AROTC Class of 2014 Branching

[AscoreD]

Here's the stats I got from this year's accessions:
Key Accessions Statistics
5,478 accessed
2,623 Active Duty - 64% got first branch choice/91% got one of their top 3 branch choices/536 were branch detailed from a donor branch with Military Intelligence providing more than 1/2 of those branch detailed
2,609 Reserve Forces Duty - 1,285 Cadets who wanted Active Duty got Reserve Forces Duty
175 Army Nurses
71 Education Delay

 

[QA1517]

This may be a silly question, but do those numbers include the senior military colleges? If so, how many active duty came from them?

 

[mbitr]

Those numbers have included SMC cadets in the briefings from past years. There's something about SMC cadets directed to AD, but I'm not entirely sure who that encompasses. Without the by-name OML I don't think you could pin down the exact number. I will tell you that it pissed a lot of my peers off looking through last year's OML and seeing SMC Cadets like ten names from the bottom who got AD. We're talking scores in like the low 60's/high 50's. But hey, I paid to wear a silly costume for four years and my PMS and I root for the same football team, so why not?

 

[MabryPsyD]

Here's the stats I got from this year's accessions:
Key Accessions Statistics
5,478 accessed
71 Education Delay

*Steps up on soapbox*

*Points at stats*

Please tell your friends, DS, DD, etc DO NOT plan on earning an Ed Delay. It can happen, but please don't plan your entire military career around it.

*Steps off soapbox*

 

[Aglahad]

*Steps up on soapbox*

*Points at stats*

Please tell your friends, DS, DD, etc DO NOT plan on earning an Ed Delay. It can happen, but please don't plan your entire military career around it.

*Steps off soapbox*

But Mabry, doesn't every freshman ore med get into med school?

 

[dunninla]

Here's the stats I got from this year's accessions:
Key Accessions Statistics

2,623 Active Duty
1,285 Cadets who wanted Active Duty got Reserve Forces Duty

OK, sorry to read that but it confirms what we've been thinking for about a year. I don't know about FYs 13 and 12, but FY11 saw 18% of the cadets wanting AD "Referred" to Reserve Component. This year was 33%. That's a very sobering number... one third of those hoping, wanting, working toward AD did not achieve that goal.

 

[ghost_rider]

That's a very sobering number... one third of those hoping, wanting, working toward AD did not achieve that goal.

It is indeed, but it is a merit based system.* If you do not rate your slot you do not rate and should have worked harder. It is not a "nice" truth, but it is how it works. If you want what you want you work for it and it is on you if you do not get it.

*I know this year appears to be a disorganized and messed up system but there haven't been any concrete numbers released on how decisions were made so we must assume merit still matters.

 

[dunninla]

To those of you Referred RD: I know it must be a bitter disappointment to most of you. I can only hope you can get immediately onto securing an RC Branch, then securing a civilian job, then transferring your RC duty station to the one in which you secure your civilian job. That's a lot of unexpected activity for seniors who did not expect to need to be doing this. God speed.

 

[dunninla]

If you do not rate your slot you do not rate and should have worked harder.

That's one side of the coin. The other side is a question of raw skill. Some are more skilled than others academically, physically, and in terms of leadership capability. There are some, perhaps even most, of the Referred RD component who gave a good effort, as much effort as many who got AD, who simply were under-equipped in terms of raw skill to compete with those who had more raw skill. It is not a moral issue, but one of genetics.

This is an aside, but relates. Some people seem to think that the athletic team that won "wanted it more", or "prepared harder" for the game. I hear that phrase often in a big game between two seemingly evenly matched teams. In most cases I find that is not true. I actually find that phrase insulting to the losing team. Both teams wanted it equally, but one team performed better (good breaks, better game plan, other reasons).

It could be the same here for our Referred RD component. Not all but a good portion "wanted it just as much", "worked just as hard", but in terms of skills were not up to the standard. For some, academically no matter how hard they tried, no matter how much tutoring they got, could not get their GPA above 2.7. They were simply outmatched in terms of academic skill by most of the other students. Same would hold for athleticism. If I trained every day, all day, I could not run the 100 meters in under 13 seconds. I probably run it in 15 seconds now. It's not a matter of desire or effort. My vertical jump is pathetic... maybe 15 inches. There are people my height with 36" vertical jumps. If I trained all day, every day, I could probably get it up to 20" or 22", but that's it. It is a matter of genetics. Some cadets even if they trained every day could not get above 85 points on the 2 mile run. They arrived as MS1s running it and getting 35 points. They worked hard to get it to 85. Their body type simply isn't made for it. The same with pushups... there are some cadets who simply don't have the genetic musculature to get over 85 points in pushups, while for others they can get to 100 with barely any training.

In the end it doesn't change the reality of being referred to RD, but I wouldn't jump to conclusions that those who are referred RD "didn't work hard enough". All that can be said with certainty is that they "didn't perform as well as those who got AD." Now on to Plan B.

 

[QA1517]

Well put.

But in this case there are some less academically and physically qualified that made AD because they went to a SMC. Fair or not those are the rules and everyone knows them going in. They just don't know what the magically numbers will be until they access.

This year proves that there are a lot of well qualified and talented officers going into the reserves, it is not just the ones with the very low scores.

So remember, there is no shame in Reserves or Guard. You can still serve your country to the best of your ability and do it with pride.

 

[payitforward]

But in this case there are some less academically and physically qualified that made AD because they went to a SMC. Fair or not those are the rules and everyone knows them going in.

Can you point me to the rules that show that an SMC cadet has a better chance at an AD slot than a cadet in an ROTC program at a non-SMC? As my DS was interviewing with ROTC leaders at the various SMCs, no one ever said that going to an SMC included some sort of AD guarantee. You sign up for ROTC, you contract, and then you go AD, NG or Reserves depending on your position on the OML -- that's what we were told over and over.

 

[Jcleppe]

Can you point me to the rules that show that an SMC cadet has a better chance at an AD slot than a cadet in an ROTC program at a non-SMC? As my DS was interviewing with ROTC leaders at the various SMCs, no one ever said that going to an SMC included some sort of AD guarantee. You sign up for ROTC, you contract, and then you go AD, NG or Reserves depending on your position on the OML -- that's what we were told over and over.

Unless things have changed, cadets at a SMC are guaranteed AD as long as they meet all the requirements of the contract AND are recommended for AD by the PMS. Unless the cadet performs poorly I believe they get the recommendation.

 

[k2rider]

I honestly don't know the answer to this but are *race* and/or *gender* a factor is AD vs RD selections?

That's one side of the coin. The other side is a question of raw skill. Some are more skilled than others academically, physically, and in terms of leadership capability. There are some, perhaps even most, of the Referred RD component who gave a good effort, as much effort as many who got AD, who simply were under-equipped in terms of raw skill to compete with those who had more raw skill. It is not a moral issue, but one of genetics.

This is an aside, but relates. Some people seem to think that the athletic team that won "wanted it more", or "prepared harder" for the game. I hear that phrase often in a big game between two seemingly evenly matched teams. In most cases I find that is not true. I actually find that phrase insulting to the losing team. Both teams wanted it equally, but one team performed better (good breaks, better game plan, other reasons).

It could be the same here for our Referred RD component. Not all but a good portion "wanted it just as much", "worked just as hard", but in terms of skills were not up to the standard. For some, academically no matter how hard they tried, no matter how much tutoring they got, could not get their GPA above 2.7. They were simply outmatched in terms of academic skill by most of the other students. Same would hold for athleticism. If I trained every day, all day, I could not run the 100 meters in under 13 seconds. I probably run it in 15 seconds now. It's not a matter of desire or effort. My vertical jump is pathetic... maybe 15 inches. There are people my height with 36" vertical jumps. If I trained all day, every day, I could probably get it up to 20" or 22", but that's it. It is a matter of genetics. Some cadets even if they trained every day could not get above 85 points on the 2 mile run. They arrived as MS1s running it and getting 35 points. They worked hard to get it to 85. Their body type simply isn't made for it. The same with pushups... there are some cadets who simply don't have the genetic musculature to get over 85 points in pushups, while for others they can get to 100 with barely any training.

In the end it doesn't change the reality of being referred to RD, but I wouldn't jump to conclusions that those who are referred RD "didn't work hard enough". All that can be said with certainty is that they "didn't perform as well as those who got AD." Now on to Plan B.

 

[EDelahanty]

Can you point me to the rules that show that an SMC cadet has a better chance at an AD slot than a cadet in an ROTC program at a non-SMC? As my DS was interviewing with ROTC leaders at the various SMCs, no one ever said that going to an SMC included some sort of AD guarantee. You sign up for ROTC, you contract, and then you go AD, NG or Reserves depending on your position on the OML -- that's what we were told over and over.

The following excerpt from the federal statute was provided by the estimable Pennak in 2011:

http://www.serviceacademyforums.com/showthread.php?t=21993&highlight=SMCs+Commission+Slots

"For those interested, the federal statute is 10 U.S.C. 2111a, and pertinent subsections are (d) and (e). I have reproduced the entire Section 2111a below:

10 U.S.C.A. § 2111a .

United States Code Annotated

Title 10. Armed Forces (Refs & Annos)

Subtitle A. General Military Law (Refs & Annos)

Part III. Training and Education

Chapter 103. Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps (Refs & Annos)

§ 2111a. Support for senior military colleges

(a) Detail of officers to serve as Commandant or Assistant Commandant of Cadets.--(1) Upon the request of a senior military college, the Secretary of Defense may detail an officer on the active-duty list to serve as Commandant of Cadets at that college or (in the case of a college with an Assistant Commandant of Cadets) detail an officer on the active-duty list to serve as Assistant Commandant of Cadets at that college (but not both).

(2) In the case of an officer detailed as Commandant of Cadets, the officer may, upon the request of the college, be assigned from among the Professor of Military Science, the Professor of Naval Science (if any), and the Professor of Aerospace Science (if any) at that college or may be in addition to any other officer detailed to that college in support of the program.

(3) In the case of an officer detailed as Assistant Commandant of Cadets, the officer may, upon the request of the college, be assigned from among officers otherwise detailed to duty at that college in support of the program or may be in addition to any other officer detailed to that college in support of the program.

(b) Designation of officers as tactical officers.--Upon the request of a senior military college, the Secretary of Defense may authorize officers (other than officers covered by subsection (a)) who are detailed to duty as instructors at that college to act simultaneously as tactical officers (with or without compensation) for the Corps of Cadets at that college.

(c) Detail of officers.--The Secretary of a military department shall designate officers for detail to the program at a senior military college in accordance with criteria provided by the college. An officer may not be detailed to a senior military college without the approval of that college.

(d) Termination or reduction of program prohibited.--The Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the military departments may not take or authorize any action to terminate or reduce a unit of the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps at a senior military college unless the termination or reduction is specifically requested by the college.

(e) Assignment to active duty.--(1) The Secretary of the Army shall ensure that a graduate of a senior military college who desires to serve as a commissioned officer on active duty upon graduation from the college, who is medically and physically qualified for active duty, and who is recommended for such duty by the professor of military science at the college, shall be assigned to active duty.

(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the Secretary of the Army from requiring a member of the program who graduates from a senior military college to serve on active duty.

(f) Senior military colleges.--The senior military colleges are the following:

(1) Texas A & M University.
(2) Norwich University.
(3) The Virginia Military Institute.
(4) The Citadel.
(5) Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
(6) North Georgia College and State University.

CREDIT(S)

(Added Pub.L. 104-106, Div. A, Title V, § 545(a), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 317, and amended Pub.L. 105-85, Div. A, Title V, § 544(d), (e), (f), Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 1745, 1746; Pub.L. 106-65, Div. A, Title V, § 541(c), Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 607.) "

 

[ghost_rider]

In the end it doesn't change the reality of being referred to RD, but I wouldn't jump to conclusions that those who are referred RD "didn't work hard enough". All that can be said with certainty is that they "didn't perform as well as those who got AD." Now on to Plan B.

I shall consider myself schooled. Your phrasing is certainly better than mine and there is indeed no shame in either Guard or Reserves.

That being said, I only believe that one can only my "performance" was lacking if you truly tried hard enough and can give no better effort. If you do not give enough effort or work hard enough then that is the problem. It annoys me when people complain that their "performance" was poor even though there was a lack of effort on their part. For example, I cannot stand the excuse of being a poor performer at PT if that individual has never taken any strides to be better.

With that being said, having thought about performance and my effort over the last couple of days after receiving my branch (Active Duty, but not the branch of choice) and attempting to elaborate my feelings in this post I feel that this feeling of that one can always work harder to achieve their goal is simply a way for me to deflect the feelings that my best was simply not good enough. I think that to many, maybe only to me at least, the feeling that their best is not good enough is scarier than admitting that one did not work hard enough. Effort can be fixed, but performance can not.

Also on another note, part of me thinks that bottom performers at SMC's being allowed to go AD is a little bit BS. At the same time, I also realize that they put up with another component of their ROTC experience and if they are willing to deal with the extra component then that is their payoff at the end.

 

[payitforward]

Thanks for posting that. It doesn't look like a guarantee to me at all assuming the PMS is doing his job. DS was told repeatedly at every SMC he visited that there were absolutely no guarantees for AD. Now that he's a freshman at one, I'm hearing about senior cadets there who wanted AD but did not get it.

Therefore, it's not the fault of poorly performing SMC cadets when they get an AD slot over a better-suited cadet from a non-SMC. It's the fault of those who are doing the recommending, and those who write the rules.

 

[cjs]

Here's the stats I got from this year's accessions:
Key Accessions Statistics
5,478 accessed
2,623 Active Duty - 64% got first branch choice/91% got one of their top 3 branch choices/536 were branch detailed from a donor branch with Military Intelligence providing more than 1/2 of those branch detailed
2,609 Reserve Forces Duty - 1,285 Cadets who wanted Active Duty got Reserve Forces Duty
175 Army Nurses
71 Education Delay

where did you get those stats from? And they are for the accessions that just took place?

 

[mbitr]

My PMS had the stats with him when he sat us down so I'm guessing they came in the email with the accessions results. What he posted looks about like what I saw, but to be honest I was more relieved at having made AD with one of the branches I wanted and less paying attention.

 

[goaliedad]

Here's the stats I got from this year's accessions:
Key Accessions Statistics
5,478 accessed
2,623 Active Duty - 64% got first branch choice/91% got one of their top 3 branch choices/536 were branch detailed from a donor branch with Military Intelligence providing more than 1/2 of those branch detailed
2,609 Reserve Forces Duty - 1,285 Cadets who wanted Active Duty got Reserve Forces Duty
175 Army Nurses
71 Education Delay

OK, sorry to read that but it confirms what we've been thinking for about a year. I don't know about FYs 13 and 12, but FY11 saw 18% of the cadets wanting AD "Referred" to Reserve Component. This year was 33%. That's a very sobering number... one third of those hoping, wanting, working toward AD did not achieve that goal.

Found the FY12 numbers for comparison:
Accessed: 5643
Educational Delay: 84
Army Nurse: 213
Requesting Reserves: 1353 (809 GRFD + 544 Non-GRFD requesting RD)
Active Duty: 2998
Reserve Force: 2334 including 981 Cadets who requested AD who were commissioned RD

In round figures, it looks like there was 1 cadet forced to RD for every 2 that received AD this year vs. 1 cadet forced to RD for every 3 who received AD in FY2012.

This is a huge change in the competitive landscape considering the addition of the ADSO options for certain majors/branches which also affect the regular cutoff on the OML.

I don't know how many nurses were forced RD, but it appears that nurses took a major hit as well.

I think this caught many a cadet who had a comfortable (by previous years accessions standards) GPA/APFT/LDAC result by surprise.

 

[dunninla]

Found the FY12 numbers for comparison:
Active Duty: 2998
Wanted AD but Referred to RD: 981.

OK, then we have:

Cadets wanting AD who were referred/forced RD
FY10: 15%
FY11: 18%
FY12: 25%
FY13: unknown
FY14: 33%

That's actually less of a surprise, or change than I had thought, seeing the FY12 numbers for the first time. It's almost linear, with the biggest change occurring b/w FY11 and FY12. I completely missed that FY12 change at the time. That should have been the loud warning whistle.

I wonder what the numbers will be in a continued "Peace Time" force sustainment? Perhaps ROTC will reduce its overall Accessions Mission keeping a 67% AD 33% RD mix, or will keep the same Mission but increasingly supply the Reserve Component with cadets at the expense of AD, to something like 50% AD and 50% RD.

This ties in somewhat with a shift I have sensed in the overall purpose and use of the RD component from an emergency component to be used rarely, only in rapid buildup, to a force that will be routinely used with greater frequency to sustain forces in peacetime missions. What we now think of as "Reserves" might become actually something more like "substitute teacher", where the Reserves are used not as emergency but as routine and regular gap fillers. This means a Reservist might expect to be deployed a few times during the eight year commitment, even during peacetime.

What do you all think about the nature of the future utilization of the Army Reserves? If it is as I sense, I think a lot of those disappointed about not getting AD will get a significant amount of AD anyway, even in peacetime.