Re: Are these USS Kitty Hawk uniforms worth buying off eBay?

Dave,

That last posting by you actually had some class! You know it's
different on both sides of the fence. Of course I've seen the changes
myself after 22 years active. Today's eval/fitrep system still needs
work but is helluva lot better than 10 years ago. I was in a NAMTRA as
an E6 with 38 other PO1's, all 4.0!!! The closest friend I have here
now is a retired E6, best AT you ever seen as a technician. He was the
library of knowledge for the EP3. But it wasn't just one persons mold
he didn't fit, it was the Navy's mold he didn't fit for making Chief.
I tried to point out that it just isn't an advancement in rank, the
rank of Chief is a whole new realm. Nowadays its all about the
"ranking".  In aviation, (this is an aviation newsgroup), all the
commands I've been in let the Chiefs rank the E6 and below. Of course
it's the Skippers perogative to change that, but if he does, he has
some 'splainin to o to the Chiefs Mess.

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:27:03 GMT, Dave in San Diego
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: 
>
>> Absolutely Right Dave, thanks for clarifying and expounding on that.
>> Not everyone can make Chief. We don't all possess those desired
>> leadership qualities we look for in advancing a sailor to Chief. Being
>> just technically competent won't get you selected. If you don't
>> possess those needed leadership skills, the only other way to make it
>> is to "suck up" as you stated and slip through the cracks, and wind up
>> as an E-7, kinda like the other services. You never did get the fact
>> that the "brass" that writes your evals are the Chiefs? (whom in your
>> words are incompetent)
>
>Nope, never said that. Many of my evals were modified by officers who 
>couldn't write, and refused to change them because they thought they were 
>legends in their own minds. There were also those who were wired into 
>believing that all the marks had to be within a bracket, say 3.4 to 3.8, 
>or 3.6 to 4.0, or even more extreme, only one mark apart - 3.6 or 3.8, 
>and nothing outside. I worked for more than one DO who thought you 
>absolutely couldn't give someone a 4.0 and a 3.2 on the same eval. (The 
>guy I did that for had a poster-grade uniform and a short-timers 
>attitude, and fully deserved both marks.) Those evals that were written 
>by Chiefs and sent thru the system as written usually came out pretty 
>well.
>
>>  I suppose if you woulda made it you would have
>> been the only competent one? 
>
>Nope, never said that either. But I did give basic writing classes at a 
>couple of commands, as a first class.
>
>> See, they all sit around in the mess,
>> recognize who has those needed leadership skills, then proceed to
>> groom and write the future leaders the good evals and rankings. They
>> don't want an E7 technician in thier mess that can't lead. They want a
>> Chief in their mess. 
>
>Agree 100%! That's why i didn't get there, but my wife did. I'm a better 
>technician, but she's a better leader. There were those whose 
>"friendliness" could do a lot for them, though.
>
>> OBTW all of us CWO's/LDO's (thousands) all
>> "sucked up" to promote from E1 to where we are now. Glad you
>> enlightened us all. Thanks ;)
>
>Well, the suck-up thing might have been a bit harsh, now that I've had an 
>opportunity to back off for a bit. "Aw shits" seem to count a lot worse 
>now than they used to, and even one can be the kiss of death these days, 
>instead of being the learning opportunity it could be made into 20 yrs 
>ago. Getting beyond those "aw shits" can be an area where that 
>friendliness I spoke of above could give an unfair advantage for some.
>
>I retired in 1989, so my personal participation in the great eval game 
>ended then. I saw what happened in my wife's various divisions until 
>2000, when she retired. I got to see the system from an outsider's 
>viewpoint during those 11 years, and noticed a significant change between 
>my retirement and hers. Some changes were good, some not so good. I still 
>think the system is flawed despite all the changes I've seen in 30+ 
>years, and will continue to hamper some folks who deserve promotion but 
>can't get it because they don't fit someone's mold. 
>
>I do accept that at least part of your response may have been tongue-in-
>cheek, but I thought the original comment about the 16-year first class 
>was out of line and felt compelled to reply.
>
>Dave in San Diego