Monday, August 02, 2010

DEOCS - from tool to weapon?

Take a moment to read critically.
**************** UNCLASSIFIED// ****************

Subject: PERSONAL FOR - COMMAND CLIMATE ASSESSMENTS//
Originator: CNO WASHINGTON DC(UC)
DTG: 291415Z Jul 10
Precedence: ROUTINE
DAC: Personal For
To: AL NAVADMIN(UC), NAVADMIN
--------------------------------------------------
UNCLASSIFIED//
FM CNO WASHINGTON//DC//N09//
TO NAVADMIN
UNCLAS//N05354//
NAVADMIN 253/10
PERSONAL FOR FLAG OFFICERS, COMMANDERS, COMMANDING OFFICERS, AND OFFICERS-IN-CHARGE FROM ADMIRAL GREENERT//
MSGID/GENADMIN/CNO WASHINGTON DC/N09/JUL//
SUBJ/PERSONAL FOR - COMMAND CLIMATE ASSESSMENTS//
REF/A/DOC/OPNAVINST 5354.1F/25JUL2007//
AMPN/NAVY EQUAL OPPORTUNITY POLICY INSTRUCTION.//
RMKS/1. SERVING IN COMMAND IS A UNIQUE PRIVILEGE AND CHALLENGE. A CHARACTERISTIC OF SUCCESS IN COMMAND IS UNDERSTANDING COMMAND CLIMATE. ACCORDINGLY, WE NEED TO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND YOUR COMMAND CLIMATE, AND DEVELOP AND SUSTAIN A HEALTHY COMMAND CLIMATE.
2. A TOOL DESIGNED TO SUPPORT YOU IN THIS ENDEAVOR IS THE DEFENSE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE (DEOMI) EQUAL OPPORTUNITY CLIMATE SURVEY (DEOCS). REF A PROVIDES DETAILS. ISICS WILL ENSURE SUBORDINATE COMMANDS COMPLETE THESE SURVEYS WITHIN 90 DAYS OF ASSUMING COMMAND AND ANNUALLY THEREAFTER. THE SURVEYS ARE DESIGNED TO HELP IDENTIFY STRONG AND WEAK AREAS, AND APPROPRIATE COURSES OF ACTION.
3. YOUR ISIC IS YOUR MENTOR. THEY WILL PROVIDE FEEDBACK AND HELP REGARDING COMMAND CLIMATE STRENGTHS AND AREAS OF CONCERN. THE GOAL IS TO HELP YOU SUCCEED IN COMMAND. YOUR ISIC'S EXPERIENCE AND PERSPECTIVE ARE VALUABLE IN DEVELOPING A TANGIBLE AND MEASURABLE PLAN FOLLOWING A COMMAND CLIMATE ASSESSMENT.
4. EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, TO INSTIGATE DIALOGUE BETWEEN ISICS AND COMMANDERS/COMMANDING OFFICERS/OICS ON COMMAND CLIMATE, COMMANDERS/COMMANDING OFFICERS/OICS WILL PROVIDE AN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS AND INTENDED ACTIONS (IF ANY) TO THEIR ISIC WITHIN 60 DAYS OF COMPLETION OF A COMMAND CLIMATE ASSESSMENT (DEOCS). DEOMI WILL CONTINUE TO PROVIDE FULL SURVEY RESULTS EXCLUSIVELY TO THE UNIT COMMANDERS.
5. VICE CHIEF SENDS.//
----------------------------
One of our leaders at the pointy end offered some commentary that is simply spot on.
This is another step backwards. Command climate is an organic thing, ebbing and flowing with OPTEMPO shifts, morale, workload, personalities of leadership, and many other components to numerous to catalogue here. I'm not saying it doesn't matter -- it does. But I resent the encroachment on my authority.

I intentionally timed a Command Assessment Survey (CAS), spearheaded by my CMEO and the Command Assessment Team, towards the tail end of an arduous deployment. Reason: I didn't want sugarcoated results masked by recharged batteries after POM leave, home reunions, etc. I wanted the guys tired and pi$$ed, so I would get the most accurate (and negative) snapshot possible. Why? So I could validate and fix what I thought needed fixing.

I chose to share pertinent results with my command in Captain's Call discussions with each individual paygrade, protecting the anonymity of the contributing comments. Made for great two-way discussions, and the Sailors felt like they got feedback for their efforts. Most commands make you take the computer assessment and you never hear about it again. I wanted them to know they spent their time doing the CAS for a reason.

