Is 39 training days good enough for the National Guard and Reserves?

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:04:29 -0400

So the First Army Boss is stating that the Reserves, to include the National Guard, don't have enough time for training. I think the 39 days a years is not horrible. You really can never get enough training but I don't think that took some of our systems into consideration. If you look at a Armored Brigade Combat Team you have a lot of moving parts. Getting your soldiers from various Armories throughout the state and to then to get them to their vehicles so they can do a gunnery is extremely difficult. Gunneries are usually left to do at an Annual Training when you can have more time but then that takes a lot of resources and that is pretty much all that you will do.

Keep in mind that the First Army is viewing as a means to mobilize and deploy reserve forces quicker. They are focusing on their ability to deploy in a short time frame.

What is your experience with this?

First Army Boss: 39 Training Days Too Few | National Guard Association of the United States

Washington Report

Response by SSG Leo Bell made Oct 21 at 2015 11:08 AM

SSG Leo Bell — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:08:36 -0400

I think it's good training that they get. You have to remember that they have regular jobs they have to go to. The training they get is good and useful. If they get deployed I think they would get more trying before they go. Plus they have did a good job while being deployed in the last few years.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 21 at 2015 11:12 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:12:32 -0400

Where is 39 days? 24 for Reserves for MUTAs and at least 12 for home station, but typically 14 for exercises.

Regardless no it is not enough if you do all the mandatory training as it alone takes the whole 48 MUTAs if done to standard time. That is why they are relooking at the requirements. Then you have to look at budget too. But is it fair to ask an E-2 to do stuff at home and not get paid as some do so that they can do "real training"? Also, how much bullets does each unit have to be proficient and improve? Time is only one of the factors.

Response by SFC Brian Ewing made Oct 21 at 2015 11:40 AM

SFC Brian Ewing — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:40:41 -0400

From the 2 times I've rotated to NTC I could honestly say that 39 days weren't enough but that the Guard and Reserve units attached to us did learn some valuable lessons, however more training never hurt anyone.

We all have to understand that we are fighting the "War on Terror" of which there is no end so the more you can spend time training and preparing ourselves for combat the less we may bleed on the battlefield.

I did learn that from training with both components that the Guard/Reserve have a great many prior service personnel but even the TPU members are more mentally prepared to deal with whatever they have to when the time comes, plus they all have the "Warrior Spirit".

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 21 at 2015 11:42 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:42:26 -0400

The big issue is what the units do with the time they have. Our BDE (an ABCT) begins training as soon as they arrive at the training site. We have very few home station drills. We train until all our objectives are met, which often means long nights. We regularly conduct all gunnery during weekend drills and devote AT to tactical exercises. We use every bit of time we have available, and our strength is high because our Soldier hate to sit around more than anything. It is a challenge of time management to get everything done, but we rarely fail to meet our goals. Leadership knows that they have to accomplish certain tasks on their own time, and do so because we are professionals. More time would be nice (it will add to our pay and retirement points) but I don't see it during these times of budgetary restrictions.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 21 at 2015 11:54 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:54:08 -0400

there is a delicate balance between civilian employment and military duty. If the military commitment is too high, it will be impossible to maintain a civilian job.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 21 at 2015 12:12 PM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 12:12:05 -0400

well, I am not sure what is "not enough" constituting for. It is about funding. If Reserve have unlimited funding ... guess what? I pretty sure reserve will drill a lot more and send reservist to training a lot more too. lol

Response by SFC Kevin Bazurto made Oct 21 at 2015 12:14 PM

SFC Kevin Bazurto — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 12:14:21 -0400

I don't think so... I am in a line unit, and all our NCOs got together to discuss training and such. Our biggest complaint was not enough time in general, but more specifically, not enough trigger time. We are 11Bs, but only get to fire live rounds once a year, and it is for IWQ. I feel as if I am not training my soldiers well enough. How can we develop on our shooting if we never get to do it? I for one, would like more training time...

Response by SGT Kristin Wiley made Oct 21 at 2015 12:44 PM

SGT Kristin Wiley — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 12:44:30 -0400

I don't think we train 39 days out of the year on Active Duty, but we do our jobs on a near-daily basis. Many National Guard and Reservists have a civilian equivalent of their Army positions. I'd like to think 39 days is sufficient, but it really depends on the unit's mission and the technical skills required for the personnel in the command.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 21 at 2015 12:54 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 12:54:11 -0400

Wow. For once 1st Army is making sense. NO we do not have enough time to accomplish everything we need to get done in 39 days. I'm also in a ABCT and AGR in a line platoon. I consider myself extremely lucky to have a shit hot full time force (at unit level). We do a lot of behind the scenes planning/forecasting and time management to ensure we get as much training as we can get based off of CDR guidance.

What really chaps my ass in when you start getting to higher levels and all they worry bout what DTMS looks like and USR (and yes I'll say it USR gets fluffed BAD) all because they want the "paperwork" to look good regardless if training is done to standards.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 21 at 2015 1:04 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:04:37 -0400

The question should be "what is the priority for training in the time allowed?" Do to the recent budget constraints for the Guard and Reserve we have less funding for the same amount of needed training. Even when units receive a NoS, there is no sure funding.

And I know I can only speak for the NDARNG, but we do our jobs better than our AD counterparts. Last rotation in NTC our AD counterparts were in dire need of remedial basic training. I as a CMO at a CSSB had to supervise every convoy breif to make sure that they knew what their mission was and that they had all of the commodities requested and loaded, every single one I had to "remind" them.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Oct 21 at 2015 1:05 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:05:09 -0400

Many of the training days are reserved for admin, medical, mandatory training.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 21 at 2015 1:18 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:18:52 -0400

IMHO, no. 39 days is not enough. Especially for those small (12 pax or so) units without full time staff. My unit has 14 pax and no FTS. When we come in for our monthly 2 day BTA, we honestly spend more time catching up on admin and other stuff that needs doing than we do on MOS training. Very taxing.

Response by SSG Audwin Scott made Oct 21 at 2015 1:28 PM

SSG Audwin Scott — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:28:24 -0400

I don't think so, regular Army Units train for months so why should it be any different?

Response by SGT Dave Tracy made Oct 21 at 2015 1:32 PM

SGT Dave Tracy — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:32:22 -0400

Considering their roll in the "big picture", plus the benefits of having a diverse group of backgrounds and proficiencies especially (civilian education and job background), for most jobs in the Guard or Reserve, 39ish training days is fine...too bad with all the "check the box" required classes and administrative work, anything resembling training really amounts to just over half of those "training" days.
THAT, is what I would consider "not enough".

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 21 at 2015 1:43 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:43:49 -0400

The quality of the training within those days has a lot to do with leadership. My unit went through a change of command a while back and the utilization of training time has improved drastically.

Response by CPT Griff Tatum made Oct 21 at 2015 2:15 PM

CPT Griff Tatum — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:15:33 -0400

Is it good enough? Yes. Could there be larger emphasis and larger intents to train? Always.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 21 at 2015 2:52 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:52:41 -0400

I think there should be a way for Reserve/Guard members to come in on extra weekends, if they choose, to put in more time if they want. If there is already an active component at the base, wouldn't it be feasible to integrate one of these members into some training?

