Army officers' careers on the line as cuts loom
FORT BRAGG, N.C. — After 9/11, tens of thousands of young men and women joined the military, heading for the rugged mountains of Afghanistan and dusty deserts of Iraq.
Many of them now are officers in the Army with multiple combat deployments under their belts. But as the wars wind down and Pentagon budgets shrink, a lot of them are being told they have to leave.
It's painful and frustrating. In quiet conversations at Fort Bragg and Fort Eustis in Virginia, captains talk about their worries after 15-month deployments in which they battled terrorists and saw roadside bombs kill and maim their comrades. They nervously wait as their fates rest in the hands of evaluation boards that may spend only a few minutes reading through service records before making decisions that could end careers.
During the peak war years, the Army grew to about 570,000, as commanders worked to fill combat brigades and support units to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thousands of newly minted officers moved in during 2006-08.
Already down to about 522,000, the Army must shrink to 490,000 by October 2015, and then to 450,000 two years later. If automatic budget cuts resume, the Army will have to get down to 420,000 — a size service leaders say may not allow them to wage even one major, prolonged military campaign.
While a lot of the reduction can happen from voluntary retirements, resignations and decreased enlistments, Army commanders will have to force as many as 3,000 officers — nearly 10 percent of the planned decrease — to leave by the end of October 2015. Of those, nearly 1,500 are captains, and 550 are majors.
Behind some of those big numbers are soldiers in their late 20s who will be forced out of their military careers long before retirement age and into a struggling job market. They would leave with honorable discharges, but without 20 years in the service they would not be eligible for retirement benefits.
The military has been through this before. In the years after Vietnam and during the 1990s as the Cold War thawed, the Pentagon pushed thousands of service members out the door, leaving what some felt was a hollow military that lacked the soldiers, training and equipment needed to fight and win.
This time, Army leaders argue they're trying to do it right. They're not asking for volunteers, because too many good people leave. So they are combing through files, looking for soldiers with disciplinary or other problems in their annual evaluations — known as efficiency reports — to weed out lower-performing officers.
Col. Trevor Bredenkamp, commander of the 82nd Airborne Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team, said he talked to all of his majors who were in that group, and he had his battalion commanders talk to their captains.
“The challenge is there are about 8 percent that they will have to select that don't have any derogatory information in their file. So there will be some people that will say I don't know why I was selected,” Bredenkamp said. “I'm telling people, hey, they're going to decide who they decide on, and if you've been working hard and doing a good job, by and large, the majority of you don't have to worry about it.”
Once chosen for departure, the young officers will have two months to leave.
“We have an obligation to help them land softly on the outside of the Army,” Bredenkamp said.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Coal industry seeks unusual partner in UN green climate fund
- McCarthy withdraws candidacy for speaker
- Former Massey CEO’s character debated: Profit hungry or safety conscious?
- DNA repair research earns 3 Nobel Prize
- House Democrat files ethics complaint over Benghazi investigation
- Damage from trillions of gallons of rain in week will cost S.C. over $1B
- Volkswagen exec ready to testify in D.C.
- Defense bill heads to Obama under threat
- Scientists call coral bleaching global crisis
- Guantanamo detainee Kamin to be freed after 11 years
- Daily fantasy sports websites land on lawmakers’ radar