devilbones
Arashikage トーマス・嵐影
Where is a good spot to find this information?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
FY 20 IWC DCO Board
- Thread starter AimHigh1947
- Start date
I'm aware of what I'm talking about - Like you - I've been around a while.
My position is that most 3 letter agency intel work is more than a sufficient basis for a phase I Officer basic waiver. Sure everyone has to get on the Navy page - and the five weeks isn't the end of the world but balancing stuff in life is tricky - and for the folks that come into this with years of experience - many come into it hoping for the waiver for at least phase I.
If you've done intel analysis and briefing for an agency or another branch of service - you already have acquired the requisite skill set to be a Navy Intel O at the Junior Level. I can see becoming acclimated to Navy culture - and I see value in that.
Waivers have a place - you might not agree today - but I hope you do as you continue to ascend through the ranks.
Perhaps you will come to see how one size fits all solutions that don't consider waivers for qualified folks - hurts morale in ways. Nothing worse that killing the spirit of good sailors that have been around with myopic policies when there are ways to make exceptions for them in my mind.
The waiver thing probably impacts about 25-30% of new JO's and CWO2's. It matters - maybe not to everyone - but it matters to folks that are entered commissioned service with more robust experience from the enlisted and chief's side of the house.
nodropinufaka
Well-Known Member
@Reservist
I don’t know and don’t have the answers.
I do know coming from active duty that reserve DCOs have a horrible reputation with the active side and if standardizing some training will fix that then I am all for it.
I don’t know and don’t have the answers.
I do know coming from active duty that reserve DCOs have a horrible reputation with the active side and if standardizing some training will fix that then I am all for it.
It's the active duty reserve divide. We talk about one team but the reality is there is a real divide. Training can only fix so much of it. On the job training and experience is usually the best to bridge the gap - but reservist just aren't on the job that much.
I think the DCO's do very well with the IA stuff and anything to do with ashore work. The seafaring stuff - not so much. They would need to be there for the ship work up.
I'm always surprised that people think Reservists and Active duty would be equal given what we actually do and our backgrounds.
The people seeking waivers in the case - also probably aren't the DCO's that prompt the bad rep - the waiver seekers are coming from the enlisted side and many have as much or more intel experience as many 0-3 and O-4's. I would 100% agree that the officer side is different from the enlisted side - but not as much from a nuts and bolt point of intel basics needed to be an 1835 - the leadership side is where prior enlisted need to shift.
Prior enlisted develop into leaders - but they are trained to follow orders and have to shake that to lead effectively. Tough to explain the leap without giving some context to it unless you have been on the enlisted side.
Last edited:
nodropinufaka
Well-Known Member
I was enlisted for 8 years.
Not in an intel rate.
There is just so much differences between officer and enlisted that I’m not even sure it really helped me. I was a first class and had already done a Tour in Iraq by the time I commissioned.
The only real help it gave me was navigating the Bureaucracy of the Navy in my opinion.
not to say we shouldn’t value prior enlisted just I’m not sure where my experience helped. We should value them on the basis of their commitment to the Navy.
Not in an intel rate.
There is just so much differences between officer and enlisted that I’m not even sure it really helped me. I was a first class and had already done a Tour in Iraq by the time I commissioned.
The only real help it gave me was navigating the Bureaucracy of the Navy in my opinion.
not to say we shouldn’t value prior enlisted just I’m not sure where my experience helped. We should value them on the basis of their commitment to the Navy.
Not sure how it is on the Intel side, but on the IP PQSs, enlisted that are IT1/ET1 or senior are qualified to sign off on officer PQSs. If you have E's that are qualified to sign for JO PQSs, it should be a no brainer to consider waivers from some requirements if they cross over.
The target audience for these schools should be new accessions with no prior experience.
The target audience for these schools should be new accessions with no prior experience.
https://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/reference/messages/Documents/NAVADMINS/NAV2020/NAV20144.txt
I recognize that prior enlisted are a rich source of expertise and experience, but as you know a PQS book signoff =/= passing the PQS board on that topic area. We had plenty of prior enlisted IS and other service intel in our RNIOBC class. For whatever reason, the non prior service officers finished at the top of the class (and anecdotally this is what I've heard from other classes).
I say kill the waiver entirely, make it fair, and everyone goes through RNIOBC 1 and 2 together. It's solid training and, while some people know a good chunk of it before showing up, everyone could stand to get a little better than they were yesterday.
The only reason this is coming up now is they are trying to rush people through some 2 week, ad hoc, online class due to coronavirus.
Last edited:
This is why the Navy sends every XXX through the same training pipeline. This way, they are assured that everyone gets the same training.
Consistent widgets.
nodropinufaka
Well-Known Member
It should be everyone just goes through NIOBC on active duty.
we had A prior enlisted ISCS and an CTIC in our active duty NIOBC class. Know what they did? They helped all the new people and took on class leadership positions for 6 months and not once did they whine or complain that they were too qualified to be there.
There is no need for a waiver and no need to deal with that. Everyone should just go through it.
I think moving all officers to ODS was a very good move and the DCO class was a terrible idea to begin with.
I really think that all officers should go to OCS vice ODS but I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
we had A prior enlisted ISCS and an CTIC in our active duty NIOBC class. Know what they did? They helped all the new people and took on class leadership positions for 6 months and not once did they whine or complain that they were too qualified to be there.
There is no need for a waiver and no need to deal with that. Everyone should just go through it.
I think moving all officers to ODS was a very good move and the DCO class was a terrible idea to begin with.
I really think that all officers should go to OCS vice ODS but I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
Unfortunately, there are too many existing accession programs to untangle to make it work (i.e. HPSP, NUPOC, DCO medical, etc.), given the talent acquisition requirements of USN and USNR. Reserve medical fields in particular are undermanned and routinely offer large signup bonuses and time-in-grade credit to doctors, nurses, dentists, etc. based on their civilian medical qualifications. Even IP (1825) is beginning to offer accession at LTJG instead of ENS, to attract more applicants. There are authorities to direct commission cyber experts at up to O-6 but I've not seen it happen yet. The Navy feels it needs to remain a little flexible if we want to keep attracting top tier talent for niche skill sets. And, there is long standing historical precedent for the direct commission of officers across all branches (1,2).
The flip side of the coin for permitting Navy direct commission accessions is a very large gap between URL and RL/Staff officers, in what they allow us to do and how we are perceived, and most are fine with that divide. I realize some still have to go through OCS on the active side (CEC, SUPPO, IWC).
While DCO was certainly attractive to me, I would definitely have gone to OCS or ODS instead of DCOIC if it meant increasing my chances of selection by the IWC Reserve selection board.
nodropinufaka
Well-Known Member
I see what you’re saying @Hair Warrior but I should point out you’re mention MSC Officers which the active duty sends to ODS.
So if they’re mirroring the active duty route why doesn’t IWC do the same?
So if they’re mirroring the active duty route why doesn’t IWC do the same?
AW consensus was that there was an April board, maybe the week of the 23rd? My OR was originally holding firm on an early May date (that has now passed), but information is not uniform as we know. I have held back from contacting my OR for now and will give it a week or two.
RIONBC phase 1 was specifically created 18-24 months ago as a result of some training assessment (IG finding?) recommending that Navy Reserve intel more closely mirror the active duty intel training pipeline. The assessment found deficiencies in the “18 months of drill weekends, then a 2 week capstone” approach, which is why CNIFR and IWTC-VB built the 5 week RNIOBC phase 1. They took the entire curriculum of active NIOBC, repackaged the learning modules, and eliminated all the “nonessential” stuff like PT and collaterals. It’s intended to be the same program with some overlap of instructors, teaching the same subject matter as the active NIOBC officers get.
nodropinufaka
Well-Known Member
it’s been almost 10 years since I went to NIOBC but I don’t recall learning any non essential stuff.
was broken up into basic intel, advanced, opintel, then capstone.
6 months of misery.
but this 5 week one seems like a good idea and going in the right direction. Don’t see why anyone would waiver out of 5 weeks. That’s nothin.