I was looking over a few of the old force notes and came across the July 2007 one. MCPO Wolf made a comment that it should be a requirement to hold at least one OIC certification to be become a CWO BOSN. That got me to thinking so I made some calls to a few other XPO friends of mine to get thier take on it. All of them said it was good; the argument that MCPO Wolf made is right on target--BOSN's should have that background in order to be in the position they are in. There were some that thought it was not such a good idea; making it a requirement would lower the pool of "good" cadidates because even if they don't WANT to be an OIC, they would, in effect, be forced to. Personally I think it's the right idea for many reasons, but I saw their point.
What do you think??
Also, I heard from at least a couple of people that soon it will be a requirement....
I see it this way....if a BMC is required to hold both an Afloat certification and an Ashore certification to advance to BMCS, then a CWO Bosun (who is a professional above and beyond a BMCS) should be required at a minimum, the same.
Put my vote down for both an ashore and afloat qual required to be eligable for CWO.....
Can anyone tell me the ratio of Commanding Officer Afloat and Ashore/General assignment for Warrant vice BMCM/BMCS Afloat and Ashore/General Assignment?
Since you all brought it up, I am looking at requiring one certification to make BMC. Not really concerned what the BOSN's are doing but I can tell you they don't have the same opportunities for command that we have so I'm not sure it is a big issue within their community. From what I have seen, most of the CWO CO's already had their OIC certifications before they went BOSN. I think our BM community needs to focus on what we do, not the BOSN's, especially when almost a third of the BMC's don't have any OIC certification and many, many more BM1's don't have any. Almost every district has sent messages very concerned over the lack of candidates to their OIC review boards. We really need to support this unique opportunity we have in being enlisted Officers in Charge, if we don't use it, we will lose it. I can guarantee the dogs are at the fence trying to take their bite out of us. If you need any help getting prepared or information on how to prepare for the board, please feel free to contact me. I will be at the D8 ATON workshop this coming week if you are in the area.
Originally posted by Mfan: Since you all brought it up, I am looking at requiring one certification to make BMC. Not really concerned what the BOSN's are doing but I can tell you they don't have the same opportunities for command that we have so I'm not sure it is a big issue within their community. From what I have seen, most of the CWO CO's already had their OIC certifications before they went BOSN. I think our BM community needs to focus on what we do, not the BOSN's, especially when almost a third of the BMC's don't have any OIC certification and many, many more BM1's don't have any. Almost every district has sent messages very concerned over the lack of candidates to their OIC review boards. We really need to support this unique opportunity we have in being enlisted Officers in Charge, if we don't use it, we will lose it. I can guarantee the dogs are at the fence trying to take their bite out of us. If you need any help getting prepared or information on how to prepare for the board, please feel free to contact me. I will be at the D8 ATON workshop this coming week if you are in the area.
BM RFMC
Good info! And, it sounds like a good plan as well. I would be interested in seeing what the effects were long-term.
What sounds like a good idea today, may be seen entirely different a few years from now.
I would think that the dogs would be the Officer core. In my opinion and my opinion only and there is no evidence for me to back this up and I don't mean to offend anyone. I think the Officer core would like to have 0-1 and 0-2's as Commanding Officers or Executive Officer's at small stations and 87's then have a 0-2 or 0-3 at larger stations as the same. Maybe as just a training ground for their junior officer's. Just to throw this out there a Warrant is a commissioned officer, correct? Officer's OCS or Academy do not go through a board for a Commanding officer position, why should a warrant if he is a commissioned officer? The warrant was selected because they have already demonstrated his or her leadership ability and that is what it comes down to, not certifications. How many Commanding Officers (officer wise) of 87's or stations have the certification? Heck, how many were even a coxswain or boat engineer before they became a Commanding Officer of a station, but they got the job and get the job done. I would like to also agree on the subject of having a requirement of one cert or more to make chief or even first, it would cut down 3/4 of the service wide competion. This is getting off of the subject but I think 500 plus participants is a little high and would give the more junior participants a equal competing ground against dino points. They could even give points for individual certifications afloat/ashore/aton/mm. Again this is my opinion and I see how people get offended on here or take things the wrong way so I would like to reiterate that I am not trying to offend anyone.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: BigWaveRider,
Since you all brought it up, I am looking at requiring one certification to make BMC.
Master Chief~I had heard this idea kicked around more than a year ago, but nothing much came of it. The only thing that would concern me would be making sure we prepare our third and second classes to be in a position to be eligible to sit for the board. I counsel my guys on the importance of setting up your career path right early on so you can sit for the board, ashore and afloat. When, if it happens, would this change take place? I guess if that happened, it would, in effect, make it a "requirement" to make BOSN
Technically not, since a first class can apply for Warrant. If it was required to make first class, then in effect it would be a "requirement".
Well...ok, but there's not too many first class' that make CWO so if you want to get technical...
The other thing that needs to happen at the 3rd and 2nd class level; detailers need to be more cognizant of career path's now. For example; a BM2 that does not have a lot of sea time is asking for a good number of 87's to get an OOD letter, but instead gets a boat ops department. What good does that do him?? And before anyone says the needs of the service I agree, but the example happens more often than you might want to believe.
Technically not, since a first class can apply for Warrant. If it was required to make first class, then in effect it would be a "requirement".
Apples and oranges, if the requirement to apply for BOSN was that you have an OinC certification, then only BM1s who have one could apply. In order to make BM1 (or BMC currently) you wouldn't need it.
I always liked the idea that for those who couldn't get the star and did the OER, that if they didn't have any OinC certifications, then they couldn't command as a CWO until after later point in their commissioned careers. For example 6 years after being commissioned or another one being promotion to BOSN3.
Originally posted by strb725: ... detailers need to be more cognizant of career path's now ...
I think detailers already spend plenty of time trying to figure out career paths based on the dream sheets in front of them. Units requested don't always reflect the desired career path.
I think what needs to happen is members need to learn at an early point in their career which way they want to go, and then they need to learn how to more effectively communicate those wishes to their detailer. Some know early on where they want to be in 10 years, others don't. A member doesn't have to wait until transfer season to have a conversation with the detailer about career paths, and what would be a good 'next move'.
Members should take more proactive in their career paths. Do you think a detailer will remember the conversation with that member when he/she is looking at their dream sheet? You bet. It's can be used as a subtle way of networking.
My bottom line is that a member has to be in control of their own career path. If no one tells them how, they need to figure it out, the earlier in life the better. It's not just about assignments. It is also important to do very well in a given assignment, especially if that's the chosen path. If you don't do well, the detailer may point you in another direction. Don't settle for 'didn't get along with the supervisor' or 'we had a personality conflict'. It's all about the numbers to the detailers.
