Lateral Tranfer, is it the right thing for us?

[jitter]

How do you feel about officers transferring into this community as senior LT's and LCDR's?
Do you think they can perform as well as an officer with 8+ years of IW knowledge?
Do you want a new IW LCDR/LT just out of IWBC coming to your command?
What job do you give them? What can they provide that we can not grow ourselves?

Food for thought

[webmaster]

How do you feel about officers transferring into this community as senior LT's and LCDR's?
Do you think they can perform as well as an officer with 8+ years of IW knowledge?
Do you want a new IW LCDR/LT just out of IWBC coming to your command?
What job do you give them? What can they provide that we can not grow ourselves?

Food for thought

I don't think lat transferring at that point is the right answer. Speaking as one that did just that I don't think we perform as well. You spend your time between doing your job and getting that base knowledge you need.

[1610MATROS]

RADM Andy Singer, former COMNAVSECGRU, laterally transferred to the community from SWO as a LCDR.

RADM Ned Deets, NNWC, laterally transferred to the community after aviation training as a Lieutenant.

I could be wrong, but I think RDML Brown may be a lateral transfer also.

RDML Bill Leigher was a mid-grade LT when he transferred to the community.

RDML Mike Rogers was a junior LT when he transferred to the community.

Our next Flag will likely come from another community.

[IW OCM]

How do you feel about officers transferring into this community as senior LT's and LCDR's?
Do you think they can perform as well as an officer with 8+ years of IW knowledge?
Do you want a new IW LCDR/LT just out of IWBC coming to your command?
What job do you give them? What can they provide that we can not grow ourselves?

Food for thought

The IW community values and needs lat transfers from URL. We value them for their leadership, operational experience and understanding of how the Navy and often times DOD work. The same holds true for direct accessions with those very experiences. We need them because we have critical shortfalls at LT, LCDR and CDR paygrades that we could not satisfy with direct accessions. Our biggest challenge in Millington is retaining/growing an inventory of IWOs to satisfy current and growing IWO requirements. It truly is amazing?!?! We've heard it before, too many prior enlisted IWOs retiring at LT/LCDR, coupled with billet growth and a drive to decrease overall Navy end-strength (call if you'd like more insight...901-874-3123) has created manning shortfalls that we may never overcome. We picked up 19 lat transfers last board!!! Now it's up to us to train, qualify and effectively employ these officers with significant URL experience. Diversity in the workforce is something to which we continually aspire. Unfortunately, what is often times lost is that diversity is just as much about varied operational, educational and cultural backgrounds as it is about gender and ethnicity. With that, we should all embrace such diversity and leverage it for the good of the IW community, the Navy and the Nation.

[webmaster]

Now it's up to us to train, qualify and effectively employ these officers with significant URL experience.

The training and effective employment is where I think we still fall short but I think we're getting there.

[IW OCM]

The training and effective employment is where I think we still fall short but I think we're getting there.

Concur and we are turning the corner...all lat transfers regardless of paygrade now go to an 11 week IWBC, must complete the IWO basic PQS (which is no joke) and will be detailed to NIOC GA/MD/HI/TX. Training Continuum continues to be a work in progress, but it is moving along...

[webmaster]

Concur and we are turning the corner...all lat transfers regardless of paygrade now go to an 11 week IWBC, must complete the IWO basic PQS (which is no joke) and will be detailed to NIOC GA/MD/HI/TX. Training Continuum continues to be a work in progress, but it is moving along...

I talked to an LDO who went through it and said the first 2 weeks were sidesaddle with the IPs. He was questioning the value added in that particular part of the course.

[IW OCM]

I talked to an LDO who went through it and said the first 2 weeks were sidesaddle with the IPs. He was questioning the value added in that particular part of the course.

I have not sat through the course, but it was built based upon our Navy Job Analysis (NJA), which will be refreshed in MAR @ CID. The intent of the first two weeks is to focus on the technology aspect of what we do (rudimentary level) and the IPs need to establish the same baseline of technical knowledge. How we apply the knowledge and leverage the same technological understanding is different. Hopefully, our IWBC students are providing CID with the feedback, as we are all striving for continual improvement and there is no area more critical to our collective success than training (another data point made very clear in the community survey).

[Sum1]

I spoke with a recent grad who thought it was very valuable as someone who was a direct accession and didn't have much experience with the technology part. I'd probably ask what the LDO's background was.

As far as billet concerns... I'm one of those nasty prior enlisted CT's (Korling) who had 7 years in when he made the switch. From speaking with people recently, it seems as if the NSA and the fact that they billet jobs for O-4s+ is as much to blame as O-3/O-4 retirees. If the national billets suddenly bulge at O-4 that just makes it all the harder to fill slots.

[yoshi]

i, too, am a prior, who appreciates the problem confronted by the community. as i wrote last year when answering the question related to how the community could improve in retaining officers at the 20 year mark, i don't see how it will be fixed. too many priors do create a mid-level officer hemorrhage at their 20 year mark, and it is perfectly understandable why. there just isn't enough incentive to stay past that point. the money difference means if you stay to promote and get paid, you may net about 800 dollars more per month (rough estimation). The pay charts also do nothing to aid retention beyond 20 years for anyone at the O4 level who has 7 or more years of enlisted service (17 total years at that point), as promotion is the only raise to be had (and once promoted nothing new until the next promotion). More importantly than the money, however, is the prospect of giving up what usually turns out to be 5 or so critical years in one's 4th decade of life. it is easier to start (and finish) a second career when one is 42-45 than it is when one is 47-52. when one considers the necessity of hitting the proper billets which will facilitate promotion to the next level (O5, let's say), the choice gets a little easier. there isn't much incentive beyond 20, unless one just really likes everything about the military/Navy. So - for the good of the community we MUST have lateral transfers. It makes sense that lots of flags are lat transfers. They do play an integral role and it is important for them to make up the senior level leadership of the community, as I suspect senior level leadership is more likely to be a prioritized goal of theirs (especially for those who have never worked outside the Navy) than it would be for a prior. At the senior level, it really becomes less about technical competence and more about relationships, or so I've been told. So, I don't really see a difference between a lateral transfer and a 'purebred' IWO. The big issue is making sure everyone is trained adequately at every level for the responsibility and requirements of the positions they will assume (** AHEM**(stomp, stomp)).