Bender

How do follow-on assignments from school (IDE specifically) work? Can a particular senior rater impact this process (i.e. choose to push a candidate based upon return value for one of his communities)? Reaching beyond a follow-on staff tour seems unlikely to me...but, I've heard this discussed recently. I thought the DTs were career mapping entities, but I've seen little product of such beyond generic labels (RAS/PAS, Staff, etc.). Is there a "normal" gap there between school graduation and the command select list's generation (somewhere in LtCol select land)? Doesn't strike me as a well oiled machine, but I admit to a lack of knowledge here...anyone have the lowdown? Bendy

I live in Marysville in one of those communities where all the houses are on top of each other and the yards are tiny...you know the ones. It's called Edgewater...it's fine, unlike much of the rest of the Linda area. Marysville itself is farther north and starting to get on the order of the Lincoln/Rockville commute. You can also look at Plumas Lake (similar neighborhoods), farther south. Some people like Penn Valley up to the north east also, even Alta Sierra, just to the south of that (now you're definitely back up to the 45 minute commute though). There are options...good luck weeding through it. Bendy

I believe the question was in reference to the masking of in-residence attendance to the promotion board. If the promotion board can no longer see it, a subsequent IDE/SDE board that can see it could work to undo the point of that change. If the SURF lists school select status, that would also serve the same counterproductive function...I'm not sure it actually does, but the OPB may. Either way, here lies my question about regulations governing this process. You have one team making good changes, while another isolated team undoes it with a process that doesn't account for the other. I know, it's a big organization with a lot of moving parts, and life is hard... Straight to what I believe you were thinking with your reply, just because you aren't allowed to practice bleeding doesn't mean Big Blue won't punish you for not doing it. We can't help but look at quantitative discriminators...it's too easy. Bendy

Indeed it was...difficult to pick out without looking at a previous PDSM. I couldn't locate the '14 one with my free 20 seconds, but the '13 PDSM also didn't have another step, DT vectoring of each nominee. I'm a fan of this concept, but I believe Senior Raters should be mandated to submit their full quota every year (nor should a PRF ever be submitted blank, but that's a different issue). DT's would lean on previous vectors, creating a limited amount of additional work, as a lot of the same people SHOULD be being looked at within the 3 year cycles. This would open the opportunity to address the 20-40 percentile people more carefully that, for whatever reason, didn't quite "get it" at promotion time. We should be "vectoring" people more closely, even if they aren't going to school. I think these changes are a good idea. Someone at AFPC had a good idea. Bendy Edit: PDSM, PSDM, potato, potato.

Is there a regulation or policy memo that spells this process out? At least prior to this alteration...because Bendy does not understand what is going on here. Sounds like we're just redoing the promotion board to determine school matches vice slots, with the caveat you had to be nominated by your senior rater via 3849, vice DP/P. Except everyone competes for promotion, only those the SR deems worthy (capped at 20% of eligibles, of course) get a pony in this show. I'm curious what #1 on the ROM gets...a choice of triple pay VSP or a seat for ACSC; well done, what would you like good sir? Bendy

I've had two quality formal feedback sessions in my entire career. You know the kind where my rater knew I was coming, had thought about it, and wrote some shit down before I got there. That's not a very good percentage. Personally, the "no-shit worthwhile" feedback has always been a result of me knocking on the door and me asking the question. I could hope that the majority of people I rate on would say they got something out of sitting down with me for the sole purpose of providing feedback. I don't know if they would call it "no-shit worthwhile", that's a pretty high bar. I think that it's important to set expectations and provide mentoring during formal sessions, but "no-shit worthwhile" feedback on job performance occurs outside of the formal structure real-time. For as many times I've said I would never do it, the "sign this, let me know if you have questions and oh back fighting that war for us" feedback occur more than it should. In a perfect world it wouldn't at all, but the experience you seem to have is not uncommon. I've been about as far from "the wing's golden boy" as it gets...no exaggeration there. I've had many mentors...it's difficult because either they or I keep fucking PCS'ing and they never go to the same place as I do. It also turns out I'm still not very good at long distance relationships. How do you define a mentor? At no time has anyone said, "will you be my mentor?" or "I'll be your mentor.", we're not getting married here...but, I've had at least, off the top of my head, five mentors. I wonder if they even know I consider them that? Some do, I think. Bendy

That's a fucking joke, right? Here is part of the problem: SAASS is not required to "keep learning". In fact, it's not necessary for learning period. Turns out nothing about professional military education requires attendance to learn. Every single ounce is readily available almost every single day. PME, SAASS included, is a specific opportunity that will enhance promotion opportunities within the current scheme. If provided the syllabus and readings, how much more do you think you'll learn by attending? Mind you, there are plenty of people you work with you could discuss this or, gasp, teach the stuff you learn to every day, already around you. If you need SAASS to get promotion to O-5, I respectfully ask you to just fly the line until you punch. If you decide you want to be an O-6, doing this or not shouldn't even be a factor (it may be, which is horse shit). If these programs were sufficiently challenging, there would be a worthy discrimination...we choose to preserve the path over the quality of the future. Talk to your mentor(s), do what you think is right for you, then rethink about how you feel about your "learning options". Good luck, sigmanugary. You're in a good place, just leave it better than you found it. Bendy

That is not part of everyone's vector, even if one doesn't have a score recorded. No clue why one would and one wouldn't. Bendy

I'm not sure I'm tracking the repeated mention of the "bro-turned-douche" concept. The concept I am tracking is that being the group exec, wing exec, CAG director, etc. are not additional duties beyond your primary role as a tactical operator executing the unit's mission. The primary duty is staff work (normally before it's time for a staff job), you just get away to fly here and there. It's more than just not pulling the weight of an "out of hide" body filling these roles, the "shiny penny" is no longer devoting the bulk of time to teaching and growing the young guys in a squadron. Big Blue values the work done by the average wing exec as more valuable than the (next) most gifted tactical operator. Big Blue assumes the most gifted tactical operator was coughed up as the wing exec and should be taken care of as such. As long as that's true, the system works just fine...minus the loss to the squadron members' development. These are things that don't NEED to be fixed. There are far to many real problems that people focus on when they reach spots to do something about it...nor do they feel the need to sacrifice their provided executive services of their own accord. The exec should be the #1 CGO/FGO at the next lowest level, the system assumes this to be true...fortunately you do not need to be #1 of 6969 officers to have a successful career...nor to make O-6. If the stratification process was pure and applied throughout the domain of every senior rater, none of this would matter. The shit bag wing exec would get the shit bag stratification, regardless of his "primary duties". Bendy

The system relies on a number of questionable assumptions and processes. "Shiny penny" moved to group, "shiniest penny" moved to wing...associated group/wing stratification follows...next stratification based largely on preceding stratification...promotion/school based on "good stratifications"...assignments based on school...command based on assignments...promotion based on command. What if the right penny wasn't sent to the wing, only the best penny we had at the time we were asked? What if being the wing exec wasn't the best way to develop that individual into the leader we assumed they would become? Certainly the PME system will pick up the slack for any possible short comings of the process, right? Who in their right mind wants to be the fucking wing exec? The process works outside of this stream, but it's easier if we use this shit...let's us avoid actually putting in the effort to mentor, lead, and evaluate potential. I can see why "good bros" get fed up. It takes more than just being good...it takes getting recognized for being good. But, after all this, that's not really any different than any other place. How are we supposed to go about doing it better, when it obviously works so well? Bendy

Might be easier to answer what it isn't based on... Bendy

It's a great thing to say that it's being done wrong and telling people to stop doing it wrong...that is only part of the solution though, there must be some guidance when the "right way" isn't readily apparent. Without disagreeing with what's been posted here, but what is the solution if you can't locally convene boards or eventually rack and stack off of discretely comparable metrics? How does a squadron level list generated by genuine meritocracy (that alone requires hundreds of hours of devoted performance review) get combined into one that can stand against a senior rater's allocation? If a senior rater was to push guidance to align the lower level reviews, the line seemingly gets crossed on convening a board (if executed as disjointed as it would be). Does the work product from the lower level reviews push data (highlighted ROPs, push lines, PRFs, etc.) that forms the input to the next level review until the senior rater's staff is working over the whole lot conducting a genuine performance level review that dismisses/aligns with CSAF guidance? I've never met someone that appreciates being told something is wrong while blatantly acknowledging there isn't clearly a better way of doing it. I don't even know what we're talking about here to be honest, Bendy

Doesn't this question come up every year around this time? I never know the answer, but a search would yield those who have (and have not) given useful answers in the past. Why I would know anything about the whereabouts of F-18s is still my guess; Even if I was using their call sign the other day...oops. Do the search, buddy and see what you come up with. I know you've asked before, but I wouldn't expect much more than you gotten in the past. Bendy

You are looking for real-time logic in a place even the most motivated staff officer can't effect one. Outlook, tour length, policy alteration timelines: these things create a situation difficult at best to work in. After getting bearings, I would imagine rtgator is doing well just keeping the machine moving while looking for ways to help. Which is what he was trying to do by coming here, among other places. It will require intervention from someone well above rtgator's pay grade to make changes that alter longterm inventory levels. It will take true crisis to make this intervention occur. While I think Chang's post has logic, my 3 year old came up with the same reasoning...so, thanks for taking the time to toss that nugget in there. Bendy

All of this assumes the individual is interested in flying for the airlines. It also assumes that one is punching as a O-5 at 20 years. After 20 years of service, I would think one deserves to get a second career that would make one happy...I find it hard to believe that an airline gig really fits that bill for the majority. From a money accumulation standpoint, I see the logic...but, I think I departed that path when I commissioned with an engineering degree (that I chose based on income potential to boot.) Best of luck to each of you in determining what's best for your livelihoods here. Bendy

So you think someone that forgets such a thing would be persuaded by such a tactic? I think something much grander may be required. I'm actually with Beckley on this one. Although, if you're on standby to fly, or even have crew rest to fly...you're in your flight suit. Although, this "policy" sounds like a pain in my ass and I change my mind. If it's a uniform, you wear it when it's appropriate and you wear what you want when the choice is up to you. Sounds good. Bendy

Better, yes. Way better, not sure. When things are messed up it's too easy to focus on the "low hanging fruit" and avoid the root cause problems. The former gets defenders, increases morale, and is easily reversed. The latter is unrecognized, does nothing for today's morale, and is easily undermined. Once you get to a certain level in a huge organization, unless you're staying for a long time...what would you choose? This isn't easy on the most face value. If you aren't happy, what do you think you could accomplish that is worth the effort it would require? Doing good things is good. Not doing bad things is good. Only doing bad things is bad. It's not what the cliche says but if we could just get more of that strung together. Too bad we'll have the 19AW/CC as a future CSAF instead, eh? Bendy

CGOC gets shit on everywhere. It symbolizes more than just networking...mostly for its own justification. The CGOC is never the only way to meet non-flying O's. I'm not sure where you're coming from there. An easy way, sure...like trying to pick up a girl at the bar. They congregate there, therefore I start there...or maybe that's not even an analogy for you, eh? Bendy

What's highly controversial about this "trick"? How is that different from what every squadron commander does right out of the gate with his/her peers? This thread is a train wreck. I can't figure out why I keep looking at it. Bendy

A. What? B. If you get selected for school, that's it...wait for school. C. If you don't, get DL done ASAP...it won't get easier to fit I in...barring any special circumstance making immediately undesirable. D. Drink one for me. E. What? Bendy

Or 7500, whatever. I believe you too. Totally charismatic. Math aside. Bendy Edit: reading again, maybe I make fun of me?

Dear lord...good. The people working out here appreciate it when critical thought gets applied. Just be careful, we don't always know the whole story, so discuss at will...accuse carefully. You were, and still are, supposed to do that. Just because he crashes his Porsche... Bendy

Oh dear. This sounds like a case study someone should be collecting to write a report to congress. I don't necessarily want them in our shit (i.e. Confirmations), but it's hard to argue with at times. Bendy

I don't advocate "box checking" or "playing the game for game's sake" and I certainly do not feel that since I did something that means you should too. If you know the consequences, you make your own decisions. The initial post literally said, "I'd love to get a master's degree in something relevant or useful - if only the Air Force would send me." If that's true, is it impossible to find a "relevant or useful" master's degree without the Air Force sending you or is it only not fraud, waste and abuse if I pay for both your basic pay and tuition at the same time? I would humbly submit that you get out what you put in to it, wether it's online or not. The lack of available options was not the presented rationale for not pursuing it, rather pure principle: they said I don't need to...therefore I will not. If you know the consequences, you make your own decisions. You must "work hard" at your job. No one believes that getting an AAD will make up for sub-par performance when you show up for work and there is no erroneous belief that you can only "work hard" if you get an AAD. I believe there is an erroneous belief that you should have the available resources to excel at your primary duty while spending the time to study for an AAD that will prove to be "relevant and/or useful". This is why people with average capacity should start early...doing it right takes time. Working hard and choosing to do less work are not the same thing. No one is saying anyone specific is not working hard...I am saying that choosing to not get an AAD while it is an option is choosing to do less work. I'm sure when you separate and get your degree it won't be nearly as taxing on your family as getting one now. (To help you understand me: that was sarcastic.) The GI bill is really not much of a player in the decision matrix if you have children. Pay for your school later or pay for theirs, you are paying for something (if you even choose to do that; with attitudes like this, I'd pay for yours since yours will likely cost much more). Personally, I don't think people should do anything more than get cheaper online degrees. Different conversation though... If you know the consequences, you make your own decisions. There is nothing wrong with that at all in my opinion. I'm amused by the BAC+ risk mitigated strategy....sounds like a logical plan though. I'm not here to judge you. You get to "take a stand", "do less work", and "play the game" all at the same time...quite crafty. I still fail to see the straw man in the room, Bendy

You see, the thing is that if you want to get a degree that is helpful, just go ahead and do that. I feel like I did. That belief squelches the "butt hurt" pretty decently. If you are even reasonably good at what you do, have half a brain when you talk, and don't burn your bridges, you don't need an AAD to get promoted. I don't find it vexing at all. Quite the contrary, I think you can throw a DUI in there for good measure and still get her done (although I'd up the previously stated quals a bit). The real "butt hurt" going on here is from the people being told they don't have to do it, but realize they actually still do. They want it to be true so bad that some will make bad decisions just out of spite. That is the real "wow". For all of the talk about how easy and worthless a TUI/Trident degree is, some people sure make it sound hard to get one. ...and as vexing as you might find it, if you put in the additional effort to actually study (like you say you would if you got a "real degree") you'd learn plenty that would make you a better person and officer. If "you" don't want to get an AAD, just don't. There's no "butt hurt" on my part. I have better things to worry about. Bendy