Herk Driver

Note the topic of the thread. Note the responses all deal with SOS. Note that one of these things is not like the others. Back to the topic at hand...

So from what I am reading here and from what Liquid and Majestik said, if you are not within 2 years of your Majors board and have not yet gone in residence, then drag your feet until 1 Oct. Try to enroll and when denied enrollment make sure you tell your boss that you cannot enroll. If you are denied residence based upon that then you have other avenues of recourse.

2

RIP

I disagree. Ok, so they did something else, but both started in Herks and went to something else, but then came back to Herks as Wing Commanders. If your point is that you have to go do something different to make GO, then ok I get it. But in the MAF, you are going to see that with many of the dudes that make higher rank. Very few are single MDS guys. Yes, he did replace Oliver. Oliver was a prior -135 Nav IIRC. Edit: I remember that he used to talk about the careers of several enlisted members that he helped to curtail due to integrity issues as a Sq/CC as well. That was part of his welcome brief to ASAB as the EOG. I don't remember the Major at EUCOM or the reason though.

https://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/225/Article/107996/major-general-richard-c-johnston.aspx https://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/225/Article/108122/major-general-rowayne-a-wayne-schatz-jr.aspx https://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/225/Article/107994/lieutenant-general-mark-o-schissler.aspx https://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/225/Article/108715/brigadier-general-charles-k-hyde.aspx Don't know the real number, but here are three four that I can recall that are currently on AD. This year's addition was Col Steve Oliver. I don't have his bio handy and not on the af.mil site. No value judgement on any of these guys, just information. I will say that I think the AF missed a good one in a former 19AW/CC and 89AW/CC (Mike Minihan)...I think this year was his primary look. Edit: added one more. https://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/225/Article/108881/brigadier-general-patrick-x-mordente.aspx Back to your regularly scheduled sport bitching...

Well this year was his year (IIRC) and he was not on the most recent list of those nominated or approved by the Senate for promotion to O-7.

This was the first step but I don't ever remember seeing a policy memo from him. Everything below is out of a Chiefs Sight Picture document from 2002 and 2005. Certainly, it drove the A1 memo. Although his policy, the A1 signed it and that is one of the reasons that I would posit that it never took. Nevermind the fact that Gen Moseley overturned the policy shortly after being confirmed as CSAF. Either way, Switzer has it right in his paper and Gen Welsh is moving the ball down the field. Quote below out of a paper in Air Power Journal. full; text here: https://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/2011/2011-4/2011_4_07_switzer.pdf "In 2005 Gen John P. Jumper, chief of staff of the Air Force, wrote a letter to all members of the service describing a significant change in promotion procedures and the Air Force’s treatment of education. Specifically, he directed the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) to mask officer education data on promotion boards through the rank of colonel, making it available only for brigadier general and above. By doing so, General Jumper intended to stop officers from pursuing AADs for the sole purpose of increasing their chances for promotion, also known as “square-filling” or “checking the box.” Although he acknowledged the value and importance of educa­tion to the Air Force and its officer corps, the general believed that the pursuit of AADs should be deliberate and focused. An earlier letter of General Jumper’s, written in 2002 regarding force development, foreshadowed his education policy. In that letter, he echoed the criticism of the status quo regarding education opportunities: “I know that a lot of you feel there are many reasons to be discouraged or dissatisfied with our current system—limited PME in-residence slots, limited advanced degree opportunities, or worse, square-filling master’s degree programs that do little to make you better at your job or get you closer to your goals. I have experienced some of these issues myself and I hear the same feedback from you. So let’s fix it.” Edit: Link to the CSAF sight pictures. https://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/menu_jump.htm

I'd like to see it. Below is a link to the post referencing the same document I am talking about. Although the internal link in that post is dead now. I can no longer find the actual memo anywhere.

Point taken, but if only Gen Jumper signed the "practice bleeding" memo... He did push the changes, but he left it to Gen Brady his A1 to sign the practice bleeding memo. And people took it for what it was worth, a memo signed by someone other than the Chief. How many times, on this board, have people bitched about a squadron CC coming in and making changes without consulting with his people? Without buy-in, none of these changes will stick. Hell, many of them may not stick anyway, but at least he may get some buy-in and they may stick around for longer than one CSAF. I see his changes as common sense changes but not all people do. Over my career, I have watched this issue come full circle and back again. There are always the one or two dudes that will see it the other way, but at least he is making changes and using data/ real experience to back up his changes. Maybe they will stick this time...time will tell.

Can anyone confirm that the LR TRS has gotten rid of their mileage restriction on passes? If not, there is still one.

Not saying he didn't get a bill...hopefully, he fought paying it and won, since there is no authority to require repayment. Voluntary Seps are covered under 36-3207, dtd 9 Jul 04. 2.2. Recoupment. 2.2.1. The immediate commanders, supervisors, or MPF chiefs advise officers that if SAF approves their request for release from active duty or accepts their resignations they may be subject to recoupment of a portion of education assistance, special pay, or bonuses received if they leave active duty before completing the period of active duty they agreed to serve. See Chapter 1, Section 1E, of this AFI for recoupment requirements. 2.2.2. Officers who are subject to recoupment of education assistance, special pay, or bonuses must sign the statements in Attachment 4.

4.12. Men’s Blue Service Uniform (Class B). 4.12.1. Long-Sleeve/Short-Sleeve Blue Shirt. Words...A V-neck or athletic style, white undershirt will be worn under the shirt. I guess his definition of athletic style differs from mine. There is a conflict later in Chapter 6, so a casual "noted" would probably do the trick.

There is not a recoupment for UPT ADSC option. It will not happen. The AF tried to do this to a Capt that was separating due to circumstances well within his control and the MAJCOM and above were trying to figure out a way to make him pay back 5-6 years of UPT ADSC. It didn't happen and was determined that it could not be done.

When did AFPC start making decisions on 179's? Typically, the AEF center/AFPC tasks a MAJCOM with the 179. It is sent to a Wing and they determine which Group/Squadron gets the tasking. The squadron commander ultimately is responsible to task the individual. Not saying that the Sq/CC and other CC's are not discussing who should/should not go, but that is how it worked at my Wing. YMMV. The 1:1 thing doesn't necessarily protect you for 365 days after your current 365. Rules changed a year or so ago. If the 365 is in CENTCOM and the next one returns you to CENTCOM, then the 1:1 dwell applies. However, an individual can return from a CENTCOM 365 and be tasked for an AEF (to a non-CENTCOM location) after 6-months. This was to put 365's and remote returnees on a level playing field. I am still looking for the press release/AFI/policy on it. Your deployment folks and/or EFSS should be able to pull the policy or they can get it from AFFOR/A1.

PM sent.

As Brannigan stated, check out the SECDEF memo...as far as I know, you are protected and no they cannot just turn you around and send you on a 179. They may want to but it takes SECDEF approval, IIRC. I will try to find it and send.

No, Chang was spending too much time on here deflecting.

Have you read "Obama's Wars" by Woodward? Good behind the scenes look at some of what Gates writes about in "Duty"

The 360 feedback program has been executed in the Army for some time now, according to some Army friends of mine. I just did a 360 feedback this past year administered through the Army program. It provided very useful information; some actionable and some not so much. The process is already in place...I would suspect that the AF would utilize the same programs that are already in place. However, I am sure that the AF can sufficiently screw it up. That said, there is no real way for those providing feedback to get scwacked unless they write comments that are very specific to them as an individual. Frankly, I was not interested in figuring out who anyone was, and based on the comments I would not have been able to do so. If you keep the comments constructive then what is the real problem? If you think this will be your chance to tell your CC to go F*ck himself, then you probably will be disappointed. Agree with jcj that this is "but one tool - the results of which must be considered both in context and in comparison with other feedback tools." My guess is that like the annual Unit Climate survey that most people will not take the time to complete the survey. Say what you want, but trying to get people to provide feedback is a painful process. Liquid, you said earlier that this is already being used at the GO/FO level, correct? If so, can you share how it is implemented? Who is compiling the data, etc?

All of this... 365's are assigned based on requirements of the J-O-B and all who meet the basic criteria are then racked and stacked accordingly. They only look at those that aren't eliminated by dwell time, non-deployable due to just arriving on station, etc. You have to stop believing all the BS you hear about a guy getting screwed because he refused to PCS, submitted for VSP, etc. I saw too many guys that were nearing the end of their UPT commitments getting tagged for a 365. If you looked further, they were getting tagged in order of STRD (none of them had OSRD or a previous short tour). There is much less behind the scenes trickery than many people give Big Blue credit for. There is an entire office that does nothing but the 365 assignments...they don't play favorites...ask your commanders who have talked to them.

It's been said before, but yes, AFPC can waive the ADSC and move you anyway. Contrary to popular belief, you don't get 365's based off of these types of decisions. You can still be sent on a deployment. Your boss is required to have you home 30 days prior to your separation date, IIRC. No requirement to ensure you get terminal as you can sell back 60 days of your leave (needs of the AF).

As another reminder of what happened during the time that Hacker mentions...when the return to AADs started, it was not at the flip of a switch...there was about a year (or longer) between decision and implementation, IIRC. Although, there were some that got caught behind the 8-ball with little time to catch up. Either way, there has to be more to the effort than to just tell SR's to ignore AADs when considering strats and for promotion boards, etc. SURFs and other documentation need to be addressed so that the information is not available, like CK has pointed out.

FYI, word I got today was that SERB results were released last Friday. As is customary, there is no public release but individuals should already be notified by their chain of command.

Normally the results are released at one time and senior raters are directed to notify those affected. IIRC the mandatory retirement date is 1 July 2014.