New CDRs

Re: New CDRs

Postby Sum1 » Tue May 26, 2015 12:41 pm

Out of curiosity, who were the two BZ selects? I only recognize a few of the names on that list (which I attribute to being a one of one for the better part of the last 4-5 years).
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 895
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 13

Re: New CDRs

Postby COMEVIL » Tue May 26, 2015 1:59 pm

Sum1 wrote:Out of curiosity, who were the two BZ selects? I only recognize a few of the names on that list (which I attribute to being a one of one for the better part of the last 4-5 years).


Lawrence and Murphy.
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 33

Re: New CDRs

Postby COMEVIL » Wed May 27, 2015 12:34 pm

1810 Board Statistics:
Board Target Opportunity: 70 %
IWs in Zone: 41
IWs Selected: 28 (8 AZ/18 IZ/2 BZ)
IW IZ Opportunity: 44%

High level analysis:
11/28 had or are in LCDR XO or OIC positions (4 non-selects had XO/OIC positions)
22/28 had or are in LCDR Milestone (3 of remaining 6 had or are in XO/OIC positions)
26/28 have progression toward joint (e.g. JPME I, FJT, JQO)
25/28 completed Master's program (17/25 STEM)
3/28 have documented acquisition qualifications (2 non-selects have documented acquisition qualifications)
8/28 have documented cyber qualifications (0 non-selects have documented cyber qualifications)

Key discriminators were sustained superior performance in leadership and operational jobs and challenging assignments.
- In the absence of hard breakouts among peer 1810 or IDC officers, soft breakouts among the entire pay grade pack were important and help to understand overall competitiveness.
- Diversity in both job function and geolocation is a positive factor.
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 33

Re: New CDRs

Postby Sum1 » Wed May 27, 2015 1:20 pm

COMEVIL wrote:1810 Board Statistics:
Board Target Opportunity: 70 %
IWs in Zone: 41
IWs Selected: 28 (8 AZ/18 IZ/2 BZ)
IW IZ Opportunity: 44%

High level analysis:
11/28 had or are in LCDR XO or OIC positions (4 non-selects had XO/OIC positions)
22/28 had or are in LCDR Milestone (3 of remaining 6 had or are in XO/OIC positions)
26/28 have progression toward joint (e.g. JPME I, FJT, JQO)
25/28 completed Master's program (17/25 STEM)
3/28 have documented acquisition qualifications (2 non-selects have documented acquisition qualifications)
8/28 have documented cyber qualifications (0 non-selects have documented cyber qualifications)

Key discriminators were sustained superior performance in leadership and operational jobs and challenging assignments.
- In the absence of hard breakouts among peer 1810 or IDC officers, soft breakouts among the entire pay grade pack were important and help to understand overall competitiveness.
- Diversity in both job function and geolocation is a positive factor.


Thanks for posting this. I was just popping in to ask if we could expect anything like this for the board.

I find it curious we still see geolocation diversity as a bullet point. The board precept includes a section on Area Tours, which specifically states that multiple or consecutive tours in a given area should not be viewed negatively, provided billet complexity and progression is maintained.
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 895
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 13

Re: New CDRs

Postby 12345qwert » Wed May 27, 2015 1:28 pm

GREAT analysis from COMEVIL!

Stats from the O-5 Board were also recently posted: http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/b ... 0STATS.pdf

As COMEVIL noted, for IW: 8 AZ (8/32: 25%), 19 IZ (19/41: 46%), 2 BZ (2/72: 2.7%)

Personally, I love the fact that SECNAV is proposing to do away with year groups and (in theory) allowing people to promote when the board thinks that they are ready (as opposed to some congressionally mandated years of experience)... and the two BZ selections this year are ROCKSTARS in our community - the exact type of officers we want others to emulate (and one of them took a non-traditional (cyber) path to get there - which should be a very positive message for younger cyber focused IWs)
  • 0

12345qwert
Registered Member
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 11:34 pm
Reputation: 9

Re: New CDRs

Postby COMEVIL » Wed May 27, 2015 1:35 pm

12345qwert wrote:GREAT analysis from COMEVIL!

Stats from the O-5 Board were also recently posted: http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/b ... 0STATS.pdf

As COMEVIL noted, for IW: 8 AZ (8/32: 25%), 19 IZ (19/41: 46%), 2 BZ (2/72: 2.7%)

Personally, I love the fact that SECNAV is proposing to do away with year groups and (in theory) allowing people to promote when the board thinks that they are ready (as opposed to some congressionally mandated years of experience)... and the two BZ selections this year are ROCKSTARS in our community - the exact type of officers we want others to emulate (and one of them took a non-traditional (cyber) path to get there - which should be a very positive message for younger cyber focused IWs)


I can only take credit for a successful copy and paste, not analysis.

Regarding SECNAV initiatives, agree. However, it is worth pointing out that these changes will require legislation and buy-in from other services.
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 33

Re: New CDRs

Postby S4L » Wed May 27, 2015 11:16 pm

@Sum1, I have been a recorder several times while active duty and though lack of geolocation diversity is not suppose to be held in negative light it almost always is. I am always leary when they state diversity in job function. That goes back to my general point of individuals not learning our craft. Just doing a Navy billet for a box check is the wrong approach and the majority of our community still operates like this. The IW field needs specialization. I think this pattern of box checking for the Navy IW Officers really gained momentum when IW wanted to become more like the general URL communities.
  • 0

S4L
Registered Member
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu May 21, 2015 5:28 am
Reputation: 0

Re: New CDRs

Postby COMEVIL » Thu May 28, 2015 1:10 pm

Sum1 wrote:
COMEVIL wrote:1810 Board Statistics:
Board Target Opportunity: 70 %
IWs in Zone: 41
IWs Selected: 28 (8 AZ/18 IZ/2 BZ)
IW IZ Opportunity: 44%

High level analysis:
11/28 had or are in LCDR XO or OIC positions (4 non-selects had XO/OIC positions)
22/28 had or are in LCDR Milestone (3 of remaining 6 had or are in XO/OIC positions)
26/28 have progression toward joint (e.g. JPME I, FJT, JQO)
25/28 completed Master's program (17/25 STEM)
3/28 have documented acquisition qualifications (2 non-selects have documented acquisition qualifications)
8/28 have documented cyber qualifications (0 non-selects have documented cyber qualifications)

Key discriminators were sustained superior performance in leadership and operational jobs and challenging assignments.
- In the absence of hard breakouts among peer 1810 or IDC officers, soft breakouts among the entire pay grade pack were important and help to understand overall competitiveness.
- Diversity in both job function and geolocation is a positive factor.


Thanks for posting this. I was just popping in to ask if we could expect anything like this for the board.

I find it curious we still see geolocation diversity as a bullet point. The board precept includes a section on Area Tours, which specifically states that multiple or consecutive tours in a given area should not be viewed negatively, provided billet complexity and progression is maintained.


I'm honestly not sure how much weight to put on that comment. I have seen it listed in past feedback, for both advancement and Command/Milestone screening boards. Looking through the convening order, I can find nothing that discusses geolocation diversity.
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 33

Re: New CDRs

Postby rturcic72 » Thu May 28, 2015 2:56 pm

Looking at the stats, we still see sustained superior performance, a Milestone Tour, Joint Progression, and a Masters. So, no major change here, but at a minimum to be competitive for a shot at selection. Based on timing is where we begin to see discriminators like XO/OIC, so about half of the selectees have this or their milestone. Acquisition is a toss up and good; and cyber is a new track to focus on. I would not be surprised if the GC1 AQD for the IDC mid-Career course becomes a discriminator as part of professional development.

Of course a STEM Masters carries some more weight, especially if done off duty, but that depends on the reviewer and the precept. Geographical location should not be a predictor given the fiscal constraints and unpredictable economy we are still under, but I can see it happen. I would ask that if you are in a billet that moves up and right, possibly another milestone or full joint credit, maybe EFM issues occurred in the family, then a letter to the board could easily help to justify this so board members and reviewers understand you are not just doing this because you do not want to move.

The trend that I also see in the stats is that timing and short-touring was a factor for half of the selectees. I dislike using the word "drug deal," but you can see it. If you put on O-4 and lucky to get a milestone off the bat, and then roll into XO/OIC, and the planets align, then you are in there; with good paper naturally. If you go to a three year shore billet, get an EP, cut a deal to leave early to a milestone or leadership job, then you are in there.

Today, we cannot really short tour anymore. One of the reasons can be seen in this cycle, not allowing other Officers the opportunity to move on because someone had already been selected outside of the slating process leading to poor timing and commands unable to adequately man at the O4/O5 levels. It's hard to point fingers because I've seen Admirals override some of these billets with who they wanted putting the Detailer at a disadvantage, or a Detailer used some car salesmanship to make a deal and break a deal.

As an example, if you go to the NAVIDFOR TYCOM, you must do all three years unless you select and then you can move on and out. Then CSG CRC tours are three year tours...now you are IZ. So as a reviewer these are considerations that will need to be taken into account along with good paper, masters, joint, etc.

Another example, my first full cycle FITREP as a new O4 reporting to a staff command was a Flag EP slightly above RSA and above SUM GRP with a great soft and hard break, yet I was not allowed to move on to a milestone, only folks who were already selected at the command left, some to milestones, others more like where the IDC needed them. I wait a year, another Milestone comes up and bam, the milestone list changes, my slate goes away, and the community leader states no more short touring after getting another good full cycle Flag FITREP, new RS and a great average way above RSA. So finally I get screened, but the person I relieve was selected in this O5 cycle and neither one of us were allowed to relieve each other earlier in the last 1-2 years of trying.

This would not happen in the Aviation community. EP...you're moving on so the next group has a shot to slide over. We do not do this very well in our community. In my opinion, the stats and precepts may need to be adjusted to reflect flexible considerations because many folks may be stuck with two full tours and get looked at, then trying to adjust their tours to do XO/OIC and/or possibly cyber somewhere if FOS IZ. But I understand in the end it is performance because I know most of the group selected and some had some limited opportunities, yet made the best of it and performed very well, hence their selection.

There is even some RUMINT, and I take it only as hearsay, that at least one of the selectees went to NJP for using unnecessary excessive force and knocked out an Enlisted Sailor and the Investigator, or someone in the Chain that knew this particular Officer from the Academy, pulled the mark out of their record and brushed it under the rug much to the dismay of several IW Officers that were witness to the event. Unfortunately stuff like this happens, but if I was not present, I can only say what I've heard from several folks within the Wardroom.

Finally, if Congress and the other services buyoff on the Navy moving away from year groups, this could potentially change the promotion environment where HYT would be adjusted allowing for some folks to stay longer in their pay-grade until the board feels they are ready for the promotion and/or shorter because they have what it takes early on. I believe the Marines do something similar, but their Officers promote about a year or so later than we do. It will be interesting to see if this plays out because I'm not sure what this looks like for the IDC, but I believe there will need some considerable buyoff for this.
  • 0

rturcic72
Registered Member
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:17 pm
Location: COMNAVIDFOR
Reputation: 0

Re: New CDRs

Postby Sum1 » Thu May 28, 2015 3:38 pm

COMEVIL wrote:
Sum1 wrote:
COMEVIL wrote:1810 Board Statistics:
Board Target Opportunity: 70 %
IWs in Zone: 41
IWs Selected: 28 (8 AZ/18 IZ/2 BZ)
IW IZ Opportunity: 44%

High level analysis:
11/28 had or are in LCDR XO or OIC positions (4 non-selects had XO/OIC positions)
22/28 had or are in LCDR Milestone (3 of remaining 6 had or are in XO/OIC positions)
26/28 have progression toward joint (e.g. JPME I, FJT, JQO)
25/28 completed Master's program (17/25 STEM)
3/28 have documented acquisition qualifications (2 non-selects have documented acquisition qualifications)
8/28 have documented cyber qualifications (0 non-selects have documented cyber qualifications)

Key discriminators were sustained superior performance in leadership and operational jobs and challenging assignments.
- In the absence of hard breakouts among peer 1810 or IDC officers, soft breakouts among the entire pay grade pack were important and help to understand overall competitiveness.
- Diversity in both job function and geolocation is a positive factor.


Thanks for posting this. I was just popping in to ask if we could expect anything like this for the board.

I find it curious we still see geolocation diversity as a bullet point. The board precept includes a section on Area Tours, which specifically states that multiple or consecutive tours in a given area should not be viewed negatively, provided billet complexity and progression is maintained.


I'm honestly not sure how much weight to put on that comment. I have seen it listed in past feedback, for both advancement and Command/Milestone screening boards. Looking through the convening order, I can find nothing that discusses geolocation diversity.


Page A-4, Para 5

http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/b ... RECEPT.pdf
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 895
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 13

PreviousNext

Return to Information Dominance Corps

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron