Do not confuse tactical/professional competency with responsibility. The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other (in the way you are connecting them).
Point taken, but at the JO level, ground responsibilities are often more queued to time-in-squadron than lineal number. I don't know if this is where you're going with it, but Sailors managed doesn't necessarily equate to the seniority of the billet. In my community, the senior LT who is AOPS or PersO is feasibly, though not necessarily, more likely to be the guy who is bucking for the #1EP over the Aircraft or Av/Arm Divos, who may have 20-40 people. This isn't a hard-and-fast rule, but the point remains. And the Super JO is likely the Training Officer, who may chop evals on like 3 ISes, but be the Skipper's right hand in evaluating the tactical competency of every aircrew in the squadron. Conversely, a senior JO could get their ticket punched, be past their high-water competitive FITREP, and finish their tour in a gentlemanly way as a skeds writer. Yet they have significant unwritten power as everyone knows they're senior and know their shit. How do we evaluate responsibility?
And in order to continue in the community, the level III-equivalent qual is a must. Don't get it (at a minimum), and you're not competitive for any flying followon tour, TRACOM included. So if LTs are going to compete against each other for promotion to LCDR and DH, why throw in the mix those who aren't competitive? Does the guy who had "the talk" with his TO and skipper, and who got kicked back to finishing his tour as Legal O, really need to be thrown in the mix with the FRS-bound AOPS as cannon fodder?
Just throwing stuff out there for discussion; I'm not claiming the ACTC idea is the be-all and end-all, but it's worth feeding the debate. I'm offering a slight counterproposal to the paper on Bus and Ben's site. Let's hear some countercounterproposals.
