devilbones
Arashikage トーマス・嵐影
Where is a good spot to find this information?I checked the manning for 1835 and it sucks right now for O4 (short 28 people) and O3 (short 79 people). This is as of FEB.
Where is a good spot to find this information?I checked the manning for 1835 and it sucks right now for O4 (short 28 people) and O3 (short 79 people). This is as of FEB.
Why do you think that being in a 3 letter agency should make you be able to waiver out of training?
you realize that this is training to be a NAVY intelligence officer right? Not DIA, Not DOS, not CIA.
Just because you’re an intel analyst doesn’t mean it’s plug and play into the Navy.
edit- besides. It’s good training. Take every opportunity and try your best.
I came from active and did OCS, NIOBC, and a ton of other schools and continue to look for training while being a senior level fed employee at a 3 letter. Balance both and don’t let one career try to influence the other if that makes sense.
@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.
https://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/reference/messages/Documents/NAVADMINS/NAV2020/NAV20144.txtAny confirmation on the IWC DCO board that was delayed due to COVID? Or still rumors, second-hand, source cant be validated...
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).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.
This is why the Navy sends every XXX through the same training pipeline. This way, they are assured that everyone gets the same training.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.
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).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.
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.Any confirmation on the IWC DCO board that was delayed due to COVID? Or still rumors, second-hand, source cant be validated...
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.So if they’re mirroring the active duty route why doesn’t IWC do the same?
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.