Changes in NROTC

[sbpilot]

Got a brief this morning from the CO that covered a few important changes coming to the NROTC program. Curious as to what you guys in "the know" think will actually happen. Supposedly these ideas are in debate higher up and soon to be implemented

1. Scholarship Mids that drop the program, fail out, etc., after the start of their junior year will no longer be given the option to pay it all back, but will be forced to enlist.

2. "Service Selection" is being changed to "Service Assignment". (You still get to put down your choice preference, however not going to have as much of an influence)

3. 4 year base commitment, changed to 5 years. (I believe already in motion for the next incoming class)

 

[incubus852]

Got a brief this morning from the CO that covered a few important changes coming to the NROTC program. Curious as to what you guys in "the know" think will actually happen. Supposedly these ideas are in debate higher up and soon to be implemented

1. Scholarship Mids that drop the program, fail out, etc., after the start of their junior year will no longer be given the option to pay it all back, but will be forced to enlist.


2. "Service Selection" is being changed to "Service Assignment". (You still get to put down your choice preference, however not going to have as much of an influence)

3. 4 year base commitment, changed to 5 years. (I believe already in motion for the next incoming class)

1. lame
2. lame
3. lame

 

[ea6bflyr]

Got a brief this morning from the CO that covered a few important changes coming to the NROTC program. Curious as to what you guys in "the know" think will actually happen. Supposedly these ideas are in debate higher up and soon to be implemented

1. Scholarship Mids that drop the program, fail out, etc., after the start of their junior year will no longer be given the option to pay it all back, but will be forced to enlist.

I'm not sure that is legal, BUT, you did sign the paperwork to that effect.

2. "Service Selection" is being changed to "Service Assignment". (You still get to put down your choice preference, however not going to have as much of an influence)

Different name. I'm certain your choices WILL have an influence.

3. 4 year base commitment, changed to 5 years. (I believe already in motion for the next incoming class)

Believe it or not, the initial service commitment is 8 years. This includes ACTIVE DUTY (AD) and INACTIVE READY RESERVES (IRR). The only people doing 4 years are SWOs. Everyone else is 5 or more.

-ea6bflyr

 

[D_Rob]

1. Scholarship Mids that drop the program, fail out, etc., after the start of their junior year will no longer be given the option to pay it all back, but will be forced to enlist.

This could be good or bad. If you go to a state school and only owe 10-20K that could suck. At my private school, if I had dropped my senior year I would have owed close to 150K. I would rather do 2 years enlisted than pay back 150K.

 

[desertoasis]

I'm pretty sure that first one is not allowed. Didn't they try that one a few years back and it got shot down by Congress?

The second one seems like just a change in title. Probably nothing to worry about.

The third one is probably the most likely, and I have been waiting for that one for a while. As college costs increase, so should the service commitments incurred for the government to be paying your tab.


I'm hoping, for the sake of the potential new Mids coming in, that that first one is just taking another lap around the rumor mill and isn't actually being debated by the highers-up. Call me cynical, but that idea *sucks*. Why enlist people who can't handle being an officer? If they are going to be a crappy officer, why do we want them in the Navy to begin with?

Just my two cents. The rumors may now commence their flight.

 

[Phantom Hawk]

Number 2 doesn't sound like much of a difference as to what it already is, just sounds like they are changing the wording so that people don't get as upset if we don't get what we want. I'm not sure why they would enforce #1 though, the Navy hasn't had that much problem with recruiting quotas have they?

 

[sbpilot]

I know the aviation service requirements. Just wanted to throw that out there as it was one of the items he discussed.

He said the info came from his recent PNS meeting, held once a year where all the NROTC CO's meet and talk about the program. Also said retention is a big issue because NROTC is not producing anywhere near it's required numbers.

 

[BlackBearHockey]

Also said retention is a big issue because NROTC is not producing anywhere near it's required numbers.

I think it's pretty ironic that if you're complaining about retention you remedy that by restricting the choice of majors and trying to make everyone a nuke.

 

[navy09]

Thoughts from a Mid who's about to commission and has no dog in this fight...

1. Mando enlistment: Bad idea. I go to a state school where in state students probably only rack up 25K in tuition, books, and fees by their junior year. It wouldn't be fair to have them 'pay back' the same enlistment term as someone who dropped from Notre Dame after 4 full years.

2. "Service Assignment": Good idea. I know, it's only semantics but it probably would do some good to get rid of the entitlement mentality that some have.

3. 5 year commitment: Probably fair. As someone said, it only effects SWO's. By then they would have rolled to their shore tour anyway, so it probably wouldn't have a huge negative effect on very many people.

Want to fix retention??? Stop profiling and awarding scholarships based on diversity :icon_rage

 

[squorch2]

words

You won't get rid of the entitlement mentality by changing names, that's for fvcking sure. As for diversity... slow your roll there. You never know whose toes your going to step on by taking on Big Navy intiatives like that... hell, you may as well complain to your skipper that you think that the CNO is an idiot for championing "Diversity Is Our Strength."

 

[statesman]

1. Mando enlistment: Bad idea. I go to a state school where in state students probably only rack up 25K in tuition, books, and fees by their junior year. It wouldn't be fair to have them 'pay back' the same enlistment term as someone who dropped from Notre Dame after 4 full years.

Doesn't matter if its a good idea or bad idea it's been a possibility since you have been in the program. Good think you didn't read the fine print.

Interesting that seemingly no one has read the terms of the Scholarship Service agreement which is maintained in your student file, and then somehow failed to actually re-read your Scholarship Service Agreement when you sign the Scholarship Service Agreement Review which you sign in your sophomore year.

When you are selected for the NROTC scholarship you sign a DD4 (enlistment documents). You also sign the Scholarship Service Agreement (NSTC 1533/5) as an addendum to your DD4. Look up those forms right now so you know what you are committed to. Your DD4 enlists you for the term of your scholarship and an additional 4 years after your expected graduation date. You are enlisted as an E-3.

How you all got through your time in NROTC without knowing what you signed up for is impressive.

Get familiar with the ROD and read the paperwork you signed.

 

[CWJones411]

You won't get rid of the entitlement mentality by changing names, that's for fvcking sure. As for diversity... slow your roll there. You never know whose toes your going to step on by taking on Big Navy intiatives like that... hell, you may as well complain to your skipper that you think that the CNO is an idiot for championing "Diversity Is Our Strength."

I don't think he is "taking on" anything, just issuing a valid complaint.

 

[navy09]

1)You won't get rid of the entitlement mentality by changing names, that's for fvcking sure

2)hell, you may as well complain to your skipper that you think that the CNO is an idiot for championing "Diversity Is Our Strength."

1) You never know, a name change can't hurt.

2) I don't agree with the CNO on everything...do you? Posting about it on here isn't the same as spouting off about it in public (I'm not OttoWrote8).

When you are selected for the NROTC scholarship you sign a DD4 (enlistment documents). You also sign the Scholarship Service Agreement (NSTC 1533/5) as an addendum to your DD4. Look up those forms right now so you know what you are committed to. Your DD4 enlists you for the term of your scholarship and an additional 4 years after your expected graduation date. You are enlisted as an E-3.

No kidding...

How is this relevant to the argument (making enlistment mandatory)? In practice, most people are allowed to pay $$$ back.

 

[statesman]

How is this relevant to the argument (making enlistment mandatory)? In practice, most people are allowed to pay $$$ back.

It's relevant because IF the Navy has decided to have people serve enlisted time they haven't changed any policy. They have just elected to execute one part of the aforementioned agreement in lieu of another.

 

[navy09]

It's relevant because IF the Navy has decided to have people serve enlisted time they haven't changed any policy. They have just elected to execute one part of the aforementioned agreement in lieu of another.

I can't tell, but I think you're arguing just to argue...

Call it whatever you want! Out of all the Mids that dropped my unit after they signed papers (beginning of sophomore year for 4-yr scholarship Mids, and as soon as you pick up the scholarship, for all college programmers) not a single one has enlisted.

Forcing Mids to do otherwise would be a change in the policy, procedure, agreement, status quo, or whatever you want to call it