SOCNET

Go Back   SOCNET: The Special Operations Community Network > U.S. Army Special Operations > Special Forces

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 21 May 2000, 15:46
Joemac
Visitor
 
Posts: n/a
Warrant Officer

I just went through almost all the old posts on the SF board and couldnt find anything on WO's. How do you become a WO?? If anybody could help me out I would be very grateful.
Thanks
Joe
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 22 May 2000, 14:37
Tracy
Visitor
 
Posts: n/a
Get into SF, serve 3-4 years, then apply for the program. It's useless to even consider SF Warrant until you're in SF.

IMHO, the SF WO program should be discontinued. It's evolved into just another officer slot for personnel who can't (or won't) be Team Sergeants.

Tracy-Paul **********
CWO (retired)
U.S. Army Special Forces
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 22 May 2000, 14:53
spy
Visitor
 
Posts: n/a
Question

tracy

based on your last post in this topic, what are WO good for in the teams then? you made it sould like there worthless people, or did i miss interpret you? any way i am looking to get into SF and hopefully be a cwo5, but why are you dogging the SF WO program out if you are retired from it???
could you please help me clear thge air on this???

thanks


------------------
ooooo rrrraaaahhhh KILL KILL KILL
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 22 May 2000, 14:55
spy
Visitor
 
Posts: n/a
yes i know the spelling is bad is bad on that last post my apollogies

------------------
ooooo rrrraaaahhhh KILL KILL KILL
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 22 May 2000, 20:38
Tracy
Visitor
 
Posts: n/a
Spy:

The SF Warrant program has turned into another officer slot on A-Teams. Originally, an applicant needed two 18-series MOS', 18F MOS, 6 years in SF (minimum), 4 years on a Team (minimum), 1 yr experience on a Team as an 18F (minimum), 1-2 years college, Foreign Language, TS Clearance, recommendation of the chain of command (enlisted and officer), and pass the 17-24 age category PT test. Team Sergeant time was highly recommended.

The SF Warrant position was originally designed to provide experience and continuity on a A-Team from the officer side. Now, they're almost recruited out of SF Training and take 18F School enroute to SF Warrant School. What's up with that?

Many SF Warrants chose that route because they couldn't hack being Team Sergeants. Where's the leadership example?

SF Warrants now have to get staff assignments after 2-3 years on a Team if they have any hope of promoting beyond CW-2. I deliberately sabotaged my records to show I didn't even have a GED; which meant they passed me over for promotion due to lack of education. That meant I had to stay on an A-Team; because I wasn't 'good' enough to go to a Staff Assignment at Battalion, Group or JFK Center. God knows they tried to shanghai my butt to SF Schools on two occasions; because of my experience. But you had to be a CW-3; which I wasn't (hee-hee-hee!).

The program turned into something we don't need anymore; all we're doing is putting MORE rookies in the officer positions. SF is already top-heavy with HQs and staff personnel. Why add to the problem?

Another interesting note: There are other SF Warrants who read this forum; not one has disagreed with my assessment (so far!).

If it's any consolation, I seriously doubt if anybody in an authority position will do anything about it. So your dream is safe unless I become the next SecDef; then the 180s will be toast overnight.

tracy.**********@60mdg.travis.af.mil
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 23 May 2000, 18:50
OldSFer OldSFer is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 53
Tracy,

Too bad that guys with your insight rarely if ever get the chance to set things straight. Too much brass sitting behind desks on Yadkin Road with too little time in harness. A far cry from my era when there was only one one-star at JFK.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 23 May 2000, 21:13
Grant Grant is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 70
Question

Tracy,
You said that the requirement had previously been 6 years in SF, and 4 years on team. What would an enlisted man be doing for those other 2 years? Help appreciated.
Grant
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 23 May 2000, 21:58
Tracy
Visitor
 
Posts: n/a
OldSFer:

At least we can say we were SF before SF was cool!

Grant:

Sometimes A-Team guys get yanked to other assignments like Staff or Instructor billets.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 24 May 2000, 00:55
Scout
Visitor
 
Posts: n/a
Question


What's the typical career path for a warrant?
Are SF WOs automatically promoted to W-2 now? How long do you stay on an A-team, typically; is it the entire time you're a W-1/W-2? Where are you assigned as a W-3, W-4, W-5, if you end up making it that far?

Chief **********, instead of doing away with Warrants completely, so in reimpliment the original standards?

Thanks
Scout
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 25 May 2000, 18:20
jeff jeff is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: APOAE 09046
Posts: 98
Tracy, I agree with some of what you've said but i believe the concept of a warrant officer on the Ateam is still valid. I currently serve as a warrant on a team. I think the continuity that i provide with the team sergeant makes the team. Cpts come and go but the backbone remains.
Warrants are like redheaded women....really good or terrible...not sure where i fall into that analogy but.
As far as duty assignments you can stay on a team throughout your W2, W3 if its a specialty team but that is rare. Senior W2s are at the Bteam and Cteam levels.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 25 May 2000, 20:12
Tracy
Visitor
 
Posts: n/a
Jeff:

Two Items:

1. If Warrants are retained, a better solution would be to mandate Team Sergeant time as an entry requirement (or: 18 months as an 18F, starting from O/I graduation). That keeps JFK Center from grabbing rookies and sending them through O/I School enroute to the Warrant Course.

Reducing the officer slots to one slot on an ODA would help too. The Officer Slot could be filled by either a WO or CPT. Fill the leftover slot with another 18F. Now the food chain is Team Leader, Team Sergeant, and the rest of the Mob (two of each 18-series MOS). This would be a promotion BLESSING for the Captains; because there would be fewer O-3s competing for O-4 slots. Make half the teams Warrant slots, and half Captain (3/3).

2. On a non-related note: Did you know MAJ Kevin Reece? I believe he was the XO of 1/10 SF and then the CO of A/1/10. I had two different teams over there: 012 and 033. I was the Tech for 012 and the CO of 033. I was at Tolz from 88-91 and Panzer 91-92. If you see any of the older guys, tell them I said "Hey". If you have a forwarding addrress for Reece, send it my way! My mail to him is getting bounced.

tracy.**********@60mdg.travis.af.mil
DSN 799-7444
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 25 May 2000, 21:31
Jaeger Jaeger is offline
Probationary User
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 18
Quote:
Originally posted by Tracy:

This would be a promotion BLESSING for the Captains; because there would be fewer O-3s competing for O-4 slots. Make half the teams Warrant slots, and half Captain (3/3).

Tracy,
Having lurked for a long time I respect your opinion and experience. I also expect that if anything I'm bitching about a pipe dream. In the perfect world I'd agree with what you said in your post, as well as your thesis on another site regarding revamping the structure of SF.
My view, and concern, is that the career enhancement enticement already draws enough self advancing rocks. My experience was that as time went on, and standards dropped (another thread), the rocks became more numerous. Reducing the # of O-3s has the potential for screening out some of those that might actually be what SF needs.
Again in a perfect world I'd agree with you, but I'd say that the world is far from perfect at present. I've kept in touch with one TL that has bailed. Unfortunately he was the one guy that actually was willing to listen and learn, and had the ability to teach as well. The O-3s that passed through that are better forgotten are all still serving to the best of my knowledge, and in one case climbing the ladder like a circus tightrope walker that is running late for a hot date.
The solution that I would suggest is to find a way to recognize and reward ability and leadership as it relates to the mission rather than careerism. But if I could figure a way to institute that Bill Gates would be cutting my lawn.

Edited addendum:
The point I failed to make, not to mention include, is that with the reduced # of O-3s the pool for quality people to progress is reduced. I recognize that the rocks are at the same statistical disadvantage in the real world as well. My concern is that limiting the pool might eliminate some quality people from climbing the ladder to Bn. level or higher. In spite of personal experience, I still like to think that the cream rises to the top. Knowing how the branch works would you care to guess how they would respond to reducing the # of O-3 slots with regard to the duration of a TL assignment? Being managers I'd speculate that they would shorten it to run more people through the system so that they would have the same # of bodies to farm out. You know how managers are about #s Should our paths cross the weizen bier is on me.



[This message has been edited by Jaeger (edited 05-25-2000).]
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 26 May 2000, 05:13
jeff jeff is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: APOAE 09046
Posts: 98
I agree with the one officer on a team idea. You could be more selective in the Q-course for the O-3s and not allowing marginal guys to go warrant.
I've heard the name before, Maj Reese but i don't know him personally, i'll ask around. Some good guys in Aco.
This weekend there is a Crete war veterans ceremony in Aldenstadt unfortunately i'm not going. But some of the Group Cmdr is showing up.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 26 May 2000, 16:14
jmbjs jmbjs is offline
Probationary User
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Ft. Polk
Posts: 17
On Warrants:
I strongly agree that there should be one officer on the teams. Nco's should be doing the future ops (not the Warrant who saw no future in SF as an NCO) with the nod from the "O" confirming that what they are doing is in line with the SOC's intent...Doing Future Ops gives the Nco's the institutional knowledge (working/fighting with the SOC's, RSO's, TPFDD's, and different government agencies, et al.,) and that experience made our NCO's so well respected in the past. Working with those above mentioned areas produces staff smart, resourcefull and experienced NCO's that are ready to step into the leadership positions within the companies that badly need them. We are underutilizing our Nco's because we have in effect "dumb them down" by expecting less from them in the planning sense....For example, there are too many E-8's and SGM's who have no idea what a TPFDD is, or have never written a concept....By the time they have to deal with it (in leadership postions)it is because somebody dropped the ball and they are trying to fix it because somebody's hairs on fire....purely reactionary... And we wonder: Why SF is going the way it is?: In part, NCO's are allowing it to go that way. I say, get rid of the Warrants, put those responsiblities squarely back with the NCO's where they should be...There are usually 2-3 senior E-7's on the team, not counting the Team SGT, who are rearing to get into the middle of the planning/fighting, and that is the experience they should have to be a Team SGT/SGM. SF doesn't need more officers, it needs to utilize the talent and potential that we have invested in the Jr. and Snr E7's in the companies...If we do that, maybe the NCO's could have a little more control of the direction SF is taking...
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 31 May 2000, 00:33
MFFJM
Visitor
 
Posts: n/a
I agree with the way Tracy and jmbjs reply to this "issue". The "warrant" as designed was a great idea... someone with the knowledge to do right thing, at the right time. The warrant has evolved into someone who signs the hand reciepts in the absence of a captain. These "rookies" as Tracy called them have questionable leadership abilities anyway... many are the TM TECH who has came from the regular army from various MOS backgrounds, spent a few years as a "JR" on a team, then gone to the "program" getting O/I on the way to school. He is then taught that HE is the 'SME' the 'Command continuity' while he is in the SF warrant course. (and the guys we get in the force today BELIEVE what they are taught) Then, armed with a 5 yr background in aviation maintenance, 3yrs of team time and a little colledge..... BINGO you have a 180a!
The NCO's MUST HAVE a more proactive role in daily ODA operations. Some people may think I am nuts.... but we would be better served (in the long run) by going back to having an LT as an XO... GO AHEAD AND FINISH YOUR CHUCKLES................... now the reason why: We need to raise and mentor our own leadership. We cant do this with 180a's because THEY WILL NEVER COMMAND above the ODA level. That same W01 who used to be in an aviation unit has never proven his leadership abilities..... yes I know LT's are "stupid"... "inexperienced"..... "hard headed".... but a 1LT has at LEAST commanded a platoon. (36 privates and spec 4's are a helluva lot harder to deal with then 8 senior NCO'S) Plus, a LT will someday be a Col. (gp cdr rank) a wo1 will nerver... ever ... rise to that level. We (if we do like jmbjs says and DO OUR jobs as NCO's this 1LT will grow into a GOOD company/bn/group/swc/usasfc/etc... cdr. When he gets to that point he will be experienced AND educated. NCO'S have been training LT's for 200 yrs. IT WORKS. Its not that far away, but SF is going to be run by officers with LESS than 2 years of tm time... rare is the tm ldr that has more ... (most of them got out or went "somewhere-else" to operate.)The 1LT's would get 2 years of tm time... and go to staff. While doing staff time they would see the troubles between ODA and staff level. They would worry because they would know that as a CPT they would be going back to a tm eventually. If nothing else we would have commanders with 4 years of team time instead of 2...... With the way things are going now, most of the warrants only get that much before they 'RETIRE' to the basement at group, or the s-3 at bn. I know this is only a pipe dream, but hey, what else does a guy have.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 31 May 2000, 00:57
OldSFer OldSFer is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 53
MFFJM,

No chuckling here. I have been a proponent of the 1LT as XO (as it was during my era) because it's the best way to groom the future leaders in SF.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Our new posting rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 14:27.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Socnet.com All Rights Reserved
SOCNET 1996-2018