Sec Def wants civilians "laterally" entered as O's

RackMaster

Nasty-Dirty-Canuck
SOF Support
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
11,822
Location
Land of Swine and Maple Syrup
This sounds like a huge crock of shit. Is there not already senior civilian positions? Why the need to put them in uniform and give them a commission if not to drive policy from within.


Sec Def wants civilians to be “laterally” entered into military as high ranking officers
By Andy Wolf|June 20th, 2016|Military News|0 Comments

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!


  • Defense Secretary Ash Carter announces new "Force of the Future" initiatives at the Pentagon, June 9, 2016. DoD photo by Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Tim D. Godbee
Secretary of Defense Ash Carter is looking to allow civilians with strong resumes and valuable skill sets to “laterally” enter the military with starting ranks as high as O-6.

The controversial idea is a piece of Ash Carter’s “Force of the Future” scheme for personnel reform, which was revealed on June 9th as a way for the US Military to bring in more talent- particularly in more technological fields, according to Military Times.

Supporters of the concept claim that the move will fill the gaps in the military where manpower has fallen short of highly-skilled professionals that can only be found in abundance in the civilian sector.

Meanwhile, critics say that the concept erodes the military tradition of growing its own leaders from a distinct culture and social fabric, which many feel is the reason for the military’s effectiveness. In addition, it may create a faction of military leaders who are intrinsically disconnected from the rest of the service.

“They will enter a culture they don’t know, understand or potentially appreciate,” said Dakota Wood, a retired Marine officer and military expert at the Heritage Foundation. “The Marines around them will likely be challenged to appreciate them as they would a fellow Marine.”

If Congress approves the measure, several challenges will be faced in the development of the program, with matters of training, promotions and retention being of great concern. However, one of the greatest concerns is also one of the simplest- a matter of dollars and cents.

Under the current military pay structure, a laterally-entered colonel or captain with one year of service would make considerably less money than a servicemember of equal rank who has put in 20 years or more. In addition, the current military retirement system doesn’t offer much for short-term service. With military wages already being on the suffering end of the widening gap with their civilian sector counterparts, there may not be much incentive to “cross over”.


While the Navy is the most enthusiastic about the idea, the Air Force and Army are more on the fence over the issue. Meanwhile, the Marine Corps seems to be showing the most resistance.

Carter has taken note of critics, saying it is unlikely that laterals would affect jobs that have no civilian counterparts -such as infantry or combat aviation- and would only apply to fields such as cyber warfare.

Now, I have to say we can’t do this for every career field- far from it,” Carter said. “It will probably never apply to line officers, as they’ll always need to begin their military careers as second lieutenants and ensigns. But allowing the military services to commission a wider segment of specialized outside talent … will make us more effective.”

For now, each individual military service would have to decide for themselves where to place laterals, seeing where they would be most useful- and excluding them from where they may prove a hindrance.

“There are some cultural issues,” said former Pentagon personnel chief Brad Carson, who helped write up the reforms. “People who come in won’t just have to have the skills. They’ll have to have a military bearing and understand the military ethic. You don’t just get that by walking in off the street.”

Sec Def wants civilians to be "laterally" entered into military as high ranking officers
 
Quoted from above -
Meanwhile, the Marine Corps seems to be showing the most resistance. 8-)


Saw this yesterday on Twitter - need to track down the actual article...

0
 
Quoted from above -
Meanwhile, the Marine Corps seems to be showing the most resistance. 8-)


Saw this yesterday on Twitter - need to track down the actual article...

0
Army Times?

Problem is you will have Field Grade Officer's functioning as Lt's.

I also see DoD paying through the ass as these guys/gals do a 4 year tour in Acquisitions, then head back to the companies to "invent" new technologies, ignoring the fact that these technologies are owned by another company.
 
It would work for Medical officers. No reason it wouldn't. They aren't line officers anyways.
 
It would work for Medical officers. No reason it wouldn't. They aren't line officers anyways.

Wasn't that the overall premise of MASH? Docs drafted out of their practices, given rank, and sent to Korea.
 
The Navy does this, actually quite a bit. Mostly the medical field (docs, nurses, dentists, etc) and JAG, but I saw intel, civil engineer corps, and supply officer enter at higher grade. Of course, some of those are staff O's and some are Restricted Line Officers, so the only thing they could command would be a shore establishment of their given specialty.
 
Wasn't that the overall premise of MASH? Docs drafted out of their practices, given rank, and sent to Korea.

We still do that. Doc's and lawyers (probably other specialties) go through a gentleman's course and are frocked as Captains.
 
We still do that. Doc's and lawyers (probably other specialties) go through a gentleman's course and are frocked as Captains.

In the Navy for active it's Officer Development School, in the reserve it's Direct Commission Officer school; either way, it's knife-and-fork school at a crawling speed. Generally a cake walk for anyone, for Mustangs it's about as easy a few weeks as you can get.
 
Just my SWAG: Army's standing up their own Cyber Branch and have had VTIP messages out for a while now for accessions into the branch. I'm not sure where the other services stand on this, but if they don't have organic talent, and they can't attract talent on O-1 pay, this may be (for right or for wrong) their answer...
 
From a combat arms perspective, as long as LTC NetworkArchitect doesn't imagine he can take charge of a military operation he might somehow be a part of, or in the vicinity of, I don't object to using SMEs with limited commissions.
 
And characteristically, the Marines resist all the bullshit innovations that come out of DoD and then reluctantly have to go along with them because they have no other choice. Is it a "face" thing?
 
From a combat arms perspective, as long as LTC NetworkArchitect doesn't imagine he can take charge of a military operation he might somehow be a part of, or in the vicinity of, I don't object to using SMEs with limited commissions.

I don't think it's a bad idea unless we go full retard Civil War politically appointed infantry officers. :wall::wall::wall:
 
From a combat arms perspective, as long as LTC NetworkArchitect doesn't imagine he can take charge of a military operation he might somehow be a part of, or in the vicinity of, I don't object to using SMEs with limited commissions.

I thought those people were called Warrant Officers. Of course, Civil Affairs created a SME officer billet that has no command responsibility (I was actually considering it for a bit) so this wouldn't be groundbreaking.

The problem that I see is that even new college graduates command higher salaries than O3s and O4s, depending on time in service...and these kids get it right out of the gate. WO pay probably wouldn't attract them, and I wonder if regular officer pay would either unless they are constitutionally predisposed to serving their country. But if that were the case they probably would have earned their IT/IS degrees through ROTC.

It's a conundrum.
 
I thought those people were called Warrant Officers. Of course, Civil Affairs created a SME officer billet that has no command responsibility (I was actually considering it for a bit) so this wouldn't be groundbreaking.

The problem that I see is that even new college graduates command higher salaries than O3s and O4s, depending on time in service...and these kids get it right out of the gate. WO pay probably wouldn't attract them, and I wonder if regular officer pay would either unless they are constitutionally predisposed to serving their country. But if that were the case they probably would have earned their IT/IS degrees through ROTC.

It's a conundrum.

Warrant was my first thought as well, but you'd have a hell of a time stretching a bonus from WO1 pay up to the O4-O6 levels they're talking about.

The other part is effectively managing the skills that people are arriving with... :wall:
 
There are also non-leadership officer MOS' For example, FA-53 is an IT Officer that is not eligible to hold a command. They can hold a Leadership position within their area (S/J/G-6), but not a command.

The problem that they are finding out now is that they stopped growing their own people in the technical fields, lost the skillsets because they outsourced to contractors and now do not have the intrinsic ability to reestablish the expertise internally. Civvie side we would say that they lost their institutional knowledge. They are absolutely correct when they say it would take decades to grow their own (competent) O's in these fields.

Personally, I have the skillset they are looking for and would be willing to get back in with the lateral promotion. The main reason I got out is that the pay disparity was killing me financially with the deployments. Even as a junior IT guy (which I am not), the difference between civilian pay and Army pay is that the military pay is less than half the starting salary in the equivalent job. As an O-5/O-6 I'd make enough on deployments to be able to pay the bills, not much more...but I'd finish out my career and retire.
 
There are also non-leadership officer MOS' For example, FA-53 is an IT Officer that is not eligible to hold a command. They can hold a Leadership position within their area (S/J/G-6), but not a command.

The problem that they are finding out now is that they stopped growing their own people in the technical fields, lost the skillsets because they outsourced to contractors and now do not have the intrinsic ability to reestablish the expertise internally. Civvie side we would say that they lost their institutional knowledge. They are absolutely correct when they say it would take decades to grow their own (competent) O's in these fields.

Personally, I have the skillset they are looking for and would be willing to get back in with the lateral promotion. The main reason I got out is that the pay disparity was killing me financially with the deployments. Even as a junior IT guy (which I am not), the difference between civilian pay and Army pay is that the military pay is less than half the starting salary in the equivalent job. As an O-5/O-6 I'd make enough on deployments to be able to pay the bills, not much more...but I'd finish out my career and retire.
Not trying to be a smartass, but wouldn't they disqualify us (meaning you and me both) based on age?
 
I'm still young enough to reup. They take your service off of your age to determine eligibility. I'm 47 with 12 years service so for enlistment purposes I'm still 35 until my next birthday.
 
I'm still young enough to reup. They take your service off of your age to determine eligibility. I'm 47 with 12 years service so for enlistment purposes I'm still 35 until my next birthday.
Lordy I hate you right now.
 
Back
Top