Is Seniority as Much a Problem as Juniority?

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

In the "lowering the standards" thread, a couple of posts got me thinking about the problems of seniority.

I can tell you from personal experience, that the more years I accumulate in service, the less I know. I couldn't step into my XPO's job today without significant re-training, I wouldn't be nearly as effective on deck as my BM3 1st Lt., and it's been years since I've had to compute time/speed/distance in my head.

I've lost a lot from inactivity. And, truthfully, I don't care to re-learn any of it.

We've discussed senior people being "afraid" of stepping up into an OIC or any other responsible position because they don't want anyone to know how little they actually know about their rate/specialty/whatever. I think that's partly accurate, but the real reason us "old timers" don't step into new situations is that we simply don't want to put forth the effort to learn something new.

Look around at the senior E-7s, E-8s, and E-9s that you know. I'll bet that 90% of them having been doing the same type of job for 2-3 tours, and have no intention of doing something else.

Those senior E-6s and junior Chiefs aren't the problem. Most of them are still willing to stay in the learing curve and expand their horizons. The real problem lay with the rest of us.

[FSC Richard Kuffler]

It sounds like the old saying "I've forgotten more than you've learned" fits here. I don't see that as a necessary problem. If I were able to retain 100% of what I've learned, while still picking up new skill-sets, I wouldn't be where I am, but would be leading a think-tank! I am not about to do that!

When you advance, you have to manage a larger slice of the pie, which takes you out of much of the details which incorporates your rate. It's natural to lose track of some skills which you don't use regularly. You're losing knowledge, but gaining wisdom. You know what doesn't work, and can save your crew trouble by keeping them away from problem areas and pitfalls. You know what does work, and guide them in that direction. That's the job of our "Seniority", to guide and oversee.

The problem exists when our Senior folks refuse to listen to their crew in the belief that they "know everything". These junior folks are actually doing the jobs we're supervising, and can clue us into new problems or solutions which we haven't run across, and with our wisdom, we can determine the correct path to take.

They look to us for guidance and wisdom, while we look to them for their knowledge. At least that's the way I see it. But hey, I'm one of the guys who's forgoten quite a bit, so who knows!! Where do I work again?!? ;)

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I see the real problem with seniority is when it gets to that comfortable level. The level when people stop learning, stop caring, stop trying, and just coast. No guard. When people refuse to get with the times, they need to get out of the way. Not only can they drag others down, but they're filling a billet that someone more mobile wants.
As in the case of those BMCs who won't sit for OinC positions....retire, get out, let the younger BMs advance into your billet. Don't let your unwillingness to advance prevent others from Reaching Higher.
I can't even remember all of the things that I've forgotten......but I always learn what is required of me in my new job or position.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Stuart-
I probably hit my learning plateau (in regards to the CG) sometime in the past couple of years. It's not that I can't learn anymore, it's simply that I don't want to.

I'm at that comfortable level you defined. But, be careful about lumping those of us slowing down because we're getting near the end of the run, with those that never really got into the race.

Most of the OICs that I've met on these river tenders are not interested in doing anything else. If they can't get subsequent tours, they will retire. They've stopped learning about anything other than mission-specific information, they've stopped trying to keep up on other things going on in the CG, and they don't really care about those things anyway.

Although they meet the criteria of your definition, they've paid their dues to the "Entitled to Some Respect" club. Even if they are sitting in jobs that more ambitious BMs would like to have, and are holding up advancements by not retiring, they are also enjoying the fruits of many many years of labor. They are entitled to be comfortable for awhile.

Having said that, my original point still holds true. Our senior enlisted reach a point, where their abilities and focus becomes more narrow, and they aren't able to fulfill all of the billets that they should. I'm not sure if the CG needs to realign its expectations, or we need to remind our senior workforce what those expectations are.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Dennis, I think that you're reading me wrong. I don't have a problem with people getting comfortable in their job and not wanting to do other things. I'm one of them. But I, like they, get the job done. I don't think that people need to be certified across the board. But you should always be working to ensure that you are eligible for advancement. People who have EARNED a position shouldn't step aside simply because someone faster or younger wants a crack at it. But once you are no longer willing to do what is required of you, give the reins to someone else. I know many useful people who work only AtoN or only SAR and have no desire to do anything else. I have no problem with that, as long as they do the job that they sign on for. My problem is with the people out there that think that they have "earned' the right to do nothing.
I don't think that my professional focus has become more narrow. My personal focus sure has. I have more professional responsibilities now, than in any time in my carreer. I am doing a great disservice to everyone around me if I fail to do my job.
Retirement was created for people who have put it their time and no longer want to work.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Ok. I agree, then.

[BMC STOCKER]

Senior Chief Endicott,

Your remarks are a bit perplexing to me especially in light of the fact that the senior folks you speak of, sit on the OIC review boards and ask the questions E-6's and Chiefs are supposed to be learning the answers to at that XPO position. Example you ask, why I'd be glad to: at my OIC board they suggested I groom myself by getting another XPO job which I have. I see their point about the XPO job MAKING me learn what I need to in order to become certified but what can I take away from these senior folks you speak of?

Having said that, I have worked for people with the characterisitics you speak of but I believe they are selling themselves short because in one way or another I ended up learning something of value from them.

What's my point, I don't really know but it all made sense when I was writing this. Thanks for listening.

BMC Stocker

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Don- You were kind of rambling there, but I think I picked up your points.

I didn't say that those OICs weren't chock full of knowledge and experience. They are perfectly qualified to sit at on OIC review boards. They are the "river experts" and many of them are general aton experts.

But, I believe if you ask anyone of them what the current policy is concerning carrying non-lethal weapons, or have them list the operational limitations of a MLB, or even have them do their XPO's job for a week- they'd be hard pressed to do so.

They are experts at what they do. But, most (if not all) of them, aren't interested in learning new things.

The Coast Guard does not recognize a BM-Aton rate. But, in reality, that is exactly what we have. Again, my original point holds true. Our senior people narrow their abilities and focus to the point where they cannot realistically fill many of the jobs that the service expects them to.

If I'm wrong, show me how.

[BMC STOCKER]

Dennis,

So as of right now, you would only be able to leave your current job type for the same job type at a different location and no other. I believe not. I applaud your effort in trying to motivate some of these senior enlisted to action or at least trying to identify a potential shortfall. In my book, ANY BMCS or BMCM is fully qualified to ask me questions at a review board, they have earned my respect by their position and experiences.

So what is the answer? Do old dogs need to start learning new tricks? I truly believe part of your feelings for yourself and some of your peers comes from the workload that is being placed back on your shoulders. Gone are the days of the "whetsones for a dull knife". When OIC's feel like they are supporting the supposed support mechanisms and having to deal with what seems like a new requirement on a weekly basis, there surely shall be disillusionment and dismay. Yes we live in different times and there is a need for some change but when will we stop being the FIRST to make change without trying to foresee the outcome of that change such as HYT and CFTRR. We caused our own problems with juniority and seniority by not thinking about the consequences that lay ahead. I just see some folks who are at or near the extreme overload point and this may cause what you perceive.

Sorry for straying again but I believe all I wrote may have some relevance.

Don

[OSC Thomas Jackson]

Richard, I agree with most of what you said about some of the Senior personnel not wanting to listen to the Junior personnel, and I agree that this is a mistake. At my last unit, I served as a Communication Watch Officer (CWO) and I supervised anywhere from 8 to 13 people in my watch section. As you may or may not know, their have been a lot of changes to the communications field especially during my nearly 5 years at my last unit. As the CWO, I was expected to know every aspect of the watch in order to properly supervise the watch. Sometimes this was nearly impossible, since I was also in charge of doing their performance marks, dealing with everyday problems with my personnel, trying to figure out the new Command Policy, and working on various other projects. Whenever possible I tried to sit down with the watchstanders and learn the changes that were made, but since I was not in a position where I actually used the equipment on a daily basis, a lot of what I learned was not retained. After a while I reached the burn out stage.
It is important to listen to your subordinates, because they can give you a more detailed view of what is actually going on and it helps build their confidence in themselves knowing that their opinion matters.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Don- ask your OIC what he thinks. See if I'm not right.

[BMC John Phillips III]

"during my nearly 5 years at my last unit........ After a while I reached the burn out stage."

