ROTC and MOS

armyguard24

5-Year Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
18
How does the job selection work with ROTC? Does it work the same way as the SA's? And how long after Commissioning does one go to training for the job? (particularly Reserves)
 
It is much the same process as USMA. It's called the accessions process (Google it). Your Officer Basic Course (OBC) will depend on your branch (not MOS) and the availability of school slots. If you are going into the Reserves you will work with your unit to schedule the date of your school.
 
Curiosity, but are they like the AFA/AFROTC?

In other words, AFA grads go first for that yr group and than ROTC goes starting with the highest OML for ROTC?

Or are you stating that AROTC and WP go at the same time regardless of the source for commissioning?
 
It goes WP->ROTC->OCS for priority branch slotting. Obviously some slots of every branch are allocated for every commissioning source.

WP is guaranteed AD

All new 2nd LTs go to the same BOLC for their respective branches
 
I wasn't asking about branching, but reporting so I am still curious.

I looked for BOLC on the acronym list, but it doesn't exist, please enlighten me what that is.

My point was for AF, AFA goes 1st to the schools, than it is filled by ROTC and OCS, OML and DOR play into the equation when it comes to report date.

The way I read your post there is no preference to the source.
 
I wasn't asking about branching, but reporting so I am still curious.

I looked for BOLC on the acronym list, but it doesn't exist, please enlighten me what that is.

My point was for AF, AFA goes 1st to the schools, than it is filled by ROTC and OCS, OML and DOR play into the equation when it comes to report date.

The way I read your post there is no preference to the source.

BOLC-Basic Officer Leadership Course. Its purpose is to orient new LT s to their respective branch. There is no preference to commissioning source.
 
Thanks for all of your answers. This may be a bit off topic but I didn't want to start a new thread haha. If you make the cut off for Active Duty, can you still choose to go into the Reserves and have a civilian career at the same time? And I've seen that ROTC Cadets are required a 4 year obligation and a 5 year obligation. What would a MIO or CBRN obligation be?
 
Yes, each year there are lots of top 10% and DMG (Top 20%) who choose Reserves or Guard. There a many, many reasons a person would choose AD over R/G, R over AD/G, and G over AD/R. All three options are vital to the welfare, readiness, and security of our country (not to mention AF, Navy, Coast Guard, and Merchant Marine).

take a look at Page #2 of this powerpoint. You will see that Reserve Component cadets ranged from a high of 92.73 pts on the OML (well within the top 10%), and on down.

http://www.career-satisfaction.army.mil/pdfs/Order_of_Merit_Score_Calculations.pdf

From that slide we learn that last year, top 10% = 87.63 - 95.89, that 10-20% = 83.07 - 87.62, that the median OML score was 79.28, and that AD cutoff was 71.59. There is a post on the Cadet Command Facebook page that indicacates this year's AD cutoff line was 76, but I don't see any confirmation of that anywhere else... and that would be a huge jump from last year. I would hate to be the cadet who was sitting at around 74 points on the OML thinking he/she was safe for Active Duty not realizing they could raise the bar up to 76.
 
Last edited:
Ok thank you. I find it more appealing to go into the Reserves after because I can establish a civilian career and have the Army as a part time career as well. What are the chances of landing an Intel position after graduation or even a CBRN position?
 
Ok thank you. I find it more appealing to go into the Reserves after because I can establish a civilian career and have the Army as a part time career as well. What are the chances of landing an Intel position after graduation or even a CBRN position?

I would highly recommend against CBRN, especially as an officer. Not much job satisfaction.
 
I would highly recommend against CBRN, especially as an officer. Not much job satisfaction.

Well it really is subjective. Chemical and a few other branches are often a running joke in ROTC ("Oh man at least you didn't branch chemical" kind of thing). Some people find the branch as a hidden gem with high chances of promotion, post-military job opportunities and various post options.
 
Well it really is subjective. Chemical and a few other branches are often a running joke in ROTC ("Oh man at least you didn't branch chemical" kind of thing). Some people find the branch as a hidden gem with high chances of promotion, post-military job opportunities and various post options.

I really do find CBRN fascinating. I already have experience with Haz-mat (through my vol. fire dept.) and I enjoy it. Also I've heard that there are many jobs related to this field, especially now with the ever present threat of a dirty bomb or biological attack.
 
I would highly recommend against CBRN, especially as an officer. Not much job satisfaction.

I agree with Scoutpilot that most chemical officers do not enjoy serving in that branch, however, it can be an interesting way to go through the back door in to high profile units. 82nd ABN, Rangers, and Special Ops all need Chemical officers.
 
Since most people do not want a chemical officer slot, I guess it wouldn't be that competitive to earn a slot? Intel would be my top choice but I've heard that it is hard to earn. Thanks for all of yuor answers!!
 
Yes, MI is usually in the top 3 branch choices while chemical is consistently on the bottom. If you are a mediocre cadet and you put CM in your top 3, you WILL get it.
 
Yes, MI is usually in the top 3 branch choices while chemical is consistently on the bottom. If you are a mediocre cadet and you put CM in your top 3, you WILL get it.
AG -- I get your drift but let's be careful not to confuse position on the OML with being "a mediocre cadet". I'm sure you did not mean it that way, but a grade or position does not a person make. Some are naturally more athletic than others, some are naturally more academically inclined, and even though a person is lower on the OML does not mean they did not give 100% and do their best with the tools that God gave them. It just means they received mediocre scores in the specific measurements that compose the OMS. What it really means, stepping back and looking at it in perspective, is that the cadet is still prepared to be a better leader than 98% of the population... just not top 1%, if you follow me. which reminds me of the old joke: "What do you call a doctor who finished last in his/her class in Medical School?" you still call them "Doctor!"
 
Last edited:
I agree with Scoutpilot that most chemical officers do not enjoy serving in that branch.

For the benefit of some of the prospectives on here, would you mind explaining why this is the case?

FWIW, I was a missile officer in the USAF, and that AFSC generates the same reactions in the commissioning sources (SA and ROTC) as Chemical apparently does in the Army.

From what I remember from my Army BRs at VMI, there was also a dislike of ADA as a branch (maybe not "dislike," but it was unfavored). Is this still the case? I understand that this is a generalization, but I am curious.
 
Last edited:
A very good friend of my son graduated last year and was branched MI with a detail in Chemical. He is currently in Korea as a platoon leader and by all accounts from continued conversations with my son he is having a great time and enjoys his work. Maybe there are officers that don't like being in that branch, the few I have known have enjoyed it, they were confident officers that found a way to advance and make the branch work the best for them.
 
AG -- I get your drift but let's be careful not to confuse position on the OML with being "a mediocre cadet". I'm sure you did not mean it that way, but a grade or position does not a person make. Some are naturally more athletic than others, some are naturally more academically inclined, and even though a person is lower on the OML does not mean they did not give 100% and do their best with the tools that God gave them. It just means they received mediocre scores in the specific measurements that compose the OMS. What it really means, stepping back and looking at it in perspective, is that the cadet is still prepared to be a better leader than 98% of the population... just not top 1%, if you follow me. which reminds me of the old joke: "What do you call a doctor who finished last in his/her class in Medical School?" you still call them "Doctor!"

I think Aglahad actually hit the mark with "Mediocre" I don't think it was meant as a derogatory comment on cadets toward the bottom of the OML. You also need to be realistic, there are a lot of Mediocre cadets, just ask any cadet that completed LDAC and ask them for an assesment of some of the fellow cadets, ther are a couple cadets in my son's battalion that just found their way through ROTC doing the Min., now every cadet that wanted AD in my son's battalion received it this year, some are towards the bottom of the AD list, some will make great officers some will just bide their time to fulfill their 4 years. Granted some cadets are in very difficult majors and as you said are not as athletic as the others though they excel in leadership qualities, these cadets will be the ones that are very capable but end up with a low OML position. There are also those that...well as my son put it after LDAC.."Wow some of those guy's are a little scary."

Sure, you may call them doctor, but when your life is on the line, which doctor do you call.
 
Thanks for all of your replies and advice. My ideal situation would be to branch in MI in the Reserves but if not CBRN in the Reserves would be the next best position. And if I should add, not too shaby careers coming out of college. As an aside, does anybody know how long MI and CBRN Officer Schools are and how that schooling works with the Reserves?
 
Back
Top