E-7

[dan11]

How likely is it for a MM Nuke to make E7 during their first contract?

For those of you that did get out after 6, what rate did you get out as?

[JustinHEMI05]

You mean E7 in 6 or under? Impossible.

I got out as an MM.

Justin

[93-383]

The fastest I have ever seen someone make Cheif was around seven years.

[DDMurray]

You mean E7 in 6 or under? Impossible.

I got out as an MM.

Justin

It's possible if you make E-5 at the 1.5 year point off the September exam.  If you're EP, you take E-6 exam at 3.5 year point.  If you're an EP E-6 , you can take CPO exam at 5.5 year point and get frocked at 6 year point.  I know an EM who did this.  In some rates you can get advanced right away based on civilian experience and leave boot camp as E-5.  This went on in the MAA rate a few years back.  I don't know the actual stats but for nukes I'd say the likelihood of making CPO in under seven years is 5% or less.  Under eight is probably 15% or less.  I know quite a few under eight CPOs.   It was not uncommon in the late 80's, early 90's and it's becoming more prevalent in recent years.    It's pretty common in the FT rating too.

[Gamecock]

This guy did it in under 6.....although he isn't a nuke.

http://www.northwestnavigator.com/index.php/navigator/printerfriendly/chief_selection_becomes_family_affair/

As a leader, I'd have a hard time giving an EP to a junior E6...not saying I wouldn't if he deserved it....but there are lots of PO1s on a ship who probably deserve it more.

[withroaj]

The fastest I have ever met in a real life situation was one of my A-School instructors.  Made it (paid) in 6 years 3 months.  Poo hot Trident ELT.

[JustinHEMI05]

It's possible if you make E-5 at the 1.5 year point off the September exam.  If you're EP, you take E-6 exam at 3.5 year point.  If you're an EP E-6 , you can take CPO exam at 5.5 year point and get frocked at 6 year point.  I know an EM who did this.  In some rates you can get advanced right away based on civilian experience and leave boot camp as E-5.  This went on in the MAA rate a few years back.  I don't know the actual stats but for nukes I'd say the likelihood of making CPO in under seven years is 5% or less.  Under eight is probably 15% or less.  I know quite a few under eight CPOs.   It was not uncommon in the late 80's, early 90's and it's becoming more prevalent in recent years.    It's pretty common in the FT rating too.

Ok... yes... I should have said improbable. I would put money that 99.993 percent of nukes are not capable of this feat. 7 Years, ya they are common. Under 6? Rarest of the rare.

Justin

[withroaj]

Make E7 or make Chief Petty Officer?  There's a difference.  Buck o' Five.

[S3GLMS]

I served in the 80's and 90's.  I had a total obligation of 7 years seven months.  I never saw anyone make chief in less than 6 years 6 months.  I got out as an Nuke MM chief (Not an ELT) and I made it at 7 years 3 months.  I already planned to move on to a civillian life and making chief did not change my plans.  I was one of two people to make Nuke MM chief in 1995 who were less than 8 years total service.  There were 41 surface nuke Chiefs that year.  So it was rare in that era.  in the 80's it was even more difficult, especially for the Sub MM's.  I was a SPU at protoype in New York and in the two years I was there, I saw 14 people make chief.  Only two of these were less than 8 years and neither was less than 7 years and both were surface , one was MM and one was EM.  I served on a cruiser in the early 90's and I saw only two nukes make chief in 3.5 years, out of the entire shipboard crew (One was an ELT and sailor of the year at 8 years 8 months service, the other a 12 year MM who had been a recruiter and an ER LPO for 4 years).  So do not believe that it is easy or that it is common.  All it takes to slow down the advancement rate is one small tweak to the economy like we a re seeing now and all promotions immedialey slow down like the  80's and early 90's.

[HydroDave63]

So do not believe that it is easy or that it is common.  All it takes to slow down the advancement rate is one small tweak to the economy like we a re seeing now and all promotions immedialey slow down like the  80's and early 90's.

to ya. Saw this in the 80s... Audie Murphy with CMH and 4.0s couldnt make EM2 for about 2 1/2 yrs...

[Y2K]

I thought that you had to have 11 years TIS and 36 months TIR?

http://www.military.com/MilitaryCareers/Content/0,14556,Promotions_Navy_E7,00.html

[Smooth Operator]

Generally this is true and about average for making Chief, but military.com is not an official resource.

There are little caveats associated with Evals and earning Early Promote (EPs) that add up to taking the Chief test early. Basically if you leave boot as an E-3, get spot promoted to E-4 after training, make E-5 off the test first time up (very unlikely for nuke because so many STAR), get EPs as an E-5, make E-6 off test early....so on and so forth, you see guys making E-7 as early as 6-8 years.

[PapaBear765]

Two guys on my boat got to the fleet as E-4 Prototype grads and made chief between their 6 and 7 year marks.  My LPO was a SPU and made chief at like his 8 year point.  I'm talking about ETs here, and we're greatly undermanned so the advancement rate is high.  This last cycle it's at like 30-33%.  It's almost common for subs nowadays not to have a chief until the next cycle gets frocked.  That's what happened to my boat; my chief separated, the navy couldn't supply a replacement until the next round of CPO selection results came in.

So it kinda depends on your rate.  I think surface EM is the hardest to advance since there's so many of them.

[Gamecock]

There again...everything goes in circles....

When I ran RE Div on CVN-69 from 2000-2002, all my guys who were PPWS were making CPO regardless of promotion status (P,MP,EP).  I seem to remember that they even left some spots unfilled due to the lack of qualified EM1's.


Now, flash back to my enlisted days....one had a better chance of selecting for an officer program then making chief......which is why I'm an O-ganger today.

[JustinHEMI05]

There again...everything goes in circles....

Exactly. Although making E7 at 6 or under without re-enlisting and getting out could be a goal, I don't think someone should plan their career on it.

Justin

[Khak-Hater]

This one might ruffle some feathers.

Now this question could be taken a couple of ways.  First, you're a career guy and was wondering how fast you can make chief [That's fine - Good for you].  Second, you're getting out after one or two enlistments, and was wondering if you could make chief before getting out.  I'll address this case. 

As much as I hate Khaks [and I do hate khaks], I think that it's inconsiderate to make chief at the seven-year point if you plan on getting out at the eight-year point.  As I understood it, there are only so many slots and you're taking that slot from some "Lifer-Dog" first class who really loves the Navy and needs that promotion.  I've never met anyone in the nuclear industry who cared whether you made chief or not.  Actually I've seen a lot of resumes 86d because they made it a point to point out that they were a chief [Nobody wants to work with a guy like that - all we care about is if you can do the job, and Chief has very little to do with that]. 

In my own case, I was supposed to take the MMC exam at the seven-year point, but knew I was getting out and didn't sign up to take it.  When he found out about it, my Senior Chief came storming down to my office ready to write me up for it.  I simply explained to him that with my degrees, 4.0 evals, rankings, plant quals, ESWS and EAWS quals, along with my God-given talent for taking multiple choice tests that I was a shoe in to make E-7.  Then I listed a couple dozen more-deserving MM1s on board who didn't have as much going for them, but would really appreciate making chief that year for the rest of their careers.  He and the other khaks agreed that I could skip that exam and the one the following year.   

In short, making chief just before you get out is just an exercise in stroking your own ego.  Now I don't mind stroking my ego by qualifying on every watch station available or doing a chief's job if needed, but taking a slot that you have no intention of using just doesn't seem right to me.  In that case, my ego isn't as important to me as some Lifer's career [whether I like him or not].

MGM

[Gamecock]

As much as I hate Khaks [and I do hate khaks], I think that it's inconsiderate to make chief at the seven-year point if you plan on getting out at the eight-year point.  As I understood it, there are only so many slots and you're taking that slot from some "Lifer-Dog" first class who really loves the Navy and needs that promotion.  I've never met anyone in the nuclear industry who cared whether you made chief or not.  Actually I've seen a lot of resumes 86d because they made it a point to point out that they were a chief [Nobody wants to work with a guy like that - all we care about is if you can do the job, and Chief has very little to do with that]. 

In my own case, I was supposed to take the MMC exam at the seven-year point, but knew I was getting out and didn't sign up to take it.  When he found out about it, my Senior Chief came storming down to my office ready to write me up for it.  I simply explained to him that with my degrees, 4.0 evals, rankings, plant quals, ESWS and EAWS quals, along with my God-given talent for taking multiple choice tests that I was a shoe in to make E-7.  Then I listed a couple dozen more-deserving MM1s on board who didn't have as much going for them, but would really appreciate making chief that year for the rest of their careers.  He and the other khaks agreed that I could skip that exam and the one the following year.   

I agree with you 100%.  When I  was in college, we had a fellow ECP select for CPO.....the guy commissioned the next year before ever actually getting paid as an E7.  I always gave him crap for it...but like you said....he was stroking his own ego and took a billet from some hard working blueshirt that probably would have been a fine CPO.

[Smooth Operator]

So who's fault is it if you were selected?

Can you turn it down?

Will they retro-give it to the next one on the list?

[Khak-Hater]

You do still have to take an exam, right?  Just don't take the exam.  If you want to be a 4.0 Joe, then put in a request chit to not take the exam.  If they turn you down, then fail the test (e.g., answer all the questions randomly).  You're a nuke.  Figure it out. 

The bottom line is, by the time you're up for cheif, you should understand the Navy and yourself well enough to know whether you intend to get out.  Decisiveness is a very important leadership characteristic.  If you know that you're getting out, then either don't take the test, or, if they make you take the test, then intentionally bomb it.  I'm not condoning dereliction of duty, but if your chain of command isn't perceptive enough to allow you to step aside for the good of a shipmate, then they're the ones who are derelict.

If you think that you might reenlist, then by all means take the test and make Cheif, but be honest with yourself about it, and make sure that it's not just your own ego trying to collect one more gold star by screwing over a shipmate. 

MGM

[Smooth Operator]

I agree with your sentiment, but sometimes making Chief is the reason to stay in or get out or re-enlist, etc. I would not recommend intentionally bombing the test.

Doing well on it and making board sometimes can change a person's perception of their future in the Navy. Making Chief opens up doors not possible as a First.

If I was in ECP and made Chief, I'd put it on, cause you never know what could happen in the program. Also, the Chief board is well aware of where you are at in your career.

I would think the board would know that they are advancing someone in an O-program.

I could be wrong.

[93-383]

If you have any intention of using TA DO NOT FAIL THE TEST. failure of your most recent advancment exam disqualifies you from reciving TA

[Already Gone]

Wow, things sure have changed.  When I was an MM1, I didn't take the MMC exam.  You had to request an exam and be authorized by your command to take it.  I just never requested one.  When the CO found out how long I had been an E-6, and that I didn't take the test, he was pissed at me.  I still remember him telling me, "You should want to be a Chief Petty Officer."  I looked at the MMC sitting at the wardroom table next to me.  He was a total idiot, in my opinion, as well as an unpleasant person in general.  Then I looked at the skipper and said, "No sir, I don't."  It was a moot point because I never would have been selected anyway.  There wasn't anything they could do to me for not taking the test, although I'm sure the captain was pissed at me from that day on.
The down side of taking the test is that it was possible (but highly improbable) that I could have been selected.  They could have frocked me, made me go through that stupid initiation, pay for all those new uniforms, and then ripped me back to MM1 for not having two years left to EAOS.  It has been known to happen.  Not often, but at least enough to make a person think twice about seeking a promotion that he doesn't want.

[Khak-Hater]

BeerCourt,

That sounds like the navy in which I served.  Although I wouldn't say that all Chiefs were idiots, I would say that most were men that wouldn't inspire you as role models.  I remember a few good men among them, but they were exceptions.  Out of probably 5,000 nukes with whom I served on the E over six years on board, I could count the good Chiefs on the fingers of one hand.  In comparison, the number of truly outstanding blueshirts with whom I served could not easily be counted. 

93-383,

You may be correct.  I used TA out the Ying-Yang, but then again I didn't have to bomb the test.  I just didn't take the MMC test, which would be the preferred course.  If they make you anyway, it would be a personal call.  Do you forgo a year or so of TA for the good of a shipmate?  Then again, maybe willingness to screw over a shipmate for some perceived advantage is exactly what they're looking for in a Chief, whether career oriented or not.

Jason K,

If what doors are open is part of a person's "stay-in or get-out" decision tree, then it sounds like they haven't decided to get out yet (e.g., "I'd stay in if I could only make Chief and then maybe some day I could be a real boy!").  If I was that person, then I'd definitely take the test and try to make it. 

MGM

[PapaBear765]

Khak-hater's position is flawed.  The navy has established a process of selecting some people to be promoted and some not.  If you don't meet the requirements, you don't get promoted.  Simple.  So if a 7-yr MM1 will make chief with an EAOS 3 months later, then what's wrong with that?  Oh, some poor 14-yr MM1 wants to make chief.  Sorry, he's a loser and shouldn't be promoted.

It's not hard at all to meet all the wickets to make chief, so if you haven't made it in under 10 years, then you're either in an overpopulated rate or you haven't done what's necessary. 

The Command Career Counselor actually sent out a site-wide email last month when the board selection results came out and accused everyone who made board and were decidedly getting out a few months after making chief as a Buddy ******.  A long diatribe about how those people should do the "honorable" thing and pull their chief package.  Completely irresponsible.  I wrote up a response, but deleted it because it would make waves...and I'm good at making waves, but didn't want to that time.

[Alzibiades]

It all depends on your rate and timing. I have seen an EM and ET make CPO in 6 years. YOu have to hit all the wickets such as EP and such as previously mentioned. You also have to have an outstanding record before the board such as EWS/EDPO qualifications and at-sea LPO. If you dont have those in your record along with a strong write-up, you are not going to make CPO. You generally make it around 8-10 years if you have the above qualifications and leadership as you are leaving your shore duty or in the middle of it. There are always exceptions.

ETCS (SS)