Wednesday, April 27, 2016

Missing 0007?


 Special Duty Officer (Information Warfare)
Casey Ann Elizabeth          0011  
Chinn Colin W                0008
Cole Harold T                0009  
Elliot Michael Charlto       0003
Frank Shelly Von             0005  
Hausvik Jenna K              0001
Hendersoncoffey James        0002  
Schoolsky Owen Michael       0010
Vegter Henry M               0006  
Zirkle Daryk E               0004

30 comments:

Anonymous said...

Guessing that the missing 007 is either CDR Sung or CDR Brooks, but guess we will eventually find out.

Anonymous said...

Wow, only 1 of 4 those who were or are currently are a CO were selected...wonder what that means?!

Anonymous said...

7 of 11 good picks from my point of view. We left some COs on the table. That is a mistake. What do we value? It is not clear to me. What do we tell our wardrooms?

Sean Heritage said...

Anon 0924: I suggest we continue to remind our teammates to do what they love and to do it well. I can tell you that I'd rather have O5 Command and not make O6 than to have not had it and make it - both is great, though :). I agree that we must make it clear that a P in Command is valued more than an EP anywhere else.

Anonymous said...

Very well said Sean. The P in Command is exactly what is doing this. This then leads to non-select for major command since your last command is viewed by our colleagues and leadership as a failure. The downward spiral starts by merely being junior to your equally at risk colleagues a year ahead of you on the IWOL. That and the non-transparency of O6 Command selection (who is a QIO) rightfully means our best and brightest vote with their feet since the community turns its back on you.
Equally interesting is that some are immune - on the list while under or already investigated. We have plenty who have not been.

Anonymous said...

We could start by doing away with the idea of giving all of our most senior officers a chance to sit on the board based on it being their "turn". We don't have a long term plan on how we select these people for promotion. After selecting the top two this year, it really didn't matter who was selected beyond that point. This is not a group of superstars. Makes not being selected sting even worse for me.

Anonymous said...

HAUSVIK JENNA K
LINDY FRED L
LIND RACHEL JOY VELASCO
HENDERSONCOFFEY JAMES H
ELLIOT MICHAEL CHARLTON
ZIRKLE DARYK E
FRANK SHELLY VON
LEPORATI JOSEPH PATRICK
BOWMAN STACY A
DROTAR JOHN RONALD
VEGTER HENRY M
SUNG LUCIANA
WOOD WILLIAM LEE
BOWEN CHRISTOPHER L
SPEARS VICTOR LEE III
CLIFFORD CHARLES EDWARD
BROOKES DANIEL M
ACHEE JAMIE WILLIAM
MOORE JEFFREY SCOTT
CHINN COLIN W
COLE HAROLD T
SUH ROBERT JOON
WHEATON DOUGLAS ALAN
SEARS JOSEPH DAVID
JAMES BARRY LAMAR JR
SCHOOLSKY OWEN MICHAEL

Senior IW Detailer said...

Notes and stats from Senior IW Detailer:

" Please join me in congratulating our newest CW CAPTAIN Selects!

CDR Ann Casey, XO NCWDG
CDR Colin Chinn, NIOC MD OPS
CDR Hal Cole, XO NIOC GA
CDR Mike Elliot, OPNAV N2N6 DEA
CDR Shelly Frank, NCU 29
CDR Jenna Hausvik, NSA/CSS Hawaii
CDR Jamey Hendersoncoffey, NCU 17
CDR Owen Schoolsky, JPME PhII (Det XO NIOC MD)
CDR Henry Vegter, COMTHIRDFLT
CDR Daryk Zirkle, OPNAV N2N6

We selected a great group of officers on this board--their records reflected their years or dedicated service and superior performance. It is a testament to the strength of our community that a significant group of talented, highly competitive officers were unfortunately not selected. I have every confidence that with continued brilliant performance in hard assignments, we have opportunities in the future to select them, and we continue to value all of our talented officers.

1810 Board Statistics:

Board Target Opportunity: 50%
CWs in Zone: 22
CWs Selected: 11 (1 BZ/10 IZ/0 AZ)
CW IZ Opportunity: 45%

1/10 had or were in Commander Command (2 of remaining 9 had or were in O5 XO tours)
10/10 had or were in Commander Milestone
6/10 were JQO
10/10 completed JPME phase 1
8/10 completed JPME phase 2
7/10 completed or were in a full Joint tour
3/10 completed GSA/IA Tour
9/10 completed Master's Program
1/10 holds acquisition qualifications

Key discriminators were sustained superior performance in leadership and operational assignments.
- In the absence of hard breakouts among peer 18X0 or IWC officers, soft breakouts among the entire pay grade were critical. Competitive summary group performance was decisive.
- The most competitive officers had progression toward Joint qualification.
- Diversity in both job mission and location is a positive factor.

This board was the first where zone stamps were removed. IW communities as a whole selected 5 AZ and 2 BZ officers. We will continue to develop and refine our career path, expectations for best and fully qualified officers, assignments on milestone list, and our CW command opportunity rate as we evolve as Cryptologists and as part of the IWC. I encourage all of you to read the convening order for these boards, both for your own understanding of our community's definition of best and fully qualified, and to enhance your mentoring. "


User avatar
CNO Guy
Registered Member

Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 8:00 pm
Reputation: 8

Anonymous said...

This SHOUTS we DO NOT VALUE COMMAND

"1/10 had or were in Commander Command"

CO Pensacola, CO San Diego not valued.

Sean Heritage said...

We can debate whether or not this statement in the precept is strong enough, but it is a pretty clear statement of value in my book:

"The best qualified IW officers will additionally have been screened for and/or completed a Command tour as a commander"

I think a far better assessment of the value we place on Command is the caliber of leader we charge with that significant responsibility/opportunity. Given those who currently have the honor of Command, I'd say we value it greatly (that guy at NCDOC is a little sketchy :)). Yes, the promotion results could have done a better job of re-enforcing that message, but the value we place on Command is the value WE place on Command, not what we interpret a singular board to have told us. I have complete confidence that this year's result is an anomaly and we will find a steady course that all but ensures those who lead well enough in O-5 Command to enjoy a band when they turn the mantel of leadership over to their relief will all but be assured promotion to O-6...no different than O-5 Command at Sea in the other warfighting communities.

Personally, I am most concerned about the impact this could have on those who we want to inspire to Command. I said inspire on purpose. Command done properly is a challenge. Not everyone who aspires to Command is up for challenge. We need to inspire those who we know are. We don't choose Command because we believe it is a path to promotion, we choose Command and hope that it chooses us because we care about our future. We care about our teammates. We care about our mission. We care about our Nation. If we are drawn to it primarily because we care about promotion, odds are we're not cut out for the privilege. This is but one reason I believe we should have a written requirement for the Command Screen board.

We don't allow others to tell us how we should value the things that matter most to us in our life, we own that. And WE own the assessed value of Command. Let's own it...and not this singular board that has many scratching their/our head.

Anonymous said...

This posting generally confirms the notion that a bitchin sailor is a happy sailor....

Bart Cheney said...

Sean 1 of 10 is unsat by any measure.

Bart Cheney said...

But you're right, that NCDOC guy is sketchy :-)

Anonymous said...

Interesting to note that Senior Detailer board stats don't track #FLT/DIWC.

No, milestone doesn't cover it - afloat is were the rubber meets the road. (Or, perhaps not)

Anonymous said...

ANON @0932 - the precepts and convening order make no distinction between afloat vs non afloat milestone, nor is there any official #FLT/DIWC track in our approved career progression slides. Why would the stats track it if it isn't important per the governing board documentation?

This board along with the most recent CMD/Milestone board just prove out that it is better to know and impress your seniors than it is to be good at your job(s)...a community without a culturally accepted or documented set of values allows the most senior in the room to set them for any specific case (boards included) and invites "My Sailor" syndrome to rule the day. Again, just hope those whom you know are on a board and your chances of selection dramatically improve...at least that is what we have seen of late.

One would hope that it truly isn't about who you know vice what you have done, but as our more senior officers are retirement eligible what compels them to stay when not selected because their choice of senior mentor didn't prove the right one?


Anonymous said...

I get more than tired of hearing about the "privilege of command" or "honor of command". Our COs are not chosen from on high. As ANON 11:06 says - its who you know. Some of our O6s in command today never held O5 command, never risked the Flt jobs and were placed because they had a "A" record of favoritism. By today's measure, our O-10, and likely O9 wouldn't have made O6 had they been subject to the revision standards they put in place.
And please CAPT Heritage, climb down from Mt Sinai. Let's not pretend you are our savior or God's gift. As I recall you weren't on the O6 Command select list when your turn came, after all your precedence setting leadership in our vast void. You are a sub for someone who didn't want or take the job, so you too are lucky to be there. It pays to sit at the right hand of the father apparently.

Sean Heritage said...

Anon 0556: I most certainly agree with you in that I remain the beneficiary of luck and fortunate timing (personally and professionally). I am also very quick to admit that there are many others equally if not more deserving of what I will continue consider a privilege and honor - Command, but let's not make this about one of two people who chose to own our opinions on this forum. I won't pretend to speak for the two other leaders you mention in your comment, but I will remind all of us that leaders have a responsibility to continually improve ourselves, our teammates, and the part of the world that is within our sphere of influence...not merely complain about it. If the bar is not higher in our wake, then we didn't do enough to help the team to raise it. If tomorrow's leaders/operators aren't better than today's, we did not do our job. Heck, by today's standards I'd have to be a very different 22 y/o than I was if I wanted to gain admittance to the Cryptologic Community of today. There is much in need of improvement and many things all of us would like to change. The question remains, what are we doing about it? I see many people carrying the pack. I see many others complaining about the order of things. Please let me know if you'd like to put on the pack and join those of us committed to continual improvement and meaningful change.

Here are some thoughts on opportunities and the role of luck. Please let me know what you think - http://seanheritage.com/blog/opportunities-realized/

Anonymous said...

I was going to leave off commenting here. I don't think I promised though.

What a unique community! I don't believe I've seen its sort before.

As a block, it ignored the results of the Command Screening Board and just moved into its own territory, an undiscovered country where one can legitimately ask the question, "not good enough for command but good enough for 06!."

Well, from the outside, that's the kind of thing that happens in a faux community of nubs who insist on being separate but find absolutely no hint of useless disfunction in the fact that their N2 BUBBA has been acting without ANY security clearance since 2014.

I know you guys love this. It's how you work. For two years you've been rewarding people who don't tell the boss anything.

We kind of knew you even before that.

David Spalding said...

As I read many of these negative comments, It is hard for me to believe that most, if not all, are originating from active duty service members -- and more than likely naval officers. Whatever happened to professionalism? Where has integrity gone? The kind of integrity that speaks to a person's character and conduct even when no one is looking (or knows who you are). I am embarrassed. I admit, I have had many serious concerns with some of the messages that selection board results have sent over the years (real or perceived) -- but there are better, and more professional, ways to express concern than some of the attacks that I read above. Let he who is without sin throw the first stone

My kids' Mom said...


David,

I have it on authority that that in many cases the integrity is gone.
There is something rotten in the ranks and code of conduct does not even seem to apply to navy leaders any longer.
With this said, how can anyone then hold any of the officers in the navy's wardrooms to higher standard than the conduct of their CO's.

A very sad state indeed.

W/r

Anneli

Bart Cheney said...

Ah the joys of anonymous postings. Throwing insults and personal attacks all the while standing behind your keyboard in your anonymous Captain America cape.
If you're too afraid to own your words for fear of reprisal or being outed as an ass-clown (pretty sure it deserves a hyphen) then maybe you should grab a box of crayons, put down the keyboard and sit in the corner and color.
I've known CAPT Heritage for well over 10 years and while I don't always agree with his method, the output has never been short of outstanding. The fortune of command is fleeting and no matter how you get there, it's what you do when you're there that matters.
But hey I'm sure you know better Captain Anonymous. I'm sure when you were in command twice and sat at congressional hearing with your boss you did it much better.
Carry on. Press on and rock on.

Mike Lambert said...

Bart,

I am with you. Own your opinion!!

Anonymous said...

Well to all the personnel who don't like some of the names, its who was selected and deemed best of the best for a certain period of time. Because you are CO at 05 does not automatically promote you to 06, you only have command for two years then its what you do for the next 3-4 years as well.

I always hear or read so and so is not dynamic we always try to disparage or find the negative in the list. It's what it is - next year the same comments will be written.

CDR Paul Wilkes

Anonymous said...

At the heart of the matter is the FITREP. Time and time again we see folks selected that many within the community scratch their heads at and go how did he/she select after either being fired from a position or conducting themselves in a manner not in line with that of a Naval Officer. It's not the board, its the reporting seniors out there who either don't have the courage to accurately reflect performance on a FITREP or are unable to assess without favoritism or bias. IN terms of O5 Command within the 1810 community, it's over-rated. For those that would compare a 60-100 Sailor shore command with our SWO contemporaries commanding combatants or 1130s leading Squadrons I believe you need to step back and really evaluate your thought processes. Some of those O5 commands might as well be DETs. Yes you have UCMJ authority and the "burden" of command, but c'mon, really? It's not the holy grail as some would like you to believe, and the stats from the detailer are slightly misleadeing - - 1 of 10 were COs. Only three others within the zone had command to begin with, and its not just about a two year tour, as stated above, but what else have they done? Some haven't had an operational milestone and have spent the majority of their O5 time as XOs and then COs. HOw does that prepare you to take the tough operational/joint jobs, other than to push blue folders. It's very evident when you see some of them actually select for O6 and gain major command. They're great at running CAPT's Mast, but very few understand how to integrate capability into fleet and more importantly in the joint environment. I agree, not all those selected are well suited for the next step, but many on that list have gone above and beyond, performed exceedingly well, and sacrificed greatly. To make sweeping statements that there are no superstars in the group is a disservice, especially if you have little to no insight in what they've done. Instead of disparaging the entire group, how about acting like professionals, and supporting them to ensure the community and the Navy is well taken care of.

Anonymous said...

I like how we promote folks who get kicked out of other communities and then put them in positions to ruin our community.

Anonymous said...

So, who is 0007?

Anonymous said...

For Anon at 06:46 AM


Bond...James Bond

Anonymous said...

Our community has long been populated by the lame, lazy and linguistic.

Anonymous said...

As I read the comments I find a few funny - if you want to get real mad put yourself in my shoes - the community basically said we need to take the LDO billets and reinvest, what was funny when they needed me to fill the 1810 jobs vice the 6440 jobs you know the staff, ships, bragg, ops, xo and the JDAL billet at NSA GA. I was never asked to fill an LDO billet until I made commander.

I was asked to short tour or extend you know on the ship because someone was busy getting their masters, So how was this an LDO problem and not a distribution problem?

We are all IW/CWO the commissioning source is irrelevant. It was very apparent by the metrics education was valued more that operational education.

For you folks screaming about your chance, several of you worked on your JPME while at work during working hours and even took the navy dime to attend other schools before taking a hard tour. The metrics do not spell out hard tours 3 of 10 GSA/IA really we have been at war for 15 years it should have been 10 of 10.

I appreciate the emails folks have sent me I am not bitter but, when some of you who have been privileged over the years and have not broke out of your comfort zone, that's when I have an issue with some of the comments.

CDR wilkes

Mike Lambert said...

Thanks Paul. And thanks for owning your opinion. Few do.