Revisiting the Warrant requirements

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

As we look at where we're going, isn't it time to revisit our requirements for Warrant?
I'll take the unpopular stance that we should lower the eligibility to apply for Warrant to E-5 and above. We should give people the option to choice their career path earlier on in that career.

[CWO Chris Sparkman (BMC)]

MC,
I say go the other way. Make it E7 and above and add a few other requirements. CPOACAD, OIC Qual(BM), favorable command endorsement. In a perfect world it would be great to have a strong, qualified, expierence group of folks competing for thier specialty rate.

CS

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Chris, why is it E-5 and above in the other services that have Warrants?
Why can we let our E-5s go thru OCS but say that they aren't ready to be Warrants? Hasn't the role of the Warrant changed to where many of the jobs that they fill aren't really rate related?
I just think that the extra time they spend in the enlisted forces could be better served by doing the jobs they plan on making their career out of. We could get ten or more years out of some of them before they're even retirement eligible.
It could also take alot of the problems out of our senior transfer cycles.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

I don't think having E-5's eligible for CWO will work in the CG, not the way we use our CWO's. They are supposed to be the technical experts in their ratings, most E-5's have a lot to learn about the rating...I know I did. It might work in other services, but not in the CG.

Stu...using your logic we should just do away with CWO's in the CG. If they're being used diffently now than in the past can't we just replace them with some other grade of officer?

[CWO Chris Sparkman (BMC)]

Chris, why is it E-5 and above in the other services that have Warrants?

My off the wall guess. A higher demand for CWO in thier respected services? Also for those outstanding performers with those amazing recommendations.? You know, the recommendations like, "you are great officer material", (whatever that means). Is that not what we say about our junior members who are looking to go into these programs? I have seen it. Member shows up at my unit as a non-rate, bachelors degree, recommendations, plan in hand, already mindset on OCS, they have gone off and done great things. I don't believe that member has been put in a Command Cadre position. I can't imagine at the E5 level they are looking to take a possibly perceive "easy way", for example, "can't make E8,9, better go warrant. Again, just a guess, I would have to research into it.


Why can we let our E-5s go thru OCS but say that they aren't ready to be Warrants?

Again, I see a big difference here. Looking at just the Command Cadre aspect, the potential for the Warrant to be placed in a Commanding Officer position is much greater than the OCS member.

Hasn't the role of the Warrant changed to where many of the jobs that they fill aren't really rate related?

Not for me. I did not have a choice. I think were doing Ok. I know there was a spit recently with the MSS. MSSD & MSSE. Looks like we are trying to keep the specialty alive.


I just think that the extra time they spend in the enlisted forces could be better served by doing the jobs they plan on making their career out of. We could get ten or more years out of some of them before they're even retirement eligible.

Stu..I'll have to disagree with you here. I think that time spent in the enlisted forces give them the real story, the down and dirty. When they slide over to the other side, they will remember what it's all about.

CS

[CMC Bruce Bradley]

Public Law 85-422 of 1958

Why don't we just follow the intent of the this law? When the military asked Congress to create the E-8 and E-9 paygrades it was done with the provision that we elimate the CWO corps. To date only the USAF has complied with the law.

Evidentally some smart person serving on Capitol Hill might realize this oversight on our part and tell us to make up for our perceived budget shortfall in house.

[MKCM Brett Ayer]

Public Law 85-422 of 1958

Why don't we just follow the intent of the this law? When the military asked Congress to create the E-8 and E-9 paygrades it was done with the provision that we elimate the CWO corps. To date only the USAF has complied with the law.

Evidentally some smart person serving on Capitol Hill might realize this oversight on our part and tell us to make up for our perceived budget shortfall in house.

The problem is the way we use our CWOs. If we just dropped the 1500 we have, who is going to do their jobs?

With the revised caps it still leaves us with a max of a little over 1200 E-8s and E-9s. So even if we moved all SCPOs and MCPOs into the old CWO jobs, who would fill the jobs they came from?

I am not arguing the philosophy part, just the reality part.

Be Safe.

[HSC Chris Fly]

While I can't speak for the other CWO specialties, an E5 to Med Warrant wouldn't work. Can you imagine a guys who just an E5 last month being the clinic administrator of the Yorktown clinic or the HQ clinic? The Med Warrants that act as clinic administrators as responsible for the overall running of a clinic, that means they have to let the occasional O5 or O6 MD know what is expected of them. I can't see a 23 year old CWO doing that.

As far as the other services having younger CWOs, the only service that I really know that has young CWOs is the Army. I'm pretty sure the young CWOs are either pilots or some sort of maintenance officer. The scope of what these CWOs do is a WHOLE lot different than our CWOs. You can't compare apples to oranges.....

I'm not real sure what the Navy does other than I know they used to have CWO physician assistants, again this is a whole different scope of work, You don't have to have years of experiance because you attend 2 years of intensive school before you can practice. We expect or CWOs to be the technical experts of the rating, to able to answer any questions the enlisted may have about that rating. At least that's the way I understand it.

Chris

[CMC Bruce Bradley]

The problem is the way we use our CWOs. If we just dropped the 1500 we have, who is going to do their jobs?
With the revised caps it still leaves us with a max of a little over 1200 E-8s and E-9s. So even if we moved all SCPOs and MCPOs into the old CWO jobs, who would fill the jobs they came from?
I am not arguing the philosophy part, just the reality part.
Be Safe.

Brett, it wouldn't be an overnight fix, but like the USAF it would be phased in over time. As we moved from the CWO corps we would also grown the enlisted workforce, thus allowing the number in the cap to grow.

Just because we have a job at a CWO level doesn't mean that it is that more difficult that it is above the enlisted work force of junior officer capabilities to perform it. I think that we have just gotten very comfortable with the status quo.

"Honoring Our Past, Not Operating in It: Modernizing America's Coast Guard to Meet Growing Demands" I think I read this someplace recently.

[MKCM Brett Ayer]

Brett, it wouldn't be an overnight fix, but like the USAF it would be phased in over time. As we moved from the CWO corps we would also grown the enlisted workforce, thus allowing the number in the cap to grow.

Just because we have a job at a CWO level doesn't mean that it is that more difficult that it is above the enlisted work force of junior officer capabilities to perform it. I think that we have just gotten very comfortable with the status quo.

"Honoring Our Past, Not Operating in It: Modernizing America's Coast Guard to Meet Growing Demands" I think I read this someplace recently.

I don't disagree, like I said I’m not arguing the philosophy. The reality is we would need to grow the size of the Coast Guard significantly to ensure we had enough qualified senior enlisted and JOs to replace the 1500 current CWOs.

Both the size of the officer workforce and the size of the senior workforce is tied to overall enlisted workforce strength. The last time we had more than 40,000 members on active duty was WWII. We ended last year at 40,700.

The odds of the Coast Guard receiving funding to continue growing is small. All indicators point to a smaller active duty workforce in the future.

Be Safe,

Brett

[YNC Paulette Gough]

Some interesting numbers from Direct Access and the COMDT's State of the CG Speech....

We have 41,873 members on Active Duty (from COMDT as reported at NavyTimes.com)
of those - 1489 are Warrants (From DA)
AND
32,948 are enlisted (DA)

Public Law says a total of 3.75 percent of the enlisted workforce can be E-8 or E-9 (as revised most recently 2.5 percent E-8 and 1.25 percent E-9). That number today is 1236 E-8 and E-9s allowed (give or take).

Eliminate 1489 Warrants, add their billets to the enlisted workforce and you get a total of 34,437 enlisted which raises the 3.75 percent to a total of 1291 billets (give or take) which is only giving us an additional 55 E-8 or E-9 billets. Poses the question: What do we do with the other 1434 billets? Make them E-7's? My math might be off, but it seems we would have a slight problem. Don't get me wrong - I'm all for having more senior enlisted billets, but how?

[MKCM Brett Ayer]

Some interesting numbers from Direct Access and the COMDT's State of the CG Speech....

We have 41,873 members on Active Duty (from COMDT as reported at NavyTimes.com)
of those - 1489 are Warrants (From DA)
AND
32,948 are enlisted (DA)

Public Law says a total of 3.75 percent of the enlisted workforce can be E-8 or E-9 (as revised most recently 2.5 percent E-8 and 1.25 percent E-9). That number today is 1236 E-8 and E-9s allowed (give or take).

Eliminate 1489 Warrants, add their billets to the enlisted workforce and you get a total of 34,437 enlisted which raises the 3.75 percent to a total of 1291 billets (give or take) which is only giving us an additional 55 E-8 or E-9 billets. Poses the question: What do we do with the other 1434 billets? Make them E-7's? My math might be off, but it seems we would have a slight problem. Don't get me wrong - I'm all for having more senior enlisted billets, but how?

Your numbers are not too far off. The actual number of active duty members used to calculate the E-8/E-9 caps is the total active duty enlisted on Oct 01 of the current FY, which for this year was 32,578. Our current cap is 1221, of which 407 (Average) can be E-9s (1.25% IAW 10 USC 517 as amended). We finished last month with 1499 CWOs.

Eliminating CWOs can be done, but it would take significant pain in the short term to make it happen and serious changes to the way we do business in the long term.

Be Safe,

Brett

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I think we keep Warrant Billets around because it's the easiest thing to do. Putting aside the law Bruce brought up...... and seeing as how we've put it aside this long, keeping it aside for the rest of this thread shouldn't be a stretch....... we are only limited to the number of Warrants we create by the amount we're able to pay for.

Chris, you can't base all Warrants on what Bosns do. You and the other Chris might have to admit that anyone who really wanted to do the job would be able to rise to the occasion. Chris, I'm prior service Army. We had a CWO in charge of our clinic. In the Coast Guard position trumps rank/pay grade. If someone is in a position of authority, their vote carries, regardless of age or experience. I've served with some E-5s whose commitment and experience far surpassed some of the O-1s and O-2s I've seen..... and some of the 7s, 8s and 9s. You could send that same E-5 to OCS and 17 weeks later they could be the supervisor of that Warrant billet you don't think they're ready to fill. Experience is a wonderful thing, but the Coast Guard provides everyone with a wealth of experience they can draw from...... you are never limited to your own.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Perhaps the CG should follow the USAF, and do away with warrants... As they were supposed to after the establishment of the E-8 & E-9 pay grades.

Of course they never will, the CWO's are "free" bodies.

Wray... :cool:

[ASTC Mario Vittone]

"Public Law 85-422 of 1958"

I've been searching for a while, Master Chief, and I cant find any reference that states that this law provided for the dissolution of the CWO paygrades. I did find many, signed since 1958, that allow for W-2 through W-5: but none that call for abolishment of the grades.

Any help?

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Mario,
I'm not sure where to find it. If Joe Jester sees this I'm sure he can fill us all in.. This is one of those topics that keeps popping up. In reality it really doesn't matter because the only service to follow the law was the USAF.

Joe, ya out there??

Wray.... :cool:

[MKCM Brett Ayer]

Mario,
I'm not sure where to find it. If Joe Jester sees this I'm sure he can fill us all in.. This is one of those topics that keeps popping up. In reality it really doesn't matter because the only service to follow the law was the USAF.

Joe, ya out there??

Wray.... :cool:

Regardless of the intent of PL 85-422, current law supersedes it. Current law under 14 USC authorizes the Coast Guard to create, pay and promote Warrant Officers.

I do not believe that our current Congress (the 110th) is too worried about the intent of the 85th Congress. They have had 30 years to remove Warrant Officers from our authorization and they never have.

Be Safe.

Brett

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

I do not believe that our current Congress (the 110th) is too worried about the intent of the 85th Congress. They have had 30 years to remove Warrant Officers from our authorization and they never have.


Brett, I agree completely... It just shows ya how well the government follows its own rules/laws.. They are a joke.

Wray... :cool:

[YNC Paulette Gough]

"Public Law 85-422 of 1958"

I've been searching for a while, Master Chief, and I cant find any reference that states that this law provided for the dissolution of the CWO paygrades. I did find many, signed since 1958, that allow for W-2 through W-5: but none that call for abolishment of the grades.

Any help?

This is in part what the CG Legal Library says about PL 85-422. Hope it helps.

Public Law 85-422 was approved May 20, 1958.

The basic objective of this legislation is to provide a
military pay system designed to attract and retain
qualified personnel for active career service. This would
be accomplished in five different ways.

Incentive pay system. The most important feature of this
legislation is the establishment of a pay system designed
to attract and retain young officers and enlisted men for
active service. This was accomplished (1) by providing 2
new officer grades (0-10 and 0-9) and 2 new enlisted grades
(E-9 and E-8); and (2) by providing graduated increases
which result in the highest increases being granted to
those in the upper officer and enlisted grades, and thereby
improving the career opportunities for those who remain in
active service on a career basis.

Two proficiency par systems. The bill provides two new
alternative proficiency pay systems designed to provide
sufficient inducement to attract and retain highly
qualified enlisted members.

Responsibility pay for officers. The bill establishes for
the first time on a permissive basis a special pay for a
limited percentage of officers who hold critical positions
of unusual responsibility. The eligible assignments could
include command, staff, or any other position. This is
intended to afford a means of making a monetary recognition
of the contribution of those officers holding such
positions. This provisions would tend to correct a
deficiency in the present pay and promotion system.

Modification of longevity pay system. The bill provides an
added incentive for achievement by eliminating longevity
increases beyond normal promotion points. This undue
emphasis in the present system on length of service as
opposed to reward for reaching higher grades has been
considered the major evil of a longevity pay system.

Cost of living. The bill also takes into account the
increases in the cost of living since the last pay raise of
1955 through the minimum 6 percent increase in basic pay
for most persons with over 2 years of service.

Non-active Duty Reserve service. This Act also contains a
provision which will prevent the inclusion of non-active
duty Reserve service in the computation of the retired pay
on the basis of a full active duty year, and will provide
that such service will be computed on the basis of the
point computation system applicable to Reserve officers
retired under the reserve retirement law at age 60. This
feature would affect those officers who had served at least
20 years on active duty and thereafter remain or are
appointed in the Reserve prior to being transferred to a
retired list with pay. As a result of this feature all
future inactive reserve time will be computed on the same
basis for retired pay purposes.

[HSC Chris Fly]

You and the other Chris might have to admit that anyone who really wanted to do the job would be able to rise to the occasion. Chris, I'm prior service Army. We had a CWO in charge of our clinic. In the Coast Guard position trumps rank/pay grade. If someone is in a position of authority, their vote carries, regardless of age or experience. I've served with some E-5s whose commitment and experience far surpassed some of the O-1s and O-2s I've seen..... and some of the 7s, 8s and 9s. You could send that same E-5 to OCS and 17 weeks later they could be the supervisor of that Warrant billet you don't think they're ready to fill. Experience is a wonderful thing, but the Coast Guard provides everyone with a wealth of experience they can draw from...... you are never limited to your own.

It's not a question of being able to rise to the occasion, it's a question of knowing what to do with certain situtations. You can't tell me an HS2 that's been in 5 years has the expertise to handle a CAPT at HQ that's coming in to complain because he has been treated "wrong". And what would that JO do? I think it's pretty obviuous most JO's backbone (and nost enlsited) melts at the sight of 4 bars on the shoulder, not all but most. You can't convince me that an E5 HS can do the job of a CWOMED in most situations. Now, if that E5 has his BS in Health Care Admin then maybe he might have a start.

Chis

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Chris, I'm not following you. Are you saying that the E-6 who's eligible to compete for Warrant under our current policy is capable of handling the situations you mentioned? I'm sorry, but I think I can find you some E-5s out there that .... if given the opportunity, would stand up to that O-6, just as I'm sure you could find some current Warrants who would melt away and have someone else deal with the problems. Under our current system, I've seen people make E-6 in three years. I've seen E-5s retire at 20 years TIS.

There are two groups of people that are going to stand up to that disgruntled O-6.......... the people who always stand up for what's right..... and the people who aren't afraid of the outcome........

[CWO Chris Sparkman (BMC)]

You and the other Chris might have to admit that anyone who really wanted to do the job would be able to rise to the occasion.

I'll admit to that. Being an E7 OIC and the next day a CWO CO, I'll be damned if it ain't the same!:D

I do believe folks would step up. Just like that XPO who is acting. A lot of them have not been through the board nor do they hold they qual. I know there could be some oversight, and there are certain things that will not happen, but for the daily grind, they are doing the kings business.

Can't see the Warrant going away. It seems to me if the BM's don't get out there and get that OIC Qual, the pool of candidates will be marginal. Possibly opening up and needing to fill OIC positions, we start tapping into the Warrants. Huh...at least I'll have some more stations to pick from, maybe I'll get lucky and have more Surf stations to choose from.:rolleyes:

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

There are two groups of people that are going to stand up to that disgruntled O-6.......... the people who always stand up for what's right..... and the people who aren't afraid of the outcome........


Very true Stuart, very true. I know when, as a PO2, I "argued" with the four striper, some ol' timers certainly looked to see who this young Petty Officer was talking to the Captain.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

Wray, Mario,

The most promising thing I've seen in searching for PL 85-422 is the Carl Albert papers located at Oklahoma University. I found this link (http://www.ou.edu/special/albertctr/archives/albertinventory/Cal028.htm) which indicates it's in box 28, file 100.

That might provide the necessary insight as Carl Albert was the Chairman of the Armed Forces Committee and that file is the Committee's papers.

It might be interesting if a CPO at the Institute could research that file and provide us the insight. Hell, the local historian on this site might be interested in a copy of those papers.

The "shitcan the WO grades" has been talked about every time the PL is mentioned. One thing is certain, the PL established the compensation for the new supergrades, as they reduced stagnation at the E-7 level and outside competition [commercial entities] were vieing for their services.

I'm still in the "trust but verify" mode on this one. So far, the verification has proved to be less than cooperative.

I do have a comment on the grade creep associated with certain jobs. Before there were Rear Admiral Lower Half's there were Commodores in that grade. Politics played into that when people wanted "A real admiral and not one of those Commodores" on their staff [international politics]. Hell, Commodore Dewey was a proud and famous sailor.

