2011Vol36No1 PDF

Signaleers,
Te Signal Functional Area Assessment that has been

approved by our Undersecretary of the Army will have
a tremendous impact on the Regiment. Beginning in
2013, much of what you know about the Regiment will
change. I have served through the introduction of Mobile
Subscriber Equipment, Modularity, and Increment 1 of
the Warfghter Information Network Tactical. While each
of these initiatives had a huge efect on the Signal Corps,
the changes we are about to experience as we implement
the FAA will be even greater. Te FAA will profoundly
re-shape our doctrine, organization, training, leader
development, and personnel.
Given the dramatic changes we are facing, I decided to
dedicate this issue of Army Communicator to our warrant
ofcers. I did this for two reasons. First, because our
Signal warrants will play a central role as we implement
the FAA, it is absolutely essential for us to understand
where we are, and where we are going, with our Warrant
Ofcer Corps. Second, as we enter this period
of immense change, we should take heart in
the history of our warrant ofcers a corps
that has always provided stability and
continuity during times of change. Much
is about to change, but as the Warrant
Ofcer Corps shows us, much will
remain the same just as it has for the
past 800 years.
Te rank of warrant ofcer was frst used
by English feets in the 13th century. At
that time, noblemen were the commanders
of English ships, and only adopted military
ranks when they went to sea. Since most
of these ofcers had no knowledge
of seamanship, they were entirely
reliant on the expertise of
the warrant ofcers who
tended to the technical
aspects of running the
ship. Although our
leaders are now very
knowledgeable, the
Signal Regiment
continues to rely on
warrant ofcers for
their expertise on
the technical aspects
of our profession.
Te Warrant Ofcer
Corps has never let
us down.
Warrant ofcers are systems-of-systems experts. Tey
have a frm grasp on joint and multinational operations,
and know how to integrate Signal capabilities into
complex operating environments. Tey are competent
and confdent warriors, innovative integrators of
emerging technologies, dynamic teachers, and developers
of specialized teams of Soldiers. Warrant ofcers are
leaders with the extensive professional experience and the
technical knowledge to serve as role models and mentors
for junior ofcers and NCOs. Tat will not change as we
implement the FAA.
I vividly remember the very frst time a warrant ofcer
coached me away from a bad decision. It helped me gain
a new perspective and made me expect only the best from
my warrant ofcers. Te more senior I have become,
the more heavily I have relied on the quality advice and
technical expertise of our warrant ofcers. Every general
ofcer, colonel, and sergeant major, to name a few, shares
in that experience. Tat will not change as we implement
the FAA. If anything, the future holds more advanced
systems and technology that must be integrated, operated
and protected requiring the skills of an expertthe
warrant ffcer!
George Santayana, the Spanish American philosopher
and essayist famously said, Te difcult is that
which can be done immediately; the impossible is
that which takes a little longer. We have always
reserved the impossible for our warrant ofcers.
Tat will not change as we implement the FAA.
Tis edition is a special thanks to our warrant
ofcers for their counsel, leadership, and service. It
is dedicated to you. Tank you in advance for the
huge changes you are about to make to the Signal
Regiment. Your service has made our Army and
Regiment the best in the world!
Pro Patria Vigilans!

Warrant Ofcers
Te past and the future of the Regiment

Alan R. Lynn
4 Chief of Signal Earns
Major General Promotion
Wilson A. Rivera
5 Warrant Offcer
Corps Marks 92nd Year
CW5 (Ret) David P. Welsh

8 Warrant Offcer Accessions
CW4 William Winkler
CW5 Todd M. Boudreau
13 The Face of the New
Young Warrant Offcer
16 Not Your Fathers
Warrant Offcer Corps
CW5 (Ret) Andrew Barr
22 Warrant Offcer Occupations
Historical Review
24 Cyberspace Content
Management Technician
30 Cyberspace Network
Management Technician
35 Cyberspace Defense
Technician
41 Minimizing Social Network
Privacy Threats
CW3 Elbert Peak
48 Cyberspace Network
Operations Technician

53 Warrant Offcer 255 Series
Implementation
CW4 William Winkler
U.S. ARMY SIGNAL CENTER OF EXCELLENCE
FORT GORDON
Army Communicator (ISSN 0362-5745) (USPS 305-
470) is published quarterly by the U.S. Army Signal Center,
of Excellence at Signal Towers (Building 29808), Room713
Fort Gordon, Ga. 30905-5301. Periodicals postage paid by
Department of the Army (DOD 314) at Augusta, Ga. 30901
and additional mailing offces.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Army
Communicator, U.S. Army Signal Center of Excellence,
Signal Towers (Building 29808), Room 713, Fort Gordon,
Ga. 30905-5301.
OFFICIAL DISTRIBUTION: Army Communicator is
available to all Signal and Signal-related units, including
staff agencies and service schools. Written requests
for the magazine should be submitted to Editor, Army
Communicator, U.S. Army Signal Center of Excellence,
Signal Towers (Building 29808), Room 713, Fort Gordon,
Ga. 30905-5301.
This publication presents professional information, but
the views expressed herein are those of the authors, not the
Department of Defense or its elements. The content does not
necessarily refect the offcial U.S. Army position and does
not change or supersede any information in other offcial U.S.
Army publications. Use of news items constitutes neither
affrmation of their accuracy nor product endorsement.
Army Communicator reserves the right to edit material.
CORRESPONDENCE: Address all correspondence
to Army Communicator, U.S. Army Signal Center of
Excellence and Fort Gordon, Signal Towers (Building 29808),
Room713, Fort Gordon, Ga. 30905-5301. Telephone DSN
780-7204 or commercial (706) 791-7204. Fax number (706)
791-3917.
Unless otherwise stated, material does not represent
offcial policy, thinking, or endorsement by an agency of the
U.S. Army. This publication contains no advertising.U.S.
Government Printing Offce: 1984-746-045/1429-S.
Army Communicator is not a copyrighted publication.
Individual authors copyrights can be protected by special
arrangement. Acceptance by Army Communicator conveys
the right for subsequent reproduction and use of published
material. Credit should be given to Army Communicator.
Features
PB 11-3-1
Spring 2011
Vol. 36 No. 1
Worldwide web homepage address
http://www.signal.army.mil/ocos/AC/
E-mail: [email protected]
COMMAND
Chief of Signal
MG Alan R. Lynn
Regimental Command Sergeant Major
CSM Thomas J . Clark
Regimental Chief Warrant Offcer
Editor-in-Chief
Larry Edmond
EDITORIAL STAFF
By Order of the Secretary of the Army:
GEORGE W. CASEY JR.
General, United States Army
Chief of Staff
Table of Contents
Voice of the Signal Regiment
Art Director/Illustrator
Billy Cheney
Photography
Billy Cheney, Larry Edmond
Cover: Warrant offcers
come from diverse
backgrounds to form an
elite corps of leaders at
higher levels with more
responsibility than ever in
the history of the Signal
Corps.
56 Senior Warrant Offcer
Specialized Positions
CW4 William Winkler
58 Mentorship Means Building
a Lasting Legacy
CW4 Roy L. Rucker Sr.
60 Signal Life in
the Logistics Lane
CW2 J uan M. Dorado
CW2 J ames E. A. Richards
63 Warrant Offcers
Forging New Relationships
CW2 Kenneth J enkins
CW2 Matthew J effcoat
64 A Profession of Arms
CW5 Troy A. Degolyer
CW5 J ohnny Silva
CW4 Diedra A. DeWitt
CW4 Meaghan M. Hatfeld
CW4 Heber L. Hyde
CW4 Patrick J . Muenks
CW4 Curtis L. Newkirk
CW4 Mark A. Seels
70 Creating MSOffce
SharePoint Account Managers
CW3 Eric Bray
72 NECs Preparing Units
Long before Deployment
CW3 J ames Dunn
74 ESB Network Management
Paradigm Shifts
CW2 J oshua Callahan
76 Future Prospects
Growing Brighter
Cover by Billy Cheney
1 Army Communicator
Join the Discussion This
is an evolving landscape
where your opinion and
experiences can have an
impact. At the end of
articles where you see this
icon, you can weigh in and
comment on-line.
My name is Clark, and Im
an Army-proud professional
Soldier!
Signal Regiment needs warrant ofcers
My name is Clark and Im a Soldier.
I am proud to contribute my comments to
this issue that is dedicated to our highl y
proficient warrant officers.
At this time, this fiel d offers a sol id
opportunity. Opting for the warrant officer
corps is a great career choice for any Signal
noncommissioned officer who is motivated
to accept the chal l enges of managing
the top l evel s of our networks and
information systems.
Signal warrant officers provide
the Army and our joint
commands an inventory of highl y
skil l ed technicians and l eaders
with the requisite aptitude,
training and experience necessary
to pl an, instal l , administer,
manage, maintain, operate,
integrate and secure the
strategic, operational and
tactical communications
infrastructure and voice
and data information
systems, services and
resources in support of
wartime and peacetime
operations. Signal warrant
officers are responsibl e
for the seaml ess, secure,
consistent and dynamic
information systems
at al l l evel s of command from the fighting
pl atform to the sustaining base in support of
Army, Joint and mul tinational war fighting
missions.
Information systems operation, information
assurance, and information protection are
integral to the command and control of Army
and Joint forces in every operation, and thus,
are the essential el ements of information
dominance on the modern battl efiel d.
Opportunities for qual ified enl isted Sol diers
from al l three components seeking a
career as a 250N Network Management
Technician, 251A Information System
Technician, or 254A Signal Systems
Support Technician have never been
greater. Requirements for staffing
are dramatical l y increasing in both
warrant officer MOSs. If you
think you meet the minimum
qual ifications for either
MOS, I encourage you to
put together a packet and
submit it now! Uncl e Sam
and the Signal Regiment
Need You!
2 Spring - 2011

Thomas J. Clark
To: CSM Thomas J . Clark
As you bring your military career to a close, we the members of the Signal Regiment take this opportunity
to express our sincere thanks for your excellent leadership as the Signal Corps Regimental Command
Sergeant Major. Every individual who knows you acknowledges that it has been a privilege serving with you
as you magnifcently represented Signal Soldiers! Thank you for helping us stay focused on caring for our
most valuable asset--our Soldiers who performthe Signal mission every day. Thank you for your courage,
sacrifces and service to the nation. May God bless and keep you strong in your new endeavors. Trust that
we will always remember, Your name is Clark and you are a Soldier!
3
Signaleers,
You hold in your hands the first
ever warrant officer edition of
the Army Communicator. I can
personally think of nothing
more fitting than to have the
first ever warrant officer edition
as the lead edition of the Army
Communicator for the 151st
year of the Signal Regiment.
In the next chapter of our
Regiment, warrant officers must
be focused and positioned to
lead the revolutionary charge
into uncharted fields of
communications technology.
As I write this note, I am once
again on the road and not in my
office. In fact, I am currently
sitting in a C-130 flying from
Iraq back to Kuwait. While it is
taxing to be constantly traveling,
I truthfully love being out there
with you!
I asked the staff of this fine
publication to see if there has
ever been a warrant officer
edition and I was told that while
there have been warrant
officer heavy editions,
there has never been an
edition that could be
entitled with such a
distinction. So this is
definitely a first.
Within this historic
edition you will
read a number
Warrant ofcers positioned to lead revolutionary
communications technology changes
of articles purposed to educate
the force on where we are going
with the Signal warrant officer
cohort. Numerous changes are
taking place, but in truth, nothing
too radical. I am merely taking a
cohort that I have been raised in,
and am extremely proud to serve
as one among the visionary leaders
guiding it to the next level. Many of
these articles are meant to provide
you a basis of understanding as
well as to evoke response and
correspondence.
If you are a mid to senior grade
Signal warrant officer, please
review your MOS and where it is
going. I urge you to share
your thoughts
and comments.
Do we have it
right? While I
understand
those who
feel we often
sacrifice the
great for the
mediocre, I
challenge anyone to come up with
a better solution.
In our technology driven
environments the landscape and
scenarios are constantly changing.
Even if a perfect solution were
momentarily available, in a very
short span of time, the questions
will have changed.
I also solicit comments from
senior NCOs and officer
leadership. I am wise enough
to know that I am not smart
enough to know and understand
everything. I learn so much from
many of you on a daily basis.
Please continue providing me
with your valuable advice.
Also within this edition you will
find articles written by other
warrant officers about what they
are doing and where we are going.
Hopefully you will find this
edition to be thought provoking,
educational, and of use to you as
you meet your mission demands
in your varied and complex duties
and responsibilities.
I close with a hearty and heart-
felt appreciation for all that
you do. I always stand a little
straighter, a little taller, and
a little prouder when I am
around you. Thank you for your
dedication and service in being
ever Watchful for Our Country.
Army Communicator
Todd M. Boudreau
Pro Patria Vigilans!
4 Spring - 2011
Newly promoted MG Alan R. Lynn honors his father MG (Ret) Robert G. Lynn
after he donned his fathers beret with two stars during a promotion ceremony held
16 Feb., 2001 at Leitner Lake Conference Center.
Photo by Wilson A. Rivera
Chief of Signal earns second star
By Wilson A. Rivera
The 35th Chief of Signal pinned
on a second star during a promotion
ceremony 16 Feb., 2011 at Fort Gor-
don.
Following in the legacy of his
father, MG (Ret) Robert G. Lynn, BG
Alan R. Lynn was appointed to the
rank of major general during a promo-
tion ceremony held at Leitner Lake
Conference Center.
Like his father, a Signal Corps
offcer during the Vietnam War, the
Chief of Signal continues serving his
nation and country as generations of
Army offcers have done in the past
within his family.
Although I walk in your foot-
steps, I could never measure up to
my father, said Lynn. As a young
boy I saw my father as this great big
man; huge shoulders, taking on huge
responsibilities.
The newly promoted MG Lynn
has made signifcant accomplishments
and achievements during his career,
said Director of the Army Staff LTG
William J. Troy.
LTG Troy said, he [MG Lynn]
changed how the Army does things
fundamentally in the world of com-
munications that were never done
before--such as connecting channel
networks as a captain with the 101st
Airborne Division in the largest histor-
ic air assault during Operation Desert
Storm. He linked NATO switchboards
to U.S. switchboard standards, which
was a huge achievement since it,
again, was never done before.
LTG Troy, chief of staff of III
Corps at the time, said he frst recog-
nized what type of leader MG Lynn
was working as the G-6 Chief Informa-
tion Offcer assigned to the 3rd Signal
Brigade in Operation Iraqi Freedom,
2004. He would ask a signal question
and the reply was always, Sir, were
professional, why dont you leave it to
us. Dont try understanding it, LTG
Troy said.
As the Chief of Signal for the Regi-
mental Signal Corps and the Signal
Center of Excellence, MG Lynn contin-
ues his military career redesigning the
signal force with the best equipment
available. The Signal Corps is train-
ing the brightest people on how to get
more commercial use out of commu-
nications, creating smaller packages
with smaller team formations making
them much more capable, using the
best electronics at the lowest level
possible.
[MG Lynn] is fashioning the
signal force to how we are going to
do things in the future, how we are
going to communicate, and what type
of networks are we going to build,
said LTG Troy. How are we going
to fgure that out? ... We always send
our best offcers to command at our
schools and centers of excellence,
said LTG Troy. They have so much
infuence on the future of the Army.
These students, Soldiers, offcers that
come through here want to see the
model of how its supposed to be
done.
It was the people on Fort Gor-
don, the great Soldiers and families
that brought me to this promotion,
and Im giving thanks to them for the
place I am now, MG Lynn said.
Wilson A. Rivera is editor of the
Signal Newspaper at Fort Gordon.
5 Army Communicator
(Continued on page 6)
Warrant Officer Corps marks 92nd year
By CW5 (Ret) David P. Welsh
The 92nd anniversary of the
Army Warrant Offcer Corps was
observed July 9, 2010.
An act of the U. S. Congress
in 1918 established the Army Mine
Planter Service as part of the Coast
Artillery Corps. Implementation of the
act by the Army was published in War
Department Bulletin 43, dated 22 July
1918.
A total of 40 warrant offcers were
authorized to serve as masters, mates,
chief engineers, and assistant engi-
neers on each mine planting vessel.
Although only one rank of warrant
offcer was authorized by Congress,
in effect, three grades were created
because of the varying levels of pay
authorized for masters, frst mates,
second mates, and corresponding
levels of marine engineer personnel.
This is also when brown was ad-
opted as the offcial color of the Army
Warrant Offcer Corps. The color was
a natural offshoot from the brown
strands of the burlap bags that Mine
Planter Service personnel wore as
their insignia of rank. Also, in 1918 the
Army opened a school to train mari-
ners at Fort Monroe, Va., commanded
by an offcer who had graduated for
the U.S. Naval Academy.
In World War I, the Coast Artil-
lery Corps was responsible for mine
defenses in major ports. Vessels rang-
ing in size from small motor boats
to 1,000-ton ocean-going ships were
used to lay and maintain minefelds.
Confict between Solders and civilian
employees who manned these ves-
sels revealed the need to ensure that
the vessels were manned by military
personnel.
Here are some highlights from
the rich history of the Army Warrant
Offcer Corps:
The National Defense Act of
1920 provided for warrant offcers to
serve in clerical, administrative and
bandleader positions. This act also
authorized 1,120 warrant offcers to
be on active duty. During this time
warrant offcers were excluded from
performing duties from which enlisted
personnel were also excluded.
On 12 May 1921, a distinctive
insignia was approved for warrant
offcers. It consisted of an eagle rising
with wings displayed, adapted from
the Great Seal of the United States.
The eagle is standing on two arrows,
which symbolize the military arts and
sciences. The eagle rising is enclosed
within a wreath. Warrant offcers of
the Tank Corps were the frst to wear
this new insignia.
In 1936, Army leaders were
uncertain about what an Army war-
rant offcer was and whether there
was a place for warrant offcers in the
Armys personnel structure. Although
warrant offcer rank had been award-
ed to such specialties as band leaders,
marine engineers, feld clerks, and pay
clerks, the rank had also been used
as a reward. The rank was offered to
former commissioned offcers who
no longer met the offcer educational
requirements and to outstanding en-
listed personnel who were too old to
be commissioned and who otherwise
could look to no further advancement.
In 1940, warrant offcers began
serving as disbursing agents. Warrant
offcer appointments began to occur
in larger numbers for the frst time
since 1922. However, overall strength
declined due to a signifcant number
transferred to active duty as regular
commissioned offcers. In 1941, Public
Law 230 authorized appointments
up to one percent of the total Regular
Army enlisted strength. This law also
established two pay rates for warrant
offcers, Warrant Offcer Junior Grade
(W-1) and Chief Warrant Offcer (W-
2). One other beneft of Public Law 230
was the authorization of fight pay for
those involved in aerial duties.
In November of 1942, the position
of warrant offcer was defned by the
War Department in the rank order as
being above all enlisted personnel and
immediately below all commissioned
offcers. January 1944 saw the autho-
rization of
appointment
of women as
warrant off-
cers and by the
end of WW II,
42 female war-
rant offcers
were serving on active duty. Warrant
offcers were flling 40 different occu-
pational specialties by early 1946 and
approximately 60 specialties by 1951.
In January 1944, the appoint-
ment of women as warrant offcers
was authorized. In 1949, the Career
Compensation Act brought about two
new pay rates for warrant offcers. The
designations of Warrant Offcer Junior
Grade and Chief Warrant Offcer were
retained; the grade of chief warrant of-
fcer was expanded with the addition
of pay grades of W3 and W4.
In 1953, the inceptions of the
Warrant Offcer Flight Program lead
to the training of thousands who later
became helicopter pilots during the
Vietnam War.
In 1954, The Warrant Offcer
Personnel Act of that year established
Warrant Offcer grades W1 through
W4, and offcially eliminated the Mine
Planter Service.
On 21 January 1957, a new war-
rant offcer concept, resulting from a
Department of the Army study, was
announced and provided the follow-
ing guidelines:
1. The need for warrant offcers
2. The warrant offcer category would
not be considered a reward or incen-
tive.
3. The frst published defnition for
warrant offcers was established in
AR 611-112 and defned the warrant
offcer as follows:
The warrant offcer is a highly
skilled technician who is provided to
fll those positions above the enlisted
level which are too specialized in
scope to permit effective development
(Continued from page 5)
and continued utilization of broadly
trained, branch qualifed commis-
sioned offcers.
In July 1972, Army warrant
offcers began wearing newly de-
signed silver rank insignia with black
squares, where one black square
signifed WO1 and two through four
black squares signifed CW2 through
CW4. Also in 1972, a tri-level educa-
tion system had been established and
provided formal training at the basic
or entry level for warrant offcers
in 59 occupational specialties. The
educational system further provided
intermediate level formal training in
53 specialties and formal training for
27 specialties at the advanced level.
In 1978, Army National Guard
and Army Reserve warrant offcers
were integrated into the Army Pro-
fessional Development System. This
satisfed the need for qualifed, highly
trained warrant offcers to access to
the active Army rapidly in times of
emergency.
In 1982, the Warrant Offcer
Training System was established by
the U. S. Army Training and Doctrine
Command. WOTS consisted of three
levels Entry, Advanced and Se-
nior.
On 1 October 1984, all direct ap-
pointments of Army warrant offcers
ceased by direction of the Army vice
chief of staff. A Warrant Offcer Entry
Course was established at Fort Sill,
Okla. In the mid-1980s a Warrant Off-
cer Entry Course-Reserve Component
was established in the Warrant Offcer
Training Branch at the Army Reserve
Readiness Training Center at Fort
McCoy, Wis. This course evolved into
Warrant Offcer Candidate School-
Reserve Components and it was
conducted until September 1994 when
all Warrant Offcer Candidate School
courses were consolidated and trans-
ferred to the Warrant Offcer Career
Center, Fort Rucker, Ala.
In 1985, Army leaders developed
a new defnition of the warrant offcer
that encompassed all warrant offcer
specialties.
An offcer appointed by warrant
by the Secretary of the Army, based
upon a sound level of technical and
tactical competence. The warrant of-
fcer is the highly specialized expert
and trainer, who, by gaining progres-
sive levels of expertise and leadership,
operates, maintains, administers, and
manages the Armys equipment, sup-
port activities, or technical systems for
an entire career.
The Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1986 amended Title 10
of the United States Code to provide
that Army chief warrant offcers shall
be appointed by commission. The
primary purpose of the legislation was
to equalize appointment procedures
among the services. Chief warrant of-
fcers of the Navy, Marine Corps, and
Coast Guard had been commissioned
for many years. Contrary to popular
belief, the commissioning legislation
was not a TWOS recommendation but
a separate Army proposal. Further
clarifcation of the role of an Army
warrant offcer, including the com-
missioned aspect, was found in Army
Field Manual 22-100.
Warrant offcers are highly
specialized, single-track specialty of-
fcers who receive their authority from
the Secretary of the Army upon their
initial appointment. However, Title 10
U.S.C. authorizes the commissioning
of warrant offcers (WO1) upon pro-
motion to chief warrant offcer (CW2).
These commissioned Warrant Offcers
are direct representatives of the presi-
dent of the United States. They derive
their authority from the same source
as commissioned offcers but remain
specialists, in contrast to commis-
sioned offcers, who are generalists.
Warrant offcers can and do command
detachments, units, activities, and ves-
sels as well as lead, coach, train, and
counsel subordinates. As leaders and
technical experts, they provide valu-
able skills, guidance, and expertise
to commanders and organizations in
their particular feld.
In a 1988 message, Army estab-
lished that, pending submission and
approval of the new rank of CW5
that Warrant Offcers selected by a
Department of the Army board and
designated as master warrant offcer
(MW4) would be senior to all War-
rant Offcers in the grade of CW4.
The MW4 continued to be paid at the
W-4 pay grade. In December 1988 the
frst Master Warrant Offcer Training
Course graduated and the frst thirty
CW4s were designated as Master War-
rant Offcers.
In 1989, A Warrant Offcer Man-
agement Act proposal was submitted
by the U.S. Army Warrant Offcers
Association on behalf of the Army
to the Congress. In 1991 the WOMA
proposal was considered by the Con-
gress and it was incorporated into the
National Defense Authorization Act
for FY 1992. Six key provisions were
enacted based on the Warrant Offcer
Management Act as signed by the
President in December of 1991, these
were as follows:
A single promotion system for
Warrant Offcers.
Tenure requirements based on
years of Warrant Offcer Service.
Establishment of the grade of
chief warrant offcer fve with a 5
percent cap on the number of warrant
offcers on each services active duty
list at any one time.
Selective mandatory retirement
boards for retirement eligible warrant
offcers.
In February 1992, the Warrant Of-
fcer Management Act provisions went
into effect.
On 1 October 1992, the appoint-
ment of Army warrant offcer can-
didates to WO1 was established as
the graduation date from Warrant
6 Spring - 2011
7 Army Communicator
Offcer Candidate School. Prior to that date, WOC were
not appointed until completion of the then Warrant Offcer
Technical and Tactical Certifcation Course for their mili-
tary occupation specialty. Since WOTTCC for various MOS
were of various lengths, the length of time spent as a WOC
varied greatly.
On 9 July 2004, new chief warrant offcer fve insignia
and wear of Army offcer branch insignia and branch colors
were announced as uniform changes for Army warrant
offcers. The new chief warrant offcer fve insignia was a
silver-colored bar, 3/8 inches in width and 1-1/8 inches
in length, with a black line in the center of the bar. This
aligned the Army CW5 Insignia with that of the Navy and
the Marine Corps; particularly it makes the rank more
readily recognizable in joint operations. Ceremonial War-
rant Offcer Insignia Change and Flag Ceremonies were
held at various locations on 9 July and other dates. This
change in effect relegated the brass Eagle Rising insignia
into Warrant Offcer Corps history.
On 14 October 2005, new Army Warrant Offcer
Defnitions were published in Department of the Army
Pamphlet 600-3. This pamphlet includes the career devel-
opment of warrant offcers, The new offcial defnition of an
Army warrant offcer is:
The Army warrant offcer is a selfaware and adap-
tive technical expert, combat leader, trainer, and advisor.
Through progressive levels of expertise in assignments,
training, and education, the warrant offcer administers,
manages, maintains, operates, and integrates Army sys-
tems and equipment across the full spectrum of Army
operations. Warrant offcers are innovative integrators of
emerging technologies, dynamic teachers, confdent war
fghters, and developers of specialized teams of Soldiers.
They support a wide range of Army missions throughout
their career. Warrant offcers in the Army are accessed with
specifc levels of technical ability. They refne their techni-
cal expertise and develop their leadership and manage-
ment skills through tiered progressive assignment and
education.
The Department of the Army Pamphlet follows the
above general defnition with additional defnitions for
each warrant offcer grade, WO1 through CW5.
On 11January, 2008 - The assistant Secretary of the
Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) issued a memoran-
dum authorizing 30 years of active service for all Regular
Army warrant offcers of any grade. Previously only Regu-
lar Army chief warrant offcers fve were allowed 30 years
of active warrant offcer service.
On 26 April, 2010, H.R. 5136, National Defense Au-
thorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, was introduced in the
U.S. House of Representatives. Section 507 of the bill would
amend Section 571(b) of Title 10, U. S. Code to provide that
appointments in the grade of regular warrant offcer, W-1,
be made by the regulation issued by the Secretary of the
Military Department and that these appointments shall be
made by the President except that appointments in that
grade in the Coast Guard shall be made by the Secretary
concerned. The Bill was pending in Congress as of June
2010.
As of 30 September 2010, the Army warrant offcer
cohort is comprised of about 24,550 men and women.
Active Army - 62%
Army National Guard - 32%
Army Reserve - 12% (not counting members of the
Individual Ready Reserve also available for mobilization)
Technical Branch warrant offcers - 65.4%
Aviation warrant offcers - 34.6%
Percentage of the Army - 2%
Percent of the offcer corps - 14%
Branches with warrant offcers assigned - 17
Number of warrant offcer military occupation special-
ties - some 70
The above information is extracted from the online
Warrant Offcer History maintained and frequently up-
dated by the non-proft Warrant Offcers Heritage Founda-
tion. A more detailed history can be found on the Founda-
tions website at www.usawoa.org/WOHERITAGE/. Click
on the warrant offcer history link at the top. The online
history contains many pictures, links to copies of original
documents, and information about warrant offcers with
historical signifcance.

CW5 (Ret) David P. Welsh served in the Reserve and
on active duty, culminating in his assignment as the Reserve
Warrant Offcer Policy Integrator in the Offce of the Chief Army
Reserve in the Pentagon. He retired from active duty in 1998
with some 42 years of combined Reserve and active duty service.
He was national president of the U.S. Army Warrant Offcers
Association from 1988 to 1992 and a member of their full-time
staff from 1998 to 2003. CW5 Welsh founded the Warrant Of-
fcers Heritage Foundation in the summer of 2003 and currently
serves as president and a board of directors member.
CWO Chief Warrant Offcer
MOS Military Occupation Specialty
NDAA National Defense Authorization Act
TRADOC U. S. Army Training and Doctrine
Command
WOC Warrant Offcer Candidates
WOCS Warrant Offcer Candidate School
WOJG Warrant Offcer Junior Grade
WOMA Warrant Offcer Management Act
WOTS Warrant Offcer Training System
WOTTCC Warrant Offcer Technical and Tactical
Certifcation Course
ACRONYM QuickScan

Warrant offcer accessions
By CW5 Todd M. Boudreau and
CW4 William Winkler
The career of an Army warrant
officer is a challenging and re-
warding one with as many intan-
gible as tangible benefits The U.S.
Army warrant officer program
provides a number of benefits to
include world-class training and
education, higher pay, faster pro-
motion potential, extended career
opportunities, and challenging
assignments.
USAREC Warrant Officer
Branch Missions
The Warrant Officer Branch
Missions, U.S. States Army Re-
cruiting Command has the respon-
sibility to recruit highly qualified
applicants to serve as Army war-
rant officers. This team consists
of several warrant officers and a
small number of enlisted recruiters
who actively conduct warrant of-
ficer recruitment briefings around
the globe.
Additionally, they receive
and process every warrant officer
application before passing it to
the warrant officer boards section.
Application processing includes
receipt, quality assurance, and
waiver processing. Once the
packet is presented to the boards
branch, a copy is sent to the pro-
ponent.
The Warrant Officer Branch
Missions also maintains the
USARECs Warrant Officer Re-
cruiting Information Web Site
(http://www.usarec.army.mil/
hq/warrant/index.htm). This
website offers a one-stop shop for
information about Army warrant
officer recruiting.
Branch Warrant Officer
Personnel Developers
(Proponent Managers)
Each Army branch that in-
cludes warrant officers has the
added responsibility to establish
the technical prerequisites for each
warrant officer military occupa-
tional specialty. These prerequi-
sites are submitted to USAREC
and posted to the above website.
They are also used as the basis of
qualification for warrant officer
accessions applicants. Personnel
developers review every warrant
officer accessions packet for their
branch and provide an official
memorandum rating the applicant
either qualified to compete on a
warrant officer accessions board
for the specified warrant officer
MOS or not qualified due to one
8 Spring - 2011
CW5 Todd M. Boudreau, Regimental chief warrant offcer, provides program
information to potential warrant offcers during a recruiting session February 2011
in the Signal Towers at Fort Gordon, Ga.
Photo by Larry Edmond
9
Army Communicator
or more deficiencies. Every deficiency is identified
on this memorandum and a copy is returned to the
applicant so corrections may be made, if possible.
Finally, if the packet contains a waiver request for a
general prerequisite, the branch makes a recommen-
dation for or against approval based on the needs of
the Army and mitigating circumstances specific to the
applicant and/or MOS.
The Process
The warrant officer accessions process is very
similar to that used to access branch officers. Candi-
dates assemble an accessions packet which contains
specific information used to assess the candidates
qualifications and provide accessions board members
adequate information on which to conduct a best-
qualified board. Board packets typically include a
number of required documents along with supporting
documentation. Required documents include:
1. USAREC Application Checklist
2. DA Form 61 (Application for Appointment)
3. Letters of Recommendation
4. Resume
5. ERB (Enlisted Record Brief)
6. OMPF (Last 10 years of NCOERS and/or AERs in
order from newest to oldest)
7. College Transcripts (if applicable and required)
8. DA Form 6256 (AFAST Form from Test Center for
MOS 153A only)
9. Official Photo
Typical supporting documentation includes:
10. Memorandum from security manager indicating
security clearance
11. Physical
12. DA Form 160-R (Application for Active Duty)
13. Statement of Understanding
14. Waivers (e.g., Moral, Age, AFS, APFT, and Branch
Prerequisite)
15. Conditional Release (Reserves & Other Services)
The approval authority for moral waivers is Hu-
man Resources Command, for age and AFS waivers
is DA G1, for APFT waivers is DA G3, and for branch
specific prerequisite waivers is the applicable propo-
nent.
Letters of recommendation must not be older
than 12 months. For most applicants, three LORs
are required: (1) an LOR from the applicants cur-
rent Company Commander (or first UCMJ level), (2)
an LOR from the applicants current Battalion Com-
mander (or second UCMJ level), and (3) an LOR from
a branch senior warrant officer (CW3 to CW5); not
all branched require this third LOR (Signal does not).
Although a letter from a senior Signal warrant of-
ficer is not required, it will add weight to the over-
all strength of the packet. In its place, and of much
greater value, is a letter from an IT professional (e.g.,
S6, communications GS-13, or even a senior Signal
warrant officer), with personal knowledge of the
applicants technical skills and leadership potential.
Additionally, though not a requirement nor a
prerequisite, awards and the following certification
also provide great weight to the overall strength
of the packet and should be cited in the resume
and included in the packet: MCSA, CCNA, MCSE,
CCNP, CCSP, CCIE, and the various Information
Assurance and Computer Network Defense certifi-
cations (e.g., Net+, Sec+, CISSP, etc.).
The Prerequisites
Prerequisites fall into two categories: (1) those
every candidate must meet and (2) those the specif-
ic branch establishes. Branches may also list manda-
tory and preferred prerequisites.
In general, there are ten general prerequisites
every warrant officer applicant must meet in order
to compete on a warrant officer accessions board.
Some prerequisites may be waived, and others may
not. These prerequisites include:
1. U.S. Citizenship (No Waivers)
2. GT score of 110 or higher (No Waivers)
3. High school graduate or have a GED (No Waiv-
ers)
4. Secret security clearance (Interim acceptable for
application)
5. Pass the standard 3-event APFT (Can apply for
waiver)
6. Meet height/weight standards (No Waivers)
7. Pass appointment physical (Class 1A flight physi-
cal for 153A)
8. Have 12 months remaining on current enlistment
contract
9. Have less than 12 years AFS at the time of sub-
mission (Can apply for waiver)
10. Be between the ages of 18 and 46 (33 for 153A)
Signal specific mandatory prerequisites include:
1. SGT (E5) or above (May be waived for USAR or
ARNG Soldiers)
2. A minimum of 36 months of rated time docu-
mented in NCOERs (May be waived for USAR or
ARNG Soldiers when Soldiers civilian employment
includes verifiable leadership/managerial responsi-
bilities)
3. Four years of documented practical experience in
the tasks and skills specified for each MOS on the
USAREC website noted above
4. A minimum of 6 SH of college level English (nei-
ther speech nor public speaking courses meet this
requirement) from an accredited academic institu-
tion; successful completion of the CLEP general
examination in English or an Associate degree or
higher (when the preponderance of college credit
is from college instruction vice
credited experience) are the only
acceptable alternatives
Signal specific preferred pre-
requisites include:
1. Advanced Leader Course (BN-
COC) graduate
2. Attain 12th grade equivalency
on the Reading Grade Level por-
tion (vocabulary and comprehen-
sion) of the Test of Adult Basic
Education-A (TABE-A, or TABE-D)
3. Sec+ certified
Prerequisite waivers are most-
ly based on the needs of the Army;
if a branch has difficulty meeting
its accessions mission, a waiver is
more likely to be approved than a
branch that has more than ad-
equate fully qualified applicants.
Signal historically falls into the
latter category.
Regarding APFT Waivers, the
revised AR 350-1 (dated 18 Dec 09
with an effective date of 18 Jan 10)
paragraph 3-12, i(3) states:
Candidates enrolling in WOCS
or OCS must pass the standard
three-event APFT as an enrollment
requirement; the alternate APFT is
only authorized with HQDA, DCS,
G-3/5/7 approval. The walk event
on the alternate APFT is the only
authorized alternate event used as
an enrollment requirement. The
Soldier must also be able to walk
the 6.2 mile ruck march for WOCS
or the 12 plus miles for OCS with
48 lbs. or more in their rucksack
within school time parameters. If a
Soldier enrolling in WOCS or OCS
fails the initial APFT, the Soldier
will be denied enrollment but
allowed one retest with a subse-
quent class. Soldiers failing the
second APFT will be considered
ineligible for enrollment and must
reapply for OCS or WOCS selec-
tion.
Accordingly, the only APFT
waiver requests that are eligible
for consideration are those re-
questing a waiver for the walk
event; the push up and sit up
events cannot be waivered under
these guidelines.
To date, mandatory Sig-
nal prerequisites have not been
waived; applicants must meet
each of these prerequisites to be
qualified to compete on a selection
board. These prerequisites have
been established to ensure only
the best qualified Noncommis-
sioned Officer applicants compete
for the limited number of warrant
officer positions. Additionally,
they ensure applicants have the
requisite background and Signal
experience required to successfully
pass the applicable MOS produc-
ing Warrant Officer Basic Course.
Our current Signal WOBC are ex-
tremely academically challenging.
They are between 25 and 32 weeks
long and are, for all but one train-
ing day, focus entirely on complex
information technology solutions.
Students require a broad and solid
base of IT knowledge, skills, abili-
ties, and experiences to be success-
ful.
Non-Army personnel may also
apply. The first hurdle is to ensure
the 110 GT score has been meet.
Air Force, Navy, and Coast Guard
Service members who would like
to get their scores converted need
to first ensure that the individual
qualifies with an Army GT of 110.
If the Armed Services Vocational
Aptitude Battery or Armed Forces
Classification Test or in-service
ASVAB was administered prior
to 1 July 2004, Air Force members
need a minimum General (G) score
of 64 while Navy and Coast Guard
Service members must combine
their Arithmetic Reasoning (AR)
and Verbal (VE) and have a mini-
mum combined score of 109. If the
ASVAB or AFCT was administered
after 1 July 2004, Air Force mem-
bers need a minimum General (G)
score of 70 while Navy and Coast
Guard service members must
combine their Arithmetic Reason-
ing (AR) and Verbal (VE) and
have a minimum combined score
of 111. Marines needing ASVAB
scores converted must contact:
HQMC M&RA MPP-50 Testing.
10 Spring - 2011
Soldiers selected into the Signal Warrant Offcer Corps enjoy world-class training
on par with advanced civilian industrial standards.
11 Army Communicator
The USAREC website contains all of the information
required to include mailing addresses for verification
of the above prerequisite as well as how to secure a
memorandum granting approval of separation from
the service members current service contingent upon
selection into the warrant officer program, taking the
Army 3-event physical fitness test, etc.
Finally, it is significant to note that since Soldiers
are formally separated from the Army and subse-
quently conditionally appointed as a WO1 upon
graduation from the WOCS, students who fail to pass
the WOBC are administratively separated from the
Army. If they desire to continue to serve in the Army,
they must find an Army recruiter and may enlist
again back into the Army under the needs of the
Army; there is no guarantee nor should there be any
expectation that an individual will be enlisted back
into the Signal Regiment, into their past MOS, nor in
their last enlisted grade.
Board Procedures
Once an application packet has successfully made
it through the review process and has been found
qualified to appear before an accessions board, it is
logged and maintained by the warrant officer boards
section of USAREC. Not all MOS are boarded every
month; larger MOS are boarded more often than MOS
of smaller population. Signal accessions packets are
boarded three times a year; January, May, and Sep-
tember.
Board members are senior warrant offcers of the same
branch from which packets are being boarded. Members
receive several briefngs and even conduct a practice board;
this board is run as a secretariat Department of the Army
promotion board and maintains the same standard of cred-
ibility as such. During the board, members are only able
to view one packet at a time; the packet must be voted for
the member to move on to the next packet. Voting is con-
ducted similar to a promotion board in that members take
a whole Soldier approach and vote 0-6 with the ability to
add a plus (+) or minus (-) for further effect.
Once an entire MOS has been boarded, the warrant of-
fcer boards section establishes a numerical Order-of-Merit
List (OML). This OML is used to feed one of three catego-
ries: (1) Fully Qualifed Selected (FQ-S) individuals are
those who made the selection quota and will be processed
into the Warrant Offcer Program, (2) Fully Qualifed
Not Selected (FQ-NS) individuals are those who were not
selected on their frst look by a selection board, and (3) Not
Competitive Not Selected (NC-NS) individuals are those
who were not selected on their second look by a selection
board.
FQ-S individuals usually receive orders to attend the
Warrant Offcer Candidate School approximately four to
six months after their selection; these individuals must
have a current qualifed appointment physical (with no
disqualifying medical condition IAW AR 40-501) and secu-
rity clearance verifcation when they report to Fort Rucker
for WOCS. FQ-NS individuals are automatically boarded
by the next warrant offcer candidate selection board
which considers their requested warrant offcer MOS; such
individuals are encouraged to update their application as
appropriate. NC-NS individuals have their application re-
turned to the current address listed in block #19 on the DA
Form 61 and may not reapply for one year from the date on
their DA Form 61 (Application for Appointment), page 3,
block 42.
After Selection
Once a Soldier is selected on an Army warrant offcer
selection board, one more signifcant decision must be
made before accepting this great honor. It is expected that
all WO1s be assigned to a deploying unit, even if a Sol-
dier has a number of deployments as an enlisted Soldier.
Muddy boots assignments and boots-on-ground time as a
warrant offcer is important to solidify the training received
at the Warrant Offcer Basic Course as well as to establish
credibility. I recommend that every selected Soldier think
this through and discuss it with their family. If this is going
to be a problem it is better identifed up-front.
Many candidates spend over $1,000 purchasing cloth-
ing items that they already own. If your uniform items are
still serviceable do not feel that you have to replace them.
However, if they are serviceable but do not ft properly,
you must have clothing that is sized appropriately. There
are two packing lists. One that has mandatory clothing
items and another that has optional items. You must have
everything on the mandatory items list. This should be
your entire initial issue. Do not bring extra unless autho-
rized on the list. If it specifes a color, it must be that color
(i.e. white underwear).
On the optional items list you should only bring those
things that will make you more comfortable. Many
candidates suggest bringing a Camel Back that will
be used for the six-day field exercise, long underwear
for winter months, and females should bring pumps
for the reception. There is also a list of mandatory
items that includes toiletries and office supplies.
Keep toiletries to a minimum to avoid cluttering your
personal security area. You may want to wait on
office supplies until you arrive at Fort Rucker, Ala.
Previous students may have left behind many of the
items that you will need such as index cards, one-
inch rings, medical tape, two-sided tape, etc. You
can always purchase them here at Clothing Sales or
the Shoppette if there are no extras in the class admin
room.
The next challenge is to prepare for and success-
fully complete the Warrant Officer Candidate School.
This course provides a very important part of our
that must be followed at WOCS
that are covered in the SOP. The
more one knows, the easier the
transition. Many mistakes can-
didates make while in WOCS are
covered in the WOC SOP.
After successful completion of
WOCS, the newly (though condi-
tionally) appointed WO1 will be
welcomed to Fort Gordon, Ga., the
home of the Signal Regiment, for
technical training in the appro-
priate WOBC. Students are chal-
lenged to learn many things that
will prepare them for their first as-
signment. The recommended link
for use in preparation for WOBC
is: https://www.us.army.mil/
suite/page/133249.
We ask that Soldiers be patient
for 60 to 90 days to allow us to get
schedules for WOCS and WOBC
completed. If a Soldier has not
heard from the Signal Regiment
at the end of 90 days, the Soldier
warrant officers training that
ensures each has the basic under-
standing of what is expected of an
Army officer.
A great link with information
that prepares a potential warrant
officer is http://usacac.army.
mil/cac2/WOCC/wocs.asp. Note
that some Distributive Learning
is required prior to WOCS atten-
dance. Once a Soldier has enrolled
in ATRRS for Course 911-09W, the
Soldier must access the training
at https://www.bb.wood.army.
mil by logging in with their AKO
short name and password. Ensure
you plan accordingly. Failure to
complete the dL portion of WOCS
will result in a delay in start date
or dismissal from the course. Note
also that there is an electronic
copy of the WOC SOP on the dL
site. There are many procedures
should contact the Regimental
chief warrant officer.
Conclusion
This provides a brief synopsis of
the Army Warrant Officer Acces-
sions Program with special empha-
sis on Signal. The Army Warrant
Officer Program not only provides
the Army with premier technical
officers who are self aware and
adaptive technical experts, com-
bat leaders, trainers, and advi-
sors, but it also provides enlisted
Soldiers who are more inclined to
follow such a path the opportunity
to perform their core technical du-
ties longer, join a small elite corps
of professionals who want to make
a difference, who want to advance
their careers, who want to stay in
their career fields, who want bet-
ter retirement pay for family, and
who have the technical capabilities
to do more.

12 Spring - 2011
AER Academic Evaluation Report
AFCT Armed Forces Classification Test
AFS Active Federal Service
ALC Advanced Leaders Course
APFT Army Physical Fitness Test
ARNG Army National Guard
ASVAB Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery
BNCOC Basic Noncommissioned Officer Course
CCIE Cisco Certified Internetwork Expert
CCNA Cisco Certified Network Associate
CCNP Cisco Certified Network Professional
CCSP Cisco Certified Security Professional
CISSP Certified Information Systems Security
Professional
CLEP College Level Examination Program
DL Distributive Learning
ERB Enlisted Record Brief
FQ-NS Fully Qualified Not Selected
FQ-S Fully Qualified Selected
GED General Educational Development
GT General Technical
HQDA, DCS Headquarters Department of the Army,
Deputy Chief of Staff
IAW In Accordance With
IT Information Technology
LOR Letters of Recommendation
MCSA Microsoft Certified Administrator
MCSE Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer
MOS Military Occupational Specialty
NC-NS Not Competitive Not Selected
NCOER Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation
Report
Net+ CompTIA Network+ Certification
OCS Officer Candidate School
OML Order-of-Merit List
OMPF Official Military Personnel File
PSA Personal Security Area
Sec+ CompTIA Security+ Certification
SOP Standard Operating Procedures
TABE Test of Adult Basic Education
WOCS Warrant Officer Candidate School
UCMJ Uniform Code of military Justice
USAR United States Army Reserve
USAREC United States Army Recruiting
Command
WO1 Warrant Officer 1
WOBC Warrant Officer Basic Course
WOC Warrant Officer Candidate
WOCS Warrant Officer Candidate School
ACRONYM QuickScan
Young Signal warrant officer living
lifelong dream to be a Soldier
WO1 Elizabeth Tysall at
Fort Gordon, Ga. in 2011.
By CW5 Todd M. Boudreau
If you want to see an example of the Signal war-
rant officer today take a look at WO1 Elizabeth Tysall
to get a picture of who they are, whence they come
and to what they aspire.
WO1 Tysall says, Since I was a little girl, I have
always wanted to serve my country.
She says, provocative and entertaining narratives
stories from her father, grandfather, and uncles about
their military exploits dumped fuel onto the smolder-
ing fire that burned within her from the earliest point
she can remember. Studying the military seemed a
natural adjunct to life all around her. She read vo-
raciously of epic battles and various military cam-
paigns. Even the Bible provided vivid descriptions
of battles and the warriors who waged victorious
campaigns.
As a child WO1 Tysall said she and her siblings
would play cavalry. There was always a huge land
dispute, reservation problem or other such conflict
or battle to resolve. They constantly manufactured a
war.
It surprised no one that as soon as she was old
enough she set out to be a Soldier. The week after
graduation from high school, she went directly to
basic training. That is when she marks the start of her
true relationship with the Army. From that very mo-
ment she says knew that this was the job for her.
WO1 Tysall resolutely states, Our country needs
a strong and successful military. And that military
needs leaders who enjoy their jobswho are dedicat-
ed to doing the right thing, regardless of the impact
on their personal circumstances.
Military Background
Her diligence earned her rapid promotions. She
quickly moved into the ranks of the noncommis-
sioned corps. From September 2003 until February
2005, she served as a watch NCO and emergency
action cell controller in the U.S. Army Europe G-3,
Heidelberg, Germany. She was responsible for the
decoding of classified mission-relevant traffic in
support of Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring
Freedom. SGT Tysall revamped the Read Book for
the USAREUR G-3, which became widely used by
other Directorate Staff Officers. She also monitored
Army and Joint level sites for mission relevant traffic.
SGT Tysall was selected as the USAREUR NCO of the
month for January 2005.
In February 2005, she as-
sumed the position of opera-
tions NCO, Headquarters
and Headquarters Company
USAREUR, Heidelberg.
During her tenure at HHC
she was responsible for all
training functions that were
executed by HHC USAREUR.
Additionally, she developed
and maintained tracking
systems for MEDPROS, and
Family Care Plans. As the USAREUR Schools NCO,
SSG Tysall was responsible for the ATRRS functions
of more than 700 USAREUR Soldiers.
SSG Tysall moved to the U.S. Central Command
in September 2006 and was subsequently trained as a
Global Command and Control Systems administrator.
As a GCCS administrator, she built and maintained
the GCCS Server Enclave at CENTCOM, and was se-
lected to serve as the CENTCOM Forward Headquar-
ters GCCS NCOIC. While at CFH, she implemented a
physical fitness program for the Joint service mem-
bers within the CENTCOM J-6. In August 2008, she
was selected to serve on the commanders communi-
cations team.
From September 2008 until she reported for
training at the Warrant Officer Candidate School, she
was employed on numerous missions throughout the
CENTCOM Area of Responsibility including Europe,
North America, Africa, and Asia. During this time,
she led advance communications missions, served as
the personal communicator, field tested innovative
communications equipment and techniques, and was
involved in the development and refinement of clas-
sified on-the-move communications mediums; all in
pursuit of constant global connectivity for the com-
mander, USCENTCOM.
WO1 Tysalls military education as an enlisted
Soldier includes the Warrior Leaders Course, the
Advanced Leaders Course, and the Battle Staff NCO
Course. She was the Distinguished Honor Graduate
for Warrant Officer Candidate Course, class 10-018.
She is currently in training at the Signal Warrant Of-
ficer Basic Course. She also attended the Air Forces
Global Command and Control Systems Administra-
tors Course, is Department of the Army Level II certi-
fied in Information Assurance, and has completed the
14 Spring - 2011
Warrant offcer candidates stand in formation at 1st Warrant Offcer Company, Warrant Offcer Candidate School.
National Security Agencys COMSEC Custodian and
DIAS Courses. She is currently pursuing a Bachelor
of Science degree in Information Technology Manage-
ment from American Military University.
WO1 Tysalls military awards and decorations in-
clude the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Merito-
rious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal,
the Army Achievement Medal with Silver Oak Leaf
Cluster, the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary
Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal,
the Drivers Badge, and the German Schutzenschnur
Bronze Badge. She was named the USCENTCOM
Army NCO of the Year for 2006.
WO1 Tysall has two sons, Trevor, born 2001 and
Thomas, born 2005.
What They Aspire to Accomplish
Following is an excerpt from a WOCS writing
assignment entitled My Role as a Military Officer, in
which W01 Tysall succinctly ascribes her aspirations:
The people in our great nation look to the officers
in our military for confidence, strength, and courage.
They expect and deserve individuals with good char-
acter, those who can set and enforce standards, and
those who are willing to lead the young Americans
who enlist in our Armed Services to success.
As everyone knows, we are a nation at war. It is
not a quiet conflict, not one fought only on the battle-
field, not one only fought in Washington, D.C.
This current set of wars is being debated in liv-
ing rooms throughout the country by families fueled
by what the media feeds our countrymen. It is being
contested in our nations capital by our elected offi-
cials. It is being challenged by our global neighbors.
Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, and Marines who comprise
our fighting forces are fighting those engagements
in such arena as well as on the ground, in the air,
and on the sea. Depending on the current mood of
the media, our countrymen might look at our fight-
ing forces as monsters, part of a terrible death and
destruction device; or they could be lauded as heroes,
leading the impressionable field of American volun-
teers who choose to serve this great nation.
Keeping the members of our fighting forces safe
and secure is the most important task of any military
leader. It is a leaders responsibility to train and
protect Americas volunteer force. The leader must
inspire confidence in those who are in their charge.
Setting, then enforcing standards is an important way
to do this.
A leader must analyze the mission and base their
direction on that mission. Junior leaders have an
even more pronounced supporting role as they will
use this knowledge to advise and inform their com-
mander. All activities and functions of a unit are the
ultimate responsibility of the most senior leader or
commander.
This individual must guide subordinates and
lead them to success. The intermediary leaders will
support this endeavor by seeking the tactical and
technical attributes of the entire group and situa-
tion. Then they will mitigate the holes that manifest.
These people will also produce a trustworthy envi-
ronment for all personnel.
It is imperative that all subordinates trust and
have confidence in their leadership. This fosters a
ATRRS Army Training
Requirements and Resources System
CFH CENTCOM Forward
Headquarters
COMSEC Communications
Security
CyCM Cyberspace Content
Management
DIAS Distributed INFOSEC
Accounting System
GCCS Global Command and
Control Systems
IDM/CS Information
Dissemination Management/
Content Staging
IM/KM Information Management/
Knowledge Management
MEDPROS Medical Protection
System
MOS Military Occupational
Specialty
NCO Noncommissioned Offcer
NCOIC Noncommissioned Offcer
in Charge
HHC Headquarters Company
USAREUR U.S. Army Europe
USCENTCOM U.S. Army Central
Command
WOCS Warrant Offcer Candidate
School
ACRONYM QuickScan
positive foundation for open communication and
streamlines the entire process of getting things done.
Those subordinate to the leaders will have a much
easier time completing tasks when they are doing
so for concerned and informed leaders. The leader
needs to be someone that the group can count on for
direction and strength. Becoming that leader is es-
sential to mission success.
There are many different reasons to become an
Officer in the United States Army. For me, it will
be the best vessel to take care of our nation and the
young men and women who volunteer to help defend
it. It will also bring me closer to the realization of
a personal desire formed in my childhood. I have
always given my best. I am a driven human being.
This behavior will not stop.
My ambition will not wane. Mission accom-
plishment is what I have to offer. My troops will be
well-conditioned and confident, because I will set the
example. I will listen to them and be the leader on
which they can depend. I do not only want to be an
officer. I need to be an officer. This is what I have
been called to do for the American warriors who keep
our great nation free.
The Making of a 255A
WO1 Tysall is currently enrolled in her War-
rant Officer Basic Course and is scheduled to gradu-
ate with MOS 254A. You can read more in the issue
about the evolution of the MOS 254A to include its
inception, past history, current status, and future
repurposing to MOS 255A. In brief, MOS 251A and
MOS 254A are in the process of merging. As such,
both WOBC programs of instruction were modified
and as of 1 October 2009, they were both extended to
32 weeks of training and have the exact same course
content.
MOS 255A will be the Armys premier cyberspace
content technician. They will be charged with estab-
lishing and maintaining the ability to collect, process,
store, secure, search for and discover, retrieve, and
disseminate information utilizing the application
layer environment of the Armys portion of the cy-
berspace domain; they enable information dissemina-
tion management/content staging (IDM/CS) in order
to perform the required information management/
knowledge management (IM/KM) functions sup-
porting combat information superiority and decision
dominance. In short, the 255A will own cyberspace
content management (CyCM). See the article entitled
The Armys expert cyberspace content technician
MOS 255A for a more in-depth understanding of
this new MOS.
Conclusion
Although WO1 Tsyall stands above many of her
peers, she is indicative of the level of professional-
ism, leadership, and technical expertise our newest
WO1s bring to the fight. While we have always had
some candidates assessed earlier in their career as
well as some a little later, the average Signal warrant
officer accessions candidate is a staff sergeant with
10 years Active federal service.
When it comes to leadership, commanders should
look at newly appointed warrant officers similarly to
newly appointed lieutenants. However, in areas of
general military leadership, knowledge, and tech-
nical abilities, commanders should remember that
these new WO1s are prior enlisted NCOs. As such,
commanders should mentor them in their new officer
roles as they would a second lieutenant, but expect
great things from them in technical and tactical rel-
evance.
Todays cohort is definitely not your
fathers Warrant Officer Corps
By CW5 (Ret) Andrew Barr
I witnessed some dramatic changes in the overall
management and use of warrant officers during the
three decades I was allowed the honor of wearing the
warrant officer rank in the U.S. Army.
Todays Signal warrant officers are the best edu-
cated, extensively trained, and most relevant group
of officers to ever wear a warrant officer bar. They
are placed in more crucial and challenging positions
that impact unit function and mission than ever be-
fore. Todays warrant officer is better educated and
trained because the Army and the branch leadership
understand they must invest in the Signal warrant of-
ficers lifecycle because of their relevancy in todays
Army formations. The investment has been tremen-
dous and the payoff is reflected in a warrant officer
corps that is providing superlative performance.
There I Was
A recount of my experiences as a warrant of-
ficer serves to illustrate the dramatic changes in
warrant officer management. In 1979, I had a small
ceremony where my senior rater removed my stripes
and placed a warrant officer bar on my shoulders. I
was then sent to my first assignment as the technical
expert. I received no additional technical or officer
training and was expected to be a subject matter
expert; when in reality I was a Soldier wearing a W1
bar with noncommissioned officer skills, expected to
act like an officer.
My first assignment was as the operations offi-
cer supporting the U.S. Military Training Mission in
Saudi Arabia. I was the only Signal warrant officer
in the organization which was the norm for the time.
I was tasked with managing over 30 Soldiers who
were responsible for the operation of two fixed tele-
communications centers separated by over 200 miles,
seven high frequency radio sites located throughout
the kingdom, and a handful of secure telephones.
Lucky for me my rater, MAJ Kevin Upton, be-
lieved in mentoring and counseling. He taught me
how to be an officer and spent time teaching me how
to brief, write, read, dress, and the esoteric nuances
expected of an officer. He explained my specific roles
and responsibilities. I discovered later that MAJ Up-
ton set me up for success. Most of my peers did not
have a similar experience and would later encounter
tremendous career difficulties.
My first operations officer assignment required
a seasoned warrant officer but when I was assessed,
management of positions was not being accom-
plished well. There was a saying that a warrant is
a warrant is a warrant indicating leaders did not
recognize the progressive experience and training
(which was lacking) of the warrant officer was as im-
portant as that for commissioned officers or NCOs of
the period. There was no difference in the position
coding. So a unit could receive a new W1 or the most
seasoned W4 to fill a vacant position.
Today, warrant officers are placed in positions
of increased responsibility based on their progres-
sive training and experience. Manning documents
identify specific pay grade requirements and, when
possible, the correct grade is sent to fill the posi-
tions. Based on inventories of each grade, it may not
16 Spring - 2011
Signal warrant offcers and Soldiers used the Enhanced Posi-
tion Location Reporting System that was frst felded in 1987.
always be perfect, but we seldom
see a W1 filling a senior position
or a senior warrant officer fill-
ing an entry level position as was
normal in the 80s.
My second assignment was
the 414th Signal Company at Fort
Meade, Md in 1981 to a tactical
Signal battalion that contained
three area Signal centers provid-
ing echelon above corps support.
This was my first assignment
to a tactical Signal unit because
my enlisted time was in Armor
and Infantry units as a tactical
communications chief and radio
teletype operator. There would
be other Signal warrants in the
unit and this is where I discov-
ered that my expectations as
taught by MAJ Upton and the ex-
pectations by the other warrants
would not be the same. I would
go to my first physical training
formation only to find that all en-
listed Soldiers and other officers
were there, but I could not find
the other warrants. I would go to
officer professional development
only to discover I was the lone
warrant officer in attendance. I
attended unit social functions
and felt obligated to support the
commander as requested, while
the other warrants did not feel the
same obligation.
Attending off duty functions
allowed me to have discussions
with the decision makers, build
personal relationships with the
other officers in the organization,
and ultimately allowed me to
better influence decisions. Part
of the confusion on behalf of the
other warrants was that our roles
and responsibilities were not well
documented and that each com-
mander or rater would determine
the expectations of their warrant
officers. The warrants expressed
the feeling that they did not feel
they were part of the officer corps
and were only a part of a small
group of warrant officers. This
shortfall has changed dramati-
cally during the past 10 years.
Our roles and responsibili-
ties are well documented in Army
publications and are readily ac-
cessible by the commanders and
O-grade officers in the field who
rate warrant officers.
Interacting in all settings with
fellow officers provided additional
opportunities; such as the oppor-
tunity for selection over several
warrant officers who were senior
to me to be the platoon leader of
an 80 Soldier ASC when the or-
ganization was short of commis-
sioned officers. This experience
was another learning experience
that allowed me greater options in
future assignments where I would
be responsible for many Soldiers.
I attended the Warrant Officer
Advance Course in 1983. Signal
was one of the branches that had a
WOAC at that time. This was my
first formal professional military
education course as an officer. I
signed into the unit at Fort Gor-
don and went to the assigned
building and room on the fol-
lowing day. It was located in the
old training area located between
Academic Drive and 7th Street.
They are probably among the
oldest buildings still standing on
Fort Gordon. All other students,
officer and enlisted, were being
taught in the new buildings on
post.
We received a couple weeks
of formal training on logistics,
administration, and a few other
common core topics that were
beneficial. We were then told to
visit the classrooms located on
Today Signal warrant offcers are managing technology that includes smartphone
technology with an extraordinary array of applications that multiply daily.
post that were of interest to us and ask if we could sit
in on the instruction. We never touched any equip-
ment or discussed any specifics about what we would
be required to do in our future positions. My rac-
quetball game was never better than when I left Fort
Gordon three months later.
Today, the WOAC is a challenging experience
where the warrant officer leaves with the knowledge
and skills to better support their units at the W3
level. Fort Gordon has invested greatly in the train-
ing opportunity. It is not a review of what the officer
learned in their basic course but an upper level, if not
graduate level, educational experience for the stu-
dent.
There We Were
A Department of the Army study, The Warrant
Officer Study, was completed in 1985 and a number
of changes occurred as a result of the study. This
was the first DA-level comprehensive study of war-
rant officer management from pre-appointment to
retirement. It spanned the total Army, both active
and reserve.
The study determined that warrant officers
technical expertise alone was not enough to meet the
requirements of the Armys current and future doc-
trine. They identified that warrant officers needed
to be proficient in basic tactical and leadership skills.
This finding led the Army to stop direct appoint-
ments and to establish a warrant officer candidate
school for all newly appointed warrant officers
similar to the officer candidate school that the other
officers attended.
Technical warrant officers started attending a
course that the Aviation branch established for train-
ing their warrant officers at Fort Rucker, Ala. Two
satellite locations for the training were established;
one at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland and
the other at Fort Sill, Okla. These satellite locations
remained as training sites for a couple of years until
all training was centrally located at Fort Rucker in
1990. The curriculum was the same at all three. The
primary problem with the curriculum was that most
Aviation warrant officers were junior enlisted Sol-
diers or Soldiers who enlisted to become pilots and
only experienced basic training in their Army career.
The Signal warrant officer was already an NCO with
several years experience. The training did not con-
sider the skills and experiences the NCO brought to
the course. It was 20 years before the WOCS would
recognize the NCO skills and provide two separate
courses; one for the candidate who was neither a
graduate of the Warrior Leader Course or a NCO,
and one for those who were both. It has become a
relevant part of the leadership training received by
the newly accessed warrant officer. This was a great
step in providing a better, more relevant training
experience.
In 1987, I was commissioned an officer in the U.S.
Army, as were all chief warrant officers. Congress
changed the law to standardize the procedures used
by the military services that had warrant officers in
their inventory. A key provision was that all chief
warrant officers received commissions, while warrant
officer ones continued to be appointed, not commis-
sioned. The primary goals of the decision to com-
mission warrant officers included the authority to
administer oaths of reenlistment, designate selected
warrant officers as commanding officers with greater
authority to impose non-judicial punishment un-
der Article 15, UCMJ and to characterize service of
commissioned WO as commissioned service. The
opportunity to administer oaths is something I have
cherished over the years. I am extremely proud of the
many warriors to whom I was allowed to administer
the oath. Although the opportunity to command is
not one that Signal required, we have had a few posi-
tions where it was used. Other branches use their
warrants to fill that position concurrent with their
technical expertise. Prime examples are the band-
masters and transportation warrant officers. There
have been many attempts to have a newly appointed
W1 be commissioned and not appointed.
Many of the recommendations from TWOS were
implemented in law or policy in 1992. Passage of the
Warrant Officer Management Act of 1992 mirrored
the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act that
was passed in1980. DOPMA established a common
officer management system built around a uniform
notion of how military officers should be trained, ap-
pointed, promoted, separated, and retired. Similarly,
WOMA changes included a single promotion system
for warrant officers, tenure requirements based upon
years of warrant officer service and authorization
for the Secretary of the Army to convene boards to
recommend warrant officers for selective mandatory
retirement. This was a direct attempt to integrate
warrant officers into the officer corps.
The W5 pay grade was also part of WOMA. This
had been a desire of the Army for many years and
was finally approved in law. The new pay grade
was established to fill the most senior levels of the
Army. This was an indication of the increase in the
relevance and overall understanding of the warrant
officer by Army leadership.
The TWOS study group, as many previous study
groups, had determined that a requirement existed
for highly experienced senior warrant officers to
serve as branch technical integrators and advisors
to commanders and their staffs. This finding served
as primary justification for establishment of the new
grade.
During this same period, a number of policy
changes occurred. They included coding of posi-
18 Spring - 2011
tions in authorization documents
by rank grouping and automatic
Regular Army integration at the
CW3 level.
The Warrant Officer Leader
Development Action Plan, the plan
developed based on the results
from TWOS was approved in 1992.
WOLDAP was a total Army plan
designed to ensure both active and
reserve warrant officers were ap-
pointed, trained and utilized to a
single standard.
Before moving on however,
it is prudent to note another DA
study named The Army Training
and Leader Development Panel
was completed in 2002. It picked
up where TWOS left off. The
study concluded the Army must
make fundamental changes in the
warrant officer cohort to support
full spectrum operations.
At the heart of the change was
a complete integration of war-
rant officers into the larger officer
corps; a process begun in the 1980s
but never completed. Specifically,
the study concluded that the Army
needs to clarify the roles of war-
rant officers, then make changes
to their professional development,
training and education, and man-
ning.
Many initiatives were identi-
fied following the final report that
had a dramatic impact on todays
warrant officers ability to support
the force.
I will skip some assignments
and go to 1999 when I was promot-
ed to CW5 and assigned to serve
in a branch immaterial position in
the G1 of the Army located in the
Pentagon. I had no idea what I
got myself into, but it was obvious
that I would have to learn quickly
to be relevant in this position.
Again, a number of O-grade of-
ficers assisted me to learn how to
be a staff officer since none of my
PME courses had prepared me to
work in that type of environment.
I was involved in two major
studies of the warrant officer and
was part of the implementation
process when, in 2004, I was se-
lected to be the second Regimental
chief warrant officer of the Signal
Regiment.
The biggest changes to the
warrant officer during my three
decades occurred during the past
eight years. I will highlight a few
of them and attempt to provide a
short analysis of each.
Here We Are
A new definition for the war-
rant officer was developed in 2005
to encompass all warrant officer
specialties and grades and to
include the leadership responsibil-
ity. It currently reads:
The Army Warrant Officer is
a selfaware and adaptive techni-
cal expert, combat leader, trainer,
and advisor. Through progressive
levels of expertise in assignments,
training, and education, the WO
administers, manages, maintains,
operates, and integrates Army
systems and equipment across the
full spectrum of Army operations.
Warrant officers are competent
and confident warriors, innovative
integrators of emerging tech-
nologies, dynamic teachers, and
developers of specialized teams
of Soldiers. They support a wide
range of Army missions through-
out their career. Warrant officers
in the Army are accessed with
specific levels of technical ability.
They refine their technical exper-
tise and develop their leadership
and management skills through
tiered progressive assignments
and education.
The Warrant Officer Divi-
sion, first established in 1974 at
PERSCOM to centrally manage
warrant officer assignments and
professional development, was
deactivated and the responsibility
for professional development and
management, assignments, train-
ing, and education of all officers
was assigned to the branch pro-
ponents in the Officer Personnel
Management Division at PER-
SCOM. This change was required
to better support the organizations
in the field and identified that
warrant officers are full members
of the Signal officer corps. This
was another part of the integration
into the officer corps.
Another initiative that was
part of the integration process was
a change to AR 670-1 that directed
warrant officers to wear the insig-
nia of their branch and not the in-
signia of the warrant officer called
the Eagle Rising. This was met
with many emotional challenges.
With over 80% of todays Signal
warrants having never worn any-
thing but the branch insignia, the
emotion has subsided and it has
been moved to its place in history.
The purpose behind wearing the
branch insignia is part of integrat-
ing warrant officers into the officer
corps which brings synergy and
better understanding that war-
rants are officers. Wearing branch
specific insignia and colors in lieu
of the warrant officer insignia and
colors changed in 2004. Addition-
ally, the increasingly joint nature
of operations with the Department
of Defense and the expanded use
of the most senior warrant officers
in joint operations validated the
need to standardize CW5 rank in-
signia among all the services that
employ them. The CW5 insignia
that was approved in 1972 is worn
instead of the master warrant
insignia that had been worn since
1992. The master warrant officer
was an interim rank used by the
Army from 1989 until 1992 when
the W5 grade was approved. A
formal DA selection board was
used to identify the MWO who
would be placed in the senior
positions that the CW5 eventually
filled. The decision was made by
DA leaders when CW5 was for-
mally approved to continue to use
the MWO insignia so those MWO
who were not selected for promo-
tion would not be identified.
Other changes that support
the integration included placing
warrant officer information in
publications that contain officer
information instead of maintaining two separate pub-
lications.
In 2004, DA mandated that each proponent es-
tablish a chief warrant officer of the branch position
to serve as the principal advisor to the commanding
general/branch chief on all matters pertaining to
warrant officers. Specific roles and responsibilities
were identified for these positions that would allow
better involvement and management for each branch
warrant officer. The Signal Regiment established its
RCWO position in 1999.
In 2005, the promotion zones of consideration
were reduced allowing CW2s and CW3s to get pro-
moted faster. It eliminated the Below Zone opportu-
nity for promotion to CW3 and CW4. The reduction
allowed a CW2 or CW3 to be considered for promo-
tion to the next grade with 3 years time in grade and
promoted in their fourth year. It allowed a newly ac-
cessed warrant officer to be promoted to CW4 in ten
years of warrant officer service. CW4 TIG remained
at 5 years. This was the second time in less than 8
years the zones had been reduced. A similar change
occurred in 1997 reducing the TIG from 6 years to 5
years. A number of reasons contributed to this deci-
sion, but it ultimately increased the number of senior
warrant officers in the inventory. A problem may be
realized soon that too many senior warrants are in
the inventory and steps may be taken in the future to
increase the TIG zones for promotion.
Delinking professional military education from
promotion was effected a few years ago. Prior to this
change, a Signal warrant officer had to be a W3 or on
an approved promotion list to attend their WOAC.
This meant that a warrant officer could go eight
years without attending formal technical training at
a branch school. If the purpose of the WOAC was to
prepare a warrant officer to fill the CW3 positions
and they were not allowed to go to school until they
were filling the position, it was obvious the process
was flawed.
Technical changes in the Signal community
added to the challenge. Delinking the PME from the
promotion process allows a warrant to attend WOAC,
WOSC and WOSSC at an earlier time to better pre-
pare them for the next promotion. Many discussions
of requiring completion of PME attendance have been
around for years and may be mandated if warrant of-
ficers do not voluntarily attend. The Reserve Com-
ponents currently require attendance prior to promo-
tion.
The accession process has been dramatically
refined and now must be accomplished online. The
chain of command is part of the staffing process and
applicants can easily apply. A formal process was
established in the 1980s and much better informa-
tion is now provided for the applicant. The process
has matured to an extremely easy, valid applicant
friendly online procedure that can be completed in
a very short amount of time. A board of officers
review and vote on each application. The board uses
the time tested selection process that the Army uses
for promotions and command and schools selection.
It is now a legitimate process that allows the Army to
access the best applicants.
One of the greatest things accomplished at Fort
Gordon was to require all Reserve Components to
complete the same training as the Active Component.
Prior to 2005, RC warrant officers could take a se-
ries of tests and get credit for attendance at the tech-
nical training. The RC students were being disadvan-
taged and were not being set up for success because
the tests were not a valid indication of the students
knowledge. The dramatic increase in theory educa-
tion and hands-on training and testing eliminated
that option and the knowledge that the RC warrant
would be deployed and expected to provide the same
support mandated that all complete the same train-
ing.
A significant targeted pay increase for warrant
officers was provided in 2007. This pay raise assisted
with the accession process because, for the first time,
an E7 did not lose money in base pay when pinning
on a W1 bar.
It also showed that the Army is very serious in
supporting the performance of the warrant officer.
It was a very difficult action to gain added pay for
the warrant officers because it is a Department of
Defense pay scale. The Air Force does not have war-
rant officers and the other branches maintain a much
smaller inventory of warrants. This action took over
five years to accomplish.
I believe the biggest cultural change for warrant
officers occurred when the Army changed the basic
structure for the Army and went to the brigade cen-
tered structure.
This action placed Signal warrant officers in a
combat arms brigade for the first time. It doubled
the necessary Signal warrant officers required to sup-
port the force. The increase also applied to the RC.
Prior to 2004, Signal warrants supported the brigade
from the Signal battalion. The brigade commander
did not know who the warrants were or what they
did. Teams were sent from the Signal battalion to
support the brigades, but they did not contain the
Signal warrant. Therefore, the brigade commanders
exposure to any warrant officer was usually limited
to only one technical warrant, the motor maintenance
technician, who was in every battalion motor pool.
This is important because the combat arms
brigade commander may later become a general of-
ficer in a decision-making position to support the
lifecycle management of warrant officers. I briefed
20 Spring - 2011
many senior general officers while
assigned to the Pentagon and
learned quickly that I needed to
provide a short introduction brief
on what technical warrant officers
did to support the Army prior to
any formal briefing of any warrant
officer topic. The general officers
understood the purpose of Avia-
tion warrant officer but had little
or no knowledge of the technical
warrant based on their limited
exposure. That is now changing.
Every brigade now has about 50
warrants of a variety of branches
in their unit. The Signal warrant
officer in the brigade is being
recognized by the commander and
the impact provided by the war-
rant officer is being identified.
The brigade commander is not bas-
ing all opinions of warrant officers
on his experience with only one
technical warrant officer. Expo-
sure to only one of anything limits
your view.
Another recent significant
change is in the number of war-
rant officers being assigned to the
senior Army organizations. More
senior warrant officers are being
placed at senior level headquarters
as staff officers providing their
influence as the proven experi-
enced technical leaders in the deci-
sion making processes that affect
the Army. The more advice they
provide the more advice the senior
leadership desires from them.
There You Must Go
We must assertively dispel the
notion that warrant officers are
a separate segment of the officer
corps and move with diligent ac-
tions to completely integrate into
one officer corps bonded with
common goals and an understand-
ing of one anothers roles. War-
rant officers must discontinue any
thoughts of inflexibility to perform
outside their specialties in order
to operate effectively in the full
spectrum of Army operations.
I saw many other changes in
the management and education of
the warrant officer during the last
three decades that I will not ad-
dress based on the space allocated
for this article. Let me state again
that the Signal warrant officer of
today is the best trained, educated,
ATLDP Army Training and Leader Development Panel
ASC Area Signal Centers
CW2 Chief Warrant Offcer Two
CW3 Chief Warrant Offcer Three
CW4 Chief Warrant Offcer Four
CW5 Chief Warrant Offcer Five
CWOB Chief Warrant Offcer of the Branch
DA Department of the Army
DOPMA Defense Offcer Personnel Management Act
EAC Echelon Above Corps
JIIM Joint, Interagency, Intergovernmental, and Multina-
tional
MDMP Military Decision Making Process
MWO Master Warrant Offcer
OIL Observation, Insights and Lessons
OPD Offcer Professional Development
OPMD Offcer Personnel Management Division
PERSCOM (Army) Personnel Command
and relevant Signal warrant officer
to stand in our formations.
It is not your daddys Warrant
Officer Corps anymore. Technol-
ogy, the changes in training, and
fighting a war for more than 10
years have changed things signifi-
cantly.
Anyone who has not been
associated with the Army during
the last 10 years would not recog-
nize the warrant officer of today.
The changes have legitimized the
warrant officer and what they
do to earn their pay. The previ-
ous changes are just a beginning
of what the warrant officer of the
future will see. It was awesome
to see firsthand the relevancy of
the warrant officer change as it
did and to have a vision of what is
expected of the future warrant.
CW5(Ret) Andrew Barr retired
in March of 2010 after serving almost
40 years in the Army, over 30 of those
years as a warrant officer. He served
in a myriad of assignments and was
the second Regimental chief warrant
officer for the Signal Regiment.
PME Professional Military Education
PT Physical Training
RC Reserve Component
RCWO Regimental Chief Warrant Offcer
SSC Senior Service College
SMA Sergeants Major Academy
TIG Time in Grade
TWOS The Warrant Offcer Study
W1 Warrant Offcer One
WLC Warrior Leader Course
WO1 Warrant Offcer One
WOAC Warrant Offcer Advance Course
WOBC Warrant Offcer Basic Course
WOLDAP Warrant Offcer Leader Development Action
Plan
WOMA Warrant Offcer Management Act
WOSC Warrant Offcer Staff Course
WOSSC Warrant Offcer Senior Staff Course
ACRONYM QuickScan
Historical view of the Signal Warrant
Officer Corps occupational specialties
Here is an historical look at our
Signal warrant offcer military occupa-
tional specialties.
While we might not be able to
trace our Signal warrant offcer MOS
back to 1918, there are distinct warrant
offcer MOS functions associated with
the Signal Corps that go back as far as
October 1943 (i.e., MOS 4400, Signal
Supply Offcer and MOS 0145 Radar
maintenance and repair offcer).
The Earliest Years
The best point of entry is 1961
to chronicle the history of contiguous
MOS adjustments which lead to the
current Signal warrant offcer MOS.
For example, MOS 286A, communi-
cations-electronics repair technician,
which had previously been MOS
4415, Signal equipment maintenance
and repair offcer (established in July
of 1948) was created in June 1961. A
number of related MOSs were also
created in this action in 1961 to include
MOS 281A, radio repair technician;
MOS 282A, radar repair rechnician;
and MOS 284A, television repair
technician. Most of these MOSs were
eventually subsumed into MOS 286A
in the 1970s which remained a stal-
wart Signal warrant offcer MOS for
many years.
MOS 250B
In October 1987, MOS 286A was
converted to MOS 256A, communi-
cations-electronics repair technician,
which also eventually subsumed MOS
257A, data processing systems repair
technician two years later. MOS 257A
had been converted from MOS 287A,
data processing systems repair techni-
cian, (created 19 Sep 77) which had
previously subsumed both MOS 301A,
data processing equipment repair
technician, (created 3 Jun 61) and MOS
361A, fre distribution systems repair
technician, (created 11 Sep 62).
Some of our more senior Sig-
naleers may remember MOS 256A,
since it remained on our authorization
documents for almost 10 years. How-
ever, MOS 256A succumbed to the
push to move all repair MOSs to the
Ordnance Corps. Thus, in June 1995,
all but a few select 256A positions
were re-coded 918B.
The small handful of positions
that remained Signal was coded with
the Additional Skill Identifer 3E,
satellite communications. These posi-
tions and a few individuals holding
them were re-coded/reclassifed to
MOS 250B ASI 3E. MOS 250B, Tacti-
cal automated network technician,
was created in October 1988, initially
subsuming personnel and positions of
MOS 250A, telecommunications tech-
nician with ASI 3T. MOS 250B are best
known for their depth and breadth
of experience in Mobile Subscriber
Equipment and the TRI-TAC switch-
ing suite of equipment. This is a great
place to divert momentarily.
MOS 250A
MOS 250A was added in October 1987
as it subsumed MOS 290A, Telecom-
munications Technician, created
September 1977 from MOS 341A,
cryptographic equipment repair tech-
nician, (created 3 Jun 61) which was
previously MOS 4418, cryptographic
repair offcer, (created 18 Nov 57)
and MOS 721A, cryptographic tech-
nician, (created 3 Jun 61) which was
previously MOS 0224, message center
offcer, cryptographic, (created 30 Oct
43). MOS 250A, best known for their
depth and breadth in communica-
tions security and telecommunica-
tions message systems, is another of
our more recent MOS which existed
for over 10 years when it was ulti-
mately subsumed, along with MOS
250B, into MOS 250N, network man-
agement technician in April 1999.
MOS 250N
MOS 250N remained relatively
stable until September 2000 when all
COMSEC functions were transferred
to MOS 254A, (created in 2000 though
not an effected MOS until April 2003)
and all CW5 positions were trans-
ferred to MOS 255Z (also created in
2000 though not an effected MOS
until April 2003). MOS 250N are best
known for their depth and breadth
of experience in transport and circuit
switch equipment to include Internet
Protocol routing. See the article en-
titled, The Armys expert cyberspace
network management technician
MOS 255N for more information
regarding the current 250N and its
repurposing actions.
MOS 255N
This brings us to the current state
and fate of MOS 250N. As of No-
vember 2009, MOS 250N has been in
22 Spring - 2011
Shown here
on the left is
the master
warrant offcer
four (MW4)
insignia
authorized
1988-1991,
which then
became chief
warrant offcer
fve (CW5)
insignia from 1991-2004. On the
right is the CW5 insignia authorized
2004 to the present.
transition to MOS 255N
which will be effective
October 2012. The train-
ing currently offered
under the 250N Warrant
Offcer Basic and Ad-
vance Courses (WOBC
and WOAC respectively)
was refned on 1 October
2009 to meet most of the
training requirements
of MOS 255N. Position
recoding from 250N to
255N will be effective
1 October 2012. Those
graduating from either
the 250N WOBC or
WOAC as of fiscal year
2010 may be awarded
MOS 255N at the discretion of HRC. All others hold-
ing MOS 250N will be reclassified to MOS 255N during
the 6 June 30 September 2012 reclassification window.
Note that there is an entire article dedicated to MOS
255N within this edition of the Army Communicator.
MOS 251A
Going back to 1961, MOS 741C, Data Processing
Technician, ADPS, was created from combining MOS
2403, ADPS operations technician, (created 6 Nov 58)
and MOS 2404, ADPS Programmer, (created 6 Nov 58).
In December 1970 it split into MOS 741B, 741C, 741D, &
741E and was eventually deleted in April 1976 when it
and its family of MOS consolidated into 741A.
MOS 741A, data processing technician, continued
to exist for over 10 years until it was converted to MOS
251A, Data Processing Technician, in October 1987. Like
MOS 250N, MOS 251A too transferred all COMSEC
functions to MOS 254A and all CW5 positions to MOS
255Z in September 2000. MOS 251A are best known for
their depth and breadth of experience in server opera-
tions and information systems and assurance programs.
See the article entitled, The Armys expert cyberspace
content technician MOS 255A for more information
regarding the current 251A and its repurposing actions.
MOS 255A
This leads up to the current state and prospects of
MOS 251A. As of November 2009, MOS 251A has been
in transition with MOS 254A to MOS 255A which will
be effective October 2012. The training currently offered
under the 251A (and 254A as noted below) WOBC and
WOAC was refned on 1 October 2009 to meet most of the
training requirements of MOS 255A. Position recoding
from 251A to 255A will be effective 1 October 2012. Those
graduating from either the 251A/254A WOBC or WOAC
as of FY10 may be awarded MOS 255A at the discretion of
HRC. All others holding MOS 251A will be reclassifed to
MOS 255A during the 6 June 30 September 2012 reclas-
sifcation window. Note that there is an entire article
dedicated to MOS 255A within this edition of the Army
Communicator.
What remains to close out is MOS 254A, Signal Sys-
tems Support Technician and MOS 255Z, Senior Signal
Systems Technician; both created in 2000 though not ef-
fected MOS until April 2003.
MOS 254A and 255Z
In concert with the recent changes to MOS 250N
and MOS 251A, as of November 2009, MOS 254A
has been in transition with MOS 251A to MOS 255A
which will be effective October 2012. MOS 254A was
created to provide a Signal technical expert in non-
Signal, maneuver formations. MOS 254A are best
known for their depth and breadth of experience in
maneuver Signal operations, Combat Net Radios,
COMSEC, and Signal support to tactical operation
centers. Since their inception, however, several sig-
nificant shifts have incurred. First, the bandwidth
and computing power of todays Digital TOC has
increased to equal (and in some cases surpass) that
of the nominal center in which MOS 251A is found.
Second, Army transformation and modularity has
negated the terminology non-Signal maneuver for-
mation. The brigade combat team today has organic
Signal support unlike ever before. Therefore, MOS
254A has shifted to overlap MOS 251A in more than
80 percent of all critical tasks. See the article entitled,
The Armys expert cyberspace content technician
MOS 255A for more information regarding the cur-
rent 254A and its repurposing actions.
Finally, MOS 255Z will only see a slight shift to include
renaming to senior network operations technician. Note
also that there is an entire article dedicated to MOS 255Z
within this edition of the Army Communicator.
This provides a brief synopsis of our Signal war-
rant officer MOS from the 1940s through today. For
additional information on either the implementation
of changes to MOS 255A, N, S, and Z please refer to the
article posted by CW4 William Winkler entitled, War-
rant offcer 255 series implementation on page 53. Also
included in this edition are in-depth articles on each of
these new MOSs.
COMSEC Communications Security
FY Fiscal Year
IP Internet Protocol
MSE Mobile Subscriber Equipment
TOC Tactical Operation Center
WO Warrant Offcer
ACRONYM QuickScan
Robert H. Lee was an early
Signal warrant offcer.
Cyberspace content management
technician (MOS 255A)
To fully grasp the evolution and current
role of the Armys cyberspace content man-
agement technicians you have to embrace
one significant fact that is often miscon-
strued. Signal warrant officers are not Sub-
ject Matter Experts. Instead they are Systems
Matter Experts.
Perhaps we should use SysME instead of
SME to alleviate confusion.
To clarify this point, consider the cur-
rent definition of a warrant officer from DA
Pamphlet 600-3 (February 2010): The Army
warrant officer is a self aware and adaptive
technical expert, combat leader, trainer, and
advisor. Through progressive levels of exper-
tise in assignments, training, and education,
the WO administers, manages, maintains, operates,
and integrates Army systems [underline added for
emphasis] and equipment across the full spectrum
of Army operations. Warrant officers are innovative
integrators of emerging technologies, dynamic teach-
ers, confident warfighters, and developers of special-
ized teams of Soldiers. They support a wide range of
Army missions throughout their career.
This point is significant. With the complex-
ity of todays communications systems, our Signal
warrant officers cannot afford to limit themselves as
SMEs. That is the role of the junior NCO. One look at
a requirements document that lists a Signal warrant
officer will reveal a number of enlisted positions that
function as SMEs. The warrant officer position is then
required to be a SysME-one who brings each related
component (subject) and integrates it into the total-
the system. Indeed some Signal warrant officers are
SMEs, but SysME more accurately describes their
increased sphere of responsibility.
Another important point to consider before we
move to the objective 225A is that we are like a for-
mation in motion. By this I mean that there are still
legacy issues that our Signal warrant officers face in
their individual MOS. Due to doctrine, organizational
designs, current equipment, systems, and legacy
leadership ideology, the description of a 255A indi-
cated in the following narrative will not immediately
materialize.
We cant make an immediate right flank, march.
Instead, we are in the beginning of a column right in
which you will have some units immediately receiv-
ing newly trained 255A, N, and S and employing
them as envisioned. These units have already made
the turn. Other units, however, will find themselves
further back in the formation and as such, the des-
ignated 255A Soldier will still be performing duties
that are shifting to 255N (e.g., Local Area Network
installation, operation, and maintenance).
Finally, for the sake of clarity, I will categorize
three separate but related systems, one per element of
network operations. Above is the NetOps construct
that shows its three elements which I will simply
state as cyberspace content management, cyberspace
network management, and cyberspace defense. See
diagram 1 above.
Two more notations are necessary to frame this
discussion. First, because these three are elements
and not enablers, NetOps does not exist unless all
three are in play. Second, the purposed overlap indi-
cates higher level NetOps functions within an ele-
ment that is either supported by or supports another
element. These concepts will be further defined in
later articles on MOS 255N, 255S, and 255Z.
The MOS 255A technician, one of two future
enlisted-level accessions MOS (255S is a warrant offi-
cer-level, i.e., W3 accession MOS), is responsible for
cyberspace content management. This is the Armys
premier information systems and services technician
MOS. The 255A technician is charged with establish-
ing and maintaining the ability to collect, process,
store, secure, search for and discover, retrieve, and
disseminate information utilizing the application
layer environment of the Armys portion of the cyber-
space domain. They administer and manage systems
which perform Information Dissemination Manage-
24 Spring - 2011
Diagram 1
Information Services Technician
ment/Content Staging in order to
enable Information Management/
Knowledge Management functions
supporting combat information su-
periority and decision dominance.
Where We Were
In more than two decades,
MOS 251A, Information Systems
Technician, created in October
1987 which was previously coded
MOS 741A, Data Processing Tech-
nician, had only seen two signifi-
cant revisions during its lifetime.
Both occurred in September 2000
when all COMSEC functions were
transferred to MOS 254A and all
CW5 positions were transferred to
MOS 255Z.
However, we are in the midst
of its close out and most signifi-
cant revision. MOS 251A is com-
bining with MOS 254A and subse-
quently will be converted to MOS
255A, Information Services Tech-
nician. While MOS 254A, Signal
Systems Support Technician, saw
its inception in September 2000, it
has only been effective since April
2003. Less than a decade later, it
too will be deleted as it is com-
bined with MOS 251A and con-
verted to MOS 255A as well.
Two years ago, it was decided
that these two MOS (251A and
254A), due to the forces of trans-
formation and technological ad-
vances which caused MOS 254A to
shift into a role it had not planned
to fill in its inception, had come to
mirror each other in most of the
critical skill-sets.
There were also a number of
other issues that required im-
mediate attention to include the
grade pyramid which ensures an
adequate base of junior positions
to support a smaller number of
senior positions as well as ad-
equate numbers of senior positions
to support future advancement
and promotion potential. In 2007,
the base of this pyramid for MOS
254A was grossly over the Army
standard resulting in little promo-
tion potential for this MOS; con-
currently, it was upside down for
MOS 251A resulting in numerous
junior 251As filling more senior
251A positions.
Where We Are Heading
Apprentice Cyberspace Content
Managers
Junior 255A (i.e., W1 and
W2) focus on acquiring and refin-
ing technical and administrative
skills as they directly plan, install,
administer, manage, maintain,
operate, integrate, service, secure,
and troubleshoot information sys-
tems and services and supervise
and train personnel at the brigade
level. Their focus is mainly on
the applications and systems and
how to leverage them to assist
their commander to prosecute the
collective unit mission. They are
concerned with the systems that
provide the capability to manage,
manipulate, and disseminate infor-
mation.
The term apprentice must
not be misunderstood. Newly ap-
pointed CyCMs, while apprentices
as warrant officers, are not new to
information technology. They av-
erage 10 years active Federal ser-
vice with a minimum of four years
documented practical experience
in IT administration, Army battle
command system administration,
local area network administration,
and/or information assurance/
computer network defense. Nor
are they apprentice leaders since
the average grade at time of acces-
sions as a Signal warrant officer is
staff sergeant. As a minimum, they
must have at least 36 months of
documented rated time as a leader
as evidenced by official NCO
evaluation reports.
However, in their new realm,
they are apprentices. As such, the
junior CyCM begins to learn each
and every subject within their
system. Being an SysME does not
allow them to abdicate their re-
sponsibility to be an expert in each
one of the subjects under their
purview.
The goal is that they fully real-
ize their role as a self aware and
adaptive technical expert, combat
leader, trainer, and advisor which
will only occur if they are the con-
summate experts over each sub-
ject assigned to them. In that, as a
WO1/CW2, their primary focus is
becoming proficient and working
on those systems linked directly to
their AOC/MOS (DA Pam 600-
3), this is the time for them to lay
their foundational understanding
of the devices and applications
used in their system.
Diagram 2
The WO1/CW2 255A focuses
on the install, maintain, and oper-
ate aspects of the system in which
they are responsible. They are to
focus on the individual pieces of
their system, many of which they
were trained on in their WOBC.
Examples of such devices and ap-
plications in todays Army inven-
tory includes (but are not limited
to) servers, storage area networks,
battle command common services,
exchange, active directory, SQL,
SharePoint, Adobe Connect, vir-
tualization, video teleconference
systems, information systems and
services level Information assur-
ance management, standard Army
management information systems,
etc. See diagram 3. It is notewor-
thy that this repurposing of MOSs
along with changes in technology
has shifted various responsibilities
to other MOSs. For example, the
repurposing of our various MOSs
has shifted COMSEC from MOS
254A to enlisted Soldiers working
in sections under the 255S.
MOS 255S will not fill COM-
SEC custodial positions, but in-
stead will be placed in positions of
leadership over COMSEC sections.
Additionally, tactical radio com-
munications systems are network-
able IP-enabled, node/PoP-self
creating devices that inherently
create cyberspace transport as
they are operated. Thus they shift
under the responsibility of MOS
255N. However, IA activities have
not, nor will they ever, shift to
MOS 255S. MOS 255A Soldiers are
fully responsible to posture their
systems and ensure those systems
remain compliant to all IA poli-
cies, practices, and governance.
The apprentice CyCM is
nominally assigned to a brigade
combat team where he/she has the
greatest ability to encounter the
widest array of devices and appli-
cations found within the breadth
of assigned systems. Having spent
approximately eight months in
WOBC, the BCT is not only the
level where junior warrant officer
positions are most prevalent, but
also provides the best opportunity
to see the system put to use by its
intended user the combat com-
mander. The astute apprentice
CyCM uses this opportunity not
only to provide the foundational
training and experience in IT sys-
tems that he/she will build upon
throughout his/her career, but he/
she also is ever cognizant of the
tactical purpose of these systems.
He/she begins learning how to
converse in IT communities and
the tactics, techniques, procedures
and vernacular of the combat arms
community.
It is important to note that
the 255A MOS are not knowledge
managers. Our 255A are techni-
cal officers who operate in the art,
skill, and physical realm. They use
practical aspects of physics [the
physical technological devices that
manipulate data elements] under
the purview of their skills within
the art of IDM/CS. KMs operate
in the physiological and physics
realm. They seek to understand
the cognitive reasoning patterns
of their principle and then lever-
age the practical aspects of phys-
ics [the physical technological
devices that manipulate elements
of information] in order to present
the right actionable information to
the primary decision maker at the
right time.
For the KM, it is all about the
actionable information becoming
the correct knowledge. For the
255A, it is all about the systems
controlling such information for
manipulation by the KM. The 255A
enables the KM.
KMs mainly operate in the
cognitive domain while the 255A
operates in the cyberspace do-
main. KMs decide what needs to
be presented while 255As decide
how (and sometimes if) something
is presented. Most often success
hinges on expectation manage-
ment.
The best KM is attached to the
principle decision maker to ensure
they understand the decision mak-
ers thought processing and get
the right information presented at
the right time in order to ensure
the decision maker is knowledge-
able on what the full scope of the
26 Spring - 2011
Diagram 3
decision entails; to include second and third order ef-
fects. However, if the KM presents a plan to introduce
either information that is not readily accessible or in
a manner that is not practical, it is the 255A who will
feel the pressure. Accordingly, the best 255A supports
the principle decision makers KM and thus must un-
derstand the KMs plans in order to help shape what
will be presented to the principle decision maker;
again, expectation management and ensuring the
mission is accomplished.
There is much, much more to this, but this pro-
vides a basic understanding. (The next edition of the
Army Communicator will address the KM subject in
depth.)
Journeymen Cyberspace Content Managers
Mid-grade 255A (W3) focus past the individual
applications and devices to acquire skills in the indi-
vidual attributes of CyCM (i.e., the science of IDM/
CS) as well as the intricacies of the interrelationships
with the other NetOps elements. This development
prepares them to be true experts in their craft and
advisors to senior leadership on complex and com-
plicated NetOps issues. In accordance with DA Pam
600-3, as a 255A becomes more senior, their focus
becomes integrating branch systems into larger Army
systems.
Journeymen CyCM, as advanced-level technical
and tactical experts, now step slightly away from the
devices, applications, and even the system they over-
see and begin to seek an in-depth understanding of
the principles and science behind their systems. See
diagram 4. Having gained expert experience in how
these devices operate, they learn the deeper answer
to why they are developed and how they are lever-
aged to enable knowledge management. Virtualiza-
tion, meta-tagging, etc. become the realm in which the
journeyman 255A begins to operate. It is the intel-
lectual capital of the master 255A that will help the
Army move forward in optimizing and securing its
data elements in the future.
The saying that information is power, is an in-
complete truth. It is more accurate to say information
enables power. And subsequently, if not properly
managed, it may disable power as well. A command-
ers inability to quickly locate specific actionable
data has the effect of disabling the power that can
be brought into the fight. Journeymen CyCM seek to
sharpen their skills in the art and science of Informa-
tion Dissemination Management and Content Stag-
ing to ensure their warfighting commander is fully
enabled through their KM. They find and leverage the
newest technologies and techniques and thus enable
their KM to empower their commander. They seek out
professional forums to ensure they remain informed
on technology advancements and trends as well as
opportunities to further their educational training
through university courses and civilian certification
programs.
The journeymen CyCM is nominally assigned
to a division or corps where he/she has the greatest
ability to focus on the bigger picture. Still remain-
ing close to the devices and applications within
their systems of responsibility, they find themselves
moving past the install, maintain, and operate mis-
sion and becoming involved with the planning and
engineering of IDM/CS for large organizations. In
preparation for the demands of such assignments,
these CyCM will attend the 255A Warrant Officer
Advance Course.
Prior to WOAC attendance, enrollment into
the Action Officer Development Course (131 P00)
must occur after promotion to CW2 in order to
qualify for WOAC Prerequisite Studies credit. The
AODC was adopted as the resource for this distance
learning WOAC Prerequisite Studies course. It is
completed on-line via the Internet, and provides
warrant officers serving in CW2 or higher duty po-
sitions relevant training in organization and man-
agement techniques, communication skills, prepar-
ing and staffing documents, conducting meetings
and interviews, problem solving, time management,
writing, coordinating activities, and ethics. CW2s
have the flexibility to enroll at any convenient time
between 24 and 48 months of total warrant officer
service. Once enrolled, the course must be complet-
ed within one year. Journeymen 255As attending
their resident WOAC will find project management
and enterprise level systems integration two key
technical components taught to prepare them to
fulfill their duties.
The journeymen CyCMs credibility is very
high in assigned organizations and the influence
they have cannot be underestimated. Mentorship
of apprentice CyCM becomes an inherent part of
their duty description. They also begin to gain more
uniformity in the supporting and supported roles of
their peer Signal warrant officers, the 255N Cyber-
space Network Management Technicians and the
255S Cyberspace Defense Technicians. No longer do
they focus their duties and responsibilities on their
systems solely. Now they begin to fully understand
that the data and information they are entrusted
to manage is meaningless if it fails to reach its
intended destination and/or becomes exploited or
manipulated by a cyberspace adversary.
Finally, some journeymen CyCM may feel a pull
toward the cyberspace defense arena. It is at the begin-
ning stages of his journeymenship (senior CW2 or junior
CW3) where he may make the decision to move from the
CyCM realm to the CyD realm. The decision point will
normally be just prior to WOAC attendance. The expect-
ment system (web-based) designed to
be completed over a 90-day period. It
is designed to prepare future resident
students for the core curriculum
of the WOSC. The WOSC resident
course provides instruction on tac-
tical and operational scenarios in
a joint, interagency, intergovern-
mental, and multinational environ-
ment with a strategic overview.
History and battle analysis
provides in-depth understand-
ing of both the military decision
making process and staff systems
integrator-manager skills train-
ing and education. Knowledge
management and project manage-
ment with associated PEs are also
introduced to reinforce the learn-
ing objectives. Assigned read-
ings, an observation, insights and
lessons learned paper as well as an
MOS briefing must be completed
to round out the course require-
ments. A recent decision to add
functional branch training during
this point in a warrant officers
career ensures maintenance of a
solid tether to the advancements in
the warrant officers area of exper-
tise.
A needed continuing educa-
tion gap is being closed in the
warrant officer corps. Because
a warrant officer is authorized
30 years of service as a warrant
officer, and should attend their
Professional Military Education
as early as possible, it was noted
that with nominal WOAC atten-
dance somewhere around the 5-6
year mark as a warrant officer, no
further institutional branch/tech-
nical training would be provided
for the remaining 24-25 years of
WOS. Not willing to accept this,
branches have been given approv-
al to add such a functional branch
training course subsequent to the
WOSC. We are also investigating
the necessity of a similar course
following the Warrant Officer Se-
nior Staff Course.
The currently planned WOSC
follow-on course will be conduct-
ed similar to the Pre-Command
Course. This five-week course
will include as its foundation the
Information Technology Infra-
structure Library which is a set of
concepts and practices for infor-
mation technology services man-
agement, information technology
development and IT operations.
ITIL gives detailed descriptions of
a number of important IT prac-
ed prerequisites for such a transition
along with the planned board process
are addressed in list article on page
whatever.
Master Cyberspace
Content Managers
Senior 255A (W4), having mas-
tered applications, systems, and
CyCM attributes move from the
outer edges of the CyCM circle in the
NetOps venn diagram, toward the
center (See diagrams 1 and 2 on pages
24 and 25). They are now moving
from mastery of one element toward
the goal of W5 mastery of NetOps
in total. In accordance with DA Pam
600-3, the senior level 255A now adds
such functions as technical leader,
sustainer, and advisor to their list of
duties and responsibilities.
Master CyCMs, as senior-level
technical and tactical experts in their
chosen feld, have also gained famil-
iarity with the other two elements
of NetOps (i.e., CyNM and CyD).
As they continue to develop as CW4
255A, they go beyond understanding
the basic concepts of assured informa-
tion delivery and assured informa-
tion protection ensuring that these
attributes of NetOps are obtained.
While there is never an expectation
of fnger-pointing between the three
associated skill-sets, the master CyCM
takes ownership of these concepts and
relationships (as do each of our Signal
warrant offcer MOSs) and in the ab-
sence of each sister MOS, takes charge.
When all three MOSs are present, the
conscious shared desire for synergy is
the goal.
The master CyCMs are nominally
assigned to a corps, ASCC, or higher
level organization where their train-
ing and experience has its greatest
impact. To prepare the CW4 255A for
the duties and responsibilities encoun-
tered at these levels of organization,
attendance at the Warrant Offcer Staff
Course is crucial.
The current WOSC includes a 41-
hour self-paced course taught in the
Blackboard learning content manage-
28 Spring - 2011
Diagram 4
tices and provides comprehensive
checklists, tasks and procedures
that any IT organization can tailor
to its needs. ITIL is published in a
series of books, each of which cov-
ers an IT management topic. Also
addressed are topics such as Army
transformation, future Signal sys-
tems, LandWarNet architecture,
enlisted MOS training, branch
25A and Functional Area 24A and
53A training. Since many of these
officers will either arrive from or
transfer to joint organizations, an
up-to-date understanding of where
the Army and the Signal Regiment
is heading is absolutely necessary
for the master CyCM to be fully
successful.
The master CyCM continues
to learn and grow in an area that
never reaches a plateau. They,
through their six-to-ten years of
warrant officer service, continue
to provide the Army and Depart-
ment of Defense expert support to
the ever critical IT systems which
house and/or enable our nations
most lethal weapon systems. Just
prior to promotion to CW5, the
master CyCM is scheduled to
attend the WOSSC. The current
WOSSC includes a 47-hour course
taught asynchronously in the Black-
board learning content management
system (web-based) over a 60-day
period. This course is not self-paced.
Phase 1 (DL) asynchronous train-
ing consists of assigned professional
readings, submission of two written
papers, and participation in student
to student, and student to instruc-
tor discussions. It is designed to
prepare future resident students for
the core curriculum of the WOSSC.
Phase 1 (DL) must be completed
prior to attending the Phase 2 resi-
dent course. The four-week Phase
2 (resident) course attended by the
Armys most senior warrant offcers
ABCS Army Battle Command System
AGDM Average Grade Distribution Matrix
AOC Area of Concentration
AODC Action Offcer Development Course
ASCC Army Service Component Command
BCCS Battle Command Common Services
BCT Brigade Combat Team
CNA Computer Network Attack
CND Computer Network Defense
CNE Computer Network Exploitation
CNO Computer Network Operations
CyCM Cyberspace Content Management
CyD Cyberspace Defense
CyNM Cyberspace Network Management
CyNOT Cyberspace Network Operations Technician
DL Distributive Learning
IA/CND Information Assurance/Computer Network
Defense
IDM/CS Information Dissemination Management/Con-
tent Staging
IM/KM Information Management/Knowledge Manage-
ment
ITIL Information Technology Infrastructure Library
provides senior CW4s or new CW5s
with the master-level education,
knowledge, and infuential leadership
skills necessary to apply their techni-
cal expertise in support of leaders
on strategic level JIIM staffs during
full spectrum operations. The cur-
riculum focuses on topics relevant
to todays Army such as staff skills,
training doctrine, force integration,
leader development, contemporary
operational environment, insurgency,
counterinsurgency, creative thinking,
and critical thinking techniques.
Subsequent to promotion to
CW5, the master CyCM becomes part
of an ever smaller, elite group of Sig-
nal warrant offcers, the Cyberspace
Network Operations Technician,
MOS 255Z. For further information
on MOS 255Z, see the article on page
48 in this issue of the Army Communi-
cator summarizing their career paths
and describing their skills, attributes,
duties, and responsibilities.
ITSM Information Technology Services Management
JIIM Joint interagency intergovernmental and multina-
tional
KM Knowledge Management
LAN Local Area Network
NCOER Noncommissioned Offcer Evaluation Report
NetOps Network operations
OIL Observation, Insights and Lessons Learned
PE Practical Exercise
PoP Point of Presence
SME Subject Matter Expert
SQL Structured Query Language
STAMIS Standard Army Management Information
System
SysSME Systems Matter Expert
TTP Tactics, Techniques, Procedures
TWOS Total Warrant Offcer System
WOS Warrant Offcer Service
ACRONYM QuickScan
(For a more complete understanding of the development of
MOS 255N, read the article on MOS 255A in this edition of the
Army Communicator on page 24.)
Where We Were
We had to address the question What is a warrant
offcer MOS? in the process of repurposing our current
MOS. Branch offcers have areas of concentration and
enlisted Soldiers have MOSs. Warrant offcers have both.
A warrant offcer MOS is comprised of a two-digit branch
identifer (e.g., 25 for Signal), a third digit to defne an AOC
(e.g., 255 for Network Operations), and a fourth alpha char-
acter to fnally comprise a warrant offcer MOS (e.g., 255N
for Cyberspace Network Management Technician).
The MOS 250N was created in 1998 and subsumed
MOS 250A and 250B in April 1999. It then remained
relatively stable until September 2000 when all COMSEC
functions were transferred to newly created MOS 254A and
all CW5 positions were transferred to newly created MOS
255Z. Since then, no major changes have taken place other
than the inclusion of newer transport and routing technolo-
gies.
Looking back at our legacy Signal warrant offcer
MOS, we in fact had four AOCs: (1) 250, Network Manage-
ment; (2) 251, Automated Information Systems Operations;
(3) 254, Signal Systems Support Operations; and (4) 255,
Signal Systems Operations. Each AOC had only one MOS.
The decision was made to repurpose AOC 255 to Network
Operations and then place all four MOS under this one
AOC. This becomes more signifcant as we recognize the
correlation between the interdependencies of the three ele-
ments of the NetOps construct and the interdependencies
of the three base Signal warrant offcer MOS as indicated
below.
Below is the NetOps construct on the 255A that shows
its three elements and how the repurposed MOS matches
each. MOS 255Z remains our capstone Signal warrant
offcer MOS and thus the senior MOS that acts to ensure,
shape, and enable NetOps on the battlefeld. MOS 255A
is responsible for cyberspace content management while
MOS 255N (Network Management Technician) is respon-
sible for Cyberspace Network Management. Later articles
will detail how MOS 255S is responsible for Cyberspace
Defense and MOS 255Z is responsible for Cyberspace
NetOps (CyNetOps) in its entirety. Because these three
are elements and not enablers, NetOps does not exist
unless all three are in play. The purposed overlap indicates
higher-level NetOps functions within an element that is
either supported by or supports another element. Further
elaborating on the former, I use Computer Network Opera-
tions as a comparison. CNO has three enablers, Computer
Network Attack, Exploitation, and Defense (CNA, CNE,
and CND respectively). As enablers, CNO will continue
to exist without CND, however, it is not fully enabled.
Conversely, CyNetOps does not exist is one of its elements
is missing; similar to the removal of an element of hydro-
gen from H2O, you no longer have water, you now have
chemical compound HO. Just as water exists in the bonded
mixture of H2O, CyNetOps exists in the bonded mixture of
CyCM, CyNM, and CyD. It is the interrelationship of these
three that births CyNetOps. Finally, these interrelation-
ships form shifting supported and supporting responsibili-
ties that must be understood and fostered by full spectrum
CyNetOps.
MOS 255N, the second of two enlisted-level accessions
MOS, is the Armys premier network transport technician
responsible for voice, video, and data networks, establish-
ing and maintaining the transport layer environment of Ar-
mys portion of the cyberspace domain through Network
Management/Enterprise Systems Management (NM/
ESM) functions to include fault management, confguration
management, auditing and accountability measures, main-
taining performance standards, and implementing security
measures at all levels in support of combat information
superiority and command and control. In short, the 255N
owns CyNM.
30 Spring - 2011
Cyberspace network management
technician (MOS 255N)
Diagram 1
Network Management Technician
I make the same caveat that I offered to the objective
225A; we are a formation still in motion. Doctrine, orga-
nizational designs, current systems and equipment, and
legacy leadership ideology may still lag behind the below
ideal and objective description of MOS 255N. As in MOS
255A, we are not able to make an immediate right fank,
march.
Here too we are in the beginning of a column right,
meaning you will wind some units who are able to imme-
diately able to receive newly trained 255A, N, and S and
employ them as detailed within this publication; they have
already made the turn. Other units, however, will fnd
themselves further back in the formation.
Apprentice Cyberspace Network
Management Technicians
To understand the apprentice level warrant offcer, an
understanding of the transition from Noncommissioned
Offcer to warrant offcer fostered by attendance at the
Warrant Offcer Candidate School is helpful. WOCS contin-
ues to evolve to better align its philosophy and activities to
meet the needs of an Army at war. The driving force is the
desire to produce warrant offcers better qualifed to oper-
ate effectively in the demanding operational environment.
Following is a synopsis of the changes made in 2006
and the resultant WOCS in operation today.
While WOCS has adjusted and evolved through the
years, 2006 marked another such notable year in its devel-
opment. WOCS has always been associated with its physi-
cal rigor. Prior to 2006 physical training heavily focused
on the Army Physical Fitness Test. An increase from entry
level APFT scores to graduation APFT scores was a sig-
nifcant metric used to gauge its success. Goals included a
desire to improve physical ftness, to improve candidates
understanding of the elements of ftness, and to prepare
them to assist with their commanders ftness programs.
Subsequent to the 2006 changes, PT became more warrior
tasks and battle drills centered. The current goals of the
WOCS APFT are to maintain and/or improve a candidates
state of combat readiness and to develop both foundational
ftness and fundamental skills to prepare the offcer leader
for operational deployment.
The focus of the WOCS has gone through signifcant
changes. Prior to 2006, many have said the course had a
barracks centered focus. AC-RC differences along with the
limited resident only training rendered its purpose and
effectiveness questionable. Subsequent to changes made in
2006, most now say WOCS is developing offcers. The in-
clusion of a distance learning phase to build experience and
its feld leadership exercise has added a credible amount of
increased rigor.
As outlined on the Warrant Offcer Career College
website, the current WOCS focus emphasizes offcer roles
and responsibilities more, and individual activities less.
Candidates are required to meet high standards for main-
taining their personal living areas. However, the standards
are based on the need to maintain a clean and orderly
living environment rather than what many in the past
perceived as arbitrary specifcations designed to heighten
stress levels.
There are experiential learning events throughout the
program, particularly warrior tasks and battle drill related
activities that provide leadership opportunities while em-
phasizing lessons relevant to the OE. These activities culmi-
nate in a FLX that draws heavily on recent lessons learned.
This capstone event provides candidates expanded oppor-
tunities to apply fexible, adaptive leadership principles in
stressful, sometimes ambiguous, situations to reinforce and
build upon previous classroom theory studies and discus-
sion.
Training, advising, and counseling offcers and aca-
demic instructors concentrate primarily on training and
secondarily on assessing candidates performance. This
becomes apparent in the time and effort TACs and in-
structors devote to serving as role models, mentors, and
coaches. Throughout all the changes, rigor is maintained
even increasedand the goal continues to be to provide
candidates the foundation they need to succeed as warrant
offcers in a changing Army, and to be adaptable to the
ever increasing challenges of the OE.
Having successfully completed WOCS and being ap-
pointed to WO1 in the U.S. Army, the junior 255N (i.e., W1
and W2) focus on acquiring and refning technical and ad-
ministrative skills as they supervise and manage the opera-
tion and internetworking of telecommunications networks,
networked information systems and equipment, networked
transmission and transport systems, network management
platforms, and associated personnel at both the local and
wide area network level. Their focus is also mainly on the
equipment and systems and how to leverage them to assist
their commander to prosecute the wartime mission.
The apprentice CyNM averages 10 years active Federal
Diagram 2
32 Spring - 2011
service with a minimum of four years documented practi-
cal experience in voice and data internetworking, local and
wide area networks, and/or network planning. Addition-
ally, he/she is most likely a prior staff sergeant and must
minimally have at least 36 months of documented rated
time as a leader as evidenced by offcial NCO evaluation
reports.
The junior CyNM begins learning each and every
subject within the system. As in the 255A, a WO1/
CW2 255N, the primary focus is becoming profi-
cient and working on those systems linked directly
to AOC/MOS (DA Pam 600-3). During the initial
assignment is the time for the junior CyNM to devel-
op a foundational understanding of the devices and
applications used in his/her system. Where they are
assigned and how they are utilized will greatly im-
pact their future careers. Accordingly, similar to the
CyCM, the apprentice CyNM is nominally assigned
to a brigade combat team where he/she has the great-
est ability to encounter the widest array of devices
and applications found within the breadth of his/
her assigned systems. After five months in WOBC,
the BCT provides the best opportunity to see his/her
system put to use by its intended user the combat
commander. The astute apprentice CyNM uses this
opportunity not only to provide the foundational
training and experience in communications transport
and networking systems that he/she will build upon
throughout his/her career, but also becomes aware
of the systems tactical purposes. He/she learns how
to converse not only in IT communities, but also the
tactics, techniques, procedures and vernacular of the
combat arms community he/she enables.
The WO1/CW2 255N focuses on the install, main-
tain, and operate aspects of the system in which they
are responsible. They are to focus on the individual
pieces of their system, many of which they were
trained on in their WOBC. Examples of such devices
and applications in todays Army inventory includes
(but is not limited to) VoIP call managers, firewalls,
routers, switches, multiplexers, voice switches,
various RF transmission systems, network manage-
ment software, etc. Shifts in technology have begun
to cause a shift in responsibilities that are covered
under the MOS repurposing strategy of the Signal
warrant officer. For example, tactical tadio commu-
nications systems have begun to become networkable
devices meaning they are IP-enabled, node/PoP-self
creating devices that inherently create cyberspace
transport as they are operated. As such, they shift un-
der the responsibility of MOS 255N. This shift causes
the 255N to focus on transport, regardless of WAN or
LAN architecture. However, information assurance
activities have not, nor will they ever, shift to MOS
255S. MOS 255A Soldiers are fully responsible to pos-
ture their systems and ensure they remain compliant
to all IA policies, practices, and governance.
Another example of a shift in capabilities that has
second and third order effects to include influenc-
ing Signal warrant officers is that of frequency and
spectrum management. In the past, select Soldiers
were trained in frequency and spectrum manage-
Senior warrant offcers are immersed in the latest technology and most advanced systems when they attend their Professional
Military Education course at the Warrant Offcer Career College.
ment, awarded additional skill
identifier D9, and placed in our
formations where these skills
could be best leveraged. Today,
the electromagnetic spectrum
has become such a critical com-
ponent of our portion of cyber-
space that the level of training
at an ASI producing course,
along with the inability to track
and ensure full utilization of
personnel trained in such skills,
does not meet the criticality and
full spectrum of the require-
ment. EMS operations includes
not only EMS management,
but also incorporates electronic
warfare and electronic protect.
As such, an MOS is required
to ensure EMSO as a whole is
fully synchronized; MOS 25E,
Electromagnetic Spectrum Man-
ager has been created to syn-
chronize EMS management to
include cyberspace operations
in and through EMS as well as
EW operations and EP actions.
However, MOS 25E will be an
asset to the 255S as that is where
the bigger view of the network
is taken. This leaves a gap in
frequency and spectrum man-
agement which must be filled by
our 255N.
Journeymen Cyberspace
Network Management
Technicians
The Mid-grade MOS 255N
(W3) focus beyond the individ-
ual assemblages and systems to
acquire skills in the individual
attributes of CyNM (i.e., the
science of NM/ESM) as well as
the intricacies of the interrela-
tionships with the other NetOps
elements. This development
prepares them to be true experts
in their craft and advisors to
senior leadership on complex and
complicated NetOps issues.
Journeymen CyNM, similar
to their CyCM counterparts, as
advanced-level technical and
tactical experts, now step slightly
away from the devices, applications,
and even the system they over-
see and begin to seek an in-depth
understanding of the principles and
science behind their systems. Hav-
ing gained expert experience in how
these devices operate, they learn the
deeper answer to why they were de-
veloped and how they are leveraged
to transport data and information,
or better yet, command and control.
The journeymen CyNM is also
nominally assigned to a division
or corps where he has the great-
est ability to focus on the bigger
picture. Still remaining close to the
devices and applications within
their systems of responsibility, they
find themselves moving past the
install, maintain, and operate mis-
sion and become involved with the
planning and engineering of trans-
port services and enterprise level
network management for larger
organizations. In preparation for the
demands of such assignments, these
CyNM will attend the 255N Warrant
Officer Advance Course.
Prior to WOAC attendance,
enrollment into the Action Officer
Development Course (131 P00) must
occur after promotion to CW2 in
order to qualify for WOAC Pre-
requisite Studies credit. Journey-
men 255Ns attending their resident
WOAC will find project manage-
ment and enterprise level transport
systems and integration, along with
advanced routing, VoIP, security,
QOS techniques, and transport
systems as key technical compo-
nents taught to prepare him to fulfill
their ever expanding duties. The
Army senior leadership has taken a
renewed interest in warrant officer
Professional Military Education.
ALARACT 362-2010, Officer and
Non Commissioned Officer PME
Backlog Definitions, specifically
calls out warrant officers stating,
All AC and RC warrant officers
will complete WOAC prior to pro-
motion to CW3. This ALARACT
also states the requirement to attend
WOSC prior to promotion to CW4
and the WOSSC prior to promotion
to CW5. More on this subject is cov-
ered in the article on the Armys se-
nior cyberspace network operations
technician MOS 255Z on page 48.
The journeymen CyNMs cred-
ibility is very high in such orga-
nizations and the influence they
have cannot be underestimated.
Mentorship of apprentice CyNM
becomes an inherent part of their
duty description. They also begin
to gain more uniformity in the
supporting and supported roles
of their peer Signal warrant offi-
cers, the 255A Cyberspace Content
Management Technicians and the
255S Cyberspace Defense Techni-
cians. No longer do they focus their
duties and responsibilities on their
systems solely. Now they begin to
fully understand that the transport
networks they are entrusted to
establish, maintain, and manage are
meaningless if they fail to move data
and information to the intended
destination and/or become exploit-
ed or manipulated by a cyberspace
adversary. Journeymen CyNM seek
out professional forums to ensure
they remain informed on technology
advancements and trends as well as
opportunities to further their edu-
cational training through university
courses and civilian certification
programs.
Finally, some journeymen
CyNM may, similar to their peer
255As, feel a pull toward the Cy-
berspace Defense arena. It is at the
beginning stages of his journeyman
phase (senior CW2 or junior CW3)
where one may make the decision
to move from the CyCM to the CyD
realm. The future decision point will
normally be just prior to WOAC
attendance. The expected prerequi-
sites for such a transition along with
the planned board process will be
discussed in a later article.
Master Cyberspace Network
Management Technicians
34 Spring - 2011
Senior 255N (W4), having mastered assemblages, sys-
tems, and CyNM attributes, move from the outer edges
of the CyNM circle in the NetOps venn diagram toward
the center. They are now moving from mastery of one
element toward the goal of W5--mastery of NetOps.
While definitively a master CyNM, CW4 255N also
serve as technical leaders, sustainers, and advisors to
the commands to which they are assigned.
Master CyNM, as senior-level technical and tacti-
cal experts in their chosen field, have also gained
familiarity with the other two elements of NetOps
(i.e., CyCM and CyD). As they continue to develop as
CW4 255N, they go beyond understanding the basic
concepts of assured information delivery and assured
system and network availability and ensure that
these attributes of NetOps are obtained. As in master
level CyCM, while there is never an expectation of
finger-pointing between the three associated skill-
sets and/or MOS, master CyCM takes ownership of
these concepts and relationships (as do each of our
Signal warrant officer MOS) and in the absence of
each sister MOS, takes charge. When all three MOSs
are present, the conscious shared desire for synergy
is the goal.
The master CyNM is nominally assigned to a
Corps, ASCC, or higher level organization where his/
her training and experience has its greatest impact.
To prepare the CW4 255N for the duties and respon-
sibilities encountered at these levels of organization,
attendance at the Warrant Officer Staff Course is
crucial.
The master CyNM is the Armys premiere re-
source of intellectual capital ensuring the Army
meets its future demands throughout cyberspace.
We are facing a crisis. Commercial technology has
easily outpaced the technology used by the Depart-
ment of Defense. Our war fighting commanders have
expressed their recognition of the value of leveraging
new technologies on the battlefield. Within the DOD,
cyberspace security and defense are a matter of life
and death in some cases. Therefore, we must make
wise decisions when adapting and leveraging new
technologies. Furthermore, we cannot shirk from the
responsibility to ensure our Armed Forces have the
best capabilities when they enter into engagements.
Subsequent to promotion to CW5, the master
CyNM become part of an ever smaller, elite group of
Signal warrant officer, the Cyberspace Network Op-
erations Technician, MOS 255Z. For further informa-
tion on MOS 255Z, an article summarizing the career
paths and describing the skills, attributes, duties, and
responsibilities is included on page 48 of this edition
of the Army Communicator.
AC Active Component
ALARACT All Army Activities
AOC Area of Concentration
APFT Army Physical Fitness Test
ASI Additional Skill Identifer
Management
CyNetOps Cyberspace Network
Operations
CyNM Cyberspace Network
Management
CyNOT Cyberspace Network
DoD Department of Defense
EMS Electromagnetic Spectrum
EMSO Electromagnetic Spectrum
Operations
FLX Field leadership exercise
IA Information Assurance
Specialty
NCOER Noncommissioned Offcer
Evaluation Report
NM/ESM Network Management/
Enterprise Systems Management
OE Operational Environment
PT Physical Training
QOS Quality of Service
RC Reserve Component
RF Radio Frequency
TAC Training, Advising, and
Counseling
VoIP Voice Over Internet Protocol
WOAC Warrant Offcer Advance
Course
WOCS Warrant Offcer Candidate
School
WOS Warrant Offcer Service
WOSSC Warrant Offcer Senior Staff
Course
WT&BD Warrior Tasks and Battle
Drills
ACRONYM QuickScan
Diagram 3
Where We Were
The analogy in this article is like a parable that
will help you understand the multidimensional arena
into which the Army is deploying expert cyberspace
defense technicians.
To fully grasp the analogy you have to under-
stand that our current cyberspace defensive measures
are almost entirely reactive in nature.
Most often, adversarial activity is identified by
the loss of critical data and/or the malicious manipu-
lation of data elements and devices. After the fact,
forensics often discover that such adversarial activity
had been going on for quite a significant amount of
time before it was discovered. At this point a signa-
ture is created and placed in devices that are used to
look for such adversarial activity. These devices look
at current activity and if any matches this signa-
ture they then alert and activate devices that detect
or in some cases prevent further adversarial activity.
If placed on a scale in its simplest of forms, it would
look something like figure 1 below.
Having established a protected posture, we scan
our networks for evidence of adversarial activity by
comparing cyberspace activity against our current
signatures and various indications and warnings es-
tablished and in place at the time. Once an adversary
has established intent to attack our networks, an op-
erational preparation of the environment sets the way
for an attack which then may present a viable avenue
to exploit our networks and extract critical informa-
tion. Once an attack and/or exploit are defeated, we
begin the process of remediation to correct any faults,
deficiencies, and/or vulnerabilities that created the
threat. The defeated adversary then slightly changes
the toolset in order to launch a new attack. More so-
phisticated adversaries create toolsets that automati-
cally morph on their own in order to prevent detec-
tion or the capability of the remediation from being
successful.
Finally, as the effects of Army transformation
and technological advances have caused MOS 254A
to shift into a role that mirrors MOS 251A, when
both MOS were present in the same organization, the
251A has historically gravitated toward the NetOps
elemental gap of Information Assurance and Com-
puter Network Defense (IA and CND respectively).
However, few 251A were properly trained and none
received any institutional training. Furthermore, few
251A were able to ensure consecutive assignments
in such positions making it difficult to impossible to
build upon skills and experience.
The current methods are completely inadequate
for a variety of reasons. First, we cannot afford to
allow adversarial activity to occur unnoticed for any
amount of time before we detect and take action.
Second, more and more we find our adversaries are
using polymorphic malware which means that the
adversarial activity continues changing to make it al-
most impossible to stop with signature-based defen-
sive measures. Instead, we need to begin focusing on
Figure 1 Current Scale Comparing Attack and Defense Cycles
Cyberspace defense technician
(MOS 255S)
Information Protection Technician
36 Spring - 2011
anomalous activity.
This is not an entirely new
concept. Credit and banking
systems have been doing this for
years. Recently when my credit
card had been refused, I imme-
diately contacted my financial
institution. They asked me two
questions: had I recently charged
$1 to a common on-line DVD and
Blu-ray disc rental-by-mail and
video streaming company and had
I recently charged $1 to a not-so-
common on-line clothing store. I
had done neither. This activity was
uncommon to my nominal pur-
chasing history and was viewed as
an anomaly. This caused my credit
card to be flagged. With a credit
card, no funds are immediately
transferred. Therefore, they were
able to put a hold on my account
and eventually disapprove the
transactions with no money lost.
I advocate an anomaly based
cyberspace defensive posture that
moves the detect and respond
further to the left of the attack
cycle as illustrated below in figure
2. However, this calls for some
changes in operations. Instead of
the adversarial attack or exploit
tipping our defensive measures,
we must respond to the adver-
sarial OPE. Let me make this clear
with the analogy.

Defending a Field
Some have described the
nature of cyberspace defense as
trying to find a needle in a pile of
needles. The point of this illustra-
tive presentation is that there are
so many alerts to possible mali-
cious activity on our networks,
we are consumed wading through
the plethora of false positives (i.e.,
alerts, indications, and warnings
that turn out to be nothing) and/
or inconsequential positives (i.e.,
those that are of little to no con-
cern) that we miss the truly im-
portant indications and warnings
allowing adversarial activity to
continue unchecked for an unac-
ceptable amount of time.
We miss the truly important
alarm in the midst of the over-
whelming noise of alarms. This
needle in a pile of needles illustra-
tion accurately presents the issue
at hand. Finding the important
alert amongst the blaring myriad
of alerts is truly like trying to find
a special needle in a pile of nee-
dles, which also continues to grow
in number by the minute. While
this illustration has a lot of merit
under these circumstances, much
more needs to be understood be-
yond this one critical issue espe-
cially in order to best present the
need and capability of the Armys
expert cyberspace defense techni-
cian.
Imagine a field of grass where
each blade is part of an integrated
and monitored root system. Any
pressure on the field has the abil-
ity to trip a sensor and send a
warning of a presence upon the
field. An adversary wants to step
on our field and disrupt, exploit,
or destroy those operations which
we conduct on and through this
field.
However, to step on even a
single blade may tip off his pres-
ence. So he introduces malicious
grass seed into our supply of grass
seed. The sheer amount of grass
seed sowed into the field makes it
impossible to verify every single
seed. As the malicious seed begins
to grow and take root, it soon pro-
vides a patch of grass that allows
the adversary a foothold on our
field.
Before we get to advancing the
detect and respond to the left,
we must add two exasperating
situations. First, the field has also
become overgrown with weeds
and saplings providing our adver-
saries cover as they step onto the
patch of malicious grass. Secondly,
the current field includes friendly
plots of sod which are not central-
ly managed by the larger defender
of the field itself.
For unveiling the analogy, let
me reveal here that these patches
of sod represent the disparate net-
works that are currently kluged to-
gether within the confines of Army
cyberspace. And finally the weeds
and saplings are the result of poor
IA practices. IA practiced upon
cyberspace has been likened to
preventative maintenance checks
and services. Taking a higher view
of IA, I include not only patching
and IA vulnerability alert response
compliance, but also total asset
visibility and network transpar-
ency.
At the most recent Signal con-
ference at Fort Gordon, MG Rhett
Hernandez, Army Cyberspace
Command commanding general,
mentioned three interrelated
aspects of one significant effort
that is necessary as part of mak-
Figure 2 Future Scale Comparing Attack and Defense Cycles
ing cyberspace securely operational. The first two
are to know ourselves and to know our enemy. The
third is know the terrain one intends to defend. We
must first see our cyberspace terrain if we are to
effectively defend our cyberspace terrain.
Setting these two immense problems aside
(i.e., disparate networks and poor IA), lets revisit
that analogy to ensure we are tracking. The seeds
represent normal network traffic that is nearly
impossible to detect in advance of an attack even
if it is malicious. For example, I am not talking
about spam or low-tech phishing attacks. I am
instead alluding to highly sophisticated attempts
to attack our networks through e-mail traffic (for
example) that have been crafted by a high-tech
peer adversary. Most experts today admit this can-
not be stopped. But the e-mail is only carrying a
malicious seed that by itself is yet inert. However,
as it begins to grow and root, before it has time to
become a patch that allows even a toehold, it must
be detected and defeated.
In the physical domain of the field of grass in
my analogy, the first step is to establish a field-of-
fire. Basic warrior tasks and battle drills teach a
couple of basic principles in establishing a field-
of-fire. First, one must determine how big the field
can be and still be scanned effectively against the
adversary. Second, one ensures overlapping fields-
of-fire to prevent against a seam (at best) or a gap
(at worst) which could allow the adversary an av-
enue of approach through our defenses. If the mag-
nitude of adversarial activity that is to be detected
is as small as a blade of grass, the field-of-fire must
be small enough to remain man-
ageable.
In the cyberspace domain, we
must also default to these basic
level cyberspace WT&BD and
establish fields-of-fire that are
manageable and include overlap-
ping and interlocking fields-of-
fire. These malicious e-mails dont
plant grass. They plant hooks that
provide a point of presence in our
networks and data devices. Our
cyberspace defenders must be able
to scan their sector and detect such
malicious PoPs in order to defeat
them while the adversary is still
in the OPE phase of the attack.
Cyberspace defenders must see
these hooks as anomalous to their
cyberspace fields-of-fire.
One last thought is appro-
priate before moving on to the
practical aspects of discussing
MOS 255S. To quickly identify an anomaly, one must be
able to quickly discount what is normal. Begging your
patience to use another analogy, if someone is going to
quickly, efficiently, and effectively defend your office
building against a physical attack, such as an explo-
sive device, they best know what normal looks like.
Each desk, each box, each copy machine, each piece
of furniture or physical structure that could be a fake
planted by an enemy and secretly housing an explosive
device should be readily identifiable by the defender if
one plans to be successful. Similarly, if our cyberspace
defenders are not familiar with the network and net-
worked data devices, they are ill prepared to notice an
anomaly during the OPE phase of the adversarial attack.
For the best defense posture, cyberspace defend-
ers must live in the space they are assigned to defend.
They must sense the anomaly within the normal as early
as possible before the adversary even gets a toehold.
Know that we must move forward in this direction im-
mediately. We have no time to wait. We are unquestion-
ably beyond phase zero in cyberspace operations con-
ducted in and through the cyberspace domain today.
Enter the Cyberspace Defense Technicians
The below NetOps construct in figure 3 continues to
show its three elements which are also the Regiments
three major core competencies. Previous articles have
already addressed MOS 255A (responsible for Cyber
Content Management) and MOS 255N (responsible for
Figure 3 Network Operation Construct
38 Spring - 2011
Cyber Network Management); the
last article in this particular series
will address MOS 255Z (responsi-
ble for Cyber NetOps (CyNetOps)
in its entirety).
This article now moves to
describe MOS 255S (responsible
for Cyber Defense) as the newest
personnel capability added to the
Signal warrant officer cohort.
As we began to look at the
capability gap at hand (IA/CND),
we made a couple of decisions up
front. First, we realized the need
to move from a perimeter-posi-
tioned and reactionary defensive
model to an internally proactive,
anomaly based, true defense-in-
depth model. Second, knowing the
interdependencies of CyD, CyCM
and CyD, CyNM, we concluded
the need for a more senior and
experienced personnel base. Third,
we acknowledged the current stan-
dard of CyD training to be in the
hands of our commercial IT part-
ners. Finally, we recognized the
necessity of partnering with our
Intelligence Community partners
who can provide actionable intel-
ligence relative to our adversaries
intent--their tactics, techniques,
and procedures; and any real time
feedback on both their current ac-
tivities as well as their knowledge
of ours.
A properly trained and de-
ployed MOS 255S force will be key
in meeting the first issue above.
In order to move to an internally
proactive, anomaly based, true
defense-in-depth model, we need
an intelligent personnel capability
to be a part of the solution set.
To ensure that CyCM and
CyNM efforts are not negatively
affected, but supported and rein-
forced, it was decided that MOS
255S would not be an enlisted-
level accession MOS. Instead, ac-
cessions into MOS 255S will be at
the senior W2 grade. This is in line
with preferred attendance at the
Warrant Officer Advance Course.
This ensures newly reclassified
255S have a greater understanding
of their actions and the sugges-
tions they make in the CyCM and
CyNM areas to better posture for
defense. Training will be discussed
below. However, the requirement
for all 255S to hold a top secret
clearance with the ability to be
read on to special compartmen-
talized information is of utmost
importance. This allows the IC to
feed actionable intelligence into
the CyD cell.
Since there are no apprentice
cyberspace defense technicians, it
is imperative that we get our train-
ing right. The transition course
from MOS 255S will also serve to
give advance course credit (i.e.,
it will also function as a WOAC).
Figure 4. Current 255S Pilot Course Training Course Map
The most credible and holistic CyD
training currently resides in the
hands of our commercial IT part-
ners. CISCO has a robust perim-
eter security track of training and
the SANS Institute has a number
of courses that meet both our cli-
ent and perimeter training needs
as well as a number of other very
specific areas to be addressed.
Figure 4 below is our current 255S
course map.
Journeyman Cyberspace
Defense Technicians
MOS 255S are the Armys premier
defenders of the Armys portion of
the cyberspace domain. They per-
form computer network defense
measures and advise information
assurance measures and actions to
include the protection, detection,
and reaction functions at all levels
in support of combat information
superiority. Junior 255S (i.e., W1
and W2) do not exist. Instead, ju-
nior WOs who may look to access
into 255S should focus on acquir-
ing and refining technical and ad-
ministrative skills within their re-
spective MOS (i.e., 255A or 255N).
As they develop these skills and
achieve mid-grade CW2 status,
should they desire to pursue MOS
255S, they should begin self-study
in the cyber defense field, seek to
find a senior 255S as a mentor, and
look to fill information assurance
management positions that will
lead them to meeting the 255S pre-
requisites. IAM positions may be
either focused on IA compliance in
CyCM or CyNM.
Mid-grade 255S (W3) advise
information assurance efforts
while focusing on their associated
sub-element (i.e., cyber defense)
as well as non-lethal electronic
protection efforts. They supervise
associated personnel and oversee
functions within the standards,
transport, services, and applica-
tions layers of the network in
order to achieve confidentiality,
integrity, and availability of infor-
mation, as well as the authentica-
tion and non-repudiation of users.
They also supervise and/or over-
see subordinate sections required
to support information protec-
tion and network defense such as
communications security sections,
cryptographic network planning,
and electromagnetic spectrum
operations to achieve electronic
protect, and the implementation
and use of electronic keys required
supporting communications net-
works and networked-systems. See
figure 5.
It is imperative that com-
manders and senior leaders un-
derstand that MOS 255S will not
oversee IA compliancy. MOS 255S
are required to know normal and
hunt in our portion of cyberspace
to identify and defeat adversarial
activity. Not all adversarial ac-
tivity will be defeated. The 255S
provides the Signal Regiment a
basis to enter into full-spectrum
cyberspace operations with our
IC partners. The use of decep-
tion, cyberspace counter-fire, and
adversarial cordoning are just a
few of the TTPs a full-spectrum
cyberspace operation may use.
Therefore, to limit MOS 255S to IA
is a colossal waste of talent and
completely misses the point of
the MOS. Journeymen 255S may
advise IA and analyze IA deficien-
cies to give the so what to their
respective commanders. They are
able to determine the difference
between vulnerability and an ac-
tual threat and can provide mitiga-
tion courses of action.
These journeymen 255S per-
fect the art of knowing normal by
a continued and in-depth analy-
sis of the various feeds received
from sensors, data devices, and
actionable intelligence received
from various IC sources. Unlike
the CyCM and the CyNM, it is the
journeymen CyD who is nominally
assigned to a brigade combat team
where he/she has the greatest abil-
ity to encounter the widest array
of devices and applications found
within the breadth of his/her as-
signed systems. This also makes
the 255S the senior Signal warrant
officer in most formations. Jour-
neymen 255S also find themselves
in theater network operations
security centers, regional com-
puter emergency response teams,
and a number of similar hands-on
organizations to include as high as
combat divisions.
Master Cyberspace
Defense Technicians
Senior 255s (i.e., newly pro-
moted W4), quickly master appli-
cations, techniques, systems, and
CyD attributes which include ac-
tions to resist, recognize, respond,
recover, and reconstitute. Highly
specialized and highly motivated,
they quickly inculcate these and
move from the outer edges of the
CyD circle in this Venn diagram
toward the center. They too are
now moving from mastery of one
element toward the goal of W5--
mastery of NetOps.
Master CyDs, as senior-level
technical and tactical experts
in their chosen field, have also
gained familiarity with the other
two elements of NetOps (i.e.,
CyCM and CyNM). As they con-
tinue to develop as CW4 255S, they go
beyond understanding the basic con-
Figure 5
40 Spring - 2011
cepts of information protection and
assured system and network avail-
ability and ensure that these attributes
of NetOps are obtained. See fgure 6.
Their prior experience as either 255As
or 255Ns is key to their rapid expan-
sion of knowledge.
The master CyD is nominally as-
signed to a corps, ASCC, and higher
level organization where their train-
ing and experience has its greatest
impact. To prepare the CW4 255S
for the duties and responsibilities
encountered at these levels of orga-
nization, attendance at the Warrant
Officer Staff Course is crucial.
The master CyD will be, without
argument, todays intellectual
capital to ensure the Army not only
meets its future demands within
and through cyberspace, but that
it is secured and defended. While
this may not be a new problem-set,
its scope has grown significantly.
Past generations of Signal equip-
ment were mainly proprietary
and circuit-switched. As such, the
obstacle between our adversary and
our critical systems was quite large
and almost insurmountable. Mobile
subscriber equipment and TRI-TAC
systems were proprietary and not
easily reproducible by others. A
significant amount of intellectual
capital and funding were required to
acquire, reverse engineer, fabricate,
and reproduce such equipment by
our adversaries. Additionally, the
circuit-switched nature of MSE and
TRI-TAC networks made it very dif-
ficult to introduce rogue equipment
into our networks with the intent to
exploit or disrupt.
Today, these barriers have all
but disappeared with our reliance
on commercial off-the-shelf equip-
ment. Almost anyone with inclina-
tion can find a virtual potpourri of
attack toolsets from which to choose.
A malicious personality merely
chooses from a variety of desired
cyberspace effects much like one
picks from an assortment of foods
at al buffet restaurant. Attribution is
made difficult with the virtual, non-
contiguous, yet ubiquitous nature
in which cyberspace presents itself.
One merely needs to walk into a
busy hotel and use the hotels busi-
ness center as a platform to launch a
cheap, unsophisticated, yet often ef-
fective attack against our networks.
Presently, even a low-tech
attack often overwhelms our pri-
marily reactive defenses inundated
with a myriad of false-positives.
This creates another source of noise
that helps to mask more compli-
cated, high-tech, peer adversarial
activity. IA compliance may lower
the noise-floor making the former
easier to spot, identify, categorize,
and remediate. However, more
complicated, high-tech, peer adver-
sarial activity requires an expert
cyberspace defense technician who
is fully equipped, informed and ac-
tively hunting anomalies within our
complex networks and systems.
Subsequent to promotion to
CW5, the master CyD also becomes
part of an ever smaller, elite group
of Signal warrant officers, the cy-
berspace network operations techni-
cian, MOS 255Z.
As will be done for all 255Z, se-
nior leadership will be cognizant of
their past MOS and as such leverage
their knowledge, skills, attributes,
and experience for future assign-
ments. For further information on
MOS 255Z, an article summarizing
their career paths and describing
their skills, attributes, duties, and
responsibilities is included on page
48 in this edition of the Army Com-
municator.
ARCYBER Army Cyberspace Command
ASCC Army Service Component Command
CyCM Cyberspace Content Management
CyNetOps Cyberspace Network Operations
CyNM Cyberspace Network Management
CyNOT Cyberspace Network Operations Technician
DVD Digital Versatile Disc
EMSO Electromagnetic Spectrum Operations
IAM Information Assurance Management
IAVA Information Assurance Vulnerability Alert
IC Intelligence Community
MSE Mobile Subscriber Equipment
OPE Operational Preparation of the Environment
PMCS Preventative Maintenance Checks and Services
R-CERT Regional Computer Emergency Response
Team
SCI Special Compartmentalized Information
T-NOSC Theater Network Operations Security Center
TS Top Secret
WT&BD Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills
ACRONYM QuickScan
Figure 6

Overcomi ng Facebook pol i ci es that put users at ri sk
Social Network Privacy
By CW3 Elbert Peak
Facing the Facebook
Privacy Dilemma
On-line social networking has
benefits but also risks to be con-
sidered when using such sites as
Facebook.
Internet privacy threats are
a challenge that is impossible to
completely mitigate on every social
network, but there are steps one
can take to significantly reduce the
risks.
The Rise of Facebook
Facebook is one of the largest
web sites in the world. The site
was started in 2004 by Mark Zucker-
berg when he was an undergraduate
student at Harvard. The site grew
rapidly to include hundreds of mil-
lions of users.
Since September 2006, anyone
over the age of 13 with a valid e-
mail address can join Facebook as
a user. Users can add friends and
send messages and announcements,
and update their personal profiles
to notify friends about themselves.
Social networking giant Facebook
registered its 500 millionth member,
the firm announced in July 2009.
Its millions of users around the
world have reason to limit visibil-
ity of their personal information
from the total World Wide Web but
still want to be able to share that
information with trusted contacts.
Facebook became a huge success on
that premise and ought to be able to
continue thriving without doing an
about face on privacy.
Humans are social beings and
most seek some engagement with
others. Facebook uses a social
graph, which is the global mapping
of people and how theyre connect-
ed. Sociologists have been studying
these graphs for decades. Fa-
mously, the social networks have a
Small World Property--more widely
known as the Six Degrees of Separa-
tion. This is both an anecdotal and
scientific observation that we all are
connected to each other--no more
than six people away. What is the
secret? Its because this is how hu-
man networks form. Dense clusters
are interconnected by shortcuts.
There is a social networking
privacy premise that people have
the right to control their private
space.
The argument is generally upheld
that private space is presumptu-
ous and a users right to control.
You have privacy to the extent you
control who is allowed into your
zone of inaccessibility. Discus-
sions about privacy revolve around
the notion of access, where access
means either physical proximity to
a person or knowledge about that
person. The lack of privacy often
makes individuals vulnerable to
having their behavior controlled by
others. Social networking is built on
the ideology of sharing information
and personal data. Users share a
variety of information about them-
selves on their Facebook profiles, in-
cluding photos, contact information,
and tastes in movies and books. Its
meant to be social.
Diagram 1
42 Spring - 2011
Facebook: Threats to
Privacy
End-users share a wide variety
of information on Facebook,
but a discussion of the privacy
implications of doing so has yet
to emerge widely. I examined
how Facebook affects privacy,
and found serious flaws in the
system.
Privacy on Facebook is
undermined by three princi-
pal factors: users disclose too
much, Facebook does not take
adequate steps to protect user
privacy, and third parties are
actively seeking out end-user
information using Facebook.
With this much detailed information arranged uni-
formly and aggregated into one place, there are bound
to be risks to privacy. Users may submit their data
without being aware that it may be shared with adver-
tisers. Third parties may build a database of Facebook
data to sell. Intruders may steal passwords, or entire
databases, from Facebook. Although many Facebook
features empower users to control their private infor-
mation, there are still significant shortcomings.
Facebooks privacy features give users a good deal
of flexibility in who is allowed to see their information.
The privacy settings page allows a user to specify who
can see them in searches, which can see their profile,
which can see their contact info, and which fields other
users can see. In addition, the privacy settings page
allows users to block specific people from seeing their
profile. In the usage agreement, a user can request
Facebook to not share information with third parties,
though the method of specifying this is not located on
the privacy settings page.
There are a number of systems changes that can
be made, to give the user a reasonable perception of
the level of privacy protection available, and to protect
against disclosure to intruders.
Brief Technical Description of Facebook
Facebook uses server-side hypertext preprocessor
scripts and applications to host and format the content
available on the service. Content is stored centrally on
Facebook servers. Scripts and applications at Facebook
acquire, process, and filter information on-demand,
and deliver it to users in real time, to a Web browser
over the Internet. Users begin their Facebook session
at the services top level site, http://www.facebook.
com/.
At the main Facebook page, a user can log in to
the service, or browse the small amount of information
available to the general public. The main page of the
service is simple, and does not provide any personally
identifiable information or technical insight. During
the login process, the service provides the users web
browser with some information, which is stored in the
form of a cookie. Some of this information, such as the
users e-mail address, is written to a file so the user does
not have to enter his or her e-mail at the next login.
Facebooks service creates and gives a user a unique
checksum at every login, which the browser stores as
a session cookie and generally does not write to a file.
This checksum varies from login to login, but other
parameters do not. Once logged in to the service, a user
is free to interact with Facebook. The user may edit
their profile, look at others profiles, add or change their
friends lost or personally identifiable information, and
explore the service.
The core of the Facebook platform is the open graph
application programming interface, which enables read
and write data to Facebook. The open graph API allows
applications, pages, Websites, and other software ser-
vices to add Facebook features, like the Like button,
to their own sites. Taking actions on other sites results
in those actions being shared with your friends on Face-
book, and may allow friends on those sites to see what
youre doing also.
Every object in the social graph has a unique ID. You
can fetch data associated with an object by fetching
https://graph.facebook.com/ID . Alternatively, people
and pages with usernames can be fetched using their
username as an ID. All responses are JavaScript Object
Notation objects. JSON is a lightweight text-based stan-
dard designed for human readable data interchange.
a security hole that multiple people
have discovered. The likebutton.me
(http://likebutton.me) site created
by Zachary Allia and itstrending.
com (http://itstrending.com) site
created by Matt Schlicht aggregates
shared objects from Facebooks
recommendation plug-ins (plug-in
to make website content socially
relevant) across online media web-
sites. Both show the same data
just in similar interfaces, display-
ing what your friends are liking
and otherwise sharing on different
sites. These sites aggregate data and
displays in real time feed of most
shared content on Facebook (vid-
Its derived from the JavaScript
programming language for repre-
senting simple data structures and
associative arrays, called objects.
Metadata in Facebook
Society spawns one gigantic
social graph. In this graph, each
one of us is a node. There is an
explicit connection, if we know each
other. For example, two people can
be connected because they work
together or because they went to
school together or because they are
married. Everything has an array of
likes, friends, and recommendations
stored within a social graph. User-
contributed (or generated) metadata
is the high value, structured matter
that allows ads, and the overall user
experience, to be more personalized.
As the social Web evolves, privacy
and metadata ownership issues will
continue to produce friction in the
system.
In effect, Facebook is building
an identity graph, not just a social
graph out of an individuals meta-
data. A key issue going forward is
whether and how users become the
control point for their online identi-
ties, including all the metadata that
sites collect.
Aggregation of Facebook
Data
Could a more sophisticated
aggregation of Facebook data allow
privacy to be exposed? Facebook
CEO Mark Zuckerberg says he is
providing the power to share in or-
der to make the world more open
Facebooks advanced search
allows one to query the database of
users via any of the fields in a pro-
file. The problem is compounded by
44 Spring - 2011
eos, news, images, entertainment,
gaming, etc). This is all possible
by using publicly-shared data by
users and their friends, based on
each users social graph. You must
be logged into Facebook to see personalized results on
these widgets.
Apparently two developers, Will Moffat and Peter
Burns, (and possibly a third, James Home used for
designing) built the site Youropenbook (http://youro-
penbook.org) to demonstrate how public our Facebook
information really is.
One person stated online that Im willing to put
myself out there on Facebook and other social networks
and online sites, so to me, social media privacy can be
a bit of an oxymoron no matter how many privacy set-
tings I activate on Facebook.
The website Youropenbook is a demonstration of lack
of privacy in Facebook.
With this site you can search public Facebook
updates using Facebooks own search service. By using
the Open Graph API, developers can make searches
of public timeline information without logging into
Facebook. Developer Timo Paloheimo did just that by
creating the Open Facebook Search at http://openface-
booksearch.com. This website opens up new possibili-
ties for developers to create totally new services on
top of Facebooks data. Now you can embed Facebook
searches to any website.
Another tool for searching public data on Facebook
can be accessed at http://zesty.ca/facebook. This
site was created by another developer, Ka-Ping Yee,
using the Open Graph API. Try entering your name
or e-mail address, your friends names or e-mail ad-
dresses, or any keywords. Use the button to search for
users, posts, events, groups, or pages. You might be
surprised at what is publically available. Many users
allow their status updates, likes, and other activity to
be public without knowing.
Developers are using the available documentation from
Facebook to make this happen. See http://developers.
facebook.com/docs/api.
Facebook Data Found on Pirate Bay
Last summer Ron Bowes, a Canadian security
consultant and Nmap developer, used a piece of code
to scan Facebook profiles, collecting data not hidden by
users privacy settings.
To figure out if your name is on the list released
by Bowes you can either download the file or check
your settings on Facebook. To do that, click on the
Account pull down menu on the upper right of your
Facebook page and click on Privacy Settings. Then
select Basic Directory Information and View Set-
tings. If Search for me on Facebook is marked for
Everyone, your information might be on the list.
Avoid Facebook Account Hacks
Hackers are enticing Facebook users to install an
application pitched as a Dislike button that jokingly
notifies contacts at the social networking service now I
can dislike all of your dumb posts. Once granted per-
mission to access a Facebook users profile, the appli-
cation pumps out spam from the account and spreads
itself by inviting the persons friends to get the button,
according to Sophos. Beyond tricking a user into com-
pleting a survey, and hence gaining access to your pro-
file and the ability to spam your friends, there doesnt
appear to be much about the scam thats dangerous.
Eventually, after the user completes the survey,
it does redirect to FaceMod, the maker of a Facebook-
based dislike button that takes the form of a Firefox
browser plug-in. Sophos points out that the scam does
not appear to have any direct connection to FaceMod.
Many of the malware applications reported spam
by Facebook users have been taken down by Facebook.
But still the thing to worry about is that the Facebook
profile spying spam is not spreading through apps
only, in fact it is spreading with the help of Facebook
Events, Pages and groups too. So Facebook needs to
filter out those spam pages, groups and events too.
Most of the profile spying groups, pages and app
take you to a page thats completely filled with adver-
tisements and affiliate links. Quite often they ask users
to complete certain offers or surveys (see screenshot
above) after which users end up passing their impor-
tant information to the spammers or downloading
infected files to their PC.
You will find a large number of Facebook pages,
groups and apps that claim to tell users about who
checked/viewed their profile. Actually they all are
spam. Their sole purpose is to get a large user follow-
ing by tricking people and then directing them all to
pages heavily loaded with advertisements which in
turn generates revenue for them. Facebook itself says
that there is no way at all with which you can see/
check who is visiting your Facebook profile. This is
what Facebooks recent status up-
dates state about this rapidly grow-
ing spam.
Another attack that is trending is the
clickjacking attack. This Facebook
attack uses iFrames, which essen-
tially places an invisible button over
an entire web page, so that wherever
the user clicks, they end up hitting
the button - in this case a hidden
Facebook like button. Many types
of operations can take place from
this type of attack hidden from the
user, sometimes resulting in a cross-
site scripting attack. Usually this
type of XSS attack will bypass client-
side security and malicious scripts
on web pages can be executed on the
end-users computer.
TagYoure It!
This is the classic Facebook
problem. You let loose for a few
hours one night and photos or
videos of the moment are suddenly
posted for all to view, not just your
close friends who shared the mo-
ment with you. The result can be
devastating. Some have been fired
from work after incriminating pho-
tos/videos were posted for the boss
to see. For others, randomly tagged
photos/videos have ended relation-
ships. You should have to approve
a tagged picture before it goes up
rather than having to check peri-
odically to see if any pictures are
something you do not want posted.
In which case you have to un-tag
the photo and possibly report it.
You control who can see the
photos and videos you tagged to
appear on your profile. Remember,
the owner of a photo can still share
that photo with people who are not
your friends.
If you dont want your tag to
appear, remove it from the photo or
video itself. This will also prevent it
from appearing on your profile. The
My Photos service allows users to
upload, store and view photos.
Users can append metadata to
the photographs that allows other
users to see who is in the photo-
graphs, and where in the photo-
graph they are located. These tags
can be cross-linked to user profiles,
and searched from a search dia-
log. The only recourse a user has
against an unwelcome Facebook
photo posted by someone else, aside
from asking them to remove it, is to
manually remove the metadata tag
of their name, individually, from
each photograph. Users may disable
others access to their Wall, but not
to the Photos feature.
Check-in Versus Tagging
So, since check-ins is also pre-
sumably mobile posts, wouldnt that
also mean they exist outside a users
privacy settings? If so, this could
be a big issue for Places; and defen-
sible territory for Foursquare and
Gowalla. The difference between
being checked-in and being tagged
can be confusing. If youre checked-
in by yourself or by a friend, your
presence at the location is visible
to anyone that either you or your
friend allows, based on your friends
and your privacy settings. Your
name will show up on the loca-
tions Places page, if there is one, so
everyone at the location can see that
youre there. If you are tagged by a
friend, your presence at the location
is seen by your friends or whoever
they allow to see their posts, subject
to their (not your) privacy settings.
Your friends apps may be able to
access information about your most
recent check-in by default.
Recommended Facebook
Privacy Settings
Currently the information dis-
played in the search profile is lim-
ited to: your profile picture, a list of
your friends, a link to add you as a
friend, a link to send you a message,
and a list of up to approximately
20 fan pages on which you are a
member. To increase your privacy
settings, it is necessary to select the
custom settings and modify each
setting individually. If you want to
46 Spring - 2011
have full control over who sees your profile, meaning
that only people you have chosen will be able to see
any part of your profile, choose
Friends only. Towards the
bottom of the settings, uncheck
the box that states Let friends of
people tagged in my photos and
posts see them. Then click on
Apply These Settings.
Many open source tools are
available for use to help allevi-
ate these problems in Facebook
settings. Developer Matt Piz-
zimenti, cofounder of Olark.
com, created an independent and
open tool (Reclaim Privacy Scan-
ner) for scanning your Facebook
privacy settings. To keep the pri-
vacy scanner up-to-date, all de-
velopment will remain open and
transparent. Source code is main-
tained at http://github.com/
mjpizz/reclaimprivacy and uses
a JavaScript file named priva-
cyscanner.js about 8,167 lines of
code as of today. The tool is used
for scanning Facebook privacy
settings and fixing unexpected
privacy holes. This scanner is not
fully compatible with the latest
Facebook privacy settings, so be
sure you check your privacy set-
tings manually yourself. The tool
can be downloaded from http://
www.reclaimprivacy.org.
Another open source tool
named SaveFace, provided by Un-
tangle is a simple to install book-
mark utility that automatically resets
Facebook settings to restore your
privacy. SaveFace sets your privacy
settings back to Friends only, for all
the following: contact information,
search settings, friends tags and
comments, personal information and
posts. Best of all, its free. Untangle
collects no personal information from
you or your Facebook when you use
this bookmark utility. SaveFace can
be downloaded from http://www3.
untangle.com/saveface.
Here are some tips for using any
social network:
Set appropriate privacy and
security controls; use complex pass-
words; separate e-mails
Dont install third party applications from
sources you dont trust
Only accept friend requests
from people you know directly
Read and understand privacy
policy and terms of service care-
fully
Consider everything public; be
careful what you post
More at: http://socialmediase-
curity.com
For a more in-depth refer-
ence on Facebook privacy settings,
one should visit http://www.
wikihow.com/Manage-Facebook-
Privacy-Options and http://www.
facebook.com/fbprivacy.
Conclusion
In an environment of growing
Facebook information misuse,
Facebook would do its users a
great service to explain the dan-
gers of security breaches and
outside monitoring. Until the
societal norms regarding this
new use of computers become
well-established, Facebook could
clearly state that they can pro-
vide no guarantees regarding the
security of their data, and that if
users make their profiles public,
all information contained therein
may be viewed by anyone. Ulti-
mately, lasting change in online
privacy will only come from a
gradual development of common
sense regarding what is appropri-
ate to post in social networking
forums. Unfortunately, this is not
an easy fix.
CW3 Elbert Peak is assigned as
a cyber security instructor at the
School of Information Technology,
Fort Gordon, Ga. He recently com-
pleted a 10 month train-the-trainer
program for the new Warrant Officer
255S Information Protection Techni-
cian MOS course. Since joining the
Army in 1988, CW3 Peak has worked
in many areas of information technol-
ogy including networking, systems
administration, and information as-
surance. He holds a Bachelors degree
in Computer Science from University
of Maryland, a Masters degree in
Computer Information Systems from
Florida Institute of Technology, and
a Masters degree in Software Engi-
neering from California State Univer-
sity, Fullerton.
48 Spring - 2011
Cyberspace network operations
technician (MOS 255Z)
This article details the events
that shaped development of the
Armys senior cyberspace network
operations technicians, MOS 255Z
and outlines the shifting responsi-
bilities that are making repurposing
of the MOS necessary.
Where We Were
To understand the MOS 255Zs
evolution, it is essential to consider
the legacy enlisted-level accessions
MOS and identify some difficulties
in the past. Then we will be able to
share strategies for mitigating past
deficiencies that evolve around the
new concepts for W5 capper MOS
255Z.
Simply put, MOS 250N has
primarily focused on the wide area
network design and implementa-
tion. Most Signal warrant officers
who have been in the field for the
last decade recognize the clear line
of demarcation between the 250N
and the 251A. This line has been
drawn between the WAN, or the
outside network and the metro-
politan, campus, and/or local area
network (MAN/CAN/LAN), or the
inside network. The line of effort
for the 250N focuses on reach-back
(or in some cases reach between)
while the LOE for the 251A is on
the backside network design and
implementation, essentially con-
nectivity within an organizational
structure.
The problem at hand is that
technology and current network-
ing trends serve to blur these lines.
For example, the DROID, one of
the latest among the smart phones,
has the ability to enable itself as a
wireless fidelity hotspot. It then can
be connected to (i.e., organizational
structure) as well as networked
through (i.e., reach-back). As the
Armys premier cyberspace network
management technicians begin to
see these devices, technologies, and
techniques on the modern cyber-
space battlefield, they must embrace
both aspects and take ownership of
transport regardless of user, organi-
zation, or level of network.
MOS 251A technicians have
primarily focused on data sys-
tems and data systems integration.
However, such a focus has often
required appreciable time and effort
performing MAN/CAN/LAN de-
sign and implementation. Although
networking basics are taught in both
the Warrant Officer Basic Course
and the Warrant Officer Advance
Course, it has often left the 251As
to learn and discover much on their
own. This is because the immediate
access layer and distribution layer
network routers and switches that
their application systems connect to
in a MAN/CAN/LAN environment,
have been viewed as a part of the
251As system.
Concurrently, the MOS 254A
environment has shifted from du-
ties that were envisioned back in
its inception to those which mirror
the 251A. MOS 254A was designed
to be the Signal technical expert in
non-Signal, maneuver formations
responsible for areas such as maneu-
ver Signal operations, combat net ra-
dios, communications security, and
Signal support to tactical operation
centers. Since its inception, how-
ever, several significant shifts have
occurred. First, the bandwidth and
computing power of todays digital
TOC has increased to equal (and in
some cases surpass) that of the nom-
inal center in which MOS 251A is
found. Second, Army transformation
and modularity have all but negated
the terminology non-Signal maneu-
ver formation. The brigade combat
team today has unique organic Sig-
nal support. Therefore, MOS 254A
has shifted to overlap MOS 251A in
more than 80% of all critical tasks.
Today, when MOS 251A and 254A
are both collocated in a section, the
Senior Network Operations Technician
Figure 1
254A technician most often takes
responsibility for the servers and
services while the 251A technician
takes ownership of IA.
Most of our 255Z technicians
have progressed through career
paths that often lacked true career
progression as a goal, with a pro-
pensity to myopically move into
a single-track. The small numbers
of W5 authorizations in the Signal
Regiment may have not only al-
lowed this, but in some cases exas-
perated this. However today there
is a huge shift in progressing from
this point. Now Signal warrant
officers are promoted to the rank
of CW5 with extremely varied and
diverse backgrounds. While the
nominal senior CW4 has tracked
within a single MOS, for the most
part, the constantly changing world
of cyberspace and the fact that many
have found themselves having to
learn the theory and skills of their
sister MOS has created senior Signal
warrant officers who are able to
interact quite intelligently in each
of the elements of NetOps. This has
created a whole new dynamic in our
senior Signal warrant officer popula-
tion that is beneficial to the Signal
Regiment and the Army as a whole.
A few other areas of influence
affect our future. There is a mas-
sive change occurring in the OE
in which we find ourselves. The
OE which existed from the Korean
War through the cold war era, was
characterized as having predictable
requirements, moving at a slow
developmental pace of technol-
ogy, and existing with a myriad of
specialized expertise in single areas;
often dislocated with each other.
Subsequent to that period our OE
has shifted to one of vastly unpre-
dictable requirements, moving from
fairly well known technologies to
one of a rapid and dynamic pace of
technological change. Today our OE
shifts from understood and accepted
cylinders of excellence to the neces-
sity of highly specialized skills that
also have a broader understanding
of full spectrum operations (i.e., one
that is prepared for and can em-
brace ambiguity, together). Finally,
in todays state of constant military
activity, our Armys senior lead-
ers have declared that our OE will
remain unpredictable with noted
characteristics and influences such
as the exponentially expanding
role of technology, the necessity to
understand and make use of cultural
differences and influences, and the
greater role of joint, interagency, in-
tergovernmental, and multinational
cooperation.
I learned new terminology at
our Signal Centers Signal Confer-
ence last December. The acronym
VUCA was used to express our new
OE as Volatile, Uncertain, Complex,
and Ambiguous. This change from
predictable to unpredictable, from
static to dynamic, from simple to
complex requires a whole new way
of growing our Armys senior lead-
ers, including senior Signal warrant
officers.
Today we must ask the ques-
tion Is our current Professional
Military Education able to prepare
our Armys warrant officers for
such an OE? And we also must ask
ourselves, Do we have formalized
career paths, to properly grow and
develop our Signal warrant officers
in a manner that ensures they will
have the requisite knowledge, skills,
and attributes to be successful in
senior positions where we are cur-
rently looking to assign them?
Lets look more
closely at these questions
along with some related
concerns.
Where We Are
Heading
MOS 255Z techni-
cians, a W5 capper MOS
for 255A, 255N, and
255S, will use decades of
ever-widening NetOps
experiences to focus
past the individual ap-
plications, systems, and
equipment to shape the
intricacies of the interrelationships
with the other NetOps elements.
Such officers will be the true experts
and masters in their craft and advi-
sors to senior leadership on complex
and complicated NetOps issues. As
such, repurposed and properly de-
veloped MOS 255Z technicians will
be the Armys premier technical and
tactical advisors for full spectrum
network operations at any echelon
of command or support activity of
the U.S. Army or joint staff sections
assigned to theater combatant com-
manders or allied armies.
The NetOps construct includes
all three elements in the cyberspace
realm--CyCM, CyNM, and CyD.
Although NetOps manifests itself
only within the coordinated synergy
of these three elements, the true goal
is to center NetOps on the mission
and intent of the war fighting com-
mander. It is the ability to properly
position the synergy of the NetOps
center-of-mass that makes the 255Z
a force multiplier and an invaluable
asset. (See figure 1)
Serving at corps, ASCC, DRU,
and joint levels, the 255Z provides
leadership, guidance, technical
input, and direction to subordinate
elements, staff agencies, and field
commanders while providing leader
development, mentorship, advice,
and counsel to NCOs, other WOs,
and branch officers. MOS 255Zs
have special mentorship responsibil-
Figure 2
ities for other WOs at all levels and
provide essential advice to com-
manders on Signal technical and
WO issues.
MOS 255Zs continue to sharpen
their knowledge of personnel force
integration functions for doctrine,
training, and personnel as it per-
tains to the Signal Corps. In addi-
tion, 255Zs gain and maintain famil-
iarity: (1) with the constitutional,
statutory, and regulatory basis
for the force projection Army and
the capabilities that are sustained
through management of doctrinal,
organizational, and materiel change;
(2) with Army organizational roles,
functions, and missions, especially
at the ACOM/ASCC/DRU and
Army Secretariat/Staff levels; and
(3) with the force management
processes, from the determination
of force requirements through the
resourcing of requirements and the
assessment of their utilization in
order to accomplish Army functions
and missions in a JIIM environment.
Until recently, we have had less
than 15 CW5 positions in the Signal
Regiment. (See figure 2). We were
doing well to have 8-10 CW5s to put
into them. Today, we are in the pro-
cess of growing from 16 positions to
28-30 positions. We can do this for
two reasons. First, 3.5 percent of a
total warrant officer branch popula-
tion can be W5 positions. Second, we
have grown in our total population
from less than 400 Signal warrant
officer authorizations in the Active
Component in 2001 to well over 800
today. We will do this, however, for
two other reasons. First, we need to
provide our highly qualified Signal
warrant officers who have demon-
strated potential the ability to com-
pete for promotion in a reasonably
competitive yet equitable manner.
Second, many units are requesting
a senior Signal warrant officer (i.e.,
CW5) due to the attributes displayed
by our current population of CW5s.
In the past, we have had Signal
CW5 positions in Signal brigades
and a smattering of other places
around the Army and DoD organi-
zations. We are moving and grow-
ing positions to the corps level and
above. (See figures 3 and 4) Note
that all newly grown positions
require a bill payer position (i.e.,
one that is already authorized which
must be converted to a CW5 posi-
tion.)
Senior Cyberspace Network
Operations Technicians:
Masters of Their Arts
Who are these senior cyberspace
network operations technicians that
are being requested? What makes
them such a desired commodity?
First are their knowledge, skills, and
attributes.
Todays senior Signal warrant
officers are quite different from
those of the past.
Todays senior Signal warrant
officers are among the most expe-
rienced Army officers with more
than a decade of combat operations
under their belts. They have usually
attended their WOAC, WOSC, and/
or WOSSC) in the last four years,
and thus are among the most expe-
rienced and highest educated our
Army has ever seen.
Their knowledge in communica-
tions theory is unsurpassed. With
the recent changes to WOBC and
WOAC and the new WOSC branch
follow-on course that will begin
soon, it is only getting better. The
practical skills these senior Signal
warrant officers possess have been
shaped and sharpened through over
a decade of wartime experience.
Finally, our professional develop-
ment and the rise in overall profes-
sionalism within the warrant officer
cohort have instilled a set of officer
attributes that is unparalleled.
Our senior warrant officers are
performing in a superlative manner
even as they are handling more re-
sponsibilities and greater authority.
They are not shunning such levels of
responsibility, but instead are thriv-
ing on it.
Over and over again senior
Army leaders (i.e., O-6 and above)
have told me how the senior Signal
50 Spring - 2011
Figure 3
Army Communicator 51
warrant officers not only bring practicality and relevan-
cy into their organizations, but how they are often the
unsung heroes who tackle any problem, no matter how
complex, and provide some of the best solutions.
So What is Left?
There is much left to be improved. Warrant officer
education, professional development, and career op-
portunities still have much to be improved. The Military
Occupational Classification Structure action that was
submitted in 2009 to repurpose the Signal warrant of-
ficer MOS is only a beginning to the adjustments that
need to be made to formulate better and more concise
career paths to fully develop our senior warrant officers
to their fullest potential.
Although it is improved, PME is another area that
still requires much work to provide our future senior
Signal warrant officers the level of education required to
better prepare them to fulfill the duties and responsibili-
ties that will be demanded of them.
Future senior warrant officers have a bright outlook
for promotions and advancements.
In the career path, the on-going MOCS action has
begun a three phase effort to better structure our Signal
warrant officer career management field. It began by re-
establishing specialized expertise in single areas. How-
ever, a great difference is that by following the NetOps
construct these highly specialized areas mature into a
required broader understanding of full spectrum opera-
tions (which also introduces greater ambiguity which
much be addressed in the warrant officers professional
development). The goal is to grow our warrants into
a systems integrator-manager role that can operate in
either a joint, strategic, operational, or tactical arena.
This is a role that requires greater JIIM/cultural under-
standing. Key developmental positions will be crucial
to ensuring our future senior Signal warrant officers are
fully developed and prepared to meet the highest com-
mand positions in our growing inventories.
Concurrently, our PME must provide our junior
warrant officers a world class education as they prog-
ress. Over the last two decades as a warrant officer I
have seen our PME move from on-the-job training to a
more formalized education system. Due to the dynamic
pace of technological change, our current and future
OE requirements mandate a formal education in theory
and principles rather than hands-on or OJT. Further-
more, the expanded leadership roles of our current
senior warrants, coupled with the constantly expand-
ing technological infrastructure of our weapon systems
and ill-structured problem sets they will face will make
complex problem solving a critical skill by leaders who
are increasingly comfortable with ambiguity. Senior
warrant officer training must produce warrant grade
officers who are adept with the conceptual, complex,
and critical thinking skills to ensure they are adaptive,
innovative, and creative thinkers.
Coupled with formalized PME and key develop-
mental positions will be specialized training to include
expanded training with Industry; advanced civil school-
ing; intermediate level education; and the School for
Advanced Military Studies. Signal warrant officers
already have a base of approved TWI programs. How-
ever, to better prepare our junior warrant officers
for more of the critical senior positions, we need to
look at doubling our current authorizations.
While warrant officers are included in the ACS
program, not one has been funded according to
any recent historical document. The ACS program
not only acts as an incentive to keep some of our
best Signal warrant officers, but it also provides
critical graduate and post-graduate educational
skills necessary to meet the demands of a number
of our more specialized positions.
Finally, attendance at ILE at Fort Leavenworth,
Kan., would not only prepare our senior warrant
officers who are assigned to positions such as the
CIO/G6, G3/5/7, and the G8, but it would be most
appropriate. After all, the senior grade officers that
sit to their left and right have all had the benefit of
such an educational experience.
While rare, there are a very small number of
high level highly specialized positions where
SAMS attendance would round out the warrant of-
ficers KSAs and prepare them to function at such
a level and be of great benefit to the organization
as well. These are not too lofty goals. We have had
Figure 4
52 Spring - 2011
no less than 14 warrant officers attend ILE in the last
three years (5 in 2009, 9 in 2010, and 3 in 2011). We
currently have four warrant officers teaching logistics
electives at the Command and General Staff College.
We also have three warrant officers currently attend-
ing SAMS.
In conclusion, it is a fact that promotion to W5
has become a very competitive event due to the
growth of the warrant officer cohort over the last 10
years. CW5(Ret) Andy Barrs article on page 16 ad-
dresses the changes in the promotion zones that have
taken place to help grow senior warrant officers. He
also spoke a little about the issues that we are begin-
ning to face such as over strength of W4s and W5s in
some branches. The Army is currently trying to bal-
ance several objectives: (1) to maintain the competi-
tive nature of our senior promotions while (2) main-
taining the potential for those who are best qualified
to expect such future promotions and (3) maintain
the average distribution grade matrix as required
by law. To date, the Army has not reset the zones of
consideration to meet the objectives described here.
However, it has published an all ALARACT message
that addresses the current backlog in PME and ap-
plies some very forceful language as to when warrant
officers are expected to attend required training.
Finally, this years promotion board will stress
enforcement of the selective continuance require-
ment. The board has also lifted the suspension on
SELCON for W4s who have been passed over twice
for W5 (in an attempt to address numbers two and
three above). The Armys goal is to reduce the W4
population in those branches that are over strength
while maintaining a best qualified, competitive board
process for those officers with the greatest potential
for advancement. Currently, the Signal Regiment is
still short W4s and W5s and as such should fare well
through these shaping functions.
ASCC Army Service Component
Command
CAN Campus Area Network
CGSC Command and General Staff
College
CNR Combat Net Radio
Management
CyNetOps Cyberspace Network
Operations
Management
CyNOT Cyberspace Network
DRU Direct Reporting Unit
ILE Intermediate Level Education
JIIM Joint, Interagency,
Intergovernmental, and Multinational
KSA Knowledge, Skill, and
Attribute
LOE Line of Effort
MAN Metropolitan Area Network
MOCS Military Occupational
Classifcation Structure
Specialty
OJT On the Job Training
SAMS School for Advanced Military
Studies
TOC Tactical Operation Center
VUCA Volatile, Uncertain, Complex,
and Ambiguous.
WAN Wide Area Network
WiFi Wireless Fidelity
Course
WOSSC Warrant Offcer Senior Staff
Course
ACRONYM QuickScan
Figure 5
Warrant officer 255 series implementation
By CW4 William Winkler and CW5 Todd M. Boudreau
Background
In the late 1990s the growth and implementation of
technology at the tactical echelon created a vacuum of tech-
nical knowledge and support within these organizations.
Reacting to the requirements of tactical and non-Signal unit
commanders, the Signal Center created the 254A, Signal
systems support technician, to serve as the single Signal
technical expert within maneuver units. Primarily assessed
from 25Us, the skill set and scope of the 254A was designed
specifcally to meet the needs of non-Signal organizations
to include maneuver Signal operations, combat net radios,
communications security, and Signal support to tactical
operation centers. (See diagram 1)
However, in the mid 2000s the emphasis of information
technology at the brigade level along with the transforma-
tion of the Army to a modular structure had a dramatic
impact on the Signal warrant offcer numbers, distribution,
and purpose.
By placing both Military Occupational Specialty 250N
and 254A in brigade combat teams, multi-functional sup-
port brigades, and other maneuver units, transformation
essentially doubled Signal warrant offcer numbers. Ad-
ditionally the decentralization of systems and technology to
the brigade level effectively forced the 254A to evolve from
a CNR focused environment into one that is server based.
The result of all these changes was that two MOSs were
performing essentially the same functions while creating
a gap in security and defense of our systems (i.e., MOS
251A and MOS 254A).
In organizations where both MOS 251A and 254A
were assigned, the natural trend was for the 251A to focus
on IA and some minor computer network defense tasks
while the 254A focused on content management. How-
ever this was only applicable to a few fortunate organiza-
tions. Additionally this created a training issue for both
MOSs. MOS 254A was not immersed in server systems to
the extent of MOS 251A and MOS 251A was not adequate-
ly trained in computer network defense.
Repurposing the Signal Warrant Offcer
As a result of the gaps, overlaps, and redundancy in
certain elements of NetOps created by transformation,
technology evolution, and emerging threats to our sys-
tems, a Military Occupational Classifcation and Structure
action was created and is currently being implemented
with a fnal effective date of 1 October 2012. The MOCS
action was designed to specifcally rebalance the Signal
warrant offcer relevance, structure, duties, and Average
Grade Distribution Matrix while also addressing current
gaps within NetOps.
The MOCS action (see Diagram 2) called for the
repurposing of the Signal warrant
offcer MOS into two enlisted-level
accessions (i.e., W1) through W4 MOS.
One was designed to cover network
management core competency. The
other developed to cover our content
management core competency, along
with an MOS (W3 through W4 only)
which will also be created to cover the
network defense core competency.
The MOCS action maintained the cur-
rent W5 capper MOS while renaming
it from senior Signal systems techni-
cian to senior network operations
technician.
The Military Occupational
Classifcation System Action
First is the migration and combination
of MOS 251A and 254A to the newly
created 255A (information services
technician) who is responsible for
Diagram 1
cyberspace content management. This
action has already begun with the
merging of our two Warrant Offcer
Basic and Warrant Offcer Advance
courses respectively) as well as chang-
es in the prerequisites for accessions.
While MOS 254A was tradition-
ally accessed from enlisted MOS 25U,
the 255A prerequisites will be similar
to the previous prerequisites for MOS
251A. The change in prerequisites is
necessary to meet the role of the new
MOS 255A and is not an attempt to
exclude any particular MOS. Regard-
less of enlisted MOS, applicants must
have content management (layer 7)
type experience.
Merging these two MOSs into
one that leverages the best of the two
will create a warrant offcer who is the
true technical expert in information
systems and services. Assignments
for MOS 255A will begin at W2 in
the S6 of BCTs and MFSBs, and then
progress through division (W3) and
corps (W4) to ASCC and joint (W4)
positions. There are no active duty
W1 positions.
Second is the migration of MOS
250N to 255N, network management
technician. MOS 255N will serve as
the Armys premier network transport
technicians for voice, video, and data
networks establishing and maintain-
ing the transport layer environment of
the Armys portion of the cyberspace
domain through network manage-
ment/enterprise systems management
functions to include fault manage-
ment, confguration management,
auditing and accountability measures,
maintaining performance standards,
and implementing security measures
at all levels in support of combat infor-
mation superiority and command and
control.
MOS 255N will begin at WO1 and
conclude at CW4 and be responsible
for cyberspace network management.
Assignments for MOS 255N will begin
at W2 in the S6 of BCTs and MFSBs,
and then progress through division
(W3) and corps (W4) to ASCC and
joint (W4) positions.
The third change is the creation
of MOS 255S, information protection
technician. This change will provide
commanders with a technician dedi-
cated solely to the defense of systems
as the warrant offcer responsible for
cyberspace defense. They will per-
form CND measures and advise IA
functions to enable protection, detec-
tion, and reaction functions at all lev-
els in support of combat information
superiority. They will supervise and
manage IA efforts, perform associated
sub-elemental duties (e.g., CND), and
enable non-lethal electronic protection
efforts; they oversee associated per-
sonnel within the standards, transport,
services, and applications layers of the
network in order to achieve confden-
tiality, integrity, and availability of
information, as well as the authenti-
cation and non-repudiation of users.
MOS 255S will begin at CW3 and
nominally access from MOS 255A and
255N.
As this new MOS matures, the
Signal Regiment will meet its informa-
tion and network protection require-
ments, close the gaps in our defenses,
and provide a highly trained and
highly competent cyberspace warrior
adaptable for both cyberspace defense
and offense. Assignments for MOS
255S will begin at W3 in the S6 of BCT
(which will also place a senior warrant
offcer into the BCT S6 to mentor and
further train the junior warrant of-
fcers) and progress through division
(W4) and corps (W4) to ASCC and
joint (W4) positions.
Fourth and fnally is the name
change of 255Z from senior Signal
systems technician to senior network
operations technician. MOS 255Z will
remain as the Signal warrant offcer
capper MOS, serve exclusively at the
grade of CW5, and function as the
technical and tactical advisors for
full spectrum network operations at
any echelon of command or support
activity of the U.S. Army or joint staff
sections assigned to theater combatant
commanders or allied armies. These
offcers provide leadership, guidance,
technical input, and direction to sub-
ordinate elements, staff agencies, and
feld commanders up to and including
theater Army level.
Additionally this MOCS action
is also a grade plate roll down for
Signal warrant offcer authorizations.
This action was necessary due to
the AGDM for Signal warrant of-
fcers being distorted and way out of
tolerance. (See diagram 3) Tradition-
ally, the Regiment has had diffculty
maintaining our W3 and W4 numbers.
54 Spring - 2011
Diagram 2
The grade roll down will actually align us closer to our
actual strength. Bottom line is the grade roll down and
optimization of our AGMD will have neither an impact on
our current population nor on future promotion potential.
However it will allow for better utilization and develop-
ment of our Signal warrant offcers.

