Promotion and PRF Information

[moosepileit]

I'll take 10 Tony Carrs in the USAF over 1 Chang. I knew and flew with him. GC, you are no TC.

Stick to quoting Shakespeare in Klingon.

The world will be better for it.

[Liquid]

The Lt Col list will be released on 17 Jul. Do any of you think AAD and IDE (res or corr) should be complete prior to IPZ to O-5? Should SR, MLRs and boards consider advanced education when determining who should be promoted? I am in favor of completely masking AAD at O-4 board, but not O-5. Thoughts?

[Jughead]

The Lt Col list will be released on 17 Jul. Do any of you think AAD and IDE (res or corr) should be complete prior to IPZ to O-5? Should SR, MLRs and boards consider advanced education when determining who should be promoted? I am in favor of completely masking AAD at O-4 board, but not O-5. Thoughts?

AAD: no. With certain exceptions in certain career fields, it's a silly requirement at any level (O-4, O-5, or beyond). Half the issues raised in this thread could be eliminated if the AF simply stopped tracking AADs altogether.

IDE: yes, with strong emphasis on the "or" in "res or corr," and absolutely no weight on when completed and equal weight given to correspondence

EDIT: Disclaimer: recent O-5 retiree, no dog in this fight. FWIW, I played the game--got the worthless* AAD, and SOS/ACSC/AWC (all correspondence); while the AAD was simply to make myself promotable, I actually agree with the PME requirement (though the implementation requires a LOT of work).

*worthless = said degree did not make me a better officer; better manager; better leader; better pilot; better anything. Its "value" was solely in punching the ticket for O-5.

Edited July 11, 2013 by Jughead

[Rusty Pipes]

The sad truth is, we are about to have a significant drawdown. There is no upside for the Air Force to find a way to promote more people. In fact, the more people they can boot from the system for not getting promoted, the easier it is for the PR machine to work. After all, it is much easier to explain to the press why you are cutting the bottom 20% for not getting promoted than it is to explain why you are RIFing people after paying them a bonus. And if even more get out when the school slots dry up? Even better. Eventually we'll get somewhere the Air Force's accounting starts to look good again.

Granted, we won't have anyone left to fight the next war...but that's OK, we're wrapping up this Afghanistan thing next year, and there won't ever be another conflict anyway, right?

Its not about getting more people promoted, its about making sure we get the right people promoted. Under the current system we are literally deciding who will become O-5s and especially Commanders when they are Lts because when you are using "when did you check your box" as a discriminator that is when you need to start checking those boxes. I have talked to countless O-6/O-7s (granted about 5 yrs ago) who have said that when they were Majors they didn't know if they even wanted to stay in, didn't really know what school was about, was just flying the line and doing their job, never even knew what a School Select was until they told them they were a Select, etc... and they became Wing CCs and Generals. Liquid actually said those same things in this thread. I think that is great, but under our current system that is literally impossible to do today unless you get multiple DFCs or something extreme along those lines.

When I fly with that young co-pilot who doesn't know his Ops Limits, but is taking 2 Masters classes at a time it pisses me off because he is obviously putting his AAD check ahead of being an expert at his job (again, not his fault... I blame his Commanders for that). But that co-pilot is eventually going to be an Aircraft Commander as a young Capt who is going to be more worried about what box he needs to check and still won't be an expert at his job! Now I have an Aircraft Commander AND a co-pilot who are literally putting flying combat missions #2 behind queep. I'm not sure the folks wearing Stars really understand that is what is happening... and it is of their own creation.

Liquid talked about providing feedback to bosses and I agree there is a difference between whining and bitching, there just seems to be very little room for innovation or new ideas with the new mold of "leaders" in our Officer corps today. The unspoken feedback being given to the boss by the Lt who puts the AAD first over job performance is that they are willing to fall in line while the kid who does it in reverse is seen as some sort of "trouble maker". If you want to say you need an AAD to make O-5 then I'm completely onboard with that, but we need to pull out of this senseless box checking nose dive that we are in where that has somehow become associated with how well someone can lead.

[Rusty Pipes]

Do any of you think AAD and IDE (res or corr) should be complete prior to IPZ to O-5? Should SR, MLRs and boards consider advanced education when determining who should be promoted? I am in favor of completely masking AAD at O-4 board, but not O-5. Thoughts?

I have no issues whatsoever with AAD being required prior to O-5 IPZ... same for IDE. I think it should be Y/N for both though... in other words remove all dates associated with it. I actually think that AAD should not appear anywhere on your records prior to pinning on O-4 unless you were specifically sent to school by the AF to do your job (AFIT, USAFA Academic Instructor, etc). If Lt Jenkins wants to get his AAD to get it out of the way then more power to him, but he shouldn't be "rewarded" for it... especially if it means that others need to "pick up the slack". Lt Jenkins may be a single FAIP at Laughlin with a hell of a lot more time to knock it out than Lt Smith who is married with a 4 month old flying MC-130s 300+ days a year in places that most people have never heard of. Jenkins having that box checked does not make him a better leader than Smith... right now that is how it is seen.

[Gravedigger]

The Lt Col list will be released on 17 Jul. Do any of you think AAD and IDE (res or corr) should be complete prior to IPZ to O-5? Should SR, MLRs and boards consider advanced education when determining who should be promoted? I am in favor of completely masking AAD at O-4 board, but not O-5. Thoughts?

I still think we need different promotion boards for different career fields. I don't think 13S, 13N, 17D, 61S, 62E, 63A and a few others should even make major without an AAD. We have plenty of time and opportunity to complete a degree as Lts and Capts, and honestly these career fields should be required to pursue degrees that are relevant to their AFSC. I got an MS in Space Studies that directly contributed to my operational knowledge and proficiency. Our engineers that have AADs in their fields save the Air Force millions of dollars with unique solutions to anomalies and better ways to operate.

Rated folks on the other hand don't have the time nor need for an AAD until O-5 maybe even O-6 boards. So, to answer your question, it really depends on AFSC IMO.

Edit: Why does the Air Force have separate boards for JA, BSC/Med, and Chaplains but not differentiate between rated/non-rated? Are they not just as different and unique as the separate boards we already have?

Edited July 11, 2013 by Gravedigger

[slackline]

The Lt Col list will be released on 17 Jul. Do any of you think AAD and IDE (res or corr) should be complete prior to IPZ to O-5? Should SR, MLRs and boards consider advanced education when determining who should be promoted? I am in favor of completely masking AAD at O-4 board, but not O-5. Thoughts?

IMHO, until someone can show some concrete proof that the AAD's people are getting actually do the Air Force any good, it shouldn't be a requirement at anytime. At best, you're getting someone who is only slightly wasting his time. At worst, you're taking someone's attention and focus (at every level O-3, O-4, or O-5) away from their primary job to force them to prove they "care about being promoted" and nothing else. Then add in the stress that the lost time contributes to family life, and you get disgruntled individuals.

I have zero AAD. I started 3 times and each time I couldn't stomach the garbage, so I stopped and put my focus where it belonged. The mission. Somehow I got picked up for school, and I even got an incredible push from my SR. When my current boss told me I needed to get my AAD now to be competitive I politely told him that I wouldn't be doing it. I even asked him if he thought it was legit, or just for box-checking to be promotable. You wouldn't like his answer. Nice guy, but drunk on kool aid. If I still am able to continue pushing up the line without my AAD (I firmly believe in PME, even if correspondence is stupid just to do in residence), I will continue to fight against AAD's until I get fired for it.

When will senior leadership realize that AAD's are ZERO ADDED VALUE? Caveat: you send someone to a real school somewhere for a real degree, but then we're talking IDE aren't we?

I still think we need different promotion boards for different career fields. I don't think 13S, 13N, 17D, 61S, 62E, 63A and a few others should even make major without an AAD. We have plenty of time and opportunity to complete a degree as Lts and Capts, and honestly these career fields should be required to pursue degrees that are relevant to their AFSC. I got an MS in Space Studies that directly contributed to my operational knowledge and proficiency. Our engineers that have AADs in their fields save the Air Force millions of dollars with unique solutions to anomalies and better ways to operate.

Rated folks on the other hand don't have the time nor need for an AAD until O-5 maybe even O-6 boards. So, to answer your question, it really depends on AFSC IMO.

Good points. I was typing when you did that up. Again though, we're talking apples and oranges AADs. Real and applicable to careerfield vs. diploma mill in order to promote. Thanks for the insight.

[Tonka]

The Lt Col list will be released on 17 Jul. Do any of you think AAD and IDE (res or corr) should be complete prior to IPZ to O-5? Should SR, MLRs and boards consider advanced education when determining who should be promoted? I am in favor of completely masking AAD at O-4 board, but not O-5. Thoughts?

It really doesn't matter if the board considers it, the PRF process will and the raters will continue to. As long as the culture continues to worship AAD and IDE like they are some magically-delicious vision of 10 years into the future the problem will persist.

[moosepileit]

"The Lt Col list will be released on 17 Jul. Do any of you think AAD and IDE (res or corr) should be complete prior to IPZ to O-5? Should SR, MLRs and boards consider advanced education when determining who should be promoted? I am in favor of completely masking AAD at O-4 board, but not O-5. Thoughts? "

short answer- "2" to jughead's post.

long answer-

I got a "real" masters before entering active duty in 1995 after an ROTC commision with 1 in 100 qualified graduates receiving a pilot slot. It was a direct follow-on to my "real" BS. I knew I might need one in life, was already in school mode, and didn't not want to take away from my real work in the future. My classmate was an Army O-5 Assigned to the same degree program, full time. I also knew it was a pilot training trough, and it would get better towards the end of my first assignment non-flying. Timing isn't everything, but it covers for a lot.

I am biased against work outside of one's assignment. How do you fully bloom where you are planted, otherwise? Why take away from your personal time or the taxpayers' time? Amazing what you can learn as a tier 2 late rated, ex-Mx officer when you don't need to sweat SOS and a masters. SOS- got sent as a last second pick before I'd even signed up- lucky. ACSC? That was 8 weeks of time wasted after a deployment, ORI and ASEV- but- I wanted to make it to O-5 and that was the final box to check.

I found the joint points process to be a joke, I hit it towards its infancy, though and never cracked the code before it was time to move on in the ARC. If it could be wrapped into a better officer development that removes the AF centric DE AND replace the need to self-serve an AAD- that would be great. I wasn't taking a bronze star 179 as an airline pilot by then. The ACSC/Masters was a good start, but look at it honestly.

You have to remove the AAD from all levels of rack-n-stack, not just those you listed, if you mask it.

I agree, by O-5 board, you are in it for a career and the game is changed- that does not mean the current self-service option for AAD is correct. I agree that PME is PME- if required to be completed, equal credit for in or out of residence. Don't look at the date vs. promotion. I get the requirement to stratify all and hurt some in the current mindset.

I was lucky to be an OG's exec as a O-3 after being late rated. I learned there was no way I could do what I saw the O-6s doing with their 7 days per week. Couldn't just be a Sq/CC or DO and be happy- those turned into springboards or parking stalls. That used to be the goal when I was a kid. Chiefed every other office job in a flying sq you can name through the inspection cycles, then saw the writing on the wall.

Happily flying in the ARC as a crustifying O-5, insert appropriate Rainman remarks here..

Big elephant of which to take that first bite- if you don't fix the OPR, you won't have an easy fix to the PRF. The stratification whack-a-moles are by-products. I argue that drives this entire thread's root cause. Fix one issue, another will crop up. Hope you know the decoder ring when your PRF is in the cue. Great thread, wish every 2Lt could learn these lessons early- and be driven to be an expert in their assignment, not in their future PRF.

[TAMInated]

When will senior leadership realize that AAD's are ZERO ADDED VALUE? .

One of my wing commanders would occasionally get all the CGOs in the wing together at the club. He would stand in front of the crowd with a glass of scotch and answer whatever quesitons we would ask him. One flight commander had a Lt that got his undergrad in rocket surgery from MIT and was considering getting a masters in rocket surgery, also from MIT. The kid was also considering Tuoro/Trident/whatever. The flight commander asked the wing king what he should advise this young Lt to do, go to MIT or check the square. The wing commander recommended he go to Tuoro. My list of reasons for leaving the Air Force is long and distinguished, but this conversation is near the top.

Edited July 11, 2013 by TAMInated

[Herk Driver]

The Lt Col list will be released on 17 Jul. Do any of you think AAD and IDE (res or corr) should be complete prior to IPZ to O-5? Should SR, MLRs and boards consider advanced education when determining who should be promoted? I am in favor of completely masking AAD at O-4 board, but not O-5. Thoughts?

As others have said, you have to mask the information so that no one can use it for any part of the PRF process. You cannot have it on a SURF for the Sq/CC or raters to utilize for rack/stack purposes and then the SR is only told not to use it.

Big proponent of PME at all levels...implementation in the AF needs to be addressed, but yes.

AAD...one could argue either way, but really should be needs of the AF based and a pilot with an AAD versus an engineer with an AAD are separate animals.

[ClearedHot]

IMHO, until someone can show some concrete proof that the AAD's people are getting actually do the Air Force any good, it shouldn't be a requirement at anytime. At best, you're getting someone who is only slightly wasting his time. At worst, you're taking someone's attention and focus (at every level O-3, O-4, or O-5) away from their primary job to force them to prove they "care about being promoted" and nothing else. Then add in the stress that the lost time contributes to family life, and you get disgruntled individuals.

Personally torn on the value of an AAD. I believe the intent has morphed into a completely different animal. Originally it was to encourage critical thinking, to help develop your thinking about things other than the basic mission. Should it be a box you check, absolutely not, it should be a purposeful program that develops your ability to think about things bigger than yourself and the future. Honestly, flying is a young mans game...There is an old memo From Tooey Spaatz...paraphrasing here, but in short it says pilots in their late 40's shouldn't fly at night or fly tactical aircraft...anyway, what I am trying to say is as a young major you are probably as good as you will ever be in the jet. Yes there are old high time Lt Col's who can fly the crap out of a plane, but we MUST develop people that can move up with the bigger picture.

Its funny because a lot of the bitching on this forum is about the ancillary stuff, "I just want to fly"...well we need some people that just want to fly...but not a lot, there are lines of young people at the door who want to get in and fly. As our service gets smaller we also need folks who are able to think and lead from a strategic point of view. (Look at what happens we let the non-rated guys run the staff, they make some really uniformed decisions.)

It probably matters not anyways as the fighter mafia has sold it's soul to preserve the F-35. The cuts we (USAF), are about to endure are simply staggering, ultimately we will only need 189 Raptor Pilots and a couple hundred F-35 pilots, everything else will be parked in the boneyard so we can all go to school fulltime.

When will senior leadership realize that AAD's are ZERO ADDED VALUE?

[TheInner]

The Lt Col list will be released on 17 Jul. Do any of you think AAD and IDE (res or corr) should be complete prior to IPZ to O-5? Should SR, MLRs and boards consider advanced education when determining who should be promoted? I am in favor of completely masking AAD at O-4 board, but not O-5. Thoughts?

A bit repetitive of other posts since I am a slow typer.

Liquid, I think there is no doubt that the USAF wants AAD/IDE complete prior to the board. I personally think that PME is a no-brainer. My beef lies with the AAD because a degree from "Container Checking University" that was earned through credits courtesy of SOS/WIC/RTU/etc and classes "taught" by a bro somehow equates to officer potential. This wastes the time of the individual, both personally and professionally, and costs the AF a ton of TA money. I do believe education is important and the O-5 board is a logical place for it to become a discriminator but the key word is education. We have created a culture that appears to value wasting our time instead of learning at least a little something of use. I was a military brat so I know that getting a BS masters is nothing new, just pick a few bios and you are likely to find a few Golden Gate University and the like. But if the AF wants to continue to value education, they should at least care about the degree to some extent. Does the OLMP carry any weight with boards/SR? I would think that Big Blue would value a person getting a degree from the Air Force a little bit at least.

.

Edited July 11, 2013 by TheInner

[slackline]

Personally torn on the value of an AAD. I believe the intent has morphed into a completely different animal. Originally it was to encourage critical thinking, to help develop your thinking about things other than the basic mission. Should it be a box you check, absolutely not, it should be a purposeful program that develops your ability to think about things bigger than yourself and the future. Honestly, flying is a young mans game...There is an old memo From Tooey Spaatz...paraphrasing here, but in short it says pilots in their late 40's shouldn't fly at night or fly tactical aircraft...anyway, what I am trying to say is as a young major you are probably as good as you will ever be in the jet. Yes there are old high time Lt Col's who can fly the crap out of a plane, but we MUST develop people that can move up with the bigger picture.

Its funny because a lot of the bitching on this forum is about the ancillary stuff, "I just want to fly"...well we need some people that just want to fly...but not a lot, there are lines of young people at the door who want to get in and fly. As our service gets smaller we also need folks who are able to think and lead from a strategic point of view. (Look at what happens we let the non-rated guys run the staff, they make some really uniformed decisions.)

.

I agree that flying forever isn't realistic or safe. I'm not just talking about that. The CC's I've had don't work easy hours. I don't believe anyone in a staff job should be focusing on a bogus or otherwise degree. My point was that AAD's take everyone's focus off their real mission, whatever that is at that time.

I'm 100% willing to work late nights for the mission be it flying or staff or whatever, take crap TDY's, deployments if it's necessary etc., but once you say "do all that plus get a degree" is when I say, "no thanks." If the AF decides it no longer requires my services because I wasn't willing to do that, so be it. That's not the AF I signed up for, and there will be plenty of boot licks willing to take my place. I'm nothing special, but the AF will lose a hard worker, and someone who cared. I'll find a job doing something, and my family will be happy.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

. Does the OLMP carry any weight with boards/SR? I would think that Big Blue would value a person getting a degree from the Air Force a little bit at least.

.

Don't have experience with that program, but it seems like that one should be one of the only ones with any real weight. Outside of a brick and mortar university that is, but who can be good at their real job, do a real degree, deploy, go TDY, and keep a family healthy at the same time? Maybe I'm way off base here, but it's just not realistic unless you sacrifice your family or sanity (for single types).

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[BitteEinBit]

Flying for a career (to age 65) is realistic and safe...the airlines do it all the time (granted someone in the AF would time out long before 65, but you get the point). An NMR O-6 and above flying once a month (only with an IP nonetheless) for currency and to build hours to put a new airframe on their resume is not safe, but we do it all the time. Forcing our youngest aviators to focus on everything but their primary job of flying is very dangerous...but we do that also.

Yes, the Air Force needs strategic leaders and if rated officers want to take that route, stop flying and leave that to the younger guys who "just want to fly." In all my years of flying, I've had exactly 1 OG and 1 WG/CC who were fully qualified in the aircraft and didn't require an IP to fly their once-a-month hours-building sorties. The OG was actually an IP and a very good one at that.

Can the Air Force afford a bunch of passed over Majors to fly through 20 years of service or do we get more bang for the buck with the senior Captains and junior Majors? From a fiscal perspective, probably not the most cost effective, but real question is can the Air Force afford NOT to have those experienced aviators training the newest pilots given our current climate and "focus?" Chances are, those crusty passed over Majors flew their whole careers and didn't worry about things other than their primary job so they're probably good at it. Nowadays, the chances are the senior guys and the "young Captains" who are supposed to be training these new pilots focused on AADs and PME moreso than the mission during their developmental years all while we non-continued our experience. So, Yes...in that regard, that is dangerous.

For Liquid's question...AADs shouldn't be masked for O-5 and of course it is a no-brainer that PME is required at ALL levels. I just don't see the value of the AAD before that point unless, like others have said in earlier posts, the Air Force has sent someone to an actual brick and mortar school to specialize in something that will benefit the AF.

BT

Edited July 11, 2013 by BitteEinBit

[17D_guy]

I still think we need different promotion boards for different career fields. I don't think 13S, 13N, 17D, 61S, 62E, 63A and a few others should even make major without an AAD. We have plenty of time and opportunity to complete a degree as Lts and Capts, and honestly these career fields should be required to pursue degrees that are relevant to their AFSC. I got an MS in Space Studies that directly contributed to my operational knowledge and proficiency. Our engineers that have AADs in their fields save the Air Force millions of dollars with unique solutions to anomalies and better ways to operate.

Rated folks on the other hand don't have the time nor need for an AAD until O-5 maybe even O-6 boards. So, to answer your question, it really depends on AFSC IMO.

Edit: Why does the Air Force have separate boards for JA, BSC/Med, and Chaplains but not differentiate between rated/non-rated? Are they not just as different and unique as the separate boards we already have?

I wanted to disagree with you at first, but solely for the sake of the 17DA folks. However, I don't know what they do, so I can't speak to their time requirements. I know their initial school is more intense and then they disappear into the ether. The few that I've met go TDY a lot. They also talked about getting out since they didn't want to do a "normal" comm job.

I know getting a TUI/Toro degree would be what most of my peers are going on now. I've enrolled in an upper ranked Info Assurance program at a local brick and mortar, but could be getting screwed out of my 4th year at my assignment and may have to transfer a year+ worth of work to a diploma mill.

I'll never be CSAF, nor will gravedigger, nor my finance buddy who med DQ'd from UPT. I don't know why we promote together. Has it always been this way?

At the same rank we're generally doing different jobs, with different leadership expectations. I can't tell at what level we become parallel in rank/responsibility senior O4? O5?

Edited July 11, 2013 by 17D_guy

[joe1234]

Honestly, I've always thought the best way to fix these problems was to retain the crusty old majors and lt cols with a billion hours as reservists in an associate unit to train the young guys. That way the guys who want to make rank on AD can get their AAD's and PME, go do staff jobs and whatever else outside the cockpit as a means of broadening. Meanwhile, you retain your experienced dudes at a discount. This essentially gives you a command track, and an aviator track. Every pilot would basically have 2 ops tours and a nonflying tour where they have to go be a maintenance officer, or a loggie, or a comm officer. This job would be where you're vetted for command later on down the road. It's also the time where you can knock out degrees, PME, etc, the type of things we want to see senior leaders have.

From a Big Blue perspective, it makes sense because you retain an experienced pool of aviators at every operational base (save OCONUS which would have to play by different rules), and you're saving a ton of money by employing this experience part time, and filling cockpits. Not only that, but you could bolster the low manning of a lot of nonrated fields that integrate flyers on a nonflying tour.

From a pilot perspective, it makes sense, because even though you might have to do 1 nonflying tour during your AD time, you could stay in the cockpit for as long as you wanted after that, in a reserve capacity. You don't have to deal with PME, you don't have to deal with AAD's, or being an exec, or whatever else. If you want to stay on AD, you get developed as a future leader, not a distracted aviator. It's essentially what Warrant Officers are in the Army, compared to aviation officers.

I don't know, I'm just trying to come up with solutions here, instead of incessant complaints.

[BitteEinBit]

Joe, that is a good idea. I've always been a fan of increasing our reserve rated forces for continuity...but did you know a twice passed over officer on active duty has to get a waiver to go to the reserves and continue service? Granted, I've never seen anyone denied the waiver, but that is my point...why have a waiver in the first place?

I think it would be in the best interest of the AF if they started strategically increasing the rated officer numbers on the ARC side of the house...make it easy for your bubbas to make the transition. Joe is right, you retain experience and continuity at a discount You'll be glad you did it in a few years.

[DFRESH]

I still think we need different promotion boards for different career fields. I don't think 13S, 13N, 17D, 61S, 62E, 63A and a few others should even make major without an AAD. We have plenty of time and opportunity to complete a degree as Lts and Capts, and honestly these career fields should be required to pursue degrees that are relevant to their AFSC. I got an MS in Space Studies that directly contributed to my operational knowledge and proficiency. Our engineers that have AADs in their fields save the Air Force millions of dollars with unique solutions to anomalies and better ways to operate.

Rated folks on the other hand don't have the time nor need for an AAD until O-5 maybe even O-6 boards. So, to answer your question, it really depends on AFSC IMO.

Edit: Why does the Air Force have separate boards for JA, BSC/Med, and Chaplains but not differentiate between rated/non-rated? Are they not just as different and unique as the separate boards we already have?

This

[slackline]

Flying for a career (to age 65) is realistic and safe...the airlines do it all the time .

BT

Tactical low level, at night, or BFM is just a bit different than the airlines.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[daynightindicator]

A few puts on the different aspects of this topic.

First, I think arguing for a shake-up in the promotion process (as far as multiple looks IPZ, etc) is not what we should be focusing on. I'd rather see senior raters receive better guidance from their superiors - i.e., "do not use X/Y/Z as discriminators for stratification." I don't want to handcuff them too much, but multiple stories in this thread have proven that many SRs just don't get it and are making bad decisions.

Second, Big Blue needs to make a final decision on if and when they want their officers to have an AAD. No more "highly recommended" or "implied through promotion stats" or any of that BS. Just come out and say whether it is a requirement or not and for what rank. I would assume that most senior leaders want their O-4s to have an AAD. The merits of that can be debated but I'd rather just have a definitive answer.

My compromise on the whole thing would be...(assuming the "majors should have an AAD" would be the policy)...

- Make it mandatory for all rated and select non-rated officers to finish the Air University Online Masters in order to be selected for promotion to O-4. Benefits to this would be that the Air Force controls the curriculum and can adjust it as conflicts and doctrine evolve. The course content is applicable to all rated officers (better understanding of joint organization, command and control, leadership and history). It's free, no ADSC is incurred, and doing this might help run the diploma mills out of business (who take about $700M tax dollars from the American public per year in TA/GI Bill money).

- Open the eligibility for the program to O-3 pin on date. This gives members 4 years or so to finish the program prior to the O-4 board. It's only 11 8-week classes (88 weeks of class but you have 208 weeks to complete). This allows plenty of time to take a class, take a break for a deployment or high-tempo time period, then pick it up again later. The classes honestly don't take up too much time, and occasionally you even learn something useful.

- Let SRs know that they cannot use GPA or date of completion during stratification. Allow the board to see only whether or not the member has completed the program.

- Eliminate SOS and ACSC corr since the program teaches all this anyway.

Again, this is a COMPROMISE. I hate AADs as much as the next guy but I think this is a fair meeting point that would satisfy Big Blue's desires while minimizing negative impact to the average rated officer.

That's my .02, I know some will disagree.

[Gravedigger]

I wanted to disagree with you at first, but solely for the sake of the 17DA folks. However, I don't know what they do, so I can't speak to their time requirements. I know their initial school is more intense and then they disappear into the ether. The few that I've met go TDY a lot. They also talked about getting out since they didn't want to do a "normal" comm job.

I've worked with A-shreds and I'm pretty familiar with what they are doing on a daily basis. I think it's great as a B-shred that you are working towards an IA degree, I think that fits well and will pay off. The 17DXAs on the other hand really need to get deep into Computer/Software Engineering, CS, and EE. They can get a lot better at their jobs by really understanding the 1s and 0s and the micro level of cyber ops. The things they are doing to contribute to the fight are great, but without smart people, we will fall behind. We aren't the only country that has realized how much cyber can accomplish.

Break. Rant on.

In 2001 a commission led by Rumsfeld, Peter Teets and others formed to evaluate the management of space professionals, and recommended that the selection, education and training should be modeled after the Navy nuclear program. Well, September 11th happened and priorities quickly shifted away from space cadre management to fighting terrorism, and justifiably so. The result, however, has been a career field manned with the less-than-stellar cadets from each of the commissioning sources, and absolutely no focus on technical expertise.

While pilots receive world-class specialized training that fills in any gaps in knowledge they might need to perform their duties, that has not traditionally happened in space. On the contrary, AFPC had the 13S career field as a dumping ground to send bodies, and the mass crossflow of missileers made system experts a rarity. As a result, our growth and progress has not been nearly what it could be. With new leadership, all of this has changed. Space and missiles officially split into separate AFSCs, training has been completely remodeled, and accessions must now have a technical background. Additionally, we have tons of SPEED programs, advanced courses that count as Masters classes that we attend, and multiple degree programs around the country that are specifically tailored to space operators. As a Lt or junior Capt pulling crew, you have tons of time to do school work during your swing/mid shifts, and all of the other Lts around you are working on the same classes. On top of that, what these junior officers learn during their degree programs directly relates to their jobs and makes them better operators. Moral of the story, real leaders showed up, used their positions to change things, and everything has improved.

Now compare that to the flying world. Young pilots are working their asses off to become system experts, because their lives actually depend on it. At the same time, they are getting hit over the head by leadership pushing degrees that will not contribute a single thing to mission accomplishment. They are deploying frequently and many of them are trying to deal with the stress of marriage/family at the same time. It's no wonder so many members of this forum are dissatisfied with the Air Force. Thousands of people have pushed through it and completed their AAD in spite of the other demands, but WHY? What has been the cost to the Air Force and the American public from those that choose not to deal with the bullshit any more? Are we as effective of an Air Force as we would be if no AAD was required until O-5? I would wager the answer is no. Now it's time for leaders to step up, and make some fucking changes. It's a crime that young fliers were passed over for Captain, it's a crime that they are being pushed into worthless AADs, and the leaders of the Air Force that are also pilots are waiting for what?

It is entirely possible that the Air Force could have separate promotion boards with separate requirements for different career fields, like we already do for some. How about a mission support promotion board, non-rated ops board, and rated board, in addition to the Med/JA/Ch boards? Each group sets the requirements and priorities for those in the corresponding AFSCs. It will take some work by HAF/MAJCOM/NAF staffers everywhere, but whatever they have plenty of time. It makes sense, it's good for the service, and it ensures the right people are promoted in each mission area.

/rantoff

[Rusty Pipes]

Or just save everyone a ton of time and money and accredit the UPT/UNT syllabus to a Masters Degree credit! OK... complete pipe dream, but UPT was a million times tougher than any diploma mill I've ever heard of so far! I'm sure there are lots of other programs on the same level (Intel, Space, etc).

[joe1234]

Or just save everyone a ton of time and money and accredit the UPT/UNT syllabus to a Masters Degree credit! OK... complete pipe dream, but UPT was a million times tougher than any diploma mill I've ever heard of so far! I'm sure there are lots of other programs on the same level (Intel, Space, etc).

AU would be an excellent vehicle to do this through. Similar to the WIC concentration of the OLMP. The demand is there for it, all we lack is the will to do it. Hell, PCS me to Maxwell and I'll do all the legwork myself and be a hero to 20,000 officers.

Wait, no, PCS me to Eglin and I'll just teleconference from there.

[BitteEinBit]

Tactical low level, at night, or BFM is just a bit different than the airlines.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Tac LL at night is not that hard. Not a fighter guy so I can't speak for BFM, but we're talking about dudes in their 40s....I'm not suggesting (as indicated in my post) that guys stay in until age 65. Yes, Guard/Reserve bubbas over 40 are doing BFM and Tac LL at night...and they also fly for the airlines. I guess I'm not following your counter point...

I would imagine Tac LL at night and BFM would be difficult for the young Capt who doesn't focus on it as much or doesn't get the opportunity to fly it as much...but I'd just be guessing.