SUBJ: INFORMATION DOMINANCE CORPS FITNESS REPORT OFFICER SUMMARY GROUPS

SUBJ: INFORMATION DOMINANCE CORPS FITNESS REPORT OFFICER SUMMARY GROUPS

Postby Sum1 » Wed Feb 13, 2013 8:59 pm

Looks like we are now going to be ranked with our IDC brethren in fitness reports.

With the cross detailing going on it should be interesting to see what effect, if any, this has. If I were a paranoid man I'd say this is step one of an eventual designation merger. We did similar things with enlisted ratings ("don't worry about what your rate is, your specialty will still be designated by the NECs you hold" ... which hasn't really proven completely true). Perhaps we're getting closer to "don't worry about the merger ... your AQD still describes the experience you have and the jobs you qualify for."

--------------------------------------------------
RAAUZYUW RUEOMFB2194 0441921-UUUU--RUCRNAD.
ZNR UUUUU ZUI RUEOMCG2974 0441922
R 131920Z FEB 13 PSN 971755K34
FM CNO WASHINGTON DC
TO NAVADMIN
ZEN/OU=DOD/OU=NAVY/OU=ADDRESS LISTS(UC)/CN=AL NAVADMIN(UC)
INFO ZEN/CNO WASHINGTON DC
BT
UNCLAS
QQQQ
SUBJ: INFORMATION DOMINANCE CORPS FITNESS REPORT OFFICER SUMMARY GROU
PS
UNCLASSIFIED/
FM CNO WASHINGTON DC//N1//
TO NAVADMIN
INFO CNO WASHINGTON DC//N1//
UNCLAS//N01610//
NAVADMIN 028/13
MSGID/GENADMIN/CNO WASHINGTON DC/N1//FEB//
SUBJ/INFORMATION DOMINANCE CORPS FITNESS REPORT OFFICER SUMMARY
GROUPS//
REF/A/DOC/BUPERS/20APR11//
PAGE 02 RUEOMFB2194 UNCLAS
AMPN/REF A IS BUPERSINST 1610.10C, NAVY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
AND COUNSELING SYSTEM INSTRUCTION.//
RKMS/1. THIS NAVADMIN IMPLEMENTS AN UPCOMING CHANGE TO REF A
DIRECTING REPORTING SENIORS TO USE A SINGLE COMPETITIVE
REPORTING CATEGORY (BY COMBINING OFFICER SUMMARY GROUPS
(OSGS)) FOR INFORMATION DOMINANCE CORPS (IDC) OFFICERS.
THE MODIFICATION BRINGS THE 18XX DESIGNATORS INTO A COHESIVE,
UNIFIED CORPS AND ENABLES A MORE FOCUSED INFORMATION DOMINANCE
CAPABILITY FOR THE NAVY WHILE PRESERVING THE UNIQUE KNOWLEDGE,
SKILLS AND ABILITIES OF THE INDIVIDUAL 18XX COMMUNITIES. THIS
CHANGE WILL TRANSITION THE IDC TO A FORCE WITH COMMON PURPOSE,
VALUES, AND WARFIGHTING CULTURE.
2. FOR FITNESS REPORTS ENDING 31 MAY 2013 OR LATER (BLOCK 15),
REPORTING SENIORS MUST RANK ENSIGN THROUGH CAPTAIN IDC OFFICERS
(180X/181X/182X/183X/184X) IN THE SAME COMPETITIVE SUMMARY GROUPS
(USING A COMBINED OSG). THIS CHANGE APPLIES FOR FITNESS REPORT
PURPOSES ONLY; IDC OFFICERS WILL RETAIN THEIR CURRENT DESIGNATORS
AND CONTINUE TO COMPETE FOR STATUTORY PROMOTION WITHIN THEIR
INDIVIDUAL COMPETITIVE CATEGORIES. FOR THE NEXT TWO TO FIVE YEARS,
THE GOAL IS TO MOVE TO ONE STATUTORY BOARD PER PAYGRADE ACROSS THE
PAGE 03 RUEOMFB2194 UNCLAS
IDC ONCE NAVY LEADERSHIP IS CONFIDENT THE COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT
ACROSS THE IDC HAS REACHED MATURITY.
3. AMPLIFYING GUIDANCE FOR REPORTING SENIORS IS PROVIDED AS
FOLLOWS:
A. CONTINUE ADHERENCE TO UPPER LIMITS ON EARLY PROMOTE AND
MUST PROMOTE RECOMMENDATIONS PER REF A.
B. EXISTING SPECIAL BILLET SUBCATEGORIES WILL REMAIN IN
EFFECT. HOWEVER, REPORTING SENIORS MAY ROUTE NEW REQUESTS TO
USE SPECIAL BILLET SUBCATEGORIES VIA THEIR IMMEDIATE SUPERIOR
IN COMMAND AND BUPERS-317. PERS-32 WILL DISAPPROVE SPECIAL
BILLET SUBCATEGORY REQUESTS THAT SOLELY ATTEMPT TO MAINTAIN
INDIVIDUAL SUB-COMMUNITY RANKING OF IDC OFFICERS.
C. TABLE 1-4 OF REF A DEFINES OTHER CHARACTERISTICS
USED IN DETERMINING OSGS.
D. USE OF AMPLIFYING FITREP VERBIAGE AND SOFT BREAKOUTS
BY INDIVIDUAL COMMUNITY ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED. ALL EFFORTS
SHOULD BE MADE TO CONTINUE TO DOCUMENT OFFICERS DISPLAYING
SUSTAINED SUPERIOR PERFORMANCE.
4. FILE THIS NAVADMIN WITH REF A.
5. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, CONTACT THE COMNAVPERSCOM NPC
PAGE 04 RUEOMFB2194 UNCLAS
CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTER (CSC), AT 1-866-U-ASK-NPC OR VIA E-MAIL AT
CSCMAILBOX(AT)NAVY.MIL.
6. RELEASED BY VICE ADMIRAL S. R. VAN BUSKIRK, N1.//
BT
#2194
NNNN
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 926
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 15

Postby Schlag » Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:32 pm

Sum1 wrote:Perhaps we're getting closer to "don't worry about the merger ... your AQD still describes the experience you have and the jobs you qualify for."


I would agree with that statement but I'd also go a step forward. I'd say that we're all but saying that cross-detailing is a valued milestone now. Afterall, we've already merged the flags into one designator and there are several cross-detail leadership positions throughout the corps.

It will be interesting to see how reporting seniors rank cross-detailed or if this creates a situation where people game the system and only take cross-detailing billets where they're 1 of 1 in a paygrade or are the O-4 XO over a bunch of other O-4's.
  • 0

User avatar
Schlag
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: The path of the righteous man...
Reputation: 18

Postby Wolfpack » Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:39 pm

Sum1 wrote:Looks like we are now going to be ranked with our IDC brethren in fitness reports.

With the cross detailing going on it should be interesting to see what effect, if any, this has. If I were a paranoid man I'd say this is step one of an eventual designation merger. We did similar things with enlisted ratings ("don't worry about what your rate is, your specialty will still be designated by the NECs you hold" ... which hasn't really proven completely true). Perhaps we're getting closer to "don't worry about the merger ... your AQD still describes the experience you have and the jobs you qualify for."


No need to merge if the intent is a single competative category.
  • 0

Wolfpack
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 1:14 am
Location: Wash DC
Reputation: 6

Postby Sum1 » Thu Feb 14, 2013 4:56 am

I see this as a step towards cross detailing at lower levels, which may eventually create a community with enough cross-pollenization to justify the merger of the designators, as well. There are multiple roads this could take... I'm simply detailing one of them.
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 926
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 15

Postby Schlag » Thu Feb 14, 2013 11:09 am

Wolfpack wrote:No need to merge if the intent is a single competative category.


Unless they wanted to make us URL one day. But even then, it'd probably be an administrative remark saying that 18xx are now URL (if that ever happened).
  • 0

User avatar
Schlag
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: The path of the righteous man...
Reputation: 18

Postby COMEVIL » Thu Feb 14, 2013 11:53 am

Sum1 wrote:I see this as a step towards cross detailing at lower levels, which may eventually create a community with enough cross-pollenization to justify the merger of the designators, as well. There are multiple roads this could take... I'm simply detailing one of them.


URL have been ranked together for years, yet they have maintained individual roles and responsibilities.

Do you think you could be a successful and effective METOC Officer as a JO? I know I couldn't. I'm sure the leadership feels the same way.

Any rumor about the Navy making one single IDC Officer (i.e. jack of all trades) is just that....rumor.
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 36

Postby LIVINGIW » Thu Feb 14, 2013 11:40 pm

Will be interesting to see how FITREPs go at larger Fleet Staffs, OPNAV, or even some Joint Commands next O4 cycle (OCT). It will right itself in a couple years, but initially someone could lose out merely based on numbers, allocation, etc...
  • 0

LIVINGIW
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 138
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:36 pm
Location: CA
Reputation: 12

Postby Sum1 » Thu Feb 14, 2013 11:48 pm

COMEVIL wrote:Do you think you could be a successful and effective METOC Officer as a JO? I know I couldn't. I'm sure the leadership feels the same way.

Any rumor about the Navy making one single IDC Officer (i.e. jack of all trades) is just that....rumor.


METOC? Nope, I don't know the first thing.

But Intel? I have much confidence that I could walk into that job on day 1 and not suck (hell, maybe even excel because of the superior understanding of SIGINT we have as 1810s while still having to understand adversarial/target caps and lims).
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 926
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 15

Postby COMEVIL » Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:46 am

Sum1 wrote:METOC? Nope, I don't know the first thing.

But Intel? I have much confidence that I could walk into that job on day 1 and not suck (hell, maybe even excel because of the superior understanding of SIGINT we have as 1810s while still having to understand adversarial/target caps and lims).


How about IP?

Point is these fields are diverse enough that you can't create an effective IDC Officer capable in all four. Like I said, I think our leadership understands this.
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 36

Postby Sum1 » Fri Feb 15, 2013 5:53 am

COMEVIL wrote:How about IP?

Point is these fields are diverse enough that you can't create an effective IDC Officer capable in all four. Like I said, I think our leadership understands this.


Why not? That's why we have AQDs. Pilots are all the same designator but assigned to specific swim lanes. They even have opportunities to jump swim lanes and qualify for other things.
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 926
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 15

Next

Return to Information Dominance Corps

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron