SECNAV to Implement Sweeping Changes

[rotorhead1871]

Looking to get this forum's thoughts on the SECDEF proposal to expand lateral accessions for civilians (esp. 181x and 182x designators) up to O6 level: http://www.militarytimes.com/story/...ntry-force-of-the-future-ash-carter/85884998/

SECNAV seems to be the most on board, of all the military branches. "The Navy, more than any of the other services, has pushed aggressively to expand lateral entry."

As a 33 year old non prior service applicant who is trying to become a reserve Ensign in the IWC, I can identify with the motivation to commission as an officer based on one's civilian credentials. I can see the rationale for commissioning nurses, doctors, dentists, and lawyers at LTJG or LT. However, I wonder how a new DCO Ensign in the IWC would feel if, a year into his/her SELRES service, the Navy direct commissioned a 40 year old non prior service at O-5 in the IWC. At the very least, I reckon this kills the notion of ever making the IWC officer designators URL...

is IWC a true warfare specialty? maybe...BUT.. it sure sounds and looks like a staff position!!!.............. what are the designaters for these jobs?? are they restricted or UNrestricted line officers?? logic says pure computer jockeys should be RESTRICTED LINE....like doctors and nurses. they dont really need OCS to learn discipline or the NAVY way to perform their mission. .and the term....."expand lateral entry".....that is a nice way of saying the NAVY is totally behind the 8 ball on cyber .I am sure the NAVY is like all government facilities with these needs. The whole cyber world has never been addressed adequately so all agencies are constantly in scramble mode........

good luck. I am sure the NAVY can use the help. it has far exceeded my old world of beans, bullets and black oil.....

 

[Flash]

is IWC a true warfare specialty?...are they restricted or UNrestricted line officers?? logic says pure computer jockeys should be RESTRICTED LINE......

They are still RL's but some of them have advocated they become URL's for a few years now, about the time they got their qualification pins.

 

[jtmedli]

I'd be interested to know what 2-3 lessons you derived from reading that thread. My take-away is that if you're not due course going into your second sea tour, going to the boat probably won't fix your record. This is something that everyone already knows, or should if they're paying attention.

The fact remains that on this year's DH screen, those officers who did a disassociated boat tour screened at 71%.

Yeah I got that from it too. But then you've gotta ask yourself: if 90% of making to O4 is about those first 2 tours as a JO (before you even get a FITREP out of the disassociated tour) then is there really a need to take that one for the team?

 

[IKE]

Yeah I got that from it too. But then you've gotta ask yourself: if 90% of making to O4 is about those first 2 tours as a JO (before you even get a FITREP out of the disassociated tour) then is there really a need to take that one for the team?

I don't understand what else you'd do. Did I miss the post above where someone listed a plethora of non-boat dissociated tours? If you have enough time between your 1st shore tour and DH tour, you have to go somewhere, and it is supposed to be a "sea" tour (to include super JO at expeditionary squadrons). Other than Flag aide, what are the possibilities? Or are you suggesting the Navy create some and/or drop the sea aspect of the dissociated tour?

 

[squorch2]

it is supposed to be a "sea" tour (to include super JO at expeditionary squadrons)

I literally lol'd at this.

 

[Recovering LSO]

Yeah I got that from it too. But then you've gotta ask yourself: if 90% of making to O4 is about those first 2 tours as a JO (before you even get a FITREP out of the disassociated tour) then is there really a need to take that one for the team?

One thing that has struck me while reading many of these posts (some much more well thought out than others) is that it appears some of you were either mislead or confused when you decided to join a sea-going service.

 

[SynixMan]

One thing that has struck me while reading many of these posts (some much more well thought out than others) is that it appears some of you were either mislead or confused when you decided to join a sea-going service.

So you say this having or having not been ships company?

 

[jtmedli]

One thing that has struck me while reading many of these posts (some much more well thought out than others) is that it appears some of you were either mislead or confused when you decided to join a sea-going service.

Its not about "going to sea". It's about being manipulated into doing jobs that have nothing to do with making you a better aviator or officer under the guise that it does. Like I said, if you want to fill a job and make someone 'take one for the team' then just call a spade a spade.

 

[IRfly]

Its not about "going to sea". It's about being manipulated into doing jobs that have nothing to do with making you a better aviator or officer under the guise that it does. Like I said, if you want to fill a job and make someone 'take one for the team' then just call a spade a spade.

Not to sound cliche, but a lot of that is up to you.

 

[Recovering LSO]

So you say this having or having not been ships company?

Does it much matter to the question/observation I posed?

 

[phrogdriver]

One thing that has struck me while reading many of these posts (some much more well thought out than others) is that it appears some of you were either mislead or confused when you decided to join a sea-going service.

Kaffee: Whoa. Hold it. We gotta take a boat?

Barnes: Yes, sir. To get to the other side of the bay.

Kaffee: Nobody said anything about a boat.

Barnes: Is there a problem, sir?

Kaffee: No, no problem. I'm just not that crazy about boats, that's all.

Galloway: Jesus Christ, Kaffee, you're in the Navy for crying out loud.

Kaffee: Nobody likes her very much.

 

[Pags]

Yeah I got that from it too. But then you've gotta ask yourself: if 90% of making to O4 is about those first 2 tours as a JO (before you even get a FITREP out of the disassociated tour) then is there really a need to take that one for the team?

I don't know if we're all missing the point you're trying to make but what's coming across is that you don't agree with the options that are available to you for your second sea tour. WTI isn't good because there's no leading sailors involved in that path and the boat doesn't develop you as an aviator. At the end of this discussion it sounds like you're tilting at windmills over the career path because it doesn't jive with what you want to do. Maybe that's not the message you're trying to send but that's what's coming through.

 

[SynixMan]

Does it much matter to the question/observation I posed?

A lot of the folks here expressing frustrations about the boat tour are guys who would have no problem going to a sea tour doing the job they spent years of their lives becoming experts at. Instead they have no choice due to the winging contract that they signed as a bushy tailed MIDN/OC, platform choice out of flight school, and what Millington has chosen is the best way to fill ship billets. That burden is taken disproportionately by Helo/MPRA communities because they have the career timing (shorter advanced and FRS) for it.

Performance and Timing in this business are king, and maybe you're working for the tough love aspect to explain it. However, that doesn't mean I can't infer hypocrisy from telling someone to take their pain tour with a smile even though you performed well enough to avoid it. Just say: "Sorry dude, you didn't perform well enough during Primary to track select Tailhook or preform well enough during the first tour of Helo/MPRA to get a disassociated sea tour in a cockpit."

So be it. I have no millennial illusions about changing the Navy from the inside. It's a big ship that's exceptionally good at breaking things, defending things, and turns exceptionally slowly. I only get one vote, and I know which way I'm going.

@Brett327 To your post from a few days ago regarding ADHSB result for boat tours, I'd argue that's skewed due to large numbers of folks not making O-4 to stand at the DH board. I'd bet a lot of beers the aggregate performance of boat players at the O-4 + DH board is pretty partly. We ll know performance during your first sea tour is dominant for the O-4 board, but folks from huge variances of record strength all go to the boat. Hopefully their aren't under the illusion it's a "Get Well" tour.

 

[insanebikerboy]

A lot of the folks here expressing frustrations about the boat tour are guys who would have no problem going to a sea tour doing the job they spent years of their lives becoming experts at.

I'll use myself as an example. By the time I leave my current orders, I'll have been on sea duty for 12 years straight (all flying tours), and I've been deployed for almost 6 of those years (not counting workups, conus dets, etc). If I had been required to go to a boat for the "traditional" disassociated, I would've gotten out of the Navy.

Sea duty isn't the problem as I see it for a lot of guys, it's the expectations of having to be the best at what you do in the cockpit and then getting yanked out to do some non-relevant job under the guise that it will enhance one's career, when, at least in the helo community, it hasn't been.

 

[DanMa1156]

Let me shift gears for a minute - the current 2nd Sea Tour Gouge on the PERS-43 website states that 5th or 7th Fleet Staff jobs are considered competitive despite no opportunity to earn OOD. Anyone know anyone who has done this and competed successfully for O-4 and / or DH? What are the pros and cons of this? (Maybe need a threadjack from the original purpose of this thread).