sweet I'm SOF
-
Posts
50 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by sweet I'm SOF
-
-
I could give a flying ###### if Yummypants shows up in daisy dukes or you show up in assless chaps. Give me my three drinks and leave me the ###### alone.
To pick on you some more, what exactly would your briefing consist of? You say that you do not care what Yummypants wears. If that is the case, how are you going to brief her/him on how to stay within the bounds of reason? And then give you your three drinks and leave you alone? How long have you been doing this again? This is a problem.
-
You are rambling incoherently.
I never said the host nation didn't get a vote. I never said leadership didn't get a vote. What I said was, as soon as someone does something inappropriate the policy will go away.
As for your assessment of my leadership skills, you made a distinction there. You said "my" airman. My crew would be briefed on how to avoid being the reason for a base wide uniform change. My crew would operate in a safe and intelligent manner, hack the mission and make the most of being away from home.
So, If I am sitting at the Fox bar with the swing shift ops staff and Services Squadron Sparky shows up with an offensive tee shirt or Mandy shows up in the daisies...I guess I'll just jump up and be a leader. "Remove those shorts Airman! That's an order!" Problem solved!
Reality called, they would like you to stop by and visit sometime.
Your post seems incoherent to me as well. You typed that you want to drink your three beers and be left alone. If you are drinking your three beers and want to be left alone, you are probably not worried about what your Airmen are doing. What would your "briefing" to your Airmen consist of exactly? What you are missing, is that officers who are detached because they are god's gift and rated and such, and therefore are entitled to sit back and be left alone, is that your Airmen need your top cover. From my perspective, as I typed before, you are the problem. You are concerned with numero uno. I'll get more top cover and unass your Airmen from the queep more effective than you every time. I understand the reason for the queep, therefore, I know when to adjust the rheostat on taking liberties with dress and appearence and so on and so forth. I've seen your act, not impressed. And when you qualify this with "i've been doing this for a long time," you may or may not believe this - I've seen a lot of people in this service do something wrong for a long time.
-
1
-
-
Wrong dude. The PRF system is super broken and AFPC crunches numbers to see how many of each AFSC they want projected at X timeframe. So, if they are like, "Oh shit we are going to have waaaay too many 11M2X or 11M1X O-3s meeting the FY12 board and subsequently the O-4 board..." then they cut them. Unfortunately, 11M means C-5, C-17, C-130, KC-10, KC-135, and a few others that I doubt many Lts fly. They don't care what airframe/base they come from, they just need to shrink the general numbers. This is why some units get hit harder because usually a commander didn't do such a great job at sending quality paperwork. Also reason for some units of the same airframe being undermanned while others are overmanned. Same generally goes for a RIF.
So, again, for dudes who only have training reports going to a board, missing a training report can totally ###### you over because there is a gap in your very short duty history. Instead of fixing the problem or digging deeper, they just put it in the DNP pile to make their job easier. Makes it even worse if there are very few easy cuts; people with UIFs.
Oh, AND if promotions were completely equal across the board for line-officers of all types, then aircrew would be at an even bigger disadvantage because the board also has shoeclerks who won't give two shits about what your flght-based training report has to say about you as an officer. What does talk to shoeclerks is how nice and neat your records are and OPRs that don't have operations bullets which remind them they wouldn't have a job without you.
Do you know who is "crunching the numbers" at AFPC? It is your functional for your AFSC. I think there might be about 10% truth in your post. I'm being liberal. As far as the importance of the training report, you are missing the point. The majority of folks did not have a missing training report and were promoted. We are picking on this one circumstance of a missing training report. There are thousands of other circumstances. You know how the board looks at a missing training report, when the vast majority of promotion candidates are not missing training reports. Well, maybe you don't - it is not good. And it is not good for the rest of your career - which is why your wing commander harps on you to pay attention to your records. As it turns out, the members of the board have probably had one or two folks in a squadron or group that they were commanding in the past that did not have their records squared away. Better than nine times out of ten, those individuals did not have a lot of other things squared away. And so the board members are sitting there with a going in mindset of what they have experienced in the past. That does not bode well for someone who's records are not correct.
