Information Warriors

yoshi wrote:indeed, lots of folks turn down jobs, lots of folks volunteer the 'don't pick me' when the MS options aren't lining up for what/where they want. as for a CO decision to cycle folks through for MS credit - well, that's kind of the problem. the numbers aren't supposed to add up. i wonder if that type of mentality isn't the same as the FITREP conveyor for all officers that don' have obvious problems (good-better-best). the most important component for success: get in line and wait their turn. hopefully, the MS thing is fixed with screening. the fitrep thing requires knowledge, involvement, dedication, and few other things.

Actually, the numbers should line up, plus a small bank. We should screen to opportunities and make those opportunities meaningful. Otherwise, the entire process losing meaning.

We have way too many MS billets. We screen way too many people for MS. The entire process has lost any value and the impact is real.

As a result, we give Officers an easy method to decline Sea Duty. I am fundamentally opposed to to allowing Naval Officers to decline sea duty.

COMEVIL wrote:

yoshi wrote:indeed, lots of folks turn down jobs, lots of folks volunteer the 'don't pick me' when the MS options aren't lining up for what/where they want. as for a CO decision to cycle folks through for MS credit - well, that's kind of the problem. the numbers aren't supposed to add up. i wonder if that type of mentality isn't the same as the FITREP conveyor for all officers that don' have obvious problems (good-better-best). the most important component for success: get in line and wait their turn. hopefully, the MS thing is fixed with screening. the fitrep thing requires knowledge, involvement, dedication, and few other things.

Actually, the numbers should line up, plus a small bank. We should screen to opportunities and make those opportunities meaningful. Otherwise, the entire process losing meaning.

We have way too many MS billets. We screen way too many people for MS. The entire process has lost any value and the impact is real.

As a result, we give Officers an easy method to decline Sea Duty. I am fundamentally opposed to to allowing Naval Officers to decline sea duty.

You mean by calling a cyber job sitting in Fort Meade (or similar) "operational?" That's one of my favorite examples. I get we're trying to operationalize cyber, but the problem is most people who've specialized in cyber don't really understand traditional military operations to the extent necessary to make the distinction.

Sum1 wrote:You mean by calling a cyber job sitting in Fort Meade (or similar) "operational?" That's one of my favorite examples. I get we're trying to operationalize cyber, but the problem is most people who've specialized in cyber don't really understand traditional military operations to the extent necessary to make the distinction.

I don't necessarily agree. Cyber is a new warfare area that requires a new perspective. I can understand how/why would can/should consider these jobs MS.

What is more concerning is the growth of MS positions within our own lifelines --- OPSOs at NIOC, NCDOC, jobs at FCC/C10F, etc.

MS used to be associated with key jobs OUTSIDE of our community (Fleet, NSW, CSG, CCMD, etc) where the fill was the sole representative of the community to the supported command. I think the meaning started to lose value when we consider a CSG CRC job on par with someone who stands BWC at FCC/C10F.

COMEVIL wrote:

Sum1 wrote:You mean by calling a cyber job sitting in Fort Meade (or similar) "operational?" That's one of my favorite examples. I get we're trying to operationalize cyber, but the problem is most people who've specialized in cyber don't really understand traditional military operations to the extent necessary to make the distinction.

I don't necessarily agree. Cyber is a new warfare area that requires a new perspective. I can understand how/why would can/should consider these jobs MS.

What is more concerning is the growth of MS positions within our own lifelines --- OPSOs at NIOC, NCDOC, jobs at FCC/C10F, etc.

MS used to be associated with key jobs OUTSIDE of our community (Fleet, NSW, CSG, CCMD, etc) where the fill was the sole representative of the community to the supported command. I think the meaning started to lose value when we consider a CSG CRC job on par with someone who stands BWC at FCC/C10F.

I don't disagree on the Cyber jobs being MSs; I do think calling them operational is a bit ... much. I was a BWC at USCC (non-milestone job) but it 'counted' as an operational tour ... but the only thing I was shooting was 'trons and the only think I was killing was trees.

For my O4 MS, I was the only billeted 1810 (CO for part of the tour was also an 1810), I only did the job associated with MS billet for about 4 months, then did something else for 20 months that was significant and had a big footprint ... but it was not at all the job I was supposed to be doing / described for the MS; I still got MS credit but didn't do what I was there to be doing. In the end it worked out and I really liked what I ended up doing. If the intent of the MS is to prove viability for selection to O5 regardless of 'job', okay. If the intent was to be providing value added in that billet: I took over an 1830 job and an 1830 was assigned to do the 1810's job.

I want to make a distinction that I think I missed earlier... I think select cyber jobs absolutely can (and should) be MS. I do not, however, think cyber jobs should be considered "operational" in the same way an afloat staff or NSW job is. Going home every night to your home in the MD or VA cul-de-sac is not the same thing as walking onto a ship and not seeing home again for 6-10 months or walking onto a plane and spending a few 4 month periods avoiding snakes, spiders, and terrorists somewhere. Just not the same thing.

I do think we may have lost some control with our MS billets. At AFRICOM, for example, there were two MS billets when I got there. One of them was listed as something like "cyber planner." The actual duties of that position, however, had NOTHING to do with cyber. The person filling that billet was doing intel support to exercises within the J2. The other billet was a "ISR/collection manager," which involved a lot of facetime with leadership but was largely on auto-pilot. It took a random O-3 from the J3 getting into the J2's chili before we figured out that we (J39) had a mechanism to task ISR.

Bottom line is not all MS experiences are created equal, but the question is... does it matter? Wouldn't that shake out in the BUPERS wash during boards? I mean, the BI3 AQD is only applied to people who have a CRC billet under their belt, even though there are other "planner" billets (which is the title of the AQD) that aren't CRC.

WRT MS positions, like most jobs, you get out of it what you put in it. For example, making the assumption that the MS positions at AFRICOM are somehow not worthy of MS status because of the personnel currently in the position is short-sighted. The personnel in those positions received MS credit but their FITREPs may have reflected their lackluster (in your view) performance. I talked with someone on the MS review board and the MS selection was based on the billet description and the ability to impact operations outside of the normal 1810/CW optic. An example used earlier of OPS officer's at NCDOC and NIOCs may appear not to be MS worthy but their ability to interact and support operations outside of the CW community makes them worthy in the eyes of CW leadership. Those billets also serve as department head of a fairly large departments (over 300) which would mean these billets also meet the criteria outlined in the O5 Command Screening convening order.

20yearman wrote:WRT MS positions, like most jobs, you get out of it what you put in it. For example, making the assumption that the MS positions at AFRICOM are somehow not worthy of MS status because of the personnel currently in the position is short-sighted. The personnel in those positions received MS credit but their FITREPs may have reflected their lackluster (in your view) performance. I talked with someone on the MS review board and the MS selection was based on the billet description and the ability to impact operations outside of the normal 1810/CW optic. An example used earlier of OPS officer's at NCDOC and NIOCs may appear not to be MS worthy but their ability to interact and support operations outside of the CW community makes them worthy in the eyes of CW leadership. Those billets also serve as department head of a fairly large departments (over 300) which would mean these billets also meet the criteria outlined in the O5 Command Screening convening order.

I've never seen a document that explicitly stated a billet's selection as a MS was based on a perceived ability to "impact operations outside normal 1810/CW optics." What does that actually mean? Is there a resource that really states that in black and white or is that board inside baseball?

Inside baseball, of course that could change with the change in community leadership.

20yearman wrote:Inside baseball, of course that could change with the change in community leadership.

I'll be curious to see if getting our designator XO positions back will be put on the table. Perhaps that boat left the harbor so long ago that it'll never come back, but a guy can hope! Anyone hear any scuttlebutt about possible changes coming with the leadership shift?

I haven't heard anything specific but I don't see cross-detailing going away anytime soon. Many of the senior-level positions (re: O-6) support functions across the entire IW spectrum so it's actually not a bad thing.