Forced separation for prior-enlisted SNAs

+1 on this. I think the decent numbers of people who failed out of IFS would disagree with the assertion that they spent so much money on you that they wouldn't kick you out.

That once upon a time was spring 2005... bad times for last part of YG04 SNAs going through API.

The slaughtering of those who didn't make the cut of the rolling NSS of 42.5 (by the end of things it equaled around 94% test average) did include Prior Es and YG03 SNAs who did the 1 year masters programs the Navy offered them out of college and had the unfortunate timing of going through API with the YG04 crew. Of those who didn't make the cut: some went SNFO, several re-designated outside of aviation (including at least one blue to green), a very lucky few got NSS waivers that allowed them to continue on to primary and many went back to being civilians.

To the OP (and their friend):

From what I remember, nearly everyone was offered an in house re-designation to SNFO. Most of the people who got sent home did so of their own choosing- some because they only wanted to be pilots and others because they had a chance to move forward with their lives after years sooner then expected and didn't have to pay the Navy back the money it paid for their education.

If a similar situation were to happen again, I think they would again attempt to get you a re-designations for those who don't make the cut.

Having experienced the YG04 RIF first hand, I would NOT try to change service selection to something else out of fear of getting cut in API. Go down and do your best there and things will work out one way or another...

I don't know...STA-21 guys make $10,000/year for tuition plus full pay and benefits for their rank. That's a lotta dough to just say "Hey, we don't even want you to be a SWO."

At the same time, it's 5 years of O-1E/O-2E/O-3E (at whatever total years of service) pay and benefits that they won't be shelling out to keep someone as a potentially disgruntled "fallen angel" SWO if they just separate them. I'm not advocating this or agreeing with it, just sayin'...

You have to realize that big Navy views your education as a sunk cost. Once they have paid for it, they don't really sit around trying to dream up every last way to "get what they paid for." These manpower decisions (i.e. how many Ensigns to make) are made years out from the time they actually affect the Fleet. So, though it may seem criminal to completely let a guy / gal out of his / her contract, it actually saves money because you "stop the hemorrhaging" by not paying them anything anymore (salary, benefits, etc.).

I'm sure there is some unfortunate soul on AW that has done a staff tour involving these kinds of personnel issues ...

FlyBoyd- good advice, this is not directed at you in any way.

I don't think any "group" should be categorized in any way. Data can be intepreted in many ways and by no means should be used to determine someone's career. I believe there should be equal standards across the board. If there is a problem, discrimination does not provide any solutions. It only makes it worse.

I wonder how the CNO's diversity policy agrees with this way of thinking?

"The purpose of this policy is to ensure that everyone in the Navy understands how I feel about diversity. I believe that diversity is the responsibility of every leader, both military and civilian. Each leader must set and live the example, as well as create an environment in our Navy where every individual's contribution is valued and respected," he said. "Most importantly, the Navy must reflect the face of the nation. When the nation looks at its Navy, it should see itself reflected back."

"I want our Navy's leaders to internalize this policy and demonstrate a personal commitment to attract young men and women to the Navy, and compel them to stay Navy. For those who are currently serving in our Navy, we must mentor these young people and provide opportunities for them to reach and maximize their fullest potential,"

"As an organization that's diverse at all levels, infused with many perspectives, we become stronger, more talented, more capable, and more effective. At the end of the day this is what our country wants and this is what our country deserves, a Navy that is out and about doing what it needs to do with the support of its country and the strength of its diversity to move forward,"

- Admiral Roughead


Read full article here: http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=35401

Maybe a consideration, maybe not. Either way, I saw it happen to a couple priors both in API as well as in the VT's. I believe the running figure for cost to train in the strike pipeline is around 1.5M per winger....if you are talking money, that is an awful lot more than pretty much any STA-21 is going to rake in during their max of 3 years in the program. Not saying you don't have a point, just that it isn't always that cut and dry.

Last year while I was instructing in the HT's I lived in the Pines. A neighbor who was a prior kept failing tests in API. They gave him his walking papers. I think he even tried to revert back to enlisted but it didn't work out.

Flying Low (and some of the other folks here) have brought up a fairly interesting point that future STA-21 guys should consider. Attriting flight school could potentially mean leaving your 8, 12, whatever years behind you. When I applied in 05, the thought never crossed my mind. I'm gonna post a link to this over in the one of the STA-21 threads, because it's an idea worth considering.

Agreed, but you can't turn away in the face of piles of metrics or the universal opinion of a VT wardroom that says a particular "group" of accessions exhibits statistically poor NSS's, poor attitudes, and the "been there, done that" when in fact, they're just the same as the butter-bar next to them. It's not the Instructors that "categorize" them, it's the individuals who do so by their poor performance.

A precious few have "gotten it" and re-calibrated themselves. Most have not, despite some geniune efforts to counsel and advise.
Just my .02

Commissioning as a prior enlisted is a humbling experience. You have to go from being the go-to WCS or LPO with all of the answers back to the bottom of the totem pole. That's something that every prior enlisted Sailor has to accept. Your experience is worth something, and helpful in some situations, but not all of them. It's a culture shock that you agree to when you accept your commission.

Most of the priors I have met in the tracom have been above average dudes. Not to say there aren't some bad apples, and there are of course the guys who can't pass up an opportunity to tell you "how it is in the fleet"....though most of those types seem to be the low man on the totem pole trying to sound cool in the student ready room. Most of "those guys" seem to simmer down once they actually start flying and find out that we are all in this thing together (and all have our own problems along the way)

The reason the groups have been identified is because the data sorted it out. They weren't presorted and then the data was taken. There is an entire Human Performance shop at CNATRA dedicated to this stuff.

The data doesn't "determine someones career." It is merely a product of historical performance. It is presented as something to watch for...i.e. a key indicator. Much like the fact that, historically, a student with API failures has a much higher chance of attriting. There is no bias in that fact. It is just a red flag.

CNATRA asked (years ago) "What is different about the attritions?" The data showed the groups. Further studies (interviews) showed that lack of group study due to a lack of comfort outside their "group" as a key component.

The standards (MPTS) are the same across the board. They are based on a required skillset. If you really want "equal standards across the board" then you should expect the process not to recognize the differences/troubles the data has shown exist and to make it a black and white decision (no pun intended). IPs like me (and others) would not be made aware of these facts in order to help you avoid the pitfalls of your predecessors. This is not a discussion of race, discrmination, reverse discrimination, etc. just a discussion of the historical performance.

Take it or leave it. Choose to recognize it or not. But I think if you keep your eyes open you will see it if not experience it yourself.

One more thing...directed at me or not....posting the CNO's diversity policy in order to make your point about your (mis)perception of my post is something I would expect from a prior E douchebag. If you wish to drop the douchebag from the prior E, check your tone.

WTF? What does that mean?

Hate to burst your bubble, but you being a Prior E does not make you any more "special" under the Navy's publicly emphasized diversity campaign.

Regardless of what designator you end up in, your status as a prior enlisted sailor will not make you protected from any failures you experience as an officer.

Your sarcasm meter's busted.

Sure enough, the circuit breaker was popped. Good to go.

"I believe there should be equal standards across the board. If there is a problem, discrimination does not provide any solutions. It only makes it worse."

Noted. So we're going to even up the PRT standards and take a look at our officer ascension, get rid of officer photos, ect. The average dude in a Ready Room is pretty much color blind, and would most likely get pooped upon if he weren't. I understand if there are members of senior leadership that feel guilty about getting their meals served by stewards constrained to that rate by race. Get over it. We're not that Navy anymore. $hit can the "fill in the blank" celebration month, treat everyone like we're Navy Blue and move on.

Course if anyone disagrees with you, you can just quote policy and hit them with the discrimination charge. Or take off your think skin suit. Either or.

Huh, I thought it meant he was going tilt-rotor, my bad . . .

Aye Aye

Now that is pure awesomeness!!!

I agree with you fully, as I think my prior statement does.

I should have asked a few questions and formulated my argument better before posting.

My question: Are prior enlisted treated differently when they attrite? In regards to their options of staying Navy.

Some post in this thread would point to yes. The Warrant Officer case would even point to being treated differently in the amount of test allowed to fail. My point is that everyone should be given the same options in regards to their qualifications. I quoted FlyBoyd because I believe if there is different treatment, waivers etc.... they could be attributed to the facts that the numbers clearly state.

My reasoning for including the Diversity Policy was that by treating prior enlisted differently, (if that is the case) then it goes against the policy. Now if the people that actually now the facts, counter this by raising the qoutas for STA-21 in future years. Then obviously my argument is null.

To this end, I believe that since the OP believes he might have fewer career options as a prior enlisted, only adds to the problem already documented for prior-Es.

Food for thought; I don't believe in age waivers for prior enlisted or any special treatment given for watch standing duties.

Does someone has the email address for the "Lead Ensign" down at NASC? He'll be able to clear up this 90% issue very easily!!

Red range. Cease bullshit due to misapprehension or misinformation.

There is no preferential treatment given to Prior-E's or Warrants. There's no different sets of standards, different number of tests you can fail, etc etc. A stud is a stud is a stud, we don't give a shit how many ribbons you have. There's no auto "fail X tests and you're gone, unless you're an O-1E, then you get X+1" anything. Decision on retention or attrition is up to the Skipper and strictly on an individual basis.

I can tell you from having sat on many PRB's, it is totally 100% about the individual student. Prior time may be a factor we consider - i.e., has the stud been out of school for so long he can't get his head back into the academic game? - but it has nothing to do with a recc to retain or attrite. I have never, ever sat on a board with a Prior-E or Warrant where anyone said anything remotely close to "Well, yeah, but he was an E-5 and already has ten years in...let's give him another shot". Anything you may have heard differently is Ensign Wisdom (IOW, bullshit).

As to different/other options if they attrite, again, it depends on the student and whether the command and BUPERS feel he/she is worth keeping and redesignating. And again, prior time may be a factor, but nowhere near a decisive one. More important is why they attrited (medical? academic? shitty attitude and didn't want to study?).