Where We Are Today
All of these changes will take effect no later than
1 October 2012, our intent is to expedite the action for
full implementation in early FY12. Several changes have
already begun. The prerequisites for MOS 251A and 254A
have already changed and are now identical. Training
for MOS 251A and 254A has been revised and merged
into one class for WOBC and WOAC. Digital TOC and
systems-of-systems experiential training is already imple-
mented.
We are also working a plan with civilian industry
to implement an intense, high-end, cyberspace security
(i.e., CyD) qualification course for 255S and several pi-
lot courses are being conducted. A minimum of 96 IA
and COMSEC positions are being eliminated and will
shift to MOS 255S.
The Way Ahead
This is a fairly substantial action that will impact
our entire population. With such comprehensive
changes, some smaller elements of the action may miss
the mark. Glitches with the MOCS action were expect-
ed and some have already been identified and vetted
throughout the process. Upon completion and full
implementation of the MOCS action there will be a se-
ries of ensuing actions to fine-tune the changes. Some
positions may require additional changes while others
may be added. We also anticipate changes in our W5
structure as well as growth on 255S requirements.
Conclusion
While this action is not the conclusive solution
to the Signal warrant officer structure, it is a major
enhancement that will strengthen the relevance and ca-
pabilities of our Signal warrant officers. It will provide
commanders, G6s, S6s, and other senior leaders with a
powerful team of well-trained, seasoned Signal war-
rant officers who are essential to successful network-
enabled war fighting operations.
CW4 William Winkler is currently assigned as the Signal
Regiment warrant officer personnel developer (Proponent) at
SCOE, Fort Gordon, GA. His previous assignments include
1st ID, 2nd ID, 3rd ID, 82nd Airborne Division, 35th Sig-
nal Brigade, Joint Communications Unit, and the Asymmet-
ric Warfare Group. CW4 Winkler has multiple deployments
and overseas assignments to include Iraq, Afghanistan,
Qatar, Bosnia, Korea, and Germany. He is a graduate of Ba-
sic Airborne course, Air Assault Course, SERE, Army Force
Management Course, and Warrant Officer Senior Staff
Course. CW4 Winkler holds a Bachelor of Science degree
from the University of Maryland, College Park in Informa-
tion Systems, and a Master of Science degree in Information
Technology Management from Touro University. He has 25
years of military service with 14 years as a warrant offcer.
AGDM Average Grade Distribution
Matrix
CM Content Management
CNR Combat Net Radios
Management
Management
ESM Enterprise Systems
Management
IT Information technology
MOCS Military Occupational
Classifcation and Structure
Specialty
MFSB Multi-Functional Support
Brigades
ND Network Defense
NetOps Network Operations
NM Network Management
SoS Systems-of-Systems
TOC Tactical Operation Centers
Course
ACRONYM QuickScan
Diagram 3
Senior warrant offcer
specialized positions
By CW4 William Winkler and
This is a primer on what Signal
warrant offcers can expect in assign-
ments.
Frequently, junior Signal warrant
offcers express the idea that they are
not in control of their career or can
only work within the constraints of
the assignments they have been given.
However, that is not the reality. When
a W2 or W3 actively seeks out op-
portunities beyond traditional as-
signments that he/she is legitimately
qualifed to fll, these challenges fre-
quently result in further opportunities
later in the career. Whether selected
or not, volunteering for challenging,
selective or special assignments and
training almost always open doors to
follow-on prospects.
It is no coincidence that the major-
ity of Signal warrant offcers initial
assignments and W1/W2 positions are
at the brigade level. Additionally, a
substantial percentage of W3 positions
are focused in and around divisions.
This immersion is the nexus where
many Signal warrant offcers cultivate
their technical aptitude and skills.
However, at the W3 grade, Signal war-
rant offcer assignments and oppor-
tunities begin to dramatically expand
beyond the divisions. And while there
are just a handful of assignments at
W3 or below that necessitate unique
attributes or experiences, often the ex-
perience and exposure of Signal war-
rant offcers in these early assignments
will cast their competency for many of
the senior Signal warrant offcer posi-
tions in their future.
Forming Nominal Career Paths
During the most recent Signal
conference at Fort Gordon, it was ac-
knowledged that the Regiment histori-
cally has not developed Signal war-
rant offcer for key positions. With a
few exceptions, there simply were not
enough positions or warrant offcers
to justify the identifcation and coding
required to manage these positions.
Even the Regimental chief warrant
offcer position did not exist prior to
1999. The Regiment was habitually
under strength and senior warrant of-
fcers sustained only a handful of W5s
in the population. But with the rapid
growth and relevance of Signal war-
rant offcers, key developmental posi-
tions are now a necessity. There are
now senior Signal warrant offcers in
all facets of the DoD, DA staff, training
centers, cyberspace, special mission
units, and senior Signal organizations.
Demand is expected to continue.
For the frst time, the Signal
Regiment W5 grade is healthy and
W5 positions are currently expand-
ing to support all major combatant
commands. As Signal warrant offcers
become more relevant and demand in-
creases, more key positions are bound
to evolve.
So the question is, Does the
Signal Regiment need to identify key
positions, document those positions,
and associate them to a specifc career
map or training requirement? If so,
what are those positions and what is
the professional development require-
ment? Also, which senior positions
will rely on traditional Professional
Military Education and the new
WOSC follow-on course?
Specialized Positions
All positions are to some extent
different, and as such there is no train-
ing that will prepare an offcer for all
they need to know for any specifc job.
However, the intent for determining
key positions is not to create 900 key
developmental positions.
The Signal Regiment is focusing
on a handful of positions that are both
critical and outside the mainstream
of what traditional Signal warrant of-
fcers do. Some positions certainly will
provide requisite experience on which
more specialized jobs rely. In other
words, there is not a traditional career
course or PME providing adequate
experiences and training required to
draw from while performing duties
56 Spring - 2011
associated with the position. One such example would be
the DA G8 or G3 in which Signal warrant offcers function
at the O5/O6 level on a very senior staff that is immersed
in strategy, policy, acquisition, and programs at the macro
level. While our other than warrant Signal offcers have
the beneft of extensive training in their intermediate level
education, our warrant offcers are left to fgure it out for
themselves. Maybe such warrant offcers should be af-
forded the opportunity to attend ILE and be assigned in
more junior staff positions before being thrust into a DoD
or DA staff level position.
Other scenarios may include the special opera-
tions command preferring a senior warrant with special
operations experience or the newly established Army
cyber command and/or its parent joint cyber command
requiring a Signal warrant officer who has developed
his/her talent in the computer network defense do-
main.
Recently, the Signal Regiment conducted a W5 as-
signment board which consisted of several Signal two star
general offcers. While this procedure was intended to
move W5s based upon matching the offcers competence
to the position and the units mission, it was not neces-
sarily meant to imply all W5 positions a key or nomi-
native position. Reality is that with a small number of
W5s projected and the demand for senior Signal warrant
offcers increasing, the process currently is more priority
based than nominative based. This was the frst attempt
at this type of process for senior Signal warrant offcers.
The projected growth of the senior warrant offcer grades
further validates the requirement to tag and map out key
developmental positions.

Training with Industry and
Advanced Civil Schooling
Currently, PME is the primary developmental process
for Signal warrant offcer positions. As it is further devel-
oped, it should meet the educational requirement for most
of our positions. Additionally, the new WOSC follow-on
course is designed to fll the training gap and provide
training and development for the majority of our senior
positions.
For key positions outside the mainstream, the Signal
Regiment has relied on training with industry as a pre-
requisite to an assignment, essentially linking the assign-
ment to a TWI requirement. While this has worked well
for some of the School of Information Technology and
Capabilities Development Integration Directorate positions
(both located at Fort Gordon, Ga.), with only fve oppor-
tunities annually, TWI alone will not meet all key position
requirements.
Another method is to leverage advanced civil school-
ing to positions. For example, the Signal Regiment may
determine that the SIT technical director obtain a gradu-
ate degree in education prior to fulflling that assignment.
This is actually similar to what branch and functional area
offcers do now. This is the most viable option to expand
the linking of key positions and training requirements.
Conclusion
The process must be accomplished sensibly, if the Signal
Regiment is going to employ key positions and key de-
velopmental positions as a tool to both determine training
requirements and formally link the position to the prereq-
uisite training and experience.
Positions must be vetted through some predetermined
process at the Signal Center and socialized with our senior
Signal leaders before attempting to change any require-
ments or authorization documents. One possible solution
is a site selection board consisting of all the Signal W5s.
Regardless of how these positions are identifed, the
number of positions must remain small enough to ensure
resources can be obtained and it can be managed effective-
ly. Validity in the program must be maintained.

CW4 William Winkler is currently assigned as the Signal
Regiment warrant officer personnel developer (proponent) at
SCOE, Fort Gordon, Ga. His previous assignments include
1st ID, 2nd ID, 3rd ID, 82nd Airborne Division, 35th Signal
Brigade, Joint Communications Unit, and the Asymmetric
Warfare Group. CW4 Winkler has multiple deployments
and overseas assignments to include Iraq, Afghanistan,
Qatar, Bosnia, Korea, and Germany. He is a graduate of
Basic Airborne course, Air Assault Course, SERE, Army
Force Management Course, and Warrant Officer Senior Staff
Course. CW4 Winkler holds a Bachelor of Science degree
from the University of Maryland, College Park in Informa-
tion Systems, and a Master of Science degree in Information
Technology Management from Touro University. He has 25
years of military service with 14 years as a warrant officer.
ARCYBER Army Cyber Command
COCOM Combatant Command
CYBERCOM Cyber Command
RCWO Regimental Chief Warrant
Officer
PME Professional Military
Education
SOCOM Special Operations
Command
TWI Training With Industry
WOSC Warrant Officer Staff
Course
ACRONYM QuickScan
Mentorship builds a legacy
By CW4 Roy L. Rucker Sr.
Effective mentorship among
Signal warrant officers can build
a legacy leading to a more effec-
tive Signal Regiment.
I have heard many senior
leaders say through the years, I
wish I would have known what I
know now, or if only someone
would have guided me in the
right direction.
How many times have you
said this to yourself? If you
could look back now and watch
yourself being developed years
ago, and take the knowledge,
skills, attributes, and experience
you have today and mentor your
younger self, what level of devel-
opment could you provide to
yourself in order to improve the
professional you have become
today?
Let me encourage you to ac-
cept the responsibility of de-
veloping positive professional
mentorship relationships.
Mentorship is defined as the
voluntary developmental rela-
tionship that exists between a
person of greater experience and
a person of lesser experience that
is characterized by mutual trust
and respect (AR 600-100).
This trusting relationship
provides a non-threatening envi-
ronment in which a mentee, can
seek advice. When done correctly
the process aids the mentee in
reaching full professional poten-
tial.
Role of the Mentor
The mentor serves a very
powerful role in the relationship.
He/she sets the stage to provide
either positive or negative guid-
58 Spring - 2011
Senior warrant offcers regularly provide mentor time with warrant offcer candidates during the Warrant Offcer Basic
Course.
ance that will impact the life of those mentored.
For anyone who is willing to accept the men-
tor role, you must ensure that you are represent-
ing the positive aspects of being a mentor. Before
seeking out mentees or becoming a mentor you
should ensure that you are willing to serve in the
role all the time. Start by making yourself ap-
proachable and are willing to voluntarily provide
advice and guidance for situations you feel require
it. Most of the time this can be done in your work
environment simply by offering advice to fellow
j unior and senior warrant officers. If you continue
to be this type of person you will eventually build
a reputation that fosters an environment where
people will want to seek you out for guidance.
Next you should be the person or role model
that not only can tell a mentee how to perform
properly but you should be practicing what you
advise as well. Always demonstrate the image of
what right looks like. No one respects or seeks out
a hypocrite.
Good mentors are great listeners. Be willing to
set your agenda aside and give a proper ear to the
concerns of the mentee. This will allow you to pro-
vide the appropriate counseling at the right time.
Everyone cant be a mentor. If you are one of
the people who does not have the temperament to
build relationships, be the good steward and pass
that potential mentee on to someone who has the
desire.
Always be willing to share the information
that put you where you are today. You knowledge
and encouragement have the potential to propel
the mentee to greater levels of achievement. If
you are chosen as a mentor, ensure that you can
provide the knowledge and guidance thats be-
ing required. You cant teach, coach, and mentor
if you dont have the proper knowledge. You will
only serve to be a detriment to a potentially great
future leader.
The process is much like that of a j ourney. In
a j ourney you need some critical information to
be successful. Where are you trying to get? Where
are you currently? What are the critical waypoints
that will make the j ourney successful? The mentor
helps the mentee to answer these questions.
Mentee Responsibility
The relationship also has requirements for the
mentee. The person advice should be receptive to
guidance and advice. This means regularly assess-
ing ones strengths and weaknesses and knowing
when to seek advice. A mentors time is precious
and being on time for sessions should be well
respected. Always remember that mentorship is a
two way relationship and its perfectly okay for
you to approach a mentor and not j ust wait for a
mentor to take an interest in you and your career.
Also remember mentorship is not limited to tech-
nical guidance but can be a relationship that will
help you grow in your personal life as well.
Your mentor is not there to solve all of your
problems or to manage your life. The mentor is
like a sign post that gives directions at critical
j unctures. It is still up to you to give a 100% effort
to the development of your own career. Be will-
ing to take constructive criticism that may help
you identify hurdles that stand between you and a
stellar career.
Be open and take ownership. Be ready to
learn, not j ust do.
As a good mentee, remember to use the advice
you are given and be vigilant with reporting the
outcome of your failures and successes to your
mentor. This will serve to make the mentorship
relationship stronger.
Mentorship Legacy
Just a short while ago the question was asked,
Is mentorship broken within the warrant offi-
cer Corps? My answer to that would be a very
convincing NO!!! I dont feel its broken, I j ust
think its a work in progress that needs more ener-
gizing. We, as leaders/mentors, should strive to
create a culture and climate that fosters learning
and development for the legacy that will be gifted
to future warrant officers.
The whole purpose of building a mentorship
legacy, for j unior warrant officers, is to establish
a strong family that will leave each generation of
leaders in a much better environment than the one
before it. One mentor, one person, can change a
life forever. I urge you to be that one person.
CW4 Roy L. Rucker Sr. has severed as the Land-
WarNet Tactical Division branch chief in the 106th
Signal Brigade, San Antonio, Texas since October
2008. His previous assignment at the 13th ESC, Fort
Hood, Texas was as the G6 and senior network techni-
cian. He has more than 21 years of military service
and currently mentors 42 warrant officers, officers
and Soldiers.
Signal life in the logistics lane
By CW2 Juan M. Dorado and
CW2 James E.A. Richards
Every Signal Soldier should have
an understanding of the logistics sys-
tem employed with the Regiment.
The Sustainment Automation
Support Management Offce supports
all logistics automation systems, or
Standard Army Management Informa-
tion Systems within a brigade. In sim-
plest terms, the SASMO is a collage of
different military occupational spe-
cialties, clustered together, to provide
both technical and functional support
for those systems and the logisticians
that use them. The recently changed
acronym for years was known as CS-
SAMO or Combat Service Support
Automations Management Offce
until Combat Service Support was
replaced by Sustainment in Field
Manual 4-0. Table 1 shows a list of
supported systems, their functional
areas, class of supply supported (if ap-
plicable) and the MOS that applies to
that system for support and/or opera-
tion.
The size of a SASMO section is
directly dependent on the type of unit
being supported. The numbers can
range from a section four to more than
20. For example, the Army evalua-
tion task force has four Soldiers, 3rd
Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 1st
Armored Division has 10 Soldiers;
and both 1st Combat Aviation Bri-
gade, 1st Infantry Division and 2nd
Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 1st
Armored Division have 18 Soldiers. In
a deployed environment the SASMO
typically interfaces with a communi-
cations-electronics command logistics
assistance representative to request
support for specifc systems. The
SASMO may also work directly with
system a feld support representative,
depending on the urgency of support
required.
In garrison these same support
entities still exist, but may not be as
readily accessible (except for major ex-
ercises or signifcant system failures).
Regardless of LAR or FSR availability,
there are still installation or division
level entities that exist to support
logistics automation functions, such
as Army feld support battalions or
installation SASMOs, division com-
mand maintenance evaluation and
training teams, and of course SASMOs
in sister brigades. For system defects
60 Spring - 2011
SASMO Soldier orienting a directional
grid antenna for a Combat Service Sup-
port Automated Information System.
System Functional Area MOS
AIT Unit Inventory Management 92Y
BCS3 Logistics Tracking/Reporting 92A, Any
CAISI Wireless LAN extension 25B
MC4 Medical Records Management/Class VIII 68G, 25B
MROCS Warehouse Inventory Management 25B, 92A
MTS Logistics/Movement Tracking 92A, Any
PBUSE Supply Ordering/Class II 92Y
SAAS-MOD Ammunition Supply/Tracking/Class V 89A
SAMS-E Maintenance Management/ Class IX 92A
SARSS1 Materiel Requisition Hub 92A
TC-AIMS II Transportation 88N
VSAT Point of Presence 25B
Table 1: STAMIS functional area and MOS mapping

and other problems that require escalation to the product/
program manager, the Software Engineering Center-Lee
Sustainment Support System for the Single Interface to the
feld help desk, functions as a gateway for strategic reach
back to system developers.
MOS Stir-Fry
Signal warrant offcers assigned to the SASMO are
currently MOS 251A. On almost every technical forum
and mailing list, there is at least one grievance from a
technical Signal expert on an aspect of logistics automa-
tion that just does not meet the standard. CW4 William
Winkler, who is the Signal warrant offcer personnel
developer, recently reminded that same 251A (Information
Systems Technician) community that 42% of the slots for
the MOS are actually SASMO slots, created and funded
by Combined Arms Support Command. SASMO techni-
cians typically serve as the offcer-in-charge, and generally
serve in CW2 or CW3 slots. This means that almost half of
the graduating warrants will be detailed into positions not
views as career enhancing slots.
As a new 251A, entering the SASMO can seem over-
whelming. Besides the demanding information technol-
ogy and leadership skills required doing the job, the 251A
comes into the section typically knowing little about
section operations. The logistics world is a diverse and
dynamic environment with its own language and culture.
Learning the logistics lingo is a critical part of the steep
learning curve necessary to logistics operations. Adding
to the problem is an array of new systems, each having its
own distinct confguration requirements. This provides a
challenge to even the most talented Signal leader. Howev-
er, with time, self study, and a lot of coaching and mentor-
ing from the senior logistics staff in the support operations
section, a new 251A can gain the logistics knowledge re-
quired to Signal logisticians in accomplishing their varied
missions.
There are no management tools felded with any sys-
tems that the SASMO supports. Although this may seem
to be a downfall, it is actually a benefcial. The SASMO
gains a lot of creative freedoms in implementing different
aspects of network management, information assurance,
and information management. This fosters an environ-
ment of learning and exploration, in an effort to fnd the
best way to perform management functions with limited
resources. Every MOS in the SASMO benefts from this
type of freedom since there is an abundance of overlap in
most systems the SASMO supports.
The systems interface with either the Combat Ser-
vice Support - Very Small Aperture Terminal or Combat
Service Support Automated Information Systems Interface.
Regardless of MOS, Soldiers in the section must be familiar
with networking basics.
One of the most signifcantly positive aspects of
SASMO is the simplicity of the network architecture. For
instance the CSS-VSAT is a nearly completely automatic
Ku-band satellite terminal that provides IP network trans-
port. It fts in four transit cases that load comfortable into
a small utility vehicle. It can be set up in about 20 min-
utes and even comes with voice over Internet protocol
phones that can call other CSS-VSAT VoIP phones. The
best part about CSS-VSAT is that it is usable by people
who have no experience with satellite equipment or IP
networking. Even when it breaks, CSS-SATCOM has
a large contingent of support contractors who always
respond within 24 hours to fx a terminal.
The CAISI is another great example of a simplifed
network capability. It provides local range extension
for ethernet, and can be confgured with a laptop and a
14-slide, screenshot-by-screenshot presentation. While
these technologies may be elementary to a 251A, the
miracle of these incarnations of the technology is that
our 92A, 88N, 68G, 92Y, and 25B MOS Soldiers can all
employ them effectively.
A SASMO technician is stretched to evolve be-
yond our Signal expertise. Supported Soldiers come
from every MOS and functional area that the STAMIS
requires, including that supply, maintenance, ammuni-
tion, medical administration, or movement. The SASMO
technician is required to develop creative ways to keep
those Soldiers from suffering professional atrophy as a
result of being assigned to SASMO. Not only did we not
know anything about the non-Signal MOS Soldiers, but
often they were mid-career Soldiers. Agreements with
various other shops led to fnding more senior mentors
from within the SPO, or just releasing them for school.
An assortment of solutions added to a unique brand of
professional development. This was a challenge that
SASMO Soldiers met with enthusiasm.
Hope for the Future
Even with admittedly exceptional support, the logis-
tics community makes available, the simplifed systems
architecture, and the broadening opportunities, SASMO
still has room for improvement. There are several sig-
nifcant goals driving the future.
SASMO-oriented training
Often, we face a technical problem having received
the same training as an operator for a system, only with
a lot less experience on the system. This assumes that
knowledge of the processes or information manipulation
performed by the system is not necessary to fully under-
stand the problem. Requirements documents for systems
acquisition should be modifed to mandate
SASMO-oriented training that focuses on learning
how to operate the system frst, then how to remediate
system-specifc problems. Currently, almost no training
exists that specifcally teaches troubleshooting or demon-
strates an engineer-level perspective of the system. These
are both skill sets the SASMO has to develop on the job.
Enterprise Management at the local level
One tool missing from the STAMIS architecture is an
Army Communicator
61
enterprise management solution that
can be administered at the local level.
Something like a Windows Server
on each CSS-VSAT put together in
a brigade combat team to form a
domain would provide centralized
management of user accounts, operat-
ing system updates, virus defnition
updates, and even disaster recovery
capabilities, all at the SASMO level.
As it is, all user accounts are local to
each computer, and all software and
virus defnition updates are manu-
ally completed on each computer. We
know how to set this up, and we could
locally procure all the necessary hard-
ware and software, but as tightly as
the STAMIS software itself is confgu-
ration/managed, it is desirable that
the next generations of the systems are
better integrated with each other.
Personnel
Often the SASMO does not get
personnel selection priority. Our com-
mands tended to select personnel with
a focus on operations sections, leav-
ing the SASMO lacking people with
the experience needed to function as
sustainment to operations. This type
of staffng methodology succeeds only
under the most ideal conditions and
leaves customers exposed in the event
of catastrophic system failure. Opera-
tions only continue within the capacity
of sustainment, and we hope future
commands realize this and invest per-
sonnel resources accordingly.
SASMO Career Management
Our training experience includes
the one-month resident SASMO
course at Fort Lee, Va., in the case of
CW2 Richards and both of us have
been to New Equipment Training
(System Training in Acquisition ter-
minology). But the nature of SASMO
makes the eight-month 251A Warrant
Offcer Basic Course overkill, and
the one-month SASMO course lack-
ing. We also do not know whether
our next assignment will be SASMO
or not. If it is, then we can continue
developing in this half-logistics, half-
Signal specialty. When we return to
our MOS roots, then we will be far
less prepared than our contemporaries
who spent time in pure Signal posi-
tions.
The Medical Service Corps branch
has a warrant MOS 670A or health
services maintenance technician that
performs a SASMO-like role for the
Army Medical Department. That MOS
is managed in the role for an entire
career. If a 251A spends the majority
of his or her career in SASMO, it is
reasonable to integrate into the Ac-
quisition process at some point, either
in technology development or system
design phases (Pre-Milestone A).
CW2 Juan M. Dorado has been assigned
to the 125th Brigade Support Battalion,
3rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 1st
Armored Division since February 2009.
He previously served as the SASMO
technician with the Combat Aviation
Brigade, 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in
2008. Before being appointed as a War-
rant Offcer in 2007, Mr. Dorado held the
MOS of 25B. He is currently enrolled in
the Computer Studies Bachelors degree
program with the University of Maryland.
He holds certifcations in Security and
Network+, MCITP, and MCTS.
CW2 James Richards was appointed
in 2006 and holds a Bachelor of Arts in
Computer Science from Cornell Univer-
sity, as well as the CISSP certifcation.
He started his career as a Signal Offcer
in 2002, serving as the G3 Automations
Branch Chief for the 311th Signal Com-
mand, then as a network engineer for the
261st Signal Brigade. In 2009, he served
as a WAN/LAN Technician for the Vic-
tory CAN sites in Iraq. Most recently, he
was assigned as SASMO for 5th Brigade,
1st Armored Division, and is currently
assigned as SASMO for 2nd Brigade, 1st
Armored Division.
AIT -Automatic Identifcation Technology
BCS3 - Battle Command Sustainment Support System
CAISI - Combat Service Support Automated Information
Systems Interface
CASCOM - Combined Arms Support Command
CSSAMO - Combat Service Support Automation
Management Offce
FM - Field Manual
FSR Field Support Representative
IP - Internet Protocol
IT - Information Technology
LAR - Logistics Assistance Representative
MC4 - Medical Communications for Combat Casualty
Care
MOS - Military Occupational Specialty
MROCS - Materiel Release Order Control System
MTS - Movement Tracking System
PBUSE - Property Book Unit Supply Enhanced
SAAS-MOD - Standard Army Ammunition System -
Modernization
SAMS-E - Standard Army Maintenance System -
Enhanced
SARSS1 Standard Army Retail Supply System
SASMO - Sustainment Automation Support
Management Offce
SATCOM - Satellite Communications
SEC-Lee - Software Engineering Center - Lee
SPO - Support Operations
STAMIS - Standard Army Management Information
Systems
TC-AIMS II - Transportation Coordinators Automated
Information for Movement System II
TDY - Temporary Duty
VoIP - Voice Over Internet Protocol
VSAT - Very Small Aperture Terminal
62 Spring - 2011
ACRONYM QuickScan
Signal warrant officers forging new
relationships in nontraditional roles
By CW2 Kenneth Jenkins and CW2 Matthew Jeffcoat
Signal warrant officers are serving key
roles in an ever-widening arena of non-tra-
ditional postings.
Over the past four years the Armys
criminal investigation units have extended
communication between their law enforce-
ment assets due to change of the units Mod-
ification Table of Organization and Equip-
ment. A Signal warrant officer has been
added to the 6th Military Police Group-
Criminal Investigation Division, located at
Joint Base Lewis McChord and the 3rd MP
Group-CID, located at Fort Gillem, Ga. The
groups overall automations support to the
units special agents in the field has been
improved.
One of the main functions of the Signal
warrant officer is to enable rapid, robust
and reliable communications for the unit
whether it is a Stryker brigade or a criminal
investigation group.
While investigations may be processed
locally, when there is need for additional
resources or more support, the agents in the
field or investigative operations can count
on being able to reach out to those senior
agents and staff wherever they might be.
The video teleconferencing systems have
been revamped to support secure VTC and
are leaning forward to be ready for the
switch from integrated services digital net-
work to Internet protocol.
Haphazard replacement of equipment
has been streamlined into an item-for-item
swap regulated at the group level and vali-
dated against documented requirements
coordinated through operations channels. As
part of the organizational inspection pro-
gram, the S6 shop has visited every battalion
in order to inspect and assist with policy
compliance and leveraging current technolo-
gy to optimize battalion detachments support.
The group S6 is where the Signal warrant offi-
cer resides. In this position the Signal warrant
officer coordinates with the network enter-
prise centers of all of the detachments. This
includes 24 NECs along with Hawaii, Alaska,
Korea, and Japan. Warrant officers working
alongside CID agents have a unique perspec-
tive that brings valuable feedback to quickly
resolve questions and develop new capabili-
ties. Additionally, the units computer crimes
coordinators have specialized technical abili-
ties in the field of digital forensics.
This is j ust one example of the relevancy
of the Signal warrant officer outside the tradi-
tional Signal unit position. More and more we
find non-Signal units relying on the complex
technology that Signal warrant officers are
trained and ready to plan, install, maintain,
operate, and administer.
CID Criminal Investigation Division
ISDN Integrated Services Digital Network
MP Military Police
NEC Network Enterprise Center
VTC Video Teleconference
ACRONYM QuickScan
A profession of arms
By CW5 Troy A. DeGolyer,
CW5 Johnny Silva, CW4 Diedra A.
DeWitt, CW4 Meaghan M. Hat-
field, CW4 Heber L. Hyde, CW4
Patrick J. Muenks,
CW4 Curtis L. Newkirk, and
CW4 Mark A. Seels
In a group dynamic senior
warrant officers distilled the es-
sence of the current Army warrant
officer cohort in the aftermath of a
decade of persistent conflict.
The research and analysis was
conducted by the authors while
part of a study group consisting
of Warrant Officer Senior Staff
Course students. This team of
students determined that the val-
ues sustaining the warrant officer
cohort are consistent with those of
the Army as a whole.
The Warrant Officer Corps
embodies expert knowledge, in-
tegrity, service before self, and
a visible quest for excellence.
Furthermore, warrant offi-
cers enjoy a comprehen-
sive training program
that is continually
fine-tuned as method-
ologies and tech-
nology progress.
This allows for
relative doctrine,
a contemporary
individual, or-
ganizational
and institu-
tional development processes, and
the appropriate integration
of the warrant officer cohort with
the Armys internal and external
environments. These indispens-
able elements apply to the warrant
officer in a technical professional
that is further correctly identified
as a profession of arms.
Warrant Officers as a
Profession of Arms in
Relationship to the Military
Technical Capacity
GEN Ronald R. Fogleman, U.S.
Air Force chief of staff (1994-97)
identified the common strengths
within the profession of arms as
integrity first, service before self,
and excellence in all we do. These
certainly apply wholeheartedly
to the Army and the warrant
officer cohort as a profession
of arms. Civilian/military
education and certifications
have ensured that warrant
officers have sustained
these strengths during
this decade of
persistent
conflict.
The Army
is described
by Don M.
Snider as
having mem-
bers
that have expertise in service,
knowledge, and having a profes-
sional military ethic that is tested
and certified. These are elements
that also apply to the warrant of-
ficer as a member of the Armed
Forces and as a profession of arms.
To become a warrant officer,
an individual must be physically
and mentally fit, an outstand-
ing Soldier and adept in his/her
specialty. Recruitment into the
warrant officer cohort is volun-
tary. However all volunteers are
not accepted. Each candidate must
undergo a rigorous validation pro-
cess prior to entering the Warrant
Officer Candidate School. This
process ensures that only the most
technically qualified applicants
are selected. Currently there are
46 warrant officer military occu-
pational specialties which are fed
by a multitude of technical feeder
enlisted MOSs and/or techni-
cally qualified members of other
services and civilians, all with the
prerequisite working knowledge,
technical skills, and/or education.
All WOMOS require the applicant
have experience in the enlisted
feeder MOS, with the exception of
153A, 250N, 251A, 254A, and 882A.
Even these WOMOS have specific
prerequisites the candidate must
meet to be qualified to compete for
accessions.
The Army warrant officer
cohort comprises
less than
64 Spring - 2011
Signal warrant offcers regularly train in all phases of warrior skills relevant to the profession of arms as well as high technol-
ogy aspects of modern communications.
three percent of the total Army. Although small in
size, the level of responsibility is immense and only
the very best will be selected to become warrant
officers. Warrant officers are technical and tactical
leaders who specialize, throughout an entire career,
in a specific technical area. Expert knowledge within
the warrant officer cohort is achieved through ongo-
ing professional military education, degree comple-
tion programs, training with industry, mentorship,
and various certification programs. Warrant officers
exceptional range in skills are developed over time,
increased with technical experience, enhanced with
specific technical focus and training, enforced with
professional and civilian education, and sustained
through civilian certifications which ensures their
individual technical proficiency. These efforts are
reflective of U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Com-
mand Pamphlet (PAM) 525-3-1 as it describes success
in future Army operations, stating that a broad train-
ing enterprise develops and sustains the tactical and
technical competence that builds both confidence and
agility.
Branch proponents develop and update the WOBC
training and technical certification standards to ensure
that all warrant officers attain the degree of techni-
cal competence needed to perform in their WOMOS at
the platoon through battalion levels. Don M. Snider
Council for American Private Education notes that
the Army tests and certifies its members. This can be
applied to warrant officer education and certification
program. Snider says, The Army tests and certifies
its members to ensure each meets the standards (both
competence/expertise and morality/character) of the
profession before being granted status as a full mem-
ber of the profession as well as at each successive level
of promotion/advancement. It maintains systems to
train and educate individuals in a trainee or appren-
ticeship status until professional standards can be
met.
All WOMOS receive strenuous training and partic-
ipate in certification programs. For example, warrant
officer aviators receive training that meets or exceeds
the requirements by Federal Aviation Administration.
Signal warrant officers are certified with a litany of
commercial certifications such as project management
professional, Microsofts certified systems engineers,
A+, Cisco certified network associates, Microsoft certi-
fied systems administrator, Security+ and certified in-
formation systems security professional to name a few
which are easily compared to the civilian professions.
These are listed as the top 10 technology certifications
in information technology, based upon a survey of
17,000 civilian technology professionals. Acquisitions,
Military Intelligence, Military Investigations, Special
Forces, and Military Culinary professionals as well as
other WOMOS, all have programs which are compa-
rable to their civilian professional counterpart. The
Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts that computer and
mathematical occupations will add 785,700 new jobs
by 2018. These technical professionals often come
from the military ranks. This is verifiable as the
Army has experienced a loss of personnel to the ci-
vilian work force as these personnel transition with
ease due to the technical knowledge and profession-
al skills gained during their military service.
From accession and attendance at WOCS to
attendance at WOSSC, doctrinal guidance is estab-
lished for each phase of warrant officer training.
It is constantly changing to keep up with global
situations and to gain accreditation. The doctrinal
data is derived from TRADOC, feeder MOS, the 46
WOMOS, and the training centers at Fort Rucker,
Ala. Training also reflects changing requirements
from the various proponent/branch training centers
(Warrant Officer Basic and Advance Course (WOBC
and WOAC respectively).
With the success and history of the Army war-
rant officer at each capacity, the doctrine that guides
the training is adequate. This doctrine is constantly
changing in order to stay abreast of the needs of
that capacity. The changes are dictated by the MOS
proponent and technological advances in a particu-
lar MOS or training level.
TRADOC serves as the change agent for the Ar-
mys Human Capital Enterprise. Most of the assess-
ment and certification of individual capacity occurs
during institutional training, but this alone does not
completely prepare the future force. Career col-
leges and proponent schools have a slow change life
cycle. Field level pushback, lessons learned and unit
tactics, techniques and procedures validate current
practices. The Army needs to examine new models
for assessment and certification. The warrant of-
ficer cohort is the best positioned agent to support
change within the Army professions of arms.
The Army is a highly specialized, self-regulat-
ing profession tasked by its citizenry as a trusted
defender of the Constitution. Army leaders and all
members adhere to a strict code of moral conduct.
The Army is an element of the joint force exerting
necessary power in the science of war to protect the
American way of life against all enemies, foreign
and domestic.
Current and future operational environments
place heavy reliance on the capacities of the human
dimension. This is due in large part to a need for
the Army to conduct full spectrum operations in an
ever changing and challenging OE. Field Manual
(FM) 7-0, Training for Full Spectrum Operations,
addresses the fundamentals of training modular,
expeditionary Army forces for simultaneous offen-
sive, defensive, and stability or civil support opera-
tions in an era of persistent conflict. TRADOC PAM
525-3-7-01, The U.S. Army Study
of the Human Dimension in the
Future, focuses attention on the
human dimensional components
of Soldier moral, cognitive, and
physical behavior necessary for
Army organizational development
and performance essential to raise,
prepare, and employ future land-
power. The document states that
current trends in the global and
domestic OE will challenge the
United States ability to maintain
a future responsive, professional,
all-volunteer Force.
The human element is the key
to the Armys future. The Soldier
is the centerpiece of transfor-
mation. Faced with continuous
employment across the full range
of military operations, the Army
will require extraordinary strength
in moral, physical, and cognitive
components of its professional
force. Developing a professionally
competent Army requires attention
to the cognitive component of the
human dimension. Critical compe-
tencies of Soldiers must be identi-
fied as well as the processes and
tools needed to build these com-
petencies. TRADOC leaders indi-
cate the most influencing Army
resource lies in modular, tailored,
accessible, and realistic training
and leader education. Convention-
al practices must be revised. Its
no longer good enough to simply
train to a task. This order of learn-
ing is too elementary.
Army professionals must be
innovative critical thinkers capable
of sustaining high tactical, techni-
cal, and cultural intellect consis-
tent and adaptive to all potential
OE; particularly in respect to joint,
interagency, intergovernmental
and multinational operations. The
advancement of technology is
rapid. New equipment fielding is
persistent. TTPs are constantly be-
ing refined as new threats evolve.
TRADOC leaders have implement-
ed appropriate self examination
of the HCE to form institutional
change that will have a significant
impact on assessing and certify-
ing the competence and overall
intellectual/cognitive capabilities
within our Army of professionals.
The branch/proponents and
professional military schools
should collaborate across cohorts
to understand the present TLE
transformation that must occur.
The warrant officer cohort is well
advised to implement Recommen-
dation 104 of the 2002 Warrant
Officer Army Training and Leader
Development Panel which advises
us to develop and implement
an integrated system for all Army
officers that accounts for common
direct leader skills and actions
required by the Army Vision and
full spectrum operations in the
contemporary operational environ-
ment. It continues, This educa-
tion system must also meet the
training and leader development
requirements of Army officers by
branch, grade position, specialty,
functional area, and assignment.
This document seems to be the
most comprehensive study on
behalf of the warrant officer cohort
and should be re-examined to
determine if these recommenda-
tions are still valid. And if they are
66 Spring - 2011
Senior warrant offcers attending their Professioinal Military Education course at the Warrant Offcer Career College.
valid, why have they not been acted upon?
LTG [U.S. Army-Ret James C.] Riley (2002) in his
presentation of the ATLDP-Warrant Officers, high-
lights the conclusion that the Warrant Officer Educa-
tion System fails to meet the needs of the Army and
warrant officers and requires thorough revision. The
report further concludes that warrant officer train-
ing and skills must be related to grade and position
rather than linked to promotion and that the WOES
must provide the right training at the right time.
Furthermore, a system must be in place that promotes
self-development.
It is widely acknowledged that the warrant offi-
cer cohort brings a high level of technical expertise to
the profession of arms. However, too frequently this
becomes the sole defining characteristic of the cohort
and thus limits its full degree of military/technical
capacity. Mistakenly, the warrant officer cohort is
guilty of a narrow interpretation of military/techni-
cal capacity. Often warrant officers describes them-
selves from a single dimension of technical expertise
rather than what the profession of arms demands a
highly specialized expert officer, leader, and trainer
fully competent in technical, tactical, and leadership
skills.
Expert knowledge must transcend all cohorts
and is not only measured as an individual qual-
ity, but also should be exhibited as a collective unit
quality. Warrant officers must possess the techni-
cal and leader skills that make them the innovative
integrators and dynamic teachers characterized by
the definition of the warrant officer of the Future
Force in Department of the Army (DA) PAM 600-3.
The warrant officer professional is critical to promot-
ing the level of technical expertise demanded by the
Army profession of arms. FM 6-22 Army Leadership
makes note of the fact cohorts differ in the magnitude
of responsibility vested in them. It is incumbent upon
the warrant officer cohort to perform the appropriate
self-examination to ensure it is contributing to the
overall strength of assigned commands through its
high degree of specialization and leader skills.
Efforts are not adequately shaping the leadership
and technical competence necessary for future full
spectrum operations according to needs assessed in
current HCE studies. The level of responsibility vest-
ed in the warrant officer dictates a high-level of intel-
lectual capacity. The warrant officer of today must be
a self aware and adaptive learner. This characteristic
requires conceptual components of intelligence such
as mental agility, sound judgment, innovation, inter-
personal tact, and domain knowledge.
Historically, domain knowledge is a position of
warrant officer strength. However, it requires pos-
sessing facts, beliefs, and logical assumptions beyond
core technical proficiency. Warrant officers should
seek mastery of domain knowledge. This entails
mastery of tactical, technical, joint, cultural and geo-
political knowledge. Warrant officers, like leaders
from other cohorts, have careers where learning is
the product of immersion in three environments: in-
stitutional training and education (PME and techni-
cal branch proponent), operational assignments, and
self-development.
Self-development is continuous. It involves the
individual with support of first-line leaders and
commanders. It results in a broadened focus where
leaders become independent learners. And it in-
cludes both civilian and military education.
Military institution training and PME in con-
junction with operational assignments will not
totally ensure Army warrant officers sustain the
degree of competency needed. Unfortunately, self-
development participation is often adversely im-
pacted by unit operational pace. The present WOES
and operational assignments are not developing
leadership and technical abilities adequately. There
is an atrophy of technical expertise due to stagna-
tion in assignments and evolving technology. As a
consequence, warrant officers are not receiving the
training necessary to remain current in their techni-
cal disciplines. Efforts must be explored to provide
for greater self-development to bridge the gap be-
tween warrant officer institutional and unit training
experiences.
The current warrant officer assessment un-
dertaken advocates a new breed of warrant officer
leader. As a cohort, can we accept something less
than this new hybrid of super professional? The
answer to this question is yes. It is unrealistic to
expect that the volunteer force will generate warrant
officer branch cohorts capable of identical tactical,
technical, teacher/trainer, leadership and cogni-
tive skill sets. We each possess different strengths
and weaknesses. Perhaps rather than organizational
excellence being the offshoot of individual capacity,
we need to adjust our thinking to team excellence as
the fundamental building block in our profession of
arms. We need only exam the success of our Special
Operations Forces to see the effectiveness of this
model.
The Army has been very successful in managing
this integration strategy which includes the integra-
tion and interface of initiatives and requirements
across the command, its component commands,
fellow combatant commands and multinational
partners. Our Army must be balanced. We must be
organized to be versatile; deployable enough to be
expeditionary; responsive enough to be agile; pre-
68 Spring - 2011
cise enough to be lethal; robust and protected enough
to be sustainable; and flexible enough to be interop-
erable with a wide range of partners.
These are the defining qualities of a balanced
Army. They describe not only the operating force, but
also the generating force. This forms the basis of this
modernization strategy.
The imperative for the Army is that we must
continuously and aggressively modernize our ca-
pabilities to ensure we remain the dominant force,
capable of operating in all environments across the
full spectrum of conflict, including: prevailing in
protracted counterinsurgency campaigns; helping
other nations build capacity; assuring our friends
and allies; supporting civil authorities; and defeating
varying threats.
Army leaders are beginning to give troops some
flexibility in adjusting approaches to better suit
uncertain conditions at the tactical, operational, and
strategic levels. The Army uses the term decentral-
ization in this context. Decentralization may allow
for greater flexibility of action within stabilization
and counter insurgency operations. Improved mili-
tary education in the more traditional sense in lead-
ership training as well as more formal trade training
will remain essential for militaries to manage the
ever changing environments in the world.
There exist signs and symptoms of exhaustion,
depression, and stress across mental, social, and
physical boundaries. We understand that stress is
tension produced by conditions in the work environ-
ment making negative impacts on ones psychological
or emotional well-being. The widely accepted causes
of stress in military life are attributable to such
things as deployments overseas, exposure to combat,
education and training and the threat of bodily harm.
The periodic permanent change of station, stationing
of personnel overseas, and lack of control over duty
assignments are other examples of factors that may
affect the mental health of its members.
This team of researchers discovered another
unique stressor often missed. Through less than opti-
mal levels of education and training, warrant officers
have difficulty keeping pace with the new technology
that the Army acquires from the civilian community.
Commanders in the past have been viewed as non-
supportive in allowing the senior warrant officers
the time and funds necessary to seek and obtain the
appropriate education and training required to meet
the level of understanding needed to accomplish
their assigned missions. Education and training on
the latest technologies has come at a very high cost to
units. This increases the stress on the technical advi-
sor to inform the command or produce a result that is
acceptable to the commanders intent or requirement.
Moral and Ethical Capacity
The military profession requires Soldiers to
discharge their professional duties in a moral and
ethical manner. Army leaders in particular are ob-
ligated to the American people to maintain profes-
sional competence and personal character. As mem-
bers of the profession of arms, leaders must exhibit
the qualities which mark service in the military as a
truly professional endeavor. These qualities include a
code of professional conduct, a high degree of com-
petence based on established and well regulated ex-
aminations of skill, education, and performance, and
self-regulation to purge those members who fail to
meet standards or demonstrate required professional
knowledge. Like other professions such as medicine
and law, the military also requires institutional train-
ing to develop a broad range of skills and a commit-
ment to continuous education.
Successful Army leaders have consistently pro-
moted strong morale, cohesion, and mental prepara-
tion in their subordinates. In units with strong bonds,
warrant officers reflect their leaders professional
values and report that core Soldier values are very
important to them. Without such bonding and posi-
tive leadership, some otherwise highly cohesive units
have adopted dysfunctional norms and behaviors.
This socialization process reflects the Soldiers inter-
nalization of these values as his or her own.
This includes a variety of scenarios such as lead-
ership in an organization, lack of knowledge and/
or experience conducive to the assignment, lack of
education, personal value system, strength of char-
acter, pay disparity between O grade officers and
W grade officers (and professional expectations
are on a higher level at times for warrant officer
i.e. working in O grade position or commensurate
responsibility but huge pay disparity). Moral/ethical
stressors can be levied at individual, organizational
or institutional levels.
The Army develops warrant officers as leaders
and technicians who embody the highest standards
of moral and ethical conduct. Warrant officers must
internalize, demonstrate and sustain a warrior ethos
that insists upon commitment to core institutional
values. The strengths that have sustained the war-
rant officer cohort are consistent with those of the
Army as they envelope leadership, expert knowledge,
integrity, service before self, and excellence. These
indispensable elements apply to the warrant officer
as leaders and technical professionals identifying
them as a profession of arms.
The Co-Authors of this article consist of a profes-
sional group of warrant officers,
who recently graduated from
the Warrant Officer Senior Staff
Course. Their combined total
military experience is equivalent
to 249 combined years of Army
service.
CW4 Diedra A. DeWitt is a Quar-
termaster Warrant Officer (920A)
and is currently assigned as a career
manager at Human Resources Com-
mand at Fort Knox, Ky. She holds a
Bachelor of Arts in History from Tay-
lor University and a Masters in Busi-
ness Administration from Indiana
Institute of Technology. She currently
has 30 total years of military service,
with 19 years as a Warrant Officer.

