Longer service obligation for SA grads under review

[Tex232]

Not that making a career in the military is a bad choice at all, but asking a West Point, Annapolis, etc. grad (especially those with marketable degrees) to stay in the military rather than enter the private sector is like asking an MIT engineering grad to work at Walmart.

The fallacy of this argument is breathtaking. West Point and Annapolis graduates trained specifically to serve in the military. That is the entire “reason for being” for a cadet or midshipman. MIT graduates did not train specifically to work at Walmart, at least not as a “blue vest,” which is the implication. (By the way, Walmart is a vast, complex and sophisticated operation. There are incredibly talented, highly intelligent, deeply trained engineers — perhaps even with degrees from MIT, Stanford, Northwestern — toiling away there, and not necessarily in engineering roles.)

I think you may have missed the point of the metaphor I used. You can use "Walmart" or whatever term you prefer, it doesn't make a difference. I was trying to propose a possible theory as to why service academy graduates may suffer lower retention rates. And you are correct, ring knockers do train specifically to serve in the military. However that doesn't mean they necessarily join specifically to make a career of the military. Just like many high school graduates join the National Guard/Reserves because they know it will pay for their college education. I'm not saying these are good reasons to join, in fact I personally dislike people who enlist/attend an academy for a free education. Its selfish and it isn't good for morale. Nonetheless it doesn't change the fact that this is what happens in some cases.

Most of these folks have had more on their plate and done it better than their peers for over a decade by the time that 5 year mark rolls around. Fulfilling their commitment and all of the entailing sacrifices regarding family and personal events that are missed because of that obligation might make someone interested in what the rest of the world holds for their skill set and experiences. They might want a job where they can plan something out more than a month away... They might want a career where they aren't babysitting alleged adults 24/7. They might want a job where constraints and restrictions aren't simply at the whim and ego of their superiors, but rather the needs of the organization to which they belong. Some of this crap wears on a person, regardless of their level of commitment.

I can confirm that this is the reality for many officers on active duty.

 

[THParent]

It is a commitment, but it is a two-sided one. The service has to keep up their end of the bargain, as well as the officer. At the end of that 5-year commitment, you may find yourself at a certain rank and nowhere to go up from there. The future may hand you a force reduction directive in which the service can't have you stay on, or they just don't need you anymore. That directive is subject to the economy, politics, and a myriad of other factors. Pulling the ripcord at that point may be imposed upon you, or just be the smart play.

 

[conrack]

So..... someone with a 4 year ROTC scholarship worth roughly $125,ooo has to serve 8 years of active duty but an SA grad who got an education worth $400,000 only has to serve 5 years. What is wrong with this picture?????

 

[Soldiergriz]

So..... someone with a 4 year ROTC scholarship worth roughly $125,ooo has to serve 8 years of active duty but an SA grad who got an education worth $400,000 only has to serve 5 years. What is wrong with this picture?????

No, just no. That's not the math...

 

[bruno]

So..... someone with a 4 year ROTC scholarship worth roughly $125,ooo has to serve 8 years of active duty but an SA grad who got an education worth $400,000 only has to serve 5 years. What is wrong with this picture?????

Umm- no. It’s not the case that an ROTC Scholarship recipient must serve 8 years of active duty. They have a total active and reserve obligation of 8 years which is not the same thing at all.

I can understand the impulse to extend the AD obligation for service academy graduates, because these days, well over 50% depart active duty after their initial obligation. But obligating them to ever longer periods of mandated AD seems like it could be counterproductive. Either it drives away really qualified people up front, or it makes people pretty cynical: “they can make me serve in this f-ing job, but they can’t make me put my heart into it”. And the people making that call are by and large a bunch of politicians who haven’t missed a meal in their life times in sacrifice or service , so it’s pretty easy to be cynical when you are being “voluntold” where and how to live and potentially risk your life.

Personally- I think that there is a different and more unequal obligation between ROTC and the Service Academies that should be addressed- the initial period of time before they are obligated. An ROTC Cadet has one year before they have incurred their obligation- while an SA Cadet has two years. To me that is both unfair and unwarranted. Make them both one year and then keep the obligated period of mandatory service the same as it currently is.

 

[GoArmyBeatNavy]

West Point is having the most competitive classes in its history with over 15k people applying for 1100-1200 spots. USMA should take advantage of that and increase the active service commitment through expected company command completion. If we scare away the “elite” candidate who is going to serve only 5 years to get the “almost elite” candidate who will serve 8 years we will be better in the deal. The degree of responsibility significantly changes when an officer takes company level command.

Officers getting out at 5 years, drop their REFRADs at 4 years and are basically marching time until their REFRAD date.

 

[Soldiergriz]

Wish someone would describe the problem. Is there a shortage of company-grade officers in our Army? Is there a shortage of field-grade officers because captains are getting out after their initial service obligation expires?

The answer is no.

So, what is this discussion really about?

Why single out academy graduates? Fairness? Envy?

Why not 7 years? Why not 10? Why stop there...serve to 20? 30?

 

[Casey]

Wish someone would describe the problem. Is there a shortage of company-grade officers in our Army? Is there a shortage of field-grade officers because captains are getting out after their initial service obligation expires?

I would argue quantity and quality of field grade officers is definitely a question for the future of the force that needs to be tackled. The current solution has been to just put more folks into the pipeline so that if attrition numbers stick to the same rates they're at right now, the number of field grade slots needing to be filled in ten years will still be filled. Take my branch, Aviation as an example. With how things are going right now, as long as I have a pulse and don't kill anyone, I'll be competitive for promotion all the way to LTC without needing to do anything stellar. Not good for the company grade officers getting short changed in time in their key developmental roles before they're yanked to give someone else a chance, and not good for the unit's continuity over time. Is longer commitments for SA grads the answer? Maybe it should be a part of the conversation, but really, I would rather the Army listen to the surveys about what could improve retention and start there. We recently lengthened commitments in my branch to bring flight school commitments more in line with the rest of the services. I have my doubts that will fix our pilot shortage but we'll see what happens...

 

[Soldiergriz]

Wish someone would describe the problem. Is there a shortage of company-grade officers in our Army? Is there a shortage of field-grade officers because captains are getting out after their initial service obligation expires?

I would argue quantity and quality of field grade officers is definitely a question for the future of the force that needs to be tackled. The current solution has been to just put more folks into the pipeline so that if attrition numbers stick to the same rates they're at right now, the number of field grade slots needing to be filled in ten years will still be filled. Take my branch, Aviation as an example. With how things are going right now, as long as I have a pulse and don't kill anyone, I'll be competitive for promotion all the way to LTC without needing to do anything stellar. Not good for the company grade officers getting short changed in time in their key developmental roles before they're yanked to give someone else a chance, and not good for the unit's continuity over time. Is longer commitments for SA grads the answer? Maybe it should be a part of the conversation, but really, I would rather the Army listen to the surveys about what could improve retention and start there. We recently lengthened commitments in my branch to bring flight school commitments more in line with the rest of the services. I have my doubts that will fix our pilot shortage but we'll see what happens...

Promotion to LTC and 20 years is and always has been widely considered successful. Some years the percentage promoted is higher than others, but every board there are officers who are not promoted and did not "kill anyone." That is not new.

12 to 18 months in company command...always been the standard.

When the economy is up...retention always suffers. When the economy is down, retention is not such a challenge.

None of these things are new. So, again what is the problem that needs solving?

Retaining top officers is worthy of a conversation. Some of them are academy grads, some are not...

 

[Casey]

Wish someone would describe the problem. Is there a shortage of company-grade officers in our Army? Is there a shortage of field-grade officers because captains are getting out after their initial service obligation expires?

I would argue quantity and quality of field grade officers is definitely a question for the future of the force that needs to be tackled. The current solution has been to just put more folks into the pipeline so that if attrition numbers stick to the same rates they're at right now, the number of field grade slots needing to be filled in ten years will still be filled. Take my branch, Aviation as an example. With how things are going right now, as long as I have a pulse and don't kill anyone, I'll be competitive for promotion all the way to LTC without needing to do anything stellar. Not good for the company grade officers getting short changed in time in their key developmental roles before they're yanked to give someone else a chance, and not good for the unit's continuity over time. Is longer commitments for SA grads the answer? Maybe it should be a part of the conversation, but really, I would rather the Army listen to the surveys about what could improve retention and start there. We recently lengthened commitments in my branch to bring flight school commitments more in line with the rest of the services. I have my doubts that will fix our pilot shortage but we'll see what happens...

Promotion to LTC and 20 years is and always has been widely considered successful. Some years the percentage promoted is higher than others, but every board there are officers who are not promoted and did not "kill anyone." That is not new.

12 to 18 months in company command...always been the standard.

When the economy is up...retention always suffers. When the economy is down, retention is not such a challenge.

