MKs as OinCs...... [Archive] - The Unvarnished Truth

YNCM Doug Squires (Ret)

12-02-2006, 10:49 AM

MKs as OINC is not a new concept. Back in the 80's (that's 1980's) many of our Lighthouses and Fog Signal Stations had MK1's as OINC.

And through the years I have seen many Master Chief MK's that would have made better OINCs than the ones that were at the stations at the time.

When MCPO-CG Lloyd was in office, we had a discussion in his office one day about OINC billets being PO billets, vs. BM billets. Interesting discussion - having the possibility of a GM or RM or HM or YN as the OINC. (Yes I know we don't have RMs and HMs). Nothing came of it, and I do not know the reasons why.

Let me reask the question - what are the barriers that would prohibit any rating from grooming themselves to become OINC qualified?

Any rating can be a Recruiter. Any rating can be a CDAR. Any rating can be an EOA. Afloat - any rating can participate in the boarding parties. QMOWs were not just QMs, BMOWs were not just BMs. And I stood my share of engineroom watches.

So with the proper training and experience, what would prevent someone other than a BM to accept assignment as Officer-in-Charge?

BMC Ken Gouge

12-02-2006, 11:23 AM

I think the only drawbacks are the 2 you mentioned, training and experience. Training is an easy fix. MK's have run as much SAR as BM's, dealt with personnel issues, managed funding etc. Specific things like Armory management they may not have had experience with. There is no reason they can't do it, just not many have. They are rarely assigned as Rescue and Survival PO, but that is mainly another PMS issue that they already know about.

As for other rates, BM and MK are usually the only rates where, from PO3 up, you have to manage and lead a workforce (SN/FN). Not a show stopper, but that experience as you go through the ranks does factor in.

As for OIC/XPO getting underway, The requirements may have always been there, but I don't think they were clearly defined and monitored until the AOPS/TMT program came about. I recall my first OIC rarely getting underway except for checkrides and a few training sessions. The XPO's main reason for getting underway was if there was a bell-ringer (during the workday) and he thought there might be an award out there waiting for him.

MKC Frank Johnston

12-02-2006, 11:41 AM

I have more than 15 years at small boat stations over my career. Last year during one of the many hurricane evacs we did in the keys I actually stepped into the top spot for a very shot time. I still have a copy of the ACTING message that went out over CGMS. As far as an MK taking full charge of a unit it could be done but they would require a great deal of training in a few areas.

CWO Chris Sparkman (BMC)

12-02-2006, 11:58 AM

I say yes. If all the requirements are met, why not. I have also worked with some great MK's that could do the job.

BMCS R. Scott Pugh

12-02-2006, 02:03 PM

Sure - Why not?

As long as they basic prerequisites were met (DWO letter for afloat and coxswain letter for ashore), MKs and BMs have the same career opportunities regarding where we can go.

I have met some squared away MKs that would make good OICs.

Scott

BMCS Jim Madsen

12-02-2006, 02:11 PM

I voted yes, with the same certification caviat that most have expressed. The problem as I see it, is getting the time to obtain the certifications without compromising the job that the MK (or other rate) is there to do. When I struck BM it was with the goal in mind that one day I would sit in the big chair. For a BM it SHOULD be part of their career development. I chose to be a BM for many reasons. Being in command was one of those reasons. I assume that those members that choose another rate, don't aspire to command beyond an EPO. Should they go to all the effort to obtain the certifications to command, I would wonder how they really feel about their chosen rate. Maybe they should be a BM?

MKC Craig Thorngren (Ret)

12-02-2006, 02:34 PM

WOW!! All responses from the BM's say yes so far, I am truly humbled, but I had to vote no for several reasons. First, it would strip the rating of its smartest and most productive members. As the largest rating we need them as the EPO's at our units. Imagine a young MK3 seeing an MKC as the OinC and saying "I want to be like that". They are going to do everything to become an OinC, not an MK. We would lose an awful lot of our engineering knowledge. Second, as Stu pointed out in a previous thread the XPO billet is basically a training billet for OinC. Without the benefit of an XPO tour, your setting that person up for failure. I know that there are OinC's that never served an XPO tour, but in my opinion, those that have, had a more successful OinC tour. And lastly I'm reminded of a story my EO on a 378 told during dinner in the Chief's mess when this exact same topic came up. It goes like this: One day the CO called the EO to his stateroom and was yelling and screaming becasue of engine casualties and that he wanted more speed. The EO responded that if the OOD's knew how to drive and not abuse the engines that he wouldn't have hardly any of the casualties. They went round and round with this for a while and finally the CO told the EO, fine, I'll run the engine room and you run the bridge. So after getting away from the pier, the CO assumed the duties of the EOW and the EO that of the OOD. After about 30 minutes the CO noticed the engine order telegraph sounded and requested full speed ahead. The CO made the required changes and was watching the speed dopler. He was miffed that it showed less than 1 knot. He kept making adjustment to engine speed and prop pitch, but he couldn't make the cutter go any faster. The throttleman and oiler were at a loss. Finally in disgust, the CO calls the bridge and admits to the EO that he can't make the boat go ahead any faster. He'd been trying for the last 30 minutes but couldn't do it. "Ahead faster" the EO exclaims, "I've been trying to go astern for the last thirty minutes to get us off this damn sand bar!!" :eek:
The moral is that we each have our jobs to do, and if we do our own instead of telling others how to do their jobs, things will run a lot smooter.
As Frank pointed out, stepping in when needed is one thing, and should be expected of any good leader. BM's have been training and working towards an OinC billet their entire career (or should be any ways...). MK's should be doing the same except it's an EPO billet in my opinion.

Craig

BMC Mark C. Lewis

12-03-2006, 11:04 AM

Craig
That is pretty much the same reason I have for voting no as well.

As way having this same conversation with 2 of my BM1s and my MK1 the day before this thread started.

On another thought some of us here have talked about perserving history and heritage, having MKs or others become OICs seems to me to go against that line of thinking.

If you want to be an OIC you should have become a BM.

Just my opinion.

ETC (FT type) Ed Shank

12-03-2006, 11:21 AM

I have not been at a station, and I don't know all the requirements to be certified and pass the OIC review board for BM's. What I do realize is the enormous undertaking this would be. The current billet structure of the CG would have to be rewritten for the BM's and MK's. If a BMCM retires, it opens a billet for a BMCS to be promoted. However if the vacant billet is the OINC of the station and an MKCM is selected, we can't promote a BMCS, we need to promote an MKCS. If all BM and MK jobs were interchangeable it would work, however they would all have merged during JRR. I say keep them BM. Choose your rate, choose your fate....and then the CG will change your rate for you.

BMCM Deane Smith

12-03-2006, 12:00 PM

BMC John Phillips III

12-03-2006, 12:52 PM

As for other rates, BM and MK are usually the only rates where, from PO3 up, you have to manage and lead a workforce (SN/FN). Not a show stopper, but that experience as you go through the ranks does factor in.

that's is exactly what I would have said.

First, it would strip the rating of its smartest and most productive members. As the largest rating we need them as the EPO's at our units.

Craig, you bring up some valid points, but do you think that BM's as OIC's are stripping the rating of anything? I think the MK could be the OIC, having an understanding of both Deck and Eng (same that's required of BM's) and probably have a better understanding or more watchful eye over the Eng side of the house. He has his right hand man (the XPO) to keep things going on the deck side of the house. (basically the same as the BM OIC has the EPO for all things ENG).

I don't see anything wrong with a young MK3 wanting to be like the MK/OIC in your scenerio. I would offer that a prerequisite for MK/OIC would be EPO - basically giving the MK's that have mastered every level of their job but are tired of being topped out at 3rd in command (and of course they don't want to take the "O" route) another step to take.

BMC John Phillips III

12-03-2006, 12:54 PM

I answered NO.

The question was should they be able to certify and the answer is no. Now, are there MK's (or other rates) that would be great OINC's...absolutely. I was stationed with one by the name of MKC Todd Drake, he was my acting XPO for 4 months and did a great job. He went on to qualify as an u/w OOD on 2 seperate 87's. He would be a great OINC.

Having said that...MK's should not be able to certify. History, tradition and principle tell me to say no. It's not a slam on any other ratings, it's just the way I feel. As BM's it's our responsibility to maintain our place in history.

Your post makes absolutely no sense to me, I wonder if I am the only one. I do like the way you said "the" answer is no as apposed to "my" - it's almost like you are using the power of suggestion to sway people on the fence. Also given your history stance on BM's I am certain you voted against the BM/QM rate merger. The most accurate thing about history is that it happened in the past.

CWO Chris Sparkman (BMC)

12-03-2006, 01:19 PM

I still say yes. If someone really wants it, why not let them go for it.

If someone, anyone! put forth the effort to meet all the requirements, review board, XPO/EPO tour, Coxn ltr, DWO, Cmd Endorsement, U/W OOD, there may be a few more.....

How many would go for it??? and then stick with it to the end???. This effort would be on top of what the current rate requires them to do.

That could be one hell of a knowledgeable boss in my opinion. Now, how would they be as a leader, people person, deal with issues.....how do any of us that are in the posistion feel we were judged or evaluated on how to deal with those situations????

CS

BMCM Deane Smith

12-03-2006, 01:26 PM

Your post makes absolutely no sense to me

Not a big shock.

Also given your history stance on BM's I am certain you voted against the BM/QM rate merger.

I wasn't involved in any voting. If I was able to have voted, I would have voted in favor of it. So, I guess you don't know as much as you thought.

BMC John Phillips III

12-03-2006, 02:05 PM

Not a big shock.

Neither is your response. Rather than trying to clarify you chose to take the high-road, oh no wait you didn't.

Since you only quoted part of what I said, I will elaborate on it.

You gave specific points on an MK you knew that would make a great OIC (which would support you thinking they should be allowed) then you said that they shouldn't be allowed. Why should it be an exclusive club for BM's only? Your history example, while maybe perfectly clear to you was not a strong enough argument to support your stance. Therefore, your post made no sense to me. I tried to give you a chance to clarify but instead as time has consistantly proved, you chose to attack the messenger (usually me) rather than reply with some semblence of professionalism or courtesy. (with a Military.com approach - of not liking what someone says so attack them rather than reply to what they are saying)

I apologize for breaking down your post so critically, but as you may know I am currently enrolled in an online college english class. The Chiefs Academy as well as OIC school also spend some time on effective writing.

BMCS Burt Ford

12-03-2006, 02:56 PM

Voted no. I think too many technical aspects of our rate ensure we are successful. I believe there are many out there , MKs, that could do it as well as other rates. Would this mean I could be an EPO?

BMCM Deane Smith

12-03-2006, 02:58 PM

I tried to give you a chance to clarify but instead as time has consistantly proved, you chose to attack the messenger (usually me) rather than reply with some semblence of professionalism or courtesy.

John...I love how you twist things around. The old bait & switch...gotta love it. How is breaking down my post critically giving me a chance to clarify? The only thing that it did was get me going...which is what you wanted...I'm sure of it.

OK. Let me try and clarify my point. It was a simple YES or NO question...Should MK's be allowed to certify as OINC's? I answered No. I believe that OINC's should be BM's (and ET's at LORAN's). I don't believe that this is a change that the CG should make. Like most of the poster's, I know that there are people out there of all rates that would make good OINC's, but that doesn't mean that I want them competing for my job! BM's should be groomed and should be preparing for OINC. It should be our job. If the change was made, I would certaintly support it. But...until then my answer is still no.

BMC John Phillips III

12-03-2006, 03:29 PM

The breaking down was simply because if I didn't understand what you were saying I thought there was a good chance that others might not either (I did ask that question). Thanks for taking the time to clarify your stance. That's all I was looking for. The only baiting and switching I appreciate is the baiting of my hook and the switching out for keepers. ;)

BMCM Stuart S. Slesh

12-03-2006, 10:08 PM

Craig, don't you think that you're losing some of your best and brightest to the Warrant process right now ? If they were given the option, at least we could keep some of those with the small boat knowledge in the field.
As far as:
setting aside billets.... it wasn't that long ago that certain OinC jobs were QM. Where there's a will, there's a way.
keeping traditions ..... traditionally speaking, BMs sought out OinC billets. Where is that tradition today when less than ten percent of BMCs are certified ashore and afloat ?

We could set aside certain units as MK OinC billets......... if we wanted too. And that might put enough spark under certain BMs to certify themselves. They could either certify, or face the possibility of working for someone other than another BM.

Burt, would you actually want an EPO job. I know I wouldn't. I want the reins. I understand why some MKs would want the reins as well.

BMCM Deane Smith

12-03-2006, 11:40 PM

keeping traditions ..... traditionally speaking, BMs sought out OinC billets. Where is that tradition today when less than ten percent of BMCs are certified ashore and afloat ?

We could set aside certain units as MK OinC billets......... if we wanted too. And that might put enough spark under certain BMs to certify themselves. They could either certify, or face the possibility of working for someone other than another BM.

Stu...why not just hold the BMC's accountable? This goes back to changing the requirement for a BMC to have at least one certification. Making BMC should be their spark...not the threat of an MK taking a billet.

BMC John Phillips III

12-04-2006, 01:07 AM

Stu...why not just hold the BMC's accountable? This goes back to changing the requirement for a BMC to have at least one certification. Making BMC should be their spark...not the threat of an MK taking a billet.

That's a great point, but I am still for not having it(certification) be a requirement to make Chief. Again, that's because I made Chief before I certified - so I may be biased.

Also, BMCM, I don't think that there should be "special billets" set aside, I think that if an MK completed all the necessary requirements they should be able to fill whichever job they certified for, not just specific ones.

Of course this is a lot of debate (although a good one) about something that is likely to never happen.

MKCM Brett Ayer

12-04-2006, 01:27 PM

My answer is yes. The philosophy behind this is simple.

Whenever possible: All workforce policies should be fair and equitable. All workforce policies should be motivational. All workforce policies should meet the needs of the service.

If we have a standard set of qualifications, and a member meets that standard, they should be allowed to compete. Coxswain is not rating specific, if a members meets the quals, they can become a Coxswain. OOD is not rating specific, if a member meets the quals they can become an OOD, etc, etc, etc.

The same should be true of command positions (XPO and OIC). This allows the service to select the best qualified member for the position, and has the potential to increase the number of members available for assignment.

It gives the individual members (both MK and BM or any other rating for the mater) motivation to lean more, train harder, and seek greater responsibility. This makes them better Coasties even if they don’t get selected for command. The member wins and so does the Coast Guard.

I don’t believe it drains talent from the rating at all. MKs assigned as OIC/XPO will still be working with the junior members just as they do now. They will still be MKs.

I also don’t believe we should set aside positions for MKs, they should compete for the same jobs. For management purposes, we could limit the number that could be assigned at any one time. Open competition is always the best option, but is not always practical.

By the way, this same issue came up when they started talking about EM EPOs. Most of the same concerns came into play. Some said EMs were not “groomed” for EPO. Others said they didn’t have the “administrative” experience. Well EM EPOs have workout fine. The problems we have had could be solved with a standardized qualification and selection process.

With respect to my BM friends, there is nothing about being a BM that automatically makes you a better leader, manager, administrator, trainer, mentor, or decision maker. If someone in another rating takes the time and effort to develop the technical skills to do the job, then why not let them compete for the job? It looks like a win/win to me.

Be safe

Brett

MKC Art Bailly (ret)

12-04-2006, 02:50 PM

Great reply Brett, you said it ten times better then I could have. I agree 100%

BMCS Burt Ford

12-04-2006, 02:55 PM

Burt, would you actually want an EPO job. I know I wouldn't. I want the reins. I understand why some MKs would want the reins as well.

Not only no but *&^% no I do not want one. I was just asking.

Brett, I know Chiefs with much better leadership skills than me and they aren't BMs. Leadership is a major trait for a sucessful OINC but its only a piece of the pie. The professional competencies for OINCs are groomed from a young age.

MKCM Brett Ayer

12-04-2006, 03:24 PM

Brett, I know Chiefs with much better leadership skills than me and they aren't BMs. Leadership is a major trait for a sucessful OINC but its only a piece of the pie. The professional competencies for OINCs are groomed from a young age.

I don't disagree, that is why I said, "If someone in another rating takes the time and effort to develop the technical skills to do the job".

I have a friend that has been to 4 stations and EPO 3 times (2 at a station). He qualified as a 41/44 Cox'n when he was a 3rd. He knows SAR, L/E, Supply, etc..., He was also a DWO on a 110. He went CWO because he was at the end of the road for Jobs. At least as a CWO he can still get EO jobs. Just because you’re not groomed does not mean you’re not qualified.

I say leave it up to the board to determine if a member has what it takes. Sink or Swim on your merits, not by what "A" school you went to.

Be Safe.

Brett.

BMCM Deane Smith

12-04-2006, 05:23 PM

Brett...are you suggesting that OINC/XPO billets should be PO1/POC/POCS/POCM billets? Let any/all rates meet the criteria and certify at will?

MKC Art Bailly (ret)

12-04-2006, 05:44 PM

Brett...are you suggesting that OINC/XPO billets should be PO1/POC/POCS/POCM billets? Let any/all rates meet the criteria and certify at will?
Why Not? If the BM’s were steeping up to the plate and filling these billets this would most likely not even be a topic and if it was the BM’s would have another leg to stand on. In reality how many rates other then BM and MK would come close to being qualified. You most defiantly will have a few MK’s that have COX’N letter’s and maybe a few FS’s (110 RHI cox’n). As for the other rates I don’t think there are the opportunities in their job at our pay grade to be a cox’n, but if they put in the time to get qualified and pass the screening and board process, again, Why Not??? If a 23/24 year old LTJG with 1 cutter tour or a LT with 1-2 units under their belt can be a CO without sitting on a board why cant any E-7 with, on the average of 4 or 5 different units and 10 years of service do the job?

BMCM Stuart S. Slesh

12-04-2006, 05:47 PM

I only suggested assigning certan billets to MKs as a way to show how barriers could be overcome. And I limited this to MKs for the time being, because I don't see other rates that are afforded those grooming opportunities, and the original question came from an MK. He was told to list the barriers and how he would plan to remove them. I told him I would solicit that information here.

As it stands, I see the biggest barriers listed as BM pride. Now I know some people want to say that this is always the way things have been, but that's not true. Until the merger we had QMs commanding the platforms they were groomed for. And the ETs have commanded the units they were groomed for. I don't see why an MK who paid the toll, shouldn't be allowed to use the bridge.

Deane, I see where you're coming from, but I don't agree with you. If I knew of a person from any rate that would do a better job than the person currently behind that desk, I'd rather see the more qualified, competent person, get the job. And holding BMs accountable doesn't seem to be working. Again 10% hold the qualifications needed to advance.

We can hid behind the "we've been groomed for command" slogan right up to the point where people aren't asking to screen. Where's the return on that investment if people don't want to pursue command. When I ask someone if they want to try something, I call on the people with their hands up first.

BMC John Phillips III

12-04-2006, 05:50 PM

I have a friend that has been to 4 stations and EPO 3 times (2 at a station). He qualified as a 41/44 Cox'n when he was a 3rd. He knows SAR, L/E, Supply, etc..., He was also a DWO on a 110. He went CWO because he was at the end of the road for Jobs. At least as a CWO he can still get EO jobs. Just because you’re not groomed does not mean you’re not qualified.

This is the type of MK that made me vote yes. There are a few out there. I have to wonder how many more there would be if this window of opportunity were open to them.

As far as other rates besides MK and BM, well, I suppose it's only fair, but I would have to think that the success rate (of being able to certify - and meet that level of performance in MKCM's example) would be very low.

BMCM Deane Smith

12-04-2006, 11:03 PM

Deane, I see where you're coming from, but I don't agree with you. If I knew of a person from any rate that would do a better job than the person currently behind that desk, I'd rather see the more qualified, competent person, get the job. And holding BMs accountable doesn't seem to be working. Again 10% hold the qualifications needed to advance.

Stu...I understand what your saying, but don't all the OINC's start out at the desk a qualified and competent person? The problem isn't when they start the job, it's how they finish the job. We can debate all day about who should be an OINC, but the reality is we won't really know who will do a good job until they're in the job. That's a fact.

Here's a question for you. Of those BMC's that aren't certified, how many do you think are being recommended for advancement to E-8 even though they aren't eligible?

BMCS Burt Ford

12-05-2006, 02:01 PM

So I can be an EPO if I want too? I have spent hours fixing Outboards and helping fix engines. I am pretty dang good at the EPO role.

I say this, lets start with a board for EPO, just like the OINCs. I personally hear about more EPOs with problems than OINCs. So lets assign a qual code first and see how many are willing to "step up". This will help weed out the ones that dont cut it.

BMCS Jim Madsen

12-05-2006, 02:10 PM

Burt,
First you need to get certified as a small boat engineer, or EOW afloat, then get some engineering admin experience. Maybe you are already competent with TAIT, CMPLUS... If so, that is great. I think if a BM wanted to be an EPO, then maybe a board should be set up. I certainly would NOT want a BM showing up to be my EPO without going through a process like that to show that they have the knowledge and experience to do the job. Because that is what it really boils down to isnt it? Knowledge and Experience. I can grill a pretty mean steak, but I am not an FSO.

BMCM Deane Smith

12-05-2006, 02:32 PM

Jim...correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that you have to have been certified as an engineer on a small boat or an EOW Afloat prior to getting an EPO assignment. They have a school for engineering admin...

BMCS Jim Madsen

12-05-2006, 03:49 PM

Deane, there is no "requirement" per se that you must have certified in one of those positions. However, "4.C.7.c: Commander (CGPC epm-2) will assign personnel to EPO billets base on:
a. Individuals past performance.
b. Commanding officers endorsment.
c. Qualification codes.
d. Career experience.
e. Personal preference.

Based on the above, I think that it would behoove anyone that want's an EPO job, to get the quals and experience necessary. It may not be a written "requirement", but I believe it is there none the less.

BMCM Stuart S. Slesh

12-05-2006, 04:00 PM

Deane, I would think that the vast majority of BMCs are being recommended for advancement or for Warrant. Would not recommending someone who doesn't want to sit for the OinC board get more BMs to step up to the plate ? I'd say yes. Is every AO going to do that ? Not a chance.

Burt, look at the billet structure for MKs. They get lots of command cadre positions at E-6 and E-7. Once you make E-8, those billets start disappearing. Once you've made E-9, they're gone. I'm looking for options to keep that experience away from a cubicle somewhere. I'd like to see all that on the job training and experience given back to the smaller units. Do you honestly think that any BMs would be looking for EPO jobs ? I don't need to look for more ways for BMs to turn down more opportunties they are given. I was looking to open up opportunities for someone else. I know MKs that would love the chance to command.

BMCM Deane Smith

12-05-2006, 04:36 PM

Here's something else to consider. Why don't ET's have to sit for an OINC Review Board? Are they less of an OINC than the BM's...I don't think so. So, why is their standard different than ours?

Maybe there's a board that I dont know about?

MKC Art Bailly (ret)

12-05-2006, 04:43 PM

If Officers don’t go thru a board and neither do the ET’s or EO/EPO’s maybe the BM’s a being discriminated against

BMCS Burt Ford

12-05-2006, 05:45 PM

I could argue choose your rate.........Ok we dont want to give up highly sought after OINC jobs to Warrant Bos'n but a MK is ok? Sorry I disagree. I would rather it go to a CWO Bos'n.

I once had an EPO for a station and the new MK1/EPO had no small boat quals, not even EWO of a non-standard boat. He was best qualified? We relieved him. With a board he would have a better chance not to be set up for failure.

Stu, I would rather see some of those MKCS/MKSM jobs go to supervisors of RFO teams. Make those Sector jobs competency related for anyone holding the quals. Stan Teams too. If they are that good at leadersip and OPS, it would be a nice fit. I also know some awesome CMC/CSC who are MKs.

And Jim yes I know TAIT and CMPlus, intimately. I also support your of a board if a BM would want to be an EPO, but I also think we should have a board for MKs wanting to be an EPO.

And for the record, I would never trade this job for any EPO job.

MKC Art Bailly (ret)

12-05-2006, 06:24 PM

I agree Burt, EPO's should have boards but the only problem with you're remarks about a EPO not being small boat engineer qualified is where the problem lies for several reason. The Detailers don’t always give you the jobs ask for on your e-resume. I have tried to plan my units to make me a well rounded MK. I have had the opportunity to work on everything from 65', 110', 225', 399', Air Station and a small boat station which brings me to my next point rate grabbers. It is not uncommon to have a mk1 with less then 5 years in and maybe 2 units and on occasion from reporting aboard their first unit did the time and finished their courses recommended for advancement and a message comes out to say congratulations pin on your first class crows and are reporting in to that new EPO job. Rate mergers are another problem. You’re not just a diesel mechanic like in the other services. You are also a AC&R, Boiler, gas engine, outboard, welder, gas turbine, evap, RO, hydraulic, Maytag etcetera repair man. You can only learn a little of everything and concentrate of what is in front of you at a time. The longer you in the more you learn. I know several BM's that never even got qualified as a small boat cox’n after serving on a 180 and 225. Our jobs are so diverse its hard to be good at all of them. Kind of along the lines of how can a BMC report to a buoy tender and didn’t know what a flasher was or not know the hand signals for the crane operator.
You could also use the argument that before Katrina we weren’t in the home rescue business either and we did just fine. Were there some bumps? Sure but we pulled together and smoothed them out and got the job done. We need to do our best to make sure our people don’t fall under the buss instead of throwing them under it.

BMCM Stuart S. Slesh

12-05-2006, 11:02 PM

I don't think that there needs to be a board for EPOs or XPOs as I still see both as training billets. I also don't think that COs or ET OinCs need to go thru a board. I still think that once a CO is RFC, that's the end of the line for them. I've never heard of one returning to Command. I've also never heard of an ET being RFC. I was told, once upon a time, that the OinC boards were created to cut down on the RFCs. I think that if the ETs start doing some of the things the BMs have done, we can start talking about getting them a board also.

Burt, I like the fact that we're the only service with enlisted Commands. I've got nothing against Warrants of any rate, but I want all of the enlisted commands that we have left, to stay enlisted. Its one of the things that set us apart from the other services.

BMC Ken Gouge

12-05-2006, 11:40 PM

ET's that are OIC's, correct me if I'm wrong, are still more correlated to an independent duty shop supervisor. You are in charge, you make the call, you deal with the personnel issues etc., but there are a lot less operational commitments. There is no SAR, LE, AMIO, RFO, STAN... They don't have to meet the same level of training, certification, and currency requirements. There are no weapons or LE qualifications. I don't think they even get people out of boot camp to train and/or send to "A" school. I'd also be willing to bet they don't have Channel 6 news coming by for an interview after a particularly good or bad day. Do they need a review board? In my opinion no, the proper training and competencies probably work just fine.

Officers is a different story. Being on a Cutter with JO's who are chomping at the bit for an XO followed by CO tour on a PB, it scares me that there is not a board for them. Just like enlisted you have performers and non-performers, ones that have a grasp of it and those still reaching for it. To say that a 4-year degree and a single tour prepares someone for an XO or CO job, and that the decision is based primarily on one Commands recommendations on an OER is even more scary. We have all seen how inflated and deflated marks can be from one Command to the next, I can only assume OER's are the same.

At least for BM's, a board of experienced Coasties can look past the PDR and ask some questions to make that determination.

BMCM Stuart S. Slesh

12-05-2006, 11:56 PM

Ken, I still think that most JOs are apt to follow the rules because they're at the beginning of their career and can't afford to fail. And OERs are all word based, so I don't think that they're inflated to the degree that some of the EER are.
You also have to remember that not only have Officers always held Command, but those JOs have their records reviewed by an experience panel of Coasties before they are deemed fit to Command. They don't screen everyone who applies. They also don't all get recommended for Command. If they don't get a Command Recommendation you won't see them getting screened in house and given a Command anyway.

MKC Craig Thorngren (Ret)

12-06-2006, 05:45 AM

Stu,
I have to disagree that an EPO job is a training billet. What are they training for? They may have to re-certify or qualify as an EOW or boat engineer, but it's definetly not a training billet.
As for losing our best and brightest to Warrant, I don't see us as losing them. For the most part they are still in engineering jobs, as EO's at a sector, cutter etc... They may not be turning wrenches but they are still engineers.

As for BM's being EPO's... If you've ever used a screwdriver to stir paint, your automatically DQ'd :o , or if you do it while an EPO it's prima facie evidence for an RFC... :D

Brett, as for the EM's on 87's being EPO's, if the main maintenance concern is electrical issues, it's the correct choice, if it's something else, the wrong choice was made. Having never been on an 87' I'm not really sure if it was the correct choice or not. Only time will tell.

Craig

MKCM Brett Ayer

12-06-2006, 08:12 AM

Brett, as for the EM's on 87's being EPO's, if the main maintenance concern is electrical issues, it's the correct choice, if it's something else, the wrong choice was made. Having never been on an 87' I'm not really sure if it was the correct choice or not. Only time will tell.

Craig

They put EMs on 87s for 2 main reasons.

1. The 87s are all fly by wire (even the toilets at $6000.00 apiece I might add) and we needed some EMs in the community. We could not get an EM on every boat (EMs already have a high sea to shore ratio) so the next best thing was to put an EM as EPO on boats that are home ported with other 87s. That way the EPOs could support each other.

2. EMCSs are EPOs on 175s so it was a career progression thing. That way they had EPO jobs at E-7, E-8 and CWO.

A question? If going CWO is not loosing talent, why is it loosing talent to become a OIC? I think OICs at small units are more connected with the day to day leadership of our MKs than a CWO ENG at a Sector?

Be Safe,

Brett

BMCM Deane Smith

12-06-2006, 08:20 AM

Stu...Using your logic, I guess an MK wouldn't need a board for OINC either...there hasn't been a single MK relieved for cause.

Ken...explain again how ET's don't deal with the same type of issues? They may not be running SAR/ATON/LE, but they have people climbing towers and the same engineering/personnel issues that everyone else has. If anything, it might be worse for them because they are so far away (some of them) from their support people.

This would be a great opportunity for an ET to pipe off? Any takers?

ETC Pat Kaschube

12-06-2006, 09:20 AM

I've never been at a LORAN unit, three 378's, CAMSPAC and this ESD as the supervisor. Let me see if I can get someone I know to pipe in.

PACS Steve Carleton

12-06-2006, 10:00 AM

How about this -- If you take OinC Positions and made them non-rating specific, like a Gold Badge and then put them through a qualificaton board, I don't see why an MK, or other Rating couldn't be an OinC.

It seems to me that the MKC on an 87 has the ability to run a patrol boat, and I have seen other really good leaders in other ratings like YN/SK that if they were given the opportunity and knowledge base and qualification board could run a PB.

CMC Bruce Bradley

12-06-2006, 06:24 PM

Yes I think that anyone can be assigned to an OinC position, provided that they have met all the prerequsite requirements. I have also known an Mk or tow along the way who would have been able to manage all the hoops of certification and then excelled in the position. It's all in the career path and placing yourself in a position to set up for the future.

I think that the true meaning and intended use of Public Law 485 of 1958 was that the senior paygrades could and should be the ones in the top leadership positions. The DoD has a better grasp (and the Air Force the best) of this. We only do it for the Gold Badge positions and are now starting with the Sector Silvers, but we'll have to see how that pans out over the next couple of years. But for a service wide application it would take years to set it in place and then allow it to grow from the bottom up. We have a hard time doing that though. With the BM/QM merger being the last blairing example. It would have worked so much better if we had started with the lower paygrades and let it grow into the entire rate when to old QMs finally retired out.

BMC Ken Gouge

12-06-2006, 09:48 PM

[QUOTE=BMCS Deane Smith]Ken...explain again how ET's don't deal with the same type of issues? They may not be running SAR/ATON/LE, but they have people climbing towers and the same engineering/personnel issues that everyone else has. If anything, it might be worse for them because they are so far away (some of them) from their support people. [QUOTE]

Alright Deane, quit trying to stir the pot :rolleyes: I think everyone can tell I was not Twidget Bashing. Note that I did not mention the cost of the boats the OIC at a station is responsible for, because I'm sure the ET's have got us in the equipment department. I did not mention maintenance or galleys either. There are certain factors that are consistent (or at least similar) from unit to unit.

All I said was that along with the same responsibilities that every OIC is responsible for(personnel/admin/supply) the operational requirements of a SAR station OIC, and the decisions required because of them, create the need for a board.

BMC Ken Gouge

12-06-2006, 10:24 PM

Ken, I still think that most JOs are apt to follow the rules because they're at the beginning of their career and can't afford to fail.

A question for you Stu, As an OIC do you always have a rule that applies to every situation?

Do you sometimes have to make a judgement call based on your interpretaion of the rules, and your vast experience in dealing with situations?

Does a crew under a Junior Officer CO ever have to endure... do to that lack of experience?

BMCM Stuart S. Slesh

12-06-2006, 10:30 PM

Craig, they're training billets because you get trained for bigger units. EPOs, like those on 65's are in training billets. For some EPOs it's the first time they're exposed to the admin side of engineering. And Warrant Engineers are at the Sector, not on the small boats. The small boat community is losing that daily interaction with the crews.

Steve, we brought up making OinC jobs generic billets and that wasn't well recieved somehow. If they're made non-rate specific they go over to the Special Assignments Detailer. I thought that sounded like an easy fix, but I was also left with the impression that I don't understand everything that entails............ I still think I would put it in any suggestion I sent up for consideration.

Ken, sorry I posted and then saw your second one.
Yes, there is a rule for every situation I have ever faced as an OinC.
Yes, I interpret the rules based on my experience.
Yes, I think that some crews have had to endure because of a JO's lack of experience.
But, I think some crews have had to endure more because of some OinC's experience and their feeling of supremacy. Some OinCs make their crews suffer, just because they can........

BMCM Deane Smith

12-06-2006, 10:33 PM

I think everyone can tell I was not Twidget Bashing.

All I said was that along with the same responsibilities that every OIC is responsible for(personnel/admin/supply) the operational requirements of a SAR station OIC, and the decisions required because of them, create the need for a board.

Ken...I think that if you say "Twidget Bashing" you're Twidget Bashing.

OK. If BM OINC's need boards because of the things that you mentioned above, then why don't the CO's need boards? Don't they have more (or at least equal) responsibilities than an OINC?

MKC Craig Thorngren (Ret)

12-07-2006, 02:57 AM

Brett,
Your second point makes great sense, and will only help them as they advance and move up. Your first point also makes sense, the problem I see is that it's not being followed across the board. I know the 87' out of Everett Washington is an EMC billet, but it's the only 87' at that location (I'm not 100% sure that they aren't going to add another one, but you never know).

Craig

MKCM Brett Ayer

12-07-2006, 08:06 AM

I know the 87' out of Everett Washington is an EMC billet, but it's the only 87' at that location (I'm not 100% sure that they aren't going to add another one, but you never know).

Craig

Tell me about it. The best laid plans of mice and........... It's a case of once the door is open.

Brett

ETC Joseph Belson

12-07-2006, 04:32 PM

This seems like a really good discussion going on here. I am currently an OinC of a LORAN station in LA. I did not sit in front of an OinC review board. My record was reviewed by the people responsible for assigning the billet and the determination was made that I could do the job. I did go to the OIC/XPO school at the academy. I do receive OIC Ashore pay. I don't have to deal with all of the stuff a BM OIC deals with as far as operations. I do have other just as pertinent issues that I deal with here. A lot of ET OinC's are at units that are very distant from their parent commands. I can have the news media show up at our door because we are the only Coast Guard unit around. I have personnel issues, safety issues, family and worklife issues, and I fight for money to operate on just like everybody else. I was actually tasked with sitting in on an OinC pre-board for my CCTI and I think there was some very beneficial information passed but a lot of it was a waste of time for me. Sorry it took me so long to get involved with this discussion but I was attending the Family Programs Seminar with all of the other COs/XOs and OICs/XPOs in D8.

BMC Ken Gouge

12-07-2006, 07:37 PM

Ken...I think that if you say "Twidget Bashing" you're Twidget Bashing.

OK. If BM OINC's need boards because of the things that you mentioned above, then why don't the CO's need boards? Don't they have more (or at least equal) responsibilities than an OINC?

Bingo! On both points!!!

ps. I love twidget bashing like some people like dwarf tossing :D

BMCS Jim Madsen

12-07-2006, 08:22 PM

Word I hear is that we wont need to worry about LORAN OIC's in another year or so anyway.

ETC Joseph Belson

12-07-2006, 08:54 PM

We aren't going anywhere for awhile. I don't mind Twidget Bashing either so long as it is coming from Bozomates!! :D

ETC Pat Kaschube

12-08-2006, 09:26 AM

Bingo! On both points!!!

ps. I love twidget bashing like some people like dwarf tossing :D

Twidgett bashing by a Boatswains Mate is like being a Cowboys fan and being bashed on by an Eagles fan. Just laugh and and hand them a pain brush or swab.

BMCS Burt Ford

12-08-2006, 02:09 PM

I just heard the LORANS aren't going away anytime soon. At least here in AK.

BMC Ken Gouge

12-09-2006, 09:30 AM

ETC Joseph Belson

12-11-2006, 09:32 AM

Hey, you ask a question about ET OIC's and they can't be found. Start talking about "twidgets" and they're coming out of the woodworks.

Now if we could only get them to respond with their feelings regarding the OIC review board, ET OIC's, MK OIC's etc.

I'm sorry I would of responded earlier but I was busy doing OIC stuff. :) I think the OIC review board for BM's is a great idea. I don't think it is necessary for ET's. I do not deal with the same issues on the same scale as a Station OIC or OIC on whatever boat they are on. I have less people and less exposure to the public eye. It is there, just rarer. I personnally don't think MK's as OIC's is a good idea. I am sure there are many MK's that would do an excellent job at it. My MKC is one of them. I don't believe an MK's career path is set up for them to become OIC's as a BM's is. With some changes to the MK rate it could and would be possible down the road.

Joe

MKCM Brett Ayer

12-11-2006, 10:36 AM

I don't believe an MK's career path is set up for them to become OIC's as a BM's is. With some changes to the MK rate it could and would be possible down the road.

Joe

Joseph,

Just curious but what part of the MK career path is not set up for them to serve as OIC?

They serve side by side with BM at Stations and ANTs and WPBs, They drive boats, Do LE, qualify as Coxswain, serve on RFO teams, Serve as ESO, Training PO, Supply, Logistics, OOD, DWO, CDAR, ULDP POC, Etc…….

Does every MK do all these things? No, they don’t, and neither do all BMs. But for those that do, why not OIC? Or at least a chance to compete.

What changes to the MK rating would be needed for you to support MKs as OIC?

Be Safe,

Brett

ETC Joe Jester ret

12-11-2006, 11:20 AM

My opinion is there are common knowledge that all OinC's share. Administrative, Supply, Military Justice, et al. Then there are differences. There are even differences in the BM world of Boards .... afloat, ashore, and aton.

Probably five or so years ago, the OIC school had it's first Loran CO/OIC school. The common things were discussed and then different speakers for the specific stuff. It was reported to me, that the BMCS commented that he knew how those ET types must have felt when they attended the OIC school that was more BM related.

When I was certified as an OIC, I didn't attend a board, but achieved certification via the "time" rule outlined in CIM 1000.6 (series), and those of you who received their certificate know the CG form number has changed since 1988.

Do I think there should be a board? Yes and no. It depends on the application and motivation of the person involved. I've discussed some common things with my counterparts where the BMs looked at me like I was from another planet ... I know, that's normal when an ET speaks. :)

A common board would be beneficial to some. Specific boards need a different composition. I'm not sure how the HQ review works, as who reviews your records. I'm sure the OPCON, if they take an interest, can influence the review.

The reason the ETC's are OinC is the primary mission of the unit they command. The same could be said of the BMs, the mission falls within the rating's job description.

I've been asked, when I was still active, by detailers why the ETC's aren't beating down the detailers doors to get an OIC position? I told them maybe they didn't want the responsibility. I'm sure that holds true today and holds true with any rating where there are OIC positions. I did ask a detailer if the "sea time points for SWE" had people beating down her doors for an afloat billet?

Alot of times when this subject is broached, we think of our own situation. BMs naturally think of the positions at Stations, ATON, and small Cutters. ETs think of the Loran Stations and Comms transmitter locations. There was a time when TTs were OIC at ESMTs.

When everyone talks of boards, it's typically in the context of inexperience and RFCs. A look at the RFCs and the experience level of those who received the RFC would show differently.

How many BMs know other BMs that only sat for the OIC review board to get that PQS signed off?

Being on the PQS is HQs way of copping out to increase the number of candidates available for selecting and directing. I'm sure all the BMs know a few OICs that spent alot of time in those positions and some who spend alot of time avoiding the OIC position.

Ask yourself this ... if it wasn't a PQS requirement, would the District even hold a board? I'm really not sure on the answer to that question.

A little over a decade ago, I tried to get some administrative stuff on the ET PQS at the rating review. At that time the comms sites were just planning to be OICs and it seemed to me to be the best for the ETC rate. I was in the minority on that vote, and was the only OIC on that review.

Those are my thoughts. Any rating could be feasible for OIC. Factoring in the experience for that unit should rule the day.

ETC Joseph Belson

12-11-2006, 12:21 PM

Joseph,

Just curious but what part of the MK career path is not set up for them to serve as OIC?

They serve side by side with BM at Stations and ANTs and WPBs, They drive boats, Do LE, qualify as Coxswain, serve on RFO teams, Serve as ESO, Training PO, Supply, Logistics, OOD, DWO, CDAR, ULDP POC, Etc…….

Does every MK do all these things? No, they don’t, and neither do all BMs. But for those that do, why not OIC? Or at least a chance to compete.

What changes to the MK rating would be needed for you to support MKs as OIC?

Be Safe,

Brett

Master Chief,
I think the mission of the unit drives who the OIC should be. That is why I am the OIC of a LORAN station not a small boat station. I do not think I could be an OIC of a small boat station without a lot of different things happening in my career in the past. It would set me up to fail as I don't know the mission critical aspects of the job. The same thing could be said for placing a BM as OIC in my job. The admin part could be covered quite easily as it is the same across the board. He wouldn't have the same knowledge an ET has about the mission critical part of the job which would set him up to fail. I follow the same logic through for the MK's (my logice anyways which can be different than everybody else's). Again, I don't think it couldn't be done for MK's but I think the mission dictates who should run the show.

Joe

MKC Art Bailly (ret)

12-11-2006, 02:26 PM

Joe I agree with the analogy between a small boat station and a loran station. I know how to keep your generators up and running to power your antenna but know nothing about the Loran stuff. But between a MK or BM at a station I disagree. MK’s know the job just as well as any BM did before they got the job. Of course the BM’s have us beat hands down on the experience factor only because some have already done the job. But before they sat for the board what do they do that we don’t?? in regards to being a OIC. Like Brett said we do the same jobs and more. When was the last time a BM got qualified as an engineer? (yes, they do a small part of it as their quails lick BEECE’s and there are some BM’s that would make good MK’s) We have a greater knowledge of how to repair the boat when they break it from running it to hard ;-) I’m not saying were better then BM’s but I think MK’s could do the job as well as a BM does. We would have to study for the board just like the BM’s. Only difference would be is that there would BM’s and MK’s studying together at the OIC study group. Imagine that, MK’s and BM’s working together to reach a common goal. We could learn from each other’s experience and knowledge to make better OIC’s. Even if we didn’t get the job I think it would help the BM’s be a more knowledgeable OIC.

BMC Mark C. Lewis

12-11-2006, 06:58 PM

I qualified and certified as an engineer on the UTB.

MKC Art Bailly (ret)

12-11-2006, 07:17 PM

My point exactly 1 out of 5113 BM E-4’ to E-9. I know there’s more but I’m sure that if you could get all the numbers that there would be more MK’s, EM’s and FS’s qualified as cox’n then BM’s as Boat engineer. Not saying that as a bad thing or good thing just pointing out that the BM rate is not the only rate mentored/trained to be a leader of men and the only rate that knows how to navigate a boat. Can a BM paint, maintain weapons, slice line, tie knots or correct a chart better then I can? You bet they can, but as OIC I wouldn’t be doing that. That’s where my XPO would come in handy to make sure all that stuff gets done right just like the EPO ensuring the engine’s run when there suppose to. For me the hardest thing about being an OIC would be not wanting to sit behind the desk all the time doing all the administrative stuff. I like being underway.

MKCM Brett Ayer

12-12-2006, 08:24 AM

I’m sure that if you could get all the numbers that there would be more MK’s, EM’s and FS’s qualified as cox’n then BM’s as Boat engineer.

I hate it when we start messing up a good discussion with numbers :) You had to do it.

OK, according to Direct Access, and I know it has errors, but the errors should be equally distributed across the ratings.

Currently on Active Duty:

BMs with Boat Eng quals: 254 or 4.7% of the rating.
MKs with Coxswain quals: 219 or 5.2%
FSs with Coxswain quals: 27 or 2.1%
EMs with Coxswain quals: 16 or 1.4%

So yes, your statement is true. However, if you either back out former QMs or add former QMs with DWO quals the BMs would have the numbers (at least by % of rating).

Your premise however, is correct, A members rating is not a direct indication of their qualifications.

Be Safe

Brett

BMCS Burt Ford

12-12-2006, 02:07 PM

Can a BM paint, maintain weapons, slice line, tie knots or correct a chart better then I can? You bet they can, but as OIC I wouldn’t be doing that. That’s where my XPO would come in handy to make sure all that stuff gets done right just like the EPO ensuring the engine’s run when there suppose to. For me the hardest thing about being an OIC would be not wanting to sit behind the desk all the time doing all the administrative stuff. I like being underway.

Art, you would be doing that as OINC. If you weren't, you would not be there long. If you dont spend your time training your crew, you won't have much of a crew. Rememebr what the BOAT Man says, Train, Maintain and Operate. Plus, most stations have a SK and even the XPO should be teaching that stuff.

MKC Art Bailly (ret)

12-12-2006, 02:37 PM

Burt do you train your MK’s how to make repair’s in the engine room, or how to PMS your P6 or engine’s?
I realize where my weakness would be as a OIC that’s why I would have my NM’s teach the BM stuff and the MK teach the MK stuff. No one can be an expert in every area of what we do every day and I am not afraid to ask the ones that know the subject matter the best when I’m not sure what the answer is. If the BM3 was a outboard repairman before he came in the coast guard and I don’t have a MK that has been to the school who do you think I’m going to have working with the MK’s get the outboard fixed. It’s our job as supervisors to know our people and how to put their talents to work to get the job done right the first time. When got to a station to put together the work list for their upcoming dry dock I just don’t talk to the MK1. When I work out a time to visit the unit with the OIC I also request that if possible I have the EPO and XPO go thru the boat with me and then ask the junior guys if they have noticed any problems with the boats. Everyone on the team is an important members and I use them. The more they feel apart of the team the more pride they take in that team. Just my opinion.

BMCS Burt Ford

12-12-2006, 03:26 PM

As a matter of fact, yes I have held training on most those things, in the engine room. My point was that as the OINC you need to hold training on those. If you know it is a weakness, then you should learn to do it before you get there not after. That would hold true for any job. I know as a chief you already know that too.

BMC Ken Gouge

12-12-2006, 04:37 PM

I would like to just remind those who are quoting numbers out of hand, or pulling them from Direct Access (Brett you have way too much time on your hands :rolleyes: ) that there is a VAST difference between the MK's, FS's and EM's (and BM's) whose only coxswain qual is on a Cutter Boat.

I know that on my cutter the Coxswain is merely a taxi-driver. There are several tasks and knowledge requirements for a Standard Boat coxswain that the Command of a cutter can waive as "not required" for their coxswains.

The same could be said of the BM's who have an Engineer qual if it is only on a non-standard or cutter boat. And no, Brett, I am not asking you to re-do your numbers based on particular competency codes :D

BMCM Stuart S. Slesh

12-12-2006, 04:47 PM

Okay Ken, what about those BMs whose only coxswain letters are from cuuter boats ? They can still sit for the board. They are still coxswains. There is still the potential of anything happening while they are in charge of that boat,...... and as coxswains,....they are in charge of that boat.

Brett, once again, thanks for the numbers. People can knock them all they want, but they do reflect what we have in the field. I don't look down on the people from other rates that have achieved their coxswain letters. I think more of the person who got it.

BMCS Burt Ford

12-12-2006, 05:09 PM

Stu only BMs with a coxswain letter for 25' anover can sit.

BMCM Stuart S. Slesh

12-12-2006, 05:39 PM

My bad, I was going with the standard boat thing......

MKCM Brett Ayer

12-13-2006, 07:41 AM

Brett you have way too much time on your hands :rolleyes:

Ken,

I can guarantee that you spent more time typing this, than I did pulling numbers :)

Anyway, like I said, the point is that rating is not necessarily an indication of qualification.

Brett

ETC Joe Jester ret

12-13-2006, 09:44 AM

When this topic came up in 1989, about the time the QMs became OIC, one BMCS told me he'd have no problem will someone being the OIC of a station if they had performed all the tasks the BM did at a station.

That same BMCS told me when he arrived on his 82 footer, the MKC wanted to be qualified as underway OOD, and he asked me for my opine. I told him if the MKC wanted the responsibility, good. The more people qualified the merrier. Otherwise it was just him and the XPO as qualified underway OODs.

I'm sure the MKC went through the qualification process and the BMCS was satisfied with the MKC's performance before signing the qual letter.

BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)

02-02-2007, 01:09 PM

This is not new.... When I had orders to Point Charles, back in 1976, as a BM1 -- the EPO was an E-8 ENCS... He wanted to be both EPO & XPO, since he was 2 paygrades senior to me..... As you can immagine, the written request that was forwarded to District 7 was disapproved.

Much of this is spelled out in the personnel manual... I fail to see why people have such a hard time with it, or why the CG fails to update its manuals as needed.... Since many are electronic, it should be much faster to do, unlike the old "pen & ink" changes we had to do to each page....

Wray.... :cool:

FSC Jayare Parker (Ret)

02-02-2007, 03:35 PM

Hey Wray,
Glad to see you found the light and came over to the other side.
Welcome aboard. 16 more days till Daytona!!!!!! :D

Jayare

BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)

02-02-2007, 04:11 PM

The racin' has already begun... Last weekend was the ROLEX 24... Next Saturday is the BUD Shootout & ARCA 200 race.. Thurs the Duel 150's, Fri - Craftsman Truck series race, Sat - 300 Busch series race, & the Grand Daddy is Sunday...

My seats for all races are Sec J, Row 44, of the Nextel Tower... (right above the start/finish line).. :D

Then in March, all the motorcycle stuff starts :D :D

Wray... :cool:

GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)

02-03-2007, 11:55 AM

This issue goes back more than a 125 years in the Service. There was some debate about Chief and 1st Assistant Engineers being in charge of "steam launches" at some ports.

The launches did not have berthing for two officers and with the line officers not being competent in maintaining a steam power system; the engineers won out. It worked out OK.

The line and engineer problem raged from 1845 to 1929 when the two were merged at the officer level and the CGA curriculum became heavily engineer focused. The officer problem has resurfaced in the enlisted ranks.

The navy has the "craftmaster" qualification that is opened to all ratings. However, they do not have the same responsiblity nor authority as an OIC. I recall while in Vietnam we used to help out a EMC who was the craftmaster of a YFU. He was "qualified" but without his BMs he would have been lost.

One day we got a request to help him out with his 20mm guns. He had one on each bridge wing. He had painted them red and green for their respective locations. We had good chuckle over this one.

The YFUs were trucks that ran simple routes carrying supplies from Point A to Point B and return.

Do not forget there is a cultural factor in the ratings and this was the purpose behind the "right" and "left" arm rates. Nearly every engineer I knew were concerned with equipment. This was their primary cultural area of interest. Ever try to get an engineer on a quarterdeck watch? They usually had less interest in the "naval" aspects of the Service and this may still hold true to the present. A good example of the culture is the film "The Sand Pebbles." It shows the culture of engineers versus deck.

I am sure there are some engineers who would take on the job and do it well, but is this really what the Coast Guard needs? While working as PACE instructor aboard a FFG, the E-8 MR qualified as an underway OOD. He had all the facts in place but he had no concept of good seamanship. Once while in the Persian Gulf I was on the bridge with him and he could not visually tell if a merchant vessell ahead was inbound or outbound. He had to rely on the 22 men in CIC for this.

Look at the culture first and then the qualications.

BMCM Gary Keen (RET)

03-19-2007, 10:15 PM

I think this is a topic that has been kicked around for a long time. I knew an EN1 that was Officer in Charge of Station St. Clair Flats for more than a short time. Not sure how long but I think longer than a year. Group Detroit was more than pleased with his performance. Surprisingly the best all round boat coxswain I ever knew was an EN1, he was also Station XPO. Also there was an SS1 at Station Port Huron that was very highly thought of as a MLB coxswain. The positive thing about these three individuals was that they were willing to take on the necessary responsibility while continuing to perform in their specialty. The only problem that I see with MK's as OinC's is that they often are unwilling to learn the nickel dime paper work that is necessary to finish the job!!! I agree that I would much rather see them as Officers in Charge than see additional billets go to Officers.
Gary

BMCM Stuart S. Slesh

03-19-2007, 10:52 PM

Gary, they opened up seats at the XPO schools for the MKs to get those paperwork skills. I don't want to see billets go to the Officers either. I also don't want to lose all that engineering small boat experience to the Warrants.

BMCM Gary Keen (RET)

03-20-2007, 07:43 AM

Stuart:
I am sure that most MK's are capable of learning and completing the paper work. Problem is that most of the ones I knew had no interest in the paper work details. This is what has stopped a lot of them from becoming DWO certified. The mechanics of moving and controlling the vessels is not particularly challenging to them, they just don't want to learn how to make nice on the radio to the person that almost ran into you. They have their own way of dealing with that situation. If they had the conn they would be able to get close enough to throw that crescent wrench!!!! I am not saying this is a bad thing, only that it is not politically correct.
Gary

BMCM Stuart S. Slesh

03-20-2007, 08:13 AM

Gary, I won't assume most MKs would strive for a command of their own, but I wish the ones who did had that option. We're seeing fewer BMs who want to seek out the responsibility. A couple of years ago a message was sent out that only about 10% of the BMCs were eligible to compete for the SWE. Many of them are content doing what they already know, and don't want the big chair.

BMCM Gary Keen (RET)

03-20-2007, 10:59 AM

BMCM Stuart S. Slesh

03-20-2007, 12:25 PM

no arguement here....... I think that people should seek command,...or stay out of a paygrade that requires it. We will always need qualified boat drivers, but as you advance through the levels, you should be willing to accept and certify for the billets designed for them.

GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)

03-20-2007, 01:12 PM

Stuart:
I am of the belief that any BM's that don't want the "big chair" should be ordered to the "rocking chair". BM's take command, that is what they are trained for, and any of them that don't want command but want to float on White or Black Ships I can tolerate. The rest should be sent home, not given an opportunity to fill some shore billet for their career. That is the way I feel as a taxpayer, and that is the way I felt as a Boatswainsmate.
Gary

Gary,

Why not GMs too? Although fewer GMs are going to sea these days, there are those with plenty of experience. Even I was an OOD on an 82.

After all, GM is the last unmigrated right arm rate.:)

BMCS Eric Guerette

03-20-2007, 01:40 PM

I would have to say that without some big changes we could not open up every unit to any rate for OIC.
Our billet structure at small units isn't set up for it. Picture an 87' with an MKCS, MKC and BM1 as the command structure. The CG can get away with 10 people on the 87' because the bulk of the deck experience comes from the OIC. If you had an MKCS as OIC, you should probably have the XPO be a BMC.
If you open up OIC jobs to any rate, it would make sense that the XPO jobs would also be available to any rate for "training". Now you have the possibility of an 87' with a BM2 as the only deck PO.
As a current OIC I'm sure that I could successfully be the OIC of a LORAN Sta, but I would need technically competent and experienced ETs within the billet structure.
This is my first unit with DCs and EMs. I don't have to know their rate, but I do need to know their job.
Minimally manned and OJT require someone at the unit with the experience to teach and operate, the CG relies on the OIC, XPO and EPO heavily for this. The bigger the unit (read more rates at the unit) the less important it is for the command to have detailed knowledge of every job.
If the OIC were just a manager, as the COs of larger units are, then any rate could do it. But the OIC isn't just a manager.

I know sometimes the way I write doesn't always relay what I'm thinking, so I hope I made my point.

MKC Craig Thorngren (Ret)

03-20-2007, 03:49 PM

... The only problem that I see with MK's as OinC's is that they often are unwilling to learn the nickel dime paper work that is necessary to finish the job!!!
Gary

Unwilling?? I'd have to disagree, were usually overburdened doing the paperwork (CASREPS, PR's and MISHAPS) when a Boatswainmate "exceeds the minimal depth rating" of the vessel he was driving:eek:

As for throwing a crescent wrench, no way would I waste a perfectly good tool, maybe the Bosn Pipe with a shackle attached though...:D

Sorry, couldn't resist... Standing by for the return volley.

Craig

BMCM Gary Keen (RET)

03-20-2007, 04:24 PM

Craig:
I ment no disrespect!!!! I always told my engineers that I thought they were completely useless. That is until something broke, then I became their best friend!!
Gary

GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)

03-20-2007, 06:07 PM

In Vietnam we had two officers on the 82s. Were they necessary? No, they were not. They were there for legal concerns. During the turnover to the SVN there was only one U. S. officer.

However, the experience level of everyone on board was pretty high and most could have taken over command at any time including the ENCs. Our ENC had three 82s under his belt before Vietnam was very competent in the job.

I know at least two cooks who, after changing rates to BM, became OICs later one.

As for minimal manning, the Vietnam 82s carried 11 to 12 and at times this was minimal but the operational tempo was much higher than it was in the U. S. - much greater.

I think PB OICs could be trained. I am not sure deck experience is that imporatant for a small unit. I know Navy Craftmasters may be of any rating. I have mentioned before an EMC of craftmaster of a YFU. This vessel is much larger than a PB. A few years ago I took a ride on an LCAC (got to drive too -- pretty cool to run some 40+ knots with full deck load) that had a QMCM as the craftmaster and we know QMs didn't get that much deck time.

Minimal manning may force the jobs open for other ratings. This was the point of one of my comments that it is a poor premise for the future. I doubt as many BMs are getting sea time. They may have station experience but does this really amount to deck experience. It would not for the merchant service.

One other thing to consider about the billets. There will be more officers produced with fewer places to go. The Coast Guard was allowed to raise the number of authorized number. I'd have to look it up but it around 7,000 up from the last raise of 6,200 in 1992 and from 3,500 in 1964 and 1200 in 1946. This number does not include warrants or reservists on active duty.

It is unlikely the Coast Guard would ever put a new ensign on a PB but they may short tour them on a larger cutter and then to the PB. Or they will place a Lt. with a Ensign XO. The BMs will become a watch stander and there may not be a chief billet at all.

MKC Craig Thorngren (Ret)

03-20-2007, 08:13 PM

Craig:
I ment no disrespect!!!! I always told my engineers that I thought they were completely useless. That is until something broke, then I became their best friend!!
Gary

Gary,
I know you didn't mean anything disrespectful, I just enjoy the banter between MK's & BM's... I owe most of my professional development to BM's, or at least all of the hands on repairing stuff at least:D .

Craig

BMCM Gary Keen (RET)

03-21-2007, 05:40 AM

Craig:
I have known several BM's that thought it was their responsibility to operate in a way that allowed MK's to complete all their practical factors.
Gary

BMCS Eric Guerette

03-21-2007, 10:35 AM

I look at it more as product testing. If I can't break it, then it was built right. There isn't much that is built right. The MKs are just fixing manufacturing defects or design flaws.

EMC Travis Parks

06-28-2007, 02:44 PM

I'm a fence sitter on the engineers as OICs question, but I sure do think many off the 8 and almost all of the 9 OINC jobs should be performed by warrants. Just based on the definition of the job of a E-8 or E-9 vice a Warrant.

BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)

06-28-2007, 03:48 PM

but I sure do think many off the 8 and almost all of the 9 OINC jobs should be performed by warrants.

Sorry mate, but I think you have that 'bass ackwards'....

Wray... :cool:

BMCS Steven Lowry

06-28-2007, 06:22 PM

Sorry mate, but I think you have that 'bass ackwards'....

Wray... :cool:

I would like to 2nd that!

and 3rd and 4th it;)

BMCS Ian McVicker

06-28-2007, 07:08 PM

I would like to 2nd that!

and 3rd and 4th it;)

5th!

That's just silly.

EMC Travis Parks

06-28-2007, 10:54 PM

Oh I didn't expect that to be a popular opinion 'round here, but I figure it is right (according to the senior enlisted needs assessment) unless you are of the school of thought that the warrants should dissapear entirely.... which is another issue all together.

BMC Gene Daigle

06-29-2007, 12:09 AM

I have no problem with MK's sitting for OINC. If there is such a push, then make it a requirement for them to get the qual code before they can make E-8, or do away with the requirement for BM's to have the qual code before making E-8. As for the Warrant issue, well I know too many people who have tried to make or have gone BOSN just so they can bypass the OINC Review Board. Now those are the quality of people who you really want running a station. Those who find the path of least resistance. I think those who go BOSN should have passed the OINC Review Board. Just my .02

BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)

06-29-2007, 09:15 AM

unless you are of the school of thought that the warrants should dissapear entirely....

you mean as they were supposed to, after the establishment of the E-8 & E-9 pay grades...

only one service complied with that...

Wray... :cool:

EMC Travis Parks

07-01-2007, 01:46 PM

I always hear that but have never seen the specifics of that law as it applies to the end of warrants. Did every but except the AF really just say, "No thanks congress, we are just going to do whatever the hell we want to! and please send more money." Or was there some ambiguity in the law. Perhaps I need some enlightenment.

However, I am sure that the SENA says that the E-9s should be focused on leadership at a global rather than a unit level

BMCM Deane Smith

07-01-2007, 09:31 PM

However, I am sure that the SENA says that the E-9s should be focused on leadership at a global rather than a unit level

From SENA, the role of the Master Chief is the following:

The senior most members in the enlisted workforce, Master Chief Petty Officers are leaders
and managers at the organizational level. Their primary responsibilities are to focus on the
global view of the Coast Guard in order to participate in developing and implementing strategic
policies and programs. In addition, Master Chief Petty Officers serve as mentors who
communicate personnel concerns and issues that impact mission accomplishment between the
workforce and senior management.

Travis...Where does it say that they shouldn't be OINC's? I didn't see it anywhere. It says they should be focusing on global views, but OINC's can do that while running a unit. BM's are good that way!

I think you might be reding into this a little.

Here's the link to the SENA report, for those interested...

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-w/g-wt/g-wtl/na/sena.pdf

EMC Travis Parks

07-03-2007, 02:00 PM

I think it pretty clearly supports my view hear. I can't imagine how one can FOCUS on global issues and effectively run their own unit. I understand that those BMCMs can leap tall buildings in a single bound and all that but.....

I guess you just have to ask yourself if you are looking for an objective truth or if you are looking to support an answer you have already decided on?

It doesn't mean you have to like it though!:)

BMCS Ian McVicker

07-03-2007, 02:27 PM

I can't imagine how one can FOCUS on global issues and effectively run their own unit.)

I see it as the exact opposite Travis. As leaders we have to be able to not only concentrate on our unit, mission and personnel, but what is happening in and around our service as well. Understanding global issues in the Coast Guard helps us to effectively run our units. We have a COC in place that helps to ensure our unit is running effectively, because the OIC is not doing it all. We use Empowerment, Delegation and Trust in our people to ensure the day to day business is conducted, (with some supervision of course.) Then we as OIC have to keep up with what's going on in the service.

I think you are reading to much into that SENA. I also do not understand how having a Warrant Officer in Charge makes the unit better than having a 8or 9.

BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)

07-03-2007, 03:24 PM

It used to be very clearly stated in the personnel manual about OIC positions.. I think I would start there....

Wray... :cool:

EMC Travis Parks

07-06-2007, 04:41 PM

I see it as the exact opposite Travis. As leaders we have to be able to not only concentrate on our unit, mission and personnel, but what is happening in and around our service as well. Understanding global issues in the Coast Guard helps us to effectively run our units. We have a COC in place that helps to ensure our unit is running effectively, because the OIC is not doing it all. We use Empowerment, Delegation and Trust in our people to ensure the day to day business is conducted, (with some supervision of course.) Then we as OIC have to keep up with what's going on in the service.

I think you are reading to much into that SENA. I also do not understand how having a Warrant Officer in Charge makes the unit better than having a 8or 9.

I don't think anyone would disagree that every leader should keep up with what's going on in the CG (after all it only takes one call from the detailer before it is happening to you or your suboordinates), I'm just saying that one can't be out forging policy as the core of their job and running the ship/station/shop.

Take a decathalete vs an 800 meter sprinter for example. Most of the decathaletes can't win in the 800 meter. Not lack of ability lack of focus.

I'm not sure that a warrant would be better than an 8 or 9 either btw, I'm just saying that SENA strongly sugggests that the roles should be decided in a certain way.

Wray, what article? I'm guessing not 1.D.13.b