Big Changes to NOOCS Manual & CWO AQD

[Mjölnir]

Thank you for the feedback. A couple of follow ups:

1 - provides ability to quickly query for particular skillsets later (case and point is the detailer determining who is suited to fill Sub DSO pos'n on C10F staff or Joint Cyber Planner pos'ns)

Has there codified criteria to request input to records been completed? If not is there a guestimate on when we may see that?

2 - provides more standard application of awarding a given AQD...prevents single ride Sub DSO's from being seen the same as 12 ride Sub DSO's (same applies for other DIRSUP or Cyber disciplines)

Is there any impact on an officer who goes to a DIRSUP billet but does not acquire the associated AQD? Would it be something you think an officer should address to a board?

BT BT

How many FLISH pins am I putting you down for?

[CNO Guy]

Has the codified criteria to request input to records been completed? If not is there a guestimate on when we may see that?

- Believe what you are asking is how are these going to be updated in the system?
- The detailers are going to do a record scrub, and as they remove BI2 and BO1 they will replace with the appropriate more discrete AQD(s) ignoring the hours/days required for those grandfathered
- Individuals not already possessing BI2/BO1 will be required to meet the new requirements

Is there any impact on an officer who goes to a DIRSUP billet but does not acquire the associated AQD? Would it be something you think an officer should address to a board?

- Likely most impactful to those going into zone for LCDR...meaning no documented tactical proficiency.
- To make that point more clear, two of the values proposed prior to LCDR on the pending FY-18 Community Values slide will state:
-- Demonstrated proficiency in SIGINT, Cyber, and/or EW
-- Superior performance in CW Surface, Subsurface, Air or Special Warfare tactical tours
*note: current FY-17 SECNAV approved slides state "Operational tours: Tactical IWO, NSW, Cyber Mission Force, Fleet or Joint" and "Demonstrated experience/proficiency in SIGINT, Cyber, and/or EW"
- Either way, it is expected to be in your record and if you don't have sufficient experience it certainly won't be considered "Superior performance" per the proposed language

How many FLISH pins am I putting you down for?
- Ugh, none...I prefer simple, sleek, and uncomplicated uniform design and prefer no additional "bling" =)

[Mjölnir]

- Believe what you are asking is how are these going to be updated in the system?
- The detailers are going to do a record scrub, and as they remove BI2 and BO1 they will replace with the appropriate more discrete AQD(s) ignoring the hours/days required for those grandfathered
- Individuals not already possessing BI2/BO1 will be required to meet the new requirements

Pretty much, one off question, if an officer was not in a DIRSUP billet but used as a DIRSUP rider for their tour, should they contact the detailer (provide FITREPs, ride letters etc) to support getting the AQD or are the FITREPs part of the scrub?

- Likely most impactful to those going into zone for LCDR...meaning no documented tactical proficiency.
- To make that point more clear, two of the values proposed prior to LCDR on the pending FY-18 Community Values slide will state:
-- Demonstrated proficiency in SIGINT, Cyber, and/or EW
-- Superior performance in CW Surface, Subsurface, Air or Special Warfare tactical tours
*note: current FY-17 SECNAV approved slides state "Operational tours: Tactical IWO, NSW, Cyber Mission Force, Fleet or Joint" and "Demonstrated experience/proficiency in SIGINT, Cyber, and/or EW"
- Either way, it is expected to be in your record and if you don't have sufficient experience it certainly won't be considered "Superior performance" per the proposed language

Good info, thank you. Will any of this language filter up to CDR boards in some way?

- Ugh, none...I prefer simple, sleek, and uncomplicated uniform design and prefer no additional "bling" =)

So two ...

[CNO Guy]

I would wait to contact the detailers with AQDs just yet. They are currently doing a by record scrub to 1) remove the outdated AQDs, and 2) replacing with relevant AQDs based on experience that they see in records. After that scrub is done, I would contact detailers if you believe they missed something in your particular case.

WRT making up to the CDR board the answer is yes. If you look at the FY-17 SECNAV approved community values slides (http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/b ... riefs.aspx - Line brief, slides 30-31) you will see that those things that are valued prior to CDR are implied to include those things valued prior to LCDR...meaning that the values are cumulative over a career and why the language on them is important. We are in the midst of revising/rewriting the slides for the FY-18 promotion brief so would expect them to be approved and published to the same location ~January timeframe.

[Sum1]

I think this is a great change, and one that has been needed for quite some time. Giving someone who did a few months in the N2 on BLUE RIDGE as an augmentee the same AQD as an officer who spent 2+ years PCS afloat or 12+ months (cumulative) on sub mission was misleading and did not adequately define what we consider "tactical."