SwiftVets.com

[Paul]

"Hey Paul. Sorry about the acronym SOB - but did you really not know what Sierra Hotel meant? just curious, I thought it was very common".


HI NC.

No problem at all. I've used that one on these boards myself. . .

As to Sierra Hotel, no I don't. I'm not sure that I ever did. Maybe it's something I've heard and then forget, but even now it's not ringing any bells.

What does it mean?
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

Hi guys:

Actually, one good thing about this string, for myself anyway is that it got me thinking more about the evaluations. At this point-in-time in my life, and years away from my own discharge, then writing evaluations isn’t a topic that I think a lot about anymore, at least not until this came up. I don’t use my time in service for anything any more and never really did rely on it all that much in the past either, except mostly to demonstrate what I was doing during those years. It’s a single line on my resume at this point in my life and not a major factor for me.

But that's not true for everyone. Some guys, for good reason, depend on their time in service a great deal in their resumes and in their new jobs or careers.

So, just to be clear. What I object to in the inaccurate way this is being presented here, even if unintentionally, as too easily misconstrued as a false caricature of describing the armed forces advancement systems as having been a ‘good ole boys club’ type of system, as many actually do who attack the service.

However, and whatever, imperfections the system might have had, as all systems do, and however many abuses, as all systems will be, then it most certainly was not what the navy evaluation system and advancement was at all. Overall, it was a mostly objective and fair system.

While there were various differences between the systems used by the other branches of the Armed Forces, personally, I would seriously doubt that theirs were either.

But this has got me thinking and I'll be glad to be clear and state it as clearly as I can. Because I believe it needs to be.

Taking care of one’s people, which no one would argue against the statement or sentiment of, means actions: Act and Deed. The old phrase that "talk is cheap" applies here. In this instance, the actions are actually associated with our speech and in particular our descriptions of the advancement system especially because of those those vets who did make the service their careers.
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

Ok. It's a lame heading. . .

The bottom line in all of this is that the phrasing in the comments section of navy evaluations, and I suspect the same of other branches, was Not what was the most important portion of the annual evaluation form when it came to the advancement system in the navy.

In fact some of the discussion in this string should demonstrate why this was true. For one, the AMBIGUITY of some of the boiler plate garbage that some put in the evaluations, for whatever reason. For two, the wide diversity, including in writing skills, of the people writing the evaluations.

Also, where enlisted were concerned, the majority of evaluations for enlisted were written by senior enlisted and junior officers. Not all senior enlisted were particularly skilled at writing evaluations. Most I ever knew didn’t enjoy the task. Junior officers and the subject of evaluations we could fill pages on. . .

But, believe me, no First Class, or Chief Petty Officer or Senior Chief or Master Chief (E-6 through E-9) and damn sure no green 22 year old Ensign, or even a LtJg or Lt (O1 – 3 – 2Lt, 1Lt & Cap for non-navy and coast guard) were going to ruin anyone’s career simply because that man wanted to and do it via the comments section alone of evaluations.

What was far more important were the numerical markings in the various specific categories and the overall numerical marking on an annual evaluation (4.0 scale – I know, not a true one), especially in the matter of advancement-and the numerical evaluation averages over periods of time.

For Third Class through First Class (E-4 through E-6), the comments sections of the evaluations didn’t even come into play in the navy advancement system except whether or not it was stated clearly whether or not a man was recommended for advancement.

A clear statement that a man was recommended for advancement or that he was not recommended for advancement was REQUIRED to be made on every annual evaluation of every sailor in the US Navy. There was no “understatement” or any other ambiguity allowed in this.

The statement that a man was recommended for advancement made the man eligible to compete for advancement in the navy-wide competition for the advanced rate in his particular rating (rate being rank and rating being the man’s job specialty, which is not necessarily the equivalent of the MOS in other branches which are the equivalent of the NEC in the navy. In the navy, a man in a given rating could have multiple NECs).

If it was stated that he was not eligible for advancement, then he was not eligible to compete in the navy-wide competition.

That’s the only comment in the comments section of E-4 through E-6 annual evaluations that mattered in any way.

For the Chiefs levels, E-7 through E-9, when the service record review board took on greater significance, then while the statements in the comments section might be reviewed (as in glanced over - maybe) then most likely the only time that the comments section would come into any real scrutiny by the review board would be if there had been a major change of some kind in the man’s performance, which would be indicated most directly by the numerical markings on a man’s evaluations or elsewhere.

There were summaries of the important and key information of interest to a review board in our service jackets. This is where in the navy the senior Personnelman became very important due to proper preparation of the service record for the competition for advancement. Personally, I’d be more concerned about one of them screwing me without my knowledge, even by screwing up, then a Master Chief or an Ensign!

Such an indication as a lowered numerical marking showing that a man’s performance had declined would cause closer scrutiny of the comments section to see if there was an explanation for the decline in performance. Consistency in performance of senior enlisted over periods of years demonstrated by the annual evaluations became quite important the higher one advanced and a decline could indeed end a man’s further advancement and the same for an Officer.

At the same time, ambiguous comments, or what might have been someone’s personal effort at such as “understatement”, were in no way a guarantee in and of itself of anything. It could also work against the lowered marks if the statements in the comments section were not clear.

For the reviewers, mostly senior enlisted career men at that point (E-7 through E-9), well aware of who writes evaluations (since the name and rank of the man who wrote the comments is not in evaluation but only that of the man who finally approved it, usually the XO of the command), the possibility of such as the aspect of the man having been reviewed by a new superior who might have had personality conflicts of some kind probably wouldn’t be discarded out of hand either [and, please, no nonsense about such as my possible lack of understanding the "significance" of the XO's signature -- I'll only adress why it is indeed significant but the limitations of its significance as well].

If the statements in the comments section are ambiguous, at that point, the service record would probably be delved even deeper into.

So the comments even with lower marks were not an absolute in a review board either. In fact, any ambiguity in the comments causing the extra work and (unnecessary if they had been clear) effort on the part of the reviewer, might only irritate the reviewer. It damn sure would have irritated me. I can easily imagine the Chief on the review board thinking to himself, “what was the sticking worm trying to say" and wondering precisely why? Either way, what impact is has on him, if any, isn't guaranteed one way or another. The professional sailor would do his job regardless. It's an important matter, whereas the statements in the comments section aren't by themselves.

That’s why in the example I gave earlier about the Chief (E-7) who received a poor evaluation, the Lieutenant Commander who was the Weapons Boss (Department Head) demanded clear comments be made in that Chief’s evaluation that were specific and addressed precisely WHY that Chief was receiving lower marks than he had previously been given on past evaluations, even marks in ranges that didn’t require specific justification (as I recall, and can easily verify if needed, those were 2.8 and below, I believe.).

Personally, I always respected that particularly commander. He was the type who would be rightly referred to as “firm but fair.” He was equally conscientious about seeing to it that those men that he was aware of who deserved concrete recognition for their actions, received it also.

Hey, no one is going to argue with the slogan of “take care of your men.” The question is, how? Actions. DEEDS. Not mere words.

In the matter of evaluations, one took care of his people by giving them decent marks in their evaluations when they deserved them. He saw to it that they received what was due them in the ways most important. Personally, I preferred to write objective statements regarding particular accomplishments by the man that clearly supported the marks awarded him in the categories on the evaluation.

And for the most part, the same was true of Officers fitness reports in these regards as well and their review boards.

Even though it’s true that the Officer’s especially liked the emphasis on phrasing and phrases and such, which is how a lot of that CRAP came to start filtering down into enlisted evaluations in the first place. . . hey, many of the officers definitely use their service records later in life and do focus on that aspect. It’s important to a lot of them. . . Does anyone need me to spell an obvious example given this web site????

"CRAP" only because of a lot of the boiler plate stuff was irrelevant to most enlisted, at the time or even in the future.

NUMERICAL MARKS on the annual evaluations.

Hey. Some rube 22 year old ensign (who probably wouldn’t have a career in front of him if he was this dim) who wants to give me a 4.0 marking and then write some vague BS that he thinks is sending a “signal” of some kind to somebody some where, oh well. . . Let the Rube go for it (actually I wouldn’t have if it had ever come up, and never knew any senior Petty Officers or Chiefs who would have either, but a 4.0 overall evaluation and be sure that no one on the review board is going to waste their time reading the CRAP in the comments section while there’s still a stack of service records to review! They're just not that interesting or critical. Comeon guys, this really is a no brainer).

I know precisely how the system worked. What I’ve been seeing here is mind boggling to me. It’s not an example of men who did know how it worked.

Hey, I’ll be glad to spell out some of the details. How the points system worked in advancement, the various requirements and how the variants elemenets weighed in.

It was discussion of awards that kicked off this string. And it's precisely advancement that that awards have substantial impact on as well. And in like manner, it's due to the POINTS associated with awards.

Awards are another part of taking care of one's men. The example of a Purple Heart Medal applies in this regard. A Purple Heart Medal awarded for a non-disabling wound is perfectly valid and also for the career sailor something his superior would do him a service in documenting. The Points for awards factor into total accumulated points toward advancement in the navy-wide competition. Advancement impacts one's pay and benefits directly while in the service and one's retirement from the service.

It's not an invalid consideration and it doesn't demean the award in any way, shape or form. No one, enlisted or officer, ever got rich solely from their service pay and retirements. A sailor intending to be a career man would be wise to request such an award (in fact any such award) be documented. Some other character has some "purer" standard that he sees as "higher", then, fine. But not as a universal.

And this precisely why in most normal cases of those who abuse the sytem, then the SOBs (see no problem by me with SOB) who do abuse the system do so for the purpose of furthering their careers via increasing their points for advancement in rank. I mean how much "ego" value can there really be for these mercenary types who weasel their way into a location say so as to be awarded a campaign or expeditionary medal in the first place?

What John Kerry has been doing with his medals for years is essentially the same as what these types do. He's just "aimed higher," so to speak.
Anyway, the Awards system for specific reasons, is easier to be abused in this manner than the evaluations system. It depends solely upon rhetoric, or comments.

I knew the system well enough. Most senior enlisted did. Geez, even most junior Second Classes early in a second enlistment knew it better than what I’m reading here in this string, most of which does not describe it at in the least.

NOT EVEN CLOSE.

I'm being blunt, but this stuff deserves Blunt.

Frankly, some of these statements would be laughable if it weren't for the increasing ignorance of so many in our nation these days since the majority of our population have never served in our armed forces and increasingly a majority of our population have no close acquaintences who are serving or have served. Increasingly, for most of them it's all become rather exotic and an enigma. Some will believe anything they hear.

At the same time, many vets don't understand the system, or only have very crude notions such as some here.

And that's not surprising to me regarding Vietnam Vets in particular. In the last years, Very few shipped over and over 75% and more only served single enlistments, some of them only 2 years.

There's nothing at all wrong with that, but only to point out that such folks didn't tend to sweat learning the details about the advancement system.

However, I served with plenty who served in and off Vietnam who did ship over. Third Class Petty Officers and above were the norm when I joined. Plenty who served in Vietnam, some multiple tours, some as Fleet sailors on ships off the coast of Vietnam, south and north. In addition to their service and tours, those men went on to make the navy a career. They did understand the system. Some few of such men are serving in Iraq now.
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

"To the discussion of fitreps - yep. Done that. Knowing full well my recommendation would be heard loud and clear at the selection board. That's how us Chiefs get our 'revenge' " {NC}

I'm sorry NC. But this sounds like a description of the system that I'd have heard from one of my fellow mess cooks.

If the recommendation on a man's evaluation was "not recommended for advancement", or even "not recommended for retention", then NOTHING would ever make it to the level of a so-called "selection board" to begin with.

I'm not going to ask what in the world you mean by "revenge", because looking at this post, I don't believe for one minute that you were ever a Chief Petty Officer in the United States Navy.
_________________
Paul

[NavyChief]

[Paul]

AV:

I emphasized navy-wide competition for a reason.

If I understood correctly, and if you don’t mind, please let me know if I misunderstand here, then one of the air force requirements for a man to be eligible to advance in rank was that a billet for that position be open at the command that the man was assigned to and serving in.

I didn’t outline any of our system, but that was not a requirement in the navy.
The competition in the navy was open to all individuals navy-wide qualified to compete for the number of positions of a given rate in a giving rating announced as available for that year on a navy-wide basis.

Further, I noted advancement practices in the Marine Corps that were also different, in particular, I saw young Marines advanced a pay-grade as part of what appeared to be a re-enlistment incentive (usually lance corporeal through Sergeant, E3 through E-5). I've heard from some that the same was done in the Army.

Any kind of automatic advancement was not offered as a re-enlistment incentive in the navy. Even meritorious advancements due to the recommendation of the man's commanding officer were extremely rare.

Such differences, if what I'm describing of the other branches here is accurate, might explain some differences in our systems. However, I really find it difficult to accept that the other branches of the service were as loose and lacking in objective standards and even potentially so easily manipulated by mere wording of comments in an evaluation as described or emphasized here.

But since the open position at the command was not a requirement, and given our system, then this should help a bit to illustrate why in the navy it was necessary to state clearly whether or not a man was recommended for advancement or not.

Personally, I thought that the navy requiring specific statements regarding a man's being recommended for advancement or retention and requiring specific justifications for some numerical marks on his evaluations (at the high or low extremes) was very good. It helped to minimize abuses somewhat and served to help focus on the evaluation.

Again, I don't claim it was perfection, only that those aspects I believe were sound.

I am curious if what I'm describing about the air force requirment is correct or not?
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

Admin note - If you are a veteran, you will know that to accuse another vet of being a poser is a severe insult.

I suggest most strongly that you not do this in the future.

One and only warning.
_________________
Paul

[air_vet]

[RIslander]

air_vet,

Amen to that, brother.

[roughfun]

Wasnt there a secretary of the Navy who committed suicide after he was told he was wearing unauthorized ribbons? I might be wrong but even combat has its unwritten codes. Putting yourself in for medals you do not deserves detracts the meaning of the award for everyone. In combat everyone finds out real quick what the next guy is made of and obviously Kerry showed his true colors to his fellow Swift Vets. Kerry has been caught and his response is to blame Bush. What a man. If its a lie why doesnt he attack SwiftVets instead of Bush. Semper Fi.

[Paul]

"performance reports were very important"

The same in the navy. Extremely important.

I'm only focusing here on the details of precisely what in the evaluations were important and what portions of them were of lesser importance because of what all came up here.

In the navy it was a cumulative total with the numerical test score from the navy-wide test for that rate in the particular rating, the numerical averages from a mans annual evals over a specific number of years and other points such earned over the course of his career for Awards, NECs, courses, and so forth, each was weighed into each man's final accumulative total score toward advancement within the navy-wide competition.

"Paul, I gotta tell you - this thread has strayed TOO far from the purpose of the SwiftVet forum and should be locked (or deleted). We need to stop "beating a dead horse" thread."

I was surprised at the route this thread started to take early on.

However, I don't agree that this thread deviates or any "dead horse" is being beaten.

As to the "dead horse", then I don't see it as beating one by providing further details and looking at a claim in greater depth.

As to the thread, the article brought into question the integrity of the Swift Boat Vets for Truth and by association therefore this forum.

I believe that it at least should be defended.

Obviously, I believe even more that the integrity of the past advancement system in the service should be defended. Perfect no. Abused at times, yes. But not so easily as some here have claimed.

Obviously, I believe that the integretity of the system th
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

I double posted by mistake. I'm cutting one and will leave this blank.
_________________
Paul

[MikeWinn]

Paul,

You asked me for a response earlier in the week, I did, and have heard nothing in response. Was I wasting my time?
_________________
LOCK & LOAD!


GunnerMike
Spectre Gunner and 141 FE
Dedicated to Rico. KIA March 14, 1971.
Love ya man.

[Paul]

Admin note - If you are a veteran, you will know that to accuse another vet of being a poser is a severe insult.

I suggest most strongly that you not do this in the future.

One and only warning.

I've seen others pose questions on this forum about the veracity of others service and status as veterans with absolutely no warnings made to anyone like this whatsoever.

My own integrity and the veracity of my having served or not was brought into question in this very string earlier.

I don't mind addressing such insinuations against me head on and plainly. Having served, it’s easily done.

As to this particular instance, I stated my doubts and a reason for them that a sailor would understand and in the context of the specific details that I've addressed here.

So why the warning only in this one particular instance?

PS My reply did not include any abusive language or terms of derision like the one to me that I was to replying to. It was blunt but respectfully worded.

This is also the first that I've seen a reply by one poster to another deleted completely and replaced by an editor's noted. And elsewhere the moderators have identified themselves when they've made a comment.

In shore, this is heavy handed, for whatever reason, and appears excessively biased and out of line.
_________________
Paul

[Navy_Navy_Navy]