Jump to content

Promotion and PRF Information


Guest e3racing

Recommended Posts

They are missing WHY dudes are disgruntled.

I've been around a long time, as you have. There have certainly been boom and bust cycles for morale. This one is far different than what I think can fairly be called the last down cycle for pilots in the mid to late 90s.

Young pups hear jack/shit about mission focus anymore. The mission is what motivates them. It's why they are here. But they hardly hear a peep about it from their leadership. That's the number one reason. Act like what they dedicate themselves to is worth your attention.

All they hear about from the cake eaters is stuff like you yourself (and guys like old major chang) has said--get you masters or you clearly don't care. There are no bad assignments. You should get down on your knees every day and thank mother air force for all she has given you. Service before self after all.

These fuckers have known nothing but war. They have never, ever known any semblance of stability or predicability in their whole careers. They weren't around in the good old days where we had fun. When we were captains, our career paths were stable, our deployments predictable, our promotion process was rational, there was no such thing as a 179 or God forbid a 365 other than a few remotes to Korea. We didn't face down UAV assignments. We didn't face constant rumors (and realities) of a RIF. There was a mission focus. Leaders seemingly cared that their CGOs were good in the jet. That's all that mattered to my early commanders. It's how they stratted CGOs for the most part. I swear to God I never heard a single word from a leader about a masters degree until I was a major. Not one word. Now guys are dirtbags if they haven't started one as a lieutenant. Education is king, the only problem is that no one seems to care what you study, how we'll you do or what diploma mill you go to. After all, it makes great "thinkers" yet no one seems to be allowed to think for themselves. It's party line or you're a troublemaker. See problems? Don't point them out and offer solutions. That's whining. Dudes are tired of that bullshit.

So what are the "aristocrats" missing?

1) acknowledge that young pups in the AF have been run ragged. I mean really acknowledge that, not just a token half-hearted comment here or there.

2) acknowledge that there are bad deals and lose the "suck it up" and "service before self" lectures. No one respects that bullshit. You can't polish a turd.

3) Masters degree does not equal dedication or leadership potential. Stop saying that it does. Masters is required. Got it. But when it goes beyond being a yes/no at the board to being used for strats and jobs, then it's out of fucking control. The AF has absolutely lost its mind in this regard. Job performance and leadership potential should be king. They are not.

4). acknowledge that these dudes face an uncertain future with regards to promotion, assignments and RIFs unlike we ever did and it stresses them out and wears at their morale. Don't even dare compare it to uncertainties you had in your early career. You and I both know that it's not even close.

I'm tired of typing now. But that's a start.

Mother-fucking SHACK!

Cheers,

Cap-10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have the current red line, blue line charts or supporting data, not in my wheelhouse. I can get them and will post if they aren't FOUO. They usually are. AFPC and HAF A1 prefer to officially publish force management policy after it has been approved rather than while it is being developed.

Not sure why Red Line/Blue Line would or should be FOUO . . . I can understand why the Air Force's internal deliberative processes (What do the numbers mean? What policy should we pursue as a result? How to do we "sell" this to internal and external audiences?) might be FOUO--folks don't need to see all the sausage-making in progress. There's no logical reason to withhold the raw data, though--it's not deliberation or policy, just fact.

When you do get a chance to look over the Red Line/Blue Line (even if you can't post it), I'd be curious to get your inputs as to:

- Why special treatment for 11Fs only, when the 11S & 11H communities' respective manning numbers are worse?

- Is there any validity to GC's assertion that we've got a "glut" of 16-20 year group guys . . . how could there be, when those year groups represent the "pilot bathtub" created by previous senior leaders?

- Why is Big Blue senior leadership so dismissive when concerns are raised about 11M manning, which is already going in the crapper?

-- To keep this on the Promotion topic, where do you think you're going to get your future MAF leadership?

--- Almost all the "fat" year groups for heavy guys are ones that haven't reached the ends of their SUPT ADSCs . . . how many do you think are going to stick around & try for O-6 and higher when 1) They've gotten crushed their whole careers TDY & deployment-wise, 2) Airlines are hiring in droves the year they reach bonus eligibility, and 3) Even if they do stick it out 'til 20 the airlines are still hiring like gangbusters? Kinda hard to be selective when the number of O-6 billets you need to fill equals the number of folks meeting the O-6 board in a given year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are missing WHY dudes are disgruntled.

I've been around a long time, as you have. There have certainly been boom and bust cycles for morale. This one is far different than what I think can fairly be called the last down cycle for pilots in the mid to late 90s.

Young pups hear jack/shit about mission focus anymore. The mission is what motivates them. It's why they are here. But they hardly hear a peep about it from their leadership. That's the number one reason. Act like what they dedicate themselves to is worth your attention.

All they hear about from the cake eaters is stuff like you yourself (and guys like old major chang) has said--get you masters or you clearly don't care. There are no bad assignments. You should get down on your knees every day and thank mother air force for all she has given you. Service before self after all.

These ######ers have known nothing but war. They have never, ever known any semblance of stability or predicability in their whole careers. They weren't around in the good old days where we had fun. When we were captains, our career paths were stable, our deployments predictable, our promotion process was rational, there was no such thing as a 179 or God forbid a 365 other than a few remotes to Korea. We didn't face down UAV assignments. We didn't face constant rumors (and realities) of a RIF. There was a mission focus. Leaders seemingly cared that their CGOs were good in the jet. That's all that mattered to my early commanders. It's how they stratted CGOs for the most part. I swear to God I never heard a single word from a leader about a masters degree until I was a major. Not one word. Now guys are dirtbags if they haven't started one as a lieutenant. Education is king, the only problem is that no one seems to care what you study, how we'll you do or what diploma mill you go to. After all, it makes great "thinkers" yet no one seems to be allowed to think for themselves. It's party line or you're a troublemaker. See problems? Don't point them out and offer solutions. That's whining. Dudes are tired of that bullshit.

So what are the "aristocrats" missing?

1) acknowledge that young pups in the AF have been run ragged. I mean really acknowledge that, not just a token half-hearted comment here or there.

2) acknowledge that there are bad deals and lose the "suck it up" and "service before self" lectures. No one respects that bullshit. You can't polish a turd.

3) Masters degree does not equal dedication or leadership potential. Stop saying that it does. Masters is required. Got it. But when it goes beyond being a yes/no at the board to being used for strats and jobs, then it's out of ######ing control. The AF has absolutely lost its mind in this regard. Job performance and leadership potential should be king. They are not.

4). acknowledge that these dudes face an uncertain future with regards to promotion, assignments and RIFs unlike we ever did and it stresses them out and wears at their morale. Don't even dare compare it to uncertainties you had in your early career. You and I both know that it's not even close.

I'm tired of typing now. But that's a start.

Ok, good stuff here. I respect your perspective. Let me take a shot at a retort.

Dudes in my year group were leaving in '98 after our 8 year UPT commitments were up. No much bitterness or frustration, most were looking for a better life in the airlines. I stayed partly because so many were leaving, but mostly because I really enjoyed flying for the AF. Morale was high with my crowd, but most got out anyway. All good Americans, no hard feelings from anyone when they separated, it was their choice and they served their commitment. So when I say separate if you don't like the AF, I'm not threatening people or looking down from my high horse. I'm suggesting that you shouldn't be miserable in your job and the AF career isn't for everyone. I have very good AF friends who are in the reserves, flying for airlines and running businesses.

A GO taught me what you talk about for the first two minutes is your priorty. If you don't lead every meeting, discussion, talk, etc with the mission, you are wrong. I engrained that and have lived it since. Mission is the most important thing, above people, morale and money. If you are good, you can get the mission done, get morale high and take care of your people. But I have made mission focused decisions that ruined careers, cost marriages and hurt feelings. Telling someone they don't have what it takes to fly combat missions or command combat squadrons is tough, but necessary sometimes. It is too bad you don't hear more about mission focus from your leaders. I hear it and say it all the time.

I agree, requiring AAD at Maj board is bad policy and a misprioritization of time. I told CSAF and my MAJCOM CC exactly that. Hopefully it will change. The reality now is, the board uses it to discriminate in the grey zone, so commanders want good dudes to get it done and get promoted. Most Capts that didn't have it done got promoted. My number one Capt and #1 DP did not have it done and was a select on the board. The 10% of the pilots that didn't get promoted were the bottom ten percent. A few outliers may be below the line that should be above, but the board and senior raters and commanders do a decent job of identifying the xx percent that can't be promoted (by law numbers wise). Obviously there are commanders and raters that value the wrong things, but I haven't seen it. If they do they should change. Let them know what you think. I always have.

Bitching in public (at work, not on forums) is toxic and hurts the mission. It is usually full of disloyalty and selfishness. Sometimes you get constructive criticism, but most of the time it is toxic. There are bad assignments and bad deals, but corrosive behavior and attitudes don't always make it better. Sometimes people need to be told to shut the f*ck up and get the mission done. Not always, the carrot works better than the stick, but sometimes it is appropriate. For instance, ###### all of the assholes that denigrate RPA crews, their mission and the value of their mission. The shit RPAs catch is mean spirited, wrong and hurts our mission. Knock it off.

Not sure how a wing commander or GO does a better job acknowledging how ragged our force is. We know it, but don't say it enough I guess. We just finished a four day weekend (for most, but not all). We (I) try to give a much down time as possible, since time is very valuable these days. I haven't done a single wing run or mandatory PT, ever. A waste of time. I cancelled all meetings on my first day of three commands. I hold people accountable for missed suspenses, but don't dwell on metrics.

You should get a masters degree to be a Lt Col. Should, not must. It would be nice if it was a valuable degree. PME at every level should be mandatory, period. I was a select at both levels, and didn't do correspondence either time, against the advice of my bosses. It worked out fine.

Uncertainty is more frequent now, but we are also at war and in the midst of a financial crisis that threatens our national security. Risk is high, good people die and this shit is hard. We are out of money and tough choices need to be made. I would cut the Thunderbirds, all bands and advertising before PME slots.

Commanders and wing level support does the family stuff. HQ does the management stuff. Not sure what Joe 1234 went off on. Big Blue makes big management decisions. Some good, some bad, all well intentioned.

Job performance and leadership are king in my world and in my experiences down range, and with other senior leaders. It blows that it isn't true everywhere, it should be. I made several points earlier, that the bottom ten percent aren't great performers, regardless of the boxes they don't check. My observation, not naive enough to say it is true everywhere.

Bad assignments, give me a break. People complain about wherever they are sent. During my first assignment overseas, half my squadron bitched about the cost of living, language and culture and couldn't wait to go back to conus. They are called orders, not suggestions. Go where the AF needs you and spare us all the drama. If you wanted to live in a certain area, wtf did you join the AF? Make the best of every assignment and don't be a part of the negative bullshit that dogs bases.

Three of your four observations about how senior leaders don't get it is that we don't acknowledge things. Acknowledged. You can do better than that, but it was a good start.

My opinions only. Several whiskeys down, watching tv and talking to the kids, so bear with the bad grammar and choppy wording. I don't write AF policy but I get to lead talented men and women who accomplish great things. And I'll be around for a while, so fire away, I'm listening.

And I'd kick anyone's ass who suggested I get on my knees. Just saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the best post I've seen you write. More please, because I'm at a point where I'm pretty jaded by some O-6s that will not 'hire' anyone who doesn't have an AAD regardless of job performance.

I enjoy both flying and desk work. I am self motivated, but leadership valuing the wrong things in my part of the world is very demoralizing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are senior leaders going to fix the cultural identity problem that has plagued the USAF for years? It seems that some senior leaders at all levels are more concerned with hands in pockets, reflective belts, what days to wear flight suits, and waist size instead of the mission of their base and leading their subordinates.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread just became useful again.

