Min. 27 Points for Reserve Officers...for IRR-ASP?

[Urchin263]

I think we may be talking about different things. Your timeline shows 10 years of commissioned service, all in SELRES.

The original poster is talking about 3 years of commissioned service before quitting, and he is planning to quit on or about the same time he gets qual’d - which wouldn’t give him or the Navy any opportunity to utilize that training.

Here is what he said he intends to do:

October 2011 - Commission (non-prior)
August 2013 - Finish BQC, become "official" 3105
October 2014 - Drop to IRR

My original point was if "busting your ass" for ten years with your only reward a swift kick in the ass at the ten year mark doesn't piss you off, why should it piss you off if the sailor in question goes and "gets his"? Or hers, or whatever. I'm not sure I'd be putting down 3 years of drilling SELRES experience on my resume anyway, but that isn't really the point.

In the first case, the person gets everything they want out of the deal, and the Navy gets no return on investment. In the second, the Navy gets everything they want out of the deal, and the person gets no return on their investment. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander (I think that is how it goes).

 

[snake020]

You guys are really nuking this out.

 

[bubblehead]

This doesnt mean that the board is not going to see your ENS/JG averages on your record that is displayed to the tank and they will aboslutely matter.

Your OSR and PSR are displayed on very large screens in the voting tank. The FITREP write ups are not, however, the record briefer reads every single one of your FITREPs and marks up your OSR and PSR (in an air gapped system) with notes to aide him or her when briefing your record. These notes are also visible to voting members.

Non-performers stick out like a sore thumb.

 

[bluemarlin04]

Your OSR and PSR are displayed on very large screens in the voting tank. The FITREP write ups are not, however, the record briefer reads every single one of your FITREPs and marks up your OSR and PSR (in an air gapped system) with notes to aide him or her when briefing your record. These notes are also visible to voting members.

Non-performers stick out like a sore thumb.

Yes. That was my point all along. You were able to materialize it better.

 

[vxc961]

My original point was if "busting your ass" for ten years with your only reward a swift kick in the ass at the ten year mark doesn't piss you off, why should it piss you off if the sailor in question goes and "gets his"? Or hers, or whatever. I'm not sure I'd be putting down 3 years of drilling SELRES experience on my resume anyway, but that isn't really the point.

In the first case, the person gets everything they want out of the deal, and the Navy gets no return on investment. In the second, the Navy gets everything they want out of the deal, and the person gets no return on their investment. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander (I think that is how it goes).

Yeah, I’m in the camp of “if the Navy allows it (leaving after X years), it’s ethical.” The Navy seems to have adopted this too, as “if we kick you out after Y years, it’s ethical.”

I agree that it raises my eyebrow if some DCO politician does three years of training, punches out, then brags about his service...but in the end I don’t think that’s a huge problem.

 

[Hair Warrior]

So, here’s why I have a problem with it, and then I’ll shut up.

- It’s disingenuous to recruiters, interviewers, the DCO board, instructors at the schoolhouse, etc. and disrespectful of their time.

- It takes away a DCO spot from someone else who actually intends to serve.

- It means their peer JOs who stay SELRES have to pick up the person’s slack, and (in theory) do an extra mobilization away from their family because this flake-out didn’t do any. Obviously, this is dependent upon the community’s optempo for mob’s at LTJG/LT. The community senior leadership planned to have X junior officers available to mob, not X minus 1, or X minus 7, or however many people flake-out within a couple years of getting selected.

By contrast, if the Navy could keep everyone, it would. The Navy doesn’t want to let a good, fully trained LT go. It’s the manning constraints. But that’s why they call it service. Believe me, I am just as disappointed at a couple LT 183X that were amazing officers who are now “JOPA for life” after getting 2x FOS for O-4. And I look at some of their peers who just pinned on O-4, thinking to myself that their qualifications and leadership abilities are underwhelming in comparison. It sucks. But it’s not disingenuous on the Navy’s part, and it isn’t forcing a guy or gal to get tapped for an extra mobilization downrange away from their family who wasn’t expecting it.

 

[Urchin263]

I actually wonder sometimes if the Navy doesn't intentionally "over-recruit" in times when they forecast increased demand, it would make a lot of sense from a fiscal POV.

I mean, the government has some options when it comes to filling billets, but all of the options come with different short and long term costs.

So lets say they have an enduring requirement for a billet out in Afghanistan doing moderately complicated work with contracts. They can fill the billet with a contractor at a cost of $300,000 a year (of which the actual person probably sees 1/2 to 2/3). No long term costs in terms of a pension or health care. Or they can fill the billet with a government civilian at a cost of ~$250,000, but because that person is a government employee they are on the hook for lifetime pension and benefits costs. Or, they can fill the billet with a reservist at a cost of ~$100,000 a year, and cut 80% of them at the 10 year mark so there is no long term pension or health care costs.

The latter is pretty clearly the optimal solution, fiscally speaking.

 

[Hair Warrior]

A) Often, legally it must be a military member, or even it could have to be a commissioned officer. e.g. For UCMJ, for strike targeting decisions, weapons release authority, or other inherently military functions. Can’t have a contractor be an OIC or AOIC of a Det.

B) Yes, each community probably over-selects a bit in anticipation of some slight attrition. But billets are finite.

 

[egiv]

Availing yourself of the system is neither cheating nor is it dishonest. If the Navy thought it to be a problem, they would change the system. It's like the PFA system. There is a "Satisfactory" for a reason and still results in a P on an officer FITREP. If the Navy wanted Officers to be rated based on their scores, they would make that change in the FITREP system. But, for now, either doing the bare minimum or maximum each result in a P. And, just because you score an Outstanding does not mean your CO is going to give you a 5 for military bearing, especially if he/she is/are managing their average.

This sounds like a third class trying to justify doing the bare minimum. If you would accept this justification from one of your Sailors for doing just enough to get by without making any meaningful contribution, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[squorch2]

No one of consequence will ever see your PFA scores - just the pass/fail part.

 

[bluemarlin04]

A) Often, legally it must be a military member, or even it could have to be a commissioned officer. e.g. For UCMJ, for strike targeting decisions, weapons release authority, or other inherently military functions. Can’t have a contractor be an OIC or AOIC of a Det.

Sure. But that’s what active component URL officers are for. Weapons releases lies in the hands of the operators. Not support.

 

[egiv]

No one of consequence will ever see your PFA scores - just the pass/fail part.

Maybe not for pilots, but for rates/designators that serve in NSW commands, PFA scores play heavily into screening for those orders.

 

[squorch2]

So not the vast majority of officers. Got it.

 

[bluemarlin04]

Maybe not for pilots, but for rates/designators that serve in NSW commands, PFA scores play heavily into screening for those orders.

Thats to get into the command and often times officers are exempt from that.

They still play zero bearing on your ranking

 

[ABMD]

MyNavyHR

click on Promotion Board Brief. Gives a good rundown of what they look at.

The only lines on a FITREP block 41 that really matter are the breakout and closing lines. Example "My number 2 of 14 highly comptetive junior officers", "My number 15 of 70 junior staff officers at a COCOM", "Your guarantee below zone select, press 100 now." etc, etc.

Aside from block 41 your trait average in relation to the group and reporting seniors matters. If you are an ENS or JG there is no reason they cannot give you a soft breakout and put you above RSCA. Being put above and a solid soft breakout helps immensely. Especially in a community with no real path like SWO or Aviator.

Thanks Blue, I'll make sure I keep an eye on this my next FITREP.