FY-14 O-4 Selection Board

Postby Sleeper » Sun Apr 07, 2013 2:44 am

Schlag wrote:I don't think we have that much to be upset about because everyone is drinking from the same straw at this point.


Except for IP. I should have followed you out, Arvizo. :cool:
  • 0

"Also, I can kill you with my brain."
Sleeper
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 5:24 pm
Reputation: 4

Why only two 1810s on the board?

Postby TomahawkChop » Sun Apr 07, 2013 3:36 am

Did anyone notice that the RLs are now down to two per board? THAT'S a change. Now it's 4 URL and 2 RL per board. I think that spells trouble for our cyber folks that have a harder time explaining what they do to a non-IW audience.

Anyone know the reason for this change?
  • 0

TomahawkChop
Registered Member
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 7:29 pm
Location: Somewhere in the USA
Reputation: 1

Postby O-4's hate me » Sun Apr 07, 2013 5:00 am

Twidget wrote:The selection percentage for IW is down 5% from last year to 70%.


44 In-zone candidates * 70% =31.8 O-4 selections this year. I sure hope I'm not .8. :)
  • 0

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

Postby Wolfpack » Sun Apr 07, 2013 12:13 pm

TomahawkChop wrote:Did anyone notice that the RLs are now down to two per board? THAT'S a change. Now it's 4 URL and 2 RL per board. I think that spells trouble for our cyber folks that have a harder time explaining what they do to a non-IW audience.

Anyone know the reason for this change?


I understand that cost is part of the reasoning. The URLs have much larger number of records to review and present than the RL and staff. cutting the number of members would save some money (cost to travel, per diem, infrastructure, etc)
  • 0

Wolfpack
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 1:14 am
Location: Wash DC
Reputation: 6

Postby Pwlk » Sun Apr 07, 2013 2:30 pm

TomahawkChop wrote:Did anyone notice that the RLs are now down to two per board? THAT'S a change. Now it's 4 URL and 2 RL per board. I think that spells trouble for our cyber folks that have a harder time explaining what they do to a non-IW audience.


Seems emphasis is on well-rounded leadership, though. Are there many O-3's out there that's only have Cyber FITREPs and not some level of Navy operational tour?
  • 0

User avatar
Pwlk
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:31 pm
Reputation: 2

Postby Sum1 » Sun Apr 07, 2013 7:57 pm

TomahawkChop wrote:Did anyone notice that the RLs are now down to two per board? THAT'S a change. Now it's 4 URL and 2 RL per board. I think that spells trouble for our cyber folks that have a harder time explaining what they do to a non-IW audience.


I don't think this would be the case. People with firsthand experience can chime in, but my understanding is the URL folks are briefed about what milestones/experience/skills we value as a community, and they select to those items. Not only that, each record is presenting by an IW officer to the board, so it seems reasonable to assume if there are questions they can be asked directly to an IWO who knows whats going on.

This is probably why after a sub DIRSUP gig and now a PCS afloat tour I've been told by multiple mentors to go back to a Big Four and get involved with cyber.
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 15

Postby Arkad » Tue Apr 09, 2013 2:22 am

This was an attempt at measuring the effectiveness of the OCMs diligent effort, the interest in truly understanding the process that shapes the upward mobility of each of us, and the emphasis our mentors place on helping us understand. I don't know which of the above is reason for this thread being so off course (for the most part), but I am certain it is nothing to do with the OCMs significant efforts in educating all of us. So which of the other two is it?

Clearly, Sum1 is listening...
  • 0

User avatar
Arkad
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 2:07 am
Reputation: 21

Postby Sum1 » Tue Apr 09, 2013 5:45 am

So getting back to the original question, a 70% in zone selection rate probably means we are actually healthy as a community. We don't have an avalanche of people getting out (i.e. SWO) forcing boards to select everyone willing to put in the time, and I bet the data says we are finally galvanizing - after almost a decade of turmoil and identity crises - the "so what" factor of what we can provide to the fight. Our billets have requirements, our requirements have education/experience goals, and we promote to fill with the best (or 70% of the best) we have.

Again, I'm just guessing.
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 15

Postby Sleeper » Tue Apr 09, 2013 5:12 pm

Sum1 wrote:So getting back to the original question, a 70% in zone selection rate probably means we are actually healthy as a community.


I wouldn't take the enthusiasm quite so far. How is this going to impact retention, since junior IWs finishing their minimum obligation might decide it's not worth enduring the rigors of military life for a 30% chance of getting sent home halfway to retirement? Further, with decreased incentives for retention, those with marketable skills have the highest monetary incentives to leave. Incoming redesignation could see a similar negative effect.

On a separate note, how are we incentivizing challenging operational tours and the attainment of "hard" skills when our IDC precept is downplaying "attributes and milestones" in favor of soft "leadership potential"? What does generic IDC "leadership potential" even look like on a FitRep, apart from community attributes and milestones? Maybe I should have taken that CFL collateral after all...
  • 0

"Also, I can kill you with my brain."
Sleeper
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 5:24 pm
Reputation: 4

Postby Romeocorpen » Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:18 pm

Something tells me those 30% who are not selected are not surprised by the fact. In my experience, the officers I've worked with who failed to select for LCDR did so of their own doing. Be it PFA failure, substandard work performance, unable to deploy/fill an operational billet, or just lack of initiative, there is a glaring reason for not getting promoted.

As for incentives for challenging operational tours....those tours are what provide you that "leadership potential". Regardless of platform (Sub/Surface/NSW) or status (PCS'd vice DIRSUP) those operational tours will provide you with the technical and tactical expertise needed in this community and above all, provide that Officer with the much needed leadership skills of being a DivO, OIC, or DSO. With those baseline skills and proven leadership experience, you can bet those board members will see "Leadership Potential" in that Officer up for promotion.
  • 0

Romeocorpen
Registered Member
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 4:46 pm
Location: Dogs and Sailors
Reputation: 0

PreviousNext

Return to Detailer/Community Management Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests