Cell Dweller
-
Posts
98 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by Cell Dweller
-
-
I wonder is there is going to be a not-so-secret "Retain" quota for CCs / SRs?
-
"15. Crossflow Training: All officers’ Core AFSCs will be locked down on (RRF Acct Date). However, officers selected to crossflow to non-targeted AFSCs will be re-cored upon selection for training, therefore becoming ineligible to meet the RIF board. If an officer is already in training and subsequently eliminated from the training he/she will be returned to his/her previous Core AFSC. If eliminated prior to (RRF Allocation Date), he/she will be eligible to meet the RIF board and will have an RRF completed if otherwise eligible. If eliminated from trainingafter (RRF Allocation Date), the officer will not be made eligible for the RIF board.For officers selected to crossflow to targeted AFSCs, their Core AFSC will not bechanged from those locked in system on (RRF Acct Date). This process allows the officers tomeet the board in their previous Core AFSCs where they have a record of performance. Even ifan officer graduates from training prior to the start of the board, he/she will not be re-cored untilafter the RIF board adjourns."Does anyone know what a 'core' AFSC is as opposed to Duty and Primary AFSC and in what scenario the above statement applies?
Core vs. duty AFSC is all determined by you personnel record, available through AMS and vMPF. Core AFSC is listed as CAFSC; duty is DAFSC, and Primary is PAFSC. If a young LT does not know how to get to AMS or vMPF, or otherwise not know how to access their own personnel record, then they better figure it out rapidly.
Would a Nav or non-rated officer selected on an active duty UPT board be re-cored as a student during training? If so, then the above stipulation would come into effect if they washed out and were returned to their original AFSC. I'm sure there are several such scenarios where officers permanently retraining to new AFSC, such as the missileers re-assigned to intel, cyber, or something else, would be affected by the clause mentioned by PointBreak. Best advice is don't washout from re-training, especially if it is non-rated training.
-
So are the numbers for 13S before or after the cheating/drug scandal?
-
I think that Air Staff was thinking that moves like this would show respect and trust to the leaders in the field. The problem is that Air Staff/SECAF also have to make difficult decisions on manpower, and that AFPC is expected to implement. Whether or not there are Force Management activities, I welcome the changes to the uniform reg to remove some of the ridiculousness and honor some of the more heritage-like aspects of the service. It just sucks that it could be perceived that Air Staff has lost touch and thinks that Friday/morale patches might soften the impacts of the FM program and the other cuts that have occurred or are on the horizon.
Now let's not screw this one up by thinking that just because a WG/CC says it's OK to wear collegiate-related morale patches, that it is OK to have a patch that says "F##k dem' Aggies"
-
I do vaguely recall reading an article where Gen Welsh said if you applied for the VSP and was turned down, you'd still get the VSP amount even if you got RIFed later on. That might be enticing to some people.
It is in the official Force Mgmt guidance that RIF'd officers are eligible for Separation Pay, calculated the same way as VSP. That is part of the reasoning for having an FSB for officers with less than 6 years, and a VSP/RIF cycle for those over six.
-
I think what BeerMan is talking about may be an effect of the Force Management Program. Retention of support personnel may be drastically affected if the service cuts down on the size/number of support units. If it is done right, then the quality support officers will be retained, and the lower quality officers will be release.
In reality, since the AF has not demonstrated a good way of evaluating performance, headhunting will ensue, and some of the quality folks will get cut or leave, leaving knuckle-draggers behind who will later be competing for leadership slots with more highly retained career fields. If aircrew (according to the sustainment matrix) are more well retained, then they will probably compete better on paper, and take the DO and CC support slots over the mediocre remains of the support career fields. Either way, it will be an imperfect process of downsizing.
-
Back in the day, an ROTC admissions officer told me that date of rank for ROTC graduates was determined as the midpoint between commissioning and EAD date. One year, a class' DOR was 1 June for everyone, regardless of EAD, and USAFA's was 31 May. That admissions officer was full of shit.
-
In my time, it wasn't the PT test that was the problem, it was the O-6 in my chain that thought it should be in OPRs. The #1/XX guy in my group was always, without exception, the guy with the highest PT test score, true story. From the working level perspective, were the #1/XX guys also the top contributors to the mission? Nope, but then again, we tried to work as a team, and rarely was #1/XX invested in that team.
BTW, another great thing that the current CSAF brought was preaching that the lean times were going to suck, and that we would deal with it as a team. I have not heard him say or read anything close to the "do more with less" crap that was the mantra previously. He's taken a practical approach, even if that guidance does not always trickle down to the lower levels.
-
The Air Force has the best CSAF in years, and we pissed it away by distracting him with sex scandals. I know that it was a statistically insignificant amount of folks who were involved in the worst of it, but the culture enabled it to happen. The more time he has spent testifying in Congress about this issue, the less clout and energy he has to advocate for and make changes that matter. This also derailed the successes of Gen Rice at AETC, who was fixing a lot at his command before he had to re-vector to address the MTI sex scandal.Re-defining Blues Monday was great, as now it's up to lower level leadership to decide how best to deal with it rather than have his office take the heat from the troops. He has done a lot to address the importance of the USAF in times of shrinking budgets, but most of his public work has been in motivating and caring for his troops, which is a significant piece of his job despite how far up the food chain he resides.
-
8
-
-
My office is flush with guys putting in for IDE, and they are getting the same information. It's so bad that RUMINT says that selects will have to compete for limited spots.
And it is the third day of the fiscal year, and no info is yet out about the LAF Major board schedule...sigh.
-
You are the cancer, sequestration is the cure.
-
So, to recage this thread, I saw a few pages back before the pissing contest that AMC/A1 was stating that the promotion board for '05 comissionees was pushed another year? Is that legit, or just misstated? The board should have been this December, but was pushed into 2014 as of Sept 2012. Is there scuttlebutt that now the board will be sometime in 2015?
-
You can replace "furlough" with "alternate work schedule"
-
I'm not crusading against those with dependents getting extra benefits. Obviously, it's done to socially engineer the population in uniform to be family people, and also done for retention purposes.
I think you are giving the gov't and DoD too much credit if you think they are conducting social engineering. The last part of your statement makes more sense, in that if the DoD is asking you and your family to sacrifice for the service, then there should be a perception that they are being compensated.
-
Oh good she's from Columbia, I wonder what her views on the military are like. Although being the former "executive vice president for communications and government affairs, responsible for media relations, marketing communications, congressional affairs, policy analysis, compliance with laws governing engagement with public officials, corporate responsibility, and community relations" (how the hell you fit that on a business card I don't know) maybe she can help us with our SAPR image.
Followed links to her bio on the SAIC website. Did you all know that Jumper is the CEO of SAIC?
http://www.saic.com/about/leadership/jumper-bio
More proof that the Military-Industrial Complex is going strong.
-
Oh actually going to a MAJCOM staff isn't bad, just having it as your push is...
To echo this, serving on a MAJCOM staff is generally good for a career, but getting it as the bottom line push is seen as bad. Also note that a push for a staff job should normally be seen at a mid-to-senior captain point, or for a major or above. The point of a staff push is that a senior rater is telling anyone who reads that this officer is competent enough to be trusted managing a portion of the USAF corporate structure. Thanks to the over-inflated performance reporting system, the senior rater is expected to put the push that they believe is best for the officer based on his/her performance. Therefore a push for MAJCOM staff indicates that the senior rater does not think that the officer is ready to represent the USAF (in a joint staff) or their core specialty (at HAF), therefore they should be kept in their community if they are to be put in a staff position. The downside is that this now is a quasi-black mark since everyone thinks there own sh!t don't stink, and will think that this officer has something wrong with them if their OPR does not say "Future CSAF material!"
-
I thought not getting SrA BTZ was due to not having tits.
That only applies to Cyber Ops.
-
1
-
-
So, I know we have been focusing on the Board, but in reality what seems to be going on it that the CSAF wants the decision power to fall more heavily on the senior raters. If you mask the AAD, then it is up to the senior rater to decide if the AAD is a deciding factor. The side effect of this is that, for example if a senior rater has a 75% DP quota, and all his/her eligibles are SOS complete, but only 50% are AAD complete, then they may choose to bucket them into 'definite DPs' and 'potential DPs'. Then the rater only has to dig into half as many records to decide who get the remaining DPs, and who does not. The senior rater gets a heck of a lot more leeway, and can take a heck of a lot more time to review fewer records than a board member, so ultimately they provide a more 'knowledgeable' assessment of the ratee. This assumes that the senior rater cares about the square-filling activities, but ultimately, if a senior rater sees that 95% of his/her people have AADs done, then they may think it is have to assume that that other 5% don't 'care' enough about getting promoted, so unless that are Sierra Hotel in some other way, then they will probably not get a DP.
-
Negative. Get an MBA from DL if you are an engineer.. so you can get a real engineering masters and a crap MBA.
I've seen this strategy work for a number of active duty engineers (AFSC 62E). They get an online MBA or management related MS degree in their first few years because their jobs give them plenty of time to work on it (no extended formal training, rarely deployed). That gives them a better record around the 2-6 year time frame they are eligible for AFIT. The only trick is that these 62E's wanted to get an engineering MS. Many do not want to go through the pain after getting their BS. This is however probably the 'easiest' way to do it. Not saying it is fair, but the Air Force, for what it is worth, wants these types in their ranks.
-
-
1
-
-
If unsustainability is linked to this crash, then we should all blame Darlene Druyun for it.
-
The bottom line in all this is what goes on the 475 that the training unit does to document the attrite/DOR, and what the attrite/DOR has on his/her record that the USAF may deem valuable. If a new 2Lt quits in academics, and the 475 only says that, then all that is left for the USAF is maybe their academic degree. I do not know which office makes the decision, but they sure do not have a ton of info to use in the decision.
Also note that there is guidance that allows UPT attrites (not DORs) to stay in the rated community by applying for CSO or ABM training durring the reclassification process. This opportunity is not available to flight physical dq's (note that airsickness dq's are still eligible), DORs, or CSO/ABM washouts.
There is no evidence that flight school disqual's are at a disadvantage during retention/promotion boards due to it being on their record. The only disadvantage is the lack of time spent on-the-job. I know of one guy who DOR'd late from JSUNT, re-classified as an engineer, and met a RIF board less than a year later. His unit rushed to get an OPR in his record, but with only that and a 475, the RIF board had little to go on, and gave him the axe.
-
Another rumor from ACSC... Practice bleeding (PME correspondence + residence) to stop. No word yet on how they will implement this, but my very simple suggestion would be to not allow enrollment in the appropriate correspondence course until after someone is no longer eligible for their residence PME course.
This sounds the same as what was being sold at SOS last summer. Do not know if it has gotten closer to implementation, but if they are still talking about it, then there must be some traction.
-
Eliminate the use or lose of end of year money. This will save million on unnecessary 50 inch flat screens and other wasteful spending just so we get the same amount of money next year.
Better yet, eliminate the culture of "If you did not spend it this year, then you do not need it next year." This should reduce the needless expenditure of funds at the end of FY to justify the same budget next year. On top of that, eliminate the culture that a bigger budget means that a commander is doing his/her job. Being able to justify an inflated budget, then torching it on unneeded items is not good practice.
The best idea that I heard recently was eliminating the color of money. This is more important in acquisitions, but MAJCOMs should have the latitude that if they want to fund a procurement requirement, they should be able to pull from an unused O&M fund, and vice versa. A change like that would be mindblowing.
Geting rid of a funding "expiration date" may not work well, as commanders might just squirrel away money, making budgetting even more complicated.
FY 14 Force Management Program (RIF, VSP, TERA)
in General Discussion
Posted
I've seen AFPC-sourced briefings say cuts are expected to be 25,000 in 18 months, versus the original announcement of 25K over 5 years. Cutting that many is not going to be pleasant either way, but AFPC will have to balance these years of dread with the impact of a once-time purge.