• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Naval Officers Once Again to Wear the Executive Curl

Sailorwest said:
A buddy of mine had an interesting question last night about this. If you sail at 0800 Monday and come alongside at 0730 on Wednesday, do you get two days, three days or 5.94 days toward the SSI? The definition of a sea day is 8 hrs spent at sea. Is that entire 47.5 hrs spent at sea all counted or do you only get to count one 8 hour period per calander day? Someone is going to hate this idea for sure.
"A sea day will be defined as a minimum of 8 hours at sea, at anchor or combination there of."  http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/92470.240.html  In your example above, that would count as 2 days.

Sailorwest said:
BTW, reservists don't have UER's.
?
 
Sailorwest said:
A buddy of mine had an interesting question last night about this. If you sail at 0800 Monday and come alongside at 0730 on Wednesday, do you get two days, three days or 5.94 days toward the SSI? The definition of a sea day is 8 hrs spent at sea. Is that entire 47.5 hrs spent at sea all counted or do you only get to count one 8 hour period per calander day? Someone is going to hate this idea for sure.  BTW, reservists don't have UER's.

Sailorwest - good question - a sea day is a min 8 hrs in a 24 hr period. So to answer your question it would be 2 days, had they tied up at 08oo hrs it would have been 3. You wouldn't get credit for 3 sea days if you stayed out for 24 hrs.

At least that is my take.
 
NavRes has been using software packages for a number of years now vice UERs. Previously that information was captured using TORIS and that has been updated to NRIMS. This is used in conjunction with data entered into PeopleSoft.

If someone CTs into NavRes from a career that had a UER, it is reatined with their PERs envelope, but not normally referred to.
 
kratz said:
NavRes has been using software packages for a number of years now vice UERs. Previously that information was captured using TORIS and that has been updated to NRIMS. This is used in conjunction with data entered into PeopleSoft.

If someone CTs into NavRes from a career that had a UER, it is reatined with their PERs envelope, but not normally referred to.
Seen.  The regs also use software (Peoplesoft) but the UER is still mandated to be maintained up to date (usually done in a panic before WUPS...).  Is there an official NAVRES direction to 'cease and desist' maintaining the UERs or is it a unit directive?
 
The calculation of sea days is going to be a nightmare plain and simple.  The problem is that there is no means to calculate this figure with any degree of accuracy.  Your MPRR will tell you when you were posted to a ship.  It MIGHT tell you if you were attach posted to a ship.  It won't tell you how much time the ship spent at sea, nor will it say whether you were onboard when it did go to sea.  Divisional notes may or may not mention specifics, but since they were never intended for this purpose, I wouldn't count on it.  Furthermore, Div notes aren't kept forever.  They are culled and destroyed periodically.  There is no way Div Notes could be used to track someone's sea days. 

It is possible to compare posting history to operational schedules, but again, that won't say who was onboard at the time.  Annual Historical Reports only list officers by name, but again, they don't say who made what trip.  This information is NOT in the Ship's Log.  I thought the Op Tempo screen in EMAA might be able to do this, but I just checked mine and noticed that it only seems to track information for the previous two years or so.  I can already see a few holes in my own records.  Things that I did, that are not mentioned:  1) several weeks of sailing in gate vessels of while in the Naval Reserve, 2) at least one week of sailing with the Naval Reserve after transferring to the Regular Force (with permission to play with my old Reserve Unit - never did get the sea pay though), 3)  four months in YUKON for MARS IV where we were very much at sea, 4)  two days in a submarine while doing a study, 5) several weeks in ORIOLE when I was actually posted to VENTURE, and there are other holes I'm sure.  In each of these cases, my record of sea pay is the only indication that I did these things.

I suspect that we went down this road because there is a mortal fear that we just might give someone some credit where it may not be due.  My fear with the SSI is that with this method of calculation, we will deny this award to far more people who truly deserve it than we will to those who don't.  The end result of that scenario is division and that's never a good thing.  We went through a similar exercise years ago when we were reviewing entitlement to Sea Duty Allowance (SDA) and we came to accept that there were people drawing SDA who didn't really deserve it, but the problem was not nearly as pervasive as some would believe and trying to clamp down on it too hard would have done more damage than good.

In the area of sea duty, SDA is the most accurate measure we have.  It's not perfect, but it seems silly to ignore it.
 
I'm absolutely stunned that there are 20 pages dedicated to officers getting a drunken bar on their cuff.  We sure know how to make a long story even longer around here!  :D
 
Pusser said:
I suspect that we went down this road because there is a mortal fear that we just might give someone some credit where it may not be due.  My fear with the SSI is that with this method of calculation, we will deny this award to far more people who truly deserve it than we will to those who don't.
In the area of sea duty, SDA is the most accurate measure we have.  It's not perfect, but it seems silly to ignore it.

I think the intent of creating the SSI and counting actual time at sea is completely opposite of what you are suggesting. We went down this road because sea day counts will be far more accurate than using SDA. Moreover, the SSI was created as formal recognition of going to sea, and where there is doubt, the benefit of the doubt will go to the member. Yes there will be some holes, we can only use the tools we have available but the intention is to have the members provide the info where there are holes in the MPRR. Is this perfect, no but what system is. Please remember this process is very young and it will improve with time.

As far as knowing when ships were at sea, sea day reports are compiled and submitted by all ships every month.
 
wayjosh said:
I think the intent of creating the SSI and counting actual time at sea is completely opposite of what you are suggesting.
The "intent", yes. But the likelihood of administrative oversights and sloppy record-keeping combining to ensure that a great many people with past qualifying sea service don't get the SSI means that the SSI could become a sore spot on the scale of the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal - at least for a few years. In this case, the best (eight hour sea days) is the enemy of good enough (the SDA calculation).
 
hamiltongs said:
The "intent", yes. But the likelihood of administrative oversights and sloppy record-keeping combining to ensure that a great many people with past qualifying sea service don't get the SSI means that the SSI could become a sore spot on the scale of the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal - at least for a few years. In this case, the best (eight hour sea days) is the enemy of good enough (the SDA calculation).

The vast majority of sea time will be available for calculation. With the large amount of time required between levels I don't think the missing days (if there are any) will truely make a difference. However, the member will be provided an opportunity to advise on any missing sea time.
 
wayjosh said:
We went down this road...
Since you were involved in creating the SSI - can you explain how the 4 levels were chosen? 

1.  Going with 1, 2, 3, and 4 years seems more logical than 1, 3, 4, and 5. 
2.  Anecdotally many will fall between 1 and 3 years and thus the SSI won't really show the difference between 'some' sea time and 'lots' of sea time.
3.  Service medals are awarded for 30 - 180 days (depending on the medal).  Why did the navy go with intervals of 365 and 730 days?

Just curious.
 
Lex Parsimoniae said:
Since you were involved in creating the SSI - can you explain how the 4 levels were chosen? 

1.  Going with 1, 2, 3, and 4 years seems more logical than 1, 3, 4, and 5. 
2.  Anecdotally many will fall between 1 and 3 years and thus the SSI won't really show the difference between 'some' sea time and 'lots' of sea time.
3.  Service medals are awarded for 30 - 180 days (depending on the medal).  Why did the navy go with intervals of 365 and 730 days?

Just curious.

It was a function of spreading out the levels, so that those who receive level 4 will truly be in an elite class. Further, once you reach level 2, I think it does show "lots" of sea time. I agree that many will fall into that range (btwn level 1 and 2) but is there really anything wrong with that?
 
wayjosh said:
However, the member will be provided an opportunity to advise on any missing sea time.
But I presume that this "advice" would have to take the form of fairly ironclad proof - proof that I, for one, don't have going back more than a couple of years. I'm surely not alone in not having kept records of a career metric I had no reason to suspect that I would need in the future.
 
Lex Parsimoniae said:
Since you were involved in creating the SSI - can you explain how the 4 levels were chosen? 

1.  Going with 1, 2, 3, and 4 years seems more logical than 1, 3, 4, and 5. 
2.  Anecdotally many will fall between 1 and 3 years and thus the SSI won't really show the difference between 'some' sea time and 'lots' of sea time.

I'd say.

The RAN Sea Readiness Badges are also represented by four tiers
Tier 1 = 0-3 years at sea
Tier 2 = 3-6 years at sea
Tier 3 = 6-12 years at sea
Tier 4= >12 years at sea

"at sea" for the purposes of the badge is taken to mean time posted to a ship, including time alongside, in dry dock, in the gulf, etc
Time loan posted to a ship or attached to a ship for a temporary period does not count.

navy-ready-badges.jpg

from top to bottom: 4, 3, 1, 2

There are some whp aren't fans, but I think stuff like this has a place.
Yes everybody contributes both at sea and ashore, but the hard truth is that personnel who have done a reasonable amount of time at sea should be recognised as such. They walk onto a ship with more credibility towards all things "at sea".
 
I, for one, like the idea of the using actual sea days rather than attaching it to the sea duty allowance. I know a few sailors who were posted on a vessel for a number of years, drawing sea pay and accumulating sea time, but never actually sailed. It irks me to no end. Why join the navy if you don’t like to sail?

Pusser,

Oldgateboatdriver has it right. The NavOs are required to log all timings when entering/leaving harbour into the Ship’s Log. As well, there are a couple of messages that are regularly cut (monthly I think) that summarize the activities of the ship, including days at sea. With all that information, a calendar can be generated fairly easily for each sea-going unit for their respective actual sea days. Now, you’re right, it doesn’t tell who was onboard. That is where your pers file with all its TD/APOST/CRSLOAD messages, the MedCat docs and the Coxn’s personnel landed message come in. The initial set-up will certainly be a challenge but the big nightmare will be the actual audit of each individual sailors’ pers files. No doubt this will have some groaning (yes I meant groaning) pains, just like the Sea Duty Allowance Audit of a few years back, but from then on, it will simply be maintenance.
 
Pusser said:
5) several weeks in ORIOLE when I was actually posted to VENTURE,

Hey Pusser, sailing in Oriole is its own reward: It shouldn't count towards SSI.  ;)

Now everyone, did I miss something here?

SSi is not sea pay, it caries no extra money or responsibilities nor increases your rank or authority. Perfection is not warranted nor I suggest desirable if it can only be achieved at the expense of rapid implementation. Can anyone tell me that we will have, for example, hundreds of seaman that are so close to the mark for the next level that they will feel frustrated they did not get the next level up?

For that matter if, after an honest file review is made, I was informed by the reviewer that I have 1200, or 900, or 3000 days at sea, I would not have a clue if they are right and am fairly sure I would not be able to contest any of those figures. I can hardly remember what I did last week, let alone thirty years ago.

In view of the newness of the matter, if the original figures make the slightest sense, I suspect that 99.9% (there are always complainers) of our people will be more than happy to use the starting figure they are given, be glad for the recognition it carries and will proudly wear the original Indicator they are given until they qualify for the next one.
 
Oldgateboatdriver

Great post, for those that are close to the next level, every effort will be made to be as accurate as possible.

Pusser

Oriole time will count. :)
 
I'll be one of the  .1%,  who don't give a damn about the SSI and won't put it up unless I have no option.  And even then...
 
jollyjacktar said:
I'll be one of the  .1%,  who don't give a damn about the SSI and won't put it up unless I have no option.  And even then...

Why the hostility towards something that is meant as a formal recognition of your efforts?
 
Back
Top