With that being said, how about this one, which actually fits into the topic of the thread. I'm in the 2005 year group. I would venture to say (some may disagree) that we are one of the most shit on Line Officers year groups out there. After going through multiple RIF's, both rated and non rated, now we are in some sort of fucked up holding pattern for our Majors board. We were told it would be announced sometime this fall...OK I get that. It would be nice, however to hear something from on high saying what they are thinking of doing now. Rumors are starting to run rampant like "They are combining the '05 and '06 year groups", or "promotion rates for the '05 year group will be way down" or even "You guys are looking at an extra year as Captains" (just to name a few). Guess what, I could accept any of this. The needs of the AF ebb and flow, but some sort of information from above the wing level would be nice. Hell, I went flying with my OG the other day and he just said "Ohhhhhhh, you are in '05? I'm sorry, I just don't have any answers for you".

Whoever pointed out earlier that if there was ever a time for leadership, it is now, and we need to hear from SOMEONE some information about what is going on in our force other than "Don't be Rape'in". I love my job, and I love the Air Force even for all it's flaws. All I'm asking for is a heads up to grab some lube before it fucks me in the ass.

I think a little bit of information would go a long way...

Edited by discus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are senior leaders going to fix the cultural identity problem that has plagued the USAF for years? It seems that some senior leaders at all levels are more concerned with hands in pockets, reflective belts, what days to wear flight suits, and waist size instead of the mission of their base and leading their subordinates.

No they aren't. Ignore the stupid shit and focus on the important things. Someone gives you a hard time for hands in your pockets and not wearing a reflective belt and you care enough about it to actually write about it later? Here is some guidance, don't give a shit about the stupid shit.

What cultural identity crisis are you talking about? Do you think our joint force doesn't appreciate airpower or that our enemies don't fear the sky?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After flying in the latter part of OIF and in OND I would argue that no, the joint force doesn't even know what we do. It's our own fault though; the AOC did nothing to enable airpower as long as the JTAR request slide was green.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two things from Liquid's long post:

1. We are at war/mission first

2. People see only the negative of their current assignment

For #1, I know I get heated because this point appears to be forgotten. I've made maj, checked the boxes, etc yet I see leadership at all levels more worried about careerism than said war/mission

For #2, Shack. Since I was enlisted as a 17 yr old, this holds true. For whatever reason, in my experience, people embrace the negative. I did not. I've loved everwhere I've been. HUGE disclaimer: I am not talking about taking someone out of a cockpit who loves to serve this great country as a flyer and telling them to like it. I'm only agreeing that there is a tendency to obscure positives about assignments with negatives. I have not been pulled outta the flying gig so there is no personal connotation here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liquid, there are at least 3 solid posts on this thread that addresses what many have been complaining about for YEARS...the system that rewards selfishness and lack of mission focus. When I say "selfishness" I'm talking about that toxic attitude I see spreading around that puts self-serving box checking above the mission. It has become a necessity in this organization if you want to continue serving. The Air Force not only encourages it, but rewards it...and it discriminates against those who put mission first and check the boxes when they have the time...even if it is before their board. "You didn't finish it soon enough..you must be a dirtbag," the Air Force says. Yes, my former SQ/CC hinted that now boards look at WHEN you finished your AAD not just that you finished it. Really? Please tell me that is not true. The Air Force doesn't see less mission focus and more box checking as selfish...they see it as "This guy cares about the Air Force because he is motivated to finish a Masters as a 2Lt"

Yes, even people who successfully navigate the system are complaining about misplaced priorities...not just the bitter passed over officers. That should worry you because those toxic attitudes will be with us for a while. Just take note of how the tone in this thread changes when you seem to be actually listening to the "bitching" on this thread instead of saying "suck it up." The disconnect I see with the "leadership" at levels above the Wing is that they don't (and really can't) have the pulse of what is happening at the tactical level...they have to just rely on input and metrics from those levels that don't always tell the whole story. Just how many staffers representing the tactical level do you think are really going to tell leadership that their policies are perceieved as misguided and are creating toxic attitudes? Not many.

...a few more points from Liquid's post:

I agree that mission is a high priority. If you take care of your people, they will take care of the mission. That is why it is important for our "leadership" to connect with its people. If there is a toxic attitude out there and "leadership" hasn't addressed it, there is a problem with leadership. Attitdue is a reflection of leadership. The mission will always get done, even with the toxic attitudes...now get rid of the toxic attitudes by engaging your people and addressing their issues, and just watch how more efficient the mission gets done. THAT is leadership. No sentence from any "leader" should start with "well, the metrics say..." it should be "well, my people are saying...."

- Yes, the Wings do the family stuff while HQ does the management stuff...the problem is you have a bunch of Wings that want to be at the management level so they tell you everything is ok. Again, do you really think ANY WG/CC is going to say the morale at his/her wing is broken?!?! Maybe they don't know because those at the SQ are trying to get to the WG, so they don't tell their bosses either...and so on, and so on. You're right, we don't say it enough. it is time to call a spade a spade. If I have to do it in an internet forum to get anyone to listen, I will. Morale is broken, and I don't see anything in the near future attempting to fix it. But I can tell you that MONEY is not the answer.

- "Uncertainty is more frequent now" is an understatement. We have been taking "additional cuts" since 2008 and every year the (former) CSAF and SECAF say, "Ok, this is the last of the cuts" and then the next year we take more cuts. It gives the appearance that our manpower bubbas don't know that they hell they are doing. Cutting AFSCs in one place then having crossflow boards to fill those same AFSCs they now identify as "critically manned" just appears like a mismanagement problem. How are these types of programs getting briefed? "Sir, we just cut a bunch of experienced 14Ns this week to save you money. Next week we plan to have an involuntary crossflow board to fill 14Ns billets which are now critically manned." We are "fat" on 11Ms and staffers are saying we don't need them to stay, yet you don't want to let any of them voluntarily separate to get your numbers back to normal? Seriously, how does that make sense to anyone? I know, I don't have the big picture. Perhaps the Pentago actually does forcast an exodus...they just don't want to say anything because then they'll have to offer money TODAY to get people to stay. My advice, listen to the people (not the metrics) about why people are thinking about leaving...address them.

- I agree, any assignment is what you make of it. What makes an assignment a "bad" assignment is really individual experience. I've worked with people who thought Spangdahlem was a bad assignment. I can't imagine they ever left the base. Every assignment is what you make of it. If mission focus is really what we want, then you'll go where the AF needs you. The problem is that too many of those tactical level "get er done" kind of guys who DO go where the Air Force "needs" them a lot of time get told "Oh, you spent too much of your time at the tactical level...you're not leadership material." The year before I took my current assignment we weren't releasing anyone to staff unless you were a school graduate because the Air Force "needed" pilots in the squadrons. Do you want to know the feedback I got before my PRF? "You don't have any staff experience." How can I not shake my head at that?!? I know we preach "needs of the AF" and that would be great if we really meant it, but if your DT vector reads "needs of the AF," that is not a good thing...be honest.

Edited by BitteEinBit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Leadership is solving problems. The day soldiers stop bringing you their problems is the day you have stopped leading them. They have either lost confidence in your ability to help, or concluded that you do not care. Either case is a failure of leadership." - Colin Powell

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My number one Capt and #1 DP did not have it done and was a select on the board. The 10% of the pilots that didn't get promoted were the bottom ten percent.

You should get a masters degree to be a Lt Col. Should, not must. It would be nice if it was a valuable degree. PME at every level should be mandatory, period. I was a select at both levels, and didn't do correspondence either time, against the advice of my bosses. It worked out fine.

You do realize that senior raters saying this does not help, don't you?

In doing so, you are only:

1) Saying "I didn't do it, and it worked out fine for me." This is invalid, as your reality coming up is no longer the reality faced by the current crop of CGOs.

2) Giving false hope to those who are working their tails off that a very small group of people (definitely in the minority) had things work out well for them.

3) Pissing people off who "played the game" by getting PME and AAD done only to find out that it really wasn't "required" because so-and-so went to PME in-res or got promotion/got a school slot without it. WTF? Consistency. Is it "pay to play" or not?

Thanks for your perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do realize that senior raters saying this does not help, don't you?

In doing so, you are only:

1) Saying "I didn't do it, and it worked out fine for me." This is invalid, as your reality coming up is no longer the reality faced by the current crop of CGOs.

2) Giving false hope to those who are working their tails off that a very small group of people (definitely in the minority) had things work out well for them.

3) Pissing people off who "played the game" by getting PME and AAD done only to find out that it really wasn't "required" because so-and-so went to PME in-res or got promotion/got a school slot without it. WTF? Consistency. Is it "pay to play" or not?

Thanks for your perspective.

HAF A1 had a "practice bleeding" policy that said you should not do correspondence if you are a select. I followed that guidance because I agreed with it. My bosses said I would be more competitive if I did both, which was probably true. My MAJCOM CC said it may have cost me getting picked up 2 BPZ to O-6. I didn't care because I didn't want to do it while I was a sitting sq cc. Lots of talk at HAF and MAJCOMs about prohibiting correspondence from being in the record for selects, to keep it from being a discriminator. The advice I give is don't do it if you are a select. Most of my selects did it anyway to be competitive for fellowships and early looks. Their choice. The DT didn't care, but the DEDB might. It may be good or bad advice, depending on the senior rater bias and DT preference, but the intent to limit practice bleeding is good. I did SOS, IDE and SDE in residence, so I am consistent with the advice to get it done at every level.

So you want me to be consistent with the advice every other senior leader gives? And not piss people off with my opinions, advice and personal experience? Not sure I can do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reality now is, the board uses it to discriminate in the grey zone, so commanders want good dudes to get it done and get promoted. Most Capts that didn't have it done got promoted.

I don't know you or your record as a Commander, but you should probably fill in the rest of the Commanders as to what the "reality" is then. I was a Wing Exec and Group Exec during several O-4 boards over the past few years and even had my Sq CC show me his rack and stack of guys up for the O-4 board as a Flight Commander when the AAD was still masked. They all had one thing in common... whether the number was 10, 20 or 30 folks up for the Board I did not see a single example of a guy who didn't have an AAD ranked above one who did (other than the ocassional guy with an Article 15). I saw multiple 3000 hr EPs (quite impressive for a Capt) who were TDY 300+ days in a year not get DPs while the guy who was dodging missions left and right got a DP because he had his Toro AAD. Granted these guys got promoted, but they sure weren't school selects and were all pretty pissed with the "P" on the PRF.

So I guess when we are talking about reality it doesn't really matter what the gray zone reality of the Board is when they are rubber stamping DP PRFs that were determined on a box checked instead of actual professional performance. For two years in a row at my last Base we had the Wing CC give us the AFPC "Officer" briefing and on the slides it straight up said that not only are they looking at if you had your AAD and PME done is correspondence, but they were looking at when you had it done. In fact for ACSC they said that if it wasn't done in correspondence within a year of you pinning on O-4 that it would hurt you! So apparently completing your PME can apparently be a bad thing. I'm not making this up... this was actually part of the official briefing. I would seriously like to hear your answer as to how this makes sense?

Does the AF want leaders or managers? Because as of right now I'm not seeing many leaders from the O-6 and above group with the exception of a very few... the rest seem like clones of each other who were promoted in the image of their boss.

Edited by Rusty Pipes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact for ACSC they were said that if it wasn't done in correspondence within a year of you pinning on O-4 that it would hurt you! So apparently completing your PME can apparently be a bad thing. I'm not making this up... this was actually part of the official briefing. I would seriously like to hear your answer as to how this makes s.

AMC has been preaching this for years now...even when the "practice bleeding" memo was still out. They use a stop light chart...completing non-res PME within a year from pin on is green, more than 1 year but less than 2 is yellow, and more than that is red.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AMC has been preaching this for years now...even when the "practice bleeding" memo was still out. They use a stop light chart...completing non-res PME within a year from pin on is green, more than 1 year but less than 2 is yellow, and more than that is red.

That was the actual AFPC stoplight chart. I remember the first year it was briefed I was driving back to the office with the OG/CC and he asked what I thought of the brief. I told him that the Wing Commander just briefed every one of his Officers on his Base that not only is box checking more important than being good at your job, but we will essentially select our future Commanders when they are Lieutenants because if you don't start checking the boxes as an LT then its too late. He said, "I 100% agree with everything you just said." But guess what... that same OG/CC still had every O-3 with an AAD ranked higher than every O-3 without one in his PRF rack and stack from the OG (and there were several shit bag box checkers in that group). I even called him out on it when we were shooting the shit in his office (awesome guy that liked to hear blunt opinions from his staff) and the depressing thing was that he said he knew it was BS, but when the Wing CC briefs the whole Wing that not only are they looking to see if your AAD is done but also when you did it that his rack and stack didn't really mean much either way.

Edited by Rusty Pipes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did SOS, IDE and SDE in residence, so I am consistent with the advice to get it done at every level. So you want me to be consistent with the advice every other senior leader gives? And not piss people off with my opinions, advice and personal experience? Not sure I can do that.

I meant consistent expectations. What you did personally was consistent with guidance you were given.

Listen to what Rusty and Herk Driver are telling you... that "practice bleeding" guidance is out there, but not be adhered to. Good on you for following through. It seems as though a majority of your peers are not.

I know for a F A C T that school-selects are still racked and stacked on their 3849s based on whether or not they have it done via correspondence, and the earlier the better counts.

Other than the inflated value you place on our promotion system (asserting that the AF almost always gets it right), and your insistance that fighter pilots condone rape, you seem like a decent person to work for. I know there have to be others like you out there, but conformity is a large part of our culture as officers right now. A lot of your peers seem to be too timid to break from the herd in the way that you say that you have, and that is weighing on their people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know for a F A C T that school-selects are still racked and stacked on their 3849s based on whether or not they have it done via correspondence, and the earlier the better counts.

That "practice bleeding" memo needs to be re-written and signed by the CSAF before it will have any value whatsoever. Until the MAJCOMS hear it loud and clear from their boss, it won't matter.

Champ, the 3849 issue you address may not be true at all bases, but it is where you are...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what about when you have a certain guidance at one gig but then PCS/PCA somewhere with different guidance? I was in a unit where SOS correspondence was seen as rather silly so I enrolled but never touched it. Then I PCSd to a unit that would not even look at you unless the correspondence was done. Thankfully it was just SOS so that was a quick 4-5 week fix to knock it out, but that situation could really suck were it ACSC or AWC...

So as much as it stinks, because I won't know what the future holds I'll probably be doing the ACSC so as not to screw myself. Thankfully I'm an '05er so it'll be a long time before I have to worry about it! ;-)

zb

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do realize that senior raters saying this does not help, don't you?

In doing so, you are only:

1) Saying "I didn't do it, and it worked out fine for me." This is invalid, as your reality coming up is no longer the reality faced by the current crop of CGOs.

2) Giving false hope to those who are working their tails off that a very small group of people (definitely in the minority) had things work out well for them.

3) Pissing people off who "played the game" by getting PME and AAD done only to find out that it really wasn't "required" because so-and-so went to PME in-res or got promotion/got a school slot without it. WTF? Consistency. Is it "pay to play" or not?

Thanks for your perspective.

Champ, I understand where you're coming from but I have to give credit to Liquid where its due. I haven't agreed with everything he's posted in the forums but in this case he's bucking the trend of his peers. The guy is saying and practicing exactly what a lot of guys on this forum are looking for. He's strating his people based on job performance as the #1 and living the "not practicing bleeding" policy in his career. I understand the overall frustration for a lot of people when it comes to how OG & WG/CCs strat there people and the relative inconsistency between leaders, bases, and units. I really think it comes down to an issue of real leadership. FWIW, I'm one of those guys in minority you reference above. Didn't do SOS in correspondence, still went in residence. Was an IDE select off the Major's board with only a BAC+. Some guys in leadership really pushed me to get the masters done before the board; I told them I wasn't gonna do that to my family, that I viewed being good the airplane more important than my bullshit AMU degree, I was willing let the chips fall where they may and it worked out. Some guys in leadership also pushed getting ACSC done in-correspondence in the first year as a huge make or break deal. I just started it in my second year and still got the IDE vector I wanted from my senior rater on my 3849. I'm not typing this to blow my own horn but to show that if you have a senior rater who really believes that job performance is #1 things can change. It may be different at my next base (TDY enroute right now) and I'll look like a shitbag for not getting my in-correspondence done early; so be it, its a decision I'm comfortable with. Thus far in my career I've had leadership that flat out stated that your ability to hack the mission is number one, if you weren't good at that they had nothing for you no matter how many boxes you checked. I'm really hoping Gen. Welsh gives his much anticipated vector soon and puts out some overall guidance to senior raters that solidifies what's really important. I really hope this because while I think that the morale in my community is still pretty good, its really bad for a lot of my friends in different parts of the AF, partly due to the factors you and others have mentioned in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Leadership is solving problems. The day soldiers stop bringing you their problems is the day you have stopped leading them. They have either lost confidence in your ability to help, or concluded that you do not care. Either case is a failure of leadership." - Colin Powell

One of my favorite quotes of all time. Say what you will about Gen Powell, but he is a sharp dude. My interpretation of this is that leadership is entirely about people. Everyone loves to talk mission mission mission, and that shit is absolutely important, but as a leader, your job is your people. Take care of them, give them direction, enable them to perform the mission, and it will get done. Focus on your people, and they will succeed in the mission. It kills me to see how readily the Air Force accepts losing quality people. Found out today that another 10 dudes have dropped paper in the last month or two...from a single squadron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Found out today that another 10 dudes have dropped paper in the last month or two...from a single squadron.

is that tracked in some sort of metric, and if so, are leaders held accountable in any way? Not being cynical, just wondering...

That data, to me, is more valuable that 20 unit climate assessments. While the cause does not fall squarely on the shoulder of the "losing" CC, if I was a higher up, I would certainly wonder WTF was going on in a squadron that was losing that many people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is that tracked in some sort of metric, and if so, are leaders held accountable in any way? Not being cynical, just wondering...

That data, to me, is more valuable that 20 unit climate assessments. While the cause does not fall squarely on the shoulder of the "losing" CC, if I was a higher up, I would certainly wonder WTF was going on in a squadron that was losing that many people.

If I was a higher up, in this situation, I would be figuring out WTF I was doing and what kind of command climate I was setting that was causing this to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would personally like to see a complete change from how the system works in that you are evaluated on your complete job performance (flying +queep + officership). It would be great to see boards do away with "school selects" at the Maj board. If everyone continued to compete for a school slot during your eligible years then i think the system would better select the right people to vector for in-residence IDE. The caveat to this is that school slots are allocated to each year group and that IDE CANNOT be completed in-correspondance until after you are out of your three "looks". This would reward people that continue to excel at their primary job throughout the entire eligibility time period. Obviously as a "candidate" I may be biased in this thought but I see a lot of "selects" that peak early and somewhat coast. If Liquid is correct in that "candidate" slots will completely dry up for the next 3-4 years, I think the perceived level of satisfaction that the majority of people will have with Big Blue will continue to spiral. I get it that we are under tough financial times but cutting career advancement requirements like in-res PME is the wrong way to go. Now if we change the system to where "done" is "done" (in-res vs correspondance) are the same then we may be better off all together. Look at Gen Welsh's bio...he didnt go to PME in residence once...but that was a different day.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of my favorite quotes of all time. Say what you will about Gen Powell, but he is a sharp dude. My interpretation of this is that leadership is entirely about people. Everyone loves to talk mission mission mission, and that shit is absolutely important, but as a leader, your job is your people. Take care of them, give them direction, enable them to perform the mission, and it will get done. Focus on your people, and they will succeed in the mission. It kills me to see how readily the Air Force accepts losing quality people. Found out today that another 10 dudes have dropped paper in the last month or two...from a single squadron.

...hence the reason 11S is at the very top of the stressed AFSC list (in red). But nothing to see there according to A1.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • M2 locked this topic
  • M2 unlocked this topic

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...