Weezer

Should just need to convince your approving official, right?

Per the JTR, you can still self-certify. That means, you can apply the AFI as the definition of unavailable when you do so...

Not sure that SK and Japan would get along all that well without the US Leviathan...domestic politics could very easily resort to jingoism, especially under the potential of Chinese info-ops. Now you have historical enemies with nukes. In any case, we need to shape the situation in advance by assuring China of no US ground troops north of DMZ either during or after offensive ops.

Back to this discussion: Boeing Invests in AI startup

I'm not a pilot...I don't care that y'all get paid more. You should. If I screw up my Power Point, no one dies. If you (or one of the hundreds of random Mx Airmen) screw up something related to your weapons system, you and potentially many others can die. That risk that you assume deserves additional compensation. And, the submariners and nuke guys in the Navy get paid more than typical SWOs and it's been fine for years.

I think it's pretty funny that it was the equipment they used for colonoscopies...the jokes should write themselves. Also, it feels like the statement wasn't fully thought through and they just listed all the diseases that *could* be transmitted, as opposed to actually identifying diseases that were present that would've actually been transmitted. If only 135 procedures using this equipment were done in that time, what's the actual likelihood, given the deployed environment, that one of those people had HIV or hepatitis? They might as well have included ebola and smallpox.

Even if CSAF does, SecDef can overrule him. I like your non-rated COA. I know of plenty of non-rated dudes who want a bigger piece of the operations pie, and some others who are getting too comfy not deploying.

This board should be IPZ for the '04 year group. The '04 year group pinned on in 2014, so 2018 would be 3 years TIG for the vast majority of IPZ. But the 3 years TIG for BPZ can't be a show-stopper. The '02 year group met their 2 yr BTZ board in 2014, but had only pinned on O-4 in 2012, so the 2 yr BTZ dudes only had 2 years TIG...therefore, it shouldn't be a showstopper for even shiny pennies. I reckon it's got more to do with DOPMA grade ceiling calculus somewhere along the line.

So, I'm not sure at what point you guys officially crossed over in the historical data from support to non-rated ops...2008 or 9?

For whatever it's worth, I ran some statistics on some numbers from AFPC's static stats site (under "RAW" on the AFPC secure apps site). My nerdery is attached. I reckoned if the AF values pilots (or some other field) over another, then that field will have a higher representation in the "Select" pool as compared to its proportion of the "Considered" pool for a promotion board. For example, in the 2017 Lt Col Board, 30.3% of those considered were pilots, while 31.39% of those selected were pilots. 31.48% of those considered were mission support, while 32.82% selected were. So, pilots and mission support ended up with a bigger piece of the pie than CSO, ABM, and non-rated ops. Theoretically, that would mean the AF values those fields more. What I found was, using a statistical test of significance (Z value), there isn't a significant over/under representation over the past 5 years among pilots, CSOs, ABMs, non-rated ops, and mission support for the IPZ board to Lt Col. However, for BPZ to Lt Col, and in BPZ and IPZ to Col, pilots make up a larger share, both historically and over the past 5 years. What I think this indicates is that your IPZ rates are based on steady state staff and squadron command opportunities within each community. But, the high representation of pilots in the BPZ pool shows that the AF is ensuring its HPOs and future GOs will be pilots. I don't have data to show if those making BPZ are the best pilots/officers/leaders, or whatever; just that the AF values pilots as senior leaders. Not sure I'll affect anyone's opinions, but I thought I'd share. Also, I don't think I have to ask, but please point out any errors I've made in the analysis. Hist LAF Stats.xlsx LAF Promotions Proportion Study.pdf

I think in both cases they can delegate to a lower commander (group CC) in my case. That feedback was more of making sure I wasn't going to hurt myself or others and letting me know it was all over and thanks for playing than what might have happened at the board. I got my PRF in a sealed envelope. I showed to my Sq/CC (who had forwarded the initial draft). He looked at it and kind of furrowed his brow and said "Hmm...not how I would've done it but I guess different Senior Raters have their own way of doing it...you're probably fine." Kind of knew I was screwed there.

Agreed that your leadership should be providing you feedback (mine did not when I got passed over). I think it's helpful to have feedback outside your chain as well. Even if your SR was on the board, they are sworn to secrecy, and may not have had records on their docket that would be right to compare yours to. Sometimes your leadership could be actively trying to screw you over, too... The AFPC phone call is a post mortem on your specific record compared to low selects/high non-selects from your specific board. Your leadership is not likely to have anything that specific.

Reading the article, it specifies that they've closed their airspace to Qatar airways. Other carriers fly in there. Sea lanes are still open. Worst case, the MAF guys may be busy for a while, but this is likely get sorted out.

What they told us was that Qatar considers itself a sort of neutral zone...they don't care who you are as long as 1), you don't cause trouble, and 2), you are not Iran. The Taliban have offices there, for example. But, if you cause trouble, you're gone, one way or another. Bottom line: I don't think this indicates any changes for life at the Deid.

From my AFPC counseling and other sources: for O-5, the job push should be for command...in the AF's eyes, Lt Cols are commanders, so a push for anything else is a message from your SR the you don't have the full potential to perform at the next higher grade...

I did last year and made it APZ this go-round w/ a P. It was extremely helpful in my situation. At the very least, it will let you know if your issue is something you can fix in a year (a poorly written PRF/push line) or if it is not (bad/no recent strats or inconsistent OPR push lines). It does take a while to get an appointment (mine was in August last year). The lady you talk to is pretty thorough, and as far as I know, she's the only one who does it.

Not all bases have flying wings. So I guess the space guys command non-flying squadrons, too? Of note, from the stats: pilots and mission support both make up ~30% of ipz population but made up ~31% of selectees. Other operators (e.g. 12Xs) and non-rated ops (e.g. Space and cyber) were selected at lower rates than their proportion of population. Pretty soon you'll end up with pilots commanding space squadrons.

So this is where my mission support perspective throws me off...I will never personally lead all of the types of flights in a CE squadron until I'm a squadron commander. It is nearly impossible to succeed as a mission support squadron commander without staff perspective.

This is a change from 8-10 years ago, when my career field was doing 6 months home, 6 months away. Other support AFSCs weren't much better off. When we weren't deployed, we were trying to catch up on all the things, personal and professional, that we missed. That probably affected customer service. That relaxed "home station" mentality was allowed in the name of resilience. And that could be where kids these days are getting the idea that's okay. Big AF pushed for the 1:2 dwell minimum...in fact, that's a DOD goal. The time away dropped, but home station bankers hours apparently did not.

Interesting thought. I think you'll end up replacing the "obstructionist" support officers with obstructionist support chiefs. Try to lead an effective organization without the backing of the chief, regardless of your rank. Nobody runs a mafia like a chief, in any service, any AFSC.

As I've said before...not a pilot. I did spend a lot of time in non-staff jobs, being the last one in the office, going TDY every time I turned around. Not the same as a pilots battle-rhythm, but not bankers hours. After several staff jobs, some joint, some MAJCOM, I'd have to say, While staff jobs don't teach leadership, I think the exposure you get to big picture stuff makes you better when you go back to the line. Never having been an exec/aide, I would say that limited time spent there can be useful for development, as long as it's used as part of deliberate development, and not just an easy way to punch your ticket. Leadership experience early on is crucial for developing officers. However, the cross pollination and perspective you get from staff and even exec help you better apply the lessons you learn as a flight commander to the big time as a squadron commander. Again: not advocating staff/exec as a shortcut to promotion or even, by itself, a way to "make" an effective leader. Just saying they can be a useful and effective part of the program.

Do this, and you'll quickly run out of flying positions to put rated Lt Cols in. You'll be putting flyers as commanders of non-flying units and in non-rated staff positions. I'm not against that, necessarily, but I don't think that's what's going to motivate your rated CGOs.

Afi 34-135 para 3.3.3 gives the lodging manger say on what's adequate, unfortunately. However, reading the JTR Ch 5, part A, sec 9, paragraph G.2.b(4), you may not need a non-A, and reading paragraph (5), you may be able to personally certify adequate rooms aren't available. Furthermore, if they're putting 5 people in one room, and having some on the floor, that sounds like a fire code violation: call CE/fire department/safety to get them to write it up.

Found it: from AFI 36-2501 2.12.3. Information or guidelines on the needs of the Air Force for officers with particular skills (if necessary), including the need for a minimum or maximum number of officers with particular skills in a competitive category. Information or guidelines on officers with particular skills must be furnished to the board as part of the written instructions provided to the board at the time the board is convened.

You really don't see how that would backfire?