Honis,
If I understand your question, I think that this policy, good or bad, has been vetted and implemented and it is now my job to make sense of it and aid my subordinates in career planning. Like it or not, our advancement process makes the SWE key. I see it this way- the ONLY factor an individual can control in competing for advancement is how well they do on the test. We can do our best to get good marks but that process is too subjective to loose sleep over. We cannot change our TIS/TIG, we cannot give ourselves awards, and we cannot always get to sea.
Not being directly affected by the policy doesn't make it easier or more difficult to agree with the policy, it is what it is.
CWO A

Our service is the most fair.

When everyone is close to the average score ... the other factors (seas/surf, TiS, TIG,Awards, and EPEF) dominate the picture,

which is what you really want. Those that clearly distance themselves from the average, deserve their shot too, and the standard scoring accounts for those "energetic people."


What you don't want is the EPEF dominating the picture. The Enlisted Advancment Study Team proposed just that.


Our advancement system is the best of both worlds. The reasoning for the resetting of the points is they don't want you resting on your laurels. I can understand that point of view and I also understand the keep your earned points point of view. Personally I side with the latter.

I find it humorous that in the year someone could actually max out on the sea/surf points, they change the rules of the game. Makes ya' go hmmmmm ...

Here is my take on this, and as stated in a previous post "The train has left the station on this policy".

For those of us who were around in 1994, you will remember that the sea time for points came out,BUT all of the sea time prior would not count, so I had 2 1/2 years on a 270 go away. I expressed my views to the D5 CEA (That's what they were called then)and after some discussion on the subject I was told to deal with it. (We were not quite as touchy feely back then).

Now my promtions went like this:
First Class, No sea time points, 4 award points, 6yrs TIG, 9 yrs TIS, Wrote 8 on the test dropped to 16.
Chief, 5 yrs TIG, 14 TIS, 6 award points, 3 yrs seatime, got 97 questions right on the SWE, wrote 16, dropped to 52 was last one promoted in 2000. (But they still called me Chief).
Senior, 4 yrs TIG, 19 TIS, 10 Award Points, 5 1/2 years sea time points, got 94 questions right on the SWE wrote 4 dropped to 12. (I wasn't the last on to get promoted that year, just next to last)

Now I will tell you possibly better marks (I have learned to keep my shut, later on in life, somtimes)a few more awards, But the pattern here is the TEST. I will tell you from experience, get 90 to 110 questions right on the exam and you will get promoted every time. It is just that simple. Some rates require time at sea, EM alot of time at sea, I have a 270, 378, 110, 87, 282 (Alex Haley) and now a 175, sure the sea time points help, awards, marks, but that is all gravy, it is all about the test. This past SWE I got 86 questions right, not going to get it done. So study, study some more, it will help you in your rate, and as a person, and most asurdly on the SWE. By the way on every ship I have been on, I always found time to study, just watch one less movie.

Study, study and study some more!
Go Braves!!

quote:

Originally posted by 6244505:



I think this sums it up.

Interesting, your very first post ever, and its of the coveted Cuttermans pin in a trash can.

T

yes it is interesting, I have over 10 years sea, back to back to back to back. Now it is pointless!

Just to show that the "old way" becomes the "new way". This policy came from "left field" in my opinion. Why was this done? Why wasn't the collective Chief's mess asked their opinion? In my opinion, it sounds like the CG is going away from being a "sea service" organization. Is the DOG taking over? A lot of policies seem to be driven by the DOG.

Well, I guess I get to use my points for E-8, which should help me, like it did for E-5 thru E-7. Never been a good test taker, but seemed to advance when I wanted to do so. And for those that studied that these points are not important, I beg to differ on personal experience. If it wasn't for those Sea Time Points, I don't think I would have put on my Anchors. When the stats came out for the service-wide in which I advanced to Chief, I had DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF SEA TIME POINTS than the average. Go figure since my rating became land locked, but that will change.

Policy is know in effect, Aye, Aye and I will carry on. It is just a shame that this change has come about because experience should count for your ENTIRE CAREER!

Edited to add this: I predict in another 15 - 20 years the Puzzle Palace will bring back the points earned throughout ones career for all advancements.

My 2 cents!

GUNS

quote:

This policy came from "left field" in my opinion. Why was this done?

From what I gather reading here, the policy is being implemented to "level the playing field." So what particular demographic doesn't have the points to be competitive?

Answer that question and you will have solved the riddle. Change is good.

