Almost 8,000 Navy Chiefs face the chopping Block.

CMDCM Gene Treants — Mon, 18 Aug 2014 19:24:22 -0400

The Navy announced today that almost 8,000 E-7, 8 and 9 personnel on Active Duty and reserves face review and could be subject to release from the service or forced to retire. Is this good for the Navy or is it a slap in the face for all Senior Chief Petty Officers.

This Review Board is going to look at the person's entire career to determine if he/she should be retained or separated. Every Sailor in the Senior 3 paygrades eligible for retirement and with at least three years time in rate will be reviewed, up to and including the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy. Does this send a bad signal to our troops?

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 18 at 2014 7:26 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 18 Aug 2014 19:26:14 -0400

Following suit with the Army I see.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 18 at 2014 7:26 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 18 Aug 2014 19:26:35 -0400

Same recurring trend as back in 2011/2012 when the Navy axed a bunch of Chiefs and junior sailors. And I thought PTS was dead. I guess money talks, and the Navy is probably lacking it once again

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 19 at 2014 12:40 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 19 Aug 2014 00:40:24 -0400

I think its a solid plan. I am not at all stoked for people to get axed for the wrong reason. With that said if you are not performing and doing your job as a SEL why should you be allowed to hide out and collect more on your retirement? I plan on doing 30 if the military allows me to. I love what I do. I would love to see Anchors pinned on my collar next year. But, I also know that being a Navy Senior Enlisted leader is not my ultimate calling. I plan on fast tracking into the MC as a DO. People need to stay in and retire for the right reason, I understand that it isn't easy to transition into civilian lifestyle without proper licensing and degrees, but is it right to allow those people to stay in and collect a paycheck to sit behind a desk and not do their jobs and be the deckplate leadership the Navy has charged them to do?
Its not the Navy's fault if you were to lazy or scared to take the extra step to go to school and advance yourself and your civilian life. This will send a message and it will be a clear one. Step up and be Deck Plate leaders or someone will and you will be gone.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 19 at 2014 5:44 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 19 Aug 2014 05:44:38 -0400

The article says no quotas, but I'm pretty sure that's bovine excrement. The key is when they say they're looking at the ENTIRE career. Oh, failed a PRT back in 1998, but have gotten excellents and outstandings since? *checks "Failed PFA" box.*

They're not culling the weakest chiefs; they're reducing manning.

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 19 at 2014 3:20 PM

CPO Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 19 Aug 2014 15:20:37 -0400

I find it interesting that the Navy's Continutation Board for Chiefs is all of the sudden national news. Kind of seems like something sketchy is afoot in DC....

Response by SSgt Gregory Guina made Aug 19 at 2014 5:45 PM

SSgt Gregory Guina — Tue, 19 Aug 2014 17:45:53 -0400

In this time of downsizing it was inevitable. Culling from the top saves the most money.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 20 at 2014 8:29 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Aug 2014 20:29:14 -0400

No issues with it whatsoever. There is a lot more going on in these boards than the article speaks of. The board is looking for those who are ducking out of sea rotations. They're going after those who are taking the easy road in life and not challenging themselves or the Navy. I understand the majority of us want to make this a career, but when your focus is solely on yourself and not your Sailors, time to go ahead and leave.

Response by CPO William E. Mahoney made Aug 25 at 2014 12:41 AM

CPO William E. Mahoney — Mon, 25 Aug 2014 00:41:22 -0400

They say not quotas but then they tell them to remember these ratings are top heavy no upward mobility and to look at how much sea duty people have because ship should be underway and sailor belong at sea.

Response by CMC Robert Young made Aug 25 at 2014 3:29 AM

CMC Robert Young — Mon, 25 Aug 2014 03:29:13 -0400

Master Chief, the Coast Guard has implemented a similar system. In principle, it appears to be a sound idea, but I have to wonder about how it will be in actual practice given the obvious budget problems. Senior people cost much more money than junior people so seperating them saves more cash. It seems to make seniors easy targets particularly if records back to boot camp are going to be reviewed. We were all stupid kids at one point in our careers, but most of us simply overcame it, and have obviously put together good careers in order to advance to CPO. Why penalize somebody now for something that happened when they were a nonrate?

The serious concern is that those senior people are also the holders of our corporate knowledge. They are typically the most skilled technicians and keepers of the faith (traditions and heritage). What happens to any of our services when those who know what to do, and how to do it better than everybody else leave? How much worse off will we be when those people are also the people who keep us true to our core values and are most likely to honor our respective histories?