None of these things are new. So, again what is the problem that needs solving?

Retaining top officers is worthy of a conversation. Some of them are academy grads, some are not...

Twelve to eighteen months was the standard for company command but most recently, it was usually twelve months for folks going to be selected for a second command so they really ended up with two twelve month commands for a total of twenty four months. If you only got the one command, you were expected to stick around for much closer to the eighteen and it wasn't unheard of to stay for past eighteen. What we're being briefed to expect and starting to see is single commands sticking towards the twelve month mark, and I'm not talking just company command but also LT developmental positions. I've definitely seen quite a few folks, no fault of their own besides bad luck going somewhere that has an excess of LTs, getting three to six months of PL time before being rotated out. Essentially enough time to get their OER to rate them as a PL so they have something for their CPT board and move them along. How is that effective to their development? By the time they've figured out their job, they're moving out of it and they're losing out a lot on developing from the relationships with their NCOs before they're going to be the one in charge as a CO in a few years.

I don't disagree that when the economy is up retention suffers, but why shouldn't it be a discussion then about why people are more willing to go try their life on the outside when times are good? People typically don't just join the military for economic reasons. It can be a driving motivation, but many people join because they want to serve something bigger than themselves. Whether they stick around after their initial tour when economics don't play a factor (aka they can get a better job on the outside) depends a lot on how much value they feel they are contributing and whether pros make up for the many interesting challenges a career in the military poses. Right now, for many, we're failing that and people are bolting after their initial contract, enlisted and officer alike. If I can retain better quality for longer, after all the money I've put into training them and the time for them to gain their experience which I can't teach, I would vote for that over just commission/enlisting more to fill their shoes.

Also, I have no attachment to seeing more Academy grads stick around or not. My branch seems to have a disproportionate amount of them because of the way active duty slots work out between commissioning sources for flight school, but flight school ADSO pretty much evens out everyone sticking around the same length of time. Maybe the answer is just to make everyone go to flight school?


Random knowledge for the evening semi-related to the topic, West Point changed its mission statement in 2005 to read "prepared for a career of professional excellence and service to the Nation as an officer in the United States Army," removing verbiage that also said it was preparing them for "a lifetime of selfless service to the nation." The idea was to reorient the Academy to focus on producing warfighters. It had been put into the mission statement during the late 1980's right at the end of the Cold War as the military started to shift towards reducing its numbers. Before then, it had always been focused on saying it prepared cadets for a career as officers. Thank you to a certain Cadet Sergeant during Beast Barracks almost a decade ago for beating that into my head. It sits somewhere near Schofield's definition of discipline and has eliminated a penguin from the iceberg that could be spent remembering, I don't know, an emergency procedure for my helicopter -_-

 

[GoArmyBeatNavy]

Wish someone would describe the problem. Is there a shortage of company-grade officers in our Army? Is there a shortage of field-grade officers because captains are getting out after their initial service obligation expires?

The answer is no.

So, what is this discussion really about?

Why single out academy graduates? Fairness? Envy?

Why not 7 years? Why not 10? Why stop there...serve to 20? 30?

It’s not envy, I’m an Academy Grad.

It’s that the US Government is spending an incredible amount of money on a cohort of officers who are barely serving through their “intern” time in the Army. Company Command is the most impactful time for company grade officers and West Point grads should serve through its completion.

I’m a currently serving BN Commander. West Pointers spend a year at their branch schools for BOLC, Ranger, Recon Course, etc before even getting to their first unit. They then spend three years serving in a line unit before dropping their refrad-spending the last year of their commitment as non-MTOE staff positions while they also apply to grad schools and apply to head hunter firms. $200k - $400k + (depending on who you ask) for three years of line service is not a good deal for the US government.

We should increase the commitment until we see a decrease in application quality for the Academy. Based on the historic application rates and quality, West Point can demand a longer commitment from its graduates and still attract elite graduates.

 

[THParent]

...We should increase the commitment until we see a decrease in application quality for the Academy...

I agree. That makes sense, at least to me.

 

[bruno]

Promotion to LTC and 20 years is and always has been widely considered successful. Some years the percentage promoted is higher than others, but every board there are officers who are not promoted and did not "kill anyone." That is not new.

12 to 18 months in company command...always been the standard.

When the economy is up...retention always suffers. When the economy is down, retention is not such a challenge.

None of these things are new. So, again what is the problem that needs solving?

Retaining top officers is worthy of a conversation. Some of them are academy grads, some are not...

The issue being discussed seems pretty basic to me and has nothing to do with jealousy of SA graduates. It has everything to do with the expense of running an institution that supposedly exists for the sole purpose of educating professional military officers, yet only 40% of the graduates actually become professional military officers - that is that they stay on AD longer than their initial service obligation. If it costs $400k to produce a graduate of USMA ( which is the current estimate I have seen taking all of the overhead and fixed cost associated with running the physical plant , military and academic staff etc...) and a full ROTC scholarship at a top tier private college costs less than half that; and the retention rates are no higher for the SA grads than the ROTC grads, how can this not be a topic of discussion as well as a topic of real concern for the USMA AOG ?

You can’t really have it both ways- if USMA is producing top officers who are leaving because they can make more on the outside, then the Army must address that and one way to do so is evaluate the length of obligated service. Conversely- If you don’t see the USMA grads as being pretty much synonymous with your category of “top officers” then there is a different issue- namely that we are either recruiting or retaining Cadets using the wrong criteria; and then we are back to discussing if we are getting our money’s worth if in reality we are spending >2x to get a product that is no better on average than their peers who went to ROTC at Frostbite Falls State.
Either way - an honest review of what the Service Academies are producing and the benefit to the Army ( and the other services) seems to be in order and it appears that Congress has some intention of doing so.

 

[Tex232]

I noticed no one here mentioned the fact that there is a brand new retirement system which sort of makes separating prior to 20 years more attractive/feasible than it was in the past. Congress/DoD kind of shot themselves in the foot when they ushered in blended retirement. Not only will separated servicemen get more than they would under the legacy system, but 20 year retirees starting with the 2017 year group will get less. A bit of a double edged sword.

 

[THParent]

I was a "90-Day-Wonder", and I was as good as any Academy graduate.
I think that's what you would hear from most ROTC grads (minus the self-deprecation), as well. Whether it's true or not, is a matter of reflection that we probably don't have time for - and is fairly subjective - depending upon how you arrived at commissioning in the first place. Were I to opine, I would say that I think that we should leave that one be.

Clearly, Service Academy Cadets and Midshipmen are exposed to a lot of wonderful stuff (people, facilities, travel, training, etc.) that the others are not. I don't know if that makes them better officers, but the experiences they receive there, certainly can't hurt. Those experiences (especially the travel) cost a lot of money. Academy students are also exposed to a large amount of stress and demands on their time, that "regular college" students don't have to deal with. There are pros and cons of going through a Service Academy, just like any other commissioning source. Service Academies cost more, though. If you graduate from one, did you already "pay" for it with the added stress and the premature aging that it caused you, or should you "pay" with more active duty time? That's the question, and it took me this long to figure out that I don't have a solution. Dang.

 

[Impulsive]

On thing that isn't being discussed here is the sheer numbers of Officers needed for the various jobs available. There are a ton of O-1 thru O-3's that are needed to staff positions that are open at any given time. As Grade rises, the number of jobs diminishes, ie: fewer O-6's than O-4's, fewer Command billets than Staff or Admin Billets. As you advance in Grade the sheer numbers of openings and therefore promotions decrease, and if everyone stays, you end up with a surplus of qualified officers who get passed over because they are not the "Cream of the Crop", and end up getting pushed out anyway. As mentioned above, the economy has a lot to do it, as does the current mission needs (if fighting a war or different combat actions more officers are needed), and if reducing forces is occurring then not as many Field Grade Officers are promoted.

IMHO, there is no need to change service obligation rates. Those people who want a 20-30 year career are going to try their best to stay , and those who find barriers to advancement or become discontented with the service probably should leave. JMHO, but I don't think we want Officers in Command who don't want to be there....don't force people to stay or you may end up with a non-cohesive fighting force. The Commissioning Sources produce O-1's and the obligated service usually takes them to O-3 where the big reduction in positions start kicking in. If you opt to force the O-3's to stay O-3 or stay in for two more years, you may create more problems than you need.

 

[GoArmyBeatNavy]

On thing that isn't being discussed here is the sheer numbers of Officers needed for the various jobs available. There are a ton of O-1 thru O-3's that are needed to staff positions that are open at any given time. As Grade rises, the number of jobs diminishes, ie: fewer O-6's than O-4's, fewer Command billets than Staff or Admin Billets. As you advance in Grade the sheer numbers of openings and therefore promotions decrease, and if everyone stays, you end up with a surplus of qualified officers who get passed over because they are not the "Cream of the Crop", and end up getting pushed out anyway. As mentioned above, the economy has a lot to do it, as does the current mission needs (if fighting a war or different combat actions more officers are needed), and if reducing forces is occurring then not as many Field Grade Officers are promoted. ...

