Funny enough, this was the design methodology for the BCA. It's not intended to accurately measure body fat, but to screen out most fatties while producing the fewest false positives.
-
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
How not to conduct a command investigation
- Thread starter nittany03
- Start date
A little late to the conversation but I think the FITREP should reflect the viability of a person for command regardless of them getting out or not. Like has been said, if the CO gave a true indication that who he thinks is the best suited for command is in fact the people who are getting out, then PERS might finally get the point. In my opinion, it should be best of the best, not the best of the rest.
Like you also said though, this is probably arguing semantics as the FITREP system is changing anyways.
The purpose of the FITREP/promotion system isn't to send a message to PERS about their poor retention messaging.
Have you ever had a girl breakup with you who, perhaps, didn't quite explain clearly what the problem(s) were -- if she even tried to explain them at all?
This is that. Just because you're a Naval Officer, or Naval Aviator, or O-3, or O-5, or whatever, doesn't mean you're not human. And while I'm simply stating the obvious, what I really mean is that not everyone has these skills you're referring to. Some people may never develop them. Some people can't handle confrontation, they would walk 10 extra miles to avoid it rather than have an honest 10 minute conversation in discomfort. It's sad that people can't handle this, but not every human being is on the same level when it comes to their emotional maturity and ability to communicate.
So, yes, I'm absolutely positive there are COs out there who are unwilling and/or unable to have that discussion. It's not something we can "fix" for them -- a person has to identify these things for themselves and they have to want to work on them. Until they do, they'll continue to take the path of least resistance, regardless of rank.
Going back to the RS comments on a FITREP, if the FITREP is just a tool for the board to do force shaping, why is an RS’s personal integrity tied to certain language (“recommended for command”) that is intended only for the board and not broadcast further? The RS’s integrity is not at stake with other FITREP-specific statements (e.g. “this 3.0 across the chart is intended to reset the RSA” for members leaving the Navy).
What do you mean by this phrase? I’m not sure I understand what you’re asking.
"Recommended for command" is one of those odd Navy fitrep-isms. The common understanding is if you don't have it on there then the unwritten message is "not recommended for retention," so it's a default euphemism, written in weak language, a way to say that somebody is good enough not to kick out, that if the hundreds of other officers in their year group all get killed in WW3 then this person will be the next best choice... if you already checked "3" or higher in the leadership performance traits then this phrase is a waste of everybody's time.
If the RS truly believes that the person is a strong candidate for command then there are specific key words and phrases to communicate that to the board... everybody knows that.
If you think a guy would be great in charge of a major department leading staff work at a higher echelon (not everybody is cut out that way) then why doesn't our system let you put a 4 in that leadership block and just leave off the "Recommended for command, hurr durr" comment?" It's pretty weird that we institutionally write that on there because, well, just because really.
If the RS truly believes that the person is a strong candidate for command then there are specific key words and phrases to communicate that to the board... everybody knows that.
If you think a guy would be great in charge of a major department leading staff work at a higher echelon (not everybody is cut out that way) then why doesn't our system let you put a 4 in that leadership block and just leave off the "Recommended for command, hurr durr" comment?" It's pretty weird that we institutionally write that on there because, well, just because really.
By in a vacuum, I mean that, in my experience (on the NAVIFOR side of things), the AC gaining command has no clue or insight into what is being written in your FITREP. If you have in your Block 41 that you provided 100 hours of briefing support and walked on water at the gaining command, they are completely unaware. Same for Reserve unit "production reports" that are sent up to the Reserve NAVIFOR regions. From your Reserve unit CO perspective you were "doing God's work." From the gaining command perspective, you only came in on the weekend doing who knows what.
That's not what I'm saying.
As it's been explained on here and in person, the FITREP system is to identify who the CO thinks is best suited for command.
The CO should objectively identify who he thinks is best suited for command, out of his entire pool, and if that person then gets out that's not the CO's problem, that's the Navy's problem.
The CO told the Navy who he thinks is absolutely best suited for future CO, it's up to the Navy to figure out a way to keep him in.
Gaming it to give an #1 EP to someone who says they are going to stick around has just hidden, and exacerbated, the problem the Navy faces today.
Additionally, this would reduce the amount of #1EPs that get left out at the CO screen or at a statutory board because true rankings are reflected in the board, not the "best of the rest" rankings that we have now.
Last edited:
A officer who has declared their intent to separate or not seek DH/command is not best suited for command. Wouldn't you agree?
I wouldn't. Reason being is it's up to the CO to say who he thinks is best. The point of being a CO is that you have the wisdom and experience to see things that the folks working for you may not or cannot (due to lack of experience, less SA on the big picture, etc).
Just because someone says they are getting out, and even says they don't want CO, doesn't mean they wouldn't be the best choice.
I'll use a different example, the Level IV designation. I was made a level IV in my first fleet squadron as a LT, while on deployment, and I still had about a year left in my squadron. So there I was, a LT, a little over two years out of the RAG, and I'm SWTP Sea Combat/Strike level IV, flying and leading in 5th fleet.
My point with that example is that I personally didn't think I deserved level IV and I wouldn't have asked for it, but my CO, who had a helluva lot more experience than I did, knew that I was ready for that.
The same thing applies to the FITREP and best ranking. The CO makes the decision who is the absolute best and should rank accordingly. That may mean that the absolute best doesn't stay in the Navy, but again, that's not the CO's problem, that's the Navy's problem.
On that we agree. But, for all the reasons that have already been outlined here in this thread, I and most of my contemporaries, do not think that an officer who has declared an intent to separate is best suited be be a DH/CO/Etc. It is also doing a disservice to another similarly qualified, albeit marginally less so, officer who will be robbed of an opportunity. The end result is that neither qualified officer makes DH/command when one of them could have, were the EPs managed correctly.
You may not agree, and if you're in a position to be a RS, you can rank accordingly. I hope you discuss with your #2 why you're flushing their career down the toilet for, from where I sit, no good reason. You may find that your perspective changes if you have to make this call in the real world, vice an abstract discussion on AW.
The question as to the magnitude and extent of "EP inflation/deflation" really wouldn't be that hard to answer if PERS had the interest in answering it. Probably a Master's candidate at NPGS could get it right (I'd start by looking for a declining FITREP just before a separation FITREP, then digging into the details.). What to do with that information is the logical follow on.
Brett, is there any value in pulling officers who have dropped their papers into a separate ranking group, or is that already done? That could maintain the relative rankings that IBB wants, but keep the selection board's focus on the pool of available bodies. It would lower your total number of EPs by a little, but might offset putting someone forward who isn't up to the next level.
Maybe this doesn't happen, but I'd be afraid of dropping my star performer's ranking based on a rumor or "plan on" getting out as opposed to having separation orders in hand. End of career then becomes a foregone conclusion.
The Navy has always lost good people for as many reasons as there are people. It has the potential to hurt a lot more now because our bench just isn't that deep.
V/R (thought I'd mix it up)
Brett, is there any value in pulling officers who have dropped their papers into a separate ranking group, or is that already done? That could maintain the relative rankings that IBB wants, but keep the selection board's focus on the pool of available bodies. It would lower your total number of EPs by a little, but might offset putting someone forward who isn't up to the next level.
Maybe this doesn't happen, but I'd be afraid of dropping my star performer's ranking based on a rumor or "plan on" getting out as opposed to having separation orders in hand. End of career then becomes a foregone conclusion.
The Navy has always lost good people for as many reasons as there are people. It has the potential to hurt a lot more now because our bench just isn't that deep.
V/R (thought I'd mix it up)