Commandant

United States Coast Guard

 

2100 2nd Street S.W.

Washington, DC 20593-0001

Staff Symbol: G-WPM-1

Phone: (202) 267-6018

 

                                                                                                                                                      1000

                                                                                          DEC 4 2000

 

CW03 Randy Cornell USCGa

President, Chief Warrant and Warrant Officers Association

c/o James Creek Marina

200 V Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20024

 

Dear Chief Warrant Officer Cornell:

 

Thank you for your letter of August 8, 2000, detailing the various issues raised at the 71st annual meeting of the Chief Warrant and Warrant Officers Association. I value the insight and

perspectives offered by the CWOA and appreciate being kept abreast of important issues that are

of concern to all of you.

 

There were three primary items you mentioned that I would like to briefly address here:

 

CWO collar devices: Your letter suggests the Coast Guard should adopt the scheme used by the Army because of perceived confusion caused by the design of the CWO collar devices. The

Coast Guard's CWO insignia is consistent with the scheme of all the DOD Services except the

Army, and I want to maintain this consistency, particularly with the sea services.

 

Time-in-grade requirement for promotion: Although 10 USC 574(e) was amended in 1996 to

reduce the minimum time-in-grade for selection of chief warrant officers from three years to two,

the Coast Guard has opted to maintain our current requirements. As a matter of interest, our TIG requirements align very closely to the Navy, and are less stringent than the Army who requires

four to five years TIG for selection, depending on the warrant specialty. As stated in 14 USC

281, the commission of any regular officer with less than three years continuous commissioned service may be revoked. This law essentially provides a 3-year probationary period for newly commissioned officers to acclimate to their new status, and it offers a practical solution for

members who are unable to successfully make this transition. The three years a CW02 must

serve prior to being considered for promotion to CW03 aligns with the intent and purpose of this

law.

 

The Coast Guard also believes we should maintain the current time-in-grade requirement a

CW03 must serve prior to advancing to CW04. It is a crucial time in which the leadership and technical skills expected of a senior member of the warrant corps are sharpened and honed. This

is particularly important considering the impact that reducing the time-in-grade requirement

could have on assignments. Conceivably, a CW04 with only six years commissioned service


                                                                                                                                                                            1000

                                                                                                                                                                            DEC 4 2000

 

from E6, could be assigned to a unit where the leadership and expertise of a senior warrant would

be demanded. This mismatch in skills and leadership could put a serious strain on the member

and the unit.

 

Another issue the CWOA might want to consider is the impact reducing tirne-in-grade may have

on the Selective Early Retirement Boards. Retirement eligible CW04s are considered by SERB

after seven years commissioned service. Reducing the time-in-grade requirement could

potentially result in more CW04s being forced to retire short of thirty years since they would be eligible for SERB two years earlier and would therefore face more SERBs than at pressent.

 

However, keeping with the spirit of your letter, arufas axesult of discussions-between yourself

and members of my Human Resources staff, we authorized "below zone" promotions to the

warrant corps for the current promotion year. While helping to meet workforce needs of the

Service, this also provides an opportunity to reward exceptional performers. This has been a

valuable tool available to other ranks within the officer corps and will now be a beneficial asset to

the chief warrant officer corps.

 

Education requirements for selection to CWO: While I appreciate the CWOA perception or

concern that some CWOs might not have the education qualifications, in particular math and

writing skills, for selection to CWO, I do not believe that requiring enlisted members to complete

a college level English or Math course, or corresponding DANTES course or CLEP exam in

order to compete for a CWO appointment would necessarily fix this problem. While certainly an asset, by the time members reach the point in their careers where they can be considered for

selection to chief warrant officer, demonstrated technical and leadership abilities become

paramount. However, the fact that the CWOA has raised this concern is a credit to their

organization. We will add your recommendation as a suggestion for members to better prepare themselves for the skills required of a CWO.

 

Service beyond thirty years:  For your information, we are going to start offering opportunities in certain specialties, on a best qualified basis, to serve beyond thirty years as we have done at

various times in the past. This will help meet Service needs and provide opportunities for some

to continue serving.

 

Thank you again for your input and the ongoing efforts of the Chief Warrant and Warrant

Officers Association.

 

                                                                                                Sincerely,

 

 

                                                                                                James M.Loy

                                                                                                Admiral, U.S. Coast Guad

                                                                                                Commandant