Avatar_feed
Responses: 4
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
4
4
0
You think the Politics in the Capitol are Bad. Inside the 5 sided building it can be just as bad.
(4)
Comment
(0)
LTC Delivery Driver
LTC (Join to see)
>1 y
Ask anyone in the ARNG, NGB or any TAG they will tell you its often that way already.
(3)
Reply
(0)
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
>1 y
I did 3 yrs as a Beltway Bandit. You wear a Uniform for 21 years you got a good chance of doing the DC Dance.
(4)
Reply
(0)
Avatar_small
Capt Daniel Goodman
3
3
0
I read pretty much allmofnthenpiece, as well as the responses here and did find the whole thing of very genuine interest, as well as the arguments for it quite considerably farsighted. I can certainly understand the phrasing in the piece, to the effect that the Navy and USAF being perhaps more interested in such a more flexible approach due to an inherentlwy theirmpersonnelmbeing, at least ostensibly, at first glance, more ostensibly purely technical. I don't necessarily 100% agree with that viewpoint, however, I can certainly understand I think at least something of its basis. That being said, I'd heard of industrial groups wherein there were expressly created both purely managerial tracks, as well as purely scientific and/or technical tracks. Admittedly, thatq was always, from my understanding, to bentqhe purpose of warrant officers, to ata least some extent, I realize there were other purposes, certainly, however, that was what I'd gleaned to be one of qthe principal reasons for existence of warrant officers tao begin with though I expect many might not entirely agree with my view. The same way permissive TDY now exists to allow for assignment flexibility, I should certainly think that a permissive PCS possibility, possibly with the ability to allow for a temporary purely voluntary relinquishment of salary and/or benefits, so as to cost government nothing while pursuing such other interests, e.g., grad level coursework, industrial exposure, or some other comparable exploratory interest, might possibly be at least an arguably worthwhile approach to consider, if nothing else. I don't mean to paint such a notion as a panacea, obviously, and there would doubtless be those who might not be especially thrilled by such a notion, however, I only mention it as it did, if nothing else, merely occur to me. I should certainly think that a similar approach could certainly be allowed for both enlisted as well as warrant personnel, to incl the use of points, possibly in conjunction with a temp release to a guard or reserve unit, on the understanding that such allowance might be done under the umbrella of such a permissive PCs approach. What period for such a permissive PCs might be allowable, would be something needing substantial debate, of course, however, unless someone were vitaslpy needed and absolutely couldn't be spared, I should certainly think such a methodology could quite possibly achieve a fairly large fraction of the objectives being sought. Historically, e.g., in the 1920s and 1930s as a case in point, I'd read of numerous instances of senior officers being spared to pursue other interests, then recalled when ww2 started. Part of up or out, as I've always understood the philosophy as embraced in both DOPMA and ROPA or ROPMA, I never knew which was the correct reserve acronym, was to prevent commissioned and or warrant personnel from being on active duty perpetually, as I'd also read often happened after many of the US wars, especially after the civil war, as well as later wars. There is also always the possibility that crossed my mind of letting commissioned personnel voluntarily transfer ranks to serve as warrants, at an appropriate level of seniority, in order to be able to pursue such other technical interests. Once again, I by no means expect I'd be agreed with; then, too, there's also the whole possibility of allowing interservice transfer to be also used to aid in such an objective of increased flexibility, which clearly seems to be the obectmof the proposal, at least from what I could glean. I'd be eager for any thoughts, of course, and, as I'd said, I bu no means would expect to be universally agreed with, by any means, and only make such suggestions purely to try to engender intellectual debate, nothing more, honest, many thanks.
(3)
Comment
(0)
Avatar_small
LTC Stephen F.
2
2
0
Thanks for sharing SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL the internal Pentagon drama is strangling Defense Secretary Ash Carter’s signature initiative to make the military’s promotion system function more like a Fortune 500 company, leaving the controversial reform effort unlikely to succeed during the Obama administration's final months.
I am glad that the Defense Department's most senior military and civilian leaders have spent months debating a detailed plan to rewrite the policy governing how military officers are promoted, part of a slate of reforms known as “Force of the Future.” The idea is to end the “up-or-out” rules that force mid-career officers to leave the military if they fail to be promoted along rigid timelines, providing flexibility to pursue non-traditional career tracks or focus on developing technical expertise.
These types of decisions need to be carefully worked out.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar_small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close
Seg?add=7750261&t=2