Posted on May 23, 2016
Have you read and do you think The Army Warrant Officer 2025 Strategy will improve warrant officer development, management or utilization?
26.9K
23
10
5
5
0
The Army Warrant Officer 2025 (WO2025) Strategy identifies the ends, ways, and means to ensure US Army Warrant Officers are technologically agile, adaptive, and innovative leaders.
In case you did not have a copy or need to read the WO2025 Strategy, it can be found at the following link. http://usacac.army.mil/node/1191
In case you did not have a copy or need to read the WO2025 Strategy, it can be found at the following link. http://usacac.army.mil/node/1191
Warrant Officer Senior Staff Course (WOSSC)
Warrant Officer Staff Course (WOSC)
Warrant Officer Career College (WOCC)
Warrant Officer Candidate School (WOCS)
Warrant Officers
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 6
0
0
0
Chief, can you provide any insight as to why the WO 2025 Strategy was rescinded? It was signed by the CSA, what were the political considerations that leave the cohort extremely challenged to meet requirements of an increasingly system dependent Army? The message from multiple GOs is that WOs have to retain (regain) our technical expertise, how do we move forward without an adequate support structure in place? What is SWOAC pursuing to mitigate?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The field wants there old warrants back. The SFC in the motor pool knows more than the warrant. He is just a underpaid LT. I had to hit the ground running. No WO basic. Advanced course. Bunch of crap.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
He called me and asked if I wanted to be the comsec cusdodian at the Pentagon. I said no. I had been the log chief at Cameron station as s cw3.army recruiting command support command. Then called me again and said how about Aberdeen as the senior TAC for Wosc. Since I was fit. All army racquetball. I said led take my name out of your Rolodex.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Cw5 les Craig was my assignments warrant. Personal friend. Pbo. At schinnen the Netherlands.where I ran the SSA.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I attended and passed the Senior course in 1988. I was a direct appointed w01 in 1975. They made me a pbo for the 180th avn co in schwsebisch hall. Did not have any 762's at the time.As a ssg my propay score was 156 out of 160.ruck sacks? In my day warrants did not do pt.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I see a number of people feel it is not helpful and will not change a thing. Can you provide some insights on why you feel that way. As a CW5 I am interested in making our cohort better.
(0)
(0)
CW3 Kevin Storm
Chief,
First I am NG WO, who retires next month, and there are some things I think should be addressed:
1. The Army will have resources to preserve readiness, force structure, and modernization to meet National Defense Strategy demand.
IMHO this is not going to be possible, for several reasons: political climate, economic climate, Political influences on purchases of high dollar projects just to name a few.
2. Supporting Objective 2.3: Reduce Army Contract Logistical support. Going back decades, the concept of providing more "boots on the ground," has been a huge push. This would require a paradigm shift, to going back to a concept that worked in the past, but takes boots off of the ground. Will the fiscal and political will be there to endorse this concept. The paper does not seem to address this, doubtful that it could. Our political landscape changes every four to eight years. Just off thinking off the top of my head, I would almost bet a contractor wrote the paper. Keep in mind there are a lot of big players lined up at the DoD feeding trough, and they will use what influence they have to keep the cash in their trough.
3. Increase academic rigor, not that I totally opposed to this, but when two thirds of the force does not wear the OCP uniform on a daily basis, you are putting another kink in very slow and lethargic system of selection, schools, promotions, and retention. If this intent of the paper? I see this being possible stumbling block.
4. Relevance of the education material, relevance is not only important but a necessity. If the Army is fielding equipment, it needs to fully field it. That means training the force, with what is needed. Not just a full time technician, or AGR soldier, but the entire section needs to be fully trained.
5. Common Core redesign at the WOAC level: While in concept it sounds good, but again 2/3rds of the force will be directly impacted by extension of the amount of phases needed to be completed. Some of the AD ideas are very...shallow in concept to the total force.
6. Completive selection criteria: this sounds like a loss for the WO field. When the active force comes with a concept, how does that extend to your Guard/Reserve Brethren? We are now to "compete." This is not a sport, but a Cohort. If we are to truly be a cohort, and keep the magic of the WO alive, keep competition out of our ranks. Competition leads to ugly back stabbing, career techniques we get to see amongst some of our Officers.
7. Increase training with industry, increase it by 10 fold.
8. Develop policy that mandates PME completion requirements to serve in critical WO positions: How about develop policy that increases the funding to fully educate the cohort to meet PME requirements with in a certain range (24 months prior to 12 months post promotion), this keeps the unanticipated deployment from delaying a soldiers career. If we cannot send the cohort to school in the manner that is sought out, we defacto create a very disorganized system of selection. One where personnel connections will count more than the merit of their respective body of work.
9. Key Task 4.1.2 promote a fundamental change in cohort culture through stewardship and esprit de corps. After the last 12 years of which we watched our branch dissolve, lost our Eagle Rising, and now we wear scrambled eggs (I will gladly trade the eggs for the Eagle any day), I can't imagine what promotion would improve esprit de corps. Of course I started 34 years ago, and my time is coming to a close, I may be wrong on some of this, and possibly all of it, but they are my thoughts and input.
First I am NG WO, who retires next month, and there are some things I think should be addressed:
1. The Army will have resources to preserve readiness, force structure, and modernization to meet National Defense Strategy demand.
IMHO this is not going to be possible, for several reasons: political climate, economic climate, Political influences on purchases of high dollar projects just to name a few.
2. Supporting Objective 2.3: Reduce Army Contract Logistical support. Going back decades, the concept of providing more "boots on the ground," has been a huge push. This would require a paradigm shift, to going back to a concept that worked in the past, but takes boots off of the ground. Will the fiscal and political will be there to endorse this concept. The paper does not seem to address this, doubtful that it could. Our political landscape changes every four to eight years. Just off thinking off the top of my head, I would almost bet a contractor wrote the paper. Keep in mind there are a lot of big players lined up at the DoD feeding trough, and they will use what influence they have to keep the cash in their trough.
3. Increase academic rigor, not that I totally opposed to this, but when two thirds of the force does not wear the OCP uniform on a daily basis, you are putting another kink in very slow and lethargic system of selection, schools, promotions, and retention. If this intent of the paper? I see this being possible stumbling block.
4. Relevance of the education material, relevance is not only important but a necessity. If the Army is fielding equipment, it needs to fully field it. That means training the force, with what is needed. Not just a full time technician, or AGR soldier, but the entire section needs to be fully trained.
5. Common Core redesign at the WOAC level: While in concept it sounds good, but again 2/3rds of the force will be directly impacted by extension of the amount of phases needed to be completed. Some of the AD ideas are very...shallow in concept to the total force.
6. Completive selection criteria: this sounds like a loss for the WO field. When the active force comes with a concept, how does that extend to your Guard/Reserve Brethren? We are now to "compete." This is not a sport, but a Cohort. If we are to truly be a cohort, and keep the magic of the WO alive, keep competition out of our ranks. Competition leads to ugly back stabbing, career techniques we get to see amongst some of our Officers.
7. Increase training with industry, increase it by 10 fold.
8. Develop policy that mandates PME completion requirements to serve in critical WO positions: How about develop policy that increases the funding to fully educate the cohort to meet PME requirements with in a certain range (24 months prior to 12 months post promotion), this keeps the unanticipated deployment from delaying a soldiers career. If we cannot send the cohort to school in the manner that is sought out, we defacto create a very disorganized system of selection. One where personnel connections will count more than the merit of their respective body of work.
9. Key Task 4.1.2 promote a fundamental change in cohort culture through stewardship and esprit de corps. After the last 12 years of which we watched our branch dissolve, lost our Eagle Rising, and now we wear scrambled eggs (I will gladly trade the eggs for the Eagle any day), I can't imagine what promotion would improve esprit de corps. Of course I started 34 years ago, and my time is coming to a close, I may be wrong on some of this, and possibly all of it, but they are my thoughts and input.
(1)
(0)
CW5 Andrew J. Foreman
Kevin,
Thanks for you inputs. Lots to digest. I will look at each concern and try to view from your prospective. I know somethings don't equate directly for Guard and Reserves and you have concerns that we don't have to deal with on the active side. That being said the USAR and NG CCWOs were directly involved with this document. That does not mean all their concerns were addressed, nor were all AC addressed. As a top end strategy document it provides warrants some Army document to point to for developmental purposes.
Thanks for you inputs. Lots to digest. I will look at each concern and try to view from your prospective. I know somethings don't equate directly for Guard and Reserves and you have concerns that we don't have to deal with on the active side. That being said the USAR and NG CCWOs were directly involved with this document. That does not mean all their concerns were addressed, nor were all AC addressed. As a top end strategy document it provides warrants some Army document to point to for developmental purposes.
(0)
(0)
CW3 Kevin Storm
Chief,
respectfully I would ask, how many of those Chief's have a real non-military related career. Those who spend a good bit of time siloed in a military job as an AGR or Technician, lose focus of what happens on the outside in Fort Living Room. In the future it may be good to survey potential members, to ensure equal representation is present. I am not saying they didn't do there best, but just as Justice Thurgood Marshall brought a new perspective to the Supreme Court, which until his time had been all white males, having a traditional M-day perspective aids in forming future policy, that is truly across the board, and a model for the NCO and Officer sides to follow.
respectfully I would ask, how many of those Chief's have a real non-military related career. Those who spend a good bit of time siloed in a military job as an AGR or Technician, lose focus of what happens on the outside in Fort Living Room. In the future it may be good to survey potential members, to ensure equal representation is present. I am not saying they didn't do there best, but just as Justice Thurgood Marshall brought a new perspective to the Supreme Court, which until his time had been all white males, having a traditional M-day perspective aids in forming future policy, that is truly across the board, and a model for the NCO and Officer sides to follow.
(1)
(0)
CW5 Andrew J. Foreman
You bring up a valid point and concern. However, the LOEs give enough latitude for NG and Reserves to implement as needed to accomplish the objectives. Once a get some time I will address each of you concerns addressed in the first post. Probably next week.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google