cuts

[ETCS John Zidek]

A little bird tells me that cuts are out for the 2007 test. Congrats to those above the cut.

ETC "Z"

[MSTC M McElney]

From looking at those cuts, your congratulations applies to very few people.

[ETCS John Zidek]

I am having some difficulty finding the actual list from home, but I believe the initial ET cuts were pretty good. I think I was told 6 or 8 ETCSs and 42 ETCs. I didnt get a number for the ETCMs. I am sure that Congrats are in order for ETCS Joe Ronan (Wrote a 105)
We have been seeing a final cut of 50-60 ETCs for the last few years. If that holds true off the 2007 both of my ET1s will be getting their Anchors.
Congrats to Jeremy Manley (Prior FT) and Mark Berg (Traditional ET) They should get scooped up in the next revision.

ETC "Z"

[BMCS Dave Considine]

Looking at the list the cut for ETCM was number 2, the cut for ETCS was number eight, the cut for ETC was number 42. ETCS Ronan is numero uno, so congrats to him.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

Those cuts were terrible, esp if you are a Jr PO looking to advance. Again, why so few? We dont need ANY OS next year? Unrealistic! We should wait to post cuts until we have tangible and real numbers. There is no reason to have more than one message for cuts.

[BMCM Bruce Bradley]

Burt, the OS rate is about to take a big hit in numbers so that the IS rate can spin up. That is more than likely why their numbers are so low. I might even hazard a guess that BM and MK are in the prep stages for the Law Enforcement rating.

[OSC Delain Tate]

Those cuts were terrible, esp if you are a Jr PO looking to advance. Again, why so few? We dont need ANY OS next year? Unrealistic! We should wait to post cuts until we have tangible and real numbers. There is no reason to have more than one message for cuts.

You speak the truth Burt!

[MSTC Steve Natale]

Burt, the OS rate is about to take a big hit in numbers so that the IS rate can spin up. That is more than likely why their numbers are so low. I might even hazard a guess that BM and MK are in the prep stages for the Law Enforcement rating.

That makes sense...maybe a little insider knowledge there? ;)

The only thing that I cant make sense of then is why ratings like MST and YN had so many 0's. The MST Force Manager made a unit visit about a month ago and stated that he was anticipating 10+ for E-8 off the May...the cuts come out...BAM, ZERO. Maybe HQ wanted that MSG out NOW and some of the force managers decided that ZERO would be better than a shot in the dark?

Or is there something else going on. (ALERT...ALERT...this is TOTALLY rumor!) Maybe there is major reprogramming of billets from MANY different rates to justify the addition of the IS rate and the LE rate, or even the "Marine Safety" plan the the COMDT was directed to come up with during the last Transportation House Sub-Comittee meeting he attended concerning the Marine Safety field, perticularly Marine Inspections.

Whatever it is, its been a long time since we have seen an eligibility list come out like that....

[BMCM Bruce Bradley]

No insider info, just a personal opinion after reading a lot of stuff on the web last week. But I agree that there sure were a lot of bid fat ZEROS on that list. Somebody is sending a message about something, but I don;t think any of us have access.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

Makes sense bruce but we still could have waited at least until november or so.

[OSC Delain Tate]

No insider info, just a personal opinion after reading a lot of stuff on the web last week. But I agree that there sure were a lot of bid fat ZEROS on that list. Somebody is sending a message about something, but I don;t think any of us have access.


I would be nice if someone who knew would spread the word to the Chiefs. :)

[YNC Paulette Gough]

Hey Tater.....I think the cuts were published just so they could get the difinitive word on who was taking warrant and who was taking E-8 or E-9. In my case I was number 2 on the E-8 list and number 2 on the warrant list. Once the cuts came out, I was asked to make my final decision, and since the cut is a big fat zero for YNCS - I'll be taking warrant. Also - with MST, OS, and YN - they mught be waiting to see who is coming back into rate from special assignments billets before placing a realistic cut. I think they have to get the assignments picture in place first. Take care....ENS Ron says Hi...

Paulette

[AMTCM John Long]

A couple of working theories....

1. How about some of the PY07 E8/9 promo's getting carried over to PY08 due to being over cap? No sense promoting off the May07 list come Jan08 if we have to carryover some promo's off the May/Nov06 list. The Dec 1st message will tell the story on PY07 carryovers.

2. DW billets are creating some flux.

3. Uncertainty with some RP funding being held up.

Feb 08 revisions might shed some more light on these theories.:confused:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

John, rule out the DW theories. DW will be creating billets, not reducing them.
I still think one of the big culprits is who will be taking the ten Gold Badge jobs that come open next year. I think all of the MCPOs start low because its anyone race, and it trinkles down from there.
We have some Badges who are already over thirty,....if they don't get another Badge job, I think they'll be putting in letters.
Then once the rest of the billets start getting filled, we'll see more retirement letters coming in. Once all the AO have their slates for next year filled, the first revision should be alot healthier.

[OSC Delain Tate]

Hey Tater.....I think the cuts were published just so they could get the difinitive word on who was taking warrant and who was taking E-8 or E-9. In my case I was number 2 on the E-8 list and number 2 on the warrant list. Once the cuts came out, I was asked to make my final decision, and since the cut is a big fat zero for YNCS - I'll be taking warrant. Also - with MST, OS, and YN - they mught be waiting to see who is coming back into rate from special assignments billets before placing a realistic cut. I think they have to get the assignments picture in place first. Take care....ENS Ron says Hi...

Paulette

Paulette, congrats on Warrant, I'm happy for you!

I know what your saying about placing a realistic cut. It would be nice if someone who knew the down and dirty on what was going on with the cuts would filter the info down to our level. Since the cuts have come out, I've been hit by a dozen or so members asking me if I knew why they were zero. I wish I had the correct answer, but I’m speculating like everyone else.

Tell Ron Tater says howdy!

-delain
:)

[AMTCM John Long]

Stu,

I'm not too sure about that......if a certain DW RP has lost part/all of it's funding, that could spill over to the projected new billets that RP was supposed generate. RP's getting whacked happens often up here. That's why they're called proposals. No approved/funded RP, no billets (DW or not).

John

[BMCS Burt Ford]

IT Message is on the board. Looks as though we need lots of OS's. Why could we not send the IT one then the Cuts message? Does not make sense to me.

[MECM Steven Lowry]

IT Message is on the board. Looks as though we need lots of OS's. Why could we not send the IT one then the Cuts message? Does not make sense to me.

Just trying to help ya out here. Burt meant to say IS ;)

[BMCS Burt Ford]

Thanks Steve! That IS what I meant to say.

[BMCM Bruce Bradley]

Burt, a large majority of those OS members who are becoming the new IS rate mambers are not only changing ratings, but also moving their billets over to the IS page of the manual. We didn't just create a new rate with a bunch of new billets (yes there are some), they grew from in house.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

John, even if that were true, it would only affect the new billets they proposed creating, not the ones we already have. When you look at the cuts for next year, their basing that on the billets we know we'll have. DW isn't taking away billets from us, it's creating them. If DW slows down, it only affects the billets they haven't created yet.
Start at the top......the cuts for MCPO look at the number of retirements they know they have, and the number of new billets that they create. The number of opening they know they'll have.
SCPO takes those same things into account and adds in the number of people they know they're advancing to MCPO,......and so on.
Compare the cuts to the retirement list off of CMC Isherwood's site. The numbers aren't that far off. The revisions will come when some people don't get what they want next transfer season, and call it a day.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

I know Bruce but if we issue revised cuts, and there are any on it, why did we not know that before? What would be the harm in waiting? Why is it so important to get them out as fast as we can only to revise them at least once every cycle? Especially when there is this much happening, ie IS rate, Maybe LE rate and growing to 45,500 if approved. A good example would be my new XPO. While enroute he found out he was making BMC. He came from Maine to AK. Same thing to my XPO the year before except he came form PR and was not here a full 12 months. Long way to send people to send them some where else less than a year later. Lot of money spent.

[AMTCM John Long]

John, even if that were true, it would only affect the new billets they proposed creating, not the ones we already have. When you look at the cuts for next year, their basing that on the billets we know we'll have. DW isn't taking away billets from us, it's creating them. If DW slows down, it only affects the billets they haven't created yet.
Start at the top......the cuts for MCPO look at the number of retirements they know they have, and the number of new billets that they create. The number of opening they know they'll have.
SCPO takes those same things into account and adds in the number of people they know they're advancing to MCPO,......and so on.
Compare the cuts to the retirement list off of CMC Isherwood's site. The numbers aren't that far off. The revisions will come when some people don't get what they want next transfer season, and call it a day.

Stu,

That's correct. It would only affect the projected billets (didn't I say that??) I would add the caveat that if they promoted to a new DW vacancy last year and for some reason this year that vacancy (billet) got phased out and there is no other billet growth elsewhere, that's a problem.

Another thought, just because there is a known retirement (or vacancy), it does not mean the CG has to drop the cut to that level. Do you remember Brett explaining how that works a while back? Good example.....I know we have 2 AMTCM letters on file for PY08 yet the cut is zero. Likewise, it didn't trickle down to the AMTCS's either (zero also). Why do you think that is?

I can think of 4 reasons:

1. We're loosing two AMTCM billets
2. Within the rating, we're over on bodies to AMTCM billets
3. We're getting 2 known AMTCM's out of rate coming back in.
4. The CG is withholding some E9 promo's (in this example, AMTCM's) because we're at/over the total E8/9 cap starting out the new year; and the workforce folks will need to see how the total E8/9 picture will play out after 1 Jan. If he's reading this, Brett can explain it pretty well.

If there is a 5th reason, I can't think of it at the moment.

John

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

John, I'd go with what Brett said before and look at when those two guys have letters in for FY08. If it's Sep-Dec, like some of those BMCMs for FY08, I'd place my bets on the cap. I'd also look at who's out of rate right now.
I can't imagine that you could be over two AMTCMs and wouldn't think it would be possible to lose two billets either.
But I noticed your four choices didn't have the DW theory.
Fifth possible reasons,......
those two people with letters in retracted them or they haven't been approved. (they may have put in letters before they started allowing people to stay past thirty, and now these guys want to try and stick around.)
the Coast Guard hasn't finished making people off of the current list, and they're going to make two people before those guys retire.
your RFM wants to get more information before commiting to an actual number.
Someone knows some AMTCMs that are planning on going out of rate and they're waiting to see how that plays out.
Every rate is going to have to give up a couple of billets to create the new rating that are coming down the pipe, so the RFMs were told to underbid until we know for sure.

There are lots of unknowns. I do know that it's not because of DW. I get e-mails reassuring me of that from a person that doesn't possess the ability to lie. He can't even fib just a little.

[AMTCM John Long]

Stu,

I was using the AMTCM as a current example, it could apply to any rating. I listed 4 four possible scenerios. Anyone of those could have been related to DW directly or indirectly. Your 5th is a possible scenerio too. That's a good one.

My #4 was pointing towards Brett's statement.

I would disagree with you about DW. DW could affect exisiting promo's (Scenerio #1 - a project that advanced people last year got cx'd this year) and projected promo's (Scenerio #2 - something happend to the DW related RP that was to create the promo). Different pots of money go into DW (30, 56, etc), it just depends what pot is getting affected and where it trickles to. Like you said, it's only one piece of the pie.

I would reconfirm that every rating is giving up billets for the new rating? Bruce pointed out above where many are coming from. I'm not saying that some ratings won't have to pony up, I just haven't heard that every rating is putting up. A few months back I know some searching was going on for certain coded billets for the new rating. It's possible you received bad gouge (or I missed that one:o ).

I know the RFMC's don't set the cuts and I don't think they can hold them back either. There are several players who do provide data to the HR folks in CGPC-EPM (RFMC's being one, AO's another, Brett maybe??, the Comdt, MCPOCG). CGPC-EPM is the one who crunches the raw data collected into a cut off.

Gotta hit the road, have to hang some treestands....John

[MSTCM Jerald Motyka]

Can someone please send me e-files of the advancement list and promulgation letter that goes on top? I don't have access to cgweb, and I've been maintaining lists since I was advanced to PO3.

Thanks!

jerald.motyka@maxwell.af.mil

[BMCS Burt Ford]

Jerald, I sent it to you.

Burt

[MSTCM Jerald Motyka]

That's what I needed, Burt. Thank you! I also got the cut message and now I'm cooking with gas!

WOOT!

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

John, I think you're reaching to make it fit into the pie. DW has been the whipping boy for everything lately. I just think we don't need to blame it for this. Going just with the BMs, we've made around 40+ BMCMs over the past three years. We've replaced most of the older guys with people who have less than 23 of service. That means that some of those guys could occupy a slot on the list for up to 22 years. Advancements are going to slow down. We won't be seeing the numbers like we have been in the past. That's not DW, directly or indirectly.
Be careful with those tree stands. A couple of bitter AMTCSs might see that as a quicker way to advance.

[AMTCM John Long]

John, I think you're reaching to make it fit into the pie. DW has been the whipping boy for everything lately. I just think we don't need to blame it for this. Going just with the BMs, we've made around 40+ BMCMs over the past three years. We've replaced most of the older guys with people who have less than 23 of service. That means that some of those guys could occupy a slot on the list for up to 22 years. Advancements are going to slow down. We won't be seeing the numbers like we have been in the past. That's not DW, directly or indirectly.
Be careful with those tree stands. A couple of bitter AMTCSs might see that as a quicker way to advance.

Stu,

I wasn't using DW as anything other than what it is.....one piece of the advancement picture. No reaching needed here. My point was it does impact promo's. I'll use one last example and then put the horse in the barn.

Let's say we had an approved and funded DW RP to get 20 new stealth boats (SB's) over the course of 4 years. Part of the RP is 60 new billets to support the 20 boats. The Program Manager and AO's will not want to fill the 60 billets on year 1 because we will only get 5 SB's per the contract. One reason is it does not make sense to have 60 bodies stepping over each other when there is only 5 SB's. (Another reason is the contract could get modified down to 15 SB's) We will promote and transfer in 15 bodies on year 1 to start the program up. 15 more bodies will promote and transfer in on year 2 (total 30).....and so on.

Fast forward to year 3. We have 15 SB's and 45 bodies and things are on track as per the contract. Out of no where comes an external decision to cx the program and give the exisiting SB's to our friends in Barbados.

Where does that leave us? The program (RP) is dead and so are the 60 billets. We promoted 45 bodies in years 1-3 to fill 45 of the 60 projected billets. Now we're over 45 bodies and there are no billets in other programs to place the bodies in.

Here's the score in simple deckplate terms.......we're now over billet strength by 45 and we lost the other 15 projected new billets. We know what happens when we're over billeted. (The names and numbers have been changed to protect the innocent;) )

You're correct about all the young folks promoting up. That's happening to all the rates. I don't think those 23 yr guys could fill up a BMCM slot for 22 more years (did you mean 17??? 17 + 23 = 40). Most they could likely do is 7 more years to their 30 years. As you know, "normally" to stay in after 30 requires a Gold Badge job. If they go that route, their out of rate in a special assignment so it's not a factor unless they pull some strings and come back into rate past their 30 yr mark.

I could see the 7-10 yr E7's and young E8's sticking around for a bit. If the economy goes south....I wouldn't expect to see too many folks wanting to get out over the next 4-8 years....unless they have a great civilian job lined up on the outside.

I got two treestands up. Ya got me thinking....I'll have to make sure there is no saw dust around the base of the trees I'm using next time I go out.:eek:

Have a good one....John

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

John, bringing the horse back out....you're assuming they already expanded to make room for the cutters that aren't going to come. Did that actually happen? I think they waited for the keel to be laid before crewing procedures began.

As for the math..... we had two guys that I could think of off the top of my head that made it with around than 18 years in service. I used them to demonstrate the extreme possibilities. Using things like "normally" already shows you there are other situations out there. I think there was already one person who got a Silver Badge job who was close to 30. I'm still not sure that they consider those people out of rate. I think if the .....wait for it..... needs of the service warranted someone sticking around, they'd still be here. I could also easily see where after someone did a Gold Badge tour, their flag put in a word or two to get them some sort of twilight tour. I could easily see some of those BMCMs coming back into rate for one last OinC ride. Keep your eyes on Bruce.

[AMTCM John Long]

John, bringing the horse back out....you're assuming they already expanded to make room for the cutters that aren't going to come. Did that actually happen? I think they waited for the keel to be laid before crewing procedures began.

As for the math..... we had two guys that I could think of off the top of my head that made it with around than 18 years in service. I used them to demonstrate the extreme possibilities. Using things like "normally" already shows you there are other situations out there. I think there was already one person who got a Silver Badge job who was close to 30. I'm still not sure that they consider those people out of rate. I think if the .....wait for it..... needs of the service warranted someone sticking around, they'd still be here. I could also easily see where after someone did a Gold Badge tour, their flag put in a word or two to get them some sort of twilight tour. I could easily see some of those BMCMs coming back into rate for one last OinC ride. Keep your eyes on Bruce.

Stu,

IRT to your first part......the example I used is on hold at the moment. More to follow.... As I said earlier....DW is only a small player in the bigger picture. It's by no means the be all - end all to advancements.

I know there are other situations, hence the "normally". If I make it thru this HQ tour, I'll do over 30 at my next tour. Reason being is I have a March AD date. Within aviation, we like to have the airstation CMC's (Silver) and LCPO's have to stick around till Sept of their 30th year. They have to put in waivers that usually get approved, then they get the extension approved to the latter part of that year. The reason being the Command does not have to gap the 2 positions till the replacement reports in. In my case, it would put me at 30yrs and 7mos. I would show up at my next place with just over 28 years in. There was talk of allowing guys like me to complete a full tour (4 years) vs having to HYT out after only 2 years at the new unit in a command/control position. I don't know where that idea is at. Maybe one of the CMC's on here have something on that. I should probably look into it again. That would affect promo's if it goes into effect.

If the E9 billet (or any billet), goes thru the Special Assignments AO, it's considered out of rate. I believe I read the MCPOCG Designated Silver/Gold Badge jobs are out of rate??? Within aviation, most of our airstation E9 billets are titled "Any Aviation MCPO".

Here's a good question......if you had 28 years in as a BMCM, could you still compete for a 4 year OINC job and get the 30 year waiver or would you be considered too senior for the job?

John

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I think that would go back to the needs of the service. The guy I replaced did just over thirty, and he was high pay so he got to walk away with it all. The guy who just took over the unit to the north of me said he was only doing two years. I don't know whose choice that was. I would think that someone who is Aton Aflloat would have a better chance of sticking around past thirty,....but again, based on the needs of the service.
I also think that if all of those Special Assignment jobs are considered out of rate jobs, we in the BM community have found the killer. We had lots of people taking those Badge jobs who may be coming back in '08. Now that the OinC slates are filled, let's see where that leaves them.

[BMCM Bruce Bradley]

Stu, although I'd love another boat, its great to be king, it will not happen. No matter who is willing to pave the way for me. I was one senior BM who bitched loud, hard and often back when the retired recall was going on because it was stalling and almost killing BM advancements. If you remember back then we started a year with 2 years worth of SWE carry-overs to what ever number was promised for that year. Although the concept of the recall was sound, it was very, very poorly managed and administered by those at the top who saw it from their viewpoint with head in the sand (or another dark region). So with that I will not be an operational BM again if it means that someone coming up is not going to get an advancement of their shot at being an OinC. For me to stay around after this tour it will be with another badge assignment and it would have to be a good one too.

But as long as someone else started the HTY talk I'll throw in another side or twist to it. Currently we have the HTY policy, but it is only selectively enforced at the 30 year mark. What happened to all of those other professional growth points for E-5 on up? If someone is worried about advancements slowing down why are we not using the policy that is on the books now? In my opinion if we did that it would make most of the discussion points of this thread pretty much moot.

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

Bruce,
HYT is not selectively enforced, it's simply a "workforce management tool" used to satisfy current CG mission requirements. :D

I know...it's semantics.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Bruce, wouldn't you consider yourself the exception rather than the rule. Wouldn't you think that many of the people who got the chance to stay past thirty and take jobs they loved would jump at it regardless of what they said about HYT in the past?
Just take a look at that OinC slate for next year. We had alot of mismatched OinCs asking for extensions. I think that alot of us look out for number one and get to say we're meeting the needs of the service. I know if they let me stay past thirty in Puerto Rico I could sleep good at night knowing I was meeting that service need,...... and I could easily justify how I'm only doing it because no one better asked for it, regardless of how true it might be.
I'd say that if they offered you a job when you're done in Cape May, it would be because they didn't have someone better to fill it, and you should take it. The Coast Guard will survive once you're gone because we'll have to,..... but while they're still asking, and you can still provide..............never say never Bruce.

[BMCM Bruce Bradley]

Stu I actually consider the fact that I made it this far in the organization the exception, so any else is just icing on the cake. Any senior Boatswains Mate wants nothing more than to go out as an Officer in Charge, and again being afloat is just more icing on the career (are we all going to need weightwatchers?). Although I'm finding that this new assignment is just as much fun and some new challenges to keep me on top of my game.

If after my tour here I was asked to take another afloat command, it would only be if they were out of other members with less than 30 and no one was on an advancement list that could do the job if they were advanced. I meant what I said, I will not pull or ask any strings be pulled on my behalf just to satisfy a personal thing. I've had my time, several over and it was great, others out there deserve a chance at the fun too. I'm good with what I have done and fully support the "workforce management tool" (better Kevin :) ) that is in place. If your not sold then follow you own advice from a few posts back, keep you eye on me. And don't bet too much on it either.

[ETCM Joseph Harold]

Force Managers don't make cuts.

[YNC Paulette Gough]

All,

Here is an e-mail just released from MCPO-CG Bowen that speaks to the low numbers on the May 2007 SWE cutoff list. I hope this answers some questions.

YNC Gough

From: Bowen, Charles MCPO-CG
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 6:57 AM
To: HQS-DG-lst-All-Rating-Managers; HQS-DG-lst-GoldCMC
Subject: Latest servicewide exam cut off list

To all, Please disseminate widely.

I was surprised like many of you by the low numbers on the latest servicewide exam cut off list, so I initiated some discussions to find out why so many of the cuts were at zero.

As you know, predicting the future is not an exact science and there are many variables involved with each rating in producing a cut off list. One of the main factors is that the special assignments slate will not be completed until later this year. Once that is done, I've been informed that cuts will be revised. Other issues that were not resolved at the time were the IS/OS selection process, the future of our LORAN stations, our strategic transformation, our HITRON mission, and future separation/retirement requests that the Coast Guard Personnel Command hasn't received/approved yet.

Although initial cuts are typically conservative, I have not been told anything that would lead me to believe that this will be anything but a normal advancement year for most ratings.

MCPOCG Bowen

C.W. Bowen
MCPOCG

[HSC Chris Fly]

I say just tell people to quit whining.....we've been on an advancement wave for a while now people need to realize you can't always advance to E7 in 7 years!
Chris

[ETCS Robert Kelley]

Bruce,
HYT is not selectively enforced, it's simply a "workforce management tool" used to satisfy current CG mission requirements. :D

I know...it's semantics.

Same goes for the weight standards...

[BMCM Kevin Leask]

During my time in the BM RFMC job, I found out about over 30
year extensions after the fact, not asked about them prior to approval.
I was told we, the RFMC's, are not part of the approval process.
I kind of figured we WERE part of the workforce management
process. Some were OIC's extended for a short period of time to
facilitate a COC, some I have no idea as to why (not going to GB
or currently in a GB billet).

Other fish to fry for now, like keeping enlisted OIC billets some people seem
determined to take.

Kevin

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I heard of two BMCMs who were given extentions to take jobs no one ever puts in for.
I don't understand extending an OinC to facilate a COC? Wouldn't that be another reason to prevent people for screening for command once they have more than 28 years TIS?

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Some were OIC's extended for a short period of time to
facilitate a COC ...

Stuart,

That sounds like someone going over 30 but not over 32 to be tour complete with an orderly transfer(s) and retirement.

Kevin didn't define "short time", I took it as less than two or three.

Needs of the service dictates all. If someone otherwise qualified doesn't request the billet, the service needs dictate that it can waive the 30 and out rule to satisfy keeping an experienced person in that billet.

Who's fault is it that no one requests the billet? Certainly not the person who willingly remains on active duty. The fault lies with those who get certified with no intention of asking for those positions. Why have the certifications? You might as well give the damm jobs to some JOs and take a hit in the number of BMCM billets since it's obvious to the casual observer that BMCM's don't want the positions. You would have lost that billet if that BMCM didn't willingly remain on active duty to keep it for other BMCMs. Your "no screening policy for those over 28" is really saying "we don't need those BMCM OinC billets".

Maybe there should be administrative action (loss of certification) against those who don't screen for command yet who are certified and not serving in a command billet.

[BMCM Bruce Bradley]

I heard of two BMCMs who were given extentions to take jobs no one ever puts in for.

That's why we used to call them orders and not invitations. Why should we need to give extensions in that situation. Either advance the next one on the list and give them orders to that unit or find another who is sitting out there and give it to them. Step up or step out.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I'm with you Bruce. I don't fault the individual who gets to stick around, I fault the logic that there is no one else to do the job. I like Doritos,....I like the keep munching we'll make more logo...... If you can't find someone who wants the billet, advance someone who would be happy to take it. If you can't find a BM that wants some of those billets.......... maybe some other rate would like to have another E-9 billet?

