Navy Seatime

[Shellback]

Below is a paragraph found in CFR 10.213..

If the normal Navy sea time given by NMC, is 60% for a qualified rate, can the info in paragrph (C) be added to that?

Here is an example..If a QM2 has a 1000 days of sea service and NMC applies the 60% rule which would then be 600 days..Could the passage in paragraph (C) then be added?? the 400 days left over should then have the 25 % applied to them for an additional 100 days, right?



(c) In addition to underway service, members of the Armed Forces may
obtain creditable service for periods of assignment to vessels at times
other than underway, such as in port, at anchor, or in training.
Normally, a 25% factor is applied to these time periods. This experience
can be equated with general shipboard familiarity, training,

[Jeffrox]

46 CFR 11.213. I read it the same as you do.

[Shellback]

CFR 11.213

c) In addition to underway service, members of the Armed Forces may obtain creditable service for periods of assignment to vessels at times other than underway, such as in port, at anchor, or in training. Normally, a 25% factor is applied to these time periods. This experience can be equated with general shipboard familiarity, training, ship's business, and other related duties.

Thanks Jeff, I was referencing the CFR via the MSM, forgot about the change...Never the less, the passage is the same..The only problem I see is the words MAY and AT TIMES...Also there must be some ominous policy letter shooting this sort of double dipping idea all to hell...Other wise we would have heard of this before...

[SailorDaniel]

Lets get your opinion on this then Jeff. Me and Kelly have been debating it...

The Marine Safety Manual has a chart showing equivelency for Navy ratings(Vol 3 Chpt 2). Under that chart it reads--
" Calculate 60% of qualifying time THEN apply additional percent as shown above"

I really think the "THEN apply additional" part of it says it all. FYI I didnt capitalize the "THEN". The CG did and thats actually how it reads.

When you look above it says my rating (Engineman) is 100%

That means as an Engineman I should be credited for 100% of my seatime, correct? Anyone can pipe in here, not just Jeff. In fact I'm sure Cavo could be of some help here. I already sent him a PM about it.

I think the reason we always hear 60% is because that is what MOST navy ratings get.

Heres a link to the actual safety manual. Check Chapt 2 Figure 2-1 on page 2-7
http://www.uscg.mil/directives/cim/1...M_16000_8B.pdf

[Jeffrox]

Shellback; I think you're coming down with NMC-ITIS!! Take a break....If I recall correctly I took advantage of this for my time aboard the Sub Tender; (no matter though, I STILL needed 90 days of sweeping decks and busting rust before I could sit for 3 Mate; one must have recency : )

[SailorDaniel]

Actually that is exactly what I'm thinking. If they give me the 60% I'll still need a good year or so for 3rd. If they give me the 100% then all I need is the recency. For me the diff between the 60 and 100 is around 400 days

[Shellback]

I think you're coming down with NMC-ITIS!! Take a break....If I recall correctly I took advantage of this for my time aboard the Sub Tender; (no matter though, I STILL needed 90 days of sweeping decks and busting rust before I could sit for 3 Mate; one must have recency : )

Screw recency, we want answers damn it..!!!!!!

[Jeffrox]

Lets get your opinion on this then Jeff. Me and Kelly have been debating it...

The Marine Safety Manual has a chart showing equivelency for Navy ratings(Vol 3 Chpt 2). Under that chart it reads--
" Calculate 60% of qualifying time THEN apply additional percent as shown above"

I really think the "THEN apply additional" part of it says it all. FYI I didnt capitalize the "THEN". The CG did and thats actually how it reads.

When you look above it says my rating (Engineman) is 100%

That means as an Engineman I should be credited for 100% of my seatime, correct? Anyone can pipe in here, not just Jeff. In fact I'm sure Cavo could be of some help here. I already sent him a PM about it.

I think the reason we always hear 60% is because that is what MOST navy ratings get.

Heres a link to the actual safety manual. Check Chapt 2 Figure 2-1 on page 2-7
http://www.uscg.mil/directives/cim/1...M_16000_8B.pdf

I went to the Marine Safety Manual and read that blurb, it seems like esoteric gibberish....What they mean by EN counting as 100% is that 100% of you seatime can be muliplied by .6 leaving you with 60%. On the next several pages in that manual they have example seatime computations, read through that if you'ld like a headache.

[SailorDaniel]

I did read that(several times now) and it doesnt show an example of someone in a rating that is 100%. Plus that sentence under the chart.... Calculate 60% THEN add... Makes it pretty clear if you ask me.

It doesnt say anything about the .6 getting 60% that way.

It says very specifically to ADD THE TIME TO THE 60%. Not use it to get the 60%.

I read it the way you did at first too. It was only after reading it several times that it all made sense to me.

[SailorDaniel]

On the next several pages in that manual they have example seatime computations, read through that if you'ld like a headache.

You'll also notice that on that example(at least the eng one) it says to SUBTRACT 60% of sea time. Obviously a misprint because I have never heard of anyone only getting 40%. So I would take that example with a grain of salt. Again though, that wasnt even an example of one of the ratings that gets 100%

[Jeffrox]

The one thing that should be clear to you is multiplying by .6 give ya 60% of what you started with, which is the case with your seatime. The examples given are of the more complcated variety but in each of them 60% was repeated used. I'm not really sure what your argument is. If your argument is that you are going to be credited with 100% of your EN seatime and then also some additional time, I think you're going to be disappointed. But DO apply to NMC asking for that, ya never know what will fall out of that tree when ya shake it.

[SailorDaniel]

Yes 60% was repeatedly used but in not one of those examples is the person a rating which equals 100% on that chart. That is why the 60% rule applies to those examples.

How do you explain the "1st rule" under the chart then.

It says calculate 60%..... AND THEN ADD ADDITIONAL. How do you interpret that then? The words "add" and "additional" say it all

I'm starting to think you wouldnt believe it no matter what it said. I know it sounds crazy but thats what it says. We should take a poll..lol

[Jeffrox]

I told you I think it's esoteric gibberish, What that "1st Rule" you quote means is they multiply your seatime by .6 and then give you 100% of the product. Check out the example where the guy is a GM, they do a 60% deal on him, then a reduction cuz it's non deck work (but 180 day is creditable) and then wind up giving 50% of what's left which is what the matrix has for a GM. I'm telling what really happens. I wish it were otherwise. You might be able to get >60%; Here's some added stuff From the MSM Chapter 2:
<DIR><DIR>

B. Criteria For Accepting Military Sea Experience.
1. Application Evaluation. Evaluations of military experience are conducted when a Transcript Of Sea Service or equivalent information is presented with an application (see Section B.2). At the discretion of the REC, additional information may be requested. Generally, additional information will be required to verify claims of a higher percentage of underway time than the 60% normally allowed by the regulations. In addition, the REC may require an official description of duties statement, letters of qualification, service record entries, or letters from former supervisors or commanding officers.

</DIR></DIR>

[Shellback]

Jeffrox View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message View Blog Entries View Articles Add as Contact
Top Contributer
Join Date Nov 2007
Location Subic Bay, Philippines
Posts 710 Rep Power 0 Re: Navy Seatime




Shellback; I think you're coming down with NMC-ITIS!! Take a break....




Thanks for the safety stop Jeff, I was overloaded with esoteric gibberish and lost situational awareness...Good catch!!

I think the best idea concerning this whole sorted affair with evaluation of military time was from AZIMUTH...Send in every scrap of paper work you have from your Naval records .

I'll ad this part in.... then shoot for what you believe you are qualified for..Then appeal, appeal ,appeal...

[SailorDaniel]

Jeff, I dont understand why you dont see what I'm saying.

If you take the satement of calculate 60% THEN(and I want to stress the THEN) ADD ADDITIONAL(stress the ADDITIONAL) as shown above there there is no way to come up with only 60%.

The example is of a DC rating. The DC rating does NOT get 100% of QMED(It does if they can show watchstanding you'll notice thier xxx is in a diff box) This is why they are not giving that example 100% so referring to the example is useless in this case.

I agree that the examples are a little contradictory but I'll follow a written rule before an example. Especially since the example is of a DC.

Ignoring the example for a sec Jeff, how do you explain that sentence under the chart? "Then add additional" means you do just that.

Do you understand what I'm getting at?

[seadawg]

the contents of this link might be of assistance??

http://rutgers.marinerslearningsyste...ea_service.pdf

[Azimuth]

Below is a paragraph found in CFR 10.213..

If the normal Navy sea time given by NMC, is 60% for a qualified rate, can the info in paragrph (C) be added to that?

Here is an example..If a QM2 has a 1000 days of sea service and NMC applies the 60% rule which would then be 600 days..Could the passage in paragraph (C) then be added?? the 400 days left over should then have the 25 % applied to them for an additional 100 days, right?



(c) In addition to underway service, members of the Armed Forces may
obtain creditable service for periods of assignment to vessels at times
other than underway, such as in port, at anchor, or in training.
Normally, a 25% factor is applied to these time periods. This experience
can be equated with general shipboard familiarity, training,

The simple answer is YES! The best form of documentation are your evals or fitreps, in continuity for your entire time in service. I also included completed copies of my SWO PQS book (I know it was geeky to keep it but it worked in my favor) along with every other certificate, letter, qualification, and school that I had in my service record (including my shellback & blue nose certificates). The clerk at the Houston REC didn't know what to do with my 500+ page application package. I can't say for sure but by my calculations, I received a little over 85% of my time in the service (all sea duty except for 2 years). I was evaluated at NMC but according to my evaluator my application went to a "different" evaluator who specifically evaluated military sea service. It took damn near 6 months but I got more sea service than I was expecting. All because I read the same passage that you did and interpreted it the same way you do.

[SailorDaniel]

Jeff, note the difference between DC and EN in paragraph "(b)" in the link Azimuth provided. This is why the example you keep referring to was only given 60%

[Shellback]

The simple answer is YES! The best form of documentation are your evals or fitreps, in continuity for your entire time in service. I also included completed copies of my SWO PQS book (I know it was geeky to keep it but it worked in my favor) along with every other certificate, letter, qualification, and school that I had in my service record (including my shellback & blue nose certificates). The clerk at the Houston REC didn't know what to do with my 500+ page application package. I can't say for sure but by my calculations, I received a little over 85% of my time in the service (all sea duty except for 2 years). I was evaluated at NMC but according to my evaluator my application went to a "different" evaluator who specifically evaluated military sea service. It took damn near 6 months but I got more sea service than I was expecting. All because I read the same passage that you did and interpreted it the same way you do.

Thanks Azimuth,

I remember you had mentioned this before and I thought at the time what a good idea it was...Now with this passage as ammo, I will do the same thing..