MSCguy Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 There's always the chance that guy or gal had a zillion combat hours and deployments and never got the chance to stay at home and check boxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComingLeft Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Promotion isn't a reward ShackNot too much sour grapes...but...Having checked all my boxes and drank the Kool-aid by the gallon; quite frustrating to see that someone who didn't show the same "dedication to the cause" be rewarded with the promotion. Understand ever story is unique, but it still stings.... They beat Big Blue at their game. Applaud it. I was excited for the 10% of my SOS class that did not do correspondence first. They won. When you see someone succeeding playing by their own rules, get excited. We need more people who buck the system and are willing to die on just the right hill. A lack of courage isn't being afraid, but conformity. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ThatGuy Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Will the AAD be a factor or not for the GP/CC, WG/CC, and promotion board for those meeting the majors board this December? I've been reading all of the discussions about the AAD and what the CSAF expects now. If you do not have your AAD by December for the majors board will that hurt the prospects of certain officers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sqwatch Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Will the AAD be a factor or not for the GP/CC, WG/CC, and promotion board for those meeting the majors board this December? I've been reading all of the discussions about the AAD and what the CSAF expects now. If you do not have your AAD by December for the majors board will that hurt the prospects of certain officers? If you have to ask, I would probably say yes. You've seen the guidance, whether or not your local group/wing follows the... ahh fvck it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HossHarris Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Ask! Ask your sq, gp, and wg cc if it will be a factor in the rack/stack and doling of DPs. If they're worth a shit they'll give you a straight answer. If they're not .... Then AADs prolly matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonka Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 It's not so much becoming an O-5, but becoming a sq CC or DO as an O-5 where I've seen people go from crew dogs to careerist managers. In their previous life, they looked out for their people...but once they stepped into the "leadership" role it was all about them. Just my experience. Not sure if it is totally careerist mindset for all folks. IMO (and yes I am speaking in broad/general terms), the AF does a poor job of giving aviators decent jobs with responsibility/culpability for when folks under then screw-up... until they reach DO/CC. Think of all the jobs in a flying Sqd, many are not held responsible when someone under them screws the pooch. Even when farmed out to the Gp or Wg, it is hard to pin an aircrew screw-up on an FSO, Exec, Patch, Evaluator, etc... Perhaps flight leads, ACs in large crews get some experience in "trust" but they still have some control over the situation. When responsible for the actions of people 1000s of miles away, I think the pucker factor rises and the laziest leadership-traits tend to emerge (CYA-style.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Right Seat Driver Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 Not sure if it is totally careerist mindset for all folks. IMO (and yes I am speaking in broad/general terms), the AF does a poor job of giving aviators decent jobs with responsibility/culpability for when folks under then screw-up... until they reach DO/CC. Think of all the jobs in a flying Sqd, many are not held responsible when someone under them screws the pooch. Even when farmed out to the Gp or Wg, it is hard to pin an aircrew screw-up on an FSO, Exec, Patch, Evaluator, etc... Perhaps flight leads, ACs in large crews get some experience in "trust" but they still have some control over the situation. When responsible for the actions of people 1000s of miles away, I think the pucker factor rises and the laziest leadership-traits tend to emerge (CYA-style.) Not sure of your community, but this has seemed to change over time. I would say this was the case in certain situations pre-2009. However, I have seen a larger number of people get held to the fire more and more in the past few years. Will you get a referral OPR for dropping the ball consistently as a FLT/CC? No, probably not. I think that accountability at the Squadron level is on the rise. I can't speak intelligently for Group and above. Are there dudes who make it anyway? Sure. Are there superstars that cannot fault no matter what? Maybe. But I have seen a number of them fail recently. They seem to outpace their capabilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zach braff Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 The PSDM is out for the O-4 board ('05 YG). Interestingly - states that education info will be in your OPB. However, the PSDM also includes the O-6 NC board so perhaps that part only applies to the O-6 side. zb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
litercola Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Just a heads up, pass along from AFPC non-select brief. Anticipate that the non-continuation for passed over folks will continue in the future unless your AFSC is on the critical skill set list(hint this encompassed 11F, 11Hs, and a few others...) Additionally TERA authority exists through FY18...read between the lines...essentially up or out is back in play, regardless of DOPMA, if any of this sounds like a foreign language to you I'm glad...but it may effect you in the future. In the short term the days of passed over majors that fly the line till retirement are over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ThatGuy Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 (edited) The PSDM is out for the O-4 board ('05 YG). Interestingly - states that education info will be in your OPB. However, the PSDM also includes the O-6 NC board so perhaps that part only applies to the O-6 side. zb Based off of this information will the board care about your AAD in making animal balloons? Anyone....Bueller... Edited July 17, 2014 by slick999 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swizzle Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 The PSDM is out for the O-4 board ('05 YG). Interestingly - states that education info will be in your OPB. However, the PSDM also includes the O-6 NC board so perhaps that part only applies to the O-6 side. zb PSDM 14-70 for those who are curious... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splash95 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Based off of this information will the board care about your AAD in making animal balloons? Anyone....Bueller... Sq/CC stated today in a CC call that AADs are now masked until the O-6 board. Or (for the cynics) until the next CSAF takes over... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hispeed7721 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Sq/CC stated today in a CC call that AADs are now masked until the O-6 board. Or (for the cynics) until the next CSAF takes over... If you think that will change anything, you're only fooling yourself. AAD's may be masked for the actual board, but strats w/in the squadron and the like will continue to be effected by AAD box checking Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl Hungus Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 If you think that will change anything, you're only fooling yourself. AAD's may be masked for the actual board, but strats w/in the squadron and the like will continue to be effected by AAD box checking Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Normally, I'd agree with you. A friend of mine was in a recent officers call with Welsh. This question was asked- how will anything change if it's just masked on the board, because surely the group and wing CCs will still use AADs as a discriminator. Supposedly Welsh turned to the OG/CC and WG/CC and said something to the effect of "what part of my guidance wasn't 100% clear?" He then went on to say that he's moving to stop tracking AADs completely (SURFs), but had no idea that the problem was this bad. We'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hispeed7721 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 I'm sure he wants to get rid of it completely...but, for example, at my previous squadron -- during in processing, there was an "officer profile" to fill out with the execs. One of the lines on there was AAD - started/completed/not started Even if it's not on the SURF, the "culture" of AAD's I fear will remain among Sq/OG/Wg CC's for a long time; at least until the next CSAF changes the policy Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirkDiggler Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Our Wing is currently doing a rack & stack; guidance was given to not provide AAD and PME status because they were no longer going to be considered until the O-6 board. Maybe the CSAF's intent is starting to trickle down, one can always hope. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liquid Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Dirk, your wing is either giving incomplete guidance or you are incorrectly describing the actual wing guidance on PME status. PME status is still important. Doing PME in-correspondence is not required if completed in-residence or designated as a select, but having grade appropriate PME accomplished is something the board members will use as a critical discriminator. CSAF said "We expect officers to complete the level of DE appropriate for each grade as they meet promotion boards for the next highest rank; SOS for Major, IDE for Lt Col, SDE for Col." Your description of the wing's guidance is good for AAD, but incomplete and possibly misleading for PME status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARIs 'R' Us Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Our Wing is currently doing a rack & stack; guidance was given to not provide AAD and PME status because they were no longer going to be considered until the O-6 board. Maybe the CSAF's intent is starting to trickle down, one can always hope. Good to hear, although like Liquid said the PME piece seems fishy. Maybe you meant PME in res vs correspondence? Still would seem off. Technique: if they ask you, just mark completed. Then if anyone finds out and calls you a liar, call them a bigger liar. Your mileage may vary... Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirkDiggler Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Honestly could be either one; I just got back from two weeks of leave and am in the middle of a PCS. The guidance from the wing said to leave the PME section on their form blank, however the group's product did track PME, their product was used to develop the rack and stack sent to the wing (not the first instance of confused/incomplete guidance between them and the sq's). The record of performance lists PME completion on the SURF so its still available. Bottom line, you still need rank appropriate PME but in my small corner of the AF it appears that residence vs. correspondence PME completion and AAD isn't a major defining factor. I'm hoping the trend continues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liquid Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 I hope the trend continues as well. Like most, I did SOS in-correspondence before going in residence because it was locally "mandatory" to do so. Our wing told us we would not be competitive (won't go) unless you did correspondence first. Looks like we have fixed the "local" abuse of our time and effort by not allowing people to enroll unless eligible, good news. Hopefully we have done the same with IDE/SDE, not allowing selects to enroll. I don't think we have closed the gap that requires candidates to demonstrate the worthiness of being selected for in-residence unless they complete it by correspondence. I went to IDE and SDE in residence (as a select both times), and refused to do them in correspondence, but had to endure excessive "mentoring" from my commanders about how I was hurting my career and school location, by not being competitive. I showed them a copy of the A1 practice bleeding memo and reminded them that following a policy that actually made sense would probably not hurt my career. I knew the guidance, understood the unwritten expectations, accepted the risk and made an informed decision that both protected my time and served the AF. Changing the official guidance to reduce the risk of local abuse is the answer, and it looks like CSAF is well on his way to making that happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck17 Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 (edited) Excerpt from a relayed conversation between two captains: "This is bullshit that they're not counting AAD anymore, I spent X hours doing that, now it's all wasted. All the guys that drug their feet on it, now it's paying off for them and not for me - and I worked harder. Our records are the same? No they're not! How is that fair?" THAT is how I know this pendulum with swing - Because of the butthurt and lack of focus that we grow in our junior officer corps. Job performance DOES mean something. It always has. The rest is indicative but ancillary, so focus on what you want to, just be aware of the pendulums swing. The only way this careerist weed will get stamped out is if the SQUADRONS enforce the CSAFs directive. The squadrons are the key to all of this - and yet we continue to erode the trust in our squadron commanders... Chuck Edit: because iPad typing without morning coffee is hard Edited July 18, 2014 by Chuck17 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSCguy Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Capt select list came out yesterday and there were a handful of non-selects-how do you get non-selected for a rank that is back to 100% unless a DNP PRF is submitted? What kind of offense is bad enough to warrant a DNP for Capt but not bad enough to get kicked out right away? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Champ Kind Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Depends on the senior rater, but Article 15s (or any other type of paperwork for that matter) do not mean you are kicked out of the military, but they do serve as "quality force indicators" for promotion/retention. Basically, if you had something negative written about you that made it into your record of performance (training report or OPR), you can expect it to be a factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breckey Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 ie Missileers at Malmstrom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSCguy Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Excerpt from a relayed conversation between two captains: "This is bullshit that they're not counting AAD anymore, I spent X hours doing that, now it's all wasted. All the guys that drug their feet on it, now it's paying off for them and not for me - and I worked harder. Our records are the same? No they're not! How is that fair?" I'm assuming this dude did an online diploma mill box-checking masters just because he thought he was supposed to. I don't regret my masters degree-but then again mine was an actual MBA program that qualified for commission as a 1st Lt vs. 2d Lt so I actually got something out of it other than a filled square. Depends on the senior rater, but Article 15s (or any other type of paperwork for that matter) do not mean you are kicked out of the military, but they do serve as "quality force indicators" for promotion/retention. Basically, if you had something negative written about you that made it into your record of performance (training report or OPR), you can expect it to be a factor. I checked the list; I deduced that someone I knew that got kicked out of an inital skills training course for cheating was one of the DNPs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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