Just to add some information based on current facts.
Most recent SRB message:
http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/reference/messages/Documents/NAVADMINS/NAV2012/NAV12013.txtAccording to that, Nuclear trained personnel have the highest multiples in Zone "A" of anyone on the list, including SEALS (their rating is SO now). Zone "A" for SO is 2. For Zone "B", SOs are ahead of both sets of ETs, sub ELTs and surface MMs. Otherwise, nukes come out ahead, again.
Zone "C" and Zone "D" (new zone never covered until 2010) for Nukes is now covered by the Enlisted Supervisor Retention Pay
http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/reference/messages/Documents/NAVADMINS/NAV2010/NAV10051.txtIn Zone "C", the SOs come out ahead of everyone except sub ETs. SOs don't get a Zone "D".
As for pro-pay or Special Duty Assignment Pay (SDAP), the most recent NAVADMIN is here:
http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/reference/messages/Documents/NAVADMINS/NAV2011/NAV11356.txtSeveral (i.e. over 5) years ago, the SDAP program and its values were overhauled. This most recent NAVADMIN contains the values, as they currently stand. Nuclear trained operators receive between $150.00/month (non-supervisor at sea) all the way up to $450.00/month (prototype instructor).
As far as the pay making the program better, I disagree. The standard has moved several times during my career, which recently ended after 20 years. When I first entered, if you had any kind of involvement with the civil justice system (i.e. DUI, underage drinking, etc.), they showed you the door. Did it give us a high attrition rate? Yes. Did we lose potentially good operators who had yet to grow up enough to keep themselves out of trouble? Yes. Was the program better off? Highly debateable. We often sent guys (it was only guys back then, so no offense to the female nukes) out of the program that might have benefited from a second chance. However, with the responsibility of what we are entrusted to maintain on a daily basis, a second chance is often something we can't afford to give.
One example of not so good ideas to reduce attrition was the ridiculous idea of "graduating" School with a 2.5 but needing a 2.8 to continue on to Power School. This absolute disaster allowed individuals to "shoot the gap", graduate with a rate, miss out on 1 of their 12 month extensions (back then we had a 4 year contract and a pair of 12 month extensions. 1 was activated when you got your 3rd class crow after School, the 2nd when you went to prototype. I believe they changed that since) and go on to be a conventional MM or EM or ET.
To end my wall of text, I offer this last tidbit. Numerous complaints in the fleet were about "weak" members of the Chief community. This is our own fault. Due to a culture of not wanting to ruin an individuals career or adversely lowering a Reporting Seniors PMA average, evals are not typically written in a truthful manner. Average sailors receive above average marks, increasing their chances for advancement. "Good people" are subsequently up for advancement sooner than they should be. On paper, these sailors look great, which is all the selection board has to look at.
P.S. I honestly have no problem with SEALS getting those bonuses, because I NEVER got shot at during my 20 years. Just saying