<p>Someone came to my school this week to talk about the NROTC Scholarship and how they practically pay your entire college tuition and all the fees. What exactly is that I would have to do if I get accepted into this scholarship. I plan on going to med school after college so would I have to serve in the marines or something of that sort? Would I have to take years off after college for this scholarship? I'm still really confused. Any explanation will greatly help. </p>
<p>There are also military programs that would send you to medical school. That would require a one year commitment for every year that you receive assistance. So you might want to get through undergrad on your own (cheaper than med school and far less basic training and physically challenges) and then go the military route for med school. <a href=“Army Medical Scholarships | goarmy.com”>http://www.goarmy.com/amedd/education/hpsp.html</a></p>
Yes. The Marines or the Navy, after college for a minimum of four years active duty (after that you could go to medical school as a civilian). </p>
<p>Very rarely can a person go straight to medical school after completing college and the NROTC program. If you were one of those rare ones, then your total obligation would increase to nine years of active duty. So, in sum… four years of college plus four years of medical school (minimum) plus nine years of military service, equals getting out of the military at about age 35. This is not a particularly good way to become a doctor.
<a href=“http://www.nrotc.navy.mil/military_requirements.aspx”>http://www.nrotc.navy.mil/military_requirements.aspx</a></p>
<p>@bravo49: I am a retired senior naval officer, with considerable NROTC experience and knowledge. The program is fundamentally designed to provide CAREER Navy/Marine Corps officers, with excellent educations – predominantly, technical/engineering focused – from fully reputable universities. As others have suggested, DO NOT APPLY FOR A NROTC SCHOLARSHIP IF YOU ARE NOT SINCERELY COMMITTED TO – AND QUITE FAMILIAR WITH – THE REQUIREMENTS, SACRIFICES, DUTIES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF A LEADERSHIP CAREER IN THE COMBATANT FORCES OF THE US NAVAL SERVICE!</p>
<p>Do you happen to know what percentage of NROTC grads go on to qualify for a 20 year active duty retirement, as compared to USNA grads and OCS/AOCS grads and any other miscellaneous commissioning programs?</p>
<p>@MidKid86: Not currently; at one time (some years ago) REGULAR NROTC Mids – not the NROTC’s Contract progarm’s Mids, who received reserve commissions and did not have substantial scholarships – had an approximate a 33 percent retirement rate, which was roughly comparable with the USNA’s. Complicating this analysis, however, is the fact that officers, from all commissioning programs, also attain full retirement status with >20 years of combined active and “drilling reserve” service (often referred to as “twenty years sat”). Therefore, a simple calculation of commissioning source and longevity retirement stature does not easily capture the information you seek . Moreover, the programs’ tenets continue to be modified, and the foregoing data is not current. Nevertheless, I hope it assists you.</p>
<p>Yes, as a retired naval officer I am familiar with reserve retirement requirements ("twenty sat years’), but I was specifically asking about active duty retirement stats, as in my opinion this is more in line with the general concept of making the military a “career.” After all, there is a considerable difference between an active duty retirement (twenty years of active duty service) and a reserve retirement (twenty years of qualifying service), both in terms of what is required for each and the benefits that each provides.</p>
<p>I am not a NROTC graduate, having spent a wonderful 15 weeks in Pensacola under the watchful eye of SSGT Snow, USMC at AOCS. However, I was and am under the impression that the Navy does not play favorites among different commissioning sources in regards to officer career development and advancement. There was a time, as you allude to, that some officers were commissioned as regular officers and some as reserve officers depending on commissioning program, but my understanding is that currently all officers who are commissioned through active duty programs are commissioned as regular officers.</p>
<p>Certainly the Navy wants to retain the best and brightest officers for full careers and everyone should understand that not everyone who wants to stay will be able to. Perhaps I read it wrong, but what I took away from your first post above was that the NROTC program, more than some other commissioning sources, is looking for applicants who intend to make the Navy a career. My personal experience with shipmates in various squadrons and units (admittedly more than a few years ago) is that it’s hard to make a generalized observation, based on commissioning source, about which officers choose to stay and which officers decide to leave active duty after the initial service obligation. </p>
<p>@MidKid86: Well, shipmate, I too graduated from OCS (but after eighteen, not too pleasant, weeks in Newport during the late-1960’s) and received a regular commission about two years thereafter. I FULLY agree with your entire post; in particular, my experience has been that, once commissioned, every officer fundamentally succeeds or fails, almost entirely based on his demonstrated performance and likely potential. Thus, I saw many individuals who were initially commissioned in the USN, fail selection, or resign, or become reservists due to non-accelerated promotion FitReps, while their USNR “running mates” went on to solid – and sometime distinguished – careers (Vern Clark is a stellar example). This isn’t even a small “shot” at our regular ROTC and USNA brethren; rather, it simply confirms your statement regarding “playing favorites.”</p>
<p>Now, to address your questions, here’s what I can report with authority. In late-1985, I was a senior war college student at Fort McNair. As you may recall, the Goldwater-Nichols Act was then a very “hot” topic (since it SUBSTANTIALLY altered a great deal within the services and DoD, after its mid-1986 enactment). One of the issues the National War College/ICAF “scholars” were asked to address was the cost-effectiveness of the various commissioning sources (including cost of pre-commissioning education and training, length of career, and level of performance), because G-N changed many officer corps managerial policies (examples include: the termination of “temporary commissions” and requirements for “joint” duty). I more-or-less led the Navy part of this analysis, since I had recently concluded a three-year assignment (as a Commander) in the Navy’s DC financial management community, and therefore had relatively easy access to germane data. Here’s what we ascertained (that’s relevant to your questions and as I remember it, after almost thirty years):
There was absolutely no measurable difference between officers’ performance and potential (regardless of source of or type of commission) from the mid/senior LT level on.
Further, once selected for LCDR, the percentage of officers who remained for twenty or more years was essentially identical, despite source or type of commission.
However, a somewhat higher percentage of USNA graduates served beyond thirty years (attributable to the larger percentage selected for Flag, which I suspect has become more-equitable in the last 25 years). The data we examined in the mid-1980’s was founded on the 30 year service guarantee for CAPTs and the 26 or 28 (I forget which) year guarantee for CDRs, that was eliminated in the early-1990’s.
Those who initially received regular commissions remained on active duty to (and beyond) the twenty year longevity retirement point, more frequently than those who were originally commissioned as Ensigns, USNR (roughly ~30 percent versus ~12 percent), which makes sense when one recalls that MANY USNRs intended to serve – and well – but only to meet their pre-lottery draft military obligation.
We were unable to determine (please refer to my immediate prior post) any significant differences between commissioning sources in #4, although we anecdotally believed that USNA graduates probably had slightly higher 20+ year numbers (see #3). Accordingly, OCS and NROTC USNRs had a ten to fifteen percent retirement rate (varied by year group “economics”), while USNA and NROTC USNs had a thirty to thirty-five percent rate (also, varied by year group “economics”).
We were also unable to segment regular and reserve longevity retirements easily or definitively – and this was a frustration – because BuPer’s computer system (back then) commingled all officer longevity retirements (after the “gray area” USNRs reached 60). Consequentially, for example, two 70 year old retired CAPTs, one of whom had 30 years active duty and the other of whom had, perhaps, 10 years combined active duty and “reserve days,” were not differentiated in the database (although, obviously, service records could be examined to find this information). In addition, we couldn’t use NRFC’s retired pay accounts, due to some type of bureaucratic/legal constraints. </p>
<p>Finally, I absolutely never intended to convey any idea that the Navy was seeking more career officers from NROTC than from other commissioning sources (and, in fact, I strongly disagree with that concept). Rather, what I was trying to do in my first post to this thread, was forcefully to impress the OP with the critical fact that an NROTC scholarship is a commitment to be entered into ONLY after great thought and with a sincere dedication to a life of patriotic naval service – it most assuredly (as you well know) isn’t a financial windfall with virtually no concomitant and serious obligations.</p>
<p>Well, I hope the foregoing information at least provides some of the information you sought. With warmest regards and v/r.</p>
<p>Note that Navy, Air Force, and Army all offer scholarships. My non-scientific observation is that the number of ROTC units is greater for Air Force than Navy, and for Army than for Air Force. Also, the “eliteness” of the schools is greater for Navy, then Air Force, then Army. In other words, you are more likely to find an Army ROTC battalion at your school than an NROTC program. However, you can join an ROTC unit in an adjacent school if it is not offered at your home institution.</p>
<p>Not strictly true, but that is the trend. Merchant Marine and Coast Guard do not have ROTC scholarships.</p>
<p>Excellent post and a wealth of information; thank you. I wonder how things have changed, if at all, since all newly commissioned active duty officers have been receiving regular commissions. Like you, I also commissioned USNR and then augmented as soon as I was able.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I mostly agree… I guess that “a life of patriotic naval service,” if you mean that literally, would be taking things a step too far for me. The Navy fully expects that most of the officers it brings in, from whatever source, will leave active service sometime between the end of their service obligations and qualifying for a 20 year active duty retirement. They may leave because they are x2FOS, or they may resign on their own and try something new, and there’s nothing wrong with that. My personal opinion is that our country would be better served if we had many more “citizen soldiers (or sailors),” meaning those who spend some time serving their country and then return to civilian life. I think it could be a unifying experience for many young Americans and teach a host of valuable lessons, including that the freedoms and privileges we enjoy don’t come without cost. I strongly oppose a return to a military draft, but some kind of national service requirement, with an armed forces option, is something I believe should be considered.</p>
<p>Anyway, my advice to the OP would be: consider an NROTC scholarship (or any military service, for that matter) only if you are committed to serving in the military and are willing to sacrifice for whatever number of years you will be obligated for. But you shouldn’t look at it as a lifetime commitment, unless you make that choice.</p>
<p>. . . and, @ItsJustSchool, the Merchant Marine is not one of the Armed Forces (notwithstanding the fact that USMMA is a Federal “military” academy), its members are not generally subject to the UCMJ nor are they paid by the individual services/the DoD. </p>
<p>@MiddKid86: I agree with almost everything you have stated or implied in #9, with the exception of your belief that “a life of patriotic naval service” (which I do mean quite literately) takes it too far (and I appreciate your clearly indicating “for you”). As you know – and I haven’t worn a “blue suite” in over 25 years – we are still commissioned officers, arguably still subject to the UCMJ, but (far more important) still largely self-bound by the mores, the ethos, the traditions, and the culture of the Navy’s officer corps.</p>
<p>@TopTier, the Coast Guard (which also has an Academy) is not a military service either. It is under Homeland Security. However, my post was for the OP, who may dig a little deeper and discover that there are 5 Academies; this provoking the corollary question on ROTC units. A little “cut them off at the pass,” if you will.</p>
<p>But thank you for making that clarification.</p>
<p>I look at it this way: someone who has/had all the right personal characteristics to be an excellent naval officer (mores, ethos, patriotism, etc.) won’t suddenly jettison those characteristics upon leaving naval service, whether “leaving” means resigning and making a complete return to civilian life upon completion of the service obligation, or retiring from a distinguished career after 20+ years of active duty. I’m very proud of my service, and I’m very grateful for what the Navy has given me, but I don’t have any problem leaving behind some of the traditions. The Navy has shaped me, but it no longer defines me. If someone wants to benefit from an NROTC scholarship and then serve faithfully and effectively until they are able to leave the service and make a clean break of it, I have no problem with that, as long as they are respectful. I personally don’t think that in such a situation it’s necessary for the person to continue to live “a life of patriotic naval service,” as I think you are defining that phrase.</p>
<p>I know that we’re splitting hairs here and I don’t mean to be argumentative. I respect your opinion and I love the Navy. Between posts I got a call from a shipmate that I haven’t seen or heard from in a number of years. He’ll be in town on Sunday, and we’re going to get together and laugh and tell “remember when” stories about the old days. I’m looking forward to it.</p>
<p>@ItsJustSchool: Your post #12 is factually incorrect, and substantially so. The Coast Guard is statutorily established – in Title 10 United States Code, precisely 10 U.S.C. § 101(a)(4) – as an Armed Force. In addition, there is a second, complementary Federal law that reinforces the Coast Guard’s status as a Military Branch of the Armed Forces (14 U.S.C. § 1), which states: "The Coast Guard as established January 28, 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times. The Coast Guard shall be a service in the Department of Homeland Security . . . " . Incidentally, the USCG is the ONLY Federal entity that has both Armed Forces and Federal Law Enforcement authorities.</p>
<p>Finally, there are seven United States Uniformed Services (the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, and the Commissioned Officers Corps of NOAA and the Public Heath Service), however only the first five are Armed Forces, as clearly defined in Federal statutes. The Merchant Marine is neither a Uniformed Service nor an Armed Force. </p>
<p>One of the least known facts about the USMMA is that a midshipman can apply for and receive a commission in any one of the armed services, plus the Coast Guard and NOAA. Roughly one third of graduates make this choice, with most choosing the Navy, but some definitely choose the Army, Air Force, or Marines. For example the astronaut Mark Kelly, was a USMMA graduate who chose the Navy. The other two thirds of USMMA graduates are almost evenly split between those who serve in the merchant marine fleet (on ships) and those that take desk jobs with shipping companies. These graduates who do not choose a branch of the armed services will receive a commission the Navy Reserve.</p>
<p>@NROTCgrad: That’s absolutely true and the USMMA is a Federal Academy. However, the Merchant Marine is neither a Uniformed Service nor an Armed Force (as I’m sure you’re well aware).</p>
<p>Of course they are! At least, that’s how I remember it.</p>
<p>Thanks for the discussion, TopTier. Doing it via an internet forum is difficult; I have the feeling that you and I could engage in a nice in-person talk during which we would agree on far more things than we disagree about.</p>