Posted on Apr 13, 2014
Getting rid of recruiting as a special duty assignment?
20K
12
13
1
1
0
I fielded this question in my recruiting center and was surprised by some of the responses. Should recruiting be a application only MOS?
Detailed recruiters are on assignment for 3 years. They typically aren't really in their element for at least a year and turnover can be detrimental to a center. Should the Army add 79R to the SMAPP program (promo to E-5) and establish a more experienced, consistent recruiting force?
Recruiting
Reclass
Promotions
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 6
2
2
0
Did three and a half years myself. There are are pros and cons: out of my entire class, there were a very few that actually volunteered to recruit. For the rest of us, it was just a job. But you can see how being "forced" to do this could embitter somebody's attitued towards the Army; so at the same time they're putting people in, they are just biding their own time to get out. But for some of us, myself included, being taken out of our element can be a good thing. I hated recruiting at first but learned a lot and am proud of what I did. Like anything else in life, you can't really knock it until you've tried it. Having the personnel that actually want to be there can definitely make for a better recruiting force. One blaring downside to this would be (as we've no doubt seen) those that rush to USAREC and avoid ever having to deploy...
(2)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Chief Lopez,
Great feedback! I think the potential for NCOs who are avoiding deployments or the like is something that Branch Managers are required to screen prior to releasing SMs for recruiting assignments. However, some slip through because the BMs have a set number of slots they are required to fill for each SDA. Volunteers count twice towards those numbers. If they don't have enough volunteers, they have to DA Select some. The current trend is about 75% of the detailed force has OIF/OEF experience where the 79R force has 17%. Most of them having com into recruiting as young E-5s prior to previous deployment rotations/surges.
SFC Pierce, III Corps Outreach NCO
Great feedback! I think the potential for NCOs who are avoiding deployments or the like is something that Branch Managers are required to screen prior to releasing SMs for recruiting assignments. However, some slip through because the BMs have a set number of slots they are required to fill for each SDA. Volunteers count twice towards those numbers. If they don't have enough volunteers, they have to DA Select some. The current trend is about 75% of the detailed force has OIF/OEF experience where the 79R force has 17%. Most of them having com into recruiting as young E-5s prior to previous deployment rotations/surges.
SFC Pierce, III Corps Outreach NCO
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I can see both sides to your question. I've been in USAREC since 2005 and I've seen a little bit of everything. I'll say that for now, mainly due to no evidence to support the argument (lol), I'd say that the current system with detailed recruiters makes sense. Some Soldiers need a special duty assignment on their resume to strengthen their career, and others prefer it. Some MOSs are monotonous and Soldiers need a break from their daily job without having to reclass, and recruiting duty can provide that. Some Soldiers who deploy a lot would really enjoy a 3-year recruiting duty if they could be assigned in, or close to, their hometown with family and friends. But they'd like to get back to their regular MOS, so they wouldn't want to be permanent. Also, from the recruiting side, our job is very strenuous day in and day out. A lot of Soldiers love recruiting duty but wouldn't want to do it for 15+ years. I enlisted in 2002 and came in to recruiting in 2005 and converted to 79R, so I'll ultimately spend at least 17 years in USAREC, but I love it and I chose that. Anyways, it's a very good question and I think that in order for everyone to benefit there needs to be a hard look at how assignments are handed out and, the truth hurts, but the problems with leadership within USAREC should be addressed so Soldiers who come on recruiting aren't left feeling like their careers took a hit.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SFC, I can see the side of the argument. .. a Soldiers perspective. My issue is addressing potential issues with DA Select recruiters. I have seen a couple that couldn't adjust from regular army to the demands of usarec, including a SF Selectee. My perspective is based on a operations view. It takes so much to train a recruiter whose shelf life is 3 years. Their work for their 1st year is going to be hit or miss. The second year is going to be hit or miss. The last half of their third year they can see the light at the end of the tunnel and move into more of a short timer mentality. For E6's I will agree that it helps being on a special duty assignment, but as an E5 I can say that it has definitely slowed my promotion progression. No resident schooling or deployment has impacted us under the new point system. The fact that meritorious promotion has been cut so significantly hurts too. The main argument I make isn't that... I compare our Recruiters to guard agr Recruiters and they definitely have an advantage in terms of experience. My proposed org structure would be 1 MSG Center Commander, 2 SFC ACC ( 1 ET, 1 Processing), 1 SSG FSL, 2 SSG Processors, 2 SGT ET for large centers. All 79R
(1)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SGT Voigt,
I like your thinking outside the box and without knowing anything about you to be honest, I hope you are potentially thinking of reclassing as an opportunity. As SFC Deason stated there tends to be some leadership that get wrapped up in the production piece with little regard to the training or Soldiers' wellfare pieces. That said, today's Soldiers and NCOs are becoming more and more educated and willing to express their opinions and share their insight. I know for a fact this Command reviews the feedback they get from the Soldiers and as they are able implements new policies or initiatives to coincide with that feedback. I am eager to see how the current and future leadership evolves. But, we need Leaders who are willing to tactfully challenge eroneous or poorly thought out guidance and look out for their Soldiers just as much as they are striving to meet mission goals. The two go hand in hand.
The problem with the org structure you propose is promotion and separation trends. Promotions to E-7 and E-8 are happening later in careers than previously they did, around the 15-17 year mark and most career Soldiers are separated or retire around the 20 year mark. So, in an MOS with already established shortages in the ranks of E-5 and E-6 it would be extremely difficult to field enough 79Rs in those ranks with given conversion requirements. To be honest, those conversion requirements are for the benefit of both USAREC and would be 79Rs.
SFC Pierce, III Corps Outreach NCO
I like your thinking outside the box and without knowing anything about you to be honest, I hope you are potentially thinking of reclassing as an opportunity. As SFC Deason stated there tends to be some leadership that get wrapped up in the production piece with little regard to the training or Soldiers' wellfare pieces. That said, today's Soldiers and NCOs are becoming more and more educated and willing to express their opinions and share their insight. I know for a fact this Command reviews the feedback they get from the Soldiers and as they are able implements new policies or initiatives to coincide with that feedback. I am eager to see how the current and future leadership evolves. But, we need Leaders who are willing to tactfully challenge eroneous or poorly thought out guidance and look out for their Soldiers just as much as they are striving to meet mission goals. The two go hand in hand.
The problem with the org structure you propose is promotion and separation trends. Promotions to E-7 and E-8 are happening later in careers than previously they did, around the 15-17 year mark and most career Soldiers are separated or retire around the 20 year mark. So, in an MOS with already established shortages in the ranks of E-5 and E-6 it would be extremely difficult to field enough 79Rs in those ranks with given conversion requirements. To be honest, those conversion requirements are for the benefit of both USAREC and would be 79Rs.
SFC Pierce, III Corps Outreach NCO
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google