Enterprising Navy leaders have many avenues by which to promote the advancement of their charges. One of these is the Seaman to Admiral program. In its most recent manifestation, this dates from the tenure of Admiral Mike Boorda as Chief of Naval Operations. He believed strongly in the value of upward mobility into the officer ranks by the most promising and motivated enlisted men and women. Since its reintroduction, the program has undergone almost annual revisions. The most sweeping occurred in 2001, when all enlisted commissioning programs (except for Officer Candidate School, limited duty officer/chief warrant officer, and the Naval Academy option) were collected into "Seaman to Admiral 21."
This altered the program from its origins (the original selectees were sent directly to sea, with college degrees to follow after their first sea tours), but there were concrete benefits. First, widely disparate programs were consolidated, with obvious advantages in advertising opportunities and common and relatively simple application procedures. Second, all enlisted selectees retained their enlisted pay and received educational vouchers for $10,000 (which effectively opened commissioning programs to junior married personnel, who could not afford the previous NROTC programs).
At this point, the Navy should have declared victory, captured the system in a stable instruction, and encouraged enlisted personnel to avail themselves of the great advancement opportunities.
Alas, this was not to be. Instead, there still is an annual notice, and the bureaucratic imperative to make changes in a successful program has proved irresistible. The annual notice alone creates uncertainty among possible applicants; this year's came out in May and imposed a 1 July 2002 deadline. By itself, that offered a challenge, especially for those whose deployment schedules might have precluded their receiving the notice in time.
Most obnoxious to any commanding officer, and oppressive to any applicant, is a new assessment requirement. After each commanding officer undertakes an extensive evaluation for all of his candidates, he must establish a nomination review board. This consists of three line officers not from the applicant's command, including one chairperson currently serving as a commanding officer.
What value does this superfluous review board add to the selection process? Absolutely none.
We count on commanding officers to lead their ships and squadrons into battle, and we count on their judgments in a wide range of personnel actions. In none of these, however, do we require a peer review. This is for good reason. The culture of command is the bedrock of the Navy's operational excellence, forged in the experience of mariners since the days of Odysseus.
There is no reason to burden this program with an unwelcome, unnecessary, and thoroughly un-naval innovation. The only possible effect is to make it that much more difficult for those who are worthy to apply.
The Navy requires dedicated, hardworking, and intelligent officers. The Navy should recruit many of those officers from among its enlisted ranks. My experience is that officers with this background have a better understanding of the challenges of enlisted life, are dedicated to those in their charge, and are committed to the Navy as a career and as a calling. We should make the process of internal officer recruitment easier, not harder.
Streamline the Seaman to Admiral program, eliminate the unnecessary nomination review board, and capture the program in a stable instruction that enlisted personnel and commanding officers alike can understand and support.
Commander Gorenflo commanded the Parche (SSN-683) and is assigned to Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia.