Initial Officer Selection

[Ulenspiegel]

@Seth B

One interisting aspect of the officer selection in the Prussian army and Reichswehr was that the CO of the regiment the officer candidate would join did the final decision whether the candidate is accepted or rejected.

Later (3-4 years after commission) the same CO would deceide whether the officer attend the section process for staff officer training. You can combine selection and developement, however, the regiment CO needs a good vision of the product (officer) he has to produce.

@JMA
Do you propose a merger of NCO and officer corps?

[JMA]

@JMA
Do you propose a merger of NCO and officer corps?

No, not at all.

I believe that under the almost universal system officers and NCOs complement each other in making up the whole. There are specific skills required amongst the Officer corps as there are amongst the NCO corps. I don't believe you can mix and match the two without something getting compromised. There are a percentage of NCOs who display the skills required of an officer and who should be considered for officer training on application. But as I said in an earlier post IMHO care should be taken not to denude the NCO corps of its brightest and best (with the resultant massive downstream knock-on effect) in order to address a (normally short term) platoon commander shortage.

There is an old US Cavalry saying (I believe) which goes: "Officers come and officers go but the don't hurt the troop". This can only be true if the NCO structure is strong and intact.

In the doc Research and Study Group 31 - Officer Selection in the year under review only a small percentage of German officer candidates appear to have come through from the ranks.

I suggest that the officer function at company level be carefully kept in focus when discussing such matters. He is serving his apprenticeship for higher command. He needs the experience for this and he needs the support of quality NCOs to achieve this.

A thought that I kept in mind all the time and later never let any of the officer cadets under my control forget is that when you command a platoon you have 100-150 years of military service in your hands (when the total service of the platoon is added up)... and that is one massive responsibility which the army can not allow you to squander. (A believe you me any platoon sergeant worth his salt won't let you do so either).

I don't know the state of the NCO corps in various armies but I hear that in the Brit army the NCOs may not be what they once were. But the problem (one problem) is that the officer corps has its challenges. One of which seems to be the initial selection process which allows too many people through who are not up to the required standard.

Deal with this problem but do not tamper with the NCO structure in order to achieve a quick fix. That is what I am saying.

[Red Rat]

The UK AOSB is failing more candidates then ever before. Candidates are also scrutinised closely at the officer academy (Royal Military Academy Sandhurst - RMAS), especially those aspiring to the combat arms.

Royal Marines officers also had to undertake the Admiralty Interview Board (AIB) in addition to POC, although I am not sure if this is still the case.

The general consensus is that the UK officer selection procedure is providing both the number and quality of officers required - that at least is the opinion of commanders. Most debate within the UK army at the moment is less on officer selection and more on officer training and development; namely the RMAS syllabus and the tactics used in the field exercises there, as well as special to arm training (Basic Officers Course in the US terminology) after officer training.

I will see if I can get some hard statistics on AOSB pass/fail rates and those for RMAS.

[JMA]

The UK AOSB is failing more candidates then ever before. Candidates are also scrutinised closely at the officer academy (Royal Military Academy Sandhurst - RMAS), especially those aspiring to the combat arms.

Royal Marines officers also had to undertake the Admiralty Interview Board (AIB) in addition to POC, although I am not sure if this is still the case.

The general consensus is that the UK officer selection procedure is providing both the number and quality of officers required - that at least is the opinion of commanders. Most debate within the UK army at the moment is less on officer selection and more on officer training and development; namely the RMAS syllabus and the tactics used in the field exercises there, as well as special to arm training (Basic Officers Course in the US terminology) after officer training.

I will see if I can get some hard statistics on AOSB pass/fail rates and those for RMAS.

Happy to hear this. I think my point was that the AOSB should produce passes who are more likely to complete the course and obtain a commission rather than err on the side of leniency and push candidates through to maybe... just maybe... pull through on a wing and a prayer. Hard on the course, an additional unnecessary training cost and psychologically devastating on some of the individuals who fail in the end.

Of course the AOSB can't be foolproof and there will be those who make it through with flying colours yet fail to perform on the course. I believe that these cases should be studied and the AOSB reports reviewed to refine the process.

All this said IMHO if the OSB is an effective process then the vast majority of those who pass and go on to officer training should be commissioned in the end.

Having been on the receiving end of courses (as course officer) selected by others through an OSB process that I and the Course Instructors (NCOs) had to train in which it was quickly apparent there were no-hoper's became pretty irritating. These extras serve to further divide the attention that can be given to others to good effect in addition to being a waste of money.

All this said I do know from experience that there is always some pressure on the system to come up with 'right' number of commissions to fill the vacancies. This is the thin edge of the wedge that starts the rot.

Good if you can find some stats.

[Ulenspiegel]

JMA, thank you for your long response, gave me some stuff to digest.

My question arose as the officer and NCO recruiting in Germany perfectly mirrowed the school system during the last 150 years. With dramatic changes in our educational system (dying of Hauptschule, much more Abiturienten) one question is how the armed forces are affected and how could we for example make NCO positions more attractiv for Abiturienten.

The low number of ACTIVE officers coming from the ranks is quite usual in the German army during peace time. You got a completely different answer, if you check reserve officers, many of them decided during the first six month of their mandatory service to serve longer and attend the required NCO courses.

[SethB]

The USMC uses a board to select applicants. It is highly selective.

Then they go to ten or twelve weeks of OCS, where 50% pass.

There is no emphasis on training, just selection.

Then they go to The Basic Course for six months of training in the basics, followed by an MOS course (Infantry, Artillery, etc).

It's a good system. I like working with Marines. Very professional and well educated. A far cry from the Army system.

60% of Marines come from OCS. 30% come from USNA, where there is less selection. The two groups don't always get along at first...

[stanleywinthrop]

The USMC uses a board to select applicants. It is highly selective.

Then they go to ten or twelve weeks of OCS, where 50% pass.

There is no emphasis on training, just selection.

Then they go to The Basic Course for six months of training in the basics, followed by an MOS course (Infantry, Artillery, etc).

It's a good system. I like working with Marines. Very professional and well educated. A far cry from the Army system.

60% of Marines come from OCS. 30% come from USNA, where there is less selection. The two groups don't always get along at first...

To emphasis this point the entire OCS course is an evaluation and selection process and candidates are told this from the very beginning. The only actual skills learned there are drill, basic weapons handling (but no live-fire), and fire team and squad tactics. Thats it. The learning takes place at TBS.

[JMA]

The USMC uses a board to select applicants. It is highly selective.

Then they go to ten or twelve weeks of OCS, where 50% pass.

There is no emphasis on training, just selection.

Then they go to The Basic Course for six months of training in the basics, followed by an MOS course (Infantry, Artillery, etc).

It's a good system. I like working with Marines. Very professional and well educated. A far cry from the Army system.

60% of Marines come from OCS. 30% come from USNA, where there is less selection. The two groups don't always get along at first...

Up front let me say that this obviously works for the marines (and that's really all that counts).

My initial focus was upon the initial pre-course selection process because it is the quality of which informs as to how many (what percentage) pass in the end. The attrition rate I experienced was similar to the 50% you speak of. I am now questioning this in the light of the quality of the initial pre-course selection process.

What happens to the 50% who fail? What is the cost of training those who don't make it? What psychological impact does this (largely avoidable failure) have on these individuals? Are they lost to the service? Is there not some room for improvement in the initial selection process?

[jpk]

Up front let me say that this obviously works for the marines (and that's really all that counts).

My initial focus was upon the initial pre-course selection process because it is the quality of which informs as to how many (what percentage) pass in the end. The attrition rate I experienced was similar to the 50% you speak of. I am now questioning this in the light of the quality of the initial pre-course selection process.

What happens to the 50% who fail? What is the cost of training those who don't make it? What psychological impact does this (largely avoidable failure) have on these individuals? Are they lost to the service? Is there not some room for improvement in the initial selection process?

Initial selection is... not very valuable. It certainly dismays those who are not determined (it takes about a year from the day you walk into a recruiters office to OCS), but leadership cannot be screened for.
My OCS class started with 128, only 87 commissioned as 2lt's. Many of those would did not make it went to good schools, got good grades had fine jobs ect.
Our distinguished leader grad failed out of college the first time and finished at some tec school no one has never heard of. But I would follow him into anything. That just goes to prove being a leader is completely different than the resume padding kids do now a days.
I have a masters in Middle eastern studies and know arabic, does that make me a good officer? No. Does charisma matter? No.
IMHO It all comes down to two things. 1st. I am willing to suffer for those around me. 2nd can I make the hard decision at the right time.
Few have it. After 12 weeks you know who do.

Now to adress your other question, what happens to those who fail. In most cases you get recycled and can class up with another company. Some chapter out of the army, some go AIT. If you cannot get through OCS the second time you need to be let go. It is just not that hard of a course. I am sure it is crushing to fail.

The Initial selection needs to be tighter. But by what metrics?

Also think of the needs of the Army - does that reserve quartermaster need to be a stud?

[JMA]

Some friendly questions for clarity... not to be seen as provocative please.

Initial selection is... not very valuable.

Lets call it initial pre-course selection.

This is my point of this thread. IMHO it should be valuable. Otherwise you waste time, money and effort on people who have no chance of making it.

It certainly dismays those who are not determined (it takes about a year from the day you walk into a recruiters office to OCS),...

That then is a self inflicted wound. Why not put them through a normal recruits course and then some time with the trained soldiers (while waiting for OCS)... and maybe a quick trip to the rockpile? (You learn a lot about a person by observing him under fire)

... but leadership cannot be screened for.

Not sure about that. Maybe not if all one has to go on are reports school teachers etc. I believe the idea of the Brit AOSB is to create situations where the leadership ability and or potential of candidates can be observed. (See Youtube videos posted above in post #4 to this thread)

My OCS class started with 128, only 87 commissioned as 2lt's. Many of those would did not make it went to good schools, got good grades had fine jobs ect.
Our distinguished leader grad failed out of college the first time and finished at some tec school no one has never heard of. But I would follow him into anything. That just goes to prove being a leader is completely different than the resume padding kids do now a days.
I have a masters in Middle eastern studies and know arabic, does that make me a good officer? No. Does charisma matter? No.
IMHO It all comes down to two things. 1st. I am willing to suffer for those around me. 2nd can I make the hard decision at the right time.
Few have it. After 12 weeks you know who do.

Now to adress your other question, what happens to those who fail. In most cases you get recycled and can class up with another company. Some chapter out of the army, some go AIT. If you cannot get through OCS the second time you need to be let go. It is just not that hard of a course. I am sure it is crushing to fail.

30 odd years ago this would not have caused me to raise an eyebrow.

But now consider this. That a third failed would indicate that the initial selection could be improved, yes? This third indicates a wate of time, money and effort IMHO.

Well as to the academic qualifcations. How much is enough? I would settle for a set minimum standard for acceptance. The same for the physical. He/she either can or they can't... a pass or fail situation. Has he/she met the academic requirements? And more than the requirement is a bonus. Is he/she pshysically able to carry out the duties of an officer? Any bigger, stronger, fitter is a bonus.

That said I question the 60:30:10 breakdown of the 'whole person' grading sustem. In my humble opinion the academic (60%) and the physical (10%) should be pass or fail. I would also question the vality of the 30% allocated to leadership potential as measured by high school sports participation and high school teacher recommendations.

So what I am suggesting is that phase on is to ascertain whether he/she meets the academic and physical standards required. If yes then a process run by the military (like the Brit AOSB) should select for leadership potential as a second stage. Proof positive of leadership qualities are essential if the candidate is to progress to the training IMHO.

The Initial selection needs to be tighter. But by what metrics?

Think I have covered that above.

Also think of the needs of the Army - does that reserve quartermaster need to be a stud?

You get your reserve quartermasters out of direct entry OCS courses?

I would have thought that the best candidates for this type of position would be seasoned and experienced NCOs with 15 plus years of experience, yes?
(T&A Commissions (technical and administrative) are/were a Brit method of promoting NCOs with the ability, service and experience from warrant officer to commissioned officer. Worked well.)

[Pete]

I believe there is a series of U.S. Army Regulations that describe the proccesses and steps required to be selected for pre-commissioning training. I'm positive that they spell out in very specific detail what is required, be it for USMA, ROTC, or OCS. For a select few there are also direct commissions and battlefield commissions.

There is a smoke-in-the-wind aspect about this thread about what should be or could be, rather than what is. Check the regulations and see what they say.

By and large our personnel system is set up for rapid mobilization during times of national (or Personnel Command numbers-crunch) emergency, not for a more methodical selection process during peacetime or low-intensity war. Perhaps in a better world there could be a greater depth of analysis the lower the threat level to the country is. Even then it's a crap-shoot because sometimes the maniacs with obvious flaws make better combat leaders than their more restrained and low-key peers.

NCO Promotion Boards have been known to reject guys who never received an Article 15, like they must be rule-abiding sissies, wimps or something worse. No guts no glory.

[JMA]

I stated in post #7 to this thread:

..., I am still not sure why there is a need for a degree before commissioning when there is plenty of time in a 25-30 year career to take three or so years for the purpose (around the senior Capt/Maj level for the infantry). Too much time and money (again IMHO) is invested in training of officers the majority of whom (it seems) will leave the service before they have justified the initial expense.

It seems from the private messages and off board conversations I have had recently that this remains and issue.

One normally serves 15-20 years from commissioning to Lt Col. There is sufficient time there to fit in a degree and the command and staff course.

My contention is that it is not just a question of a degree but what degree that is important and this must be in the hands of the military.

I would suggest that the academic equivalent of a military MBA must be considered and take place over two years and must be completed before promotion to Lt Col. Probably the best time is after the age of 30.

Initial officer selection can accept SAT/ACT results. This is all that is needed to assess future likelihood of academic success. It is a pass or a fail.

To go a step further the same should apply to the physical assessment at initial selection. A pass or a fail. It is ridiculous to believe that a stronger man will make a better officer than one of adequate physical ability.

Also when the physical and the academic are weighted it tends to diminish the importance of leadership qualities that are required and need to be selected for. The leadership qualities requirement should be absolute and not part of a balancing act with weighted scores from SATS/ACT results and a physical rating.

Sadly the US seems to have bought into the 'whole person' stuff when selecting potential officers.

From the document OFFICER SELECTION (RTO HFM 023 – RSG 31):

All three service academies use the “whole person” concept for evaluating applicants. At West Point, a “whole person score” (WPS) is derived from weighting three factors: academic aptitude, which combines SAT or ACT scores with high school rank (60 percent); leadership potential, which is estimated from athletic participation in high school and high school teacher recommendations (30 percent); and physical aptitude, which is measured with the Academy’s Physical Aptitude Examination (10 percent).

What seems bizarre is that the most crucial aspect being the leadership potential is relegated to a mere 30% and based on a school teachers assessment. Can't be right can it?

[SethB]

What happens to the 50% who fail?

They go home. As do those that are selected but decline a commission, which is different than the Army, where those who don't graduate often end up being assigned to an enlisted job according to the needs of the Army.

What is the cost of training those who don't make it?

Cheap. In comparison to training them. USMA spends $400,000-$800,000 and has no selection mechanism aside from the admissions process. OCS costs a fraction of that.

What psychological impact does this (largely avoidable failure) have on these individuals? Are they lost to the service? Is there not some room for improvement in the initial selection process?

I'm not worried about those that aren't selected as much as I am getting the best.

Leadership isn't the thing to focus on. Integrity, intestinal fortitude and team playing are very important.

When I went through Army OCS, we has a student 1SG who reported a cadre member to the 1SG for the heinous crime of allowing them off a punishment detail early.

When asked why, he smiled and said "because I intend to get an Excellence [rating]."

That, right there, is an example of someone who has the wrong motivations. Had he ignored the situation to help his colleagues I could respect his decision. Had he told the 1SG in the interest of consistency, fairness, discipline or upholding the standard, I could agree. But those that are motivated for personal profit cannot be taught to be good leaders.

[JMA]

They go home. As do those that are selected but decline a commission, which is different than the Army, where those who don't graduate often end up being assigned to an enlisted job according to the needs of the Army.

I'm not sure of the total number involved here. But looking back it seems such a waste to squander to the opportunity to accommodate young people who had at one point significant interest in a carreer in the services.

I question as I did with the current Brit system why they are commissioned before they are fully trained and ready to command a platoon in battle. The Brits do the AOSB as a pre-course initial selection (over a total of 6 days) followed by the Officers Course of 48 weeks when they are commissioned and then attend the 16 week Platoon Commanders Battle Course after which they are posted to their units and take command of their platoons. Although 80% plus of cadets who start the Officers Course are graduates it is not a requirement prior to commisssioning. (Red Rat correct me here if necessary).

Why not hold back the commissions until after the successful completion of the 16 week Platoon Commanders Battle Course (to allow for those who perform poorly to exit out the side door).

My approach to the academic is that the military needs control over what degree courses are taken and indeed what lines of study are beneficial to the military and the officers carreer. The only value I can see in the requirement for a degree before commissioning is that the officers at platoon level will be a few years older and perhaps more mature. I would argue that it would be better to take the kids in young and raw and blood them. Once the settling has taken place where the service likes what it sees and believes there is a future for the individual and the individual wants to stay in the servive then the service can invest in his/her future by sending them to university. (I would suggest that in the case of those who it is apparrent do not have a carreer beyond major that they too can be released to go to college to get a suitable qualification for their futures)

Back to the point. As time passes I am less supportive of the approach where volunteers (for officer training or special units etc) are sucked in and then spat out if they don't make the grade. I am the first one to insist that standards be maintained but I do believe that the methods need to be refined and be honourable in all respects.

Cheap. In comparison to training them. USMA spends $400,000-$800,000 and has no selection mechanism aside from the admissions process. OCS costs a fraction of that.

It seems the USMA is a different kettle of fish altogether. So I don't necessarily agree with the "well we waste less money than they do" approach. Waste is waste and better (more thorough) initial pre-course selection will reduce that.

I'm not worried about those that aren't selected as much as I am getting the best.

The end result is critical but the method of arriving there can be finnessed to get the best without treating the rest like sh*t. Should be the natural approach of an officer, yes?

Leadership isn't the thing to focus on. Integrity, intestinal fortitude and team playing are very important.

Al Capone and many of his mates had proven leadership skills but probably little integrity. I suggest that leadership is the most important aspect. Find out who those are who have it and then filter out those lacking in the moral behaviour and judgement needed in the service (this does not apply only to officers). The papaer Research and Study Group 31 - Officer Selection contains a good piece about the real leadership required by officers. Worth a read to see if we are on the same page on this.

When I went through Army OCS, we has a student 1SG who reported a cadre member to the 1SG for the heinous crime of allowing them off a punishment detail early.

When asked why, he smiled and said "because I intend to get an Excellence [rating]."

That, right there, is an example of someone who has the wrong motivations. Had he ignored the situation to help his colleagues I could respect his decision. Had he told the 1SG in the interest of consistency, fairness, discipline or upholding the standard, I could agree. But those that are motivated for personal profit cannot be taught to be good leaders.

There is a line between honesty and responsibility and being a f**king snitch. I can't believe that this sort behaviour is encouraged in the US services. I will confront a person personally and individually if I believe his out of line but will never run to the teacher with tattle tails. Man, the thought of this makes me want to throw-up.