Leaderboard

This is all very interesting to me...only my 2 cents: How Morale Tab Patches are a Leadership Challenge Prior to this change being published, tab/morale patches have been authorized on a case-by-case basis for wear (even in the AOR, gasp, amongst our coalition partners). How can this be? These patches were not allowed by AFI. There is a difference between enforcing rules and leading, and they often only have an indirect, and occasionally direct, connection to one another. Sadly, when direct connection is necessary, it is not ever a good day (for anyone involved). Buddy Spike's email suggestion is actually fine to me (although I would suggest some minor word-smithing) from the wing level straight down to the squadron level (this is where this issue belongs; wing commanders out and about looking into tab patches is laughable). However, from the squadron commander's purview, it really isn't that simple...not from a perspective of leadership. A commander/leader does not need to express his expectation that officers act like officers. However, he does have the responsibility to ensure that each officer knows what that means. Morale patches are a very minor wave in what should already be a riptide of influence a commander has on each officer in his unit. A "my door is always open" policy is essential, but it is far from leadership. He must actively engage every person and challenge them to think a step or two farther through each issue. Some issues do not have many steps, as may be the case here. If this is not done, those that follow in their foot steps will be forced to think farther later, making the same mistakes over again when it is their turn to lead; nothing will ever improve. Those who mostly understand already lead their peers, this is most difficult. Those who truly understand lead their leaders, and the good ones encourage this. This must happen more often now than before if we are to fix whatever leadership deficiencies are believed to exist. As it stands, the majority of tomorrow's leaders will be no better and no more successful than the leaders drawing criticism today nor are they any more capable (they will succumb to the same pitfalls already in play). There is a deep rooted lack of understanding in the CGO corps that initiative and leadership is expected of them. It has nothing to do with burger-burns, Christmas parties, or morale patches. If you don't understand, seek out the right person to ask (sadly, you'll need to look hard). There was a reason the AFI was changed, removing the things that were now reinstated. Squadron Commanders will set expectation, they may or may not follow through...CGOs will decide when it's time to change the AFI back to it's more restrictive version. There are many people who want to lead. There are many more that only want to follow. The Air Force is unfortunately currently over manned in the followership career field. There are almost unlimited possibilities for sharing what morale, pride, confidence, initiative, and character are, by both CGO and FGO alike (commander or not)...it does have something to do with morale patches, but not if the Chiefs logo specifically is appropriate or not. The ability to wear a Chief tab on your flight suit will not improve your morale, nor anything else about you. Bendy

It is embarrassing how long it took me to figure out why Alaska's clear superiority to Arkansas had anything to do with M2.

My advice - write this e-mail (and you have my permission to copy this word for word into your leadership by e-mail blast): Is it seriously that hard to lead without asking dumbass questions like the one you just posed?

It's a trap

The fact that you called this a "challenge" shows just how clueless you and the rest of the "leaders" truly are. If this is a challenge to you on any level, you're not qualified to stand in front and lead people. You're just a glorified manager. Leadership is setting the standard and trusting your people to do the right thing (and course-correcting when necessary). If you seriously have to get this worked up about "OMG WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE WITHOUT MICROMANAGING GUIDANCE!" then you have much bigger issues.

This was already posted in the "What's Wrong with the AF?" thread (as a good thing), but it deserves its own thread for now. Release of the change to 39-2903 has re-authorized colored Friday shirts, name tags, and morale patches. Note that this applies to everybody, not just flyers. Can I get a harumph?

How many people would voluntarily work for a company that furloughs and terminates people with little notice? Demands a one way employment contract? Will deploy you to some crap-hole-country for a year to teach people to fly who want to kill you? It becomes a job after a few years. Benefit of staying must be greater than the benefit of leaving. For most people TriCare and the Pension weigh very heavily in that calculation. Good people know what they are worth and where they are going.

I guess we'll have to disband the senior NCO academy now. They'll have nothing left to talk about.

Come on!! It's so simple, maybe you need a refresher course. Playbook section 3.2: When you have clearly demonstrated that you are unqualified to hold your current position, you are failing on a regular basis and your policies are harming the country and citizens......... play the race card.

LOL, isn't that the exact same thing that is painted on the tail of your jets? The more I think about, that LOC was probably for having a crappy football team and a bipolar basketball team. KAAAAAMS!

It would actually turn on at 1620.

Serious question...do you really think the "banged up airplanes, shitty planning and sloppy missions" are the result of people not enforcing the "easy standards?" (I assume you are talking about the mustaches, fleeces and tabs) or is it more that leadership is distracting them by making them focus on the wrong things? I only ask because in your post you say this: but then you close with this: The logic I get from your post is (in my words) that we are sloppy because we focus too much on the wrong shit. I certainly don't think the bent metal or sloppy missions are because dudes are wearing tabs and have mustaches...I think it is because focus isn't where it needs to be and it goes well beyond the "easy shit" like morale patches, Friday shirts, and mustaches....

Wait...you fly eagles? I thought you were a herk driver.

I'm a retired O-6 (Reserve, though my last 12 years were spent attached to AD units)...been in several command positions, been in ICBMs (where the active duty Wing/CC was a good sh*t [made 2-stars, BTW], but trying to be a "good soldier" by **vaguely** enforcing the ban on morale patches...all while the Vice Wing/CC and OG/CCs [two other good sh&ts, BTW] wore them!!!). All I can say is (other than "RustyPipes" and "FlyinGrunt" are probably geniuses without knowing it for their comments above) is: I personally cannot for the life of me...understand the **obsession** (read that "hard-on") that leadership has for "Friday" patches-- I personally think that it's BULLSH&T, and an unnecessary morale-buster. 2nd best one I ever saw was a desert subdued "New Belgian Brewing" logo on a guys flightsuit in "The Muff" at Al Udeid (okay, #2 is a tie...the other one was a tab I also saw in the desert saying "F&ck it's hot here..."). Here's the cleverest I ever saw: Again, just my .02 cents. IMHO, the current-day AF is a morale-devoid wasteland, where in near-hysterical efforts to be promoted, many senior leaders are working overtime to ensure it is a politically correct Mecca...NOT the world's most capable air and space force. Kent

So let me get this straight… Still waiting on a "vector" from the CSAF, just got told on the Friday before Christmas that you might get a pink slip with an offer to apply for VSP/TERA where everyone had to show their cards to their boss only to have an 11th hour "just kidding" message come out from A1 and your future pensions were just compromised to ensure we can get more sub-par F-35s that we don't really need to the absolute silence of every General Officer… and we are on page 3 celebrating colored t-shirts and "fun meter" patches?!? Looks like Big Blue won this round… pretty sad.

Nope, but I would have it framed and hung in the bar for posterity's sake... Lest we make the same mistakes twice.

I made a brief mention of this in the beginning of the thread, but this is what I thought was interesting. I remember many years ago talking to a maintainer who had tried (along with his buds) to wear Friday shirts, and they were slammed by their superintendent because they weren't in regs. This almost strikes as something that nobody was against on principal, but simply because it didn't apply across the board. I have no issue with the REMFs (not referencing MX) wearing colored shirts, and if that's what it takes to get our shit back, then more power to them.

Wow, the Air Force managed to fix a lot of the things that are "Wrong with the Air Force" in one swing. Bravo. Bravo indeed.

Let's have some fun with the uniform police! I'm guessing this new change won't be too publicized... My plan is to get all decked out on Friday....Friday patches, pencil tab, single name nametag, bright red squadron shirt, and then maybe stroll around MPF or finance...maybe get lost in the MSG building.....phishing for Chiefs. Of course, I will have the appropriate pages conveniently printed in my pocket to correct said Chief....bye-bye...thanks for playing...your prize is a home version of our game called STFU!!! Good hunting boys! Cap-10

I like the green/grey/yellow/brown ones. Nobody tells me I have to clean or polish them.

Most companies that furlough or terminate people do so with less notice than the Air Force. They at least let you keep Tricare for 6 months and you get severance pay with VSP or RIF. You had no idea the Air Force would deploy you?

This thread went from good to bad. Makes my head want to explode.

The 36 month TIG is only for your retired rank (which is waiverable down to 2 years TIG) If you are a Lt Col with 2 yr TIG, you retire and the waiver is approved for the < 3 yr TIG, then you are a Lt Col (ret) but your pay is still based on the high 3, so in this case, it would be 2 x years with O-5 pay and 1 year with O-4 pay. Cap-10

There are really two ways to view these changes. The cynical view says this is leadership trying to placate the masses with simple things to keep their minds off of the major issues. The optimist view says that this change indicates senior leadership has a pulse on what the masses want and is trying to fix the simple things that don't take an act of congress or any more budget space. Personally, I'm more on the optimist side and I'm excited to see these changes.

Let leaders lead… delegate this down to the Sq CC's and let the FGOs in the Squadron police themselves. I know that is a cosmic idea and hasn't been done in the past 5 yrs or so, but even when these were allowed a simple, "Seriously dude?" from an FGO to an LT or young Capt was usually enough to keep the inappropriate stuff out. Put out a generic Wing policy covering profanity, sexual references, etc and be done with it.

Oh fuck it. Four's banzai, I'm hubcappin or you can film the merge if you want.... Liquid.. here's a chance to teach a young guy in the LPA a little something. What about that advice sucked, specifically? If I knew that an e-mail like that was sent from my WG/CC to my SQ/CC, it would be very motivating. "Why", you ask? Because in four very simply sentences, a topic that shouldn't be a big deal, wasn't! But also in those four very tiny sentences, my SQ/CC was delegated the authority that he ought to have had in the first place. So now he can spend less than 69 seconds writing up an approval list like FlyinGrunt posted. So in a total of maybe 75.9 seconds of "commander time" (6.9 seconds for the WG/CC and 69 seconds for the SQ/CC), a relatively minor issue was able to remain minor, and a little bit of morale has returned to the front line guy. So again, I ask, why did that advice suck? If anybody sees my flight lead tell him I'll be back when I'm winchester.

I think I get your concern in that given today's 24-hr media and the hyper-sensitivity with the POTUS/SECDEF-directed sexual assault prevention effort, all it takes is one incident to ruin this for everyone. Regardless of the standard set by the MAJCOM/NAF/Wing Commanders, I guarantee you someone will ignore it eventually. Zero-tolerance anything is just unrealistic. Last I checked, we haven't gotten rid of sexual assaults, drug use, and DUIs, even though we have standards and enforcers (abundant of them) of those standards. Delegate it down, trust your subordinates, give them an objective and let them lead and set the standard (apply common sense here). Correct and vector as needed, repeat (OODA?) If they are just ing it up, that should be a sign that they are not leadership material and take action(s) as needed. MAJCOM/NAF/Wing leadership making tactical decisions such as this only slow everyone down and deter them away from their primary mission of organize, equip, and train (as someone has already mentioned). Not only that, now the subordinates will be hesitant to make other tactical decisions. I want to believe this situation is what Gen Welsh is trying to reverse. There is always going to be someone in the media or public that is looking for reasons to make the AF look bad. You can't make everyone happy, let's not let the naysayers paralyze the AF. Just my 2 cents.

Leaders "vaguely" enforcing rules rarely gets picked up by the lower ranks. In every instance I've seen a commander try to do that, most dudes in the rank and file aren't sure of the commander's intent and will just err on the side of caution and abide by the rule 100%. In all honesty, it comes off as a CYA move by the commander even though it may be well intentioned. In other words, it's mostly chickenshit.

What advice would I give? None. My wg/cc ensures, among other things, that My wing has the training and equipment necessary to wage an air war. If wg/ccs lack the judgement to make a decision on a Fvcking morale patch, then I'm screwed and the terrorists win. They already have enough competence to figure out this insignificant- yet morale boosting decision. Good to see someone trusts their subordinates.

DSG i.e. bum (a great life, I may add)

Let me make it easy for these congresscritters. Listen real good Congress, I'll go slow: I ain't doing any of this shit for a 401k and I ain't doing any of this shit for a benefit payout a day later than the day I stop doing the job, right ricky tick. Comprende? I'll curtail/torpedo my PT test twice the next day. I have options and my identity is not married to this uniform. Plan accordingly. Signed, ~A financially literate servicemember who can count with his fingers. It's not rocket surgery, Congress. Good for the goose good for the gander, color-by-numbers type of shit. And good luck recruiting my son. See how that works?

Now I know where the A-1 gets their ideas. (not Serious).

Yes, TFL is a recent addition, but...only after the promise of "healthcare for life" was taken away and veterans sued. DOD and VA claimed no one was ever promised healthcare for life when they joined the military. Several old retirees produced documents that showed they actually were promised just that. Courts ruled in the veterans favor and TFL was born when Congress changed the law. Similar thing happened when Congress changed the retirement system in the mid to late '80's. REDUX or something similar was basically the "new" retirement. Veterans groups sued and thus was born the decision at 15 years to take 30K and a reduced retirement or to stick with the High-3. But High-3 replaced the final pay system that reigned previously. Those already in the system were grandfathered though, IIRC.

Apparently not.

First: Awesome! Second: This gets us closer to what we used to have. We didn't just win the lottery. Imagine if your wife who used to be faithful, cheated on you for a few years, then decided she was going to be faithful again. Do you have an amazing marriage now? Third: This won't stop REMFing from those that can't do their job. There are a lot of bad regs out there for them to enforce or conspicuously comply with. Fourth: Regarding Liquid's post about wing commanders; wing commanders should lead. If the mission of your wing is to kill people then it might be okay to have patches celebrating that. If they don't know how to lead then maybe they shouldn't be wing commanders.

Keep the union strong. Don't cross the picket line for such a small concession.

F*ckin A!!!!! Major props to Welsh It's the little things

Great, now when will strippers and hot local civilian chicks be allowed back in the O'Clubs as legend has it?

Huge win for non-rated Weapons Officers reagrding ABUs. It's about time. The Weapons Instuctor Course Graduate Patch and/or USAF Test Pilot School Patch (graduate or instructor) may also be worn on the pocket of the ABU. Wear only regular size embroidered cloth badges or specialty insignia. Metal pin- on type qualification badges are not authorized for wear on the ABU.

This is great news! I will show this to the CC this week and get our shirts re-authorized. Next challenge...black boots.

Holy shit, I didn't believe you and had to go look for myself! E-9's worldwide must be seething with rage right now.

Wow. I'm almost speechless. Big win for Welsh (I'll give him credit) and a big F U to those that killed this stuff a couple years ago.

Another small victory. New change to AFI 36-2903: 8.3.6. Morale Patches and Tabs. Wing Commanders may authorize the wear of morale patches on the shoulders of the FDU on Fridays, or during special events. Small morale tabs may be worn on the exposed Velcro of the left sleeve when the pen pocket cover is removed; wear is not restricted. Squadron Commanders will approve and maintain a list of acceptable morale patches and tabs for wear by assigned Airmen. 8.4.5. Nametags. Cloth nametags for FDU/DFDU and flight jackets will be 2 X 4 inches in size and worn over the left breast pocket. As a minimum, the Aeronautical badge, Space, Cyberspace or missile operations badges (if awarded) are mandatory and nametags will contain individual‘s name and rank (rank is mandatory for enlisted personnel). Embroidered badges will be consistent in color with MAJCOM approved nametag colors. In the case of subdued nametags, embroidered badges will be black or dark blue in color. MAJCOM supplements to this instruction will standardize nametags (i.e., background/border colors, squadron logos, naming convention, etc.). Nametags for Leather A-2 Flying Jacket will be 2 x 4 inches, brown or black leather, simulated leather. Emboss with silver wings or badges, first and last name, rank, and USAF. Note: Commanders authorized to wear the Command Insignia pin will wear the insignia on the left side of the nametag. The insignia will be worn only while performing commander duties. Exception: Wing Commanders may authorize the wear of morale nametags on Fridays or during special events. Squadron Commanders will ensure name tags are in good taste and reflect proper military order, discipline, morale, and image. 8.7. Undergarments. Undergarments are required with the FDU and DFDU. During flight operations all undergarments, to include cold weather undergarments, must be cotton or fire retardant material and must be on the safe to fly list maintained by Aircrew Flight Equipment (AFE). Undershirts will be crewneck style and tan in color. Exception: Wing Commanders may authorize Airmen to wear a designated unit standardized color undershirt on Fridays, or during special events.

Our commander has been pretty awesome about this whole thing, just sent this email out to us

They take the specs from the customer and give them to the engineers. I think.

Baltika? You'd better be deployed

Ran into a guy I knew from a previous assignment at an airline job fair. I told him I got out and I'm in AFRC enjoying life. He stayed in, made O-5 and got sent back to the base we had both been at 7-8 years ago. He's got about 12-18 months left till retirement, wasn't on the command list, so he's just waiting for his 20. Others we knew are also back at that base, but on the Fast Track. He told me he did a 6 month deployment to the Deid...one of those "why am I here" jobs with no point...but he was an available body, so he got tagged. He got home, and six months later (just a week or so before the job fair) he's informed that they are deploying him to that SAME JOB again, for another 6 months. He pleads with the O-6 to find someone else...he just did that deployment, and he's about to separate and is afraid deploying so close to his retirement will hurt his ability to find post-AF work. O-6 says sorry, but the other O-5s are fast burners and he can't spare them...to do so might inconvenience their rapid upward mobility. Never mind that some of them haven't deployed at all in 6-7 years. I feel bad for him, but that's one reason why I got out. After doing a 365 in Iraq, I asked to go to the AETC squadron to have some time with family. Less than 18 months later, I was deploying on a 182-day tasking, even though there were several others who could deploy, and had not deployed in several years...but again, they were Golden Boys that the leadership didn't want to inconvenience with a deployment, so let's send the career flyer to the desert again even though he just got back from a 365. When I protested that, I was told that since I volunteered for the 365, I "did it to myself". That was straight from the O-6. My counterpart hadn't deployed in 4 years but they refused to send him because he was an alternate for the Phoenix Mobility program. So while I was deployed, I applied for Palace Chase and GTFO of the RegAF. Been happy ever since. Oh, and despite being the chief of flight safety with an excellent record (did great on the UCI, built several programs from the ground up, etc), the O-6 downgraded my separation medal from a MSM to a AFCM. My boss fought it until she PCS'd (I had already separated) but as soon as she was gone, they downgraded it and finalized it. I'm the only O-4 who PCS'd/separated from my wing without a MSM. I know pretty much for a fact it was downgraded out of spite because I punched from the AF. I wasn't "blue" enough, apparently. Treating people this way is another reason why the AF will be pressed to retain people once the job market gets going again.

Tell her to go to the auto hobby shop on base. Never had any issues with them, and they are good with local recommendations if they don't have parts. I brought over a US car and bought a BMW when I was there, had them work on both and was happy with both.

I hear you. When I flew I wore a baseball hat and a crew patch. I also knew when to take it off and so did my crew. As a Sq CC, we standardized our Friday patches, wearing a heritage patch, but we did not allow individual pencil pocket tabs outside the aircraft or TDY. I believe in the value of squadron morale patches and traditions, but squadron commanders need to be responsible for the content. As a group commander, I saw more and more instances of crews not getting the discretion part you described above. After an Afghanistan deployment, one of our crews arrived home to families and media, and the MAJCOM commander. Most of them stepped off the aircraft wearing their baseball hats, black fleece jackets, handlebar mustaches and chops to the jaw. They had 7 days to transition from the AOR to home station, but didn't. The MAJCOM CC and Wing CC looked at me and basically said, "WTF, why don't they know when to take that stuff off?" The argument from the crew and many in the squadron, including the sq cc was, if it is ok in combat, it is ok at home. Their lack of SA was startling. We also began to notice the crews that couldn't be disciplined enough to enforce the easy standards, also failed with the harder ones. Banged up airplanes, shitty planning, sloppy missions were becoming the norm. The trust was violated too many times, so we focused on standards and stopped tolerating the sloppiness. There were no Article 15s, or LOR/LOCs, or firings, just good old fashioned mentoring with occasional full up ass chewings. We noticed a difference in mission performance when we tightened up on the little shit. In my experience, there was a correlation to the attitude towards baseball hats and mustaches and mission performance. YMMV but I've seen it. I do believe that in a well-disciplined, combat effective unit, little things matter. Unit pride and cohesiveness, enforcement of standards, high expectations and trust up and down the chain are all important. I've given many safety down day briefs as a commander, and it is not difficult to find recent examples of discipline failures that lead to death or mission failure. Failure to meet standards and failures of discipline are direct leadership challenges. Our HHQ guidance should be written vaguely to allow judgement and enforcement informed by the environment and mission. Commanders at all levels have a responsibility to ensure the standards are appropriate and that they are being enforced adequately. CSAF did us a solid by relaxing some stupid uniform standards so we can focus on more important things. We became distracted by enforcing or complaining about minor standards like sock/shoe colors, reflective belts, and colored t-shirts. I think the Friday morale patches should be unit and mission related, not pop culture and sports. It is a military uniform after all. It will be interesting to see how we implement this new guidance across the AF.