When service recruiters are trained, regardless of service, are they required to become familiar with programs in other branches?

My first recruiting station was like that, we all got along, and the USAF was never around. Everywhere else it was ruthless competition and shady shenanigans.

CSM Charles Hayden - Not on recruiting duty. It's fixed bayonets!!! mission mission mission. You kill or be killed.

I did read everything here; if all of you could also read what I'd also sent back as well, or will as this thread develops, I'd really be most eager to know the view of all of you as to whether or not you'd all think an actual interservice recruiting academy, with explicit formal training in human resources (HR), as well as mandated exposure, possibly in colloquium format, to all service programs, in order to try to fit a potential recruit as perfectly as might be feasible, and/or capable of being assured and/or guaranteed (which would obviously not always be controllable, of course), along with initial installation of assignment, might possibly be a worthwhile concept at all, it's just been a concept rolling around in my head for quite some time now, and, as I'd mentioned, that other thread I'd been reading was what kinda crystallized my thoughts for me, in terms of actually sending in this thread here to explore the idea, so far as possible, if only out of purely intellectual curiosity, many thanks....

Here's another thought, I just read through one of the other answers, that I'd missed when I sent my last one here just now: I perceive what was mentioned about the whole competitive aspect of recruiters, and have obviously always understood that recruiters for each service, if you will, try to "sell" their specific branch. I merely suggest the concept of such explicitly mandated joint recruiter training for a multitude of possibly beneficial reasons: (A) It's at least to my mind, markedly more efficient; (B) It saves a good deal of time, and lets all recruiters be that much more universally informed about other branches; (C) It might help avoid a good many potential recruiting problems later on, if, e.g., a recruit wound up in an area of work the hadn't initially wanted, and/or expected, or gotten the impression that they'd be allowed to do, as well as where they might actually be going, at least for a first assignment; (D) It just strikes me, overall, as being a quite possibly more wholly coordinated effort, under proper, formal HR guidelines, to try to ensure not merely that the needs of all services were being met, but also that a given recruit actually wound up where they wanted and/or expected and/or hoped to be, which would, in turn, only serve to help make them a more completely contented and/or contributing member. Now please understand, and I'm going to use a somewhat simplistic and possibly facile analogy here, basically, what I'm suggesting is the whole concept of "Macy's" vs. "Gimble's", if you will; if a given recruiter might think, given such prior in-depth training, that a given recruit might not have explored a given career field, might not have asked the right questions, might not have had adequate time to decide before committing, regardless of scheduling for a given boot camp and/or training program, doesn't or wouldn't it make (at least to me, certainly) infinitely more sense to actually mandate a "Macy's" vs. "Gimble's" mentality, if only for the best possible potential good of ALL services? I'm obviously not suggesting total service consolidation, as is done, I've gathered, e.g., in Canada; obviously, that'd never happen here, I should think, due to individual cultural identities and esprit de corps in each service, of course. I'm merely trying to suggest that an actual multi-service, explicitly mandated recruiting academy, possibly with varying levels of training, could certainly help minimize possible assignment errors, given individual potential recruit interests and/or motivations, that's my sole point. I'm not saying, either that it'd be a necessarily perfect solution, and, of course, it'd need to be tweaked and/or evolved over time, of course; I merely suggest it in light of what I went through myself, and in light of what I'd read in that other thread; so, once again, I'd be most eager for the explicit thoughts of all of you about that specific idea, one specific school, for virtually all service recruiters, whether enlisted, warrant, or commissioned, with explicit, concrete, formal training in HR, as well as colloquium round-robin discussions, actually mandated as part of the curriculum. I, for my part, while I realize it obviously runs rather counter-culture to what m father, who'd been Navy, sometimes called the standard "shipping over" mentality normally applied, I just for my own part think such an approach could, at least potentially, be rather considerably more enlightened, as well as more farsighted, in terms of achieving not merely recruiting goals, but also retention, as well as member satisfaction, I hope that at least makes some relative sense, once again, I'd be most eager for the thoughts of all of you, no rush, whenever convenient, many thanks.

I follow...purely as food for thought, of course, and, in 20/20 hindsight and retrospect, as I quite vividly recall virtually everything for the most part that happened to me, would you, for your part, possibly think such a explicitly mandated interservice recruiter training program might conceivably worthwhile? Also, again purely as food for thought, would you think actually mandating, by actual regulation, that potential recruits be actually required to see recruiters for other components of the service they'd originally wanted, as well as to actually also possibly be required to see recruiters for other services as well? Given what happened to me way back, and given what I'd read in that other thread I'd mentioned, I was just kinda thinking such an explicitly mandated interservice recruiter training program, which would also, as I think of it, distinctly benefit from explicit formal training in human resources (HR), and also the kinds of imposed controls to make as positively certain that someone was fitted as precisely to what area they might initially want, provided, of course, that such fit could, so far as possible, also be guaranteed, might possibly be of fairly considerable use in recruiting generally. Please understand, I only suggest that after years of retrospection of what actually happened in my case, for the simple reason I had zero clue what to ask, and had, in fact, actually been directed by one USAF OTS recruiter to have chatted with a recruiter for the USAF Biomed Science Corps (BSC), which, obviously, I didn't do, and which error caused me, unfortunately, years of heartache and disappointment. I'm obviously not meaning to suggest that the strictures and/or higher level of direct interservice training I suggest here would or could necessarily prevent and/or forestall all problems, that'd obviously be totally impossible, of course, I merely had pondered the whole question of whether such an approach as I've discussed here might (A) be at all doable, and, also, (B) be at all worthwhile, honest; I'd be most eager to know any thoughts you might possibly have in such a regard, if only out of purely intellectual curiosity, you understand, many thanks.

I think all branches have equal access to prospect recruits. Recruiters from all branches visit high schools, trade schools, and junior colleges; proctor the ASVAB tests, attend job & career fairs and other events, etc; etc. Students with an interest or propensity to enlist have venues to interact with recruiters from all branches outside of the recruiting offices. Of course, every service's recruiting mission is different. The Army has a bigger presence, more recruiters, and markets themselves in the community a lot more than the Air Force and Coast Guard does, simply because they have a much higher recruiting mission and bigger budget to work with. A joint recruiting station may have 8 Army recruiters to 1 Air Force, 2 Navy recruiters, and 2 Marines. The nearest Coast Guard Recruiter is probably a few hundred miles away. An "interservice recruiting" concept probably wouldn't work due to the recruiting requirements and qualifications differences between the services. For example, if the "interservice" recruiting station got a monthly volume mission of 18 Army/6 Army Reserve, 3 Navy, 4 Marines, 1 Air Force, 0 Coast Guard; where would the priority be on selling and processing? You have 13 total recruiters and 75% of your quota is Army/Army Reserve. Obviously, the "interservice" recruiting station must put 75% of their efforts in selling the Army. Can you imagine a Marine NCO having to sell a kid on being an Army Ranger instead of a Marine to make his quota because that's the only way to get Saturday off to go to his kids soccer game?