Yikes. Nevertheless, I'm holding on to the conviction that the majority of our military officers have a more highly refined internal moral/ethical compass. I would also like to think that the system has some way of bringing these flaws to the surface (sometime after submitting the plagarized document and before becoming an officer) and eradicating either the flaws or the candidate's chances of being placed in command.

Oh, and I can't let pass without comment the two spelling errors, one capitalization error, and several grammatical errors (not that I'm flawless in these areas) in the request, assuming you copied it verbatim. At least he/she knows his/her own flaws (writing, in this case).

My son is a Navy Officer in the Nuclear Power Program. Believe me, he wrote his own personal statement! All the men and women in his OCS class and now in his Nuclear Power Program class are straight-up people. They already have both brains and character. This doofus won't make it to OCS. The Navy doesn't really NEED officers, especially fools. I bet even the Army won't take this fellow.

Sadly, such mission-statement requirements winnow the field of some candidates who would actually be good officers (or other such mission-statement-requiring things) who simply can't write such crap in a pallatable way. For instance, my answer to such a question would be:

"My goal as an officer would be to be a good officer, to motivate and command those sereving user me in such a way that they would perform better for my having been their CO. Also, Officer's make more money than enlisted men, which I would appreciate."

OK, that's quick and dirty, but seriously, if you make any mention of the fact that there is higher pay involved, basically, you get canned, but if you don't, in almost all cases, you are LYING.

Sorry, but the whole "mission statement" thing has been pretty well ruined for me - see "Dlbert" for highly realistic reasons. I used to think Dilbert was funny because it was exagerrated - now I enjoy it because it's ACCURATE.

All that said, he's probably asking for worse reasons than I just laid out. Yikes indeed.

Deoxy, I like your mission statement--but you imply that people are desiring to be officers because of the money involved. Yes, officers do make more money than enlisted men, but the choice is usually not between being an officer versus an enlisted man, but between serving in the armed forces or being in the private sector. In my Navy son's class there are lots of Phi Beta Kappa honors physics college graduates, chemical engineers, etc., all of whom could easily make more money working for government contractors in the private sector or other ordinary private industries than serving their country. And as private citizens they wouldn't be called upon to be on subs underneath the North Pole for months, either. These young officers are motivated by something greater than a love of money. I'd like to think that this motivation is the prevalent one in our armed forces.

I certainly didn't mean to say that it's all about the money! I know what you said is, for most, quite true.

But it is also true that the money is A factor (almost never THE factor), at least for many. It's like any job in the private sector, at least somewhat. People try to be polite about it, but really, if you didn't pay me, I wouldn't show up. Quite simple, really. And if somebody offered me more money to do the same job (barring some nasty personal issues or something), I'd go there. And if I won/inherited/found $50 million dollars, I would be polite enough to give you 2 weeks (at least, to MOST of the employers I've had) to train my replacement.

It shouldn't be considered crass to acknowledge reality.