So, taking the 1820 and 1810 results together the questions I immediately have are:
1. Do we value O-5 command?
2. Is that being properly communicated to the board?
and (I think this is the new question)
3. Are we disadvantaging some O-5 commanding officers by ranking them together in one summary group?
My thought is a 5 of 5 Commanding Officer FITREP doesn't look great, but you were a Commanding Officer. Commanding Officers on ships are ranked against the other CO's on the waterfront rather than across the entire designator. I understand it might be a poor comparison because of the differences in scale, but nevertheless, I can't help but think the COs weren't taken care of in ways other designators with more O-5 command opportunities may take care of their leaders.
For example, all the CO's under the destroyer squadron in Pearl Harbor were rated together. At the time I was there I believe we had something like seven DDGs on the waterfront. That means from our squadron seven O-5 COs had a chance to breakout for 1 of 7 or 2 of 7. Their peers in other destroyer squadrons and/or O-5 command had similar opportunities. So, when SWOs go to promote their best and brighest, they're promoting the best COs from all the waterfronts across the Navy, as well as some others who may have done other great things (by far the minority, though). They now have a cadre of O-6s who broke out from peers as O-5 COs to move on.
What happens with us is there's only one summary group, so our CO's either breakout or they don't. There aren't multiple summary groups floating around all feeding the O-6 boards. I imagine what happens then is how does a board justify selecting a 4 of 5 CO (I don't know off the top of my head how many O-5 command opportunities we have at the moment) when they can select a 2 of 8 or whatever department head, staff cyber chief, etc?