Any rumors on Cadet BRANCHING timeframe?

I wouldn't call it ignorance or laziness. The Army can call a fork an "eating utensil, four pronged, with handle." It's still easier to call it a fork. I use the old phrases in casual conversation, but in a formal setting I use the proper terms. This might be your pet peeve, but we do the same thing when it comes to other areas like MOS titles.
 
mbitr said:
I wouldn't call it ignorance or laziness. The Army can call a fork an "eating utensil, four pronged, with handle." It's still easier to call it a fork. I use the old phrases in casual conversation, but in a formal setting I use the proper terms. This might be your pet peeve, but we do the same thing when it comes to other areas like MOS titles.
Click to expand...

Love this^^^ :thumb:

I've been in law enforcement for almost 31 years and we deal with these same issues. We have senior officers still using codes leftover from the early 80's that have been changed TWICE yet still survive in the real world of the people actually doing the work. It might be stubbornness but it definitely isn't ignorance.
 
mbitr said:
I wouldn't call it ignorance or laziness. The Army can call a fork an "eating utensil, four pronged, with handle." It's still easier to call it a fork. I use the old phrases in casual conversation, but in a formal setting I use the proper terms. This might be your pet peeve, but we do the same thing when it comes to other areas like MOS titles.
Click to expand...

Not knowing that your branch category changed 5 years ago is not a case of avoiding a tough and cumbersome new term. The term "operations" is in no way confusing or cumbersome. In fact, the new terms are easier. "Force Sustainment" makes a lot more sense to the average mind than "Combat Service Support." It's laziness, and it pervades the institution.

It's ignorance, just like ignorance of basic wear of uniform items and complete failure to understand your own doctrine. Ask 10 captains what doctrinal manual governs their own unit's operations, and half of them can't even name it (pro tip: if you want to be taken seriously as a professional, you should know those simple things). Try it, I implore you. Then prepare to be dismayed. Ask your average officer to draw you the NATO symbol for their own battalion on a piece of paper. The most basic bits of our own knowledge, doctrine, and structure elude us. Then again, when can't get officers to maintain weight standards or get a 300 on a PT test (or even take one, in many cases) so there should be little surprise.

It's laziness and willful ignorance. You don't even have to go to a bookshelf to find manuals now. You can carry them on your phone. The excuses have vanished, but the lack of initiative and professionalism has not.

So, youngsters, dig into your manuals now. And when you're an infantryman and find out you're going to Fort Hood, you'd better make FM 3-90.1 and FM 3-90.5 your bathroom reader. If you're an aviator-to-be, dig into FM 3-0.111, and learn FM 1-230 and AR 95-1 cover to cover and back again. Be the one who gets it right.
 
My son's BC is #6!!!

My MSII son had nothing but great things to say about him. He was AD Spec Forces before going Green to Gold. Did an amazing job working with the junior Cadets in the field and was well liked.

Not that it matters as much anymore for OML, but he did turn my perpetually lost son into a land nav wiz.
 
Cadets' OML rankings are determined by a number of criteria, including grade point averages, strong athletic performance in the Army Physical Fitness Test and college athletic participation, performance during college ROTC training and at the Leader Development and Assessment Course at Fort Knox.
Click to expand...

Last time you'll see that.

RIP, LDAC.
 
Appeal for Active Duty

DS did not receive Active Duty. On the Accessions Timeline 13DEC is listed as the last day to appeal Component or Branch due to errors. Does anyone know how to start the appeal process? Any advice would be appreciated.
 
5rad said:
DS did not receive Active Duty. On the Accessions Timeline 13DEC is listed as the last day to appeal Component or Branch due to errors. Does anyone know how to start the appeal process? Any advice would be appreciated.
Click to expand...

I really have no clue how the appeal process works, but I would think a call to the HRT or PMS would be the best start.

In the wording you used, the appeal process is because of possible errors. Not to pry or stir anything up, but unless it was due to an actual error not just unhappiness with the result, I don't foresee this as being successful.
 
I have heard of one cadet that was able to get a favorable appeal from NG to Active. Their PMS worked with the cadet and was very involved with the appeal, it only took a couple days so I'm not sure if it was a full appeal process.

The cadet was supposed to be part of the special branching program but received NG, the PMS found that CC had not handled the process correctly. Once the PMS pointed out the errors the cadet was given AD.

The point is there needs to be a mistake in how the cadet was accessed, could be mis calculating the score, entering the wrong information, or other mistakes. The mistakes need to be enough to change the cadets OMS score high enough that they would have made the cutoff.

As Bull said, if there are no mistakes in the scoring then an appeal will be quickly denied.
 
Thank you for your responses. Do you know how to contact HRT? Or who to contact? He understands it must be an error in his packet and he would like to submit in writing (thru an appeal process) what he believes was the error.
 
5rad said:
Thank you for your responses. Do you know how to contact HRT? Or who to contact? He understands it must be an error in his packet and he would like to submit in writing (thru an appeal process) what he believes was the error.
Click to expand...

The HRT would be the Human Resources Technician at his school (the person that handles all the admin stuff related to being a cadet, sometimes called an HRA). They usually are the most knowledgeable on all of this stuff since they typically have spent more time in cadet command than the average cadre member on a 3 year rotation.

I would also contact the PMS. You'll most likely need his/her support for an appeal, so might as well get that ball rolling to let them know what's going on.

Additionally, everyone that goes through the accessions process and receives a component and/or branch gets a counseling statement acknowledging everything. This counseling statement lays out exactly what component and branch a cadet received, whether or not they used any ADSO's, were selected for an Educational Delay, what they need to do in order to commission, and some other stuff. On the back of these counseling statements, there is a box to check agree or disagree, and space to comment, and then the cadet signs and dates it. Regardless of any ceremony or special way that a cadet finds out his/her component and branch from the cadre, this counseling statement is the formal correspondence that lays everything out for the cadet. I would bet for the appeal process they will pull this up, and it won't help if he's checked agree and signed it (not saying he has, but he probably has already gotten this as they usually give it to the cadets pretty soon after the component/branch lists come out so it would be good for him to maintain a copy).

I'd start with the HRT and PMS. Best of luck
 
To be clear, your son should be the one contacting his PMS or the HRA, not you.
 
Checking agree on a counseling statement doesn't mean the soldier is affirming that all the information on the counseling is true. That is a misconception. It is an affirmation that everything in writing is an accurate account of what was discussed in the counseling.
 
Yea, I wasn't very clear on that part, but wasn't going to go real in depth when the parent wouldn't be dealing with the statement anyways. I mainly pointed it out because if the cadet does have a problem with what the counseling statement said, he most likely brought it up during that counseling session, the parent just may not know it. I originally had that the cadet must sign the statement too, but edited it because they don't even have to do that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top