Towards a U.S. Army Officer Corps Strategy for Success

[Stevely]

Perhaps there is too much centralization and credentialism in the current officer management system? It seems too much is taken away from commanders for placing their officers where they need them in favor of a faceless, complex Army-wide officer management system. Maybe the Army needs to find a way to decentralize career management for officers up to maybe O5 or so. This way not only does a commander get the most out of his officers, but it could be advantageous to the "managed" as well - good commanders could stay commanders where they best belong, good staff officers could stay on staff where they are most effective, etc.

[jmm99]

I'm learning a lot from this discussion. I have some questions about Fig. 2 in the article (attached below).

1. The ROTC retentions (no scholarship highest, 4 yr scholarship lowest) caused me to think that the differentiating factor between the ROTC types is motivation - some of the scholarship folks are gaming the system (more $ offered, the less motivation involved). Since the respective spread in ROTC retention rates is relatively small, the money factor probably is not as substantial as whatever other factors enter in (my perception from the graph).

2. The high OTC-IS retention also seems motivation-based. These folks are lifer oriented - a good thing generally (again, my perception). The article says that OTC-EO retention is the lowest of all, though not graphing it. I expect the reasons for this can be readily found.

3. The USMA retention raised my eyebrows big time. What is going on there ? Maybe that is not surprising if it has always been that way. Are there historical charts from say the 50s to date showing USMA attrition ?

I found USMA retention to be troubling.

[Shek]

I'm learning a lot from this discussion. I have some questions about Fig. 2 in the article (attached below).

1. The ROTC retentions (no scholarship highest, 4 yr scholarship lowest) caused me to think that the differentiating factor between the ROTC types is motivation - some of the scholarship folks are gaming the system (more $ offered, the less motivation involved). Since the respective spread in ROTC retention rates is relatively small, the money factor probably is not as substantial as whatever other factors enter in (my perception from the graph).

2. The high OTC-IS retention also seems motivation-based. These folks are lifer oriented - a good thing generally (again, my perception). The article says that OTC-EO retention is the lowest of all, though not graphing it. I expect the reasons for this can be readily found.

3. The USMA retention raised my eyebrows big time. What is going on there ? Maybe that is not surprising if it has always been that way. Are there historical charts from say the 50s to date showing USMA attrition ?

I found USMA retention to be troubling.

JMM,

As a statistic in that graph (USMA '96), I can frame for you the decision that USMA graduates faced as whether to stay in or leave. Because of the one-year ADSO from a PCS from the advanced course, the decision point to stay behind essentially came at 48 months in deciding whether or not to leave your first unit and go to your advanced course - June 2000.

The economy is booming and so it's not a matter of whether or not you'll get a job, but rather choosing from among your different high paying job offers. You started the application process to West Point only a few months after the conclusion of ODS, but instead of a chance to see combat, the future appears to hold only peacekeeping. Because of the over-accession of officers and higher attrition rates of the year groups before you, you spent 12 months as a line platoon leader if you are lucky and more than likely, you're finishing your tour in your first unit as the S-1, the S-4, or potentially as the least of the A/S-3 positions in the S-3 shop. As you look forward, you see the reports coming out of Fort Leavenworth from your future S-3s/XOs and learn that the same bureaucratic processes that you faced as a LT will probably only get worse as you move forward (for more about the CPT attrition problem at this time, see the links in this post: http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...&postcount=211). If you want to go to graduate school, you can expect to have the opportunity only if you opt out of the operations career field based on what PERSCOM is briefing.

As to my particular decision, upon some advice from some mentors while I was at USMA, I had pretty much committed myself to sticking around until at least company command and then do azimuth checks after that periodicly to make sure I was still having fun. I was fortunate enough to be in a good unit with a good command climate, and so I never seriously contemplated leaving at 5. I did have several classmates who had their paperwork in to move from active duty to the IRR and yanked it on Sep 12.

As you think about the differences between the different commission sources/scholarships, while I can't parse out the exact impact, I think it's important to think about the opportunity cost of remaining in the Army (i.e., what are the opportunities outside the Army that the officer is giving up if they remain on active duty) and how they differ across the different sources. On average, I think it's a fair argument that the more attractive one expects to be in the labor market, the higher the price that the Army will have to pay to get them to enter a commissioning program (there will certainly be exceptions, but the exceptions don't prove the rule). So, while some of the difference in continuation rates may reflect various levels of motivation to commit to the Army, some of it will simply reflect the "cost" of staying.

Conversely, we can look at the cost of getting out. For the ROTC scholarship and USMA commissionees, they are still 16 and 15 years away from retirement, which to a 26 year old is still a long ways off. For an OCS-IS commissionee, retirement may only be 6-12 years off, which to someone nearly 30 or older than 30, doesn't seem that long to go. Additionally, because of their time invested towards that 20, it's a lot more costly to get out. So, for the OCS-IS commissionees, some of that motivation to be a lifer may reflect more a desire to simply get to 20 and retire. Once again, I can't parse out the effect, so it's up to others to decide in both cases which is more influential.

Lastly, I don't know how representative YG96 is and how these continuation profiles have changed both in absolute terms and relative terms. I do know that I believe the USMA Class of 2002 had a higher attrition rate, probably a culmination of joining during a period when the expectation was peacekeeping (less important) combined with 2-3 deployments in their first five years with no relief in sight (probably much more of a factor) and an economy in 2007 that looked very attractive to young, bright leaders. Whether this reflects a broader trend in officer attrition (probably) or simply a spike in USMA attrition, I don't know.

[Schmedlap]

some of the scholarship folks are gaming the system (more $ offered, the less motivation involved)

If the difference is that great, according to the size of the scholarship, then that is probably a good indicator that they were never all that motivated about being Army Officers in the first place. Why did we offer up that much money as an incentive to people who were so uninterested? It makes me wonder if the cash and resources involved were a high-payoff - or even worthwhile - investment.

On the other hand, I'm hesitant to give undue weight to motivation, rather than disappointment, disillusionment, boredom, frustration, et cetera. Lots of Officers come into the Army with high hopes of accomplishing things, improving the organization, and challenging themselves. Many of them find themselves in a branch that they did not want, or doing work that is not intellectually stimulating, often intellectually insulting, or find themselves encumbered by a lousy chain of command, or otherwise just having their time and talents wasted and the opportunity to do anything worthwhile quashed. I've seen some very good Officers beaten into submission by the bureaucracy and stupidity. You can only take so much abuse from a crappy CO, see yourself surrounded by far less capable Officers who often outrank you, and do so many mind-numbing staff jobs until you throw up your hands and say screw it. I am not speaking of myself in that regard. I've seen some Captains whom I thought had far more potential than I did, who stuck it out for longer than I did, and they eventually just threw in the towel, wondering why they spend 18 out of every 24 months away from the families and wondering why they voluntarily suppress their earning power just to have their time, talent, and motivation squandered.

With some of that in mind, I'd like to see the breakdown for the following...
- Retention by branch
- Retention among those who got their branch of choice versus those who got their 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc.
- Retention among ECP versus non-ECP, including a breakdown by scholarship type
- Retention according to first duty station and last duty station

[Shek]

If the difference is that great, according to the size of the scholarship, then that is probably a good indicator that they were never all that motivated about being Army Officers in the first place. Why did we offer up that much money as an incentive to people who were so uninterested? It makes me wonder if the cash and resources involved were a high-payoff - or even worthwhile - investment.

On the other hand, I'm hesitant to give undue weight to motivation, rather than disappointment, disillusionment, boredom, frustration, et cetera. Lots of Officers come into the Army with high hopes of accomplishing things, improving the organization, and challenging themselves. Many of them find themselves in a branch that they did not want, or doing work that is not intellectually stimulating, often intellectually insulting, or find themselves encumbered by a lousy chain of command, or otherwise just having their time and talents wasted and the opportunity to do anything worthwhile quashed. I've seen some very good Officers beaten into submission by the bureaucracy and stupidity. You can only take so much abuse from a crappy CO, see yourself surrounded by far less capable Officers who often outrank you, and do so many mind-numbing staff jobs until you throw up your hands and say screw it. I am not speaking of myself in that regard. I've seen some Captains whom I thought had far more potential than I did, who stuck it out for longer than I did, and they eventually just threw in the towel, wondering why they spend 18 out of every 24 months away from the families and wondering why they voluntarily suppress their earning power just to have their time, talent, and motivation squandered.

With some of that in mind, I'd like to see the breakdown for the following...
- Retention by branch
- Retention among those who got their branch of choice versus those who got their 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc.
- Retention among ECP versus non-ECP, including a breakdown by scholarship type
- Retention according to first duty station and last duty station

Schmedlap,

A decent number of cadets at USMA right now turned down an opportunity to go to an Ivy League school, and I don't believe money was a factor in their decision to come to USMA. Additionally, almost all of the cadets I know are excited to be platoon leaders and looking forward to it (maybe some of that is simply the exciting of finishing and leaving West Point, but I don't run into any that are dreading their time in the Army - the four and five year commitments that following from USMA and ROTC scholarship is simply too steep for those that aren't genuinely interested in giving the Army a shot IMO). I think your second half of your post is where the answer is.

A person who's frustrated at their first duty station because of a lackluster chain of command often won't do the career course and PCS to another unit where the odds are that they'll have a more positive experience. Add into that options that dangle in front of them for higher paying jobs and spouses that more than not today also want to have a chance at their own career, I think it's hard to question the motivation of those who have chosen to serve, even if only for their initial commitment.

[Schmedlap]

... almost all of the cadets I know are excited to be platoon leaders and looking forward to it (maybe some of that is simply the exciting of finishing and leaving West Point, but I don't run into any that are dreading their time in the Army - the four and five year commitments that following from USMA and ROTC scholarship is simply too steep for those that aren't genuinely interested in giving the Army a shot IMO). I think your second half of your post is where the answer is.

I, too, think the second half of my previous post has more validity than the first. But, in regard to the money factor, I was speaking more to the differences in scholarships, not so much to USMA. The decision to spend one's college years in a military school, rather than a binge-drinking fraternity house, suggests a high level of commitment. I would add in other military schools as well, like VMI, Citadel, etc. Recognizing that those folks get scholarships, as well, I'd be curious to see the retention breakdown according to commissioning source for the scholarship awardees. My suspicion is that it will be higher for the military schools - not because they produce Officers of any significant difference in quality, but because they recruit individuals with a higher level of commitment to make a career out of the Army.

What I was curious about with the 4-year scholarships (specifically, cadets attending regular universities who have 4-year scholarships) is whether the people who accept them put a lot of thought into the commitment afterwards. This is, after all, the United States. People are not conditioned to think about the future. They run up their credit cards, live beyond their means, indulge in the moment and then complain about the costs later on. It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of university students realize that they need to choose between school expenses and beer money, discover that they're eligible for a scholarship because of their grades (why do we base it on grades?), and then take it, not fully considering the commitment that they are obligating themselves to.

Alternatively, I also wonder if it is difficult stay excited about the military when you are immersed in a civilian world that is devoid of personal responsibility or any ethic of service to others. I lived in DC and attended a large university there last year. I am now roommates with two guys who are fresh out of college (one who went to college in DC, the other in NYC). The world that they were just in - no job, no responsibility, no focus on anything but themselves, growing ever more confident by the day that they've got things figured out - it doesn't seem conducive to fostering any kind of desire to serve. If there ever was a desire, it seems likely that it was significantly eroded.

[Ken White]

will not work -- in both Korea and Viet Nam, what he suggests was effectively the case. Officer priority went to command, staff jobs frequently were filled by NCOs. Operations sergeants (mostly SFCs, MSGs by design but they were not always available -- too many on large, high level staffs. Today you have SGMs...) and their assistants routinely ran Bn and even Bde TOCs constantly and by design. Staff ranks were all one or two grades lower than today I know one Bde in Viet Nam that had a MSG as the S4 for several months and a couple of Companies led by their 1SG for more than a day or two. LTs were often staff Os at Bn, CPTs at Bde. I also knew an Artillery Battery that had a SGT (E5) First Sergeant for several months. Probably not surprisingly, Division staffs were almost always overstrength...

His ideas will work. Whether anyone has the audacity or sense to apply them is another story...

I realize we're a Superpower and a big Army and all but someone should take a look at Swedish military ranks. Before you laugh, consider the fact that they spent many years prepared to face off the USSR, that they buy and use some pretty innovative, very sensible and capable equipment (much of it better than ours) and that their admittedly small bodies of troops recently deployed here and there -- to include Bosnia / Kosovo and Afghanistan -- get good comments on their competence. We do not have all the right answers. Indeed, I often think we don't even ask the right questions...

[Cavguy]

I'm learning a lot from this discussion. I have some questions about Fig. 2 in the article (attached below).

1. The ROTC retentions (no scholarship highest, 4 yr scholarship lowest) caused me to think that the differentiating factor between the ROTC types is motivation - some of the scholarship folks are gaming the system (more $ offered, the less motivation involved). Since the respective spread in ROTC retention rates is relatively small, the money factor probably is not as substantial as whatever other factors enter in (my perception from the graph).

2. The high OTC-IS retention also seems motivation-based. These folks are lifer oriented - a good thing generally (again, my perception). The article says that OTC-EO retention is the lowest of all, though not graphing it. I expect the reasons for this can be readily found.

3. The USMA retention raised my eyebrows big time. What is going on there ? Maybe that is not surprising if it has always been that way. Are there historical charts from say the 50s to date showing USMA attrition ?

I found USMA retention to be troubling.

Alternate reasons:

USMA and ROTC 4-year scholarships tend to be top-10/top 20 percent of class type individuals. The shorter scholarships tend to be "easier" to receive, but 4-year scholarships are harder. One reason often given by those exiting are the opportunities outside. USMA has a large network of alums who hire other alums. Rarely is a USMA grad unemployed.

ROTC 4-year types I would imagine also have lucrative post-army options.

OCS stays because the 20 year retirement system is usually just around the bend - if you put in for OCS you essentially have decided to "stay in" because you already had at least 4 years enlisted time, and know whether you and the army "get along".

Anecdotally, I was a 2-year ROTC scholarship guy, and almost all of my 4 year scholarship peers got out (or moved to reserves). My private theory is that I had less pre-formed expectations of the Army, and thus wasn't as disappointed when the Army in practice failed to live up to my ideal of it. The most gung-ho/motivated guy in my ROTC, who never wanted to do anything but the Army for life, was the first to get out. He was basically frustrated that the Army wasn't the institution he thought it was.

Just some non-data supported observations. There was also a good MMAS on retention done last year with surprising data on retention by branch. Generally, combat arms officer retention was 2-3x that of combat support/logistics specialties.

[Uboat509]

Anecdotally, I was a 2-year ROTC scholarship guy, and almost all of my 4 year scholarship peers got out (or moved to reserves). My private theory is that I had less pre-formed expectations of the Army, and thus wasn't as disappointed when the Army in practice failed to live up to my ideal of it. The most gung-ho/motivated guy in my ROTC, who never wanted to do anything but the Army for life, was the first to get out. He was basically frustrated that the Army wasn't the institution he thought it was.

They are having a similar problem with the 18X program. They pull these guys off the street and put them through the course. The ones that make it tend to be pretty good operators but they often find that SF is not what they thought it was when they joined. As a result, a lot of the ones I have known became frustrated and got out.

SFC W

[Ken White]

...There was also a good MMAS on retention done last year with surprising data on retention by branch. Generally, combat arms officer retention was 2-3x that of combat support/logistics specialties.

Enlisted retention.

I think there's a rather powerful message in that...

[Schmedlap]

Anecdotally, I was a 2-year ROTC scholarship guy, and almost all of my 4 year scholarship peers got out (or moved to reserves). My private theory is that I had less pre-formed expectations of the Army, and thus wasn't as disappointed when the Army in practice failed to live up to my ideal of it. The most gung-ho/motivated guy in my ROTC, who never wanted to do anything but the Army for life, was the first to get out. He was basically frustrated that the Army wasn't the institution he thought it was.

I'm not knocking that theory at all - especially since mine is also anecdotal - but my experience was the opposite. I and many of my peers were 2-year scholarship folks. But, kind of piggy-backing upon my earlier comment, I suspect that cadets who get 2-year scholarships or no scholarships at all are more likely to stay in. They're clearly joining for some reason other than the money. Most of us, in spite of our lesser scholarships, were determined to serve. The amount of the scholarship didn't factor in at all. Many of us didn't even care about college. We just wanted the commissions. I stuck with ROTC specifically because of my "pre-formed expectations" and "my ideal of it." I was convinced that once I finished ROTC and got into the "real Army" that I would be serving in the company of Schwarzeneggers and Stallones. I wanted to be pushed beyond any reasonable physical threshold and took personal offense at the Army commissioning anyone who was not a physical specimen on par with a cyborg and not a "field Soldier" who always wished, even in the rainiest, coldest, muddiest situation, for things to "suck even more."

But, while my impression of what type of motivation correllated with what type of scholarship is different, I agree with the observation of "gung-ho" types feeling incredibly let down. We had ourselves convinced that we were joining an Army that is as elite as it sounds. Upon discovering that the Army was imperfect, many of us felt betrayed and angry and took personal offense. Unrealistic expectations. I and many of my peers started out fairly cynical as 2LTs because of the baffling array of seemingly limitless, very dumb rules. Most rules of the dumb variety are borne by necessity: someone does something incredibly stupid and instead of just punishing that clown, we thrust some new idiotic rule upon everyone. I eventually grew up and stopped being bothered by such foolishness. Unfortunately, several of my peers did not. When you're young and surrounded by so much stuff that makes so little sense and you know that it all exists in order to mitigate the incompetence of so many around you, it is sometimes difficult to see anything positive in the organization. It sounds dumb, but I think a lot of guys were driven out primarily by frustration with the Army's apparent tolerance for mediocrity. This was compounded because the tolerance for mediocrity pertained to important things, like tactical competence, but there co-existed a zero-defect mentality for unimportant things, like environmental regulations and draconian safety rules. Maybe separating as a result of such frustration was a sign of immaturity and it was good to lose those Officers? Maybe. Or maybe they would have grown up and made great Officers. We'll never know.

I know guys who dropped out of college in the last semester of their senior year because they found out that they were going to be branched something other than Infantry. Some of them were scholarship winners. They paid back their scholarships rather than serve as CSS Officers. Now there is a lose-lose.

I know guys who were branch detailed to Infantry or Armor and did everything that they could to stretch out their time prior to the career course and then ETS, so as to avoid serving any amount of time in the branch that they were slotted for after their initial Infantry or Armor tenure. That's a little better than the lose-lose above, but still a loss. Those guys were more than happy to remain in the Infantry or Armor. The Army said, "no, you're going to be an MI Officer." Now they're gone and contributing nothing to the Army.

Just some non-data supported observations. There was also a good MMAS on retention done last year with surprising data on retention by branch. Generally, combat arms officer retention was 2-3x that of combat support/logistics specialties.

That computes in my brain. My rationale is - how many people join the Army with the intent of becoming a logistician? Obviously, there is nothing wrong with that and we need logisticians, but I doubt that a significant number are drawn to the Army for that reason. It seems as though one could be a logistician in the civilian world with significantly less BS to put up with and less service commitment. My former Supply Sergeant is now a Logistics Officer - a branch that he enthusiastically chose - but I'm not aware of many folks who got out of high school and went into ROTC to be logisticians.

Lots of guys who wanted to branch combat arms, but ended up in combat support or CSS, went into their careers with a crappy attitude and then left at the first opportunity. On the other hand, the majority of officers whom I knew in the Infantry and Armor wanted to serve in those branches. Thus, they were off to a good start and still had a good attitude when it came time to choose between career course or career change.

... One reason often given by those exiting are the opportunities outside. USMA has a large network of alums who hire other alums. Rarely is a USMA grad unemployed.

ROTC 4-year types I would imagine also have lucrative post-army options.

I know the data may contradict me, but I just don't buy it. The majority of individuals whom I served with in the Army knew that they could get out and make a lot more money, have more time with their families, and live far less stressful lives. Most of them chose to remain in. I'm nearing completion of an MBA and JD which, with my service as an Infantry Officer with numerous deployments and glowing OERs, make me highly employable. In all likelihood, I'm taking my fancy degrees back to the Army. The only explanation for the decision that I am making, and similar decisions that other have made (either to remain or return), imo, is that job satisfaction is part of the compensation package. If guys claim that they're getting out because they can get paid more, then it's because they weren't getting enough job satisfaction to compensate for the salary difference. Assume, arguendo, that I dislike my current job and it pays $70K, but I can get another job that I equally dislike and it pays $100K. I'm switching for the money. But the root cause of me leaving is the dissatisfaction. Take that away and, in most cases, I suspect that you will retain the Officer.

[Kriegs]

I'm not knocking that theory at all - especially since mine is also anecdotal - but my experience was the opposite. I and many of my peers were 2-year scholarship folks. But, kind of piggy-backing upon my earlier comment, I suspect that cadets who get 2-year scholarships or no scholarships at all are more likely to stay in. They're clearly joining for some reason other than the money. Most of us, in spite of our lesser scholarships, were determined to serve. The amount of the scholarship didn't factor in at all. Many of us didn't even care about college. We just wanted the commissions. I stuck with ROTC specifically because of my "pre-formed expectations" and "my ideal of it." I was convinced that once I finished ROTC and got into the "real Army" that I would be serving in the company of Schwarzeneggers and Stallones. I wanted to be pushed beyond any reasonable physical threshold and took personal offense at the Army commissioning anyone who was not a physical specimen on par with a cyborg and not a "field Soldier" who always wished, even in the rainiest, coldest, muddiest situation, for things to "suck even more."

But, while my impression of what type of motivation correllated with what type of scholarship is different, I agree with the observation of "gung-ho" types feeling incredibly let down. We had ourselves convinced that we were joining an Army that is as elite as it sounds. Upon discovering that the Army was imperfect, many of us felt betrayed and angry and took personal offense. Unrealistic expectations. I and many of my peers started out fairly cynical as 2LTs because of the baffling array of seemingly limitless, very dumb rules. Most rules of the dumb variety are borne by necessity: someone does something incredibly stupid and instead of just punishing that clown, we thrust some new idiotic rule upon everyone. I eventually grew up and stopped being bothered by such foolishness. Unfortunately, several of my peers did not. When you're young and surrounded by so much stuff that makes so little sense and you know that it all exists in order to mitigate the incompetence of so many around you, it is sometimes difficult to see anything positive in the organization. It sounds dumb, but I think a lot of guys were driven out primarily by frustration with the Army's apparent tolerance for mediocrity. This was compounded because the tolerance for mediocrity pertained to important things, like tactical competence, but there co-existed a zero-defect mentality for unimportant things, like environmental regulations and draconian safety rules. Maybe separating as a result of such frustration was a sign of immaturity and it was good to lose those Officers? Maybe. Or maybe they would have grown up and made great Officers. We'll never know.

I know guys who dropped out of college in the last semester of their senior year because they found out that they were going to be branched something other than Infantry. Some of them were scholarship winners. They paid back their scholarships rather than serve as CSS Officers. Now there is a lose-lose.

I know guys who were branch detailed to Infantry or Armor and did everything that they could to stretch out their time prior to the career course and then ETS, so as to avoid serving any amount of time in the branch that they were slotted for after their initial Infantry or Armor tenure. That's a little better than the lose-lose above, but still a loss. Those guys were more than happy to remain in the Infantry or Armor. The Army said, "no, you're going to be an MI Officer." Now they're gone and contributing nothing to the Army.


That computes in my brain. My rationale is - how many people join the Army with the intent of becoming a logistician? Obviously, there is nothing wrong with that and we need logisticians, but I doubt that a significant number are drawn to the Army for that reason. It seems as though one could be a logistician in the civilian world with significantly less BS to put up with and less service commitment. My former Supply Sergeant is now a Logistics Officer - a branch that he enthusiastically chose - but I'm not aware of many folks who got out of high school and went into ROTC to be logisticians.

Lots of guys who wanted to branch combat arms, but ended up in combat support or CSS, went into their careers with a crappy attitude and then left at the first opportunity. On the other hand, the majority of officers whom I knew in the Infantry and Armor wanted to serve in those branches. Thus, they were off to a good start and still had a good attitude when it came time to choose between career course or career change.


I know the data may contradict me, but I just don't buy it. The majority of individuals whom I served with in the Army knew that they could get out and make a lot more money, have more time with their families, and live far less stressful lives. Most of them chose to remain in. I'm nearing completion of an MBA and JD which, with my service as an Infantry Officer with numerous deployments and glowing OERs, make me highly employable. In all likelihood, I'm taking my fancy degrees back to the Army. The only explanation for the decision that I am making, and similar decisions that other have made (either to remain or return), imo, is that job satisfaction is part of the compensation package. If guys claim that they're getting out because they can get paid more, then it's because they weren't getting enough job satisfaction to compensate for the salary difference. Assume, arguendo, that I dislike my current job and it pays $70K, but I can get another job that I equally dislike and it pays $100K. I'm switching for the money. But the root cause of me leaving is the dissatisfaction. Take that away and, in most cases, I suspect that you will retain the Officer.

It's eery that I agree with every sentence here. I bolded the part that applies to me. Although, I AM bumping a year-old thread, I think the Officer Career Satisfaction Program might make a dent in retaining people who got stuck in a branch they didn't want. The problem with the OCSP is that the best years for being an officer are gone when you can utilize the OCSP (the LT years, where I'm at now).

Does anyone have a link to data that Schmedlap and Cavguy talked about with regards to retention data broken down to duty station, unit, and branch?

[KenWats]

I pretty much agree with Schmedlap's assessment above. I'm a 4 year scholarship guy who got out (graduated in '96). I was branched Engineers (my branch of choice), got a good duty station (Ft Lewis, not my top choice but I loved it), and went to a combat engineer battalion (which is pretty much what I was hoping for).

The tolerance of mediocrity on things that I felt should "matter" bothered me. I saw folks who did things that I thought were pretty crappy (PL personally stealing parts off of another company's tracks to get yours FMC, etc), were caught, and also happened to be in my (humble) opinion incompetent get the same promotion I got and it ticked me off. I watched an incompetent commander get saved by a very good XO and 1SG who wouldn't allow him to fail and allowed that to bother me too.

In all honesty, I was young and idealistic. My older, more pessimistic self would probably shrug if off and live with it- Life ain't fair. In my youth and idealism, I said "The Army's screwed up" and decided I couldn't change the way things were and it would be best for me to go somewhere else. My life experience has now taught me that emphasizing the positive of where you are is more productive than moving every time you're dissatisfied. I'm sure my attitude would be different now than it was then and I do think my decision to leave was more of an emotional one rather than a rational one. I don't regret it when it's 35 degrees and raining out though

There's my two-bit story. Hopefully it added something to the discussion.

[sapperfitz82]

Since the JO's are sounding off on an old post and still occurring problem, I will too.

I did the active duty green to gold after 6 years of service. Just finished the Infantry commissioning program and have to say that it was terrible conceptually. The men involved tried their best, but the dissolution of the BOLC II atrocity and the complete re-work of IBOLC's POI should say something.

Long way round, I believe that officer retention is a direct reflection of their IET. Consider that ROTC and USMA tracks both spend 5 yrs to get a new cadet trained to the point that he feels comfortable being a squad leader at most. (Anecdotal I know but suffer the point with me)

These LTs are sorely aware that they are under-prepared. They are told that the PSG will square them away when they get to their unit. Where else in the wide world of sports does the leader of 32-50 men get told that you'll get qualified for the job when you get it? The rest of an officer's company grade time is spent trying to catch up.

I believe the answer is to invest a great deal more in the commission source training. Not when they commission, but when the first volunteer as a cadet. They must be challenged and we must get away from the idea that if we hurt them or challenge them they will quit and we'll lose a potential officer. Contact sports take more risks with their athletes in college that the Army will with their "warrior leaders." A shaky foundation at best and one that is bearing its fruit.

As a mysoginistic aside. We used to look for gentlemen as officers and used the four year degree somewhat to screen for that. Ever since "gentlemen" have fallen out of favor (with no suitable replacement) and four year degrees devolved to certifications, we have suffered as an officer corp. Hmmm.