Navy SEAL officer and enlisted candidates train side by side. Do you think it would be a good idea for all services to do this?

SN Greg Wright — Mon, 18 Jan 2016 17:00:44 -0500

SEAL candidates, both officer and enlisted, eat the same mud at the same time throughout BUD/s, side by side, (and SQT). I personally think this is a great thing, because, once out in the field, following a leader, you KNOW he's the Real Deal, that he's been through the very same things you have been, embraced the same suck, as it were. That surety might not be as readily available coming into a new command with people from different backgrounds (although, of course, that's subjective. Your mileage may vary.)

The Marine Corps has the next closest thing, with their 'every Marine a rifleman' ethos, which means just that. The cooks have the same basic rifle and field training as everyone else.

I've often wondered why the Services split out officer and enlisted initial training. I'm not referring to eventual advanced training, of course (MOS/RATING/Officer designation, etc...), but rather that initial 'Welcome to the first day of your new life', wake up call heralded by thrown steel trash cans across the barracks...and everything that follows.

I think this would foster empathy from both sides of that isle. Isn't that a good thing? SEALs seem to think so.

To accept this premise, you'll have to agree that the -basics- for O's and E's are mostly the same: traditions, comportment, UCMJ, CoC, etc etc. All the things that apply to everyone from the lowliest Seaman Recruit, on up to the CNO.

What do you think? Would you approve or disapprove of this idea? What are some of the benefits/drawbacks you foresee?

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Jan 18 at 2016 5:04 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Mon, 18 Jan 2016 17:04:06 -0500

Just like Ranger School, Q course for Special Forces, and Jump School already SN Greg Wright. I concur with you that training with all ranks is a good thing.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2016 5:07 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 18 Jan 2016 17:07:36 -0500

I think this would be a good idea. We all have to sit at the same dirt filled buffet some time.

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Jan 18 at 2016 5:14 PM

SSG Gerhard S. — Mon, 18 Jan 2016 17:14:26 -0500

You will find the same is true for Army Ranger, and Special Forces courses.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2016 5:20 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 18 Jan 2016 17:20:00 -0500

SN Greg Wright this could be a good experience to have military wide. The benefit of hands on training with both officers and enlisted is much greater. Service members will experience the military in a different way, having learned through training in a joint environment in which they will eventually work together.

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Jan 18 at 2016 5:20 PM

Capt Walter Miller — Mon, 18 Jan 2016 17:20:12 -0500

Nope.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jan 18 at 2016 5:56 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Mon, 18 Jan 2016 17:56:57 -0500

"Familiarity breeds contempt" is the first thing that pops to mind, however I think we must realize that you are looking at a very small community (micro) and trying to apply it to a much larger one (macro), and the scale just won't work.

This is not to say that the idea does not have merit, however we must also realize that SEAL Candidates have already completed entry level training. Though Officers & Enlisted train side by side, they are still officers and enlisted.

Back in the late 90s one of Scout Sniper Platoon Commanders (a Lieutenant, Ground Intel Officer) was lucky enough to go through the Camp Pendleton Scout Sniper School and be awarded the 8541 AMOS (before it was made a PMOS) . He went through at the same time as a couple of our other Snipers (mostly Cpls/LCpls), and was actually teammates with him in the field. There was indeed great bonding between him and the rest of the Platoon. However, we must remember he's there for 2~ years (before going onto be XO at a Recon Company), and most folks serve 4. Tours are relatively "short" and the concept of knowing someone doesn't really materialize like we think it will.

My point is that initial training isn't necessarily the right place for it, but that it can occur. We do LOTS of training together. I went through several classes & courses with my leadership at various points. There is the risk of crossing into the "peer mentality" though which can run counter to "good order & discipline."

Response by Sgt Keefe Porter Sr. made Jan 18 at 2016 8:07 PM

Sgt Keefe Porter Sr. — Mon, 18 Jan 2016 20:07:29 -0500

Don't mess with my Corps leave it just like it is if it ain't broke don't be tinkering with it

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2016 9:36 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 18 Jan 2016 21:36:29 -0500

I can see some value in having this kind of integrated training during NCOES. (Professional Military Education). I remember when I was going though (AIT) Advanced Individual Training as a private back in 1989. During our field exercise we linked up with the Sergeants at BNCOC. The NCO's practiced being NCO's in their craft while us new privates got to learn how to implement our training under their direction with guidance from the cadre.

I would like to see this return to Professional military education. I envision a scenario where Officers during their Phase 3 BOLC provide the intent during an exercise, ALC or SLC NCO's carry out that intent with AIT students using this time to assist and learn their MOS.

Response by Capt Mark Strobl made Jan 18 at 2016 10:11 PM

Capt Mark Strobl — Mon, 18 Jan 2016 22:11:13 -0500

SN Greg Wright - Here's my broad-brush synopsis:
1.) "Operator" type training is very rigorous, specialized, and usually have (relatively) small class. Since officers & enlisted are functionally doing the same thing as operators, the classes need to be unified.
2.) Regarding general MOS training, The enlisted need to know how to execute their specific jobs. The officers, generally, have to concern themselves with the administration involved in those jobs.
Summary: The enlisted work with trees. Officers worry about the forest.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 19 at 2016 12:41 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 19 Jan 2016 00:41:07 -0500

The Marines don't exactly do this. Officers go through Officer Candidate School, Officer Candidates Course and Platoon Leaders Class in Quantico, VA, for their commission. Follow on training is done through The Basic School in order to become provisional rifle commanders. They have follow on schools from their for whatever specific track they're on that's intended for officers only. Enlisted Marines go through MCRD Parris Island or MCRD San Diego for their boot camp, and follow on to the School of Infantry/Marine Combat Training to learn how to become Infantrymen/basic trained riflemen. Marines other than regular Infantry have their follow on training at different schools.

BUD/S has a closer comparison to BRC; officers and enlisted go through that training together. This training is a very specialized, exceptionally difficult course for any to go through; there is no "Gentlemen's Course" at that level. The only specialized A&S program that I can think of that splits the two ranks is the Ranger Assessment and Selection Program, which splits junior enlisted and NCOs (RASP 1) and SNCOs and Officers (RASP 2).
Not all portions of the UCMJ apply to enlisted as they do Officers: Articles 88 and 133 only apply to commissioned officers.
Anyways, to answer your question, I, personally, don't see the merit in it. If a subordinate perceives an officer as weak in the most basic of training, it can be detrimental to that officer's ability to command (especially when it counts in a firefight). We can't have that when we're to be an effective military. On the same note, we don't need weak officers; but that distinction must be made among senior officers and not subordinates.

Response by SCPO Charles Thomas "Tom" Canterbury made Jan 19 at 2016 5:20 AM

SCPO Charles Thomas "Tom" Canterbury — Tue, 19 Jan 2016 05:20:39 -0500

I think it depends on the job.

Response by CAPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 19 at 2016 12:42 PM

CAPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 19 Jan 2016 12:42:57 -0500

The SEAL candidates are already an "officer" or an "enlisted" before they show up to try and claim the coveted title of SEAL. SEAL training is not "Basic" training. It is additional, advanced, mission specific training. SEAL candidates typically have a couple of years of actual military experience under their belt, and are mature enough to respect the officer/enlisted boundary even though they are side by side in the thick of it.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 19 at 2016 12:50 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 19 Jan 2016 12:50:54 -0500

I think there's value in sending all Officers through BCT. In my personal observations USMA and ROTC graduates would benefit from the discipline and basic understanding of their service branch. Even such a simple step would require restructuring both programs however.

Response by LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 20 at 2016 9:50 AM

LT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Jan 2016 09:50:20 -0500

Definitely not basic training. OCS in the Navy is actually longer and tougher than Basic Training in Great Lakes, and I don't think it should be changed at all. However, what I found to be the most helpful in any of my training courses was to pair senior Petty Officers or Chiefs with junior Officers, allowing us to benefit from their experience. But the issue is that a majority of the Navy is not "boots on ground" but specialized rates with specialized training that Officers do not require to do their job. There are several specializations within the CT world, but you wouldn't send the Division Officer to everyone of their schools just to be their DIVO.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 20 at 2016 5:18 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Jan 2016 17:18:39 -0500

All Air Force Officers would greatly benefit from this training experience IMO. In my 12 yrs tenure, prior enlisted officers have been the most favorable amongst the enlisted. They tend to take both perspectives (officer/enlisted) into account before making decisions and truly listen to their senior enlisted perspectives. Furthermore, when they make a less than popular choice it is known that it was more than likely out of their control and the NCO core will back them. This of course will lead to their overall success as an Officer in the worlds greatest Air Force!!! Rant over.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jan 22 at 2016 12:34 AM

PO1 John Miller — Fri, 22 Jan 2016 00:34:24 -0500

I could see Officer candidates (Academy Midshippersons (gotta keep gender neutrality in mind)) going through Great Lakes alongside enlisted recruits!