How not to conduct a command investigation

[RedFive]

Valid in terms of analysis of who is retained, but I'm not sure I agree that an officer's decision to pursue a due course path should not enter into the calculus when distributing a ranking.

I'm going to ask an out-of-the-box question here, and trust me, I know I'm getting abstract, but I find value in asking such things:

When, as a Navy, did we come up with the idea and/or term relating to an officer's career as being "due course?" And who determines if job A vs job B falls within that? I understand how the board process works and for the most part what they're looking for, but that's not what I'm asking. Logic would have it that the Navy has a finite number of officers and, as an organization, they wouldn't want to commit those officers to billets that were not of value. If we're truly doing the nation's business, whether it's to fly a plane or wine and dine at NATO, how can one objectively say billet A is of more value than billet B? Why is it that aviation views NPS as a bad thing and SWOs are free to pursue it? Why is it that training Allied pilots on a PEP tour (and in some cases deploying) is of less value than instructing at the FRS and going home every night?

Why wouldn't we want a diverse and well-rounded group of officers to send alone and unafraid over the horizon to solve the country's problems?

Certainly some individuals succeed after non-traditional billets, but they undoubtedly had to make up for these tours by doing a "pain tour" -- a flag signing your FITREP never hurts, right? But why is such a thing necessary in the first place? I'm really asking a holistic question of how we got to this point in which we only value a narrow set of jobs. What was it like 20 years ago? 30? 50? 100? When did we become so rigid and why? The term "golden path" has been around much longer than I have, so if we really do need to focus on this narrow set of skills and experience, why do we even allow officers to take positions of little to no value? It seems to me that JPME attempts to enhance this diversity of knowledge/experience, yet the other hand does everything it can to curtail it in the detailing/promotion process.

 

[Brett327]

To answer in broad terms, the NAE defines what it values in board precepts and community briefs as the boards convene. The NAE values production billets for first shore tour officers, for reasons that should be obvious. PEP, NPS and other non-standard tours are NOB time, so again, that should be obvious as to how that plays at a board. Due course officers get to "diversify" during their post-DH tours on a staff or in residence JPME.

So, it's not really rocket science. Production is the #1 priority. Been like this at least since Goldwater-Nichols - probably longer.

 

[pilot_man]

They actually do track a lot of that. You’d be surprised. Recommend watching the PERS 43 brief during Hook this Saturday. It’s usually streamed live.

They may track this info but they don't put the hard data out, even during HOOK. PERS has consistenly told us that everything is OK and they are meeting their goals, yet we see for ourselves that guys who would not have been a DH 5 years ago, are given the opportunity, and then not meeting the standards. What I want to see is a plot of how many of the "golden children" are staying in vs time.

 

[Pags]

To answer in broad terms, the NAE defines what it values in board precepts and community briefs as the boards convene. The NAE values production billets for first shore tour officers, for reasons that should be obvious. PEP, NPS and other non-standard tours are NOB time, so again, that should be obvious as to how that plays at a board. Due course officers get to "diversify" during their post-DH tours on a staff or in residence JPME.

So, it's not really rocket science. Production is the #1 priority. Been like this at least since Goldwater-Nichols - probably longer.

The way I had always heard it described was that production tours are in essence paying back the NAE, or in other terms, it's NAE's return in their investment of training/flight hours in you in the form of you making new aviators before your MSR is up. Those other tours don't help NAE in the same direct way.

 

[RedFive]

To answer in broad terms, the NAE defines what it values in board precepts and community briefs as the boards convene. The NAE values production billets for first shore tour officers, for reasons that should be obvious. PEP, NPS and other non-standard tours are NOB time, so again, that should be obvious as to how that plays at a board. Due course officers get to "diversify" during their post-DH tours on a staff or in residence JPME.

So, it's not really rocket science. Production is the #1 priority. Been like this at least since Goldwater-Nichols - probably longer.

Thanks for the reply. I am aware of what NAE values in these terms. I'm asking why -- and I'm not trying to sound snarky, it's an honest question that deserves more than the standard response of "we value production tours." The reasons are not necessarily obvious at all.

Sure, your average LT coming off sea duty is best suited to be an instructor since he's fresh, has all his quals, etc, but the same reasons could be used in an argument to extend the traditional first sea tour a year (or more) because we all get qual'd and shortly thereafter hit our PRD. How the hell does that help the war fighting machine? Or one could use these reasons to argue for the option of back-to-back sea/flying tours. And if we're going down the road of production (which was not the intent of my original question), the same abstract question rears its head: Why is the FRS more valuable than VTs/HTs? Why isn't ROTC or the Academy considered "production?"

Point is, I understand the system, I understand what the boards are looking for, I understand my community values x, y, and z. But nobody can seem to explain why. I'm not asking what happened before the big bang, but it's almost as if I were.

The way I had always heard it described was that production tours are in essence paying back the NAE, or in other terms, it's NAE's return in their investment of training/flight hours in you in the form of you making new aviators before your MSR is up. Those other tours don't help NAE in the same direct way.

I've heard this said of the disassociated as well.

 

[Pags]

I've heard this said of the disassociated as well.

My understanding of the disassociated tour was that they were crappy jobs that NAE was on the hook to fill because they're jobs that are associated with aviation. Historically NAE rewarded those who took these hard fill jobs. At some point they became due course because people who took them did well because of the reward proffered by NAE.

Based on my understanding of your situation I understand your frustrations at how things have shaken out.

 

[Angry]

Valid in terms of analysis of who is retained, but I'm not sure I agree that an officer's decision to pursue a due course path should not enter into the calculus when distributing a ranking.

Regardless of any individual's career decisions, the institution strives to provide enough qualified candidates to control grade milestones to provide the desired selectivity. Reporting based solely on current performance, which ignores the individual's potential or willingness to perform at the next milestone, does not equitably distribute that limited opportunity. It carries the risk of leaving otherwise qualified officers on the cutting room floor, while those with the EPs separate or pursue non-command career paths. Does the current system leave otherwise EP performers on that cutting room floor? Sure, but they weren't interested in DH or command anyway, right?

I think it's helpful for people to stop thinking of their FITREPs as a report card or performance evaluation, because that's not what it is. Its only purpose is for a RS to communicate to selection boards on an individual's fitness and suitability to perform at the next milestone. Nothing more, nothing less.

I would agree that, ceteris paribis, an officer desiring a career should be ranked higher than one who does not. However, the scenario you are describing isn't with all else equal. The notion that career desire can make up a performance deficit (i.e. I lesser performer should be ranked above a greater performer simply because he wants to stay in longer) doesn't create qualified candidates for grade milestones. It makes UNQUALIFIED candidates look as if they ARE qualified. That is a large distinction.

Because we decide how many people "make the cut" based on percentages, we implicitly say that the Navy wants the top X% of officers to become DHs, top Y% to screen for command, etc. By valuing career desire more than performance to a certain degree, we erroneously assign individuals to that top percentile. To be put more clearly - how many of the individuals screening during these boards would not have if the entire population of officers stayed in the Navy?

The notion that, if we don't do this, we won't have enough candidates for grade milestones is a fallacy. I don't say this to be disrespectful, but that notion is predicated on the belief that the individuals currently receiving rankings they don't "deserve" would depart the naval service instead of stay, while at the same time the rock stars currently leaving would continue to leave. You definitely have better information than I do, but I'm unaware, empirically or anecdotally, of anyone who decided to leave because he felt like he wasn't getting good enough rankings during FITREPs. Many people on this site talk about the individuals "who have no other option" being the ones that take the bonus, screen for command, etc. I don't prescribe to that train of thought, but if you did, you'd have to realize that those individuals won't have an option regardless of whether or not they get a #1 EP. They desire a Navy career no matter how you rank them, for whatever the reason. Likewise, many of the people who choose to depart at their MSR wouldn't change their mind for more money, homesteading, etc.

What would change is the Navy's understanding of its personnel management. It would see where their top performers desire to go for shore tours/disassociated, instead of what jobs end up determining who gets ranked as a top performer. Shouldn't the fact that all your #1 EP's would rather be a SFTI/GTI/SMTI than go to the boat mean something to the people at PERS? Likewise it would illustrate how many top performers leave the service at the first available opportunity and how many middle performers manage to serve a full and productive career. Wouldn't it be good for that #4 EP JO to know that he isn't, in fact, already disqualified from screening for command?

To your point about leaving good officers on the cutting room floor - that would only occur if BETTER officers decided to take their jobs. If the true #1 rock star decides to stay instead of leave, and that means the true #2 doesn't screen for DH, is that really a bad thing? If the true #1 leaves anyways, wouldn't that mean the #2 still gets selected? If the Navy's real goal is to groom the best candidates for each grade, they should want to know where they are falling short so they can fix the issue; not make the ice cream cone self-licking so they can't identify if/when a problem exists.

WRT FITREPs not being indicative of past performance but instead of future suitability - I'd have to disagree solely based on the content. The vast majority of the FITREP discusses what you have done since the last report; in only one block does it make a recommendation on what you should do next. And I think we all have seen enough individuals in the Navy prove the Peter Principle to realize that even if that IS the intent of a FITREP, it's clearly not doing its job. I have a lot of thoughts on how that could change, but that's beyond the scope of the thread we have already jacked...

 

[Brett327]

I'm asking why -- and I'm not trying to sound snarky, it's an honest question that deserves more than the standard response of "we value production tours." The reasons are not necessarily obvious at all.

No snark perceived...

Most of it is as Pags indicated, they want full return on their investment. That means putting you back into production so you can turn out more winged aviators, FRS grads, patch wearers and test folks. The NAE has spent millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours training you. It's not in the NAE's best interest to let you go off to ROTC, USNA or NPS while you're still obligated under MSR.

How VT/HT plays at the board has been back and forth over the years, but in the last two cycles it has played well. As for why it is generally considered second tier behind the FRS, I don't know

Hope that helps..

 

[Brett327]

The notion that career desire can make up a performance deficit (i.e. I lesser performer should be ranked above a greater performer simply because he wants to stay in longer) doesn't create qualified candidates for grade milestones. It makes UNQUALIFIED candidates look as if they ARE qualified.

I disagree with this logic. Because officer A is marginally better than officer B, it does not follow that officer Y does not meet the standard. They can both be qualified. We see this all the time where two JOs are both outstanding and deserving of an EP, both being fully qualified to compete for a DH spot, and the RS has to agonize and consider all the intangibles to arrive at a decision.

The scenario that started this discussion was predicated on a top performer who had declared an intent to separate, so that is the assumption we've been going on. Obviously, a real world example is much more complicated. I maintain that for the officer who has made a decision to separate, or otherwise turn down DH, the correct use of the finite number of EPs is to give them to other due course officers. That doesn't mean that I give that EP to a non-hacker, but in my experience, there have always been more worthy officers than EPs.

WRT FITREPs not being indicative of past performance but instead of future suitability

I didn't say they aren't indicative of past performance, as they are clearly an assessment of the reporting period, but their true function is to indicate suitability for future milestone performance. Is this officer ready for O4, DH or command? That is what the board is trying to assess.

 

[Angry]

I disagree with this logic. Because officer A is marginally better than officer B, it does not follow that officer Y does not meet the standard. They can both be qualified. We see this all the time where two JOs are both outstanding and deserving of an EP, both being fully qualified to compete for a DH spot, and the RS has to agonize and consider all the intangibles to arrive at a decision.

I didn't say they aren't indicative of past performance, as they are clearly an assessment of the reporting period, but their true function is to indicate suitability for future milestone performance. Is this officer ready for O4, DH or command? That is what the board is trying to assess.

Please don't misunderstand my intent here - I'm not insinuating that one of the officers in this scenario isn't EP worthy. Perhaps the analogy is best digested if we are discussing #1 EP vs. #2 EP. My point was that the Navy does not receive truth in reporting if the rankings are manipulated based on something other than performance or suitability for future assignments (to your point).

And just because an individual does not aspire to a future position, does not mean that they are not the most suitable candidate. Assuming that the officers most interested in follow-on positions are, therefore, the most suitable, means we refuse to accept that any officer leaving might be better qualified than those remaining. By that logic, if they are leaving, they clearly aren't suitable. While that is true in practice (you can't force someone to say) that doesn't mean that individual wouldn't have performed better than the guy who stayed behind. And there is value to realizing, if it is the case, that 90% of your true #1 performers are leaving at MSR. Or that 25% of Skippers would have actually been #3 EPs instead of #1. It's not an indictment of their performance, its the truth about who survives to make it to those milestones (whether by choice or forced attrition).

And again, this is anecdotal, but every single LT FITREP says "recommend for operational DH", even though most people know a lot of those guys should be DOA to the board.

Ultimately we can agree to disagree - and I'm fine if that's the conclusion. At the end of the day this is intellectual masturbation on my end because SECNAV isn't going to swoop in and scrap the system based on this thread.

 

[Brett327]

My point was that the Navy does not receive truth in reporting if the rankings are manipulated based on something other than performance or suitability for future assignments (to your point).

I don't disagree, but I think we've moved on from that.

While that is true in practice (you can't force someone to say) that doesn't mean that individual wouldn't have performed better than the guy who stayed behind.

I don't follow. You're constructing a hypothetical that does not apply to reality. Sure, if the guy who was leaving stayed, he may have performed better, but that's not what we're talking about.

And again, this is anecdotal, but every single LT FITREP says "recommend for operational DH"

Not true, nor does every DH FITREP say "recommended for operational command."

SECNAV isn't going to swoop in and scrap the system based on this thread.

I don't know whether you've been following recent developments, but the new FITREP system coming out in a couple years is going to make most of this moot.

 

[FormerRecruitingGuru]

The way @Brett327 has been stalking my Linkedin profile lately, I have a feeling I might under investigation by him!

 

[RedFive]

Hope that helps..

It does, to a point. I don't expect you to have all of these answers, but I think it's very beneficial to explain these things to JOs because eventually we'll be calling the shots. Wow, scary thought.

And again, this is anecdotal, but every single LT FITREP says "recommend for operational DH"

Not true, nor does every DH FITREP say "recommended for operational command."

My anecdotal experience has been the same as Angry's. A CO doesn't lose anything by putting it on there, even if it's his #10 MP...what the hell, NAMs for all my friends, right?

I don't know whether you've been following recent developments, but the new FITREP system coming out in a couple years is going to make most of this moot.

Yes, we've all been following it...but by the time it's actually in place all of us will be moot too!

 

[Brett327]

A CO doesn't lose anything by putting it on there

Except their integrity.

 

[ea6bflyr]

Except their integrity.

...because all COs have immpeccable integrity? [insert Another CO fired thread here]