Posted on 04/10/2006 8:20:44 AM PDT by 68skylark
WASHINGTON, April 9 — Young Army officers, including growing numbers of captains who leave as soon as their initial commitment is fulfilled, are bailing out of active-duty service at rates that have alarmed senior officers. Last year, more than a third of the West Point class of 2000 left active duty at the earliest possible moment, after completing their five-year obligation.
It was the second year in a row of worsening retention numbers, apparently marking the end of a burst of patriotic fervor during which junior officers chose continued military service at unusually high rates.
Mirroring the problem among West Pointers, graduates of reserve officer training programs at universities are also increasingly leaving the service at the end of the four-year stint in uniform that follows their commissioning.
To entice more to stay, the Army is offering new incentives this year, including a promise of graduate school on Army time and at government expense to newly commissioned officers who agree to stay in uniform for three extra years. Other enticements include the choice of an Army job or a pick of a desirable location for a home post.
The incentives resulted in additional three-year commitments from about one-third of all new officers entering active duty in 2006, a number so large that it surprised even the senior officers in charge of the program. But the service's difficulty in retaining current captains has generals worriedly discussing among themselves whether the Army will have the widest choice possible for its next generation of leaders.
The program was begun this year to counter pressures on junior officers to leave active duty, including the draw of high-paying jobs in the private sector; the desires of a spouse for a calmer civilian quality of life...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
If these young officers are trying to leave BEFORE fulfilling their commitments - then the Army really didn't these with a proper mindset to serve anyway AND good riddance!
The shortage is mostly with Captains and Lieutenants -- especially Captains. Few of these folks were serving during the Clinton Administration.
I posted this article partly because I wanted to help get the word out -- the Army is offering better and better perks to those who want to take on this challenge.
Nine years of one's life dedicated to the military....four in the academy and five more on active duty is a patriotic commitment that is to be honored.
Thanks for your service. If you served during X42 I can fully understand your dissatisfaction with the bureaucracy.
This was an issue already when I was a 2LT in AK in 1997.
Nothing new - Just now we have a war and this is spun into another "The war is bad" story.
There is neither a right nor wrong answer for why people want to serve. Main thing is they do their job and do it well.
Many join for a free education. Nothing wrong with that as long as they do a good job when in uniform. Most do, in fact many of these guys stay on board and make it a career. I believe over 50% of those who initially come in eventually retire. Not a bad statistic, especially when considering the risk, family separation, moves, wife subordinating her career etc associated with Army life.
The “spin” here is obviously that Iraq is the root of the problem. Just like there stories of recruiting short falls, which were overblown and then when the quota was met they didn’t find that worthwhile to cover; this too is a straw man they found to beat up on.
(A little insight) Most officers who get out, do so when a 1LT or CPT. Once you go over 10 years you see a retirement at 20. What is happening is what always has happened. Officers at the rank of 1LT and CPT are making the decision to get out since many of them either chose a career path that they don’t like. They might have ended their career through bad moves on their part and choose to cut their loses. Their family might dictate (Wife’s career, lifestyle etc) that this officer departs. Some get offers from the outside that are to good to pass up. Corporate America pays well in certain career paths. There are many reasons why officers leave. The war is a minor one. This is not new. This is another NYT’s spin.
Seems to me any smart captain who isn't selected for major below the zone who look at the career prospects in the Army, and on civvy street, know it's a good time to go to grad school and/or get a job rather than just waiting around.
I don't mean to minimize the problem, but I'm not sure what to do about it long term.
"So, in other words, the graph tells us that Bill Clinton's presidency drove a higher percentage of young officers out of the military than the Iraq War has."
DING DING DING
We have a winner!
The Army has to design cost-effective incentives to keep a certain percentage of good people -- it isn't easy with so many other opportunities in this country.
How are the other branches doing with officer retention? If the Marines, Navy and Air Force aren't having the same problems then it could be a cultural problem with the branch, not an incentive issue.
Perhaps they want to get out before Hillary becomes CinC.
Part of the problem with the Army is that they want to grow the overall force -- while the AF and Navy have been shrinking recently. Not only does the Army want to grow by 30,000 troops, but the design of the new brigades have relatively more jobs for lieutenants and captains.
This article doesn't talk about the Army reserve components -- I understand they have a worse officer shortage than the active component.
There is a serious shortage of E-6's and E-7's, at least with the 10th Mountain Div. The E-6, E-7 shortage is due somewhat to the Army's reduction in retirement benefits, RIF, etc., starting in the early 90's. If you recall, many ANG and Reserve units have had 18 mo average tours in Iraq and Afghanistan because of the E-6 and E-7 shortages.
Part of the problem is branch cultural: the Army has always been the low dog on the totem pole. The Air Force has the incentive of letting the people they really care about fly jets, the Marines have their elite esprit d'corps, and the Navy has always been the most socially elite branch (due to the connection with the upper class on the East Coast dating from the days of sail - sailing remains a connection). The Army has always been the guys who came in huge numbers of average quality who get the job done. Not much glamour. Not as many neat toys to play with. And, since the cavalry was dismounted, no logical connection with the upper class (the country's best polo players used to play for various Army teams, or played against them and met as social equals.)
The end of the four/five year obligation is when an officer decides whether the Army is a temporary gig, in part to pay back a service obligation and education, or whether its a 20-30 year career. Historically, many choose the citizen-soldier path and not the career path. I did, because my wife made it clear she had no interest in a career as an an Army wife, moving every 2-3 years from post to post. As much as I love the Army and loved my time in service, I made the right choice. Still married and we have four great kids.
BTW, this NYT story is an MSM smoke-screen campaign, because they want to bury the real story, which is the Army is about to report fantastic, over-budget, re-enlistment numbers, which show Iraq is having no significant impact on recruiting. They put this story on page one so their readers won't get any news that deviates from their war is lost theme.
I'm thinking the roaring economy has just a little something to do with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.