6 hours ago, matmacwc said:

That's gotta be a hell of a trip report

I'm sure the voucher got kicked back a few times...

I wasn’t aware that they had quotas for AFSC on promotion boards....

I should have been more clear. I'm talking about when the final numbers of promotions are tallied. My special assignment AFSC will not have me categorized as non-rated I assume.

 

Your core AFSC should still reflect that you’re rated. You can find it on your SURF.

On ‎11‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 9:30 PM, Champ Kind said:

 

Your core AFSC should still reflect that you’re rated. You can find it on your SURF.

Shack.  Your core AFSC will be used for any unofficial comparison within the board and for the AFSC statistics in the RAW data.

I don’t even know what the you just said.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

words

In a previous post I believe you mentioned not having done IDE in correspondence. If this is the case, you’re not going to get promoted, so who gives a fvck who writes your PRF?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

46 minutes ago, HarleyQuinn said:

I arrived here on 4 Oct, which is one day before the accountability date. So you guys own me here.

Why would your losing or gaining commander allow this to happen?

Why would your losing or gaining commander allow this to happen?

Odds are good it is a troll account by the post history.

19 minutes ago, Homestar said:

Why would your losing or gaining commander allow this to happen?

Well, I'm rapidly learning that commanders don't have unlimited powers when dealing with AFPC.  Had someone in my shop get orders.  Tried to change the report date to January from November.  Losing and gaining commander both agreed... Some chief at AFPC denied the change "because the gaining base is undermanned".  Apparently the gaining commander was not a good enough judge of his own manning situation.

What's a CSS?

Bendy

Harley knows what he speaks oF...

      I’m like bing through some of it now, having PCSd from a large wing with great staff and access to everything required.

 

now I’m in a wing construct where only the exec has access to certain things....  access doesn’t go any lower.   It’s perplexing

1 hour ago, ihtfp06 said:

In a previous post I believe you mentioned not having done IDE in correspondence. If this is the case, you’re not going to get promoted, so who gives a fvck who writes your PRF?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I hope he gets promoted. ACSC in correspondence is USELESS.

Edited November 20, 20187 yr by IDALPHA

I'm willing to bet you are right. But lets press the test button with an 05 year group that has been all but decimated. PRF was written 1BPZ by the Group last year. All you have to do for IPZ is insert additional strats and submit to Execs.

For everything but the push line, yes. But there’s about a 0.01% chance a senior rater is going to give a DP or a good push to a guy who just showed up. Unless the previous senior rater makes a phone call and says look out for my guy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

7 hours ago, IDALPHA said:

I hope he gets promoted. ACSC in correspondence is USELESS.

I'm just glad one member of the '05 year group didn't do it.  Means my odds just got a skosh better.

I’ll be willing to bet that no IDE by any method will lead to being passed over. You just showed up at your new unit and the accounting is with the new CC? Good luck. Or are you Duck and hoping to get passed over?

19 minutes ago, Homestar said:

I’ll be willing to bet that no IDE by any method will lead to being passed over. You just showed up at your new unit and the accounting is with the new CC? Good luck. Or are you Duck and hoping to get passed over?

Passing guys over with great strats/record for not doing an online ballwash is just one more reason the spiral downward continues to tighten.

This is a a complete press to test for me...CSAF claims correspondence courses should no longer be a discriminator? Prove it. 

I honestly hope this shows a trend in the right direction for the AF. (But I have no faith)

3 minutes ago, IDALPHA said:

Passing guys over with great strats/record for not doing an online ballwash is just one more reason the spiral downward continues to tighten.

This is a a complete press to test for me...CSAF claims correspondence courses should no longer be a discriminator? Prove it. 

I honestly hope this shows a trend in the right direction for the AF. (But I have no faith)

I wasn't willing to press to test. I completed ACSC online as soon as I had a line number to major, because I knew I wasn't going to get picked up in residence.  

Spending a few hours a week on Blackboard while I was already at work did not significantly increase my workload or impact my family time.

I'm not disagreeing with the core assertion that the class isn't all that useful.  I'm just saying that, based on historical data, I'm going to do all the things in my own power to get promoted to Lt Col without stepping over my bros.

29 minutes ago, IDALPHA said:

Passing guys over with great strats/record for not doing an online ballwash is just one more reason the spiral downward continues to tighten.

I'll disagree with you here.  Kicking them out would be wrong, but nobody owes you a promotion.  Want to get promoted?  Check the company boxes.  Being a passed over Major is probably what a lot of guys wanted anyway....just with less pay.  BL: a record without IDE is not a great record, regardless of how "useful" IDE is.

Edited November 20, 20187 yr by Homestar

32 minutes ago, IDALPHA said:

CSAF claims correspondence courses should no longer be a discriminator?

Is that what he said? Or that "method" of completion is not a discriminator?  Hence complete/not complete versus Residence/Non-residence.

1 hour ago, Homestar said:

Is that what he said? Or that "method" of completion is not a discriminator?  Hence complete/not complete versus Residence/Non-residence.

I suspect your right. Just got my DHQB, and it lists ACSC with no indicator of residence or correspondence.  Of course, it's a false sense of security... The board will still have the training reports from people who went in residence, so it's not that difficult to tell if they are really looking for it.

I suspect your right. Just got my DHQB, and it lists ACSC with no indicator of residence or correspondence.  Of course, it's a false sense of security... The board will still have the training reports from people who went in residence, so it's not that difficult to tell if they are really looking for it.

And even more obvious right there on the DQHB: a line in your duty history.

If instructions to the board say not to consider it I believe the board will do their level best to comply (I know, flame away). Now, will that keep your WG/CC from giving you a P when you may otherwise deserve a DP? Who knows. 

I did ACSC in 2013 when it was Read-a-Book-Take-a-Test and it wasn’t hard. It wasn’t all that interesting either to me. But I just don’t agree that you deserve promotion because you were one of the three dudes in 2005 YG that stayed in. 

I'm holding steady toward the ice berg all by myself. 

Why?

Homestar.... your level of blue koolaid consumption is commendable.

Your comments make it sound like “since I had to, YOU have to”

Edited November 21, 20187 yr by IDALPHA

1 hour ago, Homestar said:

If instructions to the board say not to consider it I believe the board will do their level best to comply (I know, flame away). Now, will that keep your WG/CC from giving you a P when you may otherwise deserve a DP? Who knows. 

I did ACSC in 2013 when it was Read-a-Book-Take-a-Test and it wasn’t hard. It wasn’t all that interesting either to me. But I just don’t agree that you deserve promotion because you were one of the three dudes in 2005 YG that stayed in. 

Perhaps, but based on how many O-5s the Air Force needs, I don't know how choosy they can be.  At least, that's what I tell myself when I work on my PRF with no school and no staff.