I was part of a world of work working group in 1988. I had the majority of the jobs done at the E-4/E-5 level. When those jobs showed up as an average of E-6.5 ... I thought, damm, the others at this table thought someone much higher should be doing the work to get that average. What a waste of talent to have an overpaid individual doing such work.

The same could be said of alot of different positions. I know CWOs who evaluated their positions and recommended their billet be deleted ... as they were more Mr Collateral Duty and done nothing congruent with their rating. If you need a SLJO ... hire an Ensign.

Rate creep is a real threat. I guess that comes from not holding the junior accountable for what they should be doing ... since junior PO can't do it, make a senior PO do it.

I've had PO3's answer CDR's questions. It does two things. It impresses the hell out of the CDR and it puts your training program out front and your PO3 knows you are proud of them handling the inquiry. I called the CDR to see if all his questions were answered satisfactory. He liked the fact that a PO3 knew enough to answer the questions. When I asked that CDR if there was an open billet in his area for my PO2, who wanted to work in that area, he was glad to have that PO2. That was a long time ago and the last I saw, that PO2 is now a LT, via the CWO to LT program.

Rate creep is a very dangerous road to hoe. I'd prefer to keep it down as low as possible.

[CMC Bruce Bradley]

"Public Law 85-422 of 1958"
I've been searching for a while, Master Chief, and I cant find any reference that states that this law provided for the dissolution of the CWO paygrades. I did find many, signed since 1958, that allow for W-2 through W-5: but none that call for abolishment of the grades.
Any help?

Mario, you have to dig into the Congressional Record from the session. It will cover all the discussions/debates on the floor or committee, full text of the law and also the congresional intent of the law. It's in the intent that the CWO issue was covered. I'll see if I can either find my old copies or a web link if it hasn't been totally archived yet.

The military was asking for 8 and 9 to be technical experts in their ratings or MOS. Congress pointed out that that was what the CWO were on the books for and the militray agreed to phase them out in return for the enlisted additions.

[HSC Chris Fly]

Chris, I'm not following you. Are you saying that the E-6 who's eligible to compete for Warrant under our current policy is capable of handling the situations you mentioned? I'm sorry, but I think I can find you some E-5s out there that .... if given the opportunity, would stand up to that O-6, just as I'm sure you could find some current Warrants who would melt away and have someone else deal with the problems. Under our current system, I've seen people make E-6 in three years. I've seen E-5s retire at 20 years TIS.

There are two groups of people that are going to stand up to that disgruntled O-6.......... the people who always stand up for what's right..... and the people who aren't afraid of the outcome........

Stu,
You obviously only read what you wanted out of my post. I did say that not all the E5/JOs would back down and I certainly don't think every current CWO would step up to that O6. I do believe, however, that more E5/JOs would melt than E7s. And while it's theorhetically possible an E6 can make CWO Med, it's not very likely in my rating. The only way an E6 would make it past the points to the board is if they have a LOT of years in or they WAY too many 7s, but that's a whole 'nother thread!

Chris

Nothing anyone says is ever concrete....

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Chris, like you said,...Nothing anyone says is ever concrete........

Have a bunch of those E-7s give up on making Warrant, and those E-6s become the heavy hitters, regardless of their marks ..... unlikely or not. Add the CPOACAD factor back into the mix...... say a bunch of those COs read things the same way I do, and they take the stance that an E-7 who doesn't have a request to attend the CPOACAD in doesn't really follow CG policy and they don't get the recommendation........ again, however unlikely, those E-6s are in the mix.
However unlikely, an E-6 in the top 50% of the E-7 list....... any E-6 in that position, can compete. An E-6 can compete, and you don't even want toconsider opening that up to an E-5?
If you see the E-6 as having little chance of making it, wouldn't it follow that an E-5 would have even less of a chance? What's the harm in giving them the chance?

[HSC Chris Fly]

If you see the E-6 as having little chance of making it, wouldn't it follow that an E-5 would have even less of a chance? What's the harm in giving them the chance?


Well, to be quite honest with you....they haven't earned it. There has to be some reward/incentive to reach a certain point in your career. Thare are some things you should have to "pay your dues" to able to do and being able to apply for CWO is one of those. In my world (HS), the E5s have the opportunity to apply for OCS or the PA program. Both programs lead to comissions, the PA program is even open to E4s (and OCS if you have a degree). It's not like the E5s and below have no options into the officer world.
I understand this may not be a popular opinion, but I beleive I'm not the only one who holds it either. I wonder Stu, if you would have a different stance if you weren't already an MCPO and earlier in your career?

Chris