It is currently Wed Oct 17, 2018 10:57 am
Change font size

AMERICA - OTHER & CIVIL ORGANIZATION BRANCH & RANK INSIGNIA

Public Health Service warrant officers

Civil organizations, Other organizations

Moderators: Miklós Lovász, kaldi, Chuck Anderson, Pavel Močoch, Erskine Calderon, Lukasz Gaszewski, ChrisWI, Zdzislaw Rudzki

Public Health Service warrant officers

Unread postby dcfowler1 » Wed Jan 12, 2005 8:24 am

The Public Health Service intends to re-introduce warrant officers to its ranks.

The PHS used warrants as administrative assistants and pharmacists up until the WW2 era, in the Wo and CWO grades.

Grades W-1 through W-4 were authorized for teh USPHS by Congress in 1979, but to date, none have been appointed.

The current surgeon general, VADM Carmona has determined they would be a useful addition for certain specialities, begining with licensed practical nurses, and eventually being expanded to lab assistants, paramedics and others.

Regulations are currently under development, and it is anticipated that the first USPHS warrants will be appointed in mid-2006.

Some proposed legislation to add a W-5 grade is being considered. VADM Carmona is also interested in the potential for adding enlisted personnel to the USPHS.

Dave
dcfowler1
COMMUNICANT
COMMUNICANT
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 6:51 am

Re: Public Health Service warrant officers

Unread postby hhbooker2 » Thu Jan 13, 2005 10:53 pm

dcfowler1 wrote:The Public Health Service intends to re-introduce warrant officers to its ranks.

The PHS used warrants as administrative assistants and pharmacists up until the WW2 era, in the Wo and CWO grades.

Grades W-1 through W-4 were authorized for teh USPHS by Congress in 1979, but to date, none have been appointed.

The current surgeon general, VADM Carmona has determined they would be a useful addition for certain specialities, begining with licensed practical nurses, and eventually being expanded to lab assistants, paramedics and others.

Regulations are currently under development, and it is anticipated that the first USPHS warrants will be appointed in mid-2006.

Some proposed legislation to add a W-5 grade is being considered. VADM Carmona is also interested in the potential for adding enlisted personnel to the USPHS.

Dave


DAVE: Thank you for sharing this information with us. I wonder if the restored USPHS Warrant Officer rank insignia will resemble the older rank marks (shoulder boards) on the 1930's and 1940's era? Sarge Booker :)
hhbooker2
COMMUNICANT
COMMUNICANT
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:17 am
Location: Tujunga California

Re: Public Health Service warrant officers

Unread postby dcfowler1 » Fri Jan 14, 2005 7:24 am

hhbooker2 wrote:DAVE: Thank you for sharing this information with us. I wonder if the restored USPHS Warrant Officer rank insignia will resemble the older rank marks (shoulder boards) on the 1930's and 1940's era? Sarge Booker :)


As USPHS rank insignia has not changed in decades, and remains in the Naval tradition, I have no doubt it will look like it did in that 40s, but with different speciality marks. The two former specialities used then are administrative assistant (now a civilian GS position) and pharmacist (now a commissioned position). The LPN nurses would probably get a caduceus like the former USN technical nurses had.

Dave
dcfowler1
COMMUNICANT
COMMUNICANT
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 6:51 am

Unread postby dcfowler1 » Sun Jan 16, 2005 3:58 pm

I spoke to the USPHS captain in charge of implementing the warrant officer program of Friday, and he generally confirmed the information that I have already posted:

*They hope to have warrant officers regulations in place later this year, then commission them beginning next year.
*They will begin with grades W-1 through W-4, though they are including W-5 in all the documentation, in anticipation of it eventually being created.
*Insignia regulations will be exactly that as for the US Navy; Collar insignia will be identical and sleeve and shoulder board insignia will be identical except that the USPHS anchor and caduceus will replace the Navy warrant officer specialty device. They will not have any specialty devices included in their insignia, unlike the Coast Guard, and also unlike the previous generation of USPHS warrant officers from the first half of the 20th century.
*They will recruit them as technical specialists out of college as W-1s. Some with previous military experience may be commissioned as W-2s or W-3s.
*associate degree nurses will be the first group, but up to ten specialties are being considered for the program.
*One of the objectives is to provide additional personnel for specialties that they have a hard time filling in remote locations (such as Indian Health Service assignments).
*The idea of enlisted personnel is being kicked around, but there are no initiatives at this time to legislate that.

