FY-17 ACTIVE-DUTY NAVY CAPTAIN LINE SELECTIONS//

[Sum1]

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?

[LIVINGIW]

Some good dialogue on STATION HYPO and CUT OF HIS JIB....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Arkad]

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?

Actually, for 1810s there are two summary groups for O5 COs. One for those subordinate to FCC and one for those subordinate to CID (IWTC). Plain and simple we should set ourselves up in a way so that every O5 CO and O5 XO are selected for O6. Not based on their paper while serving as a CO or XO (though they most certainly need to excel), but because we were so careful in the screening process that gave us reason to assign them in such an important role. Creating smaller summary groups merely makes the board's job that much harder.

[Sum1]

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?

Actually, for 1810s there are two summary groups for O5 COs. One for those subordinate to FCC and one for those subordinate to CID (IWTC).

Thank you for the clarification. I recently was told that the O-5 CO's all have the same Reporting Senior.

Plain and simple we should set ourselves up in a way so that every O5 CO and O5 XO are selected for O6. Not based on their paper while serving as a CO or XO (though they most certainly need to excel), but because we were so careful in the screening process that gave us reason to assign them in such an important role. Creating smaller summary groups merely makes the board's job that much harder.

If the bolded portion is achieved then the community doesn't need to game the system to get more of their successful CO's higher breakouts through the use of smaller Summary Groups. It simplifies the entire process and further clarifies what we value in a senior officer (which is incredibly helpful to junior officers when they better understand their community and the experiences/expertise it wishes to foster).

[20yearman]

I believe in the simple answer being the most probable, which means answering a basic question....What do the selectee's have the non-selectee's don't? Some things we can't see, such as FITREPs, but others are, such as Milestone Complete and/or challenging tours. Obviously being a CO is a tremendous accomplishment and sign that at the moment of your selection as CO you were in the top percentile of your peers, but what happened after Command? Did they take an operational job? Did they take a Milestone position? etc. As stated in above comments, I wouldn't read too much into this selection because it's impossible to ascertain the Board's criteria and view of each candidates record.

[Sum1]

I believe in the simple answer being the most probable, which means answering a basic question....What do the selectee's have the non-selectee's don't? Some things we can't see, such as FITREPs, but others are, such as Milestone Complete and/or challenging tours. Obviously being a CO is a tremendous accomplishment and sign that at the moment of your selection as CO you were in the top percentile of your peers, but what happened after Command? Did they take an operational job? Did they take a Milestone position? etc. As stated in above comments, I wouldn't read too much into this selection because it's impossible to ascertain the Board's criteria and view of each candidates record.

Are there O-5s who get selected to be COs right out of the gate without having another tour as an O-5 under their belt? I was under the impression it was similar to O-4 XO/OIC positions where you are generally expected to be milestone complete before competing. A quick check of some of the current selectees seems to follow the nominal paradigm... O-5 milestone followed by potential O-5 leadership opportunity (CO, XO, etc.).

[20yearman]

Yes, you can be selected to O-5 Command without having completed an O-5 Milestone. I believe your first look Command is the 2nd year after being selected (not actually promoted) so depending on when you pin on, you could actually be selected for Command while still an O-4 since the Board is usually in August. Example: Selected this year (2016), pin on Sept 1 2017, O-5 command board meets August 2017. Of course I could be off a year, but it's still possible to be selected O-5 Command w/o having O-5 Milestone.

[Sum1]

Yes, you can be selected to O-5 Command without having completed an O-5 Milestone. I believe your first look Command is the 2nd year after being selected (not actually promoted) so depending on when you pin on, you could actually be selected for Command while still an O-4 since the Board is usually in August. Example: Selected this year (2016), pin on Sept 1 2017, O-5 command board meets August 2017. Of course I could be off a year, but it's still possible to be selected O-5 Command w/o having O-5 Milestone.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the same board that selects O-5 Command also selects O-5 Milestone eligible, right?

I'd fish for myself, but none of the links on the PERS community website work for me anymore (gives me an error about needing an account that was previously unnecessary).

[COMEVIL]

Yes, you can be selected to O-5 Command without having completed an O-5 Milestone. I believe your first look Command is the 2nd year after being selected (not actually promoted) so depending on when you pin on, you could actually be selected for Command while still an O-4 since the Board is usually in August. Example: Selected this year (2016), pin on Sept 1 2017, O-5 command board meets August 2017. Of course I could be off a year, but it's still possible to be selected O-5 Command w/o having O-5 Milestone.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the same board that selects O-5 Command also selects O-5 Milestone eligible, right?

I'd fish for myself, but none of the links on the PERS community website work for me anymore (gives me an error about needing an account that was previously unnecessary).

Yes, it is the same board.

When the CDR list comes out this year (FY-17) those selected will be considered for Milestone on this year's (Aug/Sep) IWC Command and Milestone Screen Board. Next year, assuming they screened for Milestone, they will get their first look of three for Command.