O4 List

[Hozer]

When we eventually get out many employers will want to see a copy of your FITREP.

No they won't. DD214, yes. Fitreps no. The obvious niche defense job aside.

Virtually all Corporate and even gov't jobs will interpret your 214 and that's about it. Frankly, 214's are written in a foreign language already, much less fitreps.

After working in the non-defense civilian world for 2+ years, my 23 years in the military is half of a page on my basic resume. YMMV.

 

[ben4prez]

Thanks for this - is this some sort of Master's thesis? Only reason that I ask - 24 pages of single line text won't get any traction with a Flag Officer. Too much fluff - get to the point.

All I know is that my boss -- a 4-star -- read through the whole thing, marked it up, and invited the author in for what turned out to be an incredibly insightful 2 hour meeting yesterday afternoon (he actually cancelled other meetings to engage with the author). The document was first sent out last friday. Other flags have also read it, giving the author feedback both good and bad. Your mileage may vary with various flags, but if something is compelling enough, people will read it no matter how long it is.

 

[Spekkio]

I don't think it was saying that JOs respect their skippers less, only that they see the DHs making more money and wonder why anyone would assume the pain of being a commanding officer when one can make more money as a DH. Given that issue, is command screen like DH? By that I mean if you opt out of DH screen, regardless of taking the bonus, you have to punch? Can someone do a DH tour and, even if they get the #1 EP and are thus in contention for skipper, say they don't want to be considered for command? Furthermore, are DHs now effectively required to do this new command screen interview/board thing, or can you opt out?

I think that the bigger issue is why many officers are describing command at sea as a 'pain' instead of a privilege. I'm not saying people should do it for free, but an O-5/O-6 salary is not exactly peanuts.

I don't think the money is the issue here, and I don't think DH bonuses make or break the decision for quality officers to stay. Based on previous retention surveys, I think it's mostly a matter of their QOL/job satisfaction during their initial tour and their perceived career outlook QOL/job satisfaction based on what they've seen of their superiors and how that fits into the home/family puzzle. If "I'm glad I don't have your job" is the way that JOs/DHs feel about their superiors, then they won't stay in the Navy, no matter how much money you throw at the problem.

 

[bert]

I just read that paper sitting in an airport lounge. A couple thoughts occurred to me as I read it:

- It took a solid 20 minutes to read and actually digest, and any admiral who claims he could never take 20 whole minutes to read a paper is a liar. Reducing it to a ppt would make it (and the readers) dumber, not smarter.

- The intro and research are quite good, and I think it is very useful that somebody made the effort to collate it.

- The discussion of command losing its attractiveness is spot-on, and one of the most important things senior leaders can take away from this.

- The fear that the Navy will lose its best officers at a greater rate than the mediocre to poor ones is something I've often seem claimed (especially on this board), but I've never seen it proved.

The recommendations were a lot weaker to me, specifically:

- Talking points won't solve anything. In the age of the internet, sailors who are interested can already find out exactly what message senior leadership wants to push. I found that whole section to miss the point. They don't want talking points they want the facts, help understanding them IF they trust the source of that help, and the opportunity to talk about what those facts mean in context. (Note I'm only talking the "talking points" issue here).

- A 3year/15k bonus is not large enough to change anything. It is well behind the bonuses their retired peers earn very year, and won't significantly move the needle.

- The shift in lineal numbers idea needs some corresponding change to reduce blue-on-blue of community players and allow more time for ticket punching. (Or a major overhaul in our FITREP and promotion boards). It isn't impossible to do, but I don't see the benefits. The promotion system as currently constituted needs fodder.

- I understanding wanting to both reduce deployments and improve facilities, but where does he see the money coming from? Cutting GMT would be great for morale, but it won't save enough money to fund other programs.

The comments above aside, I'm glad he wrote it and I hope it gets passed around.

 

[IRfly]

The paper was very insightful. One thing he didn't mention, though--the Navy itself has made the position of CO unattractive in their haste to show off what passes for "accountability." You think people don't notice and talk about what happened to CDR Jackson (the Prowler skipper) or CAPT Honors? And it's not enough to simply fire them--we've got to put them in the figurative stocks, too.

O-5 command has been reduced to a game of Russian roulette where you hope that the problems (which, as noted in the paper, will NEVER be eliminated) don't come to light on your watch. Oh, and you're not going to get paid any more money than the O-5 sitting on the Pentagon watch floor who works for eight hours a day. We joke about this regularly, although I'm sure that some of us might accidentally find ourselves in the front office someday just because everyone else took off.

 

[lowflier03]

Just read this article. Top reasons for leaving a company, pretty much sums up what the military is experiencing.
When SECNAV, CNO, VCNO, etc tell you that you should be serving out of sheer patriotism and not worry about adequate compensation, I think it shows how far removed leaders are from the fleet.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgea...it-can-you-handle-the-truth/?partner=yahootix
Top 3 reasons employees move to another job: Better balance between work/home life, better compensation, and better advancement opportunities.

Just another piece of evidence in the pile. Every study, survey, and article that discusses how businesses screw up and lose employees seem to apply almost verbatim to how screwed up the military is.

 

[CommodoreMid]

- The shift in lineal numbers idea needs some corresponding change to reduce blue-on-blue of community players and allow more time for ticket punching. (Or a major overhaul in our FITREP and promotion boards). It isn't impossible to do, but I don't see the benefits. The promotion system as currently constituted needs fodder.

I disagree on the shift in lineal numbers idea because of what it could do down the road for those community players. Even eliminating the blue on blue aspect, it would shift their promotion timeline to the left for future promotion boards. I'm pretty sure the Air Force is having issues related to this because they were routinely selecting shit hot officers below zone and they were getting screwed over years down the road as a result. Of course, this is all related to the up or out promotion cycle that's based on time in service for the vast majority of us, so just shifting lineal numbers isn't the answer if you don't fix the broader problems of military officer promotions as a whole.

 

[Recovering LSO]

If you could find a way to shift lineal numbers WITHIN the existing YG it might have merit and mitigate CommodoreMid's concern.

 

[bert]

If you could find a way to shift lineal numbers WITHIN the existing YG it might have merit and mitigate CommodoreMid's concern.

If you aren't trying to promote them sooner, then what's the point?

 

[robav8r]

O-5 command has been reduced to a game of Russian roulette where you hope that the problems (which, as noted in the paper, will NEVER be eliminated) don't come to light on your watch. Oh, and you're not going to get paid any more money than the O-5 sitting on the Pentagon watch floor who works for eight hours a day. We joke about this regularly, although I'm sure that some of us might accidentally find ourselves in the front office someday just because everyone else took off.

I respectfully disagree. O5 command continues to be an incredibly challenging, frustrating, humbling and incredibly rewarding tour that is ever changing and challenges daily, the innovation, creativity and yes, "patience" of the front office. The problems will never go away, in fact as you get older and seemingly lose touch with that "younger" generation, will continue to test your skills and abilities. Bonus money and QOL issues aside - having the opportunity to impact the lives, careers and success of future generations of Sailors is something you can't put a price on. Ask the next O5 CO what he likes most about being in command - don't listen to what he says, look in his eyes and "watch" what she/he says . . . .

 

[lowflier03]

Ask the next O5 CO what he likes most about being in command - don't listen to what he says, look in his eyes and "watch" what she/he says . . . .

I'm going to respectfully disagree to a point. As much as I hate the fact that this is true....How about asking that question to some of the better leaders the Navy had, who were the object of a misguided IG, CYA superiors, and got then hung out to dry?

 

[exNavyOffRec]

DD214, yes.

actual this is a no (US gov't excluded), the reason is questions employers cannot legally ask are "veteran status, discharge status, and branch of service" at a minimum the branch of service would be on a DD214

I am not saying some employer isn't going to ask, but should that person not get hired they now have a basis for a lawsuit should they desire.

 

[robav8r]

I'm going to respectfully disagree to a point. As much as I hate the fact that this is true....How about asking that question to some of the better leaders the Navy had, who were the object of a misguided IG, CYA superiors, and got then hung out to dry?

I know . . . and I get it. I hated to watch what happened to CAPT Honors, and I fully appreciate the "bad things" that have happened to good/great leaders. I just don't want folks to be "distracted" by all the "what-ifs" in this profession we call Naval Aviation when compared to the incredible opportunity that awaits them if their "luck & timing" plays out in their favor.

 

[pilot_man]

I wouldn't call it distracted but learning. We watch as leaders are fired all around us for ridiculous reasons. It would be foolish for us to not learn from how the Navy has treated those leaders, yes?
If by incredible opportunity you mean to be treated like a glorified DH who has to answer to CAG for every minor thing, then yes, there are great opportunities for us. meh

 

[Flash]

actual this is a no (US gov't excluded), the reason is questions employers cannot legally ask are "veteran status, discharge status, and branch of service" at a minimum the branch of service would be on a DD214

I am not saying some employer isn't going to ask, but should that person not get hired they now have a basis for a lawsuit should they desire.

Employers can ask legally for your DD214 and you can legally refuse, unless the type of discharge is relevant to job then you have to (and not just federal jobs).