CW4 Meaghan Hatfield is currently
assigned as a warrant officer career
manager, HRCoE, Fort Knox, Ky.
She has been in the Human Resources
field for 29 years, holding posi-
tions at company, battalion, brigade,
PERSCOM and Human Resources
Command level as well as Acting
S1, MILPO and the 301st Maneuver
Enhancement Brigade, Fort Lewis,
Wash. She holds a Master of Science
degree in Behavioral Science from
Cameron University.
CW4 Patrick Muenks holds a Bach-
elor of Science degree and Masters of
Education degree from the University
of Missouri. He has completed 24
years service in the aviation career
field as an aviation safety officer,
instructor pilot and maintenance
test pilot and 18 years as a warrant
officer. CW4 Muenks is a member of
the Missouri Army National Guard
assigned as the Aviation Materiel
Officer for HHD, 1107th Aviation
Group. He is also employed as a full-
time military technician currently
serving as an Instructor Pilot for the
Christopher S. Bond Army Aviation
Support Facility, Fort Leonard Wood,
Mo.
CW4 Curtis Newkirk is currently
assigned to the Army Test and
Evaluation Command/Army Evalu-
ation Center, Alexandria, Va. He
is a graduate of the Basic Airborne
Course, the Warrant Officer Senior
Staff Course and holds a Bachelor
of Science Degree in History from
Methodist University in North
Carolina. He has 29 total years of
military service, with 15 years as a
warrant officer.
CW4 Mark A. Seels is a SIGINT
warrant officer (352N) and is cur-
rently assigned as the 470th Military
Intelligence Brigade intelligence col-
lection manager at Fort Sam Houston,
Texas. He currently has 24 total years
of military service with 12 years as a
warrant officer.
CW5 Heber L. Hyde is an ordi-
nance warrant officer (915E) and
is currently transitioning into the
position as command chief warrant
officer for the Utah National Guard,
Draper, Utah. He has 23 years as a
Warrant Officer with a total of 36
years service in the Army.
CW5 Troy A. DeGolyer holds the
MOS AH-64D SP/IE/GFR and is
currently assigned as the Mobile
Assistance Team chief, 21st Cavalry
Brigade (Air Combat), Fort Hood,
Texas. He has 23 total years of
Army Service with 22 of those as a
warrant officer.
CW5 Johnny Silva is an avia-
tion maintenance warrant officer
(151AE) and is currently assigned
as the aviation material officer at
Camp Humphrey, Korea. He holds
a Masters of Criminal Justice from
Tiffin University. He currently has
27 total years of military service
with 15 years as a Warrant Officer.
ATLDP Army Training and Leader Development Panel
CAPE Council for American Private Education
COCOM Combatant Command
COIN Counter Insurgency
FM Field Manual
GTA Graphic Training Aid
HCE Human Capital Enterprise
JAG Judge Advocate General
JIIM Joint, Interagency, Intergovernmental and
Multinational
PAM Pamphlet
TLE Training and Leader Education
TRADOC Training and Doctrine Command
TTP Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures
WOAC Warrant Offcer Basic Advance Course
WOES Warrant Offcer Education System
WOMOS Warrant Offcer Military Occupational
Specialties
ACRONYM QuickScan
Creating MSOffice SharePoint service account
managers without providing excessive control
By CW3 Eric Bray
Microsoft Office SharePoint
Service provides an easy, web
based platform for users to col-
laborate on the web, but efficient
user management out of the box
is lacking.
As an automations chief with
only a handful of administrators
few with any MOSS training or
experience - I cannot afford to
give away unrestricted permis-
sions to subordinate personnel
simply to add users to our portal
site. My unit has close to 7000
personnel in dispersed geo-
graphic locations throughout the
world. It is inefficient to require
system administrators to manage
portal accounts all day as users
relocate. If we allow subordinate
personnel the right to add users,
we risk creating more work for
system administrators because of
the need to maintain acceptable
knowledge management prac-
tices. Poor KM discipline leads
to SharePoint sprawl with data
spreading out in a disordered
fashion.
Over the last 18 months,
my team has been working with
a new work flow server by K2
called BlackPearl. The Black-
Pearl server is a workflow ap-
plication that can be installed
as a standalone server, or on the
backside of a Web front end. In
our case, the software is installed
on the back end of SharePoint.
We are still using MOSS07 but
plan to upgrade in the next year.
Presently we have created sev-
eral business Process Automa-
tions. However, the process we
are covering in this article is
known as On boarding. Fig-
ure 1 below is a depiction of
On boarding which allows non-
systems administrators to man-
age and create accounts with the
right permissions without losing
control of the website and reduc-
ing overall Sprawl.
The requirements for this
workflow are twofold. First,
on tactical platforms, we need
to give new users the ability to
request a new account with full
access rights (Active Directory,
Exchange, MOSS, and Adobe
Connect or AC) to a non-clas-
sified Internet protocol router/
secure Internet protocol router
platform by way of a Web page.
We are still testing this process
and have achieved with great
success even though a few bugs
remain. Overall we have greatly
reduced account creation and
processing time on deployments.
This request is auctioned, and ac-
curacy is verified, by the knowl-
edge management representative,
but access is not granted until a
review is completed by the sys-
tem administration or help desk
personnel. Secondly, on reach
back systems, the workflow must
also provide portal access to our
subordinate users who are not in
the same AD forest.
The current solution on
70 Spring - 2011
Figure 1. Onboarding
our NIPR reach back system (the latter) allows a
KMR to go to a portal site, and authorize a user
registration access rights in our portal. This is
accomplished by way of audience based participa-
tion. Presently this process is on a separate site
collection where the user can only see the accept-
able use policy and request access by filling out the
information required to establish a user account. No
personal identifiable information is allowed. This
information provides basic contact information and
the fields necessary to complete a DA 2875 System
Authorization Request as a paperless process.
To better illustrate the workload, our chemical,
biological, radiological, nuclear, and high yield ex-
plosives net portal has the root site (approximately
7 main groups), approximately 20 section sites (at
least three groups per site); each section having
anywhere from several to 10 sub-sites or Shops
(at least 3 groups per shop also). At this time, we
have about 300 SharePoint groups to manage on this
server alone.
A visitor only gets read access to the root, sec-
tion, and shop sites. The standard user gets root
site (read), section (read/write), and shop level
(read/write) access. The KMR (account / content
manager) has the same as a standard account,
plus the ability to approve new users for read/
write access to designated sites. The CBRNE net
site is designed to filter information usable and
relevant information into decision making mate-
rial. Therefore, site design is maintained at the
KM level and none of the users have the ability to
change the site (in order to avoid sprawl). We
will have internal sites later to enhance and en-
able creativity, but we j ust have not yet built that
out.
CW3 Eric Bray began his military career as an MLRS
fire direction specialist in Field Artillery in 1996.
In 2000, he transitioned to Aviation as a Blackhawk
pilot. He deployed in support of OIF three times. In
2008, he transitioned to Signal as a 254A. CW3 Bray
is MSCA, MSCE, and Security Plus certified and is
responsible for ensuring mission critical communica-
tions servers are up, secure and accessible to Soldiers
of the 20th Support Command, subordinate units and
inter-agency partners. He is the chief of automations,
knowledge management for the 20th Support Com-
mand and is currently working business process auto-
mations via workflow servers.
AC Adobe Connect
AD Active Directory
AKO Army Knowledge Online
AUP Acceptable Use Policy
BPA Business Process Automation
CBRNE Chemical, Biological,
Radiological, Nuclear, and High Yield
Explosives
KM Knowledge Management
KMR Knowledge Management
Representative
MOSS Microsoft Offce SharePoint
Service
NIPR Non-classifed Internet
Protocol Router Network
ACRONYM QuickScan
PII Personal Identifable Information
SAAR System Authorization
Request
SIPR Secure Internet Protocol Router
Network
SysAdmin System Administrator
WF Windows Workfow Foundation
Network Enterprise Centers help units prepare
for war long before they arrive downrange
By CW3 Jason Dunn
Today units have the author-
ity to train in garrison with their
battlefield command and control
system servers. They can have them
physically plugged into the garrison
installation campus area network
using the network enterprise center
provided backbone. This can be
accomplished if the unit coordinates
with the NEC and follows the guide-
lines established by TA 2006-006,
dated May 2007. This applies to all
operational forces; that is, any ele-
ment that has a deployable require-
ment.
Technical Authority 2006-006
is the TA signed by Network Enter-
prise Technology Command provid-
ing the technical guidance for prop-
erly connecting tactical units into a
NEC. Copies of this document can
be found by contacting AKO, at the
link below or your theater Signal
brigade/strategic Signal brigade,
respective theater Signal command,
NETCOM G5, or the author of this
document. (https://www.us.army.
mil/suite/doc/22333422). The TA
effectively lays out the procedures
and requirements that must be met
by the OF unit before being allowed
to connect in garrison to the ICAN.
Under this guidance all NECs are
required to accommodate OF in-
formation technology needs. This
does not give the OF the authority
to connect everything,, but it does
provide specific guidance for pro-
gram manager fielded systems and
several other scenarios that directly
support war fighter needs. All
systems must be on the CoN list and
must be IA compliant. Visit the link:
https://www.us.army.mil/suite/
page/137030.
The TA has good overall detail,
but can be confusing to new read-
ers. One of the key requirements
of approval to connect is ensuring
a healthy IA posture. This can be
accomplished through the service
level agreement or a memorandum
of agreement that is completed
between the OF and the network
service provider.
In the SLA/MOA, it should be
specifically spelled out how a unit
will ensure IA compliance through
detailed scans and how these scans
will be reported to the installation
IAM, and exactly which tools will
be used. There are two acceptable
methods to accomplish this. One
method allows the NEC access to
conduct scans and the other is for
the unit to conduct routine internal
scans and forward the results to the
72 Spring - 2011
Signal Soldiers with the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment and 63rd Expeditionary
Signal Battalion setting up a communications site at the National Training Center.
installation IAM. While both methods have merit, I
would encourage every S6 to conduct and report his/
her own scans. This will allow units to become very
familiar with the process and help sustain this capabil-
ity with operations and training when the unit deploys.
Either method will need to be clearly articulated and
agreed upon by the both the unit S6 and the IAM. Note
if an agreement cannot be met on this or any related
issue, then the supporting theater Signal brigade/com-
mand should be notified and a request for further guid-
ance generated. Often a simple phone call between the
network enterprise support team leadership, brigade,
or Signal command, and the NEC / OF can quickly
resolve any discrepancy.
Other key components of the TA are the issue of
persistent, but nearly empty state of the AD orga-
nizational unit structure. This basically means that
the current AD OU structure should only have a few
administration accounts populated. The original intent
was OF units who needed to deploy to the field for any
operations or training would coordinate with NEC and
receive a copy of their user populated garrison OUs
via an approved provisioning tool (e.g., Electronic
Data Systems Provisioning) prior to movement. This
would be done in conjunction with the de-advertise-
ment of the IP scope and other pre-movement require-
ments. Obviously this inhibits rapid deployment capa-
bility. It is under review to be completely removed in
the next iteration of the TA.
At this time, the current OU provisioning tool,
EDS-P has not been approved by the CIO-G6. Thus
units will continue operating a fully populated OU
structure. However, just because units will have fully
functional servers and full OU structures, does not
mean that units should replace their NEC as the pri-
mary service provider. The TA does not support an OF
unit being its own service provider while in garrison.
This does provide a means for your systems to main-
tain a fight upon arrival capable and that a small
number of system administrators should be both train-
ing and maintaining these servers on a regular basis. It
is NOT the intent of FORSCOM or NETCOM for any
unit to operate as its primary service provider while in
garrison. These systems should always be online and
updating. Server training in garrison is highly recom-
mended and encouraged.
TA 2006-006 is currently under revision. Updated
drafts are under development by NETCOM G5 and
should be up for approval soon. A working group was
established and input was provided by 7TH Signal
Command, FORSCOM, PEO-C3T, and others to help
develop a revised version that is more current with our
current systems and structures. NETCOM G5 has the
lead to refresh the TA and publish expanded guidance.
Until the new TA is published, NECs are still referring
to the original copy signed by BG [Carroll F.] Pollett
[commanding general U.S. Army Network Enterprise
Technology command] in May 2007. This version has
many antiquated names and does not reflect the cur-
rent naming structure of NETCOM and FORSCOM.
All references to regional chief information operations
should be replaced by strategic Signal brigade. All
references to department of information management
should be replaced by NEC. Also deployable forces are
currently being referred to as operation forces.
CW3 Jason K. Dunn is assigned as the current operations
technician for the 93rd Signal Brigade (Strategic), 7th Sig-
nal Command, Fort Eustis, Va. He has served as an S6 tech-
nician and specialist in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 25th Infantry
Divisions. He spent 27 months in Iraq as part of OIF III
and V as a member of 3rd BCT, 3ID. He will complete his
bachelors degree in IT management from AMU this year.
He spent nine years as a 31U/25U prior to his appointment
as a warrant officer in 2004. He graduated the Warrant Of-
ficer Advanced Course in 2009.
AD Active Directory
ATC Approval to Connect
BG Brigadier General
BCCS Battlefeld Command and
Control System
BDE - Brigade
CMD Command
CoN Certifcate of Networthiness
DF- Deployable Forces (replaced by
OF in newer versions)
DOIM Department of Information
Management
EDS-P Electronic Data Systems
Provisioning
FOB Forward Operations Base
FORSCOM Forces Command
FY Fiscal Year
IAM Information Assurance
Manager
ICAN Installation Campus Area
Network
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
NEC Network Enterprise Center
NEST Network Enterprise Support
ACRONYM QuickScan
Team
NETCOM Network Enterprise
Technology Command
OF Operational Force
OU Organizational Unit
PM Program Manager
RCIO Regional Chief Information
Operations
SC Signal Command
SLA Service Level Agreement
SSB Strategic Signal Brigade
TA Technical Authority
ESB network management paradigm shifts
By CW2 Joshua Callahan
Leaders of the Signal Regiment
have made it clear that they want
to encourage creative solutions for
future programs and technologies
that improve shortfalls with todays
units and systems.
The expeditionary Signal bat-
talion has been fully engaged in the
operational battle order since July
2007. The operational requirements
have ranged from assignments sup-
porting regiments at the headquar-
ters level, military transition teams,
brigade combat teams augmentation
and Striker BCTs, to joint support
with Homeland Defense/Homeland
Security missions. The ESB has also
provided strategic support to tacti-
cal technical control facilities. To
provide this support they have been
detailed into every level including,
team, expeditionary Signal compa-
ny, battalion minus and everywhere
in between.
The job of network operations
over the past few years has been dif-
ficult and frustrating. The amount of
tools available is not the issue. The
major concern is determination of
whos in control and whos respon-
sible? The known assumption is
that the battalion staff will always
go where the battalion commander
goes, and with that staff comprises
the NETOPS section. As network
managers, one of our many respon-
sibilities is to provide the command-
er networked command and control
world-wide. No matter where the
commander is, or where command
assets are located, providing situ-
ational awareness and/or network
management for the commander is
essential.
Using the recent operational
tempo of one ESB over a two year
span, one can gain an understand-
ing of how disassociated the unit
can become. Immediately after being
fielded Joint Network Node equip-
ment, one unit deployed to Iraq as
a battalion minus for 15 months.
Another ESC, which deployed a few
months earlier, supported a regi-
mental headquarters for 15 months.
The battalions mission was multi-
faceted, providing support across
three separate divisions as well as
connectivity between strategic
TCFs in-country. The battalion then
redeployed to the United States
and was hurriedly pushed through
the reset program in order to pro-
vide support for an 18-month joint
task force-civil support chemical,
biological, radiological, nuclear,
and high yield explosives mission.
The previously deployed ESC was
tasked yet again to prepare for yet
another deployment in support of a
Regimental headquarters. This was
separate from the battalion and the
battalions Army Force Generation
cycle. Once the battalion completed
the 18-month JTF-CS mission, its
remaining two ESCs were tasked to
deploy to two separate theaters sup-
porting two separate missions.
In light of this operational tempo,
technical and personnel changes
could go a long way in providing a
more solid network C2 for an ESB
commander whose assets are con-
tinually engaged in missions across
the globe.
First, each ESC should be as-
signed a WO1/CW2 255N. An ESCs
BCT (which is smaller in asset size)
is afforded a 255N. If an ESC can de-
ploy autonomous from the battalion
it seems reasonable that it should be
afforded no less. The recent Signal
Functional Area Assessment recom-
mended course of action, currently
out for world-wide staffing, sug-
gests this personnel move within the
ESB.
Second, an ESB could estab-
lish a network operations center
at its home station, utilizing the
74 Spring - 2011
Diagram 1
Global Network Enterprise
Construct. Doing this would
provide situational awareness
for a commander whose as-
sets can be engaged in separate
missions across the globe at any
given time. The GNEC provides
a global plug-and-play ability
to connect to Army, joint and
commercial networks through all
phases of joint operations. Lever-
aging this capability will enable
an ESB commander to maintain
a sufficient level of situational
awareness regardless of where
command assets are throughout
the world. This capability in-
creases exponentially when an
ESB runs concurrent missions in
both CONUS and overseas. The
degrees by which a commander
maintains network C2 can be
adjusted and maintained from
one central location. In addition,
by maintaining a home station
NOC, the battalion can afford
those key individuals the opportunity to maintain per-
ishable skills operating the battalion level NETOPS suite
of equipment. It also allows for the equipment to stay
current and updated on key patches, Information As-
surance Vulnerability Alert updates, etc. The equipment
would always remain on, maintaining a constant state
of readiness should the NETOPS cell need to deploy from
its home station.
In the current operational environment NETOPS
control for non-organic Signal units is being pulled away
from the battalions and brigades and continues to be con-
solidated at the higher, joint levels. This will not always
be the case, however, as situations compel the need to be
prepared for a push into a new engagement, to fight in
an unconventional conflict, or provide support to the
ongoing HLD/HLS missions. With these possibilities
at hand the ESBs NETOPS must be prepared and ca-
pable to provide the commander solid and thorough
network C2 anywhere, at anytime, and to any degree.
CW2 Joshua Callahan has served as an instructor/ writer
for the School of Information Technology, Fort Gordon,
Ga., since October 2009. He recently was assigned as
a training with industry officer working with General
Dynamics C4 Systems. Prior to that CW2 Callahan was
the network management technician for the 63rd Expedi-
tionary Signal Battalion Fort Gordon, were he fielded and
deployed for 15 months with the Armys first ESB.
ARFORGEN Army Force
Generation
BN Battalion
BDE Brigade
C2 Command and Control
CBRNE Chemical, Biological,
Radiological, Nuclear, and High Yield
Explosives
CONUS Continental United States
ESB Expeditionary Signal Battalion
ESC Expeditionary Signal
Company
FAA Functional Area Assessment
GNE Global Network Enterprise
GNEC Global Network Enterprise
Construct
HLD Homeland Defense
HLS Homeland Security
ACRONYM QuickScan
HQ Headquarters
IAVA Information Assurance
Vulnerability Alert
JNN Joint Network Node
JTF-CS Joint Task Force-Civil
Support
MiTT Military Transition Team
NETOPS Network Operations
NOC Network Operations Center
TCF Technical Control Facility
Diagram 2
Charging toward an even brighter future
By CW4 Richard C. Myers and
Not the same, but equal is a
good way to describe the warrant
officer corps in relation to our O-
grade cohorts.
Members of the Warrant Offi-
cer Career College in collaboration
with the Senior Warrant Officer
Advisory Council are continu-
ing efforts to ensure the under-
standing that we are not trying to
become the same as our O-grade
officer counterparts, but rather
seeking to be treated with equal
recognition in all aspects such as
protocol, etiquette, housing, and
evaluation reporting, etc.
The Problem at Hand
Since its formal inception on
July 9th, 1918 the Army warrant
officer rank has existed in a state
of ambiguity. In fact, in 1921 there
was one rank (the Eagle Rising)
with two pay grades. Years later,
the Career Compensation Act of
1949 provided two new pay rates
for warrant officers. The desig-
nations of warrant officer junior
grade and chief warrant officer
were retained. However, the grade
of chief warrant officer was pro-
vided with pay rates of W2, W3
and W4. Throughout this period it
was commonplace to associate all
warrant officers as equal regard-
less of pay rate.
A whole new era for warrant
officers began when the Army
chief of staff chartered the Depart-
ment of the Army Total Warrant
Officer Study Group in September
1984. This was the first DA-level
comprehensive study of warrant
officer management. A key ele-
ment of TWOS was coding of posi-
tions in authorization documents
by rank. This provided a distinct
requirement and clearly recog-
nized the progressive increase in
expertise and responsibility.
The Army has made tremen-
dous strides with the formal
integration of warrant officers into
the officer corps. In fact, the Army
has combined the officer and war-
rant officer corps in many areas,
such as Professional Military Edu-
cation, Officer Evaluation Reports,
and wearing of branch insignia.
This integration is in keeping with
the recommendations outlined in
the July 2002 Chief of Staff of the
Army chartered Army Training
and Leader Development Panel-
Warrant Officer Study Final Re-
port. Nonetheless, this merger is
only partially complete.
One critical aspect of the effort
to form a single officer corps that
the Army has not formally ad-
dressed is the delineation of the
precedence of WO ranks in numer-
ous publications (e.g., DA Pam-
phlet 600-60).
The truth of the matter is that
times are changing faster now for
the warrant officer cohort than at
any other time in the Armys his-
tory. Senior warrant officers are
serving at all levels of command
to include the Army chief of staff
level where the senior warrant of-
ficer advisor serves as an AXO to
the CSA.
The U.S. Army National
Guard, U.S. Army Reserves, and
all states have command chief
warrant officers. Each branch
has a CWOB or regimental chief
warrant officer. The WOCC has
a senior warrant officer deputy
commandant. The Combined Arms
Command has a command warrant
officer. Special Forces has a regi-
mental and group chief warrant
officer.
Senior warrant officers fill
numerous other high-level strate-
gic and operational level positions.
However, the Army has not for-
mally acknowledged these signifi-
cant historical gains by updating
its regulations. Indisputably,
the warrant officer role and level
of responsibility has expanded
greatly. Current protocols do not
appropriately reflect those chang-
es.
The lack of official clarifica-
tion of warrant officer precedence
in Army regulations sets a stage
for inconsistent treatment of war-
rant officers from one installation
to the next. Installations normally
address order of precedence in in-
stallation standing operating pro-
cedures. The lack of clarity and
standardization for warrant officer
precedence is not merely an issue
of recognition or equity. Rather,
it affects a multitude of duty roles
and responsibilities such as staff
duty, field officer of the day, in-
spector general activities, financial
liability officers, and investigating
officers, etc.
Based on the decision by Army
leaders that warrant officers will
be fully integrated into the officer
corps, integration actions should
go forward in a deliberate, for-
mal, and meaningful manner. The
delineation of precedence should
address how warrant officers
will be categorized by rank with
respect to officer utilization and
recognition. The questions of duty
rosters, boards (e.g. administrative
action, courts martial, etc.) and
housing authorizations should be
addressed.
76 Spring - 2011
What Has Changed and
What it Means
There have been a number of small changes over
the last several years that appear very promising to
the WOCC/SWOAC and all warrant officers. One
example is outlined in DA PAM 420-1-1 (Housing
Management). In the past, all warrant officers were
characterized as company grade officers. In most
cases this works well. Many post commanders, how-
ever, would offer field grade officer housing to W3s
and above; but not all.
The current regulation now delineates tri-ser-
vice-sizing benchmarks by pay grade and number
of bedrooms under five categories: (1) General/flag
officer (O-7 and above); (2) Senior officer (O-6); (3)
Field grade officers (O-4 and O-5), warrant officers
(WO4 and WO5), and senior Non-Commissioned Of-
ficer (NCO) (E-9); (4) Company grade officers (O-1
through O-3), warrant officers (WO1 through WO3),
and senior NCOs (E-7 and E-8); and (5) Junior NCOs
(E-5 and E-6) and private (E-1) through corporal/
specialist (E-4).
While some have said this is a success story and
the beginnings of a formal delineation of precedence
for warrant officer ranks, a closer look indicates
several inadequacies (similar to the inadequacies of
Army Regulation (AR) 420-1). One recommendation
by the WOCC/SWOAC is for CW5s serving as regi-
mental chief warrant officers, chief warrant officer
of the branches, the command chief warrant officer
of the reserves, the command chief warrant officer
of the National Guard, or in any of the three- and
four-star nominative positions should be considered
key and essential personnel and, therefore, accorded
senior grade housing.
Additionally noted is an officer in the grade of
CW3 who would (under the old informal system) of-
ten be assigned field grade housing. So, in the case of
housing, W3s are given company grade officer cor-
relation while W4s and W5s are afforded field grade
officer correlation. That does not make W4s and W5s
field grade officers. We are not the same; nor should
we be. I, even as the RCWO, do not have anywhere
near the same level of responsibility (or authority)
as a battalion or brigade commander. However, even
though we are not the same, this division begins to
provide an equality in delineations with the w-grade
ranks as compared to the o-grade and enlisted ranks.
(Should this be inequality?
But what about the W3? AR 623-3 (Evaluation
Reporting System) mandates the use of the Develop-
mental Support Form (DA) Form 67-9-1a) to support
developmental actions and integrate it with perfor-
mance for officers in the rank CPT/LT (company
grade officers) and warrant officers in the rank of
CW2/WO1. The only place in official Army guidance
that specifically addresses the point of delineation
precedence by rank is in the mandate for the imple-
mentation and use of the Developmental Support
Form. The use of the DSF as outlined in AR 623-3
and DA PAM 623-3, Chapter 2-2, for all company
grade officers is mandated. Company grade of-
ficers were identified in the instructions as WO1s,
CW2s, 2LTs, 1LTs, and CPTs. Thus, based on the
DSF implementation guidance, WO1s and CW2s are
considered equivalent to company grade officers
while all CW3s, CW4s, and CW5s are categorized as
possessing significant experience and, although not
identified as field grade or higher officers (i.e., not
the same), implicitly recognized as being equivalent
to field grade officers (but equal). The intent of the
DSF is widely understood and, although it was not
intended as a tool to identify an officers standing
within the officer corps, it does demonstrate the
awareness and appreciation the Army has for war-
rant officers vast experience.
Furthermore, AR 623-3 states that Part VIIb will
not be completed on MGs, CPTs, LTs, CW5s, CW2s,
and WO1s. An electronically generated label that
states No Box Check will be placed over the boxes
in Part VIIb by HQDA. This section of AR 623-3
makes a number of critical points relative to prece-
dence of officer ranks.
First, it clearly infers that WO1/CW2 are equiva-
lent to company grade officers by allowing the rater
and senior rater the opportunity to develop and
mentor young officers without the worry of Box
Checks.
Secondly, it infers that the ranks of CW3 and
CW4 closely correlate to the ranks of MAJ and LTC
in terms of status. Both have matured within their
functional areas by serving in a variety of profes-
sionally rewarding positions that are ultimately
preparing them to serve in senior level military posi-
tions.
Finally, CW5s, similar to MGs, do not receive a
Box Check on evaluation reports. Evaluations are
not required for CW5s serving in nominative three-
star and four-star level positions. Regardless of the
level at which they serve, CW5s have reached the
pinnacle of their profession. This regulation recog-
nizes that success.
Another recommendation the WOCC/SWOAC
is offering suggests that all regulations and publi-
cations conform to the following equivalency stan-
dard: (1) WO1/CW2: Company Grade Officers (2LT
through CPT), (2) CW3/CW4:
Field Grade Officers (MAJ/LTC),
and (3) CW5: Senior Grade Offi-
cers (COL).
AR 600-89 (GEN Douglas
MacArthur Leadership Award
Program) is another benchmark for
use in such delineation of warrant
officer ranks. According to this AR
candidates must meet the follow-
ing criteria: (1) be company grade
officers in the rank of second lieu-
tenant (2LT), first lieutenant (1LT),
captain (CPT), warrant officer
one (WO1), or chief warrant of-
ficer two (CW2) in the U.S. Army.
Captains or CW2s must not be on
a promotion list to major or CW3,
respectively, as of 31 December of
the calendar year considered. The
nomination criterion clearly elimi-
nates the possibility of CW3 and
above competing for the GDMLAP
even though there is no formal rec-
ognition of warrant officers of any
rank as field grade officers. The
WOCC/SWOAC agrees that W3s
and above should not be eligible
for the GDMLAP. However, we do
seek formal recognition in appro-
priate regulations identifying W3
and above as possessing a correla-
tion to field grade status; again,
not the same, but equal.
AR 385-10 (The Army Safety
Program) currently reads, The
president of the board will be
a field grade officer (W4/W5 is
considered field grade) or an
Army civilian, familiar with the
type of operation, in the grade of
GS12 or higher. AR 385-10 is one
more reference that supports the
WOCC/SWOAC position on for-
mal delineation of precedence of
w-grade ranks. Specifically, this
regulation recognizes W4/W5
as equivalent to field grade as well
as GS-12 or higher. When consid-
ered with other regulations such
as DA PAM 600-60 (A Guide to
Protocol and Etiquette for Official
Entertainment) where warrant of-
ficers are placed lower in order of
precedence than GS-7s, the incon-
sistency becomes apparent. This
inconsistency fosters confusion
and widespread misunderstand-
ing about the order of precedence
for warrant officers. The WOCC/
SWOAC recommendation is to
replace W4/W5 with CW3 thru
CW5 and use the order of prece-
dence outlined in this regulation
to update DA PAM 600-60 as noted
below.
What Has Not Changed and
What it Means
AR 420-1 (Army Facilities
Management) still maintains
family housing designations for
occupancy as follows: (1) General
and flag officers (O10 through O7);
(2) Senior grade officers (O6); (3)
Field grade officers (O5, O4, CW5,
and CW4); and (4) Company grade
officers (O3 through O1, CW3
through WO1). As noted above,
this structure is incongruent
with that provided in other pub-
lications. This type of disparity
continues to create confusion as to
the recognition of warrant offi-
cers. This supports the perception
that the warrant officer cohort is
simply an appendage of the officer
corps that, as a whole, is not fully
integrated.
AR 15-6 (Procedures for In-
vestigation Officers and Boards of
Officers) currently reads, Who
may be appointed. Investigating
officers and board members shall
be those persons who, in the opin-
ion of the appointing authority,
are best qualified for the duty by
reason of their education, train-
ing, experience, length of service
and temperament. (1) Except as
provided in paragraph 51e, only
commissioned officers, warrant of-
ficers, or Department of the Army
civilian employees permanently
assigned to a position graded as a
GS13 or above will be appointed
as investigating officers or voting
members of boards. The wording
of this paragraph places warrant
officers in the same category as
GS-13s, clearly supporting that
warrant officers should not be
placed in order of precedence
below GS-7s as is done in DA PAM
600-60. Again, placement of WOs
at different precedence levels in
different Army publications makes
it extremely difficult to identify
the warrant officers standing
within the Army. This regulations
implication that WO1s are equiva-
lent to GS-13s appears to be ap-
propriate in that many GS-13 civil
service jobs are non-supervisory
journeyman, whereas their profes-
sional supervisory equivalent is a
WO1 (for example, the 1811GS-13
Criminal Investigator as compared
to the 311A Army Criminal Inves-
tigator).
The WOCC/SWOAC consid-
ers AR 15-6 another success story
in that it supports our request for
formal delineation of order of pre-
cedence for warrant officer ranks.
The wording of the regulation
acknowledges that warrant offi-
cers are professional Soldiers who
possess the prerequisite leader-
ship attributes and characteristics
to execute sensitive duties such
as investigating officers duties.
However, the term commissioned
or warrant officers should be
changed to O-grade or W-grade
officers as all warrant officers in
the grade of CW2 and above are
commissioned officers. The current
wording creates confusion.
AR 600-60 (Physical Perfor-
mance Evaluation System) states
that the convening authority will
ensure all cases forwarded by the
MOS/Medical Retention Board are
reviewed. The review of the cases
may be delegated to an officer
on the MMRB convening author-
itys staff in the grade of major or
higher or CW4. Again, this regula-
tion correlates a warrant officer
rank with that of a field grade
officer. However, the use of CW4
in lieu of MAJ is inconsistent with
the whole of the WOCC/SWOACs
premise and the recommended
order of precedence and as such
CW4 should be replaced by CW3.
These are not all of the pub-
lications the WOCC/SWOAC is
reviewing, nor are these all recom-
mended changes. Field Manual
78 Spring - 2011
22-6 (Guard Duty), AR 20-1 (Inspector General
Activities and Procedures), AR 570-4 (Manpower
Management), AR 405-7 (Facilities and Areas Poli-
cies), DA PAM 735-5 (Financial Liability Officers
Guide), and AR 27-10 (Military Justice) are also be-
ing reviewed with numerous changes recommended
due to their inconsistencies, errors in wording, and
equating W5s with O3s and GS-10s, for example.
One final example is relevant. DA PAM 600-60
(A Guide to Protocol and Etiquette for Official Enter-
tainment) contains a table which lists the precedence
of civilian and military persons and places all war-
rant officers under VIP Code 8 of 8, between second
lieutenants / GS-07s and master sergeants. Based on
this pamphlet, WO1 through CW5 are categorized
as one entity and accorded a lower precedence than
2LTs and GS-7s. However, command sergeants major
and all of the O-grade officers are individually bro-
ken out.
As highlighted throughout this article and vali-
dated by numerous regulations, CW3s and CW4s
routinely supervise and rate civilian employees.
CW5s are nominated to serve as the RCWO/CWOB
for school commandants, usually a commanding
general, in 15 Army branches, and the Army chief of
staff has senior warrant officer advisor. In essence,
the CW5 RCWO/CWOB is entitled to no true proto-
col etiquette, although the other two members of the
command team CG and CSM--receive full protocol
privileges at functions which they all attend.
The reality for warrant officers is that we regu-
larly experience protocol issues, even ones as simple
as seating arrangements at military ceremonies,
funding for attending official military events, and
billeting while on TDY. Installation protocol per-
sonnel routinely lack the guidance to appropriately
delineate treatment of warrant officers. In most cases
protocol personnel fail to acknowledge warrant of-
ficers at all.
I am extremely proud to say that the Signal
Center of Excellence command group protocol team
members have done their utmost to take care of me
as well as all other warrant officers visiting Fort
Gordon. When one considers the fact that DA PAM
600-60 suggests that the RCWO of the Signal Regi-
ment serving at the two-star level is accorded a
lower precedence than a 2LT serving as a platoon
leader, it becomes extremely evident that the pam-
phlet is outdated.
This failure to specify an order of precedence for
warrant officer ranks in keeping with their desig-
nation as officers and their levels of responsibility
continues to drive a wedge among cohorts. The
recognition warrant officers receive for rising to the
top of their profession is decidedly unequal. This is
incongruent with delineation of order of precedence
for other cohorts. Unless the Army directly and
specifically addresses these issues, the inconsistency
will continue. The WOCC/SWOAC will continue ad-
dressing these issues.
In DA PAM 600-60 we recommend that the pro-
tocol precedence for warrant officers be addressed
using the company grade, field grade, and senior
grade officers construct outlined below and that po-
sitions such as RCWO and all nominative positions
be addressed as is done with CSM duty positions.
Recommended Changes to Appendix D Prece-
dence List: warrant officer ranks should be broken
down individually with the recommended equiva-
lency listed below:
WO1: Company Grade Officers Equivalent to 1LT
Falling Under VIP Code 8
CW2: Company Grade Officers Equivalent to CPT
Falling Under VIP Code 8
CW3: Field Grade Officers Equivalent to MAJ Fall-
ing Under VIP Code 8
CW4: Field Grade Officers Equivalent to LTC Fall-
ing Under VIP Code 8
CW5: Senior Officers Equivalent to COL Falling
Under VIP Code 7
Specific Position Precedence:
011A Nominative Positions equal to the level for
which they serve
Senior Warrant Officer Advisor to the CSA: VIP
Code 4 (Same as SMA)
Senior Warrant Officer Advisor to VCSA: VIP Code 5
Senior Warrant Officer Advisor to the Secretary of
the Army: VIP Code 5
Deputy Commandant Warrant Officer Career Col-
lege: VIP Code 7
CASCOM Senior Warrant Officer: VIP Code 7
Regimental Chief Warrant Officers/Chief Warrant
Officers of the Branch: VIP Code: 7
Chief Warrant Officers of the State: VIP Code: 7
Some Final Thoughts
The formal integration of warrant officers into the
officer corps as outlined in the July 2002 Army chief
of staff chartered ATLDP-WO Study resulted in
a need for the Army to re-examine its established
system for recognizing warrant officers. According
to US Code Title 10, Subtitle B, Part II, Chapter 345,
Section 3575 Warrant officers rank next below sec-
ond lieutenants and rank among themselves within
each warrant officer grade under regulations to be
prescribed by the Secretary of the Army.
It is acknowledged that the warrant officer co-
hort fully understands that a newly commissioned
2LT will always outrank the most senior CW5 in
the same manner that the 2LT outranks the SMA.
However, those fortunate enough to have achieved
noteworthy ranks such as general officers, colonels,
lieutenant colonels, sergeant major of the Army,
command sergeant major, and
sergeant major are all accorded
honorary privileges that CW3s,
CW4s, and CW5s are not accorded.
The premise of recognition
sought refers to whatever duty or
responsibility is accorded that sta-
tus field officer of the day, hous-
ing, parking, event protocol, and
etiquette, not seniority in rank.
By standardizing protocol regula-
tions, the Army will remove the
current inconsistencies for warrant
officers in comparison to the of-
ficer and noncommissioned officer
cohorts. Therefore, the purpose of
the WOCC/SWOAC emphasis is to
obtain CSA approval to update all
regulations, pamphlets, and poli-
cies regarding the formal delinea-
tion of the precedence of Army
warrant officers.
Formally addressing this issue
will require a significant cultural
change for the Army including of-
ficers, warrant officers, NCOS, and
civilians. It was the ATLDP-WO
Study Final Report, which high-
lighted the necessity for cultural
change to how warrant officers
are recognized, utilized, managed,
and educated. In support of our
request for clarification of warrant
officer precedence the ATLDP-WO
study states, It is also about the
practices and policies that dilute
their efforts and detract from their
remarkable, selfless, and honor-
able service to the Nation. Ad-
ditionally, the report discusses
how the Army must implement the
ATLDP recommendations in their
entirety to receive the synergistic
benefits. Therefore, correcting the
warrant officer precedence dis-
parity is a significant step toward
meeting the recommendation of
this report and an essential ingre-
dient to successfully integrating
warrant officers into the larger
officer corps.
What This Will Mean
If approved, there will be a re-
quirement to update Army as well
as local regulations and policies.
There is no impact on equipment,
funding, environment, or station-
ing. The major impact will be on
the utilization of warrant officers.
A subset of this recommendation
will be an unambiguous order of
precedence that establishes dis-
tinction amongst ranks within the
warrant officers cohort.
In the past, warrant officer
ranks have been bundled together
as one rank whereas the other
cohorts specifically address their
senior personnel and the recogni-
tion of each of those ranks. By
clarifying order of precedence for
warrant officers, the Army would
pave the way for warrant offi-
cers to truly become a part of the
greater officer corps. This would
ultimately impact the warrant offi-
cer component of the officer corps
significantly, clearly conveying the
message that warrant officers truly
are integrated and, as such, profes-
sionals that the Army values and
recognizes.
Those of us who are Quiet
Professionals stand ready to
continue our service to our Sol-
diers, commanders, our Army,
and this great Nation. We serve
with honor and take great pride in
our contributions as Soldiers and
warrant officers. However, we are
convinced that the lack of Army-
wide understanding of the level
of expertise and experience that
we bring to the table negatively
impacts our ability to fully serve
at the level and to the degree to
which we are capable. Because of
this conviction, we humbly request
that the Armys senior leadership
continue and, if possible, acceler-
ate the positive progression to-
ward formally recognizing war-
rant officers standing among the
other cohorts. Toward that end,
revision of DA PAM 600-60 should
be a matter of urgency. If the
Army is to successfully integrate
the warrant officer cohort into the
Officer Corps, it must revise/re-
write this pamphlet immediately.
This ongoing concern is not
about becoming the same as any other
cohort, but rather seeks equality in
setting a formal recognition of delinea-
tion within the warrant offcer ranks.
It would be unfortunate to take
away from this article the idea that the
warrant offcer cohort is looking for a
set of increasing privileges. This is far
more encompassing than privileges.
This is a necessary step toward clari-
fcation, recognition and duty. With
the earned position of senior rank,
warrant offcers must be empowered
to assume greater responsibility and
exercise greater authority
In a previous letter to the Regi-
ment in the front of the Army Com-
municator, I related how on several
occasions my fight reservations were
bungled, during my travels through
Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq. How-
ever, as a CW5, I was also given a seat
on the fight because I was afforded
category 1 status on military fights.
This status has always been extended
to colonels, sergeants major and com-
mand sergeants major, but not always
for CW5s.
Some might view this as a privi-
lege. However, my itinerary was
packed with visits to senior level
commanders and operating units. The
daily battle rhythm was interrupted to
meet my published itinerary. There-
fore, I was responsible to be where I
was supposed to be, when I was sup-
posed to be there.
In other words, there is more at
stake here than a parking spot at the
post exchange.

CW4 Richard C. Myers is
currently assigned as the proponent
officer at the Warrant Officer Career
College, Fort Rucker, Ala. His previ-
ous assignments include 1st ID, 1st
AD, 3rd ID, 4th ID, and 24th ID.
CW4 Myers has multiple deployments
and overseas assignments to include
Iraq, Kuwait, Kosovo, and Germany.
He is a graduate of ILE, Army Force
Management Course, and Warrant
Officer Senior Staff Course. CW4
Myers holds a Master of Business Ad-
ministration from Touro University.
He has 22 years of military service
with 13 years as a warrant officer.
80 Spring - 2011
Several articles in this edi-
tion are written or edited by CW5
Todd M. Boudreau.
CW5 Boudreau is the third
Signal Regimental chief warrant
offcer.
Previously he served as the
Signal warrant offcer proponent
manager, Offce Chief of Signal,
U.S. Army Signal Center of Excel-
lence and Fort Gordon, Ga.
He enlisted in the Army
in 1983 and attended Strategic
Microwave Maintainer-Repairer
(26V) advanced individual train-
ing at Fort Gordon.
Before his appointment as a
warrant offcer, he completed the
Primary Leadership Development
Course, Noncommissioned Offcer
Academy, Camp Jackson, South
Korea, and the Basic Noncommis-
sioned Offcer Course, Noncom-
missioned Offcer Academy, Fort
Gordon. He received his warrant
offcer appointment in 1990.
His enlisted assignments include
the 36th Signal Battalion, Korea and
the Alternate National Military Com-
mand Center (Site-R), Md. His past
warrant offcer assignments include
maintenance offcer for the 6th The-
ater Signal Command, Saudi Arabia;
station manager for the Fort Detrick
Satellite Complex, Md; training,
advising and counseling offcer at Fort
Rucker, Ala; offcer in charge of the
Standardized Tactical Entry Point
and Communications Complex at Fort
Buckner, Okinawa, Japan; communi-
cations offcer for the Supreme Allied
Commander, Supreme Headquarters
Allied Powers Europe, Belgium; and
satellite systems engineering offcer,
Defense Information Systems Agency
Europe, Stuttgart, Germany.
CW5 Boudreau is a recipient of
the Bronze Star Medal, two Defense
Meritorious Service Medals, fve
Army Meritorious Service Medals,
two Army Commendation Medals,
three Army Achievement Medals,
two Army Good Conduct Medals,
National Defense Service Medal
with Bronze Star, Southwest Asia
Medal with three Bronze Service
Stars, Global War on Terrorism
Service Medal, Korea Defense
Service Medal, Saudi/Kuwait Lib-
eration Medal, Kuwait Liberation
Medal, Meritorious Unit Citation,
Army Superior Unit Award, Mili-
tary Outstanding Volunteerism
Medal, and the Drivers/Mechanics
Badge. He also received the Signal
Corps Regimental Associations
Order of Mercury.
He is married to the former
Soonja Yoon and has two sons,
Patrick who is a senior Airman
currently stationed in Korea and
Jesse who works as the foor man-
ager of the Panzer Kaserne Service
Federal Credit Union.
CW5 Boudreau also serves as
the associate pastor for Augusta
First Assembly of God.
Author Credit
Opinions and comments from Army Communicator readers are highly valued. If you have a question or an opinion
about something you read in Army Communicator, send an e-mail to the editor at [email protected]. Please
include your full name and unit. Items may be published and are subject to editing for style, clarity, accuracy, length
and propriety.
You can also visit https://signallink.army.mil to join an online discussion allowing you to go directly to an article and
follow the string of comments. Voice your opinion or suggest areas of concern for future coverage. This evolving
beta test site is designed to make it quick and easy for you to connect your ideas for improving the information
provided.
You, Army Communicator reader are our most important resource. How are we doing? How can we
serve you better?
We want to hear from you!

2011Vol36No1 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2011Vol36No1 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2011Vol36No1 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Signaleers,

Te Signal Functional Area Assessment that has been

You might also like