Army needs more 1st lts. for Special Forces
 

http://www.armytimes.com/article/201...Special-Forces


BMT

Unusual.

Normally, we have a lot more applicants than we can take. We turn down a lot of quality applicants every year.

This is going to get worse, as the Army gets smaller.

TR

I like to hear it from someone at SWC. I'm with you TR, we have a lot of officers dropping their packages "off."

Warrants can and will take up the slack on the ODA's but we need to grow Co/Bn/Gp Commanders from that young team experience.
Every Lt. position is just for seasoning whether in SF or a line Platoon...the only reason those slots exist is to grow Captains.

Amen

PB, just to clarify, they are recruiting 1LTs, and not CPTs, because by the time the officer completes the required training and is headed to a team, he will be a CPT.

They normally pick guys about 2.5 - 3 years into their career, and the promotion to O-3 is normally pretty soon after that.

The O's that make it through the screening process and get a slot to SFAS get one shot at Selection, and that is it. Not enough time to let them try again. The National Guard may be different on that.

Another possibility here is that they are actually short on CA and/or MISO officers, and are lumping all of the ARSOF requirements together.

TR

Since Special Forces is now a separate branch, when does the Army effect a branch transfer for the First Lieutenant? After SFAS selection? After graduation from the Q course and award of the Tab?
And if the 1LT does not complete the pipeline, I assume he reverts to his original branch (with or without ill effects on his career)?

Yeah, I get that....point still stands tho...in the line you need to grow Captains and there is no real other need for Lt.s at Platoon level except to grow them to assume that command.
Just like there is no real need for a Captain on an ODA...but we need to grow Co. Commanders and above.

Not SF, so I tread lightly.

This article seemed to be one of those "slow news day" articles written by the Army times. I'm a YG '10 AD officer and my year group window for SF closed around this time last year, so the YG 11 window for Officer applicants is rapidly approaching and Army Times decided to post an article about it.

Although I am no authority in your pipeline, gentlemen, with the current pin on for captain being YG+48, I would imagine that with SFAS, MCCC (if they still send them to the MCCC before the SFQC), and the SFQC, that would be more than enough time for any YG11 officer to pin Captain before he arrived at Group.

Back to my lane.

Back in the Pre-SF Branch days, there were advantages to having 1LT XOs on ODAs (no carry the generator jokes ;)). Take a guy who already had successful conventional Infantry PL time, send him to SFQC, slap him on a team for a year or so (as an LT), then (when he made Captain), minimum conventional Company CO time, then back to us as a Team Leader.

Well seasoned officers with troop time up to company level... and just enough previous experience as low man on an ODA to understand what they needed to do when they actually commanded one.

I wouldn't want to give up WOs as the XO, but it would be useful to have a very limited number of Combat Arms LTs assigned to a few ODAs per Bn. Perhaps as placeholders for teams temporarily without Warrants. A chance for a strong SF Captain and SF Master Sergeant to mentor that guy well.

Officer promotions are a carefully crafted grinding of sausage, but somehow, back in the late 70's and early 80's... we occasionally had Team Commanders who had managed to do all of the following before taking an ODA:

1. Conventional Platoon Command
2. Conventional Co XO
3. ODA XO
4. Conventional Co Command

I am a little surprised to see this comment coming from a Command Sergeants Major nearly twenty years after the approval of the Officer SF Branch. Are we still thinking of Officers as visitors and intruders in the team rooms? Maybe I'm misinterpreting.
This is early in my posting time here, and I certainly have no desire to be contentious but this 60-70s way of thinking is disheartening and my comments are not meant disrespectfully.
However.....
When I showed up at my first platoon I realized I needed to prove myself to my PSG, Squad Leaders and Soldiers quickly. I did that by having jump wings and being wicked good with a map and compass and some good patrolling techniques. At the seven year mark, I showed up at our team (not my team) still wicked good with a map and compass but also with two overseas tours, a "technically and tactically proficient" Infantryman, all my schools and a bunch of leadership and staff time. What I also brought was a sense of urgency.
Officers, if they are lucky will be on team for 18 months, NCO's are there for decades. I think one of the best things Officers bring is the "lets do it NOW" to the NCO's "let's do it."

Sir:
I understand many of the benefits of the Officer SF Branch. The benefits to the Officers careers and particularly to the command structure of the groups. I think it is fantastic that we are able to keep hard earned experience within the regiment. That experience positively filters back down to the ODA's in many forms.

That being said, I have two questions for you:

Why do you feel your ODA was better served with you rather than all the prior officers that served before there was an SF branch? Does the branch bring a better class of Officer? Remember, the O’s that went SF prior to the branch did so knowing it could seriously slow their career progression.

Do you think the TL job description changed dramatically with the advent of the SF branch?





LHC

"Let's do it know." Guess what, you have 18-24 months to ride that pony as hard and as fast as you can, then you jump off and someone else jumps on and takes over. Well this pony has to go the long haul and has to set the pace because it is my ass you are riding.

x/S

After SFAS before the Career Course officers are branch transferred, and yes failing the course reverts you back to your original branch (with or without ill effects.........).

I and a few others I know very well are from Old School SF.

SF NCOs serve as a junior, then as a senior, and perhaps later as a Team Sergeant and maybe a Company Sergeant Major.

Warrants are assumed to be competent and have precisely what it takes to be an officer -- and unless there's malfeasance or deliberate misbehavior they're warrants forever.

Captain Detachment Commanders get one shot, then go on to other SF jobs, functional areas, or leave the service. They don't have the opportunity to develop and see both good and bad leadership examples on an ODA. They never serve as conventional company commanders to develop their leadership styles.

I spent my XO time as a company XO at SWC pushing Q-Course classes, then as the XO for the HALO Committee. One of my "Developmental" jobs while at the Committee was writing the 1988 edition of the HALO manual.

I commanded three SFODAs and an SF Company, was a forward SF battalion S3 and XO, then off to SMUs and joint SOF assignments and staffs. The pyramid narrows quickly and not every 18 with crossed arrows will command an SF battalion.

I commanded two separate non-SF battalions.