Kicked out of the CPOACAD

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Attendance is a requirement for CPOs. If you attended, and a disciplinary issue was so grave as to cause your expulsion...... shouldn't the member be reduced in rate?

[MSTCM Jerald Motyka]

Personally, I don't think there should be a discussion about it... you screw up bad enough that you get bounced from a mandatory level of Professional Military Education, you need to make PO1 again before you return to home station.

The only time it shouldn't happen is when the person goes away in handcuffs - and will make E-I-O-U-one and stay at Hotel Leavenworth for a while.

An Air Force student at the Air Force Senior NCO Academy was promoted (yeah, they promote, not advance), to E-8 in the middle of class, then got a disciplinary release on the LAST day of class for a SECOND CASE of missing an hour of curriculum time after drinking too much. The student went back to their base in disgrace and is being administratively reduced to E-7 and is getting Masted as well. There is no chance that the person will ever see E-8 again. The person is up against their High-year-tenure date as well, so they'll be retiring very soon - at a greatly reduced rate. I'm painfully aware of the details as I was the person's instructor...

In my opinion, a disciplinary release should be career ending, especially for mandatory training for people that are SUPPOSED to be leaders. Dammit, we SET the example!! What example are they setting by getting booted for screwing up? This whole scenario just gets my blood boiling. If it were up to me, I'd reduce them to E-6 and flag their record with a PERMANENT NOT RECOMMENDED. Yeah, it pisses me off...

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Attendance is a requirement for CPOs.

Is this really being enforced? When the Academy started up they started by putting E-9's in it and working their way back to E-8's and eventually, the idea was to have all CPO's attend.. The question is... are they?

Wray... :cool:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Wray,depending on where you're stationed.....yeah, it is being enforced. The Silver or Gold Badge is getting the word out, people are putting in for the course, and.... once they get orders, it isn't as easy to cancel them anymore.
The intent of the People Plans was so successful that the size of the class grew to meet the need and there is a waiting list to attend.

Jerald, as much as I'd like to see the people who are sent home from the CPOACAD held accountable....... I'd move to discharge someone who was kicked out of one of the other service schools for disciplinary actions. I know that as a student of any senior leadership school we're representing CG CPOs, but the people acting out at the CPOACAD are still "in house" issues..... where those attending other schools are "really" representing our service.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

depending on where you're stationed

Hummm that doesn't sound to "across the board" to me.... I guess if this were in fact enforced to the "T", every E-8 and E-9 in the CG would have already attended the Academy., Right?

Are there really that many that get kicked out of the academy? What does it take to get kicked out, other than perhaps the obvious, DUI or?

Wray... :cool:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I don't think we have a single policy that's enforced uniformly across the board...... that is one of the problems we have. As far as E8s and E9s, I think it harder for them to attend.....read harder, not impossible. I was once told that 1 or 2 seats per class was set aside for 8s and 9s to attend, but that E7s took priority to fill seats. I understand that logic. It's a requirement to advance. I haven't heard of anyone getting a waiver because they couldn't get into the CPOACAD or another school.

No I haven't heard of alot of people getting sent home for disciplinary problems. All of the ones that I have heard about involved alcohol on some level. You brought up DUI,...... I think getting a DUI conviction should be automatic grounds for reduction for anyone... if not discharge, based on their paygrade.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Stu, I was around when class 1 formed up at RTC Yorktown. I also remember who was to attend the Academy.. Back then they started it with E-9's... as you say, it would have made more sense to send E-7's, because many of the E-9's that attended did it against their will... they were forced into going... many questioned why should they attend when they would retire in 6 months to a year away. By the way, no, I never attended, only as a guest speaker a few times.

At any rate, the CG, in their infinite wisdom was working their way backwards.. hoping to have every E-9, then every E-8 and eventually all E-7's attending the academy. With that in mind, if there is ONE E-8 or E-9 that has not attended in the last 25 years the academy has existed, there is a major problem with the system...

I wonder why such a simple policy has so much trouble being enforced.:confused: A leadership issue I'd say, how about you?

I'd like to get a number that have been "kicked out" in the last 5 or 10 years.. I can't believe it would be very high.

Wray... :cool:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Wray, they changed the requirements and the intent of the CPOACAD since it's inception. There are still people who were grandfathered in that advanced to E-8 or E9 who never had to attend so they didn't. Those people that were retiring in six months should still have attended.... the CG owed them that. It's a five week course for you. You can apply the stuff they talk about to your life as much as you could to your career.

And I don't think it's a failure of leadership, it's a failure to properly prioritize or emphasize....... The people that need the course the most are allowed NOT to attend and yet allowed to remain in the service. They're allowed to retain their outdated attitudes and allowed to escape the direction the service has gone. We have people who refuse to attend, refuse to adhere to the People Plans and the intent of the MCPO-CG,.... and they are still allowed to seek command positions and they EERs would tell you that they walk on water in the spare time......... The same people that aren't holding them accountable to go would tell you that that person doesn't need the course, when that's not even up for discussion. Everyone E7 and above needs to attend....... simple. And the people that don't should get out and make room for people willing to follow the orders of those appointed above them...... simple. The people that have nothing left to learn, nothing left to give back, should get out, ....todays Coast Guard isn't for them, they should step aside and let someone who wants to follow learn to lead.

[BMCS Jeff Lucas]

Attendance is a requirement for CPOs. If you attended, and a disciplinary issue was so grave as to cause your expulsion...... shouldn't the member be reduced in rate?

Stu, do you consider someone who shows up over their MAW and getting sent home a disciplinary action? If so, should they be reduced in rate?

[BMCS Nick Pupo]

I voted no and heres why.
A Chief from a 270' goes to a Senior Enlisted Academy, while out with some of their classmates on the weekend they get an AI. The decision is made to disenroll them as a discipline issue.
Why should they be held to a higher standard than a Chief at the same unit who gets an AI while that same 270' is tied up in Key West. My point is send them back, but leave the command to decide what happens, to both Chief's.

Now if you ask me what I think should also be done...here it is. Since the person in question has not completed the course, because of discipline. Have the Unit transfer the the cost of travel and per-diem back to the program manager of that particular school. Regardless of the paygrade.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Jeff, no, the weight issues should reflect in their marks, I might even support masting them to recoup the cost of travel..... but I wouldn't reduce them......
I'm talking about something they did that the course deemed worth expelling them for.

Nick, I appreciate that someone on the Nays states their side...... Here's why I see the different in the two AIs, though both are serious and I could argue any CPO getting an AI should be reduceable...... remember I started out in the Army where most people E-5 and above that were busted, were busted back to E-4, thought being they weren't worthing of being an NCO...
But, we're back to "in house" issues. Those guys who got the AI at their unit,.... unit owned issue. Those who got theirs while attending a Senior Leadership Training..... I think the punishment needs to be taken up a notch. They were sent somewhere to better themself for a short period of time.... and couldn't stay out of trouble? If someone were to get in trouble while attending PCO/POinC School.... do you still think they would get their command?
It's like if you had two cases of sexual harassment at you unit, and one of them happened a couple of days after the person recieved their sexual harassment training, or worst yet, while attending the training at the District Office....... with one of them it gets harder to make excuses for....

[BMCS John Brady (Ret)]

Stu,

You asked "Attendance is a requirement for CPOs. If you attended, and a disciplinary issue was so grave as to cause your expulsion...... shouldn't the member be reduced in rate?"

Unless the CPO in question murders someone I doubt this will happen. And even then, I am not convinced, perhaps let him/her finish up.... Then give them a sweet plea deal in which reduction in rate is part of the package. Any other CPO's that knew of murder and didn't step forward to help with investigation would be give another opportunity..... Although the CPO Academy is not in the 8th Dist so maybe they will be sent home.....

JB

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Stu, I can see no reason to have anyone "grandfathered in" after 25 years of existance for the CPO Academy.... Just more of the CG not doing it's job enforcing it's own rules.. you know, just like the weight standards.

Wray... :cool:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Wray, it's a matter of catch up now. We no longer have people "grandfathered", .... but up until a couple years ago the policy still was that people who advanced to E-7 before January 1999 were never going to have to attend. Eventually those who advanced to 8 and 9 without attending will have retired. Add in that we had so many empty seats for so long, we now have a greater need than we're able to fill......... which makes the seats available all that more important, and those people who get sent home took someone else's opportunity.

I haven't seen the numbers lately, but about two years ago there was something like 1500 E-7 and above that hadn't attended? Does someone have the current numbers?

But you can't see a reason? Wray..... why didn't you attend? Think about the excuse you used, and accept that people are still using it today.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Stu, you always have numbers, but yet this has never been answered....

I'd like to get a number that have been "kicked out" in the last 5 or 10 years.. ?

Any ideas on this one?

Wray... :cool:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

We're back to measuring our failures...... I don't think anyone wants to look at those numbers, we just hope the situation self corrects.
When I attended I asked for the number of people put out for weight and was told they didn't compile those numbers, and even if they did, they wouldn't be released.
I've seen lists of people in the local area that haven't attended the CPOACAD. I would think that it would be easy enough to pull up the information if you had that type of Direct Access priviledges. I would have thought that the Badges would be engaged in who has and hasn't attended, and would have input on their EERs........ but I don't know if that's happening.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

We're back to measuring our failures...... I don't think anyone wants to look at those numbers, we just hope the situation self corrects.
When I attended I asked for the number of people put out for weight and was told they didn't compile those numbers, and even if they did, they wouldn't be released.

First off I do not believe for one second the numbers have not been compiled... but, you said just for weight... what about alcohol, other reasons?

Apparently this is not a big problem or the CPO Academy would have taken steps in this direction already.

With that said I'll bow out and let you guys have at it... sounds like a moot point to me.

Wray... :cool:

[HSC Chris Fly]

I answered "no", my reasons are similar to Nick's I think.

You can't across the board say a member will be reduced if they recieve a disciplanary expulsion. That would be like saying anyone that gets an AI will be reduced one rank and fined $$$. Nothing can ever be that black and white, if it was we wouldn't need Captain's Masts the YNs could just process the paperwork by using a matrix chart.

Each incidence needs to weighed on it's own merits to determine what the outcome will be. I have no idea what occurances you are referring to, but I do believe a Chief should be held to a higher standard and may well deserve to make PO1 again....

Chris

[ETCS John Zidek]

I voted yes and I'll tell you why.
1st as CPOs we should be the example.
2nd As a Chief you are not only representing yourself, but all of us.
3rd As a Chief you are also representing your Unit.
4th As Chiefs we should be held to a higher standard, by ourselves and others.
5th In order for the CPOAcad to kick someone out for a disciplinary reason it would have to be a pretty serious offense, one mostly likely worth of a Reduction in Rate regardless of where it happened.
6th If you couldnt keep your nose clean for 33 days odds are you werent keeping it clean at home either.

The bottom line is the CG is paying you to do a job, weither that is drive boats, cook meals, fix stuff, or be a student it is your responsibility to do it to the best of your ability and , yes I will say it, Act Like Big Boys and Girls not high school or college kids.

When you see those MSGs on CGMS that say Chief so and so orders to CPO Acad cancelled due to failure to meet MAW how does it make you feel about your brothers and sisters or yourself? How do you think the junior folks look at us when they see those same MSGs? I can tell you, I hear it from students and staff alike, Look at all these Wide Bodies wearing anchors that arent following the MAW policy, yet they expect us to be at 22% Body Fat. Everytime I hear it, it gets my blood boiling. Hell far as I'm concerned they should have a period of compliance before allowing folks to advance, something like "You are not eligible for advancement if you were on the weight program at anytime in the last 18 months". Sorry got off on a tanget......now back to your regular scheduled programming.

My 2

ETC "Z"

[ETCS John Zidek]

I voted yes and I'll tell you why.
1st as CPOs we should be the example.
2nd As a Chief you are not only representing yourself, but all of us.
3rd As a Chief you are also representing your Unit.
4th As Chiefs we should be held to a higher standard, by ourselves and others.
5th In order for the CPOAcad to kick someone out for a disciplinary reason it would have to be a pretty serious offense, one mostly likely worth of a Reduction in Rate regardless of where it happened.
6th If you couldnt keep your nose clean for 33 days odds are you werent keeping it clean at home either.

The bottom line is the CG is paying you to do a job, weither that is drive boats, cook meals, fix stuff, or be a student it is your responsibility to do it to the best of your ability and , yes I will say it, Act Like Big Boys and Girls not high school or college kids.

When you see those MSGs on CGMS that say Chief so and so orders to CPO Acad cancelled due to failure to meet MAW how does it make you feel about your brothers and sisters or yourself? How do you think the junior folks look at us when they see those same MSGs? I can tell you, I hear it from students and staff alike, Look at all these Wide Bodies wearing anchors that arent following the MAW policy, yet they expect us to be at 22% Body Fat. Everytime I hear it, it gets my blood boiling. Hell far as I'm concerned they should have a period of compliance before allowing folks to advance, something like "You are not eligible for advancement if you were on the weight program at anytime in the last 18 months". Sorry got off on a tanget......now back to your regular scheduled programming.

My 2

ETC "Z"

[HSC Chris Fly]

5th In order for the CPOAcad to kick someone out for a disciplinary reason it would have to be a pretty serious offense, one mostly likely worth of a Reduction in Rate regardless of where it happened.
6th If you couldnt keep your nose clean for 33 days odds are you werent keeping it clean at home either.


Z,
While I agree with 1-4 and actually with the 5 and 6, you just can't have a blanket policy like that....

Let's say someone got kicked out for a "hazing" incident in the barricks. If there were three CPOs that were involved, I guarentee there were three levels of participation...maybe one guy just happned to be in the wrong place (think alcohol situation). Should all three be automaticlly treated the same? Maybe one member was actually physically touching the person being hazed and the other two were just there... all three were in the wrong, but all three were not at the same level of wrong doing however I'm pretty sure all three would be kicked out of the Academy.

**disclaimer- the above scenario is NOT real, I just made it up for dramatic effect!**

Chris

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

1st as CPOs we should be the example.

I was going to bow out of this topic, however the above comment strikes me as a bit hypocritical...

How many of you would allow your E-4 or E-5's to be on their computer as you are now, reading and commenting on topics such as this? WHere do you draw the line?

There are several that spend much of the work day here. All ya have to do is click on the "Who's online"... We've discussed this before... You know who you are.

Wray... :cool:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Wray, beating a dead horse, but personal computer time is allowed, if you know what computer people were using or how long they'd been on it's another thing..... again, it isn't like we took the computers home with us, ... you know, speaking of hypocritical.....


Chris, if the people were determined to be involved enough to kick them out of the course and send them home..... yeah, I'd treat all three the same.

[MSTCM Jerald Motyka]

We're not talking about a "Whoopsie" mistake here. We're talking about a lapse in judgement that is so grevious that the person faces a disciplinary board and is removed from the course. If all three get bounced, then all three deserve to pay the price. Their administrative reduction to PO1 should be considered when they get the Mast - if they are masted by their commands... repeat, IF.

There are very, VERY few disciplinary releases from academies. The Commandants tend to see releases as a mar on their credibility - so when someone is released, the offences tend to be so outrageous that there really is no question.

If I may, I'd like to address a comment from the last page regarding the folks that think we SHOULD be the example.

There is no SHOULD... we ARE the example. Our junior folks use us as a sounding board for what they want to be when they grow up - for better or worse. If smoke and swear like sailors, then we've set that as an example of what is acceptable. If we toe the line and follow the regs and instructions, we've set THAT as the acceptable standard.

And if we are sent to what is SUPPOSED to be a prestigious school for the pinnacle of most peoples' careers and successfully complete it, we've set the standard for what we expect. If we go there and get kicked out for screwing up so badly that it can't be overlooked, what example are we setting to our junior folks when there are no repercussions??

If CPO Motyka goes to the five week Academy and comes home after three weeks as PO1 Motyka, then we've sent a very clear message and have set a very clear standard...

I really don't see how people don't think that we are setting an example 24/7... our folks watch us like hawks. They KNOW when we gundeck weigh-ins. They KNOW when we take government property home. They KNOW when we sleep with our non-rates.

And they know when we are following the policies and instructions that our leaders have instituted. We ARE the example, whether we want to be, or NOT!

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

We're talking about a lapse in judgement that is so grevious that the person faces a disciplinary board and is removed from the course.

Jerald, what exactly constitutes something grevious enough to warrant a disciplinary board? Please give me some examples...

Do YOU have any idea how many they had last year? In the last 5 years? 10 years? I still don't have any idea how big an issue this is.

Wray... :cool:

[HSC Chris Fly]

Their administrative reduction to PO1 should be considered when they get the Mast - if they are masted by their commands... repeat, IF.


That was my whole point...you can't have a blanket policy that reduces everyone that gets sent home... that's for the mast to decide.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Chris, a blanket policy ...could... be imposed. People need to attend the CPOACAD. If they get in trouble while they're out there and it's determined that they can't complete the course,.... how are they going to meet the requirement? Are we going to give them another slot and another chance, or should they have to re-earn that right?

And you're assuming that it they are sent back to their unit there is going to BE a mast. How many units always mast someone in conjuction with an AI? How many units will say that without the CPOACAD the member won't be able to advance and that should be good enough?

If you're looking for uniformity in punishment, can you leave that up to individual units? Is someone that gets sent back to my unit going to get the same punishment as someone who goes back to your unit,....for the same offense?

[MSTCM Jerald Motyka]

That was my whole point...you can't have a blanket policy that reduces everyone that gets sent home... that's for the mast to decide. Not at all. Reduce the person administratively and then it will be up to the dirtbag's command to impose a Mast after the fact, or just decide that the reduction was enough of a punishment.

Wray, I don't have good information for the CPO Academy, but I would doubt that there have been more than one disciplinary release per year. At the Air Force Senior NCO Academy, in the last 15 years there's a pattern of about two per year, with several years with none, and a couple with five and six. In the last 18 months there have been only two.

(When the one that got booted was notified, they got very emotional. The AF equivalent of a Gold Badge from their base wanted someone to travel home with them. There was ONE other student from that base... and when we went to coordinate the other student's travel, we found that that student was drunk in bed as well. This revealed that there was a significant lack of oversight by the faculty on graduation day... Both students received disciplinary releases on graduation day. Ouch.)

This is something that I am very passionate about. We, as an organization NEED to finally take leadership training seriously. Getting booted for disciplinary reasons is one of the most preventable things that can happen - and deserves the harshest of punishments.

Examples: DUI. Drunk on duty. Missing curriculum hours (class). Inappropriate relationships. Missing duty/UA. Gundecking official paperwork. Cheating on tests. Plagiarism. Using previously used research papers as your own. Fighting/assault.

How are those, Wray? I used examples that we've seen here at the Air Force school. Pretty serious, if you ask me.

[ASTCS Ronny German]

I voted yes. I'm with Senior Chief Motyka on this....It's about setting an example, holding standards and holding Chiefs accountable for their actions. The key word is disciplinary.....I don't think the CPO Academy takes this lightly and if the matter was that serious.......you probably deserve it!

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Jerald,

Since your more familiar with one of the sister services Senior NCO academy, how many were kicked out of your AOR? I guess you can use the time you've been assigned ... putting things in prospective, how many attended and how many were dismissed before graduation?

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

How are those, Wray? I used examples that we've seen here at the Air Force school. Pretty serious, if you ask me.

Yes I would say they are serious for a senior NCO academy.. (the plagiarism is questionable...)

I would still like to know about the incidents at the CPO Academy... I'm not so sure they would be identical to those of the USAF.

Wray... :cool:

[CWO Keith Wilbee (DCCS)]

I voted no. Too many variables in the poll.

For instance: If they were kicked out of the Academy, did the academy conduct a full investigation and provide the Chief with the ability to claim mitagating circumstances?

A mast would provide all the rights afforded to us. Just sending you back home on what the academy found to be violations may not.

Too many what if's.

Are we really sending a message we want to send with the results of this latest poll?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Keith, I don't understand what message you don't want to send. Could you explain that one?

With regards to what investigation the CPOACAD would conduct, it's enough that the people are being sent home anyway. They aren't allowed to complete the course, and aren't going to be eligible to advance.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

I voted yes for many of the same reasons others have stated. CPO Academy is about leadership, plain and simple. This is where the rubber meets the road. It is not a port call. If a member can't stay out of trouble for 5 weeks at school, should they really be wearing an anchor? Do you want them leading your folks? Seems to me that they aren't learning anything. I also think that it all needs to be done right there at the CPO Academy. It should be taken care of and results of what happened sent back to the members command. No further action should be taken after that. I also think that if that were the case, there would be even fewer incidents. And even then, those that did occur would probably be less likely to result in expulsion because of the ramifications. What you would have is some serious "Chiefs Counsels". And that might just be a good thing.

[MKC Jim Burriss (Ret)]

I voted yes. When I attended the CPOACAD it was manditory for me to go. I made the arrangements to attend and went. I might have grumbled about it but it was my duty as THE CHIEF to go. We should all be held accountable for our action both on and off duty because we are always under the microscope. Thats why we wanted to be the Chief. Even though I retired 7 years ago, I still hold myself to those standards of THE CHIEF to this day. I have a son that just went to Navy boot camp, he now understands why I acted and did what I did, so not only is it for our junior enlisted but our children also.

Jim Burriss

[ETCS John Zidek]

I used the word should in my post because not all of us are the example. We all know that we are being watched 24/7, we all know what is expected, but some of us still refuse to walk the line of those that came before us. Granted not all of those guys walked the line either and their line wasnt exactly the same as ours, but we still managed to see the good ones from the bad ones.

When I give out my WOW to the CCTI folks there is always one paragraph I make sure to put in there, "We have all had good and bad Chiefs that we worked for and we have learned from both. Good habits that we want to take and use and bad habits that we need to correct and then use as our own. But either way they taught us something about being a leader. Are the things you do everyday, things that your people and others will be learning, going to fall in that things I want to do as a leader or things I don’t want to do??
Your actions and re-actions will be teaching these future Chiefs how to be leaders."

Which column you fall into is completely up to you.

"Z"

[BMCM Kevin Leask]

If we begin to reduce E7’s because of poor leadership for not completing the chief’s academy, then maybe we need to start reducing OIC’s that get relieved of command for the same reason. The BMCS or BMCM is REQUIRED to have an ashore and afloat certification to be at those pay grades. Something they loose when they are relieved.

I would prefer to see a poor performing “chief” just ride off into the sunset as opposed to taking an advancement spot from someone that might actually WANT to be a chief. I don’t know of any E7 advancement lists that are short on people wanting to be a chief. I would rather do without than put up with.

[BMCS Mike Ellis]

I would rather do without than put up with.

Ok, I am officially stealing that line. Nice one BMCM!

[HSC Chris Fly]

I don't think anyone is saying an E7 that gets kicked out of the CPOACAD shouldn't get their Anchor taken away. What I'm saying and I think what others are saying is that it should be up to a Mast to determine that. From Stu's original post, I'm guessing he is saying the MCPO of the school should be able to reduce someone if they get kicked out (maybe not officailly, but if reduction happens before a mast...)

BTW- Can someone get reduced in rank without a mast? I was always told it takes "an act of congress" (I know not really) to take someone's anchor.

And BMCM's comments are spot on... I've known a few E7s that got relieved from BM and ET billets that kept thier Anchor...

[BMCS Eric Guerette]

I would rather have the policy be that you are reduced a pay grade before you leave the school and let there be a way to have that reversed. Then it would be up to the members command to do the work to prove the member deserves the second chance. That would make things a little more consistent.
Maybe a temp reduction that becomes permanent after x number of days. Within that time frame the command could hold a mast, board, or whatever you want to call it. The results of the mast/board would be forwarded with a recommendation. It would take allot to prove the reduction isn't warranted, but at least it would give the member a chance.
Even if the reduction is overturned, the example is set. They end up back at their unit as a PO1, even if it is only for a month.

If we leave it up to the commands to take care of the discipline it could easily be put off, forgotten about, swept under the carpet, etc, etc. This way if the command doesn't act the discipline is taken care of. I'm sure that if a member thought that they really deserved to keep the anchor, they will make sure that the command takes action.

[HSC Chris Fly]

OK, so I'd like to find how Stu is proposing this reduction would work.

I've looked through the Manual of Courts Martial and the only references I can find to reduction in paygrade in from NJP or a Courts Martial and it must be done by a commisioned officer that has the authorization to promote to the paygrade being reduced from. (anyone please correct me if I'm wrong)

So, the above means that the member would have to have, at a minimum a Captain's Mast and I'm not sure an O6 has the authority to promote to E7, so would it have to be an Admiral's mast? (again, I could be wrong on the O6 thing)

In any case, it's doesn't look like it so easy as to say "you will be reduced if you get kicked out for disciplenary reasons".... It looks like there must be a 4910 and official proceedings, then the accused would have a chance to provide mitigating circumstances and all the other stuff.

Anyone know anything different? It kind of made my head hurt looking through the Manual of Courts Martial... :)

[BMCS Eric Guerette]

Maybe this would work:

1. Reduction in a permanent rate may result from any one of five reasons:
a. Punishment in accordance with Uniform Code of Military Justice
b. Incompetency
c. Request of the individual
d. Erroneous advancement
e. Fraudulent advancement

a. Only the Commandant may reduce a chief petty officer in rate for
incompetence and then only if a fact finding board finds the member
unqualified. Boards for this purpose are administrative in nature, and will
follow the procedures provided in the Administrative Investigations Manual,
COMDTINST M5830.1 (series), with composition, rights of the party, and
procedures as required for a formal investigation. The Board for CPO
competency shall be forwarded via the member's commanding officer, district
commander, Commander, Maintenance and Logistics Command, to
Commander (CGPC-epm).

[MSTCM Jerald Motyka]

Eric, where is that located?

If it's in the PERSMAN like I believe, then all we have to do is amend the writing.

1. Reduction in a permanent rate may result from any one of SIX reasons:
a. Punishment in accordance with Uniform Code of Military Justice
b. Incompetency
c. Request of the individual
d. Erroneous advancement
e. Fraudulent advancement
f. Disciplinary release from Senior Service School (CPO Academy or equivalent).

a. Only the Commandant may reduce a chief petty officer in rate for incompetence and then only if a fact finding board finds the member unqualified. Boards for this purpose are administrative in nature, and will follow the procedures provided in the Administrative Investigations Manual, COMDTINST M5830.1 (series), with composition, rights of the party, and procedures as required for a formal investigation. The Board for CPO competency shall be forwarded via the member's commanding officer, district commander, Commander, Maintenance and Logistics Command, to Commander (CGPC-epm).

b. Discplinary release from a senior service academy (CPO Academy or sister-service equivalent) will only be granted for serious infractions of service standards, core values, or UCMJ. Receiving a disciplinary release will be documented by the servicing academy, being routed through LDC, the USCG Academy, to Commander (CGPC-epm). Reduction in this manner is administrative and does not preclude the Command's ability or authority to pursue an Article 32 investigation.I remember MCPO James (Former LANT CMC) saying that he would like to have the Academy mandatory for E-8 AND that you had to have either completed it or have orders for it within 12 months of being advanced to E-7... or you would have to turn in your anchor. I'd like to see that implemented. That would make a reduction for a disciplinary release that much easier...

Yeah, I'm a hard-ass

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Chris, it would have to be done by who ever has the NJP authority at Petaluma, ..it wouldn't be able to be done by the School Chief, though I doubt he's the one that's made the final call on sending someone home in the first place.
I think it could be quick and painless. The person did someone that they would send them home for anyway, they wouldn't be able to meet the requirements of the people plan, they took a seat from someone who could have used it..... go back one place, lose a turn, try again later......

Kevin, I could see busting down an E8 or E9 OINC who was RFC'd, it would be the same as reducing a BM1 or BM2 who couldn't hold a coxswain qual.....

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

If we leave it up to the commands to take care of the discipline it could easily be put off, forgotten about, swept under the carpet, etc, etc. This way if the command doesn't act the discipline is taken care of.

Then the command needs to be relieved for loss of confidence. That is a leadership problem at the command. You should not be holding the CPOs to a higher standard than their superiors.

The Commandant isn't going to relenquish his authority to anyone less than another star ... so don't look for an O-6 to suddenly get that authority.

You could bring back the CPO(p) rate.

Maybe I should have had the authority to reduce in rate those who performed poorly in my school ... naw, I just worked with the detailer and cancelled their orders and sent them back to their old command. I know of one person (CPO) who failed a course of instruction twice and had their orders cancelled by the detailer upon recommendation of the CPO at the school. The first time I did the recommending and the second time, my relief did the recommending. Of course the members command thought enough of the CPO to recommend advancement to E-8.

No one has addressed the actual number of people failing ... there's alot of bones in this discussion but someone needs to add the flesh.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

CIM 1000.6 series

5.C.38.b. Reduction in Rate as a Punishment
1. Any enlisted person may be reduced in pay grade by sentence of court-martial in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice as set forth in the MCM. Refer to Military Justice Manual, COMDTINST M5810.1 (series).

2. Under the authority of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, a commanding officer may reduce an enlisted person in pay grades E-2 through E-6 to the next inferior pay grade as a NJP, if the individual concerned had previously been advanced or promoted to the pay grade from which demoted by the commanding officer concerned or by an equivalent or lower command. Commanding officers of all commands in the Coast Guard have equivalent authority to effect the authorized advancement of enlisted personnel, and are considered to exercise promotion authority within the meaning of Article 15(b)(2)(D), Uniform Code of Military Justice. Accordingly, commanding officers who have authority to impose NJP under the provision of Article 15, may reduce an enlisted person, except a chief petty officer under their command, to the next inferior pay grade for disciplinary purposes.

All this talk of reducing a CPO at the Training Command or their home command is unproductive. I have not found anything in 5.C of CIM 1000.6 (series) pertaining to a newly advanced CPO being required to attend the CPOACAD ... as specified in CI 1500.15F.

[AMTCM John Long]

Now if you ask me what I think should also be done...here it is. Since the person in question has not completed the course, because of discipline. Have the Unit transfer the the cost of travel and per-diem back to the program manager of that particular school. Regardless of the paygrade.

Nick,

If I'm reading your post correctly......Nope!

How about transferring the cost of the orders back to the member's home unit or district? Why should a PM have to pay for a students disciplinary issue?

Also.....now two people just lost out. The one who got kicked out and the one who could have taken their orders and successfully passed the course (similar to an opportunity cost).

I've been down this road before.

A current PM sends....

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

John,

I interpeted Nick's statement as "having the unit reimburse the program for the travel costs".

It would not be setting a precedence as the CG in the past has recouped the cost of items due to negligence at the unit.

[AMTCM John Long]

John,

I interpeted Nick's statement as "having the unit reimburse the program for the travel costs".

It would not be setting a precedence as the CG in the past has recouped the cost of items due to negligence at the unit.

Joe,

Now that you phrased it that way....that makes sense. I was reading "unit" as the training command trying to bill the PM.

As a PM, I would likely go after the unit if there was a discipline issue. I had two guys get the boot a couple years back from an expensive contract school. On that one I did not go after the unit because of the dynamics involved. In the end, the members went to mast upon RTB-ing.

John

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Why go after the unit for a discipline issue,...... it was the individual's doing. Now going after the unit unit for allowing someone overweight to report,... that I could understand.

[BMC Nicholas George]

This topic came up at my table during CPO Academy Class CLV graduation dinner last night. The following idea was mentioned:

... an E-6 above the cut for E-7, does not advance to E-7 until successful completion of the CPO Academy, the CPO Academy advances you to E-7 graduation night. If you get kicked out, your name comes off the advancement list and you re-take the SWE at a later date when eligible.

From what i understand...The CPO Academy had ten classes this year with 60+ graduates per class, the USCG advances approx. 600+ E-6's to E-7 per year. Sounds feasible to me. I put my anchors on 01 June 2008... 5 months later I graduated CPO Academy and i wasn't the only one in my class to graduate the Academy the same year they advanced to E-7.

I believe this would solve some, if not most of the issues being discussed.

As a new Chief, the CPO Academy beneifited me tremendously.

[BMCS Bill Wilkinson]

... an E-6 above the cut for E-7, does not advance to E-7 until successful completion of the CPO Academy, the CPO Academy advances you to E-7 graduation night. If you get kicked out, your name comes off the advancement list and you re-take the SWE at a later date when eligible.



I agree that this should be the way to go.

[BMC Seth Tomas]

... an E-6 above the cut for E-7, does not advance to E-7 until successful completion of the CPO Academy, the CPO Academy advances you to E-7 graduation night. If you get kicked out, your name comes off the advancement list and you re-take the SWE at a later date when eligible.


Damn Nick! You go smarter while we were there, huh? I kind of like this idea...

As for those stating that they think the "sent home" numbers are only a couple per year, I can tell you that is LOW. I just graduated from class CLV with Nick and we had some (I'll leave it at that....).

Nick....good meeting ya out there! Its great to be sitting on my couch again, though! Slept in my own bed last night....drove my daughter to school this morning....watching my own TV right now with a cup of coffee.....oh, and its cold as crap here! I have a fire burning right now and it won't get above 25 degrees today! brrrrrrrrr!

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

... an E-6 above the cut for E-7, does not advance to E-7 until successful completion of the CPO Academy, the CPO Academy advances you to E-7 graduation night. If you get kicked out, your name comes off the advancement list and you re-take the SWE at a later date when eligible.

Unfortunately, needs of the service controls the time one advances. Frocking might be an option.

What bothers me the most with this type discussion is the sutle implication that the CPOACAD makes one a Chief. This was an attitude expressed by some officers 20 years ago and needs to be squelched at every opportunity. One should be "ready" to be a CPO before they are recommended to take the SWE, not after the completion of a service school.

Don't think this is an affront to the school. I've talked to lots of graduates who thought the school was great and offered lots of tools for their personal toolbox. There were also tools that previously resided in their intellectual toolbox. All in all, it was a positive experience for those individuals.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Well to put it to rest then, the COMDT makes you a Chief, the CPOACAD better prepares you to serve in that capacity.........

I like the idea of pinning people the night of graduation, I wonder if it is logistically possible.

[BMC Seth Tomas]

Well to put it to rest then, the COMDT makes you a Chief, the CPOACAD better prepares you to serve in that capacity.........

I like the idea of pinning people the night of graduation, I wonder if it is logistically possible.

I can't see it being possible. We had the largest class to date with 74 seats filled (on day one)...multiply that by 10 classes a year and you would only get 740 possible advancements to Chief. I don't know the numbers, and maybe it would work, but my guess is that more than 740 members advance to Chief each year....maybe not, though....

Does anyone have a quick estimate on how many make it each year on average?

[HSC Chris Fly]

I would agree with Nick's proposal IF they could get everyone above the cut into the Academy in a timely manner.... which I doubt could be done. It would be unfair to hold someone's advancement (and take money out of thier pocket) becuase the quota is not there...

And I agree one should be ready to be a Chief before they put on the Anchor, but you only really learn how to be a real Chief by doing the job. No amount of Academy or CCTI is going to make one a Chief, only raw experiance.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Stuart,

The idea of pinning on the Anchors has a certain flair. I'm more old-school, or is that old-fart, in the mindset that pinning on the Anchors amoung the presence of your local mess would be more satisfying for the member as they are welcomed to the brotherhood by those who know them the best. (I almost added sisterhood, but as far as I know we have Chiefs ... not Chiefs and Chiefettes.)

That being said, if one shows up that hasn't been initiated or isn't scheduled to be, by all means ... initiate them the a few days prior to graduation. There are cases where people advance and are hundreds of miles from a CPO Mess.

[HSC Chris Fly]

That being said, if one shows up that hasn't been initiated or isn't scheduled to be, by all means ... initiate them the a few days prior to graduation. There are cases where people advance and are hundreds of miles from a CPO Mess.


No form of CCTI will be done while at the CPOACAD.....it distracts from the task at hand. Besides MCPO-CG Standing Order 1 states a certain timeframe must be met for CCTI and it is longer than the CPoACAD. That and the fact that CCTI is a choice, NOT a requirement....

[BMC Nicholas George]

Seth,
I'm not as smart as you thought...The CMC who proposed this idea said that the number of advancements to E-7 is around 650 and the CPO Academy is toying with trying to put 80 thru per class. So if the CG averages 650 advancements per year it would be feasible, and there would also be room for the other services and/or agencies to attend.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

As we know all thing are subject to change. As the I in CCTI has moved away from standing for initiated and has come to mean indoctriated, that could have a future at the CPOACAD.
If a CMC at the CPOACAD brought up the idea, and one of the other CMCs there didn't quickly and publicly shoot it down..... it could gain momentum. Does anyone remember who brought it?

My question with logistics...... If they sent E-6s to the CPOACAD and advanced them there...... wouldn't it go to reason that the higher guys on the advancement list attended first? What would happen if they couldn't make that class? Would their advancement date be moved back until they could attend? What about that class size again?........ Everyone would want to get in so they could compete for that next SWE, how would people be choosen for those fall or that January class? If you don't get advanced before that February cutoff you wouldn't be able to compete for E-8 for almost three years......... which rates or which people get turned away?

[BMC Nicholas George]

Coasties (Gaurdians) are pretty good at getting things done, especially when it has an affect on their paycheck. One problem i foresee is how this would get started. I'm sure there are plenty of CPO's out there who still need to attend. It would be hard to get them thru as well as the Prospective Chief's initially. Maybe Chiefs with over "X" amount of years as a Chief get grandfathered.

As far as competition goes for the January class... i would say getting the January class would just be more of and incentive to study an do well on the SWE.

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

BMC,
Those #s are pretty close to accurate ;)

Congrats to Class 155

[BMC Corey Fontenot]

Seth,

Glad to see you made it home safe. I agree it sure was good to wake up in my own bed this morning and not in Harrison Hall. I enjoyed working with you and having you as a teammate. Stay warm up there in Lorain.

Corey

[CWO Keith Wilbee (DCCS)]

Sry Stu, I went out of town to attend old friends CCTI, and am still down here for it. Hotel computers gotta love em.

To explain my position a little more: I don't like polls like this with two many variables. I think it might send a message if "No" wins that no punishment for the Chief that got kicked out.

But it isn't that, it is because of the variables and too many different scenarios that could play out. Just my perception of polls like this.

I can hear people already, that Chief got kicked out of CPO Academy and nothing happened to him. In my mind and Humble Opinion it would depend on what he got kicked out for what if he was two pounds over weight, he got kicked out and you found out he had a thyroid problem?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Keith, that's why I was looking at it strictly from a disciplinary stand point. The person screwed up while they were there and it was deemed bad enough to send them packing. I've only ever heard of this happening in a couple of situation, and all of those that I heard about involved alcohol. Either a DUI, comments or actions, and then the one with the spur of the moment CCTI that had a couple of people heading home.

As far as the rumblings that this guy was sent home and nothing happened to him..... I hear that already. How many CPOs have been sent home from the CPOACAD for exceeding their MAW and never recieved a three in their EER?

And I know I'm not supposed to take people so literally, so forgive me up front for bringing it up......... but no one is sent home for being 2 pounds over their MAW, they would be at least 6 pounds over. And yes I have heard many people say that they knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who was 1 pound over and was sent home. Doesn't happen...... they let people stay who are within 5 pounds of the MAW and 1% BF of their max..... that's 5 weeks or 1 month to lose it and be in compliance by graduation. And anyone who has a medical diagnosis should have had that addressed before they left their unit.

Since someone already mentioned losing a couple of people from this last class...... do you think anything happened to them when they got back home?
Do you think that being kicked out of the CPOACAD will have a lasting negative impact on their career?

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Here's a question...

If a Chief gets a DUI while at the CPO Academy and there are other Chiefs in the vehicle...should they all get sent home or just the driver? I say send them all home because they shouldn't have allowed him to drive in the first place.

What do you think? Would the passengers that got sent home also be reduced or just have to do the Academy over?

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

Deane,
From a philosophical approach I would say yes, from a practical approach I would say let the investigation determine that.

Lets say you watched your fellow Chief have 6 beers in an hour at the club. Your fellow Chief is hungry and blurts out that he is heading to Mac Ds. You being the shipmate that you are do everything in your power to talk your fellow Chief out of his POOR decision. Unfortunately, unless you beat his ass and take his keys he is going to drive to Mac Ds. In this scenario I think you as a Chief should not be held accountable. However, all being the same and you decided to ride to Mac Ds with your fellow Chief, all bets are off and you should be held accountable.

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

This vote is too complicated to be settled by a simple yes/no decision.

Being sent home is not punishment, being sent home for jacked up behavior or MAW non-compliance is the effect of your actions.

When a Chief is found physically non-compliant (> 5lbs MAW & 1% Bf) while attending the CPOACAD they should be formally placed on the "program" prior to returning to their unit. When a Chief has an Alcohol Incident or an Alcohol Related Situation while attending the CPOACAD, formal documentation should be entered in the Chief’s record prior to returning to their unit. At a minimum, the CO of the TDY unit should complete the administrative side of the situation. Leave the follow up or punishment to the home unit.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Kevin,
Would it not be easier for commands to ensure members are within their allowed weight prior to their departure for the academy? That would save a lot of embarrassment for the member, and money for the CG.

This could , would & should apply to all schools....

Wray... :cool:

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Kevin,
Would it not be easier for commands to ensure members are within their allowed weight prior to their departure for the academy? That would save a lot of embarrassment for the member, and money for the CG.

This could , would & should apply to all schools....

Wray... :cool:


Wray...that's already the way it's supposed to be.

[ASTC Mario Vittone]

I haven't read all of the posts, so I'm not sure if this has been covered, but this idea would require a re-write of the UCMJ - not just a CG Policy change. Reduction in rank of CPO and above can't be done administratively or by NJP. So is what we're talking about making the offenses seriousness different because of where the CPO was at the time of the offense?

Is the CPO supposed to "be the example" to a higher degree while at the CPO Academy? Is a CPO getting a DUI (for example) back at his or her unit less "grave" than it is in Petaluma? No one can possibly believe that.

Anyway, I voted no (obviously). We have rules for handling mis-bahaviour and violations of the law. We don't need a new ones to handle what happens when such things occur at a certain command; and again, we're not going to be able to re-write the UCMJ on this one (nor should we be able to).

v/r

Mario

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Deane, I know... and that is my point... what is so difficult about getting this done? That is what the real question is...

Perhaps if the commands were held accountable these things would not happen.

Wray.. :cool:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Mario, apparently it can be done, because the Air Force has already done it. Also, I would be one of those people who could possibly believe that getting a DUI while attending profesional leadership training is more serious than getting one at your own unit. I'm not down playing a DUI, and I think that a CPO or higher who gets a DUI should be putting their career at the same risk they put the others on the road at.... I am saying that in that environment, if they can't remain professional enough not to drink and drive, they should be done.

And we can throw blame at the parent unit, but the member is still ultimitely responsible for their own actions, and absolutely responsible for their own weight.

MC Isherwood, we can play with the wording of the poll, I didn't want to put a multitude of options. Someone could start another poll if we wanted to get more specific, I was happy to start a dialog about the issue. I was curious to know if people thought that those CPOs who were kicked out of the CPOACAD should remain CPOs. It was also interesting to me to hear about the differing levels of confidence in individual commands taking responsibilty for the outcome. Some people think that's the best option, others see that as being the problem.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

And we can throw blame at the parent unit, but the member is still ultimitely responsible for their own actions, and absolutely responsible for their own weight.

The member is responsible for his own weight, but the "parent unit" is responsible for ensuring members are in compliance with weight standards, and the conditions connected with issuing TAD orders.

Wray... :cool:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Granted, and the member is responsible to make sure they are in compliance everyday. If the unit ensured they were weighed in accordance with the set policy, no one would show up overweight. If our members ensured they met their own requirements, they wouldn't exceed the standard in the first place. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

[BMCM Bruce Bradley]

You could bring back the CPO(p) rate.



Now that's not a bad idea. Maybe its time to run that one up the flag pole again and see what happens. :eek: :rolleyes: :eek:

[BMC Seth Tomas]

Seth,

Glad to see you made it home safe. I agree it sure was good to wake up in my own bed this morning and not in Harrison Hall. I enjoyed working with you and having you as a teammate. Stay warm up there in Lorain.

Corey


Hey Corey! As far as staying warm...we'll see. It got down to 5 degrees last night around 3am and the snow is falling right now! I have the fireplace going, chili is cooking, and a cold beer in hand waiting for the Bama game to come on! Give me a ROLL TIDE!!!

As far as the topic of the DUI being sent home and the others in the vehicle going home also.....it is entirely up to each and every situation. By no means should everyone automatically get sent home!

[MSTCM Jerald Motyka]

This is getting interesting!

The Air Force can have a MAJCOM (Major Command) Commander - effectively a flag officer - reduce an E-8 or E-9 with an Article 15. An E-7 only requires an O-6 to reduce him. :eek:

If an Army Sergeant Major gets booted from the Sergeant's Major Academy, he gets reduced back to E-8 and will never see E-9 in his career. It's built into their personnel manual.

I spoke to our Vice Commandant and asked specifically what happens to Air Force students, and she said that it is up to the home unit - the release is as far as the Academy goes. The ex-student will receive either a Letter of Reprimand, OR a Mast - or both. In any case, her opinion is that the ONLY way the person could ever get promoted again would be to receive the Medal of Honor afterward...

And I found out that I lied earlier... there have been three disciplinary releases in the past 18 months... the last was a Sergeant Major who got a DUI up in Tennessee and tried to hide it from the Powers That Be. Unfortunately the police chief was a retired Sergeant Major who heard the drunk mention that he was at the Academy while in a drunken stupor... and called the SMA at Fort Bliss. He was gone that day - and the SMA wanted the Academy to have a DEMOTION ceremony for him, so he could lose his star in public. Our Commandant refused, so the Army recalled him to Fort Bliss and they held the ceremony before the entire Sergeant's Major Academy student body.

I'm all for the demotion, but DANG!

[BMCM Deane Smith]

As far as the topic of the DUI being sent home and the others in the vehicle going home also.....it is entirely up to each and every situation. By no means should everyone automatically get sent home!

Seth...give me a scenario where Chiefs that were in the vehicle shouldn't also be sent home.

[BMCM Bruce Bradley]

This is getting interesting!

The Air Force can have a MAJCOM (Major Command) Commander - effectively a flag officer - reduce an E-8 or E-9 with an Article 15. An E-7 only requires an O-6 to reduce him. :eek:

And according to the SJA at work this very topic is being discussed curently.

[MSTCM Jerald Motyka]

The difference in our systems is that ALL of the other services use review boards to look at records in their advancement process. We just have a test. With bad paper in their record, it's impossible to miss. In our process, it's easy for a weak-willed command to just not put an "N" in the Recommendation block. IF a senior NCO from another service somehow got a positive recommendation from their command, the review board would see the paperwork, and they'd get crap for points from the board.

I'd love to see the system used for us - can you imagine being able to say that besides "Pick your Rate/Pick your Fate", you could say, "Pick your Billet/Pick your Abilit...y to get advanced." Okay, it doesn't rhyme, but, to pick on BM's for a moment; if you get a CPO billet in a district staff somewhere, should you get the same advancement ability as a CPO that is the OInC at a Station or ANT? Personally, I don't think so.

Take a tough job, you should get rewarded for it when it comes time to get advanced.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

[quote}Which came first, the chicken or the egg?[/quote]

Ok Stu, lets put it this way... You are CCGD1 ....

One of your Sector Commanders sends an overweight Chief to the Academy

Two weeks later the Chief is returned to his unit for being overweight.

Who would you, as District Commander, take action on? The overweight Chief, of the CDR/Captain that sent him to school without ensuring the member was qualified to attend.?

No chickens, no eggs.....

Wray.. :cool:

[BMC Nicholas George]

There is absolutely no reason to be sent home from the Academy for being overweight. Orders are normally issued at least 30 days in advance. In addition, on the pre-arrival paperwork you fill out and sign... the YES/NO question of whethor not you are within MAW is asked 2 to 3 times. On one such document the Corpsman, SPO, and CO sign as well. Plus you have to be over your MAW by more than 5 lbs or 1 % BF to be sent home automatically. And it is not the scales that the Academy uses fault either. The general consensus from my classmates was that the scales on average were weighing people 2 to 4 pounds less than they thought they weighed. For me it was a 4 pound difference. So, in reality you almost have to show up over 8 pounds overweight to be sent home.

What i attribute the weight problem at the CPO Academy is the fact this was the first "C" school i was actually weighed in at. So maybe people are not taking seriously the blurb on the orders that says you have to be within MAW to execute orders.

And why isn't the embarrassment of being sent home for being overweight enough for the member and command to make future corrections on their end?

[BMCM Bruce Bradley]

What i attribute the weight problem at the CPO Academy is the fact this was the first "C" school i was actually weighed in at. So maybe people are not taking seriously the blurb on the orders that says you have to be within MAW to execute orders.


Stand by for a couple of the other LDC schools to start following suit shortly.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

So maybe people are not taking seriously the blurb on the orders that says you have to be within MAW to execute orders.

That is an obvious statement....

Everyone here is old enough and smart enough to know how to weigh themselves.. clothes on, clothes off.. We all know scales can vary, but usually not that much.. the ones used by the doctors offices are pretty damn accurate... lets not make this a scale issue... it is clearly...

1. the responsibility the member to be within their weight limits, and it is...
2. DEFINITELY the responsibility of the parent command to ensure members being issued orders are in compliance..

Pretty simple issue, I'd say. why draw it out....


Wray... :cool:

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

That's easy Wray, BOTH!

It is the member's responsibility to be compliant everyday and it's the command's job to keep them honest. When a Chief gets sent home for exceeding MAW standards that Chief and their commands have embarassed themselves, their units and the Chiefs Mess in front of the entire CG workforce.

From my previous job's perspective, I can attest that all returnees were NOT treated equally. Sometimes... a higher intervention is required to ensure a balanced approach is applied across an entire theater of operations.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Kevin,
Then it is not so easy.. Things should be enforced equally across the board.. as you say "I can attest that all returnees were NOT treated equally." they are not...

When do you think the last time a Sector CO got a negative comment in his "brag sheet" was.. My guess.. NEVER :p

It's a crock, and you and I both know it....

Wray... :cool:

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

Wray,
It is easy, I saw it done several times during my last assignment.

[HSC Chris Fly]

I spoke to our Vice Commandant and asked specifically what happens to Air Force students, and she said that it is up to the home unit - the release is as far as the Academy goes. The ex-student will receive either a Letter of Reprimand, OR a Mast - or both. In any case, her opinion is that the ONLY way the person could ever get promoted again would be to receive the Medal of Honor afterward...!

Are you referring to the CG Vice Commandant or an Air Force position? If you're referring to our Vice Commandant, that statement is wrong. As you stated in a later post, we advance by taking a test and while I would imagine the CPO would get a "not recommended" for that marking period, that incidence ONLY counts for that marking period. So, assuming he keeps his nose clean the next period, he can once again advance.

Chris

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Wray, I echo the both stance. The current policy is that every command is responsible for weighing someone in within 30 days of them executing TAD orders, and documenting that in Direct Access. Unless a command could show where the person was compliant on that day, and somehow gained so much weight that they were over out in Peteluma,..... they're both on the hook for it.

Jerald, I wouldn't jump on that screening process to advance bandwagon....... you want to talk about logistical nightmares and lack of uniformity. You also would have to be under the delusion that the same people who are unable to mark someone "Not Recommended" would be absent from the process. Our system of advancing people is far superior, if it were used as it is designed. The more you add people into the process, the more you allow for bias, prejuidice, human error, favoritism....... and the list goes on.

Seth, echoing Deane,... I'd like to hear a realistic scenario where some CPO got in a vehicle with someone who they knew had been drinking, and it's justifable......

[CWO Keith Wilbee (DCCS)]

The only way I can think of that one Chief could/should get in a vehicle with another one that had been drinking would be an Ambulance? Or maybe Police Car?

We are all Guardians right?

[MCPO Francis Jennings]

Stu is right on the mark about the requirement to be weighed within 30 days of executing TAD orders. That's a command issue.

From the training side, once the member shows up, do I send them home if over? What is the gain? We've already spent the taxpayer dollar. I suppose I could not graduate the member since they "didn't meet the requirement". But sending them home leaves an empty seat in the classroom and money spent with no gain. We owe the taxpayer a better answer.

Our service's weight and wellness doctrine needs review. Is it a health and wellness issue? Or readiness? Where does "looks good in uniform" come from? Until we develop clear doctrine, we'll have to live with ambiguous weight programs, arbitrary physical fitness requirements, and vague uniform policies. Where is that PT uniform?

It's not the job of the CPO Academy, or any other training center, to enforce weight standards (except accession points, long-term students, and PCS folks). :eek: :eek:

QMCM :cool: :cool:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Keith, good one....

[BMC Nicholas George]

BMCM Slesh,

I don't think Seth meant getting into a vehicle knowing that the driver had been drinking.

[MSTCM Jerald Motyka]

Originally Posted by MSTCS Jerald P. Motyka
I spoke to our Vice Commandant and asked specifically what happens to Air Force students, and she said that it is up to the home unit - the release is as far as the Academy goes.Are you referring to the CG Vice Commandant or an Air Force position? If you're referring to our Vice Commandant, that statement is wrong. As you stated in a later post, we advance by taking a test and while I would imagine the CPO would get a "not recommended" for that marking period, that incidence ONLY counts for that marking period. So, assuming he keeps his nose clean the next period, he can once again advance.

ChrisDammit!! Sorry about the confusion!! I was speaking to the Air Force Senior NCO Academy vice Commandant... not ours! I didn't mean to make it sound like it was a Coast Guard opinion.

Master Chief Slesh, what would be wrong with having an advancement program like our officers? That's all I am offering up for discussion. I'm up for advancement, I take the test, get a final score, and then my entire HQ personnel file goes before a board. The board looks at my file and compares it to everyone else that is up for my rating and rate - and I get a certain amount of points based upon my placement and the "squishy" factors of my last year's work (arduous assignment, number of subordinates, etcetera). That's it.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

... what would be wrong with having an advancement program like our officers?

Have you ever worked with one of those "looks good on paper types"? I'm thinking not.

The Service Wide Competition is not just a test. The most important part of the competition is the recommendation. All the test does is discriminate the qualified candidates so the test scores can be included in the six factors that comprise the Competition.

There were plenty examples of the "looks good on paper" types that fail. Think RFC. Most of the enlisted who were RFC'd appeared before a board. I'm pretty sure the O side also has a selection board.

Think long and hard about using a board for advancements. Did you read the EAST report?

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Kevin & Stu,
Have either of you ever heard of a Sector Commander or even an Admin officer being written up in his/her fitness report for sending an overweight person to school...

I hardly think so... bottom line, they (the CO's) are never held accountable.. only the members...

It goes without saying maintaining a proper weight is the responsibility of the member.

Wray... :cool:

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Who would you, as District Commander, take action on? The overweight Chief, of the CDR/Captain that sent him to school without ensuring the member was qualified to attend.?

Stu, so you are saying you would do something to the CO as well as the overweight CPO? What would it be? Do you really think this has ever been done? Try to give me an honest answer, not a politically correct company line one.

Wray.. :cool:

[AETC Shawn Burns]

Seth, Cory and Nick,

It was truly an honor to attend class CLV with you fine individuals. Cory ain't it great to be warm. Seth my bike looks great, the guy who did the paint still has little odds and ends to finish. I will definitely get pics for you before I ride it. MC Isherwood, and Bradley thanks for taking the time out of your schedule and coming out and giving us great feedback for our questions.

The discussions that concern this topic can be picked apart by everyone. The ultimate responsibility is handled by the Master Chief of the Academy. Every situation is different but he has to live with the decision to either conducting counseling or having a Chief wait to advance until he can get back to the Academy...if at all.

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

Wray,
I already answered yes to your question several posts ago. What is not clear?

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Kevin, I believe you answered it this way:

That's easy Wray, BOTH!

It is the member's responsibility to be compliant everyday and it's the command's job to keep them honest. When a Chief gets sent home for exceeding MAW standards that Chief and their commands have embarassed themselves, their units and the Chiefs Mess in front of the entire CG workforce.

When stu started this thread his question was should members be reduced in rate if kicked out of the academy. This is putting ALL the blame on the member, and nothing on his command... My point was, if the command was doing its job the member would never get to the academy.


Sorry, I guess I did not make that clear somewhere along the line.

Wray... :cool:

P.S. Kevin, what type if disciplinary actions have you seen placed on a sector CO or admin officer for issuing orders to an over weight member?

[BMC Seth Tomas]

Seth...give me a scenario where Chiefs that were in the vehicle shouldn't also be sent home.

If you have a group of Chiefs that decide to go out on town or out for a burger but have had a few drinks and decide to find a designated driver. Said designated driver walks into the room and they ask him if he has been drinking and can drive them..... he states that he has not been drinking and will gladly drive. He appears fine...no slurred speech...not stumbling around...no one has seen him consume alcohol... Now while driving around he still appears fine, but gets pulled over for a traffic violation and during the course of the stop the police officer believes he has been drinking and runs him through some tests and arrests him for DUI. No one else in the car knew.... they should NOT be sent home for not knowing. They did their part by asking if he had anything and could not make any observations that contradicted his answer.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Wray, I wasn't talking about radomly reducing people. I was talking about reducing someone whose disciplinary problems prevented them from fufilling the requirements of their paygrade.

If I were in charge, I'd mark those COs who weren't meeting their administrative requirements when they send people to a school that sends them back home as soon as they step off the scale. I don't think that's happening right now,.... I don't even think that the people sent home feel the sting. I think we've adopted a "well they can't advance and that's good enough" attitude.

Jerald,...... I've looked at people's HQ records...... you're still assuming that everything is in there. The same problem exists. Some commands will document everything, good and bad, some commands will document nothing. Some members of the board will put greater emphasize on certain things, some members will be more forgiving.
Just take AIs, would you be willing to advance someone who already had two over someone who never had one? What the record might not show is that the guy with two no longer drinks and the guy with none is a steamer who was never written up.
People just need to think about their past and what's in their record. Do you want your current practices and job performance to determine your advancement, or the stuff from your past?

Seth..... how realistic is that scenario? I'll give it to you. If they had no idea or way of knowing their driver was drinking, they get to stay. Anyone who brought him a drink, or drank with him, or even just watched him drink....... goes home.

[BMC Seth Tomas]

Unrealistic? Maybe....but I'm just throwing it out there.

Now if the others in the vehicle were aware that the driver had been drinking, then we are talking an entirely different ballgame and all involved should be sent home.

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

Wray,
Your question/comment:
“When do you think the last time a Sector CO got a negative comment in his "brag sheet" was.. My guess.. NEVER

It's a crock, and you and I both know it....”

My answer:
”It is easy, I saw it done several times during my last assignment.”


The CO rcvd a personal letter and the Chief rcvd a CG3307 both were signed by a VADM. Needless to say, the news of receipt went through the west coast quickly, significantly reducing the # of MAW returnees from the west. I assure you that ALL LEVELS of the CoC are losing their patience with something as simple as MAW compliance. It’s the “use of force” continuum, with each CO/Commander ratcheting it up a notch in response to the situations within their AORs.

[BMCM Bruce Bradley]

The CO rcvd a personal letter and the Chief rcvd a CG3307 both were signed by a VADM. Needless to say, the news of receipt went through the west coast quickly, significantly reducing the # of MAW returnees from the west. I assure you that ALL LEVELS of the CoC are losing their patience with something as simple as MAW compliance. It’s the “use of force” continuum, with each CO/Commander ratcheting it up a notch in response to the situations within their AORs.

Kevin, I can fully appreciate how that helped curb the number of Chiefs who were returned to their units for being overweight. But did that post-action also deflect the movement to a pre-action? Meaning did those Chiefs and commands simply cancel the orders beforehand. Mostly at the last minute as you know all to well. If so have we really solved the problem or just kind of whitewashed it?

[BMCM Bruce Bradley]

Wray, the weight program is an administrative program. If we send someone home for being overweight its done under that mantra and not under the UCMJ. There currently is no disciplinary action from those actions. Now that could be an entirely different discussion and I only bring it up to help frame the poll that Stu started this thread with.

[BMC Nicholas George]

Seth..... how realistic is that scenario? I'll give it to you.


More realistic than you think... I will leave it at that...

[BMCM Deane Smith]

If you have a group of Chiefs that decide to go out on town or out for a burger but have had a few drinks and decide to find a designated driver. Said designated driver walks into the room and they ask him if he has been drinking and can drive them..... he states that he has not been drinking and will gladly drive. He appears fine...no slurred speech...not stumbling around...no one has seen him consume alcohol... Now while driving around he still appears fine, but gets pulled over for a traffic violation and during the course of the stop the police officer believes he has been drinking and runs him through some tests and arrests him for DUI. No one else in the car knew.... they should NOT be sent home for not knowing. They did their part by asking if he had anything and could not make any observations that contradicted his answer.

I agree. In this scenario, if the Chiefs had NO IDEA that the driver was drinking, I would not send them home.

[MSTCM Jerald Motyka]

Jerald,...... I've looked at people's HQ records...... you're still assuming that everything is in there. The same problem exists. Some commands will document everything, good and bad, some commands will document nothing. Some members of the board will put greater emphasize on certain things, some members will be more forgiving.
Just take AIs, would you be willing to advance someone who already had two over someone who never had one? What the record might not show is that the guy with two no longer drinks and the guy with none is a steamer who was never written up.
People just need to think about their past and what's in their record. Do you want your current practices and job performance to determine your advancement, or the stuff from your past?

Seth..... how realistic is that scenario? I'll give it to you. If they had no idea or way of knowing their driver was drinking, they get to stay.Master Chief, in most cases, past performance will indicate future accomplishments. If I was a shiite-head for my first five years (okay, most of us are), have had my nose clean for the last fifteen years there wouldn't be a problem in ANY of the sister-services for making E-9... why would it be any different in the Coast Guard?

I have a couple pretty bad Page 7's in my record - but nothing in the last decade. There shouldn't be a problem. The board would look back for a certain period of time and everything before would be ignored... like our marks for the last XX period of time go into computing our evaluation multiple. A set of marks that were all 3's before that don't matter a damn.

As for some folks getting stuff in their record while others don't, yes, it does happen... much like some command don't have a problem using "Not Recommended" while others react like a vampire to sunlight. There I would see it being up to the Command Chief to do their job and advise that Commander to do his or her job.

And regarding Seth's scenario - I am truly amazed that the scenario doesn't happen a LOT. I've had students that had to pool money to get a taxi - or get the taxi to stop at an ATM to get cash to get home - just so this scenario DOESN'T play out... and the students HAVE called for back-up designated drivers!

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Sorry Nick, you can't just leave it at that. You're saying that a guy who has been driving to a point where his BAC is above what?.... .08? outright lies to a group of fellow CPOs, none of which has the faintest idea that he has been drinking or is lying, and their actions..... all of their actions...... is completely innocent?
I'm not buying it. I'd have to think that the most sober person there would have noticed something was wrong........ that is of course, if they bothered to care enough to look at the situation.
Here's my take ... on this completely fictitious scenario....a group of guys goes out drinking and designates a driver, their DD was either the guy who drank the least or proclaimed to be the best person to drive, or it was his vehicle. Some of the people in the vehicle knew that he was drinking but,.... thought that he was okay to drive, didn't care enough to say anything, thought he's an adult... he's reponsible to make his own decisions, and I just want to get home.
Even if you're going to go with they were drinking themselves and their judgement was skewed.......... you're saying that their use of alcohol was a contributing if not causal factor in the arrest of their fellow CPO.........
Your best defense is that the guys weren't that bright or perceptive in the first place.
Seriously, what are the odds that no one else in the vehicle knew the driver had been drinking?

[ASTCS Ronny German]

Senior Chief Motyka,
Sorry, but I like our advancement system the way it is. Like Master Chief Slesh said, the only flaw I can see is some commands reluctance to use the "not recommended" block.

I thought the original poll was about "discipline" not weight..... Since we're talking about weight, I will throw this out there since I saw it in my class: What if the ones showing up over weight were the command cadre or their own units (OIC/XPO)? Is that the parent Sector's problem?


Ronny

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

On a side note
Underage drinking is, with only one exception, always an Alcohol Incident. Yet, providing minors with Alcohol may not be. Under the same logic, I think if you provide alcohol to someone you know to be under the legal drinking age, AUTOMATIC mast..... no exceptions. Your actions directly provided a negative impact on someone else's career,...... your career should suffer as well, if not more so.

If you honestly didn't know their age, let's look at the situation. If you honestly didn't know the guy driving was drinking, let's look at the case. In either case, if you knew, and didn't response accordingly,.... that's on you. You need to answer for your actions.

Jerald, we live in two different CGs. Mine doesn't have Command Chiefs figuring into anyone's marks. I am the final word on all E-6 and below. Very few people that work for me have ever recieved marks signed by anyone above an O-3. Many have never worked at a unit that had an Officer, let alone an assigned Command Chief. Their entire career, good or bad, has been documented, or not, by some Enlisted member. You can't think that people from around the service can be judged fairly by looking at their paper trail. Thinking that someone's record accurately reflects their performance is the same as thinking that their awards accurately reflects their service. Luckily none of us has ever had to sit through the reading of some award that we didn't think the person deserved.

Ronny, I'd say it falls on who was responsible for their weigh ins. If it were command cadre..... I'd really start to question their own honesty, and their ability to judge others. If I was in charge of the Sector and one of my Command Cadre was sent home for weight, I think I would send someone down to the unit and re-weigh everyone at it to ensure they were doing it right. Again, assuming I cared enough to enforce the policy.....

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

I am the final word on all E-6 and below.

You are the approving official on evaluations?

Wray... :cool:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Yes, I am the Approving Official on the EERs for my unit, with the exception of the XPO and EPO whose marks got to the Sector for approval. ..... same as it was in Sector San Juan, different in Sector New York where only the XPOs marks went up.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Wray,

I believe in 95' or so, the OIC was authorized to be the approving official on all evaluations for those assigned to them. I only remember it because it was after I retired.

I had so many evaluations show up late at HQ, when asked why mine were late, I reminded them that the marking period ended on x and after three trips by U.S. Mail, to/from district and to HQ, it will be late. I was never one to mark someone until the final work day of the period.

Of course with the E-CG, that should not be a problem anymore, but I'm glad they didn't recind the authority of the OIC.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Joe,
I would have guessed after '99 , but who knows.. I too remember the delays because the Group Commander or XO would micromanage you to death.

Wray... :cool:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Joe and Wray, again it depends where you're stationed...... The Persman states that the OinC can be the source marking source for an EER, however, ...... since Sectorization, things have changed. Everywhere I have been has wanted at least two people to look at someone's EER. That again, may seem nice on paper, but if that person is a five hour drive at best away from your unit, how could they argue or alter your evaluation with any degree of fairness to the individual?
While I was at New York they left it up to the EPO if he wanted someone from outside of the Cutter to look at his marks, mine didn't.
The Sector was always the appealing authority, though I've never had anyone appeal their marks......

There are other units that look alot like mine who keep all EERs in house.

Back to Jerald, in your experience, who is more likely to be picked as the Sector's SOQ? Someone from the Sector, or someone from one of the satelite units? How were those SOQs selected? Is the SOQ really the best performer at that unit during that period?

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

... but if that person is a five hour drive at best away from your unit ...

Man I wished it was that close sometimes. Even when group was my ADCON, if the GRUCOM didn't commadere Jack Downey's 65 footer for a ride over, they would have been at least a two hour ferry ride or a fifteen minute plane ride ... plus transportation to the ferry terminal or airport

When D2 was my ADCON, they were a scant 800 miles away as my unit was the furtherest southwest corner of the district.

OPCON was in NYC when I was on Nantucket and then moved to Alexanderia VA when I was in OK. In OK, the OPCON was a mere 2000 miles away. The nearest CG officer was at the CG Institute ...345 mi away.

But we did have a few visitors ... Annual OPCON's direct rep, MLCa compliance, and other inspectors, CEU, district, etc. The POs on the unit interfaced with alot of officers even though they didn't work directly for any of them.

My ADCON received supplemental EER information from my OPCON concerning my performance. I don't know if any informal information was received by the SUPPORT commanders.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Stu,
Over the years policies change... What Joe & I had to do as OIC's is different than what you do today.. Some changes are for the better .. some for the worse.. this appears to be one for the better.

Wray... :cool:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

For any of the no votes, would you let someone who was kicked out of the CPOACAD compete for Warrant, or would they have to return and successfully complete the course first?
Would you let them stay until 30 years as a CPO if they never go back to the CPOACAD?

[HSC Chris Fly]

For any of the no votes, would you let someone who was kicked out of the CPOACAD compete for Warrant, or would they have to return and successfully complete the course first?
Would you let them stay until 30 years as a CPO if they never go back to the CPOACAD?

For CWO- Since you are not required to be an E7, I don't see how you could restrict them from competeing once they are once again recommended for advancement. Now, whether they would get the magic words on the CO rec or not...

For Staying until 30 years- Since both Pac and Lant areas have said go to the CPOACAD or retire, I think that is pretty clear. They return at a later date or retire... I think the CG has to give them the option of returning since it is being required.

At least that's my .02

BTW- If the requirements for CWO ever changes to only E7 or above, then my opinion above changes...

[BMCM Bruce Bradley]

For any of the no votes, would you let someone who was kicked out of the CPOACAD compete for Warrant, or would they have to return and successfully complete the course first?


If the member is disenrolled for disciplinary reasons, then I could only imagine that their next evaluation would have "Not Recommended" for advancement. And if your are not recommended to advance how could any true leader then say you are recommended for promotion?

And although you might say that that recommendation would only hold for potentially one evaluation cycle, the CWO promotion board would still see it in the record for years. And that has to hold some weight when tasked with recommending only the best qualified members.

[HSC Chris Fly]

And although you might say that that recommendation would only hold for potentially one evaluation cycle, the CWO promotion board would still see it in the record for years. And that has to hold some weight when tasked with recommending only the best qualified members.

I totally agree that the promo board will hold that against the applicant for years, but the member should have the opportunity to get to the board after the cycle in which they got in trouble regardless if they went to the Academy or not. I guess you could say they "served thier time", but may still not get that dream job....

[BMCM Bruce Bradley]

I guess you could say they "served thier time", but may still not get that dream job....


I very highly doubt that they would even make the list, so why worry about any job.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Chris, like you said, it's the policy of both Areas that all CPOs attend, and they aren't meeting that requirement. There is no requirement for an E-6 to attend, so as long as that E-6 meets all that is required of them.....?

Bruce, how soon we forget. We had someone who wasn't recommended for E8 but was on the Warrant list not that long ago. I realize that you added in the "true leader" ... but we're assuming everyone out there is going to do the right thing. I don't have that much faith in my fellow man.

And both of you are thinking that someone getting sent home from the CPOACAD is going to have something negative put into in their record. I don't think everyone who gets sent home feels the impact. Would either one of you be shocked if I told you that someone who was recently sent home from the CPOACAD, decided to retire, and was given a GS-12 job, and their record shows that they attended the CPOACAD, but doesn't say anything about them being discharged from it?

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

Stu,
How many Chiefs that get sent home from the CPOACAD for exceeding MAW receive a 2 in Health and Well-Being? Take that a step further, how many folks in the CG that did not meet the weight standards got 2s?

In the past 5 years, I have had to intervene several times when Chiefs that were not recomended for E-8 remained on the CWO promotion lists. Unfortunately, the "system" only catches advancements not promotions and if the command does not proactively engage, that Chief may get promoted.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

2s ? What's a 2? I'd be shocked if they got anything less than a 5...... And I can already hear the reasoning.....
a. He's a great worker.
b. He makes sure all his subordinates meet the standard.
c. He exceeds the alcohol part of the marks to make up for it.
d. He's a wonderful guy.
e. We don't want this one little hiccup to ruin his otherwise stellar career.

If we marked people accurately we wouldn't have to worry about the system being able to catch those not being recommended for advancement, their low marks would be enough to keep them from ranking high enough to compete in the first place. Ah to dream.........

[DCCS William Harsch]

All,

I just registered on this web so forgive me if I am a little behind on the discussion thus far; but here are my two cents worth.

(1) If the CPO academy is a requirement for ALL CPOS (Is that official or is just required to make 8? I knew they were talking about it but havn't seen the message.) then it should be a requirement prior to making Chief not after. The CG has made LAMS a requirement for making E6. The CPO academy should be the same way.

(2) Leadership training should start long before you get to the levels of E6 and Chief, if you havn't been to any leadership courses by then it may be too late to teach an old dog, well you know the rest.

[DCCS William Harsch]

Stu,
How many Chiefs that get sent home from the CPOACAD for exceeding MAW receive a 2 in Health and Well-Being? Take that a step further, how many folks in the CG that did not meet the weight standards got 2s?

In the past 5 years, I have had to intervene several times when Chiefs that were not recomended for E-8 remained on the CWO promotion lists. Unfortunately, the "system" only catches advancements not promotions and if the command does not proactively engage, that Chief may get promoted.

The Coast Guard as a whole takes the weight issue passively. There has been someone on the "program" at everyone one of my units throughout my career and I cannot think of one that was discharged for it. Untill recently the idea of mandatory PT at a unit was taboo, slowly units are making PT a part of the work day. When I was at the ISC Kodiak, the CO had a point system in place to encourage working out. My current unit has mandatory PT everyday from 0700 to 0900. I personnaly think that weight is only a small part of being physically fit. The CG should not focus on weight alone but also nutrition and physical fitness.

[BMCS Jeff Lucas]

The CG should not focus on weight alone but also nutrition and physical fitness.

Nutrition is easy. Eliminate ALL deep-fat fryers from all galleys.

I would like to see that stuff too, I just hope we don't see more on-line BS training for this. May work for the active side, but getting all of our reserves time on workstations on wknds to complete that stuff is a major pain. If they keep adding on-line stuff, they will eventually have to require all HS's to become chiropractors and licensed masseuses.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

William, it's an Area requirement, so it's not tied to advancement.

J, I'd sign off on removing the deep fat fryers from galley if everyone else would sign off on discharging anyone who is one the weight program from drinking a soda, having a beer, hitting the drive thru at Mikey Ds........ if the rest of us have to suffer because someone can't manage their own weight or controls their own urges........... let's get rid of the weak willed. Those deep fat fryers cook food for everyone on board...... taken in moderation, there is no problem.

[PAC Sarah Foster]

Shawn:
Great to be back and glad to have made your acquaintance. It was an honor to be part of Class CLV.
Setting pleasantries aside, the unfortunate issue of disenrollment adversely affects all of us...this isn't something anyone would wish or hope for, but the difficult decisions made are for the good of the command and for the good of the member(s).

[BMCS Jeff Lucas]

Those deep fat fryers cook food for everyone on board...... taken in moderation, there is no problem.

Then maybe romove the fat from the deep-fat fryers. I don't know what type of fat or oil they use in those things, but maybe if they use a better, healthier oil, it wouldn't be as bad. I agree they have their time and place, but for them to be a crutch, at least for the FS's that I've known, their use should somehow be regulated. Do the menus still need to be approved each week by the OinC's?

You're right about the drive through windows and "pork-chops in a can". Pretty hard to control what folks do off-duty. Doesn't mean we should keep adding to the problem though. Kind of like saying that if folks go out on thier own boats and we don't require them to wear PFD's, then what's the use of requiring them on CG boats.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Do the menus still need to be approved each week by the OinC's?

My guess is it's still a compliance issue, so the OinC's signature would be there.

Should the OinC submit the unit menu's as justification for that "7" in promoting health and well-being? After all, it is documentation.

[BMCS Jeff Lucas]

Should the OinC submit the unit menu's as justification for that "7" in promoting health and well-being? After all, it is documentation.

Good call, Joe. Why not? If they are signing and approving menues that are limiting the use of the DFF, and other proccessed stuff, I would say, "You bet!"

[BMC Seth Tomas]

Then maybe romove the fat from the deep-fat fryers. I don't know what type of fat or oil they use in those things, but maybe if they use a better, healthier oil, it wouldn't be as bad.

Thats just as bad as getting rid of the fryers themselves! Its all that bad fat that TASTES SO DARNED GOOD!!! I LIVE for FRIED FOOD! :D

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

http://www.cmt.com/videos/zac-brown-band/289363/chicken-fried.jhtml

Chicken fried .... Zac Brown Band.

[MKC Chad Royer]

Nutrition is easy. Eliminate ALL deep-fat fryers from all galleys.

I would like to see that stuff too, I just hope we don't see more on-line BS training for this. May work for the active side, but getting all of our reserves time on workstations on wknds to complete that stuff is a major pain. If they keep adding on-line stuff, they will eventually have to require all HS's to become chiropractors and licensed masseuses.

At least the reserves are going to be compensated for completion of all that "on-line BS training". Read ALCOAST 604/08, if you dont know what i'm talking about.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

For those that dont know, in August, I think, an ALCOAST came out not allowing us to use trans-fat and put a limit on the amount that can be in food we buy. Can you imagine being a MEC or HEC and try to bake fries for the crew? While it may not be the healtiest form of cooking, it is quick. It is still about choices, you dont have to eat it, smoke it or drink it. I dont eat most dessert, but I would never make the cook get rid of them............

Now what did this have to do with CPOACAD? Oh yea, weight and health. Now why dont we get rid bars on base because the average "light" beer has 90 calories, times say 6 on a good night. That is 540 additional calories. While I know there is no fat in beer the sugar can be just as fattening.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

It's not the deep-fat fryers that make people fat, it's their poor eating habits. I was on a cutter that banned the use of the deep-fat fryer, we still had people onboard that needed to lose weight. If my FS1 makes cherry turnovers and I eat three of them, is that the FS1's fault? I think you all know the answer to that one.


Burt, why aren't you eating dessert? Still full from the biscuits -n- gravy???

[SKC Raymond Kurtz (Ret)]

I found the attached on MSN.Com. An eye opening look into how many calories mall foods contain.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

I found the attached on MSN.Com. An eye opening look into how many calories mall foods contain.

Baby steps Raymond...first lets get all the CG deep-fat fryers secured...then we'll start working on getting the malls shutdown.

[BMCS Ian McVicker]

We got rid of our fryer from the galley the other day, but was due to a safety and engineering issue (gotta love MLC).

Anyway, the cook (or in our case Chef) will probably still do some small stuff like fries, but it will be done in a heavy pot, or small fry daddy.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

Burt, why aren't you eating dessert? Still full from the biscuits -n- gravy???


Biscuts and gravy is dessert isnt it?:D

I just never have eaten alot of dessert. Not sure why.

[FSC Jeff Stumpf]

I have to say I always held a gun to the crews head to make them eat the dessert, that way I didn't have to eat it all!!!! On the serious side I never made the crew eat anything it was there choice well sort of I could have been a worse cook:D It is hard when everything taste great maybe I should have burnt something once in awhile!!! I will now take responsiblity for those in my command that are overweight It can be hard to not eat something sOOOO good!!! All right enough braggin and time to hit the gym that way I can eat the dessert....

Jeff

[BMCM Bruce Bradley]

Okay now I'm not to sure of where we are going currently, so please help me out here. So anyone sent home from the Chiefs Academy has to either eat all the desserts or all the fried foods. Which one is it?

Or are we totally off topic now and hopelessly lost.

[BMCS Jeff Lucas]

So anyone sent home from the Chiefs Academy has to either eat all the desserts or all the fried foods. Which one is it?


Both. Fried ice-cream!

[DCCS William Harsch]

William, it's an Area requirement, so it's not tied to advancement.

J, I'd sign off on removing the deep fat fryers from galley if everyone else would sign off on discharging anyone who is one the weight program from drinking a soda, having a beer, hitting the drive thru at Mikey Ds........ if the rest of us have to suffer because someone can't manage their own weight or controls their own urges........... let's get rid of the weak willed. Those deep fat fryers cook food for everyone on board...... taken in moderation, there is no problem.

MC,
It might be time to tie it to advancements. We are supposed to be what the junior members strive to be like, so if we can't meet the requirements how can we expect them to? I don't want to sound like I am on my soap box but sometimes it is that simple.

As far as removing the fryers from the galleys, I don't think that is the answer, sometimes it is okay to eat some chicken wings in moderation, don't eat 50 when 10 will do.

Wil

[DCCS William Harsch]

I have to say I always held a gun to the crews head to make them eat the dessert, that way I didn't have to eat it all!!!! On the serious side I never made the crew eat anything it was there choice well sort of I could have been a worse cook:D It is hard when everything taste great maybe I should have burnt something once in awhile!!! I will now take responsiblity for those in my command that are overweight It can be hard to not eat something sOOOO good!!! All right enough braggin and time to hit the gym that way I can eat the dessert....

Jeff

Jeff,

I have eaten your cooking, maybe there is something to be said about boxed lunches... HAHA.. How you doing?

Wil

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

It's been about a month since the last class graduated. Anyone care to guess if any action was taken against the people sent home without completing the course? Maybe they were wanting until after the holidays, or maybe 2009 will be the year of accountability.
FYI, PACAREA actually does check back with the unit to see what action they have taken. I wonder if the asking will go away with the Areas in the summer?

[DCCS Brett Wickett]

How many were sent home form the last class, and what reasons were they sent home for?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

For reasons other than the initial weigh in ... ? ... three, all reasons involved alcohol use.

[DCCS Brett Wickett]

I guess all I can say is wow. Without knowing more detail, (and I don't want to know) I can't make any assessment or pass any judgement. I have my ideas about things though.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

You're a better man than I, I'm quick to judge, and I rarely need more information......
Someone one out there weighed all of the available informantion and found them culpable enough to send them home. That's good enough for me.

It's like when I get a new guy at the unit that's had administrative action taken against him in the past. He can explain where things weren't as bad as they looked on paper, or that he got a raw deal....... doesn't matter to me, someone else saw enough to make the call. I don't handle the appeals, months or years after the fact. They had their time to make their case, and the other side won. Time to pay the piper.......

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

For reasons other than the initial weigh in ... ? ... three, all reasons involved alcohol use.

Stu, I think you once made a comment about me being "doom & gloom".. you sure seem to enjoy spreading that feeling here.. why do you care so much about those being "kidcked" out of the CPO Academy? I would understand if you were the school chief, but that is definitely not the case.

You're a better man than I, I'm quick to judge, and I rarely need more information......

Stu, yes you are very quick to judge.. and you only 'think' you rarely need more information.. truth is, for anyone to make an intelligent, informed decision, ALL information needs to be placed on the table.... you are way off base with this one.. far too often we get 'bits and pieces' but rarely know ALL the facts.. I would think you would agree,... all the facts are necessary to make an informed, intelligent decision .

Wray.. :cool:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I'm about accountability. I think that CPOs that can't or won't attend the CPOACAD should move on. That's the direction the service went. I think it's harder to enforce the weight or alcohol standards on junior people when our senior enlisted are looking for a pass. I don't like telling a PO that they need to attend LAMS as they walk past CPOs who won't attend the CPOACAD.

And I have all the facts I need. Senior professionals looked at the case. They weighed the evidence. They determined that the offenders couldn't remain at the school. That's good enough for me. I trust and support their decision.

If I were the NJP authority in these cases I would want ALL of the pertinent information...... I'm not...... I trust that the people who had it looked at everything and made the call. I can base my judgements off of their actions. When I hear that someone got sent home for exceeding their weight, I don't feel the need to tape them myself. I don't assume that the person who did tape them made a mistake,...... I quickly jump to the conclusion that the person was over weight. How about you Wray, if you were driving down the road and saw some guys in the orange prison jump suits working on the chain gang..... do you assume they are innocent, mere victims of a corrupt legal system...... or are they convicted felons? Do you wait to look through the court transcripts, or do you assume that the people who sent them there saw enough evidence?

Go back to the guy with the DUI........ the people making the call weighed the evidence..... he was sent home. One other person in the vehicle was sent back also. Others weren't. I trust that the evidence condemned and aquitted accordingly.

[DCCS William Harsch]

I'm about accountability. I think that CPOs that can't or won't attend the CPOACAD should move on. That's the direction the service went. I think it's harder to enforce the weight or alcohol standards on junior people when our senior enlisted are looking for a pass. I don't like telling a PO that they need to attend LAMS as they walk past CPOs who won't attend the CPOACAD.

And I have all the facts I need. Senior professionals looked at the case. They weighed the evidence. They determined that the offenders couldn't remain at the school. That's good enough for me. I trust and support their decision.

If I were the NJP authority in these cases I would want ALL of the pertinent information...... I'm not...... I trust that the people who had it looked at everything and made the call. I can base my judgements off of their actions. When I hear that someone got sent home for exceeding their weight, I don't feel the need to tape them myself. I don't assume that the person who did tape them made a mistake,...... I quickly jump to the conclusion that the person was over weight. How about you Wray, if you were driving down the road and saw some guys in the orange prison jump suits working on the chain gang..... do you assume they are innocent, mere victims of a corrupt legal system...... or are they convicted felons? Do you wait to look through the court transcripts, or do you assume that the people who sent them there saw enough evidence?

Go back to the guy with the DUI........ the people making the call weighed the evidence..... he was sent home. One other person in the vehicle was sent back also. Others weren't. I trust that the evidence condemned and aquitted accordingly.

BMCM,

Personnaly, I think I agree with you about the accountability. We can no longer work off of the "DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO" mentallity. As Chief's we are supposed to mentor our junior folks. On one thing though, I don't think that it is completely the member's unit who should take diciplinary actions. If the incident happened at the School then the school should take the appropriate actions and start the process. Afterall we are under orders there so the school has command and control over the member. Sending someone home seems to be more of an admin thing than dicipline.

DCCS

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

I'm about accountability. I think that CPOs that can't or won't attend the CPOACAD should move on. That's the direction the service went. I think it's harder to enforce the weight or alcohol standards on junior people when our senior enlisted are looking for a pass. I don't like telling a PO that they need to attend LAMS as they walk past CPOs who won't attend the CPOACAD.[/QUOTE

Stu, I agree with you on this one... it's too bad over the years everyone else didin't.. Had they, every E-8 & E-9 in the CG would have already attended the CPO Academy.

[quote]And I have all the facts I need. Senior professionals looked at the case. They weighed the evidence. They determined that the offenders couldn't remain at the school. That's good enough for me. I trust and support their decision.

Since you (or I) had nothing to do with the decision I guess we don't need all the facts.. The point I was trying to make was those MAKING the DECISION need ALL the FACTS... Unfortunately that does not always happen.

Wray... :cool:

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

So, the word is 3 people got sent home from CPO Academy for reasons involving alcohol use/abuse. What more do we need to know? Why is there a need to drive another nail in someones career coffin?

Stu, you are about accountability and you trust the folks that made the decision to send the members back, but you don't seem to trust that there is additional punishment (accountability) waiting for them. That does not make sense to me. Is it a case of wanting to know all the juicy details? Do you have to see something on "good order and discipline" to be satisfied that justice was met? Why is "knowing" so important? Do you have a dog in this fight? What ever happened to "trust the process"? I like accountability too, but I don't think rubbing salt in someones wounds helps.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Jim, I've seen people sent home and nothing more came of it. I've seen someone get sent back and then went Warrant. I've seen someone sent back and go on to a GS job.
I trust the people who see something wrong, and take action. I might not always agree with the action they took, but I trust that the action they took was justified. I don't trust that others will do the same. I trust that the CPOACAD does the right thing....right by the school, right by the service, right by the member. I think they hold people accountable to the standard. I don't think those units always respond in kind when the member is returned.
If we get to the point where units stop sending people who are already overweight, or where all E-7 and above that haven't already attended have a request to attend on file, I'll look at expanding my level of trust that they'll hold people accountable in other areas as well.

I'll put away the salt if you can show me actual wounds. A "Not Recommended" isn't punishment. Their inability to advance higher as an enlisted member isn't punishment. Poor marks are a reflection of their performance, you aren't punishing them, you're marking them accordingly. I'd like to think that as a minimum.... there is a page seven somewhere in their record that explains why they were sent home from the CPOACAD...... and I don't trust that that's happening.....

[AETC Shawn Burns]

I too agree there has to be some accountability, but the people that have to make the decisions about the individuals have made them by this point. If you have not heard something you shouldn't. If we as Chief's decide to criticize another Chief or Commands on a decision someone has made on an individuals career, his life...then we need to be able to accept it by giving our explainations to junior enlisted about everyone or everything we do.

I don't think that is going to happen!!

BTW only 2 individuals were dismissed for alcohol related situations. The 3rd individual dismissed was for a displine/intregrity issue.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Shawn, didn't the discpline/integrity issue still involve alcohol?

[BMC Nicholas George]

Stu,
We may not agree on the actions taken on individuals after they are sent home, but that is not up to us to decide. That is the right reserved for the individuals respective command. That is your right as an OIC. If you feel it necessary to throw the book at, or do nothing to someone under your command for being sent home is up to you, whether others agree with it or not. There are many unseen/unknown variables that can go into why you or another command may or may not pursue punishment. Those variables... we will never know. This is why a panel of our superiors and peers are put together to decide whether or not some of us have the ability and forethought to make these decisions.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Stu,
What is your point for bringing all this up? Often with incidents like this all details are not revealed to everyone. As you say, those that made the final decisions should have had all the facts, and taken the appropriate actions. Of course we all know that does not happen 100% of the time.

Wray.. :cool:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

The same point for bringing anything up..... to start a discussion. I hear things, they bother me, and I wonder if anyone else that hears about them feels anything either way.
It's a big service for as small as it is. As Nick points out, someone might go home and have the book thrown at them, where someone else, whose actions might have been far more serious, walks away whistling.

Also as you point out, you never know who is reading this. Maybe someone who hasn't heard any of these things were happening might take notice. Maybe they will look at the poll and determine that more people are happier with the way things are and don't see the need for any type of uniformity, that the word from the field is that this is self correcting, or not even an issue.

[AMTCM John Long]

Stu,

Just for the sake of the discussion....

You know......I suspect the Gold/Silver Badges are well aware of who received what after the member RTB's. I'm not sure we want to create a norm in second guessing the ruling CO or OINC. There could be logical reasons why CO's/OINC's of member's involved in a situation will adjudicate differently. I would expect the GB's/SB's to ensure the situation is addressed in a manner that is consistant with past precident (more so than the written policy).

John

[AETC Shawn Burns]

The issue was about a person that had issues with alcohol; but the fact is that is was a disipline/integrity dismissal from the class.

[YNCM Doug Squires (Ret)]

I think the more appropriate discussion is whether any E-7 that goes to the Academy should be allowed to retain E-7 if he/she fails to meet the course of instruction.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Anyone who gets kicked out of a service academy is obviously being held accountable by the school. The question is...should they be held accountable (in addition to being kicked out) once they return to their unit? I think it's a case-by-case decision. There's some documentation that needs to occur and the unit needs to ensure it's complete if the school didn't. In the case of an AI/weight, there are steps that need to occur back at the unit.

Stu...do you know that nothing is being done at their units or are you just asking the question?

Here's a question...What does the academy do when someone is sent home? What is the procedure? Is it documented? Anyone know the procedure?

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

I think the more appropriate discussion is whether any E-7 that goes to the Academy should be allowed to retain E-7 if he/she fails to meet the course of instruction.

Is attendance to the CPO Academy a requirement for E-7 or just E-8 & E-9?

Deane, I'm sure there is plenty of documentation on those sent home from the Academy. Prior to anyone being dis enrolled from BM "A" school there were several formal steps taken, all very well documented.

Wray... :cool:

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Is attendance to the CPO Academy a requirement for E-7 or just E-8 & E-9?

It's a requirement to be eligible for E-8.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

John, I don't think that all of the GB/SBs weild the power you think they do. I'm not that sure they are always as involved in the process as you think. Again, some GB/SBs might be taking the lead on this, but are all of them as involved? As what's wrong with second guessing someone's decision? Can't we talk about what we would have done differently? To bring up the OinC review board... that is what they do. You are given a scenario, and asked how you would handle it.

Doug, that's how this started. I just asked, if someone is sent home for disciplinary reasons.... the conversation evolved from that point. I wasn't talking about specific cases, just a failure to meet a required school.

Deane,and Wray, I don't know what happened after they returned. I asked what people think should happen. l followed up by asking those who thought the unit should take care of it if they thought anything has happened since they returned.
I know of other cases, not from this past class, where nothing negative happened, again no documentation that prevented someone from going Warrant.
I know the school is holding them responsibile to the school's standard. Who is holding them accountable to the service's standard?
I don't know if any documentation follows. I don't know if EERs, accession, assignment, or screening opportunities are affected. I don't know. I'm asking people if they should be.

Shawn, if you go back in the thread, I said three people all involving alcohol. I guy has alcohol issues but is sent back for disciplinary/integrity issues? Were those disciplinary/integrity issues somehow linked to his alcohol use? If not I misspoke, and I apogolize. If it were simply for other disciplinary/integrity issues, I have to ask....... if someone didn't have the integrity or disciplinary control to finish a required five week course on professional development, should that person remain an E-7? What would have to change before you allowed that same person to occupy a seat at another class?

Edited to add,
and Deane, it's also a requirement for all CPOs, SCPOs, and MCPOs to attend, according to the Area People Plans. They just don't tell you what to do with those that don't.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

It's a requirement to be eligible for E-8.

That is what I thought.. so that sort of blows Dougs question out of the water.... as far as retaining E-7... Now of course that does & should prevent them from taking the E-8 SWE.

Wray... :cool:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

No it doesn't, we get requirements from all levels. Deane is pointing at requirements for advancement. The People Plans talk about requirements AS a CPO or higher. Doug is right.
Allowing someone to remain at a paygrade they aren't willing to meet the requirements for prevents a string of other people from advancing also.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Allowing someone to remain at a paygrade they aren't willing to meet the requirements for prevents a string of other people from advancing also.

Sorry Stu, but I disagree... as I competed on my E-7, E-8 & E-9 SWE's there were several people I passed by.. Of course this was before the Academy even existed. People that want to advance can & will. All it takes is a little hard work and effort. The others will be left in the wake.....

Once again, it isn't a requirement for an E-7.. only E-8 & E-9's...

Wray... :cool:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Wray, that's what you're not accepting....... it is a requirement for ALL E-7, E-8 and E9s to attend, as laid out in the Area People People Plans. The Area Admirals made it a requirement for everyone who works for them. There is no grandfathering. There are no waivers.

And if someone is simply filling a paygrade, it's impossible for someone else to work hard to take it over. That senior person needs to advance out of it or retire first. The more E-7 billets that we have that can't advance to E-8, the fewer opportunities for someone to advance to E-7 to advance on from there.

If you're doing the job of a CPO and have no desire to advance....... carry on. But if you aren't willing to meet the requirements set for you, it's time to move on, and give the reins to someone who is willing to.

[MSTCM Jerald Motyka]

Isn't the actual policy that if you made E-8/9 prior to the Instruction coming out, you are still grandfathered... unless you want a Gold/Silver Badge job? I realize that the People Plan is a neat thing and all, but it isn't policy, is it? I had thunk that LANT/PAC flags were holding people accountable to a piece of wishful thinking. Not that I disagree with the thought, quite the contrary, but I really hadn't heard that it was officially black and white policy.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Why would it any less enforceable than any other Area policy? And grandfathering has been removed, again accounting to the people plan. I think EPM would still send a test to anyone advanced to CPO prior to JAN 99 if they haven't already advanced by now..... but, saying someone hasn't, and now wants to,..... couldn't their unit not recommend them IAW the People Plan?
And just to muddy the waters.... we've had SB/GBs who haven't attended a senior enlisted course......

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Isn't the actual policy that if you made E-8/9 prior to the Instruction coming out, you are still grandfathered

What instruction are you talking about?? The CPO Academy has been around for 25 years or so... I would think we are past the "grandfathered" people by now...

Stu -- one of the instructions I saw said "a. In accordance with reference (a) chapter 5-C, all E-7’s advanced on or after 1 January 1999 must successfully complete the CPOACAD or a Department of Defense Senior Enlisted Academy in order to be eligible to participate in the E-8 advancement process.

While desirable for an E-7, the way I read it is it must be done prior to sitting for the E-8 SWE. When you tell me I am wrong, please cite the instruction your are referencing.

Wray... :cool:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I'll have to pull them up at work, but the PACAREA People Plan, and the LANTAREA People Plan both say that all CPOs will attend or retire. It has nothing to do with their desire to advance, it's what the Area expects from it's Chiefs.

And we have lots of 8s and 9s who were grandfathered in and still haven't attended.

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

PAC and LANT People Plans state that E-7s, E-8s, E-9s must apply to and the HQs People Plan states that E-7s, E-8s, E-9s must attend one of the senior enlisted academies. All are lawful orders issued by VADMs.

[YNCM Doug Squires (Ret)]

LANTAREAINST 5357.1A (The LANTAREA Peoplel Plan)

7.f.(5)
All regular and reserve Chiefs (E-7, E-8 and E-9) in the Atlantic Theatre are required to attend the Coast Guard CPO Academy or an equivalent DoD senior enlisted leadership academy. Only those with an approved retirement date are exempt from this requirement. Failure to attend should be considered in enlisted evaluations and should be disqualifying for special assignments. Deployable units shall make every effort to allow chiefs to attend this course during a portion of a deployment. Once orders are issued, cancellations require the approval of the first flag officer in the member's chain of command. Enclosure (1) specifies procedures for units under Atlantic Area OPCON to request to cancel or reschedule CPO Academy orders.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Kevin... Since the Academy has been around for some 25 years,..... can you explain Stu's statement since both the Commandant & all these VADM's have written policies why they are ignored?

Wray.... :cool:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Wray, it's like anything else, people look for a way around it or they bide their time until something else comes up on the radar.
Most people that haven't sent their CPOs will tell you they can't afford to be without them for 5 weeks.

For the rest of your answer, it's pure numbers. The CPOACAD can support about 700 students a year, which is roughly the same number of new CPOs we make every year. Leave a couple of seats empty, and it snowballs,...... Those who didn't take timely action as soon as they were eligible now fight for seats with everyone else.
So what is the overall cost of the seat that someone lost due to disciplinary issues?

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

Thanks for the correction Doug, it truly emphasizes the point against operating on memories that are no longer accurate. That paragraph seems to address the, "what if they don't go questions" pretty clearly to me.

Wray,
Folks ignored instructions during your day as well. Just because the COMDT, VADM or CO says, "make it so", does NOT "make it so".

[AMTCM John Long]

Thanks for the correction Doug, it truly emphasizes the point against operating on memories that are no longer accurate. That paragraph seems to address the, "what if they don't go questions" pretty clearly to me.

Wray,
Folks ignored instructions during your day as well. Just because the COMDT, VADM or CO says, "make it so", does NOT "make it so".


Kevin,

Do you know how many active/reserve E8/9's who HAVE NOT attended one of the academies? I have seen the numbers about 3-4 years ago but don't recall what they were? Attrition likely dwindled the numbers down but I will speculate there are a few who have not attended.

Thanks...John

[MCPO Francis Jennings]

The "pretty clearly" is that if they don't go, it "should be considered in enlisted evaluations and should be disqualifying for special assignments". Problem is that it is extremely rare for any VADM to be the Approving Official on an E-7 or E-8 EPEF. If the actual Approving Official really cared about this issue enough to "consider" non-attendance on the member's marks, that same Approving Official likely wouldn't recommend his Chief for advancement. (And why do we ever use should in an instruction?).

You want compliance? Base the CO's OER on his Chief's performance (i.e., CPO Academy attendance). Better yet, just start a rumor that this will happen (may as well add IDP compliance in there as well).

FFJ :cool: :cool:

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Francis,
As You and Doug have pointed out "Failure to attend should be considered in enlisted evaluations and should be disqualifying for special assignments. Deployable units shall make every effort to allow chiefs to attend this course during a portion of a deployment."
Sounds pretty simple and clear cut to me...

While the VADM's may not be the Approving Official on an E-7 or E-8 EPEF, they are for the Sector Commanders... Certainly some simple task direction could be given and perhaps compliance would improve..

I'm guessing this is not a major concern for some... sort of like the weight program... compliance is dictated when there is a need for it, not something people think about, or enforce on a daily basis...

Wray... :cool:

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

John,
The CPOACAD attendance stats can be found on my website at http://cgweb.comdt.uscg.mil/cmc/ which can only be accessed from a CG work station. Last I looked, we were right around 50% of AD and Rsvr Chiefs (7s, 8s,or 9s) having attended one of the senior enlisted academies.

Frank,
You know as well as I do, what's important to the VADM becomes important to the CAPTs. Sometimes it only takes a spotlight being shinned on a potential blind spot that initiates self synchronization with the policy. I would bet that some OERs have been impacted but, that is way above our paygrades to worry about.

Generally speaking here...folks have a 100 things to do each day and only have time in the day to complete X number of them. As leaders each individually decide using their own lens, what's a priority and what does not get done. Most likely they use a risk based or cost benefit analysis or some other process to pick the precious few to complete. Not for or against it, just sharing an observation.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

I looked at the list and was surprised how many E-7's there are that have still not gone...dating back to 1999. I guess it is a visibility issue...

Kevin...is this issue ever discussed at GB conferences? How much visibility/focus do the GB's put on this?

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

I looked at the list and was surprised how many E-7's there are that have still not gone...dating back to 1999. I guess it is a visibility issue...

I would be more concerned with how many E-8's & E-9's haven't attended.. Deane, how do they look? Got any numbers?

Wray... :cool:

[BMCM Bruce Bradley]

Kevin...is this issue ever discussed at GB conferences? How much visibility/focus do the GB's put on this?

Constantly, but until there are some real consequences instead of should suggestions this issue will remain the same mess that it is.

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

Deane,
CPOACAD attendance was a major topic at the CMC conference this past summer. We even had the folks from CG133 briefing the subject. Unfortunately, what 133 provided was a 101 Brief, I politely tried to redirect the presentation in a more useful direction several times with no success. Once I was less polite and more direct, the questions and answers started free flowing. It was obvious at the time, that there was a disconnect somewhere in the CG133 chain that was preventing the fields desires and needs to be implemented into policy and practice.

Like all mtgs, the same CPOACAD, Weight, IDP etc.. messages were conveyed to the attendees but those same messages were rcvd 60 different ways.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Deane, I thought that would be the issue. Most new CPOs understand the process and put it for the CPOACAD right away. What I would be surprised about, but then again not really, is how many of those CPOs that have been around for 8 years or so have still been getting high marks in areas that involved following command policies and setting the example,.... even Recommended for Advancement..... especially over the past two years.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Here are some very rough numbers for active duty that have not attended a service academy, they do not include reserves.

These numbers are for those that have not attended, it does not include those that have requested a seat. Also, some of these E-7's just made it so they just probably haven't had a chance to submit yet.

E-7: 903
E-8: 48
E-9: 56

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

WOW, the numbers that jump out to me are the E-8's and E-9's.... 25 years after the Academy started..

Go figure... :confused:

I'd love to see the list of excuses why 56 MCPO's couldn't attend. Doug, I'd say these E-8's & E-9's should loose their paygrade before those E-7's do. Wonder how they did that, & who recommended them for advancement.

Wray... :cool:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Wray, they weren't required to go until about two years ago. The requirements for the CPOACAD have changed several times during that 25 years. It's intended audience has changed.
Those people weren't required to attend to advance, how could their supervisor hold them to a standard they were required to meet?

As for the excuses used by the MCPOs who didn't attend....... what was your excuse? They probably are still using the same thing.
And you don't have to attend to meet the requirement. You do have to submit a request to attend, or have a retirement letter on file.
How many of those SCPOs or MCPOs are meeting the requirement?

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

There are roughly 4000 AD Chiefs (7s, 8s & 9s) in the CG and about 2500 of those Chiefs have attended one of the senior enlisted academies. The attendance totals are not exact or linier due to some Chiefs having attended multiple courses.

Attended *** E-9*** E-8*** E-7*** Totals
CPOACAD*** 220*** 600*** 1647** 2467
SMAJ****** 5***** 0***** 0 **** 5
SNCOA**** 25***** 70*** 82***** 177
NSEA***** 13***** 12**** 0***** 25
Totals***** 263*** 682*** 1729*** 2674

Each year we advance less than 600 Chiefs and retire roughly 500 Chiefs. The CPOACAD currently has 720 total seats per year available, the SgtMaJ has 4 seats, SNCOA has ?? seats, and the NSEA has ?? seats. As you can see, throughput is not THE issue which is further highlighted by currently available quotas to each course.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

WOW, the numbers that jump out to me are the E-8's and E-9's....

The numbers that jump out at me are the number of E-7's that haven't attended since 1999 when the requirement was put in place.

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

And the beat goes on... 3 more Chiefs were sent home today for exceeding MAW standards. None were close calls in exceeding their maxes.
A. 23 lbs / 7 % bf
B. 36 lbs / 4 % bf
C. 19 lbs / 5 % bf

Oh yeah... another Chief cancelled out of the class on Friday morning because they exceeded MAW. The class is now at 67 out of the 72 seats filled.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

And the beat goes on... 3 more Chiefs were sent home today for exceeding MAW standards. None were close calls in exceeding their maxes.
A. 23 lbs / 7 % bf
B. 36 lbs / 4 % bf
C. 19 lbs / 5 % bf


I hope someone will be on the phone to their respective commands asking WTF!

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Maybe they hadn't heard you weighed in that first weekend.

But three, isn't that what we were averaging per class?

[AMTCM John Long]

Stu,

Is this an example of where you would call up the affected commands to ensure they followed up on their disenrolled students?

Who do you think should be doing the command calling?

If one of these students was yours, would you be receptive to the phone call asking "what are you going to do?"

John

[BMCM Deane Smith]

John...the program should be run via the GB network. But, it takes involvement from the District Commanders and Sector Commanders to support the GB/SB and the direction of this program. Until that happens, we'll keep having these type of dis-enrollments.

If a command doesn't want a phone call, they shouldn't be in the position to get the call.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

I hope someone will be on the phone to their respective commands asking WTF!

Earlier Stu talked about accountability .... Wouldn't the Sector Commander have a degree of accountability & responsibility for NOT sending people that do not meet the physical requirements to the Academy? (or any school for that matter)

Bottom line, no one is being held responsible... it's as obvious as the nose on your face.

Wray... :cool:

[AMTCM John Long]

John...the program should be run via the GB network. But, it takes involvement from the District Commanders and Sector Commanders to support the GB/SB and the direction of this program. Until that happens, we'll keep having these type of dis-enrollments.

If a command doesn't want a phone call, they shouldn't be in the position to get the call.

Deane,

I believe MC Bowen (MCPOCG) is still the PM for the CPO Academy and he decides what will and won't happen. If I'm reading you correctly and you're talking about GB/SB's running the program (academy??), if I was a GB/SB, I would not want to get in the business of running it directly or indirectly. What would/could they do that the MCPOCG could not (or is not) already do(ing)? There has to be one person (PM) that makes all the calls for the program. If you had all the GB/SB's running it, that might create other problems such as blurring ownership, east/west differences, etc . I suspect our GB's are a little too crusty to want to assume direct/indirect ownership of the CPO Academy. I see their roll as supporting (not running) the MCPOCG's vision of the CPO Corps....in this case, the CPO Academy.

Like everyone else, my armchair 2 cents.....if we are going to continue down this path of disenrolling folks for weight on reporting to the academy, then it stands to reason the member should be weighed prior to departing for the academy....and I mean prior to departing. Wearing my PM hat....I want to minimize the expense of sending a student who will not make weight upon reporting. This particular training is important and expensive. It is not a LV/Libo maximazation(sp) opportunity....the member will not take LV while enroute. The member will be weighed upon receipt of orders and within 3 days prior to reporting. If the member reports on Sunday or Monday, they will be weighed the preceding Thursday or Friday. That gives the unit and member two opportunities to verify weight and CX orders if needed. These checks will be noted on the screening checklist. If I really want to be a stickler and it's not already being done, the CO/OINC or XO/XPO will witness the weighin, initial off on it and fax a copy off to the District or Area POC (GB??). Will this ensure 100% success? IMO....no, but it should reduce the disenrollments and provide a command point person should I desire to make further inquires. If the member CX's prior to departing, it is a mainly a unit/member issue. I might have to get another body, but I didn't waste money or the slot. If he/she reports then gets disenrolled, it just became my problem because my program lost money and a slot.

Lastly, as a PM I feel I took reasonable and necessary stewardship action to reduce the wasted expense. In my current PM job, I will (and have) called units when their student gets sent home or has a problem. The final decision to seek reimbursment from the units is up to my bosses.

The other option is for the CG to go to a mandatory PT program, re-wire the current weight program and dump TAD weighins. That of course is for another thread....;)

John

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

if we are going to continue down this path of disenrolling folks for weight on reporting to the academy, then it stands to reason the member should be weighed prior to departing for the academy....and I mean prior to departing.

John, I'd be willing to bet it is stated right on the orders to the Academy that the member must be in compliance with current weight standards. As Deane stated, the most recent ones sent home were not close calls.. 19-36 pounds overweight. That begs the question what is done during the weigh in's.... Didn't they just have one? ... It appears nothing.

Wray.. :cool:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

John, yeah, I'd expect a call. I'd expect to answer how someone was in compliance when I weighed them, within thirty days of executing their orders, and no where near compliance on the second day of class.
I'd also expect a call asking what I did to a guy who was sent back to my unit due to disciplinary reasons.
I wouldn't even mind getting a call asking why one of my members wasn't following the Area People Plan.

As for who should call..... I'd say your boss, who ever that might be, ...but the Badges should be tracking this. Those Sector jobs are full time now. I think it would be easy enough to figure out who hasn't attended, when they intend to, and who gets sent home.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Deane,

I believe MC Bowen (MCPOCG) is still the PM for the CPO Academy and he decides what will and won't happen. If I'm reading you correctly and you're talking about GB/SB's running the program (academy??), if I was a GB/SB, I would not want to get in the business of running it directly or indirectly. What would/could they do that the MCPOCG could not (or is not) already do(ing)? There has to be one person (PM) that makes all the calls for the program. If you had all the GB/SB's running it, that might create other problems such as blurring ownership, east/west differences, etc . I suspect our GB's are a little too crusty to want to assume direct/indirect ownership of the CPO Academy. I see their roll as supporting (not running) the MCPOCG's vision of the CPO Corps....in this case, the CPO Academy.

I understand that the MCPOCG is the PM for this, but his GB/SB's need to manage the program for him in their respective areas. It's a Chief issue and should be managed at every level by the Chiefs. At the end of the day, it needs to be the priority of every district commander...trickle down effect will make it the priority of every sector commander...trickle down effect will make it the priority of everyone.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Deane, I don't believe it is a "Chief Issue"... I think it is a "Leadership Issue"...one which appears to be getting ignored at several levels.


Wray... :cool:

[AMTCM John Long]

I understand that the MCPOCG is the PM for this, but his GB/SB's need to manage the program for him in their respective areas. It's a Chief issue and should be managed at every level by the Chiefs. At the end of the day, it needs to be the priority of every district commander...trickle down effect will make it the priority of every sector commander...trickle down effect will make it the priority of everyone.

Deane,

Do you know if he "charged" the GB/SB's with managing the program? I would bet not. I think Wray is correct on this. Several levels have ownership on this. I'd start with the member. He/she should know they will be weighed up on reporting to the academy. This isn't a secret.

Stu,

That's good you will take calls on your folks, I would have expected that.

Wray,

As far as I know, nowadays all TAD and PCS orders have the weight clause in them. The question is when to weigh them prior to excuting the orders.

John

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

The question is when to weigh them prior to excuting the orders.

I would think anytime after orders are issued... None of the above gained 19 to 36 pounds in the time the orders were cut to orders executed.

With all the complicated issues that the CG handles daily, I'm amazed that this simple one has gone on so long, with no simple resolution.

Wray... :cool:

[DCCS Brett Wickett]

This is a leadership issue from the top down. Yes the CPO is required to maintain weight standards; however, the command is responsible for making sure the member is compliant prior to going. Now should the member have to weigh in prior to attending, not if they are as far above the standards as these last three. They should have already been on the weight program, thus not allowing them to even submit a school request. The weight is not the alarming number. Ok one is 30 something lbs over, OK. The BF% is the real number. You do not fluctuate in BF% by that much in a rapid time. 7% over takes quite some time. I am close to 60 lbs over my weight, but still severla % points below BF. Someone at the top needs to start holding the next person inline accountable, and so forth down the line until it reaches the memeber. If the member can't meet the standards they can find other employment. If a CPO can't see the numbers on a scale, or read a tape measure then shame on them. They probably shouldn't be leading someone else, it's obvious they can't lead themselves.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Deane, I don't believe it is a "Chief Issue"... I think it is a "Leadership Issue"...one which appears to be getting ignored at several levels.

Leadership = Chiefs = Leadership

This is a Chief Petty Officers Academy...


I don't disagree that it's being ignored, that's why it needs some upper level focus.

[MSTCM Jerald Motyka]

Each year we advance less than 600 Chiefs and retire roughly 500 Chiefs. The CPOACAD currently has 720 total seats per year available, the SgtMaJ has 4 seats, SNCOA has ?? seats, and the NSEA has ?? seats. As you can see, throughput is not THE issue which is further highlighted by currently available quotas to each course.

Master Chief, the SNCOA has 40 quotas per year for Coast Guard students, and we can get more if we want them (up to about 60 before the Chief of the Air Force gets pissy). Historically we fill about 30 or so. I've been at just under 40 since I got the job as Liaison.

Thus far, I've only had a couple that were close to the weight limit. Luckily they taped out, or I would have been forced to pull out the can of hard-ass and spread it around.

One of my concerns as a Sister-Service Acacemy Liaison is that CPO Smith will be released from the CPO Academy for being fat - and then immediately apply to the SNCOA. I'm a dick about reviewing Direct Access for weight info, but if we have units fudging the data, I'm forced to do hand-searches for names that were released to ensure they aren't going to be a problem for me. Thus far (keeping my fingers crossed), I've been lucky and haven't seen it.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

I don't disagree that it's being ignored, that's why it needs some upper level focus.

Deane, that is exactly why I said it is a LEADERSHIP issue... Their supervisors need to exercise some leadership and be sure those stepping on a plane are in compliance with the instructions.. It is NOT just a Chief issue. (in my opinion)

It may be a Chief Petty Officer Academy, but..... the Group/Sector Admin Officer & ultimately CO, should be ensuring those attending any school, meet the requirements of that school & and what is written on the orders.

Wray... :cool:

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

At the last CMC conference, MCPOCG made everyone aware of his expectations regarding weight compliance.

The GBs are not charged with running the CPOACAD program, they are charged with supporting it. This includes managing cancellations, following up on returnees, filling last minute quotas, and attending CMC panels and graduations.