Surf Points 5

You have made over 100 comments on the Sea/Surf/Award reset and I appreciate your input. Hopefully we have been able to answer your questions in the frequently asked questions (FAQ) link.

For the last few days most of the comments left (either for or against) had already been stated in previous posts and at this point I believe all viewpoints have been covered. With that in mind we are closing this blog for comment. If you have further questions/concerns regarding the Sea/Surf/Award reset policy that are not answered in the FAQs, please feel free to contact Command Master Chief Kevin Isherwood at 202 372 4540 or email him at mailto:kevin.d.isherwood@uscg.mil He will remain the POC for the policy change.

Keep an eye on the FAQs. The basic plan as detailed in ALCOAST 318/09 is policy and will not change. However we are still refining some details. If there are updates we will post them.

MCPOCG Bowen
CLICK HERE FOR FAQs
All,

Today an ALCOAST will announce details on the Sea/Surf/Award point reset policy. The next time a member is advanced after 1 January 2010 any Sea/Surf/Award points they have will reset to zero after the advancement. If serving afloat, members will immediately start accruing sea points at the same rate we are currently using. Those points will then be able to be used for the member’s next advancement. When the member advances again, the points will reset again. The same goes for Surf/Award points.

It is important to note that no one who presently has points will lose them. They will be able to use them until their first advancement on or after 1 Jan 2010, and then they will reset to zero.

The Sea/Surf/Award point system is not being done away with. It is being altered to fix a growing inequity in the advancement system and get back to the policy’s original intent, which is to encourage our people to ask for sea duty.

Over the past three years I have traveled to nearly every area of the world where we have Coast Guard people. I have spoken to personnel in every rating and watched as they conducted missions that span the gamut from search and rescue, law enforcement and national defense to environmental protection, marine safety and homeland security. Early on I found a common concern among the questions that I was getting. The concern was that many groups wanted advancement points for their mission area or activity.

I went to the Rating Force Master Chiefs (RFMCs) and asked them to look at the issue. As you know, the RFMCs are E9s chosen from the field to lead their respective ratings. After several meetings we came to the consensus that as the years have passed since the enactment of the sea point policy, and individual point totals have grown, the policy has become a growing factor in who actually gets advanced. This was true across the ratings… Some more, some less, but all were affected. The feeling was that in many cases the points had become the single largest factor in who actually advanced.

Several years ago this was already affecting critical mission competencies such as the Surf Community. Personnel in that group felt that they could not adequately compete for advancement. The expertise required to operate in a surf environment is very high level and it was critical that the Coast Guard maintain competency in this area… So critical, that we began awarding surf points to compensate.

After careful consideration, the change being announced in the ALCOAST today was proposed by me in concert with the Rating Force Master Chiefs, and Area Command Master Chiefs. I submitted a paper through concurrent clearance to CG-1 with the support of senior Coast Guard leadership and both Area Commanders.

The change will eventually help to level the playing field for all of our people. This is not about any one community. This is about the entire enlisted advancement system. The original reason for sea duty points was to encourage our people to apply for sea duty. It was never meant to inject a sea duty experience factor into the equation that in many cases today outweighs all other factors.

In one case that was looked at while this proposal was being examined, an E8 that was advanced to E9 some time back (final multiple near the very top of the advancement list) was nearly last in all other respects when the advancement was studied without sea duty points in the equation. In another example, a person who is assigned to sea out of recruit training (often through no input of their own) and then spends significant underway time as a non-rated person will currently carry those points through an entire career. This especially affects ratings that have less sea time overall.

These are the reasons why we are changing, but not doing away with the Sea/Surf/Award point system. Advancement needs to be about advancing the best qualified people while continuing to recognize the arduous roles our people volunteer to take on.

If you have questions, I encourage you to post them. We will do our best to answer.

MCPOCG Bowen

CLICK HERE FOR FAQs
at 11:06 AM
107 comments:

ETCM Robert Jackson said...

MCPOCG Bowen,

Thank you for posting the reasons behind this change.

The biggest advancement risk (in terms of selecting the most qualified member) I see is for ratings that have few underway billets in a certain paygrade. For example in my rating, 2 of 47 ETCS billets are underway. At the completion of their tours, these few cutter ETCS members will have a major leg-up on the other ETCSs competing for ETCM.

Are there plans to change current policy in similar fashion for award points?

V/R

ETCM Robert Jackson
ESU Cleveland
May 26, 2009 12:00 PM
Chief Acuna said...

Master Chief,
Will a member be able to waive using his/her points for advancement and be able to use them on a subsequent advancement? Here is an example:

ET3 Smith just transferred to WMEC Underway w/ zero sea points and 2 award points. He is competing for ET2 and expects to make it w/o needing to use Sea Points or Award points. Can the member opt to not use those points and save them for trying to advance to E-6? What about designated E-3’s who are currently underway; will they loose the sea/award points when they advance to E-4?

The fact is this, this is going to hurt the E-3's/E-4's currently underway who will promote in that tour. Unless they do back-to-back sea tours, their points may be wasted on an advancement that would have come without using the points. And with the current transfer environment, detailers are not inclined to let member’s extend or perform back-to-back because people need sea time just to be eligible to promote.

This was a concern of mine when I heard about it last week. It’s my opinion that this may end up hurting the junior personnel more than it helps the middle/senior enlisted. I am interested in hearing your take on this.

Chief Acuna
May 26, 2009 12:02 PM
Anonymous said...

Good Morning MCPOCG,

After reading this post, and hearing about it for the last few weeks, I do have some questions about this that the Command Chief didn't have an answer for.

Number one: There are currently ratings that getting to sea can be extremely difficult in. The assignment priority system tends to hamper this by allowing people to bounce from cutter to cutter because of their higher priority. Is this being looked at/balanced out? I do realize that in a perfect world that the Assignment Officers won't let that happen, but our world is far from perfect.

Number two: Are/have TIS/TIG point calculations being/been scrutinized as well? I'll give an actual situation: Member competes for SKC, scores 115 raw score. Not massively high, but well above average. Member has around 8 years TIS and around 3 years TIG, which is well below average. No rated sea-time. Average sea-time for competition hovers around 4.14 points, annually. So, in this case, why is it that the member places around 75 on the eligibility list?

That question is rhetorical. The answer, as I've figured out with a lot of math (not even fuzzy math), is that TIS/TIG makes much more of a difference in most ratings than sea points. Someone at 20 years TIS and 5 years TIG is getting an additional 30 points! Add in marks inflation, and the likelihood that someone has maxed out their award points by the time they hit 20 years, and that's an additional 10 points + ~45 for marks.

So in reality, from available data, it really looks that we're awarding folks who are performing poorly in rating knowledge, but making up for it with the coveted "dinosaur" points.

I'd really like to do what I can to allay the concerns about dinosaur points, but from the data available through PSC/PPC, there isn't much to support that it's not actually happening. My proposed solution? If not doing something about TIS/TIG, then at least make full aggregate data available from SWE competition, minus identifying information. I do believe that in the case of the "housecat" ratings, TIS and TIG are far, far more important in the grand scheme of things.
May 26, 2009 12:11 PM
Anonymous said...

Doing away with the Sea/Surf/Award points, does this include other type award points, for example Good Conduct, or L.O.C.?
May 26, 2009 12:13 PM
Anonymous said...

I don't like this one bit. It will go one way or the other. The people with no sea time are jumping for joy and the others like my self are very unhappy now. I would agree more with this if once you were advanced your sea time goes to zero until you get back to a ship. Once on the ship they should restore all your sea time. I think one that has done the seatime for their career should be given first crack at advancement over the ones that have been sitting at the beach. I wanted to advance so I did the time and I remeber all the people with no sea time crying about the sea points but I was fine. I have been denied sea time because I had too much so once I lose the points it might be impossible to get back to a ship. That is just my point of view.
May 26, 2009 12:27 PM
Dylan said...

This sounds like a great way to encourage sea service and boost rating competencies. However, in respect to award points, I feel like it will encourage supervisors to give out more award points in order for their personnel to advance. In the long run the CG could end up with more "War Hero's" than we bargained for.
May 26, 2009 12:30 PM
Anonymous said...

I completely agree with changing the sea duty points. That will definitely help with getting qualified personnel into the right positions.

However, as far as the awards points go, I believe that it will end up where awards will just get handed out so that personnel will advance, similar to what is happening with the current evaluation system for the enlisted.

Granted awards will go through an awards board, but I believe that the amount of awards written in the future (after this policy takes effect)will be in greater numbers than previously seen.

I feel that awards reflect character more than competency and the awards program should remain as is.
May 26, 2009 12:47 PM
ETCS TJE said...

This is excellent. A little late for me but I'm glad that it was addressed. I was stuck in Loran for many years and then to CommSta Kodiak as an SCPO. By the time I started competing for MCPO, it was hopeless. For the May 08 SWE I would have required nearly 3 points better on the test for each sea time point a competitor had. A competitor with 6 years sea time would have forced me to write 36 points better. Very frustrating. At any rate I highly support the change.
May 26, 2009 1:11 PM
Anonymous said...

Sea/Surf points I agree would be a good idea to reset but award points should be left alone since they aren't given out unsually until you depart a unit (3 to 4 years) and it should reward/benefit an individuals hard work throughout their career.
May 26, 2009 1:36 PM
IT1 over 5 years at sea said...

How does this encourage sea service? The more you go to sea, the more points you get, the bigger the boost you get on advancement list. If you really want to "level" the playing field a better marking system needs to take place. Like posted above, marks can either be highly inflated or deflated depending on how your supervisors see you. I have even seen marks inflated once a JO found out the member wanted to go warrant. So he raised all marks for the individual. This plan was not very well thought out.
May 26, 2009 1:40 PM
SK2 Fox said...

Good morning BMCM,

I just received the email regarding the reset of the sea, surf and awards points. I've read the email a twice and I have a couple of questions. I'm an SK2 that's been in the Coast Guard for over 8 years. I have 5 years of seatime, chose to do back to back cutters, before my current independent duty at a surf station. I've taken the May SWE and am hoping to make PO1 sometime next year. This change will not effect my E-6 advancement, but I will need to re-earn the seatime and award points I will be losing to help advance to E-7. Granted I understand that acing an SWE is optimum, but these points can determine weather a member makes the cut or not. Leaving this unit as a priority 5 and adding the potential sudden demand of seatime next transfer season (2010), what are my options if I am unable to get a cutter this transfer season, get another priority 5 billet and am unable to get a cutter again? When I read my question again I understand this scenario is far fetched, but I still would not want to find myself in this situation. Reading your email, in particular the one case with the one member advancing from E-8 to E-9, I totally understand the need to even the playing field. Is there a way to put a cap (based on the average of each member taking a SWE or on an advancement list) for award, sea and surf points for each rank members are advancing to as apposed to a total reset of time and points a member has earned? My apologies for this long winded comment, but I thank you for the opportunity to make one.

Very Respectfully,

-SK2 Matthew Fox
STA Morro Bay
May 26, 2009 1:41 PM
Anonymous said...

So I just wasted 10 years of my life Underway for nothing. I asked for boats always and I get sent to land because I got too much sea time and the detailer needs to send the guys with no sea time to the cutters. so the next time I get U/W I get to loose 10 years worth of points down the drain and as a GM (plus one year that I did before 1993) then all I got is like 12 or 14 billets that I got no chance of getting because I got to much sea time. If you want to be fair about this reward the person that expended their career U/W and make sea pay permanent even on land that will sooth the pain.

Thanks for nothing.
May 26, 2009 2:06 PM
Anonymous said...

MCPOCG,
Sounds like a good idea as far as competing for the SWE. What about required sea time for advancement. If it resets does that mean they loose it and can not compete because of required rated sea time? Many of us have gone to a boat from boot camp or "A" school and were not rated. Once tour complete we might have been sent to a station or sector. Being a priority 4 or 5, it is hard to get back on the ship and we are transferred to another station or sector due to priority level. This results in holding up an E6 for 5+years (four years tour complete, 1 year u/w if selected)to compete for E-7. Is there any thought on changing the requirement for rated sea time for advancement? I know a majority of BM1's are OinC certified, but the job and anchor for us is a long ways away.
May 26, 2009 2:54 PM
Anonymous said...

MC, seems like a very slow way to effect change in the adv system. Why not do away with all the extras and advance someone on three things only; SWE score, CO's recommendation, and Conduct. I believe the TIR and TIS points are the most demoralizing factors to the workforce now, not the award or sea/surf points, especially to the lower pay grades. Do Away with TIS/TIR points all together. I guess the best way I can explain my way of thinking or reasoning is if an E-3 can apply for OCS and possibly get picked up, the aforementioned E-3 could be your boss in four months with less than a year in the Guard. If you don't use TIS/TIR for the Officer side of the house then how do you justify its continued use for the enlisted side? Let's face it, wine is meant to be consumed within two to five years from the vintage date; after that it just turns into grape flavored vinegar.
May 26, 2009 3:32 PM
Anonymous said...

MC, this is definatly a step in the right direction. Please don't forget about us dinasaurs that were serving on 82' partol boats as BM1s before the magic year of 1994...Thanks for attempting to level the playing field. Writing a 120-130- raw score is a bit of a stretch...BMCS JAS
May 26, 2009 3:35 PM
Anonymous said...

I just want to say first and foremost. The entire enlisted advancement system is flawed.
I hear stories about the old guard where there was the salty bitter Master Chief who was very knowledgeable about his job and always challenged policy and what the command felt was right. Now it seems those ways are lost and it's more about politics rather than it's primary goals of saving lives and doing the right thing.
The fact that a very knowledgeable guardsman with years of sea time has to prove to his direct supervisors that he is capable of being advanced to a higher paygrade is pathetic. If an individual can serve a full tour aboard a cutter and rank high in the service wide exam way above the cut, then that individual should automatically be advanced, no questions asked. But when the command puts added stress on the individual by increasing the workload and collatterals while aboard a ship and deciding he is not ready for advancement because he fell behind on his projects. That's outrageous. Especially when the same command recommends his supervisor who had less sea time and scored in the lower 50% for advancement.
If that part of the advancement system isn't flawed enough now it seems the Coast Guard is taking away the one thing that mattered most. The fact that it's a sea going service. Just because there are senior enlisted who are griping to their buddies about not being advanced due to lack of sea time doesn't make it right to change the point system for the whole Coast Guard. It seems most of those senior enlisted are complaining because they are 1st class petty officers who have completed their first tour and can't see Chief for another 2 tours or perhaps it's the anchor bearer who has served land throughout their whole career and can't get those stars on their twilight tours. I believe it was ultimately their fault for dodging that bullet in the first place and must suffer that consequence. In my perspective, everyone has a chance to go out to sea, whether they pursue that chance is their decision. I also believe that those who go out to sea should be compensated for doing that time. The sea point system has been in effect ever since the Coast Guard today can remember. It's advancing those who are well rounded in the Coast Guard in it's entirety to senior positions.
Why deprive those who are going that same path? If it's to satisfy our shoremates, I don't think that's reason enough. The personnel on shore seem to have more numbers than those at sea, therefore I believe they have a bigger voice. This modernization of the Coast Guard seems to be doing away with the old entirley and creating a completely new one. Personnally, One where people such as myself refuse to be a part of.
May 26, 2009 3:46 PM
X said...

PART 1 of 2

I read a few quotes on the Master Chief’s blog and one in particular caught my attention. On the string regarding Sea Time & Awards point - here’s the quote: “The people with no sea time are jumping for joy and the others like my self are very unhappy now.” (Anonymous May 26, 2009 12:27 pm) Gee, I thought, we are in a microwave society that needs short term satisfaction. As opposed to just stopping there, I figured I’d elaborate on my thoughts.

First, our personnel who are ashore at some point in time before they can actually promote may find they need to go to sea to get above the cut. This may not be an issue for some, but those who are afloat may find that they can take some time and do a shore unit. Maybe not, but in reality many are “gaming” the system. Going to sea and being on the tip of the spear on CG operations should be an honor. The Coast Guard is a Sea Going Service and it still rewards people who go to sea. Next, many other operational units (MSO, MSST, AIRSTA to name a few) should be in an uproar that cutters still get sea time. There are many other folks who are deployed aka (underway) that are not afforded the Sea Time points. People deploy on the back of cutters, Iraq, Bahrain and 3rd world countries who do not enjoy the benefit of an offsetting benefit – like sea time. To add insult to injury, some folks who earned sea time even change rates going into a field that has not afloat units and undeservedly use their sea time to gain a promotion advantage for multiple promotions.

Not to digress too much, the following is a real tragedy. If I were at Basic Training (again) and I were told that I was going to a Shore Unit as a BM and others would go to an Afloat Unit – I would be upset because the Assignment Officer, not my performance for my next 8 marking periods would unfairly determine my long term ability to promote in the Service. Now, with the new system, the detailer’s decision to send someone else afloat will not haunt others who were assigned to ashore units from Day 1.
May 26, 2009 3:55 PM
X said...

PART 2 of 2
A component of your promotion to the next grade should be a testament to your ability to perform at the next pay grade. Awards earned 10-15 years ago or old sea time – what another on the blogger has called “dinosaur points,” (Anonymous May 26, 2009 12:11 PM) actually normalizes the competition and increases the mediocrity. The message now is plan your career wisely and remember, we want our leaders to be the ones with the picture of the current & relevant Coast Guard.

As far as awards points this quote caught my attention as well, “I believe that it will end up where awards will just get handed out so that personnel will advance, similar to what is happening with the current evaluation system for the enlisted” (Anonymous May 26, 2009 12:47 PM). I just have one question … Isn’t that were we are now?

In certain career fields people get earn close to 10 points in one tour and in others people give awards at the PCS point. If an E-4 had 4-5 awards points early on in their career, they would abnormally promote ahead of their peers for the rest of their career. No value judgment, but promotion should be tied to maturity and ability to perform at the next higher grade. I believe awards in the end, do reward the member for a good job. The origin of an award traces back to the Romans and it was a way of showing the city that you served your Country with honor. Awards should still have the same tone. If Commands are not approving awards IAW COMDINST – then that is the issue and should be addressed.

In closing, it is an honor to serve my country. I have learned that many policies seem to be unfair at first and sometimes they just appear to be unfair because they disadvantage me in some specific fashion. People should do what they do because that is their passion. If you are doing it for any other reason, you are robbing yourself in the long run. The potential of getting Sea Points for advancement, a COM or Mark of 7 be the catalyst for doing a good job – it’s the product.

X
May 26, 2009 3:56 PM
Anonymous said...

I can see the sea time being reset, but I stil do not see how the Pro's outweigh the Con's. Wouldnt it be easier to just eliminate the seatime from members who rates do not require it like MST's? Now it seems as though members who workhard that do get awards outside of there normal end of tour award are being punished for not going above and beyond in the right timeframe.
May 26, 2009 3:59 PM
EMCS Norman said...

I think that the sea time points will eventually level the playing field but I would oppose eliminating personal awards. An individual who has maintained a stellar career with good conduct, hard work and sacrifice is placed in the same category as a sailor who has not. Why should someone who has had an alcohol situation or incident and poor work ethics be rewarded by having an even playing field. Personal awards can be earned by anyone who applies themselves regardless of their billet location and should be carried throughout your carrer just as they are displayed on the ribbon bar.
May 26, 2009 4:40 PM
Anonymous said...

Good Afternoon Master Chief Bowen,

I don't understand the purpose of resetting the awards points. If the purpose of this new reset policy is to entice and reward for continuous sea duty, what does that have to do with awards? Your awards represent the entire picture of your career and the level at which you've performed along the way. Also, awards are earned at any and all units, not just cutters. Everyone has an equal shot at accruing award points whether they’re at sea or on land.

By resetting a member's award points, you're putting the high performing junior member who has made rate relatively fast at a great disadvantage to those they're competing against that have a whole bunch of TIG/TIS. Instead of leveling the playing field, with some rates, you’ve actually tipped the scales considerably in the favor of those who can afford to lose all of their sea duty, surf duty and award points and still blow away the competition with all of their TIS/TIG. This would make it virtually impossible in some ratings (YN) for a younger member to compete against his peers when he has less of these other factors.

Also, as previously stated in another post, this has the potential to create an imbalanced award system where awards are created unjustly in an effort to make someone competitive for advancement. Or, how about someone who transfers while on an advancement list. They get their award, then transfer. After reporting aboard their new command, they advance. Now that member has zero award points for their next exam cycle even though they just got an award.

There are other concerns I have with this new policy but this is by far the biggest. Please, if there is still time and this train has not fully left the station, reconsider the policy that resets award points after every advancement.

Very Respectfully,

YN1 Phil Payne
ISC San Pedro, CA
May 26, 2009 5:17 PM
EM1 James Ruona said...

Why are we trying to level the playing field? Everyboby in a sea going rate had and still should have the opertunity to do what I did. I have made the sacrifice of sailing on four ships back to back only for the intended purpose of setting my self and my family up for advancement for the rest of my career. I am a proud sailor but I would have made different decisions for the sake of my family if I would have known I would lose my sea points. I am angry over this dicision but my wife is livid.


V/r
Sailor
May 26, 2009 5:50 PM
Anonymous said...

I feel this puts the emphasis on writing a good test rather than just accumulating vast points in other areas.
Even in today's SWE era, a good test will get you advanced if you don't have a chest full of points.
Focus on the test and not the points and you will succeed.
I do however feel that experience can be important; so I do have mixed feelings about this but in the end I feel it should work.
May 26, 2009 6:51 PM
X said...

Will good conduct points be carried forward? I actually agree that Good Conduct Points should remain - the main reason being is that the Good Conduct award is based on 3 year timeframe where the member actually served honorably. The other awards (LOC or higher) actually cause the problem because Commanding Officers & OICs award these for various reasons. The LOC or higher awards should in fact be recognition - not promotion enhancing. Unfortunately, the awards process is injured (not broke) and has become a system of subjectively granted awards that effects a member's entire career. This change needed to be made, I just hope there is some consideration about the Good Conduct points. If not, I would still accept the new policy as better than the old one.

X
May 26, 2009 7:06 PM
Just Don't Get It said...

Why are folks complaining about award points being reset? Was not the public recogniton of their accomplishments enough? And....I'll never understand why we get points for good conduct, is'nt that the minimum expectation?

Great job, keep it up Master Chief!!
May 26, 2009 7:47 PM
EM1 Cloonan said...

Master Chief,
I can't believe how many people are in favor of this system. I have planned my career around going to sea. Knowing it is the best way to learn and advance. Most people in the Coast Guard have had the opportunity to go to sea at some point in their career weather they took advantage of that opportunity or not. If you chose to stay on land then you should not complain about your lack of sea points. Also if you are in a rate with so few sea duty billets 4 sea points on a service wide should not determine your advancement. The service wide is still weighed mostly on how well you do on the test. I can not disagree more strongly with this new system. I earned my cuttermans pin and every single sea point I have, and to loose even a fraction of what I have achieved is unacceptable. I feel blind sided by this decision.

EM1 Cloonan
May 26, 2009 8:09 PM
Anonymous said...

MCPOCG Bowen,

Award Points.
My question is simple. If a member has accumulated more than the useable amount of award points (10) per advancement, why should the member be punished by removing those award points that did not count towards their advancement?
i.e. PO2 accumulates 17 award points prior to advancement to PO1 and only acquires 2 additional points while attempting to reach CPO. Due to the stated policy, the member is only attempting to advance with 2 as apposed to the 9 award points that the member has earned. Not all awards are just given to individuals; they may have showed great heroism and selflessness to earn those points, which this policy determines useless and unimportant.