1. IMT COA Evaluation Brief

2. Degree of Integration – No change Shared Training – Established benchmark (75 BOLC I Tasks) Best Educational Outcome – No change Train Ahead – N/A Duration – No change WO Accessions - Added Evaluation Criteria

3. Title: Degree of Integration Description: Extent of Officer and WO course with training in same location and/or with same curriculum. Unit of Measure: % of time Benchmark: current level Formula: more is better

4. Title: Shared Training Description: Integrated Training (Live-Virtual-Constructive) w/Officer & WO performing their specific roles and missions; maximum understanding of WO roles and responsibilities within the Officer Corps. Unit of Measure: Appropriate shared training task opportunities Benchmark: Currently 75 BOLC I tasks 67 are shared 8 are not shared: 2 tasks (Media Interview and Fundamentals of Joint Warfare) are appropriate to be shared, 6 are covered in BOLC II (NBC and mounted movement) Formula: current is advantage; more is better

5. Title: Best Educational Outcome (Right Training) Description: Technical, Tactical, and Officer/Leader Competencies linked to grade/position. (Sources for tasks: CCTL, TRAC-WSMR Needs Analysis, Branch Needs/Task Analysis) Unit of Measure: # of tasks (assumes competency achieved in all tasks; assumes level of leadership and task relevancy) Benchmark: Current # tasks in course in each area: Tact/Tech/Off-Ldr Formula: current is advantage; more is better

6. Title: Train Ahead (Right Time) Description: Training received prior to operational need and promotion to next grade (TSP – Train, Select, Promote) Unit of Measure: timing Benchmark: training prior to selection Formula: prior to selection is best; prior to promotion is advantage; after promotion is disadvantage

7. Title: Course Duration Description: Amount of resident time required to complete course (Assume use of New Army Learning Model) Unit of Measure: days Benchmark: Status Quo Formula: less is better

8. Title: WO ACCESSIONS Description: Impact on WO accessions Unit of Measure: Number of applicants Benchmark: SMDR Formula: More is better

9.  Purpose of OCS/WOCS is to: 1) Assess readiness and potential for commissioning or appointment 2) Prepare for progressive and continuing development 3) Share a common goal that each graduate possess the character, leadership, integrity, and other attributes essential to a career of exemplary service to the nation. (AR 350-1, para 3-26) IMT: OCS / WOCS ►Assumptions  Integrated training and education increases formal functional relationships – establishes informal professional relationships  WO Accessions will be negatively affected by an increase in course length  If instruction time is reduced, potential exists to reduce educational outcome of branch officers  WO numbers may decrease due to greater competition with OCS ►Facts  CMD guidance/intent and ATLDP  Demographics: Rank, experience, prior military education  Current TLO comparison: 89% equiv  WO integrated into BOLC II by FY09  Course lengths differ: OCS is 14 wks OCS RTI Course Length (#Hrs) WOCS is 5 wks or 7 wks  WOCS RTI Course Length (#Hrs)  No branch tech training in OCS/WOCS  Needs analysis is valid – leader development gap is relatively small

10. COA 1 Current Configuration: Maintain separate OCS and WOCS courses. COA 2 Full Integration: Integrated student body with identical curriculum and training environment. COA 3 Phased and Tailored (Shared Training Environment): Identical common core curriculum phase I with a separate cohort focused phase II. COA 4 Phased and Tailored (Separate Training Environment): Identical common core curriculum phase I with a separate cohort-focused phase II.

11. COA 1: Current Configuration (plus) Maintain separate OCS and WOCS courses. Description: This course of action calls for no change in the current execution of officer candidate preparation for both warrant officers and second lieutenants. Course length, location and faculty for both OCS and WOCS remain separate for each school, and students are not integrated. Appropriate curriculum is shared. Gaps in training needs are addressed. RC OCS and WOCS would also remain separate. WOCS at Fort Rucker/Bragg + State RTIs OCS at Fort Benning + State RTIs

12. COA 1: Current Configuration Plus Criteria 1)Degree of Integration -- +/- Meets partial intent of Command guidance / intent or ATLDP recommendations (ATLDP WO Study Annex F, E-135-136, E-138 and TRADOC CTG, para 1, 4 & 5 and CAC CG Priority, p. 7, para 5a(3)(f) and CAC CDR’s FRAGO 1 to OPORD 04-261A, para 3B5a) - Does not increase understanding of the role of WOs across the cohorts during OCS (ATLDP WO Study Final Report, Strategic Conclusions and Recommendations, para. 17) + While not part of WOCS, BOLC II aids in increasing WO leadership skills. 2)Shared Training – + 75 Total Tasks, 67 shared, 6 are covered in BOLC II and remaining 2 appropriate for inclusion as shared training 3) Best Educational Outcomes (Right Training) -- + WOCS recognizes experiential differences of candidates (tailored) (TRADOC CTG, dtd 26 Jun 06, para 1, 4 and 5) + BOLC II address the additional educational outcomes not currently in the WO IMT -Train Ahead (Right Time) - NA 5)Accessions =>Should remain the same

13. COA 2: Full Integration Integrated student body with identical curriculum and training environment. Description: All candidates attend school together with appropriate mix of officer and WO at the existing locations (AC and RC). All candidates receive same common core curriculum. Two course lengths provided to acknowledge prior experience (i.e., similar to current WOCS structure). Leverages resources from both OCS / WOCS programs (facilities, instructors, etc). = Officers & Warrant Officer Candidates 100% Integrated at Fort Rucker + State RTIs Officers & Warrant Officer Candidates 100% Integrated at Fort Benning + State RTIs Short Course Long Course dL Short Course Long Course dL

14. COA 2: Full Integration Integrated student body with identical curriculum and training environment. Criteria 1) Degree of Integration – + Accomplishes Command guidance / intent or ATLDP recommendations (ATLDP WO Study Annex F, E-135-136, E-138 and TRADOC CTG, para 1, 4 & 5 and CAC CG Priority, p. 7, para 5a(3)(f) and CAC CDR’s FRAGO 1 to OPORD 04-261A, para 3B5a) + Increases understanding of the role of WOs across the cohorts (ATLDP WO Study Final Report, Strategic Conclusions and Recommendations, para. 17) - Potential for undermining cultural differentiation between LT and WO through over familiarity 2)Shared Training – + Increased leadership training focused at small unit level - Commanders are more likely to use WO in Branch officer positions + 100% of 75 Total Tasks trained + Sharing of lessons learned and military experience 3)Best Educational Outcomes (Right Training) – + BOLC II addresses the additional educational outcomes not currently in the WO IMT + Integrated course r ecognizes experiential differences of candidates (tailored) - If instruction time is reduced, potential exists to reduce educational outcome of branch officers

15. COA 2: Full Integration Integrated student body with identical curriculum and training environment (Cont) 4) Train Ahead (Right Time) – NA 5) Accessions – - RC WO numbers may decrease if course duration increases - AC WO numbers may decrease due to greater competition with OCS - May impact WO throughput due to longer courses and fewer graduations

16. COA 3: Phased and Tailored (Shared Training Environment) Identical common core curriculum phase I with a separate cohort focused phase II Description: Warrant officer candidates and officer candidates are integrated into a shared training environment using the same Phase I common core curriculum at existing locations. Phase II is a cohort focused curriculum, where warrant officers and officers are taught separately at the same location. Two course lengths provided to acknowledge prior experience (i.e., similar to current WOCS structure). Leverage resources from both programs. Phase II (at Benning or Rucker + RTIs) Phase I (at Benning or Rucker + RTIs) Officers & Warrant Officers 100% Integrated for Common Core Warrant Officers to BOLC II Officers Same installation Differing track dl Through Task analysis, COA 3 is no longer valid ! Phase 2 is no longer valid through task analysis

17. COA 3: Phased and Tailored (Shared Training Environment) Identical common core curriculum phase I with a separate cohort focused phase II Criteria Degree of Integration – + IAW command guidance / intent and ATLDP recommendations (ATLDP WO Study Annex F, para. E-135-136, E-138 and TRADOC CTG, para 1, 4 & 5 and CAC CG Priority, p. 7, para 5a(3)(f) and CAC CDR’s FRAGO 1 to OPORD 04-261A, para 3B5a) + Establish WO as part of officer corps – produces common officership and leadership across the officer corps (CAC CDR OPORD 04-261A, para 3, and ATLDP Strategic Recommendations, para 2) + Recognizes similarities and differences of cohorts (perception is made equitable) (ATLDP WO Study, Annex F, p. F-41, para, E-135 and OPORD 04-261A, para 3, Key Tasks) +/- Phase I, 67 out of 75 shared tasks. 8 tasks not shared. Shared Training – + Phase I, 67 out of 75 shared tasks. 8 tasks not shared. + Shared military experience opportunities +/- dependant on course length

18. COA 3: Phased and Tailored (Shared Training Environment) Identical common core curriculum phase I with a separate cohort focused phase II (Con’t) Best Educational Outcomes (Right Training) -- Train Ahead (Right Time) – NA Accessions – - RC WO numbers may decrease if course duration increases - AC WO numbers may decrease due to greater competition with OCS - May impact WO throughput due to longer courses and fewer graduations

19. COA 4: Phased and Tailored (Separate Training Environment) Identical common core curriculum phase I with a separate cohort-focused phase II Officers in Common Core at Fort Benning + RTIs Warrant Officers in Common Core at Fort Rucker + RTIs Description: Warrant officers and officers are taught the same common core curriculum for phase I, but they are taught at separate locations. Phase II continues at separate locations, and is also tailored specifically for each separate cohort, taking into consideration prior experience. This COA leverages resources from both programs. Cohort specific for Officers Cohort specific for Warrant Officers Phase I Phase II DL Phase 2 only has 2 tasks Through Task analysis, phase 2 is no longer valid !

20. COA 4: Phased and Tailored (Separate Training Environment) Identical common core curriculum phase I with a separate cohort-focused phase II Criteria Degree of Integration – + IAW CMD guidance / intent and ALTDP recommendations (ATLDP WO Study Annex F, E-135-136, E-138 and TRADOC CTG, para 1, 4 & 5 and CAC CG Priority, p. 7, para 5a(3)(f) and CAC CDR’s FRAGO 1 to OPORD 04-261A, para 3B5a) + Establish WO as part of officer corps – produces common officership and leadership across the officer corps (CAC CDR OPORD 04-261A, para 3, and ATLDP Strategic Recommendations, para 2) + Recognizes similarities and differences of cohorts (perception is made equitable) (ATLDP WO Study, Annex F, p. F-41, para, E-135 and OPORD 04- 261A, para 3, Key Tasks) Shared Training – Best Educational Outcomes (Right Training) -- + Identical common core standards / preparation for BOLC II (ATLDP WO Study, Annex F, pp. 41-42, para E-135-6) + Flexible – retains ability to achieve all educational outcomes for both cohorts (ATLDP WO Study, Annex F, p. F-41, para, E-135 and OPORD 04-261A, para 3, Key Tasks) Train Ahead (Right Time) – NA Accessions –

21. Best Educational Outcomes (Right Training) -- + Identical common core standards / preparation for BOLC II (ATLDP WO Study, Annex F, pp. 41-42, para E-135-6) + Flexible – retains ability to achieve all educational outcomes for both cohorts (ATLDP WO Study, Annex F, p. F-41, para, E-135 and OPORD 04-261A, para 3, Key Tasks) Train Ahead (Right Time) – NA Accessions – COA 4: Phased and Tailored (Separate Training Environment) Identical common core curriculum phase I with a separate cohort- focused phase II (Slide 2)

22. Screening Criteria TATS compliant Supports ARFORGEN * Resource considerations to be applied after COA analysis is complete; time, money, manpower

23. Criteria COA #1COA #2COA #3COA #4 Current Configuration (plus) Full Integration Phased and Tailored (Shared Training Environment) Phased and Tailored (Separate Training Environment) Integration 21 Shared Trng 21 Right Trng 12 Train Ahead N/A Course Duration 12 Accessions 12 TOTAL 78NA IMT COA COMPARISON

24. MEL 4 COA Evaluation Brief

25. MEL 4 ►Facts 13 WOSC courses/yr & ~ 752 student load/yr 2 ILE courses/yr & ~ 1200 student load/yr 3 Satellite Campuses ~ 400 student load/yr No branch functional or technical training in WOSC Officer functional training is part of ILE Civilian education requirements differ Course lengths differ Redesign must be TATS

26. ► Assumptions Needs analysis is valid Branch proponents will address SWO functional or technical training requirements ARFORGEN will be supported during course design/development Senior WO roles are increasing and expanding beyond strictly technical SME Integrated training and education increases formal and informal professional relationships between cohorts. Warrant Officers can attend the ILE Common Core without jeopardizing accreditation; however must be able to perform graduate-level work. MEL 4

27. COA 1 Current Configuration: Maintain separate ILE and WOSC courses and curriculum. COA 2 Full Integration: Course location and the TLOs are the same. COA 3 ILE CC Integration with SWO specific technical education: Integrated student body with identical common core curriculum and location. Phase II, SWO technical track TBD. COA 4 Phased and Tailored: Segregated Phase I tailored common core at WOCC, followed by SWO technical Phase II by Proponent (TBD). COA 5 Proponent Executed: Proponent schools conduct SWO tailored Common Core with a SWO technical track (TBD). MEL 4 COA Options

28. COA 1 Current Configuration (No Integration): Maintain separate ILE and WOSC courses and curriculum. Description: This course of action calls for no change in the current execution of MEL4 education for both majors and CW4s. Curriculum, course length, and faculty for both ILE and WOSC remain the same for each school, and students are not integrated. ILE at Fort Leavenworth WOSC at Fort Rucker

29. COA 2 Full Integration (shared location and curriculum): Integrated student body with identical curriculum and location. Description: All MEL4 students attend school together at Fort Leavenworth, Fort Rucker, or course location sites. All officers receive instruction using the same curriculum. Majors and SWO 100% integrated at Fort Leavenworth Majors and SWO 100% integrated at Fort Rucker == Majors and SWO 100% integrated at ILE Satellite campuses ILE

30. COA 3 ILE CC Integration with SWO specific technical education: Integrated student body with identical common core curriculum and location. Phase II, SWO technical track TBD. Description: All attend school together at Fort Leavenworth, Fort Rucker, or Satellite campuses. All officers receive instruction using the same common core curriculum. Followed by Branch SWO technical education (TBD) at Branch determined location. Majors and SWO 100% integrated at Fort Leavenworth Majors and SWO 100% integrated at Fort Rucker == Majors and SWO 100% integrated at Satellite campuses ILE CC SWO Technical Education at Branch + ++

31. COA 4 Phased and Tailored: Segregated Phase I tailored common core at WOCC, followed by SWO functional/technical Phase II by Proponent (TBD). Description: Separate location from ILE. Common core (Phase I) uses tailored ILE and WOSC curriculum. SWO attends common core at Fort Rucker, followed by Phase II Branch SWO technical training to be determined by technical needs analysis. Tailored curriculum from ILE and WOSC for SWO Phase I + Functional/Technical track Phase II (TBD) Fort Rucker Branch Centers & Schools

32. COA 5 Proponent Executed: Proponent schools conduct SWO tailored Common Core with a SWO technical track (TBD). Description: Establishes branch WOSC courses at separate locations. Tailored common core curriculum used from ILE and WOSC, focused on Branch SWO needs. Similar to the WOAC. Common core + technical training at proponent schools

33. Evaluation Criteria Degree of Integration Shared Training (Curriculum) Best Educational Outcome (Right Training) Train Ahead (Right Time) Course Duration Resource Requirements

34. Title: Degree of Integration Description: Extent of Officer and SWO course with training in same location and/or with same curriculum. Unit of Measure: % of time Benchmark: current level Formula: more is better

35. Title: Best Educational Outcome (Right Training) Description: Technical, Tactical, and Officer/Leader Competencies linked to grade/position. (Sources for tasks: CCTL, TRAC-WSMR Needs Analysis, Branch Needs/Task Analysis) Unit of Measure: # of tasks (assumes competency achieved in all tasks; assumes level of leadership and task relevancy) Benchmark: Current # tasks in course in each area: Tact/Tech/Off- Ldr Formula: current is advantage; more is better

36. Title: Train Ahead (Right Time) Description: Training received prior to operational need and promotion to next grade (TSP – Train, Select, Promote) Unit of Measure: timing Benchmark: training prior to selection Formula: prior to selection is best; prior to promotion is advantage; after promotion is disadvantage

37. Title: Course Duration Description: Amount of resident time required to complete course (Assume use of New Army Learning Model) Unit of Measure: days Benchmark: Status Quo Formula: less is better

38. Title: Resource Requirements Description: Resource difficulty in merging both cohorts into a common intermediate level of PME and Leader Development addressing: time, money, facilities, manpower. Unit of Measure: Cost Benchmark: Status Quo Formula: less is better

39. Screening Criteria TATS compliant Supports ARFORGEN * Resource considerations to be applied after COA analysis is complete; time, money, facilities, manpower

40. Criteria: *1 = Worst *5 = Best COA 1: Current Configuration COA 2: Full Integration COA 3: ILE CC integration w/ tech track COA 4: Phased and Tailored COA 5: Proponent Executed Degree of Integration 15432 Shared Training (Curriculum) 12354 Best Educational Outcome (Right Training) 12354 Train Ahead (Right Time) 33333 Course Duration 5123.5 Resource Requirements 52341 TOTAL 16151823.5*17.5* BEST WOSC COA COMPARISON

41. MEL 4 COA Evaluation Backup Slides

42. Title: Shared Training (Curriculum) Description: Integrated Training (Live-Virtual-Constructive) w/Officer & SWO performing their specific roles and missions; maximum understanding of SWO roles and responsibilities within the Officer Corps. Unit of Measure: Appropriate shared training task opportunities Benchmark: # of appropriate shared training task opportunities in each course Formula: current is advantage; more is better (more is not necessarily better; appropriate is better)

43. Criteria: Resource Requirements COA 1: Current Configuration COA 2: Full Integration COA 3: ILE CC integration w/ tech track COA 4: Phased and Tailored COA 5: Proponent Executed *1 = Worst *5 = Best Imp. Time 52431 Course Length 51342 Personnel (Instructors and Spt Pax) 52341 Facilities 52341 TOTAL 20*713155* BEST WOSC COA COMPARISON

44. Degree of Integration COA 1 = (1) No integration COA 2 = (5) Full integration COA 3 = (4) Common core integration COA 4 = (3) Cohorts are segregated COA 5 = (2) Cohorts are segregated, and SWO are segregated

45. Shared Training (Curriculum) COA 1 = (1) No shared training COA 2 = (2) Not appropriate due to low percentage of CC applicability COA 3 = (3) Not appropriate; with functional/technical training COA 4 = (5) Appropriate with functional/technical training COA 5 = (4) Appropriate with functional/technical training; however branch centric

46. Best Educational Outcome (Right Training) COA 1 = (1) No change COA 2 = (2) Not appropriate; no functional/technical track COA 3 = (3) Not appropriate; with functional/technical track COA 4 = (5) Appropriate and tailored; with functional/technical track COA 5 = (4) Appropriate and tailored; branch centric

47. Train Ahead (Right Time) COA 1 = (3) Component timing differences preclude evaluation COA 2 = (3) Component timing differences preclude evaluation COA 3 = (3) Component timing differences preclude evaluation COA 4 = (3) Component timing differences preclude evaluation COA 5 = (3) Component timing differences preclude evaluation * Note: For the RC, SWO PME is not de-linked from promotion.

48. Course Duration COA 1 = (5) Shortest time COA 2 = (1) Longest time COA 3 = (2) Second longest time COA 4 = (3.5) Appropriate time COA 5 = (3.5) Appropriate time

49. Resource Requirements COA 1 = (5) COA 2 = (2) COA 3 = (3) COA 4 = (4) COA 5 = (1)

50. Criteria: *1 = Worst *5 = Best COA 1: Current Configuration COA 2: Full Integration COA 3: ILE CC integration w/ tech track COA 4: Phased and Tailored COA 5: Proponent Executed Degree of Integration -+-+- 1= Worst Shared Training ---+- 5 = Best Best Educational Outcome (Right Training) --++- Train Ahead (Right Time) +++++ Course Duration +--+- Resource Rqmts +-++- TOTAL * BEST WOSC COA COMPARISON

51. MEL 1 COA Evaluation Brief

52. Evaluation Criteria Degree of Integration Shared Training Best Educational Outcome (Right Training) Train Ahead (Right Time) Course Duration

53. MEL1: SSC / WOSSC  Purpose of : SSC – study of development and employment of landpower in a joint, interagency, intergovernmental and multinational environment; prepare for strategic leadership WOSSC – broad “how the Army runs” knowledge to operate effectively at the highest organizational levels of the Army ►Facts  Command guidance / Intent and ATLDP recommendations  Demographics considerations (rank, experience, prior military and civilian education)  Number of courses/yr & student load/course  No branch tech training in WOSSC  SSC is competitive: approx 30% (350 of 1300) of a year group attend resident; 150 of the non-selects that apply are selected for non-resident SSC  Civilian ed requirements differ: - SSC = graduate degree considered in selection  Course lengths differ: - SSC CC is 3.5 months - WOSSC is 2 wks  Redesign must be TATS  Redesign supports ARFORGEN  WOSSC recently redesigned (2005)

54.  CW5 utilization assignments are at BDE & higher level.  Needs analysis is valid – leader development training is just as important as technical training.  ARFORGEN will support up to a 12 week course for CW4/CW5s.  CW4/CW5s roles are increasing and expanding beyond strictly technical SME.  CW4/CW5s require better training and education to ensure they can perform their roles as advisors, system experts, systems integrators, and fill key leadership positions during full spectrum operations in the COE.  CW4/CW5s need staff skills to develop effective interface with adjacent headquarters, government agencies and contractors to manage command-wide and worldwide programs (JIIM).  CW4/CW5 attendance at resident SSC may affect LTC/COL selection rate.  SSC selectees have met the MEL4 and civilian education requirements.  Integrated training and education increases formal functional relationships and informal professional relationships. ►Assumptions MEL1: SSC / WOSSC

55. COA 1: Current Configuration Maintain separate SSC and WOSSC courses and curriculum. Description: This course of action calls for no change in the current execution of MEL1 education for both LTC/COLs and CW4/CW5s. Curriculum and faculty for both SSC and WOSSC remain the same for each school and students are not integrated. SSC at Carlisle (and alternate locations) WOSSC at Fort Rucker

56. COA 2: Full Integration Integrated student body with identical curriculum and training environment. Description: All MEL1 students attend school together at Carlisle Barracks, Fort Rucker, or SSC alternate locations, such as SAMS fellowship, Naval War College and National War College. All officers receive instruction using the same curriculum and must meet the same standards for graduation. Leverages resources from all SSC/WOSSC programs (facilities, instructors, etc.), including SSC alternate locations. CW4/CW5s and LTC/COLs who attend are 100% integrated at Carlisle Barracks CW4/CW5s and LTC/COLs who attend are 100% integrated at Fort Rucker CW4/CW5s and LTC/COLs who attend are 100% integrated at SSC Alternate Locations SSC or Civilian education requirement: Bachelor’s degree

57. COA 3: Phased and Tailored Tailored common core at WOCC followed by assignment oriented training at branch location. Description: Separate training environment from LTC/COLs. Common core phase uses selected curriculum from SSC, as appropriate for CW4/CW5s; may include VTT and/or shared instructors. However, specific curriculum is focused for WO needs. All CW4/CW5s trained together at Fort Rucker for common core regardless of functional / technical branch. Will require increase of course length. Phase II training requirements and location determined by Branch. Selected CC curriculum from SSC and WOSSC for CW4/CW5s at Fort Rucker + Phase I Phase II Technical Determined by Branch

58. COA 4: Phased, Tailored, & Partial Integration Tailored common core at WOCC followed by assignment oriented training at branch location &/or selection to SSC. Description: Phase I is a separate training environment from LTC/COLs. Common core phase uses selected curriculum from SSC and other sources, as appropriate for CW4/CW5s; however, specific curriculum is focused for WO needs. All CW4/CW5s trained together at Fort Rucker for common core regardless of functional / technical branch. Will require increase of course length. Phase II training requirements and location determined by Branch. In addition to WOSSC a limited number of WOs to be competitively selected for attendance at SSC. Selected CC curriculum from SSCs and WOSSC for all CW4/CW5s at Fort Rucker Phase I Determined by Branch Board Selection Phase II (Civilian Ed requirement: BA/BS degree) Integrated SSC Technical

59. COA MEL 1 COA COMPARISON NOSENSITIVITYNOSENSITIVITY #1#2#3#4 1. Degree of Integration 1423 2. Shared Training 1423 3. Best Educational Outcome (Right Training) 1234 4. Train Ahead (Right Time) 1243 5. Course Duration 2143 Total 6131516 Scoring:High = 4Low = 1 Criteria COA

60. Course of ActionAdvantagesDisadvantages COA 1: ACR = 6* Current Configuration *Worst COA* This is status quo. No advantages.Maintaining the status quo does not address shortcomings currently within WOES. Does not address OES/WOES integration or technical requirements. Does not provide opportunity for increased understanding of WO roles and responsibilities within the Officer Corps. Does not maintain the intent of ATLDP-WO recommendations. COA 2: ACR = 13 Full Integration Senior Branch Officers and Senior Warrant Officers will culturally and professionally benefit from the interaction and exchange of ideas and experiences due to the close proximity of their shared educational environment. Significantly enhances WO pentathlete bench. Fully meets intent of ATLDP-WO. Does not address civilian education requirements. May negatively affect ARFORGEN. Minimal value to majority of CW4/CW5s; questionable ROI for DA. Significant increase in TTHS. Does not address technical requirements. (Significant start up costs) COA 3: ACR = 15 Phased and Tailored Fully meets intent of ATLDP-WO. Provides opportunity for increased understanding of WO roles and responsibilities within the Officer Corps. Addresses technical training in Phase II as required by Branch. Enhances educational value through increased integration of SSC curriculum. Additional cost of technical training. Potential increase in course length. COA 4: ACR = 16 Phased, Tailored, & Partial Integration Fully meets intent of ATLDP-WO. Provides opportunity for increased understanding of WO roles and responsibilities within the Officer Corps. Addresses technical training in Phase II as required by Branch. Enhances educational value through increased integration of SSC curriculum. Adds opportunities for select personnel in key leader positions to attend resident SSC. Minimal impact on TTHS. Minimal effect to ARFORGEN. Additional cost of technical training. Potential increase in course length. Requires additional civilian education for SSC attendance.