Military Intelligence Professional Bulletin - Federation of American ...

8
Technical Perspective
by Chief Warrant Offi cer Five James J. Prewitt-Diaz
U.S. Army Military Intelligence Corps
A Warrant Offi cer is not a Warrant Offi cer is not a Warrant Offi cer . . .
Just as our Army is changing to meet future threats,
the Warrant Offi cer (WO) Corps is changing to meet
the requirements of the transforming Army. Many actions
and initiatives have been instituted to fi x, improve,
and ensure the long—term health and relevance of the
WO Corps. The Army’s transformation demands that
our leadership take proactive actions to ensure that the
WO cohort remains as a viable portion of our Army.
In almost every briefi ng regarding the WO program
that I attend there are recurring obsolete ideas about
what a WO should be. These outdated opinions are
nested in the past but unfortunately continue to reappear
and must be clarifi ed before effective future
change can occur. My intent and purpose of this column
is to set the record straight on two of the most
pervasive misconceptions regarding WOs. The fi rst is
that a Warrant Offi cer One (WO1) is an expert and the
second is that a WO1 is interchangeable with senior
WOs.
Myth: The WO1 is an Expert
The philosophy that an individual, upon
appointment to WO1, is fully technically
competent is not valid. The latest release
of the DA Pam 600-3, Commissioned
Offi cer Professional Development and
Career Management, dated 14 October
2005, describes a WO1 as an “entry” level
offi cer. Today’s WO1s are accessed
younger in their careers with an average
of two assignments (one being in combat).
They are chosen for the WO program, not because
they have a vast experience base, but because
they possess the ability to learn, the eagerness to tackle
challenges, and the potential to contribute to the Army’s
mission as an offi cer, leader, and technician.
Of course everyone remembers the way it used to
be. Twenty-fi ve years ago the Army accessed WO1s
from senior noncommissioned offi cer (NCO) ranks who
had well over 10 years in the service. The expectation
was that the more senior the NCO, the more experience
that individual would bring to the WO ranks. This
WO did not require training because he brought expertise
gained from a long career in the NCO ranks. The
main problem was that a WO accessed under this system
often reached retirement age as a Chief Warrant
Offi cer Two (CW2) or CW3. The Army could only keep
a WO under this system for 6 to 8 years of WO service
before the offi cer made the decision to retire. This
practice compounded the senior WO shortages that we
have today.
In order to obtain more WO service years and to fi x
the shortage of senior WOs, the Army has started to access
WO at the fi ve to eight years in service. Although
there are concerns about the lack of technical expertise
from this younger accessions, the fact of the matter
is that no less than fi ve WO studies have concluded
that younger accessions is the logical approach to fi xing
several of the challenges faced today. The Army
has made a conscious decision to invest in the future
by accessing WOs earlier and allowing them to grow
into CW4s or CW5s before retirement age. So, the new
WO1s do not have the experience base that a WO1 accessed
in the 1980s had—they are not supposed to,
they are not experts.
Military Intelligence