MORE Navy manpower woes

I mean seriously, Navy manpower woes are the gift that keeps on giving. There are three (!!!) more NAVADMINs that show the Navy is really struggling to keep its people, especially its technical people, from leaving.

The first is NAVADMIN 186/22, which concerns Special Duty Assignment Pay (SDAP). SDAP is an additional monthly pay for Sailors that are in hard-to-fill jobs or qualify in difficult assignments. The Navy uses SDAP to help incentivize Sailors taking the hard duty assignments, because a few hundred dollars extra a month might motivate someone to fill that position.

SDAP has been changed for nuclear-qualified Sailors in the following manner:

Billet / NEC            Level    Pay              Change 
RDMC/EDMC/CVN DLCPO     7        525.00           +75.00 
N33Z NEC                6        450.00           New 
NPTU W/SUPERVISOR NEC   6        450.00           No change 
SEA W/SUPERVISOR NEC    5        375.00           No change 
SHORE W/SUPERVISOR NEC  3        225.00           -75.00 
SEA W/OPERATOR NEC      2        150.00           No change 
SHORE W/OPERATOR NEC    1         75.00           -75.00

NAVADMIN 186/22

So what does that mean? In a nutshell, shore assignment SDAP was lowered, while at-sea SDAP was either added or increased. The N33Z NEC refers to an at-sea Sailor that qualifies as an Engineering Watch Supervisor (EWS), which is the senior most enlisted watchstander on a nuclear power plant.

Since SDAP is an incentive pay, this is yet more proof that the Navy is trying to push Sailors towards at-sea assignment and to qualify as an EWS at-sea. They wouldn’t bother increasing SDAP if Sailors were already filling those roles without issue.

What about technically-savvy officers? Well, NAVADMIN 188/22 changes the accession rules for the Baccalaureate Degree Completion Program (BDCP), which is a program where civilians or enlisted Sailors that have at least 60 credit hours can apply to get a commission, where they get paid while they finish their degree. It’s not as great a deal because it doesn’t pay for tuition, however it does land you a job as an officer afterwards, with the catch of requiring an 8 year commitment. If that sounds a bit long, it is, because a normal ROTC commitment used to be only 4 years…which was increased to 5 years, and for aviators, to 5 years AFTER you qualified to fly (which ends up becoming 8-10 years).

BDCP eligibility was extended to…you guessed it…the technical fields of cryptology, cyber, intelligence, networks and oceanography. The only reason to extend this program to those fields is because the normal methods of obtaining officers are not working.

The last odd NAVADMIN is 184/22, which simply says that the O-6 continuation board will immediately follow the O-7 selection board. For those not in the know, an O-6 in the Navy is a Captain and an O-7 is a Rear Admiral.

Now, normally this board is one of many that are on a routine schedule without any real attention paid to it. Remember that Captains eligible to be reviewed for selection to admiral are well past the 20 years needed to retire, and are allowed to hang out until 30 years of service. They can hang out longer if a continuation board allows it. Since the board already meets on a schedule, why would someone need a NAVADMIN to change when the board meets, and inform the rest of the Navy?

Simply put, there was a significant uptick in O-6 retirements after the last O-7 selection board. I asked a few people in the know (who asked to remain nameless) and the word was that the Navy Personnel Office apparently didn’t bother to communicate with a lot of O-6s that were not selected for O-7, and a lot of them submitted retirement requests in response to this poor treatment. While nobody is entitled to be selected for O-7, its not hard to communicate with officers to let them know they weren’t picked. Especially for someone that has given over 20 years to the Navy, you would think the Navy could reciprocate and treat them with respect. The number of retirements stung Navy manpower, hence the short NAVADMIN to try and prevent this from happening again this year.

Now, that’s all speculation, but given all the other things happening…is anyone surprised? I sure wasn’t. I am surprised at just how bad recruitment and retention are getting. I had predicted that 2023 would be the breaking point, but that was before the vaccine mandate and terrible withdrawal from Afghanistan. I think those events have accelerated a process that was underway long before this year. I see more and more servicemembers that would otherwise happily stay on a few extra years because they enjoyed the job instead decide to leave for greener pastures. When you go all out to make the Navy a miserable place to work, why would anyone be surprised that you have to increasingly bribe people to stay in?

This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other government agency.

You don’t want vigilante justice

While I was on vacation this week I happened to see this video of a store owner tackling a man that punched an elderly person in the face and stole his wallet. The story has a happy ending, with the loser getting thrown to the ground in what looks like a WWF wrestling move and eventually being arrested. Thankfully, the city is pursuing charges against the criminal and not the store owner.

But what happens when that is no longer the case? What happens when crimes go unpunished? What happens when people are allowed to ransack a 7-11 with impunity?

First, you’ll have stores respond with increased security, limited hours and eventually leaving. That’s what’s happened in San Francisco, where CVS and Walgreens began closing store after store when the city essentially allowed criminals to run free so long as they stole under $1,000 in merchandise. It’s not just California though…places as far away as Philadelphia have similar issues.

The second response, should crime continue unpunished, is far worse. When people feel that the police won’t or can’t protect them, they will turn to vigilante justice. It’s exactly how the Mafia started in Sicily, where the lack of police to settle disputes resulted in towns paying for groups of men to enforce justice. For a time, it worked: the Mafia kept crime low and people tolerated its existence. But it wasn’t a great system, as it incentivized the Mafia to engage in significant political tampering, as well as brutal enforcement tactics, to maintain its grip on power.

Mafia-like activity in America would be similar to Italy. Having local disputes solved by the equivalent of a local warlord might become a better option then waiting weeks for a court date with a corrupt judge. Neighbors will settle more disputes informally than formally. Most worrisome, we’d also see an increase in unsolved murders. If your store is robbed, you know who did it and you don’t expect the police to punish the criminal, then at some point you might take it into your own hands. Neighbors will know its happening, but since they are likely affected as well, they may shrug their shoulders and stay quiet. Why snitch on a neighbor that killed a local criminal? You’re better off without that criminal, and you certainly don’t want to be on your neighbor’s hit list!

We don’t want an America like this. Vigilante justice is not a good option. Let’s hope we can bring better law enforcement back.

This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other government agency.

Why I can’t be libertarian anymore

Back when John McCain was running for President, I just couldn’t get myself to support him. He was weak on all the issues I cared about, and I had never been impressed with his career as a Senator. I certainly wasn’t going to vote for Obama, so that year I voted Libertarian. I even got to meet the Libertarian candidate, Bob Barr, at a political event, and we had a solid 5 minute discussion about Navy issues, his background and what he wanted to do as President.

Obviously, John McCain got stomped in the election. When Donald Trump ran for office, I thought about voting Libertarian again, but the candidate was…disappointing. Between the jokes about being a “Big Johnson” and not being either candidate, there really wasn’t much of a platform on issues. So ultimately I voted Trump, thinking he was the least worst of everyone.

Thankfully, Trump ended up being a pretty awesome Republican. Trump also revealed the super ugly side of the Far Left. One after effect is that it seems everything became political, and it was “my way or the highway.” The ability to thread a needle and balance delicate issues is becoming increasingly difficult, and that is destroying the “live and let live” attitude that underscores much of Libertarian views.

A good example is the transgender bathroom issue. There are plenty of women that don’t want to see male genitalia in a bathroom. That’s a pretty reasonable request. Heck, I don’t want to see other men’s genitalia in a locker room. The dudes that walk around butt naked (if you’ve been in a locker room for any length of time you know who I’m talking about), I only ever think, “Did ya forget your towel?”

At the same time, would you want to see a person that looks very much like a girl in a male locker room? I know I would find that weird. Most people probably think its odd that someone can simply claim to be transgender and walk right into a female restroom, and worse still engage in despicable behavior that shouldn’t be tolerated regardless of gender. Most people have also probably seen at least a few transgender individuals that they would honestly think are women.

A Libertarian would probably be ok with states having different rules as we find a way that helps people navigate this issue. I would suspect that over time, states would settle on rules that allow transgender individuals that have officially switched there birth certificates over to use locker rooms, while creating more avenues to punish bad behavior in the bathroom. We would likely wind up with a system where transgender people fade into the background and aren’t really an issue.

I’m not saying its the right answer, but its an answer that might work for a majority of Americans.

That could work, but it won’t happen. The Far Left has planted a flag that says “You’ll get male genitals in a female restroom and you’ll like it!” Rather than accepting any limits, they want no limits. Not surprisingly, the immediate response is to craft bathroom laws and other ruling that pushes back with equal force.

Thus, you get forced to take a side, and Libertarians too often sit on the sidelines on this and other issues. You don’t get to be neutral anymore when one side is extreme and won’t stop. That’s not going to garner votes, and it’s not going to solve these problems. That’s why I’m glad Trump took over the Republican party, rather than starting another Bull Moose party, which would have resulted in a solid Democrat President for years to come.

Until we stop politicizing every aspect of life, we’re not going to be able to find reasonable solutions to complex problems.

This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other government agency.

The Navy’s poor poker face on manpower issues

It’s not often I get immediate verification of something I blog about. For example, I wrote about how we’re going to have to accept that Russia will in fact win in Ukraine, and at first that prediction looked incorrect, but as the conflict grinds on, its becoming more obvious that Russia can’t afford to lose, even at a terrible cost. I could be wrong, maybe Ukraine will pull out a big “W” in the end, but I still think its unlikely.

But the Navy’s manpower crisis…wow. That’s a gift that keeps on giving. Since the last article, Navy has released three more NAVADMIN messages that prove the Navy is in a middle-management manpower crunch.

The first is NAVADMIN 176/22, which seems like a mundane update to retirement policy. The second paragraph is most interesting:

2.  Reference (c) modified the service-in-grade (SIG) (also known as time-in-grade) requirements for O-4s.  Specifically, reference (c) modified reference (d) to require 3-years SIG for voluntary regular retirement eligibility.

NAVADMIN 176/22

Normally you can retire as an O-4 after only two years. This isn’t a huge change, however, it might push more people to stay an extra year.

But then NAVADMIN 177/22 came out, talking about incentive pay for submarine commanding officer special mission billets. There is plenty of competition to become a submarine CO, so many good people don’t select for submarine command. They can select for CO Special Mission, which is basically a way of saying “we need you to stay in the Navy to fill billets at higher levels” because so many submarine O-5’s retire at 20 years. It’s a problem that has waxed and waned over the years, but is now becoming increasingly difficult to manage.

The NAVADMIN allocates a bonus of $20,000 annually for members that sign a 3-5 year commitment. That is an awful lot of money, especially considering an O-5 submariner is likely making over $150K a year anyway. The eligibility requirements make it very obvious what problem they are solving:

    b.  Have completed at least 19 years of Active Duty Commissioned Service (ADCS) and not more than 25 years of ADCS at the start of the period of additional obligated service.

NAVADMIN 177/22

Which really means “prevent people from retiring right at 20 years and keep them in a bit longer by throwing $20K a year at them.”

Essentially, these two officer-related NAVADMINs are trying to stem the departure of mid-grade Naval Officers. Gee, I wonder why mid-grade Naval Officers would be leaving in the first place? I’ll let you debate that in the comments.

So are there applicable actions on the enlisted Sailor side? You betcha! The most interesting is NAVADMIN 178/22. The first two paragraphs lay it out pretty well:

1. This NAVADMIN announces a pilot program for Senior Enlisted Advance to Position (SEA2P) designed to keep deploying units mission-ready by aggressively filling critical at-sea leadership billets. The pilot program will convene a billet selection board consisting of senior representatives from Fleet and participating type commander (TYCOM) staffs to select those Sailors who are best and fully qualified to advance and fill specific priority sea billets. The pilot includes the Nimitz Strike Group on the West Coast and the Bataan Amphibious Ready Group on the East Coast. Additionally, the pilot will include USS GEORGE WASHINGTON (CVN 73). Factors for consideration in determining best and fully qualified applicants include sustained superior performance, documented qualifications, platform experience, and potential to succeed in the billet. Sailors selected must obligate service (OBLISERV) to complete 36 months in the SEA2P billet and will be permanently advanced upon reporting to their ultimate duty station. This pilot will be limited to critical E8 and E9 sea billets and is
separate from reference (a).

2. To be eligible for SEA2P, Sailors must have been selected or screened as a non-select for advancement to E8 or E9 by the respective fiscal year (FY) 2023 selection boards, or be advancement-eligible for the respective FY-24 boards in line with reference (b). Time-in-rate (TIR) waivers will be approved for FY-24 advancement-eligible Sailors who are selected for SEA2P. All Sailors selected for SEA2P billets should expect to receive permanent change of station (PCS) orders with a transfer date as early as 30-45 days after selection.

NAVADMIN 178/22

In one long sentence this says: “We are critically undermanned at sea in senior enlisted positions, yet somehow we have lots of people that haven’t selected for advancement to these senior enlisted positions, so now they can apply to fill this position and get permanently promoted when they finish the tour.”

Now, my first question is: if we don’t have enough senior people to fill these jobs, but we have people that aren’t selecting for senior positions, why don’t we just select more people? Enlisted management sits almost entirely in the Department of the Navy’s purview, unlike Naval Officers that face considerable Congressional oversight as to their selection and promotion. The DoN doesn’t appear to be upping the selection rate, and is instead opting for a tightly controlled board that meets in relative secrecy to pick people for specific jobs. There are advantages to this, since you can force someone to take sea-duty orders, but you could do that anyway (to an extent), so I’m not sure why they are opting for this method.

These NAVADMINs, coming on the heels of the messages I previously talked about, are just another indicator that the Navy is experiencing a massive flight of talent that is really getting senior leadership concerned. I think they would be far better off addressing the real concerns of junior officers and junior enlisted, and to be fair, Navy Sailors get plenty of surveys about the health of the force, but then the Navy doesn’t appear to act on any of these issues. Just like the suicide crisis on the USS GEORGE WASHINGTON, Navy has all the data, but isn’t choosing to solve the correct problem.

This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other government agency. If you enjoyed this article, please like it, share it on social media, and send a tip to Peter in DaTipJar. You can also buy one of my books for yourself or a friend to help me out.