Five and Dive

Great responses, I have learned a lot, thank you!.
Totally understand as a 17/18 year old can be very different from a 25 year old. The five and dive comments were voiced directly to and overheard by my kid. Us parents not involved.
I can understand attending USNA and being 1-4 years after and realizing this was a big mistake but I had interpreted kids saying this as meaning they had no interest and were using this for a free education and bragging rights, however it's a very hard 4 years for that alone!

There are probably some kids out there doing that but I will chalk it down to teenage bravado and being too cool for school!

Thanks again, a very informative discussion
 
I was a three and flee from OCS. Oh, wait, apparently I wasn’t.

i recall a time when ROTC was four and out the door.
 
Last edited:
Have to admit, that's the "trap" a lot of my peers have fallen into. Screened for NSWDG, White House, JOCCP, CNODP, Naval Postgraduate School, LEP, Olmsted, FSEP...list goes on.

"Aw man, that's real cool...I'll do this real quick and then get out. Three year obligation is only one more tour."

It's like the Navy knows what it's doing.
It is definitely a carrot and stick cadence. I had completed my OCS pay back while I was in Spain but owed a bit more for the Tuition Aid I took for the M.S. I got after-hours in Spain. Maybe just one more tour then. They offered me orders to Naples, I said sure, visions of a fabulous PCS road-trip driving from Spain to Italy via Monte Carlo (yes, it was epic, 23 years old, a sports car and my best friend), and then realized DoD OCONUS tour lengths are usually a mandatory 3 years. What’s another year, I’ll have more travel time in the Med and Europe. Then they dangled a 6-month school in San Francisco followed by Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, for which I would incur new OBLISERV, but was a coveted spot in a new curriculum. Off I went, so owed another tour after that. Success led to promotion after my first competitive promotion board. Then I screened for XO, and and that led to O-5 promotion which led to screening for command, throw in two rotations to Pearl Harbor and multiple to SoCal, invited to be a BattO, rinse and repeat for promotion to captain and screening for major command…and then it’s 26 years later and the time has flown by. No regrets. None.
 
Last edited:
Another aspect when evaluating a fair payback for a service academy education - the value of flexibility (or lack thereof). A civilian college graduate can change companies or industries at any time and multiple times, as long as they can find a new employer.

An SA graduate is locked in. Just like evaluating CD or bond returns, there is value associated with time and the ease with which one can move into or out of an investment. The face value (cost of education) is only part of the equation, a factor that both buyers and sellers must consider.
 
There are those you know at USNA that you swear will stay 30 and make flag -- some are gone in 5. And some who you swear will be 5 and dive and stay for 30. I am smiling thinking of one of those. You never ever know.

IMHO, the decision to stay or go should be (and usually is) made based on your experiences after graduation. As others have noted, that decision is based on so many factors unique to each person.

One final note . . . it's "cool" when you're at USNA to say you're 5 and dive. It's not so cool to say, "I'm going to make it a career." So, I'd take it all with a grain of salt. It's also my personal opinion that, if you ENTER a SA planning to 5 and dive (i.e., not even open to a military career), you're in the wrong place.
 
if you ENTER a SA planning to 5 and dive (i.e., not even open to a military career), you're in the wrong place.
I second this. Service Academies cost so much taxpayer money per cadet/midshipman that those taxpayers should get their money's worth in an exceptional officer who dedicates (or is willing to, at least) his or her life to the military.
 
I second this. Service Academies cost so much taxpayer money per cadet/midshipman that those taxpayers should get their money's worth in an exceptional officer who dedicates (or is willing to, at least) his or her life to the military.
Nope. Not at all. Following is the most succinct explanation of this topic I've ever read on SAF.
The military has determined that five years (or whatever commitment is set for a given branch) is sufficient payback for the education received, and it RELIES on the five-year attrition model as the military cannot absorb all the officers it graduates into the upper ranks. If and where longer service is required (for example, Army Cyber was recently upped from five to six years), adjustments will be made but, once the required commitment has been met, the service is satisfied. There is no shame in leaving the military once the military is satisfied the debt has been paid.
If the military wanted SA grads to stay in for 20, the commitment from the outset would be 20. But they simply cannot retain everyone for 20. That is not the manpower model. I used to feel the same way that you did on this topic @RH3 but my thinking has evolved over time. In fact, now I think that a young, informed person who recognizes the amazing value proposition of an SA is smarter than the average bear.

