OINC Review Board

[BMCM Deane Smith]

I'm curious what others think about the current OINC Review Board process?

I think it needs a good look and some improvements made. I have my thoughts, but would like to hear what others think.

Thoughts???

[BMCS S. D. Peters]

The OIC review board process has been in place for many years now and though it may have a few revisions that are needed it is overall a good process. The revisions I see that are needed are instead each district doing a review board is having an area board. Pac area does it this way and there is more consistency with the questions and requirements. This also ensures the member is asked about Coast Guard wide policy and not district specific items. After all the board is to determine if you are qualified for assignment to any district.

The board tests your knowledge of policies, manuals, reports, leadership, work-life issues and etc. I think anyone requesting Command should have to go through it, including Officers, CWOs and ET’s. The board puts you in an awkward environment and observes how you react to stress and whether or not you maintain your confidence and military bearing. They use examples of actual situations that have happened to see if you would handle them in accordance with policy and regulations. That way they ensure the best of the best are in these demanding and rewarding positions. 80% of the people on the board are OICs and they have passed the board. They are not there to see you fail, but rather to see if you have what it takes to be successful in a Command position.

The major problem that I see is not with the board, it is members not stepping up to the plate and attending the boards. Its hard work, you have to study and put forth the effort. You will not be able to BS your way through it.

Boatswain’s Mates have always been up to the challenge of being in charge of their own unit and the board is the current process in place to make it happen.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

I agree with having consistency throughout the CG . I certified at boards in both areas and PACAREA was by far a better board. Between D1 & PACAREA, it was like 2 completely different boards. It shouldn't be that way.

I still believe that we should have one board that meets in a central location and runs everyone through. The same board members would see everyone come before them and their precept would be the same, not dependent on a district or area commander.

Some might argue that the cost of sending everyone to a central location might not outweigh the gains, but isn't our current/future leadership worth a few dollars each year?

[ETCS David Kroll]

I'm just gald ET's don't have to go through a board to run a LORSTA. :) :)

[BMC Kerry Wagoner]

I too agree there should be "one board" and one standard. I went through the D7 board and the PACAREA board. In PACAREA you are required to first pass a group/sector board, then district board then finally get to PACAREA. In LANTAREA, once district gives you the thumbs up, you are good to go.

One Guard, one board (at least one standard).

[BMC Ken Gouge]

I sat both PACAREA and D9. D-9 was a frigging joke. No offense to any members of the board, nor will I mention a timeframe.

The PAC board was exactly what they teach you about in OIC school, use generally the same type questions you have seen and attacked the current hot topics or recent policy changes.

For D9 I was sitting Ashore only, and was shown a flip chart with obscure chart symbols to decypher, had very few scenarios, and was asked about many D9 policies. The CMC also removed his ribbon bar and asked me to identify his top three ribbons. Needless to say I had not received two of the three myself, and had no clue. See, I had been studying things like Naval and Civil Engineering, Personnel manual...

In the final few questions I was asked by the District XO If I knew the difference between a Statute and Nautical Mile. After my reply of "Sir, a statute mile is 5,280 feet and a nautical mile is 6,000 feet" and did the math for him I was told "close but no..."

Maybe I was just supposed to say "Yes sir, I do"???? But more importantly why waste My 2 hours with nonsense and the Coast Guards per-diem with nonsense?

By all means standardize, and if he had the time the E-10 should attend and give judgement as well...

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Let me bring Deane's thread back to the front of the board. We have hundreds of people viewing this a very few chiming in. I too agree that there needs to be standardization for the board. Once certified you can be transferred anywhere in the CG so why do we continue to see District specific questions popping up at the board. Depending on the district that you sit at and the people that sit on the board the outcome of your board varies to greatly. I know people that have certified for AtoN positions that had no AtoN background and were not asked any AtoN questions. They appeared before the board for Multi-mission only and were asked why they weren't requesting AtoN as well. They ended up certifing across the board having not answered a single AtoN question. The first time I appeared before the board I was seeking all four and walked away with Multi-mission Afloat only. ????? I had been told by many that that was the hardest one to achieve, but apparently not. I guess CG Regs is wrong. I failed to achieve AtoN certification, because in my opinion, the ONE person that know anything about AtoN over than me, was asking the questions, was part of an elite club, and was not looking for any new members. He was also one one the most dangerous people to ever run a buoy deck, and had never heard of uniform regulations, let alone read them. I was distract by the fact that he was wearing the entire exchange on his chest......don't laugh Deane. But I digress, standarization, standardizatiom, standardization. If they want us to run a unit in a standardized fashion they should certify us in one. There is a magical place in the first district that when you go and spend a week under the tutalige of the OinC, you are endowed to the ability to certify. Everyone who has gone there certifies and those who don't certify are told to go to place of enchantment before reappearing in six months. Scary but true, ask the surviors and the victims, I can provide names.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

There is no reason to ask factual questions at a board. You can take care of that with a written test. In fact, it might not be a bad idea to have sitting OICs retest periodically. Sort of the same way the DWO test is mandatory for OIC afloat.

The board should be focused on the "what if" questions and the member's general appearance and way he/she carries themselves. It should be more about character than knowedge.

I absolutely agree about the standardization.

[BMC Mark Spillane]

With just a few words I disagree that you must go before the board in order to make BMCS. I think these boards should be for Coasies that really want a OIC job. I think we lessen the importance of the board by making E-7's take the board just for advancement. We should take some of the questions from the typical board and apply it toward the SWE. I went before the board as a E-6 with the sole intentions to be a OIC and not just to get "my ticket punched".

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Mark,

The problem comes in when there aren't enough qualified people at the 7/8/9 level to give OINC jobs to. If they didn't make it mandatory, there may not be enough OINC's.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Mark,
The problem is that many, if not most, of the E-8 and E-9 billets are for OIC jobs. Even, if that isn't exactly true, there is enough of a problem getting those jobs filled that they need a large pool of candidates.
I agree that no one should sit for a board if they have no intention of being an OIC. But, I'd take it further and say they shouldn't be BMs if they aren't willing to step up.
A sitting OIC afloat recently suggested that the practical factor should be for BMC rather than BMCS. I thought that was an excellent idea. If you don't want to be an OIC, you don't get to be a chief either (at least not as a BM).

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I don't know why you would allow someone to advance to a paygrade where they are not qualified to apply for the majority of positions. I'm with Dennis, and I'll go one step further, if you became a BM to drive small boats, don't advance pass E-5. Once you become an E-6 your eye should be on the prize. Command is the natural progression for the BM rate, always has been. If you're not willing to follow that path you should be marked accordingly and cut from the herd.

[BMC John Anders]

I was offered an opportunity to visit the so called "Land of Enchantment" as well. It just didn't fit into the 270' schedule. I certified MM & AToN Afloat at the D1 board and failed the MM & AToN Ashore.

I agree that the boards should be standardized.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

What is the message that that sends. Afloat command is published in CG regs as begins the hardest job you will ever have. It takes seconds to run a cutter aground and months to run a staion or Ant into the ground. How can they say that you lack the ....whatever... to command on land?

[BMCS Nick Pupo]

First, do I think that the OIC review boards should be standard? Yes...
Its been 7 years since I sat on my board in D8. I had the opportunity to sit on 3 boards as the MM Afloat representative, in D5. On those boards both in D8 and D5, although the experience of the boards members varied, the questions were similar, in intent and structure.
Now about the process of having the Performance Base Qualification a requirement to make BMCS. I disagree with that, I too think it should be a requirement to make BMC. It really upset me when, right after we absorbed the QM's. There was a time period that a QMC did not have to have ANY OIC certification to advance to BMCS.
I will take it one step further. If a person goes thru the OIC review and after an unsuccessful attempt they become frustrated with the process. So they decide to submit their name and are promoted to CWO. They should not be given the opportunity to command a station or cutter. Just because a person is promoted to warrant officer does not make them suited to command.

[BMC John Anders]

How about the fact that a LTjg can get his paws on an 87' after only two years in the guard or the fact that we will put a LT at a station after never having served at one. Never mind the fact of having a coxswain letter.

Enough said. Time to hit the books.

[BMCM Steve Cantrell]

Having sat on one of the D1 boards that offered the so called "Land of enchanment", let me give you insight on why that was adopted. A majority of the candidates at a particular board made the comment after they failed the board that they felt they were not properly prepared for the board due to unit operations, etc that did not afford them the opportunity to study more, etc. Several of them also gave the impression that their commands did not take enough of an interest in the process to help them. So, at the conclusion of the board, we discussed different options and it seemed that if a member was willing to take time to visit another unit on TDY orders (paid for by the district) with an OIC that was willing to give that individual some personal attention, then wouldn't it be a good thing? I remember there were several OICs that felt that it was a slap in the face to them to suggest that they were not taking ample time for their OIC candidate and to send them to another OIC was just not right. I never thought the idea was to give the candidate the impression that if they went TDY to this Land of Enchantment, that it would guarantee a certification the next time around. I can assure you that was not the original intention. And although each district conducts a board a little different, the process is standard and the same form to grade a candidate's performance and knowledge is used in D1 as is in D14. The problem is that the pre boards are not always standard and candidates show up to the district board and it is usually obvious right away that the candidate was not properly prepared by his/her command and the pre-board. For anyone who has sat on a review board, I think you'll agree that the idea is that you want the candidate to wow you with their knowledge and confidence and when they don't, it's frustrating because in most cases, the member put an awful lot of prep time into the board and it's tough to tell them to come back in 6 months. In those cases, it is imperative for the board members to offer some type of positive encouragement to the candidate. That was the idea of the so-called Land of Enchantment. Agree or disagree with it, but the original concept was to help the candidate. Of course, I'm always willing to listen to better suggestions if anyone has any.

BMCM Steve Cantrell

[BMCS Bill Gheen]

I think that the OinC boards should be given by LANTAREA & PACAREA only. The idea of having District proprietary questions are not within the scope or spirit of the board’s purpose.

Having been through the board, I find that the meat grinding style is appropriate and suiting to milk out the cream of the crop.

I also believe that anyone who desires a command within their career; they too should have to appear before a similar board.

I truly question why it is allowed for someone who is either unable or unwilling to achieve Afloat and Ashore, Multi-Mission and/or ATON certifications; may be promoted to BOSN Warrant. I don’t buy the MST argument either.

From the PERSMAN “CWOs are mature individuals with appropriate education and specialty experience who have shown through demonstrated initiative and past performance they have the potential to assume positions of greater responsibility”…

Has someone competing for BOSN Warrant with no OinC certification, demonstrated the above. I think not.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Steve, You sound a little too much like the company spokesman.

Here's the reality. I've sat before the OINC review board at D1 & PACAREA, they were decisively different. That's a problem. Yes, I was graded from the same (outdated) form, but that form doesn't tell you what to ask and what to ping on. It all depends on the precept of the board.

Here's the only way to ensure the board is standard...have one board that convenes somewhere in the middle of the US. The same board members will evaluate all candidates that are sitting for the board. If recent numbers of candidates reflect future OINC boards, we should even go to an annual board to cut down on travel/logistics of meeting twice a year/etc.

This one annual board would work. This is the best solution to the problem, and it is a problem.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Deane, you are a man of action. You start a thread sighting a problem, solicite information from others, formulate a logical plan, and are preparred to put it into action. And it is nice to see that you realize that your plan is the "only" way things can be done in a standard fashion. Well done. Who could possibly argue with that?

[BMCS MICHAEL PERKINS]

I agree with Bill, if you are not certified by the board you should not even be allowed to screen for Warrant Bosn. I also feel that it should be a praq for BMC. When I was in D5 they sent the OPS boss from most of the Groups to sit and observe the District board in a attempt to standardize the Group pre-boards. Not sure if it helped, anyone in D5 seen a change for the better?

[BMCM Steve Cantrell]

Deane- Having served as an Officer in Charge of five different units (both afloat and ashore) in 3 different districts and having sat on 4 different OIC Review Boards, I do consider myself as a "company spokesman". The system we have is in no way perfect, but it is not as flawed as this thread makes it out to be. Believe or not, there is a standard for conducting these review boards (PERSMAN) and a board is only as effective as it's members. I've sat on boards in 2 different districts and I found them to be fairly similar and used the same standards for evaluating the candidate. Having one board for the entire service in one location would be a logistical nightmare and will never happen. And I'm sure there would be some complaints about the way it was conducted.

Steve

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Steve, thanks for brigning your experience on this matter to the forum. Deane and I have and both sat before and certified at boards that you have chaired. You're right in that people will continue to complain not matter what the CG does to standardize the board. Don't you think that their complains would be less credible if, as Deane suggested, everyone sat in front of the same, centrally located board ? The effectiveness of the board members are the very thing that the rest of us are calling into question. You talk about the cost to the CG of having one board, and we are talking about the cost to the CG if we don't. The CG has a centralized panel that meets to screen certified members for OinC asignment, Co assignments, and to ascend to Warrant. I know that the applicant's folder and resume are sent instead of the member themself, but shouldn't the initial certification of OinC candidates be afforded a higher precedence? Couldn't this be one way to counter the increasing number of OinCs that are relieved for cause ? Couldn't we impart the importance and costs of recommending someone to appear before the one board to those local pre-boards or even put the travel cost back on their OPCON for members that failed to certify? I don't know all the right answers, but I think Deane is on the right track.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

I think the cost would be negligible. PACAREA already pays travel to a location somewhere in their AOR, it changes periodically (usually Alameda).

I think the bean counters could find the money. I guess I could help them with that, also.


Steve, I agree about the guidance for the boards. It's clear, but it has to followed by those individual boards whether a pre-board or the real thing. And I'm here to tell you, it's not.

[BMCM Steve Cantrell]

A single board, CG wide is good in theory, however who is going to chair these boards? It wouldn't be the same people from year to year and I will guess that members coming from different districts would bring differing views. Maybe having the OINC/XPO school develop a curriculum for the board and conduct it at the school once a year. Then there could be no complaints. I still think the system we have is a good one (not perfect, but good with good intentioned people running them) .Problem is that no one is going before the boards. Pretty bad when only 1 or 2 people from an entire district are sitting before the board. Take a round turn on this BMs or at some point, we're going to start losing OINC billets to CWOs and JOs.

Steve

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

And that is one of the things that I keep talking about. If supervisors and approving officials held people that are eligible to attend the board, like E-7 and above, accountable when it came time to mark them, most would no longer have the points to complete for Warrant. You have people out there getting all sixes and sevens who are NOT setting the example and NOT seeking more responsibility and we are NOT utilizing all of our resources to hold them accountable. To be viable for Warrant you need to be getting somewhere in the neighborhood of all sixes with two sevens. Oh yeah,... and COMMAND RECOMMENDATION. If you gave a member a couple of fours and withheld the sevens that they are not earning they would not be viable for YEARS. They would have to invest the time until that set of marks no longer fell into the mix. These OinC jobs are going away. Of the nine 87's being put into service in '05 only four went to BMCMs. For those of you not good with numbers, that's less than half. Command is the natural progression for BMs. We need to utilize the tools at our disposal to ensure that we have qualified competent people competing for OinC positions. If we don't do something soon, we will see more and more of our billets going to Warrants and JOs. I tell every member that has sat for a pre-board that I have chaired that they should be commended. They are the future of the CG. They continue to stand up and say I'll do it, I'll try, Give that responsibilty to me. I tell the ones that we don't recommend to the District board not to give up, come back in six months, learn from their experience, look around and realize that while others are content to follow that they should strive to lead.You can talk all you want about officers not having to go through a certification process, but do you have the ability to change that ? We do have the authority and responsibility to hold those BMs under us to a standard. Why aren't we. And if YOU are, then I mean WE as the Coast Guard.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

I like the idea of having the OINC school involved. They should be involved and having them coordinate the annual board is a great idea. I still say that from a logistics standpoint, having the board somewhere in the central US (i.e. St louis, Memphis, Texas) makes it easier for each coast to travel there. As far as who would sit on the board...I would hope that we could get enough people to volunteer to make this happen. If not, we may as well just hand the keys over right now to the CWO's & JO's.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

One of the problems that has been mentioned in this thread is the decline in number of candidates appearing before the board. How do we fix that?

One small step in that direction might be to talk about it within our CO/OINC peer group. In D13, we are having our CO/OINC conference in a month. I've recommended to the conference project officer that we discuss this issue. Not sure if it will make it to the conference or not, but I've asked and hopefully it will. I think we need to keep discussing it and figure it out now. I know it will be discussed at one other conference, that's how we have to start. For those of you who haven't had your conference yet, bring it up. Let's figure this out.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

And I say, hold people accountable. If you are an uncertified BMC and are not seeking certification, your marks should reflect that. You are not eligible for advancement and your marks should reflect that. You are not seeking additional responsiblities and your marks should reflect that.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

I agree about the accountability issue. I like the idea of a standard board (if we are going to have a board). I had a Group pre-board (failed the first time) and cruized the district board when I finally got there. Group was more about military bearing, squaring cornersm holding my hat properly... The District was more interested in what I would do in this or that situation, where I would get this or that information... As I thought it should be. I wanted to be an OIC, not a recruiter or poster child. Standardization is great. I am all for that. However, if it becomes to standard, then everyone is going to know what the questions are in a couple years and it won't be a challange. How about a standard board at the end of OIC school? Therefore, everyone that goes gets a shot, and the candidate will have had to attend the school. It is centralized as well. Fail the board, go to the back of the line. If it is at the LDC, then the leaders can step up and say either congratulations, or make the difficult decision.

Jim