Thursday, August 26, 2010 2:04 PM
Good afternoon
This is a quote from the Bureau On Line (BOL) website: "Why is performance evaluation continuity important?
Article 1129, U.S. Navy Regulations, 1990, required that records be maintained on naval personnel "which reflect their fitness for the service and performance of duties". Officer fitness reports and enlisted evaluation are required to maintain day-to-day continuity.
Officer fitness reports and enlisted evaluations are used for many career actions, including selection for promotion, advanced training, specialization or sub-specialization, and responsible duty assignments. Timely and accurate submission of reports is essential for each of these tasks.
The Continuity Report displays the continuity for E5 and above personnel submitted to the Bureau for any period after 1 January 1996. Effective 15 June 2005, E4 and below reports will be submitted and processed in the same manner as E5 and above reports."
I read the message about the board being performance based review. But there are several statements that concern me about this action.
(1) That the members of the board are EXEMPTED as are all other having the CMDMCPO NEC. So everyone under review is not being judged by their peers but an exempted group not subject to the rules under which we all are governed.
(2) There is no appeal or due process. Your recent 5 years is being reviewed but the board may look back over your entire career. Situation: Five years ago a CPO reported for duty under the weather (hung over). He is unable to perform his duties. He is disciplined including counseling, restriction, loss of pay and suspended bust. The CPO completed all the re-training, counseling and made all the amends. This board now viewing this blemish may elect not to continue this CPO. It seems to me that this is clearly double jeopardy. The Navy again is punishing the CPO after having rendered and exacted punishment. But this is an admin process not bound with any obligations of fairness just an exercise of authority.
(3) The MCPON stated in a Podcast that one of the residual benefits of the board was to "free up billets for the hard charging E-6's in the fleet". Great concept but the members of the IRR (VTU) are not counted against manning or do they hold a billet. The IRR has been one of the single largest manpower pools for the Individual Augmentees (IA) personnel to fill “In Lieu Of” (ILO) billets in both Iraq and Afghanistan. This readily available pool of manpower has allowed Active component and SELRES sailors required elsewhere to stay in place while their IRR shipmates fill those forward deployed billets.
(4) “There is no Quota!” stated MCPON West in the Podcast. NONSENSE! There is an expectation by SOMEONE that there are CPO’s not meeting “a standard”. The STANDARD will be explained to the CMDMCPO’s upon the convening of the board. If there was NOT a preconceived NUMBER then why would the MCPON make that statement? He will be held accountable by all the “hard charging E-6’s” for failure to provide those CPO opportunities. At least a number (X) to cover the base salaries of the 70-80 CMDMCPO’s on the board, the recorders, the panel leaders and the Admiral would seem required just to break even. Then of course add (X) to that a reasonable politically acceptable number to the “hard charging E-6’s” of 10 percent.
(5) Set aside all the above views. The only thing every sailor being reviewed has in common is that they are eligible for a RETIREMENT. Every crime drama detective always says: “FOLLOW THE MONEY!” That is what this entire exercise is about MONEY! Reviewing sailors with 19 years allows them to retire because of SANTURARY (US Code) saves money. It is cheaper to pay XX for E-X over 20 than E-X over 24. Whether you are active or reserve the concept is the same. Cut the longevity number before reaching the next pay step and the Navy saves money. Look for any blemish whatsoever and prevent advancement, possibly let another admin process apply (HYT) and save money. By forcing X number into the IRR and limit ability to participate and earn points the Navy will SAVE money. This is an administrative reduction in force to save MONEY. MONEY is the PRIMARY reason not the window dressing performance-based review or an effort to free up billets “for the hard charging E-6’s”.
Looking a BOL today I finally see posted today I am eligible for this board. Please note this is now 12 days AFTER the original deadline for communicating with the board. I called Millington 3 different times inquiring my status and NO ONE could confirm that my record was to be reviewed. I finally contacted the CNAVRESFOR ESO who confirmed my status. In my case, “Continuity gaps in evaluation/fitness report of greater than 90 days”, sinks me. I have ONE (1) FITREP since I went into the VTU in 2000 after 30 good years in pay. That was my FITREP from my deployment to IRAQ which only covered 9 months of the 14 month mobilization. Up to the point I went into the VTU my EVAL’s /FITREPs are complete. All the justifications stated above for the FITREP being written were the very reasons NOT to write one. Those opportunities are not available once you go into the IRR.
In my case it doesn’t matter. When the Board meets I will have completed 41 years and 4 months of service. I have already exceeded the 50 point minimum for a satisfactory retirement year and will forward my paperwork in October to retire WITH PAY in APRIL 2011 with 42 years of service.
Just my two cents on the whole issue.
/R
gmcm