FltDoc

So, effective at what? There may be a primary end point, such as "never get the virus". I'm more interested in secondary end points, such as "gets the virus but gets mild or moderate case", "doesn't need hospitalization", or survival. With a good immune response, your viral load will be lower and you're less likely to transmit. That's good. Modern HIV treatment doesn't cure, but it lowers viral load, reduces transmission, and extends lifespan. Not saying this is anything nearly as serious or incurable, just saying we already have experience with benefits in treatment that doesn't 100% prevent the illness. Flu vaccine is same. It's only so good at completely preventing flu, but effect on hospitalization and mortality still makes it more than worthwhile.

https://www.kwtx.com/content/news/Person-hit-killed-by-airplane-at-Austin-Bergstrom-International-Airport-570296081.html

The ones that make the news may only be the tip of the iceberg. Ever catch one that was kept quiet and just sort of happened?

https://taskandpurpose.com/navy-sub-affair

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2020/01/16/spangdahlem-group-commander-disciplined-for-inappropriately-touching-squadron-commanders-wife/

It was also in the CSAF brief to Wing Commanders.

In-res vs correspondence wasn't really the discussion. You might take a look at my screen name and wonder whether the direction on that was the same for my corps vs yours. Regardless of how you get it done, what I'm saying is that it's not useless, either from a learning standpoint or a career standpoint. New BPZ guidelines make it easier to choose to wait through all your chances at in-res before deciding to do it by distance learning, but it is good to do. I'm anonymous and have already made my choices. I would think someone who cares enough to look at this thread cares enough to maximize chances. If not, if you're just venting, that's cool. The data is out there (AFPC secure, RAW, demographic). Look at it, know what you want, and make choices that are good for you and your family.

You don't like the bargain, don't take it. If enough of "you" don't take it, the system will have to flex. I don't see a lot of flex, yet. If I'm in an echo chamber and there's only one right answer, that's ok, but it's still worth saying. I started poor and the pay/security of the military has been worth it to me. ACSC and AWC online were nothing compared to digging ditches. It might not be for others, but knowing the rules helps make decisions. As far as me being a repeat of a prior user, the moderators could probably look at IPs and tell you how right you are. I'm sure a cyber "operator" would know more about that than I do...

Waste of time? Reading and writing about our profession is a waste of time? I think that's extreme. As far as whether it's "Basing selection for promotion on that single item...", I gotta say it's not. With ACSC and crap performance in your primary duty, you probably won't make it. ACSC plus DUI = no promotion and maybe early separation. The truth is that good candidates for promotion probably have all of it. One difficult part of the conversation is that ACSC today isn't the same as ACSC 14 years ago, roughly when I did it. It was easy to knock out at that time, but they purposefully made it more cumbersome, which I disagree with. Anything that's fairly even among all candidates though isn't worthless. It teaches you more about your profession and you may question how much, but I doubt you can honestly say not at all, at least not if you try to complete it with that end in mine. Further, it filters those willing to do something that's a pain but is clearly helpful for career progression from those who won't. In my career there have been a lot of sacrifices. I'm not saying adding some as a discriminator is necessary, but I am saying if you're not willing to do something so relatively easy, then you're unlikely to be willing to do a lot of the later ones that are much more demanding.

I think once all the changes have normalized, socialized, or what have you, this will be mostly a non-issue. In the meantime, it's transition issues that will be the most interesting. Who will get opportunities, someone with a BTZ on the record or someone just a year behind but with an identical record otherwise without? School, jobs, and similar opportunities tend to snowball. With momentum comes more momentum and this will clearly change the record of those on either side of this line. Statistically, there are very few, but for high level jobs, it's most of those being selected. Will there be a few year gap with haves and have-nots?

So, I know there's a telecon coming up on 16th to discuss details, but you seem to know quite a bit. The idea that this somehow does away with the "anointed" seems silly to me. Are raters and boards going to lose the ability to count? Everyone can count to five. Edited, because I found what I think are answers here: https://www.airforcemag.com/app/uploads/2019/12/Talking-Points-BPZ-and-Merit-based-Reordering_ao-9-Dec-19.pdf

Given the way boards work, that seems far fetched. What percentage of board evaluating ops category of LAF will be in ops? If there are big differences in scoring, that drives split process. Don't mean to interrupt your rant, but seems like the issue is going to be more what percentages are applied to each category than identify of board members.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2019/10/02/wild-weasel-maintenance-squadron-commander-fired-at-misawa/ "Col. Rognald Christensen, commander of the 35th Maintenance Group, fired Moehle “due to a loss of confidence in his ability to command,” said Col. Kristopher Struve, commander of the 35th Fighter Wing, in a statement Wednesday." (Note, spelling of his first name is original to the article and seems to be correct.)

👍 I'm glad for you. Hated seeing the bad stuff you went through. Good luck with the rest of the process.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/09/23/fe-warren-security-forces-commander-relieved-following-investigation.html No details, just saw the article.