quote:

Originally posted by Mightyz90_93:
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.

MC,

All true; I think Big's point (one which deserves a very critical look from the CG senior leadership) is that the post-9/11 mix of missions are more challenging than ever before. We've seen great steps toward making our C4ISR capability better by establishing new rating (IS, OS, IT) but the boots-on-the-ground mission accomplishment would benefit from new ratings whose field of expertise would be the PWCS/LE/national defense mission.

If I understand Big's argument correctly, it's the most compelling one I've heard yet for establishing an "LE rating"... however as I said in an earlier post above, there's a large world of work in CG LE beyond simple boardings done by cutters and small boats.

Maybe a combination of actions would solve the problem:

(1) Jerry mentioned in an earlier post the term "Enforcement Specialist"-- a notional rating whose world of work would be civil penalties, criminal charges, etc for all sorts of violations (including traditional Marine Safety regulatory enforcement)...and tactical LE.

(2) Make the PS rating an active-duty rating. Have those folks focus on the traditional PS KSAs (harbor defense, "green side" operations, NCW, and add to it PWCS. They could work in conjunction with "ES's" to fill the need for LE expertise.

I don't think it's an issue of one or the other (active duty PS or a new LE rating)... there are competencies that need to be filled by both approaches and one rating would not fill the need completely.

I know what those situation are because I have been trained to respond to those type of situations. I also don't believe that the citizens of any city would be very understanding after we explained to them the circumstance in which the use of a high caliber weapon was warranted. That is all I have to say about that. Any more and I would probably violate OPSEC.

quote:

Originally posted by BLUETORCH:
I know what those situation are because I have been trained to respond to those type of situations. I also don't believe that the citizens of any city would be very understanding after we explained to them the circumstance in which the use of a high caliber weapon was warranted. That is all I have to say about that. Any more and I would probably violate OPSEC.

Well in that case it appears you've answered your own question.

Because someone of lesser stature, much less a retiree make such a suggestion almost dooms it from the start.

Seriously though, the days of following Naval traditions, with the exception of expert seamanship, are pretty much done. The job taskings require much greater focus to truly succeed. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that CG personnel are failing in any of these. You can only burn the candle at both ends for so long.

If a review by senior leadership doesn't occur what are the risks? Improper casework, chain of custody, and on and on. Those are just potential admin mistakes, with weapons deployed the other risks are, well...

I've thought the PS rate should always have had an AD contingient. As the D9 armorer in 90/91 were the initial PSU deployments occured. A lot of the Reserve folks knew their stuff. But some just didn't. Overall a great job. But there were warts. They were a little slow to deploy, or like most everyone not trained for existing conditions. I think that the MSST concept could be up and running faster and more efficiently. Then be relieved by the PSU's.

Maybe if the rating scheme is re-examined, the MSST/PSU will all be the same any way. Like I said, all in-action will do is bring close scrutiny like the legacy "M" missions are experiencing.

Has anyone here actually read the "LETSGO" report???

A number of us were briefed on it at a meeting a couple of months ago, I am not sure it has been released yet.

This is one of the longest strings I have read over the years -- and it still has momentum -- so I want to add my 3 cents since this seem to go high up the chain and people really listen.

It goes back to basic training. I am a resevist who came in RX and went to REBI. But I went to US Army Basic 20 years ago. We carried rifles we actually use -- M-16s and not M-1s (god bless the M-1 though) and we learned how to use them over weeks of training.
I don't know what practical skills they actually teach in CG basic but it certainly has little to do with LE or marksmanship.
So why not incorporate BTM skills into basic and have everyone get simple training with those skills -- carry red M-9s like we did at my BTM class 8 years ago and teach the basics to the basics. Then they will be ready when they are E-4 to do a job -- and it avoids shipping htem off to Charleston or scattered training at their unit.
6 years after 911 and its past time for a fundamental shift in the way the USCG does business. Every Marine is a rifelman, and every USCG active or reserve should have LE as a basic since we all may be called to defend something at sometime.
Thanks for the chance to rant...

Anything new on this topic. I hope we here something new via MSG or something.

quote:

Originally posted by imlivid:
This is one of the longest strings I have read over the years -- and it still has momentum -- so I want to add my 3 cents since this seem to go high up the chain and people really listen.

It goes back to basic training. I am a resevist who came in RX and went to REBI. But I went to US Army Basic 20 years ago. We carried rifles we actually use -- M-16s and not M-1s (god bless the M-1 though) and we learned how to use them over weeks of training.
I don't know what practical skills they actually teach in CG basic but it certainly has little to do with LE or marksmanship.
So why not incorporate BTM skills into basic and have everyone get simple training with those skills -- carry red M-9s like we did at my BTM class 8 years ago and teach the basics to the basics. Then they will be ready when they are E-4 to do a job -- and it avoids shipping htem off to Charleston or scattered training at their unit.
6 years after 911 and its past time for a fundamental shift in the way the USCG does business. Every Marine is a rifelman, and every USCG active or reserve should have LE as a basic since we all may be called to defend something at sometime.
Thanks for the chance to rant...

quote:

Originally posted by imlivid: Every Marine is a rifelman, and every USCG active or reserve should have LE as a basic since we all may be called to defend something at sometime.
Thanks for the chance to rant...

LE is a highly perishable skill. Most Coasties do not do LE ever in their career. Resources are limited, so time and money we spend training members with skills they will never use, is time and money we cannot spend in other areas. If and when a member does need to conduct LE, we would have to retrain them anyway.

We are a multi mission agency and LE is only one of those missions. For example, there is a much better chance that a member will have to respond to some type of HAZMAT spill than conduct LE. Do we also train for that in Boot Camp?

I do agree that if the resources were available, there is room for improvement in our weapons training in Boot Camp. It would be good to see all recruits qualify with the P229, M16 and shotgun before hitting the field.

As for the LE rating, no decision has been made yet and work is ongoing.

imlivid;
There is a very easy, and very basic answer to your question: Cape May's duties are to instruct Recruits in the E-2 EPME Performance Quals. That is it, nothing more. When determining what the E-2 EPMEs should be, we MUST use a bussiness model when it comes to time and money. The likley hood of that type of trianing making the cut, when you look at everything else we need, is pretty low.

Oh - and you 'train for LE so we can defend' is an erronious arguement. If you took out "for LE" it would be ok.

I came to my MSST from a small boat station at which I had conducted hundreds of boardings. When I got to my MSST and was billeted as a coxswain on the waterside section, I was told we were NEVER to conduct a 4100 boarding, and I don't even think my unit had any 4100 forms anyway. The people who were assigned to the "shoreside" section (responsible for conducting boardings) were, with few exceptions, straight out of "A" school and had NEVER conducted a boarding. My two boat crewman had NEVER conducted a boarding. And we were supposed to be the experts on law enforcement. The Coast Guard is behind the curve when it comes to training and personnel screening for assignment. The Coast Guard is a military service and I hope it stays one forever, but it cannot operate like one in all aspects.

looks like LETSGO is still working on the rate. I, like many of you im sure, got the email yesterday about completing the law enforcement survey for data for the 2nd phase of LETSGO. Hopefully they end up completing all of this and we get to see a LE rate in the next couple of years

quote:

Originally posted by d1b3:
I came to my MSST from a small boat station at which I had conducted hundreds of boardings. When I got to my MSST and was billeted as a coxswain on the waterside section, I was told we were NEVER to conduct a 4100 boarding, and I don't even think my unit had any 4100 forms anyway. The people who were assigned to the "shoreside" section (responsible for conducting boardings) were, with few exceptions, straight out of "A" school and had NEVER conducted a boarding. My two boat crewman had NEVER conducted a boarding. And we were supposed to be the experts on law enforcement. The Coast Guard is behind the curve when it comes to training and personnel screening for assignment. The Coast Guard is a military service and I hope it stays one forever, but it cannot operate like one in all aspects.

No, MSSTs are not supposed to be experts in law enforcement. MSSTs are supposed to be experts in hardening port security INCONUS either in anticipation of, or directly after, an asymmetrical attack.

What the MSSTs were designed to do, and what they're actually being used for, are two entirely different things.

quote:

Originally posted by d1b3:
I was told we were NEVER to conduct a 4100 boarding, and I don't even think my unit had any 4100 forms anyway. .

I was pretty surprised to read this. We were always taught that the 4100 was a great tool for which to justify seeing parts of a boat the captain may not want to give consent to search.

For example, when I was with Customs in the FL Keys, if we wanted to get a look into a boat that we suspected was loading up for a trip to Cuba, we'd often ask the Coast Guard to do a 4100.

How did you document your boardings if they ever came up for a court case at a later date? I know of a number of cases when our agents would include the Coast Guard's 4100 forms as evidence for trials when trying to document who's been caught running a suspect boat, where and when.

Don

now that the "survey" has been conducted, we'll see how the LE rate goes. I myself have mixed fillings.

I was thinking about this possible LE rating the other night. Something I was wondering is if the USCG goes with LE ratings, would they follow through with LE boat crews? What I am getting at is would they have independant boat crews for LE that could patrol an area and not be diverted to SAR?

1985-2001, I worked in the Key Largo area and it probably happened on at least half of the nights that the CG had a boat helping us set up on intel of an offload. You could almost count on someone calling in a bogus flare sighting some 25 miles away.

Just wondering....

Don

I believe many of the So. FL stations run two boat crews, one for LE and the other for SAR. This may be seasonal though.

LE rating or not, the need for BOs from other ratings will still exist due to the size and multi-mission reality of the USCG. It is likely that LE rating personnel will be the majority in DOG units and serve as LEPOs at stations and onboard cutters. However, you would need a few thousand to fill every possible BO billet outside of the O ranks.

That's kind of what I was wondering. Would LE rated PO's be on SAR boats almost like TACLET members on a Navy boarding team or would they work as a team independant from SAR? Back with the Fast Coastal Interceptor (FCI) program, those crews were LE only except when their was an obvious major SAR case that their help might be needed, ie: boat fire seen by many.

No doubt the change would have to be large scale. I don't think a handful of L/E rates at each unit would change SOP unless they had their own boats to use. Money, money, money....

I hope it all works out though. I'm all for the LE rate myself.

Don

quote:

Originally posted by FedRich:
I believe many of the So. FL stations run two boat crews, one for LE and the other for SAR. This may be seasonal though.

LE rating or not, the need for BOs from other ratings will still exist due to the size and multi-mission reality of the USCG. It is likely that LE rating personnel will be the majority in DOG units and serve as LEPOs at stations and onboard cutters. However, you would need a few thousand to fill every possible BO billet outside of the O ranks.

Would it not be possible for all BO's be of the LE rate type??? I mean, wouldn't it make sense to make BO a LE-only position??? Have other rates fill in the BTM positions as well as LE3's who could use the experience before being put in charge of a BT... Have an LE Officer or LEC/CS/CM (depending on size of unit/cutter) in charge of LE Dept... Possibly under OPS Dept... Have however many LE's as you have duty sections for stations and have the LE Dept head in a daywork status just as you have the 1LT... I mean, does it not make sense to have the personnel in charge of boardings dedicated to law enforcement as their sole job??? I'm an ET... My job is PMS and corrective maintenance on radars, radios, etc... Just with the limited knowledge I have of the ET rating thus far, I think it'll be very difficult to assume the duties of a BO on the boat while maintaining sufficient knowledge of both my rating and collateral duties as a BO... I'm not saying I can't do it, I will as soon as possible... But I can see the need for PO's who have only law enforcement rules/regs to keep up with... I also think we'd see a very high increase in law enforcement activity as a whole so as to 'justify' the additional billets service-wide... And since 9/11, isn't LE becoming a mission that is becoming more and more in demand???

Just my $.02... I'm sure I made some type of error in my assessment, but I'm open to more information regarding the subject...

ET3 Sends...