Here is a good point counter point for those top enlisted and warrants.
It takes 8 years for a newly appointed W-2 to make W-4. It only takes one tour for a 0-1 to make 0-3. Why?
For a prior E-8 newly appointed to W-2, that member will not get a significant pay raise for many, many years depending on how long they were a Senior Chief and until they make CWO3. For a prior E-9, the situation gets worse, the raise is 8 years + the time they made E-9. Am I missing something? Where is the incentive for the top 3 percent of the enlisted folks to go for warrant officer?
It would seem logical that the E-8's and E-9's are the top of the crop and should have the monetary incentive to make CWO.

The topic of reducing the four year time between promotions should be inline with O-1's to O-3 vs W-2 to W4. Also, another fix could suface by allowing prior E-8's to go straight to W3 and Master Chiefs to go to W-4 so a pay raise is immediate. Alleviating saved pay.
What are other peoples thoughts? This policy should be addressed for the better of the CG and to provide its top enlisted the monetary incentive to move into the CWO ranks.

MSS2 David T. Chapman, (prior EMCS)
aka-Chapwood....

I would counter with why would we want an incentive for the top two to go CWO? Where is the incentive for them to stay in the E-8, E-9 grades?

As far as the time line comparison, aren't you really talking apples and oranges? O-1 through O-3 are apprentices and therefore should have a quicker timeline than CWOs who are MASTERS.

OK, and I can go on here! Why do we have a system where all you need to do is keep out of jail and the morgue to step up a pay grade? Again, understandable at the Apprentice paygrades like O-1 thorugh O-3, but for MASTERS like CWO? Why not a truely competitive, vacancy based, pyramid based system? (other than the financial windfall of getting funding for a 100% CWO4 based billet list)

Another small, but worthwhile correction - it's the top 3 1/2 percent.

If there is a monetary based incentive system needed, it should be to keep the top performers striving toward E-8 and E-9. After all, like you alluded to, there are reasons why the top two are legislatively limited to only 3 1/2% total, with no more than 1% at the top level.

Standing by for incoming from my fellow Chiefs wearing gold..........

Good counter point MC. First off, as you well know, we have a dynamic advancement system that really does focus upward mobility for one to advance within the CG. I think it's a practical factor-I think it's called motivation towards advancement??
Next, Why should an appentitice make more than a Master?
We are all in a competitive advancment system, so I'm not sure I follow on that one MC.
As far as the 3.5 percent vs 3 percent would probably rest on what time of the year it is. LOL

chapwood..

We probably have a different idea of competitive.

Other than your evals and time in grade, what else will be considered in deciding if you make CWO3 the first day you are eligible? What is the promotion percentage for CWO2-CWO3 on the first day they are eligible?

I don't know if I can argue your point on an apprentice making more than a Master other than saying one is a white collar apprentice and the other a blue collar master.

Good point, but what do you think about an E-6 getting promoted to W-2 over a CPO, SPO or MCPO?
I will go to my grave not agreeing with that policy. No pun intended to those sharp PO1's out there.

chapwood

quote:

Good point, but what do you think about an E-6 getting promoted to W-2 over a CPO, SPO or MCPO?

It could be worse,the PO1 might go to OCS and become an Ensign or JG Over all the above.

I was at the cut on the MC list and the Warrant list. If I had accepted Warrant, I would have lost a great deal of money over 8 years. I figured it would have taken me a long time to make up the difference after making W4. The financial incentive was not there. I agree, CPO's should advance to CWO2, SCPO's advance to CWO3 and MCPO's to CWO4 and bring back W1 for PO1's.

quote:

Originally posted by chief74Ret:

quote:

Good point, but what do you think about an E-6 getting promoted to W-2 over a CPO, SPO or MCPO?

It could be worse,the PO1 might go to OCS and become an Ensign or JG Over all the above.

I have met many an OCS grad who used to be an E-5/E-6. Yes they may have been upgraded in rank but once they put on those butter bars they are equivalnat to a Seman recruit to higher ranking officers. All that work to achieve E-5/E-6 goes out the window to higher officers, they are starting over from scratch, so its not always about the money.

The E-6 to W2 is a different story for another time.
Just my .02 cents.

I just wanted to join this conversation to mention a few things briefly.. Disclaimer: I am an O1 with no prior enlisted experience.

Respectfully, things could always be worse depending on how you look at it. A 25 year old law school grad could go straight in as an O3 via DCO and do a few tours as an attorney before going to the fleet or a sector office in a non-legal billet as an O4. This person might conceivably only be 30 and they're a LCDR with only 4 years in and all of it (hypothetically) behind a desk with little/no interaction with the fleet before going to a fleet billet as an O4. While this is a rare scenario, and while I think most DCO lawyers earned the right to go in as O3's based on law school and the bar exam, it is still an amazing circumstance that is entirely possible and not always a good thing.

Another example of how it could be worse.. A non-prior applies for OCS and enlists during the OCS application period. They spend 8+ months as a non rate or an E4 and they are selected for OCS while they are in basic training or just starting out after A-school. In that hypothetical (but possible) case, an E3 goes to OCS and becomes an O1.

The two above examples are crazy and rare but they are possible, and only serve to illustrate my point that it could always be worse

Additionally, I agree wholeheartedly that the CG should have W1's; I also think it might not be such a bad idea to allow pilot warrant officers like the army if the CG ever does expand more. When I was at the academy recently I was told the CG is hurting for pilots due to retirements and expansion. It's never going to happen, but it would be cool to have warrant pilots and it would allow for a larger and more experienced applicant pool than just the current JO's. Yes, most warrants are too old to fly by the time they get to warrant... But if you bring back W1, you might get a few who are under 31

The choice to go CWO or remain enlisted is not all about money. In some ratings, becoming a CWO opens a wider variety of job choices and locations. For many, that is the incentive.

In regards to the pay issues mentioned earlier, I don't think they need to be addressed until we experience a retention problem at those rates/ranks (if we are, I'm unaware). Pay is pretty good nowadays, at least in my opinion.

I have always liked the idea of W1 for E6 - that does contradict my disagreement with the W3 for E8 and W4 for E9. I don't know why any self respecting Master Chief would do the nip/tuck. I do feel the stretch between warrant grades is too long considering most folks put on warrant at 15yrs+ TIS. In contrast to the Army/Marines where warrants are more youthfull - the Coast Guard/Navy are typically E7 with a sprinkling of E6. We should just simply adopt our fellow sea service mates (Navy/Marine Corps) with a 3 year cycle. I won't touch the W5 argument now. I like the flexibility the members and service have with the current system of all billets being equal. MC Phil: I heard the CG does not actually receive funding for all W4's in contrast to how the billeting is set up. I have been skeptical as deep selection for warrants is starting to happen more (incentive for harder work and a better OER). Why would the CG pony up extra $$ if wasn't already getting paid for it.

Mr Bob;
Yes, the budget process is set up so that each CWO billet is treated as a CWO4.

How you been?

If you think 4 years is long, join the Army. W1-W2 is about 2 years and then 6 years between W2-W3 & W3-W4. One of the reasons W5 was created was a high school to flight school W1 would make W2 about 2 years later. 12 years later they would make W4. In a 30 year career they would have sat at the same paygrade for 16 years.

I think it would be nice to bring back WO1. But the present system/policy skips that. There are some E6s out there who are better leaders and performers than some Chiefs. Why would you not want to promote those. Too often, the step to CWO is seen as a reward for some long and faithful service. We should be seeking out the hot-dog E6s and trying to bring down the TIS average for those making CWO. As one poster said, our average is about 15 years. The Navy is about 12; or at least it was when I went to the Navy CWO school. We had some making CWO at 20 and the Navy thought that was plain crazy.

So one would also have to argue if an E8 is the same as a W3? Or is an E9 the same as a W4? When the E8/9 paygrades were created the CWOs were supposed to go away. Only the Air Force did so.

Read the Personnel Manual again where it describes what a CWO is:

5.B.1.a. Definition
Chief warrant officers (CWOs) are commissioned Coast Guard officers who serve in those grades as established by law and have authority commensurate with this status. CWOs are mature individuals with appropriate education and/or specialty experience whose demonstrated initiative and past performance show they have the potential to assume positions of greater responsibility requiring broader conceptual, management, and leadership skills. While administrative and technical expertise is required in many assignments, CWOs must be capable of performing in a wide variety of assignments that require strong leadership skills. Enlisted and officer experience provides these officers a unique perspective in meeting the Coast Guard’s roles and missions.

and...
5.B.2.a Connection between Enlisted and Officer Corps
Coast Guard warrant officers are part of the officer corps. As such, they hold a unique
organizational position. Warrant officers "fill the gap" between the enlisted corps and
higher grade commissioned officers. They are able to fully understand and communicate with the enlisted technician. Through understanding the requirements and problems of the enlisted technician, as well as, the management requirements of the general line officer, warrant officers form an essential communications link between higher grade officers and enlisted. This communication, both up and down the chain, significantly contributes to the efficiency and effectiveness of the Service.

Unfortunately, many people do not meet the definitions above. Just like in the civilian world, some move into middle/senior management; others do not.

Audax: Unless the DCO-lawyer was deep selected, the TIG for O3 to O4 is 6 years...6 long years.

With this year's April pay raise, the W4 over 26 is just under an O4 (over 26). It will be interesting to see how many CWOs do the CWO-LT route. While there is save-pay, the only way you can revert back is if you are passed over twice for LCDR and have less then 28 years TIS since there is a 2-year obligation when you revert.

In as far as trying for E9 or CWO or Admiral, it all comes back to the individual's preference and career goals. Some folks are happy as an E5 - I know I was. I was also happy as a Chief and as a CWO.

On the other hand, when you are #41 on the SCPO list and the cut-off is 2..... it may be time to switch saddles.

Bill
ETC/ELC3/LT/LCDR

quote:

Originally posted by 2491356:
If you think 4 years is long, join the Army. W1-W2 is about 2 years and then 6 years between W2-W3 & W3-W4.

TIG for permanent warrant promotion in the CG was(is?) 2, 6 and 6, (W-1 to W-2: 2 years, W-2 to W-3: 6 years and W-3 to W-4: 6 years). About 1967 I believe the TIG for temporary promotion was reduced to 0, 4 and 4. Hence after 8 years a CWO could be promoted to permanent W-3 and Temporary W-4.

What ever happened to: Section 541(a)(1) of Pub. L. 103–337 which provided that: “The grade of chief warrant officer, W–5, is hereby established in the Coast Guard.” ?

quote:

Originally posted by spudsdown:

quote:

Originally posted by 2491356:
If you think 4 years is long, join the Army. W1-W2 is about 2 years and then 6 years between W2-W3 & W3-W4.

TIG for permanent warrant promotion in the CG was(is?) 2, 6 and 6, (W-1 to W-2: 2 years, W-2 to W-3: 6 years and W-3 to W-4: 6 years). About 1967 I believe the TIG for temporary promotion was reduced to 0, 4 and 4. Hence after 8 years a CWO could be promoted to permanent W-3 and Temporary W-4.

What ever happened to: Section 541(a)(1) of Pub. L. 103–337 which provided that: “The grade of chief warrant officer, W–5, is hereby established in the Coast Guard.” ?

Never heard of it, won't see it in my lifetime.

Here's something MightyZ is aware of, and the rest of you should know.

The Coast Guard likes to create CWO billets because there is no cap on them like the cap on E-8 and E-9 billets. It's easier to create a CWO4 billet than an E-8 or E-9 billet in the budget process, and it's done in the name of creating more master level people. The total CWO workforce is around 7 percent although it varies by CWO specialty. Creating a new E-8 or E-9 billet is a difficult chore because the pyramid below is affected. CWOs billets are expendable in a lot of cases; they are A&I or temporary billets that can be created and "floated" to keep the percentage of billets about the same.

An additional bonus in the Coast Guard's favor is that all CWO billets are actually CWO4 billets. Budget people save money by filling those billets with CWO2s and CWO3s who make less than the billets are budgeted for. Most of the CWOs don't stay to W-4. Creating a CWO billet is a good hedge for Coast Guard accountants who can use that money elsewhere.

quote:

Never heard of it, won't see it in my lifetime.

Ran a search and found this. Down near the bottom of the page.

quote:

An additional bonus in the Coast Guard's favor is that all CWO billets are actually CWO4 billets. Budget people save money by filling those billets with CWO2s and CWO3s who make less than the billets are budgeted for. Most of the CWOs don't stay to W-4. Creating a CWO billet is a good hedge for Coast Guard accountants who can use that money elsewhere.

Edgy, although you are somewhat correct in your comments something that many people overlook regarding making all the CWO Billets in the Coast Guard at the W4 level allows the Coast Guard to "blow-off" CWO5 and other pertinent portions of WOMA. To create the CWO5 position (and staff them with perhaps 1 or 2 in each field except possibly Bosun and Naval Engineer with maybe 4-50 Coast Guard Planners (the old G-CPA - Resource Directors) and G-Pdp-1 Deputy for Personnel Budget Staff (older G-P-1), and G-PO well in my day they would have been the key players) would have to assign CWO2, 3, or 4 to each and every Warrant Billet in the Coast Guard and assign the right pay grade to each billet...a very difficult and time consuming process not to mention a more tightly managed CWO Corps that would see many more "Fail to Promote (FTP)" since there wouldn't be billets for all to promote up to CWO4. In otherwords from W2 to W3 to W4 would become best qualified and out of a pool of say 50 competing for 10 slots...well with WOMA, like the regular Commissioned Corps after 2 FTP it would be bye-bye. We did some analyses of creating W5 in CGHQ in the late 80s; it would have been a nightmare to manage. Like you say though by identifying each billet as W4 there are some cost benefits.

That study was performed again a couple of years ago, and I believe may still be ongoing. MightyZ probably has more details about that. I did some work for the CWOs in terms of force management; created the draft billet maps for ISM and OSS warrant grades, for example, but don't tell the CWOs that! It's supposed to be a secret!

Here is the 2004 study.

http://www.cna.org/documents/D0009827.A1.pdf