SurelySerious Posted November 9, 2014 Posted November 9, 2014 I don't disagree, but Sq/CCs are not and have never been the approval authority for decs. I would assert that functionals have taken over the AF. Commanders are given all the responsibility and much of their authority has been taken away over the course of the last 5-10 or more years. That is really the biggest problem with the AF right now, as I see it. I certainly hope that the CSAF is working on some of this. There are some indicators that he is. Good point; I guess that taking away Sq/CC judgement over the years is more what I was getting at.
Azimuth Posted November 9, 2014 Posted November 9, 2014 (edited) ProSuper, I know you didn't specify but Sq/CCs many times get overruled on things such as decs etc when someone has a failed PT test or some other negative issue. Depends. I got in trouble at my last assignment and was made an example of. I wasn't going to get a dec at all as a SNCO. The Sq/CC who handed me a LOR and UIF, and let me keep my MSgt stripe, wrote a push note to the OG saying I had recovered from something two years prior, I was human and was bound to make mistakes, and I was one of the best SNCO's in his Sq and while I wouldn't get an MSM, I did deserve a PCS medal of some kind. He is a leader, well known in the C-17 and KC-135 community. I get what you're saying, however in my experience most Sq/CC's wouldn't of done a push note like that because they just don't want to argue or get on the radar of their boss. I don't disagree, but Sq/CCs are not and have never been the approval authority for decs. I would assert that functionals have taken over the AF. Commanders are given all the responsibility and much of their authority has been taken away over the course of the last 5-10 or more years. That is really the biggest problem with the AF right now, as I see it. I certainly hope that the CSAF is working on some of this. There are some indicators that he is. But that's the problem. The OG/CC doesn't really know me, my Sq/CC does. He/she are the ones who go to bat for me. If I'm a Group/CC and I have a Sq/CC going to bat for one of their troops over a dec, and they don't do this all the time, I'll approve it because I'm trusting my Sq/CC's judgement. The AF is now filled with risk adverse managers who are too worried about upsetting their bosses and/or possibly derailing their career over sticking up for their troops. Edited November 9, 2014 by Azimuth
discus Posted November 9, 2014 Posted November 9, 2014 (edited) Edit: Pointed out that it was a double post. I'll leave it up because this one contains the text. https://www.wpafb.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123430954 How did we lose this young Airman? by Col. Donald Grannan 88th Communications Group commander11/7/2014 - WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Ohio -- She was an Airman Leadership School distinguished graduate, earned staff sergeant her first time testing, received all 5s on her Enlisted Performance Reports and took part in two deployments. Clearly she was a high-performing Airman. But, in her words, the Air Force had made it clear it didn't want her. Huh? I have proudly served our Air Force all of my adult life, so I truly didn't understand. Although I wasn't in her chain of command, I've known this young woman throughout her career. I tried to reflect on this from a professional, albeit admittedly biased, point of view. What would make this superstar believe we didn't care if she stayed or not? Was it a bad first impression? I remembered an incident as a new Airman at her first duty station. A senior NCO struck her car from behind in a minor fender-bender. Instead of admitting fault and moving on, he berated and intimidated this young Airman about the issue. Her first sergeant, who she went to for help, would not interject or discuss the issue with the senior NCO. I could have interjected as well, but I mistakenly believed it wasn't my place. It was. An Airman needed help, and no one gave it. Was it a lack of encouragement? After she earned staff sergeant her first time eligible, she saw the results online on the Air Force Web. Then ... nothing until the following Monday when the first sergeant stopped by to congratulate her and said the commander was "really busy." When she was a distinguished graduate from Airman Leadership School, it was a highlight in her career. But other than her immediate supervisor, no one from her squadron chain of command was present. I know, because I was there. Was it motivation? She was a veteran of two deployments, including one where she had a few days notice to support a humanitarian operation. By chance I saw her and another Airman at a connecting airport as I was returning from a temporary duty assignment. I saw their apprehension and anxiety and made sure they understood to take care of each other, trust their training and focus on the mission. But I wondered if their own leadership had talked to them like this. Did we at least send her out the door with a smile, to encourage others toward an Air Force career? No. Instead her superiors decided there would be no decoration for this outstanding Airman who achieved a lot in a short period of time and who was highly lauded by her supervisors. Why? Because she had once failed a physical fitness test, immediately re-took it, and passed. She had tried to 'wing it,' failed the run and learned a lesson. This young, healthy Airman, who weighs a buck-twenty-five, did not have a fitness or standards problem. She had a leadership problem. No one in her squadron leadership knew about or was present to witness her exceptional duty performance, her distinguished graduate accomplishment, her two deployments or early promotion. But they sure knew about the one time she stumbled. In the end we took an exceptional, highly motivated volunteer and did we mold her? No way. Did we encourage her? Not a chance. Did we create a new leader? No. We created someone who cares about our nation but is disillusioned and frustrated about what our Air Force finds important and unimportant. We lost an enormous opportunity, and we can't afford to repeat that mistake. Today, more than ever, as our ranks continue to decline, we must retain the best and most highly motivated Airmen. To do that, we have to lead them, be in the fight with them and focus on what's truly important and not become hyper-focused on marginal or anecdotal issues. How many more situations like this are out there? If you're in a leadership position, are you part of this problem? Do you know the people under you? Are you in the fight, witnessing their capabilities, encouraging and motivating them, or do you only know about them when they stumble? If you think command or leadership positions are just another assignment, you're part of the problem. Ask yourself, when was the last time a troop brought you a problem? If that's not happening, it's because they don't believe you can, or will, help them. So get busy proving to them they can count on you, and you'll be surprised how well you can count on them. Edited November 9, 2014 by discus
SurelySerious Posted November 9, 2014 Posted November 9, 2014 Link to.... Posted. This Colonel gets it. Good read.https://www.wpafb.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123430954
ThreeHoler Posted November 9, 2014 Posted November 9, 2014 I don't disagree, but Sq/CCs are not and have never been the approval authority for decs. I would assert that functionals have taken over the AF. Commanders are given all the responsibility and much of their authority has been taken away over the course of the last 5-10 or more years. That is really the biggest problem with the AF right now, as I see it. I certainly hope that the CSAF is working on some of this. There are some indicators that he is. According to the newest AFGM for the decs reg, Sq/CCs are the approval authority for the AFAM.
Herk Driver Posted November 9, 2014 Posted November 9, 2014 According to the newest AFGM for the decs reg, Sq/CCs are the approval authority for the AFAM. Thanks for that info. I am not in that mix right now so I haven't kept up with that guidance. That sounds like a good first step in the right direction.
Helo Kitty Posted November 10, 2014 Posted November 10, 2014 Thanks for that info. I am not in that mix right now so I haven't kept up with that guidance. That sounds like a good first step in the right direction. FWIW, it also aligns us with our Army bros who give AAM authority to Battalion CC's (Lt Cols).
panchbarnes Posted December 8, 2014 Posted December 8, 2014 Wow... This is just plain sad. Wrong study guides sent for Course 15 https://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2014/12/08/wrong-study-guides-sent-course/20082973/ Students had been told to use the online materials, but then, because of the system error, received the hard-copy books in the mail — leading to the tech sergeant's confusion. However, Geidner said, the center does not plan to reverse the test scores or give airmen who failed because of this particular issue a pass. "I see the fact that there is some culpability on our part because the system generated a package to a student, but there's also culpability on the student's part as well," Geidner said in a Dec. 3 interview with Air Force Times. "We would have to call somebody 'good' who did not pass a test, or did not study the appropriate material and take the appropriate test when they were notified of the proper materials, so ... we'd be asking ourselves to pass somebody who didn't pass the course — that's something that we wouldn't do."
Dupe Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 Wow... This is just plain sad. Wrong study guides sent for Course 15 https://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2014/12/08/wrong-study-guides-sent-course/20082973/ Wait a tick.... we're making NCOs and SNCOs go to school before going to school? I didn't know that... Why not just fix that the same way we did for SOS and those who are IDE/SDE selects? 1
Azimuth Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 The new Course 14 is 3,000 poorly worded and confusing slides, with no module reviews, and a 37-question test. Then they wonder why the failure rate is reported to be around 50-60%.
StoleIt Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 Wow... This is just plain sad. Wrong study guides sent for Course 15 https://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2014/12/08/wrong-study-guides-sent-course/20082973/ 2
WABoom Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 (edited) If I get picked to attend the SNCOA in residence I will also have to complete the corrspondence piece as well(newer version). So in all I may have to complete the same PME level 3 times! UFB Edited January 14, 2015 by WABoom
HossHarris Posted December 11, 2014 Posted December 11, 2014 And if you don't do the correspondence piece? It's only as retarded as you allow it (by playing along) to be.
BB Stacker Posted December 11, 2014 Posted December 11, 2014 And if you don't do the correspondence piece? It's only as retarded as you allow it (by playing along) to be. New concept for SNCO PME is that the correspondence piece (Course 14) is complimentary, not redundant, with the in residence piece (SNCOA). So in theory there should be minimal overlap between the two courses because SNCOA should be building on Course 14, not regurgitating the same stuff. I can't speak to the reality, but that's the theory. Because of this there's a requirement to have Course 14 done prior to attending SNCOA in residence, since in theory with the new construct you won't be fully qualified to attend SNCOA without having (the new) Course 14 complete.
Seriously Posted December 11, 2014 Posted December 11, 2014 Didn't it use to be that officers were the ones that came up with the bullshit and SNCOs were the crusty old dudes who knew exactly how to cut through the bullshit and get the job done? wtf happened? 1
Lord Ratner Posted December 11, 2014 Posted December 11, 2014 A bunch of Chiefs became E-9s. More like a bunch of Colonels became O-6s. 1
Marco Posted December 11, 2014 Posted December 11, 2014 A bunch of Chiefs thinking they are Colonels.....
sky_king Posted December 13, 2014 Posted December 13, 2014 Wow... This is just plain sad. Wrong study guides sent for Course 15 https://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2014/12/08/wrong-study-guides-sent-course/20082973/ Of course they aren't cutting slack. That would imply that someone admitted they were wrong. 1
Clark Griswold Posted January 2, 2015 Posted January 2, 2015 Not sure exactly what's wrong with the AF but here's an example of what was right about it from back in the day. Mission first, bureaucratic bullshit second. Spies Helped the USAF Shoot Down a Third of North Vietnam’s MiG-21s The American pilots had to keep the NSA in the dark
Royal Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 The AF weighs option of hiring contractors for the aggressor mission. The U.S. Air Force fleet of planes and pilots is stretched so thin, the service is considering hiring private military corporations flying supersonic jets to train its fighter jocks in mock air combat. The Air Force is being forced to consider such desperate measures because it doesn’t have enough fighter jets and trained aircrew to fly missions where they would simulate enemy warplanes—also called “red air” in military slang. Due to budget cuts and investments in ultra-expensive gear, the Air Force was forced to disband one of its three so-called Aggressor squadrons that fly frontline jets like the Boeing F-15C Eagle and Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon that are painted in enemy colors and use enemy tactics. The reason for the new initiative? Pure desperation, say more than a half-dozen senior Air Force officials. “The red air situation is a mess,” one senior Air Force told The Daily Beast. “There are Band-Aid fixes being applied to areas around the community, but it’s not enough.” It’s a sign of the system-wide stress the Air Force is now under. Thirteen years of war, combined with unwise investments in underperforming stealth jets, has put the service in a bind. There just aren’t enough planes—or pilots—on hand to fulfill the Air Force’s many missions. “Demand for our services is way, way up. But we are meeting those demands today with the smallest Air Force in our history,” Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James told reporters Jan. 15. “And when you couple that smaller force against the backdrop of austere budgets, and with the huge demand, what we have is we have a total force that is under significant strain.” As for outsourcing red air, not everyone is sold on the move—but most agree the Air Force has little choice. “The short answer is that contractor-provided red air is overpriced and underwhelming, but at the end of the day there isn’t much choice in utilizing it,” another senior Air Force official told The Daily Beast. The Air Force is soliciting pricing information for how much it would cost for contractors to fly 180 training sorties over a two-week period later this year. “Although this is a one-time trial, there is potential for this trial to grow into multiple requests per year or an annual contract for X number of weeks of support throughout the year,” reads an Air Force document posted on the government’s Federal Business Opportunities website.
Dupe Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 The AF weighs option of hiring contractors for the aggressor mission. Seems like a good idea to me to partially solve the 11F mess. I'm not sure why contractor-flown red air has to be "underwhelming."
Jughead Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 Seems like a good idea to me to partially solve the 11F mess. I'm not sure why contractor-flown red air has to be "underwhelming." Agreed. My question, though, is how this would save money. Save 11F bodies to fill other billets, sure--but save money? I doubt it, at least not in anything less than a complete actuarial sense--and probably not even then....
Dupe Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) Agreed. My question, though, is how this would save money. Save 11F bodies to fill other billets, sure--but save money? I doubt it, at least not in anything less than a complete actuarial sense--and probably not even then.... I think it would. Every mil that you flip over to a contractor means less base-support needed. Let the contractor handle dental plans, flight records, HR, etc. Not only are our long-term costs expensive, the AF's "overhead rate" is wildly expensive. The real problem comes in the colors of money. We'll be asking ACC to pay up as part of their operations bill as opposed to having some of the costs hidden deep in the MilPers fund or base operating support costs. The funding levers just don't shift that easily, so likely ACC is eating it somewhere else. *This conversation is a sign that I've been in the AF for way too long.... Edited January 21, 2015 by Dupe
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now