Liquid

CSAF directed all GOs to complete the feedback on GOs they knew. You used a drop down menu for rank, then selected the GO. You ranked 1-5 in different leadership categories than provided comments for each category and a section for overall comments. Several questions on ethics, leadership style, integrity, etc. It was anonymous except for the rank of the person that rated you. After the results were released you could look at your numbers, compare to the average and read the comments. CSAF said he would review all of the feedback numbers and comments. Haven't heard much about the program since.

CSAF said at AFA, and told the MAJCOM CCs Corona South, SOS in residence will be the norm. If you can't go due to ops deferments, etc you will be required to complete the correspondence course. He said you will be allowed to complete SOS in correspondence if you can't go in residence. He also said you will not be allowed to do IDE in correspondence and residence. If you are a select, you will be blocked from enrolling in correspondence. He did not address the issue of candidates completing correspondence in order to be competitive for residence. I clearly understood his intent that appropriate PME, either residence or correspondence, was required for promotion to Maj, Lt Col and Col. I have heard no discussion about delaying PME until the last look. I assume early (but within eligibility window) completion will be more favorable than completion at the very end of the window, but I have not seen the specifics. Bottom line, get your PME done I you want to get promoted. AAD is not required now (his words), but CSAF said he will put out policy to keep boards and senior raters from considering AAD for promotion prior to the Col board. He said AAD was personal development and should not be considered for professional development or advancement. He said you can get one prior to the Col board during IDE, either in residence or correspondence, or get one on your own. He said job performance should be the most important factor in promotions. Hopefully he will put out the policy soon, we have been talking about it for long enough.

Looks like SECDEF gets it. We may see some real change. https://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140218/NEWS05/302180006/Hagel-digs-deep-into-military-ethics-problem From the article: “The military is locked into this ‘character’ and ‘integrity’ talk as the default way to talk about these problems,” said Martin Cook, who teaches military ethics at the Naval War College in Rhode Island. The result is that blame falls on the moral failings of a few individuals, while questions about broader institutional problems — poor training, toxic command climates, flawed personnel policies and deeper cultural issues — never get raised, Cook said. “If you consider that there may be some other environmental factors behind this, it greatly expands the aperture for who is responsible,” Cook said. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel stunned many at the Pentagon recently by suggesting the military has a “deep” ethical problem. His top spokesman, Rear Adm. John Kirby, used the word “systemic.” “It is the responsibility of all of us,” Hagel said, to root out problems like cheating, fraud, drug and alcohol abuse, sexual assault and other forms of misconduct that have cropped up in recent months. After a wave of recent misconduct reports, Hagel is signaling an intent to go beyond the traditional response to scandal — firing a mid-level commander, drawing up a new PowerPoint-based training regimen or rewriting an official policy laden with bureaucratic jargon.

Unlike GS and military, it is very easy to fire contractors. Just like in the real world. If those tormented by his guy formally and aggressively complained to the company that employs him, he would most likely be gone regardless of what the mil leadership thinks. That is one of the best thing about contractors, performance actually matters.

So no shit, I'm putting together some thoughts for an upcoming graduation speech at UPT. Didn't volunteer for the opportunity, was asked and agreed. What advice would you give to the 2nd Lts earning their wings in the next few months? Keep it clean, constructive and not too sarcastic. They haven't earned the right to be cynical yet. And their moms and fiancés will be there.

The Lt surrendered, was found guilty at court-martial of AWOL and sentenced to over a year in confinement and was discharged with a BCD. Court martial results are releasable to the public. We should do a better job putting out what happened than we do.

SecAF words: https://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2014/A-Systemic-Problem.aspx Seven observations from her recent trip: 1. Too much stress and too much fear. Few rewards and severe punishments. 2. Need to separate training and testing. Need to learn from mistakes. 3. There must be accountability at leadership levels, not just cheaters. 4. Re-evaluate professional and leadership development. SECDEF will help. 5. We need to reinvigorate core values. Must report wrongdoing. 6. We need incentives, accolades and recognition for the nuke force. Including special nuke medals. 7. We need more money and manpower because the roofs leak.

Rookie mistake...won't happen again.

I saw this happen. For all of those who were told it wasn't important and that AAD would be masked at the board (as well as the "don't do correspondence when you are a select" Practice Bleeding Memo) the message was "don't believe the shitbags when they tell you something doesn't matter." I really hope CSAF pulls this one off correctly by masking AAD at the board, and prohibiting it as a discriminator for anything that doesn't specifically require it. But you might as well get an AAD, it is cheap and easy, like Vetter.

Seriously, what would you do to fix it? edit for booze

I read the report. All allegations substantiated. This GO sounds like a complete asshole. DoD will show they are serious about fixing this unacceptable culture of toxic, entitled and morally bankrupt GOFOs only when they start firing their bosses for not knowing how shitty they really are. 360 degree feedback can't start soon enough.

Great guidance

At any level, you should be concerned when your boss asks you to brief him on your plan to get done what he told you to get done, when he resourced you with everything you said you needed to get it done and he fully expected you to get it done. When your boss specifically asks you to include in this new plan your assessment on your leadership, management principles/practices, personnel health/culture and proposed remedies for gaps in personnel growth and development, you are probably close to getting replaced because he is telling you to do something you should already be doing (leading and taking care of your people). When your boss tells you to get all this done very quickly, then brings in outside help to check the accuracy of your assessment and suitability of your new plan, you probably need to start thinking about doing another job. My guess is that we will see the abrupt removal of a few GOs by the time this is over.

This was one of several great points TC made. I completely agree that we should hire the best, but I don't think we always do. Smaller DTs that select commanders they personally know have better success than NAF or MAJCOM-wide command screening boards that only score records. There are too many Majs and Lt Cols (and Cols and Generals) who act like complete jackasses, but we should not treat all officers like overgrown children...only those who deserve it. Rank and experience alone do not make capable, educated leaders. I also agree that Maj and Lt Col performance defines the AF. We (CGOs, Es, senior leaders) should all be focused on enabling and assisting the Majs and Lt Cols to lead and work these problems.

You make some very good points. I don't have the time for a proper response, but here are a few choppy thoughts. Yes, we focus on the wrong shit too much and we let it take too much of our time. We need to stop sweating the small shit. CSAF helped us with that. CSAF will release guidance to not consider AAD for Maj and Lt Col. I wish he would move faster on that. Just finished the O-5 MLR and most had it done. We did not deduct points for no AAD, but the lack of AAD was probably a factor for no strats. He will need to put out guidance to sr raters to not consider AAD during strats or job selection for it to be truly effective. It was the promotion board that held AAD in such high regard. The senior raters and commanders were trying to align their priorities with the board priorities. We need to fix it and stop telling Capts and Majs to get AADs done to be competitive. That one comes from the top. Agree, leadership by email and MFR sucks. Group and wing commanders don't have time to sit in 2-6K offices and chat, but their target audience to lead is commanders and chiefs. Getting out and staying in touch with the force is very important. Sq CCs need to do this all the time. We pick the wrong people because you never know how someone will do at the next level. We can mentor and guide, but sometimes we need to remove and replace. Nothing personal but past performance does not guarantee future performance. Not all officers are professional and most need to be mentored regularly. Trust and empower, but monitor, mentor and adjust when required.

No, I think the little things slipping were a symptom of a bigger problem (lack of discipline in mission planning and execution). Failing to enforce easy standards does not necessarily cause larger discipline issues. There are plenty of units who may look undisciplined (uniforms, mustaches, attitudes) but have skilled aviators and great mission hackers. In this case, the lack of discipline and lack of SA were only parts of a larger leadership problem. Fixing the little stuff helped, but it was the focus on all standards that worked. We should enforce standards, but we need to make sure we aren't making up unnecessary standards (the wrong shit), like the color of your athletic shoes or requirements to wear reflective belts during the day or with PT gear.

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.

Easy to say when you don't have to actually set or enforce the standard. I'm not worked up over this. Like I said, this is easy shit.

Your advice sucks because it does not address the challenge CSAF just presented Sq CCs and Wg CCs. You naively think that broad "go do the right thing" guidance equals leadership. One reason we trust officers to go execute combat missions is because we are confident that they understand their mission, they are trained to competently execute their portion of the mission, they are properly resourced, they understand the constraints and restraints required by relevant authorities, we are confident in their leadership abilities and there are appropriate C2 mechanisms to adjust the mission when the planning assumptions are wrong or the enemy changes the environment. We don't just trust officers to kill without making sure they understand the standards, expectations and mission and that they are prepared to make those important decisions. We also continuously assess the judgement, performance and leadership of the officer (we should probably do more of this). CSAF changed the AFI to give Wg CCs the authority to allow morale patches on Fridays and special events, but requires Sq CCs to maintain a list of acceptable patches and tabs. I asked the leadership pros at BODN what they thought the standard should be and how it should be enforced. You reply with a cheap shot about email leadership and the simplistic "act like officers". I'm no longer a wing commander, so I really don't have a dog in this fight. I am curious to know what advice, guidance, intent, standards the Wg CCs are going to give Sq CCs about acceptable morale patches. I think written supplemental guidance (MFRs on the wall) and emails are overused and ineffective. Personal mentoring, where your subordinate commanders understand your intent and expectations, is much better. However, you would be surprised how many people ask "where is that written" when given feedback on how well they are meeting a standard that officers should know. I think the Friday morale patches should be authorized by all Wg CCs and the Sq CCs should approve patches that balance unit pride, humor, cleverness and professionalism. I think Sq CCs should standardize the morale patches worn in their unit and not allow the freestyle expression of individual taste and humor. We wear a uniform, not walking billboards. Sports teams, offensive material, and commercial product endorsements should not be allowed on our uniforms. You say this is common sense and we should trust our officers to make the right call. I agree, but there will still be a need for Wg CCs and Sq CCs to talk about where we draw the standards line and how we will enforce the predictable deviations from common sense. What we wear on our uniforms transmits information to those who see us. Our joint partners, civilian leaders, allies and subordinate Airmen make leadership and competence assessments when they see these patches. There are plenty of examples of officers wearing morale patches that do not belong on a uniform. The leadership challenge for our officers is creating a force that knows how to make the judgement and has the courage to enforce the standards, without specific written guidance from above. And I agree. This is the easy shit. It should not take more than a few minutes to define the expectations. We have much larger and more complex leadership challenges we should all be concerned about.

Your advice sucks. Nice try.

CSAF just empowered Wing Commanders to use judgement in situations that are usually standardized at HAF, MAJCOM or NAF levels. I respect him for empowering subordinate commanders, but I suspect we will see a wide variety of "fun" approved for wear on our uniforms. What advice would you give Wing Commanders on approving morale patches? Should there be reasonable limits on what we allow on our uniforms? Should it be acceptable to allow patches with sports teams, KCCO, Infidel, Honey Badger, sexual innuendos, playboy silhouette, etc? Who should decide what is acceptable or not and how should they enforce the standard? I agree. My guess is your LOC did not go into a UIF or your OPR, making it a counseling tool and nothing more. No need to shred it because nobody will ever read it.

What was on the morale patch?

Tony Carr has posted some outstanding observations and recommendations. https://www.jqpublic-blog.com/?p=641.

7 USAF C-27J -> USASOC (US Army Special Ops Command), not AFSOC

You probably have a lot a feelings you don't understand. Ask your big brother, he can explain them.