How can “lateral entry” into the military's upper ranks be successfully implemented?

2016-06-19T08:40:45-04:00

After reading this Military Times article, I'm very interested in hearing your thoughts on how this lateral entry program of placing civilian professionals into military leadership roles can be successfully implemented. The biggest issue I see, will be figuring out how to culturally integrate these civilian transfers into the units they will be serving in. The level of respect an O-6 or NCO earns over a career is a very hard thing to put down on paper and measure in the civilian world. What would it take to make this program succeed?
http://militari.ly/24YKrHF

The Pentagon's controversial plan to hire military leaders off the street

The idea has interest in Congress, but critics fear it'll create a subcaste of personnel fundamentally disconnected from the traditional career force.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 19 at 2016 8:47 AM

2016-06-19T08:47:48-04:00

Capt Brandon Charters Don't we do that now with some specialities i.e.: Dr's, Laywers etc? I don't know if it would be feasible for the Combat Arms arena just because they have a 4 yr degree, and putting them straight into a Co(CMD)or BN level positions.

Response by Capt Brandon Charters made Jun 19 at 2016 8:59 AM

2016-06-19T08:59:04-04:00

Enjoyed this case study from the article.

Response by CPT Mark Gonzalez made Jun 19 at 2016 9:35 AM

2016-06-19T09:35:52-04:00

It is a great idea, but it needs to be in extremely rare circumstances and isn't a good fit for most branches. It is done with great success in the medical field, but is relatively rare. There is a Majors and above review board that meets for this and the rank has more to do with respect for demonstrated achievements. Biggest issue would be gauging leadership and appropriateness if applied in a non-technical branch. The zuckerburg example is flawed as the only thing that matters is respect as he has all the money he needs and when it comes to exceptional talent the govt can't even began to match the compensation. If they could, just make them all CPTs and give them huge bonuses, but they cannot so the rank is a token of respect.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 19 at 2016 9:38 AM

2016-06-19T09:38:57-04:00

Reading the article helps understand the point of view for the basis of this proposal. I agree that for many technical positions in the military that are ran similar to civilian firms would benefit from this. However, the more you make certain units and positions like a civilian outfit the greater the divide will be between combat arms and support elements. This may make joint integration more difficult. I already see it on the transportation side. Many units have a Unit Movement Officer for their deployments that serve an additional duty for this role. These roles in combat arms units put an infantryman or other similar jobs in this role. When doing so they may be less likely to coordinate with proper staff functions that are willing to assist with their requirements. This divide will only make this happen more often.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jun 19 at 2016 9:42 AM

2016-06-19T09:42:48-04:00

It sounds to me like this plan was devised by a civilian, someone who hasn't any knowledge of the military culture nor its peculiar problems. Sure, a civilian may have great experience and success leading a complex organization, but when have they ever been responsible for caring for every need of those they lead including clothing, feeding, housing, medical care (not just a health insurance plan), entertaining, delivering their mail, etc, etc, etc.? When have they ever moved an organization half way around the world at a moment's notice and been shot at when they arrived? Go ahead. Hire a civilian and put them in senior management. Can I watch?

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 19 at 2016 9:57 AM

2016-06-19T09:57:13-04:00

I doubt this would work for combat arms. There really isn't a civilian equivalent. And with specialty officers, being a direct accession can really limit your military opportunities. Perhaps Warrent officer is the pathway ?

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 19 at 2016 10:12 AM

2016-06-19T10:12:19-04:00

I think it would be a rare individual that would want to do this. A better solution might be to bring cyber experts in as a civilian but offer significant bonuses to make it attractive.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 19 at 2016 10:25 AM

2016-06-19T10:25:54-04:00

I realize the concept is being driven by Cyber and our current lack of depth compared to the private sector. Coming in as O6 makes no sense at all, as that would either be a command position or a DCS. Regardless of technical and leadership experience in the private sector, I think a career civilian would be ill-prepared for either position in the military. CPT/MAJ with incentive money would make more sense. Or just use a DA Civilian position.
For the enlisted proposal, it would make the most sense in the Army if it were to reinstate the Specialist 5 through Specialist 7 ranks.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 19 at 2016 10:31 AM

2016-06-19T10:31:12-04:00

Why make them green suits? Why not hire them as GS employees or contractors? Do we really need to salute the newly hired IT expert or worry about the neurosurgeon's PT score?

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Jun 19 at 2016 10:47 AM

2016-06-19T10:47:17-04:00

I have no issue with it, as proposed. As implemented could always be something else again. The biggest issue is that I doubt the people we would want to bring in would come (let alone stay) at any rank today.

We did it before during WWI and WWII, with success.

Then again, I believe that we should bring back the specialist ranks, return warrants to their traditional technical expert roles, and split officers into command and staff tracks at O4, so I'm probably wrong....

Response by SFC Kenneth Hunnell made Jun 19 at 2016 10:50 AM

2016-06-19T10:50:12-04:00

I believe that if the people that have all of these talents. And want to serve, have them sign up like anyone else, start at the bottom, if they are worth what they say. They will climb the ranks.
Anything else would bee pandering to those that have.
If you start out at the top, you really earned nothing but a free ride

Response by SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT made Jun 19 at 2016 12:18 PM

2016-06-19T12:18:51-04:00

Capt Brandon Charters COL Mikel J. Burroughs LTC Stephen F. CPT Walt Tollefson SMSgt Minister Gerald A. "Doc" Thomas SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL Actually the World War II Seabees which were not actually in the Navy and setup similar to the Marines. We're in fact resented by the Navy because of thier ranks based on construction experience and faster promotion system. My 92 years young father was a Carpenter's Mate with the 77th CB that earn 4 Pacific Campaign stars. They island hopped working along side the Marines bulldozers clearing the jungle, building runways, fuel depots, hospitals, barracks and other facilities

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 19 at 2016 12:50 PM

2016-06-19T12:50:15-04:00

This has been done for years under the AMEDD program. For example a cardiac surgeon can get a direct commission to LTC. They take a 'gentleman's course' (was in New Mexico) to learn military basics, marching, ranks, policies, etc, then off to be a Dr again.

I imagine this new talk is just going to expand on that.

Response by SSgt Christopher Brose made Jun 19 at 2016 2:53 PM

2016-06-19T14:53:06-04:00

I love the Marine Corps' approach -- watch the other services experiment with the idea first, and then maybe later adopt some of parts of the experiments that did not result in a total sh*t-storm.

Personally, I think it's a bad idea. Why is it necessary to start someone out at 0-6? We already allow doctors and lawyers to come in at 0-4, why should cyber guys be any different?

Response by SSgt Christopher Brose made Jun 19 at 2016 3:04 PM

2016-06-19T15:04:35-04:00

If we really are having a manpower shortage, we already have a mechanism in place to address it -- the Selective Service. If we really need cyber-geeks, then let us draft them. It wouldn't be anything like drafting guys to send to Viet Nam to get shot at. They'd work in an air-conditioned office building, and probably wouldn't even have to leave the states. They could live in apartments or houses, have pets, live otherwise normal lives, but their day job would be working for Uncle Sam.

Bring them in as 0-3s. Send them through basic training like anyone else as E-1, and when they successfully complete basic, backdate their 0-3. Then send them to their computer nirvana (or purgatory) to do their thing for a couple of years.

If we're never going to use the Selective Service, then what's the point of having it?

Response by Kelvin Jeweh made Jun 19 at 2016 3:43 PM

2016-06-19T15:43:57-04:00

it will be best if the people talented and committed to be course be recruited
http://nigeriantrends.com.ng

NigerianTrends.Com.Ng ||Trending News Today

Nigerian Trends| Trending Naija News ,Fashion Trends,Celebrities Gists, Tech News and Gadgets

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 19 at 2016 3:51 PM

2016-06-19T15:51:30-04:00

I think this could work in climates where traditional military rank may take a back seat to the skill performed. The traditional military culture is very apparent and useful for operations in Combat arms and direct combat support units. But one could make the argument that a more "relaxed" atmosphere can exist in Cyber Units and Civil Affairs units. In these kinds of units, your particular skill may present enough value to warrant rank compensation. We already compensate for skill, to some degree, in the Medical Corps. Don't the MDs and DVMs graduate and commission at 0-3, typically?

Response by SMSgt Tony Barnes made Jun 19 at 2016 4:42 PM

2016-06-19T16:42:43-04:00

Of course it's not the right choice. But, unfortunately this generation of civilian and military leaders seem intent to dismantle the good order and discipline of the military. Shameful!!!

Response by CPO Joseph Grant made Jun 19 at 2016 4:51 PM

2016-06-19T16:51:59-04:00

Civilian liters are managers. We build leaders. The difference being managers manage resources leaders lead men. Also taking someone off the street and commissioning them or making them senior enlisted will not instill in them the spirit of a warrior. That comes from our culture, training and experience.

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Jun 19 at 2016 4:54 PM

2016-06-19T16:54:24-04:00

No way no how! What planet does the SecDef come from? It is a "tore up from the floor up" leaders need to be followers FIRST , Soldier-Leaders need to have been a Servant Leader.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 19 at 2016 4:59 PM

2016-06-19T16:59:33-04:00

I am and have always been an advocate of promoting from within if there are people qualified. What does it say to those who qualify when we bring a question mark for the outside.

Further, military service is unique. I don't believe the average civilian can understand that.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 19 at 2016 5:05 PM

2016-06-19T17:05:37-04:00

After reading the article and seeing it's only for certain specialties I think that instead of giving them rank, they should just get paid extra. For example an E-4 $2,000 taxable monthly Salary but have an incentive of lets say an extra $2,000 non-taxable a month for there job specialty without de-grading the rank structure. there are other ways to compensate for specialty MOS without handing our rank others work for years to attain.

Response by CPT Joseph K Murdock made Jun 19 at 2016 5:07 PM

2016-06-19T17:07:03-04:00

I will rue the day our BCT commanders are grown in corporate America. Now I can see CPA's coming in to work at G-8, C-8, J-8, but they will be handicapped because they need to know about their customers.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 19 at 2016 5:21 PM

2016-06-19T17:21:46-04:00

The whole thing is base on monetary compensation. I think you can incentivize cyber command with out de-grading the rank structure that many people spent years to attain. For example an E-4 with 2,000 taxable monthly income can have an extra $2,000 in non-taxable income as an incentive.

Response by SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 19 at 2016 5:42 PM

2016-06-19T17:42:22-04:00

This is by far, the dumbest thing I've seen to daye

Response by SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 19 at 2016 5:45 PM

2016-06-19T17:45:42-04:00

There's more to the military than your job, it takes growing, learning customs and courtesies. I don't feel like a random dude with a masters in (fill in the blank) would be as effective as a leader than someone who has gone through the ranks

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jun 19 at 2016 5:49 PM

2016-06-19T17:49:40-04:00

How much is Expertise worth?

That's really the question.

We use Pay-grade for Positional Authority as a matter of course, therefore, if we want 20 years of Expertise, how else are we are going to get it? Why should a "Resident Expert" or "Subject Matter Expert" in a field enter the Military Enter as a Captain or a Lieutenant and receive O1-O3 pay?

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 19 at 2016 6:08 PM

2016-06-19T18:08:47-04:00

I will assume you would include Physician Assistants, Physical Therapists, Psychologists etc. as well?

Response by CW3 Dylan E. Raymond, PHR made Jun 19 at 2016 6:32 PM

2016-06-19T18:32:19-04:00

If that is the case then the civilian employers need to make way for our transitioning service members to make room for our service to enter at the appropriate level as well.

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Jun 19 at 2016 6:45 PM

2016-06-19T18:45:39-04:00

I can see this working fine for some roles. For example, there are supply chain professionals at companies like Amazon and Apple that could save the military a lot of wasted cost -- because I could see them doing the job more effectively. Anyway, I don't think senior folks from companies like these would leave their roles and come do similar things in the military...they would lose their minds with all the bureaucracy and blown budgets, lol

Response by LTC Yinon Weiss made Jun 19 at 2016 6:47 PM

2016-06-19T18:47:06-04:00

You say yes to doctors and lawyers, but what about cyber and computer technical leaders? What about financial experts? Why just Doctor's and lawyers? Those were experts in the 20th century, and still are, but the 21st century has its own crop of deep functional experts that the military cannot grow directly, and we need to adapt to that reality.

Response by GySgt Chuck Truitt made Jun 19 at 2016 6:47 PM

2016-06-19T18:47:45-04:00

Absolutely not!!!!!

Response by GySgt Chuck Truitt made Jun 19 at 2016 6:51 PM

2016-06-19T18:51:40-04:00

No one should wear the Marine uniform except those whohave completed Boot Camp or OCS.

Response by Cpl Mark McMiller made Jun 19 at 2016 6:54 PM

2016-06-19T18:54:04-04:00

I can see why the Marine Corps doesn't like the idea. You have to earn the title "Marine", and every Marine is a rifleman. No way, no how.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 19 at 2016 6:57 PM

2016-06-19T18:57:40-04:00

To me doing this is an insult to those serving. It basically gives the message that those serving are not worthy of moving up to the position.

I was in a unit where a two long term experts ruled the roost. Everyone wondered how the unit was going to survive when they retired. Guess what - an E-5 stepped in and the unit continued without missing a beat.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 19 at 2016 7:00 PM

2016-06-19T19:00:25-04:00

No. Nor senior NCO positions either.

Response by SSG Delanda Hunt made Jun 19 at 2016 7:03 PM

2016-06-19T19:03:23-04:00

Just part of Obama plan to continue weakening the Military. Obama says he's not finish and don't be surprise to see more idiotic ideas from this Administration.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Jun 19 at 2016 7:10 PM

2016-06-19T19:10:03-04:00

Playing the devils advocate, is there a reason why a airline pilot for Fedex could not come in as a Captain or Major for a similar or same aircraft into the AF? How about an Engineer who years of experience actually building things? Some one who holds a Master ship license? Power generation Electrical Engineer, damn construction,. We cannpt assume that that everyone in the service can do everything because we can't. Would I want some one who is branched engineer to build a damn on the Tigris with no experience building a damn? I wouldn't want to live down stream of it.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Jun 19 at 2016 7:17 PM

2016-06-19T19:17:43-04:00

I think it is possible, dependent on what there civilian career field is. But I also think we should examine looking at the Technical Sergeants and SPC-5,6,7 roles as well.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 19 at 2016 7:31 PM

2016-06-19T19:31:37-04:00

So I completely agree with allowing civilians to serve in the military as a higher rank. Ok, ok, ok before I get the influx of down votes from super high speed current and former military members allow me to explain.

So I had the unfortunate experience of dealing with DoD civilians in my last position at Fort Meade. While I do say unfortunate in a general since due to there are some outstanding civilians out there but for every 10 DoD civilians there is that one that is just wasting o2 but cannot be fired. With that being said I'd would rather end the civilian corps and give civilians non-command officer or enlisted grades. With that if they cannot do their job they are quickly QMP'ed or their evals are garbage.

To many people sitting in to many seats that can be filled with junior enlisted or NCOs. If you are a DoD civilian you should be in a position that could not be filled by a service member.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jun 19 at 2016 8:34 PM

2016-06-19T20:34:14-04:00

The only way I can see this working is, while still bringing these people in as O-6's or E-7's is simple. Do NOT put them in a military leadership position where they are in charge of people, writing Enlisted Evaluations/Officer Fitness Reports,etc. Give them the title of "Technical Director."
My Chain of Command did a similar thing when I was stationed in Hawaii. Each department appointed a Technical Director and at the paygrade of GS12 so that the person would be taken a bit more seriously. They didn't have any authority over military personnel other than to train them on the systems we operated.

Yes that's a little different than appointing someone as a senior Officer or Senior Enlisted, but I read the article. It explains that giving these people "combatant" status would afford them better treatment of taken as a POW. Think about it. Their job is Cyber Warfare so they would need combatant status.

Response by 1SG David Lopez made Jun 19 at 2016 9:10 PM

2016-06-19T21:10:22-04:00

Don't we already have contractors performing all kinds of duties. I'm concerned about terrorists blending in and damaging our force. GS and contarctors are already performing that type of non-leader specialty. Giving a guy big rank and military benefits straight outa Silicon Valley just does not seem "Military". Seems like a slap in the face to our Officer Corps. Let's not reinvent the wheel; we already have GS and contractors, let's use that route to cyber supiorority. Good old fashioned common sense.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Jun 19 at 2016 9:34 PM

2016-06-19T21:34:02-04:00

So bringing back the SPC 5 and above ranks wouldn't be "technical" enough? We have Warrant Officers who are the "technical SME's" in their fields. WHY bring in a process that already has a fix in place? Want to make change? End sequestration, realign the force structure to anticipate future conflicts instead of reacting to the old ones. You bring these folks in, how do you think they'll be treated? Sure they'll have GMA on those below them, but unlike them, they didn't earn the rank, it was a "gift" for being "smart" at the right time. I seriously wonder how he could explain this to the forces and get them to buy in when you're looking around and your buddies are getting pink slips? Also in the technical fields, what one knows and is current on now, is outdated 60 days or less due to improvements. Certs that were guaranteed money makers years ago are kinda being pushed to the side now. In the current military, your training budget would be killed by maintaining skill sets. That's if you send just the enlisted to training. CISSP isn't cheap by an means. The test alone is $600. So where is this money coming from to train but we cannot keep talented troops in now as is?

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 20 at 2016 5:44 AM

2016-06-20T05:44:12-04:00

First off, I don't see why they don't make them CWOs. Isn't the whole point of CWOs to be the ultimate SME? At any rate, we see O-6 doctors and such with regularity, knowing they're not line officers, and nobody minds; meanwhile, there was a 200-ish-comments-thread about the band members being E-6s which did not go so well. With that in mind, the automatic E-7s will have a much harder go of it.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Jun 20 at 2016 7:23 AM

2016-06-20T07:23:39-04:00

Capt Brandon Charters I have to admit that, when I first saw this article the other day, I thought it was another satire article from “The Duffle Blog” or something like that, as I thought it could not possibly be serious. However, much to my surprise, I discovered that it was, in fact, an actual option being considered by the Obama Administration.

As idiotic and destructive such a move would be on the military, I am not at all surprised that the idiots in the Administration could actually think this would be a good move for the military. After all, it has been very obvious that they have little regard for the morale, readiness and ability of the military to accomplish their mission and are much more interested in social engineering of the military to meet their liberal agenda. Allowing gays and transgenders to openly serve, directing that females be allowed to serve in combat arms, reducing the force to pre-WWII levels, and allowing maintenance of critical aircraft, ships and ground combat equipment, without any regard to the potential impact on the military clearly shows that they simply do not care what their policy decisions do to the military.

While I realize that the services have had direct commissions of “professional personnel” (doctors, lawyers, etc.) for quite some time, those personnel are in very specific career fields/branches and are carefully managed within those fields, not mingled in line branches/career fields, such as this appears would be the case. There is already the capability to bring these “highly qualified” people into the force – as civilian employees of the services or DoD. Why put them in uniform? If they want them to be in uniform, OK, create a different uniform that clearly identified them as “technical specialists” and not “line” officers/NCOs. I guess it is not enough that the Obama Administration has already struck down the ability to prosecute “posers” (ruling that it was a First Amendment right to lie about military service and to wear the uniform and unearned award and decorations), now they are planning to create their own posers.

This just smacks too much like the “Political Officers” of the old Soviet Union, whose primary purpose was to ensure the military commanders did not stray from the Communist Party line. Such a transition of these politically-appointed officers in the US military is, to me, not unthinkable, for this Administration.

Maybe this is just a precursor to allow that premier narcissistic Obama to walk around in a uniform like the other crazy dictators in the world.

Response by SCPO Jason McLaughlin made Jun 20 at 2016 7:28 AM

2016-06-20T07:28:34-04:00

The problem with not doing direct hire, and expecting cyber experts to "start at the bottom" has everything to do with the military's practice of expecting lower ranks to work outside their NEC/MOS/Technical Specialty. I was in a highly technical job field, but I still spent large portions of my career as the Berthing Petty Officer, Food Service Attendant, Gate Guard, etc. When you are talking about job fields like cyber with highly perishable skillsets, that time away is very unappealing to these specialists.

Response by SGT David T. made Jun 20 at 2016 8:03 AM

2016-06-20T08:03:55-04:00

I am ok with this for technical specialties. I don't foresee them dumping a lifelong civilian into the Infantry. Honestly, I don't think it would be any different than how they currently do Direct Commissions, other than the higher grade. It has the potential to bring in some talent in areas where we are lacking.

Response by PO1 Jack Howell made Jun 20 at 2016 9:48 AM

2016-06-20T09:48:33-04:00

that's a good question. However, I think that the more immediate question is how are these civilian skills going to transfer to the military. Another thing to consider is how these civilians are going to transition to a military way of thinking. The approach to leading people outside of the military is very different from how military leadership is approached. Finally, it will be important to talk to those who have attained the rank of E-7 or above the traditional way through hard work and sacrifice and tell them why this program is a good idea. Some people are going to be upset because they see it as DOD 'giving' the rank instead of earning it the traditional way.

Response by SFC Marcus Belt made Jun 20 at 2016 9:55 AM

2016-06-20T09:55:04-04:00

The Army's UW community has a similar initiative:

Point one: scrubs need not apply. The Army's version of the program requires at least a Masters (PhD) preferred and 10 years' relevant experience (more preferred).

Point two: the Army's version very much parallels the Navy's LDO program: these selectees won't be commanding anything, and in fact will mostly be working in teams with other similar personnel.

Point three: the biggest reason for the rank is because a primary function of these people will be to interact with the Interagency, and other very senior, cabinet level people from other nations....an SPC can't do that.

Response by MSG Jay Jackson made Jun 20 at 2016 10:13 AM

2016-06-20T10:13:33-04:00

Do I hear soldiers complaining about civilians again? Sounds like some might be afraid that the civilians may do a better job than our current service members. No evidence has been presented to show that it would be a cluster F*& that I have seen. Now that some of you are pissed, do you know that some NG Adjutants are elected to the position and some are appointed by the governor of the state they serve. What could go wrong with that system? All jokes aside though, this program could work well with the mechanics, cooks, IT but as for combat arms I think it would be failure. Also I wonder if you could retire as a soldier and get your old job back as a civie? It happens now with the GS side a lot.

Response by SGT William Howell made Jun 20 at 2016 10:33 AM

2016-06-20T10:33:29-04:00

We do it all the time in the medical fields. Doctors come in as CPT, RNs as 1LT. There is not any issues in the medical branches. The medical field changes constantly with new things being developed all the time. They do this in order to get our troops the best treatment.

I can see this happening in the cyber areas too. What was top of the line is old news a year later.

Where I would see there being an issue is in line units where managing a civilian company is nothing like commanding a combat arms unit.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 20 at 2016 10:56 AM

2016-06-20T10:56:43-04:00

There maybe need for civilians to work with military members with ....stuff. But honestly, if they were to come into the military, having them as a GS employee should suffice. Majority of civilians have no idea how a military command works, standing at attention, marching, etc. If this comes about, these civilians need to have a breakdown of military custom and courtesies and especially general terms (like Navy, Left is Port, Right is Starboard, Forward is front, Aft is back), physical conditioning, etc. If they want to be part of a something this big and hold the ranking at which is given based on experience not only within their line work but the respect and honor of holding a high rank, there needs to be some justifications applied.

Response by MSgt Wayne Morris made Jun 20 at 2016 12:46 PM

2016-06-20T12:46:31-04:00

There is no way at even the O-6 pay that Uncle Sam could compete salary wise for the type of person I hope they would go after, besides, isn't that why we have the Federal Silly Service?

Response by ENS Matthew Fleming made Jun 20 at 2016 1:22 PM

2016-06-20T13:22:34-04:00

I would consider carefully some of what the article discusses. It points out the successful program used during WWII to attract construction professionals into the Navy's Construction Battalions. I do not think we have a truly equivalent situation now. For one thing, we are not engaged in a war that involves the entire population. For another, no matter what rate/rank you bring these people in, they will still not be paid at the level of the truly exceptional civilian population. The DOD cannot outbid Google. And on another note; a lot of the humorous stories our Dads and Grandads told us about WWII involved a lot of shenanigans that would drive the modern military up the wall. Do we really want high ranking individuals who can pull things like "appropriating" entire shipments of supplies and material for their own unit's needs again?

Response by Ron Penninger made Jun 20 at 2016 2:08 PM

2016-06-20T14:08:09-04:00

Reservists are the ideal solution for this. But the DoD proves time and again, it does not know how to use Reservists. Many Reservists are VPs, software developers, executives, and business owners. We wrestle with, and succeed, on these tough business, technological, and leadership issues every day. Then we put on the uniform and the Active Component says, "oh, you're just a reservist. It's the admin shop for you." Meanwhile we earn more than a 4-star and actually have successfully delivered million-dollar IT projects on time and on budget. But we're just Reservists?

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Jun 20 at 2016 2:14 PM

2016-06-20T14:14:45-04:00

The respect issue is not my concern. It's that someone coming into the military at the O-6 or CSM level (other than being a sub-specialist like a brain surgeon) does not have the institutional knowledge or doctrinal training that you develop over the course of a long career. The military is a complex beast, easily as complex as any civilian corporation. And we have rules that don't exist anywhere else. It takes time to learn not only how this beast functions, but also how to manage it effectively.

Response by Ron Penninger made Jun 20 at 2016 2:20 PM

2016-06-20T14:20:55-04:00

Properly using the skills in the Reserve and Active sides can only be accomplished with a detailed HR-like capture and review of skillsets, education, and past performance of troops. This is something the private sector is pretty good at. Once the languages, technical, leadership, and yes...management skills are known, DoD could re-vector Reservists in particular, and some Actives to jobs and roles where they will be effective. This is not hard, but it does require a different set of leadership skills and a culture change to make it happen at the top. I'll give an example....I have seen a Vice President of trading information systems for a major US investment bank, who is also a senior NCO in the Reserves being used to push paper reports from one part of a command to another. While this same command struggles with IT implementation and futures, they have this VP who has successfully delivered stock trading systems, sitting on his haunches doing busy work. But this NCO is threatening to the military types who can spell IT, but have never delivered anything. So they have him pushing paper. Possibly this E7 should be running IT development for this command. Just a thought....

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 20 at 2016 2:56 PM

2016-06-20T14:56:46-04:00

Some things you just can’t buy. Compensation is OK but if it were everything, there wouldn’t be too many people left in the military. Our people currently in the military are there because it’s their life’s calling, not because they’re a mercenary. My opinion: Don’t water it down.

Response by 2LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 20 at 2016 4:02 PM

2016-06-20T16:02:56-04:00

Start by hiring veterans that have gone out and acquired valuable skills from the civilian sector that are useful to the military.

Response by Capt Michael Greene made Jun 20 at 2016 5:58 PM

2016-06-20T17:58:57-04:00

Doctors and lawyers currently do a tiny “mil indoc” course, get a fat annual bonus and take some extra rank. It just barely works, but we’re desperate for docs and lawyers. And they need to be able to go the front, just like the finance guys who pay Ahmed in cash for damages or services rendered.

This is different. Sec Def Carter is trying to match the cyberwar capabilities of China and North Korea, who already have the world’s most successful cyber warriors. These are not just “IT guys.” They are superhackers who can flood cities by opening or closing dams, rob trillions from a nation’s central bank, and kill people by crashing airliners a world away. We need those kind of people.

That kind of talent has spiked purple hair, smokes pot on the job, and expects more money than any 0-6 can make. But if we try to do it cheap by integrating lesser talented people in uniform, we’ll lose WWIII before we know we’re under attack.

“I know not with what weapons World War Three will be fought, but World War Four will be fought with clubs and stones.” -- Einstein

Response by COL Walter Dillard made Jun 21 at 2016 8:46 AM

2016-06-21T08:46:50-04:00

This type of inegration was done in WW2 but on a very limited basis. I don't know if it has been tried since. Sounds like another Obama ploy to weaken the armed forces.

Response by Cpl Cary Cartter made Jun 21 at 2016 8:47 AM

2016-06-21T08:47:10-04:00

Placing those who have not worked their way up through our very unique merit system, with all of it's team building, camaraderie, and history could present new problems; they would not be a part of any team as would an internal candidate. The professionalism of our armed forces would prevent an outright disregard for these lateral insertion "leaders" but there would be an underlying current that everyone would know: these civvies did not work their way up through our ranks.

Response by SSG Dale London made Jun 21 at 2016 9:20 AM

2016-06-21T09:20:27-04:00

I think there is a deeper issue here. We are presently dealing with a military that has been systematically emasculated over the past 8 years. Numbers have been slashed and readiness is completely in the toilet. This is exactly where the US military was in November of 1941.
After Pearl Harbor and the declaration of war between the US and the Axis of Japan, Italy and Germany, the War Department did this precise thing. They went out to civvy street looking for personnel who were well qualified in specific fields and directly commissioned them into the US reserves. The more qualified they were, the higher their ranks were. There were no outward marks of distinction (as the British Navy had with its "wavy navy"), merely the letter "R" after their component identification (i.e. USAR, USNR). None of these specialist officers were placed in command positions and most were demobilized after the war -- though some did successfully apply for regular commissions.
The major difference between then and now is that we are not rapidly mobilizing an army. Rather, seem to be trying to patch up a crumbling upper echelon in our military.
The question we should be asking is not "How can “lateral entry” into the military's upper ranks be successfully implemented?" but, rather, why is this move necessary at all?

Response by CAPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 21 at 2016 9:20 AM

2016-06-21T09:20:36-04:00

Makes sense for prior service specific field experts but I'm not sure how many would want to change careers mid stream. It might be a better idea to have private/govt partnerships for training and manpower (delayed entry program) to bring military capacity up to speed.

Response by SSG Dale London made Jun 21 at 2016 9:24 AM

2016-06-21T09:24:30-04:00

if they wear the rank and collect the pay, the must meet the standards. No special treatment -- in that direction lies complete chaos.

Response by GySgt Warren Kemble made Jun 21 at 2016 9:37 AM

2016-06-21T09:37:34-04:00

My answer to this should be NO. They need to be trained into the doctrine of the military

Response by Amn Allen Burks made Jun 21 at 2016 10:06 AM

2016-06-21T10:06:41-04:00

Step promotions!!!

Response by LTC John Paul Cook made Jun 21 at 2016 10:16 AM

2016-06-21T10:16:52-04:00

The intent is not so much to insert them at troop/unit level, but rather at Component/ Combatant Command or higher levels. In the case of the Army, they will most likely wear General Staff branch insignia, not have UCMJ authority, and therefore not be in Command positions (although they may be division/section chiefs).

There have been various precedence for this throughout our nation's history. Most notably is during WW2 when Hollywood Film Experts were commissioned to tell the story of "Why We Fight". Another example that was recently made into a movie was "Monument Men".

This practice is readily used today my the Defense Health Agency to attract and retain high caliber medical experts. The Legal Corps uses it to a certain extent as well.

Perhaps the best way to look at them are "Super" Warrant Officers or Highly Qualified Experts (HQE) who are brought into the Service for a specific purpose and reason.

They will be more effective at accomplishing their objectives by being uniformed (merely a perception, but often perceptions facilitate or impede success).

At one point we discussed the possibility of attaching "Cultural Anthropologists" (O3/O4 level) to brigade staffs to advise the Commander about cultural sensitivities that may positively/negatively impact operational planning and execution.

I hope this helps. Let me know if you have additional/specific questions which I will try to answer.
v/r
John Paul

Response by CPL James Zielinski made Jun 21 at 2016 10:24 AM

2016-06-21T10:24:08-04:00

Maybe if they're prior service, but not without training in Military Customs and Procedures. The military culture is not the same as the civilian culture, and it shouldn't be. The Military is also not a social experiment. While this would probably benefit me personally, as it is a goal I have been working towards for several years, on balance I could not support it as policy for people with no military exposure or experience. Civilian leadership and military leadership are very different.

Response by Maj Richard DuVall made Jun 21 at 2016 10:26 AM

2016-06-21T10:26:40-04:00

Don't make them Military. Bring them in as GS-12-15 experts/specialists in their particular field. The GS levels will give them the authority and pay scale needed to make the job atractive and effective while eliminating the problems of no military experience and poof I am now a Colonel. It also eliminates any problem of command in a combat scenario by someone not experienced to handle that.
Maj. R.G. DuVall USMC Retired

Response by LTC John Paul Cook made Jun 21 at 2016 11:21 AM

2016-06-21T11:21:28-04:00

This article has opened up quite a bit of diverse comments and sub-topics. A few things that must be kept in mind are:
1) Personnel Costs are undermining our Operations & Maintenance (O&M), Training, Maintaining, and Procurement budgets
2a) The percentage of the prime recruiting demographic (18-24 year olds) recruitable at today's standards is just over 20% and declining.
2b) The propensity of the prime recruiting demographic with a propensity to serve is less than 10%. Remember, propensity and ability are not the same!
3) Technological Advances/Artificial Intelligence is altering Force Structure requirements.
4) While the demands/skill-sets of the physical battlefield remain constant and therefore should remain uncompromisiable, they are also distinctly different than the demands/skill-sets of the cyber battlefield.

Just as this thread has gotten out of hand, so too can this response. I will therefore try and answer each point as succinctly as possible, and invite those wishing to continue an academic discussion to go offline/start a new discussion.
1) The current personnel costs associated with the All-Volunteer Force are unsustainable and changes MUST BE MADE! Also the emerging generations of Servicemembers have differing compensation expectations that those of us who came of age during the latter 20th and early 21st Centuries:
http://www.ngaus.org/sites/default/files/RFPB_Cost_Methodology_Final_Report_7Jan13.pdf

2a) The overall decline in physical, moral, educational, etc levels of the teens/20 somethings in the US has degraded the recruiting pool to dangerous levels. Those best/fully qualified are the same labor force being sought after by civilian employers putting Military and civilian recruiters into a head to head competition for the same talent. This is the true reason that inclusion in certain demographic categories that would have previously disqualified an individual from serving have been lifted. Ultimately Military organizations reflect the society they defend.

2b) Basically same answer as 2a

3) Our abilities to monitor our enemies from afar, coupled with the ability to deliver heavy combat power anywhere in the world within 30 days has drastically changed our strategic organization. Likewise battlefield technology has radically changed tactical organization. Technology is the Third Strategic Offset since WW2.

4) We all long to evaluate institutions we love by the standards we were expected to keep while part of them. We must realize that Servicemembers standards are continuously evolving. The standards of WW1 Soldiers were different than those of WW2, Korea, Vietnam, end of Cold War, Gulf War, and even early OEF/OIF. Although historically these standards evolved more slowly today's rapid advances are obliterating historical evolutionary timelines. Additionally, we all agree that each Service has distinctive requirements for its members. Why then, should Cyber Warriors be recruited using traditional standards ... what would happen if we tried attracting all future recruits using Cyber standards? My prediction is that just as the Air Force began as a subset of the Army Signal Corps, spawned into the Army Air Corps, and finally emerged as a stand alone Air Force Service, so too will Cyber become its own Service within 10 - 15 years.

Well, I hope I was able to effectively synthesize these complex issues in a way that you found interesting and invite anyone with specific questions to reach out.
v/r
John Paul

RFPB_Cost_Methodology_Final_Report_7Jan13.pdf

Ôè?W§ÿü^ÞùÞ§8Kº^ù3Ç=JP5ÌCbpK%1ÞjE¡:ÅÍøYÓfeèAÅEÖÔ$µ)ôÒ~ÛF«]uÜµ50õ6L'BÍMíq[Æû5 1M.}ØÑwÈ:sïeõ3ëªõè(äªM0Õ'#C/kðÝ=ZS?ÂÂÄè2OàÞ«XEoGÔÉÌs1§0ºèÅdæK~nLðÜElFÙJ(ónpVYP'[Öa~Hí#PëÖùÞå2&MtÛt#d-CÖûãAýjv¶ló~G%r*d2ÉfÜ WÑÖÃ«`Ü(.ÉÉK%ýD ÉëG*ÝH§c(}ÙïÎÒ3Zl4èzôâjt|¶ ÎØôMhé&ÚbK2$iÎiÆÒ#(dÃñAúÄ¶l¶Â«äYÈ'Hj#ÅU4yF-".Í0 (Æ!Ã#ZÈGÐHIx"è"õÜ8PIPi.õimb Ðán&zzXOläÓÒRøhK Ý8Aìs#uÀÕPÐyÇ!W¿ÙÅ #ùÚ endstream endobj 5730 0 obj stream HVK7ÜÏ)zà "õá3bÀIÀßDµÄ"Yäq||Ø(=ÆÁ?k?ÐËëZxj!ië3ü~ÂÜËx7...

Response by PO2 Mike Vignapiano made Jun 21 at 2016 12:27 PM

2016-06-21T12:27:39-04:00

It can't be successful. IMHO, I'd rather put my life in the hands of an E-4 rather than a civilian that came into a leadership role through the Lateral Entry Program. There's no comparison. It's almost as bad as when a Lifelong reservist finally is put on Active Duty after 18 years and has less know-how on the battlefield than that E-3 who had two tours already.

Response by PO2 Ron Burling made Jun 21 at 2016 12:37 PM

2016-06-21T12:37:28-04:00

In the Seabees we have had some experience with this sort of program, at our founding during WWII and again at the height of Vietnam 'they' were bringing in experienced construction people at advanced pay grades, up to O-4 I seem to recall. The WWII experience I have no first hand knowledge of, but, since they were 'scratch-building' the entire organization it was probably easier.

During the Vietnam War, 'they' had what 'they' called "The Direct Procurement Petty Officer Program, although we junior enlisted did not call the program by its proper name, to us, the program and more importantly, the people coming out of it, were "Instant Petty Officers". More than 1 Article 15 resulted from so addressing a graduate of the program.

Under this program, experienced construction workers could enlist in pay grades as high as E-7, an effort to boost the overall number of Seabees from around 13,000 to over 20,000. I give the program mixed marks, due to variance between recruiters, many of whom had no construction knowledge themselves, to some recruiters driving a truck, any truck, was 'construction experience. I knew one recruit who was given credit for having driven a milk truck, another was given credit for having driven a tractor on his dad's farm, yet another had "driven a wrecker". We later found out his 'wrecker' was of 1.5 ton capacity, a tiny little thing. Some others had other issues, e.g. an E-5 who deployed to RVN in '65 returned as an E-1 under armed guard as he was a raging alcoholic who couldn't/wouldn't stay sober, he had fallen from atop a POL storage tank we were building, breaking both ankles, while waiting for the 'meat wagon' he demanded his canteen which was found to be full of bourbon. He was not the only recruit with that particular issue. Most, however, were good enough at their jobs that no one questioned their past experience and took them at face value.

Once accepted into the program, whatever you chose to call it, all hands went through a special 'boot camp' located at Davisville, RI in an effort to 'militarize' the new troops and teach them about us, and what our role was. There was also a "board" established at Davisville, made up of experienced, enlisted Seabees and Civil Engineer Corps officers whose task was to try to reconcile an individual's "construction experience" in some uniform way, they had the authority to 'adjust' an individual's pay grade although acceptance into the program guaranteed you were going to be at least an E-4.

Overall, the program did what it was intended to do, it filled our ranks, although it was not perfect by a long shot, some frictions persisted through the late 1970s when I finally got out, and I suppose, beyond then.

So, how does one 'plug and play' a brand new O-6 who has never been an O-1? I doubt it can be done unless the goal is to produce yet more 'managers', as opposed to 'leaders'. In my opinion, that is not a worthy goal, in fact, in my opinion, it should be avoided.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 21 at 2016 12:39 PM

2016-06-21T12:39:45-04:00

I do not like this. We have our own leadership, we do not need the President's hands on this too.. Capt Brandon Charters

Response by SPC Jim Mayfield made Jun 21 at 2016 1:54 PM

2016-06-21T13:54:10-04:00

I was in the military for about 10 years with stints in the regular Air Force and Army reserves. I am an IT Engineer and have been so for 20+ years for a few large multinational corporations. I have my BS and MS. I have all the respect in the world for the military and it's culture and would love to be allowed to serve as a senior enlisted or officer because of my experience in the civilian world. I am sure there are many, many people like me that if asked would gladly return to duty.

Response by LTC Marc King made Jun 21 at 2016 2:56 PM

2016-06-21T14:56:06-04:00

Captain: I see this as another failed experiment about to foisted on the Warrior Class by the Political Class. The current Sec Def is a very smart man and he knows what he knows. However, I am afraid like others currently in the Chain of Command, wearing a leather bomber jacket with your name embroidered on it along with the Seal of the department does not a "Commander" make... What it makes you is a well dressed politician who does not know how the military professional culture is grown from seed. Do we need experts at all levels and with diverse skills in the age of Cyber Warfare... absolutely but we should not sacrifice our honor and traditions to the Egghead Class through an arbitrary decision to place them in a uniform and pin a rank on their shoulder. I shutter to think how it might have gone if the Chain of Command in the Hanoi Hilton was being led by an officer who's only other life experience was having served as a software developer for Google! I know... that a little mixing of old apples with new oranges... but I think you get the point.

Response by LCpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 21 at 2016 3:22 PM

2016-06-21T15:22:23-04:00

I see this as just a way of bringing in people sympathetic to Obama's agenda of re engineering the military once they get rid of the Command and General'Flag Officers. It's no secret the miliytary doesn't agree and often is on the opposite side of his decisions, policies and strategies. Smoke and mirrors to quickly appoint and replace with a more "progressive/Liberal" and like minded Command structure. It's also no secret his civilian advisers and aids have overridden the military recommendations and the military has made it known they didn't agree. We've seen the failed decisions, policies and strategies. If he replaces them with civilians in uniforms, he or the next progressive President won;t have to worry about "dissension in the ranks" so to speak. Just my opinion after observing and listening to this man for 8 years.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 21 at 2016 3:28 PM

2016-06-21T15:28:35-04:00

The only successful way is to bring them in as GS's. I work with several of them all former active duty Marines. They all know the lifestyle, the culture, and the expectations. Marines respect them. Nobody is going to respect some civilian off the street thrown right into their midst, without ever having to work to attain their rank. There's plenty of people within our own ranks that would love to be promoted. Promote them and train them. Send them to civilian schools and military schools don't train them up to the standard needed.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 21 at 2016 4:50 PM

2016-06-21T16:50:48-04:00

The MEDCOM has been doing this for years.... ie... Physicians.... and other Medical Professionals. For the the longest time they were only required to have OBC ( the 2 week version at that) even though may have been awarded O4 or above rank... Failure. It has since changed, they are required to participate in all developmental programs now to get promoted....

Response by LT Don Jaffa made Jun 21 at 2016 6:48 PM

2016-06-21T18:48:58-04:00

First item... having served 21 years on active military service and 21 years as a DOD civilian mostly deployed overseas, there are two fundamental stumbling blocks. the first is the 1977 consent agreement entered into between President Jimmy Carter and the NAACP which did away with the competitive civil service. because the Merit System Civil Service required a placement exam, which earned the applicant a permanent entry level and merit advancement. The NAACP said it was unfair because their community was at a disadvantage when it came to taking exams. So civil service became an old boy hire/fire/advance and kiss ass system, where it has remained, entrenching the incompetent and hard to fire throughout DOD. The Intel community has some protections from that but has also become a rabid community of anti-Semites, who have excluded Jews and those they believe to be Jews from entering and being successful regardless of competency. Removing the consent agreement and returning to a blind extrance exam and order of merit listing, and a central (blind) achievement/success scoring, would advance competency into lateral filling of such positions thorughout the military. They usually have the classification of Emergency Essential Civilian positions and are included in the staffing documents threoughout DOD organizaitons. The Higher level positons POLAD etc, require phds and experience.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 21 at 2016 9:09 PM

2016-06-21T21:09:54-04:00

I think a lot of people are missing the point. The reality is, many upper "leadership" positions within the military require nothing more than a solid knowledge base of the job and moderate management skills. The vast majority of "leaders" in the military don't make "command" decisions. They simply manage personnel or have an expertise in a low density MOS. I'm sure a lot of people will disagree because they are fed the idea that they are special since less than 1% of the US population serve in the military.

Todd Hodnett for example, never served a day in the military. Yet, he literally wrote the book on modern military sniping. There are civilians who have far more knowledge on select subjects that simply cannot be replicated through military training. When Civil Affairs was largely an MOS assigned to the Reserves, they had city mayors, corporate CEOs, and senior municipal leaders who only played soldier one weekend a month. Yet it was these individuals who the military turned to in order to manage major projects in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm all for it. It isn't like this is 1863 and anyone with money can be commissioned directly as a Infantry battalion commander. However, you have to admit that many positions in the military are exactly the same as those in the civilian sector minus the uniform.

Response by LTC Jesse Edwards made Jun 21 at 2016 10:41 PM

2016-06-21T22:41:22-04:00

I didn't read the article. Beyond specialists like doctors and lawyers, I don't like the idea. The greatest teacher of leadership is "experience". There is no other way to prepare for serious military leadership without having gained that experience.

Response by SPC Nicholas Fitzgerald made Jun 21 at 2016 10:56 PM

2016-06-21T22:56:58-04:00

Which Washington D.C. idiot thought of this? How can it be successfully implemented? I don't believe it can be, nor do I believe it should be. This is the conjure of some reality deprived bureaucrat who thinks uniforms are scary and gets PTSD from firing an AR15. I expect this kind of thing won't be tolerated so much in DC next year. I would look for it to quietly go away

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Jun 21 at 2016 11:25 PM

2016-06-21T23:25:00-04:00

This has been done with doctors, and chaplains, so the model exist already and it not the first time. During the 70's there was even male wigs that guys wore during AT for reservist and NG officers. So it not about respect it is about missions getting done, besides you can always assign a Specialist to help them, which only adds more power to the Specialist Mafia. Best bring back the Spec 8 and elusive Spec 9 Godfather.

Response by MAJ Javier Rivera made Jun 21 at 2016 11:33 PM

2016-06-21T23:33:27-04:00

So the services want to hire civilians and promote them based on acquired skills! How about properly educating service members on those required skills (emphasis on education not training), properly assign and employ them, while protecting them from those distractions that hinder those special skills? If the service recruit a person to be a computer geek then it should invest on it on both education (certifications) and assignments; keep them away from those "broadening jobs" which hinder their skills. And this applies for other technical specialties as well.

Response by SFC Peter Cyprian made Jun 22 at 2016 12:25 AM

2016-06-22T00:25:42-04:00

"The biggest issue I see, will be figuring out how to culturally integrate these civilian transfers into the units they will be serving in."

This is THE issue- they (civilians) do not "get it" when it comes to military culture. They do not understand the way we think, what motivates us, how we tackle problems, why we do what we do, how our rank structure works (not on paper, but how it REALLY works), and they simply do not have the MISSION FIRST mentality. This will never work.

Response by MSgt Gerard Neault made Jun 22 at 2016 12:39 AM

2016-06-22T00:39:28-04:00

A miracle!

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Jun 22 at 2016 1:12 AM

2016-06-22T01:12:26-04:00

If you are a senior executive at a company like Apple, for example, you are making something like $750K per year when you add in stock units. So no, I don't see the best and brightest civilians actually being the ones who would do this. The military will definitely not get the best ones.

Response by SSgt Jim Gilmore made Jun 22 at 2016 4:46 AM

2016-06-22T04:46:37-04:00

Ain't gonna work....

Response by COL John Hudson made Jun 22 at 2016 8:31 AM

2016-06-22T08:31:19-04:00

The issue is "function" oriented. We have, and have always had, direct interaction of civilians moving into 'rank' positions...mostly in the so-called "Professional" areas such as Medical, Legal, and the like. Such individuals tend to band together and are not normally placed into leadership positions outside their professional MOS. Waste no time debating this - ideas such as placing a medical officer in charge of a combat Infantry unit are non-starters.

Response by 1SG Michael Bonnett made Jun 22 at 2016 9:00 AM

2016-06-22T09:00:11-04:00

You mean Ashton's attempt to inject doners who give money to politicians into the upper ranks of the military or as I call it it "How much for the 3 star general slot" program...

Response by LCDR Dave Spurlock made Jun 22 at 2016 9:18 AM

2016-06-22T09:18:04-04:00

Like that TV commercial on occasionally where the folks are sitting around a table and the boss talks about this great plan and of course someone brown noses in and says great idea but then the one guy who is the focus of the commercial says "Stupid idea!"

This would be a stupid idea. The people who became Seabees during WW2 were cut from different cloth than the bureaucrats of today.

STUPID IDEA!!!!!!!!!!

Response by LCDR Dave Spurlock made Jun 22 at 2016 9:21 AM

2016-06-22T09:21:20-04:00

I didn't see the Military Times article but if we are having such a hard time with manpower the start reducing the numbers of Flag Officers and that alone woul double the numbers of junior grade and mid grade officers. We need to work smarter not harder in the DOD.

Response by SFC Robert Bower made Jun 22 at 2016 10:00 AM

2016-06-22T10:00:57-04:00

Already sad there's so many civilians working with active duty now! Nothing worse then trying to get something done and a lazy civilian says, "come back later or no I can't help you"..

Response by GySgt Kenneth Pepper made Jun 22 at 2016 1:41 PM

2016-06-22T13:41:20-04:00

I cannot fathom why DoD would not simply make them contractors. No uniform. No rank. GS employee. Special Agent. Whatever you want to call them. Not Gunny or Colonel. Being covered by the Geneva Convention is useless. Are we fighting an opponent that recognizes it? Better POW rights? Please. Jihadi Jim Bob gonna chop that noggin off if he gets a chance.
I am all for finding the best and brightest, especially in the cyber terrorism field. I simply can't think of what function it would serve to have them wear a uniform and rank insignia. Like every other proposed policy that has come out in the last 8 years, causing unnecessary controversy and dissention within the military community. Great job.

Response by SSG John Jensen made Jun 22 at 2016 5:24 PM

2016-06-22T17:24:16-04:00

is this like the FBI not being able to hire computer hackers because all of the hackers are dope smokers??

Response by SFC Thomas Twigg made Jun 22 at 2016 7:08 PM

2016-06-22T19:08:10-04:00

As a former medical recruiter for the Army, this was very common.

Response by Col Dona Marie Iversen made Jun 22 at 2016 10:20 PM

2016-06-22T22:20:33-04:00

The AF had difficulty attracting a few specific AFSC's years go, the folks they recruited were automatically given the rank of Major (aka: Magic Major) or Lt Col (aka: Lucky Lt. Col), program was a humiliating disaster! Others expected these folks to be in the know because of the rank they wore....UGH

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2016 1:09 AM

2016-06-23T01:09:26-04:00

Perhaps creating an entirely new service is the better option, something similar to NOAA or USPHS -- specifically geared towards extraordinary, high brow types. This way a new culture can be developed in which parameters can be constantly challenged and redefined, versus constrained by barriers disguised as tradition. I would imagine that the organizational structure, under This scenario, would be somewhat flat and decentralized, allowing for ideas to breathe a bit. Drawing these folks in shouldn't be too difficult especially for short term mission/project based obligation or government subsidized sabbaticals since that would be cool and patriotic. Payment for debt and/or seed money, especially when the project goals are met, may also be a nice pitch. Question is, do we actually need this type of brain power in uniform? Does that sort of expertise need to be deployed in austere environments? Aside from that, methinks a revamped warrant officer corps would do the trick for high speed technicians.

Response by SFC Terry Murphy made Jun 23 at 2016 9:32 AM

2016-06-23T09:32:24-04:00

My question is about retirement. What will these middle age (or older) people get for a retirement and benefits? Will they still have the VA benefits after they retire?

Response by COL Mikel J. Burroughs made Jun 24 at 2016 11:00 AM

2016-06-24T11:00:24-04:00

Capt Brandon Charters I believe it works successfully today in the medical field and I believe there are a lot of techincal fields that this type of program could be very successful in, but here are my recommendations for such a program, so we don't take away opportunities for OCS, Direct Commisisoning porgrams out of ROTC, and those individuals that work their way through the ranks and well deserve promotions.

1. There needs to be a special "boot camp" for this type of program to teach them the basics about their specific branch of the service!
2. I would exewrcise this program only during highented period of war or conflict, and very limited based on the needs of the service branch during peacetime - just a suggestion
3. Pick those highly techincal specialities like healthcare, cyber, computers/IT, civil affairs, legal, dental, etc. that we really need to expertise in. I would stay away from the combat arms unless they are assinged as one of the above. Just an opinion.

The key is the "learning curve" and the mini "boot course" I mentioned above. Get them acclimated to their service branch properly

Response by LCpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 30 at 2016 5:15 PM

2016-06-30T17:15:19-04:00

Well, it was done in WWII successfully but it was pretty much limited to "specialty" jobs. Bankers and business men, office workers, nurses, media people, language interrupters etc. It was more or less "honorary" rank. I think they were classified as Reservist. They really didn't go through a "boot camp" or OCS. It was more of a "customs and courtesy" training to familiarize them with the culture. I'm not aware of any of the War time "inductees" ever being in charge of or assuming command of a rifle company or combat arms positions.. It's been a while since I read about it but I believe an infantry Captain had a direct line in the command chain over, lets say, an Army doctor who was a Major. I don't know how it work in the Marine Corps where every Marine is a trained basic Rifleman ( Rifle Marine for those PC people) . There would be no way in hell a civilian who was given the rank of Gunny Sergeant (E-7) could command or receive the respect of Marines. This administration and the people advising the Community Organizer -in-Chief think of the military is full of people who can't find jobs and not capable of anything else. In my opinion, it's a smoke screen to accelerate the agenda of re-engineering the military to break up the voting block that has always leaned Right and fill positions with a more " progressive and liberal" mindset since "Don't Ask,Don't Tell" and the policy governing transgenders were eliminated. Just my opinion.

Response by LtCol Mac McCarty made Jul 21 at 2016 6:21 PM

2016-07-21T18:21:28-04:00

I have no problem with DOD purchasing any talent they think they need, but Congress really needs to make sure they are something along the line of staff corps vs line officers so that they can never exercise any command authority over real soldiers, sailors, airpersons, and Marines. In the context of this article, civilians ought to be just another commodity.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2016 2:41 PM

2016-07-25T14:41:03-04:00

I really do hope that this isn't a serious proposal because I can see this turning out very badly if it ever was implemented

Response by CSM Thomas McGarry made Jul 28 at 2016 5:52 PM

2016-07-28T17:52:25-04:00

Actually to some extent it's already happening! I've known several Doctors (MDs) in the army Reserves who in their civilian life were board certified in their specialty and had been practicing for many years who then wanted to serve their Country. Several of them were brought in as LTCs. I really had to admire the ones I've known of because they will have no way of ever getting a retirement out of this but yes will be veterans. The ones I've known did it because they were probably true patriots as this certainly puts a hardship on their families and Civilian practice, and yes they all deployed OCONUS! I believe they all attend a two week course at Ft Sam Houston also.

Response by PO1 Gery Bastiani made Aug 4 at 2016 9:36 PM

2016-08-04T21:36:24-04:00

Would like to see how they would act with in coming fire, or assault by the enemy

Response by MSgt Mark Bucher made May 6 at 2017 11:10 PM

2017-05-06T23:10:59-04:00

It can't be a success, rather it will be a joke and contribute to the ever more corporatalising of the military. What a sad state of affairs

Response by PO2 Rev. Frederick C. Mullis, AFI, CFM made Mar 1 at 2018 12:36 PM

2018-03-01T12:36:43-05:00

This is not a new idea. In WWII when the Navy came up with the SeaBees, they put out a call for TRAINED and EXPERIENCED construction workers, those who signed up were given rank based on their experience, Those who were Civil Engineers or holding other Engineering degrees were Commissioned as Officers. While the Enlisted went through Boot camp the Officers went through a quick OCS. My father who was a skilled truck driver and Diesel mechanic went in as a Second Class Construction Driver/mechanic.
Musicians with experience or degrees in Music can go in as MU2 E5 or higher depending on the degree's if they do not wish to become Officers. I grew up with a Flutist who entered the Army after she got her Masters degree in Music Theory. They offered her OCS but she refused as she did not want to be a Director She went in as an E4 and retired 22 years later as an E7. The Navy does the same as well as the Marine Corps.

It already is succeeding, and has been for decades. It's just now becoming common knowledge.

Response by MAJ Ronnie Reams made Feb 5 at 2023 2:30 PM

2023-02-05T14:30:59-05:00

The Army Medical Department routinely commissions based on degrees, experience, etc. Although I have heard of O-6, usually highest is O-5. Heck, back in the day, a school teacher with 5 years experience could commission as O-2 WAC. Used to date one at Gordon. I think the guys that looked after stolen art after the war, got put in right up there in rank. Someone mentioned the Army Band. They start at E-6, but wear 19th century chevrons, so it is a Squadron QM Sgt. Always amazed me how many SGMs, 3 stripes and the 3 arcs there are in the band.