E6 marking a Chief

[MKC Timothy Pettengill]

CG Regs say that an E6 acting as XPO does not need to be one paygrade higher than the markee.. (Ch 10 Personnel Man)..

On the 87 WPB's, same as the 82 WPB's and the 95 WPB's, the XPO's are E6's and the Chief Engineers (EPO's) are..well, Chiefs..

I was recently asked why the XPO's don't mark the Chief's, as their supervisor. The regs suggest they can, but traditionally none do it. I've always seen the EPO work directly for the CO/OIC and not the XPO..

I need a good argument as to why they shouldn't despite the regulations...

aside from the fact that an E6 doesn't possess the experience or knowledge to mark a Chief.. But who's to say that a young LTJG (as Commanding Officer) does. He is neither a Chief and probably sees less of the EPO in his day to day functions..

your thoughts...

Tim

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Position takes precedence over rank. The XPO should be marking the EPO. Like it or not, the XPO is second in command. People that give the impression that the EPO works directly for the OinC are selling the XPO short.

[MKC Timothy Pettengill]

What gives the XPO (an E6) the knowledge, and judgement to properly mark a Chief..

By virtue of him being an XPO..?

I know the regs say it's okay but what screening process does an XPO get..?
Most I have had experience with have a hard enough time managing their own situation let alone take on counseling a Chief..

As an E6 he does not understand what is expected of a Chief as E7 marks are different from the E6's.

How does he know what a Chief's involvement in the Mess is for instance..

to me this is a sticky situation...

You wanna give the guy a bone for being an XPO but come on..

Would anyone here want to be marked by someone of lesser paygrade- regardless of their postion.. it's just weird.

Especially when the divide is Chief and non-Chief

I can't magine being sat down and counseled on Marks by an E6 and having him/her saying.."now Chief..here's where you need to improve."


over..

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

But the XPO is supposed to be supervising the EPO. There are areas that he will know whether or not he's doing the job right. You could just as easily argue that a BM has no business marking an MK, but that is the system we have.
You also have to accept that the XPO is not the Approving Official. Someone else gets those marks. That person might be of the same pay grade with less TIS/TIG. But again, that is the system the we have.
But we also have checks and balances. That EPO can always appeal his marks if he doesn't think that they accurately reflect the work that he's done. And if he did the bullets right, that BM1 should have been able to mark him better in the first place.

Tim, I don't want to be the one that has to break this to you, but when I was a BM1, I often had to remind the BMC how to properly mark people. And right now, I get marked by someone who has 22 years less time in the service than I do. And she was never subject to the marks herself. And she kinda has to take my word on my own involvement in the Mess.

And if you're going to have problems with the XPO counseling you on your marks......... how do you feel when you have to go to him to ask if you can grant your department liberty.... or when he tells you what time he wants you to come in in the morning ? I'm not throwing the guy a bone, he's the XPO. That's the way our system works.

[BMC Ralph Williams]

But the XPO is supposed to be supervising the EPO. There are areas that he will know whether or not he's doing the job right. You could just as easily argue that a BM has no business marking an MK, but that is the system we have.
You also have to accept that the XPO is not the Approving Official. Someone else gets those marks. That person might be of the same pay grade with less TIS/TIG. But again, that is the system the we have.
But we also have checks and balances. That EPO can always appeal his marks if he doesn't think that they accurately reflect the work that he's done. And if he did the bullets right, that BM1 should have been able to mark him better in the first place.

Tim, I don't want to be the one that has to break this to you, but when I was a BM1, I often had to remind the BMC how to properly mark people. And right now, I get marked by someone who has 22 years less time in the service than I do. And she was never subject to the marks herself. And she kinda has to take my word on my own involvement in the Mess.

And if you're going to have problems with the XPO counseling you on your marks......... how do you feel when you have to go to him to ask if you can grant your department liberty.... or when he tells you what time he wants you to come in in the morning ? I'm not throwing the guy a bone, he's the XPO. That's the way our system works.


An E6 XPO cannot mark an MKC. Chapter 10.B.2.b.11 specifically states that the member has to be one paygrade above, only if the member is an E6 XPO then that member doesn't have to be one paygrade above to mark his E6 EPO or his FS1 or any other E6's in the command. If there is a command allowing an E6 to mark someone senior in rank that is totally wrong.

Ready for incoming.

have fun,
Ralph

[MKC Timothy Pettengill]

Thanks for the replies..MC

Just to be clear..This is not an issue at my present unit..
Just a question someone posed to me and got me thinking..

BTW- All my tours being an EPO I've never had an XPO ever tell me what time to come in, or try to manage me in anyway. Other than let me know what time liberty for crew expired or ship was moving etc.. I set my own schedule.

All of my past OIC's made it clear that I worked directly for them and had open brow privileges.. All standing orders have the XPO listed evenly with the EPO. (Stations ANTS and 3 WPB's)

Personally I would never allow a BM1 XPO to counsel me on marks.
Every XPO (BM1) I have ever served with came to me almost daily for advice on how to basically function... I couldn't sit there with a straight face as they went about counseling me..lol

Not that I feel I am better or don't respect their position as I really do..
It's that I've always been considered a mentor to every XPO I've served with and the thought of them counseling me is just weird..

Rules or no rules.. some things should just not be done..

Again..
it's not an issue here just a talking point.. looking for open discussion.
Thanks

[MKC Timothy Pettengill]

An E6 XPO cannot mark an MKC. Chapter 10.B.2.b.11 specifically states that the member has to be one paygrade above, only if the member is an E6 XPO then that member doesn't have to be one paygrade above to mark his E6 EPO or his FS1 or any other E6's in the command. If there is a command allowing an E6 to mark someone senior in rank that is totally wrong.

Ready for incoming.

have fun,
Ralph

Thanks Ralph..

Attached is the text from the Pers Man..
To me it reads that the BM1 can mark the Chief..

COAST GUARD PERSONNEL MANUAL CHAPTER 10.B.
CH-39 10.B.

10. Rating Officials. The individuals responsible for evaluating and helping to
motivate the performance and behavior of the evaluee.

11. Supervisor. The Supervisor shall be an officer, civilian, or enlisted person.
a. If enlisted, the Supervisor must be at least one pay grade senior to the evaluee except as noted below:

(1) The command may designate a first class petty officer (E-6) as the
Supervisor.

(2) A supervisor who is a first class petty officer, designated as executive petty officer, does not have to be one pay grade senior to the evaluee.

Are you trying to say that the XPO needs to be of the same rank but not at least one paygrade higher..if that makes sense..
Kinda gray isn't it..

Tim

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Ralph, where are you reading that......

11. Supervisor. The Supervisor shall be an officer, civilian, or enlisted person.
a. If enlisted, the Supervisor must be at least one pay grade senior to the evaluee
except as noted below:
(1) The command may designate a first class petty officer (E-6) as the
Supervisor.
(2) A supervisor who is a first class petty officer, designated as executive
petty officer, does not have to be one pay grade senior to the evaluee.

I'm not reading where it says as long as they're the same pay grade, I'm only reading that the XPO doesn't have to be one pay grade senior.......

standing by for return fire......

[MKC Timothy Pettengill]

Doesn't really specify huh..?

Doesn't say they can be of a lesser paygrade either..

Normally they have to be one paygrade higher..
But with an XPO that is waived...does that authorize them to mark Senior Persons or just persons of their own rank.

Seems that would just cause alot of heartache.

Where would you personally draw the line..?

Let the PO1 mark a BMCS or a BMCM..?

Would you want that PO1 to Mark/Counsel you..!

Good debate eh..?

Tim

[BMC Ralph Williams]

Yes that caviot is so the BM1 can mark the MK1 and all other E6's in the command Because of his position and gets him away from being one paygrade above.

The supervisor has to be one paygrade above or an E6 in an XPO position to mark other E6's thats how I read it and was taught.


have fun,
Ralph

[BMC Ken Gouge]

I don't beleive it states that an XPO can't mark someone regardless of rank. Construction tenders have the same BM1 XPO and MKC EPO. I think the BM1 should provide input, but it is the OIC who actually has the final say-so. As far as counselling, that would probably be up to the OIC. I can't see an E6 counselling an E7, but that would depend on personality types how that might pan out.

I think it is left vague on purpose, so that the OIC/CO can make that call.

[BMC Ralph Williams]

It's not vauge, that section is there so that members in XPO positions could mark at the "same rank" and get away form "one rank above".

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Bottom line is that it's up to the CO/OINC to do it how they want. At my present unit it's not an issue because the Sector tells us how to mark the command and the OINC is the Supervisor and people at the Sector are the Marking and Approving.

However, if it were up to me (and it has been in the past), I wouldn't have my XPO mark the EPO. I don't feel it's appropriate in this situation. That's just me. The EPO does work directly for the OINC in regards to engineering. The XPO and EPO better have an understanding and good working relationship outside of that or we're going to have some issues. It's up to the Chief to make that work.

[MKC Timothy Pettengill]

Great input everyone..

I concur with all..

Thanks

over

[BMCS Ian McVicker]

My Sector also has the marking chain in their SOP, which lists the OIC as the marking supervisor for the EPO. Now that being said...

I also would not have my XPO mark the EPO. I do ask for his input in certain areas for several reasons, but would not actually have them listed as supervisor.
There is no question concerning where they place in the COC, who is responsible for what, and how they are to communicate issues at the unit. My current EPO and XPO have never got caught up in the who works for who issue, and work together as a team. They both know when it comes to Engineering issues the EPO does work directly for me and keeps the XPO informed, but when it comes to day to day business (ie..Trng, Supply, Personnel, Schedule) the XPO is responsible.

Technically the XPO can mark the EPO, but I find it to be inappropriate if the EPO is a pay-grade above the XPO. I personally prefer the work environment and team work I get without having that issue in the way.

This is what I question. The EPO's marks go from the OIC to the Sector, and the Marking Official is usually a Dept. Head. But I have never seen the Engineering Officer in that Chain. It would seem reasonable to me that the Sector EO should be somewhere in that chain.

[SKC Ronald Brumble]

Positional Authority. That is what this is all about.

I had a similar situation at my last command. As an E6 I was the contracting Officer. I had to tell Department heads what they could or could not buy. I had to learn to hold my ground aginst folks of higher rank because I was the contracting officer. The command put me in that position and expected me to do my job and say no when the answer was no.

That was tough, and there a few times when I got the old, "What gives this E6 the right to tell me no."

Like the XPO,
1. Positional Athority
2. in my case Contrancting Warrant

I relize that contracting and Marking are very different.

[BMC John Phillips III]

Bottom line is that it's up to the CO/OINC to do it how they want.

However, if it were up to me (and it has been in the past), I wouldn't have my XPO mark the EPO. I don't feel it's appropriate in this situation. That's just me. The EPO does work directly for the OINC in regards to engineering.

I agree with your post, I shortened it up to show the parts that I especially agree with.

I was an E6 XPO with two different E7 EPO's, I didn't want to mark neither of them. I had a good working relationship with both of them and one of them was clearly better than the other (both were good), but the OIC has a close enough working relationship with them that he didn't need to have me marking them. If he had any questions on a particular category, I would hope that he would solicit my input. But otherwise, you are putting both the XPO and EPO in a potentially uncomfortable position. All that being said, there should still be no doubt as to whom is 2nd in command. I never had any problems, other than a parking spot issue ;)

Ian, you raise an excellent question and I am sure that if you pursued it, you could implement a Coast Guard wide change! Run it up the chain, I would, but it's not my idea.

[BMCS Nick Pupo]

As with Deane, I dont have that issue. The Sector is the AO for the EPO marks and I am Supervisor and Marking Official for the EPO. So it's a non issue.
Tim, you said you would never let an E-6 counsel you on your marks. Would you, really? Even if the CO/OIC said that's how she/he wanted it?

[BMCM Deane Smith]

This is what I question. The EPO's marks go from the OIC to the Sector, and the Marking Official is usually a Dept. Head. But I have never seen the Engineering Officer in that Chain. It would seem reasonable to me that the Sector EO should be somewhere in that chain.

Ian...here in Sector OHV, it's the Sector EO that is the Marking Official and the Sector CO is the Approving. That's the way it should be...if the Sector is marking them.

In reading the posts, It sounds like most Sectors are different...no big shock there!

[BMCS Ian McVicker]

Ian...here in Sector OHV, it's the Sector EO that is the Marking Official and the Sector CO is the Approving. That's the way it should be...if the Sector is marking them.

In reading the posts, It sounds like most Sectors are different...no big shock there!

Deane..Down here in LMR the OIC is the Supervisor/Marking Official for both the XPO and EPO, and then they go straight to the Prevention DH who is the
Approving Official.

I hear you John. I was reviewing my earlier reply, and asked myself why I had never addressed it. First thing next week when I get back I'm gonna run it up the chain.

[BMC Ralph Williams]

Maybe I have blinders on. :D
I do not read it any other way than the manual giving the out of an equal ranking member marking an equal ranking member. The Manual doesn't state that the member can be junior.

[BMC Trent Spiroff]

Alright, I'm on a roll today. A little bit of time, I open up.

I believe the XPO should have input into the EPO's marks considering the role the XPO has in the command. Does that mean he's marking as the "Supervisor", not neccessarily. There are other ways the OIC can get input from the XPO on the senior EPO's marks.

Let's flip it around. How many go to your EPO seeking input on your XPO's marks? Lets say you have a 20 yr MK1/MKC as your EPO, and a junior BM1 with 6-8 years. It's your BM1's second unit, and your EPO's 4th 87'.

T.S.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Ralph you're reading it to say what you want to hear. It says that the XPO does not have to be one pay grade higher. It doesn't say anything about the he can only then mark people of the same grade.

Surprisingly I have a different take on this. I have always had the XPO mark the EPO. The XPO is supposed to be in a training billet, getting himself ready to seek his own command. They have to start addressing these things early. The EPO does work directly for me in matters of engineering, but every other aspect of their job should go through the XPO first. And after I get that imput, I mark them how I want. Then I send them up the chain in accordance with whichever Sector I happen to be at. Now if those marks that I gave someone were ever altered after they left my desk, that would be another issue. You see the Personnel Manual still reads that the OinC is the Approving Official for everyone in his Command, when I read it.

[MKC Timothy Pettengill]

Great comments everyone...

appreciate it...

Nick.. (howdy)

Yeah it would be tough being counseled.. probably wouldn't be able to keep a straight face..
It's just because I know I have so much more experience than most BM1 XPO. No disrepect to anyone but it would feel like your kid grading you on your driving skills. Would I do it if being forced sure... Would I like it.. would you.

Agree with all the comments on the XPO's roles.. Thats never an issue with me.. Just hard to swallow having a E6 telling me how to be a good E7.
Does anyone not understand that.. An E6 counseling a Chief on how to be a good E7. Anyway you slice it, XPO, 2cnd in Command whatever..its cheesy.

Agree with him/her (xpo) giving input but counseling and being listed as the Chief's supervisor on the marks is kinda lame...

A Chief needs to marked and counseled by a Chief or higher..period

just my opinion..

Tim

[BMCS Nick Pupo]

Tim, hello back.
Anyway I agree an E-6 marking an E-7 is almost as silly as an E-3 marking an E-4.
Something else we all have to remember only one person marks us, the Approving Official. Everybody else is just providing input and feedback to that person. If we want to appeal our marks the Persman does not say, the first step is to talk to the Marking Offiicial, it says you sit down with the AO.

Ralph, you're right it does not say that a member can be junior it also doesnt state that they cant be. Along the lines in the manual where it says the Supervisor can be the Marking and the Marking can be the Approving. No where does it state that the same person CAN'T be all three, but. How many of us would really do that.

[CMC Bruce Bradley]

Come on Nick, give up that pipedream.

[BMCS Mike Ellis]

I was an 87 XPO and never marked the EPO. I knew what PERSMAN said, but I never expected to mark him, nor was I asked for my input. I had OIC's though, not CO's. I could see more JO's directing the BM1 to do that.
Sure I was the XPO, but I always respected the relationship that the BMCS and the MKC had as fellow Chiefs. I had enough on my plate anyway without the extra work.

[BMCS Mike Winans]

I was an 87 XPO and marked the MKC. It was not only a "time stamp" on his marks, it was to be in compliance with the rating chain (at the unit) and the fact that we delt with each other more than the OinC did. I never conducted the counseling sessions because I was not trying to tell the MKC how to be a Chief, I was providing feedback to the OinC on how he/she worked in a command climate. See, the XPO is second in command no matter how you look at it. The other thing is, the EPO ONLY works directly for the OinC regarding Eng related issues. When it comes to the daily grind, the XPO is in charge...like it or not.

Mike

[ETC John D Zidek]

Looks like someone found the Hot Button again :D

I think this is going to fall under that case by case umbrella. Yes I am straddling the fence.

I dont think the E6 XPO should be marking the EPO E7, but I do think the OINC should have his input when doing the E7s Marks and there is NO WAY the E-6 should be counseling the E-7. Yes on paper the XPO is the #2 man, but in the real world I see the XPO and EPO positions as equals. One runs the plant the other the admin and personel side.


While we are on the subject of juniority...When I was an E6 I had an E7 tell me he didn't feel right marking me and counseling me because well for lack of a better phrase, how long in the tooth I was and experianced in my job and the guard. My reply was a simple. You just did. With that phrase you told me I was your go to guy, you know I do a good job and if something needs done you know I will take care of it....Thanks was there anything else you needed?

It made my day.
:D

[BMCS Bill Gheen]

Yes on paper the XPO is the #2 man, but in the real world I see the XPO and EPO positions as equals. One runs the plant the other the admin and personel side.


I disagree with that statement and I would find it difficult to run a unit in that fashion. Too “wishy washy” IMO.

The XPO is the number two regardless. That’s what it says in the regulations. I don’t take away, but add to, when needed. The above statement gives the appearance of taking away, again IMO.

When I was XPO, I provided marks input on my EPO. He was a Chief; I was not. No, I did not counsel him. However, I was asked to provide input nonetheless. That is how I think that should be.

We have a screening process for XPO that is more stringent than that of an EPO. There is a reason for that.

Bottom line they are not equals, never will be IMO. They are two very distinct and important Cadre roles who have their jobs and should have developed a mutual working relationship. If they haven't, then perhaps the AO isn’t doing their job as efficiently as they could be. Again, this is merely my opinion.

[BMCS Bill Gheen]

I have no idea how I made the quote feature (My post below) use that scrolling thingy, it was certainly not my intent.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

[MSTC SJ Natale]

Thanks Ralph..

Attached is the text from the Pers Man..
To me it reads that the BM1 can mark the Chief..

COAST GUARD PERSONNEL MANUAL CHAPTER 10.B.
CH-39 10.B.

10. Rating Officials. The individuals responsible for evaluating and helping to
motivate the performance and behavior of the evaluee.

11. Supervisor. The Supervisor shall be an officer, civilian, or enlisted person.
a. If enlisted, the Supervisor must be at least one pay grade senior to the evaluee except as noted below:

(1) The command may designate a first class petty officer (E-6) as the
Supervisor.

(2) A supervisor who is a first class petty officer, designated as executive petty officer, does not have to be one pay grade senior to the evaluee.

Are you trying to say that the XPO needs to be of the same rank but not at least one paygrade higher..if that makes sense..
Kinda gray isn't it..

Tim

By reading this section of the PERSMAN I would believe that it is addressing the need to not be one paygrade higher, as in, the XPO and the evaluee are in the same paygrade......only.

The verbage "does not have to be one pay grade senior to the evaluee" can lead us to more than just an E-6 marking an E-7. What would stop an E-6 from marking an E-8 (E-7 making E-8 in an EPO position prior to X-fer)? NOWHERE does it state that an XPO can be one (or more) paygrades JUNIOR.

It would be nice if they addressed this whole XPO/EPO situation in writing.

I am having a hard time thinking that there are ANY E-6's that are a designated marking supervisor for and E-7.

On a side note, who can be called on this particular subject? MCPOCG? Who is responsible for the content of the PERSMAN? What entity in the USCG can answer this question??????

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

There's plenty of information on the duties and responsibilities of the XO/XPO in writing. The Bottom line is that the XPO is second in command. Everybody else on board answers to the XPO. But the XPO isn't the Approving Official for the EPO's Marks, he's just a member in the chain. The XPO can deny purchases that the EPO submits. He may even be the approving official for all of the engineering money matters. Doesn't anybody have a problem with that ? The XPO may be counseling the EPO.......or the OinC ......... on the requirements for that brown sheet........... it comes with the position.

[MSTC SJ Natale]

There's plenty of information on the duties and responsibilities of the XO/XPO in writing. The Bottom line is that the XPO is second in command. Everybody else on board answers to the XPO. But the XPO isn't the Approving Official for the EPO's Marks, he's just a member in the chain. The XPO can deny purchases that the EPO submits. He may even be the approving official for all of the engineering money matters. Doesn't anybody have a problem with that ? The XPO may be counseling the EPO.......or the OinC ......... on the requirements for that brown sheet........... it comes with the position.

There is no problem with any of that. Training, or counseling if you will, comes from everyone everywhere, no matter the position. I have seen PO3's sit down and sign off qual prac's for 0-3's (and many other variations of lower ranks training higher ranks). The SK who has to inform thier supervisors and others of higher paygrade on ordering procedures.

I dont think that is the same as being a marking supervisor though. If there is any "counselling" to be done it would be from the E-7 to the E-6 getting them ready for their next paygrade.

I personally wont ever find myself in this XPO/EPO position so I am not personally involved with the subject. I would just like to know what the PERSMAN is really trying to explain on the subject.

[BMC Mark C. Lewis]

When I was an XPO at a small boat station I had to mark 1 chief and 2 senior chiefs. It made me uncomfortable at first, but I got used to it and two of the three did not seem to have a problem with it, one did but it did not create a problem. I did not counsel these chiefs the OIC did.

On a side note I had know two of them when they where E-6s the other was a chief.

I currently have one chief reserve and my XPO (E-6) will do his marks, I will be the approving official and I will counsel the chief.

The XPO is the second in command and the EPO is third in command they must learn to work together no matter their pay grades.

[BMCS Nick Pupo]

Mark, were the Chief and Senior Chief you marked AD or Reserve?
Also, if you were the XPO as you pointed out. You didnt mark them you only provided input into their marks the Approving Official marked them.

[BMC Mark C. Lewis]

Senior
You are correct I only provided input and they where reserves. I do not think being active or reserve should make a difference they are still Chiefs and Senior Chiefs.

[BMCS Nick Pupo]

Mark, you didnt answer the question, were they reserves or AD. As for the them being a Chief and a Senior Chief, were they really? Or were they an E-7 and E-8? In my view a big difference, but from what your saying and how you avoided the question I guessing they were reserves.

[BMC Mark C. Lewis]

Senior
Sorry, I did not proofread my reply, yes they were reserves and yes they were chiefs not Es.

[GMCS Jerry Peacock]

Mark, you didnt answer the question, were they reserves or AD. As for the them being a Chief and a Senior Chief, were they really? Or were they an E-7 and E-8? In my view a big difference, but from what your saying and how you avoided the question I guessing they were reserves.

Can you explain to me your perceived "differences" between an AD/RES, E-7/E-8, Chief/Senior Chief ?

As to the topic, I believe an XPO attends formal training and under-goes a selection process to serve in the position. The AO ultimately signs... what's the issue? Seems to be a short-sighted arguement. Would one feel the same taking direction, tasking and or counseling from an OOD who is junior? The marking system is an "Objective" system, the same as the Awards System. Big Picture question.... Does it really matter? ;)

[BMCS Nick Pupo]

Senior Chief,
It's been awhile since I posted that reply.
I was asking two different questions. 1) were the people he spoke of active duty or reserves, and the second question; were they Chief's and Senior Chief's or E-7's&8's.
Yes I will explain, it's easy really, but I think you're confusing the two questions. Aside from a WPB I can't think of any other time a BM1 would be in the position to mark a Chief, other than reserves and I just wanted clarity on that question.
Secondly, in my view, and I believe its shared by others. There is a big difference between a Chief and an E-7, or a Senior Chief and an E-8, regardless of their current status.

[GMCS Jerry Peacock]

BMCS,
That's what I love about technology... all that is posted will remain for the anals of electronic history.

Understanding it has been two months since you posted your response; your questions may seem simple to you, but I don't follow your comments. I have not had the pleasure of being an OIC/XPO and simply do not see an issue as presented. If this scenerio is drawn and quartered in the PersMan and other Regs/Inst's, what is the issue? An XPO (WPB,Station, ANT) is 2nd in Command. If there are ambiguities to the policy as written, those with questions should be going to the Program Mgr to find the answer, not interpreting it to their benifit. In reading the entire thread, it sounds as though some have done so, on both sides. Last I checked, this was not a Democracy with the issue open for vote. Regulations dictate, regardless of status (Active/Reserve).

Your question on whether a member was a Real Chief is irrellevant to the topic question posed. Although you obviously feel strongly that it makes a difference, I do not follow how so. I have served with a few exceptional E7s (and E6's) who ran circles around some of our beloved "Real Chiefs". One does not need to under-go CCTI in order to be an effective leader or CPO. Nor should this have any bearing on their stature outside of the Chief's Mess Door. Should a "Real Chief" openly show this alienation to an uninitiated E7/E8 outside the "Chiefs Call" and Mess, that Chief should be taken up the stbd yardarm by the short... Sorry, set & drift taking me off topic... and to answer your impending question; Yes, I went through CCTI in 1994 and have participated in several since.

I'd be more than happy to continue that train of thought outside this topic posting or via email... otherwise, I reckon we'll simply agree to disagree and move on... Have a Great Day!
GMCS (Jerry)

[BMCS Nick Pupo]

GMCS, it really does not bother me that what I have posted in the past is still there to see. In fact Ive posted on several topics and have my view point swayed, after posting on a subject I felt stongly about.

I think the orignial poster was asking thoughts on should a E-6 mark a Chief. And I know what the persman says I also know that in the situations where I've been an XPO working with a Chief, I would have and did feel uncomfortable marking that Chief. That's one of the reasons why the CO and OIC in both cases forwarded the marks to the group for GRUCOM approval.

I do feel strongly that there is a difference between a Chief and an E-7. I too have served and hopefully will continue to serve with strong leaders who were advanced to E-7 and some chose to go thru CCTI and some chose not too.

With that said I dont feel the need to explain myself to you in this forum. However if you are pointing your finger at me about "this alienation to an uninitiated E7/E8 outside the "Chiefs Call" and Mess, that Chief should be taken up the stbd yardarm by the short". One need go no further than the CCTI Forum on this board to see opinions and viewpoints that run parallel to mine and some that do not.

Finally, I wont agree to disagree about anything since I dont understand your stance on any one subject.
Maybe its just me, but it seems you've decided to grind your ax in my direction. If so fine, if not then Im incorrect and will acknowledge your view and move on.

[GMCS Jerry Peacock]

Sorry if you did not draw a stance from my post... It was not meant to grind any axe in any one particular direction. I simply did not see the issue as originally posted. I also saw comments moving towards a CCTI issue that IMHO did not follow the intent of the thread. Far be it for anyone to post an opinion on an issue (statement) they feel strongly about... should it oppose yours. Thanks for the clarification on the issue.

[BMCS Nick Pupo]

GMCS,
You may have seen comments moving towards a CCTI thats your preception. No where did I ever mention the CCTI, you brought it up.

I dont really care if someone opinion differs from me. But I guess if I feel strongly about an issue I should not post my opinions for fear of hurting somebodies feelings because they differ from me. Actually, in my view thats what this board was started to do, show different opinions and different sides of a, dare I say, argument.

Back on point, if you want to further discuss the issue at hand, E-6 marking a Chief then fine. But I will not engage you any further in a discussion about the CCTI or any other subject outside a threads intended discussion points.