SMCs and Commission Slots

[sprog]

Thanks!! Most helpful. BTW, the AF program sound brutal, not to mention a bit wasteful to train someone for 2 years and then drop 40% of them. One would think that the weeding out process, if it were thought to be that desirable, would apply to all the branches, not just the AF. Of course, the AF is the only branch flying F-22s too....

It didn't used to be that brutal with the AF.

I was @ VMI and got a commission through AFROTC in the late 90s. I was not on scholarship, and I can't think of anyone who met the basic criteria (i.e. wasn't an academic or physical mess) that didn't get offered a chance to go to Field Training (or "Camp" as we called it). I remember having to interview with the Detachment folks, but if you weren't a complete basket case, you got to go.

That said, I had some AFROTC instructors who got commissioned in the early 90s, and while going to Camp wasn't an issue, they had to wait sometimes up to a year before reporting on active duty. My class didn't have that problem. The economy was good in the late 90s, and I reported to Vandenberg AFB for tech school 60 days after commissioning.

What Pima has written just goes to show that everything is cyclical. Now, the USAF is facing a tougher budgetary crunch so that even scholarship cadets are not going to Camp. It's pertinent to know that the economy is also cyclical, as are demands on our DOD forces. In several years, there may be a shortage in the USAF and it'll be like it was when I was a cadet. It also may not be.

If you still want to be in the Air Force, go for it and do your absolute best in the program. Do AAS or whatever and be involved with the Det. (that can be tough at VMI, when there are Corps responsibilites as well, but do it anyway). Get good grades above all else.

 

[pennak]

It didn't used to be that brutal with the AF.

I was @ VMI and got a commission through AFROTC in the late 90s. I was not on scholarship, and I can't think of anyone who met the basic criteria (i.e. wasn't an academic or physical mess) that didn't get offered a chance to go to Field Training (or "Camp" as we called it). I remember having to interview with the Detachment folks, but if you weren't a complete basket case, you got to go.

That said, I had some AFROTC instructors who got commissioned in the early 90s, and while going to Camp wasn't an issue, they had to wait sometimes up to a year before reporting on active duty. My class didn't have that problem. The economy was good in the late 90s, and I reported to Vandenberg AFB for tech school 60 days after commissioning.

What Pima has written just goes to show that everything is cyclical. Now, the USAF is facing a tougher budgetary crunch so that even scholarship cadets are not going to Camp. It's pertinent to know that the economy is also cyclical, as are demands on our DOD forces. In several years, there may be a shortage in the USAF so it'll be like it was when I was a cadet. It also may not be.

If you still want to be in the Air Force, go for it and do your absolute best in the program. Do AAS or whatever and be involved with the Det. (that can be tough at VMI, when there are Corps responsibilites as well, but do it anyway). Get good grades above all else.

Doing your very best is just plain good advice, no matter what! My heart goes out to those cadets who don't make the cut. I hope the various ROTC detachments (particularly at VMI where my DS is a Rat and wants a Marine commission) are all making the "facts of life" clear to everyone in their detachments so that everyone understands this reality going in.

 

[sprog]

Doing your very best is just plain good advice, no matter what! My heart goes out to those cadets who don't make the cut. I hope the various ROTC detachments (particularly at VMI where my DS is a Rat and wants a Marine commission) are all making the "facts of life" clear to everyone in their detachments so that everyone understands this reality going in.

Put it this way: If you want to go in the USAF, and you don't do AFROTC because of a fear of being dropped, your chances of a commission are zilch.

VMI instructors, and ROTC instructors generally, are pretty "on the level" from my experiences. I'm sure they tell them what's up. Keep in mind, though, what's true now may not be in two years. It could be worse, it could be better.
In the end, it's a risk (like most things).

 

[pennak]

Put it this way: If you want to go in the USAF, and you don't do AFROTC because of a fear of being dropped, your chances of a commission are zilch.

VMI instructors, and ROTC instructors generally, are pretty "on the level" from my experiences. I'm sure they tell them what's up. Keep in mind, though, what's true now may not be in two years.

In the end, it's a risk (like most things).