Lets look at the idea of advancing the "best qualified" person. If we have two hypothetical people that go to boot camp at the same time, heck lets name them Frick and Frack. Upon graduation from boot camp Frick gets assigned to an 87 footer and his buddy Frack gets assigned to local ISC. Both decide to eventually become MKs. Both are good performers and qualify in each of their jobs. For Frick that means he completes his Seops Quals, Inport watch-stander quals, underway engineer of the watch quals, small boat crewman quals, and Line handler and lookout quals. For Frack, who gets assigned to the ISC's moral division that means that he qualifies to hand out basketballs at the gym and to clean and maintain the ISC's swimming pool.
They meet up again at MK-A school. After they graduate as young MK3s PO3 Frick goes back to sea on a 270 while MK3 Frack goes to another ISC and is assigned to the motor pool. They both do a good job and they both qualify in their new positions. For Frick that means becoming DC PQS qualified, engineering watch stander qualified, flight deck qualified, small boat engineer qualified, BTM qualified, import engineer.... For PO Frack it means that he becomes qualified to check in and out vehicles.
They both advance to MK2 and transfer. MK2 Frick gets assigned to his third cutter which happens to be a Buoy Tender where he qualifies in all his engineering jobs, advanced DCPQS, in addition to qualifying on the buoy deck. MK2 Frack is transfered to from the Motor pool the Facility engineering and completes his quals there.
Now they both compete to advance to MK1 and will make it Jan 1. PO Frick is told by his detailer that it is time for him to go ashore and he will be assigned as an EPO at a station. PO Frack is told by the same detailer that it is time for him to go to sea and he will be assigned to a 270. In two years they will both be competing for Chief. PO Frick who has worked and qualified on 3 different classes of cutters and been a station EPO will have ZERO sea points while PO Frack who has not even completed one tour underway will have FOUR sea duty points!!! Now please tell me which of these Petty Officers is really the "best qualified"???

Markl

In a former life (the marine corps) I was ordered to consider many possible emergency scenarios, an order parroted by the 3 Engineering officers I have served under in the coast guard.

In keeping with that order I have determined that I am more mercenary than coastguardsman. Meaning that if I am not getting paid then I am not serving.

I realize this attitude may not be shared by all reading this but face it, if my service has no benefit to me then it has no benefit to me.

If putting "any 378 in Pac area" on my eresume vs putting "a specific black-hull in the 8th or 9th spot on my eresume" has no benefit to my career what will I choose?

I have seen numerous posts in this thread which suggest [insert comment about how super, great awesome this policy change is in 'leveling the playing field'] but P.S my personal, past commitment to the service should not be dismissed by dismissing the personal award points I have earned despite my personal eagerness to dismiss the fact that others have stood my sea duty in my stead despite my listing a specific black hull at # 8 or 9 on past e-resumes...' I have not seen any comments about how legitimate "arduous" land billets should be added to the surf points system...

Whatever the jist of your rhetoric is, the fact remains that I and others have stood your sea billets in your stead and you feel you should be equally rewarded for our time served...

I will continue to ask for (specific) sea time for 1 and 1 reason only. My younger brothers, who are also prior service marines, have the distinction of serving in Iraq, which means they have bragging rights over me. To try and equalize this I will (continue) to respond to the early afloat slate assignment msgs) released every year for the 6 cutters in Iraq that have my rating onboard despite the fact that I have an above-average amount of sea time for my rank/rate.

I have a feeling though that I am in a very low demographic (younger siblings having served in Iraq while I have not)

If the coast guard will not "give" me adequate compensation for past sea time served then the mercenary nature in me will be forced to "take" adequate compensation.

I foresee many more "parts runs" at my next land billet.


"Sorry chief they were out of stock..." "Sorry chief, they couldn't special order what we needed..." etc. how many hours liberty is compensation for a 3 year afloat billet compared to a typical land billet? I guess we will see...

I realize that is a pretty synical and unprofessional attitude to take, but this policy change seems pretty silly and unprofessional from the point of view of someone who has sacrificed enough sea time to put on the permanent cutterman's pin next month and is now questioning whether it's even worth it or not.

quote:

If the coast guard will not "give" me adequate compensation for past sea time served then the mercenary nature in me will be forced to "take" adequate compensation.

I can understand why many are upset about this change, but to the above post......you were compensated for your sea time. It was called sea pay.

The thing that surpises me the most about all these posts is the many postings describing sea time as being so bad. I'm sure the vast majority understood going to sea would be part of joining a sea going service, so don't really understand all the grousing about that part.

quote:

Originally posted by Ex_CG_GM:

quote:

If the coast guard will not "give" me adequate compensation for past sea time served then the mercenary nature in me will be forced to "take" adequate compensation.

I can understand why many are upset about this change, but to the above post......you were compensated for your sea time. It was called sea pay.

The thing that surpises me the most about all these posts is the many postings describing sea time as being so bad. I'm sure the vast majority understood going to sea would be part of joining a sea going service, so don't really understand all the grousing about that part.

I will try to explain this..

my tour served onboard CGC Underay resulted in 160 days out of the year whereine I served 1 in 4 duty + trop hours by voluteering for CGC Underway.

My listing CGC Underway as # 8 or ( earned me CGC station Vaction wherine in I served 0800-1530 + cell phone duty without ever having to be separated from my family for months at a time...

"I feel I deserve an equal amount of award points per advancement which this shift in policy awards me through no effort on my own..."

persons who have put in the individual effort (compared to their piers) may feel(rightly) a little miffed by this shift in policy.

Whether right or wrong that IS the reality of such a policy change...

Right or wrong some folks always ended up with more sea time then others and when I was in it was NOT a factor for advancement. In 10 years I had two periods ashore. Boot camp and A school.

We used to tell people that if they didn't want to go to sea they should have gone aviation or Yeoman, and even Yeoman went to sea. And, of course, there was always the "Choose your rate, choose your fate" mantra. I chose GM, which guaranteed most of my career would be spent at sea. Worked for me.

It's a shame that the CG no longer has as many sea billets as it used to. That way they could have made X amount of sea duty mandatory between each advancement.

I understand the frustration many feel. Nonetheless, it's done.

When you enlisted you must have known that going to sea was part of the job, right? Did you know then that sea duty would pay off in points towards advancement? Would you have NOT enlisted if they weren't?

As others have posted, score high enough on the service wide and it won't matter. I took three. Was in the top 10 on the first two and top 5 on the third. And did my studying while underway. And the sea time did NOT count towards points.

quote:

Originally posted by Ex_CG_GM:
Right or wrong some folks always ended up with more sea time then others and when I was in it was NOT a factor for advancement. In 10 years I had two periods ashore. Boot camp and A school.

We used to tell people that if they didn't want to go to sea they should have gone aviation or Yeoman, and even Yeoman went to sea. And, of course, there was always the "Choose your rate, choose your fate" mantra. I chose GM, which guaranteed most of my career would be spent at sea. Worked for me.

It's a shame that the CG no longer has as many sea billets as it used to. That way they could have made X amount of sea duty mandatory between each advancement.

I understand the frustration many feel. Nonetheless, it's done.

When you enlisted you must have known that going to sea was part of the job, right? Did you know then that sea duty would pay off in points towards advancement? Would you have NOT enlisted if they weren't?

As others have posted, score high enough on the service wide and it won't matter. I took three. Was in the top 10 on the first two and top 5 on the third. And did my studying while underway. And the sea time did NOT count towards points.

a shame to the service then that some person's sea time is more valued than others'...


woe unto those that chose to serve at sea early in their careers... as opposed to later in their careers...

quote:

If the coast guard will not "give" me adequate compensation for past sea time served then the mercenary nature in me will be forced to "take" adequate compensation.

Thats a good way to wind up in the brig mate. If you dont like the CG, get out. There are plenty of higher paying jobs out there.

quote:

a shame to the service then that some person's sea time is more valued than others'...


woe unto those that chose to serve at sea early in their careers... as opposed to later in their careers...

To the first point, once the change has been in place for a year everyone will be equal again. If you advance, go to sea and earn more points. If you choose not to then you don't get the points. That's the part I think where the CG is hoping it will drive more folks to request sea duty.

To the second point, you don't really get to "choose", you get to post what you HOPE for.

You didn't answer my questions.

To anyone who may be worrying about me and mine... don't worryI WILL get mine... whether it be through existing policy or through future supervisors (who have less sea time than me and have already contacted me)...

The CG will "benefit" by getting better test takers in leadership positions in place I assure you... win/win, right?"

quote:

Originally posted by 6244505:
yes it is interesting, I have over 10 years sea, back to back to back to back. Now it is pointless!

Not sure I would say its pointless. Were you serving at sea just to acquire sea time points?

quote:

Originally posted by feelingused:
To anyone who may be worrying about me and mine... don't worry, I
WILL get mine... whether it be through existing policy or through future supervisors (who have less sea time than me and have already contacted me)...

The CG will "benefit" by getting better test takers in leadership positions in place I assure you... win/win, right?"

I encourage anyone affected by the new "test taking emphasisis while I still can. (before I am censured) get what's yours
CMC

quote:

Originally posted by feelingused:
To anyone who may be worrying about me and mine... don't worryI WILL get mine... whether it be through existing policy or through future supervisors (who have less sea time than me and have already contacted me)...

The CG will "benefit" by getting better test takers in leadership positions in place I assure you... win/win, right?"

has our dedicated service really come to this point? MY decision to even ask this question speaks volumes...