quote:

How about some type of continuation board

Phil,

You keep mentioning "continuation boards", please tell me this isn't being discussed amongst the Master Chiefs in the puzzle palace. In my opinion, there already is a "continuation board", your marks and the CO checking that box recommending advancement. Who better to decide ones advancement than someone's Command.

I do not believe a "board" would be fair. It would become too "political" and this sounds like it would be similiar to the Navy's current process. I know there are already boards for OICs and there are many that don't believe this is fair also. Why does the Coast Guard try to follow the Navy?

This opinion from a RFMC reminds me when the Navy was trying to force Chief's into getting a College Degree to be eligible for E-8 and the "talk" started in the CG for the same thing and then the current MCPON stopped that and the "CG talked" stopped.

I still say why force someone who is a "good" performer at there job to advance. If they don't care about the extra $ why should the CG. And if there is someone who is a "7.0" across the board, someone is INFLATING some marks, like that isn't already done! After all isn't a "4.0" sailor doing there job to CG standards?

I know I don't have the "big picture", but I have been "around the block" in the CG and honestly, if the CG is still expanding, but not at most recent rates, why even consider HYT, RIF or any other process of reducing our personnel? Is our current system broke?

quote:

It would get kind of crowded at the E/5 pay grade. You can be good at your job in any pay grade. I knew people who didn't want to advance because they would have to transfer.

Was it crowded before HYT and the RIFs of the 90's took place. I didn't see it early in my career. I found many people were more than willing to get more $$$ and some just enjoyed what they were doing. As for transferring, you find that today and probably will always find this happening. Personally the billets for E-8 are not to attractive in my rating right now and of course this is just my opinion, as some would love to have the billets. But currently for me, the extra $$$ doesn't justify the job and as a Chief there are more billets to chose from and less "desk" jobs.

So, to conclude my rambling, it should be up to the member to decide if he/she wants to advance, because there are PLENTY of people out there more than willing to advance and take on more responsibility that the few not wanting the $$/responsibility shouldn't slow anyone's advancement.

GUNS

Chief, I think you just set a record for most emoticons in one post! I love it!

I see posts complaining about the E-5 that is happy in his/her job so they do not advance. Those that complain seem to forget we need people in that pay grade doing that job so why not allow those that are happy doing what they are doing stay? The theory that some how they are holding up advancement of those below them does not hold and water. Under the system that is in place if anyone is holding up advancements it is those at the top of the rating chain NOT those in the middle of it! Here is a nice easy solution, if there really is a problem, do not allow ANYONE E-1 to E-9 to stay at the same pay grade for more then ten years! That would insure that the advancement path is kept open for all and would give more people an opportunity to achieve the highest positions. Those that made E-9 in less then 20 years would have to compete for OCS or Warrant Officer if they want to make it to 30 years. Seems pretty fair to me.

Marklf

quote:

Was it crowded before HYT and the RIFs of the 90's took place.

No, not at all... The CG screwed up but they could not admit it... at least directly.. the proof that they screwed up was proven when they called people they had forced out and brought them back in under "contracts".

I hope no one here thinks for one minute the officer corps will admit they made a mistake. Don't ya remember the "blue binders" they sent out to everyone years back... (I'm sure there are many here that don't, oh well....) The HYT policy belongs in those "blue binders"...

Wray...

quote:

Phil,

You keep mentioning "continuation boards", please tell me this isn't being discussed amongst the Master Chiefs in the puzzle palace. In my opinion, there already is a "continuation board", your marks and the CO checking that box recommending advancement. Who better to decide ones advancement than someone's Command.

OK, you have got to be kidding if you are saying that the evals are done properly and honestly enough to be a yardstick!

This thought I throw out about a continuation board doesn't include a mandatory failure %. If everybody is good to go on, then so be it. If the rating is short or overloaded, the goal could be adjusted. I would echo some of your concerns about how a board could get out of control though. In my little mind, the RFMC has the best ability to determine some of that and should be the major playor.

I think part of our difference on this is the thought of 'forcing someone to advance' or 'forcing someone out.' I'll be clear, nothing I would submit would force someone at E-6 and above to advance. I am on the fence about the E-5 level on that. Now, it would determine someone's eligibility to continue past 20. That is where our thoughts diverge I am guessing. My idea would require certain things (besides a pulse) to go past 20. Those things would be somewhat flexible based on needs of the CG.

For example, lets use the example mentioned by Marklf above with that MCPO with 10 years TIG. I have a serious issue with requiring a 10 year MCPO to take a significant drop in responsibility, influence, impact and yes even prestige by DROPPING to and Ensign or a CWO2. On the other hand, if that MCPO isn't stepping UP in their desire and willingness to take on more responsibility, I have no issue throwing a lavish retirment ceremony for them! (Note to MarkLF: You realize under your thought that LTjg Frank Welch, USCG (ret) would be reading this right now?????) Leaving aside Wray's reasonable issue about OinCs in the BM Rating, it just does not make sense that we would support a MCPO doing their 4th tour as an MCPO in a non Silver Badge, non Gold Bagde, mark 1 mod 0 E-9 job. So, if Frank Welch would have put down the CG Acedamy Chief of Police job on his 3rd/4th PCS as a MCPO, yeah I would say boot his arse. (sorry to pick on you Frank).

But, kind of back to your thoughts Paul. At some point in time, (likely soon) you will be the best person we have out there to take on the GMCS job(s). Trust me, I know the billet choices start to slim down.

FWIW,

An excerpt from a USN article giving original information on thje roles and intent of the "new grades of E-8 & E-9.. The full article is available in the "All Hands" USN on-line archives.

As usual Bosn, very interesting references & historical notes!

I find the 20 vs 30 year notes, as well as the CWO notes very interesting!

If I recall correctly, in the mid to late 70s, the TIG from E-7 to E-8 was 3 years and 2 years from E-8 to e-9.

Most of my running mates in the QM rating followed about the same time line.

E-7 at 8 - 10 years

6 - 8 years TIG before E-8. It took about 3 or 4 SWEs but you could watch everyone move incrementally up the lists. At the time, about 30 E-8 billets.

2 -4+ TIG as 8 for E-9. Only 12 or 14 E-9 billets, and you had to wait for them to die at 30.

quote:

Originally posted by LetsGoRedSox:
Chief, I think you just set a record for most emoticons in one post! I love it!

Yah, I did use alot. Sometimes they are useful to show the tone of the msg. What amazes me is sometime I can actually write something coherently, cuz I R A Gunner's Mate.

GUNS

being a former QM myself, I can concur it was that way up until the rating was decom'd. Only change was TIG for 8 dropped to 2 years, and right when I had 2 years and a month, so I REALLY liked that change and made it off that SWE!

quote:

For example, lets use the example mentioned by Marklf above with that MCPO with 10 years TIG. I have a serious issue with requiring a 10 year MCPO to take a significant drop in responsibility, influence, impact and yes even prestige by DROPPING to and Ensign or a CWO2. On the other hand, if that MCPO isn't stepping UP in their desire and willingness to take on more responsibility, I have no issue throwing a lavish retirment ceremony for them! (Note to MarkLF: You realize under your thought that LTjg Frank Welch, USCG (ret) would be reading this right now?????) Leaving aside Wray's reasonable issue about OinCs in the BM Rating, it just does not make sense that we would support a MCPO doing their 4th tour as an MCPO in a non Silver Badge, non Gold Bagde, mark 1 mod 0 E-9 job. So, if Frank Welch would have put down the CG Acedamy Chief of Police job on his 3rd/4th PCS as a MCPO, yeah I would say boot his arse. (sorry to pick on you Frank).

Hmmm "mark 1 mod 0 E-9 job"???? Is there such a thing? In fact would that not be a description of the silver and gold badge jobs? After all anyone that the Coast Guard has selected for the highest enlisted pay grade should be able to fill the role of a "gold badge" shouldn't they? Your claim that every Boatswain mate above the E-7 pay grade should be able to fill an OINC job so therefore OINC is a "mark 1 mod 0" BMCS, BMCM job would also be true then for Gold and Silver Badge jobs. Every E-9 should be able to do that job so it is a "mark 1 mod 0 E-9 job".

As to your point about taking a cut in "responsibility, influence, impact and yes even prestige by DROPPING to and Ensign or a CWO2" that is more of an individual ego issue then it is a reality. After all if the desired policy is "up or out" why have that policy only apply to the lower pay grades? As a MC are you really going to advocate for a policy that you yourself are unwilling to live by? Those that truly do not desire to take on the responsibility of being an officer should plan their careers accordingly and not advance to
E-9 in under 20 if they desire to go all the way to 30 years.

Marklf

quote:

I hope no one here thinks for one minute the officer corps will admit they made a mistake.

Actually I just heard an Admiral admit this just the other day!

wow, lots of things there.

Should every E-9 be able to fill any Silver badge? IMO - yes

Should every E-9 be able to fill a GB? IMO - tough call. In a perfect world, maybe.

I don't claim that every BMC recomended for advancement should be able to do an OinC job. It is a requirement in the PERSMAN.

You aren't trying to argue than an Ensign and the billets they have is a step up from MCPO, are you? If you are, you are probably one of three people in the world that would.

As far as MCPO to CWO2 - start with reading what the Bosun (hint - a CWO) posted above. Now, if you allowed a MCPO to go to CWO4, might be a different conversation.

folks who make MC under 20 - same comments apply about stepping up. Now if you read my comments above, I am fully ready to keep stepping up. The AO made it alittle difficult by giving me ORDERS to fill the Senior Most E-9 job in my rating when I was an E-8 with 15 years in. I'll be happy to put my name on any board.

As far as MK1Mod0 billets, I'll explain with examples! There are two OSCM billets here in the DC Area. One is a watch supervisor position at NAVCEN. Although the person is normally chosen by the CO to be the collateral duty CMC, the billet is not designated as such. That would be a MK1Mod0 MCPO billet. The RFMC, the Non-Res Training MC, the Res Training MC and the Stan Team MC would be the 'stepping up' billets for my Rating. The rest would be MK1Mod0 billets. I believe it would be reasonable to say if you are on your second tour as a OSCM, and desire to continue serving (and hence greatly increasing your reitrement pay and current pay), you should be ready, willing and able to step into those positions!

(Or, they could step up into full time Silver/Gold positions)

(See how long it takes for one of those OSCMs to dial my phone number now! Standing by...)

quote:

Originally posted by Mightyz90_93:
wow, lots of things there.

Should every E-9 be able to fill any Silver badge? IMO - yes

Should every E-9 be able to fill a GB? IMO - tough call. In a perfect world, maybe.

I don't claim that every BMC recomended for advancement should be able to do an OinC job. It is a requirement in the PERSMAN.

You aren't trying to argue than an Ensign and the billets they have is a step up from MCPO, are you? If you are, you are probably one of three people in the world that would.

As far as MCPO to CWO2 - start with reading what the Bosun (hint - a CWO) posted above. Now, if you allowed a MCPO to go to CWO4, might be a different conversation.

folks who make MC under 20 - same comments apply about stepping up. Now if you read my comments above, I am fully ready to keep stepping up. The AO made it alittle difficult by giving me ORDERS to fill the Senior Most E-9 job in my rating when I was an E-8 with 15 years in. I'll be happy to put my name on any board.

As far as MK1Mod0 billets, I'll explain with examples! There are two OSCM billets here in the DC Area. One is a watch supervisor position at NAVCEN. Although the person is normally chosen by the CO to be the collateral duty CMC, the billet is not designated as such. That would be a MK1Mod0 MCPO billet. The RFMC, the Non-Res Training MC, the Res Training MC and the Stan Team MC would be the 'stepping up' billets for my Rating. The rest would be MK1Mod0 billets. I believe it would be reasonable to say if you are on your second tour as a OSCM, and desire to continue serving (and hence greatly increasing your reitrement pay and current pay), you should be ready, willing and able to step into those positions!

(Or, they could step up into full time Silver/Gold positions)

(See how long it takes for one of those OSCMs to dial my phone number now! Standing by...)

While I admire the fact that you take pride in your position it does appear that your pride is clouding your vision.
You asked; "You aren't trying to argue than an Ensign and the billets they have is a step up from MCPO, are you? "

I am not saying that, THE COAST GUARD IS SAYING THAT!!!! Like it or not the lowest ranking officer is still a "higher position" the the most senior enlisted! They are after all officers and that puts them in a "higher" position then "enlisted". Now do they hold a position of "greater responsibility"? I will concede that they have a "different" level of responsibility and that in some way in is not equal to that of a E-9 but in truth is not "equal" to some positions held by E-4s. For example as an E-4 I was a qualified coxswain, as such I was entirely responsible for the completion of my mission and the safety of my crew. It was not unusual for the Ensign assigned to the group to come and get underway with me during visits to our station. On board the 41 or 44 I my position was much "higher" in responsibility then was the ensigns but I am not trying to claim that because of that, going from E-4 to O-1 is a "step down".

As for your OSCM billet "seniority" argument I would expect that your phone is probably ringing so I'll let you go answer it . But remember the same CG that decided that needed your billet to be E-9 also decided they needed that NAVCEN billet to be E-9 so it seems that both billets are equal! There is only one E-9 billet that is considered to "higher" then any other and that is why it is designated to be
"E-9 with special pay".

Marklf

quote:

There is only one E-9 billet that is considered to "higher" then any other and that is why it is designated to be
"E-9 with special pay".

Actually, check out COMDTINST 1306.1B and you will see the error of your statement.

In the very early 1960s, when the USN reinstated the WO/CWO program, E8 & E9 taking Warrant did go to permanant CWO2/ Temp CWO 3 upon taking the commission.

quote:

Originally posted by Mightyz90_93:

quote:

There is only one E-9 billet that is considered to "higher" then any other and that is why it is designated to be
"E-9 with special pay".

Actually, check out COMDTINST 1306.1B and you will see the error of your statement.

I think we are applying different meanings to the term "higher".

Marklf

That depends on what your definition of "is" is.

(Edited for a terrible typographical error that made the entire sentence nonsensical.)

quote:

Originally posted by MarkLF:

quote:

Originally posted by Mightyz90_93:
wow, lots of things there.

Should every E-9 be able to fill any Silver badge? IMO - yes

Should every E-9 be able to fill a GB? IMO - tough call. In a perfect world, maybe.

I don't claim that every BMC recomended for advancement should be able to do an OinC job. It is a requirement in the PERSMAN.

You aren't trying to argue than an Ensign and the billets they have is a step up from MCPO, are you? If you are, you are probably one of three people in the world that would.

As far as MCPO to CWO2 - start with reading what the Bosun (hint - a CWO) posted above. Now, if you allowed a MCPO to go to CWO4, might be a different conversation.

folks who make MC under 20 - same comments apply about stepping up. Now if you read my comments above, I am fully ready to keep stepping up. The AO made it alittle difficult by giving me ORDERS to fill the Senior Most E-9 job in my rating when I was an E-8 with 15 years in. I'll be happy to put my name on any board.

As far as MK1Mod0 billets, I'll explain with examples! There are two OSCM billets here in the DC Area. One is a watch supervisor position at NAVCEN. Although the person is normally chosen by the CO to be the collateral duty CMC, the billet is not designated as such. That would be a MK1Mod0 MCPO billet. The RFMC, the Non-Res Training MC, the Res Training MC and the Stan Team MC would be the 'stepping up' billets for my Rating. The rest would be MK1Mod0 billets. I believe it would be reasonable to say if you are on your second tour as a OSCM, and desire to continue serving (and hence greatly increasing your reitrement pay and current pay), you should be ready, willing and able to step into those positions!

(Or, they could step up into full time Silver/Gold positions)

(See how long it takes for one of those OSCMs to dial my phone number now! Standing by...)

While I admire the fact that you take pride in your position it does appear that your pride is clouding your vision.
You asked; "You aren't trying to argue than an Ensign and the billets they have is a step up from MCPO, are you? "

I am not saying that, THE COAST GUARD IS SAYING THAT!!!! Like it or not the lowest ranking officer is still a "higher position" the the most senior enlisted! They are after all officers and that puts them in a "higher" position then "enlisted". Now do they hold a position of "greater responsibility"? I will concede that they have a "different" level of responsibility and that in some way in is not equal to that of a E-9 but in truth is not "equal" to some positions held by E-4s. For example as an E-4 I was a qualified coxswain, as such I was entirely responsible for the completion of my mission and the safety of my crew. It was not unusual for the Ensign assigned to the group to come and get underway with me during visits to our station. On board the 41 or 44 I my position was much "higher" in responsibility then was the ensigns but I am not trying to claim that because of that, going from E-4 to O-1 is a "step down".

As for your OSCM billet "seniority" argument I would expect that your phone is probably ringing so I'll let you go answer it . But remember the same CG that decided that needed your billet to be E-9 also decided they needed that NAVCEN billet to be E-9 so it seems that both billets are equal! There is only one E-9 billet that is considered to "higher" then any other and that is why it is designated to be
"E-9 with special pay".

Marklf

With all due respect - I seem to recall many times the white eyed fear of an Ensign or LTjg when they knew the COB/CMC was on a war hunt for them. I also remember seeing the fear of a certain LT when asked to step into the Chief's mess by a certain MC. But I definitely do not recall any of the reverse, or expect to.

quote:

I think we are applying different meanings to the term "higher".

Marklf

no doubt.