Revamping Warrant Officer Appointment Physicals

By CW4 Athena M. Clements, New Hampshire Army National Guard

Article published on: April 1, 2024 in the April-June 2024 Edition of the Warrant Officer Journal

Read Time: < 8 mins

It is no secret that in the “War for Talent,” recruiting and retention is a current challenge across all U. S. military branches and components, including the Army National Guard warrant officer cohort. In 2022, Gen. James McConville, then Chief of Staff of the Army, stated: “We have opportunities to offer men and women unlike any other place. We want to make sure that we’re taking advantage of the talent we have in the military.” Are we truly doing enough to take advantage of the talent in our ranks when it comes to warrant officer recruiting?

As any seasoned Army National Guard Warrant Officer Strength Manger (WOSM) will tell you, accessing each technical warrant officer is lengthy and comprehensive. In a way, it should be. Readiness is critical, and the Army must ensure that we commission true subject matter experts and strong leaders as warrant officers; there is no room for mediocre or sub-par performers. The warrant officer definition states, “Warrant officers in the Army are accessed with specific levels of technical ability. They refine their technical expertise and develop their leadership and management skills through tiered progressive assignment and education” (DA PAM 600-3, 2023). The packet sent to the applicant’s proponent must paint a vivid picture of their technical expertise. Hence, it includes all past noncommissioned officer evaluation reports, academic evaluation reports, various letters of recommendation from commanders and subject matter experts, GT score verification, and an exhaustive resume, to name just a few.

Along with obtaining an approval letter from the proponent, each applicant must complete a Chapter 2 appointment physical to appear before a state Federal Recognition Board (FRB). The FRB ensures applicants meet the medical, moral, and professional qualifications to perform the duties of the grade and position they are examined before being designated as a candidate (NGR 600-101, 2018). If you currently serve as a warrant officer, I’m sure you remember the application process as your first test on the long road to pin on that dot—eventually!

The Chapter 2 physical requirement is an unnecessary stumbling block for many otherwise qualified applicants, even with the medical waiver process being considered. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (ASD (M&RA)) and the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD (P&R)) should require a Chapter 3 retention physical for technical warrant officer accessions versus the more comprehensive chapter 2 enlistment, appointment, and induction physical to eliminate redundancy, an unreasonable standard, and unnecessary barriers. The Chapter 2 appointment physical negatively affects technically qualified applicants, warrant officer vacancy fill rates, and overall unit readiness. When considering the Chapter 3 retention physical, there are no negative impacts on the applicant’s overall mission or medical readiness. After training time is invested in the candidate and the initial training costs are spent on Warrant Officer Candidate School and the Basic Course, the U.S. Army would still have a fully medically ready warrant officer upon graduation.

All applicants for appointment as a commissioned or warrant officer in the Active and Reserve Components are subject to the standards of the Chapter 2 physical, including enlisted Soldiers (AR 40-501, 2019; DoDI 1304.26, 2018; DoDI 6130.03, 2022). This is a redundant requirement, as all currently serving members completed a Chapter 2 enlistment physical at a Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) upon joining the military. If there has not been a significant break in service, the lesser Chapter 3 retention standards should apply. The applicability section of Chapter 3 specifically states: “These retention standards are for continued military service” (AR 40-501, 2019). Being discharged as an enlisted Soldier in the Integrated Personnel and Pay System-Army (IPPS-A) the day before commissioning and then onboarded as a warrant officer the next day is hardly considered a significant break in service. It is merely a required administrative transaction for continued military service in the new commissioned role. Chapter 3 physically addresses “the various disqualifying medical conditions and physical defects which may render a Soldier unfit for further military service” (AR 40-501, 2019). At no point does the U.S. Army require a currently serving member to repeat an entrance physical to verify their medical readiness, outside of applying to commission as an officer or warrant officer. Service members must complete an annual Physical Health Assessment (PHA) or Post-Deployment Health Reassessment (PDHRA) through their Medical Command. If a Soldier separates from service for more than six months (a significant break in service), they must complete a new chapter 2 physical to re-assess into the military (AR 40-501, 2019).

Further, the Chapter 2 standards are unreasonable for technical warrant officer accessions. Most Army National Guard warrant officer applicants for technical positions are seasoned mid- to senior-level noncommissioned officers with five to fifteen years of service. Many applicants have also deployed multiple times. Both deployed and stateside service often comes with physical and mental repercussions, including injury (for example, back and knee issues that may result in a profile) and psychological trauma such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, anxiety, or depression. Suppose the U.S. Army truly seeks experienced operators and strong leaders who are experts in the subject matter. In that case, they should not penalize applicants for the physical and mental injuries sustained through service to their country. Experience often comes with scars.

Further complicating the unreasonable standard is the fact that if an applicant cannot pass the Chapter 2 physical, he or she is removed from warrant officer consideration but still deemed medically fit enough to continue to serve (and deploy) as an enlisted member; often rising to the senior enlisted level of First Sergeant or Sergeant Major. This sends a flawed message to the force that the rejected applicants are good enough to serve, lead, and advise in a senior enlisted capacity rather than as a warrant officer. Is this how we treat our noncommissioned officers – the very backbone of the Army – as second-rate citizens? We know better, and we must do better.

Finally, the Chapter 2 physical standard creates an unnecessary barrier for qualified applicants, a point both the New Hampshire Army National Guard State Surgeon and Medical Detachment Commander call “spot on.” Data from the Director’s Personnel Readiness Report (DPRO) system shows that many warrant officer vacancies have low-density feeder occupational specialties with small applicant pools. This trend exists across many states and territories. In 2021, the Army National Guard had 2,333 warrant officer vacancies out of 10,234 authorized positions, prompting the Secretary of the Army to adopt a policy allowing retired Active Duty warrant officers into the National Guard and Reserves while still drawing their pensions to address the massive shortages (AD 2021-28, Winkie, 2021). Retaining the difficult and unreasonable Chapter 2 physical standard for currently serving applicants reduces the pool of available technical experts, leaving critical positions vacant for long periods. This adds to the known shortages that the Secretary of the Army has already taken extraordinary measures to remedy by bringing our retired Active Duty counterparts into the Reserve Component (AD 2021-28). IPPS-A data from 2021 shows the New Hampshire Army National Guard had 12 technical warrant officer vacancies that year, with three applicants, turned away due to disqualifying physical conditions under the Chapter 2 physical that were not eligible for medical waivers. Their medical disqualifications negatively affect warrant officer vacancy fill rates and overall readiness, leaving units to operate without necessary subject matter experts to provide recommendations to the commander and guidance and training to subordinates. The longer our key technical warrant officer slots remain vacant, the further their sections degrade – intelligence, food service, allied trades, ammunition, or air and missile defense. If the main concern is readiness, it is plain to see that there is a much more significant negative impact on our readiness by medically disqualifying applicants who happen to be technical experts in their field under Chapter 2 standards and leaving these vital positions vacant. Revisiting Gen. McConville’s statement, “We want to make sure that we’re taking advantage of the talent we have in the military.” The U.S. Army cannot afford to keep the Chapter 2 appointment physical as the commissioning standard; it is undermining the readiness of our units and our cohort.

Graphic: Rendering of futuristic military medical screen created by ChatGPT 4o

After examining the physical requirements, disqualified applicants, and unit fill rates for technical warrant officers, the preponderance of evidence supports the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (ASD (M&RA)) and the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD (P&R)) adopting the more reasonable chapter 3 retention physical instead of the chapter 2 enlistment, appointment, and induction physical. We must work to break down antiquated and unnecessary barriers within the commissioning process for the good of our Soldiers, our cohort, and our Nation. This is just one simple step we can take to retain our top performers, fill our warrant officer vacancies with qualified technical experts, and push all Army components forward in the War for Talent. Let’s get it done.

Author’s Note: Athena M. Clements, U.S. Army National Guard, is a Chief Warrant Officer 4 with the New Hampshire Army National Guard. Mrs. Clements currently serves full-time as the State Equal Employment Manager and in an M-Day role as the J8 USPFO Branch Chief. She served as New Hampshire’s Warrant Officer Strength Manager for three years and as a Training, Advising, and Counseling Officer with the Reserve Component Warrant Officer Candidate School for eight years. She holds a bachelor’s degree from North Adams State College in Massachusetts.

References