Does a branch detail help or hinder an officer's career?

2015-09-14T21:47:44-04:00

It gives an officer more options and variety of experience, but can it hinder them as well?

Thoughts & personal experiences?

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 14 at 2015 10:11 PM

2015-09-14T22:11:34-04:00

Depends what you do when you are branch detailed. I knew a former SF NCO who got a commission, was branched detailed as an Infantry officer, but he was actually a 91A (Ordnance Officer). He got to be a PL of a 38 man Infantry platoon. I'd say being branched detailed helped him because nobody cares what you did as an enlisted soldier really once you get a commission.

Response by CSM Carl Cunningham made Sep 14 at 2015 10:23 PM

2015-09-14T22:23:37-04:00

How can it not help sir? It will broaden you into a more well rounded officer. Especially if you are a non-maneuver branch and you get to serve as a maneuver LT. You will be way ahead of your counterparts.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Sep 14 at 2015 10:45 PM

2015-09-14T22:45:51-04:00

CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member yes it's helpful or was in my time.

Response by LTC Colin Hanzlik made Sep 15 at 2015 1:39 AM

2015-09-15T01:39:19-04:00

My Best Man at our wedding was John E. Sena, (one year my junior in ROTC) who was destined to be an Airborne Ranger (BADASS) Infantry officer... and he was! However, when he found out that he was branch detailed to AG (known as the Shield of Shame then), he was so embarrassed that he didn't call or contact me for 6 years. When I finally ran into him years later, he was the assistant G1 in the 24th ID, and was later picked by his Division CG to lead a Task Force in Afghanistan because he was still one of the best Infantry officers in the Army and deserving of a combat command, even as an Adjutant General-branched officer. I am more proud of COL(R) Sena than most of my single-track combat arms brothers because he never stopped being a Soldier's Soldier, despite not staying in the branch of his choice! Nobody gets to choose whether they are branch detailed or not, but if you are, take your experience from the front lines and apply it to sustain the force in whatever branch you are assigned, brother!

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Sep 15 at 2015 1:09 PM

2015-09-15T13:09:31-04:00

I believe all male officers should go combat arms first for these reasons. You know what combat arms soldiers go through and the extreme sacrifices they make, essentially you have empathy. You have greater understanding of the Army and the role you take in supporting combat arms. The situation gives you gives you a better understanding of logistics, tactics, and later as a scholar of strategic thinking.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 15 at 2015 2:40 PM

2015-09-15T14:40:55-04:00

Branch detail helps, some. Much as prior enlisted service helps some. So a branch detailed guy is usually better rounded than his peers as a CPT, but the ones who stay have pulled even by the time they are MAJs. Just as a prior enlisted officer has a huge advantage as a LT, but is not inherently any better by the time they reach CPT.

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made Sep 15 at 2015 4:15 PM

2015-09-15T16:15:51-04:00

Helps more than hurts and if I'm not mistaken you can always put in paperwork to stay in your detailed branch.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 15 at 2015 6:54 PM

2015-09-15T18:54:52-04:00

Depends...just like any other experience the Army hands you. If you are smart and make the most of it, good usually comes. One of the best MI CPTs I know was branch detailed Chemical. Lots of people would have been bitter, not her. She was assigned to our BfSB and I was the S2 and she sat with me and other MI Soldiers every chance she got. For her it was like having a dual major in college.

On the other hand, one of the all around worst officers I ever dealt with was branch detailed infantry, then came to MI. He made sure that everyone understood that he would "always be infantry," and viewed MI and MI Soldiers as nerds and not "real" Soldiers. He knew absolutely nothing about MI and was totally resistant to learning. He was sent to me to learn about SIGINT and after an hour he dismissed himself announcing that he was "good" and he let me know I was to "handle all that boring sh!t" without involving him. I know that he tried to stay infantry but they didn't take him. I suspect they saw his weak character even more clearly than I did.

In theater, they say, "there is no such thing as small parts, only small actors." The same is true in the Army. Do what you are told to do and knock it out of the park. Success will follow. Gripe, slow walk it, and/or blow it off, and you will just be given that same type of work until you demonstrate you are capable of more.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 15 at 2015 11:34 PM

2015-09-15T23:34:17-04:00

First of all, welcome to Armor and remember recon wins wars. Any and every opportunity you can use in the military can be used in your favor. If you are branch detailed into armor or from armor to something else use the skills in planning the operations, maneuvering you vehicles, and maintenance and medical requirements to be able to take that to a commander and say that you are prepared to be able to add what ever to his fight if he needs it. Just remember everyone is an asset, just have to find the right problem.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 16 at 2015 12:13 PM

2015-09-16T12:13:54-04:00

Generally Branch Detail makes you a much more valuable officer to the donor branch - In your case, MI gets a Captain with maneuver experience rather than a battalion S-2 from a CSB who couldn't correctly identify restrictive terrain if it bit him on the butt.

Two Cautions:
1. Make sure you actively seek out leadership positions vice becoming the Assistant S-2 after one year as an armor platoon leader.
2. Some "less than bright" battalion commanders will use you to make their "favored armored sons" look better via their profile - "...since you're not a potential Armor Commander, you don't need that top block...". Make it impossible for him not to give you the evaluation you deserve by leading from the front of your platoon and your peers.

Response by Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 17 at 2015 1:45 PM

2015-09-17T13:45:34-04:00

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Oct 21 at 2015 7:01 PM

2015-10-21T19:01:22-04:00

If you go from combat arms to REMF officer you will be behind technically. However, you will be a better leader with the soldiers, space, time, and coordination.

Response by MAJ Glenn Bergeron made Jan 28 at 2016 1:40 PM

2016-01-28T13:40:18-05:00

I was branch detailed IN/MI and was one of those guys that went kicking and screaming to MI. Tried getting out of it (along with others) and had C of C support but MI was a shortage branch at the time and we all got disapproved by then PERSCOM (now HRC I believe). In retrospect it wasn't that bad at all and gave me many more post-military opportunities as I still work in the intel field. In the end, though, it's YOUR career so only you know what's best! Good luck and feel free to contact me offline about MI. Always Out Front !

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 28 at 2016 4:21 PM

2016-01-28T16:21:57-05:00

Unfortunately, I have seen Commanders favor non-branch transfer Officers over those that are, due to their longevity in the branch. Also, when you branch transfer, you may be behind your peers in your new branch due to your lack on branch experience. At the same time though, you are more broadened. Ultimately, it depends on the Commander, but more importantly, on your personal performance, regardless of if you're branch-transferred or not.

Response by LTC John Wilson made Aug 21 at 2023 10:22 AM

2023-08-21T10:22:15-04:00

Generally, Branch Detailing will likely hamper an Officer's career at the outset. I do not recommend it.

As a rule of thumb, Senior Raters like to reserve their "top blocks" for Lieutenants that will remain in the same branch, and will generally toss the scraps to the Detailed Lieutenants. Their viewpoint is "Why waste a top block on my profile for an officer who's not going to remain an Armor or Infantry Officer?"

Granted, this has not always been the case, but during the 1990's "Peace Dividend" drawdown, nearly every Detailed Lieutenant I knew (including me) was "Non-Select" after the Lieutenant Retention Board that preceded the Captain Promotion Board. The cuts were deep enough that many "Center of Mass" Lieutenants were determined as not worth keeping.