FY-17 Zone Message

Re: FY-17 Zone Message

Postby Sum1 » Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:11 pm

COMEVIL wrote:
Sum1 wrote:
COMEVIL wrote:If you include EW in IO then yes. But we aren't doing IO writ large, just a subset. I say this as a former CRC.

You continually sing the praises and beat the drum of IO on this board. The reality is that, other than EW, it is not in our wheelhouse. Nor should it be.


You're latching onto the wrong part of my previous point. It isn't my intention to beat the IO drum this time. I was trying to subtly say that if the community doesn't value a particular job, expertise, experience, etc. then they need to clean house of it. Don't let remnants laying around that create confusion or jobs that are seen as subpar or not valued when compared to others. How many O-4/O-5 milestones still talk about IO? There is at least one IW job (yes, IW) that is an intel support to IO. We don't do intel OR IO, and yet here we are with a billet that is doing intel support to something we aren't supposed to spend the time to understand.

And please, be as difficult as you like. The two people who made the decision to push the job from a Navy billet to a GS-13 gig were my bosses until they both moved on. That was how I knew the context behind what they were trying to do. The Navy didn't know the billet had gone away until I dropped that nugget in a discussion with the detailer.


I agree with everything you have said here. I was trying to relay that those efforts are underway, and was using your job as an example. Apparently it was a bad one...


haha, yea, that was a poor example, but you had no way of knowing that.
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 883
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 13

Re: FY-17 Zone Message

Postby COMEVIL » Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:40 pm

[quote="Sum1]haha, yea, that was a poor example, but you had no way of knowing that.[/quote]

Replied to your PM via email.
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 792
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 33

Re: FY-17 Zone Message

Postby LIVINGIW » Thu Feb 11, 2016 5:32 pm

The Convening Order for the O5 board is out as well as board membership.

Here were some highlights to me.

Pg 13- IDC specific section (yes, IDC is still used, though I am sure that is due to N2/N6 message compared to staffing timeline of this CO)
- Calls out that IDC is about warfighting…
- IDC wants Officers that are “Agile, Flexible, and fully capable of leading across the range of functions associated with the IDC, recognizing Information as a warfighting domain.”
- Board members should “view an Officer’s performance in leadership assignments as an indicator of his or her ability to lead diverse orgs across the range of IDC missions and functions.”
- “Cross detail assignments and experience (obtained by officers detailed to an IDC billet not of their designator which will increase IDC Officer skill set diversification) is valued”

Pg 15- IWO/1810 specific part (still uses IWO… absence of direction, I guess we all should as well??)
- “The IW Community is built on a technical foundation underpinned by operational experience and sustained superior performance.”
- “IW core mission capability is SIGINT, CYBER, and EW.”
- “Sustained Superior Performance in positions of leadership and demonstrated proficiency in IW core mission areas in LCDR milestone and major staff assignments indicates potential to succeed as a Commander.” (Operational experience includes IA/GSA, #’d fleet, CSG/ESG, PHIBRON, SPECWAR, USCYBERCOM, FCC, or COCOM staff)
- “Best qualified IW Officer possess advanced education in STEM. IDC experience and progress towards JQO is valued, though not required.”

A couple of my cheap thoughts...
1- I like the explanation of the IW community and explaining the maturation expected of an IW Officer. “The IW Community is built on a technical foundation underpinned by operational experience and sustained superior performance.” 1810 community is technical in core areas of SIGINT, EW, CYBER; you will have operational tours/experience; we expect sustained superior performance. Top 70% with that will promote.

2- Interesting that the IDC portion calls out cross detailing, when those options don’t exist at the O4 level. That said, many of us have had experience in Intel or IP type functions, just not in the detailed billet. Just seemed strange to have it in there… does this indicate a change in the cross detailing process at lower levels? I have not heard this, just curious.

3- STEM advanced education emphasized. There has been plenty of discussion in various forums on this topic. I don’t think it is going away. 1810 is a technical community with “technical foundation.” I feel for those who went to NPS and earned a degree in a regional studies program back when they were offered. Or went to NWC vice NPS. Both were good career options in the moment, but not as advisable with the new guidance.

