Do you think a 20% cut of YG 2009 for the Officer Separation Board is excessive?

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 11 Feb 2016 17:33:35 -0500

I went through the last OSB and during that board there was an average cut of 10% for each year group affected.

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/careers/army/officer/2016/02/11/20-percent-screened-army-captains-booted-retention-board/80242652/

20 percent of screened Army captains booted by retention board

Involuntary separations and early retirements must be completed by Dec.1

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Feb 11 at 2016 6:28 PM

CAPT Kevin B. — Thu, 11 Feb 2016 18:28:22 -0500

Welcome to downsizing. Sometimes it can get much worse. I was in a designater wherein 85% of all who were 10 years in and up for O-4 got tossed in YGs-76-77 because there was a fascination on moving a bunch of regular line officers in to instantly create a corps which had warfare badges. So there isn't much caring going on in this stuff even if the decision is right.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2016 7:42 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 11 Feb 2016 19:42:22 -0500

It's funny. Logically I don't think I have anything to worry about, but then the evil little voice tells me that's what everyone else that was selected thought too. Crossing my fingers and toes. On the other hand I just reached 18 years in January so I'm "safe" in that regard, but it's not what I want.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2016 8:37 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 11 Feb 2016 20:37:07 -0500

I was told I was low risk but I know some officers who were cut were told the same thing. Hoping for the best, but have to sweat it out till the 25th.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 12 at 2016 12:39 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 00:39:35 -0500

I don't think 20% is excessive. It is unfortunate, though, that the Army continues to downsize the officer corps by cutting junior year groups while not taking similar action for senior year groups (or, at least, not advertising action taken regarding senior year groups). We've cut thousands of captains and majors, and, as best I can tell, about two hundred LTC and COL. Why not cut from the top, too?

I'm in Turkey. The Turkish Army is downsizing. Their technique? Retire their four oldest year groups (85-88, so senior colonels who aren't going to make general) across the board, at one time.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 12 at 2016 9:17 AM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 09:17:27 -0500

A couple of things here. We need to look at what commissions were like in 2009. I suspect it was rather high. We were post surge with a large Army and needed a boat load of officers. So, I suspect we commissioned a lot of 2LT's in all the branches. Now, between 2011 and 2017, we were told (in the Budget Control Act of 2011) that we would shrink the Army by 150,000 soldiers. That's pretty significant and if you look at the overall numbers, we have to cut all ranks. For officers, CPT's will feel it the most because there isn't a cut from 2LT-CPT. It's an automatic promotion. Only natural attrition from guys getting out on their own draw the force down in those ranks. It seems to make sense that CPT's would feel the worst of it, since there aren't promotion boards before this point to skim the bottom 10-15% off at every promotion. Unfortunate but true.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 12 at 2016 9:50 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 21:50:57 -0500

Yes, I think that downsizing the Military at all is a bad idea when ISIL is still strong in the Middle East, Russia is projecting power in Europe and the M.E., China is doing the same in the South China Sea, and North Korea is testing ICBMs with the stated intent of reuniting the Korean peninsula and the U.S. We should be increasing or sustaining my Military capabilities, not downsizing.

Response by CPT Mark Gonzalez made Feb 15 at 2016 12:01 PM

CPT Mark Gonzalez — Mon, 15 Feb 2016 12:01:41 -0500

Had they waived ADSO's and asked for volunteers this may not have been necessary. I understand that there are calculations regarding attrition and the military wants to retain certain officers, but I feel bad that "some" of these were good officers and are now forced into the reserves or out the door. On a side note, what message does that send reserve Soldiers that leaders were not good enough for active duty, but encouraged into reserve service?

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 15 at 2016 12:02 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 15 Feb 2016 12:02:00 -0500

I understand the need to cut officers. What I don't understand is why the board does not have to explain to each officer selected why they were selected. We do this with NCO's that are QMP'd, so why not here. For some it's easy to figure out IE: DUI's, BCOM's etc. But what about those that don't have any obvious black marks or red flags? I'm one of them, and my command and I are both sitting here scratching our heads.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 28 at 2016 4:39 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 28 Feb 2016 04:39:58 -0500

20% certainly felt excessive. I hope after the election we adjust our troop strength requirements to reflect the reality of the world. I hope those sent packing (without DEROG) are afforded the opportunity to return to active duty. HRC had a program a few years ago (Call to Active Duty) which allowed me to return to active to AD after a 2.5 year break in service.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 16 at 2016 6:37 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 16 Apr 2016 06:37:06 -0400

Has any one seen the statistics released or "leaked" yet? I know they came out from the last board, curious if this years has hit the street yet. I've done a fair amount of searching and cant find any.

Thanks