IUSSCAA Message Board


UNCLASSIFIED, NON-POLITICAL, and  NON-SENSITIVE POSTS ONLY
IUSSCAA Posting Guidelines


IUSSCAA Wallpapers
Ocean Night 1280x1024 1024X768 800X600
Mid-Watch   1280x1024 1024X768 800X600



IUSSCAA Message Board
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
The Navy has always had a bad attitude towards enlisted ratings

When I enlisted in the Navy as an electronics field recruit I was given in boot camp a song and dance about oceanography being an exciting new field. They could not tell me what it was but they really needed help and it would be a quick way to promotion. What they did not say was that the highest rating was E-4. I did make that quickly, but now where do I go. Took a exam out of rate, failed, missed opportunity to advance. Next opportunity to test there was E-5, made that rating. Now I'm stuck, I cannot get to E-6 doing what I'm doing, so the Navy wasted the training and skills I acquired. I had no choice but to leave the service. The Navy's attitude is that sailors like myself are a dime a dozen and I can be replaced easily. The new system says the transition to civilian will be in line with skills acquired during service, where, pray tell, could I have gotten a civilian job doing what I was doing.

Re: The Navy has always had a bad attitude towards enlisted ratings

Jim Trimmer:

A few months ago, there was a posting on this site from a body-shop activity ONI may have hired to find qualified acoustic analysts. Suggest you dig out that posting and follow it up. There is no better background for what ONI does in the field of acoustics than IUSS. Almost every - 90% plus - acoustic analyst at ONI from the mid-60s to the early 90s came from the System.

Comment: The Navy has always been very slow to recognize the value of retaining highly qualified bodies in the field of acoustics - whether they be officer or enlisted.

In the late 1960s, CNO Op-095 sent me to Adak to find out why Kef was doing so well and Adak was "missing the boat."

I wrote a 30-page report that stressed the value of having experienced personnel in command. Then at Kef, the CO, XO and Ops had a combined total of almost 30 years of System experience. At Adak, the total was ONE year. The leading PO - who might have been expected to rescue the situation at Adak was more concerned with swapping beer for crab with the local crab processing plant.

What happened? Did BUPERS listen? NO; several years later, Kef was in the same pit as Adak with near zero experience at the top end; however, those of us at ONI were able to do something about that because we were relatively close to Kef (same ocean) and we worked cooperatively with what was then COSL.

Good luck; don't waste yours of experience. It was - and remains - fascinating work.

Bruce Rule

PS: Let me know if you have any interest in ONI and where your System assignments were.

Re: The Navy has always had a bad attitude towards enlisted ratings

True enough, just look at what they did to the senior OT' in 93. "Pick your retirement date within the next 60 days! I still think that, as I had re enlisted until 95, they had no right to break that contract.....but it didn't even slow them up. Awful lot of OT's tossed out, most with well over 15 years, Experience hard earned and lost overnight.

Re: The Navy has always had a bad attitude towards enlisted ratings

Bruce, you asked me to reply to you when you referenced my post. I wish this were 50 years ago, I would have been very much interested. When I left the service I was told I needed a college degree to continue as a civilian in the field. I went, but did not graduate,(got married, needed a job), Just for info, I served at Navfac Ramey, did tdy to Eluethera, and finished at Argentia, from 1959 to 1963. I held SOO3, SOO2, SOG2(part of the problem), and at final discharge STG2. Never knew what that was. I really loved what I was doing, and if I say so myself was very good at it, and got a 4.0 while at Argentia.
Thank you for your reply,
Jim Trimmer

Visits: