A question about timelines......

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I have a question that I'm sure some of you could give me insight into.
If a policy says someone should have 12 months in a certain position……… what constitutes 12 months? If you had a guy, highly motivated, super dedicated, who showed up at your unit in May, wouldn't you think that he could compete for something the following April? I know we're splitting hairs…. But in baseball, the tie does go to the running.

Any thoughts on this would be helpful.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

I would think they should be able to compete.

There is lot of things predated the completion, dream sheets predate tour completion, TIG/TIS points predate the actual advancement, et al. Why should a single policy be the exception to the rule ... especially if there is a favorable endorsement from the Command. Unfavorable endorsements should kill the request anyways.

[PACS Steve Carleton]

If you are talking about competing in a SWE -- then yes, the member could compete, since the list will not be promulgated until after the member reached the 12 month mark, assuming they have favorable command endorsements, etc.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

since the list will not be promulgated until after the member reached the 12 month mark ...

Incorrect Steve.

Some SWE items are computed to the Terminal Eligibility Date ... the day the first person on the list is eligible to advance. The list is promulgated in advance of the first eligible advancement.

It assumes everything is constant till the terminial eligibility date. So why not let someone compete in april when their completion date is in May, especially if they are not tour complete or other changes.

It would add an element of consistency to the inconsistent CG.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

It's not for the SWE. It's with seeking a certification/qualification. I tend to look at the working on these things. In this case it says 12 consecutive months. It doesn't say complete months, 1 year, or even 365 days. I think it's vague enough to give a good member the benifit of the doubt.
It's like those NAVRUL questions, should or shall, may or must.......

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

Stuart,

A waiver of 30 or so days for some good or outstanding individual certainly should be acceptable. Thats akin to waiving 5 ASVAB points for good individuals for some "A" school.

12 consecutive months is 12 consecutive months. For some reason they don't want split service for that qualification.

Everything boils down to shall, should, would, et al. Some have even taken shall to mean other than shall. I once told a GRUCOM that his EO didn't understand the word shall in a Commandant's Instruction. He thought it implied you must do the task during "new construction only".

I'd request the waiver, praising the individual as deserving, and then let the upper echelon approve or deny. It will at the least, plant the seed that there can be deserving individuals that should have the opportunity with a command endorsed waiver.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

It's with seeking a certification/qualification

Stu, why are you asking this here.... :confused: certainly by now you know it is easier to get forgiveness than approval..........

As an OIC, do the paperwork and submit it up the chain.. if there is a problem they will let you know.. and by the time they do, the 12 months will have passed... ;)

Wray... :cool:

[BMCS Burt Ford]

Every timeline we have can be waived except any dictated by public law. If it is seatime, waived, TIR, waived, TIS, waived, qualifications, waived. If it is service dictated it can be waived. ....i think you get my point. Bruce mentioned this when he made BMCM. 12 months is 12 months like Jan to Dec; 12 months. Jan to Jan would be 13. 365 days is just that, 1 Jan to 31 Dec is 365 days. Now it comes to the interpreter, they can look at it the way they see fit. Then your problem becomes finding someone that sees it the way you do.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

This isn't actually my problem, it's just something I heard about and have a problem with. From the responses, I take it that everyone would fight for the guys right to compete. It's too bad that if the situation actually happened, not everyone would look for a way to give the guy that break.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Stu, is this person trying to "compete" .... somehow somewhere for something, or is he/she seeking a certification/qualification?

While I do see a difference in the two, I'm not really there is any difference with the decision to be made.....

Wray.. :cool:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Let's make it a hypothetical situation.......
Say someone was seeking an OinC certification. The requirement for a BM1 is that they have 2 years TIG, or for those with less than 2 years TIG, they can sit for the board if they have 12 consectutive months in a designated XPO billet.
Say, hypothetically your XPO had less than 2 years TIG, and he's been serving as your XPO since May of last year. The board is in April..... isn't that twelve consecutive months? Isn't it at least worth considering? Shouldn't he at least be able to sit for a board that we're begging other people to sit for? We're asking for volunteers..... his guy, again, hypothetically, has his hand up.... he wants to answer that call.
Let's say, for the purpose of my story, that you were in possession of a waiver than was given in another district for a member that didn't meet the 2 year TIG and never held an XPO position. Wouldn't you wonder why the case couldn't be seriously considered?

And then .... since, in our story, we have people that seem to want to tow the hardline, people that want to take the strictest possible interpretation of this policy...... wouldn't you think that they would want to follow the entire poilicy? There is a passage in that part of the policy, where it clearly states that all BMCs should sit for the OinC board within the first year of being advanced. If those people want to come off of the top rung and do the full body slam on the over enthusiastic BM1, where is the accountabilty on those senior to him who don't even want to sit? Those who have never raised their hand? Given the opportunity to live up to his potential, that BM1 could be their BMCS a couple of years from now. He might be the person that could finally make them live up to their own potential.
I started this whole thread to try and find out how far some of you would have taken this if he was your XPO? How many people would have to tell you no before you honestly just gave up? How high would you have taken this before you told your guy, sorry, try again in the fall?
We all talk about how we support our people, but how many would fight the Sector or fight District to prove a point?

[BMCS Burt Ford]

BMC's who do not sit, should be held accountable, marks if need be. Maybe not reccommended would not work, but at least 4's where needed. We should do the same thing for those Chiefs that never go to chiefs call.

If that was my BM1, All the way to the top!

[BMC Mark D. Emerson]

Have the "hypothetical" member draft a request for waiver to president of the review board, endorse it and forward it up the chain.

They are in the billet, don't have orders out of the billet, and you don't see them having an issue. fight for them! You might get the policy changed to benefit everyone.

I wish the review board was before the cut off for SWE. For me it has the potential to add 14 months to my ability to re compete.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

For arguments sake, let me use the term that keeps coming up in other threads: "Selective Obedience". There will be another OIC review board in 6 months. Sometimes timelines can be the enemy. This is what happens when we cast policy in stone.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Jim, is the policy clear on this issue? What constitutes 12 consecutive months?

Burt, where's the top? Which route would you take to get there? Would you risk your own standing with your Sector or District to fight this? Who would have to tell you there's nothing you can do?

Mark, what if the Board President was the one who brought it to your attention and he was the one who said no? What's your next move? What if your Sector told you to drop it?

Honestly, I think most people would do what Jim said. There's another board in 6 months, no blood no foul. But alot of things can happen in 6 months. What kind of attitude is that BM1 going to have in 6 months, if he walks away from this thinking that no one even wanted to fight for him? How is this story going to get twisted in the months to come, and how many people that have no first hand knowledge of this case, are still going to use it as yet another reason why they don't want to appear before the board themselves? You know, hypothetically speaking......
And since this hypothetical story is about the OinC board, how important a message is it for that BM1 to show him how to fight for what you believe in? When does the message have to switch to,.... sometimes we have to suck it up and do what we're told?

[BMCS Burt Ford]

The owner of the program Stu. every program has a manager and I would stop when they told me I had too. As far as risking ,y standing, I would keep my sector advised of what I was doing and if the problem was there(sector) , then District, problem there area or HQ............

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Stu, "hypothetically" .. just go for it... I'm guessing no one will even catch it.....

Should they, re-read post #7.

Wray.... :cool:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Wray, hypothetically there would be no going for it. The next level would have been the one who caught it, questioned it, and were saying no.

Burt, if the one who owned the program told you yes, but your Sector or the District was still saying no.... where would you go? At what point do you think you're fighting this is going to have a negative impact on your XPO if he is eventually able to sit for the Board? Just go with his mindset if he thinks the Board already has a grudge against him or his OinC.And just so I'm clear, if the problem was with your Sector, you'd go to the District, if it were at District you'd take it to HQ.......... who would you talk to at District? Would you go to the CO or throught the Badge Network?

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

I say, go with the rule. 12 consecutive months is just that. Split whatever hairs you want to but that is what it is. If the guy is as great as that, he will understand that even he is not above the rules. And, if he has less than 2 years as a first class, he has a great career ahead of him and should just be patient. Some good counselling with him will go a long way. If it turns him off, then I would question his quality. What is he going to do when a real challange comes his way? How would he feel if he went to the board and got turned down? It happens. I saw it this very week.

Here is a real situation for you. I was sitting on a District board and a member came in that had a great afloat career. Didn't have a standard boat coxswain letter, but requested ATON ashore none the less. He expected the board to just "bend" that rule. Any guess what happened?

I just don't think that is the right foot to be starting on. There are much bigger fish to fry, and if he is properly counseled he will understand that his time will come and he will be fine.

[CWO Chris Sparkman (BMC)]

Let's say, for the purpose of my story, that you were in possession of a waiver than was given in another district for a member that didn't meet the 2 year TIG and never held an XPO position.

Stu...I have heard of such a waiver. Maybe it happens more than we think? Here's what I heard...the command recommends the mbr to go before the district pre-board. The appropriate package was put togethr and forwarded up. Once the mbr reached the Pre-board, the pre-board mbrs reviewed the package and found that the mbr was shy a few months(I believe that's what it was) but since they were the last to sit, the Pre-board decided to let the mbr sit for practice. Considering that the mbr's command failed to recognize the TIG issue and sent them up anyhow, the pre-boards mbr gave them a shot.

Well, the mbr ended up taking "best of show" out of what I believe was 13-15 candidates. When the MC called the command and informed them that they sent a mbr to the board that did not meet the pre-reqs, but ended up having the best board, the command replied with a "Ok, so we really need OIC's, is there anything that can be done?" The MC replied with "we will handle it", stand-by. Well a week goes by and then the command receives a call saying the member will be allowed to move forward to the Area Board.

Now as for what part the command played in getting the mbr to the Area Board...well, I can only imagine that was dealt with and handled by a heavy anchor with two stars with the support of some bars. Maybe even a two star inked it. Not really sure.

The mbr ended up successfully sitting for Multi-Mission ashore, left the unit where they were filling the OPS position to another ashore unit where they held the OPS position once again, made Chief and got orders to an XPO position.

Call it right, call it wrong. He obviously impressed the command as well as a highly qualified and expierenced Pre-board, and Area board to get the qual.

I guess we could write it off to the "needs of the service". In my opinion, I would say it was just the "right thing to do", and I'm glad whomever gave the final "let them sit" listened and heard the command who sent him and the Master Chief and board mbrs who recommened him to move forward to the Area board.

As for where and who to go to next? If it were me, I would start panning for Gold and Silver! When the above story took place, maybe there was a need. I have to wonder from recent postings pertaining to OIC jobs, I guess my question would be is there currently a need?

Did the mbr sit for a Pre-board? If so, did he pass, was he recommended? If he's been sitting since May, the board is in Apr the following year, a pre-board must have taking place somewhere at sometime. If so, and the mbr passed, I just don't see what it would hurt by requesting a waiver. We are talking about 1 month. If you as the command are recommending him, the pre-board mbrs are recommending him...these are the individuals we are seeking. Why are we not doing what we can to help them be succeed.

CS

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Say, hypothetically your XPO had less than 2 years TIG, and he's been serving as your XPO since May of last year. The board is in April..... isn't that twelve consecutive months? Isn't it at least worth considering? Shouldn't he at least be able to sit for a board that we're begging other people to sit for?

Good God, is this so complicated? If he started serving as XPO on May 1st,
May = month 1
June = month 2
July = month 3
Aug = month 4
Sep = month 5
Oct = month 6
Nov = month 7
Dec = month 8
Jan = month 9
Feb = month 10
Mar = month 11
April 1st = month 12

Make a decision, put him in for it. You are micromanaging this thing to death.

Wray... :cool:

[AMTCM John Long]

Good God, is this so complicated? If he started serving as XPO on May 1st,
May = month 1
June = month 2
July = month 3
Aug = month 4
Sep = month 5
Oct = month 6
Nov = month 7
Dec = month 8
Jan = month 9
Feb = month 10
Mar = month 11
April 1st = month 12

Make a decision, put him in for it. You are micromanaging this thing to death.

Wray... :cool:

Wray,

Picking the fly crap off the horse crap.....

To get 12 consecutive months, if you start on May 1st, you would need to end the following April 30th.:cool:

I get your drift though.

John

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

May to April is not twelve consecutive months.

However, the member is still assigned as XPO and the board's results won't be promulgated till after the member has twelve consecutive months [1 May to 1 May]. This is akin to computations based on a Terminal Base Date.

There will be no action on the members position [XPO] even if the board results in a positive endorsement. The XPO must still be tour complete, with the obvious exception of needs of the service. It just throws a deserving individual into the mix for next round of assignments.

I say fight for your charges.

Present a cogent arguement about the terminal base date and they are a well deserving individual to sit before the board, and you don't write waivers as a routine.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

John,
I really doubt the board members would count the days... If the member was doing a great job at the board, he/she would breeze through.... this may not hold true on a boarder line candidate...

Anyhow, I think I have made my opinions known on this subject, it is getting old... I'll leave it to you guys to figure out...

Sea ya....

Wray... :cool:

[BMC Gene Daigle]

I had one of my BM1's sit for his OCS interview, and since the date of the interview was three days before the required "Number of years" without a "3" on their marks or a "U" for Conduct, he did the interview and had nothing but 7's and a couple of 6's from that interview but was not forwarded to HQ due to the pre-reqs. The same thing took place for a different BM1 to sit for the OIC Pre-Board since he had a "3" on a set of marks in the past, again outside the requirement by only days, was not allowed to sit before the board.

Since the Pre-boards are conducted in mid to late March, the District Board is in April and yes it is splitting hairs. We have a severe shortage of people stepping up to sit before the boards for whatever reason, and a member who is performing well should be given the chance to show what he knows and take the next step in his professional development and his career. At the same time that members OIC should be turning over every stone in sight and then some to ensure that happens. Otherwise we are derelect in our duties as Chiefs, and loose credibility to lead in the eyes of our junior members.

Now playing devils advocate. Since the member has met or is just below the "Minimum requirements" in terms of experience, how long has this member been in the CG and the type of units and certifications the member holds? That may be playing a part of the "Big Picture" those at District is looking at. But you have to ask who is making the decision and what their thought process is for coming to their decisions. Then you come up with viable counter points to minimize their reasoning.

But the moral of the story. Fight for your member. If you feel that it will reflect on that member when he does sit before the District Board, then that reflects a lack of leadership from the Presidant of that board on down to the District CMC. There should be no pre-conceived bias against that member sitting before the board no matter what the situation is.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

I have got to say that this discussion cracks me up in a way. Other threads are all about following policy. It is written in stone. There is no room for "discretion" (and I think everyone knows how I feel about an OIC's discretion). Now this thread is all about turning over every stone for the member. Bend the rules. Make it work if he is worth it. On the other hand, I just have to ask what the message it is that the member is hearing. "Chief will go to bat for me and while I don't fully meet the pre-requisites, if I am a good guy, I can still get what I want when I want it". Don't get me wrong here. I am all for fighting the good fight, but I have learned (well, I am still learning) to choose my battles.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Jim, you really don't see the problem here? What constitutes 12 consectutive months? If it is what Joe suggests, why not word the policy one year or more specifically, 365 consecutive days? And if there can be no waivers, why not put that very clearly right in the policy?

I'm not suggesting we ignore the policy. I don't think people should be allowed to compete for afloat billets if they don't have a DWO letter. I don't think they should be able to compete for ashore billets if they don't have the required coxswain letter.

You and I read the same exact policy, and come up with two different answers. I say any point in May to any point the following April is 12 consecutive months by my math. And where the policy may be set in stone, if two people can honestly interpret it two different ways, it isn't all that clear. Add to that, we aren't talking about ignoring the policy if it doesn't meet our interpretations, we're talking about getting a waiver for that hard charger..... and we're pointing out the waivers have already been granted. Poilcy... set in stone. Waiver written on paper. Stone = Rock. Paper beats rock........ those are the rules brother...

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

The precedent has been set. Why are some items in the SWE calculated based on a TBD [Terminal Base Date] and not other things? Is that policy of using a TBD violating the other policy of having x months or x years TIG and TIS for advancement? I realize the time delay between actual competition [exam] and advancement plays into this issue. In the example Stuart gave we also have a time delay between the board and actions [selection for command] based on the boards results. Can someone explain the difference on why TBD is good for one and bad for the other?

The CG is consistently inconsistent.

What good are your anchors if you can't take them out for a test drive for the good of your charges, or in this case, a hard charging individual.

[BMCS Ian McVicker]

If the member is close to the requirement as set forth in the policy, and deserves the request, then by all means I would submit a waiver request. I would consider the same if they were very close on a SWE requirement, and we know they have been granting those waivers. Now, this is obviously the exception and not the rule, and I'm talking a month or two...anymore than that they can wait till next go around.

The point has been made before that we are looking for folks to step up to the plate, and if a member is very motivated then back them up. Bottom line for me though is if the member deserves it and has put forth the effort, and not about just fighting some battle to set an example to the member.

I would let the Sector know the situation before the pre-board, and once the member passed and had the recommendation, submit a waiver request to the District/Area board President. With the number of folks that sit the board today and actually pass it, I doubt the board President would have an issue.

It does sound in parts of this thread like we are trying to find ways to massage that policy to make it work for us. If you have to work at making a policy work for you, it's probably wrong. 12 consecutive months means 12 full months in consecutive order.

I do find entertaining the advise to just let it ride and hope it doesn't get caught...That's exactly the professionalism and example we want to set for our future OinC's:rolleyes: We can just file that under "Actions and Attitudes that will get you relieved for cause." No big surprise there:cool:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Ian, where are you getting your 12 month definition from?

Say it was the District who questioned his eligibilty. Would you talk directly to the board President, or go through the Badge Network? And if the Board President said no, would you drop it and have the guy come back in six months? What about if the Sector started saying no after they got that first no from the District? If your Sector told you to drop it after they passed the guy through a pre-board.... which way do you go?
Couldn't the Sector change their recommendation after the fact? If they came back and sided with the District decision, do you even have an option?

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

OK, I've played devils advocate long enough.

What I would go is to make my case to the Sector of the people in my chain that shot him down. If the answer is still "no", then accept it and move on for the next six months. This isn't a career defining moment for him, and if you continue down a slippery slope, it will not be good for you either. It is a waiver you are requesting after all. It is not like this is something he is being screwed out of. Remember what a "waiver" is? It is a deviation from the normal course. If the Captain says he wants to stay on track, then stay on track. Just as long as the track does not take you over a shallow rock. I don't believe it would in your scenerio.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

Stu, I would most likely go to the program manager through the district president, memo. The president does not have to approve a waiver but he does have to forward it. You could even send an advanced copy to the program manager. I would use the badge network if needed but would also engage the RFMC. We should fight for our folks, i would. In your hypothetical situation, if the BM1 is going to complete 12 months and complete another 12 before he can leave/rotate, which in this case he would, it is acceptable to waive the requirement. Now same situation and he onlt has 9 or 10 months, try the next cycle. The CG says not enough people go through the board, so we split hairs over a couple of weeks? Counter productive IMO. Besides, who is to say he would pass.

Now as far as a grudge, send him to another district. There is not a requirement to attend in your district. Say it is my XPO in dubuque, New Orleans is farther away than say Milwalkee or detroit. So why not save the travel money and send a candidate to D9?

[BMCS Ian McVicker]

Ian, where are you getting your 12 month definition from?

Say it was the District who questioned his eligibilty. Would you talk directly to the board President, or go through the Badge Network? And if the Board President said no, would you drop it and have the guy come back in six months? What about if the Sector started saying no after they got that first no from the District? If your Sector told you to drop it after they passed the guy through a pre-board.... which way do you go?
Couldn't the Sector change their recommendation after the fact? If they came back and sided with the District decision, do you even have an option?

Consecutive: one after the other

For the mbr to SERVE 12 consecutive months, they have to serve all 12 months. You can't say the member served that 12th month if it's only been a few days into it. I think your trying to stretch it to far. If you think the wording is confusing, put in a change request, but it seems pretty cut and dry for me.

As far as your other question goes, I would deal with the chain, and if needed talk to the Gold Badge. If the board President says no, then it's a dead issue, and you tell the member to go back next board cycle. Like I said before, I doubt the board President is going to say no. I'm not talking about the folks in whatever office are putting the board together, I'm talking about the board President.

If the Sector switches there recommendation after passing him at the pre-board, well I'd still push the issue...but, the reality is that the Sector, mbr and their CO/OinC should know the policy, and whether the member meets it or not. Now, we both know that the Sector folks don't always know all the requirements to sit for the board, or specific sections, but there are other folks in that process as well.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Burt, you making the arguement to send him to D9 to save money only works if you suggest that before D8 says no. After D8 says no........ if Ian thought I was stretching things thin, you're making waffers.......
What good is getting a waiver if you alienated the board President? If he's already opposed to having your guy sit, don't you kinda have to change his mind before the board starts? You don't really want your guy sitting across the table from someone who doesn't believe he has earned the right to be there.
I wouldn't rule out looking at sending him to another District, but I'd let the guy know that the Coast Guard is really small, and people talk. Even if he was accepted and did certify, there are going to be people who want to attach an asterick to his accomplishments. I'd like to think that I'd keep fighting, but at this point, I'd start to question what I'm trying to prove.

Ian, scenario....... you have a guy who started to fill the designated XPO billet for six months at his previous unit before he transferred out and came to be the XPO at your unit. How much leave could he take enroute before you felt that his "consecutive" time has to start over? Where would you go for guidance on that? His "consecutive" sea duty keeps going as long as there isn't a 30 day break, right?
My problem is with the wording. As a child we weren't allowed to play "hot potato" .... so I never learned to let things go. I think if they meant one year, they should have said that.
As far as the Sector recanting a recommendation.... how could you argue that? Where could you argue that? It's their recommendation to give. It would be like if they said no to your XPO initially. Your guy needs that to go on to District in the first place.

I think my case would have ended with the Board President. If I called him and he told me no, I'd use my "but Sir, card". If he trumped that, I'd tell my guy, this was all my fault, but he's the one that's going to have to pay for my short comings. Hopefully he's a better person for the experience, and we'll do this all again in six months.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

If one feels the policy needs to be more specific, then write to the Policy Manager with your suggestions.

One cogent arguement outlining the positives for the CG could end with a policy change.

Then the board president is a moot point as they will have to follow the promulgated policies.

XPO tour to XPO tour with leave inbetween might be counted as consecutive, otherwise we would have to discount any leave by an XPO in their first twelve consecutive months.

[DCCS Todd Holcomb]

"Rules is rules and standards is standards." Don't matter if a member is 1 day short or 1 lb over if they don't meet the requirement they don't!!!!!!!!!. It shouldn't matter whether they are a good guy or not. Standards should be enforced uniformly across the board. Are there things we can do for our stellar performers? sure but we can't change the standards/instruction/regulations, etc. at our discretion...


Todd

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

"Rules is rules and standards is standards."

Both rules and standards can and do change when you use them for your benefit and against those higher in the food chain.

Unfortunately humans wrote the standards and rules, subject to their interpetation. Rules and standards that have open ended interpetations either have to be clarified or modified.

Stating "rules are rules and standards are standards" would be great if there is consistency in the rules are rules. Unfortunately, there isn't. That nasty ol' needs of the service will creep in and trump anything.

Rules are rules and standards are standards is akin to "because I'm the Chief." Both phrases need investigation.

I once had a Lt Commander tell me that it had to work one way because that's what a CG instruction stated so. I told him the author of that statement was wrong and if the commander didn't believe me, the author is standing right here in the room and you can ask him if that was the only way it could possibly work.

So, since rules are rules and standards are standards, should those that are wrong remain as rules and standards? If that were the case, where are all the stewards? Rules are rules after all.

I take it you don't give out many fives or above on the EPEFs.

[BMC Gene Daigle]

If Instructions were so black and white, we wouldn't need Chiefs. We would just need people who are literate in the CG. There are few Instructions that are so cut and dry, black and white, such as the Uniform Regs. Look at how marks are done. Look at how awards are handed out. Person to person, Unit to unit, District to District, interpretation is different, and so are the shades of grey. I read 12 consecutive months just as Master Chief does. From May to April is 12 months. Even convicted criminals can sometimes get lighter sentences due to mitigating circumstances. And we can't even debate the shades of grey in this scenario? The world is painted in grey. Once you realize that, changes for the better can be made.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

I looked at the back of my LES and it had my sea time broken down into Years, Months and Days. Using your logic, reporting June 30th 1994 and departing May 1st 1996 should be 3 years. 1994, 95, 96. Or at least 2 full years. Then reporting again April 15, 1998 and departing April 2001 would be another 4 years... That would be 7 years sea time. Why does my LES say 4 years, 11 months, 7 days? Where is my permanent cutterman's pin? I have accomplished all the other requirements. Where is my "waiver"?

A waiver should be the exeption, not the rule. Else why have instructions?

If this guy is truly that fabulous and there is a "service need", then a waiver should be granted. Otherwise, stick to the policy and don't try to "sea lawyer" it. It reminds me of a situation several years ago when a statement was made to the effect, "it depends on what your interpretation of 'is' is."

[CMC Bruce Bradley]

Sorry but if we keep beating all the horses until they are all dead, who will be left for The Kentucky Derby next month?

[DCCS Brett Wickett]

Stu, according to Webster. You asked what a consecutive month was. I can't believe no one gave the answer. So now do I win? This whole thing had nothing to do with anything except wondering what a consecutive month was, correct? After all this was not a true story, right?
Hey, I'm a DC, what can I say. :)

CONSECUTIVE: following one after the other in order

MONTH: a measure of time corresponding nearly to the period of the moon's revolution and amounting to approximately 4 weeks or 30 days or 1⁄12 of a year

Brett

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Brett, so you're saying 12 consecutive months should be read as 365 consecutive days? (except for leap years)

Jim, you bring up so interesting points. First, from your LES, that means it time for you to get back on a cutter. Second, I wasn't asking for a waiver. I still read it as he wouldn't need one.
But while we're argueing about times, your 4 years 11 months might have actually only been 4 years 4 months without ever having gone in the hole. You could have shown up on the first cutter with 60 days on the books, taken that leave while attached to the unit and you get another 30 days over the next five years,.....that's 7 months that you were on leave for and still got credit for. That's looking at doing the sea time consecutively. Spread those 5 years out over that 20 year career, and you could have skipped out on 4 months per two year tour.

You want to think about something....... two BM1's show up at the same unit, one is in the designated XPO billet the other one isn't. The one who is has back issues, and though assigned to the designated billet, isn't actually the one filling it. The other guy is the one doing the XPO job, but he isn't getting the credit for it. The board rolls around, both are fit for full duty and asking to sit........... who if any gets the recommendation?

[BMCS Nick Pupo]

Given your scenario I’d say one, both or neither of them, depending on if they were deserving(able to do the job) of the recommendation. If one is fully qualified to sit then that’s easy, if one isn’t then ask for a waiver.
The DCCS said “rules and rules and standards are standards”. I agree with the statement, but being a Chief means, to me, that if we have the power to help somebody then the “rules or standard” can be “waived” to help a person who wants to succeed. If we don’t do that then in my opinion it’s being pretty judgmental. If we’re not willing to help our people regardless of the policy in place then we have failed as leaders. Everything is waiverable, it’s just a matter if the person deserves the work from his/her Chief and is that Chief willing to go to bat for that person.
Here are two examples.
1) FSC puts in for OCS- Not enough college credits, so does not meet the minimum requirements to attend OCS. Gets the recommendation from his supervisor, excellent recommendation written and he gets his recommendation any way. Goes to OCS does a good job and retires as a LCDR.
2) MK3 worked with me at Montauk, who holds a commercial license to work on airplanes. Does not score well enough on the ASVAB to attend AMT School,. I contact the AMT RFMC, put his entire package together and the RFMC says yes to the waiver. Later decides he does not want to work on airplanes, so what. He was worth the effort and we worked to get him the waiver.

Again, on the “rules are rules, standards are standards” comment. To me that’s a pretty hard line to follow without ever giving a person the benefit of the doubt.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Why does my LES say 4 years, 11 months, 7 days?

Because you're a sand-peep???

----------------------------------------------------------

And now the rest of the story...

My XPO sat for the Sector OINC review board and was recommended to go to the District board. 5 days before the district board, they sent an email saying that he was not eligible because he had not been an XPO for 12 consecutive months (he didn't meet the 2 year BM1 requirement).

I immediately engaged my Sector and apologized for my oversight on his time requirement, but felt he should still be able to sit. I told them that he had signed his relief letter in May and April should be his 12th consecutive month. I also told them that I thought waivers had been granted in the past for this sort of thing. Sector engaged district and they wouldn't budge on their position. I couldn't understand why they wouldn't entertain a waiver, but they didn't seem to want to go that route. I ended up talking to district and providing them with my input. They told us they would let us know. Later that day, they sent a message via CGMS informing the BM1 that he would not be able to sit. I couldn't believe it for several reasons. The main reason is that this wasn't the BM1's fault...I had not caught it and neither had the Sector. I felt that he earned the chance to sit and if he didn't meet the "grey" interpretation of the 12 consecutive months, district should approve a waiver because he was so close and it was caught at the last minute.

I then engaged the BM RFMC, Office of Boat Forces and the CMC. I was looking for clarification of the policy and whether a waiver could be requested. I was told that yes a waiver could be submitted. What was frustrating to me was that everyone I talked to thought he should be able to sit, but district wouldn't budge.

The next morning, the Sector CO sent an email to the district asking for them to reconsider. Without getting into too many details, the district did reconsider and allowed the BM1 to sit for the review board. Sector initiated a waiver and was approved by the Office of Boat Forces. I was told that district reconsidered after thinking about the need for high-performing BM's to sit for the board and the lack of others stepping up and even trying to certify. I commend the district for changing their mind, this is often a hard thing to do after such a public decision had already been made.

This afternoon, my XPO sat for the district board and certified for everything except MM Afloat. The pool of available candidates just got a little deeper because people used good leadership in dealing with this situation and ultimately district practiced great leadership by reconsidering their position.



I know this was lengthy and for that I apologize. A couple of questions were raised as a result of this.

Why is there a time limit for BM1's? Why does there have to be a time limit if they are recommended and pass a sector board? Why does a time limit matter? Why is 2 years and 12 months the magic numbers?

[BMC Gene Daigle]

CMC Bradley,

The horses will never be dead. I can just go to Hallandale when we are done here.

As for giving the members "the benefit of the doubt". That use to be the stations motto when I first reported. Everyone was given the benefit of the doubt, but it came at a cost in the long run, especially dealing with good order and discipline. There is a fine line between the hard line, "the rules are the rules, and the standard is the standard" mindset, and the "benefit of the doubt". Something that has taken me a long time to learn is when to pick and choose those battles, and who to battle for and has come at a cost in the short and long term career path. But if I had to lean one way or the other, it would be towards the benefit of the doubt, since that is what everyone wrote in my "Words of Wisdom", which was "To take care of your people".

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Congrats to your XPO. I guess he showed that the extra three weeks or extra four months wouldn't have made a difference,.... and either you're ready or you're not.
I think it might be time to revisit the issue. I understand the thought process about TIG for advancements,...... but I think the board process negates the need when using it for OinC certifications.

[DCCS Todd Holcomb]

Joe,

You can assume whatever you like about what my guys "earn" on their evals, and yes they get what they "earn" not what I give them. And believe it or not some of them "earn" sevens:eek:

Now back to the rules and standards, maybe I should've broken it down into lawyer speak or whatever, I didn't and still can't.

No matter what, as long as there is a standard that standard and or rule, regulation etc will state whether a waiver is allowed or not. If it is, then fine submit one if not try and submit one anyway but don't be surprised when it doesn't come back the way you want it to. That's the problem we don't make the policies, we may have input, but the name on the policy is some one higher in paygrade than us, so our job is to enforce those policies. Is there wiggle room in a policy sure, but again some people think the policy don't apply to them. It does, it may not have been enforced but the policies apply to all of us except our retired brethren. But you guys have rules too.

I am all about helping out my shipmates and if I can get one a waiver for whatever, I will but if I can't then the member and me can't be pissed because it didn't go through.

I'm not saying don't help our members out, I'm just saying that the written standard is just that, the standard. I also see where Master Chief Slesh was coming from as far as intrepreting the written standard. Thats where people way smarter than me come in...

Anyway, that's my .02

Todd

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

Todd,

The choice between hard line "rules are rules" and "standards are standards" leave much open. One could take the approach that if there is no language stating no waivers, then everything is open for a waiver.

Yes, things may need clarifying from time to time. During those times, the CPOs should be in the forefront pointing out those muddied issues and recommending a solution.

The hard line "rules are rules" and "standards are standards" really does play when it's time to do evaluations. Hard line interpeters of the standard don't give out glorified fours (the five), yet alone a six or a seven. I have given out a seven to a PO3 when the "new" marking system was first used. He deserved it, even though he had a medial recommendation of "don't send him isolated" ... and it was an isolated station where he earned that seven.

I'd like to see this issue go the way of the Terminal Base Date, especially for those who screen well at the sector board. There probably are OIC billets for PO1 still around. That leads to the interesting question of the PO2 XPO in this scenario.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

Stu, as to your earlier post and Deane's recent one, yes I would have gone above the District Presidents head much the way Deane did. The District OINC board President can not rule on a waiver on a process he is not the owner of. Here, as I stated, the owner, Boat Forces, made the decision. The President can make a recommendation but he still had the responsibility ti forward that request. You could say the same thing about the Sea time requirement for advancement, only PSC can waive that requirement(or some other entity in EPM) but you get the point. I am glad it worked out that way. The CG can't say we dont get enough candidates and then not give someone a waiver that is clearly ready.

Deane, I think the 12 month requirement could be done away with. My first board I was 12 motnhs to the day and wanted to go 6 months prior too but could not. I would think if a OINC/CO thinks you are ready and you pass a pre-board you are ready for the district board.

Good job Deane and congrats to John. Damn proud of that boy!

[BMCS Nick Pupo]

Deane, dont know the kid but Burt speaks highly of him. Tell him congrats from me.
N

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Burt, the Board President made a decision after reading the written standard. They read it like many people here have, 12 months is 12 "full" months, 365 days, or one year. I read it differently. They read it to mean no waivers were possible for BM1s to sit for the board. I read it to mean no uncertified BMCs can get a waiver to sit for the SWE. He didn't rule on the waiver. After Deane called in the cavalry, they agreed to accept a waiver if HQ approved one.
This story has a happy ending, the BM1 got certified and is set to compete through E-9. That was only possible because everyone was willing to talk. People were willing to resolve this in a very short period of time. If anyone in the chain decided to shut down communications we'd be talking about this in the fall.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Deane,

I have one word for you... ELDERBERRY.

Congrats to your BM1.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

I have one word for you... ELDERBERRY.




That hurt...

[BMCS Burt Ford]

Stu, under your logic, if I request a waiver for seatime for advancement, the Pers CWO at a sector can rule on it and that request does not have to be forwarded. Or is just OINC board presidents that can rule on waivers?

My point was basically what you said, everyone talks. The president asked for help and got it. If a message was sent prior to that from the district, they werent talking. The owners of the program were engaged and the problem solved.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Burt, I'm saying they said no, he can't sit. Deane was arguing that the policy isn't as clear as they were saying it was and the BM1 was entitled to sit. They came back and said they were reading the policy to mean he can't, but they would allow him to put in a waiver.
The Board President didn't rule on the waiver, they originally made their decision based on the policy itself, never ruled on the waiver.

Even the policy owner, said something to the fact that if everyone up to him approved the waiver, ...he would seriously consider endorsing it. The way I read his comments was that the final decision still laid with someone else.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

I think we are attacking this issue form different perches. Same results though. Guess thats the beauty of net working an issue!