quote:

Thirty some odd years ago, there was a test to compete for warrant, the CWOB, Chief Warrants Officer Battery. Many have postulated theories on why the testing was dropped.

Officially, it was the Warrant Officer Selection Battery (WOSB), and like the enlisted advancement system itself, and particularly the final multiple, it was adopted whole from the Navy. Prior to 1969, SWEs were written by a small staff of CWOs, with one person being responsible for all the ratings that "collapsed" into his particular specialty (e.g., the BOSN wrote the BM, QM, RD, MST, etc. SWEs). Practically, this was implemented by obtaining copies of Navy SWEs for their 'sister' ratings and using those questions wholesale with predictably poor results. There were even notorious examples of 8 inch gun questions on CG GM SWEs, for example.

After the SWE preparation, distribution, and processing function for SWEs was transferred to the CG Institute in 1969, SWEs were written by the MCPO Subject Matter Specialist for the rating, greatly improving but not perfecting the relationship between SWE content and suitability for advancement.

Like SWEs and the multiple, the WOSB was used because the Navy used it. It was a particularly poor choice, since the Navy's use of CWOs was radically different from the CG's. First, there were proportionally far fewer Navy Warrants than CG - less that 5% of the officer corps, when in the CG they accounted for almost 30% of the corps. But the most important difference was in the role Warrants played in the two services. In the Navy, they were strictly subject matter experts with no command responsibilities, whereas in the CG, they assumed the full range of commissioned responsibilities, most notably command.

According to my interview with the person responsible for bringing the Navy WOSB to the CG, the Navy was looking to screen WO candidates for 'wardroom suitability.' It appears that in the 50s, when the test was originated, that meant academic achievement. At the least, the content of the WOSB was college-level knowledge in general subjects (history, math, science, etc.). The Navy originally normed the WOSB on sophomore Naval ROTC candidates, to ensure it identified college-level achievement.

After going to work at the Institute and discovering that I was also responsible for 'maintaining' the WOSB, I immediately began communicating with G-PO-3 my concerns about the unsuitability of the test for the purpose for which it was used. For almost twenty years, through a succession of G-P incumbents, the answer to my objections was always "the WO selection boards like the candidates that are being identified by the current system. It ain't broke, and we ain't fixin' it."

Finally, one too many former MSTs failed in a BOSN billet, the issue finally became relevant and the change was made to the Navy OAR, as Joe correctly points out. That went by the wayside when the Navy demanded a civilian billet in return for permission to continue to use the test. Since the CG was in the middle of shedding 5,000 active duty billets, eliminating civilian hiring and otherwise beating the bushes for budget savings, the request was denied and the OAR was dropped in lieu of "professional knowledge as demonstrated by performance on the CPO SWE for the candidate's rating." I was never successful in my advocacy of a WO screening test that focused on the knowledge of the specialty, so that MSTs had a chance to succeed as BOSNs, FSs as F&Ss, ASMs as MATs, etc. There were apparently no billets available for such a development effort, and the refrain remained the same: "The boards like the candidates they are seeing, so the current system is OK."

All that was then. I can't speak for now, but would refer you to MightyZ, who offers sound insight and advice and appears to have the inside track on the some of the intrigues of the puzzle palace.

For those competing for advancement, Joe offers great advice and a deep comprehension of the system's mechanics. Listen up.

v/r - jb

PS: The reason enlisted are advanced and officers promoted is due to the language of DOPMA, which equates promotion to a board selection process.

9.5 years TIS isn't that much, believe it or not. Try competing for Chief for 10 years because the CG thought computers could replace people. It goes in cycles, learn and watch the cycles.

Utilize the time between SWEs to share your knowledge with others, and continue to learn from others too. Become the kind of First Class you'd like to see as model Chief. The anchor doesn't make the Chief, it makes an E-7.

Studying for a test proves nothing. Being a well rounded Coastie, team player, and future leader will get you where you want to be. Look at the entire Big Picture, not just your portion of it.

- Are you in the top 1/4, or 1/3, or 1/2?

- How many Chiefs were made in the last cycle? If the number is high, compared to this years cut, it may be awhile before it opens up too much. Therefore, you know where you have to land on the list to even be competitive.

- What is happening CG wide that may increase or reduce the need for DCCs? That has a direct result on how many are made.

- Look at the total number of DC1's in the CG. How many who are eligible are competing at this time?

- Look at the averages for TIS, TIG, and Awards. With about 10 years in, your standings are probably average.

These are things you cannot control, with the exception of your test score. Now look at what you can control . . .evals, test scores, recommendations of the command (which come through your evals or awards). Be the example, not the exception. Many people loose sight of what they need to help advance to Chief and allienate themselves from peers and superiors by focusing soley on their own desire to become a Chief. Kissing too much butt and whining about lack of awards, or kissing more butt to get them. They end up being the type of Chief they most disliked as a First Class.

Work hard, keep studying and you'll make it! If it takes a little longer, you'll be a better Chief for it!

Good Luck!