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Aug 25 at 2014 3:47 AM

SFC Mark Merino — Mon, 25 Aug 2014 03:47:36 -0400

They are going to lose a lot of knowledge and experience. There will be people who went ROAD and some others that they can do without but what a loss. Too many too soon. Just my 2 cents....

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 25 at 2014 4:11 AM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Aug 2014 04:11:39 -0400

Lets remember that this was a Navy Times article and we know that their headlines are not always the case when you read the story. In theory yes it is not a bad idea, they want to thin out the herd. It has nothing to do with the persons job or billet, but rather looking at how they are doing their job. "8000 Chiefs", there is no way in hell that the board is going to review 8000 records, but lets also acknowledge that no one that fits the criteria for the board will be exempt, to include the FLEET and FORCE Master Chiefs, and the MCPON himself. When the message comes out does it make our hearts race, sure does, but hell we know if we are actually doing our job and doing our job well and taking care of our Sailors. If you are, well then there is nothing to worry about.

I agree wholeheartedly CMDCM Gene Treants on your assessment of Sailors being upset with anything below a 4.0. I stress to my Sailors all the time that the standard is 3.0, many do not understand their Summery Group Average or Reporting Senior Average.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 31 at 2015 8:13 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 31 Jul 2015 20:13:09 -0400

It is both. It can be good for the Navy because it has the chance to put new blood in to the higher ranking spots. This will allow for some fresher ways of thinking. With how the services are changing we have to update our thinking and knowledge of what we have the capabilities to do. Sadly it will also force out a lot of people that have dedicated their lives to the job.

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Aug 14 at 2015 9:09 PM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Fri, 14 Aug 2015 21:09:33 -0400

This is called a "bottom blowdown". Anyone who served in a steam plant knows that term...

DOD is being forced to cut end strength. This always results in people at senior paygrades going away. Given all the trends in military compensation, they probably want to get rid of the salts, so that they can have younger folks who will get smaller pensions (if any) to replace them...

The military has a history of doing this sort of thing in a post-war climate. It is ALWAYS a mistake. Given the threats posed by ISIS (I'm much more worried about them than Iran, quite frankly) we need to keep our end strength.

Sadly the vast majority of elected and appointed leaders, including SECDEF, never wore a uniform, and they just don't have a clue about leading a military or responding to world threats.

When ISIS starts WW III, we'll do the same thing we did in OIF/OEF - recall and Title X lots of reserve and Guard folks, as well as some retired folks. Readiness won't be there, but we can save a couple pennies in the mean time...

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 14 at 2015 11:05 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 14 Aug 2015 23:05:52 -0400

Actually I think it sends a message to our troops who has to deal with PTS and ERB that they aren't alone. The same is happening with officers as well but it's less visible or maybe smaller scale?

Response by PO2 Sean C. made Aug 15 at 2015 3:36 AM

PO2 Sean C. — Sat, 15 Aug 2015 03:36:49 -0400

The Obama administration continues to cull senior officers and enlisted. This is bad for readiness, reduces the number of experience cedar leaders in the ranks, and leaves little but young, inexperienced members who don't know the difference between an unlawful order and a lawful one, nor how to angle the latter appropriately.

Response by PO2 Corey Ferretti made Sep 11 at 2015 8:43 AM

PO2 Corey Ferretti — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 08:43:36 -0400

To me this does not bother me they put E1 through E6 on the chopping block. But they better do a better job with this then they did woth ours. I have meet a couple E7 and E8 that are just coasting and trouble seems to find them. But there is nothing the navy can do till 20 years hit. So if they do this right it will be a great tool. But I doubt they will do this right and do it like they did with the E1 through E6 one.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Sep 11 at 2015 11:00 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 11:00:08 -0400

That is a tough one, Master Chief. I'm sure you, as well as I, have seen those that have retired long before they actually retired. Its like the boards we went before, when we were promoted, if they found you didn't have potential or value to the Navy, you continued as before. At one time, when AT&T cut their workforce by 50%, when asked it that was prudent, the answer was depending on who the 50% was. There are way more politics in the ranks of E-9 in particular than when I served long ago, not sure with my personality if I would survive in today's military world.

Response by GySgt Moses Lozano made Sep 11 at 2015 8:54 PM

GySgt Moses Lozano — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 20:54:32 -0400

It's a slap in the face! Why not get rid of some of the many Generals and Admirals we have on staff first? From there trickle down to Colonels/Captains, Lt Colonels/Lt Commanders etc.. They make the most money so why not put them on the chopping block first?