Admiral "reassigned"

[squorch2]

There was the line about how folks with IAs have to be selected for promotion at a rate at least equal to other, non-IA folks. Never seen anything about IA in DH, Command, or Major Command screen board precepts.

Detailers have been saying "don't take an IA unless your record supports it" since at least 2008, so this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

 

[Jim123]

I don't think I've ever heard of IAs being billed as anything other than career neutral, nor have I seen anything giving preference to IAs on a board precept. Are other communities being told otherwise?

Right- I agree. And I don't think any communities are being told otherwise.

The 800 pound gorilla in the room would like to rise on a point of information: If IA billets are so vital to the wars, should we not send our best people to fill them??

 

[Scoob]

"don't take an IA unless your record supports it"

That's hilarious.

 

[Brett327]

Right- I agree. And I don't think any communities are being told otherwise.

The 800 pound gorilla in the room would like to rise on a point of information: If IA billets are so vital to the wars, should we not send our best people to fill them??

I wonder what the discussion went like when they came up with the IA concept. Obviously, things have gotten slightly better with the GSA model of providing augmentation where it is allegedly needed, but they had to know that pulling people mid-tour for a year would, in many cases, irrevocably alter people's career trajectory.

 

[BackOrdered]

I don't think I've ever heard of IAs being billed as anything other than career neutral, nor have I seen anything giving preference to IAs on a board precept. Are other communities being told otherwise?

GSAs were seen as favorable in Supply in order to get good follow on orders. Otherwise, no.

 

[squorch2]

I'm talking about folks that went out seeking IAs. If you're ordered to, well duh, you have to go.

 

[Catmando]

Once upon a time the Training Command was short of fleet experienced and top-performing instructors. So this Admiral comes up with an idea. Promise the world to the very top golden boy performers if they would volunteer for duty in VT-1 and elsewhere. If so, they would be rewarded immensely upon their return to the fleet.

You know what happened. The Admiral moved on. The promises were forgotten. These #1 top JOs came back to the fleet (but not getting their choices as promised) now a year or two behind their contemporaries, and behind in relative skills. They were bitter, and rightly so. Most just bailed.

 

[PropAddict]

I don't think I've ever heard of IAs being billed as anything other than career neutral, nor have I seen anything giving preference to IAs on a board precept. Are other communities being told otherwise?

I've heard a lot of people try to apply the reasonable man theory to it: "You're going out for a year to live in the sand and kick in doors! How can that NOT look good on a record?!?"

I've also heard XOs try to spin it that way for guys who get selected, probably to keep the guy calm and avoid a scene. Which is funny because when I asked to see a list of what GSAs/IAs might be available, I was very much discouraged from considering that route.

 

[helolumpy]

I'll agree with Brett that it is a career neutral, but it is a tie-breaker. If you are "on the bubble" with your peer for whatever board you are up for, it may push you over the top.
If you don't have a competitive EP, then it's not going to help you.

 

[Uncle Fester]

We've all heard/said it... If we were going/being sent to fill IA jobs that required our skill sets, then no one would say boo. Going to jobs in the desert which clearly just required a warm body, taking you away from the job you were trained to do, is corrosive to morale. It's telling you you're the military equivalent of the guy standing on a street corner spinning the Mattress Sale! sign.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[KBayDog]

I don't think I've ever heard of IAs being billed as anything other than career neutral, nor have I seen anything giving preference to IAs on a board precept.

The FY-14 USMC LtCol precept has this blurb (which I'm sure is similar to USN promotions, as the precept is from SECNAV):

b. Overseas Contingency Operations have seen the growth of billets traditionally not filled by Marine officers. Officers assigned to nation-building and crisis operations billets are critical to the success of our Country’s policies. The board should be especially diligent in weighing the qualifications of officers serving in Transition Team (TT) and Joint Individual Augment (IA) billets. Service in these critical billets should weigh equally to traditional Marine Corps officer billets in the operational forces supporting Overseas Contingency Operations during board deliberations.

1. Taken literally, I agree - this indicates that an IA "should weigh equally." However, which officer is better for the long-term health of the community/service: The one who spent a year hoping his 'Stan counterpart doesn't put a bullet in his brain, or the one who spent a year gaining/maintaining qualficiations and tatctial proficiency in his community?

2. If IAs are so critical, why does it take SECNAV to spell out how officers filling these billets shall be viewed by the boards?

3. What does phrogdriver think about this?

 

[Brett327]

In my view, those hailing the "criticality" of the IA billets are paying lip service to the process in order to legitimize what most see as a sub-optimal way of doing business. Regardless of how we got here, it's clear that some IA billets probably are critical, while others are make-work billets that only serve to fill a quota. The Navy's treatment of IAs on selection boards has evolved from "IAs shouldn't be looked at negatively" to "consideration should be given when an IA interferes with normal career milestones" to what we have today - career neutral. Regardless of what a precept may say, a guy who gets tagged for a 1 year IA during his DH tour is probably not going to be competitive in that squadron - I've seen it happen. It will be interesting to see the extent to which the IA/GSA thing goes away (or doesn't) as OEF winds down. I'll say this, if we're still giving up bodies by the time Hook 2014 rolls around, I'll be addressing that issue with the flag panel and I recommend others do the same.

 

[Recovering LSO]

In my view, those hailing the "criticality" of the IA billets are paying lip service to the process in order to legitimize what most see as a sub-optimal way of doing business.

^ This! And make sure we call everyone a "warfighter" as well. See, two threads merged. You're welcome.

 

[HueyCobra8151]

1. Taken literally, I agree - this indicates that an IA "should weigh equally." However, which officer is better for the long-term health of the community/service: The one who spent a year hoping his 'Stan counterpart doesn't put a bullet in his brain, or the one who spent a year gaining/maintaining qualficiations and tatctial proficiency in his community?

Not necessarily directed at you, but this line of thinking seems kind of ridiculous to me.

You are now maintaining that the guy who went to Afghanistan and actively participated in the conduct of military operations in a tactical/hostile environment is less "tactical[ly] proficient in his community" than the guy who stayed home and simply trained to conduct military operations in a tactical/hostile environment?

I get that the IA's the Navy gets are probably a little different, but the majority of IA's I've heard of for Marines are the Afghan training teams, which seem to be pretty combative these days. Also, those guys had drop holsters at EMV, so I'm sure they are legit.

 

[KBayDog]

Not necessarily directed at you, but this line of thinking seems kind of ridiculous to me.

You are now maintaining that the guy who went to Afghanistan and actively participated in the conduct of military operations in a tactical/hostile environment is less "tactical[ly] proficient in his community" than the guy who stayed home and simply trained to conduct military operations in a tactical/hostile environment?

Yes.

In Marine aviation, if you leave a flying squadron (especially as a JO) for a non-flying IA billet, there's a reason for it. And, even if things are hunky-dory and you just want to expand your horizons, the assumption will be that you got booted from your squadron for a definite reason. If you don't believe me, go away from the skid community for a year-long non-FAC IA at this point in your career and let me know how it works out for you.

You will be at least year behind your peers with hours, quals, MOS credibility, etc. When you come back, the squadron you go to (which probably won't be the one you left) will now have to find time in their already limited "white space" (thanks to increasingly suffocating administrative requirements) to refresh your quals. In the meantime, your buddies have come back from a skid deployment, are moving up the chain in the squadron, working on advancing their quals, going to Yuma, going on FAC tours, etc.

At some point, you'll all be competing for orders. In our line of work, a multiple-deployment WTI is going to have a much easier time finding a job than a guy who did a deployment as a nugget then went on a BTT/MTT/whatever they call them this week and is now working on Section Lead. And "Oh, By The Way" (another MAWTS-ism) at some point you're going to be competing for promotion. Again, who is more marketable for the long-term health of his community and the service: The guy who has stayed in his MOS (save for a FAC or PME) and worked his way up to a point where any squadron would love to have him, or the guy who essentially took a year off from flying - albeit to do (so-called) important work - and is now playing catch-up at a time when he "has" to come out of the cockpit?

I know where you're coming from with guys being 'in the shit' vice being CONUS and doing whatever BS frag SOTG has dreamed up this week, but I've seen this story play out numerous times in the past decade...and in the vast, vast majority of cases, the IA has not even come close to being 'netural' for the affected Marines.