Transfer of qualification and certification is always a topic of interest on here, so I thought I’d post this link to an article in this month’s USNI Proceedings, which I imagine many might not ordinarily see. I have no comment either way, not being a professional mariner (I lurk on here occasionally because of my interest in things maritime as a yacht sailor and based on my previous USPHS service), but I imagine this might stimulate the expression of some opinions from this august group!
My attention span was too short to read the entire diatribe, but from what I did read, the issues he attributed to transferring USN SWO qualifications to commercial licenses are actually just the normal issues merchant mariners suffer at the hands of NMC every time we apply or try to upgrade.
As an example, his first application was denied until he got a license consultant involved. I’ve never used a consultant, but I always expect my applications for any upgrade to require back and forth with NMC. And then there was his complaint about sea service: “SWOs commissioning from sources other than the Naval Academy or one of the federal or state maritime academies can still pursue unlimited tonnage licenses, but they must fulfill more stringent sea-service requirements—a staggering 1,080 days at sea, or equivalent to nearly three years of continuous sea duty.” Yea, 1,080 days is ridiculous. But that is the requirement for anyone that doesn’t attend an academy. So why would a Navy SWO get a break?
5 Likes
Agree that he is griping about the status quo for anyone who did not graduate from an academy.
From the article, it appears he was granted the licenses he had time for.
Where I have seen people really struggle is getting their sea service straight – especially anyone who served on SSBN.
The Army Transportation School’s Maritime Operations Branch has received USCG and/or STCW approval for more than two dozen courses. Maybe the Navy (and the Coast Guard, for that matter) should ask the Army how to do it.
Finally, this struck me: “Historically, there has been a perception that civilian maritime careers are inferior to naval service, leading to hesitancy among SWOs to pursue civilian credentials.”
I mean, they pay a lot better, even if the benefits aren’t quite as good.
Not having served in the Navy, I can say that my perception from the civilian side is that a.) they divide the work of “driving a ship” among many, many more people than we do*, b.) a qualified SWO likely has much less autonomy than a licensed mate, and c ) they run into stuff a lot.
I understand there are very good reasons for a. above, including redundancy in the event of a casualty. I also think I understand, perhaps better than the author of the paper, that a SWO’s primary job is war fighting, and the operation of the vessel is in service of that end.
(*Heck, watching an 87’ Island-class cutter dock is a hoot, with upwards of 10 people on deck to do what one or two deckhands do on a larger tug or OSV)
1 Like
The author tries to compare “driving experience” between military and civilian planes vs vessels. That’s not apples to apples. Any type of pilot is focused on driving. Mates in the Merchant Marine do way more than drive - and when they drive during the daylight, they can be alone on the bridge. Navy ships have a whole bunch of people on the bridge focusing on different duties.
“As an NROTC graduate, I am baffled that I am unable to pursue the third-mate license.” This is ridiculous statement. First of you are not prevented from pursuing the license, and second how can you think that the few NROTC classes you took is in any way equivalent to 4 years of school, or 3 years of sea service? Come on.
I’m happy there is a path from military to mariner, as there is overlap, but consider this - What if I wanted to be a Captain of a navy ship tomorrow? He is suggesting an obstacle free path from the Navy into the Merchant Marine, but I’d imagine he wouldn’t want me to suddenly be a Captain of a Navy vessel tomorrow after sending in some sea time and paying a fee though?
4 Likes
I think that there is a legitimate question to ask about whether or not a degree from the Naval Academy prepares a student for receiving their mate’s license anymore than four years in NROTC. Although USNA types get a little more sea exposure with sail teams and YPs, and a lot more ‘regiment’, there is not an appreciable difference between an NROTC graduate and one from USNA in terms of nautical knowledge. Honestly, if anything the caveat for USNA guys should go away. To say nothing of OCS graduates, who get a grand total of 90 days instruction.
I think the author should have been more outraged that Navy time is discounted 40%, which makes accruing days far more difficult than it should be.
Maybe if the bridge or engine watch team is 10 times larger than a merchant ship the sea time should be counted as 10 percent.
2 Likes
USNI Proceeding article explains some of the perceived obstacles encountered by the Surface Warfare Community and the Navy in obtaining in obtaining a civilian mariner’s license or endorsement equivalency. Throughout the author’s time in the Navy, one hurdle that stood out was the almost impossible to surmount — obtaining civilian mariner licenses equivalent to Navy qualifications.
I believe his perspective should be reversed; it should start with premise that his Navy qualifications need to be determined by proper authority to be equivalent to that of a civilian mariner’s requirements.
This means that the SWO and Naval course managers would submit eligible courses to the National Maritime for course approval. This submission process is used to certify that the training portion of your naval career path meets both Naval and USCG civilian training standards.
This certification process requires submitting appropriate curriculum to the National Maritime Center Course Approval and Certification Division as provided by regulation 46 CFR 10.402.
This process would be consistent with Executive Order 13860 on Supporting the Transition of Active Duty Service Members and Military Veterans into the Merchant Marines Issued on March 4, 2019. The executive order intent was to streamline the military to mariner transition in the following ways:
The order directed the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security to identify all military training and experience that qualifies for merchant mariner credentials by 2020. This list was be submitted to the U.S. Coast Guard for review. The aim was to eliminate redundant and repetitive training for service members pursuing a merchant mariner credential.
Part of the U.S. Coast Guard review process was to eventually obtain course approval for each course element submitted. The approved courses would listed on USCG NMC Website portal Course Provider; Approved Courses which currently consists of 1124 pages of approved training and schools. Included are those courses submitted by SWO course managers and other Navy Training Command managers. What is apparent is the amount Navy’s submissions compared to the US Army or Coast Guard’s submissions and eventual approvals.
An example of a current opportunity is the qualification of the Officer of the Deck and the civilian equivalent endorsement of Officer in Charge of a Navigational Watch (OICNW). There seems to be openings for Navy course managers to close the equivalent training gaps between the two positions by addressing certain redundant training requirements as specified in 46 CFR 11.309(a)(4).
Along with the approved training requirements there are required at sea assessments required in the OICNW ( NVIC 12-14). Enclosure (2) “Record of Assessments” signed by an appropriate assessor are required to be submitted along with your USCG application. See: Policy On Qualified Assessors [NVIC 19-14](https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/NVIC-12-14 %28Incl-CH-6%29 20221222.pdf) provides an explanation of military qualified assessors who can assess and sign the various STCW certifications.
The frustration presented in the article is not new. It was brought up multiple times in various Naval agendas and forums starting in the late 1990’s and I believe will continue to be a cultural torn in the Navy’s Military to Mariner and associated programs.
As to the comparison of the Naval Academy to NROTC programs, the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard Academies along with merchant academies all have approved curriculum with an approval to set for an original Unlimited 3rd Mate 46 CFR 11.407. I have not heard of any similar approval for NROTC programs.
7 Likes
The Naval Academy and Coast Guard Academy programs are not approved and not reviewed by the USCG National Maritime Center. They are accepted for 3rd Mate because the CFR says they are. However, I believe the Coast Guard Academy has received some approvals towards STCW OICNW, but the curriculum as a whole is not approved in the same way the USMMA and state cademeies are.
1 Like
Mr. Cavo, Thank you for your reply. I didn’t mean to mislead anyone to say their four year curriculum was approved specifically by the NMC.
It reinforces what you and the author of the article noted. The Coast Guard cannot approve something to meet any part of STCW unless the “owner” of the training submits it for approval.
2 Likes
The Navy could harmonize their training and cert pipeline to meet USCG civilian licensing standards and submit and make it all work, just like the Army did decades ago for their watercraft operators. For whatever reason, they haven’t done that. It’s anyone’s guess why, but nothing is stopping them from doing so.
Anyone know if NOAA Corps has done this as well for their officer corps? Again, nothing stopping them from doing so.
1 Like
Because it’s the Navy. The admirals are saying “we don’t have to do it your way, you should do it our way” seems to be the root.
1 Like
While 40% is not exactly correct, what the author misses is that sea service is credited differently as your entire time assigned to the vessel is then reduced because you are not underway 100% of the time in the military.
Correct. And it is not absolute, if a vessel was underway more frequently, it will be evaluated and credited it as appropriate. From 46 CFR 10.232(d)(1):
…Normally, 60 percent of the total time onboard is considered equivalent underway service; however, the periods of operation of each vessel may be evaluated separately. [emphasis added]
Understand that there is some room for evaluation in the CFR, but from a practical standpoint it’s a steep hill to climb. When I submitted for my license I had to turn in my DD-214, Transcript of Sea Service and copies of all my fitness reports. Nowhere on any of those documents was a number of actual underway days or watches stood. You’d have to go to the National Archives for deck logs or get a custom ‘discharge’ from the ship (assuming you were even still attached to that vessel) to prove anything more.
People working on museum ships like the Jeremiah O’Brien can get a 33% credit for their days worked. Someone teaching meteorology in an approved course can get 50% credit for their days. Cadets in an approved program get, what, maybe 270 actual underway days for their license? But the Navy, where sailors live onboard full time, some standing port and starboard watches, only get 60%? As of a few years ago they at least got 70%. There are things the Navy could do to make this process easier, like the author said, but there’s plenty of room for improvement on the CG side too.
Or they could literally just issue a sea service record that logged the actual days served underway and pierside. Somehow my HR guy at my lowly tug office does it all by his lonesome for 600 guys.
5 Likes
Comments from a retired Naval service member and U.S. Merchant Marine Officer
Regarding military sea time and Mr. Cavo’s statement " the periods of operation of each vessel may be evaluated separately. [emphasis added] : the sailor or officer can ask the command for a sea letter reflecting the vessel’s underway operating tempo. The command sea letter is reflected in the Navy Cool Merchant Mariner’s portal.
Furthermore in the Navy Cool website there is a Military to Mariner Brochure prepared by the Surface Warfare School Command which provides an overview guidance on the transition.
Searching the website you will find a USCG Approved Navy Deck Training SWO Command Training List that will support part of SWO Officer application.
While this website provides some of the possibilities for the transition there are other area where the military member can accelerate their goals by being proactive and consider.
(1) Complete authorized shipboard STCW assessments detailed in NVIC 19-14 Policy on Qualified (Military) Assessors and then the individual position NIVC’s for;
- RFPNW (NVIC 06-14)/RFPEW (NVIC 07-14;
- Able Seafarer - Deck (NVIC 14-14)/Engine (NVIC 18-14)
- OICNW (NVIC 12-14)/OICEW (NVIC 17-15
(2) Look for possible openings for USCG approved schooling not provided directly by the Navy.
Maybe I’m just slow, maybe it’s the way you formatted your comment, but I don’t understand the point you’re raising or arguing.
1 Like
Not trying to argue but trying to inform my fellow naval service members.
My point is there are multiple resources and avenues available for the military member to pursue while on active duty. These resources will make the transition to an equivalent National or International civilian license or qualified rating endorsement achievable.
While some of the school house USCG STCW approve training may not be available through the Navy Training Command at the moment. There are other opportunities available. As stated in another thread regarding STCW endorsements - “You need BOTH the courses and assessments”.
Your sea time represents oceans, therefore there is the possibility to get the shipboard STCW demonstration assessments completed by an approved military assessor. e.g. Helm Commands, Lookout Duties, Adjusting a Sextant, Plotting a two lop fix etc… or monitor the electrical generating plant, demonstrate proper procedures for turning over an engine room watch etc.
With some research on their part and being proactive during their service, the military mariner can get a lot of the basic crosswalk ground work completed. And in some cases they may even be able to achieve a license or qualified rating endorsement prior to their separation or retirement.
Simply I am saying, use the tools currently available to you and start developing your new career path.
Prepare and plan now - not later.
That actually seems like a giant pain in the ass considering anyone transitioning will still need to take the myriad of training courses and almost all of the assessments are usually wrapped into those anyway.