Sir,
what did he say?

quote:

Originally posted by CoccoC:
I spoke with a CDR last weekend and he stated that it does not look good for an LE rate.

He told you what the CDR said "...he stated that it does not look good for an LE rate."

LE rate will never happen. The main reason it won't hold up in courts. What would happen if a boarding was conduted with the normal personnel we use now, and up the coast one was done with a LE rate. It would end up in court. Trying to justify why someone was boarded by an MK and BM while his buddy was boarded by LE guys. Obviously the BM and Mk have no idea what they were doing. They are not LE guys. LE guys would be assumed that they are trained better then other boarding team members. Which might not have the experience. What else would these LE guys do for the non boarding days. How many would a station need? What would there watches be. Yeah! Not gonna happen.

quote:

Originally posted by weazel179:
LE rate will never happen. The main reason it won't hold up in courts. What would happen if a boarding was conduted with the normal personnel we use now, and up the coast one was done with a LE rate. It would end up in court. Trying to justify why someone was boarded by an MK and BM while his buddy was boarded by LE guys. Obviously the BM and Mk have no idea what they were doing. They are not LE guys. LE guys would be assumed that they are trained better then other boarding team members. Which might not have the experience. What else would these LE guys do for the non boarding days. How many would a station need? What would there watches be. Yeah! Not gonna happen.

Well, the Coast Guard has 1811 Special Agents (CGIS agents). They have even more broad LE authority than uniformed USCG personnel, and they've been around for years. Along your line of reasoning, the USCG's boardings should have been ruled insufficient in court LONG ago, because our uniformed people have a tiny, tiny fraction of the training and experience that CGIS agents do.

If the LE rat ing concept failed, it would not be because of a technical difference between the rat ing of the people who conducted the boarding.

quote:

Originally posted by weazel179:
LE rate will never happen. The main reason it won't hold up in courts. What would happen if a boarding was conduted with the normal personnel we use now, and up the coast one was done with a LE rate. It would end up in court. Trying to justify why someone was boarded by an MK and BM while his buddy was boarded by LE guys. Obviously the BM and Mk have no idea what they were doing. They are not LE guys. LE guys would be assumed that they are trained better then other boarding team members. Which might not have the experience. What else would these LE guys do for the non boarding days. How many would a station need? What would there watches be. Yeah! Not gonna happen.

Interesting point of view.....hmmmm.

Don

quote:

Originally posted by BZ_2:
I have a feeling the Commandant will sign off on the LE rate by the end of the week.

hmmmmm

I think the week has passed by..........

Weazel, If the courts wanted to hammer us they would have done it years ago. Just think of BO's who are PQS only qualified vs. those that attended BO school or the Academy. Also who has “Authority” under 14USC89a? It’s not the E-3 and below, who take direction from BO during a boarding. (Remember the whole Marshal program? They wouldn’t touch the PQS officers with a ten foot pole)

Having an LE rate would and could solve more than a few issues. Having a dedicated subject matter expert at every unit to ensure that the program is running IAW COMDT policy would take a major collateral load off the CO or OINC plate don’t ya think?

>How about those that are rate challenged because of multiple LE focused tours of duty?

>How about the time it takes a dog and the handler to develop as a team?

>How about all the Weapons PO duties at stations, think of the small arms training that could be assisted with at the range or in completing PDW PQS.

>Act as the primary unit LE instructor, PQS qualifier and Boarding officer aboard each unit or cutter.

>Maintain the LE training records and schedule for the unit, take care of the MISLE entries, 4100 forms, maintaining the boarding kits and training equipment. How much time is spent by units researching LE items that are not authorized in the first place only to have the OINC or Sector/District to shoot them down or have them questioned on why they are using it? (Take a look at the number of units using drop leg holsters that are not in compliance with current instruction)

>How many PO’s are filling special assignment billets right now that would be/might be better filled by an LE Rated person. To bring in what we need to diversify the experience levels of an LE rate, PO’s desiring to become one should have to apply and be chosen from other rates starting at the E-5 level. (Just take a look at the MSS CWO field. Splitting the two with ENG drawing in MK’s DC’s and EM’s and Deck everyone else) This would be a better screening tool than just putting your name on an “A” school list.

Headed back to my island for now, I need to find an update to my old LEMAN, LOL.

My prediction - there will be a LE Rating. The working group looking into this issue I think is done and has presented their recommendation to have the rating. Someone correct me if I am wrong. I don't think they would have reviewed this issue again if they were not serious about starting the rating. Why do I think it will happen? Several reasons - Our missions have changed to include a lot more LE specific missions. Because of that we need closer coordination of the units' operations and standardized training beyond what we already have. So along comes the DOG, combining deployable units, many of which have a heavy LE mission. Also, the ability to recruit and retain LE personnel will be greatly enhanced by having a LE only career path. I could go on with all the same reasons we have always talked about, but the primary reason is that it is the right thing to do. And the CG is into doing the right thing. With our current leadership, they do the right thing fast. Maybe by early 2008 they announce the rating, with a 18 month implementation. Probably the DOG units first will get billet changes, then maybe the Sector SBT' and a few LEBO's at stations. I would bet they fill the new/changed bilets on regular rotation cycle. As for who will be the LE folks - probably the usual solicitation, look at the response and pick the folks that make the most sense. What I would do if I wanted into the LE rating would be to get certified, stay certifed and build on LE experience. Just my two cents, but I would bet on it happening.

Concur with artictraveler with the following caveat-- it's not just traditional MLE law enforcement that would likely fit into that rating.

There's a whole world of USCG LE that has NOTHING to do with stations and cutters-- namely, the law enforcement and regulatory compliance done by legacy "M" personnel. I would be willing to bet that a new rating like that would include such functions as well.

quote:

Originally posted by chrisogle1:
Concur with artictraveler with the following caveat-- it's not just traditional MLE law enforcement that would likely fit into that rating.

There's a whole world of USCG LE that has NOTHING to do with stations and cutters-- namely, the law enforcement and regulatory compliance done by legacy "M" personnel. I would be willing to bet that a new rating like that would include such functions as well.

Haven't seen a thing even close to that thought.

Ogle and I had been batting this around on the Marine Safety board, since their legacy missions and performance are being scrutinized closely by Congress right now. Being a former GM who trained many unit personnel to use firearms, then after instructor school, go through trying to convince the Command to make the time to conduct training and get those DT reps in, and get that PMS, collateral duties on the deck of a "white one", or try to squeeze it in between the available time once you've gotten back to port and complete the PMS you couldn't do U/W, you just knew that you were running on the razor's edge. Trusting a 20 something that you've observed fire the minimum 50 rounds, or hopefully 150 if your lucky, meet minimum PQS standards to qualify, then have them at your six for boarding’s? Never a true comfortable feeling out there, add in the chinese checker personnel swaps of team members.

The time has come, unfortunately to loose some of those traditions. Keeping up a fully trained BO, MI, PI or pick a LE/M qual and maintain proficiency in their chosen traditional rating? It just doesn't work. When I first went to a M unit, I worked my butt off to get qualified, be a useful unit member... I never saw one OPA 90, SOLAS, PSC question on my SWE. Going to the ship, I never saw any chain of custody, authority and jurisdiction, DT demonstration/qual, etc. on my SWE exam.

No, the time has come to reprogram some ratings into a more logical format for today's mission requirements.

Oh, and just one little peeve to vent here... another four star Admiral for parity at the table of the Joint Chiefs? That is NOT the reprogramming needed. It only portrays the traditional thinking from those gems from that home on the Thames that allow these policies to continue. Look at how the flag billets were retained when the 2nd, 3rd and 12th Districts were eliminated to streamline and cut costs. The senior leadership knows how to watch their six, I think it is time to level the field and turn the pyramid around again.

Okay, that felt good. I hope things work out. There are some storm clouds out there. It is starting with legacy “M” missions brought on by those PWS, HLS missions that are taxing already strained resources. I did my 30 and I and very proud of my “crossed cannons” and “flaming sphere”. But no LE or M quals earned them for me.

If we were to seriously consider adding the huge mix of jobs some people are talking about here, we will end up the same perceived problem folks are complaining about now. Enlisted ratings MUST have bounds to them. The members of that rating MUST have common core Knowledge, Skills and Abilities (KSAs). The pay grade structure MUST have an appropriate pyramid. The pyramid MUST support very clearly defined achievments in KSAs to advance from one rate to the next that are trainable and achievable across a VAST majority of assignments.

Big: As far as the four star issue goes, you got to look at it carefully. For instance - did you know that here is not one single dime in pay difference for an AD VADM and an AD ADM? Not one dime over four years! Now - there is a difference in retired pay, but not a penny in AD pay. So - there is no real cost to do it. Having seen a lot of thing during my 5 year sentence (so far) at HQ, I can tell you that the benifits of this outwiegh any cost. The boss can not be at every meeting, plain and simple. The #2 has to go to some of the meetings that are meant for the boss and MANY more that are meant for people below the service Chief level. In the DOD, people who have Commands commensurate with what our 1 star District Commanders run are 4 stars Admirals. The way these meetings run, 3 stars might be allowed to carry coffee and/or sit in the shadows, but that is about it. Being a service #2 doesn't carry a lot of wieght. Again - in the DOD, MANY of the 4 stars do not even report to the Service Chiefs, they report direct to CJCS and SECDEF. It is the right thing to do for the CG people. The benifit it will bring to the folks in the fleet is imeasurable. It is not about the flags protecting their own. (although I can't argue with your point about the closed districts)

Here's what I think:

How about those that are rate challenged because of multiple LE focused tours of duty? Maybe we should limit the rates which are able to be assigned to these units to YNs, GMs, and SKs. YNs can still do the paperwork, GMs can still count bullets and train team members, and SKs can still order inventory.

How about the time it takes a dog and the handler to develop as a team? How many dog and handler teams do we have in the Coast Guard? Not enough to use even 1/8th of a rate.

How about all the Weapons PO duties at stations, think of the small arms training that could be assisted with at the range or in completing PDW PQS. I was stationed at one of the largest small boat stations in the Coast Guard. We were definitely the busiest as well. I can tell you from experience that yes, the BM2 in charge of the armory had his hands full. However, instead of assigning one person to this job, assigning two people would have probably alleviated a lot of headaches. The work would have been done quicker and a backup would have been in place. That BM2 also found time to complete his quals for 1st, study for the SWE, and make BM1. He also completed his crewmember and coxswain quals since he had only ever been on a ship. I am not sure he was as busy as some would have thought. He just complained a lot because while he was setting up range dates, others were in the crew’s lounge playing x-box.

Act as the primary unit LE instructor, PQS qualifier and boarding officer aboard each unit or cutter. Isn't that what the GM at sector is for. What will GMs do if we take away their SAI positions? Pretty sure the primary BO is the CO.

Maintain the LE training records and schedule for the unit, take care of the MISLE entries, 4100 forms, maintaining the boarding kits and training equipment. How much time is spent by units researching LE items that are not authorized in the first place only to have the OINC or Sector/District to shoot them down or have them questioned on why they are using it? (Take a look at the number of units using drop leg holsters that are not in compliance with current instruction) The paperwork could easily be done by a Yeoman. It can also be entered by watchstanders who sit on a four hour watch answering questions on Freds Place or by a BM3 or BM2 who needs to learn how to use MISLE. We used the drop leg holsters in New York. The CO got a waiver and allowed us to use them. They were great for when you had to spend long hours in that small seat on the 25'. Instead of having a butt-stock in your pelvis for 8hrs, it was strapped to your leg. Another time it seemed more realistic was when we had a visiting crewmember with no keepers on accidently loose his entire gun belt while he was tying a fender to the rail of the 41'. If he had been using a drop-leg holster, his entire belt would not have fallen into the Hudson, and he would not have had to sit on the pier where his holster fell in until the next morning when NYPD divers showed up to recovered it.

How many PO’s are filling special assignment billets right now that would be/might be better filled by an LE Rated person. To bring in what we need to diversify the experience levels of an LE rate, PO’s desiring to become one should have to apply and be chosen from other rates starting at the E-5 level. (Just take a look at the MSS CWO field. Splitting the two with ENG drawing in MK’s DC’s and EM’s and Deck everyone else) This would be a better screening tool than just putting your name on an “A” school list. Creating an LE Rate to fill those positions could possibly have more of a negative affect than what you might think. Most people would not want to spend four years only turning wrenches. Being on a boarding team does have some perks and offer some job diversity. Some of us find it exciting.

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

Has anyone here read the "LETSGO" report?? I have. I will find out if I can post it here.

quote:

Act as the primary unit LE instructor, PQS qualifier and boarding officer aboard each unit or cutter. Isn't that what the GM at sector is for. What will GMs do if we take away their SAI positions? Pretty sure the primary BO is the CO.

NO, that is not what a Sector GM is for. Being an SAI HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LE TACTICS! No, the primary BO is not the CO. There are no requirements for the CO to be a QUALIFIED BO.

You seem to have some more learning to do in the CG there PO3.

quote:

How about all the Weapons PO duties at stations, think of the small arms training that could be assisted with at the range or in completing PDW PQS. I was stationed at one of the largest small boat stations in the Coast Guard. We were definitely the busiest as well. I can tell you from experience that yes, the BM2 in charge of the armory had his hands full. However, instead of assigning one person to this job, assigning two people would have probably alleviated a lot of headaches. The work would have been done quicker and a backup would have been in place. That BM2 also found time to complete his quals for 1st, study for the SWE, and make BM1. He also completed his crewmember and coxswain quals since he had only ever been on a ship. I am not sure he was as busy as some would have thought. He just complained a lot because while he was setting up range dates, others were in the crew’s lounge playing x-box.

Having 2 people work a armory at a small boat station is fine, but and the BIG BUT, is there is ONLY one person designated by letter as the "go to person". Why was the BM2 scheduling range time? That should have been the Sector GM's job to coordinate with the BM2. Also, being a Weapon PO is not that cumbersome. If everything is done correctly, it should only take a total of about 2-3 days out of the month of the PO2's time. If the PO2 was having to do the PMS after a boarding, he should have delegated to the boarding teams to clean their own weapons! This has a two-fold action. 1. It gives the PO2 less to do, 2. It helps the BTMs maintain their profiecency in their PQS of said small arms.

quote:

They were great for when you had to spend long hours in that small seat on the 25'. Instead of having a butt-stock in your pelvis for 8hrs, it was strapped to your leg.

Not a fan of the dro-leg holster! BTDT, for many more hours in many different types of vehicles. How do police officers do it with the standard ride holster?

quote:

Another time it seemed more realistic was when we had a visiting crewmember with no keepers on accidently loose his entire gun belt while he was tying a fender to the rail of the 41'. If he had been using a drop-leg holster, his entire belt would not have fallen into the Hudson, and he would not have had to sit on the pier where his holster fell in until the next morning when NYPD divers showed up to recovered it.

Having NO KEEPERS are against COMMANDANT POLICY! GREAT HE HAD TO SIT AND WAIT FOR A WEAPON HE SHOULD HAVE NEVER LOST!!!!!!!!!! I have never ever come close to losing a weapon, much less the whole friggen weapons belt! That person should have had his quals pulled immediately!

Now, as for an LE rate, I say make the PS rating an Active Duty rating. However, would you put these LE RATED people on ships? What role would they play? Lot's questions needs to be answered before creating another rating.

GUNS

Well, the GM for our sector did all the small arms weapons training for the small boat station. BTM and BO were done by the training personnel. The CO doesn't have to be a qualified BO, but our CO wanted to have full reigns when it came to LE Cases. I remember calling him on more than one occasion to find out what we should do. Most of our cases were more than just doing a boarding on a boat with more fish in the hold than legal. We had persons with weapons, a bunch of students trying to take over a boat etc...

Last I checked riding in a patrol car was a lot smoother than riding in a 25' boat.

The guy who lost his belt was a reservist who had volunteered for the mission. He was sent home and stood in front of the green table cloth. The point wasn't about the keepers, it was about losing a fully loaded weapon which belonged to the Coast Guard, and how there were other ways which could have prevented the loss.

I think a LE Rate is as silly as putting the M60s on our small boats. Like we are ever going to be authorized to fire that weapon within the confines of the harbor. Could you imagine a newly M60 qual'd non-rate shooting rounds at some boat because he was told to by the coxswain and watching the rounds skipping off the water and into the buildings surrounding the harbor? How would you ever explain that one? Besides, whats wrong with pulling people such as SKs, YNs, GMs, or HSs who are still able to maintain their quals while at a LE unit such as a Taclet?

If the LE rate come online it should only be for units working under the DOG. Its not for the Fleet with some exceptions. Life on Cutters and stations would go on as normal.

Cutters and stations DO most of the LE ops... DAWG units only train and use a lot of velcro...

quote:

DAWG units only train and use a lot of velcro...

Now that's funny!!!!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by BLUETORCH:
...
I think a LE Rate is as silly as putting the M60s on our small boats. Like we are ever going to be authorized to fire that weapon within the confines of the harbor. Could you imagine a newly M60 qual'd non-rate shooting rounds at some boat because he was told to by the coxswain and watching the rounds skipping off the water and into the buildings surrounding the harbor? How would you ever explain that one? Besides, whats wrong with pulling people such as SKs, YNs, GMs, or HSs who are still able to maintain their quals while at a LE unit such as a Taclet?

Within the bounds of OPSEC, there are several situations in which release of a mounted weapon (ex: M60 / M240B) would be authorized in such a geographic area as you described. If you don't know what those situations might be in your AOR, (or can't imagine what they would be) you need to sit down with the qualified coxswains at your unit and discuss them. That is required knowledge for coxswains in the BOAT Manual.

COs are required by virtue of their positions to have "full reigns when it [comes] to LE Cases." That has nothing to do with being a BO.

There's nothing wrong with putting people in various rat ings in LE units. The point is that simply "maintaining qualifications" doesn't make those personnel experts at law enforcement.

Of course, if ALL USCG members were required to be BO/BTM trained (and certified), then it would cut down on the time required to keep people proficient at the LE/PWCS/national defense mission.