Update for SMC's from Cadet Command

Discussion in 'ROTC' started by QA1517, Mar 11, 2015.

  1. QA1517

    QA1517 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2012
    Messages:
    402
    Likes Received:
    102
    Senior Military Colleges (SMC) now have a Reserve commission mission. That means each year they must commission Officers into the Guard/Reserve. Attending a SMC does NOT guarantee you active duty.

    To go along with this it appears as though this year's commissioning ECP cadets from junior military colleges might be the last ones to be able to access active duty when they graduate with the bachelors degree.

    I feel for those that are in mid-stream.
     
  2. sheriff3

    sheriff3 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2013
    Messages:
    996
    Likes Received:
    317
    If this is indeed true it seems that it will level the playing field for the non SMC cadets. On this most recent accessions board 105 SMC cadets that were below the line got picked up for AD by virtue of being SMC cadets thus displacing what would be considered 105 more qualified non SMC cadets.
     
  3. QA1517

    QA1517 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2012
    Messages:
    402
    Likes Received:
    102
    I don't know if this would be "X" number out of their commissioning allotment they have now (which makes sense to me) or if it you be in slots in addition to what they have. Maybe pushing them to recruit for reserves also.

    Also, to contradict myself on the ECP situation. The last info I read states that future ECP cadets will have to have their GRFD control numbers revoked while at their junior military college before they commission. I assume that means they would need the approval of their PMS, since the PMS at their follow up school used to be the one that had some say so in the decision.

    This info is coming from a cadre member at the meetings going on at Fort Knox.
     
  4. Jcleppe

    Jcleppe Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,535
    Likes Received:
    837
    I want to start out with the fact that everything I say here is purely speculation.

    Since the Active Duty Clause (with PMS approval) is Legislated, I would assume that it would need to be reviewed and officially changed before any SMC starts forcing cadets to the Reserves.

    I wonder if by stating that there is now a mission to commission cadets into the Reserves, that it means they will now begin to recruit cadets with GRFD scholarships. Instead of choosing cadets that are below the cutoff they would try and have the number needed to meet the Reserve mission before they get to graduation.

    If this is the case they would still be able to be within the written regulation that a cadet is guaranteed an Active Duty commission as long as the have the PMS approval.

    Example, say the SMC has a mission of 5 cadets to be commissioned into the Reserves/NG, they would work to get 5 cadets for that YG on either GRFD or sign a Reserve/NG only contract. These cadets would be in addition to the cadets already in the program. This would mean that there will still be a significant number of SMC cadets that would commission AD that were below the cutoff.

    I have to say I was surprised to read how many SMC cadets received AD that were below the cutoff, they made up 12% of the total that were forced Reserves/NG.
     
    kinnem likes this.
  5. QA1517

    QA1517 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2012
    Messages:
    402
    Likes Received:
    102
    I don't know that I'm surprised, but thought the special branch detailing option would have more impact.
     
  6. QA1517

    QA1517 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2012
    Messages:
    402
    Likes Received:
    102
    Here's another scenario since this is a recruiting mission, and like you this is speculation.
    SMC's are allotted X number of active duty slots. Let's say 100. So instead of recruiting 110 knowing that about 10 will not make it thru, they recruit 125 thereby knowing that 10 will not make it thru and they will have 15 to send to reserves. Makes the competition at an SMC tougher, raising the bar to get active duty and maybe preventing the ones below AD cutoff from getting it.
     
  7. Jcleppe

    Jcleppe Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,535
    Likes Received:
    837
    I think it's still going to come down to how the law is written regarding SMC cadets and Active Duty. Unless they change the law I don't see how they're going to be able to force cadets that would have been given approval from the PMS to go Reserve/NG. Seems to me they will have to meet this goal through recruitment until they get the law changed, and we all know how fast that happens these days.

    It will be interesting to see what the official word on this turns out to be. I'm sure SMC cadets and parents will chime in once they get the official word.
     
  8. Full Metal Bulldog

    Full Metal Bulldog Citadel Class of 2016

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2012
    Messages:
    428
    Likes Received:
    22
    Our active duty "guarantee" is law. According to my PMS, who is drinking from a firehose just as much as we are, this new reserves "push" has to do with more aggressive recruitment for the reserve component, and to encourage PMS's to exercise more scrutiny when signing off on granting a below-cuttoff kid AD. Some PMS's would give every cadet AD, and it wasn't working, both for the cadet and for the Army.
     
  9. Jcleppe

    Jcleppe Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,535
    Likes Received:
    837
    The "Guarantee of Active Duty" has always had the caveat of the PMS approval. The fact that this option has rarely been used in the past has led many cadets to think that the Guarantee was absolute. I think you hit the nail on the head on how they will meet these Reserve goals.

    Watching the ROTC process over the last seven years I have never seen them release, like they did this year, the number of SMC cadets that were below the cutoff but still made Active Duty. They usually just listed the entire number of SMC cadets that commissioned. I have to imagine that seeing this new number has spurred a lot of conversation, 105 seems like a high number compared to the total number of SMC cadets that commission.

    The new "Scrutiny" will go a long way in meeting those new Reserve goals while still following the laws that are in place.

    Some SMC cadets will now have to step up their game a bit if they want Active Duty.
     
  10. Cav

    Cav Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    3
    I'm not sure what the source of this "mission" is, but I will throw out my own speculation and raise questions about the statements presented. As noted, AD for SMC grads is statutory (and in regulation). So, an increase in Reserve appointments doesn't necessarily mean relegation to the RC for those wanting AD. Keep in mind that half of SMC grads, who do all 4 years of ROTC, don't accept a commission. The push could be to have this cohort join the RC.

    Also, the RC is made up of the USAR and the ARNG. The USAR is short mid grade officers but I don't think there is a shortage of junior officers. I don't know about the ARNG. Seems to me that this may be more about getting a ROI from those going through ROTC than pushing SMC grads into the RC.

    I would be interested in seeing what the "update" said.
     
  11. AJC

    AJC Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2014
    Messages:
    539
    Likes Received:
    278
    Sounds like an additional mission. Title 10 will not be rewritten.
     
  12. Jcleppe

    Jcleppe Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,535
    Likes Received:
    837
    Title 10 does not need to be rewritten, AD has never been an unconditional statutory guarantee, it has always required the approval and recommendation of the PMS. If Cadet Command directs the PMS's of the SMC's to give more scrutiny to cadets that fall below the AD Cutoff, they are not telling them to do anything that they have not always been authorized to do. If the PMS's are told to meet certain goals for the Reserves/NG by not recommending all cadets that fall below the cutoff, they will not be in violation of Title 10.
     
    goaliedad likes this.
  13. Cav

    Cav Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    3
    I think if you would find that directing PMSs to not recommend cadets that fall below the cutoff would be inconsistent with congressional intent. If so, it would likely be considered a violation of statute. Never mind the issue of UCI in directing a particular recommendation. Besides, doesn't the recommendation come before the placement on the OML is determined?
     
    bruno likes this.
  14. Jcleppe

    Jcleppe Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,535
    Likes Received:
    837
    Here is an excerpt from a report in which Norwich addresses changes in the Title 10.

    A note on SMCs and commissioning: A SMC cadet is not guaranteed a commission in the United States Air Force, United States Navy or United States Marine Corps simply on the merit of graduating from an SMC. However, 10 USC 2111a(e) does guarantee that every graduate of an SMC who is medically and physically qualified and is recommended by the professor of Military Science can be commissioned in the United States Army. The law clearly states “can be” and not “must be.” The secretary of the U.S. Army is allowed to adjust ascension numbers based on federally mandated caps on personnel end strength. Therefore, there are no guarantees for a commission in any of the ROTC programs at Norwich. However, Norwich does continue to produce outstanding leaders every year for each service represented on campus.

    There is not much in Title 10 that is left up to "Intent" The statute clearly states that a cadet in Army ROTC can earn a commission into AD with the recommendation of the PMS. Nowhere does it state that a PMS must make that recommendation based on the intent of Congress. PMS's have, even this year, not given their recommendation and the cadet was forced Reserves. Cadet Command telling the PMS's to be more vigil in their recommendations for these SMC cadets that fall short of the AD cutoff would in no way violate any statute. Every PMS even those not at a SMC can make a recommendation for the Reserves.
     
    payitforward and NorwichDad like this.
  15. Cav

    Cav Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    3
    Congressional intent is a matter of statutory construction. The PMS's understanding of congressional intent is irrelevant. If the statute, as written, was intended to have a certain meaning, then it must be given that meaning. Creative interpretation to give it any other effect may be invalidated. In other words, it is unlikely that CC will be able to construe the statute in such a way that SMCs are treated the same as any other school with an ROTC program.
     
  16. -Bull-

    -Bull- Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,378
    Likes Received:
    334
    Good change, and a very needed one at that.
     
    Jcleppe likes this.
  17. Jcleppe

    Jcleppe Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,535
    Likes Received:
    837
    Intent has nothing to do with this statute. PMS's at SMC's currently either give their recommendation or not for AD. There has always been a history of PMS's not giving their recommendation for AD. CC does not have to construe the statute in any way, the statute already allows the PMS to make these decisions. Other then the ability of cadets to be commissioned AD with a recommendation of the PMS, SMC's are like any other ROTC program, being at a SMC gives no benefit in branching, and with 105 of them at the bottom of the AD OML this year, maybe being treated the same is overdue.
     
    -Bull- likes this.
  18. Cav

    Cav Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    3
    We can go back and forth on this, but congressional intent is a fundamental part of statutory construction and applies to every statute. So, yes the intent of Congress has everything to do with the statute. That is how it works. Further, SMCs are not just like other ROTC programs specifically because of the statute. Again, statutory construction will not allow a provision to be interpreted as meaningless. The presumption is that it means something. Eliminating the distinction between SMCs and other ROTC programs makes the language in the statute superfluous.

    The reference to branching is a non sequitur. The statute does not say anything about branching of SMC cadets. Therefore, it would make no difference in this respect (as you state). You have the stated opinion that SMC cadets should not be "recommended" for AD if they are below the cutoff. However, opinions on this forum don't mean much. Do you actually have information from CC regarding a change in regulation or policy, like a policy memo or LOI, or is this conjecture based on someone saying they heard that SMCs have Reserve mission?
     
  19. QA1517

    QA1517 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2012
    Messages:
    402
    Likes Received:
    102
    Go back up to 3rd post as quoted above. ROO from DS's school is at Fort Knox meetings and is posting information via social media.

    I do not have the official paperwork to post, and probably won't have. From his other post's I surmise it is what has been stated above. It appears that direction is being given to the SMC's (and to the JMC'S) to be a little more critical on who they recommend for active duty. Set the bar higher to match the OML cut-off and to recruit for reserves also, via GRFD or whatever means.

    My opinion, my interpretation.
     
  20. NorwichDad

    NorwichDad Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    1,274
    Likes Received:
    210
    Spot On

    I posted this Norwich article a few years ago here when the drawdown began. I think the world always finds a balance to everything. I think if you take care of business, you will not need to worry about the AD lines at any school. Work hard to have no issues.

    "It's not just a tightening of waivers that is bringing disappointment to Norwich students. Some cadets intent upon joining the U.S. military are also finding themselves unable to achieve their goal because of a recent reduction in Army military slots allotted to the university"

    2012 Article
    http://www.norwichguidon.com/news/view.php/550416/For-some-military-dreams-face-an-end
     
    Jcleppe likes this.

Share This Page