4- Like in the O6 board, no critical needs identified for the IW community in section 5.c.3. Some URL critical areas applicable… (acquisition, operational planner, strategist supsec, NSW experience, cyber ops and planning, LREC, Education and Training, Space Cadre) As with my opinions there, if we truly want to place a value on the school house or acquisition or another area (operational planning? Strategy?) then we have to call it out, IMHO. The voting board (Submariner Chair, 2 SWOs, 2 Pilots, and 2 1810s) should not have to guess. I am confident CAPT Gagnon and CAPT Riggins will carry the water.

5- In the O6 board CO, there was this line ““IW Officers Best Qualified for promotion will have demonstrated top performance among officers who have achieved expertise in one IW core mission area and/or uncommon proficiency in several areas…” That was not in the O5 board verbiage. Interesting omission.

Anything else jump out at you?
  • 1

LIVINGIW
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 138
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:36 pm
Location: CA
Reputation: 12

Re: FY-17 Zone Message

Postby Mjölnir » Sun Feb 14, 2016 4:23 pm

So duty at CYBERCOM is considered operational? Interesting.

Also:

LIVINGIW wrote:3- STEM advanced education emphasized. There has been plenty of discussion in various forums on this topic. I don’t think it is going away. 1810 is a technical community with “technical foundation.” I feel for those who went to NPS and earned a degree in a regional studies program back when they were offered. Or went to NWC vice NPS. Both were good career options in the moment, but not as advisable with the new guidance.


As you say, this has been brought up many times on & in various forums, but unfortunately is not being addressed by our senior leadership. My big question is really "Is there a plan to allow mid-grade officers an opportunity to obtain a STEM graduate education?" Right now if we took the community advice from 10 years ago (even if we had the AQD, timing and records to attend NPS) we may have shorted ourselves in the long term.

I just checked into a new command and the CO and I are the only 1810's and I brought this up with him in my check in interview. His advice for those of us who do not have the STEM graduate degree but have technical experience & jobs to write a letter to our boards highlighting and expounding on that technical experience -- mostly to give the briefer more 'oomf' to discuss with our records, potentially highlighting (unofficial) cross detailed work and to try and level that field.

I will be interested to analyze the results of the board this year and see how this trend is influencing (as much as I can discern from outside the tank) the results.
  • 0

The most important six inches on the battlefield is between your ears.
User avatar
Mjölnir
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 2:07 am
Location: Annapolis MD
Reputation: 21

Re: FY-17 Zone Message

Postby Sum1 » Sun Feb 14, 2016 9:19 pm

Stalwart wrote:So duty at CYBERCOM is considered operational? Interesting.

Also:

LIVINGIW wrote:3- STEM advanced education emphasized. There has been plenty of discussion in various forums on this topic. I don’t think it is going away. 1810 is a technical community with “technical foundation.” I feel for those who went to NPS and earned a degree in a regional studies program back when they were offered. Or went to NWC vice NPS. Both were good career options in the moment, but not as advisable with the new guidance.


As you say, this has been brought up many times on & in various forums, but unfortunately is not being addressed by our senior leadership. My big question is really "Is there a plan to allow mid-grade officers an opportunity to obtain a STEM graduate education?" Right now if we took the community advice from 10 years ago (even if we had the AQD, timing and records to attend NPS) we may have shorted ourselves in the long term.

I just checked into a new command and the CO and I are the only 1810's and I brought this up with him in my check in interview. His advice for those of us who do not have the STEM graduate degree but have technical experience & jobs to write a letter to our boards highlighting and expounding on that technical experience -- mostly to give the briefer more 'oomf' to discuss with our records, potentially highlighting (unofficial) cross detailed work and to try and level that field.

I will be interested to analyze the results of the board this year and see how this trend is influencing (as much as I can discern from outside the tank) the results.


I think we're at the beginning of a long line of question marks pertaining to things both within our as yet unnamed community and the greater IWC. It's exciting and a little frustrating at the same time.
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 883
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 13

Re: FY-17 Zone Message

Postby COMEVIL » Mon Feb 15, 2016 7:04 pm

Stalwart wrote:So duty at CYBERCOM is considered operational? Interesting.

Also:

LIVINGIW wrote:3- STEM advanced education emphasized. There has been plenty of discussion in various forums on this topic. I don’t think it is going away. 1810 is a technical community with “technical foundation.” I feel for those who went to NPS and earned a degree in a regional studies program back when they were offered. Or went to NWC vice NPS. Both were good career options in the moment, but not as advisable with the new guidance.


As you say, this has been brought up many times on & in various forums, but unfortunately is not being addressed by our senior leadership. My big question is really "Is there a plan to allow mid-grade officers an opportunity to obtain a STEM graduate education?" Right now if we took the community advice from 10 years ago (even if we had the AQD, timing and records to attend NPS) we may have shorted ourselves in the long term.

I just checked into a new command and the CO and I are the only 1810's and I brought this up with him in my check in interview. His advice for those of us who do not have the STEM graduate degree but have technical experience & jobs to write a letter to our boards highlighting and expounding on that technical experience -- mostly to give the briefer more 'oomf' to discuss with our records, potentially highlighting (unofficial) cross detailed work and to try and level that field.

I will be interested to analyze the results of the board this year and see how this trend is influencing (as much as I can discern from outside the tank) the results.


I am content with the knowledge that I will never have a STEM degree. How that effects my upward mobility is yet to be determined. But as someone with very few math skills, and little interest in the time and cost it would involve, I'll stick with my NWC Masters.

While I counsel every Junior Officer out there to pursue a STEM degree, it should also be pointed out that it is NOT the end all be all to advancement. Rather, it is one factor of many. As long as your other factors are solid, I wouldn't worry.
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 792
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 33

Re: FY-17 Zone Message

Postby Sum1 » Mon Feb 15, 2016 9:58 pm

COMEVIL wrote:
Stalwart wrote:So duty at CYBERCOM is considered operational? Interesting.

Also:

LIVINGIW wrote:3- STEM advanced education emphasized. There has been plenty of discussion in various forums on this topic. I don’t think it is going away. 1810 is a technical community with “technical foundation.” I feel for those who went to NPS and earned a degree in a regional studies program back when they were offered. Or went to NWC vice NPS. Both were good career options in the moment, but not as advisable with the new guidance.


As you say, this has been brought up many times on & in various forums, but unfortunately is not being addressed by our senior leadership. My big question is really "Is there a plan to allow mid-grade officers an opportunity to obtain a STEM graduate education?" Right now if we took the community advice from 10 years ago (even if we had the AQD, timing and records to attend NPS) we may have shorted ourselves in the long term.

I just checked into a new command and the CO and I are the only 1810's and I brought this up with him in my check in interview. His advice for those of us who do not have the STEM graduate degree but have technical experience & jobs to write a letter to our boards highlighting and expounding on that technical experience -- mostly to give the briefer more 'oomf' to discuss with our records, potentially highlighting (unofficial) cross detailed work and to try and level that field.

I will be interested to analyze the results of the board this year and see how this trend is influencing (as much as I can discern from outside the tank) the results.


I am content with the knowledge that I will never have a STEM degree. How that effects my upward mobility is yet to be determined. But as someone with very few math skills, and little interest in the time and cost it would involve, I'll stick with my NWC Masters.

While I counsel every Junior Officer out there to pursue a STEM degree, it should also be pointed out that it is NOT the end all be all to advancement. Rather, it is one factor of many. As long as your other factors are solid, I wouldn't worry.


Agree, but for those who already have Masters degrees but DO want to pursue another on the Navy's dime, the precept change has been evaluated at least one time as grounds to receive a TA waiver. That means potentially two Navy-funded Masters degrees.
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 883
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 13

Re: FY-17 Zone Message

Postby yoshi » Tue Feb 16, 2016 8:49 pm

The STEM portion of the precept either does not understand or disregards what officers need to be, know, and do in order to be effective at commands/staff jobs. Given the jobs we fill, how does a STEM degree equate to an officer being 'best qualified'? How? Based on the jobs I have encountered, it does not. It is an empty logic. Conversations with multiple friends at the most “technical” of jobs confirm the same - there is no correlation. Further, the vast majority of our jobs are not technical – and certainly not to the point where this portion of the precept even remotely makes sense for every 1810. Where you went to college and what you were supposed to have learned while there play no factor in the quality of officer you will become, or in your potential as a Naval leader. Perhaps this is heresy for some.

In addition to missing on topicality, it also misses on opportunity. Quotas and career timing conspire to generate a wardroom in which maybe half have an opportunity for an advanced STEM degree. Meanwhile, we send others to mandatory fill War College quotas for Arts degrees, making them educationally second rate in the eyes of the precept at promotion and command selection boards. If the 1810 community were a single Navy command, this would be an EO complaint, as not everyone has the same opportunity to become a "best qualified officer" with STEM. I don't understand how we can say this is a discriminating factor for best qualified, yet not ensure equal opportunity for everyone to do it. That seems unethical. As for the argument this portion of the precept isn’t really going to make or break anyone – that’s either completely disingenuous or genuinely moronic. If they felt it doesn’t make a difference, they wouldn’t put it in there. The language is specifically meant to make a difference. Unfortunately, the difference will less help the board find the best, and more ensure a particular flavor is picked when/if the records do not sufficiently make them a clear choice. The reasons articulated above suggest how this precept is likely to cast suspicious doubt on command selection and promotion board results, ultimately proving divisive. Although the command selection boards are beyond their influence, I hope the promotion boards allow general Naval understanding and wide spread experience (URLs) to dispel that negative doubt by selecting folks from a diversity of educational, experiential, and operational backgrounds, but unified by the 1810 community.

Finally, the STEM precept language isn’t malicious or conceived with evil intentions. Some folks just see the world differently and stridently believe STEM is a “best qualified officer”, to the point where it should be dominant within the community. There isn’t a wide-spread conspiracy to rid the community of today's non-STEM officers (officers will gradually become STEM over time). The STEM portion of the precept is simply a well-meaning effort to assist in advancing STEM degrees to higher ranks and command positions within the community. Previously, I struggled with this sort of thing, obsessing how it produced negative outcomes, created two or more schisms in the community, eliminated deserving people, degraded overall effectiveness, and affected me personally. While that can be frustrating, my outlook has changed (getting old). If a Master of Arts (for which the Navy paid) is the reason for being passed over, that's ok. It won’t be due to effort, commitment, or understanding. As long as one consistently brings those three things, it is extremely likely they will do even better beyond the 1810 community. The world is bigger than any one of us, any community, and any service. New motto: Do what you enjoy; don't make it so important.
  • 0

yoshi
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 377
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:10 am
Reputation: 15

Re: FY-17 Zone Message

Postby Mjölnir » Thu Feb 18, 2016 1:43 pm

Sum1 wrote: Agree, but for those who already have Masters degrees but DO want to pursue another on the Navy's dime, the precept change has been evaluated at least one time as grounds to receive a TA waiver. That means potentially two Navy-funded Masters degrees.


I received my denial for a waiver from a second (new command) ESO last week ... so I think it is dependent on the approving authority ... unfortunately.
  • 0

The most important six inches on the battlefield is between your ears.
User avatar
Mjölnir
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 2:07 am
Location: Annapolis MD
Reputation: 21

Re: FY-17 Zone Message

Postby Mjölnir » Thu Feb 18, 2016 2:04 pm

COMEVIL wrote:While I counsel every Junior Officer out there to pursue a STEM degree, it should also be pointed out that it is NOT the end all be all to advancement. Rather, it is one factor of many. As long as your other factors are solid, I wouldn't worry.


I agree that the STEM degree is only one factor of many ... but it is a potential tie breaker. When I think of boards for O5 Command Screening, O6 Promotion and O6 Command Screening, I (would hope) everyone is a good candidate and especially for Command Screening ... everyone who wants to be considered would have competitive records. That being said, based on numbers ... of the best, some have to be considered "best of the best" I was an assistant recorder for an O5 board, in the crunch, sometimes they have to find a discriminator between candidates, and the board uses (used) the precept language specifically to find those factors.

yoshi wrote:As for the argument this portion of the precept isn’t really going to make or break anyone – that’s either completely disingenuous or genuinely moronic. If they felt it doesn’t make a difference, they wouldn’t put it in there. The language is specifically meant to make a difference.


I would agree, the language in the precept is there for a reason, it is the communication from 'the Community' to the board members on what 'the Community' considers to be the criteria for the "best and most fully qualified".

I am disappointed that the community has not addressed how to get those officers who took the advice of 'the Community' 10+ years ago and obtained a Masters of Arts and now wish to obtain the factors that make them "best and most fully qualified" a route to do so. I was discussing this with a SWO O6 last week and he compared it to the ISIC rerouting a ship enroute to C5F to the Arctic and not supplying or approving requests for the required / necessary equipment in that AOR.
  • 0

The most important six inches on the battlefield is between your ears.
User avatar
Mjölnir
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 2:07 am
Location: Annapolis MD
Reputation: 21

PreviousNext

Return to Detailer/Community Management Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest