) But that doesn't change the point that their work, be it in engineering, administration, logistics, in further training of subsequent cadets, or any one of a number of alternatives should be in service of their country as an officer for, at a minimum, the stated tour of duty, be it 4, 5 or 7 as it has been at one time or another.Of course, the individual cadet's talents and professional goals should be taken into consideration; it's the best use of personnel. I'm just maintaining that, for Academy graduates, it should be within the realm of the service who educated them.
And of course recruits (not Academy graduates) choose their service based on their interests and request duty. But I would think it is naive to suggest that their requests are universally accommodated or only their failure at that choice would lead them into a choice made by their branch of the service. Needs are needs, and the military will fill their own needs as opposed to taking into consideration the individual's. Were that the case, Hawaii and the Mediteranean would house more troops than Iraq.
I am further aware that graduates have leave after graduation. The question comes in when that leave is over: if that short season is successful, is the graduate a ballplayer with an offseason job of, say, recruiter, or an officer as he commited to be?
This question seems to arise out of the vast over-valuation of professional athletes.