A couple of notes:
-DTM 19-011 "Military Service Academy Graduates Seeking to Participate in Professional Sports" (
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dtm/DTM-19-011.PDF) expired on 8 NOV 22. Therefore, as it stands, this policy is no longer in effect (it could easily be renewed if SECDEF Austin were to re-sign and Congress does not pass legislation). The Secretary of Defense is the approval authority for nominations made in accordance with this DTM.
-Since DTM 19-011 was not extended, the policy rolls back to DODI 1322.22 (
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/132222p.pdf), however, this instruction was never updated per direction in the DTM. As it would currently stand, the Assistant SECDEF for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (ASD[MR&A]) approves or disapproves requests to release a cadet or midshipman prior to the completion of 2 years of active service. See PDF page 17: "Officers appointed from cadet or midshipman status will not be voluntarily released from active duty principally to pursue a professional sports activity with the potential of public affairs or recruiting benefit to the DoD during the initial 2 years of active commissioned service."
A process has already been in place where two years of service was required - it had been codified in DODI 1322.22. President Trump issued a directive to DoD to change the guidance in 2019. I'm certain there was still some inconsistencies in approving requests to leave prior to the 2 years, but that would have been a decision that came from OSD and not the Services.
So the legislation being proposed of serving a minimum two years, essentially codifies the current DODI 1322.22.
My view:
1. What is the actual public affairs/recruiting benefit? How many enlistees or officer candidates had their INITIAL interest sparked by a SA alumni turned pro-football player? We have many public affairs/recruiting tools, I have to imagine this isn't the top of the list. Bottom line - is there really a benefit DoD is getting and is the juice worth the squeeze? We talk about analytics in football all the time - show me the data (if it exists). Also, what message is being transmitted for a SA grad who goes right to the NFL without serving time - does that just continue to beat the wrong message of "maybe that can be me - play football at a SA and then go pro." In the past we have had a handful who have served their time and then went pro.
2. Probably one of the few times my view point will differ from CaptMJ. I don't believe that the deal is done in good faith -- there is never a guarantee when a policy says "may" - From DTM 19-011: "The Secretaries of the Military Departments
may submit nominations for exceptionally talented Military Service Academy cadet or midshipman athletes to the Office of the USD(P&R) for
consideration of a delay in tendering an appointment as a commissioned officer in accordance with this DTM. This authority may not be further delegated." Therefore, there is no guarantee of going pro and this policy is written in black and white for everyone to read, including Carter. Unless ASD P&R/MR&A (depending on which policy you are reviewing) said they were going to approve, nothing was promised by DoD. I also can't imagine anyone in the chain of command was making a recommendation decision when Carter entered his first day of his third year. Therefore, there was more than just minimal risk of staying at USMA and expecting to play pro-football. Lastly, if there were any promises/guarantees made, then it is on the Army chain of command, including the football coaches, to own...their job should be to explain the possibilities and risks, not provide promises/guarantees when the approval authority is not at their level. And this applies to all Service Academies - not just West Point. While being offered to play at the next level is a great opportunity and recognition of talent, this should feel like a "cherry on top" and not the "rug being pulled out" - the number one mission/goal/reason for SA is to commission officers to serve in their designated Service...again something known when you accept an appointment and re-affirmed on the first day of the third year.
Another mention from the article:
-Carter stayed his last two years out of loyalty --- to who? West Point Football or because he really wants to serve???
-"If the rules had been different, then he would have gone a different route" - so I go back to who told him that he was guaranteed to play pro-football entering his third year (way prior to any of Congressional legislation)?
-Monken says we should do what is right - shouldn't that mean being perfectly honest and explaining the options and risk (sounds like something we already do often in the military). If promises/guarantees were made or strongly implied, than what is right is to take ownership.
-Carter is upset of uncertainty; the military is usually precise - those who have served know that uncertainty is part of being in the military - Semper Gumby.
Reading this article makes me wonder how much emphasis on service was discussed with Carter and Carter's family.
The whole "still wants to serve" argument doesn't jive either - as mentioned in an earlier post, most peter out early or will either stay long enough or get injured and then what - they serve as a DoD civilian - I just don't see that ever happening. Who is actually going to enforce this?
Here's the bottom line - there is a reason we call these institutions SERVICE Academies - because you go to serve the nation, others, and citizens - not with the expectation that you get to serve on a pro-sports team. This equally applies across all SAs; replace Carter's name with anyone else at a SA. Everyone attending knows or reasonably should know the expectations and that there is uncertainty/risks in sacrificing your own goals for something larger than yourself.