And you state 'an exceptional officer' in your post. That is part of the issue right there - not all SA graduates turn out to be exceptional officers. Some are mediocre. Some are downright terrible. The military begins the weeding out process and that makes for a (hopefully) stronger military overall.
 
Service Academies cost so much taxpayer money per cadet/midshipman that those taxpayers should get their money's worth in an exceptional officer who dedicates (or is willing to, at least) his or her life to the military.
Because of our terribly broken college financial-aid system, American taxpayers foot far more of the bill for civilian students than they probably realize. (There are many moving parts — actually, culprits— at play: student loans, scholarships, tuition inflation, college rankings, unrelenting pressure to attend college, mediocre educations, etc.)

Despite that, there’s no requirement for what civilian beneficiaries must do after college. Many take pointless degrees, have flimsy academic experiences, put in minimal effort. Many end up underemployed and shiftless. I’d bet a month’s salary that the ROI on a cadet/mid serving five years is far greater than that for a civilian getting a fully paid degree — both courtesy of the American taxpayer.
 
The military has determined that five years (or whatever commitment is set for a given branch) is sufficient payback for the education received, and it RELIES on the five-year attrition model as the military cannot absorb all the officers it graduates into the upper ranks. If and where longer service is required (for example, Army Cyber was recently upped from five to six years), adjustments will be made but, once the required commitment has been met, the service is satisfied. There is no shame in leaving the military once the military is satisfied the debt has been paid. How you personally feel about this is irrelevant.
This accounting is similar to Congressional Budgeting for the perpetual obligation of entitlements. It does not fully account for the Military's financial commitment beyond the ADSO. Once his/her initial ADSO is complete, the five or six and diver is eligible for the GI Bill education benefits.

And you state 'an exceptional officer' in your post. That is part of the issue right there - not all SA graduates turn out to be exceptional officers. Some are mediocre. Some are downright terrible. The military begins the weeding out process and that makes for a (hopefully) stronger military overall.
This is very true, but let's not assume that the military is a perfectly well run institution in which a highly motivated and competent individual will necessarily find a compelling reason to stay.
 
Nope. Not at all. Following is the most succinct explanation of this topic I've ever read on SAF.

If the military wanted SA grads to stay in for 20, the commitment from the outset would be 20. But they simply cannot retain everyone for 20. That is not the manpower model. I used to feel the same way that you did on this topic @RH3 but my thinking has evolved over time. In fact, now I think that a young, informed person who recognizes the amazing value proposition of an SA is smarter than the average bear.

And you state 'an exceptional officer' in your post. That is part of the issue right there - not all SA graduates turn out to be exceptional officers. Some are mediocre. Some are downright terrible. The military begins the weeding out process and that makes for a (hopefully) stronger military overall.
Well said.

Military manpower models plan for attrition from the initial summer on. There are statutory limits on numbers of officers in each pay grade, with the numbers growing smaller with each higher pay grade. It is impossible and undesirable for every officer, or even the majority, to stay for 20 and beyond. People leave voluntarily and involuntarily from the get-go, for all kinds of reasons. There are decades of predictive data available.

And double ditto on “exceptional officers.” The SAs do a pretty good job at seeding the pot with those who have potential to become that, but many other factors come into play. Most officers, out of every commissioning source, due to will or skill or both, eventually fall into three rough categories: pack, pack plus, and pack minus, reflecting their performance as an officer.

That grouping can also be vastly different than where they were at the SA. Some midshipmen and cadets will excel at being midshipmen and cadets and all things academic, take easily to military performance standards, do well in leadership roles at their SA, but fall flat on their faces once commissioned and actually leading people in support of a mission. We have observed this over 25 years of sponsoring USNA midshipmen. The majority have gone on to serve competently, some have soared to multiple commands at sea and the rank of Navy captain or Marine colonel, others could have soared but determined their path lay elsewhere. Sadly, some others have failed miserably. One was a top 10% OOM grad out of USNA, was generally thought to be a successful mid, but failed massively and repetitively as an officer, and was eventually not recommended for promotion to LTJG from Ensign, which military folk on here know is not a competitive promotion at all, merely requiring the reporting senior to check the block “recommended for promotion,” commonly known as a “fogging the mirror” promotion.

I hope every midshipman or cadet is willing to serve honorably and well during their ADSO, regardless of length. After that, everything is a gift.
 
Last edited:
The return on tax payer dollars for SA grads or ROTC scholarships is huge in my opinion compared to other government college programs (scholarships/grants/subsidies.) I would think that the officers that decide to get out and go on to become productive members of society, which likely pays huge dividends to many people in the civilian world. I would believe their leadership is contagious and makes us all a bit better.
 
This accounting is similar to Congressional Budgeting for the perpetual obligation of entitlements. It does not fully account for the Military's financial commitment beyond the ADSO. Once his/her initial ADSO is complete, the five or six and diver is eligible for the GI Bill education benefits

Any GI Bill education benefits an Academy grad is eligible for, they earned by staying in after their initial ADSO. We aren’t eligible for 100% of those benefits until an additional 3 years past our initial commitment. This coincidentally times about right at when folks can get out before their O4 looks, right about the same time that the Army still needs a bunch of O3s to fill various roles but then needs to start dwindling the force.

Additionally, the Army has a lot of these type incentives to get folks closer and closer to the halfway mark to 20 where the calculus in most folks’ minds under the traditional retirement system was “well, I’m halfway there…might as well stay instead of walking away with nothing.” Whether these incentives still work historically with BRS, it’ll be interesting to see.
 
(There are many moving parts — actually, culprits— at play: student loans, scholarships, tuition inflation, college rankings, unrelenting pressure to attend college, mediocre educations, etc.)
You forgot competition between institutions to "capture" new students with buffet-restaurant type dining, every improved athletic and leisure facilities, new apartment-style dorms, etc.
When I was at USNA in a pretty barren 2 or 3 person room and ate family style, it was not THAT different from the dorms and meals at colleges that I visited socially or on athletic competitions. Now colleges don't serve family style or just one entree but instead often have long buffet lines or stations with many choices prepared by actual workers, not students working off their scholarship cost.
Really, the entire ecosystem has completely changed at huge expense. For example - the night before my I Day, I stayed in the "Visiting Team Dormitory" which was in Halsey Field House - 2nd floor above the multipurpose gym and for most of the year, it housed VISITING TEAMS who then ate in King Hall (then called the Midshipman Wardroom). Now, visiting teams stay in Hotels and eat out in town at their school's expense.
By the way, the Visiting Team Dorm was open-bay barracks style - dozens of bunkbeds in a row.
 
I fail to see the logic that someone willing to go through the rigors of a service academy and dedicate five years active duty serving their country is somehow unworthy or a bad investment.

With all of the opportunities and handouts bestowed upon those in our society who do nothing to earn it, I applaud anyone willing to serve. The cost to taxpayers for those freebies in both financial and social terms is far greater than the cost of an SA education.
 
I think a generational shift in priorities is occurring too. As a borderline millennial/Gen Z, I'd say people my age are after efficiency, quality of life, and adventure This is purely anecdotal, but from what I have seen in flight school for example, most people want either V-22s or P-8s. Both offer per diem, a new platform (i.e. efficient tech), and travel. The training pipelines are also quicker. I have seen a drop off in those wanting jets (people still want them, but definitely in the minority). A lot of people want to avoid the carrier, long deployments, and tough work-ups. Jets also keeps you in flight school longer and that means more free service given to the Navy (obligation does not start until wings).

I am not going to comment on if that is right or wrong, but for the current generation, I feel that people staying past the initial obligation is a bit of a tougher sell. People got their adventure, they did their part in serving Uncle Sam, but they see greener pastures, more efficiency, a more stable QOL, and a better (or comparable) paycheck to their current paygrade (O-3 for most) on the civilian side. Plus, some programs/jobs expose officers to the corporate world while in the service. They can also choose the industry they work for. Let's say you are really into homeland security, got a masters in it, and want to do something in that industry. However, your jobs have had nothing to do with that field and you're not a fan of what you are doing now. I'm not saying that military should cater to everyone's interests, but I just point that out as another factor for getting out. In the up-or-out system in the officer corps, people can sometimes be penalized for doing jobs they want instead of what they ought to do (career-enhancing, yet difficult jobs that might not be of interest to a particular person).

I'll offer this too: Academies offer majors for things that might or might not be of service to the military or that particular service. However, a cadet/mid will always be a representative of that school and that service. Everyone gets out at some point, so if you are solid contributor, it reflects well on that Academy and that service. And that actually helps accomplish the civil-military relations mission of the military. While a lot of times, people think of that as how we interact with civilians during a particular campaign/operation, there is also a domestic portion to that as well.
 
Back
Top