OK, so it seems I stirred up a bit of confusion and some descent regarding a comment about advancement recommendations and competencies, so I am starting a thread to discuss that.

First things first, let’s look at the PERSMAN article on what Recommended for Advancement means:

RECOMMENDED. The member is fully capable of satisfactorily performing the duties and responsibilities of the next higher pay grade. The rating chain should choose this entry regardless of the member’s qualification or eligibility for advancement. If the member has met all eligibility requirements, choosing this value constitutes an official recommendation for advancement. Personnel, E-6 and above, must receive a supporting remarks entry clearly documenting their present and future leadership potential for greater responsibility Article 10.B.2.a.(1)(e).

Let me pull one part out for emphasis: “…member is fully capable of satisfactorily performing the duties and responsibilities of the next higher pay grade…”

Note the use of the word “IS” not “might be,” and the phrase “fully capable” not “partially capable.” Those are pretty standard words/phrases know to most 4th graders.

Now that we got those knocked out of the way, let’s look at “…duties and responsibilities of the next higher grade…” That statement is a little bit innocuous. Where do we find the definition of that? It is NOT the EPQs, those are a separate issue. I submit that now that Headquarters has assigned REQUIRED COMPETENCIES to all of our afloat and Command Center Billets, it is pretty easy to define them:

Ashore:
OS3 – Comms Unit
OS2 – Situation Unit (and Comms Unit)
OS1 – Operations Unit (and Situation Unit and Comms Unit)

Afloat:
OS3 – Afloat Comms
OS2 – Ops Watchstander (CIC Watch + Comms Watch)
OS1 – Ops Watch Supervisor (CIC Watch Sup+ CIC Watch Stander + Comms Watch)

So, when choosing what to put for the Recommended for Advancement mark for an OS3, the question becomes:

“Is the member fully capable of satisfactorily performing as a Comms Unit and Situation Unit Watchstander?”

Or

“Is the member fully capable of satisfactorily performing as an OPS Watchstander Afloat?”

(examples for higher pay grades are easy to follow)


That doesn’t necessarily mean they must be qualified. There is a bit of a judgment call in there, as long as the judgment call doesn’t hinge on “someday” being able to do it.

Of course, this is going to require preparation and planning on behalf of the member and those leading the member. Good thing we do Individual Development Plans and go over them EVERY 6 MONTHS with EVERY E-6 and below huh! Good thing we constantly update our divisional training plan! Good thing we all understand that developing of subordinates is not only one of our primary missions, but something that ALL OF US are evaluated on during EERs and OERs!


A couple of comments & disclaimers here:

A: When evaluating say an OS1, these apply too. If you have an OS1 who cannot perform the competencies of their current grade, then the advancement recommendation should be pretty easy and the CLEAR path for performance probation is set.

B: Yes, about 10% of the rating is in a billet & unit where they do not have required Comps applied to their billet. The supervisors in those places are going to have a tougher time applying this.

C: Yes, I know that MANY units feel that they have the authority to ignore what is in the PERSMAN with regards to the above. I know that many times this is above the enlisted corp. I am not going to build excuses or re-examine the policies procedures just because someone cannot read or chooses not to follow an order from the Commandant. (yes, it is that simple)


OK – fire away.

So, if I have a First who is not – Ops Watch Supervisor (CIC Watch Sup+ CIC Watch Stander + Comms Watch) I should not recommend him for advancement?

Its not that straight forward. Read the criteria, "The rating chain should choose this entry regardless of the member’s qualification". In my opinion, not being qualifed and not having the ability to qualify are two seperate issues.

What if the OS1 reported aboard while you are in an extended yard period and is not afforded the opportunity to get qualified during the marking period, should this keep him from competing for advancement? What if the OS1 is fully qualified at his Sector, reports aboard for his first afloat tour, is in the breakin process making reasonable progress and marking time comes, do you not recommend him because he is not qualifed?

You have to look at more than just competencies and qualifications, don't forget the PM requires you to judge individual's qualities of leadership, personal integrity, and adherence to core values when determining R or NR.

UWMW;
Most of that is a good post, but don't clip quotes too short. The 'qualification' spoken of is qualified for ADV, ie, Pracs, tests, tig, etc. Also - those other things you listed are IN ADDITION to the other things.

Secondly, a great point is made in that it is the supervisors responsibility to ensure every member has the oppurtunity to qualify. ie - calling someone the 'radio LPO' and using that to think you can ignore the comps is wrong.

Radio head - hell yes, in most cases, that person should not be recomended for OS1, much less OSC.

seems pretty cut and dry with using some common sense

quote:

Originally posted by geh911:
seems pretty cut and dry with using some common sense

You would think so huh? Still see OS1s who have failed 3,4 or 5 OU boards recomended for Chief when they should have been on performance probation on on there way to OS2 after failing thier 1st or second one.

DOnt want to get off the subject tooo much, yet i believe some folks dont want to be "that guy" when it comes to putting someone on performance probation or placing a "not recommended for advancement". Of course these people should not be supervisors themselves if they cannot step up to the plate and lay down the law, yet it does happen.

Not off the subject at all. As a matter of fact - DEAD ON SUBJECT.

Master Chief,

I understand that these necessary competencies are essential for advancement; especially for E-7. However, here's a hot topic and I'm sure there's going to be blow back.

So far, everything that has been discussed has been for E-6 and below. What about E-7 and above? Especially those former RDs, TCs and QMs out there. For example, I recently came off of a ship where I had an OSC and OSCS (both former TCs) who had never used a maneuvering board a day in their career. Nor had they ever stood an OU/SU or CIC watch. Should they had not been recommended for advancement and placed on performance probation? They still got their letter as a CIC watch supervisor, but there was no qualification process. For what it seemed, they were given based on title/position. I just think that a worst case scenario would be if a chief did not recommend a first class for advancement for something that they themselves did not complete. All the while, the chief gets the "REC". It seems like hypocrisy. If someone can't perform the EPQs of a lesser grade, how can they be recommended for a higher one? Don't get me wrong, a chief is a chief, and I respect that. But I think that if the air is going to be cleared, we need to discuss this as well.

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

quote:

Should they had not been recommended for advancement and placed on performance probation?

100% yes. I don't give a crap what title was on anyone's paycheck back in May 0f 2003.

quote:

Originally posted by Mightyz90_93:

quote:

Should they had not been recommended for advancement and placed on performance probation?

100% yes. I don't give a crap what title was on anyone's paycheck back in May 0f 2003.

Just so I understand.....Every OS E-7 and above, regardless of background, who doesn't have the aforementioned competencies should be on performance probation?

They should have all of the ones that can be earned at the unit they are currently at.

MC-

Great information, but where is this in the Force Notes? Did I miss something? Had I not known about this website, I wouldn't have been aware of your position on this issue.

Should we be looking for this in the Force Notes or some other official form of correspondence?

If this information was disseminated through the CG, it would give the SCC Chiefs/Supervisors some clarity from above on how to proceed with E7's and above that are unqualified, or even incapable of becoming qualified due to ineptness, laziness, or incompetence.

Unqualified Chiefs may be the single greatest source of incompetence in Sectors and on Cutters throughout the fleet.

Obviously I have talked about the Cutter ones adnausium. The Sector one has been predicted. It will be in the next force notes in my normal very 'clear' language.

MC, Sounds like you need to take a field trip to my unit and clean house. I sure hope a few people here read your next Force Notes very carefully.

quote:

Originally posted by pbandit123:
MC, Sounds like you need to take a field trip to my unit and clean house. I sure hope a few people here read your next Force Notes very carefully.

Cleaning house needs to happen. It's really hard for an E-6 to be able to have that talk to thier supervisor, letting them know they have to get qual'd just like the rest of us and also stand watch just like the rest of us (as mentioned in one of MC's previous postings).

Right on as far as OSTINMAN's post where folks believe that due to thier rank, they are automatically qual'd. That is the impression that i have recieved in the past. I also get the impression that once pinning on E-7 "you now belong to the good ole boy group" and standing watch and so forth is beneath them. NOW dont get me wrong, this doesnt happen EVERYWHERE...just some units that i have experienced and also finding out what fellow first's talk about when we network with each other.

Shipmates - although it hasn't happened yet - please don't take too much freedom discussing those above you in detail. They are still your superiors. Also - remember this discussion is about obtaining Competencies, not current watch qualifications. That Chief may have earned some of those comps two decades ago or even before you were born - and that (in some cases, like OS-0001) may meet those requirements. Please understand the difference of having earned a comp and being currently qualified/certified.

I get sick and tired of hearing OSCs and above saying or thinking they dont have to stand watch anymore. BU..SH..
ALL OSs are watchstanders no matter what paygrade they are, get used to it.
OSCMs are even standing watch. I know one personally.

Another that fries me is OSCs that arnt qualified or know their job F'ing around with **** they dont understand.
I'm having to clean up 4 years worth of work done by OSC/OSCSs that thought because they were supervisors they knew best, but didnt have a F'ing clue how to run a CC.

Ok rant off, I needed to blow some steam off :P
its been none stop busy for me since reporting here.

The problem I see in the OS rate is OSCs and above, legacy & non-legacy, is that they think they know it all and blast ahead with ill conceived and bad ideas. They dont ask for help or ask subordinates, that have the knowledge and know how, for advise. That then rolls up-hill cause the Command ASSumes the chief knows what he is doing and writes it down as doctrine in the SOP, thereby perpetuating the bad ideas.

Alright Im going to light some fires with this one

Starting my 8th+ year at a CC, having qualified umpteen million watchstanders in that time frame and seeing the way that Command Centers are going. I really and truely believe there needs to be a.) Command Center Rate or b.) An Command Center advancement track thru OSC and beyond without SEA TIME.

ok, ok yes thats contentious, but hear me out.

Every year that I do this job I see more and more watchstanding requirments come down the pike from HQ/OPCOM/DIST. When I first got qualified in 2001 I didnt need to know 1/10th the stuff that I need to know now. Ive seen the break-in process time go from around 3 months to pushing a year. This job is becoming more and more specialised with every passing year.
Nothing against the guys coming off boats, but there is nothing you do on-board a cutter thats going to prepare you for what you need to learn at a high OP-TEMPO sector/District. Yes some of the sensors and equipment may be similar, but thats it.

This is something that needs to be seriously looked at. I think Im validated in my belief in that we now have stood up a CC school,*cough* About time *cough*. There are so many systems, gear and requirments being added to CCs that what and OS1 does at a Command Center will have no help/correlate with an OS1 on a cutter.


Let the Bitc.es and Rants begin

wow. gotta love those posts. Those are pretty ballsy statements coming from a prior QM who hasn't been to sea in 9 years. i'd say the optempo of my CIC during g/f response is a fairly high OPTEMPO. Try to spread your career path outside of the command center and your cush home with wife and kids everynight. Clueless.