OIC Review Board

[CWO Chris Sparkman (BMC)]

Can someone post a poll, I have no idea how. If one has already been done, can someone post the link.

Option 1. Keep the process the way it is.
Option 2. Change to just AFLOAT and ASHORE and keep the review board.
Option 3. Standardize the board process, questions, format, etc. and have one qual, and only 1 board. Your either found qualified or not to command.
Option 4. Remove the review board process all together, and go with Command Endorsement and a HQ screening process.

Kind of like an CO/OIC giving someone a command endorsement to go CWO. Are you also giving in that same endorsement, your blessing for that member to command afloat or ashore as a CWO???

What would be the difference in submitting a command endorsed OIC package or a command endorsed CWO package. Both could end up in command.

Maybe the poll could be tweaked a little, but you get the picture.

Thanks.

CS

[BMCS Dave Considine]

Looks like you figured it out. Maybe ADMIN can delete the poll I just did. Good question though!

Dave

[CWO Chris Sparkman (BMC)]

Alright here what I was trying to edit, the damn thing said my 15 minutes was up...was not! :D

If the review board were gone, the HQ screening process would be the key. Put this mbr to command ashore, this member to command afloat, this member both, etc, etc. If the board did not think the member is not there, they don't screen that year. Like a rank ordering type thing :rolleyes:

What would be the difference in submitting a command endorsed OIC package or a command endorsed CWO package. Both could end up in command.

Maybe the poll could be tweaked a little, but you get the picture. Just curious to what others are thinking. I know there have been many discussions on it, but it's mostly been opinions. What would be the pre-req's, keep them the same? Change them up?

Thanks.

CS

[CMC Bruce Bradley]

I still believe that we need to have a difference between ashore and afloat qualifiaction.

If we remove the requirement to have both, then anyone can be sent anywhere to command anything. So that senior BM who hasn't been afloat in the past 15 years gets his own canoe because the detailers slate him for for it. Don't say it can't happen because stranger things have happened over the past couple of years coming out of the puzzle palace.

[CWO Chris Sparkman (BMC)]

Master Chief, with the two quals theory. Do you think we need a pre-board, ethier District or group then a PACAREA or LANTAREA. I understand some do it differently. Or....just one board, you either make it or you don't.


CS

[CWO Chris Sparkman (BMC)]

Senior, thanks, I just saw your post. I'll see if ADMIN can delete. That is the fastest 15 minutes I have ever seen....

CS

[BMCM Deane Smith]

I voted to remove the board process and have a HQ screening. I have always felt like we could do it similiar to the way officers do it. If you have a successful XPO tour, you get the nod for command of that platform. To be considered successful you would need to be fully qualified on that platform, earn your CO/OINC's recommendation and meet all of the current OINC requirements (i.e. no njp, good evals, etc).

The screeners wouldn't give someone who hasn't been u/w in 15 years their own Cutter. At least I wouldn't if I were a screener.

There are many reasons that I would do it this way. One reason is that the boards aren't consistent across the CG. Two is that it's been proven that people that have never certified are successful OINC's (i.e. someone certified Aton Afloat only and were given an Aton Ashore command). And third, the OINC review board doesn't gaurantee a good OINC. I realize that this process doesn't gaurantee that either, but...

That's all I got for now.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I voted for standardizing the board, and making one qual. You either are or you're not. And make people get their DWO letter and coxwwain qual prior to being eligible to sit for it.

Bruce, someone could go 15 years since their last afloat tour and still get their own boat with the system we have in place today.
And we're only voting on the certification process. People would still have to screen. During that process they could put the right person on the right platform........

[CMC Bruce Bradley]

Sparky, I like the PacArea model where the Area has the "final" board with reps and candidates from all Districts in one place. with that leave it uo to each District as to how the pre-board is done (i.e. at the Sector level, at the District level or not at all). With that let the BM RFMC be the observer for both areas to ensure a level or even system.

And Stu I took this poll at face value. Meaning I was commeting on the subject of the poll only, the OinC qual. The assignment process is another topic. We cannot assume that if we change the qual process that the assignment process and the decisions made there will change also. CUrrently there are written regs that deal with the situation that I raised, that are disregarded by detailers as they see fit under the guise of "needs of the service".

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I don't know if they're disregarded....... but the needs of the service always have to be met. Right now, we have OinCs in billets that they never certified for. To date, I haven't heard of one of those that was RFC.
I'm voting on the merits of the poll. You're either fit command or you're not. You're either going to want to do the job,or you're not. Just my opinion.

[CMC Bruce Bradley]

And I agree with you Stu, I just take it a step further. We all spend most of our careers getting ourselves ready to sit in the big chair. And you have had the opportunity to sit in one that rocks and one that doesn't. Although the basics of command remain the same in both, it takes a different mind set to do it afloat. And without the background in that we might be seeing an RFC or worse.

But to take this one step further yet. My input was solicted last year by a joint RFMC and HQ group on just this concept. I believe that we will one day get to the one qual world. But let's take this one step at a time and work out the bugs as we go.

[CWO Chris Sparkman (BMC)]

My input was solicted last year by a joint RFMC and HQ group on just this concept

Master Chief, do you know what the final outcome was? I did hear that the overall percentage of folks were strongly for keeping the board process.

I'm all over the place on this one. I like the two qual thing. I think the 1 board, 1 qual...qualified to command or not, gives some credibiity.

I also think that if I endorse an OIC package, that would have some credibility. Send it on up to the HQ Sceeners to determine what they should command. I'm endorseing the mbrs overall Commandability (don't know if that's a word), but you get the point.

The endorsement for the CWO package, are the CO/OIC's giving their blessing in that same endorsement to go off and command Afloat and Ashore?

I don't know, I think something has to change. There seems to be so much going on during certain times of the year. You got mbrs going for the SWE, the Pre-board, oh...you got a CCTI in there somewhere, you still have to conduct your daily business. Then when you pass the pre-board, you still have to get your District or Area Board. Isn't one enough! I'm not saying it's easy, but it is a little cheesy.... :D

CS

[BMCS Ian McVicker]

If you have a successful XPO tour, you get the nod for command of that platform. To be considered successful you would need to be fully qualified on that platform, earn your CO/OINC's recommendation and meet all of the current OINC requirements (i.e. no njp, good evals, etc).

Deane..Just trying to clarify, do you mean that if someone successfully completes an XPO tour on a WLR and earns the recommendations, that they would only qualify for a WLR, or ATON Afloat.

As far as the voting goes, I went with the 2 qual Afloat/Ashore. I really don't think any of them are bad ideas (except for keeping it the same), but I wonder how realistic it would be. Whether you have 1 qual covering everything, or 2 quals covering Afloat and Ashore, you will have to have a large pool of candidates that have a well rounded back ground. I may be wrong, but it seems every newer generation of BM's this becomes more and more of an issue. I don't think it applies to everyone, but there are times when people get locked into 1 mission group (and that's not even addressing the surfman), and they don't have the background to qualify for all OIC positions. EPM would have to be on board with this, allowing BM's to switch between mission fields. The mbrs would have to recognize this as being their goal early in their career, and use the E-resume accordingly. And I think most important, we as sitting OIC's would have to be willing to take the unqualified person new to the mission field, instead of communicating to EPM that we need previously qualified personnel all the time.

It would be interesting to see if it would work.

[BMC John Phillips III]

Two is that it's been proven that people that have never certified are successful OINC's (i.e. someone certified Aton Afloat only and were given an Aton Ashore command).


I say leave it the way it is. There is a misconception that the boards are not standard. I believe that BMCM Wolf laid that to rest in his force notes after having gone to several district boards.

Your "ie." doesn't make sense, you said, "never certified" then you used an example of "someone" that was certified, just not for the job they were sent to. I would also caution the rest of your statement as to being successful, I wouldn't give someone the "successful" label until they were tour complete. That's just my opinion though.

Edited to add, that if we go with strictly command endorsement the standardization process is going to go completely out the window. As there would be several different people giving those recommendations as opposed to the same district determining out of all those "recommended" people, which ones are truly ready or qualified to be in command.

Also, if there is anyone out there looking for the ATON qual, I just put together 50 questions in preparation for the sector board. Email me or PM for them.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

John...I hate to burst your bubble, but the boards are not standard. I've sat on both side of the table in 3 different districts and PacArea...they're not the same. They're not. It may not be that far off, but they are different.

John...there are 4 certifications. You certify for one, two, three or all of them. If you certify for one...that's all that you've certified for. I'm not sure where you're going with that?

John...I thought that I said they had to have a successful tour? Didn't you say the same thing as me? Tour complete? Isn't that what I said? Part of having a successful tour is to complete it. Oh...and don't caution me on what I should say. As you said...they're opinions.

Ian...I said platform, it should be all ATON Afloat.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

I voted shorten to two quals. But, I would like to have just one board, standardized and by done with it.

I would also like to ask this, was this this big an issue before the rate merger? For some reason I do not remember so many BMs not wanting/being able to qualify before then. Some of you BMCS and BMCM, what do you think? I am not saying QMs dont want to do it since I know lequacy BMs that dont either. But, was it the same say late 90s early 2000? I was a OINC then and I dont rememer? Or maybe the addtion of these sites, e-CG make it more noticable.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Burt, I don't think that it had anything to do with the merger. I think that there is a different mind set. At one point people came in couldn't wait until they had their own command. Now we have people who don't want the responsibility. Qm's have always been able to sit and we always had enough certified QMs to fill those QMCS OinC billets. We now have a bunch of legacy QMs who think that legacy BMs have the leg up on this process.

I also think that there is alot of fear about RFCs that keep people from applying for the positions in the first place. Not to keep bringing this up at every opportunity..... but maybe publishing the reasons for those RFCs would eliminate that.

And I don't care what anyone says, the process is not standardized. No two boards are the same........

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Here's a question.

If the boards were downsized to "One Qual"...how would it go? Right now it's easy...you ask specific questions on the four certifications. And, obviously you ask standard (across platforms) CG questions. So, how would the boards go for "One Qual"? Would you ask generic questions or still ask Aton and MM specific questions? Would you have to know enough about both Aton and MM to certify for the "One Qual"? It seems that this process could be harder. I guess the same could be asked about the "Afloat/Ashore" qual also.

Someone who voted for the "One Qual" and "Afloat/Ashore" please clarify how the boards would go.

[BMC John Phillips III]

John...I hate to burst your bubble, but the boards are not standard. I've sat on both side of the table in 3 different districts and PacArea...they're not the same. They're not. It may not be that far off, but they are different.
You know you love to burst my bubble ;). Anyway, not far off and different, of course not every board is the same, even if all the questions were the same people would still answer them in different ways, which in my mind could or should lead to different questions. But the basic goal and types of questions that were being asked are basically standard. The same check sheet is being used at EVERY board and if I have to take someone's word on whether or not boards are standard, I will go with BMCM Wolf's cause he is the one I saw sitting in (not participating) on my board. He said he sat in on several district boards and that the same basic questions were being asked. That's close enough to standard for me.

John...I thought that I said they had to have a successful tour? Didn't you say the same thing as me? Tour complete? Isn't that what I said? Part of having a successful tour is to complete it. Oh...and don't caution me on what I should say. As you said...they're opinions.

You didn't and I didn't either. You said something about XPO's being tour complete. The only reason I cautioned you (which might have been a poor choice of words) is that I didn't want you to jinx me as it would seem that I was the "someone" you were using in your example, which didn't fit the criteria of "never qualified."

I think this is like marks, you are going to have people that think the marking system is fair and people that don't. The way marks works is no secret, you want good marks do what it says in the blocks. You want to pass the OIC review board, study for them and develop the leadership skills necessary to get thru the board. It's not rocket science. Having recently sat on the other side of the table (sector board, where we had 2 candidates) I saw two very different candidates. One that came in totally unprepared with lousy military bearing and he bombed it (sadly he was a Chief). Then a BM1 who came in with great military bearing, totally prepared for every question that was thrown his way and he went on to pass the district review board. I don't see a need for a change that's all I am trying to say.

Edited to add: of course the boards are not perfect, any time you through people into the equation there is no chance for things to be perfect. Look at my scenario, I certified Aton Afloat but not Ashore, is there anyone out there that is willing to tell me that Ashore is harder than Afloat? At least in regards to Aton? Seriously???

[BMCS Burt Ford]

I I have always felt like we could do it similiar to the way officers do it. If you have a successful XPO tour, you get the nod for command of that platform.


Ok JP# you lost me. Deane did say successful tour.

Deane, I think two quals ashore and afloat. Yes I feel you should have to answer ATON and MM questions. I am pretty sure you have to understand some basic ATON in order to comply with CG regs about ATON. And you and I both know that some OINCs and BMs dont verify ATON while underway. That goes for MM and ATON platforms. Plus if we Standardized the boards, we could let senior BMs come up with the standard.

I also agree with Stu about publishing the RFCs, but we should not beat a dead horse.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Burt, don't give up yet, I'm going to try and revive him from my end.........

[BMCM Deane Smith]

You didn't and I didn't either. You said something about XPO's being tour complete. The only reason I cautioned you (which might have been a poor choice of words) is that I didn't want you to jinx me as it would seem that I was the "someone" you were using in your example, which didn't fit the criteria of "never qualified."

Burt...thanks for helping John see things clearer.

John...First, you are a very paranoid person. Why? Second, go back and read my post again. I never used the term "Never Qualified" Here's what I wrote...Two is that it's been proven that people that have never certified are successful OINC's (i.e. someone certified Aton Afloat only and were given an Aton Ashore command).

Maybe I'm confused? You seem to be taking what I'm saying out of context or mis-quoting me. Maybe your "Never Qualified" comment above wasn't referencing my earlier comment? Either way, I'm just trying to clarify my post.

[CWO Jay Greiner (BMC)]

I voted for the 2 qual option Afloat and Ashore. To me, there are some big differences in being able to command afloat vise ashore and I think we need to keep those quals seperate. I like the idea of having a Distrcit Pre-Board and the having the AREA Board. One would have to pass the District Pre-Board to go in front of the AREA Board. The AREA board would have the final say if one would be certified or not. The reason for this is there seems to be pleanty of people who sit for their first board just to see what is on the board, usually they fail. Kind of like taking an EOCT just to see the test.
I feel the process should be standardized thoroughout the CG. However, if both AREA's are going to be conducting boards then there will be some different types of questions and personalities. And unless the same people are on the board they will never be the exact same.

I also think this process should be the same for the O Types :)

[BMCM Deane Smith]

I feel the process should be standardized thoroughout the CG. However, if both AREA's are going to be conducting boards then there will be some different types of questions and personalities. And unless the same people are on the board they will never be the exact same.

And that's why (if the board continues) there should be one board each year for the CG. It can be in a central location and all of the candidates will sit in front of the same board. Can't get much more standardized than that!

The pre-boards could be at the District level.

[BMC John Phillips III]

And that's why (if the board continues) there should be one board each year for the CG. It can be in a central location and all of the candidates will sit in front of the same board. Can't get much more standardized than that!

The pre-boards could be at the District level.

That's a good idea that I would support. I agree it would eliminate what some see as non-standardization of the boards.

I apologize for mis-quoting "certified" and "qualified." I should know better, it's almost as bad as saying "promoted" over "advanced."

If you go back and reread your posts, you clearly said, "successful XPO tour." no doubts. Then you shifted gears and said, Two is that it's been proven that people that have never certified are successful OINC's (i.e. someone certified Aton Afloat only and were given an Aton Ashore command). now either you and Burt on are the same wavelength or I don't know how to read. Oh and if you don't mind and if you are willing PM me who you are talking about there, cause I would like to talk to someone I can relate to in that matter.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

John...in that example, the person never certified for Aton Ashore. I think you might be reading into it...it's probably that paranoid problem that you have. You should really see someone about that.

[BMC John Phillips III]

I guess I am going to have to review the TOU to read what it says about personal attacks. Or maybe I am just paranoid about the above post too.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

John...I guess I'm really cunfused now. I don't even know what your last post means.

My original post was not referencing you...if you fit the reference...OK. My original post was meant as a positive endorsement for those that are in jobs that they haven't certified for. It helps to make my point for me about the OINC process. I said that there are people who are successful in jobs that they haven't certified for. That's a positive endorsement to those who it applies to. That's my point. No hidden meanings.

[BMCS Ian McVicker]

Deane, in answer to your earlier question...The board for the 2 qual system would consist of general questions applicable to all the commands, boat force specific for Ashore, cutter specific for Afloat, and then finally the mission specific stuff. In all areas you ask those feeler questions to test the mbrs knowledge, and if you need to dig deeper do it. There would be a required list of prerequisites (COXN, DWO, ect.) and background in the mission areas.

The lines between the mission areas/communities is not as defined as it once was, and has became very blurred. The reality of today’s CG is if you go to the District and sit for ATON Ashore, you are 10-15 questions from a MM Ashore board. This could also be said for the reverse, if you have some ATON in your background and can answer the mission specific questions. If you study, take the necessary steps to gain knowledge, you could have STA and Buoy Tender experience, go to the District board and pass all 4. You do not have to have experience on every platform to be assigned orders, and we prove that every year. As long as you have the ATON Afloat qual, you could be assigned as OIC of a WLR without ever having stepped foot on one. Same thing can be said in the MM community.

Before this job my only ATON experience was on a WLR, but I have had two STA tours that qualified me to sit ATON Ashore (coxn qual). I had never worked at an ANT, but had ATON knowledge and experience. I spent three days TDY with an outstanding group of Coasties at ANT Galveston, and Burt hooked me up with study material for positioning. I had no problem going to the board and receiving the ATON Ashore qual, and am now OIC of an ANT (granted a Western Rivers ANT.)

Anyway, as long as this service would allow it's BM's to switch between the fields while working their way up the ranks, they put forth the effort, and we continue to mentor them it should work out pretty good. We might even get to a point in the future when nobody will be able to say "we're short on this particular qual this year

[CWO Chris Sparkman (BMC)]

Well....I have been invited back East in a couple of weeks to attend a conference to review the OIC Review/Screening board process.

Seeing that 18 of you chimed in, I'm hoping you will also have an opinion and/or recommedations for changes to the process.

I have floated an email in the Global spreading the word and looking for recommendations. One of the common things that I hear when a change is made is "where was the field input". Well....here's your chance. Anything that you put together and send over to me will go to the conference with your name stamped on it. I am putting together all the responses I have already recieved into one document and will present it to each member that has been asked to attend. I'm sure the other's will be requesting and soliciting the same.

I know folks out there have already written recommendations on the process. Maybe the fell on deft ears, maybe they never went anywhere. Maybe it's time to get them out and blow off the dust.

Anyhow, I'll post the email tomorrow and look forward to any and all responses.

CS

[CWO Chris Sparkman (BMC)]

Below is the email I have floated in the Global. Maybe you have recieved, maybe not. Feel free to chime in, if you want to put your recommendations on here that's fine, I'll copy/paste. I will be putting your name on it though when it's presented to the review process. Thanks again.

CS



Shipmates,
I have been asked to go back East to participate and review the OIC Review/Screening process. I am forwarding on this email in hopes you will sound off as it pertains to the process. It seems folks voice their opinion and leave it at that. Please, voice your opinion and I will hand deliver it to the review process.

I'm hoping I get numerous recommendations on how we can make the system better. Your name will be stamped on the recommendation and presented to the review team.

Again, I am soliciting recommendations on the OIC Review/Screening process. Should we change it? Should we leave it alone? Who should have to sit? ET's, CWO's?? Should it be changed to two quals? Afloat or Ashore. Should there be 1 board. You are found qualified or not qualified., etc. etc, etc.

Thanks for you input, and please if you could distribute to sitting CO's/OIC's, any BMC/BM1's that are looking at sitting or who have already sat. If they have comments, suggestions, etc. they can email them directly to me.



Message from CG-37RCB-1


All,

In preparation for the OIC Screening Panel Review, please take some time to review current policy guidance contained in the Personnel Manual, COMDTINST M1000.6 (series), 4.C.6, Assignment as Officer in Charge (OIC). I encourage you to poll current or perspective OIC's in your area for their thoughts on the current process.

As stated prior, our efforts will center on the following:

1. Review of the current process.
2. Update policy and procedures as needed.
3. Change policy and procedures as needed.

[BMCS Nick Pupo]

Chris,
I just finished a reply I got on this subject. Here are my suggestions.

As far as the OIC Review Board Process, here are a couple of suggestions.
1) One centralized board for the whole CG
2) Do away with ATON/Multi-Mission Comp. Have two Ashore or Afloat
3) Make a change to the PersMan requiring a BM1 to gain at least one Certification before taking the BMC SWE. Reason for Persman change, that way unit CO/OIC's can not defer this requirement. If a member wants to sit for the SWE without the certification, the request would have to go thru HQ.
4) Member requesting a specific Certification must have served at that type of unit in the past eight years.
5) Have only sitting OIC SC/MCPO's, two ENG CWO's (one civil one naval), two CMC's who were previous OIC's or second tour CMC's and one Work-Life Rep. In my view having a F&S or PERS is in most cases a waste of time. It's been my experience that the questions they ask are more "stump the chump" vice measuring the candidates knowledge.

Thanks for seeking our input.
Nick

[BMCS Chris Swiatek]

All,

I just emailed my suggestion to Chris but wanted to post it in case any of you had feedback.

I suggested that we consider a traveling STAN Team idea. A group of individuals are selected either TAD or a permanent billet (obviously harder to work out) where the individuals travel around the country twice a year conducting the boards with one representative in the board from the local SECTOR. This would not only standardize the process, but would also let the candidates remain in there own environment instead of heading off TDY somewhere. There's enough stress involved in these boards already.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p>Just my 2 cents....</o:p>

[BMCS R. Scott Pugh]

Chris - I will second the idea of one board, either at a central location or a traveling "STAN" team idea like Chris suggested above.

Do away with the Sector College, the Sector Pre-Board, and the District/Area boards. You can get board to death real quick(Sorry, had to do the pun). If I were king for a day, the CG would have a Sector College and the one review board.

In a perfect world, I would like to see Warrants required to have at least one OIC qual before they can switch over to the dark side, but that is a little off topic.

Scott

[CWO Chris Sparkman (BMC)]

Senior's....thanks for both of your inputs. Consider them added to the list. Once I have compiled the list, I will post to the board. It will be in a .doc file.

I do agree with you on the CWO needing the qual. I also like the 2 Quals, Afloat or Ashore(no ATON or MM) just Afloat/Ashore, but I also like the 1 board 1 qual, based apon your ability to command in general. Then let the screening board to thier thing based on your previous assignments, previous quals, etc. The BM1 who wants to advance to E7 needs one qual?, yeah I could bite on that as well. I got mine as an E6, and I don't think I did anything out of the ordinary, just a BM1 standing duty as an OPS petty officer....I know quite a few that have done this. The list sure wouldn't be as long.

Heck, I don't know...one minute I listen or read someone's proposal and it sounds great. 30 minutes later someone else's works as well.

What is going to be the best for the Coast Guard down the road....that is what's important. That's my opinion at least.

CS

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Chris...I just emailed you my stuff.

I agree with most of the comments from above. I would also like to see one annual board for OINC certification. In my world, there would be 2 permanent board members and the rest would be solicited for each year. My breakdown would be:

- Board President (Chief of Cutter/Boat Forces)
- BM RFMC (Permanent board member)
- OINC School Chief (Permanent board member)
- Current OINC MM Ashore
- Current OINC MM Afloat
- Current OINC ATON Ashore
- Current OINC ATON Afloat
- CWO (ENG)
- CMC (Gold Badge)
- Work Life

The OINC School Chief would also serve as the board coordinator.

[CWO Chris Sparkman (BMC)]

I hope to have the compiled list posted on here by this afternoon. It will most likely not be a 100% complete, but I'll keep it a working document. There may be some change coming in the near future.

CS

All, Please give widest dissemination.

Last month, I asked Captain Scott Robert, G-3RCB (Office of Boat Forces) to consider an assessment of the Officer in Charge Review Board Qualification Process. He agreed and a working group comprised of experienced field Officer in Charges is set to meet the 17th and 18th of January in Williamsburg, VA.

The Officer in Charge Review Board Qualification Process is a big issue that captures a great deal of interest. Constant questions at "all-hands" meetings to both the Commandant and I have highlighted this issue.

I strongly feel our present system should be simplified. This subject is wrapped tightly around a much larger problem confronting our service regarding personnel systems that work against sustainment of advanced LE competencies, retention of experienced Surf personnel, or any other mission set that demands a higher level of experience and expertise within a community.

Post 9-11, the operational makeup of the Coast Guard changed dramatically. Our "Deployable" commands, (MSSTs, MSRT, Taclets, Ledets, PSUs, Strike Teams) now comprise a much larger percentage of Coast Guard forces. Many of our BMs will never experience the traditional cutter, Aids to Navigation Team or multi-mission station that breeds the diversity of experience necessary to attain multiple Officer in Charge qualification codes. The current system has the net effect of forcing personnel out of mission areas requiring a high level of competency so individuals can check a block for advancement purposes. The BM population is so large that this process is one of the primary drivers working against long term sustainment advanced expertise within any of these mission sets.

Bottom line… We need to consider change. This working group will evaluate the present system and look for ways to improve it without negatively affecting qualification standards, the workforce, or mission execution. The BM Force Master Chief Phillip Wolf and I will be kicking off the session on the 17th of January, and I intend to lay out the need for change explained above to the members of the work group.

Please give this effort your full support. If you have comments that you would like passed on to the working group please pass them to Master Chief Wolf, Mr. Jeff Wheeler at CG-3RCB, or me.

Thank you,

MCPO Skip Bowen
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast Guard

[CWO Chris Sparkman (BMC)]

Compiled list. Hope I attached this correctly. I will add the comments to the document that I can find on here concerning the issue.

There is a message that was released this afternoon on the board concerning this.

INTERNET RELEASE NOT AUTHORIZED

CS

[BMCS Dave Considine]

Chris, looks good. I do have some issues with a few recommendations. Don't forget those people who have been in the "specialties" i.e. Surf, MSST. Making the requirement to have both Afloat and Ashore Certs for CWO screening will adversly affect those of us in these areas. That is why I am on board with the one certification, then let the screening board decide what area you can sit as an OIC. This seems to be the spirit of the review board assessment anyway, but wanted to voice my opinion after reading the recommendations.

[CWO Chris Sparkman (BMC)]

Here is an updated list. Everything in blue are new comments. Also, the .doc is over at CG Central, the Rating Force Manager's General site.

There is a discussion board, click on the OIC Review discussion. In his comments he talks about the purpose of this meeting, In a nutshell, obviously the members that have been asked to go are not going to be making policy change. I'm not sure why anyone would think that :confused: but...apparently some have. In my mind this meeting is to come together and brainstorm how we can, as some have stated, "tweak" or "fine tune" the process.

I see myself as a messenger, I am by no means a residential expert in the process. I hold only 1 qual, MM Ashore, sat through 2 group boards and a PACAREA board, and have never sat on the other side as a board member.

We just need to keep in mind "what is best for the Coast Guard", long term.

More to follow....

CS

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

You are doing a good thing Chris. I am sure you were asked to participate for a reason. I don't think that your name was not just drawn out of a hat to attend. Your allowing us all to have input is also a good thing. Policy, whether we like it or not, is a lot easier to swallow if we at least have a chance to voice an opinion. I was fortunate enough to have a chat with MCPO-CG a couple days ago and we talked about some of the drivers behind this initiative. It was interesting to hear what he sees from his level. My opinions are formulated based on my visions and experiences which are much closer to the surface than his. At a minimum, you will have some good interaction and be able to communicate back to us in the field what transpires. That, in and of itself, is of great value.

[BMC Matt Welsh]

So can someone tell me why there's such a disparity between the BM's and the rest of the CG?
Why is it that I can train and assist in qualifying a JO, with less than 3 years operational experience, and with that exact same qual that I have, a good OER and a command endorsement, from the exact same person signing my marks and recommending me, he/she can get command of a PB while I'm expected to sit before a board to see if I'm worthy?
Then, if I choose to put in for warrant all I need is a good OER and a command endorsement, and then if I really want command, and can't get it any other way, I could lateral to ET and once again - a positive review of my PDR and a command endorsement.
I don't mean to sound whiny and I definetly don't mind the Review Board process to screen for command. I'm just wondering why the rest of the service isn't held to the same standards.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Because the Officer corps were created to command. Officers have always commanded. The Coast Guard has the only enlisted commands of all the services. And BMs and ET are the only ones given that priviledge.
Officers are considered fit for command by the very nature of them being Officers. There are ways to become an Officer that are open to everyone. No one needs to appear before the OinC review board.
BMs choose to.
And Matt....... there are some BMs out there today in OinC jobs that never appeared before an OinC review board. Those same people that reviewed your marks and gave you that endorsement, endorsed them, and they filled the needs of the service.
But if you want to know what sets BM apart from the rest of the service,....it's the attitude. BMs are more likely to develop the attitude that the rules no longer apply to them. Take the OinC review board for instance. BMs think that the process should be changed because Officers don't need to do it. But don't change the process enough to allow other rates to get OinC positions, because only BMs can lead. ????????
BMs need to go through the OinC review process to show that they know what the rules are, and still intend to enforce them.

[BMC Matt Welsh]

Roger on all that Master Chief. I just think that a screening board is a good process to find the best candidates for command period...regardless of rank/rate.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Matt, we still have that screening process. We just take that extra step to make sure people are qualified to do the job first.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

And Matt....... there are some BMs out there today in OinC jobs that never appeared before an OinC review board. Those same people that reviewed your marks and gave you that endorsement, endorsed them, and they filled the needs of the service.

I find that pretty hard to believe... The checklist the detailer and AO have certainly include that near the top of their list....

I went to my OIC review board back in 1975 or so.... this is not a new process, and certainly one included when assignments are made for an OIC billet.

Wray... :cool:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

But it happens all the time, especially at ANTs. People are screened in house and assigned to a billet they never certified for. I think that was part of the rational for some people wanting to move to one qual.

[BMC John Phillips III]

In a perfect world, I would like to see Warrants required to have at least one OIC qual before they can switch over to the dark side, but that is a little off topic.

Scott, I have to tell you that when I was a young BM, I heard disparaging remarks from BM-OIC cert'd types made about CWO no OIC cert types. It was then that I decided that I would definitely certify for OIC and fill an OIC job before applying for warrant- as I have.

Anyway, now that I have done it I can say that I agree with you. Although as Master Chief said, Officers were made to command. So I guess you can be a CWO without your OIC cert and just not worry about what others are saying or thinking about you. Or you can bang that out before ascending - or switching over to the "dark side" as you called it.

As far as recommendations for changes, I like Deane's idea for having two permanent board members in a centralized location once a year - just like the SWE for Chief.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

But it happens all the time, especially at ANTs. People are screened in house and assigned to a billet they never certified for. I think that was part of the rational for some people wanting to move to one qual.

I don't think so... Are you aware of people that are OIC's of ANT's that did not go to an OIC review board? (How do you get screened "in house")

When I went there were 4 possible categories to get certified for...
SAR - ashore & afloat

AtoN - ahsore & afloat

Pretty simple, and being good friends with several detailers they did follow their own (HQ) guidelines... on this one....

Wray... :cool:

P.S. Stuart, did I see somewhere you had orders to a WLR?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I have orders to the GREENBRIER and am looking at a 22 June COC.

When I first made Chief I was offered a couple of ANTs down south before I was ever was eligible to sit for a board. I was told that they could screen me in house. I also know people who never qualified AtoN ashore get ANTs. There is a policy of people who fill an OinC billet for six months, getting the qual and being authorized to wear the pin, and they never have to sit for a board. I've heard where other people allowed those acting OinCs to wear the pin from day one.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

I have orders to the GREENBRIER and am looking at a 22 June COC.

When I first made Chief I was offered a couple of ANTs down south before I was ever was eligible to sit for a board. I was told that they could screen me in house. I also know people who never qualified AtoN ashore get ANTs. There is a policy of people who fill an OinC billet for six months, getting the qual and being authorized to wear the pin, and they never have to sit for a board. I've heard where other people allowed those acting OinCs to wear the pin from day one.


Greenbrier is a good job you should enjoy it... I would!

Wray... :cool:

[BMCM Gary Keen (RET)]

Greenbrier is a good job you should enjoy it... I would!

Actually Greenbrier is a great job! I put her in service. My daughter christened her.

Natchez on the other hand will take some getting used to. Once you do you will like it also.

Good Luck
Gary

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Natchez on the other hand will take some getting used to.

Come on Gary, the downtown web page now has them up to 13 restaurants....

http://www.visitnatchez.com/custom/webpage5.cfm?content=DTRestList2&id=163&nPrev=1

Wray.. :cool: