4
4
0
Fleet Master Chief Russell Smith Addresses the issue with the involuntary orders for some Chies to return to sea duty.
Why involuntary orders for chiefs are necessary
Posted from navytimes.comPosted in these groups: 
CPO
CPO
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 2
2
2
0
The CPO community shouldn't be surprised... the article says that they have tried for years to handle it with voluntary methods. So, enough CPO's didn't take it that the voluntary was a big hint that you should... the manning issues are always tough, but you did join a sea going service. They are CPO's, they'll figure it out and some DIVOs and sailors will be lucky to have the leadership and experience.
(2)
(0)
(2)
(0)
LT Brad McInnis
MCPO Roger Collins - I think, no I know, that a strong Goat locker is absolutely vital for the well-being of our Navy. These manning issues seem to come up every 10 years or so, when the consequences of policy become more clear. To me, more CPO's at sea is a great thing! That is what we are, a sea going service. There are plenty of times when I came across E-7+ at shore commands, and as a 1st tour DIVO, I had more sea time then they did...
(0)
(0)
SCPO (Join to see)
LT Brad McInnis AIP didn't work for arduous and overseas duty, not sure why they thought the voluntary sea duty pay would work. Millington only has their self to blame in my opinion, as this quote from the article relates to:
"Every year we advance to vacancies, anointing new leaders, but subsequently failing to then recapitalize on these selections by moving them into the very jobs we selected them for."
A lot of PO1s advanced to Chief are allowed to continue their Sea/Shore rotation. Take me for example, I chose orders to ATG as and ET1, 5 months later I was selected to Chief, but kept my orders to ATG. Or what also happens is new Chiefs are kept at their current ship/command. The year before I made it we had a BM1 selected to BMC, a year and a half later when I PCS'd he was still there, MUSTIN had 2 BMCs for almost two years.
I never understood why the Navy always feels like they need to bribe Sailors to fill certain billets. If Millington realized that CPO at sea billets were undermanned, then they just need to issue ORDERS to send Chiefs to sea. As usual though they wait till its to late and have to do something drastic.
"Every year we advance to vacancies, anointing new leaders, but subsequently failing to then recapitalize on these selections by moving them into the very jobs we selected them for."
A lot of PO1s advanced to Chief are allowed to continue their Sea/Shore rotation. Take me for example, I chose orders to ATG as and ET1, 5 months later I was selected to Chief, but kept my orders to ATG. Or what also happens is new Chiefs are kept at their current ship/command. The year before I made it we had a BM1 selected to BMC, a year and a half later when I PCS'd he was still there, MUSTIN had 2 BMCs for almost two years.
I never understood why the Navy always feels like they need to bribe Sailors to fill certain billets. If Millington realized that CPO at sea billets were undermanned, then they just need to issue ORDERS to send Chiefs to sea. As usual though they wait till its to late and have to do something drastic.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
As I said in another social site, let's first clean out the bloated staffs that go on to become Command Master Chiefs due to proximity of top management in the Navy, then go for those of us that served on sea duty for years with minimal exposure.
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
Not likely, Dennis. I'm the same person today that I was in the military. Very outspoken.
(1)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
Thanks, for some reason, my "talents" were appreciated by surface warfare types and aviators much more than nuclear sub officers. My last two promotions were a result of those types and their Evals.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google