What do you think should be requirements for becoming an officer?

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 06 Nov 2014 20:43:46 -0500

Me personally I have a lot more respect for an officer that was enlisted first because they know what is like to have to follow orders and be a private. That being said I think I have more respect for an officer that has a combat deployment.

1) Must have been enlisted first or attended US Military Academy at West Point
2) Must have deployed and be a leader when deployed. Not just have the title of one
3) Bachelor's Degree or Higher

Things I think shouldn't allow you to become an officer.

1) ROTC. I think at most it should allow enlistment at a higher rank, but not a commission

What do you think? What are your thoughts?

Response by SGT Richard H. made Nov 6 at 2014 8:55 PM

SGT Richard H. — Thu, 06 Nov 2014 20:55:14 -0500

//to become an officer you should also have to have lead during a combat deployment...in combat.//

BIG hole in that theory. Where would we get Second Lieutenants once we've gone a few years without combat?

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 6 at 2014 9:04 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 06 Nov 2014 21:04:55 -0500

I understand where you are coming from but enlisted experience doesn't automatically make you a good officer. If you were a bad NCO becoming a bad Officer isn't any better. Enlisted service is good but shouldn't be a requirement. If you do that you will be robbing from the NCO corps.

Plus the line of thought and decision making is completely different from the two and can be a hindrance.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 6 at 2014 9:27 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 06 Nov 2014 21:27:41 -0500

A few points. Don't discount ROTC. USMA at Westpoint vs ROTC; it depends on the person. I've had good leaders from both. The Direct commissioning fills needed specialty slots.

I think the major problem I have with your theory, is that you seem to be of the assumption that all Officers are equal. Or rather: a Leutenant is a Leutenant is a Leutenant. Not necessarily true and not merely because of the differring commisioning avenues. In the end I don't find that they NEED to be the same.

As far as enlisted leading to commisioning; Some of the best Captains I've served with were enlisted first, as well as some of the worst. Again its all about individual characteristics, not commissioning source.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 6 at 2014 10:21 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 06 Nov 2014 22:21:59 -0500

I am prior enlisted and ROTC was very good training. I didn't appreciate it until after I was commissioned but I think ROTC is the absolute best way to make an officer.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 6 at 2014 10:30 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 06 Nov 2014 22:30:18 -0500

In my ideal world I would like to see our military structured similarly to the way Heinlein envisioned when he wrote Starship Troopers. In the novel, which is excellent if you haven't read it, there is no such thing as ROTC. Officers are forged from the cream of the crop of the enlisted ranks by being recommended to OCS. There's a lot more to it, but that concept stuck with me as ideal if not nearly impossible to enact into common practice.

Response by PO1 John Pokrzywa made Nov 6 at 2014 10:58 PM

PO1 John Pokrzywa — Thu, 06 Nov 2014 22:58:10 -0500

Whether someone is a good officer has nothing to do with whether they were LDO, CWO, Academy, ROTC... It doesn't matter. Officers haven't always even been required to have a degree. I've served with great officers from a number of different backgrounds and commissioning programs. Here's what I've noticed in the best of them. They are:
Good planners, with sound decision making skills. Ability to say no to a bad plan.
Sincerely care about those under their command. If an officer is willing to go to bat for his (her) troops, they notice. They also notice integrity.
Ultimately I have a saying, and it may be an oversimplification, but here it is.
It's great to be the sort of leader whose troops would follow you into hell itself. Just so long as they aren't just making sure you get there.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 6 at 2014 11:28 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 06 Nov 2014 23:28:26 -0500

Requirement number 2 is flawed: eventually we will run out of deployment-qualified candidates due to simple attrition. Or we need to continue to have deployments forever to restock.

And combat deployment, isn't necessarily an indicator of anything. For your respect, SPC (P) Cody Voye, does an Infantry PL that patrols carry more weight then say, a FOB Mayor who manages the daily activities of running a FOB?

A was a Warrior Forge (LDAC-Leader Development and Assessment Course) Instructor for 3 years. I will grant you that the prior service enlisted/NCO cadets on the seemed to be better candidates on the surface, however, I will echo what 1LT Eric Rosa said about bad qualities as an NCO can transfer to being bad qualities as an Officer. Some of the least motivated candidates were the prior service ones who had the "i already know this shit attitude".

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 7 at 2014 12:01 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 07 Nov 2014 12:01:07 -0500

I have no problem with the current system.

I have had good officers from ROTC.

I have had bad officers from West Point.

I have had good officers that have never deployed.

One of the worst officers I've ever met had three deployments.

Most individuals I meet, whether officer or not, garner my respect based on their character and not their credentials. That doesn't mean I don't respect their achievements, it just doesn't necessarily mean I respect the man.

Response by 1LT William P. Fanning Jr. made Nov 7 at 2014 12:07 PM

1LT William P. Fanning Jr. — Fri, 07 Nov 2014 12:07:09 -0500

Having been both enlisted and an officer I was fortunate to interact with a wide variety of people who became officers through several different paths. I did not see 1 clear differentiator based on a particular path, rather I saw a person's character and attributes that enabled certain people to lead better than others.

I would suggest screening a large number of officers and their performance, determining a list of characteristics that enable success. Based on those attributes I would retool the screening process and training focus to make sure those are at the forefront of the Officer.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 8 at 2014 10:42 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 08 Nov 2014 22:42:17 -0500

Couple of thoughts here.

1) Officers have to follow orders just the same as Privates (enlisted) do. So, your argument there about knowing how to follow orders isn't really valid. Despite your commissioning source (with the exception of direct commissions), we all learn to follow orders, regardless if it is through West Point, ROTC (there are military schools that offer ROTC that are not West Point) or OCS.

2) Deployed and be a leader deployed. So what happens when the deployments go away? Do we no longer need officers at that point?

3) There are some jobs in the military that require commissions and come "straight off the street"..these are usually professional degreed personnel (lawyers, doctors, ect) that don't necessarily need the same training as line officers do.

What I would offer to consider is that people need to have a desire to be an officer and a solid understanding of what it means to be an officer. 1st) Being an officer is a not a better thing than being enlisted or being a warrant, it is just different. Some of the best NCOs I know have no desire to be an officer because they enjoy being with Soldiers and I respect them for that. 2nd) Being an officer means have less time to actually serve with Soldiers and more time spent behind a desk or in positions that are important to the Army as a whole, but not necessarily where the fun is. There are enlisted that do these same jobs to, just at a reduced number. Had I had someone explain this to me, I probably would have stayed enlisted a little longer than I did, but I wouldn't have traded my experiences as an officer (namely the time I have been able to spend with the great Soldiers of our nation) for anything!

I am sure there are additional areas that can be considered, but where you commission from and having prior enlisted backgrounds, although should be a consideration, should not be the be all, end all reasons for becoming an officer.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 9 at 2014 8:46 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 09 Nov 2014 08:46:07 -0500

If you block direct commissions, good luck getting your docs and scientists. People spend 10+ years in college to earn PhDs and/or MDs. Very few people with an advanced degree (and most likely in their 30s, often with a family) are going to spend years living on E-1 to E-3 pay just so that they can commission.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 12 at 2014 11:00 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 12 Nov 2014 23:00:37 -0500

If the Army did not allow me to sign an 09S contract (guaranteed OCS after BCT) I would have never joined. Just like any other employer, if the military wants to hire the best and brightest, they will have to be a viable option for people who have a stronger background than high school completion.

What I have little tolerance for, SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member, is making general statements about having little respect for Soldiers who outrank them. You are not the only one making remarks like this, but I've now seen it three times in two days so I'm pausing here to point out that you (and the others) are not asked by the US Military to invent your own internal set of rules for who you plan to respect and disrespect. I could let it go if your point was that you would lack respect for someone who disrespects you, or who breaks rules they expect others to follow, or some other reflection of poor performance or personal character. But anyone who would say that they would have less respect for someone of good character who does a good job simply because he/she doesn't measure up to some set of invented rules for what makes a good Officer/NCO/spouse/etc reflects pretty negatively on you (and the others making similar remarks).

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 13 at 2014 1:10 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 13 Nov 2014 01:10:40 -0500

Enlisted or Academy experience does not necessarily equate to being a good officer. One of the best officers I had while on active duty in the Corps was a reserve officer from OCS. I also had a mustang officer that didn't no his ass from a hole in the ground. But on the flip side the best commander I had in the reserves was prior enlisted. So things are fine the way they are.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 13 at 2014 9:26 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 13 Nov 2014 09:26:42 -0500

Officers have a role within the military which is different than the role of the enlisted. One isn't better than the other, although one carries more legal responsibility than the other which is reflected in the pay scale. Being an enlisted leader has its value, but I would say that most of that value ends at roughly 6-12 months commissioned. Why? Because a Team Leader is in charge of four Soldiers. He ensures that they are where they should be and that they have what they should have. He has direct responsibility over them. How does that translate to a 2LT? His concern is the element. The PLT. Were he to rely on his NCO days, he would be stepping on the toes of his Platoon Sergeant. Being a PL isn't analogous to being a TL. It isn't just the same only with more Soldiers. It's a different mindset and mission set. He is looking outward, planning, and implementing guidance. The NCO is looking inward, taking care of his men and executing that guidance (all the while mentoring the 2LT about his plans and guidance and how they would effect the men).

The two roles are completely different from one another, and outside of general Army culture and knowledge that enlisted service brings, I just don't think it matters that much in the commissioned world. Petraeus, McCrystal, McMaster, Powell, Eisenhower, Marshall, Pershing, Sherman, Grant, and Washington were never enlisted.

I am a non prior-service OCS grad. I can only speak to that experience. But, let me tell you. If a 2LT comes straight from BCT, OCS, and BOLC, and doesn't at least listen to his NCOs before he makes a decision, then he wasn't paying attention during his training. It is inculcated from day 1 that 2LTs may have the authority, but they do lack operational experience. They should rely on those NCOs for guidance, mentorship, and execution. It's emphasized to such an extent that it almost makes a brand-new 2LT afraid of his own Army shadow. He has heard so much just how much that he doesn't know that he almost feels like an idiot, which, of course, he isn't.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 13 at 2014 12:09 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:09:26 -0500

GEN (RET) Colin Powell no prior enlisted ROTC graduate.
GEN(RET) Norman Schwarzkopf no prior service West Point.
GEN George Patton no prior service, West Point.
There are far to many factors to say that if you are prior service you will be a better officer or not. The same goes with graduating ROTC vs. the academy. Great officers come from both areas as do dirt bags. I was enlisted before I commissioned and I am glad that I did but it wouldn't be possible to have every cadet go through basic training.

Response by SN Jennifer M. made Nov 13 at 2014 4:18 PM

SN Jennifer M. — Thu, 13 Nov 2014 16:18:51 -0500

My husband is a Warrant Officer. Spent 4 years reserves and now he's been on Active Duty for 10 years. He is now a CW2 at the moment. I certainly undoubtful think he is an amazing leader. Plus I also get told this multiple times. When we were at Fort Story my husband's commander and the headquarter's commander were fighting over him. My husband didn't even know they were fighting over him until I told him. I heard all of this at steering meeting (FRG). It was pretty exciting. LOL

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 14 at 2014 5:08 AM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 14 Nov 2014 05:08:56 -0500

Many current officers are officers for these reasons; many of us do not even have to fight combat, but we contribute to the mission as effective as former enlisted or graduate of military academies. Also," uncommon valor is a common virtue; you don't have to fight in combat to be a hero".

The article below may help clarify why some officers like me get constructive service credits; I hope this will help put why some officers are officers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-schultz/in-his-sons-steps_b_6135026.html

We are not expected to respect the person, but let us give respect where(when) it is due, as we all took an oath to do so...

The Story Of A Surgeon Who Enlisted At Age 61 Following His Son's Death In Iraq

According to Bill Krissoff, shuttering his lucrative medical practice, joining the Navy, and deploying to the western Iraqi desert was about "turning that loss into something positive."

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 16 at 2014 10:22 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 16 Nov 2014 10:22:25 -0500

Granted, I'm navy, but I think the current regulations are sufficient. In my 12 YOS I've seen terrible officers that started enlisted, went to the Naval Academy, commissioned through ROTC, etc... Conversely, I've served with great officers from every commissioning program as well.

Response by PO2 LeVon Poel made Nov 16 at 2014 11:08 AM

PO2 LeVon Poel — Sun, 16 Nov 2014 11:08:37 -0500

I personally believe all officers should be required to serve at least one tour of duty as enlisted and achieve the payGrade of e5 and not aquire a njp.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 16 at 2014 12:12 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 16 Nov 2014 12:12:21 -0500

Things I think should be required to be an officer:
1) Understand that you don't know everything
2) Ability to listen to advice
3) Ability to identify mistakes and inefficiencies, admit them, and learn from them
4) Willingness to lead by doing what he expects the men to do. Not all the time, but enough to let the Soldiers know that he isn't above them
5) Ability to plan, and flexibility to adjust the plan as information becomes available

I don't care what their commissioning source was, if they can do the things above they will be just fine. And I'll follow them anywhere.

Response by PO2 Corey Ferretti made Nov 16 at 2014 7:24 PM

PO2 Corey Ferretti — Sun, 16 Nov 2014 19:24:21 -0500

A few of the best officers i have worked for came from ROTC. Some of the worst officers i have worked from come from the Annapolis. that example goes vis-versa too. A degree does not make you a leader. I have met officer's who could not lead there way out of a wet paper bag. I think one thing that makes a great officer is if they have a great Chief to help mold them when they are Ensign . If they have a poor Chief teaching them the ropes it shows in how they lead. Im sure that goes with the other branches.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 16 at 2014 7:43 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 16 Nov 2014 19:43:26 -0500

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member, I read through many of the responses and discussions previously posted on this thread, and none of your comments answer the very basic question at issue. What, exactly, is the necessity of having prior enlisted service to become an officer?

It would make sense to me that the entire commissioning system should be overturned and remade only to correct some problem. So, what is the problem you would like to see corrected?

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 16 at 2014 8:06 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 16 Nov 2014 20:06:52 -0500

When I took command, the best CSM I've ever known asked me what my background was. Specifically, he wanted to know if I had enlisted time. I cringed, knowing I would have to answer "No, CSM." He was relieved.

He told me that I was taking over from a string of commanders with prior enlisted time. His observation was that they were too close to Soldiers and their personal problems, and not close enough to the mission. Officers make sure people are taken care of, but they do not take care of people. The mission, the tasks assigned from superior commanders, is their primary concern. Do you see how this is beneficial, SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member?

Empathy with Soldiers, unchecked, may become a hindrance to mission accomplishment. Certainly, many prior-enlisted officers can check their empathy at the door. Some non-prior enlisted officers, even clueless ROTC officers like me, empathize with Soldiers and their problems even without the shared experience of enlistment. They too may well fall short in the mission accomplishment department. My point is that enlisted time does not give anyone a monopoly on leadership skill. A bachelor's degree certainly does not.

The Army, the whole military, needs thousands of officers every year, the best they can get from any source whatsoever. Restricting the pool of eligibles like you suggest is infeasible.

Response by PV2 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 16 at 2014 8:36 PM

PV2 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 16 Nov 2014 20:36:13 -0500

Go to college my battle buddy did and he got his degree in medical and he's working on his masters so he can be a CPT

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Nov 16 at 2014 9:14 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Sun, 16 Nov 2014 21:14:50 -0500

ROTC gives us 4 years of training and a bachelors degree - same as an academy. Granted the academy has tighter regs and discipline standards and more intensive training, but not everyone can go to an academy. Leadership at any level is about what you have learned and how you apply it. Nobody is a leader by title alone and a deployment doesn't earn you anything. What you learn pre-deployment, IMHO, is going to help you on a deployment more than what you learn during one. I've seen many folks O's and E's who were bad leaders regardless of how many deployments they had under their belt. Simply being enlisted does not qualify you to be an officer over someone w/o enlisted time. Supervisor and Manager - 2 different positions, trains of thought and responsibilities. Not all supervisors are cut out for management and vice versa.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 16 at 2014 9:47 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 16 Nov 2014 21:47:16 -0500

Considering that ROTC accounts for a large portion of the commissioned officers in the army, if you take ROTC away as a commissioning source how would you propose the army produce new officers outside of West Point or direct commission

Response by Capt Chris McVeigh made Nov 16 at 2014 11:18 PM

Capt Chris McVeigh — Sun, 16 Nov 2014 23:18:00 -0500

1) In my experience, military academies add nothing to an officer. They are a college with more rules, simple as that. As far as being priors, again that's no guarantee of making them better. Some of the worst officers I have come in contact with were priors. There is a completely different mentality between enlisted and officer and some priors can't snap out of it.

2) This is completely nonsensical. We went for years without being involved in wars and non of the junior officers had been deployed. You are either suggesting that we remain in a perpetual state of war or never deploy again.

3) Already a requirement.

4) ROTC candidates already follow the same career path as non-ROTC candidates. Being part of ROTC honestly just means you have less free time in college. Your actual training is going to come out the same by the time you reach your unit.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 17 at 2014 8:10 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 08:10:41 -0500

In my personal opinion the Officer either being a Warrant or a Commissioned Officer sets their own destiny and path in the military. I have great experiences both with prior service that went through OCS or came out of the ROTC Program. Our ultimate goal as NCO's is to mentor coach and advice our officers. In every speech I heard or you heard "from an officer is that certain NCO or enlisted SM that influenced them to be what they are today"

Response by SSG Robin Rushlo made Nov 17 at 2014 9:49 AM

SSG Robin Rushlo — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 09:49:41 -0500

Must be at least enlisted E-1 through E3 for two years before ANY thing else. And that two years is after any MOS AIT.

Response by Lt Col Kurtis Sutley made Nov 17 at 2014 5:41 PM

Lt Col Kurtis Sutley — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 17:41:24 -0500

For my part, some of the best officers I knew were prior enlisted. The bad ones I never bothered to find out. The service also makes a difference whether prior enlistment helps. Army officers lead their enlisted into combat. Air Force enlisted send their officers into combat. (Aviation units) It's also my observation that good NCOs can overcome poor officer leadership. I was both Army Ranger and Air Force fighter pilot. Leadership styles and techniques did not always transfer across these services. Most of the reason was because of the differences in the officer/enlisted relationship. Every officer should have to spend at least one year on a working cattle ranch.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 17 at 2014 6:06 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 18:06:35 -0500

I enlisted at the ripe old age of 32 before commissioning through OCS. I had a bachelor's degree in Geology but I am hard pressed to determine how my academic knowledge in geologic processes made me a worthy of platoon leadership. Nevertheless, simply having 10 years of additional LIFESPAN perhaps contributed more to my perspective than 4 years of ROTC could have.

Then again, I did stay at a Holiday Inn the night before MEPS...

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 17 at 2014 8:04 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 20:04:45 -0500

I believe it is fine just the way it is. My reasons are simple. What do you mean about being deployed? Do you mean to a combat environment? If so, how can you deploy someone who is not yet in the military, serving as an enlisted first would solve that problem but then HRC would have to make sure they send over 7,000 cadets/soldiers annually to combat zones, which is impossible. USMA and the schools with Corps of Cadets cannot commission enough officers annually to meet Army requirements. Every officer does have at least a Bachelor's Degree. Just because a Soldier has a deployment patch doesn't mean they did combat missions, heck even a CAB doesn't mean that either so it's all subjective.

Here is my reason why I think it should stay the way it is, but make changes to the curriculum. Like you, I used to prejudge 2LT because they were clueless to lots of basic army Soldiering skills and customs until I actually went to ROTC and see that it's not their(our) fault. We are clueless because they aren't teaching us anything relevant to the Army, everything is run my Cadet Command and they have their own manuals, regs, forms, etc. 75-90% of what we learned in ROTC is irrelevant to the Army. My point is, until CC gets in line with Army Doctrine then the product will continue to be the same. I was lucky enough during my senior year to have 3 Infantry/Ranger instructors geared our training towards what we actually do in the Army, not what they will be doing for 30 days of LDAC/CLC or whatever they call it now.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 18 at 2014 10:08 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 18 Nov 2014 22:08:31 -0500

There are some NCO who became an officer turn out to be a joke. Who are we and / or I to decide who qualifying to became an officer in the military. West Point still produce some good leaders. Combat experience doesn't make you a better leader.

Response by SPC Clifton Sommer made Nov 19 at 2014 12:38 AM

SPC Clifton Sommer — Wed, 19 Nov 2014 00:38:40 -0500

I was in a Recon platoon (3d Bde/101st Abn.) in Vietnam for 10 months. During that time we were without a Platoon Leader for roughly 5 of those months. During the other 5, we went through 5 different Platoon Leaders. One of them was only with us overnight, joining us in the field and being medivaced out the next morning (injury, not wound) so we had no chance to learn his story. The other 4 were evenly divided, 2 ROTC, 2 West Point. Of those one of each was a good officer, and one was terrible. Whether or not they were ring knockers or ROTC really doesn't make any difference.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Nov 19 at 2014 1:50 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Wed, 19 Nov 2014 13:50:52 -0500

Some really valid ideas in this discussion thread. (It's nice to converse with a group who has something beyond mere opinion to offer.) I can only think of one qualification to add to the list thus far assembled: Arrogance.

Not hubris, arrogance is required in a good officer (any leader actually). It takes a refined sense of arrogance when the bombs are bursting and bullets fill the air to stand up and say "Follow me" as though you actually believe that you know what to do.

Of course, if you're wrong, someone will get hurt and you'll be guilty of hubris...

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2014 8:03 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Nov 2014 20:03:21 -0500

I've seen some comments about USMA being the same as ROTC just with more discipline or regulations. If you think that's the case, you are sorely mistaken. Now, I'm not saying one commissioning source is "better" than another, but, they are all different and have different experiences. One of my first real eye opening experiences with other commissioning sources (besides some summer training where a handful of ROTC would come) was at OBC when I met the straight out of college commission guys. It blew my mind that they went to college, no military involved, graduated with their degree, and then did some OCS and bam, they get commissioned. Huh. Oh well, I didn't make the rules I just follow them for the most part. Although I did have a superior officer that I really didn't get along with and argued with plenty of times because, well, I was right and he was wrong. Everyone else knew it but they were scared of him. I believe he was ROTC.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2014 9:01 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Nov 2014 21:01:15 -0500

My perspective of being in the Officer training environment is that it does not require someone to be prior-E. Granted the dynamics between Air Force enlisted and officer are different than the Army. This was what I observed in the training environment years ago. We had two types of prior E cadets. Those who knew that they were taking a different leadership role in the Air Force. Than we had those who thought they were too cool for school.

The first set understood the new way of things. They were able to use their prior service as a way to guide the other cadets on the enlisted perspective in a positive way. The latter would always complain and moan that this was not the way they did things on active duty. They were right about that because they were no longer enlisted on active duty. They were a cadet in the training environment like everyone else learning the basics on leadership at a different level. The ones who seemed to moan the most were the dudes that had only 2 years of service and got picked up for a commissioning program. Our commander who was prior enlisted would tell them very frankly that he can arrange for them to go back to Air Force they once knew, i.e. "here's the door go back to your prior job.

IMO what you ascribe to would only work for someone that had leadership at the NCO level, that would not be practical. I am not convinced that someone who just served a few years as an Airman would be much better than a guy off the street. In the Air Force an Airman with a couple years is just becoming proficient at their job at the 3 level and is working towards being a 5 level. They do not have that much more experience than their peers in the ROTC program.

What it boils down to is training. From the comments on this board it sounds like the Army is not forcing those ideals early on in the training program. Or they are being completely disregarded.
I think what you are getting at is empathy. That could be due to the fact that this new generation of kids, the Millennials, lack it. When I was going through training we were always told the importance of the Enlisted personnel and that our success was due the performance of everyone who works for us.. If they are successful than I am successful. If they fall short, then I also fall short.

The question is how do you get that empathy back into the folds. The answer is that the training curriculum for officers needs to emphasize the importance of the personnel of the people they will lead more.

at the end of the day there will always be those who get it and those who don't. The ones who fall short generally don't go very far in their career, with some exceptions.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 31 at 2015 2:17 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 31 Jan 2015 14:17:46 -0500

I think there is one truth that many in the army have forgotten. There is a difference between leading and commanding. They require different skill sets. A four year degree might not prove that someone has what it takes to be a combat leader, that's why Lt's get baby sat by NCO's. Do I like the current system, no, but until a better idea comes along that will work better we might as well stick with what we've got.

Response by LTC Jason Mackay made Jan 31 at 2015 2:36 PM

LTC Jason Mackay — Sat, 31 Jan 2015 14:36:10 -0500

Your deployment clause...once upon a time there were none. Do we stop producing officers when there is not a war on? I had been on active duty over seven years before 9/11 and had missed ODS by a year. Officers have a shelf life that varies based on age, genetics, random life events, etc. The Army demands the POTENTIAL for 20 years of Active Federal Commissioned service and runs you up against mandatory retirement at 55 years old (SECDEF waiver required except for Chaplains). Essentially it benefits the Army to get a new officer in the 23-25 year old range, especially for what we look to have that new lieutenant to do and to have some left in the tank for potential senior service once they gather all that experience along the way.

Prior service can be an asset. My current BDE Commander positively leverages his experiences as a junior soldier. I have known many others. There are many that never successfully make the transition and it ends up either stunting them at CPT or creating a toxic effect with their NCOs or both.

Being an effective and competent officer has little to do with commissioning source. It has more to do with what is inside. OBTW, ROTC candidates historically made up about 80 percent of the officer corps. That dipped during the GWOT era. You may also find it odd that ROTC scholarship recipients are Prohibited from enlisting in the reserve components and are not allowed to get that experience. I was faced with that choice in 1989. You seem to make it out to be a character flaw.

One of the trade offs of Green to Gold, enlisted West Point Appointments, and OCS is the loss to the future of the NCO and Warrant Officer Corps. Those candidates undoubtedly could have potentially been future 1SGs, CSMs, and Warrants.

One of the strengths of the Officer Corps is that we generate it from a variety of sources. It gets us different people, from different places with different skills, attributes, and experiences. As an example, I cover the Civil Engineer, Commercial Fisherman, Ordnance demographic.

What specifically, from a program/process perspective, vice officers you did not like, convinces you that ROTC does not produce a capable officer?

Response by COL Charles Williams made Mar 21 at 2015 9:58 PM

COL Charles Williams — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 21:58:30 -0400

I have actually put a lot of thought into this I went to OCS, and worked in ROTC and at West Point.

You must have Desire and Heart, and the requisite Physical and Mental abilities. Assuming you have the basic physical and mental attributes, the Army will provide you training, education and experience. Desire is the X factor, and heart is what makes you different from the rest.

Where you are commissioned from matters not, nor does it matter if you are prior service. Good officers come from all 3 main commissioning sources, as do an equal number of not so good ones.

Prior service can help, or hurt, but it is not needed for commissioning.

Combat deployments can't be a screening criteria either, because believe it or, not, we have many periods we we are not in sustained combat operations. How many officers would we have had on D-Day, if prior service and prior combat experience were the prerequisites.

75% of our officers come from ROTC, about 15-20 from USMA and OCS fills the rest. Generally even OCS is 50% active Army and the rest are college options; they joined with a degree to be an officer - BCT then OCS.

Desire and Heart are what matters. And also one who lives Army Values!

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 20 at 2015 2:26 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 20 Apr 2015 02:26:48 -0400

prior enlisted that is all doesn't have to make NCO, but must serve as some sort of enlisted soldier. The perspective and point of view is completely different

Response by SGT Robert Schaefer made Sep 16 at 2015 1:32 AM

SGT Robert Schaefer — Wed, 16 Sep 2015 01:32:36 -0400

Well one thing learn to read a map or a blue force tracker. Listen to NCO'S that have been deployed.

Response by SPC Will Keller made Sep 16 at 2015 10:29 PM

SPC Will Keller — Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:29:50 -0400

One problem about enlisted first. Is if they were an NCO, I've seen where they cannot leave that mentality. I had a PL. Who would tell his Staff Sergeants something. Then instead of letting them do it. He was there to micromanage them.

If given a task and it's done. Let it be done however the person you have do it wants to do it. As long as it's safe.

Chances are those NCOs have more TIG and TIS. they know what needs to be done and how to accomplish it.

Response by SFC Terry Logsdon made Dec 17 at 2015 6:08 AM

SFC Terry Logsdon — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 06:08:30 -0500

any officer and I don't care what school he went to or what his education level or if prior enlisted will not amount to a hill of shit with out the proper traing and guidance he receives as a new plt ldr fron his platoon sgt

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 28 at 2015 1:19 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 01:19:13 -0500

I like this post. Im enlisted and want to become green to gold. I can't comment on rotc west point being a cadet etc because I have never been but the reason why I became a tango is because I wanted to know the helicopter before I flew it (being a pilot is one of my main reasons for joining the army.) Another reason why is because I wanted to be enlisted first before becoming an officer. There are many enlised with your point of view, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with it, because its your opinion. I do think soldiers become very entitled the more they are in the army, I started to see it in myself even in AIT and saw it in others growing up. I don't want to be that way but I think it comes down to humility in general. Because there are some NCOs that are horrible leaders just as much as there are officers. When/if I become an officer I want to relate to my soldiers being deployed, is only one way to do that (its a great way). Officers have a lot different job than a NCOs so I would expect thats where the disconnect comes from. We don't see our officers as much as we see our NCOs unfortunately. I personally think WLC ALC and OCS, even though I've never been, could do a better job at weeding out the bad leaders in the first place. Make it harder. We are the army. I honestly think our graduation rate to these things is way to high anyway. I think these courses she be harder than most of the schools we have, because these are the people who have the fate of the army in there hands. Shouldn't we have the best of the best? Instead of people who just do the bare minimum. Just my opinion.