Liquid

I agree it is a problem. I required raters to submit a copy of the signed feedback form with the OPR. If a subordinate rater didn't do feedback, it was reflected in their feedback and performance report. Raters were also given feedback on the quality of their written feedback. Set clear standards and expectations, then enforce them. It isn't rocket science.

The other services stratify everyone, but there are problems with their promotion systems as well. No system is perfect. Ours works. Feedback is for the ratee. Too many raters do a shitty job giving real feedback. Chickenshits I guess. OPRs and PRFs are for the boards, not for those outside the AF. The OPR isn't really written for the ratee, so it isn't the most appropriate place to put real, useful feedback like "your interpersonal skills suck and people think you are an arrogant, self-serving jackass" or "you will never be an effective leader because people can't stand being around you and they won't follow you anywhere". Ratees are confused by the unwritten but broadly understood words in the push lines and on the reports because their raters and/or senior raters don't want to explain them or the ratees don't care. There are plenty of people who can look at an OPR, PRF or record and give you an idea of how strong it is. The key is teaching those who write performance reports how to describe a strong performer and what to avoid saying with a strong performer (potential, MAJCOM, ADO next, continue to challenge, etc). There are plenty of writing guides, and there is good, accurate advice on this forum. The promotion boards get it right most of the time. The top 15-20% is sharp, and most of those passed over have the worst records of all those scored. There are a few outliers, there always will be. Boards look at job performance, breadth, depth, stratification, distinction (DG, awards), deployments and ability to lead at next grade. Strats are important, but virtually non-existent in the records of the bottom 50%. There is not much difference between writing "#10/20 Capts" and "Top Tier" in the push line. Raters are better off just explaining the ratees best character traits and performance. Describe what they do really well, in plain language. If you want them promoted, include a school push and good staff job. If you want them to command or be promoted BPZ, you'll need a great strat, a school push, a joint job push and a command push to go along with the demonstrated job performance, depth, breadth, distinction, deployments and ability to lead at the next grade. Most of the commonly recommended changes to the performance report and promotion board processes have been tried and don't really work. The current one may suck, but it sucks less than all of the others. There are very few truly merit based, perfect promotion systems in our world. Some people will always bitch, even about your version of the "perfect" promotion system. The one change I would make is splitting the LAF boards into rated and support. I would also adjust promotion quotas to requirements in each AFSC, not chance. But nobody has asked me and I doubt anything will change in the near future. And we are still waiting for CSAF to give guidance on AADs (not required before O-6) and not double tapping PME (no practice bleeding). Lawyers recommended he rewrite the draft guidance, not sure why. Hopefully the guidance will come out soon.

In military planning (MDMP, JOPP) we analyze courses of action (COAs) by determining if they are Feasible, Acceptable and Suitable (or Adequate). Some add Distinguishable and Complete. In your decision, you need to decide if "going AD" is Suitable/Adequate (accomplishes the mission, complies with guidance or in your case, meets your needs and desires). You need to decide if "going AD" is Acceptable, or worth the cost. Is it worth giving up what you have and spending the time, effort and energy to meet your needs by "going AD". Some on this forum will tell you it is not. Only you will know whether "going AD" is Acceptable or Suitable for you. You need to spend some time determining if "going AD" is Feasible. Do you have the capability or resources necessary to do this? Determine if you can get a commission in the AF, qualify for pilot training, complete pilot training, get a security clearance, etc. There are many disqualifying factors. Since two ANG units have turned you down, it may not be Feasible. Very few people are offered the opportunity to serve on active duty or in the ANG as a pilot. I have not regretted my decision to serve on active duty and I would do it again. Good luck with your decision.

Never underestimate the effectiveness of filing an IG complaint, anonymous or in person. The complaint will be investigated. And never underestimate the effectiveness of walking in to the IG office and just talking to them about your situation. Your right to talk to the IG is protected by law. A reprisal complaint is a much bigger deal than a complaint about bad policy. Most leaders take great care to protect the IG process and protect themselves from reprisal, which is relatively easy to prove. Most IG "complaints" are resolved as assists, misunderstandings, or frivolous, meaning they usually fix the problem without elevating to the finding of substantiated complaint. This particular case would fall under Abuse of Authority. A commander requiring professional development in correspondence to be completed before considering them for in residence PME, when CSAF and A1 have specifically said it does not need to be done, is abusing their authority. CSAF knows there is a disconnect between what he says and what happens in the wings. He and A1 said there will be a policy about this released shortly. I recommend not continuing the correspondence lessons unless you want to. If your leadership requires you to continue accomplishing correspondence, talk to them directly (like Sally did) or let the IG know.

