O-4 List out (last year)

[azguy]

Let me ask you this...what's a heavy lifting SWO job? ATG? SWOS? PEP (nope)? NPS (NOB FITREPs-throw a BS flag on that)? Why is it that only the good deal tours, which can have nothing to do with the SWO community or the Navy, require committing to DH? Last time I saw 1110 O-4 selection rates this high, guys that did nothing operationally relevant and were subpar DHs were getting picked up.

Easy, the yellow brick road for a career SWO couldn't be easier. 1) to make O4, get your ass to a ship as a DH. 2) to screen for command, do very well as a DH. Period. You can further extrapolate that to figure out what the "smart" jobs are for divo shore duty; something that will benefit you in that DH ride. Depends on what DH job you take, but CSCS, ATRC, TTG, ATG, and about a dozen commands would set up a prospective DH pretty well. For post DH shore duty, of course, PERS and N96 folks screen head and shoulders above everyone else, but then again, you can't get those orders without very strong paper as a DH (see rule #2).

 

[Recovering LSO]

You're missing the point, again. Aviators know what the preferred path to promotion, selection, and screening looks like. The issue is: what these guys were told was valued apparently wasn't valued this time around, or briefed VERY poorly to the non flying members o the board, or, most likely just ignored and disregarded by non-flying members of the board. So the questions and complaints are valid.

I'm incredulous when I hear a SWO telling aviators about what they should be doing. I'm not sure if you realize exactly how much flexibility you guys have in your career paths. If an aviator ever considered taking some of the shore tours you guys take, he would be committing career suicide.

The best proposal out there is to conduct designator (or even community) specific statutory boards. There is no way an on-track aviator should be competing against an "on-track" SWO. A mid-grade LT flying a single seat Rhino off the ship, leading a division, and holding down eight other collateral jobs ends up looking like a B-team player compared to a SWO who, let's face it, is not trusted with nearly the same level of responsibility as his Rhino counterpart with equal years service. And, please spare me the "we get leadership experience for three years while that pilot is going through training..." That's because your community is willing to accept unqualified and tactically non-proficient ENSs onboard while putting them through non-standardized and questionable warfare pin qualifications processes.

Let's play it out a little further. Take that Rhino pilot and now he's an FRS instructor pilot. The level of responsibility placed upon him while his SWO peer is teaching ROTC or babysitting Mids in Annapolis is incomparable. Yeah, I'm biased - and unapologetic about it.

 

[azguy]

There is no way an on-track aviator should be competing against an "on-track" SWO. A mid-grade LT flying a single seat Rhino off the ship, leading a division, and holding down 8 other collateral jobs ends up looking like a B-team player compared to a SWO who, let's face it, is not trusted with nearly the same level of responsibility as his Rhino counterpart with equal years service.

You can keep telling yourself that all day long, it won't make it true. And you're contradicting yourself; if F-18 pilots have so much more responsibility, why are you afraid to be ranked against the black shoes? Frankly, you need to start by getting over yourself, stop blaming your arch-nemesis, the Machiavellian SWOs, and figure out how to get dudes through this board next year.

 

[Recovering LSO]

Go line by line and tell me where I'm wrong. Be honest with yourself and those of waiting with baited breath for your insight.

It's not a matter of getting over myself. It's a matter of figuring out how to compare apples to oranges. It's also not a matter of being afraid to compete against black-shoes. But you know that. Your presumption of some "arch nemesis" is laughable and really just adds an ad hominem element to your incomplete counterpoints.

Unless you're going to actually provide us with some insight on how to "fix" ourselves (which none of us are really all that interested in getting from you) - we can take the pissing match to PMs and spare the rest of folks around here the shit-show.

 

[azguy]

Let's play it out a little further. Take that Rhino pilot and now he's an FRS instructor pilot. The level of responsibility placed upon him while his SWO peer is teaching ROTC or babysitting Mids in Annapolis is incomparable. Yeah, I'm biased - and unapologetic about it.

Ridiculous. Play that out a few more years, and now the pilot is handing out basketballs on shore duty and the SWO is deployed running a department, a spot-promote O4 on staff, in early command, etc.

 

[azguy]

Go line by line and tell me where I'm wrong. Be honest with yourself and those of waiting with baited breath for your insight.

It's not a matter of getting over myself. It's a matter of figuring out how to compare apples to oranges. It's also not a matter of being afraid to compete against black-shoes. But you know that. Your presumption of some "arch nemesis" is laughable and really just adds an ad hominem element to your incomplete counterpoints.

Unless you're going to actually provide us with some insight on how to "fix" ourselves - we can take the pissing match to PMs and spare the rest of folks around here the shit-show.

Breaking down statutory boards by designator is a bad call. Yeah, you guys took it in the shorts this time, it could be SWOs next time. The point of the 'designator blind' stat board is to get the best officers through to the next rank in the Navy. Yes, that clearly worked out terribly in this case, but that's got to be the fault of something other than the statutory board system that has been in place for decades.

 

[Flash]

...Unless you're going to actually provide us with some insight on how to "fix" ourselves (which none of us are really all that interested in getting from you) - we can take the pissing match to PMs and spare the rest of folks around here the shit-show.

Please do if y'all want to continue, I don't want to derail a pretty good thread.

 

[Recovering LSO]

And you're contradicting yourself; if F-18 pilots have so much more responsibility, why are you afraid to be ranked against the black shoes?

At the expense of a scolding from Father Flash, let's get this back on track.

It's not a contradiction. I stand by my point about disparate levels of responsibility. The point I made, and you continue to miss, is that the SWO he commissioned with has more FITREPS in his file when they BOTH go to the SAME promotion board to be evaluated by the SAME board members. Not only does the SWO have more FITREPS, one of them probably says DH on them. The reason the aviator doesn't have those isn't because he chose poorly or didn't take hard jobs (as you have charged), its math man. He's getting looked on the basis of fewer evaluations - and in reality, probably only one high-water evaluation from each of the two operational tours he's completed prior to first IZ O-4 board. I'm not complaining that we need to change the way we (aviators) groom guys for O-4. My point is that unless the boards are briefed appropriately, and there is considerable evidence that did not occur this year, there will be misread, misinterpreted, and mis-evaluated records. Career milestones that are important to SWOs are vastly different than those of aviators, so why continue playing them off one-another?

Additional food for thought:

There is a student at SWOS right now writing a white-paper advocating for your community to adapt more of an aviation-esque training track for young SWOs - one that takes the onus of training away from the operational COs and develops something akin to a VT/HT command with some version of an FRS. His idea, admittedly a long shot, has merit because it would produce a higher quality JO to the gaining ship. This idea is coming from a SWO - not an aviator.

 

[Pags]

Ridiculous. Play that out a few more years, and now the pilot is handing out basketballs on shore duty and the SWO is deployed running a department, a spot-promote O4 on staff, in early command, etc.

I don't want to go too far down this rabbit hole about SWO vs. Aviator, but from what I can tell from other 13X0s and SWOs, our shore tours are completely different. Aviators are expected to go to a production tour either instructing nugget aviators or testing new weapons systems. These tours, even the less career enhancing, still involve long days and lots of time on the road. In addition, just about every one of my peers did both a masters and JPME while on their shore duty because they were told this would help them at their boards. So instead of enjoying their free time these individuals spent their time (and in some cases, their money) getting degrees and career blocks checked. Meanwhile, a SWO looking for shore orders has every opportunity to get a paid for Masters/JPME with no collaterals. My neighbor in Sasebo did two shore tours: one was recruiting and the other was getting a masters. Then he took a CHENG job that spot promoted him to O-4. When he and I were in the same board, he had a higwater LTJG FITREP from his first command, a FITREP from his second command, a FITREP from his recruiting command, NOBs from NPS, and then FITREPs from his current command in a CHENG billet with a spot promotion.

Leaving sea duty a career minded aviator has one or two choices: Production tour or Aide. Anything else, be it PEP, Ohlmstead, NPS, recruiting, USNA, etc are considered career killers.

 

[subreservist]

At the expense of a scolding from Father Flash, let's get this back on track.

It's not a contradiction. I stand by my point about disparate levels of responsibility. The point I made, and you continue to miss, is that the SWO he commissioned with has more FITREPS in his file when they BOTH go to the SAME promotion board to be evaluated by the SAME board members. Not only does the SWO have more FITREPS, one of them probably says DH on them.

I don't think the number of FITREPS matter...boards are not trying to look at tons of paper...the briefer summarizes your record and you are on screen for about a minute or less. At best, your most current FITREP prior to board is the most important and maybe some may go back a couple more to establish trend.

That's why someone who was "fired" can still make promotion, if their most current REP blows the firing REP out the water...the military loves a "success story" of improvement.

 

[Fmr1833]

To clarify, it's not an indictment on those Pilots/FOs who are getting out. It's just obvious that they probably aren't taking the hard jobs and doing whatever you guys are supposed to do to stay "due course."

False. Again.

 

[Flash]

At the expense of a scolding from Father Flash, let's get this back on track...

Just trying to keep it civil, and while I might be balding I am not that old...

I think you have some good points about responsibility and the considerable differences between the communities. Where a qual'd JO on a ship or a sub has to often call their CO about whatever he/she wants and they can be on the bridge/in the CIC in seconds the same is not true for an aviator flying a mission hundreds or even thousands of miles from the front office.

Interstingly enough I just read an op-ed piece by a retired Army General saying that the Army is going to have serious issues with retaining the current generation of JOs who have known nothing but war and often being given large responsibilties now having to transition to a barracks-based force with all the attendant pain that comes with it. I have heard the same concerns about the Marines, Terminal Lance even did a strip about it a while ago.

 

[bert]

Ridiculous. Play that out a few more years, and now the pilot is handing out basketballs on shore duty and the SWO is deployed running a department, a spot-promote O4 on staff, in early command, etc.

So that is pretty obviously wrong.

But for the people saying that the board members weren't properly briefed on aviation career tracks, that is pretty obviously wrong also. The president of the board was a 1320, and there was a former helo sea detailer on it as well in addition to the other aviators. I will adapt what I wrote in the ADHSB thread as my explanation:

- SWOs go into the O-4 board with an x/3 or x/4 FITREP as a DH. Unless they are in the "sick, lame, or crazy" category, they all have a great chance to have a competitive #1 or #2 EP as a DH. while their aviator counterparts in front of the O-4 board had much larger (and thus more challenging) competitive groups on their first sea and first shore tours, and very limited chance at a competitive FITREP from their disassociated as they often make it to the board without even getting a FITREP yet. SWOs have their large competitive groups as ENS and JGs, where they can get away with pack and pack minus performances on their first tours due to both the rules on JO FITREPS, and because they have already made the cut (by attrition or improved performance) to get a chance at DH. The results of this are pretty similar to the results of O-5 promotion if you compare VFA types to helo/P-3 types. VFA has smaller competitive groups for their DHs, and far more of their DHs walk away with a #1 or #2 competitive EP.

 

[subreservist]

Also, I have heard some getting passed just because they did not have a full-length photo of themselves in their current O3 paygrade...or just any small indication that someone did not care enough about their record to make sure some areas were updated...not saying that explains it, but how can we know it doesn't?

 

[Spekkio]

Breaking down statutory boards by designator is a bad call. Yeah, you guys took it in the shorts this time, it could be SWOs next time. The point of the 'designator blind' stat board is to get the best officers through to the next rank in the Navy. Yes, that clearly worked out terribly in this case, but that's got to be the fault of something other than the statutory board system that has been in place for decades.

I think that it's impossible to compare the best between the two communities on an O-4 board; it's like trying to compare LeBron James to Tiger Woods. The career paths and the 'heavy lifting' jobs are entirely different for each community, and if time served as a DH and a recommendation for XO at sea was that damning for aviators who have no opportunity to serve as a DH by the time the board comes, then there needs to be a change.

Easy, the yellow brick road for a career SWO couldn't be easier. 1) to make O4, get your ass to a ship as a DH. 2) to screen for command, do very well as a DH. Period.

In other words, fog a mirror. You're presenting the DH tour as something a SWO chooses as an 'above and beyond' assignment and not what it actually is: a relatively set-in-stone career milestone that they will hit when the detailer tells them to hit it. Meanwhile, you're still trying to insist that aviators have to find whatever fabled priority shore duty assignment you think is out there to have a better chance at making O-4.

Also, I have heard some getting passed just because they did not have a full-length photo of themselves in their current O3 paygrade...or just any small indication that someone did not care enough about their record to make sure some areas were updated...not saying that explains it, but how can we know it doesn't?

I have a hard time believing that of the 45%+ aviators who were non-select, a significantly higher proportion failed to primp their records before board than any other community.