Posted on Nov 6, 2014
What do you think should be requirements for becoming an officer?
27.2K
234
89
8
7
1
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?
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?
Commission
Officers
Deployment
Requirements
Edited 11 y ago
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 45
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.
(4)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
It isn't just about education. That plays a part, but it's more about initial mindset and mission set. The 2LT, from day one, is learning about the Orders Process, Mission Command, leading a platoon or working on a battalion staff. The PVT, however, is learning about his weapon, and skill-level 1. End of. Comparing the two is like comparing nurses to doctors. Sure there is overlap, but do we really think that we should only have doctors who were nurses first?
(3)
(0)
LTC Paul Heinlein
SSG Brad Porter,
Good comments. But there are many differences to the expectations of officers and enlisted. Education requirement is just one of the hurdles to being commissioned.
The difference in authority and responsibility are also great. And how you deal with that authority and responsibility is different.
If a SSG has the education and thinks they want to become an Officer, there are many avenues to do it. There are not the same stereo types today of officers as you referred to in the past. If you become an officer for the pay difference, then you will end up being a very miserable person. You can make far more money in the civilian world in management of organizations of similar size and responsibilities if money is what you are after.
Throughout my career, if an enlisted person expressed interest I would always help them in the process, but also warned them that being an Officer in the Army is a much different experience and they should understand this. I also challenged them to linkup with me once they were commissioned and what they thought. Everyone of them, going on about 25-30, said the Army was totally different experience and they did not enjoy it like they did when they were enlisted.
One of my Drill Sergeants (SSG Heavrin) had a PHD. When I was called to his office one time, as I'm standing at ease talking to him, I asked him why he was not an officer...he said he liked being an NCO, liked being hands on with Soldiers, and would never want to put up with the BS that the Officers had to. He also implied that the money was not worth the headache.
Good comments. But there are many differences to the expectations of officers and enlisted. Education requirement is just one of the hurdles to being commissioned.
The difference in authority and responsibility are also great. And how you deal with that authority and responsibility is different.
If a SSG has the education and thinks they want to become an Officer, there are many avenues to do it. There are not the same stereo types today of officers as you referred to in the past. If you become an officer for the pay difference, then you will end up being a very miserable person. You can make far more money in the civilian world in management of organizations of similar size and responsibilities if money is what you are after.
Throughout my career, if an enlisted person expressed interest I would always help them in the process, but also warned them that being an Officer in the Army is a much different experience and they should understand this. I also challenged them to linkup with me once they were commissioned and what they thought. Everyone of them, going on about 25-30, said the Army was totally different experience and they did not enjoy it like they did when they were enlisted.
One of my Drill Sergeants (SSG Heavrin) had a PHD. When I was called to his office one time, as I'm standing at ease talking to him, I asked him why he was not an officer...he said he liked being an NCO, liked being hands on with Soldiers, and would never want to put up with the BS that the Officers had to. He also implied that the money was not worth the headache.
(3)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
(4)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
As an OCS graduate, I agree with this. If you are a seasoned Enlisted Soldier, OCS is a great way to make you into an Officer and quickly get your experience back out into the Army where you can be used. If you are going through OCS straight out of college, then no, it does not prepare you for your responsibilities, which are significant even as a LT.
(1)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
IMHO what gives mustang officers an INITIAL leg up is 1) basic Army "know how". You've been in the system, so you know more of the in's and out's of how day to day business is conducted and 2) maturity. Being prior service means you are a little bit older than a typical "due course" officer.
That being said, andy advantage a mustang will have usually only lasts until they make CPT. By then, those who are don't fit in or are poor performers have usually been identified and are ear-marked for being booted.
That being said, andy advantage a mustang will have usually only lasts until they make CPT. By then, those who are don't fit in or are poor performers have usually been identified and are ear-marked for being booted.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
My point is OCS is not good training. All of these quality Soldiers and NCOs who go to OCS would be better off if they went through the ROTC active duty option.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
CPT John Hermida The guys I felt bad for were the guys who went directly from Basic Training to OCS.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
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 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."
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
I think you hit the nail on the head. From what I have read on this site over the last few months as this topic seems come up regularly, is that the training curriculum is not preparing cadets to be effective future officers.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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) (Join to see)?
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.
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) (Join to see)?
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
I thought the government in that book was fairly oppressive. Far from what I would call "ideal". I don't think their solution to societies "ills" is any better than our current one.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
LTC (Join to see) Reading comprehension, it'll get you places. I never said that I considered their form of governance ideal, only the structure of their military. For what it's worth I completely agree with you that their governmental structure would be a horrific thing to implement due to the extreme potential for abuse and tyranny.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
SGT (Join to see) As I'm sure you have read, I never stated you supported their form of government only that I didn't care for it.
Without their form of government there would be much less insensitive for qualified officer candidates to enlist prior to becoming officers.
Also today's Army prefers Officers who are not prior enlisted as they have more longevity prior to being retirement eligible (that's why OCS guys get downsized at higher rates). If this plan was instituted our entire officer management system would need to be adjusted to account for the loss of this time so officers will have their Battalion Command selection boards before they are retirement eligible.
Without their form of government there would be much less insensitive for qualified officer candidates to enlist prior to becoming officers.
Also today's Army prefers Officers who are not prior enlisted as they have more longevity prior to being retirement eligible (that's why OCS guys get downsized at higher rates). If this plan was instituted our entire officer management system would need to be adjusted to account for the loss of this time so officers will have their Battalion Command selection boards before they are retirement eligible.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google