, the Army’s first large-scale implementation of assignment markets not only demonstrated they can improve how we assign our people, but they can also uncover for units and officers the keys to succeeding in future markets.

This fall, nearly fifteen thousand officers and five hundred units are participating in the Army’s second major iteration of the Army Talent Alignment Process (ATAP) through the Assignment Interactive Module Version 2.0 (AIM 2.0). Analysis and feedback from last year’s ATAP showed many areas of success. Officer preferences, often shaped by their talents, were the most important factor in determining future assignments; units could directly influence who entered their formations by ranking officers they preferred; and the Army discovered additional information about the many talents resident in our officer corps and about the unique talent demands of each job. More importantly, the Army learned several lessons from its first iteration of ATAP that can help officers, units, and the Army improve.

What Officers Can Do

Officers can greatly influence their chances of receiving the jobs they prefer in the market. Most importantly, moving officers should build their resumes in AIM 2.0 . If officers are the engine of the marketplace, then the information they share on their AIM 2.0 resumes is the fuel that keeps it humming along smoothly. Complete and informative resumes allow units to better identify officers with backgrounds or experiences that are a particularly good fit for a specific job or type of work. Surprisingly, though, only 60 percent of officers in last fall’s marketplace took the time to describe their talents within the AIM 2.0 resumes. Choosing not to do so is a missed opportunity as officers with resumes benefited significantly, receiving 40 percent more #1 votes from units than officers without detailed resumes. There is no magic formula for what to include on a resume, but discussions with units suggest that most were looking for officers who could write reasonably well and who put forth the effort to prepare a resume.

In addition to building resumes, moving officers should interview with units they are interested in joining . In a survey given to all units at the end of last year’s marketplace, 35 percent said that interviews were the most important factor in determining how to rank officers in the market. Even though AIM 2.0 is online, the marketplace is designed to facilitate person-to-person interaction, albeit predominately via phone or video conference. Moving officers who reach out to unit POCs and schedule interviews early in the marketplace have better chances of finding the jobs they want than officers who wait for units to contact them.

A third way an officer can maximize the benefit of ATAP is to submit truthful preferences to the assignment market. While this is not immediately obvious, it becomes clearer once an officer understands how they are paired to jobs after the marketplace closes. The Army uses a deferred acceptance algorithm to match officers to jobs. While that might sound complicated, it is a relatively straightforward process—but one that works best when officers and units submit truthful preferences. T he advantage of a deferred acceptance algorithm is that it produces the best match even when a #1 to #1 match—meaning an officer and a unit both rank each other as number one—is not possible . For example, if a moving officer’s most preferred job is in the 82nd Airborne Division, and the 82nd ranks him #2, then it is still in the officer’s best interest to rank this job #1. This is because there is no guarantee the 82nd will receive its most preferred officer—who may be looking at the 101st. In other words, officers cannot achieve a better outcome by misreporting their actual preferences, or “gaming the system.” In fact, officers often hurt themselves when they do this. The design is intentional and allows officers to list “reach assignments” without penalty. So, go ahead and reach for that dream job knowing your chances of success in the market will not be diminished. (You can learn more about deferred acceptance algorithms at here or here .)

There is substantial evidence that officers did not understand this point in the 2019 market. Post-marketplace surveys revealed that 31 percent of officers admitted that they did not place their true first preference #1 in the marketplace. Furthermore, roughly 75 percent admitted that at least some of their preferences were not truthful. Unfortunately, these officers potentially hurt their chances of receiving their most desired assignments. After all, no algorithm can know what you truly want if you do not share that information. If you are a moving officer, your best strategy is to truthfully rank as many jobs as possible according to your true preference for each job. The deeper you rank jobs, the better chance you have of getting a job that aligns with your preferences and takes advantage of your unique talents.

What Units Can Do

Just like officers benefit if they truthfully preference as many jobs as possible, units benefit by ranking as many officers as possible. U nits that rank all of the officers they are interested in will do better than units that only consider officers who rank their jobs #1. If a unit does not receive its most preferred officer, the deferred acceptance algorithm will attempt to match that unit with its second-most preferred officer, and so on. Therefore, units should not exclusively chase #1 to #1 matches. Instead, units should rank all officers that interest them, which will increase their chances of getting an officer who is a good talent fit.

A second suggestion for units is to put your best foot forward and professionalize your hiring processes . Many officers in last year’s market found little more than boilerplate job descriptions and had difficultly contacting units and scheduling interviews. Lacking detailed information about the job and unit’s hiring process, officers would call the incumbent listed in a job’s AIM 2.0 profile. This often resulted in a negative first impression of the unit and a missed opportunity for the unit to connect with an officer interested in its job. The best units made it easy for officers to understand the unique aspects of their jobs, were enthusiastic about selecting their teams, and executed well-coordinated and structured interviews.

We also recommend units engage with officers in their formations who are in the marketplace and who expect to move this summer . For units, these officers can provide a great resource to identify other units’ best practices, share what attracts officers to jobs in the marketplace, and help scout for their talented replacements in the market. Commanders, likewise, can serve as references on the AIM 2.0 resume, supervisors can call units on behalf of their moving officers, and units can lead professional development workshops to train their officers on how the marketplace works. Because both the unit and officers within the unit are in the marketplace, both can benefit from what the other is seeing and doing.

What the Army Can Do

Finally, there are several changes the Army should implement to make the marketplace more effective for both officers and units. First, the Army should better educate the force on how officers pair to units. As the first ATAP iteration showed, officers and units that work with ATAP incentives will have better outcomes than those that do not take advantage of ATAP opportunities. As more units and officers participate in the marketplace, they should naturally grow more acquainted with how to make the process work best for them. But the Army should also actively seek to inform units and officers on how best to leverage the marketplace to their advantage. A marketplace with well-understood rules and processes builds trust, encourages more information sharing, and is more effective in aligning talent.

Second, the Army should limit the number of “signals” officers can send to units to indicate their interest. During last year’s marketplace, officers adjusted their preferences multiple times to signal interest to different units at different times. This resulted in an unlimited number of signals for officers to use and generated substantial problems. It also frustrated many units who could no longer be certain which officers were genuinely interested in them and which officers were likely to change their preferences immediately after a phone call or interview.

The Army should give every officer a specific number of “market coins” to be sent to units of their choosing independent of their preference list. This would help units learn which officers are interested in their jobs without requiring officers to repeatedly change their preferences. The method of using signals to quickly identify interested participants has a proven record of making other matching markets more efficient . Admittedly, officers should think carefully about how they use these signals, but with this mechanism in place they would no longer need to strategize or manipulate their preferences, which are kept secret. Signals also put officers on a level playing field: every officer can receive the same suggestions regarding how to use their signals, and no officer can gain an advantage by repeatedly adjusting preferences. Furthermore, when officers have a limited number of signals that cannot be reused, units that receive the signal can be confident in the officer’s intentions. Likewise, units that receive very few signals will know that they need to work harder to garner more interest in their positions.

A final recommendation is to continue building tools within AIM 2.0 that help participants find the right talent in the marketplace. Units and officers alike found AIM 2.0 difficult to navigate from a talent perspective. The Army should start by including dropdown boxes categorized by relevant talent dimensions such as previous military experience, education (level and discipline), civilian credentials or qualifications, language experience, and hobbies or interests. KSBs—Knowledge, Skills, and Behaviors—which units can use to find officers with particular talents, should be incorporated into these talent dimensions. Such dropdown boxes are most effective when units have the ability to customize the categories they search within, and when the Army can add to or remove elements from dropdown fields as more information becomes available. For example, if several officers reveal that they have a particular computer programming skill on their resumes, then this specific skill could be added to dropdown boxes in future markets.

The potential payoff of the Army’s transition from a centrally managed officer assignment system to an assignment marketplace is high. However, it will take several more years of hard work from officers, units, Human Resources Command, and other stakeholders to continuously improve it. As officers gain more control over their careers and units gain more control over who joins their teams, better talent alignment will increase productivity, improved officer satisfaction will boost retention, and the sharing of talent supply and demand data will give the Army valuable information about its most important resource—its people.

Maj. Kyle Greenberg, Lt. Col. Mark Crow, and Col. Carl Wojtaszek are labor economists teaching in the Social Sciences Department at the United State Military Academy. Their research focuses on talent management, labor market outcomes, and human capital development within the Army.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect the official position of the United States Military Academy, Department of the Army, or Department of Defense.

Image credit: Cpl. Rachel Diehm, US Army

Thank you for this well written article. I am going through this process for the first time this cycle. One issue that you did not introduce is HRC intervention. In effect, a particular branch can choose to “manage” key positions. An officer will receive an email stating that they were selected for a position, with instructions to rank that position #1. The unit is also instructed to rank the selected officer #1 artificially creating a 1 to 1 match. The result is a partially fixed market.

The second element that this article does not address is the use of labels. Officers are assigned labels (e.g. Nominative, Post CSL, JDAL) which can be used as screening criteria for what positions they can match with. It is unclear if this would actually prevent a mutual match, but officers are being instructed that they will only be assigned to positions that match their assigned label. For instance an officer not identified with a nominative label may not match with a nominative assignment, even if the unit and officer mutually select each other. Conversely, a an officer with a Post CSL label cannot match with a position not labeled as Post CSL.

This is my second time using the marketplace and I like it quite a bit, in theory. As Perry mentioned, a lot of jobs in our category have been pre-slated and they don't reflect as such. It's very frustrating trying to guess which positions are already filled and which ones are open for contact. You can only signal interest to so many units and trying to not waste those signals turns into attempting to game the system. I'm not sure which ones are still open, so I'll switch up my preferences every so often to try and maximize my signal to the ones that are actively looking. It would be a little easier if the unit contact information was updated and accurate. I would also recommend allowing for more signals. I have known officers that ended up with their 45th choice or more. With a large pool of jobs, you never know which one will be a great fit for sure. A little more wiggle room would be awesome.

The ATAA is actually not a faithful representation of the Gale-Shipley algorithm (GS).

