It's always interesting to see where these threads go!
A few follow-ups:
(1) O-4 XO requirement for O-5 Command: I wholeheartedly agree with Stewie (who, if I am guessing correctly, has some extensive experience leading the IW community in the not so distant past), O-4 XO is NOT required for O-5 command. The newest COs of NIOC Yokosuka, Whidbey Island, and Pensacola did not have O-4 XO tours (I am not 100% certain of the bios of our other O-5 COs). What IS required is a STRONG mix of leadership and operational experience. While O-4 XO is a great leadership opportunity, there are also O-5 N3 jobs at the big four - and a ton of other O-5 milestone billets - that often provide an opportunity to lead more Sailors than being an O-4 XO at some of our smaller O-5 commands. Also, consider the fact that for "breakout purposes," as an O-4 XO you are expected to be the number one soft/hard breakout - if you get your major leadership opportunity as an O-5 DH at a large command you are "competing" (or more appropriately, "evaluated") against peers serving in similar positions. This document (http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/o ... edback.pdf) found off of our community's NPC site gives some fantastic feedback on the most recent IDC CMD Screening board. Approximately 5% of those up for O-5 command were selected - and 17% that were up for O-6. Each of the officers selected for O-5 command "excelled" throughout a diverse career and the only path that will put you in a position to be competitive for command truly seems to be sustained (and DOCUMENTED) superior performance in challenging jobs.
(2) O-4 Milestone Screening Board: In my opinion, having an O-4 milestone board will not "solve" anything. First and foremost, I believe that the board process (itself) is flawed (which was the reason that the thread was started). Even still, our community is small enough and we have enough O-4 milestone billets for everyone to get a chance. Will everyone get to be a CRC on a Carrier? No. But that doesn't matter. I hope we all believe that you can do well enough in any job to be selected to command (the diverse careers of the selectees from the past 4 years of IDC CMD screening boards seem to back that up). Plus, even if we did have an O-4 milestone board, the board process would not detail to those highly coveted billets - that's left to the detailer. As far as I know, this is the same in the SWO community (you screen for DH - then work with the detailer on location/platform). How does our IW detailer decide? From what I have heard, he/she generates a "slate" based on the interest in specific jobs by specific officers (detailer compares the records of each candidate to determine the "best fit" for each job). That slate (with names attached to specific billets) is then routed to our community's most senior leaders for review/approval. That sounds incredibly fair to me - but does put a lot of trust in the detailer (who is always hand-selected into that important position).
(3) Letting your record speak for itself: Early in the thread "Stalwart" proposed the following (in addition to removing the picture, gender references, and personal experiences from the board process): "We would also need to remove references to people in FITREPs by their first name and not have the first name listed on the OSR, PSR etc ... I don't know too many males named Jennifer or females named David." This is a fantastic point! Everything should be done to ensure that the merit of the individual record is what is driving the decision for promotion/command - yet, there MUST be a fine line between making FITREPs completely impersonal. I was told early in my career that my FITREP was not for me - it was for the board. Hopefully, instead of counting on your FITREP/midterm each year to see how you are doing, your "rater" is constantly giving you feedback on your performance throughout the year.
(4) Reporting Senior's Average: Since we have a few senior (and very successful) officers on this thread, would also love to hear your thoughts on forcing (or overtly "advising") COs/raters to keep their Reporting Senior's Average within a certain range. I have always been advised that COs (and all officers) should maintain between a 3.7 and 4.2 (for both officer FITREPs and enlisted evaluations), but this is an unwritten rule that is only followed by some. Having a 5.0 FITREP written by a 3-star who has a RSA of 4.86 (which actually happened to me) doesn't send a very strong message to the board. Yes, hard/soft breakouts are used to help send a message, but why don't we advise COs/XOs (and all officers for that matter) that they must stay between a certain range throughout their career - to help better communicate just where a certain officer/enlisted Sailor falls out compared to the historical average they've seen throughout their career? What would be the downside to "forced ranges?" We already do it for EPs/MPs/Ps - why not give the board even more information through a more conservative RSA?
Would truly appreciate some candid feedback on "why" the current board/evaluation process makes sense in today's Navy? I know that there is a "long tradition" of conducting boards in this manner - but if the coast guard and air force have changed their methodology, why don't we re-evaluate the process to see if there is a "better way?"