Coast Guard and Association WOMA Concerns

In 1990, the Association formally announced its opposition to the Warrant Officer Management Act (WOMA), stating that “the risks inherent in the Bill outweigh its benefits.”

Although the legislation included creation of a W-5 grade, the Association identified several significant concerns:
• Elimination of the requirement for annual selection boards.
• Removal of the mandate that at least 80 percent of eligible warrants be selected for promotion.
• Authority to involuntarily retire warrant officers with 20 or more years of service.
• Abolishment of temporary warrant grades.
• Permission for each service to establish its own independent promotion system.
During December 1989 and January 1990, the Association wrote to the Coast Guard Chief of Personnel and Training, as well as to Members of Congress, regarding WOMA and House Bill H.R. 2979. The Association requested that the Coast Guard be exempted from the legislation.
In correspondence to Representative Charles E. Bennett (D-FL), who introduced the bill, the Association noted that WOMA proposed amendments to Titles 10, 14, and 37 of the United States Code concerning promotion, separation, and mandatory retirement of warrant officers across the Armed Forces.
While the Association did not oppose WOMA for the other services, it expressed concern that the bill could prove harmful to the Coast Guard warrant corps. Accordingly, it sought exemption for the Coast Guard and retention of the existing promotion and retirement system under Titles 10 and 14.
The Coast Guard leadership, however, supported WOMA. Rear Admiral G. D. Passmore, Chief of the Office of Personnel and Training, stated that the legislation would provide “greater flexibility for the management of warrant officers.”
In his reply to the Association, RADM Passmore acknowledged that some concerns were legitimate:
“Your concern about the removal of the 80 percent floor on the opportunity of selection and the possible pass over of significant numbers of warrants in the 15- to 17-year range is a genuine issue.
“This was also a problem my staff noted when they reviewed the original package. If a fixed grade structure was imposed and promotions were by vacancy, the change could be a problem.”
He further stated that although certain authorities under WOMA would be legally available to the Coast Guard, they would not be used in a way that harmed the corps:
“To use a low opportunity of selection and pass over significant numbers of warrants prior to retirement, as a cost-saving measure, is not useful or desirable and we would not do it.”
Ultimately, the WOMA debate came down to a matter of trust. Could the Association rely on assurances that the new authorities would not negatively impact warrant officers in the future?
Congress ultimately removed WOMA from the 1990 Department of Defense Authorization Bill and scheduled separate hearings. Nevertheless, the Association maintained its opposition to applying WOMA to the Coast Guard.
At the time, the Association counted 3,254 members, including the majority of active duty warrant officers. The level of concern within the corps reflected the seriousness with which members viewed the potential changes to their promotion and retirement system.