The future under PWCS ?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

With our future headed towards all PWCS all the time, can anyone else foresee a time when Boarding Officer certification becomes part of the practical factors for advancemet in at least the BM and MK rates ? Our Ants and Black hulls are getting new requirements for qualifying their personnel as BTMs and BOs. SAR stations in certain districts are being given new manning requirements as coxswains are no longer being authorized as the BO on board the small boat.
Let be honest, we have all served with someone that simply could not shoot staight, literally. Some of these people went to and stayed in the AtoN community where most black hulls didn't even carry weapons. Those days are going away rapidly. OAN is recieving marching orders and issuing tasking to the subunits to fill in the gaps in our PWCS requirements.
Do you think that we will ever arrive at a point where people unable to qualify or unwilling to carry a weapon will be forced into an administrative position or forced out of the Homeland Security driven Coast Guard ? What will become of our members who, due to a domestic violence incident, are no longer authorized to carry a weapon? What about those scary people that no OinC will sign off on allowing to carry? Is anyone else concerned or curious where this is leading us ?

[BMCS Shawn Vredenburg]

I've always been concerned about this. At a small station (20 people), you need EVERYONE qualified. If you have someone who can't shoot, it really affects the unit. Even at medium/large stations, if you have 2-3 people who can't shoot it affects you.

There is something even less drastic that the Coast Guard can do to mitigate this: Buy enough friggin ammo so we can train them! While this wouldn't do much for those folks who don't have the maturity/judgement to carry a weapon, it certainly would help with those 5-10% of people who just don't pick up weapon skills fast.

I had a young lady at my last Station who couldn't get 9mm qual'd. She's going to be a BM3 soon, yet has never been able to do a boarding because of her lack of shooting skills. She has the maturity and judgement, just can't shoot straight. She is the type of person the Coast Guard needs as a boatswain mate doing boardings...yet we can't spare extra ammo to train her! And you gotta love the split chain of command with different objectives. G-OCU buys enough ammo for everyone to shoot once every six months, and says don't shoot anyone more than twice. If they can't qualify after two times, then don't give them a gun. Yet tasking from G-OCS is all PWCS, LE, and SAR (which can all too quickly turn into LE) where you need everyone to be able to carry.

And who's stuck in the middle? The unit commanders and their operators.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

And again, I know people who just..can't... shoot. We've set them numerous times, the ranges will shoot them twice per visit, and they just don't have the ability. I've seen people who don't even get close to qualifing and I'm talking about the basic course. They haven't even gotten the chance to shoot the practical course. Some people just can't. They excellent in all other areas of work but just don't mix with weapons. What's to become of them ?

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

What is PWCS?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Its the Ports Waterways Control and Security..?....I think I got that right. Its what we used to call Military Home Land Security hours. What we catagorize our time underway patroling the critical infastructure, i.e bridges, power plants, refineries, security zones ...etc. Regardless of how badly I'm butchering the acronyms, that change every six months, it's what the majority of multi-mission units spend their time and money on. And now, at least in D1, its taking a foot hold in the Ants and on the real Black hull fleet. Not trying to offend anyone with the real black hull thing, its just that the 140s and most of the 65s, whose hulls should probably be red or white now anyway, have been doing this thing hot and heavy since 9-11, while the "real black hulls", you know the ones with assigned AtoN, have been focused on what they were designed to do. AtoN.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Amplifying information on these changes.......A d5 unit that is in the process of becoming one of those sectors we've been hearing about has a policy that is currently in effect. All E-2 thru O-3 who are not currently in a critical watch billet must certify as BTM or BO. Those not currently certified are published on a list that goes to their department heads and supervisors and are being marked accordingly. That goes for OER as well as EER. Those who can not certify in a timely manner, the standard for which I am unaware, are transferred to a critical watch billet or "dealt with adminstratively" another term for which I am unaware of the full ramifications. But if they're claiming to be marking people based on this policy aren't they also impacting their members' advancements ? And if this is going on at one Group/Activity/Sector,....how long before it becomes the standard by which everyone will be marked/advanced? Is anyone else seeing things differently where you're at?

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

We are going to go thru some growing pains, for sure. Until we can organize and commit the resources for dedicated homeland security, every operational unit in the CG is now multi-mission.

If our people cannot maintain the quals that are necessary for today's missions, then I agree that they need to be placed in a non-operational billet. It's a harsh move, but I don't see a choice.

The way I see it, our job is to ensure that our crews aren't asked to do something that they are ill-prepared to do. If that means moving a body from unit to another to account for the weapons quals, so be it.

I think, in the future, you will see a gradual division of duties. We will no longer have the BM that is cox/BO/OOD qualified. Everyone will have a specialty (a law enforcement BM, for example), that they will not deviate from. In the long run, it will probably be a good thing.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

We (CG) are moving in that direction, whether we realize it or not.

In D13, the Coxswain can't be either the BO or BTM when they get u/w. This of course hurts a unit because of it's billet structure. It puts more of the burden on the E-4's to get LE (BO) qualified quicker. I understand this policy and don't even necessarly have a problem with it. It just makes it much more difficult to have more boatcrews available at a unit.

I think D11 is doing this also.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Dennis I agree with almost everything that you said. I think that with the CG is moving toward performance based qualifications, and having a specific skill set is inevitable. I just wonder if BTM or BO isn't going to be part of every set. Again they are requiring LE certification of members that were not considered to be in operational billets at the group level to fill in the gaps in their MARSEC requirements. AtoN units with no assigned weapons are being required to certify for LE positions to augment traditional LE platforms when we vamp up for different evolutions. I remember that people were talking about creating a LE rating years ago. I thought that the MSSTs were going to be filling that need. But I am seeing new requirements come out all the time and they are looking to fill these requirements by some, previously thought to be, unorthydox means.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

"Dennis I agree with almost everything that you said"

Get used to it. I am wise beyond my years.

[GMC Thomas Hogge]

Having been a Small Arms Instructor for 24 years, yes I have seen people who can not hit the side of a barn standing inside. For some of them, it is just a lack of training and they can learn with practice. I have never had a problem working with these people, the problem was alwas getting the range time for them. For others, some are scared of guns, hate guns (the 'I joined to save lives, not to carry a gun' types), or really want to qualify but just can't shoot. This last group has a large frustration factor, both for them and the instructors.
This is not a new problem, we have been dealing with it for years. There are several causes for this; perception of guns in society, lack of civilian shooting skills, shortage of range facilities in many areas, scheduling conflicts with underway time, other vital training, schools, leave, duty ect, the reduction of small arms training at boot camp, and no doubt other contributing causes I am unaware of.
One thing to remember is that shooting is a skill like any other. Not everyone can learn it. If you can not learn all the skills required for a job, you won't keep that job.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Then Thomas, my question is you would be, for the fraction that just can't shoot, ..Do you see a time when there will no longer be a job for them to fill ?
There is a least one Sector that I'm aware of that is requiring everyone E-2 thru O-3 to qualify. What happens if this becomes the standard or the norm everywhere ? Where will the people who can't or won't qualify go ?

[GMC Thomas Hogge]

It may come to that, but I don't think it will be soon. There are still non operational jobs that can be without weapons quals and the support for operations from them is very important. The thing that will cause it to happen eventually is the requirement for world wide depolyment. This also applies to local deployment. It is my understanding that most law enforcement agencies require all of their personnel to be qualified with their service weapons regardless of whether or not they are 'on the street'. I can see this happening in the Coast Guard as our LE duties take up more of our time and resources.

[BMC Pete Ruggiero]

PWCS actually stands for Ports, Waterways, and Coastal Security (no disrespect Senior).
Here is one question I pose, since this post hasn't been stirred for a while. Should weapons/BO quals be a PQS/EPME factor? I think they should be whole heartedly, at least for BM/MK. If you are a BM/MK at a small boat station or PB, seriously, what good are you if you are not LE qualified? Just the same as if you are not Coxn/Eng qual'ed. Why are you there? I think that even if you are not "certified" (a signed letter) due to some type of strong objection (but we are in the military and law enforcement on top of that) you should be required to at least be "qualified" (all pqs completed) to do the job, and that includes weapons qual'ed. Where does it say that we cannot send our people to the range more often than once every 6 months if they are not efficient, the MSST's do it, and I am sorry, but stations do as much if not more patrolling than they do.
And to reference an earlier post by me, should a member be allowed to advance if not LE qual'ed? Should I expect my BM2/MK2 to be BO's, and if so, can I recommend them for advancement if they are not? I think any PO should be certified, or on his or her way to certification, as a Boarding Officer, in compliance with 14 USC 89(a)...What say you?

[BMCS Roland Ashby]

Pete I agree with you, But what do you do with a BM3/MK3 assigned to a buoy yard? They have no guns, they have no boats (only fork lifts!). How to you require them to be BO qualified to advance to E-5?

From an operational stand point, it takes a long time to get a non-qualified BM2 qualified to stand OOD at a station. First they need to be boat crew, then BTM, then Cox and then BO! I have seen this take more than a year in some cases. I can only imagine that the requirement to be BO to make E-5 would be a motivation.

[BMC Pete Ruggiero]

Roland,
As far as being a BTM/BO, that could be waiverable just as the coxswain qual was for a member at a unit with no boats. I just really dislike seeing E-5's/E-6's who are at small boat stations not pulling their LE weight... especially department heads who are supposed to be setting a standard. Whether we like it or not, we are embracing LE a lot more as an organization, so much so that a message was just released (yeah, I know, I have been seeing those for the last 10 years as well) addressing more specialized LE training for those who want to stay there. For now, it's our E-4 through E-6 that are out there doing the job, and it isn't fair when half of your crew has no plans to certify.

[BMCS Roland Ashby]

Roland,
As far as being a BTM/BO, that could be waiverable just as the coxswain qual was for a member at a unit with no boats. I just really dislike seeing E-5's/E-6's who are at small boat stations not pulling their LE weight... especially department heads who are supposed to be setting a standard. Whether we like it or not, we are embracing LE a lot more as an organization, so much so that a message was just released (yeah, I know, I have been seeing those for the last 10 years as well) addressing more specialized LE training for those who want to stay there. For now, it's our E-4 through E-6 that are out there doing the job, and it isn't fair when half of your crew has no plans to certify.

Well Said!

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Pete, there are people out there who do great thing in the assigned rate that I would NEVER allow carry a weapon if they were assigned to me. There are people that do not possess the aptittude to be come part of a boarding team. I would never endanger the rest of the Boarding team by allowing someone who isn't comfortable in those situations to go along for the ride. We also have people who were convicted of domestic violence that CAN'T carry a weapon any longer. What are you going to do with them? For the people that WON't carry their own share of the load, mark them accordingly. For the people that CAN'T........?