SECNAV to Implement Sweeping Changes

[BigRed389]

Not at all suggesting that all those jobs should go away or become second-tier, just pointing out that they are limited and may be second tier in some communities. For example, the submarine force's need to man squadron and fleet staffs with served DH's trumps the need to put someone at N-87 crunching analysis. Moreover, making more billets just so someone can obtain a graduate education and go off track for a few years (or indefinitely) is at odds with being a better steward of taxpayer dollars.

The billets already exist.
The grad ed already happens, and for at least one community is so heavily used as a retention tool they are unlikely to go away any time soon.
If anything, the SWO community is doubling down on its investment into those programs, while looking to get better ROI out of it.

Ultimately, if the Navy hired you to be a submariner, SWO, pilot, whatever, one shouldn't be too surprised that the Navy wants you to keep doing that job. I wonder how many people quit Apple and write long nasty letters about bleeding smart talent because the company wouldn't pay for them to attend grad school for agricultural sciences and subsequently work on making better fertilizer.

Navy doesn't generally let you go get degrees it's not interested in using fully funded in-residence programs, so I have no idea where you're going with this. ROTC might be different (had a CO who got a Environmental Engineering degree on ROTC duty), but my understanding is that's more of a unit arrangement with the host school.

Most of the Marines at NPS with me were Logistics officers. The pilots/infantry guys were definitely 'off track' for going there, and probably destined to retire as Majors. By contrast, the Army designated its officers to the OR branch, which allowed them to continue to have promotion possibility as they are no longer competing with infantry/armor/whatever to promote.

Yeah, apparently they changed their mind about that. The new guys showing up weren't even given a choice. Basically, if you did too well you're going whether you wanted to or not:
http://www.marines.mil/News/Message...commandants-career-level-education-board.aspx

They go to follow-on tours at Quantico and the Pentagon. I'm pretty sure Marine combat MOS's have as much of a need to keep their operational staffs filled as Navy URL communities.
It would at least appear that the Marines have taken a look at "demand" (billets) and figured out how to match "supply" (educational requirements).

 

[usmcecho4]

"But she soon discovered that Marine officers cannot even compete for slots to attend graduate school until after completing battalion-level command, probably at age 40 or older—meaning that she would have to wait nearly 10 more years."

This is flat out wrong the Commandants Career Level Education Board routinely screens Officers to attend graduate school after their first fleet tour. She's in a peer group that got screened so I'm guessing she wasn't selected then?

"far fewer promotion opportunities, especially to wear stars"

Everyone has a tiny chance of making General/Admiral. Selection for O-6's is less than 1%. How many CEO's do we need and weren't we just complaining about the bloat of GO's a few years back?

"If you’re getting out [of the Army], you’re getting the bottom of the barrel picks for your next assignment. You need to think seriously about this.”

Would you tell your civilian boss you were planning on leaving if there was something you wanted him to do for you at a cost to him?

"He was unconvinced that the Army would be willing or able to support his long-term goals—to use his language skills, interests, and experience—while remaining competitive for promotion."

FAO anyone?

"The Marine career path for aviators was far too rigid; she would have to get back into the cockpit soon, or not be competitive for promotion." " I want to do everything and couldn’t do that being a pilot"

Any aviator that doesn't want to fly?

Military isn't for everyone and there's no way to do everything you want to do. You have to balance between, advancement, location, family, quality of life, professional fulfillment, etc. Maybe these two will become the next civilian leaders that the US also needs to succeed in the 21st century? Shame that David got out. He was a beast.

S/F,
usmcecho4

 

[Spekkio]

BigRed, I am not suggesting that there are 'no billets' for graduate education. I'm merely pointing out that the end result of the military being 'good stewards of taxpayer money' would result in downsizing grad ed programs. The Navy might be able to do a better job at matching qualified officers to billets, but at the end of the day it sends more people to grad school than it needs to fill billets that could use them.

The Navy sends people to get resident degrees at NPS all the time that it has no intentions of using. The utilization rate for OR hovers around 30-40%.

As for the Marines, I'm well aware that they are voluntold to go to grad school. They were even voluntold what to study, so that kind of takes the perks out of the whole deal. Doesn't change the fact that the non-logistics guys were probably not going to remain upwardly mobile after 5+ years away from doing their day job.

 

[jmcquate]

In my opinion (this is from the private/government sector), professional development is an employee perk. The only thing gained from it is networking. Nothing beats being mentored by a good boss while doing the job.

 

[BigRed389]

BigRed, I am not suggesting that there are 'no billets' for graduate education. I'm merely pointing out that the end result of the military being 'good stewards of taxpayer money' would result in downsizing grad ed programs. The Navy might be able to do a better job at matching qualified officers to billets, but at the end of the day it sends more people to grad school than it needs to fill billets that could use them.

The Navy sends people to get resident degrees at NPS all the time that it has no intentions of using. The utilization rate for OR hovers around 30-40%.

If we realize we need to downsize, so be it.
But Navy has no problem sending folks without the coded AQDs to billets or where the billet and AQD might not really match.
Does that suggest we really have a good idea on what we "need" at that level of detail? Or does our manpower system just make do with what we've got?

Also, since you keep coming around to cost, slashing grad ed programs probably won't save you the money or manpower you think it will.
You'd now have to "make up" billets for all the people who the community managers were planning to send to graduate ed programs.

Is there a shortage of critical JO shore billets that aren't being filled?
Can you take all these guys and girls who are presumably not community bottom feeders and put them to work in the meaningful SWO/Sub/community jobs they're going to expect?
I have a hard time convincing myself that sending people to the inevitable made up "Any URL" billets because we'd rather have them sit on their hands on a shitty shore duty job rather than invest in our people makes any kind of sense.

Additionally, there's a minimum sustainable threshold at a place like NPS. Below that you might as well cut departments/schools entirely. If there aren't enough students, faculty won't stick around, no research money goes in, and you start an organizational death spiral. It's possible that low utilization rates, even after a billet subspecialty review, may just be the cost of doing business in house.

 

[Hotdogs]

"But she soon discovered that Marine officers cannot even compete for slots to attend graduate school until after completing battalion-level command, probably at age 40 or older—meaning that she would have to wait nearly 10 more years."

This is flat out wrong the Commandants Career Level Education Board routinely screens Officers to attend graduate school after their first fleet tour. She's in a peer group that got screened so I'm guessing she wasn't selected then?

CCLEB is not a great example. SEP is pretty competitive and not to mention if you apply and fail to select, you are still eligible to be selected for other programs - and they don't really care if you're interested in them or not. A Marine who applies for FAO/RAO, JOSIP, Olmsted, LEAD, Congressional fellowship, and then fails to select in that category is now still eligible for SEP (or any others they qualify for) as well. In addition to that, if you turn down selection on CCLEB - you're effectively signing your resignation papers. For pilots, the career timing is not always ideal, since you're a solid 4 years ahead of your peers before being eligible, and most likely 2-3 years from your first look at Major. Including mandatory payback tours, you could get robbed of a Department head tour by being sucked back into your new AMOS before you've punched your ticket. It's not always the case, but it does happen. I think those programs are good, but again the way CCLEB has smashed everything together in order to select the best qualified has increased the risk a particular applicant may end up getting a "good deal" that isn't really the best interest in the individual. I think the Marines have the best intentions for their service when selecting these applicants, but I think there are more potential civilian education programs that would have positive impact on future officers occupying key billets in the operating forces - Not just the ones offered by NPS/ADP. Those programs are typically pretty technical in nature and also have a decent amount of stringent academic prereqs prior to applying. If we explored additional opportunities and shed ourselves of some of the timing implications with regards to payback tours, I think there is a much to be gained. Which is why for most aviators in the USMC, the best way to get a masters is to apply for a 3 year MOI tour or goto the VT/HT/FRS and get it on the side prior to heading back to the fleet.

I agree with the rest of your statements though.

 

[usmcecho4]

The whole point of the CCLEB screening everyone and selecting the best they can find is to de-stigmatize the FAO/RAO/SEP programs. By running everyone through they hope to eventually kill the idea that someone "ran away from the fleet" to attend school. It also comes down to school slots. Before CCLEB USMC was using something like 60-70% of the NPS slots it had available. Now we're filling the seats. It may end up sucking for the first cohort but eventually it "should" even out. At any rate Monterey is awesome and I'm glad I went.

Interestingly it would have been better for my "timing" to do a three year payback immediately following NPS/DLI/ICT and return to the fleet as a senior vice junior major. Strange how 7.5 years out of the cockpit would have made me more competitive for department head. Timing isn't everything but it is a lot of things.

S/F,
usmcecho4

 

[Recovering LSO]

LinkedIn style detailing.

This quote is buried toward the bottom of the article:

"...NPC's role would be to reconcile the needs and wants of both commands and Sailors with any broader Navy requirements and other manning considerations..."

But, I think it accurately points out the fatal flaw in this plan - not all units are created equal WRT the following:

1. Location. Lemoore guys can chime in on the historically tough task of getting/keeping CPOs in the valley.

2. Turn around cycles and readiness requirements.

3. Undermanned vs overmanned billets. If AOANs and PR1s were monopoly pieces we could trade five of the former for one of the later.

4. The difficulty in getting junior Sailors (E-4s and E-5s) to Career schools required to either cross-deck to different communities or even continue advancing within the current. Flag officer level approval for TAD costs.....

5. Fit vs Fill - see #2. The problem is bad with CMS-ID, and this really is just a fancier version of that with the oh-so-appealling reference to private industry and Silicon Valley.

On the surface I don't hate the idea, but I think there needs to be a healthy dose of expectation management if/when this hits the broader fleet.

 

[Brett327]

In terms of expectations, we (I.E., big Navy) are already setting ourselves up to fail.

 

[sevenhelmet]

In terms of expectations, we (I.E., big Navy) are already setting ourselves up to fail.

Maybe. The general feeling around the squadron I'm in is that big promises are being made, but not much is expected to come of it. I think we've all had the experience to know that "check's in the mail" doesn't mean you start thinking about how to spend it.

After all, we all heard NKO was going away, but I still had to spend the better part of a work day playing end-FY "catch-up" in September.

"The more things change..."

 

[Spekkio]

In terms of expectations, we (I.E., big Navy) are already setting ourselves up to fail.

I don't think it's necessarily just a matter of expectations. Our community released a brief and pamphlet preaching that we need to prepare nukes for the reality that their first shore duty will probably be spent as a prototype instructor, yet I would be surprised if that had any positive impact on retention. Rather, I think that the young men and women entering the Navy today want to have the opportunity to branch out more than the enlisted career pipeline will allow them to. Enlisted recruiters use commissioning programs and education programs as sales pitches to get people to enlist. Changing the delivery is not going to change that desire, it will just solidify their decision to leave when they log into the Navy's version of 'LinkedIn' and see that the only jobs available to them are ones they don't want.

 

[Brett327]

That's certainly nothing new, but if we keep creating these programs and sell them as revolutionary changes, then people are going to continue to roll their eyes, as was pointed out above. There are going to be people, probably lots of them, that are going to have a sub-optimal detailing experience. I know it's anathema in today's culture, but as was constantly reinforced in my young mind as a junior Sailor, this isn't Burger King and you're not entitled to have it "your way." Doing otherwise is the worst kind of pandering, IMO.

 

[Gatordev]

I think a lot of the Navy's problems would be solved if the goddamn gedunk was open during lunch time! Feel-good detailing and gender neutral heads are just gravy.

 

[BigRed389]

That's certainly nothing new, but if we keep creating these programs and sell them as revolutionary changes, then people are going to continue to roll their eyes, as was pointed out above. There are going to be people, probably lots of them, that are going to have a sub-optimal detailing experience. I know it's anathema in today's culture, but as was constantly reinforced in my young mind as a junior Sailor, this isn't Burger King and you're not entitled to have it "your way." Doing otherwise is the worst kind of pandering, IMO.

Yeah, the biggest possible improvement I see here is better informing the "customer base" (us) as to what a specific job entails.

I don't think I've ever seen a detailing slate that was at all useful in helping understand what exactly I was "volunteering" for (Hey Skipper, WTF is a PEO DPJ SUP?) . The last time it worked out quite nicely for me, but entirely by accident, rather than by any success of the system.

 

[AllAmerican75]

LinkedIn style detailing.
This quote is buried toward the bottom of the article:
"...NPC's role would be to reconcile the needs and wants of both commands and Sailors with any broader Navy requirements and other manning considerations..."
But, I think it accurately points out the fatal flaw in this plan - not all units are created equal WRT the following:
1. Location. Lemoore guys can chime in on the historically tough task of getting/keeping CPOs in the valley.
2. Turn around cycles and readiness requirements.
3. Undermanned vs overmanned billets. If AOANs and PR1s were monopoly pieces we could trade five of the former for one of the later.
4. The difficulty in getting junior Sailors (E-4s and E-5s) to Career schools required to either cross-deck to different communities or even continue advancing within the current. Flag officer level approval for TAD costs.....
5. Fit vs Fill - see #2. The problem is bad with CMS-ID, and this really is just a fancier version of that with the oh-so-appealling reference to private industry and Silicon Valley.
On the surface I don't hate the idea, but I think there needs to be a healthy dose of expectation management if/when this hits the broader fleet.

Has the new Billet-Based Detailing stuff made it out to the Air community yet? All the shiny powerpoints make it sound like it will help ease some of these issues; allowing commands to provide feedback to Millington about what their needs are. For example, say you have a CSWI billeted to your command because that's what the EDVR calls for but what you really need is a SAMI, you will now have an instrument to fix that. Whether it actually works in reality is still to be seen.