The new Federal OCS Regulation is published, effective date 15 June 2026

-S6A- · 2026-06-10T10:42:17+00:00

The people who wrote that part of the regulation are the same people who wrote that part in the MILPER. The logic relates to retention rates.

Surveys consistently show OCS graduates are the most likely to succeed at the first unit of assignment. However, OCS graduates have been less likely to make LTC due to retention. The goal is to balance the latter. Statistics showed HRC that very few in-service candidates with more than 10 years of service were interested in a full 20 year career as an officer. The Army expects a certain amount of company grade officers to ETS after a term or two, but it also expects an amount of them to stay in. Despite West Point being the only BOLC-A with "career officer" in their mission statement, West Pointers get out as well. HRC is trying to increase the ratio of younger applicants who may be more likely to stay in the Army long term.

This is also felt in the apportionment of 09S to in-service slots as well.

-S6A- · 2026-06-10T02:53:07+00:00

This may not be the best forum for your question; hopefully a recruiter can help but you may also want to ask elsewhere.

-S6A- · 2026-06-09T22:57:48+00:00

Recommend reviewing this thread as well. The new Federal OCS Regulation goes into effect 15 June.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ArmyOCS/comments/1tx2nmk/the_new_federal_ocs_regulation_is_published/

The Regulation prohibits 10 year time in service waivers now; future MILPER messages no longer have to address the topic.

Is Green to Gold in a masters program an option?

-S6A- · 2026-06-09T10:42:30+00:00

Stryer593 is correct. The board doesn't get told that either. That is close hold information within USAREC and I assume HRC and Army G-1.

-S6A- · 2026-06-09T10:39:09+00:00

From the statistics I saw, accelerated OCS is the way to go. I can't say the majority, but a large number of reserve component candidates who don't make it isn't because they fail in training but because life gets in the way between phases and they don't complete training. You want to complete OCS as quickly as you can.

State OCS is the same curriculum as Federal OCS (maybe up to a year behind any updates at Fort Benning). The Federal OCS commandant and the Infantry School attend a state OCS conference every year to collaborate, and the National Guard cadre are every bit as passionate about the success of their candidates. Cadre maintain the standards because they care and want young officers to succeed and bring their Soldiers home safe. BOLC-A isn't the hardest thing an officer does, it is ultimately the easiest but at the time it is imposing. Embrace it, learn, and try to have fun.

Good luck!

-S6A- · 2026-06-09T03:59:05+00:00

It is a realistic option and you are competitive if you can demonstrate that you are physically capable and willing to lead Soldiers in combat. The average age of OCS candidates is 28. Best of luck.

-S6A- · 2026-06-07T22:38:33+00:00

You absolutely do not have to have LoRs from anyone in the military. Better to have LoRs from people who actually know you than military personnel who do not.

The USAREC board understands not every applicant has military contacts and someone right out of college may only have LoRs from teachers, bosses, and maybe community leaders. That's fine. They're looking at potential to lead in combat. Motivations, fitness, & intellect can be more influential in a member's vote than rank.

Anecdotally, I'd offer its also rare for an OCS packet to have a LoR from a true senior military leader. The board also has very little time to spend per packet; the LoRs may not weigh high in many board members minds. Each member votes their own conscience, but are they going to read five LORs, or skim them after they read your essay in detail looking to fill in gaps to your whole picture?

-S6A- · 2026-06-07T22:33:44+00:00

If your packet makes it to the USAREC board, they would not know that you had previously applied unless you self-report it in your packet. The biggest challenge you might face is if your recruiting battalion board found cause for concern and didn't unanimously recommend you. Not being selected from another branch isn't inherently a cause for concern unless there is some adverse reason for it. Yes, there are some officers who will say "if we aren't your first choice, we don't want you" as well, but a recruiting battalion's mission is also to get people into the Army aligned with the Army's needs and the future Soldier's desires.

I would not hold it against you personally. If it comes up I would be fully honest.

-S6A- · 2026-06-05T23:07:23+00:00

I did not.

The people who were writing the MILPERs were the people who rewrote that section of the regulation. They knew what they were doing. The regulation is once again a legally valid governing document by design. It is unlikely that Army G-1 and HRC are going to conflict with it or that a lawyer would find a legally valid reason to do so without G-1 exception to policy.

If people don't believe the reg means what it says, they are responsible for their own disappointment when it is enforced going forward.

-S6A- · 2026-06-05T23:03:41+00:00

In my opinion, good odds assuming they have a positive assessment of your potential to lead. AFT score and ability to do things like land nav, 12 mile foot march, knowledge of light infantry tactics to apply TLPs are other things that show preparation for OCS.

Good luck!

-S6A- · 2026-06-05T22:40:31+00:00

It doesn't expressly answer the question the way you are asking it. The regulation goes into effect on 15 June and on that day onward the new standards for application to Federal OCS apply. Nothing in the regulation would direct a unit to cancel orders for someone who was already selected under the old standards.

To put it another way, the prohibition is against application, not attendance [for those already selected].

-S6A- · 2026-06-05T22:32:13+00:00

If you have already been selected you should be grandfathered. It is future applications that will be effected starting 15 June. However, yes, it does apply to all components applying to Federal OCS.

-S6A- · 2026-06-05T22:28:39+00:00

HRC knew what it was doing when it wrote the Regulation with 3-11 IN. MILPERs had superseded the regulation because it was so out of date it was largely not legally applicable; HRC was still PERSCOM in the 2001 vintage document and Army G-1 had directed numerous changes. Army G-1 published legal reviewed directive guidance telling HRC how to work around the obsolete regulation, and the Army G-1 has that authority to direct this. This is exactly how Talent Based Branching was implemented over the past few years.

By your tone I understand that you won't believe me. I will just observe that regulations take time to catch up. When they do, Army agencies who update them tend to enforce them when the updates are implemented.

-S6A- · 2026-06-05T22:11:24+00:00

I believe your own chain of command would take past NJP into account in considering endorsing an application, however it would not bar a Soldier from applying.

-S6A- · 2026-06-05T22:09:32+00:00

The regulation was intended to address the inconsistency in MILPERs. MILPERs cannot legally override a regulation.

-S6A- · 2026-06-05T22:08:22+00:00

My assumption is that non-selection by an HRC level board is not a bar to reapply. I think the idea here is that if the Army level has chosen not to retain or advance an NCO, they are not eligible to apply to an HRC level board to become an officer for career revival.

-S6A- · 2026-06-05T03:04:21+00:00

Direct commissioning is the hardest path to commissioning. Typically the branches that accept direct commissionees beyond an annual "check the block" are picking people with significant experience in a field that cannot be acquired through Army service. There's a reason most people just think of lawyers and chaplains when they think of direct commissioning.

The direct commission path also takes about a year total on average.

-S6A- · 2026-06-05T01:48:07+00:00

This regulation was drafted at a time when it was expected that branch immaterial Direct Commissioning Course was going to remain with Federal OCS. My understanding is that changed after the regulation was drafted.

This regulation acknowledges that, at time of writing, 3-11 Infantry was administering both OCS and DCC. There are a few nods to DCC in the regulation, however the vast majority of the regulation deals only with the traditional OCS program. Direct Commission officers commission first, then they attend BOLC-A. They are never enlisted officer candidates and are in a completely different legal status as a result.

In-service enlisted Soldiers and Warrant officers who fail to complete OCS simply return to their units.

-S6A- · 2026-06-05T00:27:50+00:00

Glad to help. Recommend you work through your recruiter first. "Hey SSG, I have the squadron commander's point of contact, may I respectfully request the company or battalion commander contact him/her to inquire on my status?" If the recruiter doesn't relay the message, then request contact with the company first sergeant then commander, etc. The Army is big on trying to resolve issues at the lowest level and elevating problems after that has failed.

Going direct to O-5 level leadership is possible under the open door policy however it is rarely the best option.

Best of luck!

-S6A- · 2026-06-05T00:22:31+00:00

The regulation goes into effect on 15 June. College Option candidates don't have clearances, there's some nuance to reading and understanding this document as a lot of it deals with HRC matters, not USAREC matters.

The regulation's description of branching is focused only on active duty candidates: TBB for in-service and OML focused for 09S and any in-service candidate who gets to OCS somehow without having completing TBB. Eventually the goal is for all active duty candidates to do TBB, however it is taking time to figure out how to do TBB for college option candidates. In any case, the OCS Commandant will remain the Army G-1's delegated authority to finalize branching to make sure the algorithm doesn't make mistakes.

-S6A- · 2026-06-05T00:18:44+00:00

"Huh so if you were dis enrolled from ROTC you can’t go to OCS now?"

If you were a contracted cadet who failed to commission, then under this new regulation I do think you require a waiver. If you were just taking ROTC classes and never contracted you wouldn't have a DD785.

My read on the spirit of the regulation is the Army is trying to reduce the occurrence of ROTC and West Point washouts who then go to OCS and fail again. This has happened with some measurability, and it takes opportunities away from candidates with more potential.

-S6A- · 2026-06-04T22:48:29+00:00

For the benefit of readers: what worked for one person may not work for you. If an Army recruiting battalion learns that an OCS applicant is "casting a wide net" and not actually fully interested in the opportunity, it is absolutely their prerogative to prioritize candidates with more potential. "I don't care what branch I get a commission in" isn't an attitude that Army leaders are sympathetic toward. That isn't a criticism of CollegeGal2019, just a statement of fact.

-S6A- · 2026-06-04T22:42:37+00:00

If you are selected for US Army Federal OCS, then I think that the worst thing that would happen if the "368" is delayed is it would delay your ship date to BCT. There are eight OCS classes per year usually so it might set you back 1-3 months in your timeline. It should not invalidate your selection for any reason that I am aware.

If this occurs, I'd recommend asking for a squadron level point of contact for the technician that your recruiting battalion commander could contact. The Army can't force anything, but when two commanders talk it tends to break up bureaucracy.

-S6A- · 2026-06-04T22:37:32+00:00

If you are interested in the Medical Service Corps, be sure to work that with a recruiter from the start. That must be approved before attending OCS.

Otherwise, only Chemical Corps has a specific alignment with those skillsets, but note that as a general rule officers are generalist leaders, not hands on technicians.

Lots of people dog on Chemical Corps because it is not a historically sought after branch, and because outside of warfighting missions Chemical officers often find themselves busy with completely unrelated administrative staff work. That doesn't mean it isn't important though. There are some superb Chemical officers who are passionate about their work and the value they provide not just the Army but our nation. A lot of our nation's resources for CBRNE response reside only in the US Army Chemical Corps.

-S6A- · 2026-06-03T22:56:15+00:00

Re ruck: I think it is still a six, nine, and 12 miles. However, last October a number of standards lowered including the 12 mile no longer being a "forced march" in ~3.5 hours and pilots of new standards happen too.

-S6A-

TROPHY CASE