Why are you Leaving?

[Gatordev]

And one thing to remember...this thing pretty much happens already. If a SELRES can establish himself in a flying billet, keep it funded, and avoid getting promoted, he can more or less work there full-time as long as the command has money. Difference between that and what I'm talking about is nothing's for sure, he gets paid Reservist money instead of AD money (big diff in BAH, benefits, etc), doesn't get an AD retirement at 20, and it's a constant shell game of managing your AT, ADT, ATFPs, etc. And if you get promoted you're probably out of work. Makes more sense to formalize and regularize it.

I don't know...still seems like the SELRES is the cheaper option, which for a bottom-line, makes more sense than having a two-tiered system of AD (FTS/TAR) doing the job. Note: I'm not saying it's not something to look at, but monetarily, I don't think it would survive.

 

[nittany03]

Here's a spitball. DoD wants to save money on personnel costs? Keep people in the fleet flying longer, and keep some terminal O-3/O-4 types as instructors and such. Guess what? Less throughput needed in the TRACOM for less available fleet seats. This means better pick of the litter going through the pipeline (theoretically). Also, less TRACOM instructors needed (save personnel costs), potentially less TRACOM bases needed (save infrastructure costs and paying for an O-6 CO and O-5 XO), and less aircraft maintenance needed (save personnel and parts costs). How many times has the Navy paid to teach yet another SNA/SNFO how to do a TACAN point-to-point to replace the one it just kicked out the door whose butt was in that seat 4 years ago? How many weapons school classes at Fallon are needed to churn out enough patch wearers to replace the ones who are rolling out of fleet Training O billets, among other places?

Obviously you need to keep some rotation to keep new blood in the organization. But how much do we spend training people in order to say "bye" to so many who didn't break out in their JO tour?

 

[Recovering LSO]

^ You want a DH pilot to have a fair amount of experience right? Where is a lot of that going to come from if you limit the number of TRACOM and FRS seats available to him. Don't forget, the purpose of the TRACOM and FRS isn't ONLY to produce NEW pilots, but to continue developing and honing the skills of the guys going back to the fleet. This has nothing to do with the much derided "golden path" and a lot to do with helping make sure the guys filling your two senior DH seats have more experience and hours than the mid-tour JO. That matters.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

Career recruiter was/is like that. Don't know if they still do it. Usually a guy plucked from SELRES to serve on 3-4 year orders with an option to take addition orders doing the same thing. Usually it was at the same NRD. I saw a guy make O-4 doing that.

as I was leaving they were limiting how long a CANREC could be around, I think they went to 2 year orders with option to extend up to 5 years total but it was year by year, the O-3's I worked with that were CANREC's who were eligible all made O-4

 

[picklesuit]

^ You want a DH pilot to have a fair amount of experience right? Where is a lot of that going to come from if you limit the number of TRACOM and FRS seats available to him. Don't forget, the purpose of the TRACOM and FRS isn't ONLY to produce NEW pilots, but to continue developing and honing the skills of the guys going back to the fleet. This has nothing to do with the much derided "golden path" and a lot to do with helping make sure the guys filling your two senior DH seats have more experience and hours than the mid-tour JO. That matters.

RLSO,
If this is the case, why is the selection rate for VT (TRACOM) so atrocious?
Pickle

 

[Recovering LSO]

RLSO,
If this is the case, why is the selection rate for VT (TRACOM) so atrocious?
Pickle

Because NPC/Pers-43 talk out both sides of their mouth. And.... That stat isn't necessarily the case for ALL communities... Some communities aren't overmanned to begin with....

 

[ssnspoon]

"senior leaders" who need to be looking introspectively at both their decision-making process and decisions and how both may contribute to the actual lack of trust.”[/I]

The problem, as I see it, here is that there are still so many of them that have the attitude of "Well, I made it to the Eagle/Stars, so I obviously must be good at SOMETHING or they would never have promoted me" and a little of the "if you can't see that it is probably because you are too junior ti understand" Now, I get that there are certainly things I won't "get" until I have the same burdens, but that is the difference between a 6 and a 6.5, we can all tell the difference between a 2 and a 10 without filling those shoes.

 

[Uncle Fester]

Because NPC/Pers-43 talk out both sides of their mouth. And.... That stat isn't necessarily the case for ALL communities... Some communities aren't overmanned to begin with....

I saw this happen firsthand. When the number of FRS instructor billets was dialed back, all of a sudden TRACOM IP went from "dude, you're killing yourself" to "yeah, sure, it's all production and it all looks good".

 

[picklesuit]

This^

 

[ben4prez]

Apologize for the delay in responding -- great questions.

Did you (or others you surveyed) feel like there was a bait & switch going on WRT cruise lengths (6mo vs 10mo) and that's why you're no longer willing to do them when they impact your family and QOL?

I don't think there was a feeling of bait and switch. The biggest challenge was the cruise extensions halfway through deployment, but I think we all realized that was our job, and at least for me, I came in the service with eyes wide open. Of course, you never really know what a deployment is like until you experience one. My two deployments both took place when I was single and had no family or even a significant other. I really didnt like being disconnected from the world.

I knew from the beginning of my service I probably wasn't a lifer, although I kept all paths open, and pushed myself to hit the wickets as if I were.

I've done a lot of reflection about why I really am leaving, and while I still think deployments are a big part of it, the bigger factor for me is that when I look at my bosses all the way up the chain, I'm not sure I want their jobs. Not because they have too many admin requirements, etc, but simply because I don't want to do the same thing for my whole life. Personally, I thrive on the thrill of doing new things, putting myself out there, and seeing how far I can push the boundaries. A military career is very "safe" and predictable, which is why I think a lot of people are comfortable with it - and that works for them. My soul dies a little when I can predict that in 20 years I will be an O-6 in the Pentagon. I also realized I'm a just an interchangable widget in the Navy -- I may have unique talents, as do we all, but if I leave, the service won't suffer. Someone will always fill that jet. I want to be part of an organization where I am indispensable to the mission, and where my unique skillsets are well matched to the organization. Finally, I'm ready to start building enduring things instead of destroying them. Our F/A-18 mission is to kill people and mess stuff up -- it is much needed, and critical to our national security -- and I loved destroying enemy targets in Afghanistan. But that's just not me anymore.

 

[ReserveOfficerRecruiter]

as I was leaving they were limiting how long a CANREC could be around, I think they went to 2 year orders with option to extend up to 5 years total but it was year by year, the O-3's I worked with that were CANREC's who were eligible all made O-4

My first tour recruiting was on the AD side, and we had a senior O-4 "career recruiter" who I believe was at our command for 8-9 years. They did away with the program under the idea of merging it into HR, but it doesn't work that way. The HR officers are the OPS/AOPS instead of getting a first tour as a recruiter, and then they usually are billeted into one of the other categories of HR so they get a wide range of training and experience.
If all my extension requests are approved, and they don't boot the O-4 CANRECs to save a buck, I will have managed to match that 8 years total spent at the same NRD. I think each NRD should have 1 officer that is on a career recruiting track, even if it takes them to Millington instead of just transferring from NRD to NRD. The enlisted career recruiters swear by having that experience, and there are certainly more than what HR offers up on the officer side. Having one SME who went from recruiter/AOPS/OPS/region OPS/XO/CO makes too much sense, but I am in the minority on that one. I would love to be able to parlay my years of experience into an FTS gig and stay solely on the recruiting pipeline, but that's just not how the Navy works because I would become too specialized.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

My first tour recruiting was on the AD side, and we had a senior O-4 "career recruiter" who I believe was at our command for 8-9 years. They did away with the program under the idea of merging it into HR, but it doesn't work that way. The HR officers are the OPS/AOPS instead of getting a first tour as a recruiter, and then they usually are billeted into one of the other categories of HR so they get a wide range of training and experience.
If all my extension requests are approved, and they don't boot the O-4 CANRECs to save a buck, I will have managed to match that 8 years total spent at the same NRD. I think each NRD should have 1 officer that is on a career recruiting track, even if it takes them to Millington instead of just transferring from NRD to NRD. The enlisted career recruiters swear by having that experience, and there are certainly more than what HR offers up on the officer side. Having one SME who went from recruiter/AOPS/OPS/region OPS/XO/CO makes too much sense, but I am in the minority on that one. I would love to be able to parlay my years of experience into an FTS gig and stay solely on the recruiting pipeline, but that's just not how the Navy works because I would become too specialized.

I know the enlisted side swear by the career recruiters but I have seen many of them be way out of touch with the fleet, to the point of misleading recruiters, we had a few CANRECS that were told if they wanted to stay longer they would need to redesignate to HR to do the AOPS among other billet thing.

 

[Spekkio]

A military career is very "safe" and predictable, which is why I think a lot of people are comfortable with it - and that works for them. My soul dies a little when I can predict that in 20 years I will be an O-6 in the Pentagon. I also realized I'm a just an interchangable widget in the Navy -- I may have unique talents, as do we all, but if I leave, the service won't suffer. Someone will always fill that jet. I want to be part of an organization where I am indispensable to the mission, and where my unique skillsets are well matched to the organization. Finally, I'm ready to start building enduring things instead of destroying them...

By no means am I trying to convince you to stay, but I do have some questions about your perceptions of post-military employment.

Specifically...

1) I have no idea where I will be my next tour, let alone 20 years from now in the Navy. While if I stayed that long the job would undoubtedly involve me wearing a bird (or else I will be mandatory told I have to retire), there are a number of O-6 positions that are relatively unique in terms of responsibility and scope. I just find it odd that you think a military career is 'safe,' when I've talked to quite a few Sailors who think that most civilian careers would be much more stable - no moving to wherever the Navy sends you, no deployments, no underway shifts, no surges, no sudden weekend emergencies, etc. I tend to agree with them.

2) The military is one of the few careers that mandates promotion. This is a double-edged sword in that you can do well for yourself within the system and get promoted, or you can be told to find another career if you fail to select. Civilian jobs have no such guarantee. If the thought of serving in the Pentagon in 20 years scares you because you'll be doing the "same thing," how do you feel about the possibility of holding the same exact position for 10-15 years, and possibly more?

3) Do you really think that 99% of the people working for any given large company are anything other than indispensible? There are a few key players within these organizations, but by and large the company will continue to exist without you. Or are you looking to make your way with a startup, which could have a much higher payoff but entails much more risk?

I'm not trying to rain on your ambitions, it just seems like your reasons for leaving involves best-case planning: You believe that you are exceptionally talented, that someone is going to pay you for that talent, and that you will have the opportunity to make a large impact on your organization. I'm just curious what you plan to do if that doesn't happen, or if other issues like marriage/children make taking certain career risks, like leaving a company who has passed you over multiple times for the next position, unpalatable to you?

 

[Steve Wilkins]

By no means am I trying to convince you to stay, but I do have some questions about your perceptions of post-military employment.

Specifically...

1) I have no idea where I will be my next tour, let alone 20 years from now in the Navy. While if I stayed that long the job would undoubtedly involve me wearing a bird (or else I will be mandatory told I have to retire), there are a number of O-6 positions that are relatively unique in terms of responsibility and scope. I just find it odd that you think a military career is 'safe,' when I've talked to quite a few Sailors who think that most civilian careers would be much more stable - no moving to wherever the Navy sends you, no deployments, no underway shifts, no surges, no sudden weekend emergencies, etc. I tend to agree with them.

A military career is significantly safer as it applies to career timing, promotion, and pay. Anyone who has done their homework knows when they should expect the next promotion and to a certain degree, the level of responsibility they will have at any given point in their career. It's not all that difficult to map our your career in general terms over the next 6, 10, or even 15 years, hence the predictability. Not so on the civilian side. Also, the risk of the military to come up to you one morning and tell you your services are no longer required are significantly lower than in the civilian sector. In many respects, there are a lot of unknowns that go with a civilian career and that keeps people in the military, both officer and enlisted. People absolutely do get comfortable and even those that are miserable, stay in...because it's comfortable and familiar.

You're right about the no deployments, surges, or underway shifts. However, you can move the same or even more in a civilian job. Most folks don't realize that. And the no weekend emergencies thing...yeah, definitely not true. Now more than ever, people are tied to their jobs by these little devices called smart phones. Think you're gonna get out of the Navy and be able to punch out at 5pm at your next gig? You might be able to get away with it depending on what you decide to do. But not likely.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

I've done a lot of reflection about why I really am leaving...

I also realized I'm a just an interchangeable widget in the Navy....I want to be part of an organization where I am indispensable to the mission, and where my unique skill sets are well matched to the organization.

One thing you need to understand now before you get out is that you will ALWAYS be replaceable. You may end up being a bigger cog in the wheel than you are now and you may bring a very specific skill set to the organization that you work for, but never think you are indispensable. Everyone can be replaced.

Don't confuse this with not being important to the mission or contributing to the mission on a large scale. That is not what I'm talking about.