Lateral Tranfer, is it the right thing for us?

Help us help you

Postby eswsswo » Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:48 pm

IW OCM wrote: 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!!!


Communication and a desire to work with people has been a huge problem in the IW community for the past few years. I have never seen the level of dissatisfaction of trying to work with detailers as I have in the past 3 years or so. This runs from O1-O6 in our community. Giving the "company answer" has driven many people to get our or retire instead of staying longer. I'm one of them who gladly would have stayed but could not get any flexibility on billet types/locations. I've been PCS afloat, been on an IA, been at national sites, been on large staffs...so the diversity is there. Many others are on the fringes as well. Step back away from the company kool-aid and take a hard look...you'll see why people are departing and most of it isn't because a second career is easier a few years earlier in life.
  • 0

User avatar
eswsswo
Registered Member
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 11:30 pm
Reputation: 0

IWBC Training

Postby sippiboy81 » Tue Dec 29, 2009 2:03 am

First, I would like to introduce myself. I am the instructor for the first two weeks of IWBC at Corry Station, Pensacola. I am retired Navy, 22 years, and have been an instructor for over 10 years (5 years active, 6 years since I've retired). When my company was tasked by CID to build and teach the IWBC Core course, we were told to build the course for the new IW Ensign just starting his/her Naval career in the IW community and there would be some lateral transfers as well...so we did. Since the inception of the course, the amount of the desired audience has significantly decreased. What I'm getting now is a whole lot of LDOs and priors that I feel don't really need to be there. Their valuable time could be used more wisely somewhere else.
Secondly, the curriculum for the first two weeks focuses on the overlap between the IW and IP communities. Some IW students have questioned their need to understand networking. There should be no argument about the fact that both communities need to see what the other is doing. On the IP side, I and my fellow co-instructors are the SMEs. However, we're somewhat limited on the IW side. Until recently, I've had the CID Corry Station IW Officers teach the IW portion of the Core (they are the SMEs). But they now claim that they are overloaded (even though one CWO5 helps out as much as possible and is very reliable).
Just wanted to let you know what really happens in the training.
All I want is the best product for your community. Let me know and I will make it better since I am the curriculum manager for IWBC.
  • 0

sippiboy81
Registered Member
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:24 am
Location: pascagoula, ms
Reputation: 0

Thank you for your open communication

Postby jboomgaarden » Tue Dec 29, 2009 3:06 am

sippiboy81 wrote:First, I would like to introduce myself. I am the instructor for the first two weeks of IWBC at Corry Station, Pensacola. I am retired Navy, 22 years, and have been an instructor for over 10 years (5 years active, 6 years since I've retired). When my company was tasked by CID to build and teach the IWBC Core course, we were told to build the course for the new IW Ensign just starting his/her Naval career in the IW community and there would be some lateral transfers as well...so we did. Since the inception of the course, the amount of the desired audience has significantly decreased. What I'm getting now is a whole lot of LDOs and priors that I feel don't really need to be there. Their valuable time could be used more wisely somewhere else.
Secondly, the curriculum for the first two weeks focuses on the overlap between the IW and IP communities. Some IW students have questioned their need to understand networking. There should be no argument about the fact that both communities need to see what the other is doing. On the IP side, I and my fellow co-instructors are the SMEs. However, we're somewhat limited on the IW side. Until recently, I've had the CID Corry Station IW Officers teach the IW portion of the Core (they are the SMEs). But they now claim that they are overloaded (even though one CWO5 helps out as much as possible and is very reliable).
Just wanted to let you know what really happens in the training.
All I want is the best product for your community. Let me know and I will make it better since I am the curriculum manager for IWBC.


sippiboy81,

Just want to say thanks for your openness and communication on here regarding IWBC and the instruction you'll provide. I'm currently going through OCS right now to become commissioned as an IW officer hopefully around March 12, 2010. As a soon-to-be member of the Navy's IW community, it makes me more confident and positive when seeing this type of interaction. Look forward to meeting you hopefully in Pensacola this spring.
  • 0

jboomgaarden
Registered Member
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:48 pm
Reputation: 0

Postby COMEVIL » Tue Dec 29, 2009 5:12 am

sippiboy81 wrote:First, I would like to introduce myself. I am the instructor for the first two weeks of IWBC at Corry Station, Pensacola. I am retired Navy, 22 years, and have been an instructor for over 10 years (5 years active, 6 years since I've retired). When my company was tasked by CID to build and teach the IWBC Core course, we were told to build the course for the new IW Ensign just starting his/her Naval career in the IW community and there would be some lateral transfers as well...so we did. Since the inception of the course, the amount of the desired audience has significantly decreased. What I'm getting now is a whole lot of LDOs and priors that I feel don't really need to be there. Their valuable time could be used more wisely somewhere else.
Secondly, the curriculum for the first two weeks focuses on the overlap between the IW and IP communities. Some IW students have questioned their need to understand networking. There should be no argument about the fact that both communities need to see what the other is doing. On the IP side, I and my fellow co-instructors are the SMEs. However, we're somewhat limited on the IW side. Until recently, I've had the CID Corry Station IW Officers teach the IW portion of the Core (they are the SMEs). But they now claim that they are overloaded (even though one CWO5 helps out as much as possible and is very reliable).
Just wanted to let you know what really happens in the training.
All I want is the best product for your community. Let me know and I will make it better since I am the curriculum manager for IWBC.


