O4 List

[e6bflyer]

Agree. Aviation Command has completely lost its luster and appeal. I can't put my finger on what exactly I dislike the most about it, but I have zero desire to sit in that chair. It has become a position of fear, administrative burdens, and taking shots to the face. Maybe it is just my community, but you couldn't pay me enough to stick around. Having the option to punch after my DH tour is the greatest stroke of accidental timing that I have ever happened upon.

 

[BackOrdered]

Agree. Aviation Command has completely lost its luster and appeal. I can't put my finger on what exactly I dislike the most about it, but I have zero desire to sit in that chair. It has become a position of fear, administrative burdens, and taking shots to the face. Maybe it is just my community, but you couldn't pay me enough to stick around. Having the option to punch after my DH tour is the greatest stroke of accidental timing that I have ever happened upon.

That can be applied almost everywhere command wise.

 

[BOMBSonHAWKEYES]

The VFA detailer brief always ended with a slide saying something like "We don't lie, the truth changes". Who in their right mind would want to work for an organization that professes that at the end of a career brief?

 

[CommodoreMid]

Some good points to be made there, but the idea that JOs will respect their Skippers less because their DHs make more due to the bonus? Absurd. IMO, a major reason people are not interested in pursuing command is due to the perception that, paraphrasing the late Neptunus Lex, command pins seem to come with remotely triggered explosive bolts these days.

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?

 

[lowflier03]

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?

Had a rockstar DH (even the CO admitted he was gonna be the #1EP) at my last command who straight up told the skipper he wouldn't go for CO. Skipper ended up giving the #1 to a douche instead and the rockstar got orders to a nice desk job. Not sure what happens when you tell the board to GFY, but apparently making that decision in your DH tour means that the skipper won't bother wasting the #1 EP on you, thus saving you the trouble.

 

[IKE]

I think I read all 17 pages, but if it hasn't already been mentioned:

When, exactly, did non-TACAIR guys start having the Wings+8 MSR? I remember it being relatively new when I commissioned in May '06. Everyone talks about the low percentage of 13xx LTs screening for LCDR, but is there a bigger pool of LTs than there has been in years past? My MSR is 10 months after my IZ look, and I made it through flight school somewhat quickly (20 months commission-to-wings). Wouldn't the MSR change from +6 to +8 account for quite a few people being around for the board that wouldn't have been previously?

 

[e6bflyer]

I think I read all 17 pages, but if it hasn't already been mentioned:

When, exactly, did non-TACAIR guys start having the Wings+8 MSR? I remember it being relatively new when I commissioned in May '06. Everyone talks about the low percentage of 13xx LTs screening for LCDR, but is there a bigger pool of LTs than there has been in years past? My MSR is 10 months after my IZ look, and I made it through flight school somewhat quickly (20 months commission-to-wings). Wouldn't the MSR change from +6 to +8 account for quite a few people being around for the board that wouldn't have been previously?

I was one of the last 7 year guys. It started Jan 2001.
And yes, it does partially explain it. Everyone gets an in zone look now.

 

[nittany03]

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.

Fair enough. The sentence I was looking at is:

"Junior personnel look up their chain of command for tangible signals regarding the value of their future service, and want to see that command is something to aspire to – hard to prove when department heads make more than their executive officer and commanding officer counterparts."

A bit ambiguously worded, but that interpretation works, too.

All of these contortions we put ourselves through with manpower (people power?) management would be better served by blowing up DOPMA and finding a better way to do business. Too bad no one in Congress cares. Year groups, zones, "you can't have that job because your timing won't work." Feh. We're forced because of Federal law to continue to pound our collective nuts flat and call it a vasectomy.

 

[mdubs]

One of my critiques after digesting all of this info boils down to one simple question: Why don't we revise our FITREP system? I think it is pretty stupid for us to write all of our own FITREPS ourselves and then submit it to our CoC. Why not provide a brag sheet and let the command make an honest assessment of each officer? Along with that, does everyone have to walk on water? If you are a crappy JO then why doesn't the command put that on your FITREP? If you show up and just do your job, rather than excel, why does a board have to wade through all this mumbo-jumbo and read between the lines to see if you are an asset to the organization? I have been told repeatdly that all of the words in between your soft breakout and your EP/MP/P check mark mean nothing. It doesn't make any sense. Also, while I'm ranting, why should we wait until our competitive FITREP to reward superior officers? If you kick ass but don't rotate until the next cycle, should you have to be an MP compared to a dude with "good timing"? It is very frustrating that "luck and timing" have become a large part of getting a good FITREP. There has to be a better way to skin the cat on some of this stuff.

 

[illinijoe05]

One of my critiques after digesting all of this info boils down to one simple question: Why don't we revise our FITREP system? I think it is pretty stupid for us to write all of our own FITREPS ourselves and then submit it to our CoC. Why not provide a brag sheet and let the command make an honest assessment of each officer? Along with that, does everyone have to walk on water? If you are a crappy JO then why doesn't the command put that on your FITREP? If you show up and just do your job, rather than excel, why does a board have to wade through all this mumbo-jumbo and read between the lines to see if you are an asset to the organization? I have been told repeatdly that all of the words in between your soft breakout and your EP/MP/P check mark mean nothing. It doesn't make any sense. Also, while I'm ranting, why should we wait until our competitive FITREP to reward superior officers? If you kick ass but don't rotate until the next cycle, should you have to be an MP compared to a dude with "good timing"? It is very frustrating that "luck and timing" have become a large part of getting a good FITREP. There has to be a better way to skin the cat on some of this stuff.

I tend to disagree with this. A lot of guys we may characterize as a crappy "JO" are probably great people and will do good things in the civilian world, they are just not up to the standards of the HIGHLY qualified talent pool of Naval Officers. Or maybe they just aren't a very good stick. When we eventually get out many employers will want to see a copy of your FITREP. So if your CO shoots you in the head in the verbiage in your FITREP he may not only be killing your Naval Career but also a potential civilian career.

 

[azguy]

I tend to disagree with this. A lot of guys we may characterize as a crappy "JO" are probably great people and will do good things in the civilian world, they are just not up to the standards of the HIGHLY qualified talent pool of Naval Officers. Or maybe they just aren't a very good stick. When we eventually get out many employers will want to see a copy of your FITREP. So if you CO shoots your in the head in the verbiage in your FITREP he may not only be killing your Naval Career but also a potential civilian career.

The FITREP is a "message to the board" used by the CO to report on the officer's suitability for further promotion and administrative screening in the Navy, not a letter to a civilian company for suitability in XYZ position. If the CO likes you, by all means, list him as a reference on your resume.

Also, the way our FITREPs are written, it would take a very savvy (almost surely ex-Navy) HR guy to tell the difference between a 'head shot' and a 'walks on water' report.

 

[illinijoe05]

Also, the way our FITREPs are written, it would take a very savvy (almost surely ex-Navy) HR guy to tell the difference between a 'head shot' and a 'walks on water' report.

From what I understood, mdubs was stating that we should make it clear if someone is a less than stellar officer and it should say it in plain language. So I think an HR guy would clearly understand that.

 

[azguy]

From what I understood, mdubs was stating that we should make it clear if someone is a less than stellar officer and it should say it in plain language. So I think an HR guy would clearly understand that.

Yeah, I see what you meant. I still say that FITREPs should be written to Navy audiences, not private sector HR types.

I wouldn't feel compelled to show my reports in the hiring process. My understanding is that only the Lucas Group type, military focused, head hunters ask to see FITREPs anyway.

 

[hscs]

mdubs - you may not understand how the game is played.

Every brief that I have ever seen says that breaking out, high-water FITREP being above the summary group / Seniors historical reporting average, having next milestone recommendations (DH, CO, etc.), and getting the EP kiss on the cheek on checkout is the requirement for upward mobility.

Not having any of the above sends a clear signal to those that understand the game.

With that said - most JOs who are DivOs are reporting seniors - do you know your E5 historical average?

And the reason that you are asked to draft your own - is for your training. Hopefully, you compare what you wrote with what the final product looks like.

 

[hscs]

Not sure this is the white paper y'all are referring to, but the attached is something making its way around (I got it from some guys in CVW-3). I showed it to my 4-star boss, and became VERY interested in its contents.

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.