12345qwert wrote:...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.
12345qwert wrote:(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).
12345qwert wrote: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.
12345qwert wrote: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?"
COMEVIL wrote:Unless you are writing the requirements, you can no more say what IS/ISN'T required for selection to O-5 CMD then I can. Unfortunately, we are both left with hearsay as our community doesn't tend to communicate these things very well. That being said, I have heard from multiple senior sources that a LCDR XO tour will be required for CDR CMD selection.
COMEVIL wrote:I think you are missing the point here. Not everyone will get a milestone tour, nor should we want that to be the case as that would really defeat the purpose of the term/billet description. There are limited billets and not everyone will, or more importantly should, fill one. Establishing a process will ensure the right people fill these jobs. A board doesn't have to connect a person to a billet, just determine who should is qualified to fill them.
COMEVIL wrote:BL: the problem with our board process starts with how we evaluate our people. When we say everyone is great, ready for advancement, and on the face-track to command we leave the board with a very challenging choice.
12345qwert wrote:(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?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest