2 April 2012 IW Board

Postby OmegaMan » Thu Mar 01, 2012 4:39 pm

No intentions of scaring anyone off here. The original post just came off as flippant to me.

Maybe it was a praise in public and scold in private sort of moment. Or perhaps I should have said:

"To whom does "Hey Guy" refer to, The Information Warfare Officer Community Manager? "

I guess my perspective is that a LCDR and leader in the community deserves a little more respect than that. Sorry for hurting feelings again... I'll go back to lurking in the War-zone forum.
  • 0

OmegaMan
 

Postby Sum1 » Thu Mar 01, 2012 8:35 pm

The prospective guy/gal probably didn't know the only person with answers to his question was a LCDR.

To COMEVAL:
The numbers I referred to (attrites vs direct OCS accessions) actually were seperate from lateral transfer numbers. Those attrites were made up of individuals who failed pilot school, failed nuke school, dropped from BUD/S, etc, etc. Basically, people who failed at their primary officer community choice (as I understood it).

OCS is actually the only direct accession opportunity able to put sizeable numbers into a lot of restricted line communities. For example, there are VERY few opportunities for Intel from NROTC or USNA. A recent (read: within the last 5 years or so I believe) change has allowed STA-21 folks to service select IW, Intel, etc with approval from higher authorities, but again, not enough are afforded those opportunties to make remove the need for OCS.
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 15

Postby O-4's hate me » Fri Mar 02, 2012 5:44 am

Sum1 wrote: I thought it was pretty weird that we'd take in so many people who probably were looking at IW as a secondary option vice accessing people who want to be here directly into the community.


Aside from wounded pride, is there any evidence to suggest direct commissions make better 1810s than attrites from other communities? The advice we consistently push to potential IWOs is that they should first and foremost be Naval officers, wanting to lead and improve Sailors. It seems to me that the officer looking at IW as a secondary option in order to stay Navy already has this mindset.

I'd be tempted to take the fallen angel or nuke waste who has some idea of Navy life over the candidate with a likely unrealistic impression of the career they are starting. I also imagine that your opinion on this depends on how you arrived in the community.
  • 0

O-4's hate me
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 3:19 pm
Reputation: 3

Postby OneShot » Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:20 am

I have my package in for the upcoming April boards for IW OCS and am anxiously waiting. I check these boards almost 3 times a day, everyday, just to see if there is new information. I would absolutely love any information anybody could give in order to feed the curiosity of myself and others. Specifically, I would love to know the quota they are looking to fill. I would highly appreciate this!

V/R,
Zach
  • 0

OneShot
Registered Member
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:22 am
Location: Pensacola, Florida
Reputation: 0

Postby yoshi » Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:25 am

You are likely right about how one arrives and its influence on this topic. From my perspective, I'd just like to think that the first decade of IW service as an ENS - LT is worth something and provides an experience that is helpful for the broader community efforts. Otherwise, we have about 500+ officers just marking time. If it isn't important to access directly and the experience isn't important, maybe we should just follow a model that starts at LT via lateral transfers and scrap direct accessions altogether. Obviously, a balance is required, as we have alot of JO billets which are operational. Then again, I'm sure its possible for a Naval officer of any flavor to be "successful" in those billets, provided adequate motivation and initiative. This said, I'm not sure that level of "success" would allow for the same potential of a positive, significant difference possessed by someone who lives and breathes the community from day one. I am very interested to see how the technological changes and improved distributed operations will reshape the personnel piece of our wardroom and the way we train/access/promote/retain.
  • 0

yoshi
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:10 am
Reputation: 19

Postby Sum1 » Fri Mar 02, 2012 2:28 pm

O-4's hate me wrote:Aside from wounded pride, is there any evidence to suggest direct commissions make better 1810s than attrites from other communities? The advice we consistently push to potential IWOs is that they should first and foremost be Naval officers, wanting to lead and improve Sailors. It seems to me that the officer looking at IW as a secondary option in order to stay Navy already has this mindset.

I'd be tempted to take the fallen angel or nuke waste who has some idea of Navy life over the candidate with a likely unrealistic impression of the career they are starting. I also imagine that your opinion on this depends on how you arrived in the community.


I'm looking at it relatively... an officer who enters the Naval service (however they manage it) and enters the pilot training pipeline doesn't lead Sailors, improve Sailors, mentor Sailors, or gain any other meaningful experience as an officer outside of showing up to work on time in the morning and taking tests/doing flights. If they are unsuccessful at this endeavor, at least some will be afforded the opportunity to redesignate into IW or a myriad of other communities. In this situation the IW community isn't getting a seasoned naval officer experienced at leading Sailors - they're getting someone who wanted to be in a differnet community but failed for one reason or another.

I don't have an issue with the policy, per se, because the Navy has already invested at least some amount of capital into making this person into an officer (NROTC, USNA, OCS, etc), and they've already met some standards to qualify. I just find it ironic that the quota numbers would allow for MORE of those types of individuals to flow into the community than direct OCS accessions who actually WANT IW from the beginning.

Now there are some exceptions, of course. I have a USNA graduate friend who was always interested in IW but was unable to service select it from the academy. He went pilot, put his heart into it, but just came up short. He then got his chance to move into the IW community and he's been a great officer and very effective contributor.
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 15

Postby HH-60H » Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:10 pm

Sum1 wrote:I just find it ironic that the quota numbers would allow for MORE of those types of individuals to flow into the community than direct OCS accessions who actually WANT IW from the beginning.


Ironic or not, it's a business decision. An IW accession provided through attrition is already paid for. Why waste the money?

Unless there is evidence to suggest that, as a whole, attrites perform poorly when compared to OCS accessions, there will probably never be a reason to change this paradigm.

OCS is the accession system of last resort. It is used only to fill gaps in projected requirements not filled by USNA or ROTC. It's structured that way because OCS quotas are easy to turn on and off, whereas ROTC and USNA are a much longer time/requirement issue.
  • 0

User avatar
HH-60H
Administrator
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:37 am
Location: Maryland
Reputation: 51

Postby Sum1 » Fri Mar 02, 2012 7:30 pm

HH-60H wrote:OCS is the accession system of last resort. It is used only to fill gaps in projected requirements not filled by USNA or ROTC. It's structured that way because OCS quotas are easy to turn on and off, whereas ROTC and USNA are a much longer time/requirement issue.


ROTC and USNA's reason to exist is to provide for the URL. Unless the gaps you are referring to mean "most of all RL officers," I would tend to disagree with your characterization.

Ironic or not, it's a business decision. An IW accession provided through attrition is already paid for. Why waste the money?

Unless there is evidence to suggest that, as a whole, attrites perform poorly when compared to OCS accessions, there will probably never be a reason to change this paradigm.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs

You're right, I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that as a collective attrites who did not initially enter into our community perform poorly when compared to OCS accessions. I do, however, think that if a rebalancing were to occur our community would be better served (particularly if we wish to fill our ranks with people retaining particular specialized skill sets) by choosing from among those with both the skillsets AND a strong desire to be a leader in OUR community.

Again, this is separate from lateral transfers.
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 15

Postby Schlag » Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:59 am

Attrites come in all shapes and flavors - holding a prejudice against an attrite, is unfair at best. Especially if attrition was due to medical circumstances beyond the officer's control.

Sure there are always some sub-par attrites, but I've also met a fair amount of O-6 that mentioned they were an attrite from their original designator and they were able to rebound.

It runs the normal standard deviation curve, just like anything else.
  • 0

User avatar
Schlag
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: The path of the righteous man...
Reputation: 18

Postby Sum1 » Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:35 am

Schlag wrote:Attrites come in all shapes and flavors - holding a prejudice against an attrite, is unfair at best. Especially if attrition was due to medical circumstances beyond the officer's control.

Sure there are always some sub-par attrites, but I've also met a fair amount of O-6 that mentioned they were an attrite from their original designator and they were able to rebound.

It runs the normal standard deviation curve, just like anything else.


I don't doubt any of that. My intention isn't to simply judge attrites harshly - rather for arguing for increased opportunity levels for OCS applicants.
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 15

PreviousNext

Return to OCS

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests