As there is no Military Topic I choose to put this one here.

I was an active duty sailor for 4 years. When I left the service I had obtained the rank of Electrician's Mate Third Class Petty Officer (EM3) <E-4>and could have made EM2 <E-5> if I had not purposely failed the test to facilitate cross-rating to Damage Controlman when I re-enlisted.

At the end of my 4 years (1991) I had seen most of Europe, alot of the Caribbean and had served proudly in operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. I left the service for a host of reasons, none of them being that I had a bad experience.

11 years later, after September 11th and with Iraq looking grim again I returned to the Navy via the Reserves. I felt a sense of obligation when it came to Iraq (I was there before, now it is time to finish the job) and I wanted to take the fight to the enemy after September 11th (No I am not implying that Iraq was the enemy responsible for 9/11, it is two separate reasons ).

To re-enter the service after such a long absence I had to take a cut in pay-grade. I also had to change rates (a rating is your primary job in the Navy) from Electricians Mate (shipboard electrical plant maintenance) to Construction Electrician (Shore side Electrical Construction and Maintenance). I re-entered the service as a Construction Electrician Constructionman (CECN) <E-3>.

For variously reasons, laziness being one of the biggest, I did not do the course work I needed to do (or re-do in most cases) to qualify for advancement. I served with my unit in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom and returned home in December 2003. After that deployment I took the 6 month absence I was allowed, then missed 2 drills due to work and now that I will be in New York until then end of the year I will miss the rest of this years drill periods as well.

I learned today that the Navy considers me to be at tenure. Meaning that as of December 2004 I will be forced out of the Naval Reserves. This is due to the "Move Up or Out" policies the Military adopted some time ago.

I really didn't have a desire to advance. I liked my role, I liked my job and all I wanted to do was serve. However, though I only served 4 years active, one year in he National Guard and 2 years in the Naval Reserves the Navy says I have 10 years of services as they count delayed entry time (time spent waiting to enter the military after you swore in) and IRR (Inactive Ready Reserve) time I was obligated to as part of my 4 year enlistment.

I I'm good at my jobs in my unit, I am a good sailor, a good constructionman and I love serving my country. I accept that I will no longer be able to serve, but I wonder why?

First, let me personally thank you for your service to our Beloved Nation.

IMHO, your situation is irreprehensable and to me shows the stupidity of some of the policies and procedures in our military.

If you are conscientious and responsible in performing your assigned duties, then you shouldn't be forced out just because you aren't "bucking for promotion". This to me is a waste of good manpower, a personal insult and a slap in the face.

An old saying comes to mind - "Too many chiefs, and not enough Indians." So if you wish to stay an Indian - well, so be it.

The military spends thousands of dollars training, equipping and supporting our troops. To force you out is a waste of taxpayer's money. I knew a few in the Air Force who only attained A/2C (E3), did their jobs and kept their noses clean. Didn't push for promotion, and weren't, but spent 8 years on active duty until they decided themselves to get out, but that was their decision.

Isn't there something you can do to stay in, if that is your wish???

Just my two cents, from our perspective (Airforce husband). We just received a (tentative) new assignment. It's a fellowship, which will qualify as Mr P's staff school. Instead of going to school, he'll be working for DARPA. He told me if he had declined the offer, he'd be given about 4 months to get things in order and would have to leave the military. His career is impeccable.

That's the move up or out policy. If you aren't interested in a staff job, and they select you for staff school, you can possibly defer it a year or two, but eventually it's pretty much go or get out. I've had friends who left the service, in spite of being excellent pilots, because they went to the Pentagon and decided it wasn't the life they wanted. They didn't have any other option. It's hard to believe they are dumping experienced personnel who aren't interested in advancement but just want to do the jobs they are trained for (and the AF invested multiple millions to train them to do), but it's a fact after a certain level of experience.

I think it's a harmful policy, overall. I do understand why they force pilots out of the cockpit and in to the staff, in a way. They need that level of expertise, and very few pilots wish for a desk job. Often, the type who do aren't the ones who will benefit the service the most. Mr P tells me he has found that he can judge whether or not a General is going to be a good leader by knowing his number of flying hours. A very low number indicates the General is a politician type who only went through training to rise through the ranks more quickly. They are usually very bad leaders. From that angle, I understand move-up-or-out, because sometimes (paradoxically), the best people are the ones who don't wish for positions of power.

Black Ops also had a good point in his "Too many Cheifs..." comment. The need for quality leaders in any type of organization is always a cause of eternal frustration. Those who want the job are often the very worst candidates--they want the power and rarely are interested in the responsibility. The best example being politics--just look at the results we get from those egocentric losers.
Those best able to lead are not naturally inclined to take the helm.
Never having been in the military I can only go from having watched guys who wanted to stay in the thick of it--where you get things done--dragged forcefully into responsibility. Sadly they are never very happy unless it is a position where they can effect change--but they always remember who actually gets it done and who puts it on the line. So they often make excellent leaders.
Who is served? The organization--whichever it may be.
Good for them bad for the individual. Just the way it goes, and often the way it has to go.

I witnessed an E5 who was "slow" get forced out after 20 years because he could not pass the E6 exam. A good guy, did his job, which was one of those jobs few others wanted, and never caused any problems. He also had no living family anywhere, the Navy was his only home. It was sad, and made no sense, but military rules don't always make sense.
I have also seen some incredibly bright people get told that they have peaked out with regards to rank and promotion unless they lose some weight.
Whether it is the lack of ambition to advance, or a few extra pounds that forces them out, the military will have its way. In some cases it may well be harmful to the service, but they don't seem to care.

I think the up or out thought came from Five Star General George C. Marshall a favorite advisor of FDR and Truman. Marshall had the theory for the officer corps to create competition after WWII to get the best of the best of the corps to the top in preparation for WWIII. Marshall was a staff officer and paralleled Gen. McArthur, a field commander.

From what I heard about up or out in the enlisted ranks when I entered the scene in 67 was that after the Korean Conflict and before Vietnam many enlisted soldiers would routinely become discipline problems in order not to take higher responsibility of leadership positions. The officer system was established in the enlisted ranks on the theory moving up would create a vacancy in a lower enlisted leadership so the best candidate could move up. Likewise, constant movement from junior leader to mid management to senior leadership with stiff constant competition resulted.

During Vietnam the vacancy problem in the upper ranks wasn’t a problem and in fact instant leaders known as “shake and bake” moved from E-5 to E-7 with six years in the military, of course the skills of these honor graduates were needed on the battlefield. After the war the up or out continued as the army reduced its size. Soldiers in lower ranks regardless of good performance just didn’t have vacancies to fill often enough to encourage competition.

Well that is the history as I heard it but find it rather wasteful of skills in today’s force. I would much rather have an E-4 with 12 years in service directing artillery than a newly trained soldier with a green lieutenant sending steel downrange. In the military the only thing constant is change.

None of this in particular seems to make any sense in the current situation we are in. If what I have read recently, enlistment is down in both the active duty and Guard/Reserves recruitment over the past year, with some services missing their recruiting goals by up to 30%.

Consider that we are still in conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq that will likely have us there for 5 years or more, plus the unforseen conflicts that could pop. Stop loss orders at an all time high, quick-turnaround tours, and the calling up of inactive reservists who have been in the civilian workforce for years have all been in the papers lately, leading one to believe that we are already stretched too thin.

Why in the name of all that's holy would you want to boot someone out of the service who is doing a job they like, that wants to be there, and is willing to continue serving? Because they don't want to be promoted to a position they don't want? Insanity, just.....insanity.