NROTC increase in minimum service requirement- 5 years active duty

C

calimom

10-Year Member
5-Year Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
16
A mom on another website posted this info. FYI

**************** UNCLASSIFIED// ****************
Subject: CHANGE TO NAVAL RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS ACTIVE MINIMUM SERVICE REQUIREMENTS (CORRECTED COPY)
Originator: CNO WASHINGTON DC(UC)
DTG: 081310Z Sep 09
Precedence: ROUTINE
DAC: General
To: AL NAVADMIN(UC)
Cc: CNO WASHINGTON DC(UC)
--------------------------------------------------

UNCLASSIFIED//


(CORRECTED COPY)
FM CNO WASHINGTON DC//N1//
TO NAVADMIN
INFO CNO WASHINGTON DC//N1//

UNCLAS//N01533//
NAVADMIN 257/09
MSGID/GENADMIN/CNO WASHINGTON DC/N1/SEP//
SUBJ/CHANGE TO NAVAL RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS ACTIVE MINIMUM
SERVICE REQUIREMENTS//
REF/A/DOC/TITLE 10 U.S.C, SECTIONS 2005, 2104 AND 2107//
REF/B/DOC/SECNAV ACTION MEMO/09JAN09//
REF/C/DOC/CNSTCINST/02JUL07//
NARR/REF A IS TITLE 10 U.S.C., SECTIONS 2005, 2104 AND 2107.
REF B IS SECNAV ACTION MEMO OF 4 DECEMBER 2008, DIRECTING A CHANGE
TO THE MINIMUM SERVICE REQUIREMENT FOR NAVAL RESERVE OFFICERS
TRAINING CORPS (NROTC) NAVY SCHOLARSHIP RECIPIENTS.
REF C IS CNSTCINST 1533.2, REGULATIONS FOR OFFICER DEVELOPMENT//
RMKS/1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS NAVADMIN IS TO PUBLISH THE REVISED
ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY SERVICE REQUIREMENTS (MSR) FOR NROTC NAVY
OPTION SCHOLARSHIP RECIPIENTS.
2. REF A, SECTION 2005(B), AUTHORIZES SECNAV TO DETERMINE THE
PERIOD OF ACTIVE DUTY TO BE SERVED BY ANY PERSON RECEIVING ADVANCED
EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE NAVY. REF A, SECTIONS 2005, 2104
AND 2107, STATE THAT A MEMBER MUST SERVE ON ACTIVE DUTY FOR A
PRESCRIBED PERIOD OF TIME. HISTORICALLY, THE ACTIVE DUTY MSR FOR
THIS PROGRAM HAS BEEN 4 YEARS AS OUTLINED IN REF A AND REF C.
3. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AUTHORITY DELEGATED TO SECNAV IN REF A,
SECTION 2005(B), REF B REVISES THE MSR REQUIREMENT, INCREASING THE
ACTIVE DUTY MSR TO 5 YEARS FOR ALL NROTC NAVY OPTION SCHOLARSHIP
RECIPIENTS WHO SIGN AN NROTC CONTRACT FOR RECEIPT OF ADVANCED
EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE ON OR AFTER 1 JULY 2010.
4. THIS CHANGE IN MSR IS NOT APPLICABLE TO NAVY NURSE OPTION
CANDIDATES, NAVY COLLEGE PROGRAM ADVANCED STANDING CANDIDATES,
MARINE OPTION CANDIDATES, MARINE ENLISTED COMMISSIONING EDUCATION
PROGRAM (MECEP), OR SEAMAN-TO-ADMIRAL (STA)-21 CANDIDATES.
5. POINT OF CONTACT: NAVAL SERVICE TRAINING COMMAND, OFFICER
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (OD4), MAJOR JAMES STANLEY AT
(850)452-4962/DSN 922, OR E-MAIL AT JAMES.L.STANLEY2(AT)NAVY.MIL.
6. RELEASED BY VADM MARK FERGUSON, N1.//
 
Really surprised that the Navy didn't make this change years ago. When you look at the stellar institutions that offer NROTC and the tuition costs (especially for private schools), it only makes sense that the service obligation would also increase.

One generous benefit that has been added for NROTC scholarship students in the past couple of years is the ability to participate in an approved 5 year course of study and have that addition year of tuition assistance (approved by NROTC). Tier one scholarship recipients can now benefit from this option and enhance their future Navy careers by earning their Master's before commissioning.

Consider that at University of Rochester or RPI (both excellent engineering schools) the approx. cost of tuition and fees is $40,000/year. The Navy will then have invested almost $200,000 for those 5 years in just educational costs (additionally, the cost of summer training should be added to this figure).

Many years ago there was a dramatic difference between the cost of attending a civilian college and being commission through NROTC and the cost the government pays for those attending a service academy. Not so any longer, the two figures are creeping closer and closer together.

It is nice to see that the following exception was included in this directive:

4. THIS CHANGE IN MSR IS NOT APPLICABLE TO NAVY NURSE OPTION
CANDIDATES, NAVY COLLEGE PROGRAM ADVANCED STANDING CANDIDATES,
MARINE OPTION CANDIDATES, MARINE ENLISTED COMMISSIONING EDUCATION PROGRAM (MECEP), OR SEAMAN-TO-ADMIRAL (STA)-21 CANDIDATES.

for those programs that are areas of need.
 
Shortsighted change

Unlike the previous poster, I think that this is a very shortsighted and inconsistent change which is being implemented because the Navy can. My conclusion is based upon:

1. While it is true that some of the schools' tuitions are pricey, others are not (just price in-state for Mizzou and see how much value you are getting for a five year commitment);

2. While some schools throw in R&B, most NROTC schools do not, whereas an appointment to the USNA includes R&B;

3. While an engineering student may get a fifth year included in his/her scholarship (and hence is only paying back on a one-for-one year basis), just see how a request for a fifth year Master's from a Tier 3 scholarship recipient is received (BTW, the USNA has a five year BA/MA in English program as standard);

4. An academy mid/cadet gets until the commencement of his/her Junior year to commit to the contract - a scholarship recipient only gets until the commencement of his/her Soph year;

5. A college programmer now gets a commitment which is two years less than a four year scholarship recipient even though he/she may get a 3 1/2 year scholarship - only one semester less funding;

6. Unless the other branches have changed their requirements, this creates a disparity among the branches.

So, as I said, it is shortsighted and very clearly was done without much thinking of the collateral concerns mentioned above.
 
Another issue

In addition to the six issues previous cited which makes this order a poor one, there are two more:

7. Starting in September and for the following four years (taking into account five year Engineering students), there will be battalion members shoulder-to-shoulder with differing obligations for similar benefits merely because of the happenstance of graduating in 09 and earlier versus 10 and later.

8. The most interesting application of No. 7 is the college graduating class of '14, which will include four year scholarship recipients who will incur a five year obligation and five year engineering graduates/scholarship recipients who received an additional year of benefit but will incur only a four year obligation because they started college in '09.

Having enumerated these eight consequences, it should be said that they could be addressed, but not in a one page order which by fiat merely increases by one year the obligation - it takes some thought and anticipating the variables of these students.
 
Without looking wasn't the contract signing date that applied to the longer committment in July. I told my daughter to ask but I was thinking that the kids did not sign to commit until their return to school in the fall (August) and therefore even the class of '09 would be subject to a five year committment? Am I mistaken? Are they allowed to sign say in May, June, July after finishing their freshman year? Thanks.
 
This kind of disconnect happens in a lot of different venues...it didn't start and it won't end w/ NROTC. For example, after completing pilot training in the USAF, the commitment has varied between 7 and 10 years. The $ amount of a pilot bonus has varied from $12,000 to $25,000 annually. Some guys can get it until 20yrs, some till 25yrs. And most recently, and only offered to one year group, a bonus for LtCol's that are retirement eligible, and not selected for promotion to full-bird. They can now get a $15,000 annual payment until the 25 yr point. But only if you are not over 22yrs of service.

These caveats are the norm and like it or not, the DOD holds the deck and can shuffle however they like. Too often they pay lots of $ to encourage people to stay in, and then pay the same people to leave and then pay them to come back in. And while I agree it is short sighted force management, I observed it too many times and recognize the NROTC decision is not unique. It fills a demographic that, at the moment, is an area of concern (either too many or too few).
 
Last edited:
Interestingly the Navy must think that if they insist on a five year commitment from nurses, they will be unable to compete with the other branches.

4. THIS CHANGE IN MSR IS NOT APPLICABLE TO NAVY NURSE OPTION
CANDIDATES
 
Navy ROTC adds year to active duty

By Lisa M. Novak, Stars and Stripes
European edition, Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Kristopher Wilson/Courtesy of the U.S. Navy


NAPLES, Italy — Students enrolled in the Navy Reserve Officer Training Corps will have to spend an extra year on active duty under new service requirements, the Navy announced this month.

Under the new rules, which take effect in July, the newly commissioned officers will spend five years on active duty instead of four.

The extra year of service is meant to help the Navy recoup its investment in response to tuition increases at universities with ROTC programs, Todd Willebrand, a spokesman with Naval Service Training Command, said in an e-mail response regarding the program changes.

Tuition costs at public U.S. universities have risen steadily over the past few years. This year’s fees at in-state four-year colleges and universities are up by 6.4 percent from last year, and out-of-state costs rose by 5.2 percent, according to The College Board, a nonprofit organization that provides services to college-bound students and tracks trends at U.S. universities.

Some 150 universities stateside offer Navy ROTC programs, commissioning about 1,100 officers per year.

The extended active-duty commitment also benefits junior officers by providing a broader career perspective, officials said.

"This brings the (NROTC) program in line with the Naval Academy, so everyone has to stay (on active duty) the same amount of time," said Cathy Kempf, a former Navy commander who now heads the selection and placement department for NROTC and the Seaman to Admiral program at Naval Service Training Command in Pensacola, Fla.

"It levels the playing field for junior officers and gives them the chance to serve in a staff position and as a division officer, where they’ll get leadership experience. With two different assignments, they’ll be better equipped to decide if they want to stay on active duty," Kempf said.

Following the active-duty commitment, there is a three-year Individual Ready Reserve requirement.

Army and Air Force ROTC service requirements remain unchanged, with a four-year active duty commitment followed by four years with the Individual Ready Reserve force for most job fields, according to those services’ ROTC Web sites.

The service commitment for the Marine Corps, which falls under Navy ROTC, also remains unchanged. Students enrolled in Navy ROTC but not on scholarships do not incur the extra year of commitment for active-duty service, officials said. It’s unclear how many of the 1,100 graduates are on scholarship.

Some career fields, such as pilots, require longer active-duty commitments in all branches of service.
 
aglages said:
Interestingly the Navy must think that if they insist on a five year commitment from nurses, they will be unable to compete with the other branches.

4. THIS CHANGE IN MSR IS NOT APPLICABLE TO NAVY NURSE OPTION
CANDIDATES
Click to expand...
It's all the law of supply and demand. There is a great need for Navy Nurses, hence they are willing to give in order to get.


The extra year of service is meant to help the Navy recoup its investment in response to tuition increases at universities with ROTC programs, Todd Willebrand, a spokesman with Naval Service Training Command, said in an e-mail response regarding the program changes.
Click to expand...
Way to spin it. There are other steps they can take - such as awarding more scholarships at State U's and fewer at expensive private schools.

IMO - by extending the commitment to 5 years they should put all of them on Active Duty so they can get paid and cover their room and board.
NROTC scholarships don't cover room and board an expense that is well over $12,000/year at many colleges.
 
A crock is not a ship even though they both displace water

The news release states:

"This brings the (NROTC) program in line with the Naval Academy, so everyone has to stay (on active duty) the same amount of time," said Cathy Kempf, a former Navy commander who now heads the selection and placement department for NROTC and the Seaman to Admiral program at Naval Service Training Command in Pensacola, Fla."

What is amazing is that the very program that she heads is exempt from the five year rule. As are marines, even though this creates a disparity between NROTC and USNA graduates who elect to go marine option. (So now marine option NROTC participants don't have to take Physics and Calc AND are obligated to a year less than their NAVY brothers/sisters. What a deal!)

If there was a $ issue, then the Navy should have addressed it by doing what the AFROTC does, which is limit the $ which is paid under some scholarships (say by capping tuition assistance at $28k/year). An analogy to the USNA is disingenuous at best because it does not take into account the R&B difference between the two programs (and any R&B assistance kicked in by the schools themselves is school money, not DOD $, and should not be counted in the Navy's column).

As a previous poster noted, it is being done because it can be done. I think that Kempf's statement that it benefits the mids is govt pseudojustification at its worst. IF a Lt wants a richer experience, there is nothing to prevent her/him from staying active. That is different than compulsory service.

Having spent two decades in govt service, I am nonetheless still amazed that concerns which can be addressed in a careful manner is addressed in a ham-fisted way.
 
Can anyone reply to my question?

How does this apply to current freshman (HS Class of '09)?

As stated above I did not think they would "commit" until school started next year (August 2010) however this rule goes into affect in July '10. Will they be able to sign at the end of their freshman year in order to commit to four years or will they sign when they return to school thus making their committment five years. Thanks.
 
It does not apply to your child. The new Order is applicable to those who are ENTERING college in 8/10, not those who are already in college on NROTC scholarships but who will sign the letter of commitment after their first summer cruise upon returning to school as sophs. The date of commitment is irrelevant to the application of the Order. Read it again and you will see that this is clear.
 
NROTCDAD55 - Thanks much. You are absolutely correct that I did not read the initial message correctly. Thanks much. I believe my daughter will be quite happy with that news, lol.
 
Thanks once again NROTCDAD55. You might know as soon as I get it all clarified on here my daughter emails to tell me they discussed it all in her Naval Science class (NS110) yesterday. I do appreciate the assist though. As she pointed out she is looking at Pilot/NFO so it doesn't really have any bearing on her situation anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top