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)

[Already Gone]

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.

Your CCC was wrong too.  It is not possible to get out a few months after making Chief.  You will not be promoted to E-7 unless you have at least 2 years of obligated active duty.  The Navy will normally not frock an E-6 to CPO unless he is eligible for the actual promotion - unless the CO does it to screw the guy over (as in one of my earlier posts) or to give the guy a "taste" hoping he will like it enough to stay in.  Neither of those two scenarios occurs frequently.

I have seen plenty of PO1's carry around that stupid book for a week only to give it up.  When asked why they even bothered to take the exam, the invariably answered that they wanted to put "selected for promotion to CPO" on their resume.  That was a cheap way to screw their shipmates.  Here's why:

No civilian employer gives a rat's ass about being "selected".  Either you performed well as a CPO or you never performed as one at all.  Which do you think carries water with employers?
Most do not care even if you were a CPO.  They are only reading the part of the resume that says what you were trained for and what you did.
There are HUNDREDS of applicants for every job who turned down a promotion to go elsewhere.  It sure doesn't impress me to see that someone is so hard to please that promotions and pay raises are not enough to keep him loyal.  ( I might be a lot more understanding about someone passing a military promotion to get out, but many employers won't see it that way.  If they were never in, they'll just see you as a climber.  This is never positive)
so, having it on the resume isn't justification for doing it.

Also, the Navy may set up its own procedures for selecting people for promotion, but they also have to rely on the assumption that people who seek a promotion actually want a promotion.
If a guy is on the fence, and making CPO will keep him in, he should try.
If a guy wants to stay in anyway, he should try for every promotion he can get.
But, regardless of what the Navy system allows - or even encourages - you are not doing your "duty" by clogging up the promotion process if you have no intention of taking the promotion.

You are not only screwing your buddies by doing this, you are screwing the Navy.  You are leaving them short of the number of CPO's that they have billeted.  Those guys who missed the cut would have been far better Chiefs than nobody.  Considering that those are the people who will end up doing the work of the CPO's without the pay, privileges, or rank of a CPO, it seems that the Navy is going to get them as de-facto CPO's anyway - only less motivated.  This would not have happened if only applicants who were intent on getting the anchors took the test.  It is called acting in good faith. 

good rule of thumb:  If you might want to be a Chief Petty Officer (or whatever paygrade comes next) take the test.  If you are certain that you don't want it bad enough to stay in the Navy to get it, you have no business taking the test.

[PapaBear765]

Well, Beercourt, you and I disagree it seems.  I think that someone's PRD, EAOS, etc. should have no bearing whatsoever on whether they receive an award or promotion.  The old adage of not giving a guy a NAM because he's going to get one in 4 months when he transfers is BS.  Likewise, if someone is up for chief with an EAOS 11 months after frocking (my LPO on my boat), then his promotion shouldn't be withheld nor should he feel obligated to not accept the promotion.

If you do what's required to get an award/promotion, then you should get it.  Period.

[Gamecock]

Well, Beercourt, you and I disagree it seems.  I think that someone's PRD, EAOS, etc. should have no bearing whatsoever on whether they receive an award or promotion.  The old adage of not giving a guy a NAM because he's going to get one in 4 months when he transfers is BS.  Likewise, if someone is up for chief with an EAOS 11 months after frocking (my LPO on my boat), then his promotion shouldn't be withheld nor should he feel obligated to not accept the promotion.

If you do what's required to get an award/promotion, then you should get it.  Period.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong!!!!

The navy has billets to fill.  If I promote some guy who is going to get out of the navy in a few months, then in a few months I'm short a CPO.  Then, as Beercourt already said, some PO1 has to step up and play LCPO without benefit of the actually getting the pay and the benefits. 

[DSO]

Also, the Navy may set up its own procedures for selecting people for promotion, but they also have to rely on the assumption that people who seek a promotion actually want a promotion.
If a guy is on the fence, and making CPO will keep him in, he should try.
If a guy wants to stay in anyway, he should try for every promotion he can get.
But, regardless of what the Navy system allows - or even encourages - you are not doing your "duty" by clogging up the promotion process if you have no intention of taking the promotion.

You are not only screwing your buddies by doing this, you are screwing the Navy.  You are leaving them short of the number of CPO's that they have billeted.  Those guys who missed the cut would have been far better Chiefs than nobody.  Considering that those are the people who will end up doing the work of the CPO's without the pay, privileges, or rank of a CPO, it seems that the Navy is going to get them as de-facto CPO's anyway - only less motivated.  This would not have happened if only applicants who were intent on getting the anchors took the test.  It is called acting in good faith. 

good rule of thumb:  If you might want to be a Chief Petty Officer (or whatever paygrade comes next) take the test.  If you are certain that you don't want it bad enough to stay in the Navy to get it, you have no business taking the test.

I totally agree-- a lot of E-6's also play the game because they are spineless jellyfish and don't want to tell the command or some Chief that they want to be a civilian more than be "LIKE THEM" and ruffle their pride because the action of getting out alone invalidates the importance of their rank--if not--they wouldn't care what you do.  I was asked by an E-8 if "I wanted to make Chief" and I replied "no"  also--you would have thought that I slapped his Mother--to some I guess that rank is all they have for their ego.

[withroaj]

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong!!!!

The navy has billets to fill.  If I promote some guy who is going to get out of the navy in a few months, then in a few months I'm short a CPO.  Then, as Beercourt already said, some PO1 has to step up and play LCPO without benefit of the actually getting the pay and the benefits. 

Absoultely, and this kind of crap happens with the six-and-out crowd, too.  A friend of mine put in a waiver (successfully) for Time in Rate to take the E6 exam (1.5y instead of 3).  He made it at just over five years in the Navy, and will get out with only a couple months E6 pay.  This, while the guy with shore duty on the horizon gets denied a waiver at 2 years TIR as a second.  Super, a first-class billet filled for a couple months to stroke a super-bitter blue shirt's ego.  It doesn't really bother me that this happens, but it should take the wind out of folks' sails when they try to gripe about leadership in the organization.  I love the guy to death, but for the life of me can't understand how he can be a "command boy" with such a horrible outlook on the Program and the Navy.

Again, to all of the salty sea-dogs out there: please tell me I can contribute to fixing this aspect so I feel effective staying in.  The NNPP could be a great game for me, but it feels like it could become a treadmill very quickly if I don't ditch my youthful idealism to become another politician in the upper chain.

[DSO]

Absoultely, and this kind of crap happens with the six-and-out crowd, too.  A friend of mine put in a waiver (successfully) for Time in Rate to take the E6 exam (1.5y instead of 3).  He made it at just over five years in the Navy, and will get out with only a couple months E6 pay.  This, while the guy with shore duty on the horizon gets denied a waiver at 2 years TIR as a second.  Super, a first-class billet filled for a couple months to stroke a super-bitter blue shirt's ego.  It doesn't really bother me that this happens, but it should take the wind out of folks' sails when they try to gripe about leadership in the organization.  Give a guy who openly hates the Navy a third chevron because he undermines those around him enough to make his already great working performance (brilliant worker/technician, horrible attitude) look outstanding.  I love the guy to death, but for the life of me can't understand how he can be a "command boy" with such a horrible outlook on the Program and the Navy.

Again, to all of the salty sea-dogs out there: please tell me I can contribute to fixing this aspect so I feel effective staying in.  The NNPP could be a great game for me, but it feels like it could become a treadmill very quickly if I don't ditch my youthful idealism to become another politician in the upper chain.

Because he doesn't have a spine--thats why--he's just like the higher ranking Officers over in Iraq that said that morale was high and they didn't need any more troops--even some blueshirts are good politicians.

[Already Gone]

To answer the original question;

Not very likely at all.  Even though TIS requirements are waived for enlisted nukes, TIR is generally not waived.  If (like me) your effective date of rate for E-4 was before you even got in, you still have at least 6 months to be eligible for E-5, then three years to E-6 and 3 years to E-7.  That is 6.5 years minimum.  If the first enlistment is still 6 years, you can't make it without a TIR waiver.  Enlisting STAR for E-5 won't help because you would already have to be in for at least 2 years to do that.  So, you couldn't make E-7 any earlier than the 7.5 year point.

Both of those numbers assume that you got E-4 (or STAR E-5) in either May or December at the end of the regular cycle.  If your actual promotion was earlier than that, your wait may be longer.  Since there is only one exam per year for E-7 you may have to wait until you have 3.5 years TIR as E-6 before you can take it.  The best that you can realistically do is 6 years and 9 months.

NOTE:  Explanation required here.  All Petty Officer promotions happen twice a year.  If you are advanced automatically - such as nuke graduating A school or STAR reenlistment, your effective date of rate for promotions purpose is either the 1st of June or the 1t of January preceding the promotion.  So, someone who became an MM3 in October would have an EDR of June 1st and be eligible to take the March exam for E-5 and be promoted in June.  This is what happened to me (even though I was still in High School on June 1)

[Gamecock]

To answer the original question;

Not very likely at all.  Even though TIS requirements are waived for enlisted nukes, TIR is generally not waived.  If (like me) your effective date of rate for E-4 was before you even got in, you still have at least 6 months to be eligible for E-5, then three years to E-6 and 3 years to E-7.  That is 6.5 years minimum.  If the first enlistment is still 6 years, you can't make it without a TIR waiver.  Enlisting STAR for E-5 won't help because you would already have to be in for at least 2 years to do that.  So, you couldn't make E-7 any earlier than the 7.5 year point.

Both of those numbers assume that you got E-4 (or STAR E-5) in either May or December at the end of the regular cycle.  If your actual promotion was earlier than that, your wait may be longer.  Since there is only one exam per year for E-7 you may have to wait until you have 3.5 years TIR as E-6 before you can take it.  The best that you can realistically do is 6 years and 9 months.

NOTE:  Explanation required here.  All Petty Officer promotions happen twice a year.  If you are advanced automatically - such as nuke graduating A school or STAR reenlistment, your effective date of rate for promotions purpose is either the 1st of June or the 1t of January preceding the promotion.  So, someone who became an MM3 in October would have an EDR of June 1st and be eligible to take the March exam for E-5 and be promoted in June.  This is what happened to me (even though I was still in High School on June 1)

Now.....after agreeing with you earlier.....I must tell you that you are wrong......back in the day you were right...but today you are wrong.

Evals today are characterized as P for promotable, MP for must promote, and EP for early promote....there are also bad characterizations...but thats not relevant to this discussion.  If someone earns an EP then they may be eligible for advancement one year early....so, the three years TIR from E5 to E6 becomes only two years for someone who gets an EP...Same holds true for E6 to E7.

[Already Gone]

That's good to know .. or not.  I don't like the idea of a CPO with only 5 years in writing evals for someone that lets him become an E-6 with only 3 years in.  It gives me cause to worry about the maturity and experience level of the senior enlisted ranks.

No 23 year-old can judge the maturity of another man.  But, apparently a 23 year-old can be a CPO - whose duties would include deciding who is mature enough for early promotion.

This cycle looks even more dangerous than it did when I was an E-6 at 22.

Having said that, I can remember having to write evals at that age for a guy in my div who was about 3 years older.  He was the most squared-away sailor I ever met.  If there had been such a thing as a 5 year CPO in those days, he certainly would have been one of them.

[JustinHEMI05]

That's good to know .. or not.  I don't like the idea of a CPO with only 5 years in writing evals for someone that lets him become an E-6 with only 3 years in.  It gives me cause to worry about the maturity and experience level of the senior enlisted ranks.

No 23 year-old can judge the maturity of another man.  But, apparently a 23 year-old can be a CPO - whose duties would include deciding who is mature enough for early promotion.

This cycle looks even more dangerous than it did when I was an E-6 at 22.

Having said that, I can remember having to write evals at that age for a guy in my div who was about 3 years older.  He was the most squared-away sailor I ever met.  If there had been such a thing as a 5 year CPO in those days, he certainly would have been one of them.

This is where I agree with you. Sorry, IMO no one is ready to be a Chief at the 7 year point with one sea tour and these days, likely without having been an LPO at sea. That is a big problem with the NNPP, too many young E7s with no experience in the Navy or life, for that matter. Someone earlier said that someone that makes Chief >10 years sucks or something... sorry that is wrong too. That is when people are supposed to be making Chief. The whole salt factor used to mean something, but in the nuke world it doesn't. And that is part of the problem.

Justin

[Smooth Operator]

All of this discussion is maybe based in the fact that E-6s are treated like crap compared to the other branches. If the Navy treated its NCOs like the rest of the services, the whole making E-7 discussion would be moot.

[JustinHEMI05]

All of this discussion is maybe based in the fact that E-6s are treated like crap compared to the other branches. If the Navy treated its NCOs like the rest of the services, the whole making E-7 discussion would be moot.

That, is very true. The class separation in the Navy gets out of control sometimes.

Justin

[93-383]

Again, to all of the salty sea-dogs out there: please tell me I can contribute to fixing this aspect so I feel effective staying in.  The NNPP could be a great game for me, but it feels like it could become a treadmill very quickly if I don't ditch my youthful idealism to become another politician in the upper chain.

I don't know if 10 years makes me a "salty sea dog" but during my years on the CVN the only way to get ahead was networking and politics. In fact the best people we had got trampled by the system. It was all about who you drank with, rather than how good you where at your job.

[LDO4CNO]

Again, to all of the salty sea-dogs out there: please tell me I can contribute to fixing this aspect so I feel effective staying in.  The NNPP could be a great game for me, but it feels like it could become a treadmill very quickly if I don't ditch my youthful idealism to become another politician in the upper chain.

We have to eat the Elephant one bite at a time.  If the above behavior exists in your workcenter or at your command you can affect change at any level.   Based on my research and understanding, this same behavior exists in the civilian sector as well.  A lot of it is based on perceptions.  Perceptions of subordinates can differ from those of the peers and those of the supervision or management.  If we can align all of those perception such that they all equal reality we can affect change.   You may not be able to "right the wrong" so to speak, but you can impact future generations.  Here are some ideas.

1.  When subordinate evals are coming due, ensure the Chief understands your perspective of the divisional Third Classes, or Second Classes, etc.  The good Chiefs will solicit you inputs, the Smart ones will respect it, and the other ones, need to learn.......help them learn.

2.  When you make Chief, make a difference.  Understand all of these dynamics about your Second classes and First classes BEFORE the ranking board. If you truly care about your people you will research and understand everyones strengths and weaknesses.  Take that information to the ranking board and make your voice heard.  I recall times when, as a member of the goat locker, I was able to better represent my key players over others due to preparation and research.  YOU can make a difference.

3.  When you check out from your command go to your check out interview with well thought out, diplomatic feedback on the problems in the system.  Give numerous clear examples.  They will listen. 

4.  When you make EDMC/RDMC or Senior Chief, come to the same ranking boards prepared to rank accordingly.  Work with your Chiefs well in advance and ensure you all understand everyones strengths and weaknesses.

One bite at a time.....you will make a difference.

JB

[PapaBear765]

If a guy gets promoted and then shortly thereafter separates, what happens to the navy is not his problem.  It's the navy's.  The navy has to figure out why a guy who has made chief in 8 years wants to get out rather than make it a career.  The navy has figure out why it sucks and how it's going to fix itself.  These are the navy's problems, not the people it promotes who want to get out and not deal with the BS.  See "How would you fix the NNPP" discussion.

The more people that separate regardless of their promotions sends a message to the navy that's stronger than any letter to the CNO/MCPON, stronger than anything 100 khakis at any given command can do, stronger than any book that any of us can write.

I can't wait for the day when the admiral wakes up and he's only got commanders and master chiefs to relieve the watch.  Maybe then the "b****es" of sailors will be taken seriously.

[PapaBear765]

This is where I agree with you. Sorry, IMO no one is ready to be a Chief at the 7 year point with one sea tour and these days, likely without having been an LPO at sea. That is a big problem with the NNPP, too many young E7s with no experience in the Navy or life, for that matter. Someone earlier said that someone that makes Chief >10 years sucks or something... sorry that is wrong too. That is when people are supposed to be making Chief. The whole salt factor used to mean something, but in the nuke world it doesn't. And that is part of the problem.

Justin

Good call.  I've seen chiefs who have never had a lot of important collateral duties like primary PMS.  How can you be a chief and ensure your E-6's are maintaining the PMS schedule correctly if you've never done it yourself.  A chief should have done all the collateral duties in his division before being promoted.  Imposing some other requirements like going to CCC school wouldn't be bad either.  It's depressing when I realize that asking my LCC about this or that is a waste of time because I know that the last time he picked up the MILPERS manual was 10 years ago.

[DDMurray]

Good call.  I've seen chiefs who have never had a lot of important collateral duties like primary PMS.  How can you be a chief and ensure your E-6's are maintaining the PMS schedule correctly if you've never done it yourself.  A chief should have done all the collateral duties in his division before being promoted.  Imposing some other requirements like going to CCC school wouldn't be bad either.  It's depressing when I realize that asking my LCC about this or that is a waste of time because I know that the last time he picked up the MILPERS manual was 10 years ago.

I don't know how many times I've seen these, "The problems with today's Chiefs..." comments at these and other forums but knowing a collateral duty is nice, but the ability to lead people has very little to do with whether or not I've read the MILPERS Manual lately.  I didn't care for the advice of CCC on my first boat so I looked stuff up affecting me myself.  As a Chief I taught my guys to look up the references before doing about anything except the immediate actions for a casualty.  Maybe it was because I didn't know anything about collateral duties, but I knew that I was responsible for getting the ship ready to go to sea and that I was responsible for the development of my men and I wanted them to know the reference vice a factoid out of the reference.  When I made Chief at the 7 year point I had never written a primary PMS schedule or made a material history entry, but I could read and ask questions, and I was willing to put in extra time to learn requirements I didn't know.  You'd have to ask my guys and my CO's what kind of CPO I was. 

I don't want to sound condescending, but unless you've walked in a CPO's shoes, you don't know what it's like.  I don't deny that some are struggling and hurting their guys and the navy.  There are also many that are doing excellent work.  To respond to the concerns about lack of experience, we are starting an LCPO course this fall.  The purpose of the course is to expose new LCPOs to all the requirements (i.e. the collateral duties) in preparation to go to sea as the Chief.  I'm sure many will find fault with this too. 

Sorry to pontificate, but I think the real issue is way more complex than time in rate, collateral duties, and back-stabbing (As some have said how guys make Chief or what the Chief does to look good). 

"...the man who really counts in the world is the doer, not the mere critic-the man who actually does the work, even if roughly and imperfectly, not the man who only talks or writes about how it ought to be done." (1891) - Theodore Roosevelt

[JustinHEMI05]

I don't know how many times I've seen these, "The problems with today's Chiefs..." comments at these and other forums but knowing a collateral duty is nice, but the ability to lead people has very little to do with whether or not I've read the MILPERS Manual lately.  I didn't care for the advice of CCC on my first boat so I looked stuff up affecting me myself.  As a Chief I taught my guys to look up the references before doing about anything except the immediate actions for a casualty.  Maybe it was because I didn't know anything about collateral duties, but I knew that I was responsible for getting the ship ready to go to sea and that I was responsible for the development of my men and I wanted them to know the reference vice a factoid out of the reference.  When I made Chief at the 7 year point I had never written a primary PMS schedule or made a material history entry, but I could read and ask questions, and I was willing to put in extra time to learn requirements I didn't know.  You'd have to ask my guys and my CO's what kind of CPO I was. 

I don't want to sound condescending, but unless you've walked in a CPO's shoes, you don't know what it's like.  I don't deny that some are struggling and hurting their guys and the navy.  There are also many that are doing excellent work.  To respond to the concerns about lack of experience, we are starting an LCPO course this fall.  The purpose of the course is to expose new LCPOs to all the requirements (i.e. the collateral duties) in preparation to go to sea as the Chief.  I'm sure many will find fault with this too. 

Sorry to pontificate, but I think the real issue is way more complex than time in rate, collateral duties, and back-stabbing (As some have said how guys make Chief or what the Chief does to look good). 

"...the man who really counts in the world is the doer, not the mere critic-the man who actually does the work, even if roughly and imperfectly, not the man who only talks or writes about how it ought to be done." (1891) - Theodore Roosevelt

I agree with you that there are excellent 7 year E7s, but they are the exception, not the rule. Secondly, sounds like a good idea to me, this LCPO course. However, I submit that someone must have thought that having all of these young, green behind the ears E7s running around is a problem, too. Otherwise, why have a course?

I am not buying the "walk around in an E7 shoes" line. But then again, I don't have to.

Justin

[cincinnatinuke]

I agree with you that there are excellent 7 year E7s, but they are the exception, not the rule. Secondly, sounds like a good idea to me, this LCPO course. However, I submit that someone must have thought that having all of these young, green behind the ears E7s running around is a problem, too. Otherwise, why have a course?

I am not buying the "walk around in an E7 shoes" line. But then again, I don't have to.

Justin

Maybe not Justin.  I know that other branches of services have Senior NCO acadamies..........and I am assuming that this LCPO course is to be like this.  I do remember when I was getting out in 2004 reading that the Navy wanted to implement a "Chief School", something formal and open rather than the goat locker tradition you see, or dont see, every August.

I remember my father going to the SR NCO academy (USAF) and he actually enjoyed it.  Of course they dont really have 7 yr E-7's in the "Chair Force", so it probably meant just a little bit more.  I may run this by him to see what he thinks, to take or not take an exam given your intentions of staying in or not.  I would think that since the average airman has more time in to get E-7 they may take the promotion and stay in like Jason K was saying.

[PapaBear765]

I'm sure many will find fault with this too. 

Sounds like you're point is that if you're god's gift to nuclear power and leadership, then you don't need any prior experience or training.  There are probably some of us in this forum who didn't need 6 months at prototype before going to sea.  Does that mean eliminate prototype?  Having done a collateral duty before and knowing what the navy has put down in writing (MILPERSMAN, OPNAV instructions, etc.) gives you the ability to steer your men in the right direction rather than directing them to PSD, who can be so helpful.  I've observed/learned in my short time that khakis know the least about the navy's regulations and requirements.  The longer they've been in the more they operate on tribal knowledge.  How is that helping things?

Can some guys be good chiefs without doing the things I've said?  Yes, you might be one of them.  But not everyone, not enough anyway, can figure out what their shortcomings are and adapt and overcome.  That's why it's just better to promote the guys who have the experience/training rather than relying on "they'll figure it out."

It amazes me more each time, how much one can learn by simply observing.  Walking in someone's shoes is a great way to get perspective, but it's not necessary for generating constructive criticism or for even claiming to be able to do the job better.

[cincinnatinuke]

I don't know how many times I've seen these, "The problems with today's Chiefs..." comments at these and other forums but knowing a collateral duty is nice, but the ability to lead people has very little to do with whether or not I've read the MILPERS Manual lately.  I didn't care for the advice of CCC on my first boat so I looked stuff up affecting me myself.  As a Chief I taught my guys to look up the references before doing about anything except the immediate actions for a casualty.  Maybe it was because I didn't know anything about collateral duties, but I knew that I was responsible for getting the ship ready to go to sea and that I was responsible for the development of my men and I wanted them to know the reference vice a factoid out of the reference.  When I made Chief at the 7 year point I had never written a primary PMS schedule or made a material history entry, but I could read and ask questions, and I was willing to put in extra time to learn requirements I didn't know.  You'd have to ask my guys and my CO's what kind of CPO I was. 

I don't want to sound condescending, but unless you've walked in a CPO's shoes, you don't know what it's like.  I don't deny that some are struggling and hurting their guys and the navy.  There are also many that are doing excellent work.  To respond to the concerns about lack of experience, we are starting an LCPO course this fall.  The purpose of the course is to expose new LCPOs to all the requirements (i.e. the collateral duties) in preparation to go to sea as the Chief.  I'm sure many will find fault with this too. 

Sorry to pontificate, but I think the real issue is way more complex than time in rate, collateral duties, and back-stabbing (As some have said how guys make Chief or what the Chief does to look good). 

"...the man who really counts in the world is the doer, not the mere critic-the man who actually does the work, even if roughly and imperfectly, not the man who only talks or writes about how it ought to be done." (1891) - Theodore Roosevelt

Derek,

I agree with you in this regards.  I am in the commercial world now and I would rather see the better "leader" be promoted, not the most senior guy or gal.  I also dont think you should have to meet a list of pre-requisites to be considered.  If that were the case mobility would be rather stagnant and in a results (profit) driven world, I hope I would be smart enough to know and accept that the better person was the right person and accept his/her leadership.

Also, just because one takes the next step up, doesnt always mean pay went up.  Example: Becoming a supervisor may move you to a different paygrade or to salary and likely a move to permanent day shift.  Your subordinates may take home more due to OT.  So you really have to want to lead, not just make more money.  JMO

[Alzibiades]

I would agree that "walking around in a Chief's shoes" is the wrong statement to make. I am currently a squadron RO and I was truly shocked at the status of the experience level on the waterfront, not just my squadron. Things I took for granted as being routine I found are not. I was lucky in that I was trained correctly and learned many valuable leasons early on in my career that paid dividends later. I was shown where to find the answers to questions and how to do things right ensuring that the ship made all necessary underways on-time and sometimes early. I came across a powerpoint detailing the experience level for submarine nuke CPOs. Prior to 2000, the average time in service was approximately 11 years. Now, it is down around 8.5 yrs. This means that guys are coming back to sea on the 2nd sea tour as the LCPO. All their experience is based upon that possibly one boat and his shore duty. Again, as a CPO, I have seen instances where my brethern are not properly training their relieves. I think that you can find instances of this in the commercial field also. As a Navy, we are suffering for the consequences of poor or lack of leadership by our CPO community across the entire Navy, not just the Nuclear Navy. Retention is hard due to the good job opportunities on the outside to our sailors and the high operational tempo of our ships. I am reaching 20 yrs and should be going back to sea to be an EDMC but I am contemplating retirement instead due to family.

[DDMurray]

Sounds like you're point is that if you're god's gift to nuclear power and leadership, then you don't need any prior experience or training.  There are probably some of us in this forum who didn't need 6 months at prototype before going to sea.  Does that mean eliminate prototype?  Having done a collateral duty before and knowing what the navy has put down in writing (MILPERSMAN, OPNAV instructions, etc.) gives you the ability to steer your men in the right direction rather than directing them to PSD, who can be so helpful.  I've observed/learned in my short time that khakis know the least about the navy's regulations and requirements.  The longer they've been in the more they operate on tribal knowledge.  How is that helping things?

Can some guys be good chiefs without doing the things I've said?  Yes, you might be one of them.  But not everyone, not enough anyway, can figure out what their shortcomings are and adapt and overcome.  That's why it's just better to promote the guys who have the experience/training rather than relying on "they'll figure it out."

It amazes me more each time, how much one can learn by simply observing.  Walking in someone's shoes is a great way to get perspective, but it's not necessary for generating constructive criticism or for even claiming to be able to do the job better.

Are you saying, "I've observed/learned in my short time that khakis know the least about the navy's regulations and requirements. " is constructive criticism?  In essence, you are saying that E-6 and below know more about requirements.  If they knew it as E-6, they forgot it when they make Chief?  As I was trying to say, I don't think it's so simple.  I think you're taking my comment about, "I'm sure many will find fault with this too." out of context.  I was strictly saying that people will think an LCPO course is a bad idea.  Finally, I, in no way shape or form, think I am God's gift to nuclear power.  I did not try to imply that I was. 

In my opinion, you know some Chiefs who treated you poorly or sucked as leaders, therefore all Chiefs are evil and the root of problems in the navy. OK, got it.  If I applied your "constructive criticism" to all the E-6 and below who I've taken the responsibility for their screw-up in a closed door meeting with the CO or Commodore (part of walking in the Chief's shoes) then I would think all junior enlisted are the real problems.  I do not believe that for a minute.   

The CPO selection process is supposed to pick those who as you say, "....., can figure out what their shortcomings are and adapt and overcome.  That's why it's just better to promote the guys who have the experience/training rather than relying on "they'll figure it out.""  Your evals should reflect that. 

Who's got a better chance of success as a CPO:  A) Four or Five years on a boat where he qualified EWS, Fixed a long list of items, served as LPO at the end of his tour. or B) CCC (and did a good job), has held every collateral duty, qualified SIR and was always the "admin" guy?  By your critieria, it would be B.  But I think it is A.  In a utopian navy, a guy should have both.  But given our current manning, there aren't many guys that have done A and B.

Getting in these pissing contests is why I avoid responding to the Chief bashing comments.

[JustinHEMI05]

Maybe not Justin.  I know that other branches of services have Senior NCO acadamies..........and I am assuming that this LCPO course is to be like this.  I do remember when I was getting out in 2004 reading that the Navy wanted to implement a "Chief School", something formal and open rather than the goat locker tradition you see, or dont see, every August.

I remember my father going to the SR NCO academy (USAF) and he actually enjoyed it.  Of course they dont really have 7 yr E-7's in the "Chair Force", so it probably meant just a little bit more.  I may run this by him to see what he thinks, to take or not take an exam given your intentions of staying in or not.  I would think that since the average airman has more time in to get E-7 they may take the promotion and stay in like Jason K was saying.

I see what you are saying. Whatever reason, its a good idea.

Justin

[JustinHEMI05]

Are you saying, "I've observed/learned in my short time that khakis know the least about the navy's regulations and requirements. " is constructive criticism?  In essence, you are saying that E-6 and below know more about requirements.  If they knew it as E-6, they forgot it when they make Chief?  As I was trying to say, I don't think it's so simple.  I think you're taking my comment about, "I'm sure many will find fault with this too." out of context.  I was strictly saying that people will think an LCPO course is a bad idea.  Finally, I, in no way shape or form, think I am God's gift to nuclear power.  I did not try to imply that I was. 

In my opinion, you know some Chiefs who treated you poorly or sucked as leaders, therefore all Chiefs are evil and the root of problems in the navy. OK, got it.  If I applied your "constructive criticism" to all the E-6 and below who I've taken the responsibility for their screw-up in a closed door meeting with the CO or Commodore (part of walking in the Chief's shoes) then I would think all junior enlisted are the real problems.  I do not believe that for a minute.   

The CPO selection process is supposed to pick those who as you say, "....., can figure out what their shortcomings are and adapt and overcome.  That's why it's just better to promote the guys who have the experience/training rather than relying on "they'll figure it out.""  Your evals should reflect that. 

Who's got a better chance of success as a CPO:  A) Four or Five years on a boat where he qualified EWS, Fixed a long list of items, served as LPO at the end of his tour. or B) CCC (and did a good job), has held every collateral duty, qualified SIR and was always the "admin" guy?  By your critieria, it would be B.  But I think it is A.  In a utopian navy, a guy should have both.  But given our current manning, there aren't many guys that have done A and B.

Getting in these pissing contests is why I avoid responding to the Chief bashing comments.

I agree with what you are saying, A is the choice I would make. I hope you don't think that I was bashing Chiefs, because I didn't mean it like that. I am just saying that a 25 year old Chief, in my opinion, doesn't have the where with all to lead a guys in his peer group... for the most part. Again, I have known some excellent young/early Chiefs but for the most part, they performed, acted and were treated more like senior E6s... up and down the COC. That isn't meant to be a bash, just an observation.

Justin

[LDO4CNO]

I don't know how many times I've seen these, "The problems with today's Chiefs..." comments at these and other forums but knowing a collateral duty is nice, but the ability to lead people has very little to do with whether or not I've read the MILPERS Manual lately.  I didn't care for the advice of CCC on my first boat so I looked stuff up affecting me myself.  As a Chief I taught my guys to look up the references before doing about anything except the immediate actions for a casualty.  Maybe it was because I didn't know anything about collateral duties, but I knew that I was responsible for getting the ship ready to go to sea and that I was responsible for the development of my men and I wanted them to know the reference vice a factoid out of the reference.  When I made Chief at the 7 year point I had never written a primary PMS schedule or made a material history entry, but I could read and ask questions, and I was willing to put in extra time to learn requirements I didn't know.  You'd have to ask my guys and my CO's what kind of CPO I was. 

I don't want to sound condescending, but unless you've walked in a CPO's shoes, you don't know what it's like.  I don't deny that some are struggling and hurting their guys and the navy.  There are also many that are doing excellent work.  To respond to the concerns about lack of experience, we are starting an LCPO course this fall.  The purpose of the course is to expose new LCPOs to all the requirements (i.e. the collateral duties) in preparation to go to sea as the Chief.  I'm sure many will find fault with this too. 

Sorry to pontificate, but I think the real issue is way more complex than time in rate, collateral duties, and back-stabbing (As some have said how guys make Chief or what the Chief does to look good). 

"...the man who really counts in the world is the doer, not the mere critic-the man who actually does the work, even if roughly and imperfectly, not the man who only talks or writes about how it ought to be done." (1891) - Theodore Roosevelt

Well said Senior Chief,

When I came in seven year chiefs were plentiful.  As a student in Power school, I remember there were more Chiefs with one hash mark than with two or more.  The Master Chief who made the most lasting and influential impression on me  was a 13 year MMCM at the age of 30, and was phenomenal in every way.  I had the good fortune to be initiated as a Chief while working for him, and it was a privilege.  The bottom line is not everyone is destined to make Chief at the same time.  The system IS FAIR.  I have participated in the selection process and seen how it works first hand.  For an organization (Navy) that is promoting people from all walks of life stationed all over the globe, I have yet to hear anyone propose a better system. 

Needs of the navy change, and advancement opportunities follow suit.  There was a 5 year stint around the Tailhook era where Nuclear LDO selection was < 5 candidates every year.  Then the floodgates opened and it has been hovering near 40 Nuclear candidates a year for a decade.  Needless to say the experience level of the successful candidates has changed accordingly.  That is how the cookie crumbles.

It is unfortunate that some on these boards don't understand that one not be need the system expert on every part of the division to be the one worthy of Chief.  Chiefs remain the backbone of the Navy.  It is not because they know everything.  It is because they have experience, are proven, talented, and passionate.

I would argue that being a great Chief, is similar to being a great EWS or EOOW.  The day we qualified EWS or EOOW we all know we were not the most competent at the watch.  But through more experience, study, drill debriefs, watchteam backup and reflection we hone our skills, not unlike a new Chief being mentored in the Goat Locker.

Regarding what requirements the Khakis should be training their troops on, I have always researched it on my own.  It doesn't matter if it is a principle behind an IA, pay issues, or leave policies.    The job of the Chief is to team em to fish , not give em one. 

As long as I am ranting, let me discuss EVALS and FITREPS.   This should start some healthy controversy.  I have always been amazed at the vast # of sailors who pride themselves on never writing their own EVALS.  These tend to be the same ones who complain of poor recognition from the command.  These guys are doing themselves a disservice.  If they honestly think the Chief and Div "O" (Spoken "FNG") have time to dedicate hours into honing a superb EVAL for all of their troops, they are sadly mistaken. I have always ensured my guys Evals were well written, but witnessed many who didn't for a wide variety of reasons.   Senior second classes and above should submit EVAL input in the format of a completed EVAL. 

I Digress. 

Keep it up Senior Chief, We need more like you.

JB       

[Preciousblue1965]

Well I think one aspect that is being overlooked is how nukes get used to being promoted fairly quickly.  As an 8+ and out, I spent as much time as an E-6 as I did as an E-4 through E-5 combined. (Full disclosure I was a STAR baby).  When you go to boot as an E-3, get E-4 just a few months later, can get E-5 just over a year after that, and possibly make E-6 at your 4 year point(with an EP as a second class), you get used to getting promoted fairly quickly.  SO when you are up for E-7 after being a first for 3 years, and you still haven't been promoted you start to get a little disgruntled, especially when your rate is locked up and guys that are in less than you but in different rates are getting moved up. 

While I agree that there should be consideration done for guys/gals that are getting out that get CPO selected, in the same breath I feel that it does serve a useful purpose.  If you had half of the people you just promoted to CPO get out of the Navy less than a year after you promoted them, would it not make you wonder what the #$*(& was goign on in your program?  While there are countless people that don't get picked up for CPO that are very deserving, there are also those who don't deserve to get picked up that do.  Every year when the results come out, there is always at least one or two that fall into the "How the heck did that guy make Chief" category. 

Well that is my two cents. 

[PapaBear765]

It's really easy to bash chiefs, as well as officers and blueshirts are just as easily "bashable."  I'm not bashing anyone.  If it came off that way, sorry.

In A School, some CPO said, "The chiefs run that navy."  I believed him.  When I got to my boat, every nuke CPO was very experienced and knowledgeable.  Anyone could ask them a question and believe what they said to be true and accurate.  The same could be said for the forward chiefs too.  So I had a great respect for chiefs.

By the time I transferred the chief's quarters had completely been changed out and the replacements were some of the worst people I could have imagined.  So I think I've seen a mix of both types of chiefs, and feel able to comment on how a chief should act.

One of my many EDMCs came back from a nuke chief's conference held by the NR EDMC at the time and he spoke about how it's wrong that a nuke E-7 makes E-8 and someone wants to make him an EDMC but can't because there's a lot of advice from the more senior CPOs who say the guy isn't ready.  So it's not just E-6 to E-7 not being ready for the job, but all of the higher paygrades as well.