Dave
dcfowler1
COMMUNICANT
COMMUNICANT
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 6:51 am

Unread postby hhbooker2 » Sun Jan 16, 2005 6:39 pm

dcfowler1 wrote:I spoke to the USPHS captain in charge of implementing the warrant officer program of Friday, and he generally confirmed the information that I have already posted:

*They hope to have warrant officers regulations in place later this year, then commission them beginning next year.
*They will begin with grades W-1 through W-4, though they are including W-5 in all the documentation, in anticipation of it eventually being created.
*Insignia regulations will be exactly that as for the US Navy; Collar insignia will be identical and sleeve and shoulder board insignia will be identical except that the USPHS anchor and caduceus will replace the Navy warrant officer specialty device. They will not have any specialty devices included in their insignia, unlike the Coast Guard, and also unlike the previous generation of USPHS warrant officers from the first half of the 20th century.
*They will recruit them as technical specialists out of college as W-1s. Some with previous military experience may be commissioned as W-2s or W-3s.
*associate degree nurses will be the first group, but up to ten specialties are being considered for the program.
*One of the objectives is to provide additional personnel for specialties that they have a hard time filling in remote locations (such as Indian Health Service assignments).
*The idea of enlisted personnel is being kicked around, but there are no initiatives at this time to legislate that.

Dave


DAVE: Perhaps the programme for warrant officers will be a success as it could be an alternative to getting drafted into one of the five other branches (Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marine Corps, and Navy). Medical specialists and doctors also get drafted if they're civilians, but I suspect having a warrant or commission would allow the person to contiinue serving in the USPHS instead of becoming an army or a navy medical person? (QUESTION: Was this forum down for a few days? I was unable to get into this forum until now, wondred if I was the only member to experience being unable to get into the forum, Dave?) Thanks! Sarge Booker :) :) :)
hhbooker2
COMMUNICANT
COMMUNICANT
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:17 am
Location: Tujunga California

Unread postby dcfowler1 » Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:32 am

hhbooker2 wrote:DAVE: Perhaps the programme for warrant officers will be a success as it could be an alternative to getting drafted into one of the five other branches (Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marine Corps, and Navy). Medical specialists and doctors also get drafted if they're civilians, but I suspect having a warrant or commission would allow the person to contiinue serving in the USPHS instead of becoming an army or a navy medical person? (QUESTION: Was this forum down for a few days? I was unable to get into this forum until now, wondred if I was the only member to experience being unable to get into the forum, Dave?) Thanks! Sarge Booker :) :) :)


Yes it was, for large portions of the weekend.

Dave
dcfowler1
COMMUNICANT
COMMUNICANT
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 6:51 am

Unread postby hhbooker2 » Mon Jan 17, 2005 6:45 am

dcfowler1 wrote:
hhbooker2 wrote:DAVE: Perhaps the programme for warrant officers will be a success as it could be an alternative to getting drafted into one of the five other branches (Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marine Corps, and Navy). Medical specialists and doctors also get drafted if they're civilians, but I suspect having a warrant or commission would allow the person to contiinue serving in the USPHS instead of becoming an army or a navy medical person? (QUESTION: Was this forum down for a few days? I was unable to get into this forum until now, wondred if I was the only member to experience being unable to get into the forum, Dave?) Thanks! Sarge Booker :) :) :)


Yes it was, for large portions of the weekend.

Dave


Thanks, Dave, thought it was my ISP or my compter gone haywire? Sarge Booker :)
hhbooker2
COMMUNICANT
COMMUNICANT
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:17 am
Location: Tujunga California

Unread postby dcfowler1 » Thu Apr 14, 2005 7:46 pm

The first USPHS warrant officer is now scheduled to be appointed by January 2006.

