OCS Changes

[wink]

OCS is not designed to train anybody. OCS is nothing more than an evaluation process. The DIs are pretty much hands-off (can you imagine a recruit drilling a platoon?!?!) and simply facilitate chaos, in order to see how a candidate handles different situations. OCS PT is not "training;" it is an extremely physically-demanding evaluation process. Simply put, OCS does not a training environment! It is a prac-app test.

Good insight. Essentially, I agree with you. As to the characterization of OCS not being training, but evaluation, I disagree slightly. It is certainly an evaluation, but a useless one if the staff evaluates someone as unsuitable but does not sh!t can him. No one is currently kicked out of OCS for suitability. They have to practically break the law. The Navy certainly considers OCS a training program. Just one example is drill. Close order drill is training that leads to qualities necessary in any military person. Having to deal with extraordinary stress and minimal time for assigned duties teaches candidates how to manage time, make qualitative decisions and control stress so they can function effective. That is training. It is training that I believe may be compromised by the changes to OCS.

 

[DocT]

OCS is not designed to train anybody. OCS is nothing more than an evaluation process. The DIs are pretty much hands-off (can you imagine a recruit drilling a platoon?!?!) and simply facilitate chaos, in order to see how a candidate handles different situations. OCS PT is not "training;" it is an extremely physically-demanding evaluation process. Simply put, OCS does not a training environment! It is a prac-app test.

I wholeheartedly agree. I'm a PLC guy so I had to deal with two completely different OCS experiences. However, the real OCS for us was seniors. The official stated mission of that cycle was Screen and Evaluate.

Yes, I learned some things there (proper military decorum, rudimentary fireteam and squad tactics, 5 paragraph orders, etc.). So, yes one can argue that we were trained at OCS. But, not to the standards I will be held to once I leave TBS. Seriously, I will commission without ever having fired one live round down range. That borders on the ridiculous. By mission, Marine OCS is an evaluation.

 

[Sly1978]

I will whole-heartedly agree that my Class Drill Instructor is the best example of leadership I have ever seen. Pretty much all of them are (the possible exceptions being the occasional one who enters OCS as an E-7 and leaves as an E-5). It's a no-brainer that most OCS graduates want to emulate their Class Drill Instructor more than the Class Officer. OCS has never been really high on the list of "prestigious shore duties" for naval officers. Most of the time they're in the background anyway. It was mentioned that OCS is too short to get to know the candidates. I know that now it's 12 weeks and 2 or 3 of those are Candi-O stage, but was it longer than 13 weeks before? As far as why OCS is now 12 weeks, that is a question I have a specific answer for: $27 million. That is what the CO of Officer Training Command Pensacola told us the 12 week program would save annually over the 13 week program. I'll let someone senior to me let their thoughts be known on that decision making process.
The Marine OCS can afford to be strictly a weeding out process. They have TBS to learn how to lead and what the Marine Corps is about. The Navy does not. Navy OCS graduates need to be able to lead. The Drill Instructors are great examples of leadership, but unfortunately most divisions are not filled with a bunch of enlisted sailors who follow the D.O. around like a pack of ducklings and can be made to do anything with the threat of 8-count body builders. There needs to be more than that. The stress will always be present. The really good DIs find ways of implementing it despite the restrictions being placed on them. Like was said earlier in the thread, with the exception of those who are forced to continue with the program (which is entirely unacceptable), I think most OCS graduates would make it through regardless of what stresses they are put under. The weak still drop out and the strong still make it. It's what the strong ones learn in the process that counts.

 

[nsaxton]

Why the changes?

I graduated from OCS in the middle of 2004. And because I was training to be an NFO stayed in Pcola for follow on training. I would often run in to some of the gunnies and visit with them about the changes that were/are occuring. From what they said it had to do with a task force that was put together to decide what commissioning source was producing the best officer product for the Navy between OCS vs. Academy vs. ROTC. The evidence was overwhelmingly in favor of OCS producing the best officer product. So much so, that this task force dictated that OCS change their standards, physical and mental, so that the graduates of OCS would come "on par" with the Academy and ROTC.

As far as what OCS really is and what it is meant to be I think much of it depends on what each individual's strengths and weaknesses are. I have a good friend who is the epitome of physique as he wrestled at a Div I school. However, he truly struggled with the running aspects of OCS-but he graduated. The goal of OCS is to supply pressure on candidates hoping to expose weaknesses that will either become strengths or weed the candidates out. This pressure has been declined because of this task force and because the OCS staff is under EXTREME pressure to reduce the DOR % as low or lower than the Academy and ROTC...thats the reason for the changes...right or wrong...I'm sure another task force will decide.

 

[Cornellianintel]

I graduated from OCS in the middle of 2004. And because I was training to be an NFO stayed in Pcola for follow on training. I would often run in to some of the gunnies and visit with them about the changes that were/are occuring. From what they said it had to do with a task force that was put together to decide what commissioning source was producing the best officer product for the Navy between OCS vs. Academy vs. ROTC. The evidence was overwhelmingly in favor of OCS producing the best officer product. So much so, that this task force dictated that OCS change their standards, physical and mental, so that the graduates of OCS would come "on par" with the Academy and ROTC.

As far as what OCS really is and what it is meant to be I think much of it depends on what each individual's strengths and weaknesses are. I have a good friend who is the epitome of physique as he wrestled at a Div I school. However, he truly struggled with the running aspects of OCS-but he graduated. The goal of OCS is to supply pressure on candidates hoping to expose weaknesses that will either become strengths or weed the candidates out. This pressure has been declined because of this task force and because the OCS staff is under EXTREME pressure to reduce the DOR % as low or lower than the Academy and ROTC...thats the reason for the changes...right or wrong...I'm sure another task force will decide.

Are you saying that the standards of OCS were changed in order to lower the level of the graduates. I may have misread that.

Best,
cac

 

[Logico]

Are you saying that the standards of OCS were changed in order to lower the level of the graduates. I may have misread that.

Best,
cac

That's what I read too. Sorry, but that doesn't make sense.

This whole thread cracks me up. My twin brother just went through Chiefs initiation and the whole time he was doing it all he heard was "back in the old initiation we had to..." and "this isn't true initiation, back in the real Navy...". The funny thing is that most of these "old salty Chiefs" have only been in the Navy maybe 5-9 years more than my brother. A 5-9 year gap doesn't make anyone "old school".

It's just change people. There are people who bitch about change and there are people who get on board. It's just psychology, that's all. If you are a bitcher then you will struggle through change and cause others to struggle with you. Get on board and it is easier to adjust both for you and for others.

 

[IT1toOfficer]

I know I'm in my 9th week of training (at home on leave for Christmas) but I just thought I'd throw in my10 cents.

I've been in the Navy 8 years and I've seen many "sloppy" Officers. The most squared away officers as a group that I've see would have to be LDO's/CWO's and coming in second would have to be OCS graduates.

OCS graduates (as a group) are squared away and have their heads on their shoulders. The only area that they might lack is leadership, but most junior officers (not LDO/CWO) lack leadership experience. I personally feel that training alone can't provide that. You need to stick them out on the fleet (with the tools) and let them evolve into one. (If they can)

In regards to the Training changing I have to say that’s life. The world has changed and we all know the Navy has changed tremendously over the years. Transformation is in full effect and we have to embrace it. We can't cry about things getting easier. We have to think outside the box and say "why is it getting easier?” We need to understand the change and support it. Personally I feel that OCS might have been easier t a few years ago but I know that it's not “easy” now and it still puts out some great officers.

I'm a prior and I feel that OCS has made me a better sailor both physically and mentally. I went from having a "in PFA" of 1058 run, 65 sit-ups, and 74 pushups to getting a 948 on the run and maxing out on both the sit-ups and pushups on the "out PFA". I have increased my knowledge on various areas within the Navy and my DI has molded me into a better leader. He has made me realize many things about life and the military.

Additionally, during the past 9 weeks I have developed life long friendships and I've became more team oriented then before.

OCS may have changed but in my biased opinion it’s the best Officer Accession program in the Navy.

 

[wink]

who says all change is good?

There are people who bitch about change and there are people who get on board. It's just psychology, that's all. If you are a bitcher then you will struggle through change and cause others to struggle with you. Get on board and it is easier to adjust both for you and for others.

And then there are people that bitch about change because it is not change for the better. Do you really think all change is for the better? I am not complaining about how lame OCS is getting because it makes me feel superior to you young studs. I have 25 years in the Navy, several cruises, department head tours, major staff work and O-5 on my collar. I don't need to knock OCS to help my self image. I get on board with change because I am a professional. I, however, can still point out the short comings in any change. That, in fact, is part of your responsibility as an officer. Say your piece, make your best case to keep your boss out of trouble or better the Navy/mission. And if you lose the argument you salute smartly and carry on. That does not mean you were wrong. I am tired of you guys just writing off the changes at OCS as part of the normal course of business. Do you guys even use your heads to analyze things a bit? Take the attitude above and you will be nothing more then a brown nosed yes man. You, in fact, will be the one to make life for you shipmates miserable because you are not willing to stand up and "bitch" when you see something wrong going down. A couple guys in this thread have disagreed with me and have made reasoned arguments. Good for them. If you think that old guys like me are just resistant to change and our objections to OCS changes are not rooted in our concern for the future of the Navy then how do you think we have delt with other changes throughout our long careers? You think change just stated with your enlistment? Not all change is good. Historically, most changes in the Navy have been either just plane bad for the Navy or a complete waste of time and money. Ask an old salt!

 

[IT1toOfficer]

Sir,

You made some great points. I too have seen many bad changes, but I have seen many great changes.

An example of a bad change I’ve seen would be when they changed TA from 75% for all college courses taken to 100% for only 4 classes a year.

Making that change helped those sailors who take one or two courses a year, but it hurts those who take more.

The changes go way deeper then the basic TA change.

We, as leaders in this great Navy have to think outside the box and ask "Why is this happening?" We need to ask questions and determine if we really agree or disagree with it. Too many people come out and say "I think that's great!" or "I think that’s terrible!", but they fail to think outside of the normal parameters, get past the selfishness and think what’s good for "Big Navy"? Are we making these changes for recruiting, retention or for operations? Or are we making them just because? People and leadership make changes because they honestly feel it’s the right choice. Sometimes they get it right and many times they get it wrong.

I agree with the CDR and I feel it’s our obligation to speak up when we believe something’s wrong, we need to do what best for the majority and not ourselves. But that means thinking outside the box, getting past our own beliefs and thinking what’s best for the Navy as a whole.

In regards to OCS. I still think its hard in many aspects, not as hard as years ago, but it still whips young men and women into shape and "helps" them transition into Naval Officers. I’m a 8 year veteran and when I first entered OCS I questioned why I should have to go, but after being there I’m happy this program exist. I truly believe that the Officers that come from OCS (as a group. You always have those few retards) are more squared away and professional then any other accessions program in the Navy. Just my biased opinion!

 

[Logico]

And then there are people that bitch about change because it is not change for the better. Do you really think all change is for the better? I am not complaining about how lame OCS is getting because it makes me feel superior to you young studs. I have 25 years in the Navy, several cruises, department head tours, major staff work and O-5 on my collar. I don't need to knock OCS to help my self image. I get on board with change because I am a professional. I, however, can still point out the short comings in any change. That, in fact, is part of your responsibility as an officer. Say your piece, make your best case to keep your boss out of trouble or better the Navy/mission. And if you lose the argument you salute smartly and carry on. That does not mean you were wrong. I am tired of you guys just writing off the changes at OCS as part of the normal course of business. Do you guys even use your heads to analyze things a bit? Take the attitude above and you will be nothing more then a brown nosed yes man. You, in fact, will be the one to make life for you shipmates miserable because you are not willing to stand up and "bitch" when you see something wrong going down. A couple guys in this thread have disagreed with me and have made reasoned arguments. Good for them. If you think that old guys like me are just resistant to change and our objections to OCS changes are not routed in our concern for the future of the Navy then how do you think we have delt with other changes throughout our long careers? You think change just stated with your enlistment? Not all change is good. Historically, most changes in the Navy have been either just plane bad for the Navy or a complete waste of time and money. Ask an old salt!

Look Wink, I have read your posts on this site and I respect you and your experience. The problem with this type of medium is that it is difficult to convey tone and level of sincerity. Let me restate my case for you:

All change is not for the better. If that is all your reply is trying to emphasize then you are, of course, correct. But no one worth talking too would have denied that. I was trying to say that (and now I will state this carefully) there are a great many people who dislike change in general and those people will reject change for basically psychological reasons that have nothing to do with the reasons they offer. What I have read from this thread is a few (very few) people making good solid points in line with what you are saying. The rest seem to be skirting dangerously close to what I am calling "bitching".

 

[Recidivist]

OK, I'm not even in the navy right now, I'm still waiting for my final select, but I have a question/suggestion.

Why is the Navy so excited to rush candidates through? I have read a bit of info suggesting that there is an overabundance of junior officers resulting from the '02, '03 and '04 recruitment years. I have also heard that the Navy is discharging people who don't cut the grade after OCS.

So why doesn't the Navy lengthen OCS to better prepare candidates in terms of their leadership? If more good candidates were being dropped than bad ones being let through, this would help both, but importantly the bad. It may also help to prevent too many JOs from sitting around waiting (in aviation for ex) to get into API, and to go to primary, etc. These guys are getting paid, get them trained!

Also, why are promotions (to a certain point) pretty much automatic? Encourage all officers to excel by offering promotions to only the top percentage applicants as needed (determined by the Navy of course).

I want OCS to be hard, I want OCS to help me develop the leadership skills I have, and I need to get to my breaking point. Also at the end, I want to know that the graduates there are committed, and if I can't cut it then somebody who can deserves my SNA spot.

 

[Logico]

OK, I'm not even in the navy right now, I'm still waiting for my final select, but I have a question/suggestion.

Why is the Navy so excited to rush candidates through? I have read a bit of info suggesting that there is an overabundance of junior officers resulting from the '02, '03 and '04 recruitment years. I have also heard that the Navy is discharging people who don't cut the grade after OCS.

So why doesn't the Navy lengthen OCS to better prepare candidates in terms of their leadership? If more good candidates were being dropped than bad ones being let through, this would help both, but importantly the bad. It may also help to prevent too many JOs from sitting around waiting (in aviation for ex) to get into API, and to go to primary, etc. These guys are getting paid, get them trained!

Also, why are promotions (to a certain point) pretty much automatic? Encourage all officers to excel by offering promotions to only the top percentage applicants as needed (determined by the Navy of course).

I want OCS to be hard, I want OCS to help me develop the leadership skills I have, and I need to get to my breaking point. Also at the end, I want to know that the graduates there are committed, and if I can't cut it then somebody who can deserves my SNA spot.

Perhaps the Navy is being more selective about who goes to OCS in the first place and so they don't need to make OCS harder, longer, etc. It took me over 1 year to get selected for Intel. I was told that they selected 2 from my board of over 100 applicants. My job before the Navy involved flying to D.C. and giving 2hr presentations to the Dept. of Labor. This kind of experience is probably what helped me get in. If they are very cautious about who makes it to OCS then this could lessen the need for OCS to be THE SINGLE leadership training a guy/gal gets.

Just a thought.

 

[IT1toOfficer]

I’m in OCS right now and some of the people that made it, shouldn't have.

For the past 9weeks some of my class mates have said to me... "What is this guy/girl doing here?"

I don’t think its getting easier at OCS, their testing things out to see what works and what doesn't.

I think that civilians should have officer interviews, just like enlisted, or they should have to send a tape into the board stating why they should be accepted and what they would bring to the Navy if accepted.

Just my two cents...

 

[JKD]

Question for OCS grads and more experienced Navy guys, why do we need Marines to train our officers? If Chiefs are already there why not expand their role and give them the training necessary to do the job as well as the Marines? We don't have Marines at bootcamp, so why OCS?

There is some history that goes into the why... I looked for a good reference, but couldn't find one - so this is from memory...

During a beach invasion/assault (don't remember which one), there were wounded Marines on the beach, and the Naval Officers would not order ships into harms-way to help evac/support. After a review, one of the course of actions to help unify the forces was to have Marine DIs train new officers.

anyone else remember something like that? or am I just on crack?

 

[IT1toOfficer]

This is just opinion and it’s just my opinion but maybe the reason why the Navy has Marines do the main pushing at OCS is because we as Ensigns will need to build a relationship with our Chiefs when we get to the fleet. We will use them as guidance and as a huge resource.

I love my DI, but there are many who don not because they have a hard time taking harassment even at the sake of bettering themselves. If we had Chief push us to the point where many disliked them then it might hinder future Chief-Officer relationships. I know this may sound dumb and absurd but just think outside the box for one second. We can bring in these people, these crazy yet intelligent men/women, the best the marines have to offer and have them beat the hell out of our new officers and help mold them into a Naval officer in 12 weeks. And at the same time we can have our Chiefs be the good but Firm good cops that take care of us and guide us as they will in the fleet.

Take the DI program and couple it with the fact that you’re starting the Chief-Officer relationship early and you have yourself a great Officer Accession program in 12 weeks.

But that’s why I think it’s successful and why its worked all these years. Don’t change something that’s not broke.


My two cents…