1. The information about preferencing shared between unit and officer is an addition to the algorithm.

-Units cannot be expected to rate all officers in the marketplace. They therefore reasonably rely on the signal of interest in order to narrow their search space. -Right now, this signal of interest is the ‘green check’ that signals to a unit that an officer has ranked the unit in the top 10% of their preferences. -This cap naturally drives officers to change their preferences many times, in order to maximize the number of units that will see them as interested.

-In GS, rankings are not revealed before it comes time to match. The National Resident Matching Program solves this interest problem by requiring Medical Students to apply to the residencies they are interested in. This imposes a cost on the students (so that they cannot freely indicate interest to all programs) but allows the student to apply to as many programs as they wish (not arbitrarily limiting them at 10%). They also keep rankings separate from applications so that students can be honest in their preferences.

-AIM2 should incorporate some mechanism to show interest that does not rely on an officer ranking a unit in their top 10%. This could be a simple form for officers to fill out when applying to different units, and allow each unit to specify a short prompt in order to prevent officers from copying and pasting the same generic note of interest multiple times.

-The ‘top 10%’ rule also discourages officers from listing ‘reach’ units as the authors advocate. If only the top 10% of units ranked are alerted to an officer's interest, then wasting these precious slots on reach assignments is not in an officer’s interest. Instead it encourages officers to ‘play it safe’ and only rank assignments in their ‘target range’, in order to maximize the chance of being matched with something ‘good enough’ and avoid the possibility of missing each of the reach assignments and being relegated to the officer’s last choice.

2. A true stable solution to GS requires the ability to choose to go unmatched. That means, if an officer is not given any of the assignments they ranked, then they should not be mandated to fill the least desirable slots (those still left open). This would require the Army to incentivize undesirable positions with things like increased pay, responsibility, or other perks in order to attract talent to undesirable positions.

Great comment,

All this AIM2 business is allowing me to see what other interesting jobs are out there, sure I rank them, but I still reach out to the ones I care about. If some respond I moved them up in the rankings.

I am currently competing in the 21-02 marketplace and find the whole process immature, frustrating and distasteful.

1) Units are extremely uneducated about the AIM marketplace, its process and what the officer is dealing with on their end. Units may be reviewing officer resumes but aren't aware that they can contact officers and sell their unit to those officers. Those that I have dealt with that ranked me in their top 10% told me that they didn't know how to contact the officers. It appears that the information provided in the AIM system isn't available to the units beyond what is on the resume (which lacks any fields for POC info). Many units consider a phone call from an officer asking for information about the unit/position as a sign of extreme interest making for frantic phone calls from the unit and for uncomfortable conversations when they don't see the officer mark the unit with the "green checkmark". Units also are unaware of the business rules for the marketplace demanding years worth of OERs, PT cards, additional resumes and agreements to 2-3 years worth of service to the unit. I found joint units and agencies to be the most uneducated and to some extent hostile to individuals contacting them asking for more information or consideration as they believe they have already selected 1-3 candidates in the first phase and their task is complete.

2) Information about units and positions was substantially lacking 70% of the time. Many units are uploading power point presentations about the unit while failing to provide any useful details about the position, the sub organization/staff section the candidate would work in, and POC info. I can't count the number of times I had to contact the incumbent and ask them to speak with the hiring POC to contact me back because the information provided was wrong or the POC was "busy" with other matters. This lack of upfront information eats up a crazy amount of time on behalf of the officer while they are also doing their current job. Units are also failing to realize that officers have families and in addition to information about the unit and position, need to understand the family side of life. Schools, housing, extra curricular activities, traffic, spousal employment, etc. All of this information must be researched and discussed with the family for 50+ assignments; its daunting and emotionally draining. Providing as much of this information upfront as possible (or at the very least providing solid links to the information) would save multitudes of time for all candidates. Many units during interviews couldn't answer any family life questions and were not prepared to provide contact information for the installation.

3) The online AIM system is clunky for both officers and units. Officers have no place to record notes about assignments. Units have no place to record notes about officers. The AIM assignments and officer lists are not exportable to any format so everything must be done on paper. Additionally, the website itself suffers terribly from programing bugs flakes out scrambling the information provided on the page (requiring constant refreshes) or it will display information that was filtered out, causing confusion. There is no in system messaging service requiring units and officers to contact each other using traditional methods of email and telephone. Sadly not everyone is in the same time zone so most messaging falls to email and I don't know about most of you but I get way too much email already; as a result I have missed several emails from units. As a leader and mentor, I don't have access to the AIM system for my subordinates and thus no way to advise and counsel them on their assignment choices unless they screenshot and print me a list. Considering HRC has basically stepped out of the line of fire for assignments and is no longer willing to act in an advisory role for junior officers, seniors really need some way to know what is being offered so they can better counsel their troops.

4) There is a lack of closure/disclosure on behalf of the officer and the unit. Some units graciously contacted me and let me know where I was located on their list and I greatly appreciated that because it allowed me to rank other units higher on my list. Others played their cards close to their chest hoping to have the officer rank them higher on the list as a fall back if their #1 pick fell through. I'm sure this is also happening with officers who are being non-committal to their 2-n unit choices in hopes that they will be rank higher as a fall back to their number 1 pick. This cat and mouse game is very unprofessional and distasteful in my professional opinion but based on the system the Army set up, this seems to be how they want the assignment game played. The units I was upfront with and notified where they were on my Order of Merit List, dropped me from their top 10% the next day.

Leave a reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

The articles and other content which appear on the Modern War Institute website are unofficial expressions of opinion. The views expressed are those of the authors, and do not reflect the official position of the United States Military Academy, Department of the Army, or Department of Defense.

The Modern War Institute does not screen articles to fit a particular editorial agenda, nor endorse or advocate material that is published. Rather, the Modern War Institute provides a forum for professionals to share opinions and cultivate ideas. Comments will be moderated before posting to ensure logical, professional, and courteous application to article content.

Most Popular Posts

• The Return of the Tactical Crisis
• The Return of Tactical Antiaircraft Artillery: Optimizing the Army Inventory for the Era of Small Drone Proliferation
• Swarm Clouds on the Horizon? Exploring the Future of Drone Swarm Proliferation

Announcements

• Announcing the Modern War Institute’s 2023–24 Senior and Research Fellows
• Essay Contest Call for Submissions: Solving the Military Recruiting Crisis
• Call for Applications: MWI’s 2023–24 Research Fellows Program
• Join Us This Friday for a Livestream with Ambassador Michael McFaul and Secretary Chuck Hagel

• Cover Letters
• Jobs I've Applied To
• Saved Searches
• Subscriptions

Marine Corps

Coast guard.

• Space Force
• Military Podcasts
• Benefits Home
• Military Pay and Money
• Veteran Health Care
• VA eBenefits
• Veteran Job Search
• Military Skills Translator
• Upload Your Resume
• Veteran Employment Project
• Vet Friendly Employers
• Career Advice
• Military Life Home
• Military Trivia Game
• Veterans Day
• Spouse & Family
• Military History
• Discounts Home
• Featured Discounts
• Veterans Day Restaurant Discounts
• Electronics
• Join the Military Home
• Contact a Recruiter
• Military Fitness

Here Are the Results from the First Round of the Army's New Assignment Process

Senior Army personnel officials on Thursday unveiled the initial results of the service's new officer assignment strategy, which for the first time brings both units and officers into the selection process.

From October to December, about 14,500 officers participated in the Army Talent Alignment Process (ATAP), a regulated, online market designed to better match an officer's talents to a unit's requirements.

"The system allows officers to view and preference all open positions, while also factoring in their knowledge, skills, behaviors and their preferences," Maj. Gen. Joseph Calloway, head of Army Human Resources Command, told defense reporters Thursday at the Pentagon.

"ATAP also empowers unit commanders to have more influence over which officers ultimately come to their formations," he said.

Related: New Army Program Will Make Sure Prospective Battalion Commanders Are Fit to Lead

ATAP is part of the Army People Strategy announced in October, designed to manage talent across the force more effectively. So far the effort has also yielded the new Battalion Commander Assessment Program (BCAP) that is intended to put officers through a series of assessments to ensure they are ready for battalion command.

Overall, the ATAP process was highly effective at matching the preferences of both the units and the officers preparing to move into new assignments this summer, Calloway said.

"We had more than half of the officers and more than half of the units receive their first choice for every job in the market," he said. "Then we had about two-thirds on both sides of the equation receive one of their top three choices and about 80% of units and officers receive a choice that was in their top 10%.

"So, as the former director of Officer Personnel Management Directorate, I can say that that is truly unprecedented in terms of the level of satisfaction on both sides of that equation," Calloway said.

The Army ran the first test of ATAP about two years ago with a group of majors at Command General Staff College and has been refining it ever since, said Lt. Gen. Thomas Seamands, deputy chief of staff for Army G1.

This new round added colonels to the process, which brings in job specialties such as chaplain as well as specialties from the medical community.

The next round of ATAP is scheduled to begin in April for the 4,500 officers who will move into new assignments next winter.

But before that happens, Army officials hope to make improvements to the process based on glitches that emerged during the first round of assignments.

"The medical profession is pretty complicated ... in that the specialties that you need are a lot more complicated than an infantry or human resources soldier to make sure you get the right person in the right place," Seamands said. "So, as we started the process, we realized how complex it was with the skills you need to identify for a specific medical profession."

Army officials hope to make improvements to the Assignment Information Module (AIM 2.0), the automation system that allows soldiers to use ATAP in an online portal, Calloway said.

"With this next cycle, there will be some improvements," he explained. "On the automation side, we will improve the tool because the AIM 2.0 portal is where all the officers and units come in and make their preferences, to see all the jobs, all that kind of thing."

Most of the improvements will be designed to make the AIM 2.0 tool "more user-friendly on both sides so that the filtering mechanism in the tool will help," Calloway said.

"So you can imagine you are a logistics captain and you've got 400 or 500 jobs that you are looking at and, on the other side, you are the commander and you've got 500 to 600 officers and trying to figure out which person do you want to come to your formation," he said.

In the first round of ATAP, the tool became overloaded and "assigned some officers to jobs to which they were not qualified for," Calloway said.

"What we have to do is insert additional logic into that tool to prevent that from happening," he said, adding that Army assignment officers were able stop the misguided assignments before they became active.

"It's very complicated, of course, because of the volume of users on both sides. In any automated tool, to try to enable them to sort through and to see all the resumes and all that, it takes a huge amount of bandwidth," Calloway said.

Surveys from the field and feedback from commanders will also be used to refine the process, he added.

"This was a significant change in the way the assignment process has been run, so the first major iteration of this part of it [showed] individuals needed to understand the system and how it worked and how they needed to operate this to their maximum benefit," said Brig. Gen. Joseph McGee, director of the Army Talent Management Task Force. "And then units, too, down at the brigade level, have been pushed into hiring authority because they can now pick their own teams, needed to adapt and learn how to use this.

"So, I think what we will see in further executions is, now that we have done this with 14,500 officers, those lessons learned are going to be carried forward to the individuals and to the units," McGee said.

Editor's Note: This story has been updated to correct information about the intention of the Army People Strategy and what job specialties are included in the process with the addition of colonels.

-- Matthew Cox can be reached at [email protected] .

Read More: Army's New Promotion System Could Mean Separations for Some Soldiers

Matthew Cox

You May Also Like

When Ralph Puckett was chosen to lead a new Ranger company in 1950, he said a prayer: "Dear God, don't let me get a bunch of...

Gen. Charles Krulak, the retired Marine commandant, was among dozens of retired four-star generals and admirals and former...

Eclipse mania gripped all of Mexico, the U.S. and Canada, as the moon swept in front of the sun, blotting out daylight...

The Navy's top officer says that she ordered a "deep dive" into maintenance and readiness issues following the amphibious...

Military News

• Investigations and Features
• Military Opinion

Select Service

• National Guard

Most Popular Military News

Ryker Frost, 10, died as a result of injuries suffered during a collision involving his family's minivan and a military...

The B-1B airframe has been in service with the Air Force since the mid-1980s; about 60 are left in the fleet, which is...

Wilmer Puello-Mota, 28, a former security forces technical sergeant with the Massachusetts Air National Guard, allegedly fled...

The default headgear everywhere else in the Army is the so-called patrol cap, which offers relatively little utility and has...

Lt. Col. Christopher O'Melia was fired from his role as battalion commander on March 26 "due to a loss of trust and...

Latest Benefits Info

• VA Studying Effects Of Grape Juice On Gulf War Illness
• VA Implements Mandatory Overtime To Reduce Huge GI Bill Delay
• GI Bill Top Questions Answered
• Montgomery GI Bill User's Guide
• After Hurricane Florence: Status of VA & Other Federal Assistance

More Military Headlines

Iran Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian reiterated Tehran's vows that it will respond to the attack, widely blamed on...

The scenes of destruction in Khan Younis underscored what has been one of the world’s most destructive and lethal military...

• Army Ranger Legend and Last Living Korean War Medal of Honor Recipient Ralph Puckett Dies at 97
• Army's Premier Education Benefits May Be on Chopping Block, with Tuition Assistance Cuts Being Considered, Too
• Crews Begin Removing Shipping Containers Off the Dali, Ship that Collapsed Key Bridge
• Medical Beard Waivers Nearly Double in Air Force and Space Force in Just 3 Years
• 'Lancelot,' an Aging B-1B Bomber, Is Being Pulled Out of Retirement and Going Back into Service
• Air Force Materiel Command Details Air Force Reorganization Impact
• Top Navy Leader Has Ordered 'Deep Dive' on Amphibious Ship Readiness After Delays with USS Boxer
• Virginia Lab Receives $7.5 Million Grant to Adapt Technology to Break Down 'Forever Chemicals'
• US, Japan, Australia and the Philippines to Stage Military Drills in Disputed South China Sea

Military Benefits Updates

• The Mental Burden of Using Military Benefits
• Other Than Honorable Discharge: Everything You Need to Know
• Honorable Discharge: Everything You Need to Know
• Retired Marine Commandant Signs Brief Against Trump's Immunity Claim
• Former Marine Reservist Sentenced for Selling Fake COVID Vaccination Cards
• Marine Family Wants Safety, Security Improvements After Child Dies in Military Police Response to Gate Breach
• US Agrees to Expand Samoa and Coast Guard Cooperation
• Coast Guard, Army Corps Brief Biden on Baltimore Bridge Collapse During Visit

Entertainment

• 'Band of Brothers,' 'The Pacific' and 'Masters of the Air,' Ranked
• 6 Video Games (Sorry, ‘Simulators’) the US Military Used for Training
• Louis Gossett Jr., Award-Winning Actor Who Portrayed Hard-Nosed Marine in 'An Officer and a Gentleman,' Has Died at 87

25% Off: Daily Subscription + Individual Plan or 2+ Individual Plans. Applied in Cart.

• MTI’s First Principles
• Who We’ve Worked With
• The MTI Team
• In the Media
• Athlete’s Subscription
• Daily Programming Subscription
• Law Enforcement
• Fire & Rescue
• Prep Strength
• Nutrition Coaching
• MTI for Units, Departments, & Gyms
• Navigating MTI’s Training Plans & Subscriptions
• Quiet Professional Essays
• Full Case Studies
• MTI’s Fitness Assessments
• Testimonials
• Athlete Subscription
• The Quiet Professional Collection of Essays
• Full Studies

Army Officers Seeking Preferred Assignments Must Leverage References and Reputation

By Matt Lensing, MTI Contributor

Some people have referred to the Army’s Talent Alignment Process (ATAP), specifically the mechanism officers use to prefer assignments as Tinder or speed dating between Soldiers and units. These analogies are not completely accurate because candidates in those markets start on equal ground with their peers, but in reality the courting process begins months, or even years, before a marketplace opens.

Officers must signal and communicate to potential organizations long before they can even view available assignments, or they may be left without any offers when they finally preference assignments in the Assignment Interactive Module (AIM 2.0). If an officer wants to make it to the unit interview phase they should do the following:  

• Maintain a current resume and record brief
• Select references that include general officers, previous superiors, and senior non-commissioned officers
• Leverage mentors and previous leaders in the unit you want to serve
• Ensure a positive reputation with peers and junior officers in the prospective unit

Keep Your Record Brief and Resume Current

Having a current resume greatly increases the chances an officer’s file makes it through initial screening. Commanders generally do not read all applicants’ packets, so any incomplete files are usually tossed aside and may never get a second look. When I saw an officer with missing or outdated information I initially dismissed it because it did not appear they were serious about the job.

The first areas I look at when reviewing files are:  

• Recent positions
• Military and civilian education
• Experiences

Next I see if the resume is generic, or tailored to the job the candidate is seeking. Most Army experiences are not unique, so a resume should do more than just restate assignment history from a record brief. Candidates should illustrate what they learned from previous assignments, which will help them stand out. Knowing a language, or experience in a particular geographic region, is good to highlight if it aligns with the new unit’s area of operations. Having knowledge of the unit’s upcoming training calendar also helps.

Officers who knew about my unit’s upcoming training cycle or scheduled deployments stood out from those that had not done any research. The best candidates connected their recent experiences to demonstrate how they could contribute immediately to the organization if they were hired. Another recommendation is to get a copy of the current command philosophy and incorporate similar language in the resume and interview. Speaking about the commander’s priorities helps build a connection between the candidate and the person doing the hiring.

Select the Right References

The AIM 2.0 resume provides space for three to four references. Recommended references are: general officers, brigade commanders, and senior non-commissioned officers.  

General Officer –  A general officer reference displays that an individual worked directly with the Army’s most senior leaders, which especially for junior officers demonstrates that they were selected above peers for a nominative position. This also supports the confirmation bias, which helps a candidate. If a senior leader supports the hire of an individual then others tend to believe they are great even before they have achieved anything.

Brigade Commander –  The Brigade Commander, a full bird colonel, was likely to have been the senior rater for a captain or major if they are an officer’s reference. Their feedback will illustrate where the officer falls amongst their rank cohort since evaluations require quantifying their potential. The hiring organization technically shouldn’t know the specific rating an prospective candidate receiver on their officer evaluation reports, but one work around is to contact their previous senior rater to find where they fall amongst peers.

Senior Non-commissioned Officers – Truthfully, the senior non-commissioned officer reference is often overlooked on resumes, but they provide a different perspective than what other officers may see. While the command sergeant major does not fall in any rating scheme for a commissioned officer they likely hear from the enlisted Soldiers which junior leaders are looking for their own notoriety at the expense of their subordinates. Including this reference provides a more well rounded look at a candidate.

Lean on Mentors and Previous Leaders

A simple email or positive comment from someone you worked with previously will often be all it takes to get added to the list of candidates to interview. To help secure an interview with a prospective unit I went back through my previous assignments to see if I knew anyone currently working in that division. In some cases I may not have spoken to this individual in many years, but if we shared a connection through serving together in a previous organization I sent them an message. Usually that sparked an exchange over email, text message, or phone call, which served as an informal interview to assess my potential. In some cases it led to my name making it on a senior leader’s list to the commanding general as a priority hire.

Although at first it felt like I was cheating the system I later realized it was common practice for officers in a unit to review names of available candidates providing senior leaders a narrowed down interview list. As a field grade officer my commander asked me to review a list of other majors that were in the current talent marketplace. If I knew them, or knew their reputation, I let my boss know wether our unit should prioritize them for an interview. By reaching out to people I knew in a unit I got ahead of the pre-interview screening process.

Be Nice to Peers and Junior Officers

In addition to mentors and previous leaders the other group candidates need positive feedback from are peers and officers junior to them. As I had done for my bosses, peers will readily spill the dirt on someone they know applying for a position. Even if there is nothing negative said about a candidate sometimes what isn’t said can influence whether they are selected for an interview.

Be cautious of people described as “good dudes,’ because the phrase has different meanings depending on who you ask. Some use the moniker to describe officers who are competent and dependable while others use it to describe someone who is likable and easy going, but never around when there are difficult tasks. What others think of you matters, and even those junior to you can influence success in the marketplace.

The personnel officer (sometimes adjutant) responsible for organizing the packets and scheduling interviews can affect someone’s chances for hire. Candidates should be friendly and responsive to these officers without becoming a nuisance. The hiring process can be stressful, but constantly asking for status updates on your specific file can be a turnoff. The commander who actually hires people for a position may ask the personnel officer their opinion on a candidate, so if you have rubbed them the wrong way expect your chances to diminish.

An officer’s reputation matters more now than during the Army’s old, mostly anonymous, assignment process. Although it may feel disingenuous to rely on someone else for assistance the current talent alignment process rewards those with a strong social network, and are willing to use it. The key to understanding why some people get job offers and others do not is based on basic human nature.

Introduction to psychology courses cover the basic requirements for humans to thrive as Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs ( https://www.masterclass.com/articles/a-guide-to-the-5-levels-of-maslows-hierarchy-of-needs ). After humans have their psychological needs of food, shelter, and clothing taken care of they advance up the hierarchy to safety. The job marketplace holds many examples where emotional safety and stability influence an individual’s assignment preferences.

I saw peers take less desirable assignments based on their geographic location because those units took an interest in the applicant. Even historically lower sought after units can compete with more popular units by aggressively reaching out to applicants early in a marketplace. This is an opportunity for perceived lower tier units to acquire higher quality talent by making an individual feel desired which achieves Maslow’s need of belonging.

Similarly commanders hiring candidates what to know they are getting the best person for the job, so they may rate word of mouth over a candidates other attributes. The Army has many leaders that draw the same subordinates into their organization time after time. A sense of familiarity with another person provides the psychological need for comfort.

This is in a lot of respects a validation of the “by name request,” process that already existed in the Army but was not publically acknowledged. Although the current system does not guarantee an individual will perform better just because they matched with a unit hopefully being an active participant in the process will increase job satisfaction for the Army long term.

Matt Lensing is an active duty infantry officer who has served in the U.S. Army since 2007.

Interested in being a paid MTI Contributor? Email [email protected] a current resume and 3 topic ideas.

Subscribe to MTI's Newsletter - BETA

Official websites use .gov

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS

General Officer Assignments

The Chief of Staff of the Army announces the following officer assignments:

Maj. Gen. Kimberly M. Colloton, deputy commanding general for Military and International Operations, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C., to deputy chief of engineers, Office of the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army; and deputy commanding general, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.

Maj. Gen. Lance G. Curtis, deputy chief of staff, G-4, U.S. Army Forces Command, Fort Liberty, North Carolina, to commanding general, Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois.

Maj. Gen. Christopher L. Eubank, commanding general, U.S. Army Network Enterprise Technology Command, Fort Huachuca, Arizona, to chief of staff, U.S. Strategic Command, Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska.

Maj. Gen. Clair A. Gill, deputy director for Regional Operations and Force Management, J-3, Joint Staff, Washington, D.C., to commanding general, U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence and Fort Novosel, Fort Novosel, Alabama.

Maj. Gen. Gavin A. Lawrence, commanding general, Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, to deputy chief of staff for Logistics and Operations, U.S. Army Materiel Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama.

Maj. Gen. Kevin C. Leahy, commander, Special Operations Command Central, U.S. Special Operations Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida, to commander, Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve, Operation Inherent Resolve, Iraq.

Maj. Gen. Michael C. McCurry II, commanding general, U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence and Fort Novosel, Fort Novosel, Alabama, to chief of staff, U.S. Army Futures Command, Austin, Texas.

Brig. Gen. Stephanie R. Ahern, director of Concepts, Futures and Concepts Center, U.S. Army Futures Command, Adelphi, Maryland, to commandant, U.S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania.

Brig. Gen. Sarah K. Albrycht, commandant, U.S. Army Military Police School, U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, to provost marshal general, U.S. Army, and commanding general, Army Corrections Command, Washington, D.C.

Brig. Gen. Guillaume N. Beaurpere, commanding general, U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School, Fort Liberty, North Carolina, to chief of staff, U.S. Special Operations Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida.

Brig. Gen. Chad C. Chalfont, deputy commanding general (Maneuver), 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Cavazos, Texas, to commandant, U.S. Army Armor School, U.S. Army Maneuver Center of Excellence, Fort Moore, Georgia.

Brig. Gen. Kendall J. Clarke, deputy commanding general (Operations), 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), Fort Drum, New York, to director of Concepts, Futures and Concepts Center, U.S. Army Futures Command, Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia.

Brig. Gen. Jasper Jeffers III, deputy director for Special Operations and Counter-Terrorism, J-3, Joint Staff, Washington, D.C., to commander, Special Operations Command Central, U.S. Special Operations Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida.

Brig. Gen. Shane P. Morgan, commandant, U.S. Army Field Artillery School, U.S. Army Fires Center of Excellence, Fort Sill, Oklahoma, to deputy director for Regional Operations and Force Management, J-3, Joint Staff, Washington, D.C.

Brig. Gen. Jason B. Nicholson, commanding general, U.S. Army Security Assistance Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, to director, Strategy, Plans and Policy, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3/5/7, U.S. Army, Washington, D.C.

Brig. Gen. Michael J. Simmering, commandant, U.S. Army Armor School, U.S. Army Maneuver Center of Excellence, Fort Moore, Georgia, to commanding general, First Army Division East, Fort Knox, Kentucky.

Brig. Gen. Brian D. Vile, commandant, U.S. Army Cyber Warfare School and Chief of Cyber, Fort Eisenhower, Georgia, to deputy director, Future Operations, J-3, U.S. Cyber Command, Fort Meade, Maryland.

Brig. Gen. Scott D. Wilkinson, commanding general, U.S. Army Special Operations Aviation Command; and deputy commanding general-Futures, U.S. Special Operations Command, Fort Liberty, North Carolina, to chief, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Secretary of the Army, Washington, D.C.

Col. (Promotable) Jeremy A. Bartel, chief of staff, U.S. Army Central, Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina, to commander, Special Operations Joint Task Force-Central, Operation Enduring Sentinel, Qatar.

Col. (Promotable) James T. Blejski Jr., assistant chief of staff, G-3, U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, to director of intelligence, J-2, U.S. Special Operations Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida.

Col. (Promotable) Robert G. Born, deputy commander (Support), 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Cavazos, Texas, to deputy commander (Maneuver), 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Cavazos, Texas.

Col. (Promotable) Kirk E. Brinker, deputy commander (Support), 1st Special Forces Command (Airborne), Fort Liberty, North Carolina, to deputy commander, U.S. Army Special Operations Command, Fort Liberty, North Carolina.

Col. (Promotable) Kevin S. Chaney, project manager, Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft, Program Executive Office Aviation, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, to deputy, Program Executive Office, Command, Control and Communication (Tactical), Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland.

Col. (Promotable) Kenneth C. Cole, deputy commander (Support), 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, Kentucky, to deputy commander, U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence, Fort Rucker, Alabama.

Col. (Promotable) Ronald L. Franklin Jr., NATO Branch Chief, J-5, U.S. European Command, Germany, to senior defense official and defense attaché, U.S. Defense Attaché Office, Russia.

Col. (Promotable) Rogelio J. Garcia, deputy commander (Support), 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, to commandant of cadets, U.S. Military Academy, West Point, New York.

Col. (Promotable) Peter C. Glass, deputy director/chief of staff, Futures and Concepts Center, U.S. Army Futures Command, Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia, to deputy commander (Support), 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Cavazos, Texas.

Col. (Promotable) Joseph C. Goetz II, commandant, U.S. Army Engineer School, U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, to commander, Pacific Ocean Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Shafter, Hawaii.

Col. (Promotable) Phillip J. Kiniery III, deputy commander (Operations), 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, Kentucky, to commandant, U.S. Army Infantry School, U.S. Army Maneuver Center of Excellence; and director, Future Soldier Lethality Cross Functional Team, Army Futures Command, Fort Moore, Georgia.

Col. (Promotable) Paul T. Krattiger, deputy commander (Support), 1st Armored Division, Fort Bliss, Texas, to deputy commander (Operations), 1st Armored Division, Fort Bliss, Texas.

Col. (Promotable) Matthew J. Lennox, deputy commander, Cyber National Mission Force, U.S. Cyber Command, Fort Meade, Maryland, to deputy commander, Joint Force Headquarters-Cyber, U.S. Army Cyber Command, Fort Eisenhower, Georgia.

Col. (Promotable) Robert J. Mikesh Jr., project manager, Integrated Personnel and Pay System–Army, Program Executive Office Enterprise Information Systems, Arlington, Virginia, to deputy program executive officer, Enterprise Information Systems, Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

Col. (Promotable) Jin H. Pak, commandant, U.S. Army Quartermaster School, U.S. Army Sustainment Center of Excellence, Fort Gregg-Adams, Virginia, to commander, 19th Expeditionary Sustainment Command, Eighth Army, Republic of Korea.

Col. (Promotable) Allen J. Pepper, senior defense official and defense attaché, U.S. Defense Attaché Office, Iraq, to commander, U.S. Army Security Assistance Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama.

Col. (Promotable) Brendan C. Raymond, director of integration, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-8, U.S. Army, Washington, D.C., to deputy commander (Support), 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, Colorado.

Col. (Promotable) Adam D. Smith, deputy commander for operations, U.S. Army Recruiting Command, Fort Knox, Kentucky, to The Adjutant General of the U.S. Army, U.S. Army Human Resources Command; commander, U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency; and executive director, Military Postal Service Agency, Fort Knox, Kentucky.

Col. (Promotable) Kevin J. Williams, chief of staff, Joint Task Force–Red Hill, U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, Honolulu, Hawaii, to deputy commander (Operations), 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii.

Subscribe to Defense.gov Products

Choose which Defense.gov products you want delivered to your inbox.

Defense.gov

Helpful links.

• Live Events
• Today in DOD
• For the Media
• DOD Resources
• DOD Social Media Policy
• Help Center
• DOD / Military Websites
• Agency Financial Report
• Value of Service
• Taking Care of Our People
• FY 2025 Defense Budget
• National Defense Strategy

The Department of Defense provides the military forces needed to deter war and ensure our nation's security.