Not recently, unless you don't count Mosley's time as CENTAF (AFCENT)/CC. The last one the USAF had that wasn't any type of COCOM/CC was He Who Will Not Be Named.

I think you're mixing up MAJCOM and COCOM. In fact, the only CSAF that actually was a COCOM/CC in the last five was Schwartz (TRANSCOM).

-9-

Negative. It starts when you went on AO's...first day you started UPT. Ask your HARM.

You're right, I stand corrected. Note to self: YAS is different from years of rated service as defined in 11-402.

-9-

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd like to see the number of 5-year bonus-takers who made it to 16 but didn't stick it out to 20. My guess is that nearly all bonus takers rode it out to 20.

So yeah, a 5-year taker could get out at 16, but who does that? I'm sure it happens, but that's leaving a lot of money on the table by skipping out on the cliff pension.

I'm in a fortunate position because 20 YAS takes me to 20 years 2 months.

I know a few passed-over majors that were offered full-time guard or reserve jobs for units that were standing up or switching airframes, and those that could jump ship at 16 did to take advantage of that. As an added bonus, most if not all of those guys pinned on O-5 after leaving AD and will get the same AD retirement.

-9-

Reason for edit: Misinformation

The bonus to 20 years nearly doubles the payout for 11Xs. I predict that take rates will be close to historical average.

It nearly doubles the payout, but you gotta serve nearly double the commitment. Also, the bonus is to 20 years of aviation service, which for most folks is 21-22 years of total service and means that the 9 year bonus will make people serve longer than necessary for retirement.

-9-

Enjoy working with the Buff community. I've never heard so many "war" and "there I was" stories and seen so many Mach tucked covers then from those dudes. They're a special kind of breed.

As a still flying, combat capable 55 year old airplane that has participated in every war since the current model's production in 1960 (along with the KC-135), I think the BUFF has earned the privilege of telling a few "war" and "there I was" stories. Also, if you knew your Air Force history, you would remember that the "mach tuck" you speak of was originally called a "bomber crush", which was a crease from the headsets that the WWII bomber crews wore over their flight cap during their combat missions.

Other than those two minor critiques, you shacked the rest of your post.

-9-

Nobody can put a gun to your head to extend your ADSC, that's why they threaten the great unknown if you don't sign the extension before you go to the training. If they miss it and try to make you to sign something after the fact, there is not enough rank on base to force you to do it.

As always, pick and choose your battles. If you're committed to separating at that point, who cares if you piss off a CC?

You're right in the sense that no one can force you to extend your ADSC. However, you can't just forget the paperwork and start the training expecting to jink your way around it. Your signature isn't required for you to incur the ADSC -- merely being advised of the ADSC and starting training is enough for it to stick.

From 36-2107:

"2.17. Refusing to sign an ADSC Acknowledgment Form or Statement (Upon Selection for an ADSC-Incurring event). Members who are properly advised of an ADSC cannot therefore avoid an ADSC by refusing to sign the AF Form 63 or other acknowledgment statement. Members who do not establish a DOS or retirement date under the 7-day option and attend or enter into the ADSC-incurring event are considered to have constructively accepted the ADSC."

Now, obviously if you were never notified of the ADSC beforehand then you might have a valid argument, as you were never "properly advised." But if you were contacted prior to the "ADSC-incurring event" (via email, CMS, MPF, etc), then you can't get out of jail free by not signing the AF Form 63.

-9-

Were you ever an AETC Instructor Pilot?

Nope.

I asked a few follow-on questions regarding my ADSC, and according to a TSgt at AFPC, a T-38 IP assignment would not have generated an ADSC because I have flown that before. In that case, note 1b would apply and 1c wouldn't as previously stated earlier in this thread.

And as for what I'm going to do.. I'm going to take the T-6 along with the ADSC. I considered asking for a T-38 to avoid the ADSC, but there are two problems with this: 1) I would be forced to show my cards, and 2) the "system" does not favor those with ADSC concerns. The established process is for me to decline my T-6 ADSC in writing after being counseled by my MPF, establish a date of separation, and then ask the porch if I will retain my original T-6 assignment, receive another assignment instead, or have the T-6 assignment cancelled and stay at my current assignment until my separation date arrives. Your situation may be different, but for me, the safe call is to take the T-6 and the associated ADSC. Who knows, maybe I'll get lucky and get it removed after the fact like ViperStud suggests.

For you TL;DR folks, here's the basic lesson: Keep notes 1b and 1c in mind if faced with the possibility of an AETC tour. Your chosen white jet may add three years (not including PIT) to your short term plans if you're not appropriately fenced-in.

-9-

Thread revival:

I recently got an assignment to PCS this summer to be a T-6 IP. I never flew the T-6 in UPT, but my UPT commitment is long since up and I've been logging "continuous rated service" since UPT. Based upon the gouge found earlier in this thread, I referenced AFI 36-2107 table 1.1, note 1b when I was told I had to sign a 3 yr ADSC for advanced flying training via CMS.

Fast forward a week and this is AFPC's response:

"Response Via Email(myPers - Total Force Service Center)

Sir,
Thank you for giving us the time to answer your question. we have reviewed your record and note 1b is not applicable, however note 1c is applicable as quoted below,

"c. Rated officers who crossflow/retrain into another rated career field (e.g., an air battle manager who crossflows/retrains as a navigator or manned or unmanned pilot), crossflow/retrain to a different weapons system (basic qualification) or aircraft airframe will incur the full ADSC for that training even if that ADSC extends beyond the officers 6th or 10th year of rated service."

We did not find any prior training for the T-6, therefore this initial qualification training is applicable. Please see the below link to sign the form and return to our office. If you have any questions or concerns, please reply to this message. Thank you.

Please visit our "Advanced Flying Training" web page to accomplish this."

Can anyone here explain why note 1b conveniently doesn't apply in my case? And any recommendations on how I should proceed?

It seems to me that AFPC is very good at interpreting the AFI's through lenses that justify their position while blindly ignoring other sections that don't.

-9-

"The takeaways are startling. Welsh can’t fix the Air Force’s pilot shortage. He can’t even hire more babysitters to watch the kids while the adults fight terrorists. His honesty is refreshing, but no chaser can wash away the taste of inevitable mediocrity."

Hold the line: Welsh tells Creech there is no help on the way

-9-

Not to give credit where it isn't due, but they may have inquired to provide a stronger push to a school that isn't ACSC. "pcola is my #1 eligible! Push to Brazil for 2 years of partying……he already has that silly AF school done."

I see where you're going with this. And while I'm sure that some candidates have been selected for the primo IDE programs in previous years, I would also argue that it's highly unlikely. The stats over the past few years show that it's a low percentage of candidates who are selected for IDE. The percentage is exponentially lower for candidates who are selected for something other than ACSC.

The reality is that it's a difficult sell to get a candidate to some place other than Maxwell when there are selects fighting for the same slot.

-9-

How so? In terms of the original question related to IDE candidates.

As you probably know, CSAF's policy of restricting IDE completion by correspondence by school selects was to specifically prevent wasting an officer's time by doing it twice (i.e. practice bleeding). While not explicitly stated, CSAF's intent of eliminating practice bleeding applies to all officers, regardless of whether they are a select or a candidate.

A senior rater who uses a candidates completion of IDE by correspondence as a metric for 3849 stratification is clearly ignoring CSAF's intent on practice bleeding.

-9-

Understood. My question was if IDE correspondence completion is still a discriminator for candidates trying to get picked up for in-res.

Short answer: It depends on your senior rater.

While I don't believe the DT uses correspondence completion singularly as one of their discriminators to establish your order of merit, it could be potentially factored into your senior raters ranking of eligible candidates on your 3849. But good luck finding a senior rater that would admit this to you publicly, as that admission would run counter to the CSAF's guidance on practice bleeding.

-9-

Reason for edit: Typo

You can also do a 2+2+2 to finish out your career...

What's the last "+2" in a 2+2+2?

-9-

So, in the last few posts...

One person referenced an "OPB" while another recommended a discussion with a "mentor." I'm just curious... How many bro's have a mentor guiding them through the fog of their career? And how many have had a no-shit worthwhile "OPB" and not some box checking meaningless feedback that was required for their OPR?

I dunno, maybe I'm the outcast that never had a mentor. Or maybe, just maybe, that shit only happens if you've been knighted as the wing's golden boy.

What say you?

-9-

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Don't worry, hardly any of them are cleared for staff duty.

Don't worry, A1 is all over this. I mean, when was the last time they fvcked up?

-9-

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fellas - it may be too late, but this has been passed around recently and there's still some good info here - whether you're writing PRFs, trying to help out those who are, or stuck writing your own in self preservation mode....

Chuck

Chuck,

I hadn't seen that before, thanks! There's a bunch of useful info in there for PRFs. And like you alluded to... this would have been especially useful three months ago when I was writing my own PRF!

-9-

Record is inconsistent...he did push it sounds like.. lack of overall group level strats. Not bitter at all...based on what my record shows..I didn't deserve a dp if other records reflected better. Just hoping I have some other options out there. Not too pumped about my inconsistent record going to the board now..

..also..I noticed they left out combat on it..last time they made a note of my combat time..EKIA...all that. This time nothing..I am sure they all have their reasons but......

I'm in a similar situation in that I didn't receive a DP either despite leadership's help.

Overall, my record is consistent but with relatively lower % strats, (mine hover in the top 20-30% range). I did however have a DG on a TR that also included a top 4% strat. The DG was on my final PRF but the associated strat (my best strat of all of them) was removed. When I questioned it, I was told having DG and the strat was "redundant." Truth or BS?

-9-

Today, in my little corner of the AF, my SR chose to wait until the day before to distribute our PRFs even though he had them done days before. Why would a SR do this?

He also didn't hand them out himself, he forwarded them to the Group Commanders for distro and provided no feedback. Is that normal?

-9-

There's a Navy joke in that pic somewhere. I just can't seem to pull it out...

-9-

TT,

Without delving too deeply into "how we mix the batter," you'll find the take-rate numbers in October to be generally similar to last year's numbers. As for the "why," I ask you, "why not?" The ACP is a rounding error for the Air Force...a (nearly) free way to lock-down people's lives for 5-9 years. Nobody truly knows what would happen if we killed it (although I see a lot of "smart guys" on this thread that think they know exactly what would happen, when they really don't). Think of it this way: The AF is creating a "known" out of an "unknown" for a relatively cheap price. And wouldn't you know, for all of the banter on this site...we're still seeing plenty of takers. And we are grateful to those takers, because it helps our out-year programming in immeasurable ways (especially hard-to-fills).

I call BS on this logic. I've heard numerous times from AFPC that the non-vol list generated each assignment cycle doesn't factor in ADSC. And while I'm skeptical, I believe it because If it did, then there would be no such thing as a 7-day opt since the list would only target those who couldn't opt out. Also, if it became public knowledge (through policy or anecdotal data) that everyone who took the bonus got a bad deal, then the take rate would severely plummet and your "out-year programming" would be even more worthless.

-9-

With a training ADSC that takes me to January of 2020....

Just curious, what kinds of training ADSCs are 5+ years?

-9-

I'm not surprised to see the take rates so low. And I'm willing to bet that there won't be a significant improvement in the take rate during the next four weeks. In my previous squadron, dudes who were approved for VSP were treated like they won the lottery, while dudes who took the bonus were ridiculed because no one with a signed ARP agreement was approved to VSP.

And this year, unlike in years past, dudes who passed on the initial bonus are now offered nothing. Nada. Not one penny of the previously offered $125-225K. It's as if Big Blue is saying "I see that you had commitment issues during your two month eligibility window. Want to reconsider? Go fvck yourself."

2014 taught those approaching the end of their commitment that taking the bonus will bring you 5 additional years of misery, while not taking it will make you a top candidate for an early exit with a huge severance check. And now Big Blue either doesn't see a retention issue or understand why one exists?

I know there are some smart people on the HAF staff, which begs the question: why are we the only ones to see it for what it is?

-9-

This just in: https://www.duffelblog.com/2014/02/air-force-change-of-command/#!bA7qiK

If this trend continues, 2014 will be a record setting year for squadron commander firings.

-9-

Or 7500, whatever. I believe you too. Totally charismatic. Math aside.

Bendy

Edit: reading again, maybe I make fun of me?

You didn't pick up on my subtle sarcasm. To clarify, if you were to write "ten point zero to twenty-five thousand" numerically, would it look like 10-25K?

-9-

I had a SNCO and someone from the FSS tell me the AF received anywhere from 10-25K VSP and TERA applications. Anyone able to confirm these numbers?

I can't confirm but it's completely believable. I mean, when you do the math, that's a +/- of 12,495 apps.

-9-