________________________________________________________________________Richard S. Kem
SUBJECT: OPMS Command Selection and Selection of District Engineers
district assignment (because they perceived it is a tougher more demanding position than troop
commands ) to command but felt they had to opt for troop command. Likewise other colonels told
me at this fall's slating session they preferred a troop command to a District. With this situation an
officer really desiring a District may go to troop command thereby depriving another well qualified
officer of his preference as well. It happened this year. This is aggravated by the extremely small
number of command opportunities in the Corps of Engineers compared to other branches.
e. The "halo" effect--this is a problem in any branch but this is aggravated for engineers. There
are so few positions that they equate roughly with the number of engineer general officers that might
be chosen in any year. The existence of another demanding, quality position (district engineer) fed
by the same manpower resources provides further artificial inequalities and perceptions affecting
selection. For instance, roughly 5-6 troop command positions will be filled yearly along with 12-14
district engineer positions. Experience would also indicate roughly 4-5 engineer colonels would be
selected for general officer as well. Thus roughly 20 engineer colonels are really competitive for
general officer each year. Selection of six from a set of 20 with a previous board sort of five to six in
that sort provides a ready environment for the "halo" effect. By selecting a larger set for command,
17-18 for district engineers and troop commanders, the two sets become more alike and the "halo"
effect will be less likely to occur or be perceived.
f. Alternatives III and IV can be disposed of quickly. Both provide no further advantage than
Alternative II and further complicates OPD assignments by designating officers for specific
assignment. In addition, Alternative IV requires still another board.
8. If board selection for engineer troop commanders is valid, it would appear that it would be valid
as well for district engineers. The final decision between the remaining alternatives and board
selection of both district engineers appears to rest on three items --
a. Can the Chief of Engineers live with his loss of flexibility? Would year group and single
command opportunity be a hindrance? If a longer eligibility span (3 - 5 years) is approved thereby
permitting longer deferments and the ability to use officers in both positions--would this be more in
keeping with his needs?
b. Are eligibility and selection criteria compatible in relation to available engineer colonels?
c. Is OPMS adaptable to meet branch differences?
9. In summary I would re-emphasize the following points. I don't see District Engineer selection by
a central board as deprecating troop command in the engineers or the Army. A district is not "troop"
command but it is command. The elimination of Commander "shopping lists" has been a driving
force behind centralized troop command selection. This is not such a severe problem in engineers as
it is for other combat arms officers since engineer troop commands are spread thinly and engineer
districts provide the alternate high visibility assignment. Consequently I see no real drive to cause
engineer troop commanders to be centrally selected but to provide board credibility to the selection
process. In that case the same argument would prompt me to believe it would be valid for district
engineer selection. So my preference would be to see the OPMS system show its adaptability by
A-5
Previous Page
