What Do You Think About Opportunities or Lack Thereof Regarding Military Specialty Schools?

2015-07-27T16:06:57-04:00

Shouldn't we as leaders foster an environment that gives every opportunity for our soldiers to improve their skills and not hinder the soldier based upon whether a budget or functionality is a fit? That is unless the functionality is so far fetched as pointed out in a response of sending a cook to dive school. If the soldier displays the ability to successfully complete the school, the component is gaining a more skilled soldier in the end. Your thoughts?

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2015 4:10 PM

2015-07-27T16:10:28-04:00

Functional fit? I'm not going to send my cook to dive school...

Response by 2LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2015 4:15 PM

2015-07-27T16:15:53-04:00

The school should fit the MOS in my opinion. As we all know, sometimes slots are used by a BN or BDE on a soldier who may not fit the bill for that particular school, but is available to go when others can't or won't. For exampl, I'm a 42r (Band) and I just attended Air Assault in March while serving in the National Guard. Don't ask me how we got a slot, because I don't know and I don't care, but I went on to be the Honor Grad!! The opportunities come around and every dog has his day. But overall we can't afford to send everybody who wants to go to any school they want. In my opinion, the Army should strive to give opportunity where available, but schools should go to the necessary MOSs first and for most.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2015 4:32 PM

2015-07-27T16:32:13-04:00

We need to do the best we can train our soldiers to be successful in whatever their military occupational specialty or job is. However I find it hard to abdicate sending soldiers to school so it will never be useful to them or tea or me in any way shape or form. All that said soldiers deserve the best friends they can get in the army deserve them the best friend soldiers that they can get so as long as it benefits the Army in the soldier and the unit I think so she go to whatever schools we can send them to.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2015 5:16 PM

2015-07-27T17:16:44-04:00

I must agree with most here. The Army isn't there to educate and provide competence not needed for a Soldier. The needs of the Army - I know that it doesn't sit right with the millennium generation, but we can't just send Soldiers to school just because the Soldier wants it. It has to be a sound investment. No company would send personnel to training if they wouldn't get that investment back in some form or another. Sending a cook to dive school would be a waste of taxpayers money.

Response by SPC Jonathan Sellers made Jul 27 at 2015 5:44 PM

2015-07-27T17:44:12-04:00

The military is for the defense of our nation. The people who sign up have a chance to become a diver or a cook according to their abilities and the needs of the military. How many people would go hungry while waiting on the cook to return back from dive school? Is this a question about why life isn't fair?

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2015 5:48 PM

2015-07-27T17:48:37-04:00

It needs to benefit the unit if they are paying for it! For example you send a Soldier who is scheduled to PCS to a school to get training unless NCOES because you just paid for a skill set you will not get anything out of because he is leaving! Also if it has no MOS related bearing the school is pointless won't use the skill enough to make it worthwhile and will eventually lose the learned skill!

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Jul 27 at 2015 5:52 PM

2015-07-27T17:52:50-04:00

The problem with limiting schools by MOS or Unit is that it grants people an unfair advantage. You are essentially punished for "not being assigned MOS X" or "not being assigned to unit Z", neither of which you have any control over. That's all arbitrarily assigned by the Army deities that be.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2015 5:56 PM

2015-07-27T17:56:53-04:00

As a CDR, I think of these as retention, recruitment or promotion incentives for Soldiers. In the end most are aligned with where the Soldier is assigned. Makes sense if you are in 82nd, 101st or SOF units (Airborne, Air Assault, Ranger, Scuba etc..) there is a purpose for training requirements regardless of MOS.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2015 6:23 PM

2015-07-27T18:23:59-04:00

Schools are not toys to be given out like candy because someone feels they deserve it. The Army owes nothing but MOS and NCOES training in the form of schools. The fact that schools are hard to get, makes them more desirable. The needs of the Army trump any personal entitlement to a school.
Also, there are a lot of opportunities for these schools. I went to Airborne School and Ranger School as a cook
cook. Fort Benning has a policy of allowing any resident to walk on to their schools. Campbell sends everyone to Air Assault.
The opportunities are there, it's up to the Soldier to stand out by making the most of them.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2015 6:42 PM

2015-07-27T18:42:02-04:00

I would say budget, slots, functional really come into play. Would you rather pay for a Soldier to go to WLC or airborne school? Both help with promotions but one is required and a metrics and probably has more slots. I say have a few Hooah schools and send your best warriors or top of the lot if you get slots. That rewards them and the command buys into it as bragging rights of having a best warrior.

Officers are different. We have no competition and if selfless service we would give all alots to our enlisted. However, you have to take care of yourself and your leaders, so there needs to be some kind of balance like every fourth slot got officer or something. Still super competitive, but helps motivate the officer corps.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2015 7:54 PM

2015-07-27T19:54:23-04:00

As a leader I make it a habit to review the career maps of all of my Soldiers and push them to hit those milestones in order to be competitive. However we must use practicality as the author stated.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2015 8:08 PM

2015-07-27T20:08:11-04:00

I think that the schools are there for the most part, but the opportunity to attend is still lacking and that’s a unit command issue. There are many times where it is just not possible to send Soldiers to certain schools, but that isn't the case 100% of the time. It just takes some creative planning.

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Jul 27 at 2015 8:56 PM

2015-07-27T20:56:56-04:00

CPT Private RallyPoint Member, at the risk of being highly unpopular, I am going to have to say "NO." Not because I want to be a jerk, or deny anyone the chance to ruin their back and knees jumping out of a perfectly good airplane, but because we are an organization that exists for a purpose and that lives within certain budget realities.

Functional fit and budget are the REASONS for the organization TO send people to schools - to allow them to grow and better serve the organization in whatever current or projected future role they hold.

To use me as an example, I would love to go to dive school (civilian diver). Same with Combatives through level 4 (avid kickboxer and several years MMA), and a host of others. However, the odds are exactly zero that I will ever dive or train divers for the Army in the time remaining in my career. While the odds aren't exactly zero with respect to combatives, they are close enough for government work.

Sending people to schools because they are "fun", "cool", or because they have a Pokimon approach to badges is fraud, waste, and abuse. It is a failure to steward the profession and care for Soldiers as a whole. Blowing budgets for schools will mean that we will have to take the axe somewhere else. Filling slots with people whom we believe will never USE what is taught in the interests of the DoD means that we are not sending people who WILL use those skills.

Likewise, in my civilian role, I would send anyone who wanted to go to project management classes to them, whether they were PMs or coders, on the logic that it would increase their value to the organization. However, I would NOT send a PM to a coding class, even if they were a really great employee, were really enthusiastic, and really wanted to go. Nor, except in truly exceptional cases, would I pay for an accounting course. The organization would gain nothing from any "increase in skills."

The one exception is schools with slots that are going to waste and Soldiers who are available to fill them at little to no marginal cost. An example would be at JBLM, where they teach Combatives Level 1. My understanding is that the schoolhouse will let you "walk on" a class if they have an empty slot the day the class starts, and you have all the appropriate paperwork ready to go. If I had a motivated Soldier who was ready to go and local to JBLM, and I could afford to lose them for a week, go for it. Generally, you are not going to see that a lot on the reserve side, unless the Soldier is local and willing to train in a points only status (otherwise they are on orders for pay, and likely travel, and eating into one of your budgeted pools of money). And they are going to need to be in some official status in order to protect them in case of injury.

I think it's worth noting that nobody is beating down the doors for the Field Sanitation courses that you actually need people to attend...

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jul 27 at 2015 9:40 PM

2015-07-27T21:40:42-04:00

1. Time away from the unit 2. Budget will be the enemy.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Jul 28 at 2015 12:13 PM

2015-07-28T12:13:47-04:00

I think we need to look at a cost benefit for these types of requests. It is one thing for a person to spend their own money to learn to SCUBA dive, skydive, or repair diesel engines BUT we need to be good stewards of the people's money.

Response by SPC Jonathan Sellers made Jul 28 at 2015 12:49 PM

2015-07-28T12:49:37-04:00

CPT Private RallyPoint Member After thinking about this a bit more. The environment that military leaders should be fostering is an environment that preserves the Constitution. Too many leaders are so focused on the skill sets of combat that they forget about the purpose of the military at large. We swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. There are way too many politicians who have already encroached on our freedoms in the name of security. Gun free zones, undefended borders, no-knock raids on residential units, those are just the clear and present dangers to our civil liberties.

Military leaders should be more concerned with protecting the Constitution than setting up troops with schools that are beyond the scope of the MOS and unit the troop is in. If there is a school that all troops should go to, it is the school that teaches them about the Constitution so that even domestic enemies can be identified by their words and actions by all troops. That way, when an unlawful order comes down from "on high," the troops will be mentally prepared to summon all the courage necessary to confront the domestic enemy.

It is much easier to recognize an enemy who is wearing a different uniform than it is to recognize an enemy who is a "wolf in sheep's clothing." The time will come when global forces work to supplant our Constitution from within our political systems. In fact, it is happening now, and has already been happening. Even military chaplains are ordered not to counsel the troops based on their firmly held religious beliefs. These assaults on our freedoms are not being objected to by those who are sworn to defend the Constitution, and the lack of clarity and lack of action from our military leaders is creating a situation where God has been replaced by political correctness.

Good luck in your future, but please remember that as a military leader, your job is to protect and defend the Constitution, not to advance your career, and not to advance the career of others.

Response by CW4 Abdulaziz Bulling made Jul 28 at 2015 2:16 PM

2015-07-28T14:16:41-04:00

I have to agree whole heartedly. Not only does it add skills that add value to the individual and organization. But it fosters a reinvigorated sense of aspritedecorps, and value that the individual feels when the unit invests in their soldier's career. Our most important assets are our soldiers, and as leaders we must do our best to identify the best performers and offer them the opportunities to not just succeed, but excell.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 28 at 2015 2:46 PM

2015-07-28T14:46:25-04:00

I imagine this very discussion is why organizations like these exist. Now, for those poor souls that are seeking adventure or the experience that would otherwise be offered in a military school, would this be an option you would allow them to partake in while on leave? http://www.internationalairborneoperations.com/ or http://www.imats.eu/. Granted we are all given the illusion of choice when we join but not everyone is aware of the different missions and subsequently schools the Army or military in general have before signing the contract. And for good reason, if every recruit new the amount of schools that are open to infantrymen and Special Forces Soldiers I don't know how successful we would be at filling our combat support, combat service support MOSs.

International Military Airborne Training School

IMATS. International Military Airborne Training School.

Response by MAJ(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 28 at 2015 6:50 PM

2015-07-28T18:50:58-04:00

I'm going to guess that even a 2LT understands that budgets are the ultimate constraints in DOD, so I'll answer your question based on the "What if" manner that I'm hoping you were asking it in. Even forgetting about budgets, I don't think it is practical or desirable to let folks go to any school they can qualify for.

Schools take a lot of time. I know in the SOF world, and I'm guessing in the FORSCOM world, Soldiers have to meet a certain BOG/Dwell ratio. In SOF, if your on FT Bragg, it doesn't tend to be an issue, but if you have to travel and your head isn't on your pillow in your bed at home, you are using up days you need. These days of training should be reserved for schools of which you will be most likely to use the skills trained. It is pointless to send a Soldier to so many schools that they cannot actually deploy to use their skills.

The other reason is that even without budget considerations, trainers and instructors are finite resources. This in turn causes there to be limited spots in classes. I'd prefer to see folks get those slots who need them before instead of folks getting them to fill out their ERB/ORB or the back window of their really sweet F-150.

That being said, if a school makes sense for a Soldier's current job or desired jobs, there is money, training days available, slots, and they have been working hard, go ahead and send them. There is no reason to be unnecessarily stingy.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Jul 28 at 2015 11:46 PM

2015-07-28T23:46:58-04:00

It should be an appropriate school but education is key to the success of each of us.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 29 at 2015 10:37 AM

2015-07-29T10:37:52-04:00

BLUF: budget restrictions and MTOE will always drive school slotting. Period.

On the enlisted side, NCOES takes precedence over all schools. It's fiscally irresponsible to send a mechanic from a heavy unit to Airborne School unless they have reenlisted for an Airborne Unit, and that takes away from the unit's combat power while that Soldier is at Fort Benning for three weeks, as an example. For more technical schools, such as Pathfinder or Air Assault that teach a more universally applicable skills, the Soldier in question must display an aptitude for the skill set and meet the prerequisites, which do not always guarantee success. However, there also has to be a need for those special qualifications within that unit, hence why the MTOE calls for certain ASI/SQIs.

On the officer side, most Cadets are afforded the opportunity to go to Aiborne or Air Assault because they have not been either branched or assigned to a specific type of unit, thereby making them more marketable to the HRC manning cycles. Further schooling, such as Pathfinder, ARC, RSLC, CLC, Ranger etc. are driven by necessity, MTOE and to a certain extent, the vision of the Commander and how he/she wants their organization to look and operate. Other specialty schools will be attended if a selection program is attended and successfully completed. At that point, it's once again driven by necessity of that organization to which you belong or will belong. I suggest you look at DA PAM 600-3 to see what your branch deems as applicable schools to your professional development as well as your timeline.

Schools can be used as an incentive for reenlistment, with the due caution on the back end that if you go here and successfully complete the school, you will PROBABLY be reassigned to that specific type of unit, thus hindering the unit's combat power in the long run. This is mostly referring to Airborne School.

Does that help?

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 7 at 2015 4:51 PM

2015-08-07T16:51:32-04:00

Ha guess it all depends on the situation. I went to pathfinder school as an E-5 supply sergeant as a bonus for re enlisting. 2 years later in Afghanistan that school helped me along load some equipment to get some of our guys out of a bind. That being said I don't think a high speed HR guy should be given the ranger slot over an infantry NCO who can actually benefit from the training. The weirdest experience I had was seeing a 2lt with ranger, Sapper, airborne, air assault, pathfinder. The only thing missing was a combat patch which I think is more valuable than all those schools combined

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 29 at 2015 7:50 AM

2015-08-29T07:50:05-04:00

After reading some of the comments on here, I have come to the conclusion that most of the people that commented think that specialty schools should be MOS driven? Correct me if I'm wrong on that. Here is my belief. I believe that the should NOT be MOS driven. I graduated Air Assault school at Fort Campbell in 2012 as a 92F. In today's Army you have to set yourself apart from your peers. I was 30 years old when I went to AA school but there were 18-20 year olds that couldn't do it? Why would someone think that you need to be a certain MOS to do that? Should combat arms personnel be the only ones allowed to attend Air Assault, Airborne, Ranger, Sapper, DIVE school.....whatever the case may be? Now I am a 91E (Allied trades specialist, otherwise known as a welder and machinist. Should I not be allowed to attend Dive school? If not, I'd like to know why because you never know when you are going to need an underwater welder..... That is just my two cents. Sorry so long.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made May 1 at 2018 7:32 PM

2018-05-01T19:32:32-04:00

So Sir are you willing to give up your pay or a new trooper, or new equipment in order to send someone to a specialty school- that they may or may not pass, or that is no help to your unit or Post? Budgets are budgets, you only get so much of the pie, and everyone wants a piece- someone has to loss for the good of all.

Response by CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 28 at 2018 5:47 PM

2018-06-28T17:47:30-04:00

Never forget the retention power a badge producing schoool can have on a young Soldier too. I think this is one of the most important pieces of sending our Soldiers to school