Confirmed. I heard it directly from Lt Gen Cox yesterday and CSAF today. No need to do in correspondence unless you are unable to attend in residence. Goal is 100% in residence. In the near future you will not be able to enroll unless you are past your eligibility period and have not attended. I would not complete another lesson. Formal message and guidance will be released soon.

Great advice thanks. Your direct words will be given to the next class. I came across this speech by Simon Sinek during some research and thought some of you would enjoy it. I plan to have the Group Commanders watch it and discuss. I've always been disappointed and embarassed when Air Force leaders eat first at special events. The head table gets served first, or goes through the lame buffet first. Army and Marine leaders eat last, after all of the soldiers and Marines. Simon wrote a book called Why Leaders Eat Last and discusses the leadership concepts in this speech. It is 45 minutes long, but very relevant to the leadership crisis we are experiencing in the AF today. If you are interested in being a better leader, it is worth your time. If you are entertained by listening to someone describe why our leadership sucks, it is worth your time.

JS, I kept it short, about 8 minutes. Focused on the graduates and their families, talked about their individual assignments and missions. Added a little lame humor, gave some quick advice, and got off the stage. I got great advice from this board and a few recent UPT grads. I thought it went well, but WTF do I know. You'd have to ask the audience to get real feedback. I'll send it to you if you want it. I'll need to sanitize the names.

Sorry Panch, I don't know what you are asking. Why isn't what available? I don't work in HAF or AFPC so I don't really know why they are handling this so poorly. I understand the funding aspects. Unfortunately, programming specifics are mostly FOUO or classified and not appropriate for forums.

Forward that email to CSAF. I agree, this is probably not his intent. I've never seen filtered and approved questions, but I don't doubt it happens. It shouldn't. Thanks for the feedback Sorry dude, no sarcasm intended. I am actually pissed about the Ripits, I live on caffeine. I really do hear you and appreciate the frustration. For me the good has always outweighed the bad, but the bad needs to be directly addressed.

Lighten up Francis. For every example of spineless managers "controlling the questions" so they don't look bad or embarrass the DV, there are equal examples of unfiltered access. Sometimes it is actually the DV that determines the types of questions and the forum, particularly the political appointees. This batch of current leaders, from CSAF to USecAF to SecAF to MAJCOM CCs and CCCs are very open to honest feedback and frank questions in open forums. My smart ass response was appropriate due to the absurdity of threatening resigning commissions and slapping down wings. I spent much more time answering his actual question than arguing about dishonest leaders filtering messages.

I hear you. Cutting Ripits is on my long list. Hang in there.

You would resign your commission because you weren't called on to ask a question? Holy shit. You must lose your mind when they are out of mint chocolate chip at the DFAC. Here is the answer she would have probably given you if you hadn't been so disrespected, dishonored, abused and embarrassed that your hand was raised so high but you weren't picked: We have not approved ADSC waivers yet because we want to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars and protect the investment we have made into training and readiness. We did not want to specifically exclude VSP options for those with ADSCs because we may have the opportunity to match the needs of the Air Force (reducing pilots in certain aircraft in certain year groups to meet budget targets) with an individual's desire to separate prior to finishing the terms of the ADSC they agreed to. We were surprised by the feedback from commanders that described the high cost to readiness and training that releasing 415 to 2563 pilots early would have. We probably should have asked the commanders before releasing the eligibility matrix but we wanted to make as many people as possible aware that we were planning on cutting up to 25,000 people in FY14. We are conducting the analysis now to determine how to best balance our fiscal challenges, maintain readiness, and give people enough time to plan for an earlier than expected transition from active duty. We have struggled with this due to NDAA language, congressional inquiries, a larger than expected AF top line in the president's budget and bad weather in the DC area. I recommend you reapply for TSP and be patient with us as we get through these challenging times. Thank you for serving your nation in the world's greatest Air Force. Next question.

Every spring and early summer, AU hosts mandatory training for all incoming Group Commanders. Many senior leaders and staff members speak to the class about leadership and current AF issues. The class has all AFSCs together for the first week, then they split ops and support. Each class has a senior mentor during the first week. If you had the opportunity to give incoming group commanders advice, what would you say? Your words may be projected on the wall at Maxwell. Seriously, I've already got the wear sunscreen speech.

I agree Rusty. We need more action, less talk. More leaders, fewer managers. We have toxic, self serving and underperforming commanders at many levels and they should be removed. Many old bosses, me included, are no longer commanders and can only influence decision makers from the staff. It is not so much about fear of rocking the boat as no authority to make change. Commanders need to be held accountable for their unit's climate, morale and performance. Commanders must also hold staffs accountable for how well they support. Senior commanders must be held responsible for their subordinate commander performance. I don't know the details, but it looks like USAFE just did this. CSAF has the ultimate authority and responsibility to make the common sense changes we need. The best way to notify CSAF and MAJCOM commanders of bad leaders, those who are abusive, self-serving and immoral is through the IG process. It is not perfect but it is more effective than complaining on a message board.

Just as I would never trivialize the sacrifices or challenges our airmen faced in Vietnam or WWII, I would expect our officers to not trivialize the sacrifices and challenges our military has faced since 9/11 in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our Air Force crews have not experienced anywhere near the losses we did in previous wars, but our military has suffered sufficient losses to not be marginalized by reminiscing of better times when fighter pilots felt more appreciated. We shouldn't hope for the times when air to air combat and incredible losses resulting from ground to air fires define our Air Force's worth, contribution and legacy. We should be proud of the asymmetrical advantage we provide our nation as we engage this enemy during this time. And we should be very careful about marginalizing our military's most recent combat experiences to our joint partners. Our Air Force exists today, with significant investment of taxpayer dollars, so we don't have to experience the challenges and losses that we experienced in WWII and Vietnam. It is foolish to wish for "real air combat" and losses to fix our problems and define our worth. My Dad flew Huey gunships during two tours in Vietnam and my grandfather flew B-17s in Europe. There was plenty of admin bullshit and useless bureaucracy then. Robin Olds rebelled against the same. Don't view the past through rose colored glasses and think we are so much worse than we were in the good old days when aircraft were shot down, ground forced needed Beyer air support and morale was high. Especially when it pisses off those who sacrifice, kill and serve.

You actually are taking away from those who have served in combat during the past 12+ years. Sharpen your message because it sounds like you think we haven't taken any combat losses in the past ten years. I think you mean fighters shot down. Combat intensity may be low for C models but it has been quite for virtually every other combat unit. How about you focus on the next "no-shit shooting match" with realistic training and high end equipment while many of us continue to perform the vital airpower missions our leaders ask us to perform in the defense of our nation. Your community may be lost in the wilderness but many aren't.

BT, I don't know. CSAF decided to protect LRS-B by cutting force structure. 500 aircraft and a bunch of people. You would think personnel cuts would be related to aircraft cuts but they didn't look at that early on. They only looked at "overmanning" in AFSCs and year groups. This FMP has been an absolute fiasco and people should be fired. They won't be fired because we are too nice to each. We tolerate incompetence and mission failure. We only fire people if they embarrass us, which is wrong. I would love to know how many people A1 and AFPC have ever been relieved of their duties. Not many I guess. You are not asking too much. Our senior leadership has let down many people and this loss of trust will be difficult to regain. Keep nailing the PI and TOT and try to not get too frustrated by the uncertainty.

Tail between my legs? Piss off. What is your question?

Bendy, The system is far from grand. AFSO21 doesn't work, but common sense action does. I agree, lets make it better rather than quit or encourage others to quit because there is shit on our green grass and we are becoming a sad footnote of failure.

In my vocab they are not. A mediocre, crybaby non-conformist is the guy who refuses to get PME done because he doesn't want to, then bitches that it is held against him, when the norms and standards clearly show PME is a requisite for promotion. Same for AAD, but hopefully that will change. The non-conformists clings to the STS and 69 bullshit when they have been told to knock it off. The contrarian leader approaches problems and leadership differently. Check out Steven Sample at https://vialogue.wordpress.com/2005/05/08/the-contrarians-guide-to-leadership-notes-review/ There is a difference between insubordination and unconventional thinking. Any good commander wants a contrarian point of view, then disciplined execution when a decision is made and guidance is given. I've never been a fan of the Excellence in All We Do value. I prefer competence in your primary job. Every Airman has a role in the mission and they should be the absolute best at that job. We dilute the value of that contribution and the value of the high level of competence required for that job when we tell people to be excellent at everything they do. Ancillary training, compliance inspections, community service, additional duties, and personal//professional development should not come close to competing with competence in your primary job. How we describe our values with "Excellence in All We Do" doesn't advance that.

It is a damn tragedy they are fleeing. They may be non-conformists if they don't buy into being willing to and learning how to operate in a large bureaucracy in order to make a difference. Every organization has rules, traditions, norms, expectations and politics. Ours need some work and CSAF is making some long overdue changes, but we are far from doomed. BTW, your manager tirade is stale. Yes, we have managers in the staffs, but we also have leaders in command. I get it, you are not impressed by your commanders, but we have some excellent leaders in the AF. Welsh, Carlisle, Gorenc, Rand, Fiel, Selva, Hostage, Goldfein, Lengyel, Fedder, Clarke, PJ Johnson, Gersten, Dirk Smith, Stough, Hesterman, and Bash may be decent managers in their current manager jobs, but they are (or were) great commanders and leaders. Sure, there are shitty ones, just like in the CGO and FGO ranks and civilian world, but there are senior leaders in the AF. I don't give a service before self speech going out the door, but I do ask people why they continue to serve. The answer I like the best sounds like "because I'm good at it and somebody who is good at it needs to serve."

I didn't say those who separate are reluctant to work hard. It is hard staying in and leading despite the challenges, bureaucracy, politics, deployments, toxic leaders, physical threats, frequent moves, lost income opportunities, etc. It is hard making a difference when the system encourages and demands conformity and compliance. The system isn't doomed for failure, but it definitely needs to be improved. Your guy should have just gone to ACSC on his 3rd look and not worried the irrational advice. I got an AAD from Embry Riddle. It was almost free and it was easy and I studied aviation. You can get into a position of change without selling out or getting burned. I did not do IDE or SDE in correspondence because I was a select for both and I thought it was stupid to do it before I did it. I also attended joint PME, so I have never been officially educated on the history or wonders of airpower. My commanders were pissed I didn't do correspondence and later said it cost me BPZ. I didn't care. Point is, I doubt your friend, or many other examples get out because someone told them they need to double tap IDE or get an AAD to be more competitive. There were probably many other personal and professional reasons.

Agree. The no SOS in correspondence policy should be out soon. Great dudes need to gut it out, stay in in spite of the bullshit, and make a difference with contrarian and effective leadership. Lead the way you should lead, regardless of the consequences. We are ed if they all get out because it is hard.

Ask your senior rater or another Col. I stratified my DPs and the top 50% of my Ps so the officers I rated knew exactly where their records ranked in relation to their peers and why.

Many here on this forum have a false sense of the quality of officers we promote in the top 20% (school selects to Maj), and BPZ to Lt Col. Many argue that only party planners, burger flippers, box checkers and execs get the good paper and strats. The top 20% records I've seen, including hundreds at the last Lt Col MLR, had instructor, evaluator, combat, weapons school, command and DG at FTUs. The exec only, careerist officer is easily spotted and appropriately dinged. Strats are not the most important discriminator. Most of the criticism rattled off here at BODN describes the great pilot with golden hands, long mustache, high combat time and natural leadership abilities that gets screwed by the shoe commander who values early PME completion and bake sales over skill in the jet or ability to lead a crew. Bullshit. The harsh reality is that there are a large number of ing squared away operators who dominate the top 20% and knock out mediocre, non-conformist crybabies who rationalize their low strats and weak push lines with an overinflated sense of how good they think they are in the jet or with a crew or how effective they think they will be in the joint, staff or senior leader world. From what I've seen at boards, MLRs and thousands of records and PRFs, the bottom 15-20% are the no shit bottom. Nothing personal, I'm sure there are good people below the line, but you have to draw the line somewhere and we tend to get it right much more often than we get it wrong. We value job performance and we document it in the formal record. The biggest challenge is telling the top 20-50% crowd they aren't as talented as they think they are. Do your ing PME, in time and stop encouraging young officers to blow it off because you think it is stupid. We should promote by AFSC. LAF grouping doesn't meet our specific leadership requirements. No need I compare a comptroller squadron commander to a flight lead. If we do this, more good pilots will be passed over and will miss the school cutoff, but we will promote experience we need. Fire away, I appreciate the no holds barred honesty and flight level perspective. Edit for gramer