Reorganize Marine Corps: Move OCS and drop NROTC

http://www.g2mil.com/rightsizingMarines.htm

Move OCS and drop NROTC

Marine Corps Officer Candidate School (OCS) is the most cost effective method of commissioning officers. Nevertheless, it can be more efficient in two ways. First, end the PLC Jr / PLC Sr option, where candidates attended two six-week summer camps rather than a single ten week camp, as offered with the OCC program, and ironically the PLC Combined option. Two extra weeks are needed for a second round of in-processing and out-processing and require twice the travel costs. Establishing a standard ten-week OCS program eliminates a lot of waste.

Prior to the drawdown, OCS screened some 2500 candidates a year. Eliminating PLC Jr/Sr duplication (along with a smaller Marine Corps) lowers that to around 1800. Each of the Marine Corps "enlisted" Recruit Depots can train over 20,000 Marines a year, and now operate well below capacity. Either can easily handle the OCS load, especially with the drawdown in enlisted recruits. OCS screening and recruit training are different, but most is the same, and require the exact same facilities and staff. A much smaller OCS staff can operate from either recruit depot to screen some 1800 officer candidates a year at a much lower cost.

Finally, it makes no sense to assign over 100 Marines to civilian universities at part of the Navy's NROTC program to commission just 200 officers a year, who the Marine Corps requires six-weeks at OCS anyway. The Marine Corps has far more qualified applicants for OCC and PLC than it accepts, and NROTC participants are welcome to attend a standard 10-week program. The Marines need 200 fewer new officers for a smaller force anyway, so cutting NROTC is a simple solution.

Why do you post such sacrilege here?

Actually the article was an interesting read that discussed many ways to save money, although it might have been better in the Academy/Military News forum.

My only gripe with it is that all the conclusions seem to be based simply on dollars. I'm sure there are many intangibles with both NROTC and the other suggestions that he doesn't take into account. I would also submit that it doesn't make a lot of sense to cut NROTC for the Marine Corps while it's still there for Navy. The incremental cost of a few Marines in the program can't be that much. I'm not knowledgeable enough to pass judgement other than that.

Carlton W. Meyer is a seemingly prolific writer with dozens of articles in military journals, websites, etc. He is a former Marine Officer. He is entitled to his opinions and radical ideas and is free to share them. I applaud the challenge to conventional thinking but don't appreciate his writing style. In my view, he intermixes fact with personal opinions sometimes shading the two as legitimate research. His website takes on the tone of some of the anti-government conspiracy theorists. The cited web article employs circuitous logic in places - particularly around our Okinawa presence. That said, it provides challenges on manpower worth discussion and debate.

Regarding the quoted paragraph on OCS and NROTC, I would offer the following:

1. Moving OCS to one/both of the recruit depots makes no sense. All Marine Officer training is in Quantico now. Why change that? The recruit depots have different missions, staff and focus. Quantico exists and Meyer doesn't suggest closing it, so why bother shifting OCS to the recruit depots?

2. PLC junior and senior duplication. Fair enough: there is duplication of costs and one 10-week program would be less costly. However, Meyer does not account for the attrition seen with PLC juniors. This year 20% washed out - presumably choosing to drop from PlC. If you have to account for that attrition, the PLC senior program would have to be increased by 20% in order to fill the pipeline at the same rates. This would increase spend and the differential needs to be weighed versus the benefits of the current programs. They also serve to evaluate and discern those individuals who should become Marine officers.

3. Eliminating Marine staff at NROTC units is ludicrous. There is no way Marine Options would get the necessary training from the Navy staff. These are two distinct branches with completely different cultures, skillsets, etc. The Marine staff provide classroom instruction, essential military skills training, field exercises, physical training, etc - all items distinctly Marine oriented. They also are the first line of discernment on who should become a Marine Officer - a critical step which culminates in the OCS training event. Becoming a Marine Officer is not a 10-week OCS process - not for any commissioning program the Marines utilize.

I definitely agree with point 3 although I don't think the author was really arguing for removing the MOI, AMOI, and leaving the MECEPs and regular Marine midshipmen. It's sort of what I was referring to in mentioning intangibles earlier. OCC is good and fine, and I'm sure it turns out fine officers. However spending nearly 4 years beings inculcated in the Marine culture and skill set, filling billets, and other Marine leadership training, will initially result in a better officer. No doubt the OCC cadre will catch up quickly but the NROTC program brings something to the table.

Ha! I guess I read it wrong. Rereading the section, I can see your point. I suppose he is suggesting elimination of the MO NROTC program although it wasn't very clear. That's a debate for another day but makes a huge assumption: that the USMC will get enough volunteers in the pipeline in the good times and the bad.

I was curious about the replies. This post was more USMC oriented thus Naval Academy.

kinnem said:

Why do you post such sacrilege here?

Actually the article was an interesting read that discussed many ways to save money, although it might have been better in the Academy/Military News forum.

My only gripe with it is that all the conclusions seem to be based simply on dollars. I'm sure there are many intangibles with both NROTC and the other suggestions that he doesn't take into account. I would also submit that it doesn't make a lot of sense to cut NROTC for the Marine Corps while it's still there for Navy. The incremental cost of a few Marines in the program can't be that much. I'm not knowledgeable enough to pass judgement other than that.

Click to expand...

No worries. I was joking around, hence the smiley. Actually I was trying to put the emphasis on the "sacrilege" and not where it got posted in that statement. Of course it would be sacrilege to many here, but there was some good food for thought in that article. Someone needs to think outside the box... they're not all going to be good ideas but it may trigger something.