FY-19 NAVY ACTIVE-DUTY COMMANDER LINE SELECTIONS

[COMEVIL]

There may be such a thing as TOO early, though. I found myself in a really weird situation where I essentially received O-4 MS credit for a job I did mostly as an O-3 (and O-4 select). I promoted on 1 Sept and left the command on 17 Oct MS complete. In that case, my only O-4 MS FITREP was a transfer FITREP. It will remain to be seen if that negatively impacts me, but its something to consider.

I doubt it will negatively impact you as you are MS complete. That said, as an AREC I watched board member's who were prepping records confirming the MS AQD was associated with an actual MS assignment. Further, as they brief your record they often discuss what type of MS you did and the impact. In your case you were in a legitimate MS position, just early, so it shouldn't matter. But for those who game the system to get MS credit may not fare as well.

[Sum1]

There may be such a thing as TOO early, though. I found myself in a really weird situation where I essentially received O-4 MS credit for a job I did mostly as an O-3 (and O-4 select). I promoted on 1 Sept and left the command on 17 Oct MS complete. In that case, my only O-4 MS FITREP was a transfer FITREP. It will remain to be seen if that negatively impacts me, but its something to consider.

I doubt it will negatively impact you as you are MS complete. That said, as an AREC I watched board member's who were prepping records confirming the MS AQD was associated with an actual MS assignment. Further, as they brief your record they often discuss what type of MS you did and the impact. In your case you were in a legitimate MS position, just early, so it shouldn't matter. But for those who game the system to get MS credit may not fare as well.

"Game the system to get MS credit"

How so? I thought the MS AQD was clearly tied to specific billets. You either fill one or you don't.

Although, I guess I could see some tomfoolery going on with people getting rotated into a MS billet for the required 12 month minimum time period and then the CO swapping someone else into the billet (as long as they're screened). I can't imagine that's easy to justify, though. It also seems fraught with risk to everyone involved.

[COMEVIL]

"Game the system to get MS credit"

How so? I thought the MS AQD was clearly tied to specific billets. You either fill one or you don't.

Although, I guess I could see some tomfoolery going on with people getting rotated into a MS billet for the required 12 month minimum time period and then the CO swapping someone else into the billet (as long as they're screened). I can't imagine that's easy to justify, though. It also seems fraught with risk to everyone involved.

Bingo! With the new screening process, this loophole should be closed.

[Schlag]

Can completely understand why CO's do that though - with only 83 milestone billets out there and with close to 65-70 officers getting screened for milestone every year, the numbers just don't add up. Since most MS tours are 2 yrs., that means you notionally are going to have 41.5 MS openings per year. But if you screen 65-70 officers per year for MS eligibility, it means your bank is going to grow at a rate of around 20 officers per year. Understand some people are going to decline MS, retire prior to going to MS, and other things; however, it would seem that we have significant excess inventory in our banks. In my opinion, we need to either a) allow CO's to rotate people through to provide MS opportunity to those who are screened or b) reduce the MS screening rate to keep the bank under control.

If we do have sufficient retirements and/or those declining/refusing MS that we NEED to build excess bank capacity of 25-30 officers per year (or 25-33% of those who are screened for MS), then I would say that we have significant community health issue; perhaps on par with the struggles the URL has been having with their mid-career screening processes (aka, the Dept. Head board).

Similar argument can be said for XO. For the most recent board we screened 30 officers for 10 notional opportunities (METOC/IP/Intel XO + CW OIC). Why are we building such a bank capacity?

[COMEVIL]

Can completely understand why CO's do that though - with only 83 milestone billets out there and with close to 65-70 officers getting screened for milestone every year, the numbers just don't add up. Since most MS tours are 2 yrs., that means you notionally are going to have 41.5 MS openings per year. But if you screen 65-70 officers per year for MS eligibility, it means your bank is going to grow at a rate of around 20 officers per year. Understand some people are going to decline MS, retire prior to going to MS, and other things; however, it would seem that we have significant excess inventory in our banks. In my opinion, we need to either a) allow CO's to rotate people through to provide MS opportunity to those who are screened or b) reduce the MS screening rate to keep the bank under control.

If we do have sufficient retirements and/or those declining/refusing MS that we NEED to build excess bank capacity of 25-30 officers per year (or 25-33% of those who are screened for MS), then I would say that we have significant community health issue; perhaps on par with the struggles the URL has been having with their mid-career screening processes (aka, the Dept. Head board).

Similar argument can be said for XO. For the most recent board we screened 30 officers for 10 notional opportunities (METOC/IP/Intel XO + CW OIC). Why are we building such a bank capacity?

I would argue we are rapidly making our screening process meaningless by creating so many billets that are so called "milestone."

I would also argue that as long as we continue to have a screening requirement for all LCDR/CDR/CAPT afloat billets, we give an automatic out to those seeking to avoid sea duty. By the way, we are the only community that does that...

[Sum1]

Can completely understand why CO's do that though - with only 83 milestone billets out there and with close to 65-70 officers getting screened for milestone every year, the numbers just don't add up. Since most MS tours are 2 yrs., that means you notionally are going to have 41.5 MS openings per year. But if you screen 65-70 officers per year for MS eligibility, it means your bank is going to grow at a rate of around 20 officers per year. Understand some people are going to decline MS, retire prior to going to MS, and other things; however, it would seem that we have significant excess inventory in our banks. In my opinion, we need to either a) allow CO's to rotate people through to provide MS opportunity to those who are screened or b) reduce the MS screening rate to keep the bank under control.

If we do have sufficient retirements and/or those declining/refusing MS that we NEED to build excess bank capacity of 25-30 officers per year (or 25-33% of those who are screened for MS), then I would say that we have significant community health issue; perhaps on par with the struggles the URL has been having with their mid-career screening processes (aka, the Dept. Head board).

Similar argument can be said for XO. For the most recent board we screened 30 officers for 10 notional opportunities (METOC/IP/Intel XO + CW OIC). Why are we building such a bank capacity?

I would argue we are rapidly making our screening process meaningless by creating so many billets that are so called "milestone."

I would also argue that as long as we continue to have a screening requirement for all LCDR/CDR/CAPT afloat billets, we give an automatic out to those seeking to avoid sea duty. By the way, we are the only community that does that...

But by the same token, those who refuse MS because they don't want to go to sea also end up self-selecting to go home once they reach hired tenure. A completed MS in-grade is basically the only requirement I know of absolutely crucial for promotion. Can you more clearly articulate the problem with the current screening requirement, for my benefit?

My intel friends discuss their MS assignments similarly to our sea/shore rotation. You did an "out" assignment in-grade somewhere? You're more than likely MS complete.

[COMEVIL]

But by the same token, those who refuse MS because they don't want to go to sea also end up self-selecting to go home once they reach hired tenure.

Sure. And for some brand new CDRs, or event CAPTs, that is OK. They incur the risk, but...there is still an impact to filling at sea billets. What other community does that?

[Sum1]

But by the same token, those who refuse MS because they don't want to go to sea also end up self-selecting to go home once they reach hired tenure.

Sure. And for some brand new CDRs, or event CAPTs, that is OK. They incur the risk, but...there is still an impact to filling at sea billets. What other community does that?

I mean, I suppose so. Has there ever been an instance where there were fewer screened CDRs or CAPTs than available milestone billets needing to be filled?

I tried everything I could to convince the detailer to send me to one of the pacific northwest CRC jobs, even though I was going to be milestone complete, because I wanted the experience AND it got my wife back in the area of her hometown (Seattle). But, for obvious reasons, letting someone who's already MS complete do a second MS in grade is basically the option right above gapping/not filling the billet. They just wouldn't do it. I wonder if the paradigm would be similar at the O-5 and O-6 levels, as well. Being Q as an O-6 sounds like a phenomenal job... talk about being able to put into practice 25+ years of experience. I'd be shocked to find that they were having issues filling those billets (already).

[COMEVIL]

Has there ever been an instance where there were fewer screened CDRs or CAPTs than available milestone billets needing to be filled?

Yes, actually. I suspect the number of milestone and IWC selects keeps going up because people keep turning down these jobs.

[yoshi]

indeed, lots of folks turn down jobs, lots of folks volunteer the 'don't pick me' when the MS options aren't lining up for what/where they want. as for a CO decision to cycle folks through for MS credit - well, that's kind of the problem. the numbers aren't supposed to add up. i wonder if that type of mentality isn't the same as the FITREP conveyor for all officers that don' have obvious problems (good-better-best). the most important component for success: get in line and wait their turn. hopefully, the MS thing is fixed with screening. the fitrep thing requires knowledge, involvement, dedication, and few other things.