Could female officers soon be forced into combat arms branches?

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 22:25:47 -0500

This article explains the Army's plan to integrate women into combat arms http://www.army.mil/article/105814/.

In OCS and ROTC when you commission you get a wish list of branch assignments. If the needs of the Army are not in line with your list, then you get what the Army gives you. Do you think we'll see a personnel office force branch a female to combat arms? Should this be a thing?

Army describes plans for integrating women into combat

No later than Jan. 1, 2016, women will be able to apply to all military occupational specialties, and to all Army units, across the total force.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 5 at 2016 10:28 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 22:28:06 -0500

No one is forced into a branch, we are all assessed into them! So, yes, woman could / should be assessed into combat arms now that all combat arms jobs have been opened up!

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 5 at 2016 10:28 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 22:28:13 -0500

This will get interesting ! I wonder what LTC Private RallyPoint Member has to say

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 5 at 2016 10:33 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 22:33:20 -0500

Of course, EO quotas will be imposed at some point

Response by SMSgt Thor Merich made Feb 5 at 2016 10:35 PM

SMSgt Thor Merich — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 22:35:03 -0500

Now that DOD has opened this can of worms, it seems to me that officers (regardless of sex) should all be treated the same. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Feb 5 at 2016 10:42 PM

Capt Jeff S. — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 22:42:59 -0500

Good news for men in the combat infantry MOS's. The competition will get a little easier. Bad news for combat effectiveness.

Response by CPT Mark Gonzalez made Feb 5 at 2016 10:44 PM

CPT Mark Gonzalez — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 22:44:55 -0500

Combat effectiveness in exchange for equal opportunity. What could possibly go wrong?

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 5 at 2016 11:09 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 23:09:06 -0500

I've already seen request from command to female leaders. I'll bet they will have no prob filling leadership roles with outstanding female officers who choose to be there!

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 5 at 2016 11:19 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 23:19:53 -0500

As stated below no officer is ever forced into a branch. Honestly, I don't think females will be assessed into combat branches unless they are in their top three. Males have a hard time getting assessed into combat branches that are in their top three now. Females are likely to have the same issue, that makes it unlikely that anyone will be "forced" into a combat branch.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 5 at 2016 11:48 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 23:48:04 -0500

No one is forced. But not everyone gets their first choice either. ;)

Response by LTC Jason Mackay made Feb 6 at 2016 12:32 AM

LTC Jason Mackay — Sat, 06 Feb 2016 00:32:08 -0500

A local Personnel Office doesn't assign your branch, HRC does. There is an accessions process where branches vote on your file. The way it worked was your #1 branch choice had right of first refusal. Then you your #2...then so on. Then there was a reshuffle based on needs of the Army and actual branch accessions requirements.

I hope the accession process rules are the same as when I assessed. It used to be two combat arms, combat support, and combat service support branches in your top six. Register for the draft? You bet. In for a penny, in for a pound. GEN Milley says no standards will change. Let's get on with this and be done with it.

A current article, as opposed to a 2013 article. http://www.defense.gov/News-Article-View/Article/648766/officials-describe-plans-to-integrate-women-into-combat-roles

Officials Describe Plans to Integrate Women into Combat Roles

Senior service officials outlined plans to integrate women into combat roles before a Senate panel, and agreed incorporating women into combat ranks is the right path for the future.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Feb 6 at 2016 1:04 AM

COL Charles Williams — Sat, 06 Feb 2016 01:04:35 -0500

Eventually Yes MAJ Private RallyPoint Member. When I went to OCS (back in the day), OCS filled shortages in the Army for the most part, which meant IN, AR, FA, AD, etc... Now they do OCS by OML just like ROTC and USMA... or at least they were doing OML in 2010 when I was last there...

Response by MAJ Bill Darling made Feb 6 at 2016 1:46 AM

MAJ Bill Darling — Sat, 06 Feb 2016 01:46:31 -0500

In a just world, yes. What is good for the gander must be good for the goose. Of the many things that have baffled me regarding the female integration process (#1 being "Why bother having a test? We know what you plan to do anyway") two jumped out at me. One, why start at Ranger School, so near the pinnacle? Two, why was it like trying out for a varsity sports team? Are men who want to be infantry officers after they've been selected for another branch offered the opportunity to test into it, complete with liaison officers watching over them? Officer accessions is a "needs of the Army"-based thing, completely directive. If men have the option of not getting the branch they desire, then surely women should be open to the downside of equality as well.

i know some take exception to CPT Pack's use of the word "forced" but I find it appropriate. There is certainly an element of compulsion for most would-be commissioned officers. While cadets and candidates make "wish lists" there's no guarantee your top choices will be your basic branch and there is no opting out of service if one doesn't get what one wants. I met more than a few fellow 2LTs in my IOBC who had no desire to be an IN officer (and likewise I had zero desire to be an AG as part of the then-branch detail program) and I would surmise those numbers would be higher for women who might be "selected" for infantry duty.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Feb 6 at 2016 3:11 AM

COL Ted Mc — Sat, 06 Feb 2016 03:11:53 -0500

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member - Captain; That may well happen.

Face it, when you join as an officer you accept a much higher level of risk, responsibility, and commitment than someone who simply wants to get some vocational training does.

Am I opposed to female officers serving in the Combat Arms? See the three Captains shown above.

(Actually I'm not overly keen on ANYONE serving in combat. Killing people really sucks as a way to make a living. However being killed by people who don't agree with that sucks even more.)

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Feb 6 at 2016 7:43 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Sat, 06 Feb 2016 07:43:05 -0500

It's a numbers game.

Combat Arms (et al) is a "high desirability" slot because of long term promotion opportunities. Therefore it boils down to competitiveness as opposed to "being forced."

The largest issue will likely be limited applicant skewing the field. Generally speaking there at 15% females, 85% males. "If" Big Army attempts to maintain representation, that means it will be more likely for a female to get "choice" than a competitive male, HOWEVER studies (Marine Integration Report) showed that "desire" was significantly lower, which should offset that significantly.

When the Marine Corps did the Infantry Officer Course testbed, their goal was for 100 Candidates. They got 30~ total over the 2 year~ program.

It's my assessment we will likely see calls from HRC (etc) for more Female volunteers for Combat Arms to increase representation, but because of the competitive nature Big Army will never have a problem actually filling CA Lieutenant slots (regardless of gender).

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 6 at 2016 9:57 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 06 Feb 2016 09:57:55 -0500

I think that the way all branches and MOS need to have qualifications. At the artillery school they have started implementing physical demands requirements for officers to be able to graduate bolc. A lot of people have failed both male and females. With a high rate of female failures. So much that many of these task are being constantly reevaluated. Rotc needs to change how they assign branches.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 6 at 2016 10:54 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 06 Feb 2016 10:54:23 -0500

In OCS though, that wish list doesn't actually mean anything. It's all based on your OML standing during the branching ceremony. If you really want MI but you're in the bottom half of the class, you're not going to get it just because you really really wanted it. We had a female in my OCS class who was low in the OML and was forced to choose Field Artillery because that was the only branch left that would accept females, so yes she got forced into it. I can see the same thing happening, not that that's the Army's fault, just the way the cards fall.

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Feb 6 at 2016 2:21 PM

COL Jon Thompson — Sat, 06 Feb 2016 14:21:22 -0500

Most of the combat arms are very competitive in the officer accessions process. So I don't see anyone getting one of those branches unless it is high on their list. What will happen is more males accessing into something further down on their list that a couple of years ago may have gotten a combat arm.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 6 at 2016 2:26 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 06 Feb 2016 14:26:31 -0500

I do believe we will soon see a influx of female officers in combat branches. I have a feeling there will be a good number of volunteers, but in regards to "needs of the Army", I believe its will be the same no matter the gender of the officer.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 6 at 2016 2:40 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 06 Feb 2016 14:40:39 -0500

Yes. A female integration officer approached me about moving branches to Infantry or Armor. My response: I love my job as a Signaleer! But I wouldn't mind being a maneuver S-6. However, the Army is looking for volunteers before women are "selected".

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Feb 6 at 2016 6:47 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sat, 06 Feb 2016 18:47:52 -0500

I think so just out of fairness.

Response by SGT Kristin Wiley made Feb 7 at 2016 1:16 AM

SGT Kristin Wiley — Sun, 07 Feb 2016 01:16:41 -0500

The real question is, why shouldn't they be selected for combat arms?

Response by CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 7 at 2016 8:56 AM

CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 07 Feb 2016 08:56:14 -0500

They could certainly be forced to choose a branch at OCS. OCS is now doing a draft type system based on OML. People that finished at the bottom of the OML were forced to choose the branch that was left. I saw this happen to a number of people. All infantry. So yes, now that those jobs are open to woman there will be no "gender lock" obligating men to choose them toward the end and woman will inevitably be slotted for those positions without wanting them.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 8 at 2016 10:30 AM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 10:30:45 -0500

Depends on what your definition of "forced" is. When I had to do my choices a LONG time ago, I had to put down X amount of combat arms, X amount of combat support and X amount of CSS on my preferences. While I wanted to go Armor, I still had to put everything else on there. Could I have been "forced" into CSS...if you look at it that way, sure. I suspect females will have to fill out their preference statements like the males now. They will have to have combat arms units somewhere on their preference list. It is very likely that some who put it #6 will end up in a combat arms branch. I wouldn't say that would be forcing them into it though.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 8 at 2016 10:49 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 10:49:25 -0500

This question came up during the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Implementation of the Decision to Open All Ground Combat Units to Women last week. I really appreciated GEN Milley's response to force branching in the Army. He stated that "Right now, we have no requirement, because we're filling our needs for the infantry, in both officer and enlisted. And currently, we do not involuntarily put anyone in the infantry. But again, we are meeting our needs." He goes on to say, "So look back at World War II. A lot of people were involuntarily put in infantry. But right now, we do not, and I don't anticipate that situation in any time in the near future."

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Feb 8 at 2016 3:45 PM

CPT Pedro Meza — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 15:45:21 -0500

The ARMY is like a wife, and a wife will demand that her needs be met, if the ARMY says you are branched you are branched no matter what gender you are, in the same way when the wife says take out the trash you do it even if it your are watching the Super Bowel haft time.

Response by Cadet PVT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2016 10:25 AM

Cadet PVT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 10:25:09 -0500

There are quite a few females in my battalion who, I believe, would love to be assessed into combat arms. In my opinion, we sign up to serve. If the Army believes we'll be most useful to our country serving in a combat arms position, that's where we should happily go, regardless of gender, sex, race, or creed.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 12 at 2016 10:02 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 10:02:54 -0500

Will females who don't want combat arms end up in combat arms?

Yes, 100% chance

Response by SPC Mike Lake made Feb 4 at 2018 6:04 PM

SPC Mike Lake — Sun, 04 Feb 2018 18:04:32 -0500

Already integrated met her at all American week she is one of the 2 females who graduated ranger school and is the first female CO of an infantry company

Response by SFC Michael W. made Dec 25 at 2019 1:41 PM

SFC Michael W. — Wed, 25 Dec 2019 13:41:59 -0500

Last time I checked the enemy doesn't carries "gender" rounds...