Leadership? How could you be a good PO and not have leadership? The ARMY places high school graduates into this position.
Navy specs for CWO:
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/navypromotions/a/navwarrant.htm
Notice this:
The bold is for LDO's. Not CWO's. And, even then it says 'managerial skills'. Every Chief has those skills or they are a bad Chief. So, what special potion does a CWO/LDO have to drink then? None if you ask me. You are either the right material for the position or you are not. You admit you were not. Fine. Others would argue that they were. And, I'd agree with them. The Navy has it wrong.
LDO I can understand E-7 (board eligible or above) is a good idea. CWO is in my opinion what all enlisted nukes are capable of or and deserving of in terms of rank. Just like the Army does it. If you want to be a CWO all you need to be is a 'technical expert'. You say that ain't so. I disagree. Why is it then that once a Navy Nuke always a Navy Nuke? You've been trained for a specific technical trade. So, in fact you are an expert in that field.
I tried to go to the Army as a CWO Aviator. The Navy turned me down every time telling me that I was a CREO 6 rate and that they would not let me do that. They prevented me from bettering myself. They told me that I was to valuable to let go. That doesn't square with being less than a 'technical expert' in my book.
But, maybe I'm biased. I think the Chief's should be the top of the heap experts if we are going to delineate between Officer and Enlisted.
Right now I am chuckling just thinking what an engine room full of CWOs would be like. Think about it. Who would clean the bulges, paint, polish, and clean? Or how about who out ranked who? Would everyone say "yes sir" or call each other "mister"? LOL
Anyway, I digress.
When I went through nuclear training, it cost more, and took longer (2+years) to get a trained reactor operator on watch then an aviator. Perhaps that is the reason they Navy holds those who volunteered for NUKES so dear. The only way I got out of nuclear power, was to leave the service.
Now back to leadership.
Tell me how a PO in a RO division on a cruiser, where there were a few E-4's, most were E-5 coming out of prototype training, more E-6's then assignments for them, and the same for the Chiefs, had an opportunity to learn leadership skills, let alone practice them. They didn't. Standing two 4 hour watches on a reactor, whether underway or in port is not the same as a LPO of an OE division, or any other conventional navy or nuclear division for that matter. Rapid advancement in the nuclear program at the time I was in, was a way to pay the sailors more as other compensation methods were not readily available. While rapid advancement worked for the nuclear fleet, it did not, IMO do well for the conventional fleet.
Oh, by the way, not liking to beat my own drum, but I need to address your arrogance implying that I was not right for the job. Let it be known that I was recommended for E-6 while an RO on Bainbridge, when I was scheduled for shore duty at Idaho Falls, I declined the transfer instead opting for sea duty on the Decatur. Before leaving Decatur, after returning from a WestPac tour, six Navy Achievement Medals were awarded to the ship, 2 to engineering, and 4 to OE division. One to my division officer, one each to the lead POs in radar and communications, and the other to me. Four of these awards going to OE division was unheard of. I attributed the awards to my learned leadership, and managerial skills and the nuclear training to strive for excellence in myself and in others as the reason. I left the Navy a 4.0 sailor after declining a recommendation for CWO.
Finally, I agree with the Army's use of CWOs for helicopters, they are after all filling command positions are they not? A whole lot different then an RO as I remembered the position, duties, and responsibilities.
I hope in the end, you found contentment.