I think many would want to have more training, if it were feasible to attain.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 21 at 2015 3:45 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 15:45:29 -0400

Never enough training days with all required individual, leader and collective task required to say your formations are trained. Every unit has its challenges. Make use of every second and you still will fall short. A delicate balance between civilian and military, but that is what makes it so much fun! Pre and Post MOB needs to be managed as well by the leadership of the unit. We are doing something right, just look at the numbers Guard and Reserves have provided for the war effort following 9/11 until present day?

Response by LTC Stephen B. made Oct 21 at 2015 4:44 PM

LTC Stephen B. — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 16:44:03 -0400

Depends on the unit as well as what the training is meant to accomplish - what level of readiness is the training goal? For I/C/S, absolutely it is enough, or would be if the admin burden of various 'awareness' classes didn't eat so much training time. Everyone recognizes that there is more training needed to get platoon/company/BCT level readiness. That's why the ARFORGEN cycle was developed and rotational readiness models are still being worked. Even the AC, with all their 200-220 days a year struggle to meet all the standards.

The good news is it appears the new Army leadership may finally put their money where their mouths are and resource Guard and Reserve requirements - more rotations through maneuver training sites. Even given 120 training days at home station, my Ordnance Detachment could not achieve proficiency on BN level tasks. Units need resources and training sites available for the BN to train together.

I remember GEN Casey calling the Guard to task early on in the GWOT response because we had to cross-level and break numerous units to put whole units together and get them out the door. LTG Vaughn's response was spot-on. "The Army got the ARNG it had been willing to pay for." Army plans for round-outs never materialized because they were never resourced. Low density units that were resourced at 60% or less because Army was still focused on the Fulda Gap rather than unconventional warfare were 60% or less ready - as would be expected.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 21 at 2015 6:01 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:01:23 -0400

They'd be better served to let us do our training and accept it when we arrive at the mob station instead of making us do it all again and wasting three months. Or, if they just have to have their own eyes on, follow us for the year prior to mob a we prepare and validate us as we train ourselves.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Oct 21 at 2015 6:58 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:58:35 -0400

Yes and no. It would be enough time if we used those 39 days effectively FOR TRAINING and cut out the mandatory BS. A lot of great points made here by various esteemed colleagues regarding the constraints we face - budget, full time employment, mandatory state events/requirements, etc. My pet peeve was that by the time you got going and had your soldiers in the zone Saturday AM, the next thing you know its 1600 on Sunday. If it weren't for full time employment I'd rather have 9 days a quarter Saturday through next Sunday - 4 mini-ATs. Soldiers get in and stay in the zone, maximize training w/minimum distractors, less wasted time on transportation to and from, concentrated planning effort 4 operations instead of 13 - 12 drill weekends and an AT. Yes I'm sure we could pick out a lot of pros and cons for this concept but again, this is a solution for my biggest issue.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 21 at 2015 7:32 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 19:32:26 -0400

A lot of excellent points have been made already, but a practical change that I believe would make a difference would be keeping the same drill schedule, while allowing or even requiring troops to go to AT even if they've attended an NCOES or other school.

Often at AT we're so short of people that it's practically impossible to train. Everyone who's deployed in the last year isn't there, everyone who went to NCOES isn't there, any joes at FitP aren't there. This year we had spider mine fielding during AT, so subtract joes for that, and we had well under half our platoon at AT.
At one point we were so short that while we ran a very well planned and informative demo range, there were FIVE soldiers from our platoon there!
In my opinion 39 days is enough, IF it's being used properly.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 21 at 2015 7:41 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 19:41:59 -0400

The short answer is no, 39 days is not "good enough" for the guard or reserves. Even with curtailing as much of the BS and mandatory admin requirements and working early mornings and long evenings. 39 days is not "good enough" to become proficient at ones MOS. Currently, many units use their AT periods to conduct their major MOS proficiency training and METL. Some units are trying to combine MUTAs from 4 to 8-10s so that they can conduct longer period training without having to wait for AT. The problem there is you may not see your unit for 2-3 months. The training is invaluable and needed to stay proficient. It gets even more complicated when you start talking about specialty MOS that require simulated, live, in-the-box type training.

The tactical training is a little easier to work with, either way I'm not looking to have my Soldiers be "good enough" I want them to feel confident in their ability to perform their duties and be as proficient if not better than our active counter parts. MOB training is a joke and really doesn't prepare us for deployments. I want my Soldiers to be ready to RIP/TOA with minimal challenges and the MOB site does not prepare us for that. Especially when you start talking about Mission Analysis, IPB, writing OPORDS/FRAGOS/WARNOS, working with staff, joint staff, disseminating information, etc.

With 39 days we can get it done, but we are then talking about the quality of meeting the standard. with 39 days it could potentially be "good enough" to check the block, but a few more days would be nice. As a leader, you can never have enough training days. All this is said without even considering the toll on some service members civilian jobs. It's a balance. With all the draw downs and budget cuts, I don't anticipate seeing any added training days in the immediate future, but it's nice that the 1st Army CG is asking the question. He's not the only one either. The Commander of US Army Europe just highlighted the need of the Guard and the Reserves at NGAUS to help meet the mission requirements in the Ukraine and other parts of Europe. If more AC Stars keep asking for us we may see some more training days in the future, at the very lease we could be seeing more opportunities to deploy that have never been afforded to the Guard or Reserves in the past. IMO their is no better training than actually having the opportunity to do your MOS.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 21 at 2015 9:50 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 21:50:25 -0400

Sir, I am currently in the Army Reserve and I feel that while the time we are given to train is both good and bad. For reserve/guard soldiers, it allows them to have a civilian job, attend schooling, as well as keeping them refreshed on their MOS training and other drills they do at BA. However, if a Reserve/guard unit were to be deploy they would need to train for a while before they are fit and ready to be able to be as prepared as an Active unit both physically and mentally as well as ready to perform their MOS in a deployment situation.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 22 at 2015 11:51 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 11:51:05 -0400

I think it would be enough time if there was better training value. My unit recently had us flown out on chinooks only to land as a cluster f@#k, and then proceeded to do basic battle drills that could've been done by team leaders in the woods behind our home station. There's plenty of time but it often goes wasted because many of the young officers and NCOs have never been active or deployed and lack the training themselves. I could go on about the lack of good guard training for days lol

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 22 at 2015 8:56 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 20:56:27 -0400

39 days is more than enough time. Time alloted is not a problem, how it is allocated is a disaster! One day our officers will again have a backbone and will set priorities that make sense. We forced to perform annual training online for things that do not change annually. SFC Jones in his BDUs has given us the same here are the keys now go kill yourself speech for 15 years now. Accident avoidance course should be a one time course and DONE!!! Sexual Assault, EEO, suicide prevention, antiterrorism etc.. Dont change yearly and the statistics havent changed despite these programs. The Army throws millions if not billions into these training programs, the end result is we have a paper soldier. Looks good on paper, but cant shoot, cant pt, cant fight and cant spell their MOS. They can tell you everything there is to know about sexual assault. That hasnt stopped it from happening. Discipline is the solution for those without values. Training time is precious, invest it where that time counts

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 23 at 2015 7:27 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 23 Oct 2015 19:27:01 -0400

With all of the mandatory training for the Army (which, for some unknown reason has to be repeated annually, even though it doesn't change), actual training time for job duties and mission is tightened. Our S1/S3 pushed out guidance for our Soldiers to get Retirement Points and/or paid for performing a certain amount of Mandatory Training on their own time by submitting Certificates and a 1380, so we don't have to include things on the Training Schedule that can be accomplished via LMS.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 27 at 2015 12:05 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 12:05:00 -0400

I don't believe 39 days is enough BUT, as someone else said, balancing duty days with civilian employment would be a bigger challenge. I spent a lot of time on orders this past year and I'm lucky to have a GS job and a good boss (US Navy LTJG), but after the longest stint of 60 days I came back to a messy situation at the end of the fiscal year. With that said, if we're going to be spending more time on duty there needs to be certain protections for all level of civilian jobs. I've known soldiers who have lost jobs after just a 2-week AT, and in an at-will state, it's tough to prove it was due to military time away. As for me, I'm hoping to be on ADOS soon, love getting to go to work in my uniform.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Oct 27 at 2015 12:33 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 12:33:36 -0400

Zero experience with the Guard or Reserves (OK, a little with Reserves and I will withhold opinion on Navy Reservists), but that has never stopped me from giving my opinion. We have been in serious combat for nearly 15 years, how has these units performed so far? If the excellence is there on a par with ADs, then it is sufficient, if not more training is needed. I never saw a civilian organization hold training time against their employees.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Oct 27 at 2015 1:07 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:07:22 -0400

I went to AT with a huge National Guard unit. I thought I was going to return with less rank lol. One example is a few young gals like wore bikinis and proceeded to have a slip and slide contest.

Response by SGT Patrick Reno made Oct 27 at 2015 1:36 PM

SGT Patrick Reno — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:36:30 -0400

My son is in the Guard. From what he has to say after a drill weekend. It is not the amount of days that they train, it is the training itself. It is not well thought out or structerd to get the most out of the time they have available to them. To many times they spend all weekend and accomplish nothing. This is a command problem.

Response by SGT(P) Jonathan S. made Oct 27 at 2015 2:17 PM

SGT(P) Jonathan S. — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 14:17:40 -0400

Honestly its not. I mean im good at my job and feel confident in my leading abilities but im not the best or as good as I would like to be. Alwats room for improvement and id like to see at least two drills a month actually training in the feild instead of doing admin stuff. But thats a different can of worms involving both state and federal levels

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 27 at 2015 5:00 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:00:03 -0400

The system has no flexibility. And doesn't account for many factors. Myself and many in healthcare do patient care on the civilian side, so I work my MOS daily. The 39 days is sufficient, to maintain mobilization readiness, plus the fact I spend approximate 1/4 of my time on active duty the last several years.
Many of our medics and other in my unit do not work as medical personnel as civilians, so the 39 days may not be sufficient for them, even with the 39 days, only 14 may be doing direct patient care.
Some MOSs, like Armor, pilots, etc, require complex training, and more days could be allotted for specialized training.
Positions sometime require more time also. Commanders and 1st SGTs should get an addition allocation of paid drill days to help increase unit readiness.
One size doesn't fit all. The current system is decades old without much modification. The reserve has also become an operational reserve versus a cold war strategic reserve. Mandatory training has been added, but not days, taking away from MOS training.
But, as many other in the post have mentioned, their must be a civilian military balance.

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Oct 27 at 2015 8:31 PM

COL Jon Thompson — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 20:31:03 -0400

I think it is difficult for any reserve component unit to be fully trained. When I was an active duty Bradley Infantry Company Commander in Germany, it was a full time effort to stay trained and ready. Systems these days are even more complex and I have no idea how a RC unit is able to stay current on just one weekend a month and two weeks of AT. That being said, I think some of this also falls on reserve units for their training management. In my last unit was in the 75th Training Command and thus was not an MTOE unit. We had the responsibility to train Brigade and Battalion staffs. We wasted so much time during our battle assemblies doing mandatory training, ranges, and other non-related to our mission tasks. We checked the block on a lot of stuff but there was only a small core of officers and NCOs that knew their job. Outside of those, most did not even know the steps of MDMP and that was one of our core tasks to train staffs on. We had enough time to get a lot more done but because it could not go on an OER like 100% trained on SHARP or 100% qualified on pistol (our unit did not even have any weapons), we did not stress it.

Another point is the impact that additional training days will have on civilian employers. Most will do their duty and support their part time Soldier. But it can also get to the point where they start to question dedication once the duty goes beyond the one weekend and two weeks. At what point does it become a burden to the employer? This is especially true as they see the President saying that combat operations are over in Iraq and almost over in Afghanistan. I am not sure they will have the same support for RC Soldiers when it comes to deploying for long training missions that are not combat operations. If the RC loses the support of the community and employers, it will be very costly. All too often, active duty Soldiers do not realize the impact of deployments on a part time Soldier because they do not experience that. It is easy for him to say we need more training time but what will the cost be on the Soldier if employment security is gone?

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Oct 27 at 2015 9:54 PM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 21:54:25 -0400

When I was with a 12B unit we did MUTA 5s a lot due to the fact two days wasn't enough time to get out to the training area, do the training and get back. What a lot of people don't realize is how much personal time is used on Reserve business. After I retired I was shocked at how much extra time I had for myself. When I became SNCO of my unit and doing 1SG work, I'd come in on Fridays because I needed the extra time to get prepared. Most of the time it was on my dime. Reserve force I believe was initially planned as just that - a reserve force. Who were trained enough to help plug a hole (cannon fodder) until enough trained troops could be sent. 39 days a year is not enough.
When in the 7th ARCOM in Europe, my Reserve unit needed to go to the field every time V Corps HQ went to the field because we were the V Corps Rear HQ G2/G3. Many times I was on V Corps FTX 3-4 times a year plus my regular 14 days AT. This was the only way we could keep up with the pace. It was tough for many of our unit members because they couldn't do as much, so we'd get volunteers from other units to help us.
I think if the Reserves(when I say Reserves I also include NG) were to go to more days a year many would have to make a choice between their job and military. There will always be those who are "tour babies" and live off of going from tour to tour, but the majority will always be "typical Reservists". We will never have enough training days and when the call goes out, we can only do the best we can do. What's going to be the determining factor is a unit's leadership. How well they know their unit, how well they keep the training days focused, how well they use the time they have. And how much personal time they commit over and above to the unit.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 28 at 2015 12:19 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 12:19:59 -0400

I've been in the ARNG for 10 years, and USAR for 9, plus mobilization (several years under First Army, as a matter of fact). There will never be enough time, regardless of whether you're AC or RC. There's just too many commitments in addition to the training mission. Additional days for those who can manage it along with their civilian careers would be very welcome, in my opinion.

Response by SFC Joseph Johnston made Oct 28 at 2015 12:31 PM

SFC Joseph Johnston — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 12:31:35 -0400

I think that if reserve and guard didn't have to take days out of the year to do all of the mandatory training and mandatory briefings (sharp for example) more time could be committed to The unit's METL to maintain higher readiness and proficiency. Honestly, I doubt that telling service members about sexual harassment and sexual assault every year is only marginally decreasing the number of incidents. Many of the annual briefings do not need to be annual and cut into valuable section training time. Logistically speaking I think 39 days a year just doesn't cut it.

Response by SPC Steven Nihipali made Oct 28 at 2015 12:45 PM

SPC Steven Nihipali — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 12:45:57 -0400

Sir, when I was mobbing up for convoy security, it didn't usage much brains to vigour l figure out how to corral a bunch of supply trucks. Wyatt was needed was IED detection. I spent countless hours trying to learn the many ways IED's were being planted buy also the easy they were found.

My MOS, 42R02L, my training time was constant. If you don't use it, you lose it. In different jobs, the prep time is more and needed in days in advance. That's where proper planning comes in. I hated using AKO but if that's the Army reg still in communicating with soldiers, green so be it. But in today's tech world, there nd fit to be a better, much more efficient, way in communicating with your guys. I would send mass texts and individual texts and would call my guys two or three days out before we had anything come up. Having a packing list really helps, but also having your standard gear ready in a go bag. I day this because being a 42R, I never had to go without my Army issued gear. It's all secured in a box, my name on it, checked and stored a month before hand or whenever I could get into the training areas.
A for the amount of days, there is never enough time to train and keep big Army off your back. 2-3 day weekends is never enough. AT is, imo, a time to show your proficiency and actually mobilize your unit to perform as many missions as possible. I can honestly say that my job kept me plenty busy through out the year and along with AT

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Oct 28 at 2015 12:53 PM

CAPT Kevin B. — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 12:53:01 -0400

Funny thing is a good lab test can be seen with the Navy Seabees. You know, the "We Build, We Fight" thing? There were many years that I'd wish there'd be a month's worth of military skill work as a unit. With detachments gone everywhere, extended deployments, and the build more quicker mentality, the We Fight piece got some back burner treatment. I think all the services continue to get dinged with lack of training funds, range time, and ammo. I also remember years when the Active side got less military training than the reserve side. It flipped around a bit. I believe there aren't the swings we had in the past, but honing the military skill set is always a struggle.

Response by MAJ Thomas Person made Oct 28 at 2015 1:34 PM

MAJ Thomas Person — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 13:34:11 -0400

Lootenant.
As soon as it gets dark and you hear all the weapons in your patrol go hot after the silent command from the PL goes out...and you stand up the to move....stop and ask yourself that question.
Ask any batt boy

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 28 at 2015 1:48 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 13:48:34 -0400

If it was 39 actually training days (full hands on MOS training) then it might squeak us by. The current state of it is most Drills and Battle Assemblies are reserved for mandatory trainings and Soldier readiness (admin, medical, etc). In my experience Soldiers love AT. They make great money, they get some time away from the family that many enjoy and as long as the training event is set up properly they get fantastic experience and get to see how things should be working versus the little bubble they normally see at home station. I wouldn't mind seeing two major AT events every year and go to a Drill/BA schedule of 4 days every 2 months instead of 2 days a month as we have now. There's a lot that can be done but it takes the officers and staff to become functional and plan these events properly. Many don't though...

Response by COL Roxanne Arndt made Oct 28 at 2015 3:44 PM

COL Roxanne Arndt — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 15:44:50 -0400

39 training days??? There are 48 battle assemblies and 14-29 days of annual training. Not sure where the 39 comes from. Additionally the current number of training days are never enough especially when you have no many enlisted soldiers in low density MOS that do not do their military job in their civilian employment. My background is medical so this is near and dear to me. We NEVER had enough time to train our medics, resp therapists etc during BA or AT because 1SG, Co CMDR always tasked them out to other lest meaningful things. It is bad enough it is catch as catch can during regular training.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 28 at 2015 4:11 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:11:29 -0400

Well, our Armor unit did Gunnery on MUTA 5's we had 3 tank companies and a HQs section and all armories were 115 miles from post to do are TT's 15 day AT we completed most Gunnery the RA officials were impressed as to how fast we could push the units thru.

Response by SMSgt Thor Merich made Oct 28 at 2015 6:04 PM

SMSgt Thor Merich — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 18:04:07 -0400

Is 39 days good enough?

Probably not, but you get what you pay for. The biggest issue is that the military (especially the AF) relies too heavily on the Guard/Reserve to round out its manning and equipment. Its a cheap option for the military however, the Guard/Reserves were never designed for long term deployments and as a replacement for the AD. However, that is exactly how they are used.

The better way would be to increase the use of IMA's (Reservists assigned to active duty units). Instead of having whole units that are Guard/Reserve that train only 39 days a year, you could have a 50/50 or 75/25 mix. That way, it would only take a shorter time to get the unit up to speed.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 28 at 2015 7:18 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 19:18:57 -0400

I would love more training time. AT is taken up by doing Bradley gunnery. So there is no combined cps trainings, hell platoon level mounted movement trying is non existent

Response by CAPT Hiram Patterson made Oct 29 at 2015 12:49 PM

CAPT Hiram Patterson — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 12:49:11 -0400

I'm sure that for the Army Guard and Reserve 39 days may not be enough, especially for combat units. For their medical units and Navy Reserve medical units that is probably enough as many personnel have civilian jobs as providers, technicians, medically-related specialists, and administrators.

Response by CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 29 at 2015 1:42 PM

CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 13:42:18 -0400

You would get a lot more benefit from longer training periods and not one weekend a month. Imagine the shift in training attention you'd achieve with 2-3 active training periods every 3-4 months. Or one long period. Expecting a weekend to accomplish anything is unreasonable.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 29 at 2015 2:17 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 14:17:30 -0400

39 days would be fine if you actually trained is the career field that you chose instead of sitting behind a computer screen trying to complete computer based training that has nothing to do with our chosen career fields.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 29 at 2015 2:43 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 14:43:45 -0400

NGAUS Company Group Officer Committee is making a presentation to CNGB and others in DC during our November visit on the impact and perception of adding additional training days to the reserve component.

If you are Air or Army National Guard, please take a few minutes to answer some questions so we can get a good sample of opinions to develop the discussion with decision makers.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/WMWYH2B

Response by CPL Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 29 at 2015 4:02 PM

CPL Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 16:02:07 -0400

I'm going to keep this short. It be enough training if we were doing high speed training, instead of worrying about certs and pmcs'ing trucks we don't use often.

Response by SFC Frank Hoskins made Oct 29 at 2015 4:27 PM

SFC Frank Hoskins — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 16:27:41 -0400

I was a member of the IARNG and all our units always got good ratings in training and when deployed. I was part of TF Santa Fe OEF in Germany, and we did more with less and did it better!

Response by LCpl Jim Pleace made Oct 29 at 2015 5:14 PM

LCpl Jim Pleace — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 17:14:03 -0400

We got a lot of good quality training at ATD and our mobilization was quick. I think the Reserve system (at least for the USMC) works just fine. We could always use more training. Personally I wish we'd had more active duty time because now I'm treated like a second rate veteran

Response by SGT William Hardy made Oct 29 at 2015 5:24 PM

SGT William Hardy — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 17:24:44 -0400

Operational Reserve? Really have they not paid attention to what the Army Reserve and Army National Guard have done over the past 10 to 12 years?

Response by SPC Sheila Lewis made Oct 29 at 2015 5:27 PM

SPC Sheila Lewis — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 17:27:58 -0400

This is possible as long as all members stay on task.

