USMA lengthens service obligation to 6 yrs??

But, giving yourself an opportunity to command a company and develop Lieutenants is the epitome of leadership. Being responsible for up to 150 of America's sons and daughters is enormous. It gives you the opportunity to deeply understand logistics, manage an arms room, develop a maintenance program, develop and execute a training strategy, administer discipline through the Uniform Code of Military Justice, contribute to the fulfillment of the Battalion commander's mission and intent...among others.

These are meaningful things you should experience before deciding to leave the Army. There is a HUGE difference between leading a platoon and commanding a company.

I always encouraged officers to command a company before they depart.

I don't know anything about the change in service obligation...but 6 years means a couple of duty stations....and an opportunity to command.

An additional year...and an exponentially increased leadership experience.

This^ x1000.

A year may seem like a long time to an 18-19 year old, eager to keep moving to the next adventure. It may seem like a flash in time to an old guy like me. In any event, for most people, one's 20's are arguably the most critical years. Those are the years when one has an educational/work experience base to build upon as well as the energy, freedom and wide-eyed curiosity to fully exploit the opportunities. You carry that into your 30' and 40's which await you with ever decreasing amounts of freedom and latitude.

The military is unequalled as an employer in its willingness to heap "managerial" responsibility onto the shoulders of JO's, regardless of their commissioning source. Whether to goal is to be a lifer like @Soldiergriz or to get out into the civvie that extra experience is money in the bank.
 
This is similar to the discussion earlier about AF pilots serving 10 years from flight school graduation. Army AV just recently extended the flight school ADSO from six to eight years for rotary that doesn't begin until you complete flight school. Its a separate ADSO from your commissioning source but effectively means you'll be on AD for the entire period of your commissioning ADSO. The ADSOs run concurrently (not added to one another).


Where can I find the recent change in ADSO for Army IERW? The Army website still states 6 years after completion of flight school.
 
Where can I find the recent change in ADSO for Army IERW? The Army website still states 6 years after completion of flight school.

I'll see if I can find a link to send you that puts it into writing. This came from a brief I attended with MG Francis, the AV branch CG, within the last month.
 
6 years is a pilot program. Only those applicants who indicated they would be willing to accept a 6 year commitment in previous surveys were selected for this commitment.
 
6 years is a pilot program. Only those applicants who indicated they would be willing to accept a 6 year commitment in previous surveys were selected for this commitment.
Correct, but they thought they were taking a survey and were not told that it was a pilot program and that everyone else would only have a 5 year commitment. Reminds me how I felt on an airplane the last time I asked they guy in the seat next to me what he paid for his ticket. 🤢

Also, the methodology creates a grossly biased sample - unless they are trying to determine how truthfully people answer survey questions.
 
Hate to bring this back to the top of the list again, but where would you find the letter that states 5 vs. 6? Does it only appear just before you accept or can you go back afterward and look at it? DS plans to be in for the long haul so he doesn't care, but I think he should probably be aware for future reference. No unkind comments about how he wasn't attentive to detail before he accepted, please. :)
 
Those offered admission with a 6 year ADSO were RANDOMLY selected from the group of candidates (nearly 4000) who answered “yes” to the question on the candidate application of whether or not you were willing to serve on active duty for 6 years.

If you answered ‘yes’ your name went into the pool. A very small group of offered candidates has been put in this category. This is a study initiated by the Department of the Army. If you were offered an appointment with a 6 year ADSO and feel betrayed or snookered by the academy then simply decline the offer and allow someone else to step into your slot.

Wonder if the person declines the 6 year offer, will his/her alternate be offered 5 years? We will never know.
 
Last edited:
The Senate Armed Committee wants a detailed report by Apr 2020 regarding possibly increasing the active duty service commitment for military academies. The 5 and dive increase is getting someone's attention in Washington D.C. with not only academy grads but also with ROTC full scholarship graduates as well. Perhaps the Army is getting a head start on this issue. And 6 years may not be enough.

I can't belief the gov't is actually taking an interest in seeing how tax money is being spent. Good for them, if they are.
 
This is similar to the discussion earlier about AF pilots serving 10 years from flight school graduation. Army AV just recently extended the flight school ADSO from six to eight years for rotary that doesn't begin until you complete flight school. Its a separate ADSO from your commissioning source but effectively means you'll be on AD for the entire period of your commissioning ADSO. The ADSOs run concurrently (not added to one another).

Secretary of the Army as of 3 June 20 increase the flight school commitment to 10 years after receiving ones wing. Up from 6 years due to their retention issues.

Perhaps the military academies should increase their commitment to at least 10 years on active duty as well. If it's good enough for pilots, should be good enough for cadets/midshipman.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps the military academies should increase their commitment to at least 10 years on active duty as well. If it's good enough for pilots, should be good enough for cadets/midshipman.
It will be interesting to see what happens to Aviation during branch selection. Is demand elastic or inelastic? Raising the "price" by 67% should provide a definitive answer. However, I don't believe a trial is necessary to conclude what would result from a 100% increase in price for all cadets/midshipmen.
Applications as well as retention after Plebe/Yearling year would plummet.

Aviators make their choice after three years at the academy and exchange the additional years to obtain a significant skill. Since Aviation is not guaranteed, creating a ten year commitment after Yearling year would reduce the academies retention of potential Aviators as well as non-Aviators.
 
It will be interesting to see what happens to Aviation during branch selection. Is demand elastic or inelastic? Raising the "price" by 67% should provide a definitive answer. However, I don't believe a trial is necessary to conclude what would result from a 100% increase in price for all cadets/midshipmen.
Applications as well as retention after Plebe/Yearling year would plummet.

Aviators make their choice after three years at the academy and exchange the additional years to obtain a significant skill. Since Aviation is not guaranteed, creating a ten year commitment after Yearling year would reduce the academies retention of potential Aviators as well as non-Aviators.
Significant second order effects for some branches because of career path differences between them. I know more about the Navy and can tell you that a Surface Warfare officer at the five year point has typically either finished or is close to finishing their required Division Officer Sea Tour (s) which is typically followed by shore duty which can often include an advanced degree program. It is a pretty good time to leave if that is what is desired OR a Navy funded advanced degree that is followed by the Department Head track which is typically where officers promote to O4. A ten year commitment forces officers to stay into the Department head tours which ends up keeping too many people without enough appropriate billets. The normal rank pyramid is also seen on a ship with far more Division Officers than Department Heads. While there are year groups that are low on/could use more Department Heads, the shortage number is MUCH smaller than the number that would have been added by doubling the obligated service.

Submarine Officers have additional schooling on the front end but eventually have a similar career path to SWOs - a ten year obligation would yield many more officers where you DON'T need them.

I could be wrong but I expect that the Army does not need as many officers at the 9 year point as they need to commission each year.

Aviation does call for a longer obligation (though not necessarily ten years) because the lengthy qualification process "eats up" so much of a newly commissioned officer's normal obligated service. For a Navy Pilot, they can easily be past the 3 year point before they ever set foot in a fleet squadron and if the Navy wants to "get" 3 or 4 years of fleet service out of them, the normal (5 yr) obligation is significantly too short. Due to the organization of fleet squadrons, this is not a huge problem as the Division Officer/Department Head slots are manned differently.
 
I'm a hopeful member of USMA 2025. When I was filling out forms as part of my application, there was a question about what option most appealed to me (5 years active, with different options for the next 3, or a 6 years active duty option). Is this the "survey" that other posters have alluded to? I'm totally fine with my answer, but if it does impact on my future length of appointment, I'd have preferred more of a heads up.
 
WP Admissions appears to be using the same survey they used for the Class of 2024. How you answer will have no bearing on their decision to offer or not offer an appointment so follow what your heart tells you. For those candidates who do answer ‘yes’ to the 6 year ADSO question their names will go on a list (if offered an appointment) for random selection to receive their appointment along with a 6 year ADSO. The only caveat to what I have just written is that this is what they did for the Class of 2024. Things may change for the Class of 2025. Good luck!
 
The difference with aviation is the amount of money they spend on training compared to other branches. Not saying they dont spend on the other branches but flying and learning to fly a plane is expensive. My son is an AF pilot. I found this info on a comparision between keeping a pilot and getting a new one. The following is the cost to train AF pilots

"The cost of training a basic qualified fighter pilot ranges from $5.6 million for an F-16 pilot to $10.9 million for an F-22 pilot. Bomber pilot training cost is also high, ranging from $7.3 million for a B-1 pilot to $9.7 million for a B-52 pilot. Costs for training transport pilots and mobility pilots are somewhat lower, but still considerable, ranging from $1.1 million for a C-17 pilot to $2.5 million for a C-130J pilot. "

My point isnt to say that the number of years required after academy should or shouldnt be increased. It is just to say there is a reason why they keep you for 10 years if you are an aviator. As for the army changing it to 10 years, that actually seems strange. The story you always get about Army aviators is that they spend 2-3 years flying and then they get command positions and fly a desk. They say if you want to fly in the Army, its better to be a Warrant officer as they never stop flying. It would seem that if you stop flying after 2-4 years, dont know why it would critical to keep you in.
 
The difference with aviation is the amount of money they spend on training compared to other branches. Not saying they dont spend on the other branches but flying and learning to fly a plane is expensive. My son is an AF pilot. I found this info on a comparision between keeping a pilot and getting a new one. The following is the cost to train AF pilots

"The cost of training a basic qualified fighter pilot ranges from $5.6 million for an F-16 pilot to $10.9 million for an F-22 pilot. Bomber pilot training cost is also high, ranging from $7.3 million for a B-1 pilot to $9.7 million for a B-52 pilot. Costs for training transport pilots and mobility pilots are somewhat lower, but still considerable, ranging from $1.1 million for a C-17 pilot to $2.5 million for a C-130J pilot. "

My point isnt to say that the number of years required after academy should or shouldnt be increased. It is just to say there is a reason why they keep you for 10 years if you are an aviator. As for the army changing it to 10 years, that actually seems strange. The story you always get about Army aviators is that they spend 2-3 years flying and then they get command positions and fly a desk. They say if you want to fly in the Army, its better to be a Warrant officer as they never stop flying. It would seem that if you stop flying after 2-4 years, dont know why it would critical to keep you in.

There’s another thread where it’s already been discussed about pros and cons for Army AV extending to ten years recently. Not going to rehash what I said there, but I will just throw out that the Army‘s flight school costs a fraction to produce a single pilot of what it costs to produce an AF or Navy pilot. An Army aviator leaves flight school with about 120-150 hours, depending on airframe, and basically competent enough to not kill themselves if given supervision but very little helpful in the way of accomplishing any assigned missions. The Army doesn’t train mission tasks in flight school. The AF and Navy leave flight school with generally double the experience and able to be trusted to fly single pilot from the get go. The AF and Navy will not recognize the Army’s flight school if you try to jump over to another service unless you specifically go rotary with very specific constraints, and even then, they might send you through their UPT anyways.

As for the comment about why it’s necessary to keep around RLOs after they are done flying, there’s still necessary billets that an AV BN and BDE need to function that have to be filled. An AV BN wouldn’t run well without its iron majors, and the Army isn’t just hitting shortages in its WOs ranks in AV. It just isn’t as highly publicized (or as drastic yet) in the RLO population, because the year groups it seriously affects (products of ARI and sequestration) are just barely captains.

At the end of the day, all of this will eventually sort itself out. The issue with making retention adjustments is that their affects won’t truly be felt until years down the road to figure out if they were effective or not.
 
Cadets have always used BRADSO for AV so all slots will be filled. But you will see a shift down in the top ranks branching AV this year. Might have been handled better with a 2-3 year phase in so cadets and ROTC who are 3 years in and a few months away from branch night didn't get blindsided by such a huge change in service obligation. Remember that it's 10 yrs from pinning wings so really closer to 12 years after graduation.
 
It will be interesting to see what happens to Aviation during branch selection. Is demand elastic or inelastic? Raising the "price" by 67% should provide a definitive answer. However, I don't believe a trial is necessary to conclude what would result from a 100% increase in price for all cadets/midshipmen.
Applications as well as retention after Plebe/Yearling year would plummet.

Aviators make their choice after three years at the academy and exchange the additional years to obtain a significant skill. Since Aviation is not guaranteed, creating a ten year commitment after Yearling year would reduce the academies retention of potential Aviators as well as non-Aviators.
A good friend of mine who is going to be a Firstie this year always wanted to fly but is now reconsidering due to the length of the obligation. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of others are doing the same.
 
Back
Top