Leadership course for new lieutenants nixed

[CommunityEditor]

A program designed to immerse new lieutenants in basic soldiering skills has come to an end less than four years after it began.

Basic Officer Leadership Course II, known as BOLC II, began in June 2006 as a sort of basic training for lieutenants before they were shipped to their officer basic courses.

The shortages of captains and majors that have kept units from manning their officer billets at 100 percent forced the Army to look at how it was moving lieutenants through the pipeline.

BOLC II kept as many as 8,000 second lieutenants in some sort of basic officer training at any given time. The six-week course was creating a bottleneck and keeping the Army’s youngest officers from getting to their branch training and first units of assignment without long delays.

Instead of BOLC II — now given only at Fort Benning, Ga., and Fort Sill, Okla. — the lieutenants will move straight from their commissioning source to their branch training, at the end of which they will receive about three weeks of training in basic soldiering skills.

It will be known as BOLC B, and is a return to the way it was done before BOLC II was established.

“Moving the lieutenants along more quickly was a key driver,” said Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, commander of Initial Military Training. Hertling was assigned to the new position under Training and Doctrine Command in September and is charged with managing the training of soldiers and officers from their first day in the Army until their first unit assignment.

The changes he outlined for BOLC II foreshadow some of his other initiatives, such as the possible elimination of several tasks that have been added to basic training for enlisted soldiers since the war in Iraq kicked off in 2003.

As the wars overseas intensified, BOLC II was seen as the answer to training all new officers in core soldier skills in a course that was branch-immaterial, and similar programs aimed at immersing new soldiers in warrior skills were implemented for enlisted troops, too.

“It was somewhat of a reaction to some things that happened in the early days of the conflict that I’m not sure were appropriately applied in terms of a leader development model,” Hertling said. “There was some good intention behind it, but I think because of other factors it’s time to move on and get folks back to their basic branch courses, and that’s what we’re doing.”

The program of instruction for BOLC II was based on a list of tasks and drills, some of which were found to be redundant or are trained at the first unit of assignment. Seven of those tasks will be migrated to BOLC B and taught within each of the basic-branch skills, adding between 70 and 90 hours to those courses, which vary in length.

“We’ve taken the lessons learned out of BOLC II and applied them to other branches, Hertling said.

A plan is taking shape to add the training to the leader development of warrant officers. Hertling calls them “soldierization tasks”:

• Basic rifle marksmanship

• Land navigation, day and night.

• 20 hours of combatives.

• Small-unit tactics, techniques and procedures.

• Leading a tactical convoy.

• A common course on sexual assault response and prevention.

• Equal opportunity course.

The sexual assault and EO courses had migrated to BOLC II and were expanded to take into account that lieutenants from combat arms branches, where there are no women assigned, and those from other branches that have women, would be trained together.

Hertling said he wants to make sure that all lieutenants continue to get the same expanded course.

Students in the last BOLC II classes graduate Dec. 17 at Fort Benning, and Dec. 19 at Fort Sill.

“Now, a lieutenant who would have been at Fort Sill for 23 weeks will spend 19 weeks in training so the Army’s getting four weeks back,” said Col. John Fant, commander of 428th Field Artillery Brigade at Fort Sill.

Fant pointed out that for lieutenants in the combat arms branches, learning the soldier tasks won’t be that different from before, but it will help combat support and combat service support branches get trained in those tasks during their officer basic training.


Article: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/12/army_leadership_training_121409w/

[GOARMY06]

I'm a bit nervous with how my class is going to be received when we get to our units.

They nixed hand grenades and BRM at LDAC, things I think are basic Soldier skills (don't worry, most cadets have still gone through BRM at one point or another). A bit concerning, especially with BOLC II also being eliminated.

I've heard BOLC II is all but a joke from 2LT's who have been there, but I'm a bit concerned about being under prepared for leading my Soldiers.

[MCGYVER]

Don't worry, just listen to, trust, defend and respect your NCO's and they will not let you fail.

[Gold_Reaper]

BOLC II was a great course. Granted the curriculum was so-so, it gave LTs a chance to meet other LTs from other branches and have fun in Georgia or Oklahoma for 2 months. I know I had a helluva time at BOLC II and I met a lot of great people.

With that being said, I waited 2 months to go to the course, went to the course, then waited another month for my OBC class to start. So instead of fixing the bottleneck problem by re-aligning the way we send LTs to school, they completely eliminated BOLC II, which will only create another problem, a bottleneck at OBC because they can't regulate class size fast enough because the flow of LTs are arriving too quickly.

But what the hell do I know? :D

[MADAMESINCERE]

They should just redo or extend LDAC and call it a day.

[ChiefB]

I'm a bit nervous with how my class is going to be received when we get to our units.

They nixed hand grenades and BRM at LDAC, things I think are basic Soldier skills (don't worry, most cadets have still gone through BRM at one point or another). A bit concerning, especially with BOLC II also being eliminated.

I've heard BOLC II is all but a joke from 2LT's who have been there, but I'm a bit concerned about being under prepared for leading my Soldiers.

LT: I'd be interested to hear what instruction you got on how to relate to, understand and support your Jr. and Sr NCOs and what to expect of them.

You got time?

Merry Christmas

ChiefB

[geovix]

I'm a bit nervous with how my class is going to be received when we get to our units.

They nixed hand grenades and BRM at LDAC, things I think are basic Soldier skills (don't worry, most cadets have still gone through BRM at one point or another). A bit concerning, especially with BOLC II also being eliminated.

I've heard BOLC II is all but a joke from 2LT's who have been there, but I'm a bit concerned about being under prepared for leading my Soldiers.

BOLC II was a joke. If you ask any LT that has come from there, they'll tell you the same. If you could pass LDAC, BOLC II was unecessary. Throwing hand grenades doesn't make you a leader. Being a good marksman also doesn't make you a good leader (but it does help show your platoon technical skill).

Fix for the marksmanship: all BRM can do for you is improve your shooting. Buy yourself a Ruger 10/22 and go to a range in your area, and teach yourself shooting by just shooting (500 rounds is maybe 15 bucks). It's the same concepts and will help you in the long run.

As for reception, no one cares where you came from. Not a single person. Most enlisted don't even know where officers come from, much less what BOLC is or stands for. In fact, if you said nothing, they wouldn't know the difference.

Did you do well at LDAC? Then you'll do fine with your platoon. Just hope you don't get a douche PSG.

[geovix]

I'm a bit nervous with how my class is going to be received when we get to our units.

They nixed hand grenades and BRM at LDAC, things I think are basic Soldier skills (don't worry, most cadets have still gone through BRM at one point or another). A bit concerning, especially with BOLC II also being eliminated.

I've heard BOLC II is all but a joke from 2LT's who have been there, but I'm a bit concerned about being under prepared for leading my Soldiers.

BOLC II was a joke. If you ask any LT that has come from there, they'll tell you the same. If you could pass LDAC, BOLC II was unecessary. Throwing hand grenades doesn't make you a leader. Being a good marksman also doesn't make you a good leader (but it does help show your platoon technical skill).

Fix for the marksmanship: all BRM can do for you is improve your shooting. Buy yourself a Ruger 10/22 and go to a range in your area, and teach yourself shooting by just shooting (500 rounds is maybe 15 bucks). It's the same concepts and will help you in the long run.

As for reception, no one cares where you came from. Not a single person. Most enlisted don't even know where officers come from, much less what BOLC is or stands for. In fact, if you said nothing, they wouldn't know the difference.

Did you do well at LDAC? Then you'll do fine with your platoon. Just hope you don't get a difficult PSG.

[GOARMY06]

LT: I'd be interested to hear what instruction you got on how to relate to, understand and support your Jr. and Sr NCOs and what to expect of them.

You got time?

Merry Christmas

ChiefB

Chief

If I get another class on NCOERS, I might just quit!

In all seriousness, I've heard two schools of thought regarding NCOs

The first is that you (the PL) are the leader, and its your job to oversee the operations of the day while your NCOs and your soldiers execute. There's "NCO business" and "Officer business"

The second is that there is no NCO business, there's leadership business. That sounds really moto, but I'm sure you understand. My brother being an NCO in the Marine Corps tends to not agree with this as much.

I'm sure there's a ton of gray area in between, much of which has to do with the personal actions of the officer themselves. Any input would be appreciated. I'm still a wide eyed cadet, but I'm looking forward to working with Soldiers and NCOs and learning how to best do just that before I get there.

[MCGYVER]

GoArmy06, I know you weren't asking me but I'll offer my 2 cents.

The best damn Officers I ever had were prior enlisted (Mustangs) who had been there, done that, got the t-shirt and sold it at the thrift shop. The more rank they had before going "rogue" the better (usually but not always) leader they were. There are bad NCO's just as there are bad Officers, enlisted, etc. You will know the difference in short order. There IS such thing as NCO business. Leave it alone. Know your role and watch YOUR lane. Trust your NCO's because if you don't they'll know it, won't trust you and will resent you while setting you up for failure. You can be the boss just don't micromanage the guys that butter your bread for you. Accept the fact that you know more about leadership than about how to get shit done. You make the decisions but we execute.

Just my humble opinion.

[geovix]

You can learn all you want about leadership but in the end it's about knowing the people you are in charge of. In all great leaders, that is the one common denominator. Everything else is bullshit and honestly, I think you've hit the point of overthinking it. Do what you think is right, in the best interests of your soldiers, and you won't go wrong. Also, I've heard it a hundred times from NCOs about their business and their lane. And I'll leave you with this: everything the platoon does, success or failure, is your ultimate responsibility. Think about that when you're told to stay in your lane.

[MCGYVER]

True respect is earned, not mandated. For your NCO's and Soldiers to truly respect and take care of you they must KNOW that you trust them AND respect their knowledge, abilities and experience. If they feel micromanaged they will NOT perform to standard for you.

The first step in assuming any leadership position is assessing the strengths and weaknesses of your subordinates. Once you've honestly done this you will see which NCO's can be trusted and who embody the NCO Creed. I've had dozens of LT's and the one common demoninator is aprehension/nervousness. Some of my former LT's were good, some were shitbags. Accept that you are the brains of the outfit, don't attempt to be the brawn. That is anothers role.

Don't buy into the current philosophy of having to know EVERYTHING that is happening in your Platoon. Think about it for a minute. Wouldn't that mean that a BN or BDE Commander should know EVERYTHING that is happening in his BN or BDE? Not possible and not necessary. Another (albeit a bit extreme) example would be Bill Gates knowing all his employees first names off the top of his head or how many editions of Windows 7 sold in Utah last month.

Final thought for the day: The vast majority of Officers that you'll get advice from (on this forum) are quite likely to have retired (or are about to) as Majors.

Just my humble opinion but it's gotten me through two combat tours in Iraq as a Platoon Sergeant with no lives lost (one PH for a minor flesh wound from an IED)

[ABNDADDY]

Spent 3 yrs enlisted before changing over and nothing I did prepared me to be an officer except the relationship building and respect. Although I came through long before this BOLC II fiasco, I agree that it is a waste of time. Wrap the skills to be taught into BOLC III (OBC) and combine it with the BNCOC and ANCOC (ALC or whatever it is called now), do a collective two week exercise. This will get the fresh out of college LTs a first crack at dealing with the Backbone and allow the "seasoned or from the ranks" LT an opportunity to begin to figure where he/she will allow their experience to fit into the officer ranks. Look at the Log Warrior model from Fort Lee.

[ChiefB]

Chief

If I get another class on NCOERS, I might just quit!

In all seriousness, I've heard two schools of thought regarding NCOs

The first is that you (the PL) are the leader, and its your job to oversee the operations of the day while your NCOs and your soldiers execute. There's "NCO business" and "Officer business"

The second is that there is no NCO business, there's leadership business. That sounds really moto, but I'm sure you understand. My brother being an NCO in the Marine Corps tends to not agree with this as much.

I'm sure there's a ton of gray area in between, much of which has to do with the personal actions of the officer themselves. Any input would be appreciated. I'm still a wide eyed cadet, but I'm looking forward to working with Soldiers and NCOs and learning how to best do just that before I get there.

Lt. For us to get any idea where you are in your preparedness to be a leader of men, (the most important job you will ever have in your career) try to answer this question. Keeping in mind, we are not interested in what some friend, buddy or aquaintance told you. We are looking for what the "Man" is telling you. Or is that a "training secret you can't devulge?

"I'd be interested to hear what instruction you got on how to relate to, understand and support your Jr. and Sr NCOs and what to expect of them."

ChiefB

[MSMUROTC]

I'm in the middle of a reserve component's captain's course. They have videos in there that are like the interactive suicide videos we had all had to do, the "choose your own adventure" thing.

A couple of times, the message was basically don't trust your NCO's. Like this one time (this is all in the video scenario), this squad leader is having family issues. Letting it remain "NCO business" results in the guy missing deployment, making the PL get involved with quizzing the guy (in the scenario he was a prior service LT, but still) is the right answer. There was also a lot of NCO's doing "bad things", i.e. hiding extra equipment in conexes, not properly maintaining vehicles, etc. There wasn't a whole lot of NCO's being trustworthy, honest, etc.

That being said, I don't just trust someone completely because of their rank. I'll trust an E-7 more than an E-4, but I won't trust an E-7 as blindly as I think some are suggesting officers should. It's a two way street. I am sure most E-7's wouldn't sign off on blindly following a company commander on day one.

My philosophy: You micromanage a bit at the beginning, and communicate that you're not doing it because you don't trust them but that you don't know them, and then you increasingly let up on the reins, until you let go completely OR up to the point where someone fails a mission.

I'm VERY willing to accept garrison failure (most of the Army isn't) because that's how you gauge how someone is trustworthy. I don't have enough hours in my day to do everyone else's job, so I want to NOT micromanage someone 24-7, but they don't just get that freedom on day one just because they're an E-7.

[MCGYVER]

I saw those F'd up videos in SLC (ANCOC) and they were obviously written, produced and directed by some cherry LT's or cadets at west point. Talk about setting a young officer up for failure! Those videos are to reality what Velveeta is to cheese. They set the completely wrong tone from the get go. The only purpose of those videos (that I could find) is to more clearly delineate the line between Officer and NCO and make neither "trust" the other. Like the one with the commander that finds some spare parts in the trash bin and makes the platoon leaders dig throug them (if I remember correctly). Then the LT who was habitually late and barely in regulations with his uniform/hair. Those videos don't offer a true reflection of the force and insult the intelligence of all involved. Have whatever philosophy you like but if you micromanage your NCO's they will let you reap what you sow.

[MSMUROTC]

I agree with you. If you constantly micromanage your subordinates, they will eventually chafe under it and set you up for failure / you will end up doing their jobs for them.

But just how I don't think you would blindly follow the word of a new CO, I don't think it's good business to blindly let PSGs run amok. I guess it depends on your personal experiences how viscerally unpleasant the word "micromanaging" is to you, but to me, the ideal is being able to give someone a task with no conditions and standards and know it'll be done perfectly, or realizing that you don't have to "follow up" with someone to know that something's been taken care of. The first two or three times that you give out explicit conditions and standards and it's done perfectly, you realize you don't have to do it anymore. The two or three times you follow up and something's been taken care of, you realize you don't have to do that anymore.

Obviously, you'll get to know your NCO's very well over the course of several weeks and you can start to trust them, let them have free rein. I don't think any NCO would blame a new commander for being a bit of a tight-ass for the first month or two of command. And there are certain show-stopper issues that every higher command has that officers need to get involved in, even if they'd rather not (let's say, for argument's sake, drinking in the barracks).

Ultimately, the officers in a unit are held responsible for everything that does or doesn't happen in that unit, even if the NCO's don't see that (and they shouldn't, that's "officer business.") You can't just go somewhere and mortgage your career on someone just because they hold a certain rank. You wouldn't do it either.

[MSMUROTC]

But to get back on topic, the "official" professional development doctrine that the Army has seems to have the over-arching message of "don't trust NCO's." Not explicitly, but in the little ways I mentioned above.

However, any human being instructors I've ever had don't spread that message.

[MCGYVER]

I can accept and understand a new Commander taking a vested interest in most aspects of his unit for the break in period. I don't equate that to micromanaging. Micromanaging is telling someone WHAT to do, HOW to do it, in what specific order and watching over their shoulder the whole time they are doing it while offering a running commentary/criticism of their efforts (in a nutshell). Give them the mission, observe (from a distance), take notes, assess the outcome, do an AAR (if necessary), have them do it again (if time allows and it is necessary). Just my humble opinion.

[MSMUROTC]

Yea, but there are "glass balls" and "rubber balls". Things you can drop and will be fine, or things you can drop and will break. Some people have a waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too expansive view of what can't be allowed to fail, usually related to slideshows, spreadsheets, and mandatory briefings.

Personally, I don't have enough hours in my day to do my job and someone else's. And I'm a hater and I love seeing people fail because no one really learns from micromanagement, but people sure as shit learn when they mess something up.

The problem is that everyone treats everything like it is / directly analogous to a combat situation. You forgot your coat on the bus / forgot to submit the slideshow by 1600 doesn't equal you just got your whole platoon killed.

[Gold_Reaper]

Ultimately, the officers in a unit are held responsible for everything that does or doesn't happen in that unit

Quoted for truth. This is what a lot of NCOs fail to understand. Many complain about not having enough C2, but when they are granted C2, many abuse it and cause nothing but heartache for the Commander. Abuse of power, destroying morale for the sake of being on a power trip and inconsistent discipline are all problems that I've experienced, and promptly fixed by making it a point to let my NCOs who was in charge. They complained and whined for a little bit, but once they realized that they could either go out the window or down the stairs, they saw it my way and we CM without any issues. As a matter of fact, we were VERY successful down range and we maintain a very good relationship today.

I do not condone downplaying the role of the NCO in the Army. NCOs are critical to mission success. However, it's also critical that they realize that the PL/OIC/CDR is ultimately responsible. This isn't a huge problem at Company Level as much from my experience, but it is a HUGE problem in smaller units such as platoons, detachments, and staff sections.

I always tell my guys that I give a damn about your career and I want to ensure your success. So please, give a damn about mine. Execute the mission, take care of our soldiers, and maintain high morale. So far, those priorities have made any mission I've been involved in a success.

[ChiefB]

The following notes are learned by all good leaders in their careers, most senior NCOs/Officers are thoroughly familiar with these precepts.
They should be in core teachings of all junior officers. Successful leaders will know them intimately.

Some may seem trite or intuitively obvious but you would be surprised how many young leaders fail to adhere to the simplest of them:

Morale is not a leadership quality, it is the final result of your leadership.

Trust your men but verify their actions. Trust until proven otherwise.

A promise broke is a leadership lie.

"We'll see", is a lame, non-comittal, indecisive, avoidance of a decision.

Lead by your example, your actions will always be watched very closely.

Know and believe that the experience and expertise of others does count and requires your consideration.

Know that a soldier will follow you through hell, if he respects you for the way you treat your men and knows that when the chips are down, you have his back, even it it means you put yourself in jeopardy.

A soldier can instantly detect deception, false promises and failure to assume blame or responsibility.

A soldier expects to see you learn, improve, make mistakes and grow as an officer.

A soldier wants to be proud of you. He does not want to see you embarassed or hurt by his actions.

A soldier wants you to be proud of him, to earn your trust and faith in his abilities.

A soldier will be forever scarred by admonishment in public. Once he loses face he will spend inordinate time and resources in retrieving his reputation. Sometimes his methods will be detrimental to your command.

Taking a soldier aside to complement him or give a "well done" is a wasted opportunity to show your "better side" to others.

Affinity with "peers" will always compete with and sometime trump loyalty to leadership. A leader's ability to recognize this "group" trait and to deal with it, fairly and without offense, is one of the trickier leadership tasks you will be faced with.

Treating a minor complaint as "petty" will always result in diminishing your worthiness as a problem solver.

Showing open favoritism will always result in resentment by others.

Remaining "distant" will breed contempt.

Too much familiarity will undermine your authority.

Failure to enforce standards and traditions will breed insubordination and distain.

Visible or verbal distain or distrust of your NCOs will undermine your leadership, trust and respect qualities throughout the ranks.

Failure to delegate authority and responsibility will always be interpreted as lack of trust and micromanagement.

Taking credit for other's actions, without attribution, will foster contempt.

One leadership "aw shyt" will cancel out ten performance "attaboys".

Bitching is a soldier's inherent right, insubordination is never right.

Courage in all you do is one of the most admired attributes of a leader.

Just sayin'

ChiefB

[MCGYVER]

Gold Reaper, I understand what you are tyring to say but just have to add a few points;

"most" NCO's FULLY know and understand this
there are so many factors that affect any situation that they can rarely be boiled down to pure cause/effect
if a team fails their officer will be called into the "man's" office and the conversation will go something like the following:
CDR - "Joe, your guys really fucked up this time, they weren't ready for the inspection at all"
PL - "I know sir, I am very disappointed, I gave them specific instructions on what was supposed to happen"
CDR - "well, this one gave us a real black eye in front of the light colonel, he's pissed"
PL - "yeah, I chewed my NCO's asses and I don't think it will happen again"
CDR - "you have to watch these soldiers joe, they aren't very smart or reliable, you have to check everything they do
PL - "roger sir, I'll make sure I do that from now on"
CDR - "okay, your platoon really wasn't any different from any other, we just need to use some tactics to try and motivate the rest of the company to raise the bar a bit, "wink"
PL - "oh, okay then, now it makes sense
CDR - "there's always a method to my madness joe, remember that when you take command
PL - "that explains why the BN CDR seemed genuinely impressed"
CDR - "right but we don't want the guys to get complacent or lazy"
PL - "okay then, sounds like a good idea"
CDR - "we still on for golf tomorrow morning?"
PL - "roger that, got us a 0800 tee time"
*Fist bump*

Personality more than ability AFFECTS an OER
who's your daddy AFFECTS an OER
If you're a ring tapper AFFECTS an OER
golfing skill (or lack of) AFFECT an OER
whether your wife is friends (and liked) with the higher ups wives AFFECTS an OER
whether your kids are friends with the brigade commanders kids AFFECTS an OER
etc.
etc.
ad nauseum

Just my humble opinion

[MSMUROTC]

What are you talking about? Why do NCO's think they have the right to talk about what it's like to be an officer? You don't know. Maybe some officer who's friendly with you complained to you or something once, but that doesn't make you an officer. Working with NCO's all day doesn't make me think I know what it's like to be an NCO, I don't understand why NCO's think the opposite holds true.

[MCGYVER]

You don't have to get your ass beaten to know that it would hurt. You CAN learn from observation as well as personal experience. When you observe certain things enough times you start to see patterns. When people (officers for instance) tell you how things happen in their experience then it gives you some insight into what lies beneath the surface.

Just my humble opinion.

[MSMUROTC]

Yea, but it's also a self-selection thing. The people that whine aren't the people that win. Dissatisfied people are prone to conspiracy theories.

[MCGYVER]

A bit too much eggnog?

[Master Tanker]

I believe the Leadership made the right decision to scratch BOLC. When the LTs go through ROTC or whatever and then basic course is all the theory they need to know for then, because the remainder is OJT. The real stuff is learned doing the job. That's when the experience is gained that counts later.

[MCGYVER]

I think that BOLiC is (like very, very many programs) simply a "looks good on paper/briefs well/sounds good" project that some field grade officer thought up to make his mark (and next rank). Not that it was a bad program, just not really necessary nor did it pass the CBA (Cost-Benefit Analysis).

Just my humble opinion.

[MSMUROTC]

I think ROTC cadets badly need to go to some sort of hazing. USMA has it, OCS has it. ROTC cadets are never in a basic training environment.

I'm as big an officer chauvinist that you'll find, but I think ROTC cadets should go to some form of basic training.

BOLC II was dumb but some of the underlying concepts are valid.

[Gold_Reaper]

I think ROTC cadets badly need to go to some sort of hazing. USMA has it, OCS has it. ROTC cadets are never in a basic training environment.

I'm as big an officer chauvinist that you'll find, but I think ROTC cadets should go to some form of basic training.

BOLC II was dumb but some of the underlying concepts are valid.

I concur, 100%. I was in ROTC for two years and no one, and I mean no one, ever yelled at me or motivated me in a military manner :D

I went through Basic Training, and there was hazing a'plenty there.
I went through OCS, which was more of the same, but longer and much worse. However, there was more of a method behind the madness in OCS vs Basic Training.
I know a few West Point Officers. They have their fair share of stories that'll trump almost anything I ever went through in Basic and OCS.

However, there are some ROTC programs out there that have a pretty tight shot group and aren't a cakewalk like many other colleges and universities out there.

They should look to what was once BOLC II and OCS for revamping the curriculum for LDAC.

[MADAMESINCERE]

I concur, 100%. I was in ROTC for two years and no one, and I mean no one, ever yelled at me or motivated me in a military manner :D

I went through Basic Training, and there was hazing a'plenty there.
I went through OCS, which was more of the same, but longer and much worse. However, there was more of a method behind the madness in OCS vs Basic Training.
I know a few West Point Officers. They have their fair share of stories that'll trump almost anything I ever went through in Basic and OCS.

However, there are some ROTC programs out there that have a pretty tight shot group and aren't a cakewalk like many other colleges and universities out there.

They should look to what was once BOLC II and OCS for revamping the curriculum for LDAC.

'Tis true for the most part but it depends on the school. You can't tell me those cadets at Texas A&M aren't intense! It just depends on the school. The problem is that there is too much variation in the different ROTC programs. They need to make LDAC harder and actually SEND PEOPLE HOME, not just pass people through.

[Master Tanker]

I concur, 100%. I was in ROTC for two years and no one, and I mean no one, ever yelled at me or motivated me in a military manner :D

I went through Basic Training, and there was hazing a'plenty there.
I went through OCS, which was more of the same, but longer and much worse. However, there was more of a method behind the madness in OCS vs Basic Training.
I know a few West Point Officers. They have their fair share of stories that'll trump almost anything I ever went through in Basic and OCS.

However, there are some ROTC programs out there that have a pretty tight shot group and aren't a cakewalk like many other colleges and universities out there.

They should look to what was once BOLC II and OCS for revamping the curriculum for LDAC.

I disagree, hazing causes physical and mental injuries that stay forever and accomplish absolutely nothing meaningful and are a leftover of the British (who love it) and of times when US Officers had nothing better to do when stationed out in the boondocks somewhere out West or on some lonely post or ship. Or is there someone in this forum that claims that hazing contributes to the well being or training of Lieutenants? Please explain how.

[MCGYVER]

Gotta pay your dues just like those that came before you. :)

[NMWH1985]

I think ROTC cadets badly need to go to some sort of hazing. USMA has it, OCS has it. ROTC cadets are never in a basic training environment.

I'm as big an officer chauvinist that you'll find, but I think ROTC cadets should go to some form of basic training.

BOLC II was dumb but some of the underlying concepts are valid.

I agree.

I'll get mine in Ranger School, as I'm going Infantry.

Is this "don't trust your NCO's" mentality prevalent in the CA branches, or is that something seen in the CS and CSS branches?

As a wet behind the ears cadet, my only experience was in the Navy, and I can tell you with certainty that the NCO's from the Navy (F18 squadron) were nothing like the NCO's I met during my 3 weeks of CTLT (1/509th, Ft. Polk). You might say that the differences can be attributed to different branches, and I would agree. But I would also submit that those differences can be attributed to different lines of work. I would gather that an S1 E7 runs his shop a bit differently than an 11B E7 runs his platoon.

[MSMUROTC]

Hazing builds character. But it also depends on your definition of hazing.

Forcing people to do humiliating, degrading, or unsafe things? No.

Yelling at people, pushing them beyond their normal physical and emotional limits, giving them assignments that can't quite ever be accomplished? Absolutely.

[vette88]

The "Gold Bar" looks the same on a cadet's shoulders from ROTC as one from USMA, OCS, or the Citadel. Any future officer will get challenged in one way or another upon arrival to first duty station. There are a same # of dirt bag officers from ROTC as from any other commissioning source.

[MSMUROTC]

Absolutely. However, I still think there should be some sort of "challenging experience" inherent in joining military service. There currently is not one for ROTC cadets.

[vette88]

Absolutely. However, I still think there should be some sort of "challenging experience" inherent in joining military service. There currently is not one for ROTC cadets.

People go to college and ROTC to EARN their commission and degrees. They ARE NOT concerned with a lack of people yelling in their face, making them drop and do push ups for the most mundane reasons, or anything like that. Nope, their focus is on EARNING their commission and degree. The individual WILL be challenged upon arrival to first unit. If you think that USMA, Citadel, or OCS cadets are more prepared, well then more power to you. You think that Retired General Powell wasn't challenged early in his career? You honestly think that "hazing" (yelling for the most idiotic things) will encourage people to join, or that it teaches something? Uhhh, No. Trust me, if the new LT screws up at first duty station there will be plenty of yell time coming. Let the individual earn his/her commission and degree withOUT the fraternity like atmosphere.

By the way, if you think that it isn't challenging to earn a degree and commission at the same time, you're wrong. Not all ROTC cadets are on full rides (room, food, books, etc). Also, many have families, so they are also working a part-time job all the while going to college and ROTC. Also, one has to pay for the rent, food, etc. Do USMA, OCS, or Citadel cadets carry a part time job or pay for rent or food? Probably not, but some how people think they are "more prepared" because they get "hazed."

[MSMUROTC]

I guess my posting name didn't suggest to you that I have, at least, a passing familiarity with the ROTC program ...

[vette88]

You honestly think I didn't realize that? Ok, you are ROTC. So what? My point still stands that there are people who are in ROTC with families. You think it isn't challenging for a person to go through college, ROTC, work a part time job, AND support a family???? You think that isn't "challenging" enough? Or you think it isn't challenging for single people who work and pay bills? Don't get me wrong, the month long training at NALC/Warrior Forge/What ever they call it now isn't really challenging, but that doesn't discredit the lieutenants coming from ROTC. If you want to be "hazed," then go join a fraternity that does that, but keep it out of ROTC.

[Master Tanker]

Again, I claim that pranks, initiation rites & hazing have no business in the military. They cause lasting physical and mental damage. Example from my experience: The victim was to blow out some kind of booze out of his mouth which was lit and supposed to look like an afterburner on a jet. The scheme malfunctioned & the victim was badly burned and the place was set on fire. All present were given ART15s, some superiors for not stopping the nonsense. Another one: The newly promoted TC was to drive his tank through an old bomb crater full of water. Many had done that before w/o a snatch. Again, the idea malfunctioned and the victim could not drive through or back out and drowned. All involved received ART 15.

[MSMUROTC]

No, I don't think it's challenging ... in a military way. Maybe it's difficult for you individually but the Army didn't make anyone have a family. They didn't make you go to a school you can't afford without a job. That shouldn't be part of the equation. That's your own personal stuff.

It's not like a private or a sergeant or a lieutenant or a major gets to show up late to work because they have four kids. Or they get their Airborne wings after 3 jumps. Your personal stuff is your personal stuff.

The Army did, however, make multiple commissioning sources. One of them has no basic-training esque component.

If we want to have an esoteric argument over the use of the word hazing, fine. But I also clarified what I meant when I said hazing, i.e. a challenging event that involves pushing one beyond physical and emotional limits, involves yelling, unrealistic time-hacks, etc. I specifically said it had nothing to do with degrading or unsafe acts.

[vette88]

No, I don't think it's challenging ... in a military way. Maybe it's difficult for you individually but the Army didn't make anyone have a family. They didn't make you go to a school you can't afford without a job. That shouldn't be part of the equation. That's your own personal stuff.

It's not like a private or a sergeant or a lieutenant or a major gets to show up late to work because they have four kids. Or they get their Airborne wings after 3 jumps. Your personal stuff is your personal stuff.

The Army did, however, make multiple commissioning sources. One of them has no basic-training esque component.

If we want to have an esoteric argument over the use of the word hazing, fine. But I also clarified what I meant when I said hazing, i.e. a challenging event that involves pushing one beyond physical and emotional limits, involves yelling, unrealistic time-hacks, etc. I specifically said it had nothing to do with degrading or unsafe acts.

1. event that involves pushing one beyond physical and emotional limits, involves yelling, unrealistic time-hacks, etc.

I'm truely impressed with the fact that OCS, USMA, and Citadel cadets are yelled at for the most dumbest of things. I should have went to college, not focused on my studies or EARNING my commission, but should have focused on getting dropped for anything. That would have done a lot of good. Why should I have cared about college at all, or paying my bills, or if I had a family, making sure they were taken care of? Nope, I should have went into ROTC every day and been dropped for just walking side ways.

Taking care of families, studying for college, working, and going through ROTC isn't a least bit challenging. USMA, OCS, and Citadel cadets don't pay bills, so they are less finacially experienced, and aren't allowed to attend if they do have kids, BUT they are better off/ready for the GAME OF LIFE because they have someone making them drop.

2. If you think that one of those routes (USMA, Citadel, OCS) is so much better, what stopped you from attending one? This is a free country.

3. Yes, the Army did make multiple commissioning sources. If you wanted to be "hazed" then you should have obviously went another route because you are unhappy. Remember, the "gold bar" is the same on a lieutenant from any other commissioning source. Each commissioning source has its dirt bags.

[MSMUROTC]

I went to ROTC because I think it's the best commissioning source. OCS is a shake-and-bake school, you can't teach officership in 14 weeks or whatever it is now. USMA is too cloister-ish. Don't even get me started on NG OCS or direct commissioning. ROTC is the best because you have competing priorities, dealing with disparate groups of individuals that don't always agree with your points of view, etc.

However, point of fact is that there are ROTC cadets who could not make it through basic training. Point blank. That is an embarrassment to the officer corps. There are also some skills that are best taught in a basic-training environment / not resourced in a ROTC environment -- BRM, D&C, etc. BCT's also an environment where you learn the muscle memory of keeping a time hack, meeting precise standards, etc. Many cadets have a "college student" mentality and to try to explain and debate to them about the importance of showing up 10 minutes early in the proper uniform, trying to coax a fat high school kid into shape over several years ... well, an E-6 with a brown round gets to those objectives a lot quicker and clearer, and having that "military baseline" would make successive years of ROTC training that much more beneficial.

Finally, enlisted soldiers and NCOs are (rightly) aghast when they find out that ROTC cadets have no similar BCT-like experience. Is it entirely valid? Not really. But having some level of baseline, comparable experience with your soldiers (I'm not saying that you need to spend 5 years as an enlisted soldier or make it to E-5 ... just 10 weeks at BCT) is a pretty valuable thing.

The ROTC programs I have been associated with rightly, in my opinion, stress battle drills and the orders process because that is primarily what cadets are judged on for LDAC, and what determines the rest of their military career. To spend time doing other things -- even things as important as D&C or BRM -- is criminal, because if the program spends X hours working on BRM versus STX lanes and, as a result, that cadet gets a lower national OML ranking, they have done that cadet a disservice.

Have you ever attended Basic, AIT, Airborne, Air Assault, Ranger, or SFAS? Just curious.

[vette88]

I went to ROTC because I think it's the best commissioning source. OCS is a shake-and-bake school, you can't teach officership in 14 weeks or whatever it is now. USMA is too cloister-ish. Don't even get me started on NG OCS or direct commissioning. ROTC is the best because you have competing priorities, dealing with disparate groups of individuals that don't always agree with your points of view, etc.

However, point of fact is that there are ROTC cadets who could not make it through basic training. Point blank. That is an embarrassment to the officer corps. There are also some skills that are best taught in a basic-training environment / not resourced in a ROTC environment -- BRM, D&C, etc. BCT's also an environment where you learn the muscle memory of keeping a time hack, meeting precise standards, etc. Many cadets have a "college student" mentality and to try to explain and debate to them about the importance of showing up 10 minutes early in the proper uniform, trying to coax a fat high school kid into shape over several years ... well, an E-6 with a brown round gets to those objectives a lot quicker and clearer, and having that "military baseline" would make successive years of ROTC training that much more beneficial.

Finally, enlisted soldiers and NCOs are (rightly) aghast when they find out that ROTC cadets have no similar BCT-like experience. Is it entirely valid? Not really. But having some level of baseline, comparable experience with your soldiers (I'm not saying that you need to spend 5 years as an enlisted soldier or make it to E-5 ... just 10 weeks at BCT) is a pretty valuable thing.

The ROTC programs I have been associated with rightly, in my opinion, stress battle drills and the orders process because that is primarily what cadets are judged on for LDAC, and what determines the rest of their military career. To spend time doing other things -- even things as important as D&C or BRM -- is criminal, because if the program spends X hours working on BRM versus STX lanes and, as a result, that cadet gets a lower national OML ranking, they have done that cadet a disservice.

Have you ever attended Basic, AIT, Airborne, Air Assault, Ranger, or SFAS? Just curious.



1. Lets see here, ROTC cadets who aren't prior service don't go through Basic and AIT, so the answer is obvious.

2. Does everybody and their cousin have a need/should get Airborne, Air Assault, Ranger, or SFAS qualified???? Uh, obviously not because not everybodys' job is the same. Do you think every Soldier looks over his/her's LT's shoulder to see if him/her has this or that tab?

3. So you think cadets should go through some kind of basic training? Didn't BOLC create a bottleneck of cadets waiting on a BOLC class? With that, time was wasted waiting. This could have been time spent with a platoon. Once again, the same BRM, Battle Drills, PT, and D&C training will be received at first duty station. If one needs to research one of those, there are plenty of FMs on everything in the Army. The school I went to we went over BRM, Battle Drills, PT (without being "hazed") and D&C. I'll agree with you on the inability of the cadets to fire for BRM because it isn't resourced. I don't know if all units are the same, but mine received plenty of shooting time, especially right before deployment.

4. Do you honestly think that NCOs think/care all day about the LT not having BCT training? Really? NCOs' job is about taking care of the mission and Soldiers I thought, but I could be wrong. Do you think that a LT without any BCT training isn't capable of contributing to his/her platoon, or isn't capable of making a difference in his/her's Soldier(s)' lives?

[MSMUROTC]

1. Just asking to make sure.

2. I'm going to take that as a no. However, I would posit that you're knocking something you've never tried. If you had gone through some / all of those schools, you might feel differently about what I'm saying. Just like you want me to keep an open mind about what you're saying, try the same.

3. Yes. However, I would do it in the summer of Freshman/Sophomore/Junior year. It wouldn't create a bottleneck. And it's really not enabling 2LT's for success to have them learn BRM, battle drills, PT, and D&C at the same time they're trying to gain legitimacy with their troops. And the FM's? Well, then why do we have schools at all.

4. I don't think NCO's think about it all day. And I don't think that LT's can't lead without it. But I do think it would help them. And see above, they should be able to come to their units fully trained up on skill level 1 tasks, and ROTC doesn't really do a good job of it. Is it that big a deal? No, but it adds unnecessary stress and robs a young leader of much needed credibility. I really don't see how sending cadets to BCT one summer would HURT their future leadership, and I don't think it's really reasonable to suggest that it wouldn't benefit them.

[vette88]

1. Just asking to make sure.

2. I'm going to take that as a no. However, I would posit that you're knocking something you've never tried. If you had gone through some / all of those schools, you might feel differently about what I'm saying. Just like you want me to keep an open mind about what you're saying, try the same.

3. Yes. However, I would do it in the summer of Freshman/Sophomore/Junior year. It wouldn't create a bottleneck. And it's really not enabling 2LT's for success to have them learn BRM, battle drills, PT, and D&C at the same time they're trying to gain legitimacy with their troops. And the FM's? Well, then why do we have schools at all.

4. I don't think NCO's think about it all day. And I don't think that LT's can't lead without it. But I do think it would help them. And see above, they should be able to come to their units fully trained up on skill level 1 tasks, and ROTC doesn't really do a good job of it. Is it that big a deal? No, but it adds unnecessary stress and robs a young leader of much needed credibility. I really don't see how sending cadets to BCT one summer would HURT their future leadership, and I don't think it's really reasonable to suggest that it wouldn't benefit them.

1. BCT will give an officer credibility? Really? While I was going through ROTC I thought about going through BCT and go to a guard unit to earn time in while going through college. Many prior service people in my ROTC class were against it. I specifically remember one saying: "unless you want learn how to make your bed really fast, don't go. You'll learn everything at your first unit."

2. Which do you think LEADERSHIP has more to do with?

a. Personality
b. Tabs on uniform, BCT training, and getting "hazed"

3. Which do you think will earn you more "credibility"?

a. Learning (listening) from you NCOs and Soldiers, and learning about your NCOs and Soldiers.
b. Tabs on uniform, BCT training, and getting "hazed"

Which is it? All the training that is given at BCT will be received at first duty station. If you think that you need BCT training to have creditibility, then I feel sorry for you. When I had a platoon I was more concerned about the MISSION and TAKING CARE OF SOLDIERS than I was about what Soldiers thought about me not having BCT training.

Also, if you haven't learned BRM, battle drills, PT, and D&C at ROTC, then I agree with you that your ROTC school is horrible. My ROTC school taught that from MS I to MS IV. As mentioned before, we didn't get to shoot rifles, but you'll get plenty of time doing that at your unit, and probably some at OBC.

[MSMUROTC]

If you had gone to BCT, you would've learned stuff that would've helped you; you didn't. You took someone else's word for it.

You didn't go to any schools to get badges or tabs, so you don't know how they make you a better leader. Why do you think the Army has them, or values them?

All I'm saying is attending 10 weeks of basic training would make cadets better leaders. It's a pretty mild suggestion. You seem to be rabidly against it.

At this point, however, we're just talking in circles. So, unless someone else weighs in, I'm out.

[BlissNCO]

I will say that getting a PL that can't shoot, put on a gas mask, or perform basic soldiering skill will probably never regain my confidence.

[OEFOIFCOMBATVET]

The main source of LTs come from ROTC and in my career; I have worked with all types. I have met a soup sandwich LT that was a West Point Grad and an amazing violator of fraternizing and not knowing her job and had the pleasure of knowing a ROTC LT that was very professional and protected his soldiers. I saw the good and bad with OCS grads.

ROTC is looked down upon from the graduates of other commissioning programs but that doesnt mean they are capable of being a less caliber of officer.

[vette88]

MSMUROTC, I hope for your sake and your Soldiers' sake you are more concerned about the mission and the welfare of your troops than you are about what is on your uniform/not having gone to BCT (getting "hazed").

I'm against making it mandatory to make all LTs go to BCT because there ISN'T a need for it. Don't get me wrong, there IS a need for an Infantry LT to go to Ranger school, but NOT a need for an Armor LT to attend Airborne school. There isn't a need for LTs to attend BCT because LTs SHOULD have learned what is taught at BCT during ROTC and/or OBC. At OBC you'll be firing a rifle. For BlissNCO, a LT should have learned how to put on a gas mask at ROTC and/or OBC. Yes, I know, key words are should have.

The reason I'm so adamant about this is becuase of attiudes like NMWH1985's: "I'll get mine...." Well, let me go to a store and get you an I CARE candy bar.

http://www.militarytimes.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1583253&page=4

You really think people with attitudes like that should be telling others they should attend this or that? I think he has probably seen a few too many Rambo movies.



MSMUROTC you never answered my questions:

Which do you think LEADERSHIP has more to do with?

a. Personality
b. Tabs on uniform, BCT training, and getting "hazed"

Which do you think will earn you more "credibility"?

a. Learning (listening) from you NCOs and Soldiers, and learning about your NCOs and Soldiers.
b. Tabs on uniform, BCT training, and getting "hazed"

Along the same line of OEFOIFCOMBATVET, each commissioning sourse has its bright ones and dirt bags.

[MCGYVER]

The problem is that a fair percentage of those LT's wouldn't be able to endure the BCT because they would get a blockage in their fellopian tubes (talking just about the guys here, LOL).

[MSMUROTC]

leadership has more to do with personality, but personality is formed by your experiences -- i.e. schools like ranger, airborne, etc.

credibility will come from listening to your soldiers, but you'll get quite a bit of respect immediately if you're ranger qualified, and you will be a better leader if you have gone through some challenging experiences.

you're getting increasingly snippy about this despite my efforts to try to be civil about it, so here's my take on it -- you're one of those guys who's never gone through any of those schools and tries to justify your feelings of inadequacy by insisting that they're not necessary, beneficial, or of service to leaders or their soldiers. guess what -- if they didn't make people better leaders, if soldiers didn't respect them, if the army didn't value people who had completed them, THEY WOULD NOT EXIST. Ranger school is not a tactics school, it's a LEADERSHIP SCHOOL. i suggest you man up and go do something difficult so you can stop trying to run down those of us who have.

[vette88]

leadership has more to do with personality, but personality is formed by your experiences -- i.e. schools like ranger, airborne, etc.

credibility will come from listening to your soldiers, but you'll get quite a bit of respect immediately if you're ranger qualified, and you will be a better leader if you have gone through some challenging experiences.

you're getting increasingly snippy about this despite my efforts to try to be civil about it, so here's my take on it -- you're one of those guys who's never gone through any of those schools and tries to justify your feelings of inadequacy by insisting that they're not necessary, beneficial, or of service to leaders or their soldiers. guess what -- if they didn't make people better leaders, if soldiers didn't respect them, if the army didn't value people who had completed them, THEY WOULD NOT EXIST. Ranger school is not a tactics school, it's a LEADERSHIP SCHOOL. i suggest you man up and go do something difficult so you can stop trying to run down those of us who have.

One of the biggest reasons I'm against your stance is you started this whole thing by using the word "haze," and then you back-tracked by trying to give it some kind of justly definition. No, you said "HAZE," and we all know what that means. Also, with Rambo's thread of "I'll get mine," makes me wonder if he realizes that not everybody wakes up every morning talking lines out of Full Metal Jacket.

Where did I ever say the schools wouldn't be beneficial? Never I have said that; however, I've said it's not needed. Ok, Officers would get redundant training of everything they SHOULD have learned at ROTC and OBC if they go to BCT, but I'm guessing you're referring to training by HAZING. Not everybody/all jobs have a NEED for Army schools. If you think it's beneficial for leaders to get "HAZED" then I disagree. Everything that is taught at BCT SHOULD HAVE been taught at ROTC and/or OBC (key words are should have, if your ROTC school didn't teach them, then I agree your school needs to rethink its training). The only part that is unfortunately not included is firing rifles, but one should get a chance at OBC. If not, one will be firing with first unit soon after arrival.

Like OEFOIFCOMBATVET said, there are good leaders and bad leaders coming out of all commissioning sources. I've seen excellent officers and bad officers with and without BCT training.

[MSMUROTC]

Ok, vocab police -- yes, you can play esoteric word games and look deep into my soul and know exactly what I meant. If you want to play Nancy Drew, fine by me. You can pick and choose but what I clearly said was:

"I think ROTC cadets badly need to go to some sort of hazing. USMA has it, OCS has it. ROTC cadets are never in a basic training environment. "

CONTEXT CLUE, EINSTEIN. Clearly I am referring to "some sort of hazing" as "a basic training environment."

But upon reflection, you're right. OCS candidates shouldn't have to go to BCT, USMA should get rid of beast barracks. Those are clearly meaningless rituals that should be eliminated.

[MPA]

I guess I have been out for awhile, but when I was in ROTC we went through six weeks of training down in North Carolina as part of the advanced course. I believe that Freshmen and Sophomores go through a basic course. Both I guess teaches you the fundamentals of soldiering. Granted, I didn't go to the basic course because I was a former enlisted so I went straight to advanced level.

After ROTC you are then assigned a Branch and go to whatever school your Branch MOS is tailored for and then you get orders for your unit.

I am not sure what the rationale was for the Basic Course that they created in 2006, and later had to modify it?

Oh well. I don't see the reason why officers need to go through anything like Basic Training, since we are not training officers to be grunts and laborers, rather Managers and executives.

[MCGYVER]

MPA, the reason that officers should have to go through a "basic" training is twofold. First and foremost, if you've never walked in someone's shoes you cannot truly relate to that person. If you cannot relate to a person then you have little (if any) understanding of them or what motivates them. Second of all, if you cannot hack the "basic" training (which builds character) we'd rather find out in training than in combat.

[MPA]

While I don't doubt the substance and rationale of your point, I would like to stress that most officers aren't out leading units into battle like they did 200 years ago. Most are in the rear or in some climate controlled office issuing out strategies and tactics.

As for character building. It has already been established that the strongest and most gung ho types in basic, will sometimes turn out to be the biggest pansies once the order to engage is announced.

Therefore I see your point in part and disagree in part.

[INGUARD]

Where did you get those stats from? What about Infantry, Artillery, MP, Ranger, and SF officers? Of course; its not the majority but there are officers leading troops. And officers do not know what branch they will get selected to hence OCS, military academies and even ROTC.

Established?

I have been in combat so I dont want to even vent my opinions.

[NMWH1985]

The reason I'm so adamant about this is becuase of attiudes like NMWH1985's: "I'll get mine...." Well, let me go to a store and get you an I CARE candy bar.

http://www.militarytimes.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1583253&page=4

You really think people with attitudes like that should be telling others they should attend this or that? I think he has probably seen a few too many Rambo movies.


I say this with defference to your rank and/or experience, but I don't think reading my one post qualifies you to make a determination regarding my suitability as a leader. Yeah, I'm cherry. But I'm showing up to my first unit with my ears open ready to learn from any officers and NCO's willing to teach me.

When I say "hazing" I mean "being forced to make leadership decisions under great amounts of stress." That's what I'm expecting to get out of Ranger School. Can I lead soldiers while wet, hungry, and tired? Can I drive on?

I could give a fuck about the tab as uniform decoration. I know I need it because I'll be viewed like a black sheep without it. I want to go to the school because I think it will make me a better leader. I want to graduate because I owe it to my future troops. I realize that when I get to my first platoon, after about fourteen seconds the tab won't mean a thing. Troops don't give a shit if I graduated Ranger School. They care that I can lead them and take care of them. The tab only shows my joes that I can suck and still drive on.

And I agree that ROTC needs some form of "hazing." Not fraternity hazing. Not hours of smoking, or screaming, or pointless rituals. But Cadets need to be pushed physically and mentally to determine their ability to lead and make decisions when they're miserable. Or given tasks with unrealistic time hacks to see if they can complete the mission, or at the very least, not unravel. In my ROTC experience, LDAC just doesn't do it.

And as far as the "Rambo" comment. If me joining the Infantry to do something hard makes me a "Rambo," then I'll take the insult. I sure as shit didn't join to dance Salsa on a FOB or spend my entire deployment as an LT doing death by powerpoint. I know as an officer I'll eventually be relegated to staff work, but I want to spend a few years in the fight before that happens.

[INGUARD]

ROTC will always be the greatest source of commissions for the US Army. I seen some excellent officers that have come out of the ROTC ranks.

Whatever works.

[NMWH1985]

ROTC will always be the greatest source of commissions for the US Army. I seen some excellent officers that have come out of the ROTC ranks.

Whatever works.

I wouldn't credit that to the effectiveness of an ROTC program, but rather the quality of the individual.

ROTC has made me a better leader than I was when I walked in the door two and a half years ago, granted. But I've got peers who've gone through the same program who are still shit sandwiches. Do I consider myself the second coming of Audie Murphy?

Definately not.

But experience and salty NCO's will shore up my weaknesses.

[MADAMESINCERE]

Not all ROTC programs are created equal. Maybe YOUR ROTC program was garbage and you don't feel like it prepared you. I thought my program was pretty good and prepared me to be a butter bar. Unless you have been involved in several ROTC programs, you can't say the entire program sucks.

[NMWH1985]

Not all ROTC programs are created equal. Maybe YOUR ROTC program was garbage and you don't feel like it prepared you. I thought my program was pretty good and prepared me to be a butter bar. Unless you have been involved in several ROTC programs, you can't say the entire program sucks.

My ROTC program prepared me to commission just fine.

My gripe is that the ROTC program does not do enough to weed out the shit.

I'm at LDAC this past summer, and we did a 10k to culminate the field problem. Easy enough. Ruck sacks are heavy as shit but the pace is slloooow and 6 miles is short. Therefore, fall outs (quitters, not the injured) should be treated with contempt and disgust. You shouldn't be allowed to lead soldiers if you can't push yourself hard enough to finish a short 6 miler. Those who are too chickenshit to do the rope drop on the water confidence course are "encouraged" to "overcome their fears" rather than told to get the eff off the rope. It's a course that caters to the lowest common denominator, and yet it's supposed to be the big capstone event of years spent in the largest commissioning pipeline in the Army.

[MSMUROTC]

... and a lot of them will commission that couldn't even pass basic training

... and a lot of them could've smoked camp had they gone to basic training ... because ROTC is not a tough, in-your face, basic-training type environment that turns citizens into soldiers.

I'm not saying that you can't be a good leader without going to basic training but it certainly won't hurt those who can lead without it ... it will help the marginal ones become a bit better ... it will weed out the ones that can't hack it early on ... and it would start everyone at a higher baseline that would make higher-level training possible (i.e. instead of teaching people how to march and wear uniforms for the first year or two, that's already all been instructed and you can get right into the orders process, etc.)

[MADAMESINCERE]

My ROTC program prepared me to commission just fine.

My gripe is that the ROTC program does not do enough to weed out the shit.

I'm at LDAC this past summer, and we did a 10k to culminate the field problem. Easy enough. Ruck sacks are heavy as shit but the pace is slloooow and 6 miles is short. Therefore, fall outs (quitters, not the injured) should be treated with contempt and disgust. You shouldn't be allowed to lead soldiers if you can't push yourself hard enough to finish a short 6 miler. Those who are too chickenshit to do the rope drop on the water confidence course are "encouraged" to "overcome their fears" rather than told to get the eff off the rope. It's a course that caters to the lowest common denominator, and yet it's supposed to be the big capstone event of years spent in the largest commissioning pipeline in the Army.

I'll agree that ROTC doesn't weed out enough cadets. Becoming an officer should be WAY MORE difficult than becoming a private. It's all a numbers game to the Army though. The Army sacrifices quality for quantity all the time. It's unfortunate.

[djy887]

This discussion cracks me up. I was once an ROTC "butter bar" having completed the Armor Officer Basic Course. I watched the first "Desert Storm" on CNN as a disgusted National Guard Armor LT who was itching to get in the fight at a time when the Guard, even though assigned as a "round out " brigade, was not trusted or considered capable by the active component. I enlisted in the navy to be a deployer-at sea who was always at the proverbial "tip-of-the-spear." Almost 20 years later, I am at the top of the food chain. I have seen a ton of newly commissioned officers come and go. I have seen a very select few rise to the top and become successful sub skippers. The most successful officers understood the one lesson that they needed to bring to their first command....to leave everything they thought they learned in school and toss it out. They show up no different than that snot-nosed kid fresh out of AIT...maybe a few years older with a piece of paper that says they went to college. Bottom line up front....they were all rack takin', chow eatin', oxygen thievin' useless bodies until they were qualified...and only then would we begrudgingly consider them leaders. I'll give the Naval Academy this much, at least they can put a football team together. :cool:

[CORNELIUSSEON]

Obviously, this is a Regular Army course for Officers who come from the OCS, ROTC, and Direct Commissioning programs. This program is NOT a new idea, and I’ve seen it go up and down in length over the years. During the Vietnam War, there was such a need for Company Grade officers that the course was canceled for the duration, and OCS was reduced to a 90-day minimum we not-so-humorously called the “Shake and Bake Course”. Shortening the course has proven to not be a great idea specifically because it teaches skills that all officers need, and they need as much time as possible to gain expertise.

The only commissioning sources that don’t send their graduates through this course – besides West Point - are the National Guard Officer Candidate Schools, and that is because the National Guard tends to make its candidates wait a much longer period of time before attending the OCS Course, and first choice goes to candidates with Regular Army prior service.

[Gold_Reaper]

ROTC will always be the greatest source of commissions for the US Army. I seen some excellent officers that have come out of the ROTC ranks.

Whatever works.

In a word, NO.

In a few more words, I did ROTC for two years, decided not to go that route, and went to OCS a few years later. I learned a lot from both, but ROTC was cake. Going through Basic Training and OCS, not so much. However, both programs yeild the same result. ROTC does it over time, OCS rams it in you daily for a while.

It's all about the individual. I've met d-bags from all sources from ROTC, OCS, Direct, and USMA. So it goes both ways.

At the end of the day, the source of your commission doesn't matter at the peon level of the Officer Corps, O-5 and lower. Your OER does matter. Even those screened OERs that you receive as a Lieutenant. Don't believe the hype...

[INGUARD]

Obviously, this is a Regular Army course for Officers who come from the OCS, ROTC, and Direct Commissioning programs. This program is NOT a new idea, and I’ve seen it go up and down in length over the years. During the Vietnam War, there was such a need for Company Grade officers that the course was canceled for the duration, and OCS was reduced to a 90-day minimum we not-so-humorously called the “Shake and Bake Course”. Shortening the course has proven to not be a great idea specifically because it teaches skills that all officers need, and they need as much time as possible to gain expertise.

The only commissioning sources that don’t send their graduates through this course – besides West Point - are the National Guard Officer Candidate Schools, and that is because the National Guard tends to make its candidates wait a much longer period of time before attending the OCS Course, and first choice goes to candidates with Regular Army prior service.

SHAKE and BAKE was used for the NCO course as well. High speed privates that went from their school to the NCO school and then to Vietnam. Awful idea.

[INGUARD]

In a word, NO.

In a few more words, I did ROTC for two years, decided not to go that route, and went to OCS a few years later. I learned a lot from both, but ROTC was cake. Going through Basic Training and OCS, not so much. However, both programs yeild the same result. ROTC does it over time, OCS rams it in you daily for a while.

It's all about the individual. I've met d-bags from all sources from ROTC, OCS, Direct, and USMA. So it goes both ways.

At the end of the day, the source of your commission doesn't matter at the peon level of the Officer Corps, O-5 and lower. Your OER does matter. Even those screened OERs that you receive as a Lieutenant. Don't believe the hype...

what? No to what? ROTC is the greatest source of 2nd LTs for the Army. That is a fact. I believe OCS is better and harder.

I been through OCS and ROTC and I know but crap that. I enjoy my life as a Warrant.

[MSMUROTC]

Your OER does not matter. 1LT and CPT are automatic. MAJ is 97% select rate. When it finally does matter (LTC) I'm betting they only look at your key development OER's from MAJ, maybe from company command. Definately not from lieutenant.

[CORNELIUSSEON]

The main source of LTs come from ROTC and in my career; I have worked with all types. I have met a soup sandwich LT that was a West Point Grad and an amazing violator of fraternizing and not knowing her job and had the pleasure of knowing a ROTC LT that was very professional and protected his soldiers. I saw the good and bad with OCS grads.

ROTC is looked down upon from the graduates of other commissioning programs but that doesnt mean they are capable of being a less caliber of officer.

ROTC is the primary route for Officers in the Army Reserve, but nowhere else. According to a recent change in the law, West Point remains the primary route for Regular Officers, with a request for a Regular Commission from Reserve officers already in place being the second.

Reserve Officers on Active Duty now must apply for a Regular Commission if they want to remain on active duty beyond a stated limit. This was the rule prior to World War Two, but it was placed in abeyance for the duration of the war. The end of the war came, but the Army didn’t return to Peacetime status because of the long line of events that continued through the end of the Cold War. Officers with Reserve commissions achieved through Regular Army OCS are included. The result is that when Officers with Reserve Commissions reach their stated limit, they have the choice of taking a transfer to a USAR unit, or else remaining in the Regular Army as an NCO. Their reserve commissions remain valid, but they cannot serve as an Officer in the Regular Army until they are Recalled during a crisis.

The only other route that is different is that of National Guard Officers. Officers in the National Guard have a State commission that is the State equivalent of the Regular Army commission, and must get “Federal Recognition” of that commission if they hope to serve in Active Federal Service. This is as serious as it sounds. In World War One, lots of National Guard commanders who didn’t have Federal Recognition were relieved of command upon entrance into Federal Service and given the choice of taking a desk job, or being sent home. Those sent home stood the chance of being drafted and serving as an enlisted soldier. Nowadays, since all military training is set at the Federal level, Federal Recognition is virtually automatic. The biggest difference between NG Officers and all other programs other than the West Point Prep program is the fact that the NG Commissioning Program requires a fair amount of Prior Service before gaining eligibility for selection. National Guard Officer Candidates tend to be NCOs of E-5 or higher, with those with Regular Army prior service taking the lead. This tends to result in Officers who are older than their counterparts in all other programs, they get paid higher than their counterparts in other programs, they start off with more experience that their counterparts in other programs,and they remain in grade longer than their counterparts in all other programs. They also have longer careers since – in the Guard – 20 Years is considered only the minimum that all members must serve for Career status. They must reach age 60 to draw their Pension, although they can transfer to the Retired Reserve to wait for their pension.

[MSMUROTC]

You're dealing with some old info.

ROTC commissions a great deal of the active force. About 50% of the cadets every year go on AD, and I've never heard of anyone being forced to leave AD to go to the reserves let alone be converted into an NCO or an enlisted soldier. That does not happen anymore. All officers get a commission from the president now, there are no "state" commissions.

NG has an OCS program. You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer_Candidate_School_(U.S._Army)