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

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Nov 2013 22:20:36 -0500

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

Response by CWO5 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 26 at 2013 7:13 AM

CWO5 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 07:13:48 -0500

BLUF: Yes I do believe WO or CWOs should be Subject Matter Experts. That is the reason we are commissioned. in the Navy Security Forces we are actively working towards that specific situation. The true issue that has prevented this is the vast areas that Security covers. FP, AT, LE among others. We have identified a smaller sub-set to focus effort to be a "true SME".

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 26 at 2013 7:26 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 07:26:24 -0500

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.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 26 at 2013 10:09 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 10:09:04 -0500

CW2 Vann, I asked a similar question about a week ago:

Is the time in service cap for the Army Warrant Officer program getting the most qualified Soldiers to fill it's ranks?

It is my opinion that when we put a restriction on the number of years time in service for certain warrant programs we are eliminating the option for more seasoned Soldiers to apply. If you take a look at the requirements to become a warrant (in certain MOS's) you can not have more than X number of years time in service. When you look deeper into the experience that comes with X number of years you are now limiting the experience the candidate has. In most cases the candidate has only had experience in one or two areas of his or her field. Once the Soldier is selected and becomes a warrant he or she still only has "real experience" in those areas but is now required to be a subject matter expert in all the other fields that are part of that MOS. Whereas a senior NCO has experienced more of his or her field and has a vastly wider knowledge base of not only his or her MOS but the Army in general. It is my opinion that by placing restrictions on time in service that the program is not getting the best of the best.

Is the time in service cap for the Army Warrant Officer program getting the most qualified Soldiers to fill it's ranks?

Response by CW2 Kameron Read made Dec 24 at 2013 9:07 AM

CW2 Kameron Read — Tue, 24 Dec 2013 09:07:25 -0500

CW2 Vann,

This idea of a skill-level is good for some specialties but not all. The title of "technician" doesn't necessarily mean that we all deal with complex systems of equipment, so there isn't always a by-the-book, black and white answer. The reason why warrant officers are leaders is because of the responsibilities and decisions that must be made in regards to the profession. My field and many others have a lot of grey area where it requires critical thinking and decision making skills as much as doctrinal know how.

What will separate the competent warrant officers from the "walking mustache" at being the best in their career field is how well they utilize resources and personnel to meet the commander's intent and accomplish the mission efficiently. I am a junior officer and I haven't received an OER yet, so I don't know how accurate they are. But I'm assuming that if I do my job well and go beyond my peer's performance that it will reflect in my OER. I'm assuming the performance evaluation is what keeps good warrant officers in, and weeds out the bad.

I know before I made the change to warrant officer I had seen a lot of substandard warrant officers in and around my unit. I knew that what they were was not a reflection of what warrant officers should be. I also worked for some really good warrant officers who inspired me to become one myself. I learned quickly that I am always under the microscope, junior and senior Soldiers will always watch what I do. So it is a personal responsibility to the best-of-the-best, and I must earn that title based off my performance.

Because the warrant officer corps is so small, it's sad to say that many will base one warrant officer's actions or inaction on the entire corps. But it is up to us individually how we contribute to the perception of all warrant officers.

Response by CPT Linzie Brim made Dec 24 at 2013 10:18 AM

CPT Linzie Brim — Tue, 24 Dec 2013 10:18:19 -0500

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. 

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 24 at 2013 11:29 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Dec 2013 11:29:06 -0500

I could count on one hand the number of Warrant Officers I have served with. Over the years there were some discussions about integrating WO into infantry units but that never happened and aside of our Maintenance Techs I have rarely interacted with them. I have always heard that they are the best of both worlds.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 24 at 2013 3:25 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Dec 2013 15:25:31 -0500

Allied Trades is a very unique MOS, especially as a Warrant. I grew up Allied Trades and loved every minute of it!!! About 5 years ago, 914A was recruiting every one under the sun, it seemed like if you were breathing you were selected. I knew Generator Mechanics, Track Vehicle Mechanics, etc be selected for 914A. They didn't know how to weld, understand metal, use blueprints, extract bolts correctly, TACOM specs, etc.. I guess that could be taught in a school, but our craft as Allied Trades takes years upon years to master, and in order to be that master in our craft I feel that Warrant should've grown up in our craft and be the BEST!! That 914A (or any warrant for that matter) should be the "go-to-person" after all other avenues were exhausted, they would be able to give solutions. I have the utmost respect for Warrant Officers!!

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Dec 24 at 2013 3:35 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Tue, 24 Dec 2013 15:35:49 -0500

I think it's very difficult to say "warrants are the best in their field" when there's no standardized metric to determine everyone's level of competence in a given field. It seems to be a very arbitrarily assigned label.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 25 at 2013 7:39 AM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 Dec 2013 07:39:51 -0500

CW2 Vann,

I strongly believe that if a Warrant Officer(WO) doesn't cut the mustard perse', he or she will eventually be weeded out of the Army. A Warrant Officer's technical competence is the single most important talent to possess, and if you don't have that specific talent, then there will be serious consequences, i.e. not being promoted, lack of respect, indirectly being isolated, etc.

Additionally, once you are exposed as a Warrant Officer and you lose your credibility with your boss (CO CDR/BN XO/BN CDR); more specifically, the Soldiers and NCOs, then you are pretty much finished in a sense. It is very difficult to recover as a Warrant Officer if you are not a Subject Matter Expert in your specific field; that's what our Officers, NCOs, and Soldiers expect and rightfully so. I have seen a few Warrant Officers not make CW3 because they have lost credibility through the lack of being technically incompetent.

So my point is this, if you don't get caught in the beginning (prior to becoming a Warrant Officer), then it will catch up with you at some point when you actually become a Warrant Officer. Promotions are extremely tough to CW3/4/5 and the Army has systems already en-placed for WOs who are truly not the best of the best (in most cases). So no, I don't think there should be a skill-level associated with the WO technician ranks because one already exists; indirectly that is.

Thank you for your post CW2 Vann.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 26 at 2013 10:36 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Dec 2013 22:36:41 -0500

Jeremy,

Skills tests would be greatly appreciated, and warranted "pardon the pun". We need to home our skills and integrate systems. We should and we deserve to be used more effectively. The warrant officer corps is proud but we should have certifications to back up our proud traditions. I want to progress in that direction and hope we can in the near future.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 27 at 2013 7:39 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Dec 2013 19:39:24 -0500

I know with so many warrants on here this won't be incredibly popular of an answer but if we are being truthful...

1) a good warrant is a godsend. And I mean that. I have met a lot that are amazing.

2) unfortunately in a lot of MOSs warrants are heavily recruited when promotions are low to SFC and MSG. And I couldn't count on all my digits how many warrants have told me they applied (or are planning to apply) simply because they couldn't get picked up for SFC. Perhaps it's different in other fields but this is very common in the intelligence field. This means many warrants are not the best of the best in our field and leads to a lot of problems and disappointments. Even at SLC and ALC they try to recruit us with the pitch that senior NCO promotions are highly competitive but warrant selection is almost 100% (it was 100 for a long time)

Fortunately this is changing. I saw quite a lot of FQ-NS and not qualified in the November board.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 27 at 2013 9:21 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Dec 2013 21:21:24 -0500

Chief, I think that the warrant officer field needs to do away with allowing waivers for the requisite time in the MOS prior to going warrant in that MOS.

The reason being is that those seeking fast and easy promotions are more likely to jump into a new career field [i.e. a MSG MP jumps over to CI and immediately goes warrant...] This is not a good idea, regardless of how you spin it.

It's the main reason why CID shies away from taking SSGs in other MOS's.

I agree that warrants are SUPPOSED to be the best of the best in their career fields, however, unless we start seeing tighter restrictions on time in MOS prior to pinning on the dot, then you're going to continue to see personnel with average to basic knowledge in their jobs jumping into the warrant ranks simply for an increased income/retirement benefits.

So far, I've had excellent warrants I've worked with. There are a couple, though that perhaps shouldn't be in the military...

Response by MAJ Samuel Weber made Mar 18 at 2014 8:57 PM

MAJ Samuel Weber — Tue, 18 Mar 2014 20:57:17 -0400

Chief Vann,

I agree and I think proficiency testing should be part of WO progression. Maybe certification for each MOS administered by the CW5 in your field? I think a certification would add credibility to the Warrant Officer profession. Just my two cents.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2014 9:26 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 18 Mar 2014 21:26:07 -0400

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.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2014 6:40 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Mar 2014 18:40:25 -0400

Absolutely! I think any leader should have to take a proficiency or skill level test.

Response by CSM Michael Poll made Mar 22 at 2014 9:14 AM

CSM Michael Poll — Sat, 22 Mar 2014 09:14:29 -0400

I tend to agree with the technical skill level testing, however I believe we should have never swayed away from it for all ranks. Back in the day there was an SQT test to ensure all MOS's skills were honed and up to date. I think this should come back.

Response by SGT Nathan Huff made Mar 22 at 2014 4:05 PM

SGT Nathan Huff — Sat, 22 Mar 2014 16:05:39 -0400

I feel that WO, NCO, and Officers should all recieve such a test before being considered for there next skill level.

Response by CW4 Anthony Carbo made Mar 24 at 2014 1:01 PM

CW4 Anthony Carbo — Mon, 24 Mar 2014 13:01:26 -0400

Most definitely, I was an SSG, then applied for flight school. Spent the rest of my career in the Avn Field. Avn Warrants are tested every year. Both Written and Hands on, So why not do the same for all WO Fields. But even in my days, some Commands used Warrant the wrong way, they are Tech in their fields and not J.G. Officers. As I moved from WO to CW4 I became the Squadron Safety Officer. I did not care who it was Safety was no game. If you came into my sights because of something stupid GOD HELP YOU. I would not allow mediocre from any Pilots (Commissioned or Warrant), Crew chiefs, or ground personnel. Avn slogan is "ABOVE THE BEST" and it was are duty to move troops/equipment in a safe and efficient manner. With this being said all Warrant should always be above reproach, and set the standards.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Sep 6 at 2018 9:43 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Thu, 06 Sep 2018 21:43:02 -0400

How can we possibly validate skill without one? Otherwise you're just assessing whose the best packet typer or who has the best WO buddies who'll write letters for them...