Leaderboard

I don’t know if an ad agency this, but they absolutely nailed it. I mean, this!

Not Every Officer Wants to Be a General Allowing service members to pursue different career paths would ease the strain on military families. Kate Bachelder Odell May 20, 2019 6:21 p.m. ET A chronic problem has attracted bipartisan attention recently: Military spouses have trouble finding work or developing careers. Karen Pence, the vice president’s wife, has devoted much of her public profile to helping military spouses. Sens. Tom Cotton and Jeanne Shaheen have introduced a bill that aims to make it easier for military spouses to transfer occupational licenses across state lines, which would mitigate one hassle of moving. But the real problem is a military assignment system that is managed like a game of musical chairs. A White House Council of Economic Advisers report diagnoses the headache for those married to service members: America’s 690,000 military spouses, mostly women, are roughly twice as likely to be unemployed as the rest of the civilian workforce. The rate of underemployment is worse. These trends persist even though military spouses tend to be more educated than the general workforce—some 40% have a college degree. So why do military spouses disproportionately end up in licensed trades such as cosmetology? Why are nursing and teaching common choices? Because they’re among the few careers the military lifestyle can accommodate. In my years as a Navy wife, my employer has made accommodations for my spouse’s inflexible location. Most don’t have this luxury. Corporations are periodically called on to “do more” for military spouses, but companies that hire military spouses know that there is a high risk they won’t stick around as long as typical employees. Tax credits wouldn’t change that. The real problem is how the military shuffles service members through various jobs and locations, which can be more of a box-checking exercise than a process that cultivates talent and skills. Spouses are along for the ride, and that means frequently having to build new career networks, which over time erodes earning potential. Some 90% of more than 1,200 spouses surveyed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation reported moving farther than 50 miles at least once for their partner’s career. More than a third reported four or more moves. About half who had moved said they had less than three months to prepare. This is expensive for the government, and there’s reason to wonder whether it’s necessary. Military assignments are managed through a centralized process where large personnel outfits are “just trying to match names against available billets, and almost always not knowing the people individually,” says Tim Kane, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution who served as an Air Force intelligence officer. This top-down process can only minimally incorporate a service member’s personal preferences, never mind a spouse’s career. Mr. Kane summed up the problem to Congress last year. The military is composed of volunteers who are dealt with more like conscripts, he said. Every young officer is treated as an aspiring general or admiral, and thus is pushed into an “ideal” set of jobs with rigid timing for promotion, without respect to competing priorities, like a wife’s job or kids who don’t want to go to a new high school every year. Mr. Kane tells me he’s known of people who “will terminate their careers early because the Air Force or the Marines won’t tell them, ‘You know what? if you don’t want to become a general, and you just want to stay at whatever base it is for the next four years, we’ll let you.’ ” The services know these dynamics are contributing to retention problems, and the branches have been slowly starting to experiment with different career tracks for, say, pilots, where talent shortages are pronounced. Congress last year offered the branches flexibility to reform an “up or out” system that requires officers to promote through the ranks or leave the service, among other good reforms pioneered by Mr. Kane. Mr. Kane’s other recommendations include allowing local commanding officers to conduct interviews. Another important change would be tailored promotion and compensation, which would align the assignment process with a service member’s personal—and familial—preferences. Yet the problem is also cultural. One Navy pilot unloaded about the service’s retention problems in Proceedings, the U.S. Naval Institute’s magazine, last year, and he hit on something: Those in charge of making changes have often been those whose careers have proceeded smoothly. As he put it: “Every admiral to whom I’ve spoken has had an impressive career. But the common thread in all of their careers is that they never have lost or been exposed to the other side of the processes. For an overwhelming majority of them, the system has worked, so the processes must be good.” The Pentagon hasn’t had a Senate-confirmed undersecretary for personnel and readiness since Robert Wilkie left the post in 2018 to become secretary of veterans affairs. The position has no nominee, and a good one would be someone who hasn’t spent a career marinating in the military’s culture. Anyone who takes on the massive task of reform will face bureaucratic resistance. He’ll need air support from the civil-society groups seeking better prospects for military spouses. Fixing these dysfunctions will be essential if the military is to compete for talent in society in which fewer appear interested in signing up. An untold number of Americans never consider the military because of the crazy transience it requires. That’s regrettable. Mrs. Odell is an editorial writer for the Journal. Appeared in the May 21, 2019, print edition.

The inevitable spiral is beginning! Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Some really solid points in this article, should be required reading for all FOGOs Not Every Officer Wants to Be a General https://www.wsj.com/articles/not-every-officer-wants-to-be-a-general-11558390890

You just lost your beer. Tommy gets two beers now. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

I see you Box D! @2:26.

where is my cut?

Honestly am surprised it took this long. Seems like most people on here are ignoring the bizarre posting though.

I think it depends on what kind of ADSC you have... If it's an ADSC from a commissioning source/PCS/other basic shit then it's no issue... If you have an ADSC from getting your Masters (AFIT/etc) or something along those lines, you may have to pursue a waiver. I was on station for < 1 year when I applied and was accepted w/o a waiver.

Eagle guy? NTTAWWT...

"Walking around base with their sleeves rolled up..." Somewhere there is Chief having a meltdown.

Oh no argument there. I’d take the over.

If you want to send kids to die for their country, you can't be surprised when when the people charged with dying for their country act like kids.

Prior to BLADE 11 there was a circle covering Raqqa too. We see how well the T+180 timeline worked out for them and they were still fighting over BOG numbers in 2017 two years after. When I was in Iraq we actually had people from the CAOC questioning our need to XSAR because of the cost/effort of having us and an HC airborne. Meanwhile a 8+ hour XCAS for a B-1 is approved without second thought. The fact that it took almost five months to get dedicated PR assets based in-country to provide less than a 2+30 response time is laughable. Nobody cares about PR until they need PR.

Prior enlisted Fighter Guard unit: (Enlisted in the Unit hired by) AFOQT/TBAS: Dec 2018 Board: February 2019 Hired: March 2019 FC1: May 2019 OTS: ?? (No IFT) SERE: ?? UPT: ?? FTU:??

Yes and no some the FAA has multiple definitions for PIC... Yes in the sense that you are the "sole manipulator of controls." No in the sense of "responsible for the overall safe conduct of the flight." If airlines are the goal, then only A-Code time should be logged as PIC.

First time posting here. Civilian to Reserve Tanker Unit. AFOQT: APR 2010 PPL: DEC 2015 TBAS: AUG 2016 Application to Base: SEPT 2017 Interview/Hire: 3 DEC 2017 MEPS: DEC 2017 PRK/ASA Eye Surgery: MAR 2018 FC1 Request Submitted: FEB 2019 FC1 Exam: APR 2019 AFRC UPT Board: Submitted 30 APR 2019 Board Results: 12 JUNE 2019 Swear In: 2 AUG 2019 In-Processing- 7 OCT OTS/TFOT: OCT 2019 UPT Date:

Money sent. Check your zelle

I asked AFPC what can I do next because I don't feel challenged enough in my DO position. Everything just feels really slow. I was offered Staff, C-12s to Saudi, or Edwards. They noted I have 3 short tours already and asked if I was married. I am single going on 19 years. The functional didn't specify why, but I can't crossflow to another MWS. I'm on a 3 year stab tour, but AFPC said I can leave after 2 years. I just need my non rated CC's blessing. Figure I would ask her in a few months. AFPC needs a response by Jan 2020.

The phrase "accused of said allegations" must have totally escaped your vernacular? You know what accused means and I surely don't have to point out the definition of allegations either right. If you think you are correct, sue the writers of the articles from Military.com and AF Times in court and see how that turns out in front of a real judge. Tell AF Times, Military.com, and the countless other online sites to remove their articles. You're just preaching to the choir on your soapbox of righteousness.

I copied the allegations directly from the Military.com article in my Google feed. AF Times just posted their story today. The source was the USAFA who put him on blast as pointed out in the original post by "the school said Thursday." Didn't care to post the link yesterday, but since you asked: https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/05/19/special-operations-pilot-faces-charges-raping-child-under-12-years-old.html https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2019/05/21/academy-major-accused-of-rape-molestation-faces-article-32-hearing/ AF Times “It must be emphasized that charges are merely accusations, and the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty,” the release said."