If it was up to you? What would you change?

[CWO Chris Sparkman (BMC)]

What would you change? (http://cgchiefs.com/forum/showthread.php?p=14427#post14427)

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Where do you want me to start?

[MSTCS Jerald P. Motyka]

I'd kinda like the service to put its collective foot down and decide if the Coast Guard is an agency or a service - IBM or Military - and then act accordingly. I see things swinging both ways for expediency's sake, and it bothers me.

I'd also like to see a Commandant that had no further (read: political) aspirations, sit down in front of congress and ask them what we should stop doing... and in who's district we should stop doing it - as we don't have the proper funding to PROPERLY do everything that we do. We need to either stop accepting every mission that blows by - OR grow a pair of testes large enough to DEMAND money to pay for them.

I'd like to see the service CHARGE for rescuing stupid or rich people. Gale warnings go up in an area, and Skippy and his seven brothers jump in their 10 foot dinghy to go fishing 10 miles offshore... they NEED to be charged for rescue. Ice fishermen in March on the Great Lakes NEED to pay to be picked up when they end up on big, free-floating ice cubes. Steve Fossett NEEDED to be charged to be picked up TWICE when his balloon didn't quite make it around the world.

Other than that - I like what we do and how we do it. :D

[BMC Ken Gouge]

I would re-vamp the marking system. It is worthless. When some Commands mark appropriately by the written standard, their people are being unfairly placed in a deep hole when competing for advancement against the guys getting a double handful of 7's. I say remove the evaluations from the SWE process. You are either recommended by your Command to compete, or you are not.

If you want to give points for something worthwhile, give them for professional competencies in that rate. If you are a BM with a standard boat coxswain letter competing against another BM without one, it should be an advantage. Same for EPO qual code, U/W OOD, ANSPS-73 technichian or whatever. Anyone who is well rounded in their rate, has performed their duties in a variety of units, and gained a wider knowledge base because of it should be at an advantage against someone who's main goal was to homestead or remain comfortable in a job they are already good at.

Wow! I just made that up on the fly, and I think it may actually be a good idea :D

Edited to add: Chris, great idea for a thread to open up several cans of worms without having to "hijack" a thread. This should be fun.

[CWO Chris Sparkman (BMC)]

Ken, no problem. There may be some good changes brought up. But, I have to say it was not my original intention. I was hoping to get folks to click on the hyperlink and that would shoot them over to another thread. I figured most folks are like me, they see a thread for so long they quit clicking on it. So I posted a new thread that would take them to the old thread :D Hoping it would spark an opinion and a response. It has worked too. Go figure.

Keep having fun

As for what would I change???? I would change the way we log in.. You should be able to walk in, plug in your ID card to the card reader and access every Coast Guard program in existance. My notebook is getting full of passwords...Ooops, did I say that :D

CS

[BMCS Burt Ford]

Hell I did not know it was ahyper link. I never would have guessed either!

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

Nobody has brought this up (yet) so please allow me to be the first.

I would like the weight control system fixed. I have been told by two different commands that I can weigh two different amounts. My former and current command said that my MAW is 193. The CPOA said that it is 205. Which one is it? Twelve pounds is a heck of a difference, especially if it should keep someone from advancing or if it should cause someone to be on the “program.”.

[BMC Ken Gouge]

Well Chris, that was a sneaky underhanded... I didn't notice the hyperlink.

When you first log on to this site, you can click "new posts" and it will show you every thread that has had a new post since you last logged on.

[OSC Delain Tate]

I would re-vamp the marking system. It is worthless. When some Commands mark appropriately by the written standard, their people are being unfairly placed in a deep hole when competing for advancement against the guys getting a double handful of 7's. I say remove the evaluations from the SWE process. You are either recommended by your Command to compete, or you are not.

I agree with Ken, remove the evaluations from the SWE process. Marks are a bias representation of someone’s perception on how well you do your job or represent yourself. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to completely do away with evaluations, I think we need them.

What I would change is the process for promotion to E-6 and above. There should be an interview process, or a board, that reviews a promotable member's last few set of marks, and question's them, mostly on Leadership skills, to ensure this person is mature, has people skills, and is responsible enough to hold the rank they might be promoted to.

So many times I've seen book smart folks, or great test takers, get the promotion, but their leadership skills suck, and everyone who works for them suffers.

-Delain

[ETC (FT type) Ed Shank]

I agree with Ken, remove the evaluations from the SWE process. Marks are a bias representation of someone’s perception on how well you do your job or represent yourself. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to completely do away with evaluations, I think we need them.

So many times I've seen book smart folks, or great test takers, get the promotion, but their leadership skills suck, and everyone who works for them suffers.



The original comment referred to putting people in a hole if they didn't have a handful of sevens, but then we talk about test takers. Test takers can easily surpass the supposed hole they are put in when it comes to service wides. We all talk about the servicewide and how marks affect it so strongly. It is a max of 50 points, that can be made up in sea time, test score, awards etc. The disparity in marks in relation to the SWE is not as large as people make it out to be. My marks multiple is not in the 43-45 range like you hear people talk about, yet I have been competitive on every servicewide I took.

Now warrant...that is a whole other discussion there. I finally didn't get a negative number on my profile letter. Is our marking system perfect; no. Is there a way to eliminate the subjectiveness (I think I may have just made that word up); no I don't believe there is. Even a board doesn't do it, unless you keep whoever is on the board locked up for their entire career so they don't know anyone, or may have heard anything about an individual before they go before a board. It falls on us as supervisors to accurately mark our people and to pass along what we are doing, question those who we think may be inflating marks, and stand our ground. All of my subordinates know I mark them fairly and they realize they may have to do better on the test then the next guy. I realize that as well, and I help them study to assist them in making up the gap. When they move up, I can only hope they learned something and they don't inflate their subordinates marks.

[OSC Delain Tate]

The original comment referred to putting people in a hole if they didn't have a handful of sevens, but then we talk about test takers. Test takers can easily surpass the supposed hole they are put in when it comes to service wides. We all talk about the servicewide and how marks affect it so strongly. It is a max of 50 points, that can be made up in sea time, test score, awards etc. The disparity in marks in relation to the SWE is not as large as people make it out to be. My marks multiple is not in the 43-45 range like you hear people talk about, yet I have been competitive on every servicewide I took.

Your right Ed, maybe I got a bit off topic in my post...If it was up to me, what I would change is the entire advancement process from E-6 up.

-Delain

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

I agree, the SWE process as it relates to marks does need to change. I like the board idea, it's kind of hard to judge someone by just a set of marks. However, there are those people that do great on the SWE, the marks are honest and just would freeze up before a board.

[MSTCS Jerald P. Motyka]

But Ray, how will that person do on a boarding or when the fecal matter collides with the atmospheric movement device? Will they freeze then as well? :rolleyes:

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

But Ray, how will that person do on a boarding or when the fecal matter collides with the atmospheric movement device? Will they freeze then as well? :rolleyes:

Good point, (although at first it took me a bit to understand what you were trying to say). :)

[ETC Pat Kaschube]

Having not had to sit on a board since I re-qualified for GPOW on the Mellon back in 94 I have a question/comment concerning the board process. One of the biggest complaints about the marking system is that it is subjective and one persons opinion. Would the process of sitting in on a board change that? I don't know which is why I am asking. I could easily see the case where someone on a board doesn't like someone as soon as they come in the door and then it's too late for that individual. Thoughts.

[OSC Delain Tate]

I could easily see the case where someone on a board doesn't like someone as soon as they come in the door and then it's too late for that individual. Thoughts.

If I walk into a room with, let's say three people, and one of the three doesn’t like me, I still have a chance to win over the other two. Sometimes personalities just clash.

Example nr 2...
If I walk into a room with the same three people, and all three of them dislike me right off, or I failed the board horribly, then I probably didn’t need to be there in the first place. Then you figure the advancement board served its purpose.

That's how I'm looking at it.

-Delain

[PACS Steve Carleton]

One of the biggest complaints about the marking system is that it is subjective and one persons opinion. Would the process of sitting in on a board change that? I don't know which is why I am asking. I could easily see the case where someone on a board doesn't like someone as soon as they come in the door and then it's too late for that individual. Thoughts.

Theoretically, board memebrs are supposed to check their bias at the door. That said, the reality is that everyone of us has a preconceived idea of what makes a good PO, Chief, Gold Badge, Officer, CWO, etc. Are any omne of those thoughts right or wrong, no, not necessarily. I just don't see how a board would improve the "quality" of our enlisted workforce.

It is virtually impossible to create a system that universally across the board removes all subjectivity.


The system we have now attempts to remove as much influence as possible, but as I like to remind people, YOU control your behavior and actions that leads to better set of marks, YOU control how much effort you do or don't put in to preparing to take an SWE.

Talk about an area where personal accountability is the driving issue!

[BMC Ken Gouge]

A board isn't where I was going with my original post. Every rate has qualifications, certain competencies that are available, and your performers tend to achieve those. They should get credit for them as it relates to advancement.

My only point is that with marks you could have 2 people performing the exact same job at 2 different units. Both perform exactly the same and have identical qualities. They WILL NOT be marked the same. They should, but it wont happen. There will be CO's/OIC's that are happy with that performance, and those that are very happy... The marks should be removed from the SWE multiple. They are not a scientific measure of how one person performs compared to someone alse of the same rank and rate.

You have the BM1 that excells at handing out basketballs at the gym, and the one who does a pretty good job running 200 SAR cases and 200 Boardings over the same marking period. What are their marks going to reflect? The fact that the BM1 at the station has a BO qual, Coxswain qual etc. and gets SWE points for those would be just reward. By the same token, if the one handing out basketballs previously held a BO and Coxswain qual, he wouldn't be at a disadvantage because of where he is stationed.

Regarding a board, no way are they gonna pony up funds to have 400 BM1's go sit before an advancement board. After the board reviews 400 people I don't like where their mind would be by if I was number 399.

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Or we take a look at the Navy's Advancement System for CPO -- Take a test to rank order, then set up a board to review personnel files.

400 test for BMC
Board reviews records of Numbers 1-267
Board then determines which 50 will advance.

You remove the Evals as a a direct connection to the advancement system, but it would only come into play when the files are reviwed at the board.

[ASTC Ronny German]

I would like the weight control system fixed. I have been told by two different commands that I can weigh two different amounts. My former and current command said that my MAW is 193. The CPOA said that it is 205. Which one is it? Twelve pounds is a heck of a difference, especially if it should keep someone from advancing or if it should cause someone to be on the “program.”

We must be the same height because I had the same thing happen to me. I agree that this program has some "bugs" that still need to be worked out. One example would be standardized enforcement of the policy from unit to unit.

[HSC Chris Fly]

As far as the weight program, it's pretty clear cut as far as the regs. The problem is when someone measures you, again the regs are pretty clear how to measure the wrist and height but for some reason people have problems. Maybe we need a video on how to measure? Sounds kinda corny but who knows? :confused:
Chris

[MKC Art Bailly (ret)]

The way we calculate body fat is still done as the cave men did. Take 3 measurements and you have they correct body fat?? How about adding in the chest measurement? I have a 46-48 inch chest and wear size 36“pants and right at my max body fat. I have seen may people with a size 38 chest wear size 42 pants but be within their body fat because they have a fat neck and big wrist. I would change how we figure body fat and also add the physical fitness test for everyone at weight-ins.

[HSC Chris Fly]

If you add a PT test, you need to add mandatory GROUP workouts 3 times a week. No more of this "go work if you want, we won't check up on you" crap.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Why would you have to have a mandatory group workout? We don't have mandatory group diets do we? You either satisfy the PT requirement or you don't. You either meet your MAW/MBF or you don't. If you don't, then it is up to you to fix the problem or the problem will fix your career.

[ETC Ben DiGuilio]

You either meet your MAW/MBF or you don't. If you don't, then it is up to you to fix the problem or the problem will fix your career.


Well Said. Thats why they are called "Standards"

[HSC Chris Fly]

The problem with a mandatory PT test without mandatory workouts have been well documented in the Navy. You would have these old/out of shape people who would sit on the couch all year long until it was time for the PT test and then go out and try to run and have a heart attack. The Navy has had quite a few members die due to this. I don't disagree everyone is responsible for their own wellbeing but I just we are doing our shipmates a disservice if we day "you have to test twice a year, but you don't really have to work out in between".
Just my .02,
Chris

[MKC Art Bailly (ret)]

You could say the same about the weight program. How many people wait till the last moment and starve themselves sit in a sauna for hours or go to the gym to loose weight. How many people abuse their bodies to make weight? How many injuries come about from the weight program? If it’s good enough for the weight program then it should be good enough for the bare minimum physical fitness standards.

I still say we need to change the way we measure body fat and should do the physical fitness testing at the same time. If running is so bad for the body then why do we have it as a requirement for physical fitness? How many chiefs have had heart attacks during the 10K run at the academy? How many sports related injuries happen every day for the sake of getting in shape? I’m curious if there are any stats saying how may injuries we had before we started the semi annual weigh-ins compared to now. Especially basketball injuries. I don’t remember the last time someone received a limited duty chit because they were 5 or ten pounds over their weight and couldn’t do their job. How many limited duty chits are out their because of sports related injuries?

[HSC Chris Fly]

How many limited duty chits are out their because of sports related injuries?

A BUNCH!! But I'd much rather respond to a ankle sprain from flag football than a heart attack from some burger muching old guy trying to keep up with the AST3 on the run! As far as the run at the CPO academy, I thought you worked up to the final run not tried to tackle it all at once(guess I'll find out in April). Besides it seems to me MOST CPOs try to do some kind of training prior to attending the academy, it we all did that then I would have a moot(sp?) point. As far as running being bad for you, I always heard it's the worst thing for your knees. I wish we had the option of cycling for a test or swimming if you're into that (I'm not, sink like a rock).
Chris

[BMC Trent Spiroff]

What would I change?

I would change the free trip home benefit. After 45 days in the shipyard, the single person needs the escape just as much as the married member.

Married members have their spouse at home to pay the bills, turn the truck around, feed the dog, water the plants, etc. Single members have bills, trucks, dogs, and plants. Who’s looking out for their household?

Single people, young and old, have relationships (significant other, friends, parents, etc.) and need to maintain that source of salvation just as much as married members.

T.S.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Chris, a 500 yd swim is an option. (at least I think it is 500 yds)
T.S. You are right.

[MKC Art Bailly (ret)]

I agree Trent. I agree that the single people get the shaft and have never understood why they don't a trip home, but I think if the married guys get a trip home then everyone should get a trip home. With a month short of 12 years sea time I don't ever remember going home after being underway after 30 days.

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Chris, a 500 yd swim is an option. (at least I think it is 500 yds)


The alternatives to the 1.5 ile run are:

a 1 mile walk (you have to determine VO2 Max, Heart Rate, etc.)
a 12 minute swim

Consult Enclosure 6 of M1020.8F for the "standards"

[HSC Chris Fly]

The alternatives to the 1.5 ile run are:

a 1 mile walk (you have to determine VO2 Max, Heart Rate, etc.)
a 12 minute swim

Consult Enclosure 6 of M1020.8F for the "standards"

Ah, thank you all. Now they need to offer a bike option and we'll be all set!
Chris

[BMCS R. Scott Pugh]

Trent - you hit the nail on the head. I am one of those single people you talk about (at least for another 7 weeks or so) and after a 3 month yard period in Bellingham, I was really tired of living in a hotel. Granted, I had just reported onboard when the ship (SAPELO) left Eureka, but still - hotels get old.

Watching the married folks depart for their weekend or longer trips home at the Govt's dime was almost as paid as hearing them talk about the FSA they were getting!

Scott

We were in Bellingham during the summer, so the colleges were closed!

[MKCM Brett Ayer]

What would I change?

I would change the free trip home benefit. After 45 days in the shipyard, the single person needs the escape just as much as the married member.

Married members have their spouse at home to pay the bills, turn the truck around, feed the dog, water the plants, etc. Single members have bills, trucks, dogs, and plants. Who’s looking out for their household?

Single people, young and old, have relationships (significant other, friends, parents, etc.) and need to maintain that source of salvation just as much as married members.

T.S.

I can't disagree with you, but I just wanted to point out that this is not a CG policy, it is JFTR. So in short, the Coast Guard is just along for the ride.

The married/single issue is something that is being looked at as a whole (BAH, FSA, Etc.). If you have some extra time on your hands here is some good reading on things that are being looked at:

http://www.dod.gov/prhome/docs/dacmc_finalreport7_11.pdf

It's a link to the Defense Advisory Committee on Military Compensation Report. One warning, dont read it if you dont' want to get spooled up :)

Brett