[AMTCM John Long]

During my time in the BM RFMC job, I found out about over 30
year extensions after the fact, not asked about them prior to approval.
I was told we, the RFMC's, are not part of the approval process.
I kind of figured we WERE part of the workforce management
process. Some were OIC's extended for a short period of time to
facilitate a COC, some I have no idea as to why (not going to GB
or currently in a GB billet).

Other fish to fry for now, like keeping enlisted OIC billets some people seem
determined to take.

Kevin

Kevin,

The example you give sounds similar to what we often do at airstations for LCPO's and CMC's. If the incumbant has a HYT date in the first part of the year, they will request a waiver, get it approved, then put in the letter for Sept 1st - Dec 1st of the same year. What that does is provide a simple way to prevent a gap in the position and still promote someone in the same PY. I don't think our AO's normally go thru the RFMC's for that. What the AO's will not do is let someone try to get a HYT waiver past the PY in which they hit HYT unless it is a needs of the service situation. If you HYT in 09, you will retire in 09.....unless you go SA or GB. If it is a critical fill past the normal HYT year, I would think the AO's would then get input from the RFMC's because that usually eliminates several advancements within the rating for that PY.

John

[BMCM Deane Smith]

That's why we used to call them orders and not invitations. Why should we need to give extensions in that situation. Either advance the next one on the list and give them orders to that unit or find another who is sitting out there and give it to them. Step up or step out.

Bruce, I agree 100%. But, it still seems to happen more than it should. Not sure why, it just seems to.

I was talking to an E-7 the other day who had been filling an E-9 job at HQ for the past 2 years (I think it was 2 years, it may have been less). He told me that they couldn't find anyone to take the job, so they moved him into it from another job at HQ. How can you not find someone to take a job? We advance to fill vacancies...

[AMTCM John Long]

Bruce, I agree 100%. But, it still seems to happen more than it should. Not sure why, it just seems to.

I was talking to an E-7 the other day who had been filling an E-9 job at HQ for the past 2 years (I think it was 2 years, it may have been less). He told me that they couldn't find anyone to take the job, so they moved him into it from another job at HQ. How can you not find someone to take a job? We advance to fill vacancies...

Bruce, Deane,

As far as extending incumbants for jobs no one else puts in for.....

I could see a few reasons either way. If the E9 job is a hard to fill and it has certain E9 elements that are required (the AO's and RFMC's should already know that) extending the volunteer, HYT E9 incumbant could be a logical business decision over slamming the next person on the list. IMO.......slamming new promotees is not always the right answer for jobs no one else wants. Yes, next year HYT waivers take away advancements but sometimes it's the right thing to. We tend to default to the advancement list to fill the ugly jobs.

Lets also be honest for a second.....many folks (E9's included!) who are tour complete quietly breathe a sigh of relief when the undesirable jobs are filled. From their perspective, they don't care who it is as long as it's not them. I was that way for the job I'm in now. As a new promotee, I sure the heck didn't want to come to a HQ staff tour and honestly I'm ready to go now. However with that said, after being here for a few years and seeing the macro side of the CG, you learn why things happen the way they do and your perspective changes. It's not about you or your personnel agenda, it's about keeping the CG operating and moving forward. That's why I now don't have a lot of sympathy for existing E8's/9's who try to duck undesireable jobs in hopes a new promotee will get slammed into it. If you are an existing E8/9 and the best qualified for that undesirable job, you need to cowboy up, pack your bags and go. It's a very bitter pill to swallow, but it's the right thing to do for the CG.

John

[BMCM Bruce Bradley]

.......slamming new promotees is not always the right answer for jobs no one else wants. Yes, next year HYT waivers take away advancements but sometimes it's the right thing to. We tend to default to the advancement list to fill the ugly jobs.

John I agree with that only as long as we don't extend a HYT member and at the same time advance another who should have filled that position. If the member who is hoping to advance is above the cut, then sorry he should get orders. If that member is below the cut and says no they don't want that billet, then they can save some money not having to change patches and collar devices.

I find it hard to agree that we "slammed" a member with orders who is also advanced to a position of higher and greater responsibility and given the extra pay accordingly. It all works out in a 30-year career,,,,so if you don't go the distance you might be lacking a bit on the give and take.

[BMCM Kevin Leask]

Stu,

They did extend a couple of people to fill jobs that are hard to fill. Here was my question; why not advance someone waiting to make BMCM to fill one of those billets? The answer I got back made no sense to me at all so I won't even bother posting it. Needless to say it became a very heated discussion.

Someone asked how long I have been the BM RFMC, well coming up on a year now and I have not been asked about any extention request. I just think that if it is a normal BM billet, why not advance someone off the list to fill it.

Anywho, heading out to dinner so I'll catch ya on the flip side.

Kevin

[BMCM Deane Smith]

I just think that if it is a normal BM billet, why not advance someone off the list to fill it.

That seems like a no-brainer to me.

[AMTCM John Long]

John I agree with that only as long as we don't extend a HYT member and at the same time advance another who should have filled that position. If the member who is hoping to advance is above the cut, then sorry he should get orders. If that member is below the cut and says no they don't want that billet, then they can save some money not having to change patches and collar devices.

I find it hard to agree that we "slammed" a member with orders who is also advanced to a position of higher and greater responsibility and given the extra pay accordingly. It all works out in a 30-year career,,,,so if you don't go the distance you might be lacking a bit on the give and take.

Bruce,

Here's my unvarnished rub. The slam comes into play when the undesirable jobs show up. Say there is 20 openings and 2 are hard to fill or undesirable. Guess who the existing E8's/9's will say should fill the 2 undesirable jobs? I am of the opinion that unless the job has some special prerequisites, everyone should be considered equally, not just because he/she is next up on the list. IMO, we run to the promotion list a little too quick to fill those undesirable jobs under the guise of "take the stars, take the orders". Existing E8's/9's love to point that out when undesireable jobs are are on the shopping list and they are eligible for them. It's almost comical. Anyway, that's probably not a popular viewpoint, but having been there/done that and knowing what I know now from working at a HQ level, I've come to that opinion. Whether your an existing E8/9 or next up on the promo list, no one should get a free pass from undesireable jobs.

Every year we have a week long Aviation LCPO Conference to solve world hunger. Our AO's are there and meet with each air station LCPO to hash out the orders for that AY. They did a great thing thing this past conference that I hope they do on the next one. No E9's get orders until the undesirable jobs are filled first. It took a couple of days but the folks who took the jobs volunteered. Everyone wins.

You're right, it usually works out if you're in for the long haul. Although there are a couple of challenges that someone can face. One that could have (and still might) hurt me (or anyone else) was coming into this four year job at the 24-26 year mark. For us, we either get an LCPO or a CMC job. By the time you're tour complete, your at 28-30 year mark. At 28, it can hurt ones marketability for a senior job when the command knows your out at 30. If your at 29-30, your fate is likely sealed unless you go SA or GB. Understandibly, Commands don't like the "one and done" folks and I also feel it hurts the young folks you're there to represent. It's difficult to establish a rapport with the troops and maintain continuity for the job when you're not there very long. I hope the next Senior Enlisted Study takes a look at that.

John

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Let's go with we have more undesireable people than we have undesireable jobs...... If the service has seen fit to billet a job for an E-9, find an E-9 that will take it. If you have an E-9 that is only left with billets they don't want, let them take what's behind door number three and make room for an E-8 to advance who still wants to serve.
Every E-9 that's allowed to extend past 30 to fill a rated billet is another E-8, E-7, E.....etc........ that isn't allowed to advance. How many people are going to seek greener pastures, because someone who should have been put out to pasture is preventing them from moving up the ladder?

John,we should find the best people to do the job. If a job is truely undesireable, it should go the the person that's left at the bottom of that transfer season. We have a tendancy to reward bad behaviour and poor performance. Some people have made some bad transfer choices earlier on in their careers and now want the system to accomadate their short sightedness. If you've left yourself jobless at 28+ years.......... if you have 20+ years and no longer wish to switch houses......... your wife has a good job, your kids are in a good school.......... personal problems,..... not a personnel issue. Other people shouldn't have to suffer just because that person who thinks we owe them doesn't want to.

[AETCS Scott Wood]

I hope the next Senior Enlisted Study takes a look at that.
It won't do any good if the study results get put on the shelf and never get looked at.

I have to give MCPO Bowen credit for at least blowing the dust off the last SENA and referring to it now and again, but that SENA sat on the shelf far too long (it's like 12 years old now.) There's still lots of good info/recommendations in there that should have been implemented long ago. I have seen some progress but it's coming awfully slow especially considering how old it is.

{Rant: ON}
I also think y'all are making a pretty good argument for advancement selection boards so advancements can be targeted for specific positions and you can know that the qualified Chiefs willing to go to those positions "no one else wants" will be ones that get advanced. The idea that the SWE is the best discriminator for advancement to the most senior enlisted levels is ludicrous. Advancement selection boards is the only way to ensure we are advancing the best qualified Chiefs into those senior positions; advancement because you won the annual trivial pursuit SWE is simply stupid.

How about retention boards for everyone over 20 years? How about looking a little closer at that geographic stability for those over 20 years? They sure don't cut the officers any slack with it; but take look at how how many Chiefs just camp out once they go past 18 years... until they're told they have to pack up and head for new territory, then listen to them whine.

I think there should be more POCS and POCM positions and fewer rated 8 & 9 positions. If the majority of the 8 & 9 jobs were Special Assignments, it would be easier to screen the applicants and advance those Chiefs most qualified and willing to go where ever they're needed, rather than Chiefs hanging around, jumping into their "twilight tour" (what the hell kind of entitlement is that anyway?) --Now obviously there are 8 & 9 positions that need to filled with specific ratings... that's one of the RFMCs' jobs to ensure happens correctly. I also think it's kinda BS that BMs are held to a higher standard for advancement to 8 & 9 than the other rates (e.g., OIC quals.) Maybe every E7 trying for E8 should be able to pass muster for a Badge or OIC position.

Take a look at what the Army did a few years ago when the pool of "willing" candidates to fill the First Sergeant positions began to dwindle... the E7s had to screen for 1st Sgt before they could advance to E8. That cured their problem of having "qualified" individuals to issue invitat... er... orders to.
{Rant: OFF}

[CWO Eugene Diotalevi (BMC)]

Scott,

I believe the NAVY uses a SWE to determine board eligibility for E7. Specifically, a SWE is administered, a “cut” is determined and board eligibility is announced. Those in the zone send a package to the advancement board for review and selection. I also believe once you make E7, you never take a SWE again as advancement is based on the package/board model.

Gene

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Scott, what would you use as a basis for the retention board? We have commands recommending people for advancement and positions they'd rather not see them get simply to avoid confronting that member. Do you think they would nut up and tell a board to end someone else's career when they seem unwilling to hinder it themselves?

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

I also think y'all are making a pretty good argument for advancement selection boards so advancements can be targeted for specific positions and you can know that the qualified Chiefs willing to go to those positions "no one else wants" will be ones that get advanced. The idea that the SWE is the best discriminator for advancement to the most senior enlisted levels is ludicrous. Advancement selection boards is the only way to ensure we are advancing the best qualified Chiefs into those senior positions; advancement because you won the annual trivial pursuit SWE is simply stupid.

I also think it's kinda BS that BMs are held to a higher standard for advancement to 8 & 9 than the other rates (e.g., OIC quals.) Maybe every E7 trying for E8 should be able to pass muster for a Badge or OIC position.


Scott, I agree with the above. I also think that advancement selection boards would eliminate the need for the OIC quals for advancement as that would factor in to the boards decision.

"We have commands recommending people for advancement and positions they'd rather not see them get simply to avoid confronting that member. Do you think they would nut up and tell a board to end someone else's career when they seem unwilling to hinder it themselves?"

Stu, this is also done in the "officer world" but it really seems to work itself out. Sure there may be some growing pains, but that is the case with any change. Someone mentioned earlier the term "cowboy up". I think in this case it would be time to "leader up".

When I turned down CWO it was simply for one reason... The job I was offered would not enhance my career or take me in the direction that I wanted to go. There was no "you have the qualification to fill this position", it was simply a matter of being next on the list. I don't think that is how assignments should work and I don't think that is how advancement should work. The two should go hand in hand, much like in the civilian world. People promote to fill a position they are qualified and experienced enough to fill. There are many ways that government simply cant run like a private business, but there are other ways in which it can learn and become much more efficient by following a good business model.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

I also think y'all are making a pretty good argument for advancement selection boards so advancements can be targeted for specific positions and you can know that the qualified Chiefs willing to go to those positions "no one else wants" will be ones that get advanced. The idea that the SWE is the best discriminator for advancement to the most senior enlisted levels is ludicrous. Advancement selection boards is the only way to ensure we are advancing the best qualified Chiefs into those senior positions; advancement because you won the annual trivial pursuit SWE is simply stupid.

Why start the advancement board at SCPO and MCPO? Why not SN?

Targeting advancments might be good for the private sector, it could prove undesirable results in the public sector. How would you ensure EEOC wouldn't be in your knickers? What metrics do you plan on using? Review the EAST plan, and you will see faults in the board advancement proceedures. Why did the Commandant didn't follow through with the EAST recommendations?

I've taken those "undesirable" positions. How many instructors have complied with the provisions of CIM 1000.6A? I see they removed the English Language requirement for instructor duty. I know almost all of the instructors who worked for me would have not been my instructors if the provisions were followed.

The idea that the SWE is the best discriminator for advancement to the most senior enlisted levels is ludicrous.

How would you discriminate for advancment? Occupying a billet doesn't equate to experience ... contrary to popular belief. I've known people who occupied billets and performed poorly. The "looks good on paper" types can fail just as those who do well on the servicewide competition.

Selection boards are as fallible as servicewide competitions. There still are RFCs for those who were accepted by selection and certification boards.

Stuart is correct. We have commands recommending people for advancement and positions they'd rather not see them get simply to avoid confronting that member.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

And just so you don't think I've haven't thought about it, here's my 2006 notes on the EAST report, juxtaposed against the current system.

[MKCM Brett Ayer]

No insider info, just a personal opinion after reading a lot of stuff on the web last week. But I agree that there sure were a lot of bid fat ZEROS on that list. Somebody is sending a message about something, but I don;t think any of us have access.

Warning, insider information alert:

Nobody is sending a message, and nothing is in the works that is affecting advancement cuts, not because of LE, IS, Marine safety or anything else.

The bottom line is this year’s retention is way above our forecast and is in fact the best it has ever been since the end of WWII. People are not getting out, their just not.

Our updated forecast is to finish this year with a sub 11% loss rate. For those that think current advancement opportunities are down, we have already advanced over 6700 members this year, and our 5 year average is ~7300, with 4 months to go this FY.

We advance to openings, no openings no advancement. Nothing sinister, no hidden agenda, no hidden data (we post it all on CG Central).

Also, keep in mind that most of HYT is suspended and with the recent changes to the retirement laws there’s not a lot of reason for people to move on right now.

As always, be safe,

Brett

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

It may be an election year buzzword, but I think it fits following Brett's comments: "Its the economy, stupid".

I have been in the Coast Guard long enough to have been through a couple "cycles" and this is just another one. The economy starts to tank, people see how good they have it and stick around until the economy starts to take off again. It is just a cyclical pattern.

[MECS Scott Pugh]

It may be an election year buzzword, but I think it fits following Brett's comments: "Its the economy, stupid".


And you wonder how you got the "Voice of Reason" moniker...

Scott

[ETC Pat Kaschube]

Interesting, the ET force notes hit my desk today and the two items of interest is that they are going to start the servicewide for E5 in November and they are looking into doing away with sea time requirements for advancement to E6. The latter is not official yet.

[BMCM Bruce Bradley]

Every year we have a week long Aviation LCPO Conference to solve world hunger. Our AO's are there and meet with each air station LCPO to hash out the orders for that AY. They did a great thing thing this past conference that I hope they do on the next one. No E9's get orders until the undesirable jobs are filled first. It took a couple of days but the folks who took the jobs volunteered. Everyone wins.

John, I've always thought that your LCPO Conference was an interesting concept. I wish that we could find a way to test drive it in the rest of the fleet. But I have to wonder why you still have AO's in aviation, since it appears that you guys do all the work.


Warning, insider information alert:

Thanks Brett for adding into my 9 month old post.

[AMTCM John Long]

John, I've always thought that your LCPO Conference was an interesting concept. I wish that we could find a way to test drive it in the rest of the fleet. But I have to wonder why you still have AO's in aviation, since it appears that you guys do all the work.

Bruce,

This is off the original thread topic but I think it's worthy of some discussion.

Within aviation, there are CO, OPS, EO and LCPO conferences every year, at different times. Each one will focus on the respective issues faced by the attendants. We'll have guest speakers (COMDT, COS, MCPOCG, CGPC/OPM/EPM, Contractors, RFMC's, yours truely, etc) come in and provide insight and guidance on the way ahead for the CG, resolve fleetwide issues, etc.

The AO's do the same thing all AO's do, make the final assignment decisions and cut orders. They are better in tune with what's going on fleetwide across all the platforms and make assignments based on that. If the LCPO's did it, there would likely be a bar-room brawl.:D

I agree with you 100%, I think it would be a great thing for surface and afloat communities to follow the same LCPO template. On here, we talked about this before and there are quite a few problems that will need to be figured out first. Some of the big ones are who will fund the TONO's for the attendees, Ops tempo, unit rep availability, etc. We have always done our LCPO Conferences in December and the last two have been the first week or two in Jan. This aligns with EPM's assignment process. For the surface/afloat/M/A communities, possibly set it up as east coast/west coast, maybe by district, maybe run a two week "conference" period in DC where the unit LCPO can attend when opportunity exists. How about video conferences??? There are several ideas out there to play with.

The respective program/platform manager will need to take the lead to make this happen. If they plan and budget ahead, maybe your idea of a few test conferences could be checked out for feasibility. I would think the afloat community would be the hardest to pull off. I'd start there. If the test conference proved successfull, try the next hardest community. The answer might be that one community just can't be done that way.

I'm not sure how assignments could be done without full representation. Maybe just get some of the easy assignments done in pencil and hash out the harder ones via the current process???? Anything would help.

John

[MKCM Brett Ayer]

Thanks Brett for adding into my 9 month old post.

Bruce,

I added to it because I have received several calls in the few days about advancements and cuts that revolved around the same issue. Yours was just the post that mirrored the current concerns. My post wasn’t aimed towards you at all :)

Some people think that someone at HQ is holding up advancements so they can use the money for something else, which is far from the truth.

Just trying to let the fleet know what is going on.

As always, be safe.

Brett

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

I heard of two BMCMs who were given extentions to take jobs no one ever puts in for.

The natural reaction, at least mine is,.... take the orders or retire.... Pretty simple...

Don't kid yourselves.. The CG is still tenuring people over 30 years, and not just in those jobs no one wants... I know someone that just (a few monts ago) got orders to Yorktown... That's not a hard fill job.

Wray... :cool:

[ETCS John Zidek]

Still no Profile letter, but my raw score went up 1 point from yesterday. The letters should be out soon.

"Z"

[HSC Chris Fly]

I say bring on HYT.....get those dinos up or out! :D

[ETCS John Zidek]

I got my profile letter.

"Z"

[ETCS John Zidek]

The list is on PSCs website.

"Z"

[ETCS John Zidek]

It's that time again, has anyone heard when the 08 cuts will be out? The intitial cuts for the 07 list were out the last week of August. I am pretty confident, but seeing it is much better then just believing it.

"Z"

[ETCS John Zidek]

The revised May / Nov 2007 cuts are out. Congrats to those above.

ETC "Z"

[OSCS Brian Avelsgard]

That is great that the revised 07 cuts are out. The question remains, where are the May 08 cuts? The OS detailer said that the OS shopping list for AY09 will be published on time on Monday 15 Sept as listed in the AY09 OS sitrep 1. How can they publish a shopping list when the cuts have not been released to the field. Also the SEP 08 OS force notes came out today and stated that there are adding "well over 150 new billets next year..." so where are these billets? Will they be added to the shopping list?

[CWO Eugene Diotalevi (BMC)]

Any updates as to when the 08 cuts will hit the street?

Thanks in advance,

Gene

[BMCM Ian McVicker]

cuts are out.

[BMC Chris Gempp]

14 to E8
2 to E9
51 to E7

[ETCS John Zidek]

Can someone let me know the cut for ETCS? and ETC?

[BMCM Deane Smith]

can someone let me know the cut for etcs? And etc?

etcs-0
etc-10

[HSCM Ron Hill]

There were a ton of Zero cutoffs on the cuts. Any clue why? My thought is, there is still things in flux and EPM is waiting.

[ETCS John Zidek]

There were a ton of Zero cutoffs on the cuts. Any clue why? My thought is, there is still things in flux and EPM is waiting.

My thoughts are they were tired of everyone spending so much time on CGMS so they just released the bare bones cuts....now everyone back to work :D

"Z"

[MKCS Tony McKinnon]

How about MKCM and MKCS?

[HSCM Ron Hill]

MKCM and MKCS both Zero.

[MKCS Tony McKinnon]

Thanks, at least I know there will be a revision.

[BMC Seth Tomas]

how about MKC? I have a buddy sitting at number 42.....

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I think that the uncertainty about where those ME billets are coming from might have played into the mix....... and ....... for some of the rates, the retirement letters aren't going to start going in until the '09 billets get slated. Also, in an unstable economy..... people sticking around until 30 starts looking better....

[BMC Seth Tomas]

I just finished looking at all the cuts. Granted, I haven't been in nearly as long as some of you old timers :D on here, but I don't think I've seen this many zero's before! Hopefully it won't be like that for the May 09 SWE that I'll be sitting on!

[BMCM Ian McVicker]

Also, in an unstable economy..... people sticking around until 30 starts looking better....


You've got that right. Retirement is not looking very appealing right now.

Good thing I've got 10 years to go till mandatory:D

[MSTC Jerome Lockwood]

how about MKC? I have a buddy sitting at number 42.....

MKC-41
maybe he will make the revision.

[MSTCM Jerald Motyka]

Okay, I have a question here...

I have a good friend that has put in for a Master Chief silver-badge position (any one of several), but is being stepped on by the cuts. He's quite high on the MCPO list and will probably make it... but the cuts are now at zero.

He's been told by the special assignments folks that his request is on hold because of the lack of cuts, and now because of the cuts his request is on more of a hold. He's been released by the RFMC to go do special assignments - and now they won't release him to his rating until after the lists and E-Resume deadlines have been passed.

What the heck does he do? He'd make one helluva good Gold/Silver Badge, but that's on hold due to the cuts. He'd make a good rating MC or SC as well, but can't because of special assignments...

Any advice here?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Jerald, you lost me.....

The AOs need to be the ones to release him from rate, not the RFMC.....
The cuts are out. All of these assignments are going to be released on that information. The lists are going to start to flow now. Regardless of what "might" happen with his advancements.....at this point in the game, they're going to assign him based on his current paygrade, and his standing on the list.
If he doesn't get picked up for a special assignments billet,...if in fact he has already been released from rate.... he would still have time to compete in the general pool. He needs to watch the message traffic to see who screened, and even then, follow up with a phone call to ensure that his AO is going to honor that list. Just going off the past two years, I saw a BMCM who was pulled off of the CMC list, and a BMC pulled from the recruiting list.

My advice would be to contact special asignments and see where he stands. Realize that there aren't "folks" involved in that contact..... it's one person. That one person would be able to tell him if he can compete. If he hasn't been released from rate he will be competing for assignment within his rating. In that, I tell the BMs I talk to, ask for the jobs you want in your paygrade first. Unless you are marking the cut,( which is pretty hard to do if the number is zero), you should ask for your current paygrade first. For years, we've heard that they are going to look at putting 9s in 9 jobs, and 8s in 8 jobs......if you're an 8 getting a 9 job, it's probably because no qualified 9 was asking for it.

[ETCS Robert Kelley]

I beleve that a tour complete member should be transfered and if that creates a vacancy because that member chooses to RILO or SILO then the next member on the advancement list should be advanced. If that advancement happens outside the normal transfer season then the newly advanced member gets orders to the vacant position.... period. Then that member can decide to RILO or SILO if they do not want to accept.

If the advancement happens during the normal advancement cycle then the AO should use the established criteria to fill all vancancies. It would be nice to use skills and qualifications as a basis to make those assignment decisions but until a reliable method to track skills and requirements for the individuals AND the job requirements for ALL members and billets then it is unreasonable to expect that to happen for the majority of assignments but it is a goal we should work towards.

I personally know of an E8 that asked for an extention of less than a year past 30 to remain in a position that was denied. It was a position that was difficult to fill, there were even a few E8s that opted for the CWO route based at least in part on the assisgnment so there is at least some hope that the process can work.

As a side note.... the E9 ETs are actually meeting right now... I think this is the second year of this effort. I don't know how much of the world hunger problem they are addressing but maybe one of them will choose to retire by the end of the year so I can find out next year;)