What qualities or experiences are looked for in new Warrant Officers?

2018-06-20T20:06:36-04:00

It's a ways down the road, but I am interested in eventually becoming a 351M HUMINT Technician.

What kind of experience is optimal for an E-5/E-6 to have when submitting a packet for WOCS? I've read the pre-requisites, so I know you need at least 4 years experience, and a minimum of 2 assignments, but what does that REALLY mean? Also, those are minimums, what is optimal?

What are qualities that leaders look for in Warrants beyond that of "a willingness to learn" and technical expertise? Are there qualities in a person that makes them more or less suitable for being a Warrant rather than remaining enlisted in the same field?

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 20 at 2018 8:27 PM

2018-06-20T20:27:40-04:00

Excel. At everything. Once you get to the NCO ranks, strive to seek out greater challenges for whatever assignment you are in. Always operate above your pay grade, and know regulations and authorities that come with your job. That'll set you up for dropping the packet.

Once you become a WO, be the technical expert, but understand that there are things you still need to learn, and be willing to admit that. Team building and mission focus are traits that should become second nature to you.

Pretty sure that'll get you started. Good luck!

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2018 9:10 AM

2018-06-23T09:10:48-04:00

Sorry for the late response WO1 David Lindstrom , I'm still getting settled in to Texas here. SPC Private RallyPoint Member , I take it you are at language school? That's good. Are you an IET Soldier still? Here is the recruiting page for 351M (my MOS). Keep an eye out on the page, because requirements have changed over the years, so by the time you hit the time to apply something could change and you don't want to be blindsided.

http://www.usarec.army.mil/hq/warrant/prerequ/WO351M.shtml

One thing you didn't mention is the Source Operations Course (or DATC). This is something that didn't used to be required but is, now. It's a fairly difficult course now and fairly all-encompassing, and probably going to be tough to get right away. Do you know what your first unit is? Some units have an easier time getting slots than others for this course.

My suggestion would be to absorb everything you can find in FM 2-22.3 as well as the related classified manuals, since techs are expected to be experts in their field. This will not only help you be successful at SOC when you eventually go, but will demonstrate proficiency to your superiors and your senior warrant who will be writing your letter (eventually).

Additionally, what CW2 Private RallyPoint Member said. Not only is it important to be a good leader because that's what the Army and WO Cohort expects...but you will never get the positive NCOERs, classes, etc if you aren't a good leader and excel. Also, PT is really important from an NCO standpoint. Generally you are treated better, but from a SOC perspective - if your PT score is borderline or below average, as a leader, I would be afraid to send you to a long TDY where there is no organized PT because you are really busy at the school. I remember when I went I dropped from a 295 to 277 APFT score. If you were a 240, you could end up failing at the end. So you need to show dedication to PT because the Army expects that, but also to demonstrate to your leaders that you can be trusted to do PT on your own while TDY.

I only added a bit to others' responses...don't take my response as ignoring theirs - add my response to theirs, if that makes sense.

WO351M.shtml

Response by CW4 Russ Hamilton (Ret) made Jun 23 at 2018 11:54 AM

2018-06-23T11:54:34-04:00

The number one thing I look for is "Are they technically proficient" immediately followed by "Are they mature and well rounded." New policies allowing E5's with as little as two yrs time in MOS has seriously damaged the WO Corps. We have lost that respect we used to have. There are exceptions as with anything else but this terrible decision to "make them technically proficient while on the job" was the most damaging change ever made to WO accessions. After those two issues the next important thing is "Can they communicate effectively verbally and in writing?" If not I will not sign their letter of recommendation. I have had to tell people no and that's hard but it has to be done. The general policy of approving everyone who meets minimum qualifications is BAD. Shame on the WO's and commands who adhere to this.

Response by CW4 Tim Leival made Jul 18 at 2018 11:13 PM

2018-07-18T23:13:43-04:00

Training is good. Experience is better. If you come looking for a recommendation, then be fully prepared to demonstrate mastery, not mere familiarity of your profession. Demonstrate your ability to discern human motivations and influence behavior based on your observations. Anything less is simply not sufficient for consideration as a 351M. SOC/DATC/DSDC/35D are all nice, but 99 failures and one success in a live interrogation booth is much more interesting. Go get your hands dirty and then we’ll talk.