New CDRs

[yoshi]

Congrats to all selectees!

Special Duty Officer (Oceanography)
Caplan Shelley D 0003 Crook Jacquelyn Cara 0001
Hermsdorfer Kathry 0005 McWilliams Brandon K 0002
Murnane Mark 0004 Palmer Jeffrey Michael 0008
Parker Scott W 0007 Price Frank D Jr 0006
Svatek Mike E 0009

Special Duty Officer (Information Warfare)
Adams Audrey G 0016 Barnes David Shane 0013
Bensing Richard G 0005 Boggis Mark L 0010
Cone Scott L 0023 Connett Brian 0007
Ellison Robert R III 0015 Fenton Dorothy Allison 0022
Grabus Andrew Paul 0001 Herlands Michael Josep 0017
Herring Clay C 0012 Hodgkins Lucas J 0020
Hodgkins Misty Dawn 0011 Homer Jason Bruce 0026
Kemmerly Kenneth 0024 Lawrence Lemuel Seth 0028
McCaffrey Michael Jose 0019 McKeehan Zachary Dean 0027
McKelvey Paul Nicholas 0009 Michalak David M 0004
Morris Shellee Ann 0006 Morton Matthew S 0014
Murphy Toriano A 0029 Nelson John J 0003
Sollon Steve James 0018 Tirrell William K 0002
Wightman Craig A 0008 Yates Joel Adam 0021

Special Duty Officer (Information Professional)
Albin Eugene Alvah 0001 Berriosortiz Edwin Jav 0014
Brown Ian A 0016 Carmickle Bobby Thomas 0013
Cegelske Matthew J 0020 Clarady Melissa Marie 0002
Cruzbaez Wilfredo 0015 Dobbs Erica 0007
Goodson Christopher J 0017 Hicks Christina Marie 0011
Hill Jaime Lynn 0003 Hines Christina 0009
Kelley Micah Roy 0005 Littlejohn Aaron M 0004
Maroon Kenneth Jafe 0019 Olone Sean Finnian 0008
Simmons Oscar Walton 0012 West David Charles 0018
Widmann Michael 0006 Williams Danielle S 0021
Williamson Kenya Dewit 0010

Special Duty Officer (Intelligence)
Baker Allan Matthew 0014 Bender Karl Lawrence 0023
Beris Jonathan Victor 0001 Borngen Amanda Mae 0002
Boyden Andrew Wiser 0029 Brennen Lisa Marie 0012
Castillo Eric T 0010 Chesser Timothy Paul 0016
Corkran Alfred J III 0028 Finke Mitchell Harold 0033
Gasper Catalina Lorena 0003 Gray Daniel Christian 0027
Green Stuart Alexander 0026 Hallinan Megan Michael 0030
Hamilton Robert Johnst 0013 Hubbard Michael Andrew 0020
Johnston Robert Willia 0017 King James Howard 0018
Lundquist David Courtn 0024 Mack Yerodin Jolon 0007
Madson Peter Nils 0009 Nesbitt William Harold 0004
Plumer Andrew G 0032 Roslansky Josie Joyce 0031
Sawatzky Noel A 0005 Slavin Regina 0025
Smith Ryan Christopher 0019 Taylor Lance Allen 0011
Walsh William Ryan 0021 Waltermire Bradley Jon 0006
Wicker Nick Glenn Jr 0022 Yeatman Richard Mark 0015
Zogg Dennis Matthew 0008

[LIVINGIW]

Interesting list for IWs... 8 AZ? 2 BZ? Is that indicative of a weak IZ crowd?

At least one of the BZ picks makes me think the cyber pendulum is definitely swinging to support those with vast cyber experience. Is that the message for our new O4s? Forget CRC, cyber all the way??

Wonder what happened to #25 on the list??

Just some initial thoughts looking at the list.

[S4L]

Interesting IW list indeed and a bit surprised that several names are not on the list. Find it odd how many lat transfers got selected who still do not understand the components of the IW community, yet will now be responsible for impacting the community on a much larger scale. Very few SIGINT savvy folks on this list also, which makes me wonder how our JOs will interpret that as far as choosing their career path. Do not think this board helped the IW community for the long run.

[COMEVIL]

Interesting IW list indeed and a bit surprised that several names are not on the list. Find it odd how many lat transfers got selected who still do not understand the components of the IW community, yet will now be responsible for impacting the community on a much larger scale. Very few SIGINT savvy folks on this list also, which makes me wonder how our JOs will interpret that as far as choosing their career path. Do not think this board helped the IW community for the long run.

To my knowledge, 7 of these selectees served in CRC positions. It could be more. It doesn't get much more Navy SIGINT than that...

Regarding lat/xfers -- I find it hard to believe that a LCDR lat/xfer, up for CDR, doesn't understand some as basic the "components of the IW community." Can you explain? They are screened/selected just like anyone else in the community -- based on what is in their record.

[S4L]

I do not believe serving as a CRC equates to understanding SIGINT but that is not the point I was making. Plenty of CRCs who know SIGINT and plenty of CRCs who do not. Throw in cyber and now you have even fewer who understand both sides. From my point of view, outside of a handful of names the SIGINT heavy folks are not on the list and only a handful of our top Cyber JO's who actually understand Cyber made it.

The lateral transfer comment is based on my experience before retirement and in my current position where I deal with a decent amount of Navy IW officers. I do not feel the majority have a decent understanding of their craft nor try to learn it. Several projects we are involved in now these lat transfers sit in the room like a statue and defer their decisions to the contracting parties. While that is not bad, as these contractors are retired Navy, it shows clear as day they lack the understanding on what they should be doing.

This is strictly my opinion from what I have witnessed the past few years.

[rturcic72]

I was surprised at first when I saw the list, but after having a chance to participate in a board because I will not be IZ for at least a year, the process indicates to me that the board is pretty fair. As I move forward, this is just my opinion based on my observations that I've seen in the last few years from the O-4 and O-5 boards, and I also learned a lot from several of the current selectees, their paths and decisions, because we all are in one way or another a "mentor" to each other. There's a point after the first cut that you become a number and no longer a name while sorting out the crunch. However, this recent board could mean that the IZ group may not have been competitive enough.

Some argue the CYBER piece or the SIGINT piece, but I am willing to bet when the Community Manager background stats on the selectees comes out, it will be like previous years, different experiences with some "should have check in the blocks," coupled with good FITREPs, at and above RSA where they need to be. EP and MP mean nothing unless you need to see the progression and break, otherwise, it's about sustained superior performance.

Last year, selectees had their Masters, at least JPME I, and a milestone (CRC, XO, OIC,etc.) and obviously good paper. Cyber is just gaining traction, so I doubt the board used this as a discriminator this early. A STEM Masters does carry some added weight and a sub-specialty that can be useful, etc. and set you up for a Cyber track. I've seen some get selected when the same RS moved them to the left, but not consistent with the rest of the FITREPs. Sometimes reviewers overlook small things like this and may realize that the CO had a grudge because the Officer was injured and could not stand shipboard watch.

I've heard plenty of O-4s complain about why they FOS and they had every check in the block and then some. Well, I would ask, that's all good and everything, but how is your paper? If it's mediocre and stuck in the middle, I only care about half of those checks like Joint progress, Masters, Milestone, and good paper at or above RSA showing rightward progression. I've seen O-4s that had a STEM Masters, JPME I and II w/ JSO, O-4 Milestone and FOS because FITREPs were ok, but not spectacular.

On the flipside, if you have great paper, but no JPME or Masters, at least started, and no milestone, then how can I determine if you can handle the tougher jobs. Timing can be a factor at times, but whether it's a large or very small SUM GRP, if you can perform well in both settings and at a minimum hit the wickets, then the IW voters and URLs folks will see a stronger picture of the varied duties, qualifications, education, FITREPs, etc.

Finally, I do not think most of us will really ever grasp our tradecraft because it is constantly changing. 20+ years ago, you were a SIGINT guru, then we shifted to IO, then we merged into the IDC with some attempts at cross-billeting mainly at the senior leadership level at this time, and now we are Cyber focused, but in the end...it's the performance that counts. Sometimes the selection is easier if some of the voters know you and your work ethic, however; at crunch time when you become only a number, those specific voters see numbers and choose their final cut based on numbers, but do not count on who knows you on the board...influence has some weight, but not the mythical type that some believe exists.

[COMEVIL]

I do not believe serving as a CRC equates to understanding SIGINT but that is not the point I was making. Plenty of CRCs who know SIGINT and plenty of CRCs who do not. Throw in cyber and now you have even fewer who understand both sides. From my point of view, outside of a handful of names the SIGINT heavy folks are not on the list and only a handful of our top Cyber JO's who actually understand Cyber made it.

The lateral transfer comment is based on my experience before retirement and in my current position where I deal with a decent amount of Navy IW officers. I do not feel the majority have a decent understanding of their craft nor try to learn it. Several projects we are involved in now these lat transfers sit in the room like a statue and defer their decisions to the contracting parties. While that is not bad, as these contractors are retired Navy, it shows clear as day they lack the understanding on what they should be doing.

This is strictly my opinion from what I have witnessed the past few years.

Nothing you are saying is quantitative. It sounds more like there are some specific Officers who weren't on the list that you expected to be. And maybe some Officers who were on the list that you think shouldn't be.

[Mjölnir]

Interesting list for IWs... 8 AZ? 2 BZ? Is that indicative of a weak IZ crowd?

IRT the 8x AZ selections, I also wonder if that could indicate that the FY15 board was particularly competitive and that just because someone was a non-select in that (or any) year is not indicating that they are a below average or even subpar officer.

IRT the 2x BZ selections, I know one very well and one kinda-sorta okay, if someone was going to be selected early both of them exemplify what I think we should be striving for in our profession.

[Mjölnir]

I've heard plenty of O-4s complain about why they FOS and they had every check in the block and then some. Well, I would ask, that's all good and everything, but how is your paper? If it's mediocre and stuck in the middle, I only care about half of those checks like Joint progress, Masters, Milestone, and good paper at or above RSA showing rightward progression. I've seen O-4s that had a STEM Masters, JPME I and II w/ JSO, O-4 Milestone and FOS because FITREPs were ok, but not spectacular.

Hopefully at this point people are of the impression that checking the box isn't all that is required and that (as you say) how you are performing and how it is getting reported / documented is the much larger part (IMO and based on my observation at an O5 board) of the equation.

[COMEVIL]

Interesting list for IWs... 8 AZ? 2 BZ? Is that indicative of a weak IZ crowd?

IRT the 8x AZ selections, I also wonder if that could indicate that the FY15 board was particularly competitive and that just because someone was a non-select in that (or any) year is not indicating that they are a below average or even subpar officer.

IRT the 2x BZ selections, I know one very well and one kinda-sorta okay, if someone was going to be selected early both of them exemplify what I think we should be striving for in our profession.

The reality is that all Officers eligible (IZ, AZ, and BZ) are considered and briefed together. The only categorical limitation for selections is for BZ, so only the top ~2 in that category will be considered. After that all bets are off. The board could actually select everyone from AZ if those Officers were the most eligible. In the end it is the individual versus the convening order. The ones that most closely match the convening order will be selected.