I also chose to share the results with my leadership, to build trust and show progress on some significant climate issues. I'm not afraid of the truth.

The PERSFOR simply makes sharing the results not a choice, but a requirement. And leaders without moral courage will game the system now, time the survey to their best advantage. The Command Assessment process is now in danger of being used as another report card on the command. Battle E input? There are better ways to save the world from the Holly Grafs than this. Bad COs will study for this "test", and gouge up their commands on the "right" answers.

I respect VCNO, but this one wasn't well thought out.
Yep'r.

56 comments:

MR T's Haircut said...

HAHA take that STAFF WEENIE....  good on this Skipper.. I would serve with him or her anyday!

LT B said...

And the screwdriver from DC turneth.  Trust and confidence my sweet patootie!  I just took that survey too.  Let me tell you how it is gamed - "Do you think someone's feelings MIGHT get hurt in your command by an insensitive remark from some unfeeling lout?"  1 to 5.  I, of course, put 5 on the chance that some ninny's feeling will be hurt SOMEWHERE, SOMETIME, because, the instruction says that you don't have to witness it.  It is just do I think there MIGHT be a chance someone's feelings would get hurt.  Now, if URR, MTH, AW1, Phib and I were to go out, the likelihood might be nill that someone's feelings would get hurt.  Add Byron, and the chance goes up.  :)   The survey is written to advantage the diversity bullies and keep their industry alive.  Freaking self licking ice cream cone.  It isn't whether YOU saw or experienced something, it is written so that you worry if someone else might have been offended.  Silliness. 

MR T's Haircut said...

Dude, you nailed it..

Everyone gets a trophy...   I gauged a lot of success on how a Sailor straightened up after an ass chewing.. if he came around, lesson learned no harm or foul, called it training.. if he cried.. well sometimes that meant he was passionate.. or a pussy... never get it much thought to the latter..

THIS IS THE UNITED STATES MILITARY.. STOP THE BULLSHIT SOCIAL EXPERIMENT!!!  GET SOME DAMN NUTS!!

Grumpy Old Ham said...

Well said.  I'd follow the CO who provided the follow-on commentary anywhere.  He (she?) has their stuff packaged correctly.

Grumpy Old Ham said...

<span><span>ACCORDINGLY, WE NEED TO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND YOUR COMMAND CLIMATE, AND DEVELOP AND SUSTAIN A HEALTHY COMMAND CLIMATE.</span></span>

If the author of this message truly believes that, then the CO selection system is buggered.  More "help" from HHQ that isn't, comin' right up...

CDR K said...

My question is: How can my ISIC be my mentor...she is not the same gender much less the same race!  Not possible!  If I cannot mentor someone that does not look like me...they cannot mentor me!!!

G-man said...

Stuff like this makes me glad I bailed when I did and didn't stick around for 30.  Yikes.  Hardly recognize this Navy anymore.  Hopefully the pointy tip CO's remarks will not lead to retribution.  We need more like that one.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

"<span>Do you think someone's feelings MIGHT get hurt in your command by having bloody pieces of the fire controlman they were just talking to blown all over them?   Or seeing that cute blonde female from the mess decks with half her face burned to the bone, praying out loud until she dies?  1 to 5"</span>

Because that is what happens in war at sea.  Just in case we forgot.

Grandpa Bluewater said...

Too many Admirals, too little (pick one: will; desire; understanding; leadership ability; ability; guts; common sense; other) to focus on training, maintaining, repairing; building; developing; manning; planning for the future; or strategic thought, too few ships.  God of battles help us all.

Four and three  star admirals trying to do the Captains' and the Commodores' jobs.  And failing miserably. 

The only thing that matters is preparing the Navy for prompt, sustained, victorious combat at sea, now and in the future. Anything else is rubbish.  Time to take out the trash.

LT B said...

Of course we have forgotten.  LCS has not ability to defend itself and you can get in trouble for saying something that hurts someone's feeling as THAT constitutes a hostile work environment.  NOT getting shot at, but potty mouth.  The Navy has become the Air Force.  Sissies in Combat Smurf uniforms largely in DC.  Medals for doing one's job, sissified training, poor warfare training, lack of PQS, etc.  We have lost focus and will not gain it back until there are hulls and bodies at the bottom of the sea.  Sad. 

Alpha Check said...

This guy clearly wouldn't be one of those people looking to "game" the system.  Did he even read what he said?

"<span>I wanted the guys tired and pi$$ed, so I would get the most accurate (and negative) snapshot possible."</span>

"<span>I also chose to share the results with my leadership, to build trust and show progress on some significant climate issues."</span>

That's right, if you want to show "progress on some significant climate issues," the best way is to get a sample when the climate is at it's absolute worst, and then get another sample when it'll be better.  Nope, no gaming going on there.  

The only way to avoid gaming on survey's is to do them periodically, or at the same points in deployment cycles if you want them normalized for the cycle.  With a large enough data pool and simple periodic samples, outliers could still be found.

I do like that the leader explains that he's not someone that would game the system, while telling us how he is gaming the system.  At least he's "not afraid of the truth."

"Instigate dialog."  That's funny.  I guess "facilitate" or "encourage" were too soft.  Sounds like someone needs a command climate survey conducted.  =-O

Captain - Special Duty Cryptology said...

VCNO,

Thanks very much but I don't need your help (from DC) or that of your staff to understand my command climate.

AW1 Tim said...

This situation developed because those in command decided that the Navy was just another "business" an "enterprise" that could and would function using the same principles and management style that civilian corporations use.

The Navy is not a business. It is designed to do three things: Intimidate people and nations, kill people and blow stuff up. It's what we do, and no amount of "A Global Force for Good" sugarcoating will change those facts.

"Management" is not the same thing as "leacership", never was and never will be. Management skills are important for those who need to oversee supply and procurement. Leadership is what's needed to deploy and engage those assets and ensure the efficient and swift completion of the mission(s) with minimal losses to men and material.

Our Navy, (and it's still OUR Navy because even though we all might noit be in, we are all still paying taxes to support it) MUST shake off the idea that it is a busniess and can be run like one. MacNamara proved the follishness of that philosophy in Vietnam, yet here we are more than 40 years later still playing with that same set of broken toys.

I could go on, but you all know the score. Either we change the philosophy, or we risk become the Naval version of the Vatican's Swiss Guard.

Stu said...

At least the Swiss Guard are all male fighting force and train with real weapons. 

Byron said...

Me? Hurt someone's feelings? I'm HURT that you'd think such a thing! Now, kick them in the ass after having tenderized it with a good chewing, oh hell yes.

John said...

Looking at VCNO's biography, one might ask how much HE felt a NEED for all this PC "help" to run his submarine, squadron or fleet?  A guy with his background should be bright enough to recognize warfighting readiness stuff and PC bull$h!t.  At his level, he has the power to fix stupid stuff, or perpetuate it.  Is this stuff the best use of our scarce resources- either time or dollars?

ADM Greenert bio:
"He graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1975 and completed studies in nuclear power for service as a submarine officer.

His career as a submariner includes assignments aboard USS Flying Fish (SSN 673), USS Tautog (SSN 639), Submarine NR-1 and USS Michigan (SSBN 727 - Gold Crew), culminating in command of USS Honolulu (SSN 718) from March 1991 to July 1993.

Subsequent fleet command assignments include Commander, Submarine Squadron 11, Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Marianas, Commander, U.S. 7th Fleet (August 2004 to September 2006) and Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command (September 2007 to July 2009).

Greenert has served in various fleet support and financial management positions, including deputy chief of naval operations for integration of capabilities and resources (N8); deputy commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet; chief of staff, U.S. 7th Fleet; head, Navy Programming Branch and director, Operations Division Navy Comptroller.

He is a recipient of various personal, and campaign awards including the Distinguished Service Medal (5 awards), Defense Superior Service Medal and Legion of Merit (4 awards). In 1992 he was awarded the Vice Admiral Stockdale Award for inspirational leadership. He considers those awards earned throughout his career associated with unit performance to be most satisfying and representative of naval service."

Sandy Salt said...

Command Climate Survey is a game regardless on how it is packaged because the CO always can choose to ignore what his crew is telling him.  Plus, how is it that having big brother looking over your shoulder going to help solve what only the guy in charge once the hatches are shut can change.  It is good to be King and if the ship meets its commitments and doesn't hit anything Squadron looks the other way on how it is done because every Squadron has someone who doesn't cut it and it usually has very little to do with the Command Climate survey.  I had both good and bad COs and a surveys didn't make a difference on how they ran their ship underway.  Sure some of them had to answer Squadron about one thing or another, but it was for hitting stuff or not making it to sea on time.  Unless the Navy has changed in the last five years that is what is important for CO and ship success.  If the guy is an a-hole that can be forgiven if the boat performs well.

The Usual Suspect said...

Alpha Check, you sound like a gamer and a troll.  This commander has his stuff together and you are out of line to question his motivation.  He wants to hear the worst and improve the lot of his crew and his own command staff.  That  is what happens when someone is a leader and not a manager.  There's a difference, but you wouldn't know.  I hope I didn't hurt your feelings.

LT B said...

Oh, I was thinking YOUR feelings would get hurt.  One discussion of little dogs and you turn all mushy. ;)

Byron said...

Be aware, I have read your facebook page... :)

Alpha Check said...

TUS,

I didn't question Sal's motivation.  I let "<span>One of our leaders"</span> speak for himself.  He clearly stated the intent to get the lowest score possible, and share this with his leadership in an effort to show improvement.  Feel free to argue the content, I doubt you will.

You don't hurt my feelings at all, insult me all you want, you can't touch the argument so you assault my character.  I understand the typical military response of dare not question, and when someone does question, fire the messenger.

By the way, you find it acceptable to question the CNO's motives, but find it unacceptable for someone to question a blogger's motives (even when I didn't)?  Really?  That's kinda sad.  It just shows what we get when we're blindly loyal, without regard to the situation or the facts.  Isn't that how we got into this diversity disaster?

Hope I didn't hurt your feelings.   :)

Warrant Diver said...

Touche!

C-dore 14 said...

Over the years I was always amused that Flag Officers (whether SG CDR, TYCOM, or FLTCOM) feel compelled to remind COs of the "unique challenge" of command before taking an action that chips away at the CO's authority.  In my mind anything that restricts the CO's prerogative regarding developing his/her ship's schedule was always a big deal and establishing this arbitrary 90 day window falls into that category.

Command Climate Surveys (EEO Assessments, HRAVs, Command Assessments) were around for most of my service life and although I never found them particularly onerous, I never found them especially useful either.  Getting out and around, listening to the XO, CMC, and DHs; monitoring the results of the ship's promotion/striker boards, etc, worked for me.  An ISIC whose staff gets off the flagship/out of the office and down to the waterfront should have a good idea of what's going on aboard subordinate units too.

I don't agree with our anonymous CO about scheduling this near the end of a deployment since my experience is that folks tend to be more upbeat then especially if the deployment has been successful (they've done something meaningful, they're going home, the gear generally works, etc.).  I'd probably do it during the turnaround cycle when you're doing all those other assessments anyway.  Of course, that's this CO's point.  The scheduling should be a CO's prerogative.

Maybe things are different now.

The Usual Suspect said...

A little reading comprehension check here AC,  I was not refereing to CDR Salamander, I was referring to the CO.  Since you don't understand the motivation to ask when people are tired and beat, I will try and explain it to you.  When people are tired and beat near the end of a deployment, they are less guarded about offering their honest assessment.  The CO met with these people by pay grade and not as a kumbyah group.  He is not looking for sunshine and lollipops; he is looking for where he and the leaders on his ship could improve.  He isn't looking to game the system.   No blind loyalty here, but not totally cynical either. Ship, shipmates, self.

MR T's Haircut said...

<span>Alfalfa Check, </span>
<span></span>
<span>Me thinks you have never led any group larger than a duty office on Sunday...</span>

MR T's Haircut said...

Command Climate suvbeys are bullshit.. they are filed in a drawer to support an ISIC's decision to fire a Skipper if it ever becomes neccessary.. CYA PC BS if you ask me.

SubGuy said...

I worked with Greenert at two duty stations.  A lot of this message is "staffy", but paras 3 & 4 clearly have his personal touch on them!  He was a tough one and loved to micro!

USAF Mike said...

"<span> The Navy has become the Air Force."</span>

Now, that's a low blow...last time I checked, we didn't have diversity troubles, our Academy still thinks producing quality officers is its number one priority, and our gold plated weapons system (the F-22) at least works in its assigned mission, it's just too expensive (as opposed to the Little Crappy Ship, which is both too expensive and fails its mission.)  Did I mention that we don't have diversity troubles?  ;)

Might it be...you all are worse than the Air Force?? =-O  

Chief Warrant Officer Four (7441) said...

It's not like the boss has enough on his plate, now he/she (along with the wardroom) have one more report to spin. We need a war - wait a minute, we are at war.

Grandpa Bluewater said...

C-dore:

You can't lead anybody or any thing from behind a desk. As you so correctly pointed out.

bc said...

Yep, saw that.  Instigate vs. initiate.  Pardon me, your freudian slip is showing.  Even with the Note/Caution/Warning to read critically, I cringed at  "<span>WE NEED TO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND YOUR COMMAND CLIMATE".</span>
<span></span>
<span>Yeah. Because Flag Officers, Commanders, Commanding Officers and OICs got to that position because they don't know how to do that.  Wait: I just talked myself into a do-loop. Maybe they've gotten so Diversity'd Up that they really don't, and therefor DO need help from Above.</span>
<span></span>
<span>Sad.</span>

Salty Gator said...

Warrior Rule to Live By #13:  If you feel like you are being micromanaged, look inwards first.  Maybe you are all f***** up.

Salty Gator said...

Alpha, glad to see that you have successfully located and reattached your drag chute.  BZ!

virgil xenophon said...

NO CWO-4, what we need is a "good" war, i.e., one that we might actually stand a chance of LOSING, to properly focus our priorities. THAT would get people's attention. (Or not--given the degree of PC cancer present.)

C-dore 14 said...

Comment: "We're from the staff and we're here to help".

Response: "We're glad you came".

cdrsalamander said...

AC,
To check the strenght of a system you need to check it when it is most stressed.  That is why we do shock tests with big booms in the water - that is why we have sea trials - that is why we have test pilots.

If you only test your system - any system - when it is not under a full load then you have no idea how it will function when stressed, or have any idea where its weak areas are.

Good leaders test their systems, both human and otherwise.  Bad leaders game the system and hope that systemic problems blow up - literally and figuratively - on someone elses PCS cycle.

LT B said...

Actually, a lot of the sexual harassment crap started w/ some craziness at the USAFA.  It spilled over to the USNA and they knee jerked all to hell.  Yeah, you DO have diversity issues.  It is more gender than race. 

Oh, here's an achievment medal for defending the AF.  ;)

Therapist1 said...

This just has the feel of the old Soviet Political officers.  I am very disappointed.

Alpha Check said...

Sal,

If a command climate survey is a stress test, we have other problems.

TUS,
Perhaps you just called the CO the Commander accidently, but Sal didn't reference him as a Commander.  Do you see the part at the top of the website that says cdr?  When you say Commander, it's pretty reasonable to think you're referring to that Commander, on the Commander's website.

He said he shared the info he gleaned at the worst with his leadership to show "progress on some significant climate issues."  You do the math:

"<span>I also chose to share the results with my leadership, to build trust and show progress on some significant climate issues. I'm not afraid of the truth."</span>

At least not afraid of the truth as you sculpt it.  At least he was aware of the issues before the survey, which means he probably didn't need to do one.  That's the catch-22, those that need it won't listen anyway, and those that don't already know what's going on.  Kinda useless, but at least you can "show progress on some significant climate issues" via the survey.  FITREP Bullet!

Mr T,
You know what you are when you assume.

DM05 said...

Just what the Navy needs, more micro manager's getting in the way of those on the deckplates. 

xformed said...

USAF Mike;

Nothing personal about the "Like," just it is good fun to joke on the USAF.  :)

USAF Mike said...

Haha, I wouldn't have put that out there if I didn't expect it to get thrown back in my face.

However, I do want to point out that we haven't let it infect the rest of the service from the Academy...for the most part.  Yet.

Also, they have some issues with religious intolerance there too, so I guess we can add that to the list of grievances.

Grumpy Old Ham said...

Two of the three classic lies... :)

Aubrey said...

Again, I need that "really like" button ;)

Salty Gator said...

So what is your recommendation to fix the problem?  Anyone who has ever approached the old man with a problem knows that you won't get past the XO without a solution.  What is your solution, Alpha?  Standardize when command climate surveys are issued i.e. before / after deployment, before basic training phase begins, when? 

Salty Gator said...

Hey dude, who built a frickin pagan sacrifice grounds on their academy?  Oh yeah, that's right...Chair Force.

Alpha Check said...

SG,
In response to "<span>What is your solution, Alpha?"</span>

Skip the insults, and go back to my original post.  You'll find two options to avoid gaming the system.  :-E

Real SeagoingSailor said...

Sad isn't it. 
We are at war and the Navy is playing games.  Uniforms, diversity, surveys, Chain Of Command interference.  The U.S. is at war with terror and is being fought by the Army, Marines, Air Force and a few select Sailors.  The U.S. Navy is at war with itself!

Real SeagoingSailor said...

He is a nuclear officer.  I served on 5 nuke subs (4 SSNs and 1 SSBN).  If a nuke doesn't have a nuclear power plant to attend to, they micromanage everything they can get their hands on.  I had one CO on the 731 Gold try to micromanage the COB about the clown who does the balloons for the kids was scheduled for when we pulled in.  Talk abut stupid crap.  As we would say, "It was one "Mel" of a day!"

Real SeagoingSailor said...

Look at COMSUBPAC's Wall Street Journal interview in 1999.  Big Al didn't like the CO of the USS Honolulu and made it known.  I was on the Honolulu.  IT SUCKED!!!  The Hono made all its commitments, and scored well on all inspection.  The Hono's CO and XO then are now flag officers.  The COB was overbearing and coercive.  It was his way or the highway.  Now retention was hovering around 20%.  But hey, there was no interference from the ISIC.  ISICs are useless!  As a shipmate from the Honolulu said recently, "That boat sucked the life out of you!!"

C-dore 14 said...

Sandy, Pretty good assessment about the way it works.  When I was an XO we did a command survey and the only one who was surprised about the results was the CO.  He knew (and didn't care) that the wardroom couldn't stand him but didn't suspect that the troops felt the same way.  He changed his ways for about a week until something set him off and it was back to business as usual.

Neither Commodore cared much for the guy either (in fact the first one had me over to his office before I relieved and essentially told me to keep an eye on the CO).  But, like you say, we passed our inspections and never hit anything so my CO finished his tour, got a lousy set of orders, and retired as an O-5.

C-dore 14 said...

RSS, And yet he's wearing three stars now ;)

San Diego Sailor said...

Yeah, me too.  My brain would have turned to jello with this kind of BS to deal with.  I did two joint tours on 4 star staffs and then came back to USN and was subjected with lots of this garbage.  Made me retire when they tried to saddle me with a command that was not a command.  I did not want to be a high priced babysitter.  Told the detailer as much, and they were not pleased. So civilian I am. 

fireball said...

i'm a retired 05, now GS15 at one of the Navy's Systems Commands and was tasked to co-lead the command's Diversity Advisory Group with an SES on behalf of the Admiral. I did so reluctantly having felt/experienced many of the issues expressed by other contributors herein.

we were able to get 75% of a 400-person (military/civil service) to participate and having sifted thru the data were able to isolate 3 key focus areas (age discrimination, organizational trust, and job satisfaction) for our group to address. so, a good news story.

although the DEOCS was mandated by OPNAV, we did use the results of the data to improve our command climate.

my only beef: we were already working 60+ hours per week (remember these are mostly civil service who get paid for 40 and donated the balance to Uncle Sam as uncompensated OT) and thus this was an addition to an already overcrowed work schedule.

Salty Gator said...

<span>"The only way to avoid gaming on survey's is to do them periodically, or at the same points in deployment cycles if you want them normalized for the cycle.  With a large enough data pool and simple periodic samples, outliers could still be found"</span>

Alpha, appreciate you comment that you did give your suggestion.  My bad.  that being said, this is not your typical statistical analysis.  Outliers count in this one.  As Sal said, anyone can be a superstar when your crew is coming off of a leave and upkeep period.  I think that the model selected by Sal's CO is pretty sound.  The assumption should be that you improve with time.  It's called a learning curve.

MR T's Haircut said...

Fireball,

this is the perfect example of why programs like this is WRONG!  It is a false economy and a waste of valuable resources.  A GS-15 being used to support drivel like this is a misuse of the tax payers dollar.  The fact that an SES as involved makes it an even greater abuse of the tax dollar.

When we are behind in shib building, cant maintain our vessels and training budgets are cut, how can we justify an SES, a GS-15, probably a 4-7 member IPT with GS-12 and GS-11 supporting it, to reach a conclusion that was no doubt pre-determined?

Just sayin