FY-14 O-4 Selection Board

Re: FY-14 O-4 Selection Board

Postby Arkad » Tue Apr 16, 2013 1:41 am

Some of the analytical skills displayed in this thread are alarming. There is plenty of opportunity to make informed assessments, and some of us are taking advantage of the opportunity to do just that. Unfortunately, a couple are all too willing to spread misinformation grounded on poorly analyzed "intelligence" and lead even less informed lurkers down a dangerous path. I hope the assessments we make in our day jobs are more informed and based on sound logic. If not, we're in deep trouble and our Sailors haven't a chance.
  • 0

User avatar
Arkad
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 2:07 am
Reputation: 21

Re: FY-14 O-4 Selection Board

Postby atn » Tue Apr 16, 2013 3:33 am

Is there a "Like" button with this new software?
  • 0

atn
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 10:14 pm
Reputation: 0

Re: FY-14 O-4 Selection Board

Postby phrogpilot73 » Tue Apr 16, 2013 11:14 am

atn wrote:Is there a "Like" button with this new software?

Not yet. A lot of functionality of the old board software was done with add-ons. Same with phpBB. I'm researching multiple add-ons for features we used to have, and they'll be rolled out in a couple days.
  • 0

"Lady, you want me to answer you if this old airplane is safe to fly?
Just how in the world do you think it got to be this old?"
- Anonymous
User avatar
phrogpilot73
Administrator
 
Posts: 177
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:35 am
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Reputation: 51

Re: FY-14 O-4 Selection Board

Postby Sleeper » Tue Apr 16, 2013 3:08 pm

Arkad wrote:Some of the analytical skills displayed in this thread are alarming. There is plenty of opportunity to make informed assessments, and some of us are taking advantage of the opportunity to do just that. Unfortunately, a couple are all too willing to spread misinformation grounded on poorly analyzed "intelligence" and lead even less informed lurkers down a dangerous path. I hope the assessments we make in our day jobs are more informed and based on sound logic. If not, we're in deep trouble and our Sailors haven't a chance.


Since you didn't identify the targets of your ad hominem attack, I'm not sure which arguments you are attempting to refute.
- Are there no downsides to a DOPMA-minumum promotion rate?
- Is it not true that low promotion rates are, in part, due to officers above control grade hanging around due to fears about their marketability in the civilian economy?
- Are we not shedding talented and qualified officers at the same time that USCYBERCOM is begging for thousands more?
- Is it true, as some have implied, that 3 out of 10 of our O-3 shipmates are clearly broken toys who deserve to be sent home without a vested retirement?
- Does IDC community management have no share of the responsibility for a 20% disparity in O-4 promotion rates between IW and IP?

I, for one, welcome challenging and critical dialogue on this forum. If I am wrong on a given point, then it is merely an opportunity to learn. However, it would be easier to have such dialog, and to learn from it, without the condescension.
  • 0

Sleeper
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 5:24 pm
Reputation: 4

Re: FY-14 O-4 Selection Board

Postby IW OCM » Tue Apr 16, 2013 4:29 pm

To Arkad's point, there are dots being connected in this thread that are rooted more in speculation and opinion than in the actual drivers behind the phenomenon. As always, I avail myself to help explain some of the "Why". 901-874-3123.

Even though our communities are part of the IDC, the promotion flow points are 100% unrelated to each other, and have everything to do with promoting to each communities' vacancies. If you're promoting at 9 and 90% to O4, it likely means that a community has a gaping hole at O4.

I would also submit that our community does not have as much deadwood as some are intimating.

Again, feel free to call - I enjoy the conversations.

LCDR Andy Newsome
  • 0

User avatar
IW OCM
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:13 am
Location: Arlington, TN
Reputation: 1

Re: FY-14 O-4 Selection Board

Postby Sleeper » Tue Apr 16, 2013 4:53 pm

IW OCM wrote:Even though our communities are part of the IDC, the promotion flow points are 100% unrelated to each other, and have everything to do with promoting to each communities' vacancies. If you're promoting at 9 and 90% to O4, it likely means that a community has a gaping hole at O4.


On the enlisted side, when one community is fat and another community is thin, we use PTS to balance through rate conversion. Given the significant common knowledge between IW and IP (evidenced in part by our shared training at Corry), why aren't we using the redesignation board message (among other communcation channels) to encourage mid-grade officers to voluntarily correct the imbalance? Instead, I've heard community leaders (all the way up to flag) strongly discourage officers from pursuing redesignation out of IW.

The most recent redesignation board message (NAVADMIN 048/13) does not advertise openings for people to leave IW at our apparently "fat" grades of LT/LCDR. On the contrary, it invites people to redesignate into our community at YGs 08, 07, and [notably] 02. This baffles me, as it appears that we are discarding 30% of our community-trained O-3s in order to bring in brand new people. Is the state of our community training and officer development really so bad that we have to weed out 1/3 and start over with new personnel?

I could call you to request an explanation, but I think that others have the same questions. If possible, answering them in this forum might save you the work of repeating the same explanation.
  • 0

Sleeper
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 5:24 pm
Reputation: 4

Re: FY-14 O-4 Selection Board

Postby atn » Tue Apr 16, 2013 5:38 pm

Sleeper wrote:
The most recent redesignation board message (NAVADMIN 048/13) does not advertise openings for people to leave IW at our apparently "fat" grades of LT/LCDR. On the contrary, it invites people to redesignate into our community at YGs 08, 07, and [notably] 02. This baffles me, as it appears that we are discarding 30% of our community-trained O-3s in order to bring in brand new people. Is the state of our community training and officer development really so bad that we have to weed out 1/3 and start over with new personnel?

I could call you to request an explanation, but I think that others have the same questions. If possible, answering them in this forum might save you the work of repeating the same explanation.


While O-3 and O-4 are well-manned, they are not over 100%, so there is no need to let large numbers lat out. Think of the manpower actions like lat transfer and promotion as valves or throttles that must be adjusted year to year as the manning and billet structure change. Those actions also have to simultaneously consider aggregate numbers for each pay grade as well as specific year groups. You're seeing openings at the junior LT and junior LCDR because that is where YG needs exist. Keep in mind these YGs aren't wide open - it is managed by quotas.

No one wants to be passed over for promotion. That said, if everyone gets promoted, then there is no reason to conduct a board, and we would have way too many people. There has to be a filter- hence the promote to vacancy approach. Also, while being above zone is not ideal, we are not "discarding 30%". That's exactly why we allow officers to be selected from above zone. Just b/c an officer didn't get selected the first time up, it doesn't mean they are instantly cast off.
  • 0

atn
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 10:14 pm
Reputation: 0

Re: FY-14 O-4 Selection Board

Postby Arkad » Tue Apr 16, 2013 6:31 pm

Sleeper wrote:I, for one, welcome challenging and critical dialogue on this forum. If I am wrong on a given point, then it is merely an opportunity to learn. However, it would be easier to have such dialog, and to learn from it, without the condescension.


I welcome the same. Hard to make time for a written tutorial that is all too often left open to misinterpretation, but I can always make time for a conversation that leaves truly interested parties better informed and with a shared understanding. My work phone is 443-479-3472 and I am on EDT. No intention to be condescending. Just frustrated with the lack of understanding which I believe speaks to a lack of mentorship at the command level. Many of these conversations should be having at wardroom training and mentorship lunches. We need to do better and I stand ready to be a part of the solution. For the record, I was pointing to comments of late from OmegaMan and Yoshi. They often make sense and I agree with some of what they say, but a few misinformed leaps of late are likely to lead impressionable readers astray. Nothing beats a conversation and you have a few of us out here with unique insights (i.e. Millington experience) ready and willing to share.
-Sean
  • 0

User avatar
Arkad
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 2:07 am
Reputation: 21

Re: FY-14 O-4 Selection Board

Postby Sleeper » Wed Apr 17, 2013 3:28 am

atn wrote:Also, while being above zone is not ideal, we are not "discarding 30%". That's exactly why we allow officers to be selected from above zone. Just b/c an officer didn't get selected the first time up, it doesn't mean they are instantly cast off.


But if selection rates remain near 70% over time (which they have for a few cycles now), we still discard 30%, since no more than 70% of above- and in-zone officers can pass the cut. We discard even more by selecting officers below zone at the expense of in-zone selects or above-zone "rescues."

Re: incoming redesignation: Do we have some sort of obligation, official or otherwise, to the URL communities that we provide an off-ramp for a certain number of officers? That might explain why were are taking in transfers for the same year groups that are being cut down hard at the promotion boards.

Arkad wrote:Nothing beats a conversation and you have a few of us out here with unique insights (i.e. Millington experience) ready and willing to share.


I appreciate the contributions by those in-the-know, but at times the answers feel dismissive or deflective. We may be ignorant and petulant children, but we're at least trying to understand the processes that have such a huge impact on our careers and livelihoods, as well as the warfighting readiness of our community. I agree that this understanding should come more from within the Wardroom/community and less from unofficial channels like this forum and IDC Sync, but we go to war with the Navy we have, so to speak.
  • 0

Sleeper
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 5:24 pm
Reputation: 4

Re: FY-14 O-4 Selection Board

Postby IW OCM » Wed Apr 17, 2013 4:49 am

Sleeper wrote:
But if selection rates remain near 70% over time (which they have for a few cycles now), we still discard 30%, since no more than 70% of above- and in-zone officers can pass the cut. We discard even more by selecting officers below zone at the expense of in-zone selects or above-zone "rescues."


A couple things drive the opportunity rate (which is different than selection rate). One reason that the current opportunity rate has been around 70% is because the vacancies (generated by promote-outs, retirements and resignations) and flow point guidance (9-11 years for pin-on to LCDR) dictate that number. The OCMs have software that help determine these numbers. So if in a particular year the opportunity rate is 75%, it should be somewhere near that in subsequent years because Title 10 U.S. Code Part II Chapter 36 Subchapter II Section 623 says (among other things):

"(b) The Secretary concerned shall determine the number of officers in the promotion zone for officers serving in any grade and competitive category from among officers who are eligible for promotion in that grade and competitive category. Such determination shall be made on the basis of an estimate of—
...
(4) the number of officers that should be placed in that promotion zone in each of the next five years to provide to officers in those years relatively similar opportunity for promotion."

For promotion planning purposes, "relatively similar" generally translates to opportunity rate shifts of between 5-10% from fiscal year to fiscal year - which is again driven by vacancies and the flow point window. Anything more than that would be indicative of a problem (generating too many/too few vacancies versus the forecast) and would likely require explanation to SECNAV.

When we say "control grades", that means the number of officers serving in the paygrades of O4, O5 and O6 is dictated by Title 10, Subtitle A Part II Chapter 32 Section 523. For a given total number of commissioned Naval Officers, we can have a certain percentage of each of the controlled grades (~24% O-4, ~12% O-5, and ~6% O-6). There are approximately 52,000 officers in the U.S. Navy. We can apply these percentages to our billet (or Officer Programmed Authorizations) structure, and that nominally drives the number of O-4, O-5 and O-6 that we have in the community. This is one reason why we have a filter (promotion board) between O-3 and O-4 and so on.

Sleeper wrote:Re: incoming redesignation: Do we have some sort of obligation, official or otherwise, to the URL communities that we provide an off-ramp for a certain number of officers? That might explain why were are taking in transfers for the same year groups that are being cut down hard at the promotion boards.


Per OPNAVINST 1210.5, the purpose of Lateral Transfer is "To provide flexibility in the manning of officer communities.." The IW Community leverages lateral transfers from the URL to fill in gaps that are created due to:

- Low direct Accession (Ensigns) gains (in tight fiscal environments) - this isn't the case every year
- Junior Officers who resign after their Minimum Service Requirement (MSR)- IW Community has ~92% overall retention rate
- Resignations or retirements of mid-grade officers - we have historical percentages for each rank

As our manning level improves, the need for Lateral Transfers goes down and vice versa. As stated in an earlier post, all of the actions taken to manage the manning level of each rank (Accessions, Lateral Transfers In and Out, Promotions, etc) vary in magnitude from year to year based on changing conditions, and are metered by quotas and almost always governed by law and/or policy. I hope that's helpful.

V/r, IW OCM
  • 1

User avatar
IW OCM
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:13 am
Location: Arlington, TN
Reputation: 1

PreviousNext

Return to Detailer/Community Management Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron