Navy Career Planning

Comment

Comment by NavyDads Admin (Paul) on April 18, 2010 at 9:25pm

Missing PRIMS Data Can Slow Your Promotion

Story Number: NNS100407-09 Release Date: 4/7/2010 3:37:00 PM 0

By Chief Mass Communication Specialist (SW) Maria Yager, Navy Personnel Command Public Affairs

MILLINGTON, Tenn. (NNS) -- Navy officials reminded Sailors April 7 to include a review of their physical fitness assessment data in their selection board preparations.

"When the promotion list comes out, we scrub those names against PRIMS (Physical Readiness Information Management System). The vast majority of candidates have no problems," said Capt. Leo Falardeau, assistant commander, Navy Personnel Command (NPC) for career progression, referring to the Navy policy that requires Sailors to meet physical readiness standards in order to be promoted.

"As long as members have taken their PRT and passed it then the promotion process can continue," said Falardeau. "If it is anything other than that -- PRIMS is blank, the member is over body fat or failed the PRT -- then we have a discrepancy."

Last year, the Chief of Naval Personnel announced in NAVADMIN 073/09 that PRIMS data would be reviewed as part of the promotion and advancement process beginning with fiscal year 2010 boards. Falardeau's team reviews post-selection board results against the PRIMS database for all officers slated for promotion. As result a small number of promotions have been delayed in cases where a discrepancy has been found.

"In most cases, their PRIMS data is blank and just needs to be updated. The discrepancy can be resolved fairly quickly," said Falardeau. "In other cases the member must pass the PFA or if the error is in the fitness report, the fitness report must be corrected before the Sailor may be promoted. In cases where the data cannot be immediately fixed the promotion is delayed."

"We send a formal letter informing the member that they are delayed," said Falardeau. "And the small numbers that have been withheld have been trending downward, which we attribute to the word getting out."

To date, this process has only applied to officers, but the FY-11 E8/E9 Selection Boards for Navy Reserve personnel, which convened March 1, will be the first enlisted selection boards to undergo the same PRIMS review.

While command fitness leaders (CFL) are responsible for inputting PRIMS data after each cycle, Sailors are ultimately responsible for reviewing the information.

"It is very important that Sailors review their PRIMS account for accuracy," said Bill Moore, director for the Navy's Physical Readiness Program.

If a Sailor finds an error in PRIMS, the first step should be to contact their CFL. The command that input the data is responsible for correcting the record.

"The first course of recommended action is for that command to send the PRIMS program manager a correction request along with supporting documentation. If the command can't assist with the records correction, then the member can always submit to the Board for Corrections of Naval Records," said Moore.

Sailors can review their PRIMS data through BUPERS Online at https://www.bol.navy.mil.

For more news from Navy Personnel Command, visit www.navy.mil/local/npc/.

Comment by NavyDads Admin (Paul) on April 18, 2010 at 5:58pm

New Guidance Can Help Sailors for 'Perform to Serve'

Story Number: NNS100414-04 Release Date: 4/14/2010 3:31:00 PM 0

By Chief Mass Communication Specialist (SW) Maria Yager, Navy Personnel Command Public Affairs

MILLINGTON, Tenn. (NNS) -- A Navy message released April 12 announced policy, timeline, and procedural changes to the Perform to Serve program.

"At a time when retention is at an all-time high and attrition is at an all-time low, we have to make sure we keep the right number of people while maintaining a quality level that enables us to sustain a work force for the future," said Fleet Master Chief (AW/SW/SCW) Scott Benning, Navy Total Force/Manpower, Education and Training Fleet Master Chief. "PTS continues to evolve to ensure performance based opportunity is maintained for our best and brightest Sailors."

NAVADMIN 128/10 provides the timeline when PTS applications should be submitted, eliminates the Page 13 "commitment of intent to reenlist" entry, addresses Navy Reserve affiliation options, and explains exceptions to PTS for limited groups of Sailors.

Working with their chain of command, Sailors should consult their career counselor and submit a PTS application no later than 13 months before their end of active obligated service (EAOS) or projected rotation date (PRD) if service obligation will be required.

Commands may submit applications 15 months prior to EAOS/PRD if they will be deployed during the regular processing months, or for Sailors who require early approval for special programs or decommissioning.

Applications are required for Sailors in paygrades E-3 to E-6 with less than 14 years of service, regardless of reenlistment intentions. According to the NAVADMIN, commands may submit applications for ineligible Sailors by selecting "no" to question one, "Is member eligible for reenlistment?" This enables accountability of all Sailors, according to the message.

The new message eliminates the requirement for Sailors to sign a Page 13 stating their reenlistment intentions. However, commands are required to submit a Page 13 to BUPERS 320 when a Sailor with PTS approval no longer desires to reenlist.

"All members of the command leadership team should read NAVADMIN 128/10 in its entirety and remain fully engaged in the conduct of timely career development boards, counseling and mentoring," said Benning.

PTS was first launched in 2003 as a method for the Navy to shape manning to match mission requirements. It is a centralized reservation system used to manage reenlistments. While most Sailors are permitted to reenlist in their current rate, Sailors in overmanned ratings may be offered reenlistment in an undermanned rating.

When PTS began, it applied only to "first-term" Sailors in overmanned ratings but has grown. Last year, the Navy expanded PTS to Sailors E-3 through E-6 with six-to-10 years of service (Zone B), and then to Sailors E-3 through E-6 with 10-to-14 years of service (Zone C). Performance is a critical factor in PTS selection. Sailors in paygrades E-1 and E-2 cannot apply to reenlist.

Commanding officers must ensure PTS applications are screened and certified for accuracy in accordance with MILPERSMAN article 1440-060 and notify BUPERS 320 of any action that may adversely affect PTS eligibility. Actions may include loss of a security clearance, three Physical Fitness Assessment failures in a four-year period, reduction in rate, submarine disqualification, elected separation, non-judicial punishment, refusal to obligate service for orders, and high-year tenure.

More guidance is available in NAVADMIN 128/10.

For more news from Navy Personnel Command, visit www.navy.mil/local/npc/.

Comment by katie99 on March 28, 2010 at 4:16pm

God lift us up where we belong !!!! Amen and GO Navy....

Comment by katie99 on March 28, 2010 at 4:10pm

Computer or no computer when your son has worked for this country with rewards and absolutley non blemished recirde for a his serice , the higher ups went through the changes of as high as they could go,it has paid off. My son sho loves s job , loves nothing better than looking up the jet engine or the jets are used to protect our country, it is with great,that I announce to you he is re-enlisted. Thank God that excelent hard work ethics can win over always! As his mother I am thrilled that the NAVY powers stand, are they for us are always there for not just my son! To a little! God bless the ones that stood beside us in our way. His carreer is safe, his family is cared for. See you all soon on board the USS Harry S Truman and may god bless and keep them all safe as yiu

Comment by NavyDads Admin (Paul) on March 18, 2010 at 6:06pm

a great way to retain your top talent:

again from NavyTimes:

Retention bonus drops for senior SWOs, steady for younger officers
By Lance M. Bacon

lbacon@militarytimes.com

Strong retention is taking a bite out of retention bonuses for senior surface warfare officers, but bonus levels are expected to remain for junior and midgrade SWOs.

Captains are hardest hit, with their annual bonus level dropping from $20,000 to $10,000. Bonuses for commanders are dipping from $15,000 to $12,000.

However, bonus levels for younger SWOs are staying where they are because year-groups are smaller. Personnel officials believe they have retained enough SWOs to fill department head billets, but officials say when the pool is small, it’s important to keep reten­tion high.

“We are still very committed to [the critical skills retention bonus program] and the junior SWO bonus,” said Rear Adm. Daniel Holloway, director of manpower, personnel, training and education. “Beyond near-term, this will be a CSRB that will be used effectively, though we may dial it up and down over time to address small year-groups or changing continua­tion rates.” The junior SWO bonus is offered to lieutenants at the seven-year mark.

As of Feb. 10, SWO manning levels were 121 percent for lieu­tenants, 89 percent for lieutenant commanders, 79 percent for com­manders and 86 percent for cap­tains, according to personnel offi­cials. While it would seem junior officers are overmanned and senior officers are undermanned, the opposite is true.

For starters, all discrete require­ments for senior surface officers are adequately met. And though it would seem there are too many lieutenants, most are at four to six years of commissioned service, said Mike McLellan, spokesman for Navy Personnel Command.

“Many are at a career decision point, but historically only retain at approximately a 35 percent rate to the SWO department head mile­stone,” he said. “This milestone is the focus of the junior officer bonus program.” The size of that junior bonus will vary as officials track year-group retention and match it against department head billets.

Still, bonus decisions are not based solely on summaries and statistics. Officials also focus on the ever-changing intangibles, such as the effects of dwell time and operational tempo, the econo­my and spousal surveys.

Beyond simple retention, the application of CSRBs also is closely tied to the shifting SWO career pipepline, in which shore tours are being placed between two depart­ment head tours. Holloway, a for­mer detailer, said he likes that model because it enables a junior SWO to get a master’s degree and provides adequate time at home.

“That shore tour assignment is very valuable to the decision­making ... and is a very, very important time for us to engage these young men and women.” Such an attitude and approach is not exclusive to junior SWOs.

Holloway said the number of con­trol-grade SWOs — lieutenant com­mander to captain — is “slightly behind” the billet requirement. As such, the $46,000 bonus offered to lieutenant commanders for a three­year obligation remains, though the single-year bonus has been axed.

“We really weren’t getting a return on investment with the sin­gle-year CSRB,” he said.

The elimination of the single-year bonus and emphasis on the three­year commitment is part of an over­arching strategy to catch and carry “proven performers” through their promotion to commander and to keep them in the SWO community through their 15th year of commis­sioned service. □

Comment by NavyDads Admin (Paul) on March 18, 2010 at 6:01pm

NavyTimes article:

House panel backs bigger pay raise

DoD, Senate question extra $340M needed for ’11 boost
By Rick Maze

rmaze@militarytimes.com

Despite widespread concerns about holding down federal spend­ing, the House Armed Services Com­mittee is making a pitch for a bigger military pay raise and for money to pay for improvements in retired pay and survivor benefits next year.

The committee is seeking a 1.9 percent increase in basic pay and drill pay effective Jan. 1, which would be half of a percentage point more than President Obama has requested and more than the Pen­tagon believes is necessary.

In a bipartisan letter outlining its views about the 2011 defense budget, the House committee is still committed to an initiative launched in 1999 to restore pay comparability in military salaries and completely erase a “pay gap” between average military and private-sector pay that peaked at 13.5 percent in the late 1990s.

“Even after providing enhanced pay raises for over a decade, mili­tary pay levels still trail private­sector pay raises by 2.4 percent,” states the committee letter, signed by Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., com­mittee chairman, and Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon of Califor­nia, ranking Republican.

“We … are committed to fulfill­ing the long-term plan to remove uncertainty as to whether military pay raises have fallen behind pri­vate-sector trends.” The slightly bigger raise would cost about $340 million more than the 1.4 percent boost sought by the Obama administration.

The Pentagon opposes a bigger raise, and the Senate Armed Ser­vices Committee has not endorsed anything more than the 1.4 percent. At a March 10 hearing, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee’s personnel panel, said a bigger raise isn’t practical. “We all wish we could do more, but we have budget prob­lems,” he said.

Clifford Stanley, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readi­ness, said the 1.4 percent raise is enough for the troops, given that military pay increased by 42 per­cent since January 2002 while pri­vate-sector pay rose 32 percent.

“We are at the point where ris­ing personnel costs could affect the readiness of our forces,” he told the Senate subcommittee.

In addition to the bigger pay raise, the House Armed Services Committee also is asking for the 2011 budget to include money to: ■ Fund concurrent receipt of mili­tary retired pay and veterans’ dis­ability benefits for people not yet eli­gible to get both payments in full.

■ Allow people eligible for mili­tary and veterans’ survivor bene­fits to receive both without offsets.

■ Provide retroactive credit toward earlier retirement for National Guard and reserve mem­bers mobilized since the 2001 ter­rorist attacks. □

Comment by katie99 on March 18, 2010 at 3:55pm

Thank you for this group so much.

Comment by NavyDads Admin (Paul) on March 18, 2010 at 11:44am

Link to Perform To Serve page from NPC

Comment by MarkM on January 28, 2010 at 7:36am

Re-enlistment is a funny thing. When I got off active duty in 1980, I was offered $10,000 to re-up for 4 years. I was an OS with a special NEC. They couldn't get me the orders I wanted to so I got out and joined the reserves. So many took them up on the bonus that the rate got top-heavy (too many senior petty officers). I spent 7 years as an E5 in the reserves because there was no more room for an E6. That is why I got out.

Comment by NavyDads Admin (Paul) on January 28, 2010 at 6:35am

NavyTimes Early brief:

Draft report recommends another port for carrier
Posted to: Military News

By Bill Bartel
The Virginian-Pilot
© January 28, 2010
A draft of the military's four-year review of defense strategy recommends an East Coast "alternative port" to Norfolk for nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. But it doesn't specifically mention a new homeport in Mayport, Fla.

The draft of the Quadrennial Defense Review said another port is needed for "strategic dispersal," an argument Navy leaders have used in pushing for another carrier based in Florida. All carriers on the East Coast are currently based in Norfolk.

The military in North America must "maintain the defense posture required for mission assurance, consequence management, defense support of civil authorities, strategic dispersal and homeland defense," according to the draft.

To achieve that objective, the military will "provide an alternative port to dock East Coast aircraft carriers to mitigate the risk of a man-made or natural disaster," the draft states.

When Navy leaders endorsed plans last year to make Mayport Naval Station the home of a nuclear carrier, they said the determining factor was that dispersing Norfolk-based carriers would reduce the risk of an attack or natural disaster that crippled the fleet.

After being pressured by Virginia's congressional delegation, Defense Secretary Robert Gates agreed to postpone a decision on Mayport until completion of the Quadrennial Defense Review, a document prepared by senior Pentagon officials.

The Dec. 3 draft could undergo changes before its release early next week. However, senior defense officials told a Hampton Roads group during a Dec. 4 meeting at the Pentagon that the report was essentially complete.

Losing a carrier, according to the Hampton Roads Chamber of Commerce, would cost the region 11,000 jobs and $650 million.

Officials in Hampton Roads and Florida who are familiar with the draft said Wednesday it can be interpreted different ways.

Frank Roberts, director of the Hampton Roads Military and Federal Facilities Alliance, said the report's failure to specifically mention a new homeport means the Navy could build a less-expensive second base for limited use. Given the budget pressures on the military, the review would allow the Navy to "bow out gracefully" from its desire to build a new full-service nuclear base, Robert said.

The review does make clear whether dispersal of the carriers is a concern for the Navy, he said.

A spokesman for Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., a proponent of the Mayport base, said the draft has a "good amount of ambiguity" that leaves the issue unresolved.

"It certainly delays the process," Dan McLaughlin said.

Bill Bartel, (757) 446-2398, bill.bartel@pilotonline.com

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 19
• 20
• 21
• 22
• Next ›
• Page