Army to set new criteria for officers - Looser rules could attract up to 600 new officers

Baltimore Sun ^ | June 9, 2005 | Tom Bowman

[68skylark]

I really like this reporter -- he seems to be one of the good apples in the bunch.

These changes make sense to me -- I'm glad to see the Army is being more flexible these days.

[68skylark]

Are they thinking about this or doing it?

The way I read this article, it's a done deal.

[Mikey_1962]

If you can stand up without falling backward, by God, its OCS for you!

[tdewey10]

Tempting. I've thought about joining since 9/11 but was too old...

[68skylark]

A lot of people don't know that some states have their own, small military forces (separate from their National Guard organizations), and that these state defense forces have looser requirements to join. For example, in Indiana's state defense force, they'll accept applications for officer and enlisted positions up to age 50 from non-prior service individuals (and at even older ages for those with prior service).

To see if your state has this kind of opportunity, check here: State Guard Association listings.

[68skylark]

Heck, I'll go back in as an officer.

I recently re-joined after a long break in service (though I'm still waiting to see if I can get my commission back). It's a real good time to be in uniform -- there are a lot of opportunities and a lot of "energy" in the force, and the work feels very "purposeful."

[TomasUSMC]

GOING FROM 29 to 42, holy crap. Thats a 40 percent increase! Are things that bad, are we losing that many officers?

[CheneyChick]

Today's 42 year olds seem a lot younger than they were. I think older officers could be a good thing.

[T.Smith]

"Heck, I'll go back in as an officer."

I'll second that!

[Strategerist]

Napoleon's Old Guard was pretty, well...old. And they were the most feared troops in Europe.

[68skylark]

Are things that bad, are we losing that many officers?

As I understand it, there's been an officer shortage brewing for years, mainly in the Guard and Reserve. It started in the early 1990's and it's been getting worse. This hasn't been in the news, and it's quite a different problem from the recent drop-off in recruiting from the mission in Iraq.

I'm surprised it's taken this long for the Army to start getting serious.

[68skylark]

Today's 42 year olds seem a lot younger than they were. I think older officers could be a good thing.

Yeah, that's a great point that isn't mentioned in this article.

Youth is an advantage for sustained, open combat against a strong adversary, but we don't have adversaries who take us on like that any more.

In contrast, peacekeeping and patrolling in various third-world sh**holes goes better with some age and maturity and restraint.

[stevem]

A 42 year old second lieutenant strikes me as a mistake.

[CheneyChick]

A 42 year old second lieutenant strikes me as a mistake.

I've seen some 22 yr old 2LT's that looked like high schoolers. Now that is scary.

[68skylark]

I hear you. But for some tasks I think a 42-year old can be as good or better than a 22-year old.

[Oberon]

Ping for later.

[Redcitizen]

"A 42 year old second lieutenant strikes me as a mistake."

That would be an aberration of nature!
But really, I say that is a good plan because most 42 year old men would have some sense and maturity. If not..Oh S***!

[Redcitizen]

The title of this article could also be "Shake n Bake officers."