spaw2001
-
Posts
72 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by spaw2001
-
-
Another silly baseops unsubstantiated rumor. Creech the mother of all black holes released 3 to staff this cycle and plenty of others to various assignmentsSo neither the CAF or the MAF have enough guys to release dudes for staff?
Break out your blues for Mondays, sign back up for those masters classes you dropped, and pack away those morale patches.... boys, the shoes clerks are all that's left.
-BUSTED
-
A bunch of 11M rpa dudes were approved at creech so not sure what the methodology is
-
Based on that logic, shouldnt everybody in the AF remain eligible and no year groups should close out? What if an 11F wants to separate? Is it unfair that AF needs dictates they are ineligible? Same with location. Why should an 11M manning a critical billet be released when they can just release one in a non-critical/overmanned billet and save backfill PCS costs? Luckily for all applicants, AFPC probably isnt this smart to look this deeply into it.But I thought the CSAF wanted this to be as fair as possible. Considering they already processed their first batch, approving 380 officers without blinking an eye at the who/where aspect, that wouldn't be "fair" to the rest of us VSPers now would it?
-
Do you mean that VSP applications requiring UPT ADSC waivers will be held until after 1 May? Every ADSC requires a waiver through the LADSC waiver program, but there are several people who have now been approved with ADSC for PCS, GI Bill, and others. It seems that if you were good to go on the 13-65 matrix, you are getting approved. If you were waiting on the Expanded Waiver Authority, then you have to wait until after 1 May. It would be nice if AFPC explained this, as their actions do not match the info they release.
It seems some ADSCs are viewed differently than others. I wonder if they will be weighed differently in the approval process as well...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes expanded waiver authority per the adsc matrix on mypers. Wasnt clear about that in previous post.
-
I sit on the staff perch. My leadership has kept pretty close comms with AFPC sep. Surprised others are in the wilderness.Has everyone seen the webinar slides posted on myPers dated 8 Apr? Slide 6 is particularly interesting. Says "airmen receive 120 days from notification to separation" as a change. So they're going to change all the approvals to a September separation or they're just bad at math?
This other nugget in particular worries me as an RPA guy. "Adjudicating rated applications by RDTM AND PAS. Need to ensure retention of Airmen with specialized training for critical missions." Sooooo.... Our current assigned unit is now a consideration? Fantastic. 11M with an 18S AFSC should be a red flag then. Just get on with it already.
The VSP apps being adjudicated pre May 1 are ones not requiring adsc waivers. The guy recently denied '03 11M was denied because his year group closed out on the matrix (probably because people they approved had no adsc or adsc closing out imminently).
After May 1, sep branch plans to adjudicate applications using RDTM, yr group matrix, and ADSC from least to most. So, if you are an '05 11M with 4 yrs, a Gi bill, and TA that is going to look less favorable than say a clean kill 2 yrs ADSC left.
While it will not be a primary consideration, due to some pushback, there will be some weighted consideratiom given to where someone is stationed (i.e 11M RPA dude). After all, a particular weapons systems cannot go from mission capable to non mission capable virtually overnight. Overall, however, afpc plans to primarily use the assignment system to redistribute mission requirements, so leadership is expecting approvals even at bases with "mission requirements" just perhaps fewer. I guess we will all see soon...
-
No problem. I have had the fortune/misfortune of sitting on the wing perch watching all the info funnel down. I will say this latest email seems to give the most hope to adscs being waived to some degree. Furthermore, why would afpc create a separate application window for people impacted if they will then turn around and deny everyone with adscs again?
With regards to the psdms still referencing rated afscs not being waived, the email alludes to the fact that this is because they have yet to receive the waiver authority from haf.
-
Our base received an official email from Afpc with questions and answers yesterday.
-Afpc is still waiting on a memo from haf expanding adsc waivers for health professionals and rated personnel.
- A new eligibility matrix will be posted removing around 500 Airmen from eligibility (does not specify officer/enlisted).
- People with extended afscs will have a separate application window to alleviate the initial denials
Timing on all this is still tbd
-
Chief of AFPC Retirements/Separations
I think he is a senior airman promoted below the zone
-
Our personnel OIC here says to reference LADSC for waiverable VSP ADSCs. As always, it is anyones's guess though. 13-65 does clearly summarize that additional waivers will be considered for palace chase because the AF gets recoupment in the form of guard/reserve commitment. This is in the top of the palace chase section.
-
I went through the 2011 AF VSP hunger games so trust me, very cynical about any of these programs. Yet, this is the first somewhat logical action the AF has initiated. They are steering MAF folks towards Palace Chase because as the psdm suggests there is a massive shortage in guard/reserve pilots so logically, why should the AF pay people to get out and completely waive ADSC when they can fulfill guard/reserve requirements? So, at the end of the day the AF in its twisted way, has provided a pathway to get out and some level of clarity. It is perhaps not what everyone wants to hear because it doesnt include getting paid to get out. This still doesnt really answer why they would place people on an eligibility matrix but thats AFPC for ya.
-
Havent had the chance to read PSDM yet. Any talk on pilot ADSC waivers? Are they really going to waive 5 years of someone's UPT commitment i.e for an 2006 11M? Seems fishy to me as they pulled the "only 6 months of ADSC waived" card last VSP despite insisting everyone was eligible!
-
RDTM is the 2 letter code found on your surf where your flying gates are listed based on your aircraft. This code then applies to your core AFSC in that all MAF pilots, for instance, are 11Ms but have different RDTMs based on what airframe they fly.
This gets tricky for rpa pilots that have not recategorized to rpas permanently. Eventhough their duty afsc and core AFSC may signify 11U for rpa pilot on a surf, their RDTM codes still shows their previous aircraft.
AFPC initially released a list that showed all rpa pilots as 11Us regardless of background (I.e MAF or CAF) but then they recently re-issed the list based off of RDTM which reassigns rpa pilots' core AFSC based on previous airframe unless they have chosen to voluntarily recat to 11U.
Confusing I know
-
Yup, when he gave a talk at my base, he brought this up specifically. He made the point that logic/common sense should define AFIs and not the other way around. He used the example that everytime a government vehicle is driven, AFI dictates that we are supposed to check the oil and do that dumb 13 point inspection. He said an airman asked him recently why we have to do this inspection because we don't expect our POVs everytime we drive them. CSAF agreed and told the airman to stop these inspections immediately.
With that being said, guaranteed the long chain of command between airman and CSAF will make the airman continue to do these inspections because the AFI says so.
-
An MBA buddy and I are looking into a business solution for some of the graduate school woes people are facing (i.e. financing and marginal job prospects after graduating). We have nothing to sell and just doing consumer/market study.
If you are currently applying to grad school or just went through the process and are willing to answer a few questions to help out a fellow flier, shoot me a PM. Thanks!
-
USAFA does not prevent cadets or officers from applying to top schools; it was encouraged when I went through, but you're right in that funds are limited. Many schools will supplement the $9K or whatever it is based on the academic acumen of the student and the unique perspective he/she brings as a military member.
You asserted that you won't find AMU on any of the academic vitae of the USMA faculty (although I found Troy University)...the same holds true for USAFA instructors/professors. They actually require that they hold a graduate degree in the same field for which they instruct. This requirement precludes receiving an underwater basket weaving degree from AMU/ERAU/TUI.
Ah yes. We were talking past each other. You are right, rotating faculty in the management department, for instance have to have a AACSB internationally accredited masters if they want to be direct-hired (reputable MBA programs have this while AMU is regionally accredited). If officers want USAFA to send them to get a degree first before reporting to a faculty assignent, then that was the $9K I was talking about. Going to get a masters immediately after graduation is an entirely different program, and yes, better schools are available. USAFA has a deal with MIT, for example, to send top cadets in the department to get a masters there.
-
The same holds true for USAFA and USNA.
Actually, not true. For Usafa, the academy greatly limits funds available for rotating faculty to get their degree before coming to teach. Last I checked, it was around $9,000 per year to get your masters (btw, you are not allowed to supplement the rest with GI bill or personal funds). This virtually eliminates all elite schools (unless they are willing to give massive scholarships). West Point, on the other hand, tells its incoming teachers to apply to and go to the best schools possible. There is a memo on usma.edu that I have to dig for. Totally different mentality between the two services.
-
Gee where have I heard this before? Oh right my army buddies I talk too.
Boom! I have an Army background so feel pretty strongly about it...They do things right on the education front, but not on the deployment front :)
If you have time, take a quick look at the "rotating officer faculty at west point" under this link. If you click on their names, you can see what schools they go to. I can't find AMU
-
1
-
-
If I want to invest my time, money, and effort in a real master's, having a BS online MBA won't stop that. But it does put the check in the box in the fastest manner possible. If the Air Force values education, they'll stop making it a box to check and invest in actual educational options.
I agree with the system you suggest, but it is also important to note that under the "quality education" plan, this will perpetuate the military caste system because not everyone will realistically be sent to get a masters. I envision this system would be similar to in-res IDE. I geeked out a bit when I was at SOS and researched this for my class presentation. If I were CSAF of the universe, this is what I would do:
1. Get rid of TA for officers (already done!)
2. Mask masters degree for majors board placing increased emphasis on primary duty performance evals
3. Close Air University to save funds
4. IDE process remains the same except officers do not go to military schools. When you get selected for school, you are sent to a U.S. private/public university to get a real masters degree (we essentially outsource our IDE)
5. Masters/IDE are not masked for Lt Col boards
The major benefit of this is officers are sent to real schools that carry real prestige. We get an educated officer force. Officers also get a much-needed/deserved respite and get to intermingle with civilian counterparts to reduce military groupthink/learn private sector best practices.
-
4
-
-
Agreed..This reminds me of SOS in correspondence. When I was in-res, the commandant specifically said that now that it is 100% attendance, correspondence will no longer be a pre-req. Guess what! My base still won't send you unless correspondence is complete. Similarly, as someone mentioned before, Wing commanders have the ability to give DPs only to masters complete folks. Yet, this will be tricky to force people to do something that the AF is not willing to pay for. Up to now, the AF hid behind their $250/cr hr pittance to justify voluntelling people to get masters on their own time.
-
Only the CSAF's highly anticipated "Vector" will answer that.
Exactly..Based on his recent speech at my base, he hinted at the fact that we can expect for masters degrees to be masked or carry less clout for 04 boards...But, we'll see if the AMU and TUI lobbyists have adjusted his position
-
As for grad degrees, yes I do believe they are important and yes I do believe that for the most part they help make people better (read: smarter) leaders. Just because some folks don't take advantage of opportunity doesn't mean the program is a bad idea. Education in any form is an investment that always pays off.
This cutting of TA is exactly what it appears, an attempt to inflict some pain and suffering within the workforce. We all know there are numerous other programs where monies could be cut with less effect, but the leadership needs something that's going to motivate people to complain. I think it's a poor tactic but that's how the game is being played currently. This forced budget situation is not going to solve any problems, nor are responses such as cutting TA; what is needed is a more and better thought-out plan on how to reduce spending over the long term. We all know it can be done without sacrificing necessary programs such as TA, but if someone actually worked within the intent and did reduce wasteful spending that didn't result in any impact on the mission then it would only lead to calls for more cuts...
This is dead on. Remember socialism is for the people and not the socialists. This is extremely typical of a progressive society. When the expansionary government does not get its way, it inflicts pain on the people to make the case for more government.
While this action is grotesque at the macro level, I am also sick and tired of even so-called conservative military people wrapping themselves in a patriotic flag and saying "cut everyone else's program but don't touch mine because I've served"...Seriously, stop giving yourself so much credit..You are most likely not George Washington. Also, please stop posting snarky facebook posts about reinstating TA or having me sign some dumbass petition.
The way I look at it, this is a grand opportunity for the Air Force to rethink its galactically moronic position on education. Furthermore, it will punish for profit "diploma hot dog stands" for using governmnt treasure to peddle their fraudulent product.
-
2
-
-
They can easily add an identifier to the existing PME blocks to indicate if an advanced degree was awarded via the means you described. The difference is that people were SENT to those programs. That's a huge difference.
Exactly...The AF wants to sit on two stools with one ass. They want an educated force but then don't want to dedicate time/appropriate resources (250/credit hr is a joke) to have people get degrees they need for true career development. I think the answer is for the AF to recognize folks that get into competitive programs (i.e. AFIT, CSAF prestigious PHD, Olmsted, IDE masters, etc...) by displaying these programs on SURFS, DVBs as they currently do. This gives credit to people that are selected for these programs while not punishing people that didn't get masters. The masking system would definitely work. Today, the system has evolved into a "for profit" joke where the air forces' intended goal of creating "warrior scholars" evolved bureaucratically into a money maker for diploma mills and an AF that celebrates box checking over tactical proficiency.
-
2
-
-
For what it is worth, when CSAF visited our base, he specifically said he is going to looking into masking the degree. No timeline mentioned
-
The paint job is not just for branding. It is also in response to next gen aircraft made out of composites which are not naturally silver. I admit, I'm partial to American cause I have family legacy that works for them. Yes, they have made mistakes, but let's not forget they were the only legacy carrier to forego going bankrupt the years after 9/11. Instead, they tried to fix the problems organically while the other airlines took the "get out of jail free" card. As we have learned now, bankruptcy can be used tactically, erase debt, and allow a company to start fresh with little real consequences except to the employees. Seeing this even in American now with their new brand, merger, and massive airplane purchase...all in bankruptcy
FY 14 Force Management Program (RIF, VSP, TERA)
in General Discussion
Posted
This argument is getting tired. Many of the "heralded line pilots" you suggest typically lack balance. Yeah they are good at flying but when it came to office work, personal development, etc... they were shitty. The fastest of burners had balance. Many are patches who are extremely proficient at flying and also know how to play the game and make their leadership look good. Yes, there are some careerists that make a living planning bbqs. On the otherside, there are some line pilots who get screwed. Those are the outliers. The mean of successful officers on the career bell curve are typically dudes that are good at flying but also bring value to the unit on the admin side. Stop using the bell curve tails to generate base ops red meat. Generals and even squadron commanders in today's air force are not paid to fly.