Festivius

The above comment is self-critiquing: It serves only to highlight an apparent lack of fundamental knowledge regarding your chosen profession (which, even if you don’t like it, extends beyond the confines of your MDS).

This is very solid advice, but it seems so out of place on BO.net. It seems like a significant percentage of posts on this site either claim or imply that the rated community is very special and needs to be recognized as such by everyone, at all times. If you took this stuff seriously, you might well conclude that the average AF pilot needs more external validation than those creepy little girls who compete in kiddie beauty pageants.

For officers, I never perceived the one-time pay out ($400 sounds right) as claiming to cover ALL uniforms…I thought it was just some free money that helped me do something I was going to have to do anyway, which was get a closet full of AF stuff.

I think the cost savings must come from the idea that as part of our initial stipend for uniforms, ABUs (as the force-wide utility uniform) are already covered. So, there is no actual additional cost to anyone. This would be the same rationale for why the AF stopped buying ABUs for people who are deploying once the phase-in period for ABUs was completed. We’ve already been paid for them, so why “double-dip?” This seems to pass the logic test to me, but I’m pretty hazy on the whole “initial stipend for uniforms.”

Missileers moved out of AFSPC and into AFGSC a while ago so this may not apply to them. Maybe they’ll go back to the white jump suits the wore in the 1950’s

I think I see where I injected (STS) some confusion in this conversation. When your PRF is signed at the MAJCOM level (for instance, like for Sq/CCs), your MLR and the PRF signatory are essentially one and the same. This is not the case if your PRF is signed at a subordinate level. ThreeHoler sounds like he has it right in that situation.

There are some details about the aggregatted DPs I have never really understood, but I was referring to the MLR (say ACC) review wherein COMACC rakes and stacks his officers and gives out whatever strats he chooses.

-To clarify, Toro is, of course, absolutely right about PRFs including material from previous OPRs (like strats). I was specifically addressing my comment to any stratification provided from the Mgmt Lvl Review (MLR), which is an independent matter (from previous OPRs). The final line of the PRF, or the “push line,” from the individual signing the PRF is the signer’s final summation and a powerful statement. -One other thought: I’ve seen several postings here like “### doesn’t matter because the board doesn’t care.” That may or may not be true, but keep in mind that all the review levels leading up to the board may well care. PME, AAD, upgrades, quals, CGO of the Qtr, whatever. As your record makes its way up the review chain everything is taken into account, and with so many people looking good (and similar) on paper, little discriminators can have a big impact.

It's not really magical, but yes, officers can be overtly stratified on the PRFs (i.e., "#3 of 700 Captians in the USAFE")...of course, only USAFE/CC could use that strat!

If the change in Wg/CC emphasis has been the key, that would seem to put to rest the idea that a few run-amok NCOs, rather than senior officer policies, are the root cause of these kind of annoyances...

1. Fantastic picture. 2. You’ve made some broad assumptions about this officer that I won’t bother to challenge (because I really don’t know much about her), but I think the conversation regarding the qualifications for being selected as a 4-star commander and what that says about the AF are great topics. What I object to is the “mean girls” vibe and out and out insults. Trading insults at the club is one thing, but I don’t get how hurling personal insults at a senior officer while hiding behind a keyboard is cool, particularly from what appears to be a bunch of officers (who, I think, should know better). Maybe I’m just too old to get it (STS).

Bergman: In general, whining about meaningless crap isn’t a good look for an officer, but this seemed like some harmless silliness. That being said, although I doubt an LOR/LOC is on the way, I don’t think anyone would be surprised if the Lt Col involved was invited to have a quiet conversation with his boss about this the relative merits of silliness.

Nope. Any other brilliant insights to share?

Enough! Seriously, venting about [fill in the blank] seems to be the most common pastime on the site, but these kind of personal attacks are just childish. If we can’t muster some professional courtesy how about just some common decency? This woman has been putting on the nation’s cloth for more than thirty years and she deserves better than to have a bunch of keyboard warriors making snide comments about her. BTW, I have never met the woman and don’t know anything about her beyond what’s posted in her bio.

If there's a AFSOC Sup to 36-2903, it should list a MAJCOM POC and that would be your dude. If no such Sup exists, you may need to write one.

First, I had nothing to do with these ops so I have no inside dope. Question, though: was there some point in calling the MAAP "the so-called master air attack plan?" Did it seem like this was just unfamiliarity with the product (which seems kind of hard to believe) or were there competing/complimentary air plans she was trying to poke at (STS)?

Telling "truth to power" can be tough, but it's something we should all be willing to do when necessary.

Chuck: Very impressive maneuver. It must have taken some big brass ones for a captain (I assume) and brand new patch to let his Sq/CC & Gp/CC know who was really in charge. We should get some kind of commemorative plaque put up in the WCL for this.

This is an annoyance, but to be honest, I’ve written tons of EPRs, OPRs, and decs and I’ve never had one “denied” by a Shirt/Supt/Chief. I’ve certainly had those folks “not support” my assessment, but that was always a recommendation, not direction (and giving recommendations was their job, so I can’t fault them for that). Some of those recommendations where persuasive enough that my boss agreed with them, but still, it’s not like I didn’t have my chance to voice my position. Even if the senior E’s opinion is crap, it’s just an opinion, and if it truly is crap, it isn’t hard to present a more persuasive argument. No one can tell you what to sign and no one can stop you from making your best recommendation to your boss. Do wrong decisions get made? Sure, but you always have the right to move your concerns to your commander. Inevitably, you’ll win some and you’ll lose some.

-Fair comments. I get it that there is a lot of frustration regarding various kinds of qweep, and I certainly have my own bitches, gripes, and moans about the state of the AF. This particular topic doesn’t really bug me, but I get it that it may bug others and they want to use the web to vent. That being said, I really do have a problem with the faceless personal attacks we sometimes stoop to on-line. You want to attack ideas? Great! Attacking people, on the other hand… -BTW, I’m not blind to the irony that exactly one post ago I called something “a bitch move.” That was probably over the top. -More specifically, I have problem when an (apparent) officer does this to a E on-line. I have no clue who this dude is, and for all I know he’s the best NCO in the history of the AF. Or maybe the worst. Again, I have no clue. But I think this sort of thing not only demeans him personally, but cheapens the trust and respect required between O’s and E’s. Am I full of crap? Maybe, but I don’t think so.

I know this website is an escape valve for all kinds of pissing and moaning, but do you really want to start posting people’s pictures and cranking up bitchy personal attacks? The basic theme of the last few posts seems to be “E’s shouldn’t be correcting O’s,” so how about the (apparent) O’s show some GD personal leadership? If you have a problem with this dude, call him. Hiding behind the anonymity of some BS website is a bitch move. RANT OFF

I may be headed to Deid next, so all of a sudden I'm interested in this... Open ended question: Baseops forums often attribute this kind of silliness to "shoes," but it is generally also noted that the AF is led by rated dudes (who also get a lot of credit for being superior officers). So what gives?