Naval War College Graduates First Command Master Chiefs

http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=21072

 

It took this eternal civilian a while to catch the novelty of these men's enrolment at the Naval War College--enlisted men, not officers--but I'm glad the experiment proved successful. Good news for the democratisation of educational access!

 

Glad to see the Navy recognizing and creating educational opportunities at the graduate level for senior enlisted. I wish the Army would follow the Navy implementing a program like this. I suppose I can't complain too much, the Army is paying all of my MBA education (in conjunction with the GI Bill of course), but it would be nice to have a year or two to go full time and in person to school.

SFC W Parker

 

Any military officer worth their salt will recognize the value of an experienced NCO, and use that experience to their advantage. It's good to see the Navy is now officially recognizing that.

It was always amusing to me to see a newly-minted brown bar (2nd Lieutenant), especially a ring-banger (West Point graduate), take on a First Sergeant, and then lose miserably.

 

Interesting demonstration of personnel wastage - at a time the military is short of people.

Regardless of how well the master chief's performed - our tax dollars have just been wasted.

 

Jim,

I wonder what you are making this statement? Is it based on your experiences in the military? Please explain.

Thanks

Fred

 

Re: Re: Naval War College Graduates First Command Master Chiefs

You lost me on this one.

I see this as an example of the shifting responsiblity of the enlisted ranks. Enlisted personnel are filling roles that were once traditionally slotted for officers. Having an educated enlisted force that can fill these roles ultimately saves the military money by having the ability to reduce its officer corp.

 

Airtorn,

I agree with you. It makes sense from several angles. First, as you mention, it will let some senior enlisted take positions of authority and responsibility previously held by officers. Second, it enpowers selected senior leadership with additional tools to accomplish the mission. It is a win-win for all concerned in my opinion.

Oh, by the way, I served on active duty in the Navy for 26 years. During my time in the service, I advaned from E-1 to E-7 (Chief Personnelman) then was subsequently seleted for a commission under the Limited Duty Officer Program and served 15 more years. I would have liked the opportunity to attend the Naval War College when I was enlisted.

All the best,

Fred

 

And you are both incorrect - no master chief is going to "fill a slot" in place of an officer slot that requires that school - this is an example of "personnel wastage" - both as a taxpayer, and as a retired field grade - and as an ex-military personnel officer. Those personnel should have been earning their pay instead of going to that school - about like sending an officer to sniper school or pathfinder school - no value added.

 

Jim,

I don't see how you are more qualified than me to state that it is a waste of manpower to send Master Chiefs to the War College. What about the amount of money that is spent to send junior officers. Your agrument that Master Chiefs willl assume the jobs of junior officers is not valid. If you read the article that Charles had linked you will see that they are sending Master Chiefs to hone their thinking skills to serve in joint billets. By the way, my entire time in the Navy was spent in the personnel field so my opinion probably carries as much weigh as yours. Second, I served as enlisted to paygrade E-7, Chief Petty Officer, prior to obtaining my commission.

When I was commissioned in 1980 under the Limited Duty Officer field, I only had a high school diploma. I later obtained my bachelors and have subsequently completed a Masters. However, having a degree would have been invaluable to me in doing my job.

So, what makes our views wrong and your right?

Fred

 

If this were true, this would be a terrible waste of an E-9's time, particularly when there are so many 0-1 to 0-2 officers running about needing gainful employment. Speaking as a taxpayer and being married to a retired HMC, I want the E-9's doing the sort of senior leadership positions for which they are qualified. Since by the time they are an E-9, they probably have 25 years or so in, as opposed to an O-1 or 0-2 with three or four years in. With due respect to 'the needs of the Navy', I suspect that few E-9's are going to be in a billet that could be adequately filled by a 0-1 or 0-2, unless of course the billet must be filled by a commissioned officer.

PS: In some years past, I did some guest lecturing at the evening MBA\MHA\MPA degree programs through a number of colleges down at McChord and Ft. Lewis. I thought it interesting that there were usually more senior enlisted students (E-6 on up) in the classes than there were commissioned officer students.

 

I think you are highly qualified to state that this is personal wastage. The fact that you cannot indicates may indicate that you do not understand the concept of effective personnel utilization.

Without knowing "what" you did, I really can't comment on how your education made you "invaluable" - and is not germane to the fact tha War College is not any degree - it's a degree for senior officers giving orders - MC's are not going to be in that position.

I'm really not interested in a discussion that you are emotionally locked into - I have no desire of putting you in the position of defending your track record.

 

Jim,

I don't need to defend my position because my position is the same as the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations who felt strong enough to authorize Master Chiefs to attend the Naval War College.

You have given us nothing to support your agrument that this is waste. I could make the agrument that the Naval War College is not required for Officers since the Navy and the Marine Corps obtains about 10 percent of their officers from the enlisted ranks without a requriement for even a bachelors degrees. Most of them perform in a variety of jobs without the need to obtain advanced degrees. Having stated that, I think education helps everyone regardless of paygrade. Furthermore, unless you hare a Detailer, assignment officer, you are in no position to state that this is waste. The Navy might use them in a variety of ways that you or I willl not know. Moreover, they are only sending a handful of Master Chiefs for a trial run.

My point is that several people on this board included me who served over 26 years in the Navy, 11 as enlisted and 15 as an officer, don't seem to think that this is so bad an idea.

Finally, the return on investment for education is hard to measure even for Officers that are sent to postgraduate school. Some of them that go are passed twice and send home. So, I would call that more of a waste than sending a handful of Master Chiefs to the Naval War College.

Fred

 

Fred,

I doubt your position is the same as the "Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations" - since I doubt he personally approved the matter ("for the commander" is a standard blurb) - it is interesting that you felt it necessary to hide in his shadow.

Your point that several people in the navy don't think this is bad goes to the point that you apparently confuse "goupthink" with right and wrong - and we're back to "shadow hiding" again.

In a nutshell, those MC's should have been earning their pay instead of attending that course on the taxpayer dime and time - something you really seem to be having trouble understanding.

Best wishes in your future endeavors.

 

The Department of Defense (that other Group) does want Sr. NCOs to have at least AA degrees, and BS and higher is not frowned upon, in fact it is encouraged. To say that Sr. NCOs do not make decisions is asinine, in todays assymetrical and dynamic battlefield you usually operate in small teams that are de-centralized, and we expect these young NCOs to have a grasp on the situation and quickly assess the situation and understand the implications of their decisions on the tactical and strategic situation, or what we call the strategic squad leader, due to digitization and globalization, decisions on the battlefield are quickly broadcast around the globe near instantly. Like it or not, the military is in the midsts of change, and many of the old paradigms have and are shifting to new ways of doing business, this includes revamping the NCO education system, providing more opportunities for education, and in the future requiring AA & BS degrees for promotion to the Sr. NCO ranks. Sorry you feel that by paying for my undergrad and currently my MBA studies it was a waste of "your" tax money, though most Field Grade Officers I know believe that more Sr. NCOs should pursue higher education. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

SFC W Parker
A TRP 3/4 Cav
IBCT Reconnaissance Squadron
3rd BDE 25th ID(L)
Schofield Barracks, HI

 

Mr. Morgan, I note that in various postings on this board, you have identified yourself as a field grade officer (with at least the rank of major), a military personnel officer, and that you spent at least five years active duty in the Mid-East. I assume that you must have been in the Adjutant General Corps. Perhaps you were a 42B.

I further note that you are seeking a doctorate from NCU, and are teaching computer courses at Roosevelt University with a master's. Unfortunately, no one with the name of 'Morgan' is listed as an active or adjunct faculty member on the RU website, and in using the coursefinder, I cannot see that anyone named 'Morgan' has taught any courses there for the last three terms.

In order to give us some perspective on your qualifications to speak on wastage of taxpayer dollars in military personnel matters, perhaps you would be so kind as to list your MOS and a precis of the training courses that you took on active duty. If you have indeed reached the course of at least major, I would be astonished to see if you have not taken courses directly within your specialty to get your ticket punched.

Thank you for your service to our country.

 

Typo above. That would be the 'rank' of at least major.

 

Jim,

I don't have trouble understanding group think. I would be the first to say something if I thought sending a select few Master Chiefs to the War College is the waste of tax payers money. But, I don't believe sending a select group of Master Chiefs that have probably been well screened to insure that they will be a success in an academic environment is waste. Here is why:

Lets look at this a little closer. First, most of the officers that are selected for the Navy War College are junior officers instead of senior officers who are selected usually after their first or second assignment to attend a Masters Program instead of the traditional shore duty. a significant number of these officers, about 20-30 percentage, will never advance beyond the paygrade of 0-3 because of failure to select twice and will be involuntarily released from active duty or retired if eligibile. If there is a waste of taxpayers money it is probably here since the screening for selection to the Naval War College is more about academics than FITREPs because the Navy's FITREP system has a halo effect in place where most officers including the junior ones receieve good grades which causing the Navy Personnel Command to use other criteria in addition to FITREPS to select personnel for advancement and special assignments such as the Navy War College.

Second, Master Chiefs, probably have an average of 20 years of service, when selected for the Navy War College and then on in a small number. Not like the junior officers who are selected in lieu of a first shore assignment without much more experience than one assignment at sea or overseas duty.

Third, the intent of sending these Master Chiefs is to hone their analytical skills so that they can contribute to the mission which in some cases will be joint assignments. In my opinion, the Navy feels that sending some Master Chiefs to the War College will contribute to the achievement of objectives towards stratetgic goals of commands. By the way, the Marine Corps select enlisted personnel to attend of a regular basis in a few occupational groups such as information technology. They have done it for several years.

I am not sure about the Army or The Air Force buy they could be doing the same thing.

The bottom line, I don't understand why you feel that sending a select group of Master Chiefs who have been better screened to insure that they will be successful in a academic environment than junior officers who are routinely assigned instead of a first assginment to shore duty.

Fred

 

Michael,

Lot's of bad guessing here...I suggest...since this is really a tempest in a teapot, you e-mail me at [email protected]. Nothing I say is going to change your opinion - since this is an emotional issue for you - and there's no point in boring others.

 

Same

Jimnagrom,
In SF WO's run teams. They are all from senior NCO status with a lot more experience than any Banger, ROTC, or OCS graduate, that was never an NCO.

Parker has earned everything he gets. The NCO's get things done. We've had one, one, one 0-6 killed during our current conflict. And he was awarded his rank posthumously.

The senior NCO's and WO's carry more weight and receive more respect than any officer. And any senior officer will tell you, if he is honest, he depends more on his top NCO's/WO's than his mid-level officers. Different jobs, different responsibilities.

Until this last war, thousands of officers had never been in combat. Nearly all the senior NCO's had. So, if you think it is a waste of money, why not complain about the waste Congress spends on BS instead of better training for the guys/gals putting their entire lives into the military.

During Nam we were sending Generals to chopper school. Makes a lot of sense? Sending your senior NCO's to training, just to familiarize them with the problems officers consider, is worth the expense.

The Army sends officers to NWC and hopefully, will follow the Navy's lead. And just for your enlightenment, officers are leaving in droves. The times are changing, we don't risk lives needlessly, for a dirt hill, to bolster someones ego.

I cannot find senior officers (SF) that have not been to Ranger, Pathfinder, Jump Master, HALO, SCUBA and a half dozen other schools, as officers. It is their responsibility to understand the capabilities of their personnel. A two-way street.

Seems like you're alone on this one. I believe everyone posting, except Uncle, has been either an NCO, officer or both. And Uncle is with us, as far as education goes.

So, have a happy holiday season and jump on Gregg DesElms. He'll keep you busy, wear your eyeballs out, and make you think. Not that these others wouldn't, they are just a little less prolific.

And, no one hides on this forum.