Jump to content

WeTheSheeple

Registered User
  • Posts

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

8,843 profile views

WeTheSheeple's Achievements

SNAP

SNAP (1/4)

-14

Reputation

  1. By my count, more cyber bubbas BPZ in 2017 O-5 brd (8) than any community outside of 11F (29) or 11M (28). Mostly AFSOC support and true cyber (vice base comm sq) background. It is a change, and probably a good one.
  2. Most likely selects off the O-4 board just finishing ACSC. AETC student board gives most folks a P, even the shiny pennies.
  3. From what I've seen in the past, senior raters try to use their [edit: excess] DPs to push through good folks who otherwise wouldn't get a serious look--too many years flying the line (especially in the same Sq), or Art 15/LOR for shenanigans as a CGO.
  4. Incorrect. Overall, 16.5%. IPZ only, 17.0%. The 73 APZ bubbas didn't move the needle that much. It amounts to more than 100 fewer officers designated as IDE selects from this board compared with the last one. This will increase raw numbers and % of candidates going to school (particularly in the '05-'07 Year Groups), assuming that the number of schools slots remains constant (after the 30% reduction a few years ago).
  5. >>> My bad for the lack of clarity. Ops units do not appropriately document deployed experience in reports, dec citations, etc, which is the primary reason for not getting credit. I have read post-CENTCOM AOR reports that do not mention CENTCOM, anywhere in the AOR, what they did, or what msns they supported. The handful of passed-over-for-O4-ops folks that I know were in this boat.
  6. I have a difficult time understanding privilege. I define it as a psychological weight when you are a member of a significant and obvious minority. In the Air Force, there would be white, male, and Christian privilege. But what can I do about the psychological weight of someone else? Where you have significant minorities--gender, race, religion--our AF community contains large elements that are prejudiced against them. That prejudice sometimes manifests in obvious or subtle discrimination. It is the discriminatory actions that are the real problem, and we must be aggressive in finding and rooting it out. Bias, prejudice, and privilege are good to understand as the foundation for later discrimination, but I don't think we can do much about them. People can think and believe in whatever crazy nonsense that they want; it is taking action on them that becomes a serious problem for the rest of us.
  7. Regarding recent O-4 board--higher promo % overall (92), but lower school select % (16). Masking grad school info had the desired result: for the bottom 20% of bubbas with a P, they competed on their official records. Officers from non-ops career fields have 5 distinct advantages in both the competition for DPs and the O-4 board itself: 1) 100% have been Flight Commanders and supervised other people, which is not the case in ops. I expect that the non-selects for O-4 were not cycled through the Mickey Mouse flight command positions (A/B/C Flt vs DOV, DOT, etc) in their ops squadrons; 2) Non-ops have spent their entire careers trying to articulate their value to the broader AF. Everyone has an important role to play, but It is more of a stretch that a FSS 1Lt advances the national interests of the US than the officers in the OG. Every CGOM/CGOQ/CGOY/functional awards package requires them to think about and to justify their operational-to-strategic impact that is assumed away by many operators. 3) Ops bubbas do not get the same credit for deployed experience. Most non-ops folks have deployed to IZ and Afghan, while many (not all) ops frames supported from bases in other countries. Similar to #2 above, ops records--OPRs & citations--often use MDS-specific language and assume that the reader knows both the mission sets as well as the officer's role in that mission. 4) Ops communities have trouble weeding out folks due to ADSCs. Non-ops career fields have more weed-out options due to the shorter ADSC. 5) Competing for O-4 from a staff billet. Smaller pool of officers for strats/DPs, but their Sr Raters will probably be FO/GOs. Grad school, SOS, performance in combat was not masked for the Sr Rater/Wg CC to give out DPs to the top 75% or to fight for folks on the bubble at the MLR.
  8. Both Arnold & Spaatz served as execs, went to school, did their staff time, and still had time to be effective combat leaders.
  9. This is correct. There is very little public information about this new board, but expect it to run like a promotion board or DT rack-and-stack. If so, they score each record on 6-10 pt scale at .5 increments to determine rack-and-stack for IDE/SDE. The margins are slim. Last year, all 11Fs IDE slots were selected by 11Fs. This year, there may be no 11Fs on the board that scores your records. If run like a promotion board, expect equal parts ops and support O-6s. IDE Selects have been ID'd as the top 16% (in '14) to 19% (in '11) of their YrGrp. Whether it was the DFC/BS in combat, working as Group Exec, or coordinating the Xmas Party, the designation came out of a deliberate and pretty transparent promotion board process (even though most of us disagree with the weight given to certain non-operational activities). Many people will defer to the promotion board's evaluation. The IDE board is a repeat of the promotion board with 1-3 years for Selects to fall off or Candidates to move up; recent experience is on top and probably the most relevant (ADO/deployed DETCO experience, etc). Sr Raters must nom all Selects, but they can rank Candidates above Selects (though unlikely). I would expect the Sr Rater input to have a much stronger impact on the board than Select/non-Select. Not all Selects will want to spend 18mos getting a Masters or learning Japanese to do ACSC in Tokyo, and DTs may want you closer to home for SAASS, Wing Safety, or DO. I expect a smaller % of O-3s picked up for IDE than most years, but a higher % of Selects going to non-ACSC programs
×
×
  • Create New...