So, you can either tell someone on the internet who is telling you that they were not promoted because they were missing a training report that it is not their fault and they need to go through several processes in order to right the ship, which will likely not have any effect on the outcome, or you can give them the perspective of the decision makers. It's the internet, so anything is correct I guess. I prefer to take the opportunity to explain to the broader audience what I believe the organization is looking for. I realize that this makes me the devil, but appeals and waivers and inquiries and so on and so forth take up a lot of time. We are busy right now executing the mission. Do us "idiots" a favor and make sure that your flight commanders and NCOICs know the importance of an individual's records being correct.
-
OR (more likely)
#2) The USAF is stupid,
Idiot's forgot what the mission IS here...
I have to ask, why would you remain in an organization that you feel that way about? That seems to me like an act of desperation or lunacy. I can only make one of two assumptions, well, three if you count the lunacy piece. 1. You have a lot of commitment left, in which case you are kind of stuck with the organization for a while - but that means that you are young and are complaining about things that you have no idea about except what you pick up on the internet and the LPA...no foul. 2. You had a chance to escape the madhouse, and instead of going in the direction that is right for you and yours, you elected to stay in and complain in an attempt to make everyone share in your misery...foul.
Here's the big picture problem....the AF had turned into an idiocracy and thus only promotes idiots. It has gone full circle: there was a time where all the good dudes got promoted and moved up. Somewhere along the way, an idiot squeaked past the goalie and then began the degradation. Problem where facing now is that smart, good people have a "stronger scent" than idiots do, and thus are the ones getting "deodorized.". The idiots are afraid of the smart/good people and are forcing them out.
But then again, just my opinion. Maybe I'm the idiot...
Same as the above post. Why would you be part of that organization?
-
SOF,
I've been doing this for a lot of years now. These big AOR bases are the Epcot Center of Air Force bullshit (I didn't make that one up, but it fits).
The AF as a whole subscribes to the "one person shits their pants and we all wear diapers" philosophy. I could give a flying ###### if Yummypants shows up in daisy dukes or you show up in assless chaps. Give me my three drinks and leave me the ###### alone.
My point, which you so eloquently missed, is that all it takes is one person to be "inappropriate" in either leaderships, host nations, some bible thumpers, whoevers viewpoint and the whole thing will implode.
So, what were you saying again?
What I was saying, is that the host nation gets a vote if you are in their country. As does leadership if you are in their Air Force. You claim that you have been doing this for some years now. Your post does not reflect that you have been. So if your Airman is doing something that offends the host nation or leadership (I'll leave the caustic religious inference out) what are you going to do about it? You're the veteran, you've been doing this for years. You want your three beers and to be left alone? That is not leadership. It appears that you have no idea what is going on in your AO aside from your tactical ops. We need more from leaders.
-
That's actually a pretty good jab...mid to high-level manager or an academy cadet.
For our guy that is seeking advice to appeal, I did not want to come right out and say this, but it is extremely unlikely that a missing training report was the cog that broke down the machine that was going to get him or her promoted. A lot of folks were promoted. Some weren't. In my experience, for the ones that weren't, it was the right call. They all had extenuating circumstances if you were to ask them or give them a forum in which they could air their grievances. There are exceptions. Maybe this guy or gal is one of them, but as someone earlier in another thread accurately accused me of: I am grumpy and cynical.
I do think that all of the advice given was good. You guys and gals on here do a much better job than myself of giving everyone every benefit of the doubt. If the guy was in my unit, I would investigate, because it is the right thing to do. But I do have predilections based on experience. I hope this guy or gal proves that it was an oversight and gets picked up. My intended audience extended beyond him or her.
-
Hey, look everybody, a troll!
What does "troll" mean on here exactly? If you don't agree or cannot understand it is a troll comment? I am not interested in that garbage.
-
I give this one week. As soon as SrA Yummybritches walks out to the BRA in her ass hugging short shorts with her lower back tattoo hanging out we are right back into reflective polyester.
Sounds like scooter is part of the problem. He even has one-off metrics. What do we do about SrA Yummybritches? If your answer is "nothing," fair enough. If your answer is something else, you are a problem on this board. Would you enforce some kind of uniform standard or would you let anything go? I'd seriously like to read your answer.
-
I had two training reports and a blank duty history. There is an appeal process I'm going through, but I'll already be put in for the ABZ board by the time I find out how the SSB went.
Does anyone know how much an ABZ promotion affects your career? If I have to go to that one and I get picked up, is it going to look bad for trying to put in for schools, cross-training, or especially the major board? What about a lt col board?
Cgjohnst, you are not going to like this, but I do not understand your argument. You were selected or non-selected based on merit. If you did not get picked up, you did not make the cut. I understand it is a bit draconian, but that's the military. I get waivers thrown at me all the time. I seldom approve them. Unless it is a compelling hardship issue, the standards are the standards. I had to meet them. I expect everyone else to meet them. You can say that times are different, but if I were in your shoes, if I were in these "different" times and I was passed over, I would march on. No appeals, no waivers.
-
No. Because both of the guys in that photo are full up and totally mission focused. They are not shoe clerks and they are not afraid to say what needs to be said.
Like I said, all hope is lost if it doesn't work with those two.
Were you there then? If so we probably know one another because there were not too many USAF folks around at that time...and many of them were ARC people.
We might know each other, but not from Bagram. I was gone before the first A-10 landed there. I was there when the first C-17 landed, it had a VIP on it, and they landed during daylight hours. Although there were far more violent objectives during that period from late Sep to mid Dec, Bagram was one of the roughest to stomach early on. Everything that happened there the first few days just stayed that way for a few weeks. That was not a good experience for the senses.
-
Not sure what Bagram looked like before the war. But I'd be remiss to a lot of good men if I didn't point out that there was a time that they were working out of Bagram before the first C-17 or A-10 landed. Bagram was a challenge for a number of reasons during this period. But they got it under control. And then came the C-17s, and A-10s, and the chiefs...
-
Let me add a different perspective than what has been offered. And you are not going to like this. Instead of "I'd get paperwork saying the dog was something else," "Make the paperwork look good," "If it isn't documented they can't say anything," why don't you make an effort to remain within the AFI's intent. The intent of the AFI is to keep people's dogs from harming people. There was a purpose behind generating that AFI, and as hard as it is for you to believe, it was built on precedence, much like the notes, warnings, and cautions in a tech order. The intent is bigger than your dog. There is more than one person in the USAF who would like to wear their hair differently than the AFI allows. There is a purpose behind that AFI, it is bigger than the individual.
More often than not, if you are "lawyering" an AFI, you are going down the wrong road. If your dog is pushing the boundaries of the AFI, that's probably your problem, not your neighbors who are "the kind of people who drink the Kool-Aid and would actually give a shit about what kind of dog you have because of the Regs are alot more likely to live on-base," and certainly not the USAF's problem.
-
1
-
-
You really believe this? You really believe there are too many enlisted people trying not to make rank?
No, I do not belive there were too many people trying to not make rank. I believe there were too many people not making rank that the institution was allowing to continue on in service.
You say MOST AFSC's, yet I would venture to guess you have zero experience in MOST AFSC's. Thats ok, I do to. I have been in two AFSC's and in both your statement couldn't be further from the truth. Hell, one of the best MX dudes I have ever met (both on and off the flightline) had to get a waiver because he failed to pass his 5 level test 2 or 3 times. The waiver came from the SQ/CC. The "other talents" come with experience, not rank.
I do not have to actually be in an AFSC to understand how progression in rank is qualified. As it turns out though, I do have experience in mx. Again, the institution is not looking for someone to demonstrate that after 20 years they are an expert at accomplishing one task extremely well. The model is not set up that way. In plain english, the model is constructed that after about 4 years in mx, an individual is competent at accomplishing their duties. At about 8-10 years, that same competency level is expected, and the individual is also expected to be able to manage processes that are larger than the initial expected duties. The maturation in expertise, management, and leadership is expected all the way to chief. Someone who stalls at step one is taking up space for the folks who will come after them and meet expectations. It works at all levels, not just in the mx world. Colin Powell described this concept in detail in his autobiography.
You also probably dont realize that, in MX, most are qualified to work multiple planes. Funny thing is, for your skill level and promotions, you test on information regarding aircraft you usually have never worked on in your life. Top that with 12-16 hour days busting your ass on the flightline to get jets fixed, people easily lose motivation to study.
How do you explain that to those that make rank the first time they test all the way to SMSgt?
Guess what? Its still the individuals decision, regardless of the requirement. Resource constraints because what probably turns out to be 1% of the entire USAF is not getting promoted? Come on...you do realize that the guys who work these jobs as civilian contractors make waaaaayyyyyyyyy more money than your average E-5, right? For example, my old Guard unit pays somewhere around $35/hr for an Avionics guy.
If the individual is making the decision to not make rank, and the institution shows that individual the door, what is your argument? Contractors in mx do not make more than an E-5 as an aggregate, they make much less. Your statement is incorrect.
Within reason was fine the way it was with the old high year tenure. Not that this new one is all that different and honestly will not have any kind of impact on the USAF, literally, I bet nothing statistically changes. Why, because we are talking about such a small percentage of the whole.
Your claim is that this is data driven, so show me the data.
All of the data is on the AFPC website. If you would like me to walk you through the numbers, let me know. That's not me being a smartass, that's me offering to show you the logic of why we cannot afford to let people stay in for 20 years as an E-5.
-
Why not? It's their career, let them decide. Does it effect the way they perform their job? Granted, there should be some minimum standard obviously but I don't think there is anything wrong with letting someone decide whether or not they are ready to promote, within reason.
Some of the best Mx dudes I worked the flightline with back in the day were 20 year staff types. They liked working the jet and, typically, after making Tech you start getting pulled from the flightline, no longer turning wrenches but instead filing papers. They enjoyed what they were doing, didn't care about promotion and pay, and did a hell of a job doing it.
I know this doesnt apply to everyone, but the guys I have personally seen in my time that were following this career path were usually not doing it just because they were slackers and didnt care about their job.
Here is a reason: A large part of the institution's manning forecast and planning is based on average promotion rates. There is no piece of that formula that accounts for a 20 yr E5. The one-off is not going to skew the plan, but if a policy was instituted to thwart 20 yr E5s, there was probably a trend that was threatening the average. I think that in most AFSCs, someone exceeding even the recently adjusted high year tenure policy is probably not helping your unit. I hear the argument often that they bring a ton of technical experience to the table. They probably do. But someone who is making rank on time or faster than average would probably be about on par, and their talents often extend beyond technical expertise. To a squadron commander, that is important. To a MAJCOM commander, that is very significant. To the institution, that is worth basing force structure decisions upon.
Your argument seems to be based on the individual's choice, vice the institution's requirements. Since we have resource constraints, I do not believe it is valid as far as the uniform is concerned. I think an answer to your argument is civilian technicians.
You stated that "I don't think there is anything wrong with letting someone decide whether or not they are ready to promote, within reason." The "within reason," as it turns out, is the high year tenure rule.
-
This one is pretty easy. If someone outranks you, stand up at parade rest if you are indoors. If you are outdoors, salute. There was a lot of laundry thrown on the table in the above discussions. Irrelevant. A 2 Lt out ranks a CMSgt. A Capt out ranks a 1 Lt. We need to get the easy stuff right. There is no context - if you are in a flying squadron, or an FSS - the principal is what we need to focus on. A salute isn't bigger than customs and courtesy, let's not lose focus.
-
There is a degree of irony here. Everyone who is proclaiming that they would have saved the day with a CCP...what's to stop you from being the shooter in the theater? Not advocating gun control, but that is a difficult question to answer. This is an academic argument, if you come at me with you would never do such a thing, I'll skim past that. Focus on the logic of tolerating a CCP policy vice gun control. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts. If a citizen legally purchased arms, and discharged them in a public forum...and you take that person down, with legally purchased arms...are we not on a merry go round?
-
"May want to revise this sentence chief. But I know what you mean, and what you mean is in direct conflict with your above statement. If "your going in argument as a CGO is that you are tactically sound," they how do you discriminate based on downrange performance if you expect that everyone is "tactically sound?" That's the rub...as an institution we assume everyone that's "qualified" is "proficient" or even "excellent" at their primary job and this is simply not true. IMHO a boss that truly does discriminate first and foremost based on primary job duties (as informed by his own observations and those of his instructor/evaluator corps) is doing it right."
Fair one. My grammar has atrophied. Not everyone deploys, that is one way that I discriminate. It is usually (but not always) a timing issue. When one is deployed, I receive LOEs and on rare occasion, a call from someone directly who tells me what one of my guys did that is above and beyond. That is a discriminator. Likewise, if I get the unwanted call that a deployer is want of skill, that is also a discriminator in the other direction. There is a spectrum of ability that your reply is not accounting for.
"So shut up and color, am I reading your advice correctly? There are actual requirements and then there is unnecessary BS or undue ass-pain. Dude, if you're aircrew and you can't appreciate some good ole' fashion bitchin' you would not fit in with the guys I know and work with. Since I'm forced by an ADSC to bend over and take whatever Big Blue has in store for me, I figured the very least I'm gonna do is request some lube. Saying "yes sir, how many buckets full sir?" will put you on the fast track to leadership but it does no good for the organization in the long-term."
I'm not one of the guys that you know and work with. Everything I've read on this forum, I hear it in my unit. My guys bitch up or sideways, never down. If they break that rule, we have a problem. At the end of the day, if you are not shutting up and coloring, what are you doing? I'm not talking about the forum, I'm talking about in your unit. You know the rules. Bitch all day in here, but day to day I submit that you are shutting up and coloring. Back to my earlier post, it isn't any different anywhere else. You probably don't believe this, but I don't like it anymore than you do. Neither of us have enough rank yet to effect a change. Sports bitching on baseops is one thing. I hope you do not bring this into your unit, and if you do, I hope you have the stones to vector it up or sideways, and not down. Yes, I realize that is a few sips of kool aid. That's the institution.
"Is everyone meeting this baseline? I've found that it's relatively easy to rack & stack based on primary duty performance alone because frankly everyone is not Captain America of our tactical mission, it's just the facts of life."
No, they are not. Example: Lt X is a stellar tactician, not only knows the mission, but makes others better at the mission. More than once, I've had to put Lt X on the carpet because of his sideburns, or the fact that he showed up to PT in civvies. Lt Y is still finding his way tactically, but does a shitload of volunteer work, runs a pretty dang good para ops program, and will never be caught out of uniform regs. Lt X is the number one out of those two. This may come as a shock, but the group commander will immediately zero in on Lt X's chops, or heaven forbid that he is in civvies at the gym. The ensuing dialogue is frustrating as hell, but I'd be short-changing Lt X if I didn't say hey man, you are killing it on the tactical side, but help me out with the sideburns. Such is life in the institution.
So there's my thoughts and I think your assumptions of across-the-board tactical prowess are where you go wrong along with your overly compliant attitude toward the Man's unnecessary shenanigans.
I'll take the hit on the overly compliant attitude perception. But at some point you have to lead. A sometimes ugly part of that is understanding the environment, and adapting accordingly. As long as they put humans in leadership positions, we are all subject to the subjectiveness.
Edit: I am challenged with several things, including how to make my response to a previous post look correct on here. I placed nsplayer's comments in italics.
-
At the end of the day, Gen Welch's problem is binary. Either he makes the service component better, or he makes it worse. The odds are stacked against him, there are a lot of disgruntled airmen on his plate. None of this is his fault - he has a decade of ops tempo stacked on top of mandatory cuts. He might turn this around and make it the best we've ever seen. I think a lot of folks have unrealistic expectations. Let's see how this goes.
-
CGOs,
The queep is never going to go away. And it is no different in the civilian world. But it is a wash. In the civilian world, if you are in a section that steadily excels in productivity, guess what...your boss is going to focus on other things as a discriminator, such as how many picnics you were at, how many times you volunteered to host the holiday party, etc. I think a hazard in thought is that we focus on those organizations that do not meet that criteria. They are out there, but they are not large corporations, and in the big picture, they are exceptions. As an example, an enterprise in Destin, Florida does not have a dress code. They do not have professional education requirements. But if you work there, you will never have the opportunity to make it to the top level, those details have been worked out long before you were hired. The example I'm referring to is AJ's bar and grill. There are not very many Air Force officers that are knocking down the door to work at AJ's. There are literally thousands of other examples. The Air Force is different than AJ's. You have an opportunity to move up, and the criteria is spelled out succinctly. If you choose to scoff at the requirements, I would ask that you take another look at the landscape. SOS in correspondence isn't asking that much. ACSC in correspondence isn't the end of the world. Another way to look at this, is to consider what you have, vice what you could have. If, in your opinion, what you could have is more than what you have or more than what you think you will have if you "play the game," then you should probably consider getting out.
When ranking my officers, the number one discriminator is how they performed downrange. We deploy often, so I have to temper that with other factors. Yes, the "queep" plays a factor. But to the officer that I counseled today, who has never deployed, he was at the bottom of the rank, even though he was a champion of the queep. As a CGO, you're going in argument is that you are tacfully sound. As a stock brocker, you're going in argument is that you are turning a profit (productivity). Going back to the 4th sentence above, it goes beyond that if the expectation is that everyone is productive. I'm trying to shoot you straight...the rest of the queep matters to the institution. If it doesn't matter to you, fair enough. But don't be cajoled into a life-changing COA by those that don't understand how the institution works. The queep is an asspain, but that asspain isn't going away. I expect officers to do better than to grumble about the requirements of the institution. If you are in my unit, you had better be the best in the world at the tactical level, that is baseline. If one of those raises my interest because they supported a Red Cross event or some other non j.o.b. function, that is a discriminator to me. I consider PME as a baseline. I'm respectfully interested in where you think I'm going wrong here.
-
I feel compelled to throw in some worthless coins here. Context: I palace chased when I was enlisted. Turned down the SERB, turned down testing for SSgt, burned every bridge. I never once contemplated the pros and cons of showing my cards. Everyone that outranked me, which was everyone, admonished me for being foolish. I showed every card. I PC'd into the ANG. While in the ANG I applied for and was accepted to ROTC. Again, everyone that outranked me told me that I was a fool, and that if I stayed in the ANG I could be a MSgt in record time. I showed my cards, and was discharged out of the ANG into ROTC. A few years later, when I was a Captain, I was disenchanted with the institution. I did not try to work any 7 day opt scenarios, I put my separation papers on the DO's desk. And I told him why I wanted to leave. I decided to stay in after a few discussions with the sq, grp, and wg commanders. I got an assignment shortly after, which brightened my outlook.
There are questions that remain:Should I have stayed in the ANG? Should I have voted with my feet as a Captain? I am comfortable leaving those unanswered, because once I made a decision, I showed all of the cards. I was honest with everyone, including myself. If the AF said "get out" when I was a SrA or a Captain, I would have marched on without looking back.
I think it is important that you to come to grips with what you want to do. If you can honestly do that, you'll be fine. If you resort to playing 7 day opt games and RIF games, passed over twice games, etc.; that smacks of you being a chickenshit who doesn't know how to commit to a decision, and/or someone who is trying to milk the institution for every nickel they can. Either way - can you blame the institution for handing you a less than desirable outcome? Be upfront. Don't hold your cards. Do what you are going to do, hopefully your priorities to yourself and your family if you have one can hold a candle to the institution.
As always, I am a divergent one, so let the spears fly.
-
Buckets of self-importance found here. Leadership advice from Lts, and a "good idea" of starting an FTAC for officers. Pure brilliance.
I remember realizing that this organization existed on the base I think when I was a senior captain. I cannot really explain why it took me that long to comprehend that it existed. I haven't really thought about it since, until this thread. Looking at that link, it appears pretty rough - on the verge of unbelievable. I've never been to a meeting, so maybe my initial flinch is a bit harsh. Reminds me of Arnold Air Society.
At the risk of sounding even more naive and disregarding the self-identifying one-off transgressions that have been admitted thusfar on this forum, do aircrew partake in this organization?
Leadership at the 'Deid
in General Discussion
Posted
Cap-10,
I was not there when that base commander made that decision. But do you really think that your explanation of why the commander made that decision is correct? A base commander has an awful lot of things on his or her plate. Making decisions out of spite is usually not a factor. That's my opinion, I cannot prove that. I'll cede to you that the Qatars are far more liberal than anyone else - on the beaches it is anything goes...that is likely because the Brits have been operating out of there for quite some time. Do we want to wear Tivas at Qatar? Of course we do. Does it break the mission if we are in PTs? No. It is asspain, but there was a reason...maybe it has nothing to do with Qatar. Maybe I'm gullible and press the "I believe" button too much, but sometimes those decision makers have their reasons. I have to be honest with you...one person literally showing their ass in that AOR is a huge deal. It goes against a lot of principles. If Tivas digressed into short shorts, digressed into an ass cheek hanging out, digressed into the Qatari gov't issuing a complaint to the embassy....now you can see where that base commander is coming from by putting folks into PTs.