Bender

This is all very interesting to me...only my 2 cents: How Morale Tab Patches are a Leadership Challenge Prior to this change being published, tab/morale patches have been authorized on a case-by-case basis for wear (even in the AOR, gasp, amongst our coalition partners). How can this be? These patches were not allowed by AFI. There is a difference between enforcing rules and leading, and they often only have an indirect, and occasionally direct, connection to one another. Sadly, when direct connection is necessary, it is not ever a good day (for anyone involved). Buddy Spike's email suggestion is actually fine to me (although I would suggest some minor word-smithing) from the wing level straight down to the squadron level (this is where this issue belongs; wing commanders out and about looking into tab patches is laughable). However, from the squadron commander's purview, it really isn't that simple...not from a perspective of leadership. A commander/leader does not need to express his expectation that officers act like officers. However, he does have the responsibility to ensure that each officer knows what that means. Morale patches are a very minor wave in what should already be a riptide of influence a commander has on each officer in his unit. A "my door is always open" policy is essential, but it is far from leadership. He must actively engage every person and challenge them to think a step or two farther through each issue. Some issues do not have many steps, as may be the case here. If this is not done, those that follow in their foot steps will be forced to think farther later, making the same mistakes over again when it is their turn to lead; nothing will ever improve. Those who mostly understand already lead their peers, this is most difficult. Those who truly understand lead their leaders, and the good ones encourage this. This must happen more often now than before if we are to fix whatever leadership deficiencies are believed to exist. As it stands, the majority of tomorrow's leaders will be no better and no more successful than the leaders drawing criticism today nor are they any more capable (they will succumb to the same pitfalls already in play). There is a deep rooted lack of understanding in the CGO corps that initiative and leadership is expected of them. It has nothing to do with burger-burns, Christmas parties, or morale patches. If you don't understand, seek out the right person to ask (sadly, you'll need to look hard). There was a reason the AFI was changed, removing the things that were now reinstated. Squadron Commanders will set expectation, they may or may not follow through...CGOs will decide when it's time to change the AFI back to it's more restrictive version. There are many people who want to lead. There are many more that only want to follow. The Air Force is unfortunately currently over manned in the followership career field. There are almost unlimited possibilities for sharing what morale, pride, confidence, initiative, and character are, by both CGO and FGO alike (commander or not)...it does have something to do with morale patches, but not if the Chiefs logo specifically is appropriate or not. The ability to wear a Chief tab on your flight suit will not improve your morale, nor anything else about you. Bendy

Phoenix Reach requires an application. All things being equal, if someone had just as competitive of a record, but chose not to apply for the Phoenix Reach program then cross flowed via other means, they would still have just as competitive of a record. What evidence is there on the records of someone selected for this competitive board? Is it listed on an OSB or in an OPR bullet? Bendy

Sir, you are a poet. A poet indeed... It takes great courage to break up with your fat chick...you see the hotties out there everyday, but it's a scary, scary leap of faith! God speed...you'll find her! Grenade!!!!! Selected for reassignment as Director, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, the Pentagon, Washington, D.C. Take cover boys, Bendy

Sounds like you're good to go with the way forward here then. I think getting the weigh ticket to state that is a good idea (as it could make things easier later), but I think you'll need to ask for that specifically. The guy should be pretty understanding of the fact you need this one to be correctly described (heck, he may have even seen this situation before, maybe). If it's a motorcycle trailer (motorcycle or not), claim it. If they give you a hard time, I would be ready to go with the JFTR references and some specs and pictures of the thing. If it's a HHG, it's a HHG. If you're correct via the regulations, just be professional, respectful, and humble as you fight your battles and you'll be fine. Not doing/being so is what will end you up in the Sq/CC's office in your blues at 0600. Bendy

Are we talking about the weight of the trailer itself (i.e. as a HHG item), or simply the contents inside the trailer (be it motorcycles or other crap)? I think there may be two different conversations going on here. Bendy

Come on guys, I think it's cute. This guy makes it sound like people are applying for the VSP to do their "final duty", help alleviate the Air Force's manning problem. I don't think there are very many individuals with that particular altruistic motivation. Although, removing someone's family from affiliation from the U.S. military is arguably an altruistic move, it is most certainly not centered on "what's best for the Air Force". We'll leave that sort of non-sense for Brig Gen Grosso...whom I seriously doubt is nearly as involved in this "process" as she should be. This core value has an asterisk next to it (it's small so you may have missed it). This one is only required through selection for your staff tour. Once you have orders in hand, it's really your call how much excellence you want to put in. You will need to refocus on core value #1 (which you have already completed by submitting your head-fake VSP application), and core value #2 (which you are familiar with already) as you take your free trip back to Shit-tan-istan. That's asterisk was important, you really shouldn't have missed that one; better luck next career. Bendy

You sound like an MC-12 pilot. From the A-10 doing the Non-Traditional ISR they love so much (probably more so now that they actually have a pod to use), the MC-12 passing off a dynamic TST, to the RPA executing a kinetic strike on love child #3, the Army wouldn't execute it any better if the asset was organic and all but those out of touch would tell you as much. That said, if given the resources, guys like TF-Odin would do just as well as an MC-12 (but, unfortunately the Army has chosen a different route and their capability suffers for it). Massive changes to the joint force structure would have just as massive of an impact on both budgeting and warfighting capability (for better or for worse). We just need to argue from a constructive point of logic, rather than the hacked-over bullshit that James Carroll is presenting. If we are looking for a columnist from "The Globe" to fix this train wreck, we are indeed in for a wild ride. That said, let's just downsize the Air Force by 25,000 people and see if that fixes it! Anyone have any words on if the Army is looking at similar Force Management programs this year or next? Anyone have any idea how much "nation building" figures it's way into various O&M budgets? Just for funsies, go take a look at the Army's O&M budget growth over the last decade. Bendy

Oh for fuck sakes…Here’s what I just heard: If it’s attainable within “mission requirements” we’ll cut the active duty force by 25, 000 this year. Do you have any understanding of the current, or more importantly future “mission requirements”? Let’s get her thoughts on cyber: “On the move…important and growing…I have no well defined vision…seems like we ought to be in the lead…certainly important…yeah I don’t know anything about cyber…next” At least I have someone else to answer this for me, “You mind fielding this one for me, it’s a hard one”. I’m not sure what you guys are going to do, but HQ has a great plan for reductions of such magnitude…“mitigate” by eliminating vacant billets (mentally shown via facial expression “Fuck, why didn’t I think of that”). Enough of this asking me shit…that’s hard. “What would you change?” “Oh…good…good one…” “What am I going to change? Nothing, I’m just hear to field the softballs if you can manage to speak without a water. I don’t really have anything to say, but I do have a water I’m going to hold up in front of all you dry throated MF’ers. Burn!” “Okay…the pain of having no answers has worn off and I’ve decided to try another question…shoot: Retirement changes?” I saw this one coming, I’ve got this one… “Clearly, the growth in the cost of [retirement] benefits has been large.” “Definitely changes a coming…but only for new recruits” “Damn it, that already happened?” “That gripes me.” (Not said but should have been, “Huh, the growth of O&M costs are completely disproportionate to Mil Pers outlays? What fucking service is this again? The Army is worse? Oh, the Air Force…that’s good. Which appropriation category was that again?” “Anyone have an easier one?” “Great…moving on.” “How do we make civil service more enticing to younger people” Easy, dumb ass…we’ll “talk it up more”. Yeah, and “no more furloughs”….”I hope, cause you know I’m not in charge of that.” “What am I in charge of again?” I should have just given in and fallen asleep in the middle of that…or did I? Bendy

To the extent that OPRs/EPRs are written in the front office, that is a reasonable expectation. Bendy

1) Her name makes me giggle. 2) Frocking is silly to me...either you can promote a General or you can't; makes me think (again) how messed up General officer billets are. 3) I would love to see the citation to go along with that Bronze Star/Afghanistan Campaign Medal. It's funny to me when I hear the philosophy, "I don't want to rock the boat. I need to see how things work around here before I start changing things." When you only hold a job for a couple years max (such as the career being discussed based on her bio, and most CC jobs for that matter), one really needs to blast in there "like a bull in a china shop" fixing the broken stuff to make a real difference. Take enough time and people will convince you that it has to be this way for good reason (i.e. AFPC works fine, nothing wrong here). Some people prescribe to one philosophy, others are perfectly fine with the later philosophy. I believe far fewer have enough faith in themselves (sometimes with good reason) to effectively use the later. With that many jobs, over such short periods of time...I would be curious how much leadership really gets exerted and what was improved along the way. What I do know is that being a double DG will get you far...regardless of your leadership philosophy or actual job performance. Bendy Edit: My interwebs went beserko!

Sure, a couple. 1. Are you talking about force management programs? This is the ACP thread, so that's a bit confusing if you are. 2. If you are, why wouldn't they be able to apply? 3. What is the option other than putting in for it? 4. Was this even a question related to ACP or force management or did you just want to know if I had thoughts. Sometimes I do... Super unclear question, bro. (To me anyways...) Bendy

*shakes head again at the poorly written prose and example...the mislabeled 12* *also despite deleting his post, believes "AFS" was a typo, and knew what it was and was just being sarcastic* *didn't like people not appreciating his sarcasm* *hangs head* *is going to go sit in the corner of the DFAC and eat dinner alone* Bendy

Well, this is confusing. Are you saying that the "SpecialOpsTankerPilot" account has a similar characteristic to the "Liquid" account? or Are you just saying that the "SpecialOpsTankerPilot" account only has one post, thus it is a sock puppet screen name and that the previous quote from the "Liquid" account is applicable to said one post based on it's contents? One is so much more exciting than the other... Bendy

The formula is in post #333...colorfully explained as well. I can't wait for my LRS or FSS gig...going to be sweet! Bendy

Ahh, of course. I had heard that...thanks for reminding me, Fuzz. That doesn't sound like much of an accident, but I suppose that's the "conversation for another time". Bendy

Have no fear, the MC-12 does not hinder itself with such things. Jeppsen will craft you "compliance" after you pay them for it. MC-12s must give up something to be modified. Unless we waive the Beech 350's maximum gross takeoff weights (an unwise decision), matching the U-28's capes may come at the expense of anything gained in the range department. Also new worthy, the additional engine isn't all safety oriented (the MC-12 is far from stealthy, we have proven this multiple times). Why don't we just turn back on Mansfield's blue suit maintenance? The C-27J boggles my mind...no doubt there are forces at work I am unaware of... Bendy

I'm curious where the commentator acquired the concept from in the first place. TC did "cleared it up" right away, but followed that by "probably a conversation for another time". His words (and reaction), did not show surprise. While I'm sure they talked before the interview, I was not privy to this idea. Of course, I am much more up to date on Afghani current events than those of my own country. I guess that makes me an easy target for budget reconciliation. Bendy

If SOS in-residence attendance is 100%. The SOS correspondence course is of no value and merely drains resources we cannot afford. For any PME courses when attendance cannot be 100%, I would offer the following: The correspondence versions of ACSC and AWC are almost as old as the independent Air Force itself (1948 and 1949, respectively). We have gone through this “practice bleeding” conversation before, at one point people even believed it was going to change. It didn’t. It may this time, but the best we should hope for is that the game of “whack-a-mole” doesn’t produce a more undesirable outcome. Despite Air Force policy stating (AFI 36-2301 did at some point, I have no idea if it still does), “ideally, all officers will attend PME in residence.”, yet only the “top 20 percent” of officers promoted to the rank of major are designated as “DE selects”. For the “candidates” left out, the opportunities to get an in-residence slot are dismal, meaning that for the vast majority of active FIELD GRADE officers, correspondence is the only PME they will ever see. While these “candidates” are not your “golden boys”, many of them are tomorrow’s leaders. Current events (i.e. RIF, VSP, and Pensions) will only drive this closer to the mathematically defined disparity...imagine we are talking about upwards of 80% of your “leaders” running around. I think it’s a mistake to tell a “candidate” FGO that completing PME via correspondence shouldn’t be done until later (when all hope of in-residence attendance is gone…news flash it already is). You see, the problem is you’re creating reactionary policy that does not address the real issue. If “we” choose not to change the system, then I believe we are providing the supposedly “enhanced” education to the wrong group. The “top 20 percent” are the ones that should strive via self paced study, where the group just below them requires the more hand-on approach to “fill in the gaps” in leadership competency. Speaking of competencies, Air Force doctrine would have you believe, “Competencies are attributes an individual possesses to successfully and consistently perform a given task, under specified conditions, or meeting a defined standard of performance.” Yet nowhere in the Air University’s guidance or CJCSI 1800.01 (Officer PME Policy) is there a concept of “proficiency advancement”, where officers that already possess the ability to meet the intended objectives can be moved along to make room for those that need developmental education in order to “enable [them] to perform their jobs and contribute to the overall success of the Air Force.” Admittedly, the current PME construct pre-dates these definitions within Air Force doctrine; however, I struggle to determine what senior leaders are for if not to adjust out of date practices to current and evolving doctrine. I am not a fan of “practice bleeding” and we should change it. However, the idea that you will eliminate this via a single policy is difficult to believe. When the Air Force unmasked possession of a master’s degree for the O-4 promotion board, all of a sudden ACSC popped up with the option to earn a master’s degree. When the AAD has been mask to the O-4 promotion board (despite being told not too), SR began using AAD completion to determine DR allocation for they’re quotas. A single policy is insufficient to produce institutional change. We must address the entire construct of PME to do anything productive here, not simply admit to EVERYONE (including the enlisted force) that the FGO doesn’t really need what we are offering them in order to do their jobs. The evidence of developmental educations efficacy remains with an officer performance after graduation. “Those officers who access education to fill their developmental needs would be expected to outperform similar officers who do not, in the same way that an MBA does not guarantee success, it is how the graduate applies the MBA that ultimately matters.” If there is no need for an FGO to complete PME as soon as possible, then there is no need for an FGO to complete PME at all. Bendy

Go Around...that's a different thread. You meant "Doing more, with for less". That video clip mentioned it being an "accident". Can someone explain to me how a bill provision can be an "accident"? Is that like the situation where I meant to read the thing, but got distracted kissing babies and forgot? Bendy

It's funny...I know from a VERY good source that we we're about ready to operationally test the conversion to blue-suit maintenance on the C-27J before it got shut down. Now "we" use the contract maintenance as too much of a cost to keep aircraft we already purchased? The end is not in sight. It's going to be a long and bumpy ride down! Bendy

Somebody post a link when they find it. I can't figure out how AFN even works programming-wise...if it even makes it onto the AFN news channel here. Thank you kindly in advance, Mr. Bender-meister

Sigh, I'm sorry that you feel that way and I know that your feelings are not rare. I don't really agree with your opinion here in full, but I am not without some connection. The "leaders" you are speaking of are not my leaders. They may be my bosses, and they may be my managers...but they are not my leaders. If you want a good chuckle, go read the leadership article M2 just posted and look for the connection with an "O-7 telling us how each and every airman personally means the world to them". Bendy

"The Budget also requests authorization for another Base Realignment and Closure round in 2015 to close or realign excess infrastructure and avoid wasting limited resources maintaining unneeded facilities. The actual closing of any bases would involve a multiyear process that would not start until 2016, after the economy is projected to have more fully recovered." It is too much to ask to put out a coherent message and information at this point; they honestly believe they are doing everyone a favor by releasing this matrix prior to the holidays. The "funny" part is that everyone involved is working way too hard to get this done, while we have known for a long time it was going to happen. It's quite standard really, but I don't need to say that...do I? The intent of the law is interpreted by the Air Force as an attempt to trim the force voluntarily first, they can target whom they please and deny whom they please. After that is "complete", they will non-voluntarily target the force...again, targeting whomever they please and removing whom they please. He was asking for your opinion as the only "senior leader" he has any direct line too. If you don't want to be "called out", you should probably just go back to lurking. While I do not believe for a second that anyone should be looking for clarification from you (no one has any idea who you are or what you are qualified to answer), this is the situation you have developed. If you have the capacity to add value, you (and you alone) have added that obligation to yourself. This, if you recall, is an all voluntary force. What you have just written is not true; we serve at our pleasure...for the values that we hold. This "usefulness" you speak of is purely political jargon for "I have no control over it". While I believe this viewpoint may have merit for O-6's and above, I am surprised you took the time to log in to write that. I suppose he did say, "Any comments?"...perhaps he should be more specific next time...or go ask someone that cares more. That said, I hope you have a good Christmas...but, I hope everyone at A1 isn't taking Christmas off. I'm not (again, while I serve at other's pleasure). Personally, I think you should try again...Perhaps with a little more value or empathy...your choice. Bendy

For the love of all that is holy...please elaborate on what "tactically attempting" to not get promoted would be; is that a counterpart to "strategically attempting" to not get promoted? This is going to be awesome... Bendy

I doubt there will be any need for a bullet, unless it's on your referral EPR/OPR; there will simply be another box added to the back of the form to accompany "professional qualities" and "communication skills". You know, clearly it's very difficult for a leader to "grade" one for their contributions (or lack there of) to a "healthy organizational climate" using tools like "professional qualities". All we need to do is add an actual "healthy organizational climate" check box and we'll surely nip this sexual assault and racism crap right in the va-jay-jay. We're adding it to the OPR/EPR to ensure it's discussed during feedback? A drunk monkey (and on the good stuff too) throwing darts at a barn door...isn't there literally a feedback form they could update? The "professional qualities" checkbox is already there. Sure someone else came up with this stuff, but a three-star general signed off on it? Sometimes...I think the AF is just totally fucked. There isn't any amount of force shaping or RIF'ing that is going to fix it (unless they force shape me...that would solve it (for me)). P.S. Mark, I'm going to steal that bullet for my RRF (which I am going to start working on in lieu of my primary duties). Bendy