Many Army officers being cut are prior enlisted

[MillCreek]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/us/cuts-in-military-mean-job-losses-for-career-staff.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Army officers who were prior enlisted are being cut at a higher rate than West Point graduates.

[MechAg94]

Maybe that tells you who is picking the names?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

No surprise. Ring knockers take care of each other


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[roo_ster]

No surprise. Ring knockers take care of each other

This.

[Scout26]

The WPPA takes care of its own.

[wmenorr67]

Hell some of these officers should be offered a chance to stay in as an enlisted Soldier.  My question is why is just the Army we are hearing about with all these cuts?  I feel that every branch should take an equal hit percentage wise.

[roo_ster]

For my own part, I would suggest we need an officer corps of a size that the proportion of officers to enlisted was similar to that of the Wehrmacht in WWII.

Do we really need 3rd-rate brass toting oxygen thief gentlemen-by-act-of-congrerss pushing duh-versity, enviro, and various & sundry non-mission-pertinent paper around?  IIRC, that is the domain of the original "staff" sergeants.  Before staff sergeant became just another way of saying "E-6."

[Hawkmoon]

“They needed us to fight the Taliban,” Captain Allen said. “Now they don’t, so they pull the rug out from under us. Loyalty here seems like a one-way street.”

As always, follow the money. Just like any large corporation trying to squeeze as much money as possible out of the workforce, the Army has figured out they can save a lot of money by forcibly retiring these "mustangers" before they have enough time in grade to qualify for an officer's pension. What I don't understand is why a captain being forced to retire doesn't at least get a lieutenant's pension. Do prior enlisteds who go to OCS and become officers now get commissioned directly as captains? That's not the way it worked when I was in (back shortly after the glaciers retreated from North America).

So the Army requires a mustanger to have been an officer for eight YEARS before he/she qualifies for an officer's pension? That's just plain wrong.

[erictank]

As always, follow the money. Just like any large corporation trying to squeeze as much money as possible out of the workforce, the Army has figured out they can save a lot of money by forcibly retiring these "mustangers" before they have enough time in grade to qualify for an officer's pension. What I don't understand is why a captain being forced to retire doesn't at least get a lieutenant's pension. Do prior enlisteds who go to OCS and become officers now get commissioned directly as captains? That's not the way it worked when I was in (back shortly after the glaciers retreated from North America).

So the Army requires a mustanger to have been an officer for eight YEARS before he/she qualifies for an officer's pension? That's just plain wrong.

Don't want some prole to become an officer for his last 1-2 years of service and draw that officer's pension, don'cha know...

[wmenorr67]

Back in 90 when there was a draw down of forces and officers were being cut, I witnessed a good officer get RIF'ed over a piece of *expletive deleted*it.  They were both in our company and the one that everyone respected and did the job was being cut.  Not sure why he was chosen over the one everyone disliked and had no respect for, including the CO, got to stay.

[Hawkmoon]

Don't want some prole to become an officer for his last 1-2 years of service and draw that officer's pension, don'cha know...

Yeah, but we allow people to attend our service academies (West Point, Annapolis, the Air Force Academy) on the taxpayers' dime, and in exchange for just four (??) years of active duty they get a free education that qualifies them for good jobs in the private sector, along with the intangible credential of being a West Pointer or Annapolis grad. How fair is that? Yes, I know they don't get a pension if they leave after just four years, but they get compensated in multiple other ways.

[T.O.M.]

Yeah, but we allow people to attend our service academies (West Point, Annapolis, the Air Force Academy) on the taxpayers' dime, and in exchange for just four (??) years of active duty they get a free education that qualifies them for good jobs in the private sector, along with the intangible credential of being a West Pointer or Annapolis grad. How fair is that? Yes, I know they don't get a pension if they leave after just four years, but they get compensated in multiple other ways.

5 years active, plus a 5 year IRR commitment. 

I would agree that there is something that goes along with the ring, but really no more than any respected college.  And, honestly, within the Army, the ring is often viewed as a negative until an officer proves otherwise.  Why?  A lot or arrogant a$$es earn a ring.  In my case, my saving grace was that I grew up around a lot of non-coms and ROTC and OCS officers, so I had a different attitude going in that stuck with me.  Which helped overcome the ring handicap.

Chris, USMA Class of 91

[Scout26]

At first I thought that it might be the Reserve vs Regular Army Commission issue, but apparently the NDAA in 2005 gave every officer an RA commission.

The only other differences might:

A) The one mentioned in the article, in which former enlisted are good at the tactical (Platoon and Company) level.  While those from West Point and the other military schools (Norwich, VMI, The Citadel, Texas A&M) are better prepared/trained for the operational and strategic levels.  

B) O-1 through O-3 (2LT- Captains) who have more then 4 years enlisted are paid a higher amount then officer who are not prior enlisted.   Which means they would retire at a higher amount.

C) They are in career fields that are "less" needed now that wars are winding down.   Military Intelligence, Signal, Civil Affairs, MP's, Logistics.  All the Combat Support and Combat Service Support arms will need much fewer officers and they shrink brigades and try to hold onto Combat Arms Officers.

[wmenorr67]

At first I thought that it might be the Reserve vs Regular Army Commission issue, but apparently the NDAA in 2005 gave every officer an RA commission.

The only other differences might:

A) The one mentioned in the article, in which former enlisted are good at the tactical (Platoon and Company) level.  While those from West Point and the other military schools (Norwich, VMI, The Citadel, Texas A&M) are better prepared/trained for the operational and strategic levels.  

B) O-1 through O-3 (2LT- Captains) who have more then 4 years enlisted are paid a higher amount then officer who are not prior enlisted.   Which means they would retire at a higher amount.

C) They are in career fields that are "less" needed now that wars are winding down.   Military Intelligence, Signal, Civil Affairs, MP's, Logistics.  All the Combat Support and Combat Service Support arms will need much fewer officers and they shrink brigades and try to hold onto Combat Arms Officers.

And you will know as they cut those specific branches, especially MI and Signal, when they are needed again it will be a bitch to get anyone into those branches.

I have known a couple of West Point grads and one that sticks in my mind the most was/is a damn fine officer and would follow him into battle if the need arises.  The Guard side usually will have most of their officers being prior enlisted who have gone the OCS route or ROTC.