FITREP Code Words

[Jim123]

You said you showed this to the MO? Isn't he your RS? Or does the CO write on everyone in his squadron in the Navy?

Just the reporting senior (normally the CO for E-7 and up) rates and signs Navy fitreps and evals. Others in the chain of command provide their inputs, but unlike the Marines and Army systems there is no such thing as intermediate raters or senior raters... well, not exactly, but not on the form anyway.

 

[MasterBates]

So out of curiosity Brett, if my reputation is so bad, why did I have two Captains and a Two Star go to bat for me?

What have you done to help unfuck the dicked up culture of the Navy? I've stuck my neck out and thrown down to try to save some of our history. I call things like I see them, and I don't just do what is best for me.

But I'm the pinnacle of being an unprofessional doucher. So be it.

Sent via my HTC EVO 4G

 

[AirPirate]

...I'm willing to bet that your CO doesn't agree with this concept, nor is he willing to broadcast that kind of sentiment to the community at large.

Your CO is not going to sign something like that, and if your DH has half a brain, they won't forward this as is. I know you're not a professional (as if we needed another reminder), but I suspect that your Skipper is.

Just like I'm more willing to bet that most fleet skippers are kool-aid addicts and most of the actual leaders out there only have a chance as weapons school skippers. A certain kind of man is attracted to operational command these days, and he's not the kind of man he once was. "Professional" is not a word to describe a CO with the automatic implication that a subordinate officer is unprofessional.

 

[Brett327]

Just like I'm more willing to bet that most fleet skippers are kool-aid addicts and most of the actual leaders out there only have a chance as weapons school skippers. A certain kind of man is attracted to operational command these days, and he's not the kind of man he once was. "Professional" is not a word to describe a CO with the automatic implication that a subordinate officer is unprofessional.

It is what it is. I'm not implying that everyone who's subordinate to a CO is unprofessional, just MB in this case.

@ MB: The difference between you and I, Casey, is that I understand concepts like tact, office politics and the ability to discern which battles are worth fighting for and which will just get you shit-canned and swept into the dustbin of irrelevance. You're a fool if you think any of your "I'm gonna change the Navy" antics have amounted to anything other than destroy any of the positive things which you may have done in your career. This organization has far too much institutional inertia for such things and to think otherwise shows below average judgment. I don't know you personally, but I know people on this site and in the fleet who do. Ultimately, it is my opinion that your "I'm gonna change the Navy" theme is just a cover for the general buffoonery which seems to accompany you wherever you go, and your inability to keep your personal life from interfering with your professional life. That is the reality that has been played out again and again on this forum over the years in excrutiating detail for all to see. There's a reason you are in the predicament you currently find yourself in. It's not the Navy or the FITREP system, or bad timing. It's not the COs or the DHs you've worked for over the years. It's not because the culture in Naval Aviation has changed.

It's just you.

Brett

 

[hscs]

and with that - I think we need to all take a deep breath and move on

 

[CAMike]

There are some great take aways from this thread. I'm glad there has been honest dialogue. Sound personal integrity is something that can never be taken from each of us.

A couple of lesson's for our prospective officers observing the thread:

1. Brett is true to his goals and lives them each day. IF your goal is to be a career officer, you do have to micromanage as many aspects as possible of your personal and professional life. From the gals that you date to your language in the office. Any behavior that can potentially derail Brett's end goal appears to be avoided effectively.

2. MB is equally honest with his personal integrity. He may have not been careful enough dating his ex but in all fairness that was a bit hard to predict. MB appears to be well liked and accomplishes challenging tasks well. He is his own man and doesn't apologize for it.

In summary- If you desire to have a career as an officer in the Navy for 20 plus years. The Brett327 mindset works in most cases if you can stay focussed 99.9% of the time. If you are an entrepreneur at heart, the MB style might be just as effective but probably won't allow you to rise to Flag rank as the Navy's "institutional inertia" truly won't allow for it in many cases.

So what am I saying? I'll go out on a limb and say that BOTH are probably outstanding officers and leaders in their own ways. From my Navy experience -history showed me that our "by the book" type officers are indeed statistically more likely to have long careers in the Navy. The MB types typically do leave the Navy at some point and direct their energy towards entrepreneurial endeavors and continue being successful on their own terms.
These last few posts sound like they came from the Land of SWO, (shudder).

Anyway- I'm damn glad to share the AW bandwidth with both of them. Now what new fitrep code words exactly are there?

 

[KBayDog]

So what am I saying? I'll go out on a limb and say that BOTH are probably outstanding officers and leaders in their own ways.

"Greg, what is the worst fraternity on this campus?"
"Well that would be hard to say, sir. They're each outstanding in their own way."

 

[scoolbubba]

All of us are equally worthless, in our own special way.

 

[Flash]

Just like I'm more willing to bet that most fleet skippers are kool-aid addicts and most of the actual leaders out there only have a chance as weapons school skippers. A certain kind of man is attracted to operational command these days, and he's not the kind of man he once was. "Professional" is not a word to describe a CO with the automatic implication that a subordinate officer is unprofessional.

I have been in the Navy long enough to see that COs have run the gamut from the time I have come in to present day, some are winners and some are just plain idiots but time hasn't seemed to make a trend in the 'bad' direction and that includes many of my peers being selected for CO nowadays.

.....1. Brett is true to his goals and lives them each day. IF your goal is to be a career officer, you do have to micromanage as many aspects as possible of your personal and professional life. From the gals that you date to your language in the office. Any behavior that can potentially derail Brett's end goal appears to be avoided effectively......

I am not quite sure if this is faint praise, a little sarcasm or serious but after seeing many an officer who has screwed up, professionally or personally, go on to successful careers I ain't quite buying it.

 

[AirPirate]

You will always view your peers differently, and things get very cloudy when you start looking horizontally. JOPA has been trying to tell us this for eons, but then they get old and forget .

I'm talking about a trend that has been taking shape from the mid- to late-80s to the present rather than during the span of a single career. Our journey toward becoming a force of gutless wimps and nerds is almost complete. Combat success is only a byproduct of the corporate social glue that holds the show together these days. Hey, there's a lot to love about Naval Aviation and I prefer to hold on to the good times. Reading posts from the old hats on this board is actually a good way to keep in touch with when flying was fun and sex was dangerous. I'm never quite sure if the old salts are able to see the differences, but I'll just assume they can. Of course they had their own problems to deal with, but when I started running into 80% knife-in-the-sheath douchebaggery vice 20% knife-in-the-teeth focus I knew the path wasn't for me.

If you stay in, endeavor to screen, make it to retirement, etc., the moment you commit to that you become an unknown quantity all over again (unknown in the sense of what you can accomplish). You started out an unknown and had to prove yourself. A portion of those who stay are fearless leaders who will continue killing the enemy. The other portion of those who stay are fearful cowards who have no additional redeeming qualities, no other skills, or are scared to death of having to make it in the civilian world without any guarantees or less money. They are those who cling to the Navy for dear life for a sense of safety and camaraderie not seen elsewhere. Of course everyone thinks they're doing it for the first reason, and even the guys you might think are awesome might be making the decision to stay out of fear. I'm not saying anything new here – just that whatever that division ends up being is always changing. When people separate or retire, all the jockeying for position, all the milestones that you thought were important basically evaporate.

Now'adays, if I see a guy's resume that says CO of whatever, I really take it with a grain of salt and consider it to mean that the guy followed wickets, didn't make waves, and served his time. I don't put a big Respect-star sticker on the top and forward it. The thought never really crosses my mind that he could be a serious leadership contender unless there is some other evidence to show that. All it proves is that he was more competitive than the hanger-on-ers. BFD. Show me something more. Retiring chiefs and officers alike are often shocked at that attitude after having consumed so much kool-aid over the years convincing them otherwise.

You: "I commanded the fighting apes of VFA-umpty squat and cruised twice to support Operation Do Whatever."

Interviewer: "siddown." *facepalm*

 

[Flash]

You will always view your peers differently, and things get very cloudy when you start looking horizontally. JOPA has been trying to tell us this for eons, but then they get old and forget .

I'm talking about a trend that has been taking shape from the mid- to late-80s to the present rather than during the span of a single career. Our journey toward becoming a force of gutless wimps and nerds is almost complete. Combat success is only a byproduct of the corporate social glue that holds the show together these days. .....The other portion of those who stay are fearful cowards who have no additional redeeming qualities, no other skills, or are scared to death of having to make it in the civilian world without any guarantees or less money. They are those who cling to the Navy for dear life for a sense of safety and camaraderie not seen elsewhere. Of course everyone thinks they're doing it for the first reason, and even the guys you might think are awesome might be making the decision to stay out of fear. I'm not saying anything new here.......Retiring chiefs and officers alike are often shocked at that attitude after having consumed so much kool-aid over the years convincing them otherwise.

You: "I commanded the fighting apes of VFA-umpty squat and cruised twice to support Operation Do Whatever."

Interviewer: "siddown." *facepalm*

Gutless wimps and nerds.......really?

Don't know who pissed in your cornflakes but I don't see it quite that way. Having been around since the mid-80's to see this decline.....oh, wait, you haven't.......

Sorry to say it but your lament sounds an awful lot those you read or hear about in every generation before, I imagine your critique wouldn't be out of place in the Vietnam era either for some. Just because things may not have been good in your squadron/air wing/circle-jerk club doesn't mean they are broken service-wide. Things may get cloudy when looking horizontal but I have seen quite a bit of consistency since I have been in the Navy, including the quality of leadership and of the people overall. This coming from a guy that will never command a squadron or much else of consequence.

You want to deal with issues? Join the Army, after a year with them I can tell you that while the Navy ain't rainbows and unicorns it isn't the Army, and that is a very good thing.

 

[AirPirate]

really?...your lament sounds an awful lot those you read or hear about in every generation before, I imagine your critique wouldn't be out of place in the Vietnam era either for some.

Just because things may not have been good in your squadron/air wing/circle-jerk club doesn't mean they are broken service-wide. Things may get cloudy when looking horizontal but I have seen quite a bit of consistency since I have been in the Navy, including the quality of leadership and of the people overall. This coming from a guy that will never command a squadron or much else of consequence. You want to deal with issues? Join the Army, after a year with them I can tell you that while the Navy ain't rainbows and unicorns it isn't the Army, and that is a very good thing.

Yep, really. I don't care if that is offensive. That's what I observed. I thought to mention how we were closing in on the AF and Army's business model, but decided against throwing that spear because it wasn't necessary. So you're completely unwilling to acknowledge that trends and generational changes can happen in spans of time longer than your window of perception?

That's why I said that what I was saying was nothing new. I could already see a lot of what I said in Vietnam's generation, and that's why I looked for where the real forks in the road occurred to support such a hypothesis. I contend that the factors at work are many with a few milestones of note. The 60s were crazy enough on the military, but the cold war was so long that it would start changing mindsets and promotion characteristics throughout the officer ranks. People promoted through O-5 in 1998 were not likely the same kinds of personalities who were promoted in 1968, each with different experiences. I might not say better or worse, just different since I can't live long enough to know. We went through a major force reduction and directional shift as the cold war ended, and that changed who got through unscathed. At least in tactical aviation, we saw the rise of the AMRAAM, "smart" weapons, and the SFTI, which changed everything and set us on a course we have been on since the early 90s. Try talking to an F-15 guy who observed the transition from the A-7 to the Hornet and the Hornet's subsequent trip into Top Gun from afar, and the external perspective of change is enlightening. New career priorities emerged to deal with these changes. We have a ton of experience now at fighting limited conflicts and a few generations who have known nothing outside of a sand war. Are UAVs the next personality milestone? We shall see. Of the kids who are toddlers today, those who grow up to command the squadron of tomorrow are probably going to be yet another changed animal based on the amount of change we're seeing in this fledging information-centric world. When we look back at famous names from the past, we tend to identify with them based on how similar their experiences may have been in the air to our own. We don't tend to realize that there are likely some extreme differences between us.

The judgment call I made when it was my time was that I don't want to work for these guys anymore because I didn't agree with their focus and I don't want to do whatever it takes to become one of them (and that is a fairly time-honored repeat story). The consistency you see is simply that the same kinds of people get picked up for the same kinds of jobs. It's not a qualitative statement. They could be consistently f'd up for all you know.

I can't speak for the rest of the Navy but it was certainly not ideal in many respects across an entire flight line of 200 jets and two communities with which I was involved. That's still a big culture. I had a great time, have no regrets at all, and would always recommend the service to young people. But that doesn't mean I'm going to bend over backwards for someone just because he met an artificial standard (rank, command, award, etc.) that once meant something different and give him a job. So now this is just an argument between someone who will stay in vs. someone who got out. You'll get out someday too.

 

[Brett327]

@ AP: You have to work within the service you have, not the one you wish you had. So, at the end of the day, if that's not satisfying to you, then feel free to vote with your feet (as you did). That doesn't give you carte blanche to judge the rest of us based on your experiences. You paint a very one-sided picture of Naval Aviation which supports your own paradigms. Having been in this business for 21+ years in three communities, your experience doesn't square with what I've seen WRT our leadership. Sure, there are some tools out there who are exactly as you describe, but to suggest that it's the norm is just hyperbole.

Brett

 

[Flash]

......You'll get out someday too.

As the saying goes, I have already quit once......

 

[AirPirate]

Criticism is never easy. Of course the other option is to look into it no matter how crazy you think it sounds, "so what if AP is right? What can we do about it? How can we improve?" Oh, I forgot, that's only for O2's to do. Never mind.

Untested leaders are no point of reference, and inevitably those guys comprise the majority of the self-sustaining ruling party in every service. Your assessment is no surprise (if not plainly predictable). Of those I have seen tested, most have failed at a human level because their disorganized priorities were exposed. I'm contending that older generations were tested far more and different leadership emerged that wouldn't be allowed to exist in today's world because our priorities and norms won't support it. You guys are taking this pretty hard, yet one page ago you didn't hesitate to crush a junior officer in public.