Posted on Jul 22, 2015
What will the acceptance rates be for non-rated OTS applicants? Opinions...
22.7K
9
4
1
1
0
With the delay in the last non-rated board (15OT02), its looking like the Air Force will be struggling to meet FY16 requirements. Any opinions on this?
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
I can't comment as to the numbers, but I can encourage you to press on. While there weren't too many of us non-rated officers, we were still there, even from the AD TSgt-MSgt pool. Go for it, and good luck!
(3)
(0)
First, the background. The Air Force uses OTS as a flexible measure to ensure the incoming officer ranks are properly filled. The slots go to Academy graduates first, then ROTC, then finally to OTS. Of those in OTS, it becomes a hodgepodge of people with degrees and prior enlisted. If the AF doesn't have enough USAFA and ROTC grads incoming, then they open up more OTS slots. This of course, is a little after the fact and can swing each year.
Second, the answer. The AF has the officers it needs if they are delaying OTS boards, so acceptance rates will be low. In today's downsizing Air Force, the two major pipelines are doing quite well to feed the service's need for new officers. Just a few years ago, they were offering ROTC grads the opportunity to not commission. Basically, they got college for free, no commitment required. As such, I don't see a pressing need for more OTS candidates. Sorry.
Second, the answer. The AF has the officers it needs if they are delaying OTS boards, so acceptance rates will be low. In today's downsizing Air Force, the two major pipelines are doing quite well to feed the service's need for new officers. Just a few years ago, they were offering ROTC grads the opportunity to not commission. Basically, they got college for free, no commitment required. As such, I don't see a pressing need for more OTS candidates. Sorry.
(2)
(0)
This stemming from an Air Force Tiimes article. Gen Kelly stated that the Air Force has goals of admitting 1100 applicants to OTS next year, up from 520 this year.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next