Agrupación de puntos utilizando distancia de Chebyshev y factor de similitud

Confounding this personnel retention dilemma is a concern that the Navy is not retaining high-quality officers, as it is unclear if the officers who retain at each port of exit are of the requisite caliber. Retention bonuses and special pays are non- discriminatory systems, in which officers meeting the minimum qualification requirements and applying for incentive pays are selected with few reservations. Without

a performance mechanism during the screening process, these retention bonuses and incentive pay programs do not ensure that the best-qualified officers are retained. Also, these programs are not flexible to changing labor market conditions. If more officers retain than were anticipated due to a worsening civilian job market, the Navy may be slow to react in changing the bonus program. Once mandated, these monetary programs are viewed as entitlements rather than as incentives. Additionally, retention bonuses only affect those officers at the margin of a stay-or-leave decision (Asch & Warner, 2001). Officers who are strongly opposed to staying in the Navy will want to charge the Navy exorbitant economic rents in order to retain. It is not cost effective for the Navy to retain officers with such preferences. However, it is possible that these officers are the high- ability and highly productive leaders the Navy needs to retain.

a. Defining Quality Performance

How does the SWO community define the quality of an officer? Throughout Surface Warfare Officers’ careers, quality is an amorphous concept that changes as officers advance in rank. Generally, the promotion board determines the quality of an officer. However, several indicators of a quality rating exist among SWOs: qualifications, subspecialty (SSP) codes, graduate education, Joint Professional Military Education (JPME), and documented performance in an officer’s fitness report (FITREP).

(1) SWO Qualifications. When SWOs complete warfare qualifications, an additional qualification designation (AQD) entry is annotated in their officer service records. AQD entries represent an officer’s personal qualifications history and (to some degree) performance and quality. Certain AQDs are required to fulfill specific job positions. For example, the SWO qualification AQD is required for SWO DH billets. Officers are expected to attain the requisite AQD, but those who achieve AQDs beyond the actual job requirements and exceed expectations for their peer group exhibit high-quality characteristics.

The performance requirement for the first DIVO assignment includes: attaining Officer of the Deck Underway (OOD U/W) and SWO qualifications.

“sustained superior performance at sea and proven leadership positions in shore or joint assignments” are evaluated and rewarded through promotion and eventual selection to command (Commander Navy Personnel Command, 2007a, p. 6). Attaining additional SWO qualifications, such as Engineering Officer of the Watch (EOOW) during the first DIVO tour, enables officers to stand out among their peers. During the second DIVO tour assignment, SWOs are expected to obtain EOOW qualifications and, if permitted by their commanding officer, Tactical Action Officer (TAO) qualifications. If the EOOW and TAO qualifications are not achieved during DIVO tours, officers are required to complete them during their first DH tour at sea. Additional warfare AQDs are awarded for qualification at additional watch stations, such as anti-submarine warfare evaluator or AEGIS missile system operator. Finally, mid-grade and senior SWOs screen for XO and CO command, which includes respective AQDs that define quality among their peers.

(2) Subspecialty (SSP) codes. During shore duty, Surface Warfare Officers have the opportunity to enhance their personal qualifications by attaining subspecialty (SSP) codes. SSP codes identify an officer’s achievements in enrolling and completing “advanced education, functional training, and significant experience in various fields and disciplines” (Commander Navy Personnel Command, 2008b, p. 1). As such, SSP codes can be awarded for both education and experience within a specific specialty field. For example, 3130X is the SSP code for manpower systems analysis management, where the suffix (placeholder is X) represents the level of qualification based on experience and education. Certain SSP codes provide further detailing opportunities that are not provided to non-designated officers, thereby providing additional means to separate quality from non-quality SWOs. (Director of Manpower, Personnel, Training, and Education Policy Division, 2007b)

(3) Graduate Education. Assignments to duty locations such as the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS), United States Naval Academy (USNA), and Naval Reserve Officer Training Commands (NROTC) provide the opportunity to attain a Master’s Degree and higher education at a Navy-sponsored residence program. Officers can also choose to enroll in Navy distance-learning education programs. Finally, SWOs can enroll in residence or distance-learning programs through civilian institutions of their

choice, funded by Tuition Assistance, the Montgomery GI Bill, or personal funds. These programs are also documented in officers’ personnel records by SSP codes by which the Navy “track[s] specific skill sets beyond those described by an officer’s designator” (Commander Navy Personnel Command, 2008b, p. 1). Obtaining advanced education represents a higher-quality officer.

(4) Joint Professional Military Education (JPME). Through residence courses and distance-learning programs, SWOs have the opportunity to complete joint-military education in two consecutive phases: JPME Phase I and JPME Phase II. In addition to significant joint experience, completion of both phases is required to earn a Joint Qualified Officer (JQO) designation. JPME Phase I, JPME Phase II, and the JQO designation are all quality indicators for Surface Warfare Officers, as they indicate a level of joint-military expertise that is highly valued by the Navy. (Office of the Secretary of Defense, 2007).

(5) Documented Performance in a SWO’s FITREP. Since the nature of the FITREP process includes relative performance scores based on comparison to an officer’s peer group, FITREP scores and promotion recommendations are instrumental in gauging the quality of an officer. Appendix B contains a sample of an officer FITREP, including the criteria against which SWOs are evaluated.

b. Definition of Quality Changes with Rank

During department head, XO, CO, and major command tours, qualification requirements and expectations continue to develop as more stringent standards apply to future job positions. As compiled from the FY08 SWO community brief, Figure 12 shows the descriptive statistics for SWOs at each rank from Lieutenant (O-3) through Captain (O-6).

Figure 12. Surface Warfare Officer Qualifications and Education Statistics (Adapted from Commander Navy Personnel Command, 2007a, pp. 3-5)

As shown in Figure 12, the quality metrics increase as rank increases. The percentage of the SWO population with Master’s Degrees, JPME Phase I and Phase II qualifications, joint-duty assignments, JSO (now called Joint Qualified Officer) designation, financial management SSP code, and operations analysis SSP code increases as SWOs progress through the ranks. Increasing attainment rates in graduate education, AQDs, and SSP codes detail the value that the SWO community and selection boards place in these areas. For example, in differentiating the quality of officers, the percent of O-4 SWOs who completed JPME Phase I are recognized over those officers who did not complete this milestone, 32 percent compared to 68 percent. At the Captain (O-6) level, a senior SWO among the 13.3 percent who did not complete JPME Phase I is differentiated negatively from the others. The same analysis can be made for other quality indicators.