Help with my mmd


#1

Can someone pls. help me understand whats goin on with the status of my original app. for mmd. i am a navy vet, i turned in all my training + sea time and i was approved to test for all the qmed ratings so i decided to enroll in school for one of the rating (fowt) once i finished with that training all of my training in the navy came back to me, then i decided to take the junior eng. and pumpman rating and i passed, but the CG would not update me on my mmd. can someone pls explain to me whats going on. i have applied since june 08 and have been unemployed since then. i need the mmd to work. thank you…


#2

sphinx77 - Have you called your evaluator at the NMC? For me it is a little hard to answer the question without the response from your evaluator. Yes, June 08 is a long time. After you talk with your evaluator, post the comments and we might be able to shed some light for you.


#3

How long ago did you get out of the navy? It could be you are not within the time guidelines. Did the school you go to evaluate your documents? If all else fails do as Capt. Brian suggested. Only YOU can take that action.
Best of Luck


#4

"How long ago did you get out of the navy? It could be you are not within the time guidelines."
What does that mean?


#5

[quote=Jeffrox;8300]"How long ago did you get out of the navy? It could be you are not within the time guidelines."
What does that mean?[/quote]

The only thing I can this of is recency issues that would cause it to matter when you got out.


#6

i left the Navy in 04. i spoke to my evaluator today and she said they turned my paper work over to the policy team. i guess i am a little confused because my navy documents were evaluated before and thats when i was sent a lettter stating that i was approved to test for Jr.Eng,fowt,pumpman,elect., refer eng. etc. The school also evaluated the same Navy doc. i sent to the Coast Guard. The school also had a veterans program and in my assumption, an arrangement with the CG, that once a veteran completes the program they automatically get the fowt endorsement and the stcw cert for RFPEW (with no restrictions)


#7

I take it you are trying to go to the paul hall centers vet program. I ran into the same situation as you. I am an EN1 just out of the navy and I was also approved to test for fowt. In order to go to the school you have to meet the watch standing time for rfpew. I had plenty of sea time but the people at nmc said that my watch standing qualifications as equipment monitor and engine operator were not acceptable because they did not match the courses that they had in their computer.


#8

Swordfish, I wonder what the qualifications are of the person at NMC that determined that you weren’t qualified? Probably none, somebody tell me I’m wrong. They probably do a word match like we all did in elementary school. I can invision it being something stupid like Navy and USCG using different terms for the same thing. I’d get a copy of the sylabus for the “courses” they are comparing your quals to and compare for yourself; you might have to hold thier hand and spoonfeed it all to them. (USN and USCG terminology can be like Spanish vs Italian, mutually intelligible but not always.)


#9

The SIU/Piney Point [I]RFPEW Assessment Program for Military Veterans[/I] allows them to perform assessments. If you successfully complete the assessments, you get credit for having done them. You still need to prove you have the sea service and if you’re applying for QMED endorsements, pass the test.

Not all Navy time is acceptable, it has to be in specific billets, and for RFPEW it has to be performing some specific duties. It’s also discounted based on Navy ships not being underway as often as most commercial vessels. There have been a few cases in the past where a school assured someone their Navy tiome was good, and it wasn’t.


#10

So let me get this straight. I being an EN1 with 2yrs 7months and 26 days of seatime in the navy having served 540 days 60% which is 324 days on the Uss Carter Hall LSD-50 as an EN3 am not qualified to attend the vet program at the paul hall center. While on the Carter Hall I worked in main engine room one. I qualified and stood cold iorn, equipment monitor and main engine operator watches. I worked 16 to 18 hours a day in that engine room. All that being said I was told that I did not meet the watch standing requirements for rfpew because my qualifications did not match what the nmc had for their approved courses in the computer. The requirement for the vet program is 180 days of watch standing in the capacity of a wiper or a coal passer and I clearly meet that requirement. I was told that I would have to do all the assesments before I can even go to the school. But from what you are saying I would be allowed to complete all the assesments at the school. I have even sent the nmc my evauls from the time that I was on the carter hall and they show very clearly what I did on the ship. well the next class is march 28th and I guess that I will miss that too because the evaluators have no clue about what the navy does. The top guy at the paul hall center has no idea why I should not be allowed to attend the vet program. could you please explain why I shouldnt be allowed to attend.


#11

Whether SIU, a private entity, will admit you to their program is a business decision between them and you. The Coast Guard only evaluated the program and approved it, we have no say in who is admitted to it. If ther program has a prerequiste that your application has to be approved by the Coast Guard, it was set by SIU, not the Coast Guard.


#12

Seems to be a re-occuring theme concerning Military service, qualifications and training. If I remember correctly when I enlisted so many years ago the recruiting theme was something like “See the World and get a valuable skill you can use”. I retired last year with 23 years of service over 13 years of sea duty. From the REC I got comments like “your sea service is on too large of ships for the license you are applying for”, “that duty station isnt a ship (MCM Rotational Crew Hotel, we rotated from state side ships to fwd deployed ships in FAG (F—ing Arabian Gulf)”, to the Navy hasnt submitted those courses for us to evaluate. For the most part, in the USCG approved courses I have taken to date I knew as much if not more than the instructors did about the material they were teaching. Anyway seems like a reason to write letters to your Congressman, the USCG and the US Navy should get together and fix this BS. Seems to me that even though the Navy and for that matter the USCG are exempted for having their personnel licensed they are required to meet the standards of that training. While military mariners may not have the same flavour of experience as merchant mariners we do have relevant experience. Want cargo experience, how about amphib or CLF (combat logistic force) ships. Traffic density?? if the St of Malacca or approaches to Tokyo Wan arent good enough for you how about 2 weeks on amphibious ops off the coast of Korea. Do merchant mariners have convoy experience or port break out and q-route experience? How many drills does a merchant mariner do in a day, much less before the sun comes up? I could go on for days, bottom line is we are different but the same, mariners on diverging and converging paths.


#13

Jeff, it’s the same problem I have, being a QM2 and not qualifying for RFPNW… It has to be recent within 5 years…


#14

What can I say? Just glad I got my original evaluation when I was still on active duty and before STCW. The evaluators are doing word match games, it’s rediculous. I’m also tired of hearing the statement that commercial vessels do so much more time at sea - NOT always true, case in point: Prepostion Ship and MSC Ships, etc. Does the MNC give these civilian seaman only 60% of their seatime when they renew or upgrade? I think not - but please fill me in if someone has more personal experience. I didn’t have recency (90 days seatime in the last 3 years) when I got my evaluation so had to do 90 days at sea as an AB before I could take my 3rd Mates test. (IMHO I should have been allowed to sit for 2nd Mate as my first license.) I can say that those days at sea as an AB didn’t hurt me a bit, so if one does have to go to sea to “reprove” their qualifications it shouldn’t be looked at as a total waste of time.


#15

james.hatch- Wondering how many people you have on the bridge during the various activities described?

Very interesting our Navy and Coast Guard don’t know what the other does as far as getting a MMD. Persistence counts.


#16

Actually the NMC is supposed to give only one day for three as seatime on prepo ships according to a NVIC (can’t recall which one but will find it and post it here when I do)


#17

Captmad,
Convenient to think that somehow the job a Deck Watch Officer on a Military ship is so much easier than on a Commercial vessel. The real truth is that while there are redundant (extra) watchstanders, many are to facilitate rotations and under instruction watches which require a qualified person standing with them. Do our Navy ships operate with more bridge watch standers? Absolutely! And truthfully sometimes they are more of a distraction than an aid. Still all of these folks are not making a DWO job easier. Most COs standing orders require that all ARPA solutions be backed up by MoBoard and then correlated with CIC. With the replacement cost of most of our ships being in the Billions of dollars it seems to make sense to go a little over board. Lastly the mission of the Navy is a never ending series of High Risk evolutions dependant upon the mission of the ship. Not just steaming from A to B and back again here. And in closing, the bottom of the sea is littered with the debris of poor seamanship and bad decisions made by Naval Officers. I would never pretend to excuse or take up for sloppy work. However I will submit to you that there are many exteremly professional and competent mariners Serving our country and keeping you and your family safe.


#18

No we don’t give them “only” 60%. We give them [B]33%[/B]. See NMC Policy Letter -01 at http://www.uscg.mil/nmc/marpers/pag/9-01.pdf


#19

Good. I think that list of Casino Vessels might need an update since 2001. I noticed there is no list of Pre-Po vessels, or maybe the evaluators have a tickler file of them on their desks…


#20

[quote=james.hatch;9377]Captmad,
Convenient to think that somehow the job a Deck Watch Officer on a Military ship is so much easier than on a Commercial vessel. The real truth is that while there are redundant (extra) watchstanders, many are to facilitate rotations and under instruction watches which require a qualified person standing with them. Do our Navy ships operate with more bridge watch standers? Absolutely! And truthfully sometimes they are more of a distraction than an aid. Still all of these folks are not making a DWO job easier. Most COs standing orders require that all ARPA solutions be backed up by MoBoard and then correlated with CIC. With the replacement cost of most of our ships being in the Billions of dollars it seems to make sense to go a little over board. Lastly the mission of the Navy is a never ending series of High Risk evolutions dependant upon the mission of the ship. Not just steaming from A to B and back again here. And in closing, the bottom of the sea is littered with the debris of poor seamanship and bad decisions made by Naval Officers. I would never pretend to excuse or take up for sloppy work. However I will submit to you that there are many exteremly professional and competent mariners Serving our country and keeping you and your family safe.[/quote]

The only ex career Navy people I have sailed with in last XX years were former chiefs that became licensed engineers. Good people.
In the deck dept. that were ex career Navy and licensed were from KP and they did a good job. So I lack experience with ex Navy officers as licensed personnel from backgrounds other than KP. This I find interesting.

BTW: Protecting my family? Right now I would settle for someone really performing their protection job in the waters near Somalia. This present situation has gone long enough.