Response by SGT Rick Ash made Oct 29 at 2015 6:51 PM

SGT Rick Ash — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 18:51:52 -0400

No! They should complete a full cycle of BCT. In 1973, when I went through Basic it was 14 weeks. And, it was 14 weeks of pure hell for most. As we edge closer and closer to WWIII with Russia & Iran we better be shaping up Active Duty, Reserve and National Guard. I pray to God I am wrong but I have too many well developed sources to ignore their G2.

Response by SGT Wain Lyden made Oct 29 at 2015 7:47 PM

SGT Wain Lyden — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 19:47:03 -0400

I think 39 days is not enough. I personally think that 78 days would be much better and make national guards and reserves more like active duty

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 29 at 2015 8:49 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 20:49:05 -0400

39 days refers to 48 MUTAs and 15 days of AT. There are exceptions of course. As others have stated, the unit's leadership makes a big difference as to how much training is actually accomplished. Mandatory training, APFT, PHA, IWQ, AT prep, AT recovery, then at best you have two months for training. I'm not against mandatory training being completed at home. I have seen many drill days lost to SSD. The time spent at the unit should be focused on unit training. If the Soldier doesn't care enough about their own career to complete it at home, they are not promoted. I don't believe they should be allowed to do SSD or any of the other online training during drill. We can issue CAC readers if they don't have them. Or they can go to an armory between drills. If a Soldier spends his/her entire weekend doing SSD, no one gets any benefit. They will start caring when everyone else is getting promoted and they are getting barred from reenlistment because they haven't met the standards.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Oct 29 at 2015 11:04 PM

COL Charles Williams — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 23:04:28 -0400

It depends... for Maneuver support folks... possibly... for Maneuver forces/units... no way. CPT Private RallyPoint Member

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 29 at 2015 11:42 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 23:42:44 -0400

It's all about money. The simple fact is that the reserve and national guard accomplish the same missions as their active duty conterpart in a fraction of the time and cost. Readiness numbers fluxuate and are important but honestly count for little when most units consistently accomplish there mission with numbers that are in an embarrassingly low category. 'Part Time' soldiers are expected to accomplish a lot without funds or facilities. And we do. And as long as we do the money men will continue to see us as a success when you look at our bang for the tax buck. My question is: what weekend warrior is only putting in 39 days a year? I haven't had a year under a hundred since I came off active duty. And as many have commented; I to have struggled to have a successful civilian career (or personal life) due to the tremendous burden that the army is in my life.

Response by LTC Donell Kelly made Oct 30 at 2015 4:42 AM

LTC Donell Kelly — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 04:42:59 -0400

I think it depends on the function of the unit. If it's an aviation unit & the unit members are flying, maintaining, etc in their civilian jobs, not a problem. Same with a medical unit where the vast majority of the docs & RN's, LPN's, medics, lab & radiology personnel are functioning in that same role in their civilian lives. I think it becomes a much bigger problem when the type of unit & the similar local/available jobs isn't congruent. So, if you have a tank unit where most of the unit members do something other than tank-related duties in their civilian lives, it could be a problem & needs more training.
Maybe there needs to be a matchup between a number of days of training required directly related to a percentage of unit personnel who work a civilian job similar/same as their MOS. The number of training days required would be directly proportional to the lower percentage of civilian related employment.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 30 at 2015 8:47 AM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 08:47:28 -0400

If we could spend more time training METL and less time taking mandatory online courses and sitting in mandatory briefings, then 39 days would be adequate. But as it stands at the present time, no. I can spend weeks putting together a training schedule for my section that is subsequently subverted by SHARP, TARP, or some other training program that, while of value, does nothing to enhance overall unit readiness.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 30 at 2015 9:13 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 09:13:59 -0400

No, but then again neither is 365 according to 350-1.

Response by COL John McClellan made Oct 30 at 2015 10:21 AM

COL John McClellan — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 10:21:30 -0400

I actually studied this Q as a MAJ for a paper in CGSC! Short answer - my conclusion was that it can be if the unit itself is very, very good. The problem I saw was not lack of time for training, but too much of that precious time spent doing other things - mostly administration - and not doing those things very effectively... for example, using a basically a MUTA for the APFT, that kind of thing. USAR especially, have very similar reporting/admin reqm'ts as active duty, but only 1/10 the time to execute these requirements. So, the RC unit's admin burden as a % of time available is much higher than AC. Things that are done routinely on AC take much more time/effort in the RC, and eat into that valuable training time unless you are really on top of your planning and training schedule!

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 30 at 2015 10:27 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 10:27:46 -0400

I think 39 days would be sufficient if some of the ancillary training was either changed to "on-time/as-needed", moved to a two or three-year cycle, or dramatically redesigned. This would provide a greater ability of members to focus on the core competencies of their career field. For those who want to go deeper and wider, there are usually additional days available. Of course, there are always exercises and schools folks can attend (when active duty makes them available). If you can get folks to go to them.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 30 at 2015 11:04 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 11:04:20 -0400

Being a reservist I don't believe we get enough actual training time. A couple times a year we go into the field and do weapons Qual. And then there is AT. Other than that it's just paperwork. I understand that paperwork must be completed but when the paperwork outweighs the training something is wrong.

Response by SPC Daniel Bowen made Oct 30 at 2015 11:17 AM

SPC Daniel Bowen — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 11:17:13 -0400

The answer is "No".
Now plenty of people in the Guard or Reserve may disagree, but I guarantee most of them never saw active duty, so their idea on what "length of training should be" is very limited. Mind you I am not undermining the NG. Many soldiers within the NG are former active duty and have a better understanding of what active duty training cycles and NG training cycles cover. During my time active duty, we have countless field training (most of it live fire too). If we had trained only one weekend a month and a 15-30 day training cycle a year (JRTC/NTC), we would not have been as effective in our operations as we were with the extra time in those FTX's.
The best and most effective people in their careers fields never stop training. They take whatever time they have and use it to somehow better their training. Sure, we have death by PowerPoint which gives us an idea, but until we actually go out there and run that knowledge through physical scenarios to see how we act and how we think under that pressure, we are only hurting ourselves and our soldiers. If we weren't out rucking it 5-10 miles to our ranges to stay out there for the week, due to beyond crappy weather, we were in the barracks, gym, or in the surrounding fields near by making sure we took something away from what we trained.
Training never stops, nor should it. I can understand how being in the NG there are some issues involved with training. Working a full time civilian job to pay the bills is one of them. When you're not out on your 15-30 day training, you're receiving a sliver of a paycheck to your budget. But, in your off time from our civilian job, you should be taking advantage of that time to find training courses to help you in your military job. Go to the range, take some intermediate or advance courses, enroll in an EMT course, whatever the hell your job entails, there are courses that can help you advance your knowledge and physical experience outside of the military. Its not just the military's job to better you as a soldier, its an individuals responsibility to better yourself any way you could.

Response by CPT Michael E. Cain made Oct 30 at 2015 12:14 PM

CPT Michael E. Cain — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 12:14:47 -0400

I was primarily Guard from 1980-1993. Several extended active tours. My experience was that the Guard did individual training through Battalion level training as well or better than their active counterparts. IMHO, the Guard did not do as well at Brigade and above. Perhaps the answer would be a bi-annual or tri-annual brigade FTX of 2-3 weeks. Leave remainder of training time as is. You can also accomplish a lot more training if your training cycles include MUTA-5's, including Friday night. This frees up all of Saturday and Sunday for more training in lieu of transportation to / from the training area.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 30 at 2015 3:54 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:54:30 -0400

The current model is not effective. Training on Soldiers MOS takes a back seat to mandatory training and readiness metrics. The Army Reserves needs to take a better look at its training model and modify it to maximize MOS specific training and allocate the resources to be effective.
If the Army changed it training model, then 39 days is enough.
I caution adding more days, more training days means the addition of more mandatory training that has nothing to do with MOS related training and it also will hurt our recruiting and senior level Officers and NCOs. We would loose more Soldiers who will have to make a decision between the Reserves and their civilian jobs. Most Soldiers will give up the Reserves for the civilian jobs since that is their bread and butter. I know ESGR is out there but we are talking about reality here.

Response by SSG John Erny made Oct 30 at 2015 3:56 PM

SSG John Erny — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:56:28 -0400

During my last few years in a lot of training was shifted to online computer modules, for NCO's much of this is done at home with no pay. Give the troops retirement points for schools completed on their own time. It will pay them back when the time comes and free up time in the unit. SHARP training for example is something that pops all the time. Do these briefings at home for points and it would free up a lot of time and the training could be standardized for all Units Nation Wide

Response by CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 30 at 2015 3:59 PM

CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:59:09 -0400

In my opinion the Reserves and National Guard should be getting a heck of a lot more then now. If we are going to depend on both the Reserves and the National Guard to defend this Country and it's people then we better do more even with less personnel and monies and concentrate our efforts in helping these folks. S/F, JK

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Oct 30 at 2015 4:12 PM

PO3 Steven Sherrill — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 16:12:53 -0400

CPT Private RallyPoint Member 39 days of training would not cut it at McDonald's so I don't see how it can be enough to train soldiers. Especially reserve soldiers who are going to go back to their regular day to day routine. 39 days of basic training maybe for a regular army soldier who is going to build on that and continue on to more schooling, duty stations, and deployment. When I went into the Navy, I was in boot camp for two and half months, and that was just boot camp.

Response by SSG John Jensen made Oct 30 at 2015 6:43 PM

SSG John Jensen — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 18:43:41 -0400

did they get rid of the quarterly 100% piss tests since I left - that took a lot of time. As I remember the worst training time was home station drills on Superbowl Sunday, Indy 500, playoffs, playoffs, playoffs.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 31 at 2015 8:53 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 31 Oct 2015 08:53:18 -0400

39 days is not enough but the "Guard check" doesn't put the food on the table or a roof over the head (except for the few of us that are AGR). Adding more training days only puts more stress on civilian employment. If you add more training days, it not only takes more days from work (shorter check) and causes the employer to either be short an employee or hire another to cover the time the Guardsman is gone. Most companies support the Guard and Reserves, but remember, they are there to make money.

Response by COL Ronald Diana made Oct 31 at 2015 10:11 AM

COL Ronald Diana — Sat, 31 Oct 2015 10:11:34 -0400

The 39 training days a year have always been the model. The post mobilization training period usually adds another 60 days to the process. Whether the 1st Army CG like it or not during times of dwindling resource that will be the best that can be hoped for. BN CDRs and above need to always find better ways to build year after year on training. No easy solution, but if a 3 year training plan is followed it should work. The other problem that I experienced during mob was that my unit's post mobilization plan was different then what the theater commander demanded. Until these two plans are put together a RES/NG unit CDR has no control on the time at MOB Station.

Response by SPC David S. made Oct 31 at 2015 11:18 AM

SPC David S. — Sat, 31 Oct 2015 11:18:30 -0400

I would bet sir the training limitations are due to financial restrictions as well the ramp up time needed again a cost cutting measure. If anything there could possibly be a reallocation of funds to allow more training for certain combat arms units to expedite the mobilization of some reserve units. However more that likely instead of increased funding the money would be taken from non-critical supporting units. However not so sure of the benefits of sharpening one edge of the sword yet neglecting the other.

Response by SSG(P) Brian Kliesen made Oct 31 at 2015 12:01 PM

SSG(P) Brian Kliesen — Sat, 31 Oct 2015 12:01:11 -0400

No. Never has been, never will be. As long as we are mandated to complete so much 'check the box' training, so many days doing LHI events, as long as we don't have the resources and equipment to complete training, and as long as Annual Training is more of the same, we will always be behind on training.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 31 at 2015 2:01 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 31 Oct 2015 14:01:26 -0400

It depends on the type of unit. When I was in Cav, it was ok. It's not hard to do recon and fire support missions every month because they are relatively simple. Now that I'm in a HIMMARS firing battery, it's different. 39 days is not enough time to stay proficient in this MOS. Most drills don't even have us practicing our mission. There are already some NG units that are full time active duty. I think more units or possible some MOSs, especially technical ones, should be full time, even in the NG by default. Just my two cents.

Response by SPC Christopher Perrien made Oct 31 at 2015 5:29 PM

SPC Christopher Perrien — Sat, 31 Oct 2015 17:29:02 -0400

For highly technical/tactical jobs , No it is not. For the rear echelon types yea it works.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 31 at 2015 6:04 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 31 Oct 2015 18:04:15 -0400

Not by a long shot

Response by CW5 Rob Billington made Oct 31 at 2015 7:34 PM

CW5 Rob Billington — Sat, 31 Oct 2015 19:34:07 -0400

It could all depend on the unit and it's primary mission. I spent 42 years in the ARNG and NAVAIRES and have some experience to draw upon. In my enlisted service in the ANRG (6 years) I was a Watercraft Operator, licensed at the 40 level. I can state from that experience we most certainly were ready for war and our war time mission, in all aspects shy of communicating, a skill which while fine regarding commercial shipping and channels we did not practice with a high degree of regularity on the tactical side that would be needed in wartime. I was very well versed with our issues being in communication with our Readiness Group advisors in the Marine field locally here at Fort Lewis. Following the 1st Gulf war I flew back from DC to Seattle (Fort Lewis) by shear chance with the Commander of the Provisional Heavy Boat unit from that war. In the course of our conversation he let it be known to me that he personally had put the nix on the 1118th Transportation Company (Landing Craft-ARNG WA) being brought to theater. His objection was "their lack of professionalism, having been their evaluator before the war I saw it first hand". What he was most irked about was their familiarity with each other and the use of first names by NCOs with officers and senior NCOs. I listened to his complaints and asked him if he knew the background of the unit. When he said no I told him about a National Guard unit having the same members not for one, two or three years, but for 10, 20 and sometimes even 30 years. I told him about the 1SG who owned a local automotive franchise that had 5 LTCs working for him in the "real world", it was an eye opener to him, he had no idea of the make up or background of the ARNG yet he parroted many of the RA dislikes going back to Leslie J. McNair, Marshall, Ike and Bradly. I did not tell him until we deplaned that I had been a member of that BN the 1118th was in, he had thought I had just completed a CDR's course at Eustiss. The unit's marine licensing level and sea time was well above any RA LCM MARK VIII unit. Holding multiple WO specialties (3 890A/913A/920A) I had a bit of expertise in many fields & I got to see first hand how well the ARNG did when deployed to Theater for OIF and in some instances, how poorly, but as the CFLCC Theater Missile and Ammunition Technician I also got to see how ill equipped some of the RA soldiers were to handle bulk issues of Class V and Class V unique issues, as well as how often the RA units commented on how glad they were to find a ARNG maintenance unit when in need vice a RA maintenance unit. The most repeated comment was how the ARNG maintainers most always just cut to the chase and said "just tell us what's wrong, we'll fix it for you" and did not put them through the usual administrative Goat Rope. Pretty high compliment but then any who have been in the ARNG know that is one of our strengths. I got in more than one heavy discussion with one of my RA counterparts in the Ammunition field over how well trained our soldiers were, I am saying that tongue in cheek here too BTW. After rolling out of the NTC and running the Field ASP for my BDE's rotation I flew direct to Theater and upon deplaning and arriving at our RSOI camp was told drop your gear, get your troops, and go get our Ammo, right into the mix and once again, right into the dirt with the troops which as a CW5 your don't usually see ( I got to do a lot of that, and will say it was fun to be in that aspect of soldiering until Big Army caught up with me and back to echelons Corps and Above I went). The first night we were there placing our ammunition into the field ATP I observed a unit from 1st CAV preparing to issue TOW Missiles for training at Udari. Their rough terrain fork lift they had the tines with 9 crated missiles about 7 feet off the ground when the load slipped off the tines and hit the ground, hard. The crew picked it back up and was loading it on a truck when I stopped them and asked them if they knew what had just happened, to a man they said "yes, we dropped those missiles" and did not have a clue how egregious that action was for safety and was still going to issue them for use. I patiently walked them and their Captain, impatiently waiting, through all the ramifications the dropping of missile or rocket from a height over 24 inches had on the survivability of the tracked vehicle crew or aircraft crew that were the intended users. All of them, with the exception of the officer, were ammunition soldiers........go figure. At any rate, they did the right thing once they were made aware but my point is that is the wrong time to being learning....which points to a greater gulf in the education of our soldiers. In NAV AIR our take on the RC at the time was much different than the Army and ARNG, we had much higher levels of Full Time Manning, which enabled us to go aboard a carrier for an Operational Readiness Inspection and get outstanding grades but.......our FTM was very high, close to 40%. That too may be the "fix" in some ARNG units, selected increase in FTM for units that need more certifications. I think the First Army Boss is on to something good in asking about this.........hopefully he will get good answers........if we are to be a tactical multiplier for the Army given the trends of the last 14 years then some radical paradigm changes are needed and some who cringe at change are going to balk at providing meaningful input.

Response by SSG Robert Rosser made Oct 31 at 2015 10:39 PM

SSG Robert Rosser — Sat, 31 Oct 2015 22:39:49 -0400

Having served over 30 years in the Reserves and National Guard, I can honestly say that the President doesn't know what he is doing. Forty-eight IDT periods a year with 15 Active Duty days is the norm and should not be changed. The Russians are already at the front door and the Chinese are not far behind.

Response by SSG Robert Rosser made Oct 31 at 2015 10:49 PM

SSG Robert Rosser — Sat, 31 Oct 2015 22:49:28 -0400

Having served for over 30 years in the Reserves and National Guard, I can honestly say that someone who I will not name does not know what in the h*ll he is doing. Forty-eight IDT periods a year with 15 days of AT days is the norm and our military should not be shorted. The Russians are now on our door steps trying to break in and the Chinese are not far behind. North Korea and Iran have missiles that can reach us. And the U.S. have a $20 trillion deficit that our political leaders want to raise even higher to pay for domestic programs - "The h*ll with National Defense and military spending."

Response by MAJ Matthew Arnold made Nov 1 at 2015 2:55 AM

MAJ Matthew Arnold — Sun, 01 Nov 2015 02:55:59 -0500

It may be off scope a little, but I would like to see DOD stand up full time the number of units needed to fight the wars. The 2 and a half wars plan worked well and we should return to it. The reserves should be used as just that, reserves, needed for the mobilization of a great force such as was needed during WW2.

Response by 1SG VonErick Trim made Nov 1 at 2015 12:42 PM

1SG VonErick Trim — Sun, 01 Nov 2015 12:42:40 -0500

The number of days isnt the real issue. Its been my experience the training distractors from BN and higher are the problems. I have done all traing schedules for the next TY, made all the necessary plans and reservations and req. just to have it all trashed because of some stupid on-line traing wasnt done or spend 6 months of drills wasted on SSD. I asked CSM, why we were wasting training time begging deadbeat Soldiers to do their SSD? All he was concerned about were percentages he could report to higher. I told him if the Soldiers cared then they would do it. I had mine done a week after it came out. This is just one example. There are a million more.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 1 at 2015 2:13 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Nov 2015 14:13:47 -0500

I must admit, as time progressed in the many years served, training changed to meet the opposition we would face.

True, training days decreased. In Germany (West), we would live in the field for several days (20-30), Grafenwohr/Hohenfels, jumping back and forth as a Forward Support Battalion.

What I’ve learned over the past few years as money has dried up, we must be creative with how we train. It’s not about quantity anymore but quality that enriches the purpose to be ready. This means several things, train along other units to improve upon efficiency, utilize various simulator training equipment, use hip pocket training to fill in dead space and see what units are training that if you can’t shadow, you can observe.

We must equip ourselves to ready until funds are more readily available to increase areas we see fit to increase proficiency. It’s like doing a SWOT Analysis (IE Matrix) to accomplish the most out of our unit’s capabilities.

Finding a delicate balance and voicing our opinion without overly arguing which loses higher commands ear is what we as leaders do and must continue to show with research how to accomplish the mission, what the outcome will result and let them figure out the next steps. We give them guidance and past experience we’ve learned to keep us as current with global situations we will front.

Remember, we do more in the morning then our civilians do all day. We also do more with less too (personnel, equipment and funds).

We’re our own worst enemy as we take every situation regardless of how it’s given in short suspense to meet every task assigned and this over time becomes expected but our Soldiers who are our future must still feel they’re getting quality training to face every objective successfully.

BLUF, be creative and effective.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 1 at 2015 4:38 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Nov 2015 16:38:11 -0500

I whole heartedly agree with his assement on a lack of time. We have to do get all of our admin / et al. Done normally throughout the year's drills only to launch into our major core training (per aforgen status) for two weeks per year. Personally this is not enough time to do the job correctly. Do we want to sacrifice quality and competency for costs? I say no.

Response by 1SG Patrick Sims made Nov 1 at 2015 5:43 PM

1SG Patrick Sims — Sun, 01 Nov 2015 17:43:26 -0500

I spent eleven years in the Marine Corps Reserve---Most of the time was wasted on bullshit. Just before Desert Strom I transferred to the New York National Guard--Every second was spent on being a solder and perfecting your MOS skills. NCO's came in on their own time to train troops between drills. The company Master Gunner, 1st Sergeant and Platoon Sergeants would spend days of their own time setting up drills so no time was wasted. ---In the Marine Corps the Inspector & Instructor staff consists of active duty Marines. Most are only interested in passing inspection and doing their time in the I&I to insure their careers. I know that statement will anger many Marines reading it. I think a lot of the Marines---their great war fighters---Unfortunately there are to many senior NCO's and officers that are career men first and leaders second. .

Response by MSG Floyd Williams made Nov 1 at 2015 7:22 PM

MSG Floyd Williams — Sun, 01 Nov 2015 19:22:59 -0500

The only thing better than training is more training readiness is very critical for the Reserves and Guards.

Response by COL Thomas F. made Nov 2 at 2015 8:48 AM

COL Thomas F. — Mon, 02 Nov 2015 08:48:24 -0500

As someone in the training directorate, just some information for ya. Suggest you read DoDI 1215.13 Enclosure 3 and DoDI 1215.06 (These feed AR 140-1). Both talk about the required time for both USAR (14 days not including travel - NMT 17 days), and ARNG (15 days including travel). If your are in the 1 or 3 shops, these three docs might be something to keep in your binder. These are based under federal law via Title 10 (right.. lots of legal mumbo-jumbo). End state is nothing is going to change until Congress makes it happen and they cough up some money to pay for it. We are in a zero-sum world where to get something, you have to give something up. Lots of moving pieces up here so keep your eye and ears open as changes are coming. Maybe not as fast as you like but at the speed of the budget.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 3 at 2015 6:53 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Nov 2015 06:53:03 -0500

I personally am in an aviation unit and this 39 days of training I don't see how they figure on that. Now I agree with a lot of you that if an RC/NG soldier has a civilian career that corrolates to their MOS then yes they would be proficient in their specialty. I can also say that the new training paperwork that has to be completed just for one class is absolutely fricken ridiculous (7 pages thick ) oh and let's not forget about the different counseling statements that have to be done, oh BTW we have the inventories to do, and don't forget we have to prepare for whatever inspection. Like y'all stated administrative bull$#!&, I'll be honest since I was deployed back in 2012, I haven't touched an aircraft during a drill weekend except for maybe 5 times. So I know good and well that I am not up to the same standard for myself as I used to be so long story short, NO We don't have enough money or time to get the training that I feel like we need

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 4 at 2015 10:17 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Nov 2015 22:17:19 -0500

1LT Rosa,
While I personally would like to see more training days I think this would have a negative impact on civilian and RC commitments. Personally being in an ABCT I think we get more bang for our buck so to speak by doing MUTA 6 field drills and (Allows more training time while on tracks under field conditions compared to a MUTA 4 or 5) drilling every other month or even quarterly so that we can accomplish tasks rather than try to fit them into drill weekend (MUTA 4) I've talked with some USAR units that do this and it seems to be more effective. In essence my point is that we have enough time but should structure it perhaps differently to do things like a Table II or a Table 5 or 6 on a drill weekend. Thoughts?

Response by COL John Power made Nov 5 at 2015 6:57 PM

COL John Power — Thu, 05 Nov 2015 18:57:31 -0500

If the command is very efficient in its use of training time and the distractors are minimized, perhaps it is minimally sufficient for some MOSs. The more complex MOS that require serious larger scale environments (e.g. Signal networks, Intell systems, higher level commands, etc.) simply can't do a whole lot on a weekend. Frankly I'm impressed with how much they can do. But the combination of their regular training and post-mob training can get them to speed. As someone mentioned, the needs of the unit must be assessed in the context of the mission. The theater commander, as important as he is, probably doesn't know squat about what the unit needs in order to be truly ready. I've witnessed theater needs dictating reorganization of units and demanding deployment without adequate equipping or training with that equipment and new mission. That is not a pretty picture. Leaders have to be smart enough and have enough guts to say "No". I doubt there is a model for more training days that will work. What everyone needs to do is wring out every minute of value from the limited time available. Not an easy task.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 5 at 2015 9:59 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Nov 2015 21:59:00 -0500

I don't think so but I try to give the best training I can to my soldiers with what time we are given.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 12 at 2015 2:17 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 12 Nov 2015 14:17:10 -0500

Sir all due respect, for my state in georgia in transportation we deploy more than any other state we have 60 days to train and prepare. There is nothing wrong with more training im all for it. But when we have a chance to mob up we are training atleast 0500 to 2200.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 16 at 2015 6:17 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 16 Nov 2015 06:17:05 -0500

Ihave responded to this once before but I would like to add some more. Someone else mentioned spending entire UTAs for the APFT and other admin tasks. At the start of every FY, usually October drill everyone takes the APFT. In a unit with well of 100 soldiers, even though you spilt them between 2 days and maybe even two waves each day, with the amount of tested Soldiers and support staff need for the APFT over half the unit is tied up for over half of the weekend. Then we go to the next month, for us, it was PHA weekend. Another month of Administration only. I believe the units would be better served with Birth month based annual requirements. I understand getting the most bang for your buck and having sometimes entire BNs drill at one location and have the contractors show up for the PHA but are we really getting what we need. If each Soldier could get an extra day during their birth month, they could do the APFT, PHA, Records reviews, update DD93 and SGLV, Mandatory breifings and everything else in one weekend without stopping the entire unit. We have training units that could facilitate the APFT and medical to do a PHA. During your birth month you drill at one of 2-3 locations spread across the state and knock out everything. Give the Soldiers travel pay and it is amazing how many no longer have "work conflicts". Units would only be out a percentage of its Soldiers and training can continue. I believe you could truely get the most bang for the buck. As it is now, entire units get no METL training for at least 4-5 drills out of the year. I don't have all the answers but to answer the original question, if properly managed, 39 is tough but it can be done. I gave everyone a MUTA 6 for their birth month so it would be 40 days. At least it's even.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 27 at 2015 11:55 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Nov 2015 23:55:19 -0500

Make better use of time at drill. The briefings & annual training requirements should be handled between drills, with credit given for early release on sundays. The tired tradition of standing around waiting to be released does more damage to soldiers motivation and commuting safety than anything else. The time at drill should be laser focused on METL & Be Know Do.

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 7 at 2017 11:53 AM

SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 07 Nov 2017 11:53:32 -0500

If you want to improve the war-winning capacity of the nation then you need to have a system where more people have a stake in the game. The Guard and Reserve should be beefed up significantly. I would do it so that everyone serves or could serve at some capacity.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 22 at 2019 12:39 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 22 Nov 2019 12:39:25 -0500

If we could somehow do away with all the mandatory classes that are the same every year (SHARP, EO, Suicide prevention, resilience training, TARP, CTIP, etc) that eat up half the training schedule, 39 days would be enough.

Response by MSG William Wold made Mar 22 at 2021 6:41 PM

MSG William Wold — Mon, 22 Mar 2021 18:41:35 -0400

I would show up at a training meeting and after laying out the next 90 calendar days, I would stand up and say, all well and good but next drill is 2 days away, the one after that is another 2 days away. What?!? You have to stop thinking as a full time mil-tech or AGR and realize the average NG soldiers drill 2 days a month. They assemble a few things the night before or early that morning and come to drill. At the end of the weekend the “stuff” gets flopped in the corner and repeat next month.

Response by MSG William Wold made Mar 22 at 2021 6:55 PM

MSG William Wold — Mon, 22 Mar 2021 18:55:23 -0400

Don’t believe for a second that the job protection is there for the NG. I had several do everything right yet didn’t have a job to come back to. Sucks.