Transformation and the current operational pace have created less time for senior mentorship. Additionally, mentorship is so loosely defined and understood that it often is mislabeled and wrongly identified. Mentorship could be viewed as such a special category of relationship that it is seldom ever accomplished. Mentorship may end up idealized so much that it seldom meets the expectations of those who experience it. More importantly, because the relationship is at times viewed as so unique and specialized many may not experience it at all. Further, those who do experience a special mentorship connection may induce a feeling in other officers that they too need this type of relationship to be successful. If mentorship is itself such a special category of interpersonal relationship many may have expectations that are not realistic. On the other hand, having a mentor makes people feel special and important. This extra attention helps promote self-worth, particularly if the mentor is senior with a successful career. Officers who lack this kind of attention have the impression that the Army is impersonal and non-caring. Understanding the miscommunication about mentorship is important to fixing the idealized perception, if one exists. Consequently, increased understanding helps recognize how best to implement the concept for leader development and growth in the profession today. Clarifying the definition through case studies and historical examples provides illumination in order to help adjust expectation. While the mythological part of mentorship is not attainable, leader development certainly is; diminishing this myth and getting back to reality for this concept provides tremendous benefit on how to realistically understand, promote and implement mentoring. This study establishes the background on how mentorship became adulatory. Research includes surveys, case studies, historical artifacts and some specific historical examples of mentorship, for example, the relation