Should you have one unit your entire career?

Sir, I think that if you sit on the outside looking in, in the fiscally strapped times that are facing, there would be monetary benefits to keeping folks in one unit, at one location for their entire career. But I also believe that saving money is probably where the "pros" stop.

All of us have been inundated with "job diversity, avoid stagnation, look for challenging jobs and locations, etc, etc." That is the culture of our military and that is also, what I believe, what makes us strong and keeps us innovative and fresh. Staying in one unit for your career would make a person a subject matter expert in that unit. One would become the "master of a unit SOP." There would be no opportunity to inject fresh ideas or lessons learned from anywhere else. We would die by "this is the way we've always done it."

I could go on and on, but I am sure that you can see what my opinion is. Maybe increase stability from 24-36 to 36-48 or even 60 months? That could be something to look into. Maybe dust off the old term "home-steading" and re-look at the pros and cons? I just think that in our current military culture and with the downsizing of personnel, locking service members into locations without affording them the traditional opportunities to remain competitive for promotion, it would be detrimental in the long run.

Based on my understanding, the Canadian Army also follows the Regimental approach.

On the plus side, it would make it much easier on families and really build camaraderie.

On the negative, it would increase the impact of the GOBC all the more, as well as limit opportunities for growth & development, let alone promotion.

I could definitely see some sort of modified regimental system put in place where a Soldier would have 50-75% of their career assignments in one Regiment.

Even better would be a "homesteading" option. Where a Soldier would, for instance, be guaranteed (barring deployments) service physically located at JBLM for the term of their enlistment/reenlistment, but not necessarily the same unit. There are some obvious issues that would need to be worked out - everyone wants HI, nobody wants AK, etc. Moreover, it would likely be a drag on promotional advancement. However, I think the potential stability of "my spouse can keep their job, and my kids don't have to move in the middle of high school" would pay huge dividends.

LTC David S. Chang, ChFC®, CLU®, you seem to be talking about what happens in the reserve component, so many of the same issues there would apply to something like this in the active component.

In many cases, some of the strengths are the weakness as well.

PRO: Stay in the same unit for life? Great knowledge of your soldiers, capabilities, equipment, etc.

CON: Stay in the same unit for life? "That's the way we've always done it" is taken to a new level, informal processes start to rise in importance (the "who" you know vs the "what" you know), etc.

In the active component, the biggest problem I would see is what do you do for advancement? What about MOSes that only have a set grade available in that unit? The reserve component handles things like this by allowing soldiers to simultaneously hold three MOSes. This allows them greater flexibility to move around in a limited geographical area. Even then, this tends not to work out at the higher ranks where there just aren't enough positions of certain rank to go around!

The main problem would be that restructuring of the personnel system that is already in place. There ARE existing programs that allow soldiers to stay in one place and continue to be promoted in the same job (Great Skills program for example) that can be used as a model, but the overhead on these things is such that it only works for smaller populations.