JMHO, but I don't think we want Officers in Command who don't want to be there....don't force people to stay or you may end up with a non-cohesive fighting force. The Commissioning Sources produce O-1's and the obligated service usually takes them to O-3 where the big reduction in positions start kicking in. If you opt to force the O-3's to stay O-3 or stay in for two more years, you may create more problems than you need.

I am not advocating changing commitment lengths for currently serving officers. It would have to be advertised for incoming classes to USMA. This would mean that officers graduating from USMA would have four years to internalize their commitment. They would expect to serve through company level command (or KD equivalent for CPT).

As for the Army needing more company grade officers than field grade officers, I would rather the Army select who it wants to stay versus the Soldier-but that is just me wearing my Corporate Army hat.

Great discussion from all, thank you.

Also, currently, two Citadel Grads and a USMA grad are the top PLs in my Battalion. Before that it was ROTC. Regardless of the commissioning source, in the end it is about performance.

 

[SamAca10]

I am not advocating changing commitment lengths for currently serving officers. It would have to be advertised for incoming classes to USMA. This would mean that officers graduating from USMA would have four years to internalize their commitment. They would expect to serve through company level command (or KD equivalent for CPT).

As for the Army needing more company grade officers than field grade officers, I would rather the Army select who it wants to stay versus the Soldier-but that is just me wearing my Corporate Army hat.

Great discussion from all, thank you.

Also, currently, two Citadel Grads and a USMA grad are the top PLs in my Battalion. Before that it was ROTC. Regardless of the commissioning source, in the end it is about performance.

I still think that this is unlikely and won't attract top talent. A lot happens and changes in 5 years. I had a really clean exit from service, was more than ready to move on about 3 years in. I got stationed in New York City my second tour, and quickly saw that my peers on the outside were doing way cooler things. Plus I was already salty that I earned an engineering degree and hardly used it in my 5 years of service. Didn't take much incentive for me to want to exit out when I was in a city with great economic opportunities and the ability to get hired at a tech company

 

[Soldiergriz]

Wish someone would describe the problem. Is there a shortage of company-grade officers in our Army? Is there a shortage of field-grade officers because captains are getting out after their initial service obligation expires?

The answer is no.

So, what is this discussion really about?

Why single out academy graduates? Fairness? Envy?

Why not 7 years? Why not 10? Why stop there...serve to 20? 30?

It’s not envy, I’m an Academy Grad.

It’s that the US Government is spending an incredible amount of money on a cohort of officers who are barely serving through their “intern” time in the Army. Company Command is the most impactful time for company grade officers and West Point grads should serve through its completion.

I’m a currently serving BN Commander. West Pointers spend a year at their branch schools for BOLC, Ranger, Recon Course, etc before even getting to their first unit. They then spend three years serving in a line unit before dropping their refrad-spending the last year of their commitment as non-MTOE staff positions while they also apply to grad schools and apply to head hunter firms. $200k - $400k + (depending on who you ask) for three years of line service is not a good deal for the US government.

We should increase the commitment until we see a decrease in application quality for the Academy. Based on the historic application rates and quality, West Point can demand a longer commitment from its graduates and still attract elite graduates.

Why? I have commanded at echelon. I had Majors waiting in line to KD. It was the same for CPTs waiting to command. There was no shortage and there is no shortage.

I wholeheartedly agree company command is the most important and formative position in our Army. But, the notion academy grads should be required to stay for the experience has all kinds of challenges....some place have CPTs lined up waiting. Mandatory company command before they exit?

Honestly, this whole thing is a solution looking for a problem in my opinion. But, enjoying the thoughtful discussion.

 

[GoArmyBeatNavy]

I still think that this is unlikely and won't attract top talent. A lot happens and changes in 5 years. I had a really clean exit from service, was more than ready to move on about 3 years in. I got stationed in New York City my second tour, and quickly saw that my peers on the outside were doing way cooler things. Plus I was already salty that I earned an engineering degree and hardly used it in my 5 years of service. Didn't take much incentive for me to want to exit out when I was in a city with great economic opportunities and the ability to get hired at a tech company

West Point is having no problem attracting top talent. Northern Virginia Districts have ten elite candidates per district (only 2 or 3 get in). They should start increasing the commitment length to align what is best for the Army with the current market demand.