Dave
dcfowler1
COMMUNICANT
COMMUNICANT
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 6:51 am

United States Public Health Service

Unread postby hhbooker2 » Thu Apr 14, 2005 8:46 pm

dcfowler1 wrote:The first USPHS warrant officer is now scheduled to be appointed by January 2006.

Dave


DAVE: Perhaps they can bring back enlisted ranks such as seamen and petty officers as well, like they had in 1937? Am wondering for what exact positions they'll have warranted officers? Pharmacists? Sarge :D
hhbooker2
COMMUNICANT
COMMUNICANT
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:17 am
Location: Tujunga California

Unread postby dcfowler1 » Thu Apr 14, 2005 9:28 pm

They are beginning with appointing associate degree-level nurses, as they presently have a shortage of nursing professionals in the USPHS; They are further considering other technician-level occupations after that, such as x-ray techs, lab techs, pharmacy techs and paramedics. Degreed pharmacists are commissioned officers.

VADM Carmona, the surgeon general has broached the possibility of an enlisted corps, but it is only a concept at the moment. In the old days, USPHS petty officers were not true enlisted personnel, but uniformed wage grade personnel.

Dave
dcfowler1
COMMUNICANT
COMMUNICANT
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 6:51 am

Unread postby hhbooker2 » Thu Apr 14, 2005 9:42 pm

dcfowler1 wrote:They are beginning with appointing associate degree-level nurses, as they presently have a shortage of nursing professionals in the USPHS; They are further considering other technician-level occupations after that, such as x-ray techs, lab techs, pharmacy techs and paramedics. Degreed pharmacists are commissioned officers.

VADM Carmona, the surgeon general has broached the possibility of an enlisted corps, but it is only a concept at the moment. In the old days, USPHS petty officers were not true enlisted personnel, but uniformed wage grade personnel.

Dave


DAVE: In the 1914 dress regulations for the USPHS they show even a specialty mark for COACHMAN, the bit that was in the horse's mouth to guide them, guess they were like the civilian janitors and groundsmen who worked for the American Red Cross and wore gray uniforms? Sarge 8)
hhbooker2
COMMUNICANT
COMMUNICANT
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:17 am
Location: Tujunga California

Unread postby Luke » Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:52 am

Perhaps the programme for warrant officers will be a success as it could be an alternative to getting drafted into one of the five other branches


From what I've heard, talk of the draft is mostly from people who don't like Bush, who oppose the liberation of Iraq, and who are using the talk to argue against the war.

The Administration is saying it doesn't want a draft. The Republicans in Congress seem to have no interest in reinstating the draft. The Democrats seem to have no interest in reinstating the draft. The military has no interest in the draft.

And reinstating the draft would be lousy politics, not the sort of thing that a barely-majority party would really want to do.
User avatar
Luke
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
 
Posts: 1636
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 6:06 pm
Location: Sweden

Unread postby hhbooker2 » Mon Jun 06, 2005 5:56 pm

Luke wrote:
Perhaps the programme for warrant officers will be a success as it could be an alternative to getting drafted into one of the five other branches


From what I've heard, talk of the draft is mostly from people who don't like Bush, who oppose the liberation of Iraq, and who are using the talk to argue against the war.

The Administration is saying it doesn't want a draft. The Republicans in Congress seem to have no interest in reinstating the draft. The Democrats seem to have no interest in reinstating the draft. The military has no interest in the draft.

And reinstating the draft would be lousy politics, not the sort of thing that a barely-majority party would really want to do.


Do you really believe the draft won't be re-activated? Then why do I and other older citizens get requests from the Draft Board to work for them? I've been approached lately and asked to serve on the draft board to select draftees based on our own discretion. Army of the United States is getting less than half their monthly quotas nationwide and they said those recruiters who accept recruits who have neither graduated from high school nor have gotten a G.E.D., these recruiters will be punished, but they cannot even meet less than half otherwise as people are not flocking to recruiting stations to enlist. I remember World War Two, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War and know first-hand had the draft works and the need for it in times like this; how else can the U.S. invade Syria, Jordan, Iran, and maybe North Korea without the warm bodies stuffed into a uniform? Age limited has been raised to SEVENTY (70) for certain professionals and I am SIXTY-TWO (62) and wear a uniform each month as an UNPAID volunteer and I am also disabled and cannot march, but I am still serving as I know and can see there is a shortage of volunteers. I enlisted UNDERAGE at SIXTEEN (16) in 1959 and like then, no problem getting in and keep believing the Democrats and Republicans don't want to draft, they do, but they cannot tell their constituents, but they do have a Bill in the U.S. Congress ready to go to the U.S. Senate and then to the U.S. President who will "reluctently" sign it into law and they'll draft women too, I kid you not! Sarge Booker (CW4 H.H. Booker 2nd)
hhbooker2
COMMUNICANT
COMMUNICANT
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:17 am
Location: Tujunga California

Unread postby ChrisWI » Mon Jun 06, 2005 9:41 pm

hhbooker2 wrote:
Luke wrote:
Perhaps the programme for warrant officers will be a success as it could be an alternative to getting drafted into one of the five other branches


From what I've heard, talk of the draft is mostly from people who don't like Bush, who oppose the liberation of Iraq, and who are using the talk to argue against the war.

The Administration is saying it doesn't want a draft. The Republicans in Congress seem to have no interest in reinstating the draft. The Democrats seem to have no interest in reinstating the draft. The military has no interest in the draft.

And reinstating the draft would be lousy politics, not the sort of thing that a barely-majority party would really want to do.


Do you really believe the draft won't be re-activated? Then why do I and other older citizens get requests from the Draft Board to work for them? I've been approached lately and asked to serve on the draft board to select draftees based on our own discretion. Army of the United States is getting less than half their monthly quotas nationwide and they said those recruiters who accept recruits who have neither graduated from high school nor have gotten a G.E.D., these recruiters will be punished, but they cannot even meet less than half otherwise as people are not flocking to recruiting stations to enlist. I remember World War Two, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War and know first-hand had the draft works and the need for it in times like this; how else can the U.S. invade Syria, Jordan, Iran, and maybe North Korea without the warm bodies stuffed into a uniform? Age limited has been raised to SEVENTY (70) for certain professionals and I am SIXTY-TWO (62) and wear a uniform each month as an UNPAID volunteer and I am also disabled and cannot march, but I am still serving as I know and can see there is a shortage of volunteers. I enlisted UNDERAGE at SIXTEEN (16) in 1959 and like then, no problem getting in and keep believing the Democrats and Republicans don't want to draft, they do, but they cannot tell their constituents, but they do have a Bill in the U.S. Congress ready to go to the U.S. Senate and then to the U.S. President who will "reluctently" sign it into law and they'll draft women too, I kid you not! Sarge Booker (CW4 H.H. Booker 2nd)

Sarge has a good point and in my opinion its only a matter of time before the draft comes back (I would say withen 2 years it will be reinistated). We have almost no available major combat forces for any situations that should arise, such as North Korea and recently a Congressional study said that 36,000 troops should be sent to the border with Mexico to stop the illegal immigrants and drug trafficking. Face it, the military is to small to keep doing all were doing, were fighting 2005 wars with a military of the mid 1990s in terms of troop strength and gear, some units still dont have acess to body armor and other gear and we have some platoons with less then a dozen men rather then the paper strength of 32ish.
ChrisWI
ADMINISTRATOR
ADMINISTRATOR
 
Posts: 1806
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 8:09 pm
Location: West Islip,New York,United States

Unread postby hhbooker2 » Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:11 am

ChrisWI wrote:
hhbooker2 wrote:
Luke wrote:
Perhaps the programme for warrant officers will be a success as it could be an alternative to getting drafted into one of the five other branches


From what I've heard, talk of the draft is mostly from people who don't like Bush, who oppose the liberation of Iraq, and who are using the talk to argue against the war.

The Administration is saying it doesn't want a draft. The Republicans in Congress seem to have no interest in reinstating the draft. The Democrats seem to have no interest in reinstating the draft. The military has no interest in the draft.

And reinstating the draft would be lousy politics, not the sort of thing that a barely-majority party would really want to do.


Do you really believe the draft won't be re-activated? Then why do I and other older citizens get requests from the Draft Board to work for them? I've been approached lately and asked to serve on the draft board to select draftees based on our own discretion. Army of the United States is getting less than half their monthly quotas nationwide and they said those recruiters who accept recruits who have neither graduated from high school nor have gotten a G.E.D., these recruiters will be punished, but they cannot even meet less than half otherwise as people are not flocking to recruiting stations to enlist. I remember World War Two, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War and know first-hand had the draft works and the need for it in times like this; how else can the U.S. invade Syria, Jordan, Iran, and maybe North Korea without the warm bodies stuffed into a uniform? Age limited has been raised to SEVENTY (70) for certain professionals and I am SIXTY-TWO (62) and wear a uniform each month as an UNPAID volunteer and I am also disabled and cannot march, but I am still serving as I know and can see there is a shortage of volunteers. I enlisted UNDERAGE at SIXTEEN (16) in 1959 and like then, no problem getting in and keep believing the Democrats and Republicans don't want to draft, they do, but they cannot tell their constituents, but they do have a Bill in the U.S. Congress ready to go to the U.S. Senate and then to the U.S. President who will "reluctently" sign it into law and they'll draft women too, I kid you not! Sarge Booker (CW4 H.H. Booker 2nd)

Sarge has a good point and in my opinion its only a matter of time before the draft comes back (I would say withen 2 years it will be reinistated). We have almost no available major combat forces for any situations that should arise, such as North Korea and recently a Congressional study said that 36,000 troops should be sent to the border with Mexico to stop the illegal immigrants and drug trafficking. Face it, the military is to small to keep doing all were doing, were fighting 2005 wars with a military of the mid 1990s in terms of troop strength and gear, some units still dont have acess to body armor and other gear and we have some platoons with less then a dozen men rather then the paper strength of 32ish.


Does anyone in the U.S. Government recall the times the military was cut back and they suffered the consequences for it? There was nothing to be gained by ending the draft - it only meant that qualified volunteers had to be rellied upon and they just won't enlist! United Kingdom also cut their forces, how can Donald Rumsfeld speak about eliminating military installations in the thick of it? Did GEORGE W. BUSH JUNIOR declare the war over a bit prematurely? What if North Korea invades South Korea? What if one or more Arab countries and Iran decide to attack Israel? National Guard was mostly used in 1916 chasing Pancho Villa and who'll want to join the Arizona, California, New Mexico, or Texas Army National Guard knowing they'll have to be border patrol? U.S. Coast Guard is the military arm of the D.E.A., so what next? Women 18 to 25 will also face being drafted - U.S. Congress decided to let the U.S. Army decide about putting women in combat - in a year or two the draft will be a fact of life!
hhbooker2
COMMUNICANT
COMMUNICANT
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:17 am
Location: Tujunga California

Unread postby Luke » Tue Jun 07, 2005 4:28 pm

There won’t be a draft. Period!

On October 5, 2004, the House of Representatives voted 402 - 2 to defeat H.R. 163, the bill cited as proof that the Selective Service was preparing to reinstate a military draft. The vote made official what has been a reality since January 7, 2003, when H.R. 163 was introduced despite nearly total opposition in Congress to restoring the draft. Without Congressional support, the draft cannot be reinstated. A similar bill languishes in the Senate.

Both President George W. Bush and Senator John F. Kerry have stated for the record that they oppose a draft. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also has opposed the draft on numerous occasions.

Since 1980, the Selective Service System has discharged its mission of preparing to manage a draft if and when Congress and the President so direct. The House action proves that the Selective Service has gotten no such direction. That being the case, the Agency will maintain its readiness as required by law, and to register young men between the ages of 18 and 25. That mission has been reaffirmed frequently by successive Administrations and by Congress under the leadership of both parties.

Source: http://www.sss.gov/
User avatar
Luke
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
 
Posts: 1636
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 6:06 pm
Location: Sweden

DREAM ON!

Unread postby hhbooker2 » Tue Jun 07, 2005 5:00 pm

Luke wrote:There won’t be a draft. Period!

On October 5, 2004, the House of Representatives voted 402 - 2 to defeat H.R. 163, the bill cited as proof that the Selective Service was preparing to reinstate a military draft. The vote made official what has been a reality since January 7, 2003, when H.R. 163 was introduced despite nearly total opposition in Congress to restoring the draft. Without Congressional support, the draft cannot be reinstated. A similar bill languishes in the Senate.

Both President George W. Bush and Senator John F. Kerry have stated for the record that they oppose a draft. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also has opposed the draft on numerous occasions.

Since 1980, the Selective Service System has discharged its mission of preparing to manage a draft if and when Congress and the President so direct. The House action proves that the Selective Service has gotten no such direction. That being the case, the Agency will maintain its readiness as required by law, and to register young men between the ages of 18 and 25. That mission has been reaffirmed frequently by successive Administrations and by Congress under the leadership of both parties.

Source: http://www.sss.gov/


DREAM ON! Never say never, the United States Congress lies as all politicians do. Simply by having young men register means it is not possible, just a matter of time; just like people said there would be no more war and even after the latest war in the Middle East, George W. Bush JUNIOR said it was over after the first month, but the body count says otherwise. Army recruiters cannot fill half their requirement quota of 80,000 recruits - do the math! Selective Service System asked a lot of us old timers who've been around the block to serve as board members, do the math! I hope they also draft young women as it is their nation too, isn't it? I saw the signs that showed there'd be a war - after all, the first attempt on the World Trade Center was made a few years earlier and it was a dress rehearsal for destruction. The Army and Air National Guard is called up in many States and then they'll also be tasked to patrol the U.S. border with Mexico due to the U.S. Coast Guard trying to stem the flow of illegal narcotices along with the D.E.A. When they crank up the draft, I shall be the first to say: "I TOLD YOU SO!" I hope and pray each night that I'll wake up to read the healine news about youth of both genders being drafted and the bourgeoise and rich forced to defend their nation as well! Too long they've depended upon the lumpen proletariat to fill the vacuum - LONG LIVE INDUCTION! Sarge Booker, 62-year old volunteer reservist
hhbooker2
COMMUNICANT
COMMUNICANT
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:17 am
Location: Tujunga California

Unread postby dcfowler1 » Tue Jun 07, 2005 6:21 pm

Sarge,

With all due respect, there ain't going to be any draft, absent a direct and sustained threat to the homeland (and Iraq is not it). There's no question that the troops overseas are overextended and they need more of them, but that has more to do with poor planning on the part of Rumsfeld and his simplistic thoughts on military transformation (e.g., more technology, networking and sensors automatically means fewer troops needed), and his inability to admit that he was wrong and to raise troop ceilings.

Regular troops are ineffective at border enforcement due to the restrictions on their actions under the Posse Comitadus Act, and that's not what they are meant for anyway.

The bottom line on the draft is that it's a bipartisan political non-starter. Both parties are well aware that whichever one is responsible for re-instituting a draft will not be voted into office after the next election, and neither party will be willing to slit their own throats at the ballot box. I am 110% sure about that.

Now, didn't this thread have something to do with USPHS warrant officers?

Dave
dcfowler1
COMMUNICANT
COMMUNICANT
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 6:51 am

Unread postby Luke » Tue Jun 07, 2005 6:22 pm

There won’t be a draft.
I address the points you and Chris WI raise in the order they are brought up.

(1) Activating the selective service system is not a sign that the draft will be instituted; just that it remains an option for the U.S. government.

(2) There are fare effective means to increase the manpower of the U.S. Army than a draft, such as a substantial pay hike. It’s still cheaper than drafting people.

(3) The fact that patriotic individuals serve as unpaid volunteers only attests for their patriotism and the need for more manpower, not that the solution is a draft.

(4) A bi-partisan consensus on the draft is nonexistent. That the Democrats, that refuse to accept Republican nominees for ambassador or Supreme Court justice, should cave in for a demand for a draft is simply unbelievable. That the Republicans would use their majority to enact a draft is even more unbelievable; that would ensure an electoral defeat in the next congressional and presidential elections.

(5) Congress won’t impose a draft to patrol the Mexican border; another unbelievable suggestion.

(6) A draft won’t create more body armors; just drain the defense budget of financial resources needed to provide the body armors and other necessary equipment.

(7) If North Korea invades South Korea, it would take far too long to institute a draft, raise an army and fight a war. If North Korea invades South Korea, a nuclear option is more likely than a draft.

(8) If one or more Arab countries and Iran attack Israel, the Israelis would kick their ass, as they always have; with substantial American financial and material backup, but without any American ground troops.

(9) While a citizen’s army made up of all social classes and both genders might be something to aspire, the Congress won’t institute a draft to create social equality. They are lying bastards, aren’t they? And would never put their own sons and daughters in harms way.

Luke
User avatar
Luke
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
 
Posts: 1636
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 6:06 pm
Location: Sweden

Unread postby hhbooker2 » Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:31 pm

Luke wrote:There won’t be a draft.
I address the points you and Chris WI raise in the order they are brought up. (9) While a citizen’s army made up of all social classes and both genders might be something to aspire, the Congress won’t institute a draft to create social equality. They are lying bastards, aren’t they? And would never put their own sons and daughters in harms way.
Luke


LUKE: There are one hundred United States Senators and there are four hundred and thirty-five U.S. Congress men and women, as Michael Moore of Fahrenheit 9/11 pointed out correctly, only one of those people has a child in the United States Armed Forces. When I was growing up in World War Two and even up to the 1960's, there were many former military serving in the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Senate, who now is prior service in both houses I should wonder? Despite the rhetoric, never trust any politician to suddenly change their minds and restore the draft - remember "Murphy's Law!" And how long can Israel hold out if attacked from all sides should the U.S. Congress cut off foreign military aid to Israel, Turkey, and Venezuela? If you would have asked our citizens before the Gulf War in Kuwait if there'd be another war, they probably would have said: "The Congress will not allow it!" Murphey's Law, Luke!
hhbooker2
COMMUNICANT
COMMUNICANT
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:17 am
Location: Tujunga California

Unread postby Luke » Thu Jun 09, 2005 6:36 pm

Since I started the brawl I will let you have the last word.
User avatar
Luke
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
 
Posts: 1636
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 6:06 pm
Location: Sweden

Unread postby hhbooker2 » Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:13 pm

Luke wrote:Since I started the brawl I will let you have the last word.


What brawl, pray tell? Respectfully yours, Sarge Booker
hhbooker2
COMMUNICANT
COMMUNICANT
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:17 am
Location: Tujunga California

Unread postby LONDON » Sat Oct 01, 2005 6:35 pm

dcfowler1 wrote:The first USPHS warrant officer is now scheduled to be appointed by January 2006.


The warrant ranks are certainly now in place for the Commissioned Health Corps:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html ... -000-.html

Any further news on the first warrant appointments, uniforms and insignia?
LONDON
COMMUNICANT
COMMUNICANT
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:18 pm
Location: england

Unread postby hhbooker2 » Sat Oct 01, 2005 7:18 pm

LONDON wrote:
dcfowler1 wrote:The first USPHS warrant officer is now scheduled to be appointed by January 2006.


The warrant ranks are certainly now in place for the Commissioned Health Corps:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html ... -000-.html

Any further news on the first warrant appointments, uniforms and insignia?


QUESTION: Will warrant officer rank insignia of the United States Public Health Service be the same as those worn by the United States Navy and the United States Coast Guard, blue and gold and blue and silver? Or will they use maroon and gold and maroon and silver? Does this leave the door open for adding a Chief Warrant Officer 5 appointment as well? Thanks! Sarge Booker (Post Script: I want to buy all sets of USPHS WO insignia)
hhbooker2
COMMUNICANT
COMMUNICANT
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:17 am
Location: Tujunga California

Unread postby dcfowler1 » Sat Oct 01, 2005 8:23 pm

I talked to the USPHS Captain implementing the warrant officer program. The first appointment will slip a bit further into 2006, from January, but is otherwise scheduled to take place next year.

US Law provide for warrant grades W-1 through W-4 only in the USPHS. They have studied adding a W-5, but there is not rush, as it will take some time before anybody would be senior enough to occupy the grade. (W-1 through W-4 were established by statute in the late 1970s I believe, but no personnel have occupied the grades).

Rank insignia will be identical to the USN. There will be NO specialty marks. The rank stripes will be topped with the USPHS badge only, regardless of specialty.

Dave
dcfowler1
COMMUNICANT
COMMUNICANT
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 6:51 am

Unread postby dcfowler1 » Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:31 am

Just a quick update on this subject. I spoke with CAPT Kelly at the USPHS again, and the warrant officer implementation continues to be delayed by delays in the whole Public Health Service Transformation initiative. They still hope to commission around 50 WOs later this year, and about 200 in the next two years, and they will be paramedics, lab techs, 2-year degree nurses, and pharmacy technicians.

They do have the rank insignia being manufactured now by Vanguard.

Dave
dcfowler1
COMMUNICANT
COMMUNICANT
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 6:51 am

Unread postby hhbooker2 » Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:28 am

dcfowler1 wrote:Just a quick update on this subject. I spoke with CAPT Kelly at the USPHS again, and the warrant officer implementation continues to be delayed by delays in the whole Public Health Service Transformation initiative. They still hope to commission around 50 WOs later this year, and about 200 in the next two years, and they will be paramedics, lab techs, 2-year degree nurses, and pharmacy technicians.

They do have the rank insignia being manufactured now by Vanguard.

Dave


DAVE: Did you see the CD on the Regulations Governing the Uniforms of Officers and employees of the United States Public Health Service for 1914 and 1937 on eBay Auctions? Check it out, I was surprised at such an unusual topic on CD being even offered! Sarge :idea:
hhbooker2
COMMUNICANT
COMMUNICANT
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:17 am
Location: Tujunga California

Unread postby ghbisa » Mon Feb 06, 2006 7:33 am

Will there be special PHS grade designations or will they just be called Warrant Officer 1, Chief Warrant Officer 2, ect.?
ghbisa
 

Unread postby dcfowler1 » Tue Feb 07, 2006 2:12 am

The rank titles will be the same: WO1, CWO2, CWO3 and CWO4. There will not be a CWO5 for now.

Dave
dcfowler1
COMMUNICANT
COMMUNICANT
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 6:51 am

Unread postby LONDON » Tue May 02, 2006 9:50 pm

dcfowler1 wrote:Just a quick update on this subject. I spoke with CAPT Kelly at the USPHS again, and the warrant officer implementation continues to be delayed by delays in the whole Public Health Service Transformation initiative. They still hope to commission around 50 WOs later this year, and about 200 in the next two years, and they will be paramedics, lab techs, 2-year degree nurses, and pharmacy technicians.

They do have the rank insignia being manufactured now by Vanguard.

Dave


Dave

Any further updates on this?
LONDON
COMMUNICANT
COMMUNICANT
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:18 pm
Location: england

USPHS Warrant Officers

Unread postby dcfowler » Sat Dec 30, 2006 8:38 pm

An update to this dormant topic:

I talked to my USPHS captain friend today, and he stated that the warrant officer program is still going forward, but was put on hold for awhile due to other programs in the Public Health Service Transformation initiative having higher priorities.

The bottom line for now, is that they now do not expect to commission the first PHS warrants before third quarter of FY07 (which is April 2007 to our foreign friends), but it could still be conceivably pushed back further.

Dave
dcfowler
COMMUNICANT
COMMUNICANT
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:06 am
Location: Eugene, OR

Unread postby LONDON » Thu Jan 04, 2007 10:22 pm

Thanks for the info.
LONDON
COMMUNICANT
COMMUNICANT
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:18 pm
Location: england

Advertisement

Email Converter - our sponsor


Return to AMERICA - OTHER & CIVIL ORGANIZATION BRANCH & RANK INSIGNIA

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

Search

User Menu