Join War on the Rocks and gain access to content trusted by policymakers, military leaders, and strategic thinkers worldwide.
For nine months in 2024 and 2025, I had an additional duty — monitoring an inbox that connected potential direct commission candidates with the Army’s individual branches. I served on the Army Reserve’s senior leadership team, helping to stand up a brokerage between mid-career professionals and the decentralized branch pipelines that controlled direct commission slots.
During that time, I personally reviewed over 300 inquiries from accomplished professionals — data scientists, logistics engineers, cyber specialists, and strategic communicators — all of whom wanted to serve their country in uniform. The experience taught me two main lessons. First, people either regret not serving or regret getting out. Second, the Army needs to streamline the direct commission process to bring these people into the force.
In 2019, Congress granted the military services the authority to directly appoint commissioned officers through the National Defense Authorization Act. That authority was designed to attract professionals uniquely skilled in AI, cybersecurity, robotics, and data science, and with a passion for national service. The Army responded by creating the direct commission program to fill gaps that its traditional officer accessions pipeline — the U.S. Military Academy, the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps, and Officer Candidate School — could not. Under the program, qualified civilians and former servicemembers can apply for a direct appointment as an officer from the rank of second lieutenant through colonel, depending on education level, work experience, and skills obtained in the private sector. Positions are available on both active duty and in the Army Reserve.
The direct commission program has been substantially overhauled since Lt. Gen. Jody Daniels, then Chief of Army Reserve, publicly called it a “disaster” in 2023. The Army has centralized the program under U.S. Army Recruiting Command, consolidated screening and waiver processes, and cut the commissioning timeline from 18 to approximately 6 months. These reforms deserve to be taken seriously. However, since 2020, the Army has only directly commissioned a little more than 300 officers into more traditional branches (e.g., engineer, logistics, military police) outside medicine, law, and the chaplain corps. Three hundred — roughly the same number of emails I reviewed over the 9 months in 2024 and 2025 in a single inbox. The pipeline is a trickle when it needs to be a river.
What I found in my inbox was not what I expected. I expected to manage a recruiting pipeline. Instead, I ended up reading what amounted to 300 letters about what it means to serve.
The most striking pattern was regret, but not about careers chosen or money earned. Professionals in their thirties and forties carried a quiet admission: I always wanted to do this. I thought I’d go back. I never did. They had prioritized civilian careers, families, and the rhythm of suburban life. Each understood that joining the Army was a personal and professional sacrifice, not a career accelerant — no one was doing this for a promotion or a highlight on a resume. Instead, they were reaching for something their professional lives had not given them. The Army’s own accessions officials have seen this pattern. Lt. Col. William Lincoln, chief of the Accessions Policy Branch, told Task & Purpose that direct commission candidates were people who at “18, 19, 20 years old . . . were not ready to serve,” but were now. For most, it was not that they were unable to serve. It was that they were unwilling to accept the sacrifice at a moment when civilian careers were accelerating and a society with an all-volunteer force made it easy to defer. The cost of serving felt abstract at 20. But by 40, the cost of not having served did not. My inbox confirmed it. The question was whether the Army could meet them where they stood.
Many of the men who reached out — and they were disproportionately men — were searching for something that Richard Reeves, in Of Boys and Men, described as a crisis of purpose and belonging among modern males. The military is one of the few institutions in American life that offers what these men were after: camaraderie, earned identity through physical hardship, and commitment to a mission larger than oneself. As professional life grows more atomized and remote — a trend well-documented across the economy — the appetite for something physically real and morally serious is likely to grow, not shrink.
A second thread woven through the emails was equally striking. A significant portion of the inquiries came from first- and second-generation immigrants — Mexican American, South Asian, broadly diverse in origin. Some wanted to repay what they saw as a debt to the country that had given them a home. Others were already working in or adjacent to the defense sector and wanted to do more. All had at least a bachelor’s degree. Many held multiple graduate degrees. Their desire to serve should challenge the assumption — visible in survey data on military family connections — that multi-generational military families have a monopoly on patriotism.
Two cases illustrated the pattern and the problem. (Both individuals granted permission to be named here.)
Dave Prakash is a doctor who spent 12 years on active duty in the Air Force, became one of 10 pilot-physicians in the service, then resigned his commission and went to the Stanford Graduate School of Business to build a career in health AI. After years in the private sector, he sought out the Army — a move he initiated because the direct commission program has virtually no budget for external recruiting. Prakash’s contribution was not flight hours or a medical degree. It was his Stanford MBA, health AI expertise, and Silicon Valley network.
Prakash returned to the military as a fundamentally different professional, and the direct commission program is designed precisely for that kind of value: civilian-acquired expertise that the Army cannot replicate internally. His intake process unfolded over five years due to a variety of issues many servicemembers are familiar with: missed phone calls, unanswered emails, broken URLs, outdated contact rosters, confusing application instructions, and boards that rarely convened. The Army is finally fixing some of these problems.
Fortunately, Prakash endured and eventually re-commissioned as a major in civil affairs in October 2024. To be sure, he didn’t need the Army — he was already successful by most measures. Prakash joined because something inside him needed what the Army offers, and because he believed his skillset brought something to the table. He is not an anomaly. He is my inbox brought to life.
Then there is the talent that has not successfully navigated the Army’s direct commission labyrinth. Murali Kannan is a senior vice president at In-Q-Tel — the intelligence community’s venture capital arm. Kannan, an MBA graduate from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told me on a call: “I just want to be of service.” As of April 2026, his application has stalled. Kannan was directed toward civil affairs, a branch that somewhat fit his profile but did not reflect the full breadth of his experience. Civil affairs subsequently paused applications, leaving him in limbo — a candidate whose cross-cutting talent the system could not easily evaluate, now subject to the timelines and quotas of a single branch that was never the right match. A senior executive at the intelligence community’s own investment firm, with an MIT MBA and an expressed desire to serve, cannot find an unlocked door. If the system cannot onboard Kannan, it is not operating at the scale or speed the problem demands.
Over nine months, I saw enough cases like Prakash and Kannan’s to make two overarching observations.
First, for years, the Army treated direct commissioning as an afterthought — an additional duty assigned to someone who already had a full-time job. That changed in October 2025, when the U.S. Army Recruiting Command put an officer and a full-time civilian in charge of the program. This was a good first step. However, these two individuals must coordinate with recruiters across the country and dozens of Army proponent offices, a demanding task at the current pace and a seemingly untenable one were the program to be scaled up. The result is a system ill-suited to pull in greater numbers of mid-career professionals.
Second, once a candidate connects with an Army teammate, they are often shoehorned into a branch that cannot fully capitalize on their skillset to benefit the Army. Although there were advantageous fits, such as a senior vice president at a large logistics company, most were highly talented professionals who wanted to serve generally, and our current force is not structured to make the most of that talent.
A fair question is why direct commission talent needs to wear the uniform at all. The Army employs tens of thousands of civilian employees and contracts with thousands of firms. Why not bring mid-career data scientists and cyber experts in as General Schedule employees or contractors? The answer has two sides.
The first is operational. Contractors cannot be ordered into theater, and civilian employees, while they hold security clearances and serve with distinction, are generally not deployable on the same timeline as the units they support. In a large-scale combat operation, the data scientist building the targeting model or the cyber operator defending the network should be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, inside the chain of command, and deployable on short notice. A contractor’s obligation generally ends when the contract ends. A civilian employee’s duty description usually does not include carrying a rucksack. But a soldier’s does.
The second issue is simpler. The direct commission program applicants themselves genuinely wanted to serve in uniform. They were not looking for a consulting gig or a General Schedule billet. Rather, they were seeking rank, title, membership in a profession of arms, and the weight of an oath. For the immigrants who saw service as citizenship made tangible, and for the professionals carrying years of quiet regret, the uniform was the point.
The infrastructure to improve the Army’s direct commission program at scale is not yet built. But there are ways to widen the pipeline.
Continuous Intake, Not Quarterly Boards
The talent market does not operate on a government fiscal calendar. The direct commission program board currently convenes on a fixed quarterly schedule. If a qualified data scientist reaches out in February and the next board is in June, the Army has most likely missed out. The private sector hires on a rolling basis because talent does not wait. The Army should do the same with the direct commissioning — maintain a standing review capacity, not periodic batch processing.
Invest in External Recruiting, Not Just Inbound Processing
The program currently operates almost entirely on inbound interest — candidates must initiate, not the other way around. No Fortune 500 company fills senior roles by waiting for talent to walk through the door. The Army should invest in a small, dedicated recruiting capability for the direct commission program: professionals whose job is to identify, court, and guide mid-career talent through the process. Even a modest incentive structure for the branch-level officers currently handling direct commissioning as an additional duty — e.g., public recognition and perceived favorability in their promotion packets — would signal the Army values this work and expects results.
An Employer Partnership Framework
Arguably, the largest unaddressed obstacle for direct commission program candidates is not the Army’s process — it is their employer’s willingness to support reserve service. The Army has done almost nothing to make the case to corporate America that supporting reserve participation is worth the disruption. This is a solvable problem. Defense-adjacent companies, firms with veteran leadership, and organizations that already value military service could serve as models and early partners for a structured employer support program. While the Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve has been around for many years, it is mainly geared toward mediating conflicts under existing employment law, not building proactive partnerships for mid-career professional commissioning. A dedicated partnership framework, with clear value propositions for employers, would unlock a population the current system cannot reach.
Reserve-Component-First Targeting
The Army Reserve and National Guard are the natural home for mid-career professionals who do not want to leave their civilian careers — and should not have to. The active component model assumes full-time commitment. The reserve model lets someone bring their civilian expertise, while continuing to build on it. A data scientist who spends her weekdays at a tech firm and drill weekends applying those skills to Army problems is not a part-time soldier. She is a full-time asset the Army pays part-time. The two reserve components should be the primary target for direct commission program scaling, which our current recruiting infrastructure is not structured to facilitate. For example, the current direct commission website instructs interested civilians to contact a local recruiter. Those recruiters receive minimal information about the direct commission program during their recruiter training. Moreover, they lack the incentive and knowledge to adequately evaluate and prepare mid-career professionals for the direct commission process. Local recruiters should receive more direct commission program training during their recruitment onboarding, and while in the job, receive regular updates about the program and its processes.
Think of Leaders and Problem-Solvers, Not Military Occupational Specialties
The deeper problem exposed by cases like Kannan’s is not that the Army cannot match a candidate to a specific branch and job specialty. It is that the system lacks the flexibility to place smart, talented people in uniform throughout the force as leaders and problem-solvers when their skills do not map neatly to an existing billet. The Army does not just need cyber officers and data scientists filling designated slots. It needs the capacity to say yes to a qualified leader and find the right place for them — not the other way around.
The Army will always need 19-year-olds who can ruck march 12 miles before dawn. But it will also need the 35-year-old data scientist who can build data models that make those soldiers more lethal; the 40-year-old logistics expert who has spent a decade optimizing global supply chains; the immigrant engineer who sees uniformed service as the purest expression of citizenship in the country that gave her a new life; or the Stanford-educated veteran who left, built a career in tech, and came back because he missed the camaraderie.
These people are not hypothetical. They were in my inbox. They are ready to serve.
The Army’s reforms of the direct commission program so far are a good start. The question is whether the institution will match its ambition to the scale of the opportunity — and the speed of a labor force that will not wait 18 months, or five years, for the bureaucracy to catch up. The talent knocked. It is still knocking. The door needs to open wide — and quickly.
Ted Delicath is an Army Reserve officer. From 2024 to 2025, he served on the Deputy Commander of the Army Reserve’s staff where he oversaw incoming interest from direct commission applicants. Previously, he worked for the Army’s Recruiting & Retention Task Force in 2023. He holds a master’s of international security and civil-military studies from Dublin City University.
The views expressed here are the author’s alone and do not represent those of any U.S. government entity.
Image: Joseph Siemandel via DVIDS
