OPMS XXI Failure vs OPMS II

[Steel31968]

Since OPMS XXI / III have been implemented, I am discerning a specialization in the officer corps, mainly, by field grades and senior company grades having to choose a specific career field. There are several fields that this specialization is applicable, however this does not translate across all fields. This is especially important during the post Sep 11 era. OPMS XXI was created prior to 9/11 and therefore must be reevaluated in the contemporary operating environment.

I will highlight five specific areas in my experience to prove my point, SF, PSYOP, CA, IO and FA59. In all categories now officers are expected to choose a future career field in their 4-10 year window. A 4-7 year window for SF/PSYOP/CA/IO and 10 year for FA 59. This design started when SF became its own branch. It was formalized with OPMS XXI. It allows officers to choose a career field different from the basic branches. The previous system (OPMS II) allowed dual track officers who served in one for a period of time and then a return to their basic branch (FA/AR/IN/SC/MP). This system OPMS II, allowed a cross fertilization of skills and experiences, while allowing the officer the ability to stay or leave that track. OPMS XXI requires officers to choose a career track later with not as much flexibility to return to a basic branch.

During the current fight, a cross fertilization of skills would be very useful. Also, a return to the OPMS II model would allow a greater diversity of officer skills to suit a specific job. The proposal I raise is whether we are better of now than before. I can see the benefits of a former SF/PSYOP/CA officer serving at the CPT/MAJ level returning to his basic branch and sharing that experience across the force. The same goes for an FA 59, what good is it to have a strategist that has not served as a BDE S3/XO or Div G3? FA 59 should be focused on those completing a course in strategic planner (SAMS / JAWS) etc... However currently FA 59 planners do not attend this level of education, nor are they required to. Similarly, IO officer attend a three week course to become IO officers vs PSYOP/CA who attend 6 months of schoool, inculding a Regional Studies course, 3 months. How many Brigade commanders and division commanders would rather have a FSCOORD/ECOORD, who served for 3 years as a PSYOP/CA/IO officer and brought that non-lethal experience forward. Similarly, the newly announced Electronic Warfare field creates even more specialists. This coupled with universal, but not equal ILE can create a generation of specialty officers without the tactical acumen of their peers on a staff.

My conclusion is that we must review OPMS XXI and possibly go to the ASI route for officers vs. a strict functional area management system. This would allow cross fertilization of experiences as well as, officer development. The specialization of the officer corps is creating the opposite of what is directed by the Army COS and leadership. We desire generalist with varied skills and experiences, however our system is creating the opposite, specialists with a stove pipe system for promotion.

I offer these thoughts for discussion, but highlight my original point, that it seems we are creating more specialists than generalists. This obviously is not in accordance with the prevailing thoughts on officer management by our leadership.