Tom, don't take this the wrong way because it is strictly an observation. I find that a lot of times people tell you things without intending to. I got the rest of your point and it's a valid one, but look at the two lines that stood out for me. 5 years and burn out stage. I can see that happening very easily. The most I have ever done at a unit was 3.5 yrs. I would not say I was approaching burn out stage but I had maxed out on my potential at that unit. Now I am at a similar unit (WLIC) and I love the job and since my crew is almost to where I want them to be, I am approaching what I perceive as my pinnacle. Of course I could always get more time on the stick and become a better boat driver, but really that only betters me and what seems to be a recurring discussion around here and within the Coast Guard is what are we as Chiefs doing to better our subordinates. (man I am starting to think I am getting on a soapbox now). Ok, I had to stop and reread to get back on track and I am not sure if I am there yet but let me try and finish. OK so what I was getting at was I guess that's the reason that they limit our tours, it's for our own good. I can see there being an issue with some of the over 30's (TIS) maybe getting a little out of touch but I don't see many of them getting relieved for cause or seeing too many people complaining that they are just that far out of touch. So until some of us step up, I guess they will keep them around.

To answer BMCS's question, Seniority is just as much a problem as Juniority. Me being the positive thinker that I am though, I would say our problems are never as bad as we make them out to be. Quick real life analogy, a few days ago, I pulled over to help a guy with a flat tire. He had busted the rim with no spare, I offered him a ride to the nearest service station. On the way he was talking about it being a bad time to happen, I said there never is a good time for things like that to happen. As we continued we passed a guy with his hands spread out on the front of a police car, I said it could be worse, you could be that guy. OK, now I am laughing at my own jokes again, but I guess what I am trying to say is we (the Coast Guard) have some issues right now but we will work through them. I still see the Coast Guard staying a few steps ahead of all the other services. We will continue to be the finest seagoing service in the world.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Strictly answering Dennis' question....the problem with seniority is greater. If our senior people still cared enough to do the right thing, there would be no juniority issues. People would not be advanced beyond their abilities if the senior people in charge would say, "You're not ready, NOT recommended."

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

5 years = burnout. I thank my lucky stars that I opted out of the surfman program when I did. I talk to some of my surman friends and "wow". More power to them. I agree with Stu's comments. People have got to be ready to fill the shoes when they advance. This is not to say that they won't make mistakes or have room to grow, but they need to be able to do the job. One thing I can take away from my 2 years at the MLB station is that (at least at the unit I was at) it does not matter how well you can drive a boat if you don't have enough years of experience. Some may call it "paying your dues" (I certainly did), but I think that there is some validity to that. I didn't much like it then, but I appreciate it now. Maybe with age and experience does come wisdom. Hmmm something to think about.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

I hope what we're talking about here is senior enlisted that are just focused on their operational units, and not other operational units. In other words, if I'm on a WLR and I'm only concerned with those operational issues/policies/etc that effect my job (ATON), I'm not necessarily going to keep up on the latest and greatest MM policies/issues/etc. What worries me (Dennis, if I read your post correctly) is that these senior enlisted aren't keeping up on general CG issues/policies/etc. If that's the case, that's wrong. Maybe these people have "Checked Out" because they "don't care" or "don't want to learn" new things, but they're responsible to their people. Their people haven't checked out. They're not doing their BM3 or DC2 any service by not keeping up on current CG policies. They're setting their shipmates up for failure.

[FSC Richard Kuffler]

BMCS Stuart S. Slesh Quoted:
If our senior people still cared enough to do the right thing, there would be no juniority issues. People would not be advanced beyond their abilities if the senior people in charge would say, "You're not ready, NOT recommended."

Senior Chief Slesh, you are correct. Far too may people are being advanced beyond their ability, and that is a problem, but it is not indicitive of the "seniority" as a whole, at least in my opinion.

In every operation, civilian and military alike, you get the problem of "incompetance breeding incompetance". If you advance a person who is not ready, and does not have the ability needed, they will not be able to adequately determine that someone is unqualified to be advanced, yet they become the person in charge of recommending that "unqualified" person for advancement. If I don't know enough about my position to tell whether someone is qualified or not, the easy way out is recommending them. If I don't, I will have to explain why and defend my position. Someone above their ability will most likely not be able to do this.

What you also end up with is a situation in which they won't want a person succeeding in their "shop" who is qualified, since that will make them look bad. That "qualified" person will most likely be kept down, persecuted, and driven out, either of the shop, or the Coast Guard as a whole. I don't want someone showing me up, so I'll nit-pick them to death and belittle them, so I look better. Unfortunately, I've seen this attitude before, and luckily I haven't been on the receiving end, and darn sure won't be on the giving end either!

Now, that being said, is this a problem of the great majority of our Senior folks? I don't believe so. I've seen this, but not on a service-wide scale. I do agree with the fault lying more with our Seniority, since they're the ones guiding our direction, although I don't think that fault , or problem, is an epidemic by any means. We need to watch out for problem signs, and when we see them, shine some light on it. Get these folks out in the open, and have them explain themselves.

I hope I wasn't rambling too much! :o

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Some excellent points, Richard.

[BMC STOCKER]

Dennis,

Glad to be back, I missed hearing all the good responses. I told my OIC about your thoughts on this thread and he agreed with most of what I stated. Yeah he says he doesn't remember half the stuff he learned but he spews it out five minutes later like he is a talking owners manual.

I suggest then that we tell future OIC's at boards what they will be forgetting in the future instead of expecting them to know everything about everything. If you look at the big picture, would you really trust someone to take over a unit just based on asking them questions? How do they work at their unit, are missions being accomplished, are crewmembers succeeding or failing and most importantly why (is it the prospective OIC at fault or the crewmember?) Antiquidated thinking produces antiquidated results. We need a change in regards to the OIC process now.

We continue to build our seniority back one day at a time. Trying to speed up the process can be dangerous. I, for one, am going back to square one for myself and my crew to build that experience.

Don

[BMC STOCKER]

Senior,
B/S to article on seniority, I don't normally read this site nor will ever again ( don't reply to me). I disagree strongly with the statement that we seek similar jobs and could'nt fill our XPO's job. I would and could fill his job if needed because I come to work every day, lead by example as best I can and am not affraid to make mistakes.

I also get out of the pilot house regularly to buoy deck and even out in the small boat. You should try it some time. Try to limit time on the computer and spend it with your crew. I find they appreciate their job a little more by my showing interest in their progress.

BMCM Rahilly with permission from BMC Stocker to use his account to reply.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

...so much for the discussion.

[BMC STOCKER]

Sorry...you wanted me to ask him.

Don

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Don...Tell Master Chief Thanks. Great Post and right on point!

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Personal barbs from those last couple of posts, aside, I don't see that my argument has been effectively disputed.

Until we can recognize that, as senior enlisted personnel, we share some of the responsibilty for the low level of knowledge at the senior enlisted level, we won't be able to fix the problem.

Feel free to reply. I do read this site.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Dennis...I know that you did a self-referrel on this topic, but I wouldn't expect too many more to do the same. And, I wouldn't call any particular group (i.e. WLR OINC's) out like you did before, that's just not very smart.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

I know you wouldn't, Deane.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

You can put me in the same boat as Deane,......again. I have no problem admitting to my short comings or weaknesses, but I don't lop other's in with me, as a general rule.

"I don't see that my argument has been effectively disputed."

I know you don't Dennis, that's part of the problem.

"as senior enlisted personnel, we share some of the responsibilty for the low level of knowledge at the senior enlisted level,"
As senior enlisted personnel we are SOLELY responsible, IF we possess low levels of knowledge at the senior enlisted level. If you don't know how to do your job, learn it. If you're unwilling to do your job, step aside. If you're unwilling to learn new things, point all fingers and lay all blame on yourself.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Dennis...we both know that I'm not afraid to call people out, when needed. I'm just not buying your assessment of the senior enlisted leadership.

Stu...I agree with everything that you've said...again.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

When I first read this thread I looked at it from a purely personal stance......and defended myself, for staying current with the times, and policy changes. I've recently been given the opportunity to do a little research and have come up with some interesting statistics. Interesting to me anyway. I realize that you can always find and read statistics to support either side of an arguement and mine are by no ways scientific. I chose one senior enlisted rate and looked at their SWE results. Now supposing that the SWE was the criteria that the CG was using to select the people that they wanted to advance, I am inclined to agree with Dennis to a certain degree. Using just those SWE results, of the fifteen most senior members of the test rate, only 2 scored higher than the average test. Of the fifteen members in the middle of the the seniority/juniority pool, 7 scored higher than the average test. And of the most junior members of the group that took the test, 11 scored higher than the average test. You can attribute these finding to any number of variables, but the bottom line is, that when competing against the CG written standard, the people with most experience at their job, didn't fare as well as those with the least.

Disclaimer: Your rate and findings may vary.

[BMCS Shawn Vredenburg]

Holy cow, Bryan Rahilly and Don Stocker on the same boat :eek:

Don, please tell your Master Chief hello for me.

Dennis: It takes all types, and you and I certainly have different types of leadership. I am an underway, hands on OIC. I am constantly underway with my crews, challenging them, teaching them, and even learning from them. I come in to man the 2nd (or 3rd) boat for SAR/LE cases. I do time/speed/distance computations in my head several times a week. Yeah, some of the admin stuff has changed so much that I'm out of touch with it. Any time I do peoplesoft I have to call my XPO or persru to figure out how to do something (other than approving marks, I have that one figured out). UTS? I have a password, but I only use it when my XPO or SK2 is over my shoulder telling me what buttons to push. LUFS? Nope, I don't even log on. My SK2 brings me a report once a week.

But, if I were to step into an XPO job, I could learn the paperwork crap in about a week.

It's the more important stuff, like aquiring the necessary operational skills, experience, and knowledge to get the job done safely that takes a long time.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Went back and re-read the first post.. not sure what the origional question was, if there was one, but the fact remains, orders are orders, not invitations.

To me, the detailers should ensure senior people maintain their quals, and if issued orders they don't like, the aother choice is retirement.

I also find it hard to believe there are senior enlisted people that would not want this type of responsibility, although I have seen them over the years... That is, or should have been, what they trained for their entire career.

I wanted and got, OIC assignments from the time I was E-6 thru E-9...

Wray.. :cool:

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

People specializing into certain areas of the Coast Guard only means the Coast Guard is as it has always been. I divided organization of melded organizations.

I once interviewed a WWII era GMC. He began his career as a Surfman on a Michigan LB station. He told me the surfmen did not think much of the Coast Guard. He only transferred to the Coast Guard for advancement. He wound up on Bibb and was at sea protecting a British convoy off Halifax when WWII began.

I am sure the legacy of the old LHS folks remains in the CG in those who only do AtoN and the "M" field of those of the Bureau of Marine and Navigation.

No one has quite figured out how to get them all together.

[MSTCS Jerald P. Motyka]

Actually, Bill, they have figured it out. It's called "Sector". It may be only a year or two old and all the growing pains are still there - but it is a great concept (a rehash of the old "W" idea before we went "O" and "M" in the late '60's) and I think it will go a Loooonnnnng way to take care of the compartmentalization.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

Actually, Bill, they have figured it out. It's called "Sector".

Are there units within a Sector's AOR yet the sector is not the ADCON and OPCON?

Sector might be ADCON.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Wray, you'd be surprised. There are people who successfully certified for OinC and have never sought a positon. The breakdown for BM E-9s is something like 50% OinC afloat, 25% OinC ashore, and 25% other. I hope to stay in the floating 50%. I'm glad we have people who only want the other 25%.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Wray, you'd be surprised. There are people who successfully certified for OinC and have never sought a positon. The breakdown for BM E-9s is something like 50% OinC afloat, 25% OinC ashore, and 25% other. I hope to stay in the floating 50%. I'm glad we have people who only want the other 25%.


Well this brings ya right back to the consecutive OIC tours...

Do ya think the detailer should put them in one, and if they refuse make them retire, or.... just let them take those jobs that the OIC types would not want.

There are pros & cons to both....

Wray.. :cool:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Again, personally, I'm glad someone else wants them. That really started at the point when I made Chief. I'm glad some Chiefs are happy in those offices and on those big white boats. At this point in my career, I'm glad we have a bunch of 8s and 9s that only want 87s. I no longer have the body that can take the beating. I see all the pros to allowing consecutive tours and really don't see the cons. A leader can step into any position, use the resources the service gives them, and successfully do the job. The only thing the service doesn't provide is the desire to succeed.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Actually, Bill, they have figured it out. It's called "Sector". It may be only a year or two old and all the growing pains are still there - but it is a great concept (a rehash of the old "W" idea before we went "O" and "M" in the late '60's) and I think it will go a Loooonnnnng way to take care of the compartmentalization.

Jerald, How about running down the alphabet you listed.

Besides the "Sector" concept is just a rehash of the 1930s "Section" organization. One of the leading factors for the "Sector" came from the action of Sept. 11, 2001.

This action brought out the the "M" folks were not in any form of command situation and there were many sour grapes. This was high-lighted when a station near an "M" unit was run by a BMCS and he had some 80 people under his command and he ran some high tempo operations while the "M" unit sorta twiddled its thumbs.

The culture of "M" was that it did not want anything to do with operations until it became popular and possibly career enhancing. I've had many officers tell me they liked "M" work because it was regulatory and not operational.

The Sector concept is only an organizational function and has nothing to do with cultural relationships that continue to be divided along the lines of the items assimilated over the last 100 years.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

I'm glad some Chiefs are happy in those offices and on those big white boats.

"boats"? See what I mean?

[DCCS Brett Wickett]

Calm down Bill, I just watched the Comdt' on CSPAN and he called them boats also. It is a figure of speach.
At least we aint calling them canoes.

[BMCS Ian McVicker]

I'm glad some Chiefs are happy in those offices and on those big white boats.

Absolutely agree!

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Calm down Bill, I just watched the Comdt' on CSPAN and he called them boats also. It is a figure of speach.
At least we aint calling them canoes.

Not yet, but there is THE Canoe U. at New London. It could be coming.

Frankly, if the senior enlisted are not using proper terminology then how are the young people to learn it. I can see a BMC on a tender telling his deck gang to get the chain into the thingie -- that's a figure of speech too.

I suppose having had to work with things aboard ship that were of an older technology required more percise language. For example, on gavity fall davits, I can see the person in charge say "Let 'er go."

It is one of my pet peeves.

[MSTCS Jerald P. Motyka]

Bill, are you saying that organization doesn't effect cultural actions? From what I've seen, the more removed one part of the organization is kept from another, the more cultural differences there are.

Now that the cycle has come full circle (again?), I am seeing cultural differences beginning to disappear. It's a slow process, but it is happening.
___________________________

And the thing about "boats"... it's kinda like calling folks in the old "M" program "duck scrubbers" or "tree huggers". The term is used as a gentle tease, and all that use it are fully aware that if it's bigger than 65' it's a "cutter". I hear BM's use the "big white boat" comment almost as much as I hear "duck scrubber". We both know it isn't true, but it helps us all from considering ourselves "gods" - or annointed saviors...

It's used to chide ourselves and not take ourselves over-seriously.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Bill, are you saying that organization doesn't effect cultural actions? From what I've seen, the more removed one part of the organization is kept from another, the more cultural differences there are.

Now that the cycle has come full circle (again?), I am seeing cultural differences beginning to disappear. It's a slow process, but it is happening.[quote]

Changing culture takes decades if not hundreds of years. The different cultures of the Coast Guard will remain apart, if not from organizational relationships, then by the overall need of the Coast Guard at large.

The growing number of qualification and speciality insignia is part of it. Was it not sour grapes that "M" got the "pickle fork?"

[quote] And the thing about "boats"... it's kinda like calling folks in the old "M" program "duck scrubbers" or "tree huggers". The term is used as a gentle tease, and all that use it are fully aware that if it's bigger than 65' it's a "cutter". I hear BM's use the "big white boat" comment almost as much as I hear "duck scrubber". We both know it isn't true, but it helps us all from considering ourselves "gods" - or annointed saviors....

I understand ribbing, but to commonly use an incorrect professional term or not use the correct one is improper. "Duck scrubber" is not a professional term. It is as you said it is--a chide.

Evidently, the BMs you heard say it are on shore duty (not land duty) most of the time.

I, for one, never considered myself a "god." I've seen the devil so I know the difference. However, I do consider myself a professional. If I were to use inproper terminology in an article without some preference that it was intentional I would be looked upon as someone who does not know of what I write. This is why I have about seven nautically specific dictionaries in my library. If these don't have what I want, I have other sources such as the companion and lexicons for Patrick O'Brian and C. S. Forester's novel. Both are very useful.

Then there is JCS Pub 2 for more modern military references.

I find it humorous when official CG stories refer to EAGLE as a ship or a cutter.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Bill, its like the difference between a house and a home. Ships are cold and other people drive them. Boats are the thing we go back to when we leave our homes.