Should first-tour Academy Ensigns be automatically assigned to ship? On the surface, it would seem quite logical that all first tour Ensigns be assigned to a Cutter. I mean, we ARE a sea-going service, right? The problem I have with this policy is that not all new officers are going to excel in a field that might not be their "calling", and the Coast Guard needs talent in areas other than operating a Cutter. Besides, in contrast to Academy Grads, OCS graduates are not mandated to serve on a Cutter during their first tour. Does that send a "signal" from "management" that Academy Ensigns should be treated differently?

The best achievement possible for a JO (non-EOIT) on a Cutter is to earn a command endorsement, but what if the officer excels in an area valuable to the Coast Guard, but is not a "natural shipdriver"? Should his marks reflect poorer performance, and should this officer with great potential in another field be placed at a disadvantage with his peers for promotion and assignment? You see, I had an experience with this very situation as a Cutter CO. This particular Ensign was very intelligent, graduated at the top of his class, but struggled to develop that "prudence" and "seaman's eye" while operating the ship - Those subjective, "gut feeling" qualities needed for me to reach that "comfort level" in order to fully qualify him as a DWO. Significant additional time and effort by several people (including myself) went into trying to instill this "ship sense" into this individual, but simple mistakes were repeated, and I just could not develop my confidence in him to be my direct representative, in charge of the U/W operation of the vessel during my absence fromt he bridge. So, after 18 months I was working on his 3rd evaluation, and he still did not have his letter. I was counseled by my boss that he should be awarded sub-standard marks (2s and 3s) for not meeting the expectation that he qualify within the first year. I explained to this senior officer that this particular individual was very gifted in the IT field, in fact, he was a wizard at anything electronic. or involving software. I went on to argue that the CG needs this kind of talent too, and that it would be entirely wrong for me to not only derail this officer's career, but also that it would be a grave disservice to the organization to weed out such talent, especially in this e-society we now live in. I gave him 4s in the areas that were supposed to be 2s and 3s, and commented in the "potential" block where his talent would be best utilized. I later was told by the senior officer that I was "right" in doing what I did, and he thanked me for looking after juniors. But thats not the point. The point is that this officer went on to do great things for the organization because we did not force him to fit into an area where he was not best suited, or could be the most productive to our organization.

Granted, there is some "pain" at the unit level when a billet is not fulfilling their primary duty and others need to take up the slack, but I submit that this should not be a unit problem in the first place. It is the policy of the organization to assign all Academy grads to ships, that places the undue burden on the Cutter when the individual neither desires nor has potential in the field of shipboard operations. This especially confounds me when the individual shows great potential and majors in an area starkly different than that of a Cutterman's career path. It seems to me that there is a sufficient number of new officers from all acession points that would be able to fill Cutter billets from a pool of individuals both desirous of, and promising in, the Cutter Operations career path. I would hope that this policy be "re-racked" (again), and that we develop a new approach that is in keeping with our "modernization" efforts, and will help optimize our "Mission Execution" in ALL mission areas.

Cutterman Sends

Based on what I just read in the Commissioned Officers forum there are no longer enough underway billets for all Academy grads to get one on their first tour.

Policy was revised in 2005 time frame. The following is taken from the Personnel Command JO Assignment Guide:

"While the officer corps has grown, this growth has occurred largely in maritime mission areas other than sea duty. At the same time, efficiencies have reduced the number of opportunities for junior officers to be assigned afloat. Since it is also in the best interest of the Service to continue to assign an appropriate number of Officer Candidate School (OCS), and direct commission officers afloat, some Academy graduates will receive their first operational assignments to units other than cutters.
Consistent with Service need and unit requirements, Coast Guard Personnel Command – Officer Personnel Management (CGPC-OPM) will assign junior officers to an array of operational units, including Sectors, regardless of commissioning source. A small number of newly commissioned ensigns may even be selected for flight training to commence immediately after their graduation from OCS or the Academy. We will assign junior officers above authorized billet strength to meet emerging requirements and maximize the opportunity to provide first tour junior officers with operational experience. This decision was arrived at by carefully considering all practical alternatives and is guided by several principles – preserve the Coast Guard’s inherent characteristics as a military, maritime, multi-mission service; provide the best balance of assignment opportunities to develop maritime operational and leadership competencies; and provide optimum officer acculturation for officers from every accession source. CGPC-OPM will ensure reasonable operational assignment opportunities for all officers from each accession source."

I heard it changed back. At the very least, there is discussion to change it back - That is why you see "(again)" in the last paragraph.

Stan,

It's not just a shortage of billets that they were starting to see, but also an expansion of O2 billets at the Sector level which DCO and OCS grads cannot solely fullfill. Also, the thinking was that if an Officer was going to seek a Marine Safety or Aviation career path, the value of the first tour afloat was moot to some.

CDR,

I've dealt w/ the same issue you mention. When doing the Officers in question evaluations, and when voicing similar concerns as you did, I was reminded by my own boss that their marks should reflect their performance in their primary duty during the reporting period . Like you, I utilized the potential block to reflect which other missions would make best use of that particular JO's talents in the future.

While the "not every Academy JO does first tour afloat" policy is not optimal IMO, I do understand it from a resource allocation perspective which led the service to go this route.

Also, the one good thing is now ENS/O1 OERs are masked (at least in the CG) beyond promotion to LTJG/O2 which should enable them to make minor mistakes at their initial level that should be expected, but without sandbagging their entire career.

I don't think they are "masked" if they are not "fully qualified" for promotion to O-2.

Good point. Mea culpa.

...although I did have one once where I specifically DID NOT recommend her for promotion, but she made it anyway.

My mistake, you said "beyond O2" that is correct. But how do they make O-2 if they have poor marks?

quote:

Originally posted by 1110:
Good point. Mea culpa.

...although I did have one once where I specifically DID NOT recommend her for promotion, but she made it anyway.

...what have I missed where a short term O-2 is allowed to sign OERs? Is there something in your background that I do not have the intel on?

CDR;
Having earned my cuttermans pin on the bridge of 3 cutters before seeing the beach, I can understand everything you said for sure! Some you skippers usually put a lot of the 'development' work on us QMs!
I believe the more appropriate term now is that we are a 'maritime' service vice a 'sea service.' It is a small distinction, but an important one. SF hit it on the head with regards to Sectors. In my opinion, one of our biggest concerns right now is how to build Sector Cdrs. I would posit that there are probably no Capt's in the CG right now fully 'qualified' to be a Sector Cdr. Since all of the Capts we had were at the lowest a CDR when Sectors were created, they don't have extensive experience at all of the Sector Mission areas. This isn't saying they are not capable or doing a good job, just maybe not 'fully qualified.' Since there are not any Ensign jobs on Sector level Cutters, Ens jobs may not prepare them well for that. I don't have the solution, but I believe we owe the current grads from New London (CGA and OCS) a path that will give them a chance to get fully qualified by the time they make Capt.

quote:

Originally posted by Mightyz90_93:

...what have I missed where a short term O-2 is allowed to sign OERs? Is there something in your background that I do not have the intel on?

Where did I ever state that I signed OERs as an O2?

Your comment about things you have missed is yours alone. I have no comment.

quote:

Originally posted by 1110:
Where did I ever state that I signed OERs as an O2?

Your comment about things you have missed is yours alone. I have no comment.

Um, maybe because your profile says prior service O2? This is where it would be nice to not be anonymous, especially if you are a moderator... I'm guessing than you are a civillian that supervises Active Duty?

I think that stating personnel from a certain accession source must go to a certain type of unit is a fouled system.

There is a lot to be said about every new Ensign going to a Cutter, and that may be the best way to do this. However, if we can not send every Ensign to a cutter you can not say all Academy will and OCS/DCO will not. No other service does this, because they realize that each specialty needs a diverse officer base.

Why do we say all Academy must go anyway? It's because we as a service believe that going to a Cutter makes us a better officer. By allowing only Academy this opportunity to become the "best" officers, you create a class system within the officer corps which is detrimental to the Coast Guard as an organization.

Either send us all to Cutters or divide them out equally (excluding those commission sources that feed specific programs like Aviation and Law).

quote:

Originally posted by THREEFLYS:

quote:

Originally posted by 1110:
Where did I ever state that I signed OERs as an O2?

Your comment about things you have missed is yours alone. I have no comment.

Um, maybe because your profile says prior service O2? This is where it would be nice to not be anonymous, especially if you are a moderator... I'm guessing than you are a civillian that supervises Active Duty?

MightyZ & THREEFLYS:

As I posted on another thread about 1110 being a Mod:

Don't judge a book by its cover.

Check out my Public Profile...

quote:

Originally posted by JerryG:
MightyZ & THREEFLYS:

As I posted on another thread about 1110 being a Mod:

Don't judge a book by its cover.

Check out my Public Profile...

Jerry,
I understand to not judge a book, it just makes opinions less than credible when someone remains anonymous and even blacks out their face but still puts up a picture of them in their O2 uniform...

If you're in a position that posting on here under your real name may comprimise your job then you probably shouldn't be posting and you certainly shouldn't be a mod...
Just my .02,
Chris

So Jerry are you no longer proud of your CG service?

Nope, never said that. I asked a member what he thought about having a former Army guy as a CG Forums moderator.

He didn't like it.

I then told him not to judge a book by its cover and referred him to my newly edited and correct Public Profile.

I then informed him that ALL CG Forums Moderators are Coasties, and locked the thread.

I am as proud of my former Army Cold War career as I am of my current CGR career. I have more time on AD with the CGR than I had with the Army.

But I have to stand by 1110 on this. He is as proud of his former Navy career as he is of his current CG career.

'nuff said.

just a bit scared to say who he really is...

If they cannot all become proficient Sea going officers, maybe it is time think about the different officer corps, Line & Staff ????
At one time the CG had an Engineer Corps, Constructor Corps, and a District Commander Corps.
Works for the U.S.N.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mastersmate,

The Army has different branches, and specified officers for each branch. Combat Arms (Infantry, Armor, Artillery, Cavalry, etc.) and Combat Support (Medical, Transportation, Military Police, Maintenance, Engineers, etc.).

I don't think this would work for the CG because of size differences of the services. And the fact the CG likes to keep the "Semper Gumby" attitude. The more qual codes you have, the better.

The local Sector CO (O-6) is an Airedale. Responsible for all of the CG missions in the Sector (Response, Prevention, FOSC, OCMI, COTP, etc.). Semper Gumby...