New class of Branched Army female Infantry Officers.
- Thread starter Jcleppe
- Start date
-Bull-
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2009
- Messages
- 1,431
Source? Not saying I don't believe you, but as of recent, LTs who have failed various BOLCs are not being let go, but instead re-branched.
Sledge
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2014
- Messages
- 755
I took it to mean discharged from the Infantry BOLC, not the Army.
Last edited:
scoutpilot
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2010
- Messages
- 4,479
Refresh my memory...are you part of the Infantry School staff or HRC?
tankercaptain
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Messages
- 509
There are exceptions to this current rule with regards to officers failing the Infantry Basic Course but Office of Infantry Proponecy current plan is to discharge failures from the army.
tankercaptain
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Messages
- 509
I don't care if you believe me or not.
You are welcome to pm me if you'd like more information.
scoutpilot
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2010
- Messages
- 4,479
If I wanted to ask someone the information, I'd go right to the source. You're confused about the plans.
tankercaptain
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Messages
- 509
I'm not confused about the plans. I'm relaying direct information from a reliable source.
Your source might be reliable in the past, but the past reliability doesn't guarantee anything.
Agree, in the past 2LT that failed IBOLC recycled. Why do 2LTs fail IBOLC, my days - swimming and advance land nav. Had so dumb 2LTs in the IBOLC (including myself), but none of us failed anything academically.
Considering, in theory, the Army spent several hundred thousand dollars to commission these 2LTs, hard to see discharging them unless we are over strength.
Last edited:
scoutpilot
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2010
- Messages
- 4,479
The whole line about "discharging" is a load of malarkey, as indicated by the feigned "inside baseball" mystique of supposedly parroting a reliable source.
tankercaptain
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Messages
- 509
I agree with you on your statement. Everyone on here is welcome to their opinions. I was passing on information. Take it or don't take it, it doesn't impact me.
This thread should really be about women going to IOBLC not about men being discharged, recycled of rebranched.
tankercaptain
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Messages
- 509
My source used the term wastage, but again feel free to knock on someone that might know something you don't. Feel free to continue the insults. As on par on here, attack the messenger.
Last edited:
scoutpilot
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2010
- Messages
- 4,479
No one is insulting you. But the old "I have an unnamed inside source" is a tried and true technique for lending credence to otherwise unsubstantiated claims and info.
I'm sure you know many things I don't. This just isn't one of those things.
tankercaptain
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Messages
- 509
We can agree to disagree. Like I said if you want to know more information feel free to PM.
I'll leave it at that, at this point I have nothing else to say on the subject.
Enjoy your day.
scoutpilot
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2010
- Messages
- 4,479
This is where I agree and disagree. I think we could do some filtering/screening/analysis before passing on the information. Yes it is about females attending IBOLC and we should try to keep any future females that might be interested in becoming an Infantry officer better informed. Some of us are older and experience to analyze information better than a 16 or 17 year old girl.
Why do some posters quote laws, regulations, and/or internet references when giving out information, instead of just saying it's from a reliable source (yes in certain situation, it is a reliable source).
When common knowledge or practice is recycle or re-branching of 2LTs that fail IBOLC, hard to accept an idea that they will be discharged if they fail IBOLC based on a "reliable source."
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2010
- Messages
- 846
I can confirm that as recent as last winter there were 2LT's recycled in IBOLC, as fact.
Lately, it's usually one of the following:
- Fail Land nav (as memberlg mentioned)
- Failure to complete 5 mile run (graded by RTB usually, on the RTB course)
- Missing key live fire exercises
- Policy violation, DUI warning, etc (even on weekend, happened last fall)
- Do not get go's on your graded leader exercises (not as common)
They technically could recycle you based on leadership evals, etc, and some of the physical performance like the exit RPFT's roll into that as a subjective input. As do the peer inputs.
There is currently a big emphasis on IBOLC as prep for Ranger School, and a 2LT will do pretty much all the major graded RS items for RAP week and Darby phase while in IBOLC. You'll do a diagnostic RPFT, and then one to exit the course. Land nav on the RS course, to RS standards. Same for the 5 mile, graded patrols, etc. They roll a taste of sleep deprivation & limited food on the field exercises. (just a taste). Peers are done just like RS, same exact method and apparently, questions.
The expectation is that you will pass these early exposure to RS tasks, as currently policy is that 100% of US IBOLC grads will at least attempt RS once.
So the exit standards for IBOLC are heavily aligned now to the RS entrance standards. This information is fairly well documented in the IBOLC graduation requirements, standards, and similar documents.
Which will make it interesting with female IN officers, as they will get a very good prep in IBOLC. But also that they will be expected to perform at RS levels toward the end of IBOLC. If you go IN, you will attempt RS, which is probably what the article misunderstood.
Likewise, the current RS event sequence makes it very hard to do the minimum and get out by failing an event. Other than the RPFT, you will have to endure the suck to get your 2nd attempt on things like land nav unless you are willing to be a LOM (Lack of Motivation) drop and take a very big black mark. This apparently used to be a thing by those force branched IN, fail out early.
So this may be a case of "be careful of what you ask for". No slight to the females who passed, but the current pass rate of even the prep course (RTAC) has been very low. And lower for RS. Only one female in my son's course made it out of RAP week, and she dropped in Darby. None present at all in his MTN or Swamp phases. As an aside, his read was that RTB has thought this through very well, and it will be difficult to game the system the way it's currently set up. And since some females have made it through, the idea that the standards should be relaxed will be a very hard sell. He had no insight to the females who passed, as they were a couple classes ahead.
Recent figures are that about half of ABOLC grads are sent to RS. (informal per the LT's) They apparently have a harder time even with RTAC as ABOLC spends virtually no time on things that would help prepare for RS.
As a somewhat disinterested observer, I expect 2-3 years of data gathering, then the IBOLC/RS pass rates will not look good enough and they will either change the standard or remove RS tab as a defacto IN requirement. Or remove it from consideration for AER's or promotion, etc.
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2010
- Messages
- 846
The MILPER or ALARACT on how to apply for waiver was floating around recently on several sites, it's clearly just removing existing gender restrictions and has nothing to do with things like Civil Affairs. I don't recall them even using the term combat arms. The one I read online had specific year groups, and constraints on time before CPT, etc.
My takeaway was that they were trying to accommodate attendance of another BOLC and associated follow-on courses and still leave time for a key leadership position (IN Platoon leader, etc) to meet the promotion criteria.
Given the length of just the IBOLC + RS pipeline there are probably some practical constraints.
I can't recall if they were considering anything beyond LT's. I can't imagine them allowing cross branching for CPT's without BOLC and time in key leader positions.
One other thought: even though the gender restrictions have been removed, it may be a while before the year groups are even eligible. Ex: Ranger regiment is not even considering YG2013 IN officers, YG 2014 is just in submission process, and YG 2015 is not even open yet. And you must apply with enough time before CPT, so I suspect there will not be any women applying for IN Regiment officer slots until next year. And only that if they are YG 2015 and manage to cross branch ASAP. Source: http://www.benning.army.mil/tenant/75thRanger/recruiting.htm
That unless they really bend some current qualifications.
I guess you could see females in Regiment from other branches, but they'd have to tab first unless (again) they bend the rules. Thinking about it, we could probably see option 40 Regiment or 18X SF enlisted applicants before officers.