SECNAV to Implement Sweeping Changes

[nittany03]

Some of askskipper's posts have generated similar feelings and discussions; he just has a different style and posts less frequently. I think what really got his readership going was the 2014 O-4 board results post and the aftermath, followed by the AMCSB scandal. Seems like they're both of the opinion that the public has the right to know things the services would rather not publicly air out.

Skipper is still on active duty, which is a powerful incentive to moderate one's tone, so as not to fall afoul of UCMJ Articles 88, 89, or 133. But in addition to that, you can call it a different "style" if you want. To me it's a degree of tact which lends Skipper's writing a greater degree of gravitas. I'm much more inclined to take Skipper at his word. If I read JQP, I'm much more inclined to think "OK, that's the biased commentary. What really happened?"

 

[Recovering LSO]

Skipper is still on active duty"

check again.

 

[nittany03]

check again.

Ah. Thought he was. I stand corrected.

 

[Recovering LSO]

Timing. Golden Path. Merit based promotions... All things that many throughout the fleet and blogosphere have called for. Considering what CPOs say they are, what they really are, and what we actually need them to be - is this a good thing?

 

[Brett327]

This is a trend that has been developing in the last 20 years and accelerated by the ability of EP Sailors to take the advancement exam early - a late 90s/early 2000s development. We have to be very careful about putting our people - rock stars though they may be - in positions of leadership, without a solid foundation of maturity and experience that comes with time in service. Obviously, there's a balance to be struck here, but most of us have seen the young CPO who struggles in this way - lacking credibility within the Goat Locker, or legitimacy on the deck plates because they're so young.

Our Sailors have to compete to meet the benchmarks the system has established for them to advance, but it is our responsibility as leaders and reporting seniors to ask ourselves if that Sailor is truly ready for that next step. It's tough to have to tell someone that you think they need another year of seasoning, but you're setting that individual up to fail if you're not honest with them.

 

[insanebikerboy]

When I was a nuke I worked with quite a few 7 year chiefs. One was 25, I wish I could remember his name.

It's a double edged sword, because a person not only has to get the paperwork but also get through the Chief's board. That said, you always expect a Chief to be some crusty, salty S.O.B. and it can be tough to have that when he's practically the same age as the "new" guys.

 

[robav8r]

A 25 year old Chief Petty Officer is too young. Period.

 

[Spekkio]

This is a trend that has been developing in the last 20 years and accelerated by the ability of EP Sailors to take the advancement exam early - a late 90s/early 2000s development. We have to be very careful about putting our people - rock stars though they may be - in positions of leadership, without a solid foundation of maturity and experience that comes with time in service. Obviously, there's a balance to be struck here, but most of us have seen the young CPO who struggles in this way - lacking credibility within the Goat Locker, or legitimacy on the deck plates because they're so young...

I work with a lot of early Chiefs and I don't think age is the issue per se. We have officers in their 20s with more responsibility than Chiefs. In fact the most immature Chief I've worked with was a guy in his 30s ultimately removed from the boat for DUI x3, and another 35 year old who decided it would be a fun idea to horse around with an E-5 by whipping him with his belt in front of the squadron staff during an inspection assist. The younger Chiefs still want to make senior Chief or LDO, or at a very least have more than 10 years until retirement, and don't want to screw it up.

The two issues I have with early Chiefs are:
1) They are often 'soft' in the leadership category, particularly when it comes to disciplining sailors, because they rose through the ranks mostly by being awarded auto E-4 for nuke (auto E-5 with a STAR re-enlistment), and then being very good at taking a couple of written exams.
2) You look toward the Chief as the guy who knows how to fix the division's gear and make sure everyone does it right. A 7 year Chief sometimes isn't that guy, especially if he has only seen one other boat that didn't have the same equipment.

If I had my way I'd take away the automatic advancement in rate for nukes and roll the difference in pay to special pay, that way you don't get an E-5 (sometimes E-6) showing up to his first sea command. I only have one data point for a non nuke hot runner who made senior Chief in about 10 years. He was on top of the game and had no issues with getting credibility with the men.

 

[Recovering LSO]

Another letter from Rep Hunter.

 

[jmcquate]

Further perceived personal attacks on the SecNav (which is how he interpreted the Corps study on gender integrated units) will only harden his resolve to implement this abortion. Dealing with progressive zealots with power is a delicate dance and Rep. Hunter's closing Hollywood esque zinger won't help matters. I hope the adults take charge soon.

 

[Pags]

Another letter from Rep Hunter.
View attachment 15498

Does Rep Hunter miss the fac that SECNAV is a Marine Corps leader?

 

[Hair Warrior]

Another letter from Rep Hunter.
View attachment 15498

Is this letter real?

 

[Recovering LSO]

yes.

 

[danpass]

Further perceived personal attacks on the SecNav (which is how he interpreted the Corps study on gender integrated units) will only harden his resolve to implement this abortion. Dealing with progressive zealots with power is a delicate dance and Rep. Hunter's closing Hollywood esque zinger won't help matters. I hope the adults take charge soon.

Can SecDef fire the SecNav?

 

[Flash]

Do you think the Air Force was correct in grounding those three Instructor Pilots, and then refusing to reinstate their flying status until a Member of Congress got involved? You may not agree with his writing style or tactics, but I'm sure lots of Air Force guys and gals, and probably some taxpayers, are glad that someone is finally willing to shed light on matters that the Air Force Public Affairs folks would rather not.

I don't have a damn clue if the USAF was right or not because we haven't gotten the full story yet and I frankly don't trust JQP to tell it since he is comes across as very biased against USAF leadership. There is plenty to criticize about the USAF but his tone comes across as way too strident and with a real axe to grind, even coming across as a bit personal. While I don't agree with CDR Sal on a lot of his stuff, I think he goes a little overboard with the diversity stuff that isn't mandatory, he isn't strident in his criticism and doesn't rely on innuendo and sea/barracks lawyers. JQP is also pretty verbose and a bit lawyerly, unsurprising since he is attending law school now.

As Nitanny put it, I am left thinking 'What is the real story?' after reading his posts.

The bio linked here is a little bit more up-to-date: http://www.jqpublicblog.com/author/tcarr_airpower/

The reason I focused on his bio is that it is a bit unusual, actually in his favor to some degree. He got command of a squadron with only 15 years in, even from what I know if the USAF that is pretty junior, and then promptly retired right afterwards from what I can tell was a fast-rising career. It makes me curious, not in a bad way, why he retired when he did and then started his blog. His almost complete omission of his enlisted career is also interesting, I just usually see it highlighted in many bios of officers.