Warrant Officer Technicians are supposed to be the best-of-the-best in their career field. Does anyone think there should be a skill-level test associated for selection to the WO technician ranks?

Posted on Nov 4, 2013

Warrant Officer Technicians are supposed to be the best-of-the-best in their career field.

CW3 (Join to see)

18.7K

110

Does anyone think there should be a skill-level test associated for selection to the WO technician ranks?

Posted in these groups: Warrant officers logo

Warrant Officers

Edited >1 y ago

Posted 11 y ago

Follow this discussion

Responses: 19

CPT Linzie Brim

Posted 11 y ago

Most of the warrant officers that I have worked with have always known their job. I hold the utmost respect for them. I have seen 1SGT's and Commanders who were not fit to lead bathwater out of a bathtub too. I agree that tests should be given for rank advancement, not just for the warrants but for the enlisted and officers. Have worked with too many officers who look great in a uniform and do extremely well in PT, but could barely sign their own name. Tests should be given to the civilians in the military as well. Too many are promoted because of EEO, not because of their skill set. 

(8)

Comment

(0)

MAJ (Join to see)

Posted 11 y ago

A WO who knows his stuff is worth more than his weight in gold. F'reals. However, I have worked with some who are less than stellar. They are to be avoided! However, are you advocating a test of sorts for promotion? I think one big issue is that a lot of WOs are being treated like commissioned officers, and therefore aren't getting time in their specialty. For instance, there is a signal WO who is a company XO in my battalion. While it fills a spot in our UMR, it does him no favors with regard to advancement or, more importantly, with technical knowledge.

(6)

Comment

(0)

show previous comments

CW3 (Join to see)

11 y

This is the biggest issue I have seen. Many WO's from my last unit were treated as JO's and forced to participate in events designed for the JO's instead of technical mission focused tasks. The Army has made a consorted effort to generalize the WO's and use them in leadership positions instead of as the technical experts they are supposed to be.

(4)

(0)

CH (CPT) Heather Davis

11 y

CW2 Vann,

My thoughts are what is driving this
topic; I
will share with you that overall our Military compared to the
80s has
promoted faster, and the requirements due to this war
have taken WO and have utilized them in other areas.

Development is a critical factor and having been a WO1 and CW2 I will share with you that technology, MOS changes, and the gulf between Senior Leadership mentoring junior Warrant Officers has created a relatively young force.

(0)

CW5 (Join to see)

11 y

CPT Davis,

I knew you looked familiar. We went to WOCS back in 2006; I was actually selected in 2005, but had to wait a year due to lack of classes. I hope all is well with you! Send me a message sometime @ [login to see]

Thanks for your post!

(1)

(0)

SGM Omer Dalton

>1 y

Terrance Jones - now that name sounds familiar.CW5 (Join to see)

(0)

CW5 (Join to see)

Posted >1 y ago

Having served my enlisted years in the Air Force as an Aircraft Metals Technologist, as did CW2 Vann, I understand the benefit of skill level proficiency testing. It takes true discipline to spend 10 hours plus away from home everyday, bogged down in the business of work, to then engage in personal self development at the end of the day. Skill level proficiency testing forces the self development. It has amazed me over the years that my NCOs have encouraged my Soldiers to complete correspondence courses outside their MOS because they would earn more promotion points. As I came up in the Air Force, Airmen were required to complete documented on the job training on specific tasks as well as complete correspondence courses in their specific specialty in order to advance through the skill levels of helper, apprentice, journeyman, craftsman, etc. Those same correspondence courses were the foundation of the Skill Knowledge Test portion of promotion competition. All promotion systems have some subjectivity, but much of it can be mitigated through testing. Many of our MOSs merge at the senior levels, ie 91B, 91C, 91D, 91E all merge to 91X at E7. Likewise MOS 913A, 914A, 915A and 919A all merge to 915E at CW4. These MOSs all have very differing skill sets. Skill knowledge testing would objectively ensure personnel have the technical competency required to perform in the merged MOS.

(4)

Comment

(0)

CW5 (Join to see)

>1 y

CW4 Ward,

Thank you for sharing your comments. It appears you are a 915E, if so, how would you implement a skill knowledge test to measure the individual's technical competency of a 915? What areas would you cover? Basically, I'm ready to take the skill knowledge test but need to know what I may encounter. Thoughts? I am a 915 by the way.

Very Respectfully,

CW3 Jones

(0)

CW5 (Join to see)

>1 y

CW3 Jones,

You ask a difficult question to answer in a forum such as this. If I were a 91B-91Z I would probably say the SKT would be centered around ASE certification. I would expect you to be able to turn a wrench, especially of a 915A. The SPO or XO would potentially have a different expectation. They are looking for an individual that can provide regulatory and doctrinal guidance. That SKT would probable focus more on programs, ie Drivers Trainng, TMDE, Warrantee, AOAP, SOUM/MWO, STAMIS/TAMMS management etc. How do we research parts in the various enabling tools, IPAP, Parts Tracker, DOD Emall, Webflis, etc. How do we manage the DA Form 2408-9? How is the 10% variant applied to services, when can we utilize controlled exchange, how about the dreaded cannibalization? What are the requirements for technical inspections? AS a CW3 915A you were probably accessed from MOS 91B and as such most of what I have suggested MAY all be second nature to you. If you had been accessed to MOS 913A from 91F much this information may have been foreign to you. That 913A converts to 915E is he/she is fortunate enough to be selected for promotion to CW4. Likewise, that 91F will be a 91X if promoted to SFC. SKT is a means that could be utilized to ensure our maintenance managers are prepared to move to that next level. I would question how competent your SSGs are at utilizing the MSD, trouble shooting wiring diagrams, etc. They get a block of instruction as they go through AIT/ALC. How much of those technical skills do they practice on a daily basis if they get selected as a Squad Leader or Platoon Sergeant? SKT force retention of technical skills even for those working outside of the specific MOS.

A danger is loss of confidence by senior leadership when folks are promoted without the basic competencies.

Improper utilization of personnel is a whole different topic in and of itself! What are your thoughts?

V/R

Terry Ward

(3)

(0)

CW5 (Join to see)

>1 y

Superior feedback CW4 Ward! Thank you! I have to agree with you on what you listed. It is second nature to me because I grew up as a 63B/91B series. I would also like to add to your outstanding comments:

I think it is extremely important for a 915 to know how to establish contracts if needed, work the MMIS system in its entirety..knowing the GEV process..knowing that you need to track the rollover instead of the unit's document# for a more detailed status (I have seen where people say, "it's a 'BB' status, but using the wrong doc# to track and it's already been shipped), knowing how to get parts expedited and who the SOS is, knowing how to get a hold of the item manager and not solely depend on the LMS who works at the Army Field Support Brigades (AFSBs), knowing how to use I2LOG, knowing how to find replacement NSN's and stop ordering parts that have AAC's of V & Y, knowing the difference between reportable and non-reportable equipment and what will be tracked on the 026, knowing how to write an SOP and insure it covers everything and more that the Army is looking for, knowing the in's and out's of the SAMS-1E system (then off to GCSS-Army), knowing how to integrate systems into the bigger mission, knowing how to properly condition code equipment,knowing how to get rid of excess and unserviceable equipment that exceeds the MEL or perhaps knowing how to request a waiver to keep(if applicable)..knowing how to "STOP" relying so much on TACOM LARs to figure out an issue for you..you should have just about every resource in your back pocket as they do if you are proactive and competent enough..knowing how to execute RESET or provide technical expertise when called upon, knowing how to help your Team out if they run into a bind and lead them in the RIGHT direction and not all over the place or GUESSING..knowing how to help people develop professionally and let it become contagious..knowing how to teach, coach and mentor every chance you get (should be a habit).knowing how to take a substandard Team and turn into a dynamic one where everyone knows each other jobs to a degree..I can go on and on, but that is what makes a great 915 who would exceed at any skills knowledge test, but it starts from the time one is a junior Soldier to the NCO ranks and then polished or fine tune as a Warrant Officer. I believe if most of what you and I have discussed is incorporated in the SKT, we will have the best of the best without a doubt!

Improper utilization is a beast and you are right that is a whole different topic. I think if we placed more emphasis on it, we can get better. Everyday, we do man-hours (indirect and direct)..I don't care if they are on a detail, it will be tracked and every wrench turner has a direct labor code. We just don't realize how tracking man-hours play a bigger role than most think.

I have seen several 915E's (CW4's) struggle at the SPO position, which in turn, they would rely heavily on the 915's that actually grew up as a 63B/91B and held all the key positions: Team Chief, Shop Foreman, Senior Mechanic, Motor Sergeant, MCS, Technical Inspector, etc.. Most of what I have encountered were 913's, 914's and 919's who had a deer in the headlight look because the information was foreign to them as you mentioned. You definitely make a great point in your post concerning this. I don't see how that was the best thing for the Army and have asked other CW4s/CW5s and they all have different answers as to they don't know "why".

Thank you for allowing me to express my thoughts! I really enjoyed reading your post as well!

Very Respectfully,

CW3 Jones

(3)

(0)

Show More Comments

Warrant Officer Technicians are supposed to be the best-of-the-best in their career field.

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.