Now that Quotas are out for cycle 228, what are your thoughts on how MAP will help/hurt future cycles?

CPO Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 10:30:51 -0500

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2015/11/19/reserve-sees-rise-petty-officer-chances-active-and-fts-dip/76042466/

Now that we have seen what effects that the MAP will have on the fall advancement cycle, will the leaders see fit to change the program to allow test takers a chance to actually advance? This program, while good in theory has serious flaws. I can see limiting the overall quotas to help with over manning pay grades in every rate but what about those rates that, because of the MAP quotas taken this cycle, left no chance for test takers that potentially would have made it had the quotas not been taken?

The biggest hit to this came from the E6 tests and quotas. For example my rate, OS, saw only 30 advance from the test to OS1 while 36 were from MAP. that's less than half advancing from the test. What about BM1? Because of MAP, 0 advanced from the test. I can see MAP being a great tool for COs to help out their people that perform their jobs to the highest degree, and that's a good thing. Perhaps they should further restrict quotas available for MAP and direct it more towards E5/E4 or structure it like evals where you can only give out so many EPs then MPs and so on. What are your thoughts on how MAP did and the program itself?

Reserve sees rise in petty officer chances, as active and FTS dip

Even when factoring in spot promotions, the fall petty officer lists will be have fewer names than the past two cycles.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Nov 20 at 2015 10:38 AM

PO1 John Miller — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 10:38:27 -0500

A friend of mine who is still on active duty said that IT1 is a whopping 9%.

I for one am so glad I'm no longer active and have to worry about my Sailor's advancement on top of everything else I was responsible for as an LPO. I feel for you and all other LPO's!

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Nov 20 at 2015 10:45 AM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 10:45:52 -0500

I've been out for 15 years. What are MAP and FTS?

I will say it's definitely harder to advance these days than when I was an MM...

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2015 11:07 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 11:07:48 -0500

MAP should supplement test takers and not take away from them. It is ridiculous because people getting meritoriously promoted take away from quotas giving test takers a lesser chance to make it. New programs should help and not hinder.

Response by PO2 Wesley Wilson made Nov 20 at 2015 11:11 AM

PO2 Wesley Wilson — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 11:11:55 -0500

MAP is meritorious advancement program, its where a sailor is promoted regardless of quota by his or her CO, they CO has a limited number of times he can use this tool depending on pay grade.

FTS is Full Time Support, the Sailors in these billets are reservist however they are on active duty, they are not promoted with the active duty quotas. They are in the reservist quota, This is a problem because reserve quotas are limited. An example being a FTS recruit goes to boot camp and A school, then is given a full time billet. They have almost no chance of being promoted to petty officer in the first enlistment. Yet they have served in the same jobs as active duty. This problem becomes more apparent in the Aviation rates like AD, these sailors work full time to maintain the reserve squadrons, yet they do not get the same benefits of promotion as the Active Duty.

Manpower is always going to be a balancing act, not only are the needs of the Navy today looked at but the needs of the Navy, 5, 10 and even 20 years in the future. I have seen a rate that was closed open up and have close to 100% promotion. This is a problem because all of the sudden you have a flood of new E-4 and few E-3 and below. or several E-5 but no or few E-4. the works still gets done but billiets are now filled by people who should be doing other task.

Its not right or good for moral to ask a great sailor to wait several cycles to advance because the rate is closed. I also have a problem with the stripping of a command post deployment and then building it back up as deployment approaches. This has become mose and more common as the real needs of the Navy Vs what was projected 10 years ago further apart from each other.

Response by PO2 Kayla Modschiedler made Nov 20 at 2015 11:38 AM

PO2 Kayla Modschiedler — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 11:38:32 -0500

I was meritoriously promoted to 2nd, I don't feel it's taking away from test takers. I feel it's a good tool for CO's to advance folks who might be close to their HYT and top performers. You got to admit some people get shafted and deserve the next higher rank for the work they were doing as an E-6 etc. in the previous rank

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2015 1:33 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 13:33:56 -0500

CPO Private RallyPoint Member I think the program was meant to keep those Sailors that just have a hard time testing but are performing consistently at the next level already. But to have 0% advancement for SH1 and BM1, due to MAP advancements well that has to be a horrible feeling for Sailors who were on their last look of advancing off the exam. I think a very long and hard look should be taken at MAP needs to happen.

I think all of these questions and the perception of unfair advancement should be looked into. It is one thing to have a 0% quota due to there not being any billets available and there being a 0% quota due to ALL the billets being taken because of MAP.

The following was stated by another Sailor, "I have met fellow ETs that have been capped and said that they were capped because it was a small command and he was the only eligible one and the CO didn't want to waste the opportunity. I think this also becomes unfair to sailors on shore duty that do not have the opportunity of a MAP program. Such as HM's or MA's that rely on a different sea/shore rotation as many are on a conus/oconus rotation."

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 21 at 2015 7:43 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Nov 2015 19:43:59 -0500

0.49% for AW1. Every billet we had save for 1 was taken by MAP, and not under the best of circumstances either. Just like a lot of other rates, hard-charging consistent top performers got screwed for political reasons, and HYT's. It has been rare that I've seen legitimately deserving people actually get spot promoted for the right reasons. There needs to be limits to the promotions. All i can say is separation numbers are going to jump now that test cycles at pointless. Rank has become 1 of 2 things- political promotions or a skimmed lottery pool. Makes A great incentive to stay huh?

Response by PO1 Glenn Boucher made Nov 24 at 2015 3:04 PM

PO1 Glenn Boucher — Tue, 24 Nov 2015 15:04:31 -0500

Okay I had to do some research so I would not look too old or ill informed about this.
It seems to me that they are taking the old Command Advancement Program and basically making it mandatory for certain rates to get promoted.
In my opinion its very wrong to say that "Okay with MAP we need to promote 16 sailors to EM2 because the Navy needs more EM2's, yeah we only have 9 EM3's eligible so no matter what those 9 are going to be EM2".
I think it kind of takes away the need to study and do better for yourself making yourself more competitive than those others in your pay grade because of quotas more people will be promoted so why study harder.
Its like when they made getting your warfare qualification mandatory. What a frigging joke that became. When I was on TR I saw non-designated E-3's get dual warfare qualified in about a years time and they didn't even know what rate they were going to strike for.
When everyone is dual warfare qualified because its mandatory what sets you apart? When everyone has the 4.0 eval and has the line "Promote now to (fill in the rank)", what sets them apart?
If you want to advance fairly then make the system fair, do away with MAP, selection boards and such, make people earn it based on test scores, great evaluations, and sustained performance.
Keeping the Command Advancement though is good because it can usually ensure that the hard chargers who don't test well but know their jobs can get a decent chance at promotion.