Unethical Practices and Discrepancies Within Promotions The purpose of this article is to discuss an ethical dilemma facing the Army today. Unethical dilemmas exist everywhere; around us, at all times. Through personal experience and Army history an ethical dilemma has arisen as to how unethical practices and discrepancies within the promotion system will lead to a decline in the development of qualified and effective leaders. I see the cause of this falling into two categories: soldier compromises or leader compromises. As with any unethical practice, there will always be an impact on our strengths, and I believe this is due to the production of unqualified leaders and the possibility of not being able to retain qualified individuals who have been overlooked by these practices. History Most people will agree that you don't have to look very far to find examples of unethical behavior. By today's standards it is easy to find unethical practices in business such as: stealing time, Quid Pro Quo or passing over a person for a promotion they have earned. The Army is no different: unethical practices have existed in the promotional system since its inception. Returning to the Continental Army; Who were the named leaders? They were plantation owners or prominent people. My package went through Squadron review and then to the Brigade for final approval. My package was rejected at the Brigade level by the Brigade Command Sergeants Major (CSM). The reasons given by the CSM were, for zero marks in two categories on my leader evaluation. The categories were; Works in a higher grade position and performs duties in a higher grade position. (Attachment 1) My 1SG's ratings were correct and justified, as he and my platoon leader were present at all training meetings that year, thus not providing me with the opportunity to work at a higher rank