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?