Having never been through the process myself I wanted to know what goes into selecting a chief?

I understand that one has to pass the test, get a package together and that a selection board is convened.

Who is on that board? What criteria is the board looking for that has not been enumerated in the candidates package?

If someone could walk me through the process I would greatly appreciate it.

I undoubtedly will have more questions as I get answers.

V/r
Carl M. Ploense III
NMCB 25, EO2(SCW) [2001-2007]

quote:

Originally posted by comm:
Having never been through the process myself I wanted to know what goes into selecting a chief?

I understand that one has to pass the test, get a package together and that a selection board is convened.

Who is on that board? What criteria is the board looking for that has not been enumerated in the candidates package?

If someone could walk me through the process I would greatly appreciate it.

I undoubtedly will have more questions as I get answers.

V/r
Carl M. Ploense III
NMCB 25, EO2(SCW) [2001-2007]

Using the various links,both on the left and right sides, contained in the below link should answer just about any question you have.

General Board Information

BoatsBM1

Thanks for the general guidance. I am not sure what happened to the other respondents post but it really has no bearing on what I want further clarification over.

Let me be case specific.

In the CM rating you have a CM1 who has two tours in Iraq. He has two warfare quals (SCW & FMF). On the admin side he has multiple billets with regards to training. He is the kind of Seabee that volunteers for most anything and has excellent evals. How would he be slated compared to other CM1's and why wouldn't he be considered Chief material? What might be the factors that keep him from being selected?

V/r
Carl

Since every CPO board is somewhat different, it's difficult to say how this CM1 would be slated compared to all other board eligible CM1's. Also, although the 2 warfare qual's will score points with the board, keep in mind that that quite a few SeaBee's have also been deployed (multiple times as well) and most of them will also have at least SCW too. You really can get a much better overall idea of the factors that will make a difference for selection by checking out the page link to NPC that Boats provided in his post ...click on the "CPO Board" link on that page, then scroll down and read the board precepts ...the precepts break down the key factors and will give you a much better idea what the board is considering/weighing when they make selections.

Beyond that, one major and constant factor for every board is proven leadership, as well as the potential for success in greater leadership roles ...the greater the level and scope of leadership the better. Another major factor that is typically among the most important that the board considers with leadership is "sailorization" ...what has he/she done to help other sailors succeeed and develop. Additionally, (and most importantly) both leadership and sailorization should be well documented and supported in the eval or service record and backed up with solid, specific quantifiable facts/results (not fluffy and vague subjective remarks) ...all the better if that leadership and/or sailorization is further backed up/recognized with SOQ/SOY or other awards.

Otherwise, some of the more important factors that can have a negative impact and keep the CM1 from being selected would include incomplete/missing records (especially eval's, awards and qual's/certifications); PFA failure(s); and poor eval's ...not necessarily just eval score or ranking according to CO's avg., but poorly written and vague with regard to supporting facts.

The best thing I can reccomend is for the CM1 is to either request informal assistance from their Admin Chief to sit down and review their service record to get feedback, or request a more formal career development board to go over the service record with your CCC and Chief(s). Ideally, you can find/talk to a M/S/CPO who has served on a board (or been a recorder) who can give you even more insights.

Hope this helps.

quote:

You really can get a much better overall idea of the factors that will make a difference for selection by checking out the page link to NPC that Boats provided in his post ...click on the "CPO Board" link on that page, then scroll down and read the board precepts ...the precepts break down the key factors and will give you a much better idea what the board is considering/weighing when they make selections.

I spent two hours this morning looking at those links I referred to in my first post,including to one reffered to by the Senior Chief.
Was hoping a Chief would respond so as not to have the blind leading the blind.
Thanks Senior Chief.
I never went through the process either.

Here you go Carl;
http://www.npc.navy.mil/NR/rdo...FY10ACTE7PRECEPT.pdf

The meat of the precepts start on page 9 of the PDF file(Appendix A)"General Guidance" and get to the heart of the meat starting on page 14(Appendix B)

At the bottom of the PDF you will see that out of 162 CM's that were "Board Eligible",for FY 2010, there were only 13 quotas and that is how many were advanced, per NAVADMIN 230/09

Another useful link also I think was;
Sailors Reminded to Update Records

Hope that helps also.

BoatsBM1

Just to add some emphasis to one comment from surnnturf:

Years ago the Reserve Advancements Office used to run a forum where you could ask questions on advancement issues.

There were two recurring themes that the Master Chiefs that ran the forum put out before the plug was pulled on the forum:

1. The only really clear picture that the board has to put a Sailor in perspective with the other candidates is their evaluations/fitness reports. A mediocre Sailor whose reports gives the board what they need could easily get picked up over a stellar Sailor whose reports don't give them that information.

2. The Sailor signing the report has the ultimate responsibility for what it contains. If the report has typos, incorrect dates, etc., it reflects on the Sailor as it shows they may not have taken the time to read it carefully and understand what it says. If there are typos, the command should fix them before the Sailor signs it. If there is additional information that could not go into the write-up due to space limitations, use the option to submit a statement, and preface it with the comment that you are requesting the following information be included with the report. Just make sure the information is meaningful and not just a laundry list.

First off Thanks for all the help. It has been very informative. I have a much better understanding of the process than I did before the posting.

I understand why an outstanding CM might not have made Chief with so few available openings.

I am interested in exploring something further, particularly comments made by Chief Jeffers.

Are you saying the selection board has no personal knowledge of the sailor in question. That the only allowable perspective is what is in writing in the SRB? I really don't see that as a very good metric. There are a lot of good leaders in the Bees who can build and fight but are so-so on the read and write.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding something. The way it sounds either a good Yeoman, or an English major in college could make a first class look great even if he is as screwed up as a football bat. Therefore, that well written first class will make Chief. That really does not sound like a very good way to create the most important level of leadership in the Navy.

Also, let us say the good sailor does disagree with his evals. If he complains about it and demands changes isn't he branding himself a trouble maker in the command? I see a kind of "catch 22" here. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

Finally, could you or any other members of the Chief's community elaborate on unit politics in the process of selecting Chiefs? Or does it not exist in either theory or practice?

I again thank all for their thoughtful comments, direction and follow-up.

Please do not misunderstand me. I am not taking issue with anything here. I am merely trying to understand the process. If I correctly or incorrectly perceive a flaw in the system it is done in the spirit of learning.

V/r
Carl M. Ploense III

Comm, I'll try to clear some things up if I can.

As you know, you would submit your eval input to your supervisor, who then starts the eval process. Many times, especially in the case of drilling reservists, this means you would actually draft your own evaluation. Once the draft report is submitted, it may be amended at each step in the review process, and in some cases sent back to the originator for clarification of some points. I think I only saw one or two reports in my career that did not undergo major rewrites in the review process. I do know from personal experience, especially once I got my anchors, I made heavy use of a dictionary and thesarus when reviewing and amending evaluations.

Language is important, but so are meaningful facts and figures with regard to what the Sailor is doing for the Navy, the command, etc. For example, simply saying you're a career counselor is nice, but if you processed Sailors for reenlistement you may want to mention that number and the corresponding retention rate. Being recalled to active duty is nice, but being recalled to active duty, LPO for XX number of active/reserve component Sailors, and what your Sailors accomplished is better. If the report starts off with a strong opening statement (Petty Officer Ploense needs to be advanced to Chief NOW) the write-up had best support that statement.

The comment regarding the evaluation being the only clear picture a selection board has of a Sailor was taken directly from a comment made by the Master Chief who was head of the Reserve Advancements Office at the time. It was also reinforced by a CMC at my command before I made Chief when I was passed over and asked their help on seeing where I could make some improvements and found out that while there was nothing really wrong with my performance, the reports did not give the board what they needed. Yes, the board will look at personal award citations (NAM, etc.) to help decide if you have the potential to do the job of a Chief. Yes, they will look at commendatory correspondence signed off at/above a certain level.

If, when you sign the document, you see changes your command should make the changes depending on what they are. That is an issue the Sailor has to work out with their chain of command.

In regard to statements you may want to review the instruction on evaluations. If there is information in the report you think is inaccurate you may make a statement addressing that fact so long as you do not cast aspersions on the motives of the reporting senior or your chain of command. One Master Chief also told me in a debrief after he sat on a board that you can use the statement to add information of value that would not fit in the write-up due to space limitations. Again, the thing is to make it meaningful information. I don't believe myself that making a statement labels you a trouble-maker, etc. It simply means there was a disagreement and you are taking steps within the regulations to address those concerns.

As I understand it, no board member will review a record on a Sailor they know personally. If they find they got a record on someone they know, they're immediately supposed to make that fact known so the record can be assigned to someone else for review.

Not sure if I clarified things or simply made the waters muddier.

There may be another important factor at play here, which has not yet been mentioned.

If there is no longer an attempt to put all persons in the same paygrade in a command into some approximation of a normal distribution (bell) curve at evaluation time, then let me know and I will delete this post.

When I was in, once the final rough evals were completed, ALL the department heads met and decided who was going to be #l through #X within the command for that paygrade and that evaluation cycle. The end effect of this process was usually having to "reduce" the verbage and marks for a given individual to his ranking within the command. If, for example, there were 10 E6s and all were "water walkers" spread across 10 ratings, there would only be 1 when the curving process was done. This meant that some of the water walkers would have to "slosh", some would have to "wallow", some would have to "tread water", and 1 would have to "drown".

Take that scenario, and apply it across the whole navy, and then think of what happens at selection board time. Many true "water walkers" would have average evals and marks, and therefore, because of what was done at their command, may not do well in the ranking hierarchy WITHIN their respective ratings at board time, and maybe not even be considered "fully qualified" given the specific direction to that particular board.

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

quote:

Originally posted by whyworry:
There may be another important factor at play here, which has not yet been mentioned.

If there is no longer an attempt to put all persons in the same paygrade in a command into some approximation of a normal distribution (bell) curve at evaluation time, then let me know and I will delete this post.

When I was in, once the final rough evals were completed, ALL the department heads met and decided who was going to be #l through #X within the command for that paygrade and that evaluation cycle. The end effect of this process was usually having to "reduce" the verbage and marks for a given individual to his ranking within the command. If, for example, there were 10 E6s and all were "water walkers" spread across 10 ratings, there would only be 1 when the curving process was done. This meant that some of the water walkers would have to "slosh", some would have to "wallow", some would have to "tread water", and 1 would have to "drown".

Take that scenario, and apply it across the whole navy, and then think of what happens at selection board time. Many true "water walkers" would have average evals and marks, and therefore, because of what was done at their command, may not do well in the ranking hierarchy WITHIN their respective ratings at board time, and maybe not even be considered "fully qualified" given the specific direction to that particular board.

What you're describing is a ranking board.

When I was in the Chiefs ran the board. Of course, each command is different, and it depends ultimately on what the CO decides. If he/she wants the department heads to run it, that's their call.

Same basic thing - sit down with all the evaluations for the the group being evaluated, and work from there. Once we decided who we recommended be the first EP, etc., then the marks and write-ups were revised as appropriate, bearing in mind that we were dealing with someone's career, and making sure the comments were an accurate portrayal of that Sailor. Now, if there was a Sailor we felt strongly should be an Early Promote vice a Must Promote, but all the other Early Promotes deserved that ranking based on their performance, then the line could be inserted "Would be an Early Promote except for forced distribution". There are also times where before the board meets the CO will say "so and so will be the #1 EP". At that point, orders are orders unless there is some objective evidence that you can provide the CO that may change their mind.

I agree with the above

I remember when I was an ETC teaching in Great Lakes in the early 90's there was this "we have to help out the board" mindset.

One I never agreed with BTW that said rather than make everyone sound as good as possible and give them ALL the bast chance to be considered even though they all could not be #1 you saw instead as said above the number one guy they bragged about every little thing made then sound like big import things, went so far if need be as practically making things up!

The middle of the pack guy they mentioned what ever it but left it at that like it was no big deal and the guy that was going to be in the bottom 50% and 50% had to be no matter how good they all were didn't even get it mentioned.

They all did whatever and in fact the bottom guy may have done the particular whatever it was better but for him it does not rate a mention and the other guy it's this big huge deal.

So the marks/ranking was decided on however it was fairly unfarly IE politically IE CO is an ex-CHENG and the GS's have it made or an ex-CSO and it's the ET's and OS's and then the write ups are writen to support THOSE marks.

The end result of this watering down the eval process was that at least half on the guys were taken out of the running before the running ever started.

Here we were the command that had 70-80 ET1's up for ETC and several years not a single guy got advanced and then after the fact all these "we have to help out the board" types would lament about how "no one got advanced"

Well maybe if they had not screwed over 50-75% in the name of making it easy for the board that wouldn't have happened!

Now in theory this idea of scarificing half your people in the name of making the selection boards job easier was a laudable idea and if every command did evals like that OK fine but you know other commands were making EVERYONE walk 10 feet above the water so all you were doing as screwing your people when as I always learned you were supposed to be doing everything you could to get them, all of them advanced, you know the old theory about it's my job to get you (the blue shirts) promoted and it's your job to get me promoted.

As far as signing and statments

The way I always knew it the act of signing your eval was acknowledging that you had seen it, not that you agreed or any thing like that and you could not refuse because something "was left out" and that if you made a statement it had to be to give another side of the story about something in the eval, why you thought something was not correct not fair you pick your term.

You could not simply use making a statement as a way to in effect make block 50 or whatever it was "bigger" because it that was allowed everyone would do it.

The boards looks for something that makes you stand out. what are you doing for the command besides your job. also a variety of duty assigments are important. Education and communtiy involvement is also important.

quote:

Are you saying the selection board has no personal knowledge of the sailor in question? That the only allowable perspective is what is in writing in the SRB? I really don't see that as a very good metric. There are a lot of good leaders in the Bees who can build and fight but are so-so on the read and write.

Good morning

I have been a member of several boards. If you stay in as long as I have you know quite of few sailors in your rate or have "heard" of them. If you are assigned a package of anyone you have direct or indirect knowledge of you are required to inform the panel chairman and that package is assigned to another panel member. You can NOT reveal anything you personally know..good or bad about that candidate. All information comes from the service record and the candidate’s letter to the board (if submitted).

That is why the FITREP is important. The candidate may be so-so with the read and write but there must be someone in his CoC or family or MENTOR CPO that can help him with that area. What I found to be CRITICAL was the CO's endorsement. Not just the required checked box. Not a flowery summation at the end of a heroic novel. Just the simple, concise direct statement that let's the reviewing MCPO that HE (your CO wants you advanced and not the review or ranking boards)says, "PROMOTE NOW!", That statement or similar should OPEN the verbiage.

If you want more insight to the boards try reading the ALNAV's sent out requesting board membership. Look at what the NAVY is asking for as qualifications for a MCPO to sit that board. With that and the comments above I think you should have an idea about the foggy vision called a selection board. Doesn't the fog lift with the sun of a new day?

Hope that was a little help.

gmcm

PS Please avoid the word "deserve". As Clint Eastwood said, "deserving has NOTHING to do with it."

GMCM

Would you agree however that if as you say the fitreps are the only real window that the selection board has to see the guy up for it that if 2/3 to 3/4 of the guys/gals in question getting their fitreps "watered down" as I described by people who subscibe to the "we have to help out the board" theory, that think the write-ups have to match the descending trend line regardless of what the individuals involved have actually accomplished IE make a big huge deal about something when the number 1 guy did it but possibly make no mention of it at all for the bottom 50% guy even though he did exactly the same thing and maybe just maybe did that thing in fact better all because it would make his write-up "sound to good" to be a bottom 50% guy is good or "right" .

He gets painted as run of the mill, I do just enough to get by slacker just to make the #1 guy look good/better.

That the result of this is that the board DOES NOT end up with a truly accurate picture of ALL the candiadates?

The bottom 50% guy in fact does 99% of that the #1 guy does but their fitreps read like night and day.

Same idea goes for the CO's rec. The #1 guy will invariably get the "promote now" verbage and the bottom 50% guy who really has done just as much is just as for lack of a better term deserving, who's only sin is that somebody has to be in that bottom half will get no such verbage.

I watched this process play itself out for 3 years in Great Lakes, 3/4 of the ET1's were effectivley taken out of the running before the running ever got started and then surprise surprise NO ONE got selected.

I can not speak for everyone but I have been in 2 NMCB and 1 NCFSU and we have never cut down anyone's write up just to make it match the ranking. We have cut fluff and condensed lines to get more facts in. If someone is trimming write ups it is wrong. What I have found is average Petty Officers have average write ups because they give average input and do average work. Our above average bees get above average write ups because the do above average work. But that may explain how our bees get picked for chief over other peoples sailor of the year