Question: Kid in my church went to OCS and was washed out due to "lack of leadership qualities".
I have my gueses as to what that is but does anyone have better insite as to what that means?

They even told hime to reapply. I know in '84 they were lookinf for any and all reasons to cut down on the number officers. The same reason apply here?

That sounds like the catch all reason to attrite a candidate, along with "failure to adapt." There is always some level of attrition beyond injuries regardless of the overall manning situation. If they say he can come back, he can always try it again and likely do better. A lot of OCS is based on peer rankings, so starting again with a new group could yield different results if he learned from his experience.

Edit: I didn't see that you had been yourself. It probably doesn't have much to do with reductions.

quote:

---

That sounds like the catch all reason to attrite a candidate, along with "failure to adapt." There is always some level of attrition beyond injuries regardless of the overall manning situation. If they say he can come back, he can always try it again and likely do better. A lot of OCS is based on peer rankings, so starting again with a new group could yield different results if he learned from his experience.

Edit: I didn't see that you had been yourself. It probably doesn't have much to do with reductions.

---

No, I never had the pleasure. My scholarship was revoked due to significant hearing loss before I went. They would not give me a waiver.

I did have numerous classmates that did go and all of them made it through fine.

Your explanation based on peer rankings is very probable. I can easily see that being the case.

My info may be dated (2006) but although the staff could spot weaker performers on their own, they really turned up the heat on specific individuals after the first round of peer rankings.

If any of your average grades in the 3 categories (physical fitness, academics, and leadership) fall below 80% you will be reviewed by the CO of OCS. Most of the guys that fell below in my platoon were put on probation and were fine as long as their grade came back up.

For leadership, however, it is a more serious deal.

The leadership score is worth 50% of your grade, instead of 25%. While being worth more and obviously being more important to your overall success at OCS, the events that go into your leadership are much more difficult events. Instead of your score being divided up into 8 or so exams like the academics score your leadership score is only 4 events. It is comprised of two general evaluations by your staff, a leadership reaction course, and a small unit leader evaluation that tests your ability to lead a squad.

When all is said and done, the Marine Corps needs leaders. OCS is where those who can't lead are weeded out. They take it very seriously and I did not see a candidate sent home from OCS on grounds of leadership failure that didn't deserve it.

quote:

---

My info may be dated (2006) but although the staff could spot weaker performers on their own, they really turned up the heat on specific individuals after the first round of peer rankings.

---

further, the leadership portion of the grade is almost completely subjective. guys that were killing the academics and 300 PFTers could still wash out if there was something about them that the staff didn't like. it's really hard to say. also, not to kick him when he's down, but pretty much any wash-out short of an integrity violation or some other egregious act is accompanied by an encouragement to reapply. that isn't to say he shouldn't, but he also shouldn't read too much into it.

You have all hit the nail on the head with this kid. I have to hand it to him for trying but this was definitely out of character for him. Good kid and all but not Marine Officer material.

Thanks

quote:

---

When all is said and done, the Marine Corps needs leaders. OCS is where those who can't lead are weeded out. They take it very seriously and I did not see a candidate sent home from OCS on grounds of leadership failure that didn't deserve it.

---

And I pray that it will always be so. The Marines may well be the last bastion of common sense in the military.

I was raised as an AF brat and then spent 21 AF years active duty. I was proud of my dad, and I am proud of my service. But even as a kid growing up, I always knew the Marines were the real deal. Three of my AF tours as a wx weenie were spent in base wx stations (7 years total). I always loved working with Marine pilots - they were my favorite, closely followed by Navy pilots. Two of my tours were at Cannon AFB, NM, a favored fuel stop for Marine/Navy pilots, so I got to meet a lot them.

It's obvious the Marines still put a very high value on leadership - which does not appear to be the case with the other services. ISIS terror attacks in Brussels today - meanwhile the DOD is busy fighting the war on "climate change" at the senior leadership level. (I know the guys and gals in the field are fighting the REAL war.)

You mean the senior leadership that is leading the battle against our number one enemy - climate change? THAT leadership?

quote:

---

You mean the senior leadership that is leading the battle against our number one enemy - climate change? THAT leadership?

---

You're fascinatingly out of touch. Fascinatingly. Nobody in uniform is fighting climate change, and service chiefs' priorities are no reflection of how a service "values leadership" anyway.

This is a neat combination of a lot of cognitive biases and argument fallacies, though, so you've got that going for you.

Bare assertion fallacy
Confirmation bias
base rate fallacy
fallacy of necessity
masked man fallacy
false attribution fallacy
post hoc ergo propter hoc
etc.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/220575-pentagon-unveils-plan-to-fight-climate-change

quote:

---

The Pentagon is integrating climate change threats into all of its "plans, operations, and training" across the entire Defense Department, signaling a comprehensive attempt to tackle the impacts of global warming.

In a 20-page Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap released on Monday, the Pentagon details its strategic blueprint to address climate change, calling it a "threat multiplier" that has the power to "exacerbate" many of the challenges the U.S. faces today, including "infectious diseases and terrorism." [

---

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/7/pentagon-orders-commanders-to-prioritize-climate-c/?page=all

quote:

---

To four-star generals and admirals, among them the regional combatant commanders who plan and fight the nation's wars, the directive tells them: "Incorporate climate change impacts into plans and operations and integrate DoD guidance and analysis in Combatant Command planning to address climate change-related risks and opportunities across the full range of military operations, including steady-state campaign planning and operations and contingency planning."

---

Seems pretty clear to me.

Here's an another example of "leadership":

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/11/politics/intelligence-agencies-isis-analysts-investigation/

quote:

---

A top U.S. intelligence official confirmed that the Pentagon's inspector general is investigating complaints that senior officials manipulated intelligence reports to create a more optimistic narrative on the fight against ISIS.

. . .

The analysts allege that senior officials are manipulating their intelligence reports to better fit the public frame that the U.S. is making steady progress in the fight against ISIS and other terrorist groups in the region -- resulting in inaccurate information reaching the highest levels of government, including President Barack Obama.

---

And here's another:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428756/rules-engagement-need-reform

quote:

---

This evening, however, our troopers believed that the car ahead wasn't full of civilians. The driver was too skilled, his tactics too knowing for a carload of shepherds. As the car disappeared into the night, the senior officer on the scene radioed for permission to fire. His request went to the TOC, the tactical operations center, which is the beating heart of command and control in the battlefield environment. There the "battle captain," or the senior officer in the chain of command, would decide shoot or don't shoot.

But first there was a call for the battle captain to make, all the way to brigade headquarters, where a JAG officer an Army lawyer was on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. His job was to analyze the request, apply the governing rules of engagement, and make a recommendation to the chain of command. While the commander made the ultimate decision, he rarely contradicted JAG recommendations. After all, if soldiers opened fire after a lawyer had deemed the attack outside the rules, they would risk discipline even prosecution if the engagement went awry. Acting on the best available information including a description of the suspect vehicle, a description of its tactics, analysis of relevant intelligence, and any available video feeds the JAG officer had to determine whether there was sufficient evidence of "hostile intent" to authorize the use of deadly force. He had to make a life-or-death decision in mere minutes. In this case, the lawyer said no insufficient evidence. No deadly force. Move to detain rather than shoot to kill. The commander deferred. No shot. Move to detain.

So the chase continued, across roads and open desert. The suspect vehicle did its best to shake free, but at last it was cornered by converging American forces. There was no escape. Four men emerged from the car. American soldiers dismounted from their MRAPs, and with one man in the lead, weapons raised, they ordered the Iraqis to surrender. Those who were in the TOC that night initially thought someone had stepped on a land mine. Watching on video feed, they saw the screen go white, then black. For several agonizing minutes, no one knew what had happened. Then the call came. Suicide bomber. One of the suspects had self-detonated, and Americans were hurt. One badly very badly. Despite desperate efforts to save his life, he died just before he arrived at a functioning aid station. Another casualty of the rules of engagement.

---

I know these rules come straight from the White House, but curious why there has not been more pushback from our military. BTW - similar ROEs have severely limited the effectiveness of our air campaign against ISIS.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/28/us-military-pilots-complain-hands-tied-in-frustrating-fight-against-isis.html

quote:

---

U.S. military pilots carrying out the air war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria are voicing growing discontent over what they say are heavy-handed rules of engagement hindering them from striking targets.

---

quote:

---

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/220575-pentagon-unveils-plan-to-fight-climate-change

quote:

---

The Pentagon is integrating climate change threats into all of its "plans, operations, and training" across the entire Defense Department, signaling a comprehensive attempt to tackle the impacts of global warming.

In a 20-page Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap released on Monday, the Pentagon details its strategic blueprint to address climate change, calling it a "threat multiplier" that has the power to "exacerbate" many of the challenges the U.S. faces today, including "infectious diseases and terrorism." [

---

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/7/pentagon-orders-commanders-to-prioritize-climate-c/?page=all

quote:

---

To four-star generals and admirals, among them the regional combatant commanders who plan and fight the nation's wars, the directive tells them: "Incorporate climate change impacts into plans and operations and integrate DoD guidance and analysis in Combatant Command planning to address climate change-related risks and opportunities across the full range of military operations, including steady-state campaign planning and operations and contingency planning."

---

Seems pretty clear to me.

---

As Tango Mike said, this "Pentagon policy" has zippo to do with uniformed military leadership of any service.

And I know -- from first hand knowledge -- that even civilian political leaders in DoD are broadly disinterested in anything resembling "climate change" in defense/national security policy.

There is a small group of folks from the other side of the river that think this is important, and are attempting to integrate into DoD planning/priorities. I wouldn't worry about it.

quote:

---

There is a lot of pressure to wash out 20%-25%. When I was there they were having trouble getting their graduation numbers down and were asking for volunteers to delay enrollment in the basic school by 6 months or more. Add in that the fall and spring classes are 50%-60% prior service (and the instructors ensure that none of those candidates drop) the washout rate among civilians exceeds 50%.

I saw one kid kicked out for an inadvertent leave violation when he went to the PX one weekend to get chow for a guy who was standing a double fire watch post.

In short, he should re-enlist and give it another go. Just keep his head down and don't bunk near the duty hut where you get extra scrutiny in the first couple days.

---

Both summers I was there I saw roughly 30% attrition, and plenty of priors were part of that