Life is uncertain -- that's its nature. Of course, equally true is that life is unfair AND risky. Still better than the alternative. Give it your all and roll the dice. Or as the C & W song goes, don't sit it out, DANCE. Life's worse regrets are not over the failures, but over the paths not taken, the "could have been if I tried" paths.

 

[aglages]

BTW, the AF program sound brutal, not to mention a bit wasteful to train someone for 2 years and then drop 40% of them....

I think the "brutal" cuts at the SFT point during the last few years were a necessity because the AF had awarded too many scholarships to the 2013 and 2012 classes. When they (the AF) realized that they needed to reduce the number of AFROTC commissioned officers in those classes because of the AF RIF they chose to cut their losses before investing in a 4 week training program and before those cadets became part of the POC program (last two years of AFROTC). I believe that the AF has become considerably more tight fisted with scholarships during the last two years (there were NO in-college scholarships last year) and hopefully we'll see a larger percentage of cadets selected this year for SFT. Hopefully....

 

[Pima]

BTW, the AF program sound brutal, not to mention a bit wasteful to train someone for 2 years and not to mention a bit wasteful to train someone for 2 years and then drop 40% of them.

Look at the flip side. The AF does not have IRR or AD Guard, and many cadets will get paid to attend college, but never go AD per se like the AF.

Instead of using tax payer dollars to have additional AD members train cadets because the unit is larger, or tuition, stipends, book allowances, they have decided to call the ball since they know they do not have the luxury of the option the Army.

AF is the smallest branch of the big 3. Their manpower needs are not the level of the Army.

This is their decision when it comes to meeting the needs. They are stating we are going to not pay to move forward.

Believe it or not, but going to summer training for any branch eats into their budget. They pay AD members to run it, they pay to fly you there, they pay to feed you, they pay you a per diem. It may not seem like a lot, but when money is tight every penny counts.

AF takes a lot of ribbing for being the banking/corporate branch, because they really live an 8-4 life (except fliers). Ironic since people here are looking at them as being harsh for ROTC.

Of course, the AF is the only branch flying F-22s too....

my pet peeve. People think that everyone goes AF to fly, that is just not true, and if any candidate enters thinking 22 or bust, I will say to them get ready for bust!

There are only 180 +/- 22's. Most of them right now are going to people with hundreds of flight hours. You have a better shot at a 35 than a 22; that will still be a long shot.

The % of rated officers getting a fighter out of the entering class for UPT is less than 10%, because traditionally at least 10% will bust.

I believe nick said VT had 11/11 get UPT, but go back and ask how many are in his commissioning class, probably 40 +/-. Now ask how many entered with him. Start doing the math.

Enter as a cadet with 75. 45 graduate. 10 get UPT, 10% that attend UPT get fighter, and 10% of them get a 22 or a 35. To enter with the hope of a fighter and actually get it is an uphill battle let alone a 22/35.

For the candidates going Army it would be comparable to Ranger or Apache (I assume). For Navy it would be Seals or 35.

This is why I say, great to have the dream/goal, but understand that the military OWNS you!

Their needs and desires take priority over your personal desire.

The economy will be a factor in how they meet their needs.

I am ready to be slammed, but honestly, it is our tax dollars, why pay tuition, stipends and books if they are not going to send 100% AD? Why send them to LDAC when you have OCS/OTS?

Understand I am not trying to flame here, I would like to know from the Army side why they continue to pay money with the knowledge not all of them will go AD? Isn't that a waste of money. Remember AF and Navy do not pay book stipends like AROTC, and for every contracted cadet that does not go AD...it is 10's of thousands in stipends paid without the guarantee they will serve AD.

OBTW we are getting away from the point of why an SMC/are your protected with the cuts?

Go to an SMC because that is the life you want as a student and it matches your academic career. The rest is all BS!

No college degree = no commissioning. This is all finesse issues that you are reading, and NONE of it matters until you (candidate) find your match for the next 4 yrs!

 

[pennak]

Look at the flip side. The AF does not have IRR or AD Guard, and many cadets will get paid to attend college, but never go AD per se like the AF.

Instead of using tax payer dollars to have an additional AD members train cadets because the unit is larger, or tuition, stipends, book allowances, they have decided to call the ball since they know they do not have the luxury of the option the Army.

AF is the smallest branch of the big 3. Their manpower needs are not the level of the Army.

This is their decision when it comes to meeting the needs. They are stating we are going to not pay to move forward.

Believe it or not, but going to summer training for any branch eats into their budget. They pay AD members to run it, they pay to fly you there, they pay to feed you, they pay you a per diem. It may not seem like a lot, but when money is tight every penny counts.

AF takes a lot of ribbing for being the banking/corporate branch, because they really live an 8-4 life (except fliers). Ironic since people here are looking at them as being harsh for ROTC.

my pet peeve. People think that everyone goes AF to fly, that is just not true, and if any candidate enters thinking 22 or bust, I will say to them get ready for bust!

There are only 180 +/- 22's. Most of them right now are going to people with hundreds of flight hours. You have a better shot at a 35 than a 22; that will still be a long shot.

The % of rated officers getting a fighter out of the entering class for UPT is less than 10%, because traditionally at least 10% will bust.

I believe nick said he had 11/11 get UPT, but go back and ask how many are in his commissioning class, probably 40 +/-. Now ask how many entered with him. Start doing the math.

Enter as a cadet with 75. 45 graduate. 10 get UPT, 10% that attend UPT get fighter, and 10% of them get a 22 or a 35. To enter with the hope of a fighter and actually get it is an uphill battle let alone a 22/35.

For the candidates going Army it would be comparable to Ranger or Apache (I assume). For Navy it would be Seals or 35.

This is why I say, great to have the dream/goal, but understand that the military OWNS you!

Their needs and desires take priority over your personal desire.

The economy will be a factor in how they meet their needs.

Pima: As usual, you make sense. I merely wondered if the AF could be more effective, and efficient if they took 40% less in at the get go. Save a lot more money that way. Just puts a premium on the initial selection process which is already pretty selective as it is.

As to the F-22s, sorry, didn't mean to tic you off. My comment was intended to be tongue in cheek. The 22 is the pinnacle, of course, as you point out. The plane rocks! And of course a fighter pilot has been forever glamorous, at least since the "Right Stuff." But then, SEALs is the pinnacle for the Navy and SF or Rangers for the Army. The odds are very small any way you cut it. And behind every 22, or Seal or Ranger, there is an organization of people that makes it happen. We need all of them to get from A to B.
PS: What's a UPT?

 

[Pima]

I merely wondered if the AF could be more effective, and efficient if they took 40% less in at the get go. Save a lot more money that way. Just puts a premium on the initial selection process which is already pretty selective as it is.

How do you do that? JROTC is not ROTC, and not every school has JROTC for every branch.

Additionally, kids "come into their own" at different ages and under different circumstances. The "jock" in HS may not be able to adjust to being a peon in college. The nerd in college may find his footing in college.

College is a game changer. Our DD couldn't wait to bolt our nest, and was quite content for the 1st 6 weeks, but it hit her and all of the sudden she was home sick. It was easy for her because she was only 4 hours away. If she was 10-12+ hrs away she wouldn't have come home, and I can't say that it would not have impacted her academically.

ROTC understands this and that is why they look at it differently.

AFROTC also mimics the AFA with the belief that a certain % will DOR. So it is an attrition rate too.

As to the F-22s, sorry, didn't mean to tic you off. My comment was intended to be tongue in cheek. The 22 is the pinnacle, of course, as you point out. The plane rocks! And of course a fighter pilot has been forever glamorous, at least since the "Right Stuff." But then, SEALs is the pinnacle for the Navy and SF or Rangers for the Army. The odds are very small any way you cut it. And behind every 22, or Seal or Ranger, there is an organization of people that makes it happen. We need all of them to get from A to B.
PS: What's a UPT?

Clarification you didn't tic me off at all. My post was to say to candidates/lurkers as you stated "the odds are very small any way you cut it"

I don't want candidates thinking just because they want it they will get it without fighting for it!

UPT is pilot training for AF. They spend a yr (+/-) as a student again learning how to fly military aircraft. From there they get a specific airframe (15, 16, 22, 130, 135, etc) and enter a new training program for that air frame.

It can take about 2 yrs of training as a pilot to be "operational".

For AF and Navy, if they are "winged" they can not go out the door at 4, they must stay until they have served 10 yrs from winging...11 yrs at best.

 

[dunninla]

. Remember AF and Navy do not pay book stipends like AROTC

If you mean the $750 the navy (currently), and the $900 the Air Force (currently) gives is less than the $1,200 the Army (currently) gives, that is right... but you appear to be saying they don't pay for books at all. Remember the Army cadets need more books to learn the same amount...

 

[pennak]

If you mean the $750 the navy (currently), and the $900 the Air Force (currently) gives is less than the $1,200 the Army (currently) gives, that is right... but you appear to be saying they don't pay for books at all. Remember the Army cadets need more books to learn the same amount...

You're bad! How many books does a Marine need? ( thought I would start something Herr...)

Pima. The commitment pilots make is huge but with all that training the services are entitled to a return on the investment. There is a reason that our pilots are the best in the world.

 

[Pima]

The reason we have the success is not based solely on commitments owed. A lot has to do with the technology.

I married Bullet when he was a 2nd LT. No offense, but we saw a lot "bail" as soon as their commitment was over. Yes, they are recouping their ROI, but the success is also tied to having airframes with air superiority technology.

It takes a balance between both.

 

[Just_A_Mom]

I am ready to be slammed, but honestly, it is our tax dollars, why pay tuition, stipends and books if they are not going to send 100% AD? Why send them to LDAC when you have OCS/OTS?

Not going to slam you. But everyone needs to understand the National Guard and Army Reserve has a real NEED for junior officers. They always have.
Many soldiers enlist in the National Guard or Army Reserve and were never active duty.
The Army National Guard and Army Reserves has always Commissioned 2LT from ROTC. This has always been an option and some ROTC cadets choose this. Lately the need has been very great for 2LT's in the Guard or Reserves so every cadet (except those on full AD scholarships) who chooses this option gets it. There is even a special scholarship for those who promise to enlist in the Guard.

The situation now is "needs of the Army". Always has been. Right now the Army needs fewer AD 2LT's and some cadets who want AD will not get it. They will not be 'cut loose' but required to serve their commitment (8 years) in either the Guard or Reserves.
Tax payer dollars are not being wasted in sending ROTC cadets to LDAC.

 

[Stealth_81]

That said, I had some AFROTC instructors who got commissioned in the early 90s, and while going to Camp wasn't an issue, they had to wait sometimes up to a year before reporting on active duty.

Today the wait can be even longer. Son is at Laughlin for UPT right now, and he is seeing AFROTC grads from 2010 who are just now going active duty and reporting for UPT. The pipeline is backed up. I would guess that this should be smoothed out in a couple of years when the current AFROTC cadets commission.

Stealth_81

 

[pennak]

Today the wait can be even longer. Son is at Laughlin for UPT right now, and he is seeing AFROTC grads from 2010 who are just now going active duty and reporting for UPT. The pipeline is backed up. I would guess that this should be smoothed out in a couple of years when the current AFROTC cadets commission.

Stealth_81

That's a long wait! Does the AF do anything with them for that year, or do they just go home and do odd jobs and wait for the call? Do they at least get paid for waiting (that's seems wasteful). Does anyone know what the wait is for newly commissioned Marines? I am hearing stories of long waits for enlisted personnel before even attending basic, but have heard nothing with respect to new officers.

 

[Pima]

They go home and get odd jobs until they go AD.

Typically it is a 6-9 month wait. I know that at our DS's school all of them had at least the IFS (Initial Flight Screening) with a RNLT Oct. From there they would go on casual status until their UPT school.

Casual status is where they are assigned to a base with a job, and full bennies. It is their 8-4 job anywhere in the world. Traditionally they place them in flying squadrons so they can learn the op world while they wait.


Additionally, they use to have another school like BOLC(cancelled for 11 grads), which they would attend so even though it sounds like a long wait, they did have other schools to attend prior to UPT.

 

[pennak]

They go home and get odd jobs until they go AD.

Typically it is a 6-9 month wait. I know that at our DS's school all of them had at least the IFS (Initial Flight Screening) with a RNLT Oct. From there they would go on casual status until their UPT school.

Casual status is where they are assigned to a base with a job, and full bennies. It is their 8-4 job anywhere in the world. Traditionally they place them in flying squadrons so they can learn the op world while they wait.


Additionally, they use to have another school like BOLC(cancelled for 11 grads), which they would attend so even though it sounds like a long wait, they did have other schools to attend prior to UPT.

Thanks Pima!

 

[patentesq]

pennak, I haven't forgotten about this post. Next week, I hope to be back in the groove.

 

[pennak]

pennak, I haven't forgotten about this post. Next week, I hope to be back in the groove.

Patentesq: No worries! Been there.

 

[patentesq]

pennak, sorry for taking so long to respond to this thread.

The more I think about this, the more I think your and bruno's analysis is correct. And the more I think about it, the more I think this statute may really be a "toothless tiger." Here's why.

First off, there don't appear to be any reported decisions interpreting this statute. Although the language of the statute appears at first blush to be pretty darn mandatory in nature, the key language is the one that bruno pointed out in subsection (e): "and who is recommended for [active] duty by the professor of military science at the college". Now, save for the possibile, albeit very unlikely, chance that a rogue PMS takes the position that "I want all my grads to be placed on active duty" and pushes the statute, I suspect that the PMSs would more than likely modify their "recommendations" based on "guidance" received from their superiors at Cadet Command and up the chain on the issue of "target" active-duty slots from the SMCs.

Of course, an aggrieved cadet can try to seek redress in federal court under this statute. My guess is, though, that the federal courts would bounce the case under the "political question" doctrine, basically saying the military services (not the courts) know best on what is required for our military in terms of personnel structure and how the officer ranks should be derived. In that respect, this may very well be a statute without a remedy, especially where fundamental rights are not affected (last time I checked, there is no constitutional right to active duty).

That said, I think the active duty stats out of SMCs have been higher historically (but before bruno slams me, let me also say that historical conduct/treatment is NOT a predicter of future conduct/treatment). At some point, the JAGs advising our commanders will have to interpret this statute (in a non-public forum), and that advice will be key in terms of whether the military regards this statute as tying their hands going forward.

 

[pennak]

pennak, sorry for taking so long to respond to this thread.

The more I think about this, the more I think your and bruno's analysis is correct. And the more I think about it, the more I think this statute may really be a "toothless tiger." Here's why.

First off, there don't appear to be any reported decisions interpreting this statute. Although the language of the statute appears at first blush to be pretty darn mandatory in nature, the key language is the one that bruno pointed out in subsection (e): "and who is recommended for [active] duty by the professor of military science at the college". Now, save for the possibile, albeit very unlikely, chance that a rogue PMS takes the position that "I want all my grads to be placed on active duty" and pushes the statute, I suspect that the PMSs would more than likely modify their "recommendations" based on "guidance" received from their superiors at Cadet Command and up the chain on the issue of "target" active-duty slots from the SMCs.

Of course, an aggrieved cadet can try to seek redress in federal court under this statute. My guess is, though, that the federal courts would bounce the case under the "political question" doctrine, basically saying the military services (not the courts) know best on what is required for our military in terms of personnel structure and how the officer ranks should be derived. In that respect, this may very well be a statute without a remedy, especially where fundamental rights are not affected (last time I checked, there is no constitutional right to active duty).

That said, I think the active duty stats out of SMCs have been higher historically (but before bruno slams me, let me also say that historical conduct/treatment is NOT a predicter of future conduct/treatment). At some point, the JAGs advising our commanders will have to interpret this statute (in a non-public forum), and that advice will be key in terms of whether the military regards this statute as tying their hands going forward.

Thanks patentesq. I agree (although I had sorta wished you could tell me that I was all wet and why). Under Section 211a, the only mandatory duty to give AD commission pertains only to the Army and NO AD Army PMS will disregard instructions to "recommend" a given number. No recommendation, no duty to give AD commission and no suit is possible. (Caveat, I work for DOJ and any such suit would come, eventually, through my office so all opinions here are entirely personal). Still, the law aside, you just got to wonder what goes on in the back rooms, viz., what the unwritten custom and lore are. Every agency in the government has unwritten rules or customs. the military is not any different. (Caveat - I also represent from time to time DOD and each of the military branches). So far, no one seems to know about that with respect to the SMCs. Of course, no one would post it on a public forum either