IW RL/URL Debate

Postby Sum1 » Fri May 22, 2009 5:54 am

IW OCM wrote:May eventually grow into a full time presence on The Yard.


Can you have the detailer pencil me in for 8-10 years from now (when I might see O-4, not how long I expect the debate/position requisition to take)? :)
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 15

Postby Mack » Fri May 22, 2009 7:13 pm

While researching possible changes to my own billet at NPS, I was told by our manning person here that there are two 1610 coded billets at the academy. I had never heard of these before and don't know if its true. Perhaps we have billets that aren't being filled? Don't recall ever seeing them in the IWOL or running into anyone that had filled it before. Alternatively, she possibly confused 1610 with another 16xx series, as I have seen that by other civilians here on campus before.
  • 0

User avatar
Mack
Registered Member
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 10:54 pm
Location: Monterey, CA
Reputation: 0

Postby OmegaMan » Fri May 22, 2009 8:36 pm

In 2008, I was working as a white cell liaison to USNA during the Cyber Defense Exercise. At the time, an instructor in the Comp Sci Dept (Air Force LtCol) was trying to convince the Academy to requisition one or two 1610 billets as CNO instructors. TDiscussions at the time would require these officers to have at least a MS in Comp Sci. I am not sure how feasible this would be, as I am not sure what percentage of our community fits that pre-req.
  • 0

OmegaMan
 

Postby IW OCM » Fri May 22, 2009 8:37 pm

1610 billets at USNA is bad gouge...we have none at the moment. She is likely referring to fair share "individual accounts" which is a manpower tutorial in and of itself.
  • 0

User avatar
IW OCM
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:13 am
Location: Arlington, TN
Reputation: 1

Postby taclane » Sat May 23, 2009 7:22 pm

IW OCM wrote:SWO accession model is to overaccess to compensate for poor retention and meet DH requirements. That, like so many other things, is being scrutinized.

My apologies about being off-topic, but as a current SWO (with a redesignation package in for the June board), I'm curious about what you mean by things being scrutinized. Personally, I don't plan on staying on through SWO DH tours, but the current climate shows that I have almost no chance to redesignate.

Aside from the other SWO-related retention issues, the notion of resignation before redesignation can't be the best plan considering the amount of money the Navy put into my education.
  • 0

User avatar
taclane
Registered Member
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:08 am
Location: IVO ERB3
Reputation: 0

Postby IW OCM » Sun May 24, 2009 1:52 pm

In general, the status quo across the spectrum. WRT your specific concerns...

1) Address the retention issues directly and not accept them by validating a flawed accession model
2) Enable redesignation earlier, as keeping an Officer in the Navy doing meaningful things needs to take priority over holding some captive in the SWO community only to see you walk away once your obligated service is up.

Quite a few things under consideration, but nothing ready for sharing. This is the type of discussion that needs to make its way to Admiral Curtis. It's getting to CNP (also a SWO)...
  • 0

User avatar
IW OCM
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:13 am
Location: Arlington, TN
Reputation: 1

Postby BTS » Tue May 26, 2009 12:13 am

IW OCM wrote:Believe we are saying much of the same. All I ask is that we change the lexicon. It is not about URL/RL/Staff it is about Warfighters and Enablers. No question where the community falls on the side of that discussion...warfighters (though sometimes fellow warfighters enable other warfighters).

What are we trying to achieve by lobbying for URL status? I submit, we want to be a self-sustaining community (e.g. Direct accessions vice lat transfer dependency). What else might we gain by being URL under today's model?

BTW - Can someone please move this discussion into another thread, as it has morphed from Facebook?


Wow - Go on travel for a little while, and a discussion can blow up quickly.

I completely and utterly disagree with you in regards to "Changing the lexicon" because the lexicon is the world in which we operate. If the US Navy in general decides to scrap the concept of a URL/RL split, then I am "all in." But in your statment, it is just us convincing ourselves it is OK not to be given a full seat at the table so we can stay in our administrative shelter.

If all we are looking to accomplish by erasing the URL/RL line was "Direct accessions vice lat transfer dependency" then we have a real problem. The distinction shouldn't be removed because of a manpower craving - it should be erased because it does not fit operations. Under our defined missions and expertise, IWO's should similarly be able to command at sea, commodore a variety of assets, run NNWC without a figurehead, aspire to something other than being a 2 number N-code on somebody elses staff.

The manpower and admin that comes with the shift to URL (while important) is just colored bubbles in terms of a reason why (or why not) to make such a transition.

The most important leaders in Military history are revered because they changed how the military valued emerging warfighting techniques. Rickover, Patton, and Mitchell did not take a "wait and let them give us the mission" approach.
  • 0

BTS
Registered Member
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 5:25 pm
Reputation: 0

Postby BTS » Tue May 26, 2009 12:17 am

On a less controversial side note, didn't NPC ask for an NPS thesis analysis regarding IWO's, lat transfers, mustangs, and retention? Has that analysis been completed?

Can you post (or post a link)?
  • 0

BTS
Registered Member
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 5:25 pm
Reputation: 0

Postby Sum1 » Tue May 26, 2009 1:27 am

BTS wrote:On a less controversial side note, didn't NPC ask for an NPS thesis analysis regarding IWO's, lat transfers, mustangs, and retention? Has that analysis been completed?

Can you post (or post a link)?


That would be an interesting read... lots of conjectures and "statements of fact" floating around, but I have yet to see concrete facts and figures based on some kind of scientific analysis.
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 15

Postby IW OCM » Tue May 26, 2009 2:12 am

BTS wrote:On a less controversial side note, didn't NPC ask for an NPS thesis analysis regarding IWO's, lat transfers, mustangs, and retention? Has that analysis been completed?

Can you post (or post a link)?


An HR LT has taken this on as his thesis. We have not seen a product as of yet. Once we do, it will be shared.
  • 0

User avatar
IW OCM
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:13 am
Location: Arlington, TN
Reputation: 1

Previous

Return to Detailer/Community Management Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests

cron