A warning regarding SPO

[GeorgeMichaelBluth]

The program office does not consider your communication with them to be confidential. This may seem obvious but I thought I could communicate with the SPO without them sharing my information. I could not.

I contacted SPO to try to get clarification on the discrepancy between the payback amount noted in my year's handbook (that it is prorated against time served) and the current policy (that it is only capped at the total amount expended). After several weeks of asking, they have not provided any clarification. However, they did contact my management at my SF regarding the contact without asking my consent, or informing me beforehand or after.

My supervisor notified me that they had contacted higher management. I have no idea of they forwarded my emails or simply informed them of my inquiry. I have a good relationship with my chain of command and I hope I won't face reprisal for asking SPO for information.

In summary, I must unfortunately advise not to ask SPO for any help with your progress through the SMART program that is not strictly aligned with the best interest of your SF. This may leave you with nowhere to turn for answers to common questions. I have no solutions for this problem.

[Guest]

I wish I could say this surprised me. The SPO and the service liaisons all try to tell you that they're on your side, but in reality they're working against you behind your back. That may sound paranoid, but I've seen it first hand and OP's comments only go to show that the SPO is not your friend.

If you're going to leave the program, I highly suggest documenting everything you can and getting out with as little contact with the SPO as you can. They're not there to help you. Their main job is to keep you quiet and isolate you from the rest of the SMARTs so no one can see that pretty much everyone in this program is getting screwed.

I can't wait until they come out with whatever ridiculous payback requirements they think are "fair". Because then they'll have a lot of very pissed off, very intelligent, and very litigious ex-SMARTS that aren't going to allow their lives to be ruined by the SMART program anymore.

[Guest]

I wish I could say this surprised me. The SPO and the service liaisons all try to tell you that they're on your side, but in reality they're working against you behind your back. That may sound paranoid, but I've seen it first hand and OP's comments only go to show that the SPO is not your friend.

I can say the service liaisons are definitely not working toward your best interests. Be very, very wary of what you say to them. My liaison often lied about our communications to the SPO and my SF. She never wanted to appear as though she dropped the ball (And she did... frequently).

My SPO contact was very nice and professional. She's since left the SPO, which is a shame.

[Guest]

Was it Joann Wright, Army liaison? Or one of the other services?

[CMMMM]

Ms. Wright was most unhelpful during my facility change process. If/when she finally responded to email, she was condescending and quite useless when it came to assisting with my new placement. I had to find a new facility on my own through networking and spamming. And even after I found a place, she never actually talked to me directly about it- everything went through the mentor at the new SF.

One reason the SMART program will continue to kick the payback can down the road is that they know once a policy is in place, scholars will leave, and that will hurt their "retention rate." Before Larry left the forum to sulk, he claimed an 80% retention rate, but couldn't/wouldn't give specifics on how it was calculated. An artificially high, vaguely defined retention rate is necessary so that all involved with SMART can keep patting themselves on the back. (Just look at some of the archived articles on sites like army.mil, lol.)

[Guest]

Ms. Wright was most unhelpful during my facility change process. If/when she finally responded to email, she was condescending and quite useless when it came to assisting with my new placement. I had to find a new facility on my own through networking and spamming. And even after I found a place, she never actually talked to me directly about it- everything went through the mentor at the new SF.

Same experience here. She even seemed to be offended that I did things without her approval. When it became clear my Army facility was not going to offer me a position due to a hiring freeze, the SPO told me to find placement anywhere in the DoD. A couple weeks later when I submitted a list of labs across various agencies she flat out told me she wasn't going to pursue any option that wasn't Army because she wanted to "keep me within the Army".

It's all a numbers game for these types of people. If a service liaison sees the number of scholars selected and placed into their service is going up every year, they can show that to their management as they're doing a bang up job. Never mind that the fits are often terrible for the scholar, that doesn't justify a raise/bonus for the liaison.

[Avett]

Yeah, this is all real disappointing (nothing new there!). Some months ago, Larry assured us (on this forum) that new management at the SPO would turn things around. Well...apparently not. Certainly there are some SMART scholars that actually get a good job out of this. But even if the real retention rate was 50%, that still means that half of all SMART scholars are probably getting screwed in their long-term career prospects. It's much easier to find work in industry right after graduation compared to working for XX years with nothing to really show for it on the resume. Unfortunately, the SMART program will always have students who apply to the program, so they have no reason to be genuinely concerned. The $$$ is too enticing for the young and dumb.

The AF service liaison told me in no uncertain terms that payback letters were being prepared and would be sent out very soon. That was at the beginning of this year...I guess the hellfire remains on hold...

[Guest]

I'll add to this. Submitted a service agreement regarding the full time status in my last year, that was two months ago, still haven't heard anything back from them.

[GeorgeMichaelBluth]

Was it Joann Wright, Army liaison? Or one of the other services?

I don't know who contacted my facility or in what detail they shared our communications. I did however, eventually get a response that indicated that my payback would be prorated. So if you have faith in a one-line, informal email from someone at SMART, then you have some assurance that they intend to honor their original policy.