CPO Academy "REQUIRED" attendance.

[MSTC Steve Natale]

The PAC/LANT area instructions directing attendance to the CPO-A got me thinking that the CPO-Academy is no longer optional.

Plus the push locally and probably throughout the CG chiefs mess's irks me a little. The whole "you need to go to this and youll get out of it what you put into it, and just go" message is "odd" to me.

I really dont like the whole message being sent for this "program" / training. Nor should anyone else involved with it. It certainly puts a negative spin on it for those who are unsure if they really want to attend or not.

So, why am I posting this? I have an idea that I was going to submit through my local CMC to push up from there but I wanted to get an idea if it was even feasible first. If its not, then its a moot point.

IDEA:
Automatically schedule every E-6 above the cut for E-7 to a CPO-A class. Take the SWE in MAY, cuts published in/by SEPT 1, TDY orders start being issued for CPO-A. Upon arrival you are frocked, upon departure the anchors are permanent. In essence any given years E-7 advancements would take place from OCT-JUNE of the following year, pending CPO-A attendance.
Thats the jist of it. Maybe start sending individuals in January since thats the "earliest" we can advance people from the MAY SWE (or just call it an early advancement if you went in OCT-DEC) I know there are variables not accounted for, I didnt want to go too in-depth as those details would be out of the area of my "idea" and would be dealt with by others.

This would only add additional credibility to the school. If someone turns down the orders, no anchor for you, if someone cant attend due to weight problems, no anchor for you, if someone is sent back due to performance issue, no anchor for you. The only caveat being a member pushed back for medical reasons outside of their control.

Standing by...

Steve.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Steve,
When the CPO Academy first evolved, back in 1982, the message traffic and instructions that followed stated the Academy was "required".. not an optional school that 'could be attended' if a member wanted to attend.....

During the first few classes the CG felt it important enough that they were forcing the MCPO's to attend. Some attended despite the fact they had retirement plans in the works. Other MCPO's choose to retire, rather than to have this mandatory training.

Over the years I have seen several messages and instructions stating how this was a "requirement".. not a choice. That being said, I don't believe there can possibly be an excuse for ONE MCPO in the Coast Guard today not to have attended... and damn few E-8's.... Remember, the Academy started 27 years ago.

People have tried to justify why there are E-8's and E-9's that have not attended, but the truth is, like the weight program, people BS their way out of it. There is no accountability & responsibility for some... Plain & Simple. It strikes me funny that a military orgainzation that makes its own rules & regulations can't enforce them.

Sorry Steve, but I don't see your proposal as a doable one.. for a few different reasons.. the biggest being the CG doesn't truly seem to hold people accountable & responsible for attending, regardless of when it is.

Just my opinions, but, I was around at Class 1 time when the CPO Academy first evolved at RTC Yorktown. Even a guest speaker a few times during their graduations.

Wray... :cool:

[MSTC Steve Natale]

Thank Wray, and I dont disagree with much of what you posted.

The one part that irks me, and I would guess most of us is the "the biggest being the CG doesn't truly seem to hold people accountable & responsible for attending, regardless of when it is."

With it being truly mandatory and a requirement to advance to E-7 the accountability would be transferred totally to the individual advancing vice anyone else "allowing" non-attendance.

I try not to even involve myself with this kind of thing. I strive to keep my stress level as low as possible but this whole ATTEND or Not Attend the CPO-A issue just seems so damn ridiculous in a Military organization.

I thought it would just be better if it was "cut and dry", the consequences are VERY clear, the benefits are VERY clear. If an individual wants to be a Chief Petty Officer in our organization then you SHALL attend the Chief Petty Officer Academy.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Oops, forgot this.....

ALDIST 173/98 announced these changes to the Coast Guard in July 1998. These changes made attendance a requirement for all regular members advanced to E-7 on or after Jan 1, 1999, made Reserve E-7s eligible for the active-duty course, and cancelled a previous requirement for all Coast Guard E-8s to complete the Chief Petty Officer Academy prior to advancement to E-9.

Subsequent administrative changes were announced in ALDIST 219/99 in June, 1999. All active-duty and Reserve E-7s advanced on or after Jan 1, 1999 were now required to successfully complete the Chief Petty Officer Academy or a DOD Senior Enlisted Academy in order to be eligible to participate in the E-8 advancement process.

Wray... :cool:

[MSTC Steve Natale]

Wray, yup required for advancement to "Senior Chief Petty Officer", too bad it wast changed to "Chief Petty Officer" back then.

I guess we wouldnt be where we are now concerning this subject.

[DCCS Brett Wickett]

Steve,

"The one part that irks me, and I would guess most of us is the "the biggest being the CG doesn't truly seem to hold people accountable & responsible for attending, regardless of when it is."

While this in itself is an issue, I would hold that it should not irk you. You already stated above that you didn't know if you wanted to go or not. Maybe I am misreading and you have gone, but are just referencing those who may be on the fence.
Either way, why is it that someone else should be accountable for making you responsible? And that is in general, not saying you as "YOU". All the time we hear the CG does not hold anyone accountable. While that is true in some instances, I belive the issue is more that people are not holding themselves acountable and it is easy to point the finger at someone else and say hey they didn't hold me accountable.

As far as advancing everyone at the same time or in a given couple of months I don't think that would work. Only xxx % of 7,8.9's are allowed. If someone retires in Novemebr, we can't advance their replacement in May. One leaves, one comes in (advances). Now I may be completely worng on this, but I am pretty sure this is accurate. Thats not to say that you could not frock someone when they finish the school, but then we have even more people doing work they aren't getting paid for.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Steve, I think the big problem with scheduling an E-6 who hasn't advanced yet, is that there is no guarantee that they will. Lots of things can happen before they pin that anchor on.
We don't really need any major changes to the program. Make the Silver Badges the point of contact for their Mess. They get a list together of CPOs that haven't attended, and they talk to those members. With those members that still refuse to put in the training request, the Silver Badge talks to their supervisors. If no action is taken, bring the Sector CDR on board. Everybody works for someone, give that person a chance to do the right thing, before you give their boss a swing at it.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Wray, yup required for advancement to "Senior Chief Petty Officer", too bad it wast changed to "Chief Petty Officer" back then.

I guess we wouldnt be where we are now concerning this subject.

Steve, sure we (you) would... If the CG can't get E-8's and E-9's there what makes you think they could get E-7's or E-6's there :eek:

Wray... :cool:

[BMCS Jeff Lucas]

Just throwing this out, and starting it with a question. Why have we (the CG) decided that you need to be a Chief to go to this? If I remember right, you can put in for it as an E-6 if you're above the cut, but nearly all already have the Anchors before they go. So why not make it a prerequisite for anyone who want's to sit for E7? Most any other academy is a place to prime you for the position desired. For instance, when you go to a police academy, you don't go as a police officer, you go as a "prospective" police officer. When you go to BTM school, you're not going as a BTM, you're going as a "prospective" BTM. Same with our O's, they don't go to OCS or the CGA as an Officer, they go as a "prospective" officer. So why should the CPO Academy be any different? You go to the CPO Academy as a "prospective" CPO.

For an inlisted member, the two greatest jumps in rank are putting on the crows, and then putting on the Anchors. If someone wants to put on Anchors, you go to the CPO Academy as an E6 with command emdorcement to be primed to put on the Anchors. So then when you do make E7, you're all set. That would guarentee that all E7's have gone. There are some folks who just want the Anchors, most likely for the added retirement pay, and figure they can stick it out and hopefully avoid the CPO Academy before they retire. This would make those type non-existant.

Now, if you go as an E6, then sit for the SWE and don't make it, no problem. You still had the course and hopefully are a better leader for it even if you don't have the Anchor, and just sit for the next one. Can anyone think of a downside of that??

[MSTC Steve Natale]

Thanks for the info everyone.

Wray, I see where you are going with that, hadnt really thought of it from the point of view.

Maybe I used a bad adjective there with "irk". I guess it doesent irk me as much as "concerns" and I might add that yes, personal accountability as a CPO (all ranks of) should be of the utmost.

Maybe thats why its ultimately being left up to the individual to go or not, personal responsibility? And if an individual doesnt personally accept the "resposibility" of attendance then they surely arent going to "accept" a star to place over their Anchor.

[BMC Nicholas George]

I heard this same idea from a certain CMC at my CPO Academy grad dinner... I like it.

Contrary to a lot of what i heard prior to... The CPO Academy was a positive experience and necessary for new Chiefs...

[BMCS Jeff Lucas]

The CPO Academy was a positive experience and necessary for new Chiefs...

... or for "prospective" Chiefs.

[MCPO Francis Jennings]

It's funny, a recent Navy Times article discussed to bad idea of frocking Chiefs (thereby allowing them to advance service wide on a single day). If we adopted that policy, we could send all prospective Chiefs to the CPO Academy with the confidence that they'd at least be frocked on that given date. That would sure make CCTI easier to plan, as well.

But many folks in the Navy dislike that system. You get your anchor at a well-planned opportunity, but work at "lesser pay" for a year or so.

This is relevant to the topic because it would greatly ease many of the issues discussed. Imagine, you get frocked, then need to attend the CPO Academy. If you fail to do so, it's a simple administrative matter to remove your eligibility (as long as you're frocked).

This dichotomy between their way and our way has been around for at least as long as I have. Each has their plusses and deltas. I submit that the entire enlisted management system should be the next major review by our service. This seems long overdue; ALDISTs are policy bandades. We need to take a hard look at where we are now and where we need to be; we do not need to look backward. Class 1 (God bless 'em) has no bearing at all on class 162 (reporting tomorrow).

Frank :cool: :cool:

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Jeff,
The CG use to have SPOLAM.... That's Senior Petty Officer Leadership & Management School.. I don't remember if I was an E-6 or an E-7.

I have no idea if that is still available, or has been replaced with something else.

Wray... :cool:

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Answer this simple inquiry ...

Why was the CPOACAD established without following the Commandant Instructions required by every other resident training course?

What is the purpose of the CPOACAD? It doesn't make you a CPO as that is the Commandant's responsibility with your CO's recommendation.

Those Area instructions were not written in mandatory language, except by the loosest usage of the American Language. Shall, is the mandatory word used in all government publications. Flowery words like recommended, highly recommended, should, are just another way of saying "pretty please with sugar on top".

[MSTC Steve Natale]

I waited to post a reply till i got home tonight.... i hit my 30 minutes of "personal use time" just after 1300 ;) .....anyway.

I just wanted to comment on the Navy vice CG way of advancing to E-7.

I was stationed in Groton, CT as an E-6, and my neighbor happened to be an E-6 in the Navy. We were both up for E-7 and both got selected/above cut. He was immediately frocked/advanced that summer. I conragulated him and mentioned that the added pay must be nice, he then explained how he got to wear the anchor but didnt get paid for like 6 more months. i was like "sheesh THATS a sucky system". But when Jan rolled around he started getting paid, I continued to wait another 5 months before I was advanced. All of a sudden the system he was under didnt seem so "sucky".

I did think of that situation though. There would potentially be a lot of "frocked" E-7's running around waiting to get to the CPO-A, BUT they would damn well know that they better be/get/become the Chief that is expected of them, including attendance to the CPO-A.

I would forsee the current issue of attendance, or lack thereof, to completely swng the other way, they would be knocking the doors down in Petaluma.

[MSTCM Jerald Motyka]

I've spoken to two bean counters that said that the legally mandated numbers of E-7's in the Coast Guard would be exceeded if we frocked like that. My question was actually about frocking via the CCTI program (remember that poop storm?), but the concept is the same.

There are some concerns with this idea, though.

With the folks that I had going through the Air Force Senior NCO Academy, outside of a MCPO that was sent home for disciplinary reasons by my predecessor, my biggest problems were from either very junior or frocked E-7's - that had not gone through the CCTI process either, incidentally.
_________________________

This thread is kinda well timed.

As the new Chief of the Mess up here in Boston, I just laid down an edict with the support of the Captain. I want STTR's requesting the CPOACAD or a sister-service equivalent by Thanksgiving - OR I want a letter of retirement or resignation. I don't give a rat's patootie if you have 19.5 years in - you either have an approved STTR or submit your letter to get the hell out.

I gotta say that I got some interesting looks. Nobody said anything, but if looks could kill, my wife would be MUCH richer tonight.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

I've spoken to two bean counters that said that the legally mandated numbers of E-7's in the Coast Guard would be exceeded if we frocked like that.

Jerald... I'm not sure your "bean counters" understand what frocking is.... The number of E-7's wouldn't actually change until the person is officially advanced. All frocking does is let you wear an insignia to represent the next higher paygrade you are not getting paid for.

Please give us an update by Thanksgiving on your success or failure with your STTR or retirement letters.

Wray... :cool:

[MSTC Steve Natale]

As the new Chief of the Mess up here in Boston, I just laid down an edict with the support of the Captain. I want STTR's requesting the CPOACAD or a sister-service equivalent by Thanksgiving - OR I want a letter of retirement or resignation. I don't give a rat's patootie if you have 19.5 years in - you either have an approved STTR or submit your letter to get the hell out.

.

THAT is EXACTLY what got me started with this idea in the first place, the THREATS being thrown around during chiefs call and via e-mail to all the CPO's etc etc. Just does not feel right coming from "inside" our ranks. I guess this is coming from the MCPOCG. I expect that is where the message originated, so why not just have it come from there. I guess the PAC/LANT/COMDT INST/POLICY memos etc get to the point so WHY the threats? Lets just move away from this current form of persuasion and just make it plain and simple.

Above the cut..........here are your orders, upon arrival in Petaluma you are Frocked, upon completion of the CPO-A you are advanced (or some period thereafter). Dont want to go????....keep your crows, dont meet the weight standards, keep your crows, get kicked out / sent back from the CPO-A, here are your crows. CUT / DRY...easy to understand, gets the point across, WE/USCG/COMMAND/EVERYONE are VERY SERIOUS that this training WILL be attended and you WILL get what YOU want/need out of it.

The dinner at the end of the CPO-A would be AWESOME!!!!!!! Even more so than it is now. Align CCTI with it........ whatever...... I just cant come up with negatives. Except for those who choose not to comply.

All right, beating the horse, its floundering, almost dead, not yet though.....

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Steve, Jerald or anyone else can threaten all they want, but since HYT is not being enforced, I don't believe there is any way they can "force" people to put in their retirement letter...

Now of course marks could be reflective of this, but they can be appealed, and then the RADM would probably get involved. Do you really think a Captain would want to deal with these tyes of issues.. of course not.. it brings us right back to "don't make waves"... most 0-6's are looking for a star.. dealing with forced retirements over a school is something both the Capt and RADM do not want to deal with. Wait & see.

At any rate, that is my opinion, however I am not up to date on all the latest & greatest policies & instructions.

Wray... :cool:
P.S. I wouldn't worry about your 30 minutes of "personal time".. That too is obviously another one of those policies that is NOT enforced.

[EMC Brendan Murphy]

Jerald, What do you do with a guy that has 10 years in and 4 years left on his enlistment? Process him or her for discharge?

It is a choice whether you go to the CPO Academy or not. You learn that the first day. The big thing is you will not be ready for 8 if you CHOOSE not to go. You could make this an E-6 school then you would get people bitching that there needs to be a school for E-7. I think it is fine the way it is. Some people need it others do not but it sure is nice to get away from the unit for 33 days working together with your piers and learning a few things along the way.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Brendan,
How right you are....The CPO Academy would benefit all that attend, but those that do not desire a star or two make the decision to go or not to go.

My obvious recommendation to all would be to go and make E-8 & E-9, however; I have seen and known many who are happy to retire as a CPO... Their call, not mine... and I'd bet money it won't be Jerald's or his Captain either.

Once again, while there may be several E-7's that have not attended the academy, there should not be ONE E-8 or E-9 that has not attended.. NO EXCUSES!

Wray.. :cool:

[BMCS Nick Pupo]

Steve, its not required to attend the CG CPO Academy, however to advance you must complete a Senior Enlisted Academy. So here are my questions, do we not allow people to attend another Service Academy until they attend the CPO Academy?
If we shift our Advancement to E-7 system, what do we do with the people who dont attend the CPO Academy, but do want to attend a sister service Senior Enlisted Academy. Do they get to advance under the same cycle as the ones who do? Im not sure, but I dont think the AF "frocks" people to attend the AF-SNCOA (Jerald?) and I'm pretty sure that everybody who attends the Navy Senior Enlisted Academy has already been advanced? Has there ever been a person who was frocked in order for them to attend another Senior Enlisted Academy.

Also, I dont know the exact numbers but there are 10 Classes a year. I believe two of those are Reserve Classes. So we have 8 active duty classes, which times 68 students per class is 544 students a year. Do we advance that many Chief's a year? I dont have access to the PSC website for past and current advancement lists so I dont know. Then what do we do about the Chief's that havent attended the Academy? Do we start, only after all current Chief's have attended? Also, what about the reserves, where will they fall into the system.

Now, Im not saying your system wont work. Im just saying for it to work and be successful we need to look at all the issues it will create and have an answer on how to handle them.

[BMCS Nick Pupo]

Oh yeah, and one more thing. Make attendence to any Senior Enlisted Academy a requirement to make CWO. I know that would exclude E-6's from making CWO...

I know a few people who made Warrant without attendence and the additional one week school during the CWO Indoc really didnt, in my veiw, help them much.
Wonder how many people on the current list for CWO havent attended any Senior Enlisted Academy.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Oh yeah, and one more thing. Make attendence to any Senior Enlisted Academy a requirement to make CWO.

A variation of the arguement in 1980s when the ET rating reduced the requirements for E-8 and E-9. The prior requirement was to be on the CPO list, so if the CWO didn't have more requirements, why should the E-8's and E-9's. However, there were two rate related requirements ... reviewing the EPQ and submitting recommendations to the RFMC.

There is a reason why E-6's are allowed to compete for CWO.

[LTJG Brian Strattard (ETC)]

Playing devils advocate:

What tangible method of measurement do we have assess the effectiveness of the CPOACAD? Looking at it from outside of the box, if we have to resort to requiring Chiefs to attend, what does that say about the effectiveness of our senior enlisted leadership who have attended the course?

Just my tuppence worth, but what is the thought process to have a 33 day leadership training course at the CPO level? Shouldn’t these leadership principles be acquired prior to taking on a leadership position? If a unit can function with a CPO who hasn’t attended this course, and function missing the CPO for a month, is the course really effective at this particular level? You can give someone the tools to succeed as a leader, but you can’t make an effective leader. What happens when a Chief comes home from the Academy and the lessons don’t take, they are still a Chief and in a leadership position…IMO, leadership principles should be taught prior to ascending to leadership positions. My solution would be to assign SWE points to those who have attended the CPOACAD, and throw in SWE points for those with college level degrees. That way, we can give more motivation for those to attend on their own without dragging out the cattle prod. Those that attend have that much more of a chance to advance utilizing the SWE, those that don't attend can still compete for E-8, they just have a disadvantage. We can also build a better leadership base by giving more leadership training opportunities at lower levels, especially at the E-4 level.

So the other forces have their senior leadership academies…we are just following suit, which does not smell of leadership but followership (not that there is anything wrong with that, there is a time and place for everything). Let’s take the lead on this and turn the CPO Academy into a CPO Preparation Academy, assign it SWE points for attendance, make it for E-6 POs and right the learning prism where we should be teaching leadership to the lower levels of management so they can have those tools to augment their experiences rather than end load them with the tools after they are already set in their ways.

We Came With The Hope That Others Might Follow
Instead of making the CPOACAD mandatory, let’s take a page from the first class and use our leadership abilities to ENGAGE the forces and MOTIVATE our people to attend because they want to. After all, isn’t that what the spirit of leadership is all about?

Strat sends...

[AMTCM John Long]

I submit that the entire enlisted management system should be the next major review by our service. This seems long overdue; ALDISTs are policy bandades. We need to take a hard look at where we are now and where we need to be; we do not need to look backward. Class 1 (God bless 'em) has no bearing at all on class 162 (reporting tomorrow).

Frank :cool: :cool:

Concur....I see it as a healthy thing to take a step back, identify our core enlisted managment areas and smooth out any rough edges.

I'll get back to the current thought. CWO3 Dana Lewis (Ret) posted the below at Fred's. I bolded his one paragraph that caught my eye and italicized what I thought was his main point.

Over on another site they are having another go around on that CPO Academy out in Petaluma.

Just wondering, it has been in existance for 27 ~28 years now and running a goodly number of E-7 thru E-9 through the course. Has it accomplished its mission yet??

You'd think that after that many years and that number of chiefs, supposedly going back to the fleet and putting into practice what they've learned, that by sheer osmosis the leadership traits and practices would have filtered down through the petty officer grades and all hands should be on their way to being successful leaders.

Are they not putting into practice what they've learned ?? Has it just become a sort of "finishing school", needed to advance, or, to place on ones resume by the time that retirement kicks in ?? Seems to me that if the overall level of leadership hasn't improved over the years, perhaps the training should be directed more towards the entry level petty officers that will have a longer career to put the lessons into practice.

Is it time to shut it down, and re-invent the wheel with something more practical ?? Has the school become another self pertetuating institution ?? It's your CG, do you need something that works ??

Maybe a little critical thinking might be timely. I'd say to even begin to answer his main point, one will need to go back in history to find out what the original intent of the CPOA was. Then determine if where it is today, does fall within the scope of what the "original framers" intended? If so, then like it or not, it's working as originally intended. If not, then something is/was wrong. Either the original intent was wrong or the direction it went was wrong.

Thoughts......

John

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

If you don't know where you've been, how can you not repeat the past?

Sooner or later your idea will be exactly like one that was proposed in the past but later rejected for some reason or another. Generational history is an easy trap to fall in.

Class I certainly set the foundation, Class CLXII should improve on that foundation, without repeating any of the mistakes of the past.

How often is the curriculum outline reviewed and approved for the CPOACAD? In the past 27 years there should have been at least nine reviews and potential adjustments, all properly documented.

If Frank influenced General Patton with Frank's line of "not reviewing the past", Patton would have lost Sicily. Patton remembered how all the ancients took Sicily and repeated the successes of the past.

I would still like to know what deficiencies were addressed in the CPOACAD? The E-9's were deficient? The E-8's? I suspect the CPOACAD is just an "us too" school.

I'm sure if Jerald pushes the issue, he will soon find out that he can't superceed Commandant's Instruction, no matter what his or his CO's personal opinion may be. All the wishing in the world can't make a CPO attend the CPOACAD. Right now you need to get that ticket (CPOACAD) punched to advance to E-8. Needs of the service could change that rapidly, unless all the active duty posters here have a really good crystal ball. If that were the case, what's tuesday's mega lotto number?

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

The PAC/LANT/HQs People Plans (Area instructions signed by a VADM) state in varying language the required attendance.

The People Plans evolved in the following order (paraphrasing here)
PAC- 7s, 8s and 9s must submit an ETR to attend the CPOACAD unless a retirement letter is on file and the Command Chief manages that program.

LANT- 7s, 8s and 9s must submit an ETR to attend the CPOACAD, unless a retirement letter is on file and the Command Chief manages that program. Failure to attend should be reflected in evals, board recommendations, and advancements/promotions.

HQs- 7s, 8s and 9s shall attend the CPOACAD unless a retirement letter is on file and the Command Chief manages that program. Failure to attend should be reflected in evals, board recommendations, and advancements/promotions.

It is true that the COMDT requires CPOACAD attendance ONLY prior to advancing to E-8. As with any COMDTINST a unit can enforce more stringent requirements but, never less. The People Plans are lawful orders from the Area Commanders. Using the HQs PP as the example, these "orders" are not requiring retirement, they are saying unless you have your retirement letter in, you are ordered to go to the CPOACAD. I guess you could look at it this way, if your Area Commander said, "I need a HSC on DALLAS for the next deployment and you’re going", is that a lawful order? So basically, the Area Commanders have said, "I need you at the CPOACAD".

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Kevin,
Who and how is someone going to "make" an E-7 with 12 years of service retire? Do you think anyone in their right mind would try to force this person out of the service? Do you think the CG wants to take care of it's people in that manner?

Now, as I have said before, I suspect these people to be in a minority... (the E-7's)... but, for any E-8's and E-9's.. something totally different.

CPO Academy, 27 years and still going strong..

Wray... :cool:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Wray, the same way the CG makes anyone else who no longer wants to do what's required of them "retire". Who cares how fast someone advanced if that person now thinks the rules no longer apply to them. Again, the problem isn't with the people who make CPO in 12 years. Someone like that is no doubt going to make SCPO in about 14. The problem is with those people who finally make CPO and decide to hang out as long as they possibly can. They give "Coastie" a whole new meaning.......

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

Wray,
There is NO forced retirement for not attending the CPOACAD, that is not allowed. You CAN be ordered to attend the CPOACAD and we all know the risks associated with disobeying lawful orders of any type. What the instructions imply is, "if you have a retirement letter on file, you are not required to submit an ETR and you should not get harranged about it". However, if you do not have a retirement letter on file, you should plan on attending.

At some units, the COs have submitted ETRs for those non-compliant, totally removing the "voluntary" attendance. Basically, ORDERS arrive and attendance is mandated. The down side of this is the orders COULD come at an inconvenient time for the attendee. So to avoid being inconvenience, it is recommended that you submit an ETR for the time frame that works for you.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

[q]The problem is with those people who finally make CPO and decide to hang out as long as they possibly can.[q/]

Stu, the CG had a policy for that .. it was called HYT.. The CG is the one that chooses to ignore its own policy.. :confused: :eek:

Wray... :cool:

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Kevin, has anyone in the CG ever thought to "order" the E-8's and E-9's that have not attended the academy? Do you have the numbers of 8's & 9's that have not attended... I'd sure like to see them. I bet others would too.

In my book they are the ones that need to go home. :p

Wray.... :cool:

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Some may find this interesting reading...

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg1/TracenPetaluma/CPOA/History/cpoahistory.asp

Wray... :cool:

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

Wray,
Those stats are available on my intranet website and have been well published. Additionally, for the convenience of those in the field, CPOACAD attendance reports can be run in both Direct Access and CG Business Intelligence (CGBI)

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Kevin,
Can you publish those "stats" for those us that can't get on the CG intranet or DA.

Thanks,

Wray... :cool:

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

Wray,
That info cannot be published outside of the CGDN, the "PII police" would have a stroke if that happened. I can tell you the #s though. When I log into my work computer, I will work up those #s and provide.

[MSTCM Jerald Motyka]

The PAC/LANT/HQs People Plans (Area instructions signed by a VADM) state in varying language the required attendance.

The People Plans evolved in the following order (paraphrasing here)
PAC- 7s, 8s and 9s must submit an ETR to attend the CPOACAD unless a retirement letter is on file and the Command Chief manages that program.

LANT- 7s, 8s and 9s must submit an ETR to attend the CPOACAD, unless a retirement letter is on file and the Command Chief manages that program. Failure to attend should be reflected in evals, board recommendations, and advancements/promotions.

HQs- 7s, 8s and 9s shall attend the CPOACAD unless a retirement letter is on file and the Command Chief manages that program. Failure to attend should be reflected in evals, board recommendations, and advancements/promotions.

It is true that the COMDT requires CPOACAD attendance ONLY prior to advancing to E-8. As with any COMDTINST a unit can enforce more stringent requirements but, never less. The People Plans are lawful orders from the Area Commanders. Using the HQs PP as the example, these "orders" are not requiring retirement, they are saying unless you have your retirement letter in, you are ordered to go to the CPOACAD. I guess you could look at it this way, if your Area Commander said, "I need a HSC on DALLAS for the next deployment and you’re going", is that a lawful order? So basically, the Area Commanders have said, "I need you at the CPOACAD".So what part of this is ambiguous? I may have misstated my intention, but what is wrong with saying, "I either want an STTR for the CPOACAD or a retirement letter on my desk by Turkey Day"??

Either way, we - and the entire Coast Guard - knows their intentions. With a retirement letter in at possibly the 10 year mark, EVERYONE will know those that are on the "ROAD" program. Good luck getting a special assignment - or a position of authority...

The People Plans said, "must" - which is clear enough for me... how is it any less so for other folks?

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Too many shoulds spoil the instruction when the active voice indicates orders.

So some CPO puts in a STTR and fails to attend. There is no active voice in the avenues to reflect the CPO's poor choice of not attending. If the school is so damm important, there should be nothing short of assignment to a war zone or the Red Cross notification of a death, preventing attendence.

Jerald did not state his intentions on the failure to comply, other than get the hell out of the service. HYT solves the UP or OUT attitude, but as we all know, the current promulgated instruction identified E-5 at 20 as the up or out point. Is Jerald going to address the junior leadership schools in the same manner he's trying to impress on the CPOACAD? Will he hold the supervisors accountable in their EPEF for failure to take care of their sailors leadership training? Is attendance of leadership training soley in the CPO domain?

I would advise Jerald against violating CIM's, or trying to superceed those instructions with his policyEither way, we - and the entire Coast Guard - knows their intentions. With a retirement letter in at possibly the 10 year mark, EVERYONE will know those that are on the "ROAD" program. Good luck getting a special assignment - or a position of authority...

Who is to say those on the "ROAD" program haven't attended the CPOACAD? Those on the "ROAD" program already have an avenue in place to address that issue .... it's called the EPEF. If you have someone on the "ROAD" program, it's your job as a leader to address it in the approved manner.

I had a fifteen year PO2 who did not want to advance. His evaluations suffered in the leadership area because he didn't want to advance. This was under the old 4.0 marking system. He did get off his ass, advanced to CPO.

Of the 115 optimals identified for CPO, why are only 22 selected for resident training? Is the non-resident training meeting the needs of the other 93 being met? It's been over a decade since the last needs study. When are they expected to be updated.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Joe, again things have changed. If you get orders to attend, it takes the District Office's intervention to cancel those orders. The member can no long just cancel the orders on their own.

[MCPO Francis Jennings]

So what part of this is ambiguous?

Failure to attend should be reflected in evals, board recommendations, and advancements/promotions.

Frank :cool: :cool:
Are we havin' fun yet?

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Non-mandatory language: Failure to attend should be reflected in evals, board recommendations, and advancements/promotions.

Therein lies the problem.

Mandatory language, change should to must. Exceptions allowed with a CG-3307 entry explaining why the evaluations, board recommendations, and advancements chose to disregard the attendance mandate, reviewed by and approved by the District Commander.

For the record, there has been no promotions in the enlisted side of the Coast Guard. Officers are promoted, Enlisted are advanced.

Maybe the CPOACAD needs to address that deficiency.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Francis, I'd say we are ALL havin' fun.. at least I am.

Wray... :cool:

[AMTC Keith Lloyd]

The problem is with those people who finally make CPO and decide to hang out as long as they possibly can. They give "Coastie" a whole new meaning.......

I attended the CPOA back in class 69. Loved it. Since then I have helped encourage others to follow suit. The aspect of HYT, well as you can see I'm a CPO with ten years, but I figure that if I was not doing a good job, my marks would reflect that and someone would be showing me the door. ( I just dont enjoy the next job, so I do the best that I can in the one I have.)

People have a tendancy to balk at being "told" to do something, but isant that what we agread to when we signed the dotted line. Maybe we need to counsel those members about the rulse we follow.

Everyone I have seen that complained about having to go, once they were back realised it wasnt what they had thought. Actualy found some meaningful part to learn from. Not all of it is going to help everyone, but having the time to work with that many fellow Chiefs is a boost to your knowledge base.

New meaning to the word Coastie? Well if I did not try harder, learn sometyhing new or help make tommorow a better day for those who are in the guard, wheter ornot I went to the CPOA, then I should be marked accordingly.

Mongo

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Not all of it is going to help everyone, but having the time to work with that many fellow Chiefs is a boost to your knowledge base.

Are you suggesting the primary purpose is to network with your fellow CPOs?

Networking had been around since there were enough people to form groups, it should be embedded into your DNA. With that said, it's a sad state of affairs when you must be ordered to network.

I've learned alot about the supply system from an SK3 when I was an ET3. The same on the admin side with an YN3.

Of course the Chief's Mess (open) allowed me to network with my fellow CPOs, socially and professionally. The rest you can find in books and it's up to you to make a conscience decision to use what you read.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

New meaning to the word Coastie? Well if I did not try harder, learn sometyhing new or help make tommorow a better day for those who are in the guard, wheter ornot I went to the CPOA, then I should be marked accordingly.

Keith, Just a brief NEWS FLASH for you.. I hate to break the news to you, but you did NOT go to the CPOA. Perhaps you are you a member..... I hope so.

CPOA = Chief Petty Officers Association

You attended the CPO Academy.

I have been told this was taught on day 1... maybe they didn't do it back at class 69... or you have forgotten it..

Maybe we need to counsel those members about the rulse we follow.

I just did.. consider it done! ;)

Wray... :cool:

[LTJG Brian Strattard (ETC)]

Wray,

Unfortunately, the CPOA and CPOACAD are mistaken all the time...just look at the CPOA tab on Petaluma's website where the welcome from the CPOACAD School chief is posted...:rolleyes:

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg1/TracenPetaluma/CPOA/default.asp

Strat sends...

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

So Brian, if your kids do something wrong all the time do you try to correct them, or just let it ride.. :rolleyes:

Come on man.. exercise a little leadership.

By the way, this is what Keith said "I attended the CPOA back in class 69." Does that stirke you as correct?

Wray... :cool:

[LTJG Brian Strattard (ETC)]

Wray,

So Brian, if your kids do something wrong all the time do you try to correct them, or just let it ride..

It is more like the dog whisperer...you correct the issues with the dog...at the same time correct the owner which is where the root of the problems lies.

By the way, this is what Keith said "I attended the CPOA back in class 69." Does that stirke you as correct?

My point was showing where the root of the problem lies. How can we expect conformity in the field when there is mixed signals at the source. Even the Chief Petty Officer Academy site in CG Central uses the acronym CPOA. If we can't get those at the CPOACAD on the same page, we will forever be correcting those that use the wrong acronym in the field. You corrected Keith and that should be enough leadership required on this issue...


Strat sends...

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

If we can't get those at the CPOACAD on the same page, we will forever be correcting those that use the wrong acronym in the field.

Brian,

It took a couple of years for the CPOACAD to proprely identify Bill Wells as a MCPO on their website, I guess it will take them a couple of years to properly identify their institution. Till then it will remain a systemic problem. But don't fret, the real CPOA is on it's last legs and then the Commandant can change their instruction to CPOA and the foresight of the CPOACAD to use CPOA will resolve the issue.

Till that day comes, expect people to correct whoever mixes it it. That falls right in line with the advancement/promotions, rate/rating, cutter/ship, and E9(sp)/E10 rants and discussions.

What actions will you recommend when the CPO incorrectly identifies the CPOACAD a second time?

As far as the CPOACAD using the wrong abbreviation, that should be reflected in the School Chief's evaluations. Hell, the only way to hurt a MCPO with his evaluations is to poke him in his eye with them. :D

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

You corrected Keith and that should be enough leadership required on this issue...

Not quite....

Since you brought up the Academy web site, why don't you pass this tidbit of information back to the Academy school chief.. You can find him on your global. It would be refreshing to see an attempt at correcting this, rather than just pointing it out to me, then doing nothing about it.

Handle it Chief...

Wray... :cool:

[LTJG Brian Strattard (ETC)]

Joe,
What actions will you recommend when the CPO incorrectly identifies the CPOACAD a second time?

Easy, remind him/her that not paying attention to detail can cause troubles...especially when that error involves their pay!!! I like to thing that I'm pretty good at finding an individuals inner motivations and keying in on those when making my points...Constant small errors could be brought up on evaluations...but that is really drawing straws...Other than that...there isn't a page-7 for using incorrect acronyms, spelling, or being a dumbass...although giving them a little hell for it may help them remember the next time...;)

Thinking about it...a good book for my professional library would be "Because a bug went kachoo"...I just have to get the kids to let me borrow it...

Hell, the only way to hurt a MCPO with his evaluations is to poke him in his eye with them.
Ahhh...I'll file that away in my leadership toolbox...but I'll add a caveat to make sure that I have an emergency to attend to immediately after the eye poke...:D

Strat sends...

[LTJG Brian Strattard (ETC)]

Wray,

In this situation...I would not like every flaw in my website content to be pointed out one at a time…that is quick and lazy...but rather it be done via a comprehensive peer review and submit the findings at once… I personally like peer reviews since I read what I write the way I thought I wrote it…so I miss small errors. I would hate to have someone find an error, and when I correct that, find another error, and so on. That is more of a punishment for poor writing skills, and what do you gauge a writing standard on? What is the required education level for that position, are they breaking any regulation or written standard?…In just a quick glance today, I saw the same mistake on both the official site and in CG Central…so I can imagine that there are more instances where CPOA is used instead of CPOACAD. Is this my top priority…nope, but it will get done, and it will be in a timely manner, be thorough and include all associated site content as well as links…

Strat sends…

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Sorry Brian, but I see all of what you have said as just an excuse why you don't want to mention it to the school chief. As far as your statement: "Is this my top priority…nope, but it will get done, and it will be in a timely manner"... Timely manner, Brian, that is almost laughable. What makes you think it will ever get done, much-less in a timely manner.

That's ok, I really didn't expect you to take the ball & run with it.. Perhaps Kevin will when he posts or e-mails me those E-8 & E-9 numbers of people that have not attended the Academy.

The truth of the matter is, since I am retired it really doesn't matter to me if active duty Coasties use correct terminology or not... except for the fact that I am a Silver Lifetime member of the CPOA.

Wray... :cool:

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

I would not like every flaw in my website content to be pointed out one at a time…that is quick and lazy...but rather it be done via a comprehensive peer review and submit the findings at once…

Once one error is identified, it would behove someone to look over the site to see if there are any errors. Then when the next error that is found, should be reflected on the reviewer, via a CG-3307, lower evaluations, or whatever the School Chief decides and the School Chief reviews the website. If an error is pointed out a third time, the School Chief and every chief assigned to the CPOACAD should be counseled on their lack of professionalism.

[LTJG Brian Strattard (ETC)]

From the E2's are now petty officers thread…
Wray,
Joe, we live in a rush rush society today. Hard to believe with all the current technology, results are so poor. Where has all the professionalism gone? (probably surfing the net, or on their cell phone)
It’s here and it’s taking the time to do it the right way once…just prioritized lower on my list of things to do currently…

Joe,
To top it off, the webmistress/webmaster proved the point that people will only satisfy their immediate need ... as the second page with the same error was not corrected and probably not viewed to see if the inadvertent copy & paste affected other pages with E2.
I think that we have proven that pointing out one mistake will not get the rest changed…one little hole in the bulkhead may be easier for some to ignore but a bunch of little holes grouped together may make them worried enough to call the OOD vice email them…;)

Strat sends...

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

It’s here and it’s taking the time to do it the right way once…just prioritized lower on my list of things to do currently…

Brian,

I understand it's low on your priority list, but, it reflects poorly on the CPOACAD and I'm sure there is more than one CPO assigned to that school who can interface with the Web Content Manager. CI 5230.62 refers to that individual as the Web Content Manager refers to the individual designated by the Unit Commander to review and approve web content for the command and for commands under its administrative control. The duties of the Web Content Manager are inherently governmental. This individual is the command's primary point of contact for Web issues via the chain of command. This definition is provided as a means to commonly refer to this function and does not constitute the establishment of an official job description or billet requirement.

One common error found on CG websites is the failure to abide by the instructions when using external links ... Links from pages outside the Coast Guard are authorized in support of valid business objectives. Links may not endorse a particular non-Governmental product or service or provide preferential treatment. When selecting an external link, the user shall be presented with the following message:

“Links from these pages (or "this page" on a specific page of links) to non-Coast Guard sites are provided as a customer service and do not represent any implicit or explicit endorsement by the United States Coast Guard of any commercial or private issues or products presented there.”

It gets us back to the Bill Wells adage ... about Coasties ... err ... Guardians and not reading.

[MSTC Steve Natale]

Well, after reading through the entire post again, I have come to:

CPO-Academy is "REQUIRED", at least by general orders from the PAC/LANT/HQ people plans.

Having all E-6's above the cut from MAY SWE's issued orders for the CPO-Academy is constrained by numbers. I.E. school can handle XXX number of students.

Frocking is not the same as advancing.

Frocking is "free" to the USCG, the members have to buy "things".

The course of action (E-6 above cut, orders sent, frocked upon departure from unit to CPO-Academy, advanced at best determined time after completion of course) COULD happen.

There are many other issues intertwined in this thread, but I think I got what I was looking for.

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

Wray,
Roughly speaking and according to Direct Access, the following have NOT attended any Senior Enlisted Leadership Course

E-8s
AD- 31
Rsrv- 116

E-9s
AD- 47
Rsrv- 64

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

I'll bet not one of them has a negative CG-3307 nor lower evaluations based on their inability to attend the class.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Wray,
Roughly speaking and according to Direct Access, the following have NOT attended any Senior Enlisted Leadership Course

E-8s
AD- 31
Rsrv- 116

E-9s
AD- 47
Rsrv- 64

Kevin, first off... thanks for posting that... now please try to give me some sort of reasoning as to why there should be so many that have not attended, how they made E-8 & E-9 without attending, and, is anything being done about THESE people? Please don't tell me there are any wearing a gold or silver badge. (I will tell ya, if I was a betting man... which I am... there is more than one badge among all of 'em)

In my opinion they are the ones that should have a training request in by turkey day OR their retirement letter.

I do find this truly amazing. I also agree with Joe, I bet there is not one negative point being reflected upon them due their non attendance. :rolleyes:

Wray... :cool:

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

Wray,
What's with you and your multiple part questions ;-) I'll do my best to answer.

First, I actually thought the #s would be much higher.

How did they advance?- There was/is a grandfathered clause that allowed folks to advance circa 1999. I don't have the info in front of me so I can't quote it. Many of those 9s and some of those 8s fell into that time frame. For several years prior to the People Plans, the good folks at CG133 were lobbied to kill the grandfather clause with no success. This was "a" catalyst for the Area Commander's engagement via the People Plans.

Gold Badges- There are two types of GBs, RFMCs and CMCs. I noticed 3 RFMCs on the list as not attending and did not notice any AD GB CMCs that have not attended.

Negative Impact- There have been pg7s issued, evals have reflected non-attendance, folks have been denied promotions to CWO and others have been denied during screening processes. Keep in mind, if they have a retirement letter on file they are not required to attend. Looking at the E9 list more than 50% have a near term letter on file.

Progress toward compliance is being made and folks ARE actively working to fix it.

[ETCS John Zidek]

I attended and firmly believe everyone that attends will get something out of it. I spoke to MCPO Thomas while I was there about the future of the CPOACAD and attendance. The first step was the E9s and E8s and yes there are still a few 27 years later that havent attended, why, who knows...closed minded people that refuse to open and learn. The next step was / is ALL the E7 and above. I personally believe it is just a matter of time before it is a requirement for E6s to advance to E7. I couldnt agree more with the post about Police Officers and Cadets not going to their Academies as Officers, but as perspectives.

On this one I might fall into the closed minded group, BUT

Come on Brian havent we had enough of the CG Pushing advanced education down our throats???? Now you want to give an advancement advantage to the college students too?? Its bad enough that we have people earning a paycheck to work on outside education on Uncle Sam's time with Uncle Sam paying for it....When is it enough????

And before I start taking incoming fire, No I do not let my guys work on outside education during the workday!

You did say with a degree and now that I have my rant out of the way I will agree to giving something to the folks that have their "Degree" in something that involves leadership or people management, but not just because you went to college to learn how to play badminton or do some basket weaving.


ETCS "Z"


ESD Memphis, TN

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

The first step was the E9s and E8s and yes there are still a few 27 years later that havent attended, why, who knows...closed minded people that refuse to open and learn.

The CG could & should issue a set of orders to each and every one of those that has not attended. If they feel that strongly about not attending they should retire... Once again this just shows the true lack of concern by those running the program. :rolleyes:

Of course that is way too simple, so it will never happen.

Wray.... :cool:

[ETCS John Zidek]

Hey you wont hear me complain, just wait a couple years until I start competing for that second star :) Then issue the orders and the retirement package for failure to attend. UP or Out as they say. Yes my agreement is completly selfserving.

Accountability and enforcment seems to be one of the CGs biggest problems. Making more rules and policies is not the answer. Stand up be the Chiefs and Senior leaders that we are and enforce what we have. If the Command doesnt support you, yell louder....point out the policy and then the fact that if they are not following / enforcing then they are also violating it. Eventually they will listen.

If you keep banging your head on the wall eventually it will go through.

[ETCS John Zidek]

Like many of you I dont think the 5 day lams school is enough. Just because we (the CG) dont have anything else for our junior folks doesnt mean there arent other things available. One of my guys recently returned from the Senior Airman's Academy and you should see the way he walks around now. Standing taller and walking more proudly then any 3rd class I have seen in awhile. I believe it is open to E3s and E4s. It is definitly something we will send more of our high performers too. The member cant say enough good things about his experience. He is working on a Power Point that can be delivered to the Commands within our AOR. It is my understanding that the school is offered at all Air Wings. If you are interested feel free to contact me and I will provide more details.

Added bonus I believe it also meets their LAMS requirement for E6.

ETCS "Z"

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Accountability and enforcment seems to be one of the CGs biggest problems

Isn't it funny that a program that the MCPO-CG is the manager for (and has been - not picking on Skip) has so many that have not attended....

Like I said, issue those that have not attended orders, along with instructions on how to submitt their retirement letter, should they choose to decline the orders. :p :p

Really pretty simple.

Wray... :cool:

[YNCM Doug Squires (Ret)]

Wray:

I attended Class 7. What class did you attend?

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Doug, in case you didn't get the drift of the topic here it is about the active duty people.. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with retired folks..

It appears they didn't cover much reading comprehension in class 7.

Keep plugin' away.. :rolleyes:

Wray... :cool:

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Doug,

First I never attended. Second, it was never mandatory for me to attend.

The point is the mandatory attendence, 15 years after my retirement, still has e-8s and e-9s on the AWOL list. I understand the grandfathering, but I know one who escaped both grandfathering ... made E-8 before it iwas mandatory and then made E-9, without attendence, because he was a grandfathered E-8. This does not mean I think less of him as a leader, because that would be far from the truth.

"Z",

I agree those coming back from a leadership training will walk taller, especially those PO2 and PO3s. The question for you is, are you allowing that PO3 to hone his newly found skills or will those skills rust away from being stifled?

Therein lies your choice. My hope is you spring him onward, challenging him.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I'll try this one more time....attendance is NOT mandatory. Applying to attend is, unless you have an approve retirement letter on file.

[LTJG Brian Strattard (ETC)]

Stu,

From CI 5357.2:
All active duty and reserve Chief, Senior Chief, and Master Chief Petty Officers attached to CGHQ or a HQs’ Command are required to attend the Coast Guard CPO Academy, or an equivalent DoD senior enlisted academy. Only those chiefs (E-7, E-8 & E-9s) with an approved retirement letter on file are exempt. All others must submit the required electronic training request (ETR) to attend one of the approved senior enlisted leadership academies. Failure to attend will be considered in enlisted evaluations, command endorsements, and can be disqualifying for special assignments.

Yet I do not see a specific timeline...when is this elusive date that everyone seems to want to hold our people accountable for? Is this x-variable up to various commands, so it will be implemented depending upon who you work for? I also love the use of "will be considered" and "can be disqualifying"...

Looking back at the whys...it seems that the new CPOACAD curriculum and direciton to E-7's instead of E-8s and E-9s stems from the CPO Needs Assessment...FLAGVOICE 287 seems to be driving force for the CPOACAD blurb in the People Plans...although RADM Venuto refers to the CPOACAD as the CPOA throughout the document...where were the Chiefs corps when the flagvoice was written...who knows better what it takes to train a Chief than our Senior Enlisted...someone could have let the poor Admiral know that the problem with the empty seats was trying to figure out how to submit a STTR to attend the Chief Petty Officer Association...:D

Strat sends...

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Strat, you highlighted the wrong part.

All others must submit the required electronic training request (ETR) to attend one of the approved senior enlisted leadership academies.

That's the real requirement. The ability to actually attend is going to depend on available seats and priority. The CG is going to look at sending an E-7 who needs to complete the course for advancement over an 8 or 9 who doesn't. How are you going to hold something against someone's EER or recommendations if they asked to attend and can't get the seat?

Musts and shalls trump cans and considerations. Failure to attend WILL be considered..... so consider it. They asked for the course and can't get a seat. How much are you going to hold that against the member?

Now you can always ask how hard did they try to attend? But the requirement listed that the member has control over is still the request to attend.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

I hope someone can point me to the CI or CIM that tells the authority of a Flag Voice.

Where does it fall in the scheme of things? It's certainly not a CN, CI, or CIM. It's certainly one person's opinion and is not a promulgated instruction, or note.

Where is the legal stance of a Flag Voice documented?

I mean we can go back and reveiw alot of Flag Voices to see what really came to fruition and what was opinion ... and that is with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight. The next Flag Voice you won't have that luxury.

If you cite something, it ought to carry the weight of a CI or CIM. Even ALDIST references the CI or CN it really is.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Joe, these are coming from the LANTAREA and PACAREA People Plans.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Failure to attend WILL be considered..... so consider it.

You can only fail to attend if you receive orders and don't execute them ... for whatever reason.

Your request not being honored is not a failure to attend.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Your failure to even request the course is failure to attend.

[LTJG Brian Strattard (ETC)]

Stu,

That's my point...we want to use this to enforce attendance to the CPOACAD...yet it says all are required to go...then all others must submit an ETR...then punishments will ensue if not attended...if we're going to affect marks, not allow promotion to CWO or screening for OIC as Kevin's post points out...then this should be a fluid and binding statement...I have a problem with how it's worded and the many ways it can be viewed...If the only stipulation in the CPOACAD Instruction and other CIMs is that the CPOACAD is needed to advance to E-8, then why is the big push to use it as a tool to force attendance in the People Plans...if a member can simply submit an ETR to a class that has a waiting list...then they'd never actually have to go...since there is no written time limit...when do we apply the part that I highlighted...

Joe,

The reason why I threw the Flagvoice in the mix, is that it is the first instance I have found that has similar wording to what is published in the People Plans...It is odd still that the use of CPOA on the various official sites may have been taken directly from that document...which brings into question where this requirement originated...is going above and beyond the Commandant's requirement to attend the CPOACAD simply one officer's personal opinion...

Strat sends...

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Strat, eventually everyone will attend or retire as an E-7. Those people who advanced to CPO before Jan 1999 will all be gone. That grandfather clause will be a distant memory. The wording used met both the intention and the capabilites of the Coast Guard. We want everyone to attend, so we made it a requirement. We realize that not everyone wanted to attend, so we gave them a way out.... retire. We realize that we don't have enough seats available to accomodate everyone who still hasn't attended, as well as those we're still advancing, .....again, make it a requirement to submit the request. Those that refuse to submit the request can be identified and weeded out. And there's the rub...... When do we start applying the part that you highlighted? About two and a half years ago. Baby steps. Eventually the right people will be put into place and accountablity will be something more than an overlooked word in the dictionary.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Strat, eventually everyone will attend or retire as an E-7.

Stu, I wouldn't bet on that.. at the rate the CG is getting all the E-8's & E-9 through, it may never happen... Keep in mind there are 78 active duty E-8's & E-9's needing to go.. The number more than doubles for the reservest.. there arre 180 of them needing to attend.

Excuses for not attending have been made and will continue.. as long as someone is willing to listen to them. Orders solves that problem. I fail to see why the easiest method is not used.

Wray... :cool:

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Your failure to even request the course is failure to attend.

I doubt it. Nice catch 22 though. If they wanted your failure to be failure to request, they would have stated so.

I don't think any of the powers to be indended that failure to attend meant anything other than failure to attend.

They are allowing for the wiggle room of not receiving orders in a timely manner.

That is why the second cavet of canceling orders must be done at the flag level.

Like I said at the other site, I find this interesting as the most important ticket to punch for advancement to E-8. It ranks higher than your EPQs (both rating and epme) as it garners the attention of the Senior Officers.

If you wanted an advance or get out program, activate HYT. You will certainly institute some movement in the AST rating, or revise the rules for HYT by rating. Then you will be suspending HYT because some fair hair child would be forced out. (I'm not picking on AST's but they were the first slow moving rating I could think of)

[ETCS John Zidek]

Wray, One of my favorite sayings is, "They are not called suggestions, they are ORDERS". Go or face the repercussions.

Joe,

We give this young 3rd every opportunity that we can to use his newly acquired tool box. There is a Plan in the works for him to travel D8 with our CSC to present his power point to other Commands. Honing his public speaking and acting as a cheerleader for the school. He has to cut the PP down some first. We told him to give the important parts, kind of a meat and potatoes snapshop....it's almost 90 slides. His response, but Senior that is the important stuff.

If any of you have high performing 3rds I highly recommend sending them to the Airman Leadership Academy. It's a win - win for you and the member.

If you want more info...I'm in Global.

"Z"

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Joe, a guy goes to church every Sunday for twenty years and prays to win the lottery. After twenty years of prayer, he walks into church and says, " That's it God, I've prayed and prayed, and still haven't won the lottery. You haven't answered my prayers. There is no God." He turns and starts walking out. He hears a voice from above..." Meet me half way, buy a damn ticket."

Wray, eventually those 78 will retire and there will be no more issue. You see those 78 as being the big issue. Time will take care of those people soon enough. I see those hundreds of E-7s that refuse to attend being the bigger issue. Some of those E-7s have been wearing those anchors for ten years. They pinned the anchors on when the policy was to request to attend within the first 12 months of advancing. They never even request the course.
We could just cut orders for those 78, but would that give the CG the best bang for it's buck? Put four of them in each class and it would still take more than a year and a half to get them all through. Here's a thought, stop assigning them as OICs. I'll bet that gets a couple of them to attend or retire. Stop assigning those in other rates who refuse to attend according to their E-resumes. Assign everyone else and let those people who haven't attended fight over what's left. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink..... however, if you're willing to hold it's nose underwater, it'll drink or drown....

[ETCS John Zidek]

Slesh, I love that. Put a box on the E-resumes, check if attended. If there is no check the detailer doesnt even see their Eresume until after everyone else that has attend gets assigned.

Love it love it

[BMC Mark Emerson]

What if they have orders to attend?

I went in between units, within 7 month of advancing.

At TRACEN Petaluma, there is an instruction detailing the commands expectation for advancement to senio Chief, Master Chief and going CWO. It states that if you do not have an application for or attended CPO academy, you are to be marked not reccommended. This is followed very closely, also participation in the mess is verrified by the Chief of the mess.

I know there is almost a full years worth of Chiefs in the CG that still need to attend and that the Academy is increasing the number of students to cover the gap with those also advancing each year.

Mark

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Mark, I think TRACEN Petaluma has it right. I also think as long as you have orders, even if you can show you have the training request properly submitted, you meet the requirement.

[LTJG Brian Strattard (ETC)]

Mark,

At TRACEN Petaluma, there is an instruction detailing the commands expectation for advancement to senio Chief, Master Chief and going CWO. It states that if you do not have an application for or attended CPO academy, you are to be marked not reccommended.

This is what I am afraid of...depending upon what unit you are at, depends upon what the outcome is...we have written guidance, yet this statement appears to go beyond even the people plans, which goes beyond the CPOACAD Inst and CIMs...what if you have an application in but haven't attended...as per this statement you are not recommended...why would we not reccommend someone for CWO when the CPOACAD is not a requirement, if they are selected for CWO, they'd simply attend the extra week at the fork and knife school and would meet all requirements...why do we hold the member acountable but not their command...let's put a not recommended on their direct supervisor for not being able to lead the individual in question...and so on...while we're at it...

As good leaders, we can demand 100%, yet we cannot punish for less than average...and average is determined by written standards...if we can't make up that % difference, then that shows the flaws of our own leadership...

Strat sends...

[LTJG Brian Strattard (ETC)]

yet we cannot punish for less than average...

boy did I hach that sentance up...what I meant to type...

As good leaders, we can demand 100%, yet we cannot punish someone for being average...and average is determined by written standards...if we can't make up that % difference, then that shows the flaws of our own leadership...

Strat sends...

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Interesting that Tracen Pet has decided the Commandant's order is insufficient for advancement to CWO. Nice.

How many people will ask for Petaluma as a duty station knowing the draconian measures by the CO are in place when the Commandant has a perfectly good set of instructions the four star expects the CG to follow? My guess is fewer then currently ask for it.

Maybe the E-6s out there need not compete for CWO.

[BMC Mark Emerson]

To clarify my statement - I was typing with insufficiant coffee.

For a reccomendation to Senior you need to have the application on file to attend or have attended.

For reccommendation for Senior or Master Chief you need to be involved in the mess.

The Warrent Process participation in the mess is considered (the Chief of the Mess is asked) I do not think that attendace is required by the instruction, but if you are marked not reccommended since you have not attended the Academy one would believe that you would not be reccommended for CWO. Also the CO performs a face to face interview with all considering Warrent.

As for E6 going to CWO, they are provided the oppertunity the Chief of the mess talks with them. There have been several that have submitted a package but did not have enough points to be considered by the board.

TRACEN Petaluma has made the commands expectations clear and uniformed.

Mark

[LTJG Brian Strattard (ETC)]

Mark,

For a reccomendation to Senior you need to have the application on file to attend or have attended. For reccommendation for Senior or Master Chief you need to be involved in the mess.


No matter what Petaluma likes to think...the only requirements for advancing to E-8 are defined in the PERSMAN 5.C.5.c. "Eligibility for Participation in Competition for Advancement to Pay Grade E-8" and 5.C.5.d. "Eligibility for Participation in Competition for Advancement to Pay Grade E-9". If a member meets these minimum requirements and performs well, they should be recommended. It would be beneficial for them to be active in the mess but the Commandant does not require it.

A member should be recommended on the EER Worksheet as long as they meet these requirements...
Recommended: Check this block if, in the view of the rating official, the individual is fully capable of satisfactorily performing the duties and responsibilities of the next higher paygrade. This block may be checked irrespective of the individual’s qualification of eligibility for advancement.

boy did I hach that sentance up...what I meant to type...

Man I'm tired...even my corrected post is all jacked up...goodnight all...

Strat sends...

[BMC Mark Emerson]

Stratt -

I am mearly passing along a policy.

My thoughts - If you have been a chief for long enough to meet the time in service requirement for advancement and have not even put in an application to the CPO Academy then you should not be a senior.

As for the participation in the mess - it is a part of our evals, if you are not involved in the mess and don't care enough to show up, maybe senior is not for you. If the senior Chiefs and master Chiefs don't show up to the mess meetings why should the Chiefs?

Mark

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

As for E6 going to CWO, they are provided the oppertunity the Chief of the mess talks with them. There have been several that have submitted a package but did not have enough points to be considered by the board.

So they were recommended but failed because of the points. What happened to the mandate to attend the CPOACAD? I guess it didn't apply to E-6's. Nice double standard.

And what is participating in the Mess? Should your CO put on four stars in the future, will they set forth the same type of directive CG Wide, making those E-8 independent duty types ineligible for MCPO because of their failure to participate in a Mess.

[BMC Mark Emerson]

Joe -

no double standard - The E6 was reccommended for E7. E6 not above the cut cannot attend the Academy.

About a CG wide Mandate if the CO were to get four Stars - I can not and will not comment on it. If there is no Mess around, I am sure consideration will be made.

Mark

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Mark,

An E-6, eligible for CWO, not above the cut, but certainly in the top half of the list, still doesn't have to attend the CPOACAD. Does the CO still recommend? That little problem is solved when you require them to be Chief before competing for CWO (Not going to happen).

If he recommends, the CO violates his own instruction, illustrating that the mandate to attend the CPOACAD isn't really a mandate for some. Double standards are difficult at best, even for the best of leaders.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Joe, do you really think stating a policy which clearly outlines a standard for advancement can be redefined as "draconian standards"? Just curious, is giving someone who performs at substandard levels a 3 in their EER equate to today's keel hauling?

[ETCS John Zidek]

I won't point fingers or mention any names, BUT..............

Petaluma isn't the only TraCen with its own extra rules for advancement or promotion.

At a previous unit we had an E6 - higher than 50 Percent on SWE for E7, more than 10 years service, a college degree, but no CPO ACAD (He wasn't a Chief yet). Package was denied, reasons were: Too Junior, not CPOACAD, just because someone meets the MINIMUM standards doesn't mean they should be Promoted to CWO. I can't remember the rest of their reasons, but they don't matter. I was and am still amazed that they would deny someone that opportunity when they clearly meet the established standards for appointment. If he didn’t have the points or the board didn’t like him for some reason that’s different. If you don’t think 10 years is enough time to grow a good CWO then get the minimum raised, don’t hold people to a standard that doesn’t exist. Now don’t get me wrong they are all turncoats and I will always remind them of it, but this guy would have made a good CWO. He will be a pretty good ensign too as long as he doesn’t forget his roots.

Subsequently same member put in for OCS shortly after. Package was approved and he was accepted.

Back to the thread topic..........

At the same unit I saw people get notified that they would not get their e-resume command endorsement for specific billet choices (extensions and command positions) until they had a request to attend the CPOACAD turned in.

Good and bad I guess both methods are trying to force people to go. The second scenario was effective, member went and got his extension. I also know of one MCPO that had to attend (as a MCPO) before being issued orders to his new duty station. From what I understand he was told if you want these orders go to the CPOACAD, period end of negotiations.

"Z"

[MSTC Steve Natale]

All the information here is good AND just further eludes to the fact that the current policies/requirements/plans/orders/system for CPO-Academy attendance is FLAWED IMO.

Why cant it just be made clear with no misunderstanding?

E-6 Above cut, here are your orders.

I just cant come up with anything easier.

[MCPO Francis Jennings]

Steve- You hit it right on the head. However instead of "here are your orders", I rather see "member shall not be advanced...". This is an enlisted personnel management issue that is being "managed" by everyone other than epm!

I gotta' get back to reading "Characters Inaction"! :eek:

Frank :cool: :cool:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

"Characters Inaction"!

Was that one of those Freudian Slips, a typo, or were you trying to be puny?

[MSTC Steve Natale]

Steve- You hit it right on the head. However instead of "here are your orders", I rather see "member shall not be advanced...". This is an enlisted personnel management issue that is being "managed" by everyone other than epm!

:


Either way would be fine. I still believe the current "issue" of non-attendance/avoidance/disregard of it would TOTALLY swing the other way. If advancement was based off of it, E-6 above the cut would be FIGHTING for it.

[MSTC Steve Natale]

"Characters Inaction"!

Was that one of those Freudian Slips, a typo, or were you trying to be puny?

I totally missed that the first time I read it...clever? Or.... ;)

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Steve- You hit it right on the head. However instead of "here are your orders", I rather see "member shall not be advanced...". This is an enlisted personnel management issue that is being "managed" by everyone other than epm!

Frank :cool: :cool:


The wording is meaningless if there are no actions to back it up...

Wray... :cool:

[MSTC Steve Natale]

Message received today via CGMS re-addressing CPO-Academy attendance as being "required".

R 101853Z SEP 09

I didnt see where it said "internet release authorized" so I wont paste it here. But in very basic terms, ETR MUST be submitted by every E-7 advanced AFTER 01JAN99.

Numbers included show 356 CPO'S (E-7 - E-9) in LANTAREA and 125 have not attended (35%).

Still looks more and more like there should be a fundamental change as far as attendance goes. The CPO-A is no longer "optional" it is "required".

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Wonderful!

Sounds like someone at HQ has been reading here... Nice to see they are finally taking action... now, only time will tell if they take any 'follow up' action for those that choose not to comply.

Wray... :cool:

[BMCS Harley Matlock]

The message makes it mandatory for LANTAREA Chiefs.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Maybe there will be a few more E-8's & E-9 attending...


Wray.. :cool:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Not to split hairs, but the message reminds everyone in LANTAREA that the CPOACAD is mandatory, and referrences the People Plan. It also puts the focus back on the Unit Commanding Officers to make it a personal priority and ensure it happens.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

The message didn't establish the requirement, the referrences did. This hasn't been optional for about three years.

If it's the same as Lant did the last time, the language of the instruction was not mandatory.

Till I read the current message, I can not comment.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

It gives two referrences, the PERSMAN and the LANTAREA People Plan. The wording is quite clear. The ADM's intent, expectations, and charge is quite clear. There is no room for misinterpretation.

[BMC John Marschhauser]

Just to throw this out there... But I'm really glad that I went to Petaluma before it became mandatory. The Academy was full of Chiefs who really wanted to be there. That made it a lot more fun and we got a lot more out of it. It's hard to imagine sitting next to someone who was forced or threatened into attending.

[MSTC Steve Natale]

Yeah, we had a few people there who were told to go and didnt want to, but by the end, they were glad to have been there. That was good to see also.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Stuart,

First, I've never located a copy of the LANTAREA instruction mandating attendence.

Upon review of CIM 1000.6A as there is no requirement for CPOs to attend the CPOACAD.

CIM 1000.6A - Refering to RFMC candidates
4.E.21.b.8. Be a graduate of the Chief Petty Officer Academy, or a DOD Senior Enlisted Academy.

CIM 1000.6A - Refering to MCPO-CG candidates
4.E.22.b.2. Training. Candidate must be a graduate of Chief Petty Officer Academy or DOD Senior Service Academy.

CIM 1000.6A - Referring to advancement to E-8
5.C.5.c.6. Members advanced to E-7 on or after 01 January 1999 must have completed either the Coast Guard Chief Petty Officers Academy or one of the Department of Defense (DoD) Senior Enlisted Academies to qualify to participate in competition for advancement to E-8.

No where in the PERSMAN mandates the CPO to attend the CPOACAD. Wanting to participate in the E-8 SWE is the only time you need to have attended the CPOACAD.

[ETCS John Zidek]

The Lant area People plan says, ALL E7, 8, and 9s within Lant area are required to attend. Does someone have the exact wording handy? I wouldnt want to unintentally change a must to a shall and Suffer a keyboard lashing.

"Z"

[BMCS Burt Ford]

Joe , I just read it and it is clear, attendance is mandatory unless you have an apporved retirement request on file.. LANTAREAINST 5357.1A para 7.f.5 is the exact wording. Realize though that COMDTINST M1000.6 is minimum requirements all CO/OINC and make them more strict or require more quals, just in case you have forgotten. The requirement is there now it needs to be enforced.

Burt

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

The Lant area People plan says, ALL E7, 8, and 9s within Lant area are required to attend. Does someone have the exact wording handy? I wouldnt want to unintentally change a must to a shall and Suffer a keyboard lashing.

"Z"

All I would have to do is READ the instruction.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Burt,
Show me the document. I had not seen the document from Lant or Pac. I assume both would be mirror images since it would be inconsistent to have one side of the rockies doing something the other isn't ... in this important area. I will not comment on heresay.

[HSC Chris Fly]

Burt,

Show me the document. I had not seen the document from Lant or Pac. I assume both would be mirror images since it would be inconsistent to have one side of the rockies doing something the other isn't ... in this important area. I will not comment on heresay.

Joe,
A quick google search of LANTAREAINST 5357.1A returned this:

http://www.msthub.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=819&d=1177007497

Pretty clear that Academy attendance is mandatory....

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Chris,

Pretty clear that Academy attendance is mandatory....

mandatory, yes... but enforced... no.

It also says:

Failure to attend will be considered in enlisted evaluations, command endorsements, and can be disqualifying for special assignments.

Think that happens? Obviously not.. If so, how would there be "gold badges" that have not attended.

Wray.. :p

[HSC Chris Fly]

never said it was enforced.... ;)

I can say it's pretty well enforced here in SoCal....

[ETCS John Zidek]

Why cant we all just get along??

[BMCS Ian McVicker]

Yes, as others have said it is required in the people plans. Yes, this is a stronger requirement than in the Personnel Manual. I have heard several theories on why in last year, but cannot say why for sure.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

As I stated, so did Wray, again, the problem is not a requirement to apply, its that the requirement to apply is not being enforced.

I just got a new EPO, I never asked if he was attending. I called him when he got orders and said pick a date. He did and has orders to go in January.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Ok,

I see that Lant's instruction follows the HQ & HQ's units instruction, or maybe it's the other way around ...



What I fail to see is if it's a CG wide requirement, why isn't it in a CI or CIM?

I also note that the Lant Instruction has a non-standard distribution with zero copies going to every Lant unit.

I'll also conceed that the language is written in the active voice, an order voice. The order exceeds the requirements set forth by the CIM, which may not be a bad thing.

I'm glad it promulgated. It's certainly not the same wording as the original instruction, which wasn't in the active voice as I recall when Kevin first mentioned it.

The last instruction I saw did not use the active voice, only the passive voice.
Thanks to Chris Fly, I didn't have to google it.
Why didn't Lant properly fill out the SDL portion of the instruction?

[ETCS John Zidek]

Joe let me start by saying I am one of the people that are glad to have the retirees around. You (All of you, not just you Joe) bring alot more good to the table than bad. Most of you have been there and done that before we even realized we wanted anchors. Anytime I have a question or cant find something related to Electronics or Instructions I know You (Joe) know where to find the answer. I have passed your name on to a few people as an "Electronics Desk Reference" so to speak.

I want to thank Joe, wray, and the rest of the crusty bunch (Yes Even Master Chief Bill) for your service and knowledge, but Passion about a subject does not excuse the crapy behavior from any of us (Including the Active Guys).
Especially out in the open. All of us need to make the effort to act like the professionals that we are.

Some of you might want to pick your copy of When Generations Collide and knock the dust off of it. (If you havent been to the Academy I am sure your local liberary will have a copy.)

"Z"

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Z,

Thanks for the compliment.

I fully understand when generations collide, as I collided with those of the previous generation and the post generation.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

The LANTAREA People Plan was written in 2007. Were we still using the SDL? I think I remember reading a message and being directed to a web site. Most units no longer maintain Sector, District, or Area instructions. We no longer get hard copies of CIMs. We no longer keep logs to show where we've updated the changes. Everything is on-line.

R 101853Z SEP 09 went out last week. It listed the requirement for advancement, and referenced the PERSMAN. It listed the requirement to attend, and referrenced the people plan. The ADM told the COs to make this a personal priority. It gave numbers for LANTAREA, 125 (35%) who have yet to attend. It took me amount three minutes to understand the ADM's intent.
PACAREA has a little over half number, I think around 77 who haven't attended.
PACAREA plan says you have to submit the ETR. LANTAREA says you have to attend. One is seemingly being enforced better than the other.

Joe, I was having a discussion with someone once who posted that it takes two to argue. One that reads something incorrectly and the one who wrote it. He went on to say that the common fault of every attack has been misinterpreting the message. Do you believe that to be true?

[YNCS Jeff Shumate]

No longer a problem here in Sector Boston's AOR. Used to be but accountability came to town and now all E-7 and above who havent been, are going.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Were we still using the SDL?

Why is the SDL matrix on the instruction if your not using the SDL?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Maybe technology was moving so fast some things got overlooked. Not for nothing, but they did put this disclaimor underneath the Matrix...

NON-STANDARD DISTRIBUTION: All Coast Guanl units within the Atlantic Theater excluding Headquarters units (1)

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Maybe technology was moving so fast some things got overlooked.

Contrary to popular belief, technology does not trump organizational rules.

Overlooked is just an excuse of ignorance ... ignorant of the rules and regulations.

And for the record, technology moving so fast ... and the Coast Guard, is an oxymoron.

[MCPO Francis Jennings]

The LANTAREA People Plan was written in 2007.

It was updated in 2007. The original LANTAREA People Plan was promlugated by VADM Crea in 2005. (I drafted it based closely on the PACAREA instruction). Errors in distribution clearly fall back on me. Flog the bilge rat and hoist another sail.

Note that the People Plan, in a nutshell, was a compilation of other applicable instructions. The purpose was to provide the Chiefs' Messes with a single source of guidance related to critical personnel management issues. My hope was that any Mess with a challenge on "what they should be doing" could use the instruction as guidance and reference. (Almost all Area units were afloat with minimal connectivity). Given that, organizational policy such as CPO Academy attendance would have been omitted. The instruction morphed into a policy document which is not truly supported by CGHQ doctrine which is why you have untenable policy like "must attend the CPO Academy...failure to attend will result in lower evals". Clearly, a single HQ level instruction applicable to the entire service is needed to support new policy mandates and I'm certain the right people know as much.

Frank :cool: :cool:
Aargh mates, swabs and lubbers. Do you know what day it is? :)

[LTJG Brian Strattard (ETC)]

Nice post Frank, your post puts great perspective in where and why the People Plans came from. I do agree that the People Plans have morphed into a stand alone policy that goes beyond the scope of current CIMs. The easiest solution to this issue would be to add a clearly defined paragraph to the PERSMAN, following the precedence set by CI 1500.1 -

The CWO Indoctrination Course prepares the individual for the transition to the officer community. Members shall attend the course within one year of appointment. Waivers to the course are not granted unless the member has an approved retirement request on file with an effective date within one year of appointment to CWO.

Added would be the grandfathered clause and a defined course of action for failure to comply with this direction. Like all good orders, we must first define the objective, set a clear timeline, then state a uniform disciplinary action, and make it applicable to the entire service in one shot. We can't have policy documents creating disciplinatry actions against individuals who are within the minimum requirements of active CIMs. AREA and District Commanders, COs and OINCs, must remember that they have the ability to write policy with modifications that are necessary to adapt the system to the requirements of the area, district, unit, or MLC (USCG REGULATIONS MAN). This is not Carte Blanche to write policy as you see fit when that policy has already been set.

Strat sends...

[BMCM Bill James]

Hi folks. I took Frank Jennings' excellent People Plan & authored the 2007 revision. I intentionally added, and VADM Peterman intentionally signed, the "will attend...failure SHOULD result in lowered evals" clause. We thought it proper and necessary to communicate to the field the Admiral's personal desire/direction; he realized what he was ordering wasn't CG-wide policy, but, again, wanted to make his expectations clear. We couldn't REQUIRE lower evals, since those are the purview of the rating chain; however, again, he wanted that chain to know his thoughts on the issue.

VADM Peterman was always a great supporter of Chiefs and the Academy. When he was CCGD7, he began requiring cancellation requests to get first-Flag approval, a policy that is now CG-wide and has done much to dissuade folks from cancelling for other than serious reasons.

Early in my tenure at LANT, I asked him for some $$ and support to develop increased leadership training & education opportunities - his reply: "Master Chief, are you using what you've got?" With CPOAcad attendance and LAMS completion at the low levels it was then, I had to say "no sir". The message to me was clear - don't ask for more until you use all you've been given. That launched me on the path to increase CPOAcad & LAMS attendance.
and I ended my tour happy that we had done both.

As to the three plans - PAC led, then LANT, then HQ units; the 3 CMCs did what we could in our individual yards -- that, by the way, cover all of the CG -- to make the policies as nearly identical as you can when 3 different CMCs write them and 3 different Flags sign them. We realized that a CIM would take years to field. We still need, though, the CIM and more importantly the money & other support to build the capacity to get a seat for everyone in the Academy & LAMS. It's a lot better than it was, wouldn't you agree?

The "forced to attend" thing isn't new...when I attended Class VX in 1991, I remember Doug Robertson saying the first day "If you're just here to get your ticket punched for 9, then you ought to leave now." Yes, there were some there just for that -- we kind of traded glances like "do we leave NOW or at the next break?" (and sharing a table with me was a certain BMC C.W. Bowen). Well, we stayed and greatly benefitted. As my friend Kevin Isherwood says "I never seen anyone come out of the Academy WORSE" -- you may go kicking and screaming, but I'm confident at the end you'll see the value. Anyone remember Stu Slesh's opinions before attending and his born-again reincarnation??

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Bill,
You could have put in there that evaluations WILL lowered based on the fact that people aren't doing what is REQUIRED of them. Not eveyone is going to do the right thing just because it is the right thing to do.
We could write a policy that EVERYONE in the Coast Guard will weigh less than 180lbs, no smoking will be permitted, and vegatables will be eaten at every meal. The intention might be very clear, but without some sort of enforced "or else", not everyone is going to do it.
Fewer people might be able to cancel orders to the CPOACAD once they're issued now that it's not just up to the member, but how many people do we still have out there that have never asked to attend? How many OinCs, XPOs, and EPOs, who have never asked to attend, have beaten someone else out of a billet when that other person follows all of the rules? How many people do we have in Special Assignments that have never asked to attend?
How many Warrants has LANTAREA made since this has become a REQUIREMENT that have never even asked to attend?
The actual wording of a policy matters alot less than the organization's commitment to enforce it.
And my opinion about the CPOACAD didn't really change, the policy to attend did. I requested to attend as soon as someone told me I had to. Up until that point, the service hadn't required me to attend. Even after I submitted the request, it took a phone call from that other person to get me a seat. There were still ten empty seats in my class. Once again the service changed the policy and increased the number of people that would initially start out to compensate for the number sent home after weigh-ins.
There are lots of people who don't follow the People Plans because their bosses have never bothered to read them. LANTAREA sent out the message a couple of months ago reminding people of the requirement. How many people have still never even submitted a request to attend?

[BMCM Bruce Bradley]

Bill,
You could have put in there that evaluations WILL lowered based on the fact that people aren't doing what is REQUIRED of them. Not eveyone is going to do the right thing just because it is the right thing to do.
We could write a policy that EVERYONE in the Coast Guard will weigh less than 180lbs, no smoking will be permitted, and vegatables will be eaten at every meal. The intention might be very clear, but without some sort of enforced "or else", not everyone is going to do it.
Fewer people might be able to cancel orders to the CPOACAD once they're issued now that it's not just up to the member, but how many people do we still have out there that have never asked to attend? How many CMCs, OinCs, XPOs, and EPOs, who have never asked to attend, have beaten someone else out of a billet when that other person follows all of the rules? How many people do we have in Special Assignments that have never asked to attend?
How many Warrants has LANTAREA made since this has become a REQUIREMENT that have never even asked to attend?
The actual wording of a policy matters alot less than the organization's commitment to enforce it.
And my opinion about the CPOACAD didn't really change, the policy to attend did. I requested to attend as soon as someone told me I had to. Up until that point, the service hadn't required me to attend. Even after I submitted the request, it took a phone call from that other person to get me a seat. There were still ten empty seats in my class. Once again the service changed the policy and increased the number of people that would initially start out to compensate for the number sent home after weigh-ins.
There are lots of people who don't follow the People Plans because their bosses have never bothered to read them. LANTAREA sent out the message a couple of months ago reminding people of the requirement. How many people have still never even submitted a request to attend?

It was discussed to make a single People Plan as a CI, it is more than likely coming but not too quickly I suspect. But no one really wants to tackle the enforcement side of it. What we do if everyone didn't get a ribbon when they got out of the pool?

I like the USAF policy on it with respect to their SNCO Academy. If you are under 20 years of service and you don't attend then you retire at 20. If you are over 20 years of service and you don't attend you retire in 7 months from that election.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

But no one really wants to tackle the enforcement side of it.

I like the USAF policy on it with respect to their SNCO Academy. If you are under 20 years of service and you don't attend then you retire at 20. If you are over 20 years of service and you don't attend you retire in 7 months from that election.

Seems easy enough to enforce to me...It either matters or it doesn't!

[MCPO Francis Jennings]

Bruce- I don't recall if you were on the work group at Petaluma a few weeks ago, but we looked at service policy. There is no indication that "no one wants to tackle the enforcement side". In fact, if and when a COMDT policy is cleared, it will require concurrence from CGPC. Enforcement policy similar to USAF's rightfully belongs in Ballston.

This will finally move to CGHQ for action only if carried forward by the service's senior enlisted leader, and a thoroughly scrutinized PERSMAN change is probably all that's needed. In fact, add that CWOPD requirement in the same memo.

Good and proper beltway staff work, however challenging, will give the field the authority to do what they all want to do.

Frank :cool:

[BMCM Bruce Bradley]

Bruce- I don't recall if you were on the work group at Petaluma a few weeks ago, but we looked at service policy. There is no indication that "no one wants to tackle the enforcement side". In fact, if and when a COMDT policy is cleared, it will require concurrence from CGPC. Enforcement policy similar to USAF's rightfully belongs in Ballston.


Frank, I was in the room. And I say that no one wants to tackle the enforcement side based on how we got to where we are today. And I'll wager that during that "if and when a COMDT policy is (concurrently) cleared" is where this will all hit the wall.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

But how sad is it that we have three different three stars that all have roughly the same policy, and we can't move forward until a four star signs off on it?

[MCPO Francis Jennings]

It's not sad at all. It's the manner in which our service is administered. We rightfully put the management of all enlisted personnel at CGPC. There are many benefits and only one is that we have the same policies for the entire workforce. Having said that, the matter of requiring all Chiefs to attend the CPO Academy has yet to be formally proposed to CGPC. So, they haven't said "no" because they haven't been tasked with responding (to my knowledge).

Perhaps one of our peers within the beltway can clarify why our operational commanders are making personnel management policy through area instructions when we haven't gone straight to epm to withold advancements or force retirements.

hagd :)

Frank :cool:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Frank, our service is set up that you follow the rules of those appointed above you. Liberty is granted at Department Head discretion. It doesn't matter that the XO said you could call it a day if your immediate supervisor still had you doing stuff.
Here's something that has been sent to CGPC, you still need your Command's recommendation for advancement. Your Command can put further restrictions or expectations on the member above and beyond those established by the COMDT. CGPC doesn't need to approve anything. Unit Commanders just need to start enforcing a policy that is already been approved and is in place.
Those AREA Commanders are allowing people to ignore their instructions. They could very easily tell the Sector Commanders their OERs would reflect that Sector's compliance with CPOACAD attendance.

It's sad Frank. If the XPO tells you to do something and can show you in writting where it's required, you don't need to wait until the OinC confirms it.

[DCCS Todd Holcomb]

Something such as this shouldn't be "roughly" the same, especially when careers are at stake. It should be one policy that covers all.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Again...it either matters or it doesn't.

[BMCM Bruce Bradley]

Again...it either matters or it doesn't.


Agreed Deane, it matters but not enough for action.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Agreed Deane, it matters but not enough for action.

Then it doesn't matter...

[DCCS Todd Holcomb]

Agreed Deane, it matters but not enough for action.

OK, so now I ask who does it matter to? If it's us SCPO's and MCPO's; Are the evals and recommendation for advancement for the CPO's who don't or won't attend showing it? I assume it is not Admirals or the COMDT because if that was the case all it would take is a signature and an instruction that could read something to the tune of " All E7-9 will attend the Chief Petty Officer Academy, if not and you are retirement eligible you will be retired on the first of the month of the next month following your declining to attend . If you are not retirement eligible you will be seperated on the first of the month following your decline to attend the course. All E-7-9 who have not prevously attended a senior enlisted developement course will submit a request to attend or be subjected to the aforementioned."

I know some are gonna say a COMDTINST takes time, I agree but I remember when the COMDT took over there was a flurry for "pen and ink changes"; why do three seperate CMC's and their VADM's have to try to convey the COMDT intentions on this issue in three seperate ways that are "roughly the same" ? WHy not just have something signed by the COMDT saying this is how it is...?

We kick people out because they (consistently) are over the MAW and MF% quick fast and in a hurry, so if this is really so important why don't we have one consolidated instruction signed by the COMDT vice seperate people plans???

My thoughts, Todd

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Like Deane is saying, because it doesn't really matter that much. And I don't think those VADMs are trying to convey the COMDT's intentions, they are expressing their own. They're just not following through on it.
It would be easy enough to do, run that report, group it into Sectors, and make a couple of phone calls.
And Todd, you could make this thing COMDT policy tomorrow,..... without enforcement, nothing is going to change. The same units that aren't enforcing the People Plans today probably won't be enforcing that COMDT instruction tomorrow.

[MCPO Francis Jennings]

so now I ask who does it matter to?
Todd, you hit the nail on the flat part. No flag officer is going to write an instruction requiring Chiefs attend their own course unless they are specifically asked to do so. I guess I should qualify that by saying almost no flag officer since both areas produced an unenforceable requirement within a larger instruction.

If our enlisted leadership were to push forth a CGHQ requirement to attend, it would be done or we'd have a very good reason why not. Further, it would likely have realistic discharge authority from CGPC (area commanders would have a heck of a time discharging a Chief for failure to attend the CPO Academy which is probably why it hasn't been done yet. No one trumps the BCMR).

Anyone (yes, anyone...) can say "you gotta go, or else". But when it comes to the "or else", commands are limited in their authority. PERSMAN 12-b is the hammer. To get there, you gotta have a note signed by COMDT. Other than that, if they don't go (even in spite of our best organizational cutlass rattling) you gotta make 'em go stand in the corner (well, you can also lower a few of their marks, Stu, and that's subject to appeal). :D

Frank :cool: :cool:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Frank,
1. Why do you say it's unenforceable? It's an Area instruction.

2. Who are they going to appeal their marks to? Everyone higher up the chain would have read that same instruction.

3. How do you appeal a Not Recommended for Advancement again?

4. Who's the appealing authority for all other Command recommendations? If you put in a Warrant package and your CO says no, what's your next move? If your CO/OIC doesn't recommend you for command, what are your options? If your CO doesn't recommend you for Special Assignments, is the AO even going to look at your package?

Commands have plenty of options. They choose not to use them, because,....... wait for it, it doesn't matter to them. It's back to those Flag Officers who should send a message, and not just the ones on CGMS.