  I wrote a response to a letter in the most recent issue of Navy Times . nbsp;  I'm putting it here to illustrate my point about& nbsp; problems with the way the Navy promotes these days. nbsp;
 In addition to the below,  I'd also like& nbsp; to point out that the guys who make it their priority to " punch the ticket"  of what they think the boards are looking for (
i. e.  all those collateral duties and extraneous qualifications)  are also generally not doing their primary job well/ at all,  and burdening others in their division who have to take up the slack while they are out becoming "
golden boy" nbsp;  I've seen that,  too. a guy who is an E- Division LPO and Command Career Counselor (
LPO due to seniority/ experience,  CCC to get him a " bullet"  for his eval to make Chief)  he did a passable job as CCC,
 little to no job as ELPO,  and he will likely make EMC due to the glowing evals ( meanwhile his division was really run by a couple of sharp EM2's and he was generally clueless as to what was going on) nbsp;  Contrast that to another EM1 who,  when he took on the&
nbsp; job of CCC on the same boat,  asked to have another& nbsp; EM1 be LPO ( though he was the senior)
 he felt he would be slighting the job as LPO while being the ship's CCC. nbsp; nbsp; He was a superb CCC,  but ( even though he eventually turned CCC over and did an equally superb job as LPO)
 he was skewered in& nbsp; evals for basically not doing both. nbsp;  Sad,  I thought it showed good planning and foresight to acknowledge he couldn't do both well,
 but he was regarded as a slacker by the command ( he did,  however,  have immense respect from his division) nbsp;  SK1(
SW)  Goblirsch's letter is in the 24 May 2004 issue,  which is out in print but not available online yet.  / begin letter/  I have to applaud SK1(
SW)  Goblirsch for his excellent letter ( Well Rounded Sailors?  May 24) nbsp;  Well said,
 SK1! nbsp;  I've watched with increasing apprehension for the past 13 years the Navy promotion system and it's scary tendency to promote ( especially to Chief/ Senior Chief/ Master Chief)
 guys who were so " well rounded"  that they were virtually clueless in their own rate,  or at best had theoretical knowledge but were woefully inexperienced.  Long has the saying been " ask the Chief"
but aren't the chief's supposed to be the experts in their rate? nbsp;  While the role of the chief isn't strictly in- rate once they put on that anchor,  juniors look up to the division chief as the most experienced and technically knowledgeable guy in the division. nbsp;
 But the push to have " well rounded"  sailors,  while well intentioned ( and not all bad)  has produced many chiefs who just don't know their job anymore.
 I can recall an example,  a newly minted chief I met on my last boat. nbsp;  I'm a submarine nuke,  as was this chief,  and he seemed like a pretty good guy.
nbsp;  He'd been on the boat for quite a while,  and had come up from a PO3 on the same boat. nbsp;  He was smart,  no question there.
probably way too smart to be a wrench turning sailor. nbsp;  He had a lot of knowledge,  and in nuclear power that sometimes is overemphasized. nbsp;  See,
 this chief had done all the things to be " well rounded" qualified Chief of the Watch ( a non- nuclear senior watch that a nuke would rarely,  if ever,
 stand)  held a myriad of command collateral duties,  punched all the wickets to make the board see that he was the " well rounded"  sailor they were looking for. nbsp;
 Paid off,  it seems;  EP's got him to PO1 and CPO a year early on each count. nbsp;  Now he is a chief,  but while he was punching the ticket to be "
well rounded"  he was doing precious little in his rate and in his division. nbsp;  Seems he was never an LPO/ leading first class. ever.
nbsp;  Seems above qualifying watch supervisor he'd never really been in a leadership position. nbsp;  Had no experience running a division,  planning maintenance periods,  handling all the details that come with being the LPO (
and later the chief) nbsp;  It's unfair to him,  in a way,  that he will go on to another boat having so little in- rate or divisional leadership experience.
you see,  that next boat will look to him to be " the Chief" and he likely will struggle for quite some time to fill that role. nbsp;  Why?
nbsp;  He doesn't have the experience to run the division,  to plan the work,  to manage the personnel. he's never had to do it. nbsp;
 Sure,  he'll make a great CCC,  DAPA,  Urinalysis Coordinator,  CFL. nbsp;
 He's probably got his BS by now. nbsp;  But when his first class comes to him for the leadership he needs,  the voice of experience,  the technical knowledge to get that critical job done. the chief isn't going to have it.
nbsp;  He was too busy in his past becoming " well rounded"  to meet the wickets of the board. nbsp;  SK1's letter will likely draw it's share of barbs.
likely many from the CPO community. nbsp;  But maybe,  just maybe,  he's on to something. nbsp;
 Why do I say that? nbsp;  I've had a few chiefs like that. great guys,  lots of potential,  but little real clue in their field.
nbsp;  I'd rather have the top technician,  who has also proven himself as a leader in his field ( i. e.  LPO)
 be in charge than the guy who spend his time being a so- so in- rate performer but is qualified a bunch of superfluous watches and has a college degree. that guy isn't going to be much help when the gear breaks,  or the workload towers over the division,  or the junior guys have questions requiring the voice of experience and can't get the answers when they "
ask the Chief"  ET1( SS)  Robert Schumacher,  USN Pearl Harbor,  HI /
end letter/
