Bender

Thanks for the input; I'm not sure it's all quite as simple as that though. One's desire to stay throughout an initial 10 year contract does not equate to the same desire to stay beyond those 10. As you a aware, the second 10 are just not the same: for the individual or the Air Force. I'm certainly not saying it isn't viewed that way by some, I am saying it may be a mistake to think someone that doesn't want to bail at 4-9 years with a ~1-yr VSP payout is willing to stay for another 2, 3, 10 years with the additional responsibility, additional/undesirable commitments, not to mention any additional personal considerations without additional incentive, particularly considering, in aggregate, they didn't before (thus ACP in the first place). I also find it difficult to get the idea that someone looking to VSP would be persuaded to stay even remotely by then minimal compensation of ACP. I would think that any individual that applied for and was denied VSP should be considered attrition after their ADSC. Very few people applied for separation purely based on the financial incentive...do you disagree? Are their people that want out only because they'll get paid and wouldn't walk if given the chance without it (those with ADSC)? As far as showing cards...this should make man power planning easier. Any denied VSP application should support the need for ACP...any person left should be required for "future requirements", and thus needed..unless this additional attrition is accounted for in the "future requirements". I find this concept unlikely, but certainly not impossible. Anyway, there is a need for manpower management to be comprehensive...and this is perhaps too much to ask, at least for now. The are other larger issues convoluting it right now. Bendy

If the Air Force uses TERA/VSP/RIF to reduce 11M numbers to align with future requirements, without excess...for this to be true, it will be necessary to account for corresponding drops in retention if the bonus is not offered? It was stated that future requirements were not tied to manning documents, but I'm not aware of what it was based on...is the Air Force confident enough that the 11M (or other) requirements were calculated perfectly enough to forgo an established retention tool that can provide a buffering effect on relative significant changes. If 1 pilot in the 2003 year group doesn't stay beyond they're "calculations", what impact does that have on the minimum run requirements? Once every year group gets "trimmed", they can't be immediately replaced, rather they must be filled from following year groups through retention. There isn't an obvious reason to believe this retention issue will be better than it has been in the past. Why would the Air Force not offer ACP to 11M's (or others) again? Being an idiot is the easy answer, but can anyone with logic make one? Bendy

And yet the VSP/RIF is still being conducted against RDTM (as it should be). Changing all of those core ID's doesn't seem congruent with a complete elimination of "overages". We'll reduce to the required number of 11R/11B/11M by RDTM, then realized we moved 300 people into 11R (by Core ID only) for a reason not provided (requalification capacities I can only guess). The only problem is that the RDTM is supposed to be how "your functional" is assigned. "Distribution and training management" is something that has definitions, "Core ID" does not have any concrete usefulness that I can find. Tunes, I think they're just hiding you because you're too valuable. Bendy

This stuff seems as legit as a PDSM can be, but be careful not to compare apples to oranges. SOS does not have a "DE" or "Select" process. This makes "locking out" IDE and SDE smaller in scope than SOS (BDE, I believe) with a 100% attendance goal. This is a logical first step at implementing the CSAF's guidance. There will need to be some mechanism in place to trigger the 7 year TAFCS enrollment window...if the intent is to truly deny enrollment, rather than simply discourage it (criticisms of which are valid). Bendy

It's far from a dumb question. The answer is yes, you still need to go in-residence. The distance learning course is not the same as going in residence (arguably more valuable as can be gleaned by the example above), the exact value of going in-residence is debatable and fortunately beside the point. Having completed PME by correspondence shouldn't put you at a disadvantage to attend in-residence. This would be a pretty huge 180 and a major party foul for leadership; the intent is for you to go. Only should the opportunity not present itself (i.e. you are too busy fighting a war, those article 15's keep getting in the way) would you not go. The team building, networking, and pure opportunity for collaborative/vicarious learning is enough of a reason to send everyone (despite the rigidity and cost). As it is, it isn't doing what we need it to be doing...we can't have you out there just memorizing review questions and "control-F'ing" your way to a leadership position, now can we? Bendy

Copy, PME still worthless. Bendy

Act like nothing is happening? NOTHING IS HAPPENING. Isn't that the problem? Hey, I feel for you (I thought I made that perfectly clear about 20 pages back). What exactly is it that you suggest I do (i.e. to "rock the boat") that I'm too afraid to do because it would cause me to miss out on that strat? I'm not so sure you understand my personality even a little, brother. I would love to help all you guys out if I could...maybe I could call Tony Carr and see if he'd get involved for some publicity to your cause. Oh wait... Didn't you "want to see the world"? Maybe you got the outdated brochure that didn't have the current schedule and locales. There have only been slight modification to the bochure I got...circa 2003. Honestly, I'm curious how you define "rock the boat"? Dear lord, man. For the record, you can't get the Airman's Medal for coming to the aid of a stray on the internet. His civilian job won't be any different, and there is a decent likelyhood it will be worse. ...and if he wants nsplayr to "do us a favor and knock it off" (i.e. shut up because he disagrees with me), then he should just follow suit. You don't get to just tell the other guy to stop talking so you can win...both of them should either shut up or respect each others right to bitch as they please...disagreement or not. By all means, back to "business"...please. Bendy

Please come back and post on this thread every time your new civilian employer tells you to go eat a bag of dicks and you quit because you're being oppressed by the man (again). Hello Pot...Have you met my friend, Kettle. Bendy

Look guys, the answer is "in the computer". All we need to do is figure out how to get it out! Makes perfect sense. Just some fun facts: In June 2011, 2 months after pinning on a star, BG Grosso moves over to be the Director of Manpower, Organization and Resources, later in August 2012 slides into the Director, Force Management Policy. After 1 year and 4 months in that position, the Air Force rolls out FY14 Force Shaping programs in Dec 13. Less than 2 months into the effort, BG Grosso is promoted to MG and moved to be the Director of the Air Force SAPR Office. (https://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/225/Article/108666/brigadier-general-gina-m-grosso.aspx) Months before BG Grosso's arrival, in February 2011, SES John W. "Bill" Snodgrass becomes the Deputy Director of Manpower, Organization and Resources. As of October 2013, 2 month before the Air Force begins FY14 Force shaping, John W. "Bill" Snodgrass is selected for reassignment as Executive Director for the entire Air Force Personnel Center. Job Announcement Number 9L-DPS-1024702-123456-PLB (Deputy Director of Manpower, Organization and Resources) was open from January 06 through January 27, 2014, immediately following the initiation of FY14 force Shaping programs. (https://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/225/Article/108722/john-w-bill-snodgrass.aspx) (https://jobs.govloop.com/86596/deputy-director-air-force-manpower-organization-and-resources/) John W. "Bill" Snodgrass was expected to start his new position in Mar 2014. (https://www.afpc.af.mil/library/biographies/index.asp) MG Margaret Poore has been (and still is) the commander of AFPC since August 2013, a few months before FY14 Force shaping began. She is a Distinguished graduate of both SOS and ACSC, holds 3 master's degrees, and has been awarded 4 Legions of Merit (https://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/225/Article/108712/major-general-margaret-b-poore.aspx) She seems to have taken over for MG A.J. Stewart, still listed as Commander, Air Force Personnel Center, Randolph AFB, Texas on his official bio ("updated" May 2013), despite his passing away on 9 March, 2014. (https://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/225/Article/107982/major-general-alfred-j-stewart.aspx) The AFPC commander previous to MG A.J. Stewart, MG K. C. McClain whom retired out of the position, is also listed as January 2008 - present as the commander, AFPC, so that appears the normal protocol for Air Force biographies. Bendy

That was amazing; thank you for posting that! Bendy

I have to (gasp) agree with Toro here. That's just fucking stupid. In a crew plane, that's what I call being too lazy to brief up the ILS. Here we are too lazy to cross check anything...it's amazing these people don't stall, crash, burn, and die more often. If one is going to fly a visual into an airfield, tune up a navigational aid or load the FMS and be sure it's at least the right airport, if not for the actual approach. 2. She can be my co-pilot any day. Bendy

What? A computer can see every application, to include every single data field on each one (not to mention every data field in any database we choose--assuming one had planned for it) all at the same time. Full automation isn't necessary, nor desired unless you have the perfect answer, which we clearly do not. Partial automation, something like "flag" the applications that correlate to no ADSCs and split them out, would be simple and immensely expedite the process. That is...if you wanted that. Bendy

Now it makes more sense. I suppose I was just assuming that they were going to use a computer to help them out. It's funny to me when people get mad at other people for getting mad...makes me giggle. Bendy

Cute screen name, buddy. Bendy

^^ That isn't a good idea. ^^ Bendy

Sad story, bro... https://news.yahoo.com/anti-gay-pastor-fred-phelps-sr-dies-84-162046972.html Bendy

Did you find that the article referenced supported your opinion that they are hazardous to your health? Even if it didn't seal the deal, there is definitely something too that (a supporting article pertaining to teens in general, those with heart conditions, even ADHD are easy to find), although drinking enough of anything can kill you: https://www.caffeineinformer.com/death-by-caffeine Your retort to flyboy2181's post pointing out common issues caused by stimulants, yet an uncommon stance is taken towards them based upon demographic, is to mention that there are other things in energy drinks? It's kind of like arguing with a stick. You're wrong, stick! *stick continues being a stick* Your wrong! *Yup, still a stick* Hey, I'm over 35 so apparently I shouldn't even be drinking them because I'm too old for that shit and should apparently be drinking coffee, cause that's what old dudes drink. Truth be told, I would be perfectly content to drink only coffee...although I find the endless supply of coffee I would desire to be difficult at best to obtain while airborne (proof my airplane sucks). Bendy ETA: ...and the pisser doesn't work, so there wouldn't be enough room in my bag for the piddle packs that would be required to make it happen. Proof #2 that my airplane sucks.

I have too much time on my hands, which generally means I have some other important thing I could be doing that I don't really want to do. Having said that, I would have written that article slightly differently. Public Affairs would be a difficult career field for me...here is what I read when I clicked on that link (I'm sorry I did that): Over the next 269 days, every Airman across the entire Air Force will be forced to redo work they have already done based on a law we’ve known about for over 1,600 days. We were a little busy working our way through all the shit the Military Commissions Act of 2009 was doing to our operations in Guantanamo Bay to get to this until now. These redundant actions will allow the Air Force to validate that an audit means that these records are “fully auditable”. It is unclear what it will mean if this audit does not prove this theory, but considering this category of money amounts to $5.4 billion, the Air Force is hoping it does. Senior leaders in charge want everyone to know that being not “audit compliant” does not mean there is a problem, it means that we “lack the required documentation for our spending” to know if there is a problem. There is a difference, it’s important that you know that. The goal of making everyone do things again is to be sure that we have this documentation and that we can audit these expenditures if NDAA 2016 makes us. The Air Force, at this time, does not intend to actually conduct this audit, only to ensure it is auditable. There is a difference, it’s important that you know that. Do not bring any documentation prior to being notified just because you think it is a convenient time for you to do so. The special super-duper scanner at the finance offices will not function correctly if you do not provide the paperwork at the time and choosing of the Air Force. Airmen will have 30 days once notified via email; hopefully, this will be enough to overload the system enough separate times to create errors across the entire data set that can be later used as an explanation should the audit prove the data is not “fully auditable”. However, the official story will be to avoid “unnecessary duplication of effort”. The Air Force also plans to implement a “Strategic Delay” somewhere in the middle of this process to assess the auditability of the audit. Once the process is completed, this documentation will be stored for longer than the current practice of 6 years in order to meet requirements, however, this will not prevent the need to re-audit and members will need to re-accomplish this task should a future NDAA require an an actual audit, not just an audit to prove auditability. From the highest level, the Air Force needs every Airmen to know: Your finance-related documentation is your responsibility, not just the finance office’s. Even if you turn in all the required documentation, check your pay to ensure it is correct, and notify them if your personal situation changes, you may still be required to re-accomplish tasks to ensure that what you have provided is still in your possession. If you have lost your marriage certificate or any other financial documentation, do not expect finance to have it, go through official state channels to obtain another one, and whatever you do, do not attempt to recreate any documents in crayon. The Air Force plans to audit everything. Did you save the receipt for that pencil? Units will have until next year to ensure that they have receipts for every process, procedure and transaction that spends Air Force money. Any accounts valued at less that $5.4 billion will be handled directly by AFPC. Bendy

Perhaps his motives are that he knows "you" like the fact that he comes and asks these questions, that he isn't out of touch at all, using the internet to connect with thousands of people he otherwise couldn't speak with, and soliciting ideas beyond his own personal experience in hopes of harvesting the best ideas possible from people with different personal experiences with which to influence those whom "you" cannot, but will be subject to in the near future (not YOU though of course). I believe that is what you call a leader that is in touch (as well as a run on sentence). Bendy ETA: Although it is entirely plausible that often his motive is to force others to critically think and highlight that the "job" of a senior leader is not always as easy as it may seem from the operational and tactical level.

Butters + the word "parlance" = plagiarism Fascinating info though. Bendy

Some people say that there is no such thing as a stupid question. Vetter, do you already know the answer to this question? The question was similar, however the audience was quite not. Different audience, different answer. --- Looking at the AU catalog for the "Group Commander's Course", there doesn't seem to be much structure outside of a seminar. I guess everything you need to know is in SOS, ACSC, and AWC...you just need a brush up on current events and whatever tips or tricks you can get from your mentor. If you don't have it figured out by now... I like the posts so far...I would humbly add that it is not appropriate to treat a group of people differently based upon the actions of a few, even if those few are part of said group (applicable in many ways and many levels). Bendy ETA: I honestly question if anything you have to say will change a decision or reaction a year from then. I suppose if you can change even one for the better, it's worth your time. That said, the time for real impact has already passed for this group...do what you can, we all thank you for it.

The connection to the Bloomberg ban is in authority making a change that removes the ability to choose for yourself what you will or will not do*. It is, at its core, the removal of liberty under the guise of security, in this case health (not that drinking a Rip-It has a negative impact on your health any more than that stupid burn pit does). However, you are correct that he who gives can take away; although one's ability to purchase them on their own is not resolute either. For the record, you can order them and have them delivered if you are so inclined. I attempted to do this for a PERSCO troop that had been helpful throughout my last deployment, although I accidentally had them shipped to my house back in the states (oops). The case of snickers bars for the Loggie did make it though. You don't see any problem? Nothing at all? Makes perfect sense to you? That's cool...at least we're only talking about an energy drink. I wonder how much of your lack of concern is tied to the fact that you don't drink them. "Take away their Rip-Its, Bob. Once that distracts them, we'll try and cut their pensions again, after they fight that one off, we'll hit them all with that stop loss we've been planning. They'll be happy again when we re-order the Rip-Its!" Bendy * Buying them yourself still preserves that choice, but this move is change intended to alter your choices...forcing you (at least as you're standing in front of that cooler) to make a choice "they" want you to make.

..but you do. No worries...I debated deleting the sentence, but opted to just leave what I had initially wrote the first time. You can remove the entire sentence and it does not change my point. Every squadron holds this same challenge...I was merely trying to personalize it to my current squadron, a bit of a fail on the sentence as every squadron really exists to fill deployed billets in some fashion. Point accepted (Skitzo's too), Bendy

It is often easy, sometimes too easy, to highlight the negative. For some reason, highlighting the positive is seemingly less important. After all, that’s the way it’s supposed to be, right? I sometimes fret these types of things reach out and touch the wrong people. I really hope that does not happen here. I can attest personally that this is not representative of my experience with my home station Squadron Commander (I am not in the squadron that email came from, so I can’t/don’t speak from any personal experience on that squadron). When faced with a similar situation (operating in a 6 month on, 6 month off tempo leaves everyone in the situation), I knocked on the Squadron Commander’s door and asked to sit down and talk to him about what was on my mind. Part of the reason for this is my personality, but in larger part it is because he is approachable and I knew he wanted to know. I understand the responsibilities that both these squadrons have. The MC-12 is a unique challenge as a squadron command; I know of no other squadron that is a school house that directly feeds downrange squadrons (one is now “ops”, but that’s not that important here). Filling deployment billets is the sole purpose of those squadrons and for years now it has done an acceptable job, even when the “good idea fairy” has suggested additional challenge. There is a legitimate test presented to both meeting the squadron’s responsibility and taking care of your people. Often, something must be sacrificed… I believe in service before self. I swore my oath just like you. I am prepared for sacrifice, as I was not naive about what I was signing up for. There were many ways I was naive, but that was not one of them. Holding this belief is different than offering unconditional, arbitrary sacrifice of massive proportion when a little time and effort can prevent it. Taking care of your people often means going out of your way to prevent unnecessary sacrifice, or even trading one sacrifice for another of less significance. It takes a great deal of energy to apply this across an entire squadron, but if that isn’t something one is willing to do, then they should let someone else have the opportunity and step aside. That is the only right thing to do. If a squadron command is nothing but a stepping stone, morale will be the big loser. I shared my story in hope there was some way to meet both commitments, the one I made to my family and the one I made to my squadron. I had no interest in shirking either. There was little leeway, but both the Squadron Commander and the (at the time) Director of Operations both stood in front of the white board in his office, for at least an hour, drawing arrows, changing dates, and bouncing ideas off each other. They came up with what they believed was the best plan they could and shared it with me. I have five specific thoughts: 1. That was far more than I would have ever expected from them (why I don’t know), 2. I am very grateful that they found an opportunity for me to accomplish all of my goals, not just one (certainly not just the Air Force’s…a possibility I was prepared for), 3. I am very grateful to the person that accepted (begrudgingly) a sacrifice of less significance (something he will be repaid for someday), 4. I want to be a Squadron Commander just like that, and 5. I can’t wait to meet my new little baby boy/girl when I get home (with travel plans in hand, it looks like I’ll be waiting for him/her). There is a lot wrong, but not all of it. Bendy

I'm not seeing it. There are some sets of data presented in PowerPoint presentations, but while important, I'm not interested in breakdowns of minorities, females, etc. Maybe I'm just missing this treasure trove of data you're describing. Any statistics provided, should you help me find them, will be breakdowns generated by boards considering looking for the "best qualified" records from multiple AFSCs. This is only the comparison data I was referring to. The promotion rate within each individual AFSC, under this current construct, is less important than the overall board promotion percentage aimed to producing the total number in grade at any given time. That overall number still holds value, as it cannot be exceeded (as the line number increments roll through). The "Line of the Air Force" is a convenient grouping that prevents multiple promotion boards by individual AFSC or groupings of similar AFSCs (the order of which would also be contentious and a facet that would require significant critical thought). Only by comparing records within a single AFSC can the promotion process both select the "best qualified" individuals, while maintaining a specific, calculated, capabilities based number of individuals (within that specific AFSC) to serve in the next grade. If the promotion rate within a specific AFSC is capped to prevent "overages", then there would be no "overages". This, of course, does not mean that "force reduction" would not happen...a draw down is a draw down. It would however mean actively managing the force, selecting the most qualified based on how many you need. This requires you to know how many you need...if we can say we have "overage" in a specific AFSC, then (assuming that statement, thus those matrices are valid) we already knew that. Well...we know that, we should have known that...it's an assumption that we knew that before these programs were initiated (only that the end strength was too high). There are more moving parts to this, and it cannot be done correctly by only looking at one process. That said, the promotion process is a large and important component of force management. Go get'em Tiger! Bendy