This is definitely a discussion worth having. I remember when the new IWO PQS came out and was required for LDO's and CWO's. Then came sending sending newly commissioned LDO's to IWBC. It seems counter-intuitive to select someone for a commission because they are a technical expert in their field, then send them to the basic instruction provided the newest Ensign. Full disclosure -- I never attended the course myself so I can't speak to its usefulness. But from everything I've seen and heard, there is no need to send an LDO to IWBC.

The same could be said for the lateral transfer process. When I was selected for Lateral Transfer to 1640 I found myself having to qualify to be a 1610. After 21 years of service in IW/Cryptology this seemed utterly ridiculous. In the end, I had to complete the requirements in order to become a 1610. So I did. Am I a better IWO for it? Not at all.

I think the real root of this problem is a lack of long-term plan for our IWO LDO/CWO community. It has been known for sometime that the senior IW leadership was not a big fan of the program. In fact, I truly believe that if they could have gotten rid of the IWO LDO program they would have. So what we have now is a short-term plan to make our LDO's look more like 1610's. And the long-term plan? Lateral transfer at or around O-3. If this doesn't sound an effective use of our Mustang community its because it isn't...
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 806
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 33

Postby LDOspook » Wed Dec 30, 2009 12:23 pm

Comevil.....I completely agree with you. I don't understand why as an LDO I need to get the pqs done. Sending LDO's to IWBC is a waste of money in an already thrifty organization. Save the money......

As far as conversion to 1610 goes, it seems like it is almost necessary in order to make LCDR (or so I hear). The flowpoint for LDO to 04 is much tighter than for 1610. My question is, will the new IDC enabel IW LDO's to compete for 04 internal to the corps vice the entire Navy, as we currently promote? I would rather stay 6442, but when it comes to feeding the family, you do what you have to do.

I'd appreciate anyone's insight as to the future of IW LDO's. I am a proud Mustang and look forward to a few more years of service, so I am all ears as to any gouge people may have.

my two cents....
  • 0

LDOspook
Registered Member
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:39 pm
Reputation: 0

Postby 1610MATROS » Wed Dec 30, 2009 12:35 pm

LDO Spook

The IWOCM can tell you what the future of the IW LDO is. I'd like to see something from the 'head shed' on this. Not sure who is working on the update to the community's "STRATEGY FOR OUR PEOPLE". In my opinion, LDOs have been and should continue to be integral to the success of the IW community. I think you can make LCDR as an LDO without a problem. CDR is a different story and CAPT is nearly an impossibility.
  • 0

1610MATROS
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 339
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 11:21 pm
Reputation: 0

Postby COMEVIL » Wed Dec 30, 2009 1:56 pm

Agree. The IW LDO community deserves some info on the future, especially after the years of proud service they have provided. My perception is that the current strategy is a compromise between the Navy requiring us to maintain the billets and the leadership wanting to get rid of them.

As for making LCDR, and beyond... I lateral-transferred from 6440 to 1610 this year. That move put me in zone for LCDR two years early. How do you turn that down? Still proud to be a Mustang, and always will be. But being an LDO past LCDR just isn't realistic.

Its always best to present a problem and a solution. So, for IWO LDO's I would:

-- Establish a career progression plan for LDO' similar to the 1610 plan.

-- Conduct a billet scrub and identify key technical leadership billets across the community for LDO's. Billets could include training officers, instructors, curriculum developers, master language specialists (former CTI's), master cyber specialists (former CTN's), system procurement/R&D intensive jobs, etc.

-- Identify other billets, primarily afloat, to maintain the health of our community/ensure competitiveness against other LDO's. At a minimum this would require an O-4 afloat tour for our LDO's.

-- Once this billet plan is created, stick to it....maintain billet purity.

-- Advise future LDO advancement boards on advancement requirements with the IWO LDO community, like other LDO communities do.
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 806
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 33

new accession

Postby usnctia » Wed Dec 30, 2009 6:36 pm

So I will be commissioned on Feb 1st and will be at IWBC in April. So from what I have been reading the first two weeks of IWBC I will be completely lost on, and is it completely impossible to make O4 without switching to 1610. I am almost done with my degree and I do plan on having it prior to LT. I am always looking for advice and guidance from those in the world already.
  • 0

usnctia
Registered Member
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 2:43 pm
Reputation: 0

Postby COMEVIL » Wed Dec 30, 2009 6:43 pm

If you want to make it past LCDR, lateral transfer to 1610.

If you want to advance to LCDR sooner, lateral transfer to 1610.
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 806
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 33

Postby 1610MATROS » Wed Dec 30, 2009 11:19 pm

I will grant you that it is easier to progress past LCDR as a 1610 than as an LDO. Some fine LDO Commanders did not make Captain. There are not many good LDO LCDRs that failed to make Commander. But, I grant you, the competition is easier to handle as a 1610. Captain Hooley transitioned as a CDR to 1610 and made Captain. He was good enough to make it as an LDO, but why take chances? This gives you an idea how great an officer guys like Captain Craig Eaton are. It took Herculean efforts on his part to make Captain - and he did it. Captain Al Ross made it as an LDO. You make it that far as an LDO and you become an immediate icon in the cryptologic community.
  • 0

1610MATROS
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 339
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 11:21 pm
Reputation: 0

PreviousNext

Return to Lateral Transfer

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest