FY19 board Statistics (CAPT & CDR) - 1810

FY19 board Statistics (CAPT & CDR) - 1810

Postby Mjölnir » Tue Jul 31, 2018 1:19 pm

FY19 1810 CAPT Promotion Board Statistics
1810 O6 board statistics:

In Zone: 6/14 (43%)
Above Zone: 1/29 (3%)
Below Zone: 0/33

Comparison to other IWC communities:
Oceano: 40% IZ selection (0 of 4 selects AZ)
CW: 43% IZ selection (1 of 7 total selects AZ)
IP: 13% IZ selection (6 of 8 total selects AZ)
Intel: 38% IZ selection (3 of 20 total selects AZ)

Convening order, phasing plan, overall statistics, and additional info available at: http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/b ... FY-19.aspx

Of the 7 Selects:
7/7 had sustained superior performance
6/7 were in or complete with O5 Command
3/7 were in or complete with O5 XO
6/7 were in or complete with O5 Milestone
7/7 had Type 2/4 sea duty experience tour
1/7 have an OPNAV tour
7/7 have documented SIGINT experience
0/7 have documented EW experience
2/7 have documented Cyber experience
7/7 are IWO (Warfare Qual) Complete
7/7 have earned a Master's degree (2/7 STEM Masters)
7/7 completed JPME Phase 1
5/7 completed JPME Phase 2
4/7 completed a joint tour
3/7 are designated JQO
0/7 are space cadre
0/7 have completed an IA/GSA
2/7 have documented acquisition experience
1/7 were prior enlisted (0/7 were LDOs)

=================================================================

FY19 1810 CDR Promotion Board Statistics
1810 O5 board statistics:

In Zone: 18/38 (47%)
Above Zone: 9/28 (32%)
Below Zone: 0/74

Comparison to other IWC communities:
Oceano: 65% IZ selection (1 of 12 total selects AZ)
CW: 47% IZ selection (9 of 27 total selects AZ)
IP: 46% IZ selection (6 of 17 total selects AZ)
Intel: 42% IZ selection (19 of 50 total selects AZ)

Convening order, phasing plan, overall statistics, and additional info available at: http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/b ... FY-19.aspx

Of the 27 Selects:
27/27 had sustained superior performance
26/27 were in or complete with O4 Milestone
18/27 completed their Command qualification
05/27 were in or complete with O4 XO/OIC
15/27 attended the IWOIC
25/27 have documented SIGINT experience
09/27 have documented EW experience
11/27 have documented Cyber experience
27/27 are IWO (Warfare Qual) Complete
24/27 have earned a Master's degree (11/24 STEM Masters)
17/27 completed JPME Phase 1
01/27 completed JPME Phase 2
04/27 are in or have completed a joint tour
00/27 were designated JQO
14/27 have completed an IA/GSA
05/27 have documented acquisition experience
10/27 were prior enlisted (2/10 were a LDO)
  • 0

The most important six inches on the battlefield is between your ears.
User avatar
Mjölnir
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 2:07 am
Location: OPNAV
Reputation: 21

Re: FY19 board Statistics (CAPT & CDR) - 1810

Postby Sum1 » Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:02 pm

There was also an attached note from CAPT Kramer discussing how worthless the stats are and how he doesn't feel any pressure or need to disseminate. His point (BLUF) was the stats reflect what the convening order said.

Here's his full comment:
Leaders,

I’ve had quite a few officers asking me to publish these statistics and I have not put a high priority on compiling and posting them. I do not apologize for the delay. The delay is because I do not put much value in these types of statistics. These numbers prove one thing; the selection board used the convening order. This is a validation that what is in the convening order is what it takes to promote. The best qualified CW officers will have demonstrated sustained superior performance in one or more CW core mission areas (SIGINT, Cyber, EW) and leadership assignments indicating potential to succeed. The board looks for increasing diversity and responsibility in each job you take. Performing well in milestone assignments is a must and shows performance in very challenging assignments. Once you have above average performance in hard jobs, then you can start looking at the convening order for the things on the stats list. Don’t expect accomplishing every item on the list to replace sustained superior performance in increasingly demanding jobs. I do not intend to lecture, but instead to provide insight of what this data reflects. To truly self-assess your record, look at your PSR and look closely at your trends compared to reporting seniors cumulative average. Additionally, look hard at your FITREPs to see what jobs you are being recommended for. Are they increasing in scope and complexity? Are you being recommended for a leadership position? Your FITREP is written for the board; not you. What message is the board receiving? Sorry for the length of the rant, but just wanted you all to understand my perspective of these statistics. Have a good evening.

Vr/CAPT Bill Kramer



I personally always through the stats were only partially useful because without the associated stats on the non-selects the information is virtually worthless. 5 of 27 selected for CDR had or were in O-4 XO/OIC billets, but how many current or former XO's did NOT select for CDR? Pick any of the stats and without knowing the composition of non-selects compared to that metric the information is virtually worthless. So while it might be true the stats reflect what is in the convening order, better stats might actually reflect something more meaningful. The problem is better stats take time and effort, and maybe the juice isn't worth the squeeze (CAPT Kramer's stated position).
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 15

Re: FY19 board Statistics (CAPT & CDR) - 1810

Postby COMEVIL » Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:05 pm

Sum1 wrote:There was also an attached note from CAPT Kramer discussing how worthless the stats are and how he doesn't feel any pressure or need to disseminate. His point (BLUF) was the stats reflect what the convening order said.

Here's his full comment:
Leaders,

I’ve had quite a few officers asking me to publish these statistics and I have not put a high priority on compiling and posting them. I do not apologize for the delay. The delay is because I do not put much value in these types of statistics. These numbers prove one thing; the selection board used the convening order. This is a validation that what is in the convening order is what it takes to promote. The best qualified CW officers will have demonstrated sustained superior performance in one or more CW core mission areas (SIGINT, Cyber, EW) and leadership assignments indicating potential to succeed. The board looks for increasing diversity and responsibility in each job you take. Performing well in milestone assignments is a must and shows performance in very challenging assignments. Once you have above average performance in hard jobs, then you can start looking at the convening order for the things on the stats list. Don’t expect accomplishing every item on the list to replace sustained superior performance in increasingly demanding jobs. I do not intend to lecture, but instead to provide insight of what this data reflects. To truly self-assess your record, look at your PSR and look closely at your trends compared to reporting seniors cumulative average. Additionally, look hard at your FITREPs to see what jobs you are being recommended for. Are they increasing in scope and complexity? Are you being recommended for a leadership position? Your FITREP is written for the board; not you. What message is the board receiving? Sorry for the length of the rant, but just wanted you all to understand my perspective of these statistics. Have a good evening.

Vr/CAPT Bill Kramer



I personally always through the stats were only partially useful because without the associated stats on the non-selects the information is virtually worthless. 5 of 27 selected for CDR had or were in O-4 XO/OIC billets, but how many current or former XO's did NOT select for CDR? Pick any of the stats and without knowing the composition of non-selects compared to that metric the information is virtually worthless. So while it might be true the stats reflect what is in the convening order, better stats might actually reflect something more meaningful. The problem is better stats take time and effort, and maybe the juice isn't worth the squeeze (CAPT Kramer's stated position).


Sad that the lack of communication/miscommunication/obfuscation continues from Millington.

"The community wants to see stats. Fine, here they are, but I think they are stupid anyway." Really? That is the best our Senior Detailer can do?

How about turning the feedback into something meaningful. Guess it is easier to just do the bare minimum while waiting to move on to the next job.

Maybe the next Senior Detailer will have more to offer. Sadly I'm not optimistic.
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 36

Re: FY19 board Statistics (CAPT & CDR) - 1810

Postby Sum1 » Thu Aug 02, 2018 5:17 am

COMEVIL wrote:
Sum1 wrote:There was also an attached note from CAPT Kramer discussing how worthless the stats are and how he doesn't feel any pressure or need to disseminate. His point (BLUF) was the stats reflect what the convening order said.

Here's his full comment:
Leaders,

I’ve had quite a few officers asking me to publish these statistics and I have not put a high priority on compiling and posting them. I do not apologize for the delay. The delay is because I do not put much value in these types of statistics. These numbers prove one thing; the selection board used the convening order. This is a validation that what is in the convening order is what it takes to promote. The best qualified CW officers will have demonstrated sustained superior performance in one or more CW core mission areas (SIGINT, Cyber, EW) and leadership assignments indicating potential to succeed. The board looks for increasing diversity and responsibility in each job you take. Performing well in milestone assignments is a must and shows performance in very challenging assignments. Once you have above average performance in hard jobs, then you can start looking at the convening order for the things on the stats list. Don’t expect accomplishing every item on the list to replace sustained superior performance in increasingly demanding jobs. I do not intend to lecture, but instead to provide insight of what this data reflects. To truly self-assess your record, look at your PSR and look closely at your trends compared to reporting seniors cumulative average. Additionally, look hard at your FITREPs to see what jobs you are being recommended for. Are they increasing in scope and complexity? Are you being recommended for a leadership position? Your FITREP is written for the board; not you. What message is the board receiving? Sorry for the length of the rant, but just wanted you all to understand my perspective of these statistics. Have a good evening.

Vr/CAPT Bill Kramer



I personally always through the stats were only partially useful because without the associated stats on the non-selects the information is virtually worthless. 5 of 27 selected for CDR had or were in O-4 XO/OIC billets, but how many current or former XO's did NOT select for CDR? Pick any of the stats and without knowing the composition of non-selects compared to that metric the information is virtually worthless. So while it might be true the stats reflect what is in the convening order, better stats might actually reflect something more meaningful. The problem is better stats take time and effort, and maybe the juice isn't worth the squeeze (CAPT Kramer's stated position).


Sad that the lack of communication/miscommunication/obfuscation continues from Millington.

"The community wants to see stats. Fine, here they are, but I think they are stupid anyway." Really? That is the best our Senior Detailer can do?

How about turning the feedback into something meaningful. Guess it is easier to just do the bare minimum while waiting to move on to the next job.

Maybe the next Senior Detailer will have more to offer. Sadly I'm not optimistic.


I have to admit to feeling similarly. I can't help but think that if the stats as they are now have limited value, then what can be done to make them better or to find a more effective way to communicate what the community values. Frankly, I think we've had an abundance of "community values" documents disseminated over the years -- so many that sometimes its tough to keep track of them all. The CAPT is right about the supremacy of the convening order, but what I want to hear about is what the community leadership is doing to institutionalize the idea that your top performing officers should also receive the top FITREPs/evals, no matter where they fall in seniority or position. We still play FITREP games, which de-emphasizes performance in promotion and reinforces longevity. Be better than 50% of other officers and wait long enough and you've got a pretty good shot at promotion, at least up through CDR. I noticed this time around a full 1/3 of CDR selections were above zone, which further emphasizes the point.

I don't know how much the community hemorrhages talent at the O-4+ level prior to 20-year retirement eligibility, but I know we lose great talent at the O-3 level because those people understand their relative value and want to be recognized more quickly for their hard work.
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 15

Re: FY19 board Statistics (CAPT & CDR) - 1810

Postby Schlag » Thu Aug 02, 2018 11:37 am

I'm going to ramble a bit... however, big thesis is that our community can't manage human capital at all and I fear that we're on the cusp of a huge officer inventory issue.

Sum1 wrote:I don't know how much the community hemorrhages talent at the O-4+ level prior to 20-year retirement eligibility, but I know we lose great talent at the O-3 level because those people understand their relative value and want to be recognized more quickly for their hard work.


I think this is only one of our problems. I remain shocked at what our inventory levels are compared to OPA every time the OCM releases the community manning charts. I'm not going to talk about Fight Club here, but we have what I would think are some pretty alarming vacancies at the O-4/O-5 level. Those same charts also show the number of retirement eligible O-3/O-4/O-5 which makes it seem to me that PERS is terrified that a large portion of the community might just up and put in papers on a whim. Finally, with a retention/brain drain at the O-3 level and I have to ask myself are we retaining the force that we are working so hard to recruit - STEM-focused people with the academic basis for cyber while forsaking the other core competencies of the community. The whole thing seems counterproductive to me.

Still, it's business as usual from a human capital management perspective. Promotions are still occurring on sked (WRT flow point) and opportunity remains the same, only difference is we are taking significantly more AZ than previously.

Understand the stats don't tell the full story, but there is certainly a story there that needs to be told. Discouraging that the message from PERS-472 is to read the convening order. This message also doesn't help answer the mail about milestones. Are all milestones considered equal? I'd be curious to see what the success rate is for admin./stat. board screening for those that take sea/shore-based milestone. Believe shore milestones outnumber sea milestones 2-to-1; however, if the pro rata screen rate against those milestones is favored to shore than I think we have a really freakin' big problem as a sea going service.

By the way... heard a vicious rumor that Air Force is willing to poach cyber officers from any branch with up to $60k for anyone w/ 4-12 YCS willing to sign the contract. Anecdotally I have heard of a couple of Navy officers taking the blood money and then going to the exchange to get new uniforms. Can anyone confirm? If true, programs like this do not help any of the aforementioned issues.

/rant over
  • 0

User avatar
Schlag
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: The path of the righteous man...
Reputation: 18

Re: FY19 board Statistics (CAPT & CDR) - 1810

Postby COMEVIL » Thu Aug 02, 2018 12:08 pm

Schlag wrote:Are all milestones considered equal? I'd be curious to see what the success rate is for admin./stat. board screening for those that take sea/shore-based milestone. Believe shore milestones outnumber sea milestones 2-to-1; however, if the pro rata screen rate against those milestones is favored to shore than I think we have a really freakin' big problem as a sea going service.


Agree WRT milestones and doubt we'll ever get an official answer.

We continue to add milestones in places they were never intended to be --- Ops Officers at our own commands???? (The original intent was service outside the community where you are the only CW rep to the command (CCMD, Fleet Staff, CSG, etc.) Now the tours are a dime a dozen, with a ratio probably more like 3-1 shore-sea.

Generally I think boards weigh milestones generally equally, as they should be. Not all Officers will get all opportunities. The problem is the level of responsibility between milestones is vastly different.

As a mentor, I recommend going to a milestone the results in a Flag-level FITREP (not sure how many of those there are). That is the best/only way to use a milestone tour to break out.
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 36

Re: FY19 board Statistics (CAPT & CDR) - 1810

Postby Sum1 » Thu Aug 02, 2018 12:48 pm

COMEVIL wrote:
As a mentor, I recommend going to a milestone the results in a Flag-level FITREP (not sure how many of those there are). That is the best/only way to use a milestone tour to break out.


That's an interesting and, I believe, good recommendation. Even flag FITREPs vary wildly, though. Do all O-4 and above FITREPs at 10th Fleet get signed by the 10th Fleet? I can tell you O-4 FITREPs at the Combatant Commands generally get signed by the first flag in the chain of command (often the DJ3/J3 or DJ2/J2). My last FITREP out the door of my last job was signed by an Air Force 1-star. Not the same as a Navy 3-star, and definitely different than getting paper from a CSG Commander that board members may recognize, I'd think.
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 15

Re: FY19 board Statistics (CAPT & CDR) - 1810

Postby yoshi » Thu Aug 02, 2018 5:46 pm

This: "if the pro rata screen rate against those milestones is favored to shore than I think we have a really freakin' big problem as a sea going service." I, too, really fear the exodus of officers who know what the hell is going on the waterfront. Lack of sea going competence is manageable in Maryland, but not in FCAs or afloat.

The service is sea going, but our community? Well, I'm not so sure. I see the same names and faces on the waterfronts as I did several years ago - just more senior. It's the same at the NIOCs.

No brainer - milestones should be signed by flags. Personally believe we should have fewer milestones, screening should be a screening. Anyone taken a look at the O5 milestone screen rate?! Problem is current location of about 80% of our billet inventory (one of the big four). Rather than asking "how much value are we providing the sea going service, what should the community do to improve?" (which infers large changes), it's far easier to maintain presence in place. Also, I do not believe we still have the self determination we enjoyed previously. FCC/C10F and subordinate commanders wouldn't be willing to give up that much to repatriate Sailors. Even if VADM White agreed with this line of reasoning - he'd be in a pickle - pick one to support: command or community? This is why the URLs have their TYCOM as the community lead - no conflict between operational and administrative matters. That wouldn't work for us of course, because it would require 4 TYCOMs - which is exactly what we had before the Navy rolled out the IDC. So - those Flags who were "all-in" with the IDC since 2009? Yeah, right. They sure didn't do anything to make the IDC (IWC) functional - and it wasn't due to a lack of presented ideas. I wonder how long we'll continue to embrace conflict between 3 Operational Commanders who all struggle to run their communities in support of their kingdom and the 4th Commander at IFOR (which really represents the IP kingdom).

P2 missions at the Big 4 can be done elsewhere (at the FCAs), in better support of MOCs (who they arguably should be supporting - as P2), IWCs afloat (for whom many will eventually work), N2s etc. P2 CTRs and CTTs should be part of an IW squadron, anyway, imho. Believe the DIRSUP dilemmas would get solved fairly quickly also. at any rate - the community isn't interested in that direction, I don't think. Rather, the community direction (and, frankly, the navy's design and C2 of FCC/C10F) believes Distributed Operations and cyber will find a way to benefit the sea-going Navy. We'll see.
  • 0

yoshi
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 427
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:10 am
Reputation: 19

Re: FY19 board Statistics (CAPT & CDR) - 1810

Postby Sum1 » Thu Aug 02, 2018 7:54 pm

yoshi wrote:Rather, the community direction (and, frankly, the navy's design and C2 of FCC/C10F) believes Distributed Operations and cyber will find a way to benefit the sea-going Navy. We'll see.


I hope we, as a community, do a better job finding ways to get distributed ops and cyber in a position to benefit the operational commander (whatever state of matter is under their feet) than we did within ONE command. IO guys and cyber guys worked down the hall from each other... literally within 50 feet... and actively avoided any kind of coordination or discussion. And for most of that time they had the same O-6 boss.

I recognize one command's dysfunction isn't automatically representative of the greater service and/or joint service, but its a data point that I have a hard time ignoring, especially when I hear similar stories from other units. We have to win the battle within our walls before we have a chance at winning it between communities or services. Only then will the community provide the kind of support I think it can to the right people seeking the right effects at the right time.
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 15

Re: FY19 board Statistics (CAPT & CDR) - 1810

Postby Schlag » Thu Aug 02, 2018 9:04 pm

yoshi wrote:This is why the URLs have their TYCOM as the community lead - no conflict between operational and administrative matters.


Maybe I'm dated, but how many hands would you need to count up the milestone jobs at our "TYCOM"?

...trick question - none.

Last I checked, we don't have a single MS billet at NAVIFOR. How can we say its a priority when we don't even send "screened" officers to it. Sure it's not a screened opportunity for URL, but its generally considered a "kiss the ring" tour. I can't make heads or tales what the community thinks of doing time at our MTE HQ.

But maybe therein lies the problem, where is our MTE controlled and who is driving that ship? NAVIFOR is IWC afloat, right? FCC/C10F is IWC operationally-aligned against cyber. N2/N6 feels like IWC ashore and throughout the Navy. Ultimately they are all pulling from the same inventory and nobody is really steering that pool from a corporate perspective.

Ultimately, nothing will change though. The people that actually give a crap are going to stay in, and the fact that they do validates the entire process. Since enough product came out the output chute, the problem is solved, right?

...that kind of thinking got the SWO's in a world of hurt well before the collisions. Treating DIVO to DH as a sheer output crushed the morale of the force and resulted in significantly degraded product. I fear we are headed in the same direction. But then again, IWC's getting SWO pins was in vogue at the time that the SWO community was going through their human capital crisis.
  • 0

User avatar
Schlag
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: The path of the righteous man...
Reputation: 18

Next

Return to Detailer/Community Management Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron