Moderators: Miklós Lovász, kaldi, Chuck Anderson, Pavel Močoch, Erskine Calderon, Lukasz Gaszewski, ChrisWI, Zdzislaw Rudzki
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
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 :)
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
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 :) :) :)
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
dcfowler1 wrote:The first USPHS warrant officer is now scheduled to be appointed by January 2006.
Dave
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
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
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.
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)
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.
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/
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
dcfowler1 wrote:The first USPHS warrant officer is now scheduled to be appointed by January 2006.
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?
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
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
Return to AMERICA - OTHER & CIVIL ORGANIZATION BRANCH & RANK INSIGNIA
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests