Military training should be as long as the service determines it should be, not as long as it is convenient for the servicemember. I know that I am not telling you anything you don't know but training for Navy Reserve DCO's is paltry compared to pretty much every single other officer accession program in the US military, with the exception of staff/specialist types, I think increasing the amount of training will only improve things for the Navy.
Another thing that has not been pointed out is that this may actually save the Navy some money, by consolidating two or more officer accession programs into one saving on all the overhead associated with maintaining separate programs.
That has a lot less to do with recruiting and retention for the other services and a lot more to do with Navy policy to provide personnel for GWOT, because Navy leadership wanted us to make a contribution on the ground.
I am not so sure, I have had mixed dealings with DCO's in my reserve career. Most of those I have dealt with have been at the O-4/5 level but the lack of Navy experience is evident with some even at that level. At least by then even those who don't have a strong Navy background are pretty sharp even if they are still neophytes to a lot of Navy stuff. But what I have seen at the lower level has been a bit more mixed, with some awesome folks but others not so much.
Are Navy Reserve DCO's worth it to the Navy? Certainly, for no other reason that they get DCO's for really cheap. But that doesn't mean the Navy could spend a little more to get a better return on its investment.
Thanks for your input Flash - you are sound, sane, and your points reasonable. I'm not budging on my side - but it's not because I disagree with what you are saying so much - it more that it drives me to a different place.
With others, I've hashed through the double standard for reservists and active duty on this post earlier in the discussion. I'm all for making things better but I'm realistic about what I think can be done to keep reservists on par with the active side. I accept there will always be gap.
Just out of curiosity - do your remember the old APG (advanced pay grade program) for enlisted back in the early 2000's? It worked - it addressed many of the training hick-ups that the modern DCO program is having and it could be a great model to look at for guidance on restructuring the DCO program that focuses on ways to increase effectiveness of training and readiness while having the lowest impact on reservists.
My two cents with the inevitable chasm between active and reserve is - Good caliber reservists will rise to the challenge when the time comes and pick up slack that they need to make up to keep up with the Active side when the times comes. That remains my position. I don't see a scenario where training ever keeps reservists on par with the active side. Recruiting the best people at the gate when the enter the Navy is what matters.
I do see scenarios where reserve training becomes too much a burden to recruit or retain sailors.
There is truth in the Navy wanting to stay relevant in a ground war in the history of the IA deployments. That is and has been going away for a few years now. There's also a lot of truth in the fact that the Army is addicted to IA sailors. They can't get enough of them to make up shortfalls in their own service's needs. The Navy definitely used that need to its advantage to keep relevant in GWOT but the reason the Navy could exploit the need was due to shortfalls in Army manning and recruiting capability. I say it tongue and cheek - but Recruiting - the struggle is real.
Recruiting and retention will become increasingly difficult in my assessment - not for all rates/specialties - but for many. Particularly for folks needing to obtain and maintain and TS/SCI. Let's face it - it's 2019 - people are smoking dope and chasing craigslist hook ups - not exactly TX material. There are lots of ways to address this issue but it is a real issue that impact recruiting.
