Enlisted vs Officer?

Question

Okay this doesn't make sense to me. Why does the military have a cut off in age to become enlisted to officer. I know some Staff Sgt.'s that have their masters degree but have to answer to officers with a bachlors degree. Why doesn't the military let them become officer after the 28 year old cut off that at least the Marine Corp has. It would seem that the military would want their enlisted to become better educated but there are little to no incentives to do so. Granted they get a few points towards their cutting score at first, and it looks better when they go in front of the board but it doesn't gaurentee them the next rank. What do you think?

Answer 1

Because the goal of having a commissioned officer is to eventually have them make field grade.

What good would it do to have a 15 year vet become a 2nd LT, and then 15 years later maybe make major? He would be forced out by then because of age. That is why they have a cut off.

Answer 2

the enlisted men make the military work, not the officers. officers are supposed to be smart, but never having been in the crap details, they don't understand how things really work. they are rarely disciplined so everyone knows, while enlisted are always disciplined for the smallest thing. education is important to officers because they cannot achieve higher ranks without at least a masters, and usually have to have a doctorate for general's stars. enlisted don't require any education more than high school. most enlisted are unable to refuse a posting to some post where education can be impossible to get, while officers can. many of the lower ranks have to pay for spousal and childrens travel to foreign posts, but officers usallky are able to take their families at govt expense. with all these differences, why would the military want to have enlisted personnel become officers? they would know to much how the system works and could make good headway, while officers from the beginning could be fooled for the first few years and be made to think less about their men then their own advancement.

Answer 3

The Marines must be Different than the Army on this one because I went to Officer Basic Course with a guy who had a son my age (he went to Ranger School before I could Walk). I think the Army Policy allows to wave all the time you have been in the military from the age requirement.

The Idea behind the requirement is that they don't want a bunch of guys going officer just so they can retire with higher pay. They want people that they can mold into the next generation of leaders.

Answer 4

I am a US Navy LDO and am proud to have served in the enlisted ranks. My responsibility now is factorial higher than at my former CPO level, so I enjoy the challenges presented in the commissioned ranks. For the age question, Title 10 of the Constitution states the requirement. More specifically: TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 33 > § 532 states that the citizen must be able to complete 20 years of active commissioned service before his sixty-second birthday. Congress says an age limit is mandatory...

Answer 5

You have to be enlisted for fewer than 10 years before you can become an officer. Other than that, I believe the Army's cut-off is 35 for officer. Some enlistedmen don't want to be officers, plain and simple. For those who do, there's usually enough time before passing the cut-off.

Answer 6

My son is in Army. He became an Officer at 28 & is a Ranger.
He does have a degree & he says their reasoning is to get young college educated officers. They have the "up or out"
program, you either get promoted in set time each promotion or you are asked to resign. It is not all rosy for officers. 28 does seem young to cut off promotions but someone had a reason for such a strange age. Sorry!

Answer 7

I think I wouldn't want a 45 year old 2LT for a PL.

Answer 8

what was it that kerry just said? lol