Army Training and Leader Development Panel (ATLDP). We have also been heavily involved in working with the ATLDP during the last few months. As you may recall, the Chief of Staff of the Army (CSA) established the ATLDP to examine training and leader development as a fundamental part of Army Transformation. By way of update, the commissioned officer panel is complete and the noncommissioned officer (NCO) effort is nearing completion. The warrant officer (WO) effort is in its final stages and the results should be briefed to the GSA sometime this summer. Chief Warrant Officer Five Lon Castleton, the Chief Warrant Officer (OWO) of the Ml Corps, is a member of the Executive Warrant Officer Panel and will continue to represent the Ml Corps in this important effort. We will keep you apprised of changes as they are approved.
The Director, Office of the Chief, Military Intelligence (OCMI) is Lieutenant Colonel Eric W. Fatzinger. Readers may contact him via E-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org.
For this issue of the Military Intelligence Professional Bulletin (MIPB), I have elected to provide a few notes to highlight the importance of communication during this period of Army Transformation. In previous issues, we discussed proposed MOS changes in the Military Occupational Classification and Structure (MOCS) process as well as some of the history of where and how these MOS proposals started. I now want to highlight the significance of communication as it relates to understanding change. As the OCMI Sergeant Major (SGM), I am regularly beset as to why the Ml Corps is changing things when they seem to be working just fine as they are. The answer, while simple in concept, is very painful in the reality of implementation. From our various personnel perspectives, there may never be a good time to change. This is especially true when one considers the impacts of change on soldiers and their families. Nevertheless, when all is said and done, change we must. During the March 2002 SGM/CSM Conference held at F ort Huachuca, Arizona, I had the opportunity to talk with many fellow SGMs and ask them what we should do to prepare for the future.
* Should we be proactive or reactive?
* Should we lean forward or hold back?
* Should we prepare for the future or be satisfied with our successes of the past?
When faced with these blunt questions, all of these great MI professionals answered the same way:
* Be proactive (set our soldiers up for success).
* Lean forward (embrace technology and the edge it gives us as a fighting force).
* Prepare for the future (make sure we are second to none as a fighting force).
These answers were, of course, caveated with a very simple request that the Proponent and Ml leadership keep the field informed so they could educate the Ml force on when, why, and how we would change. The OCMI wholeheartedly agrees and will endeavor to ensure the lines of communication are open. We ask only that, as MI leaders, you continue to ask the tough questions and seek information on the future of the MI Corps. As a retired colonel I know is fond of saying, "don't get mad at the answers and we promise to not get mad at the questions."
2002 MI SGM/CSM Conference. The 2002 MI SGM/CSM Conference took place at Fort Huachuca from 11-15 March 2002. The general consensus is that it was a great success. The SGMs/CSMs came to the table with a number of great ideas on how to ensure that our Ml force of the future is trained and ready. The exchange was open and professional. The various MOS panels identified a number of areas of concern that they briefed to Lieutenant General Robert Noonan, Jr., Major General Keith Alexander, and Brigadier General James Marks. By the time you read this column, we will have captured those concerns in action plans and work on implementing them will have started in earnest.
OCMI Website. Communication now and in the future will continue to be via the computer. With this in mind, OCMI continues to update its website to provide more timely information on proponent issues relevant to soldiers and leaders in the field. Currently on the OCMI website are a wide range of topics to include promotion board input and results, MOS Career Maps, Notice of Future Change (NOFC) documents, and Ml Proponent points of contact. In the near future, we hope to add an SGM Hot Topics section that will be a direct line to me as the OCMI SGM. Take a look at the site at http://huachuca-usaic.army.mil/ocmi/and let me know what you think. As with all websites, we are at the mercy of the server, so if you have trouble connecting, try again later in the day.
Upcoming NCO Boards. The calendar year 2002 Sergeants First Class (SFC) list should be available during late August 2002. The CSM/SGM Board will meet during 1-23 October 2002. The point of contact (POC) for enlisted actions is SGM Grossman via E-mail at walter. email@example.com.
Warrant Officer Actions
The following is an update of some of the actions we are taking to improve warrant officer accessions, training, and utilization assignments.
MI Senior WO Work Group Initiatives. In March 2002, the DOS G2 and Commanding General, U.S. Army Intelligence Center (USAIC), received an initial response from the Army DCS G1 on the 15 recommendations addressing WO issues developed by an MI Senior Warrant Officer Working Group. This working group represented PERSCOM, the Army DCS G1, the Warrant Officer Career Center, U.S. Army Forces Command (FORSCOM), the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR), U.S. Army National Guard (ARNG), U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM), DCS G2, and USAIC. The group submitted its recommendations in June 2001.
The events of 11 September 2001 delayed the response but now the actions are moving forward. Those actions requiring further study and coordination went back to the appropriate agencies and those that were immediately actionable are already undergoing implementation. We were especially pleased with the reception given to both pay differentials and pay incentives. Many of the issues went to the ATLDP with a supporting DCS G2 endorsement; by the time you read this, they should be on the way to the CSA for resolution or decision. We hope to update you with more specifics in the next issue of MIPB.
Army Development System (ADS) XXI Task Force. The responsible agencies are implementing the recommendations submitted by the ADS XXI Task Force and approved by the CSA for implementation in May 2001. (The task setup was to address WO and enlisted issues much as the Officer Professional Management System (OPMS) XXI Task Force addressed commissioned officer issues.) Some of the more noteworthy WO recommendations undergoing implementation include-
* Rollback the Active Component (AC) WO grade structure to fit the Army model. This should immediately improve overall WO promotions within Ml. The DCS G1 tasked all proponents to submit the grade adjustments in March 2002. They should be at the major Army commands (MACOMs) for their comments by this writing. For M1, this meant recording 73 CW4 positions to CW5, CW3, or CW2 to balance our grade structure.
* Assign AC WOs by grade. PERSCOM is now doing this to the extent possible. In the long run, this should help put the right person with the right experience in the right job. In the near term, however, expect some growing pains.
* Establish a WO tenure program. The Army is now working this program, which will allow continuation of twice "non-select" CW3 and CW4 on active duty until they are retirement-eligible.
* Implement the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) recommendation to expand the WO technical accessions base. This could mean recruiting some WO candidates from trade schools, the other Services, or from related feeder MOSs.
* Design training specifically for warrant officers' next assignments, dubbed "assignment-oriented training."
* Implement the DOS G3 is working a recommendation to access WOs at the five- to eight-year time-in-service mark. If the Army was able to access WOs within this timeframe, it could potentially eliminate our shortage of senior grade WOs. Currently, the average Ml WO pins on warrant officer one (WOl) rank at 10.8 years time in service.
* Overhaul the WO Candidate Course. This recommendation is also at HQ TRADOC for approval. This would provide a phased approach to the course acknowledging attendance at the Basic and Advanced NCO Courses (BNCOC and ANCOC, respectively) for candidates that have met that requirement.
The POC for Warrant Officer Actions is CW5 Castle ton via E-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org.
ROTC Summer Camp. Branch orientation days will not be conducted this year at the ROTC Basic Camps at Fort Knox, Kentucky, by any branch proponent. OCMI, however, will provide support for both Advanced ROTC Summer Camps at Fort Lewis, Washington, in June and again in August.
Officer Education System (QES) Update. Development of the OPMS XXI OES is progressing. The Process Action Team for the Leader Development Campaign Plan hosted another OES Conference in March. The Army has yet not finalized intermediate-level education (ILE) decisions. However, we continue to get further guidance. Essentially, the three-month common core will give all majors Military Education Level Four (MEL-4) and Joint Professional Military Education Level One (JPME-1). Following that, the Operations Career Field officers (including Branch 35) will go on to attend the Advanced Operations and Warfighting Course while officers designated to a Functional Area will go to their functional-area qualification training. If the CSA approves this approach, then assignment of officers to attend the resident CGSC (Command and General Staff College) course at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, will become a personnel process and not a board selection action. We anticipate that this may happen as early as June 2003. There are als o significant changes in the works for the Officer Basic (Lieutenants) and Career Courses (Captains) across the Army. As information on these become final, we will provide additional updates.
MI Officer Website. The OCMI has updated its home page and the officer section now includes both Branch 35 and Functional Area 34 information. OCMI recommends that you check this site on a regular basis as we will post new information when it is available.
Upcoming Officer Selection Boards. The tentative dates for the only remaining fiscal year 2002 officer selection boards are Colonels on 30 July through 23 August and Command and Staff Courses (CSCs) on 20 August through 20 September. Remember, it is essential that you have an up-to-date photo in your files--do not wait until the last minute. The POC for officer actions is Ms. Borghardt at E-mail email@example.com.
Readers can access the OCMI website through the Intelligence Center Homepage at http://usaic.hua.army.mil/, then linking to OCMI with the "Training/MI Professionals" button. You will be able to find information on issues ranging from enlisted career field overviews to officer, warrant officer, and civilian updates.
Lieutenant Colonel Eric Fatzinger is currently the Director, Office of the Chief, Military Intelligence (OCMI). Readers may contact him via E-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org and by telephone at (520) 533-1173 or DSN 821-1173. The Deputy Director is Robert C. White, Jr. You can contact him through E-mail at email@example.com and telephonically at (520) 533-1190 or DSN 821-1190.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||notes on military personnel management and related services|
|Publication:||Military Intelligence Professional Bulletin|
|Date:||Jul 1, 2002|
|Previous Article:||The challenges of Homeland defense. (Doctrine Corner).|
|Next Article:||The official logo for the army's 227th birthday.|