Liquid

Nobody is going after offensiveness, just sexual harassment and sexual assault. A Sq/CC put out a memo defining expectations and it caused interesting comments from this crowd. Stop using a slippery slope argument about burgers to justify behavior that is clearly out of bounds.

Yes. During pilot training, I realized I didn't want to be a fighter pilot. Not saying I would have made through FTU but I chose to go to AFSOC and I am glad I did. I deeply respect fighter pilots and most of their culture, as much as I respect the other AFSCs that make up our great AF. I do not care for the sexist traditions and I have told every fighter pilot friend and peer at every opportunity. Most of them agreed with me and strengthened my faith in our ACC talent and leadership. I think it wasn't a big deal because we never had a CSAF willing to directly take the culture on. I respect the hell out of Gen Welsh for making this a priority. Why would you love to see this? To show we are wasting our time addressing these issues? The MSG and MXG don't need to release MFRs that say don't use sexual innuendo, inappropriate call signs, explicit lyrics and early afternoon drinking. Their enlisted and officer leadership does not tolerate it. Some in the Ops Group do. The Ops Group has a ridiculously larger number of officers than the other groups and a much smaller number of young enlisted, so there are fewer discipline incidents. So what is your point? Commanders shouldn't release memos like this or talk about this because the ops group never commits sexual harassment/assault crimes? Are you saying that I have traded my wings and balls and nothing I have done matters? And you want some respect? And authority? The AF absolutely should decide what is offensive and what is not. Leaders at all levels, including our officer pilots, should have an opinion about whether what we say at work complies with specific federal laws and DoD guidance. Why do you think we shouldn't?

https://protectourdef...N_COMPLAINT.pdf Bullshit, it happens too frequently and "you" encourage it and protect it. No other "culture" or AFSC actively defends their "right" to act like a sexist asshole like some (not all or most) in the fighter community. Many regularly post here. You call me dickless and spineless for not tackling the real problem, when you don't demonstrate knowledge of the real problem or solutions. I and other senior leaders know that these policies are not the only thing we need to do, but changing the unprofessional culture is definetly a part of it. Don't be so naive to think that these policies are the only things being done to address the unacceptable number of sexual assaults and incidents of sexual harassment. The FS/CC memo that was posted should have created absolutely no comment except, "Of course. Why is this memo even necessary?" Instead, we get a bunch of whining jackasses who attack it and cry that without moronic songs, innuendos and word games, our fighter pilot force will quit. Your obsession with using and defending the use of the number 69 to sexualize workplace situations that should not be sexualized is absurd. Your argument that we have mistakenly misinterpreted your persistent use of this number in inappropriate situations is also absurd. It is not just a number, it is a fighter centric word game tradition based on inappropriate sexualization in the workplace. Does it equal rape, absolutely not. Nobody is saying it does. But this tradition, along with sts, "that's what she said" and inappropriate call signs do not belong in the work place, period. A fighter squadron commander said so in his memo and so did Lt Gen Rand, who is an exceptional leader and fighter pilot. I truly don't understand why this is so hard for some to understand or embrace. We have a fundamental disagreement about what REAL harassment looks like. You seem to think private (in the vault, no females or easily offended males around) sexist behavior, with the occasional slip up at the ops desk, is ok. I don't. Neither does Congress, JCS, HAF or your GO leadership. Demanding your group of "bros" goes along with your inappropriate traditions in order to get along is wrong and it will no longer be tolerated. In ten years, we will look back at the fighter-centric culture that embraced these unprofessional, sexist and inappropriate traditions and we will wonder why our institution allowed it to happen for so long. sts, 69, sexist callsigns, squadron song books and word game traditions will die and our AF will be better off for it. I'm not posting this to pick fights. I'm trying to relay one senior leader perspectvive about what is happening and why. Why is it weak sauce and why do you expect non-fighter pilots to say it more than fighter pilots?

Can someone explain to me how sexist and inappropriate sexual actions and language at work makes fighter pilots better at their job? Personally, I am not offended easily. I enjoy crude language and jokes, alcohol, gambling and our American culture that values sexuality and violence in our entertainment. Professionally, however, I have little tolerance for words and actions that degrade, humiliate and disrespect our coworkers. It is against the law to sexually harass someone at work and it is clearly not accepted by our civilian and military leadership. Military officers should know not only how to act professionally, but how to lead Airmen to get the mission done without illegal and inappropriate actions and words. On forums like this, it doesn't matter how many sexual innuendos or jokes you use to entertain yourself and others. At work, it does matter. Our AF leadership at all levels has tolerated and participated in this corrosive behavior for too long and it is changing. Defend why you need to be able to make sex jokes to or in front of a 19 year old female Senior Airman to be good at your job, motivated to continue to serve or have high morale. And don't give me this "we only say this stuff in front of our bros" shit. The sexist culture is seen and understood by virtually everyone in our AF and many of us don't understand it and/or are disgusted by it. I challenge you to enlighten me and those like me without resorting to excessive personal attacks and predictable 69 jokes. Fire away.

The way I heard it, he said don't do things that outdated AFIs tell you to do if they don't make sense. Then he said to tell your boss about it. I don't think he meant to tell your boss you are done with the Air Force. This is consistent with his prior statements to tell your boss when you were violating dumb AFIs for good reasons. Has anyone here had the guts to actually do this? You won't always have this level of top cover. If you are not taking advantage of it to make real change in your unit, on your crew, or with your bosses, you should probably STFU about what you think is dumb and doesn't make sense. Edited for iPad buffoonery

What Noonin said. It is up to each board member to score each record however they think it should be scored. Common technique is to start at 8.0 (average) and add or subtract based on what is in or not in the record. Remarkably little guidance is given about how to score, but there are not as many splits (disagreements in score of more than 1.5 points on a 6-10 scale between two or more members) as you would think. Boards tend to value depth, breadth, leadership, stratification, distinction (awards) and deployments. That usually means they add point or half point for or take away points from what they see as the norm. Top half is easy (DPs). Top 15% cut line (school select, BPZ) and bottom 10-15% get tricky, meaning individual board member biases and preferences can make a big difference.

Not sure, haven't seen any policy yet. Last year they only allowed our selects to fill alternate spots. At our DT we created a select only alternate list and a candidate alternate list to cover both options. There may be a few more alternate spots available next year (summer '14) because of the requirement to only nominate selects, regardless of smart timing. Even if a candidate had better timing and was more deserving, we had to nominate selects and only one candidate. HAF trying to get ahead of the bow wave of too many selects and not enough seats.

Good point, mentoring is good. But it is not entertaining to watch. In OPRs and Decs, there is a big difference between OEF and Afghanistan. If a board was advised to "value time served in Afghanistan", it may have been useful to have your record reflect the fact you served in Afghanistan. It is amazing how frequently we don't just say in plain language what the hell was actually accomplished. Too many acronyms and too much OPSEC paranoia in our official records.

If you are reviewing records during a promotion board (or a practice one at SOS) and you read about the arrest of an officer, it usually means it was written on a referral OPR that checked "Does Not Meet Standards". Most of the time, you will not be promoted at your next board with a referral OPR. There is a difference between one mistake and one referral OPR. Some LTs can recover, but it is rare that a Capt or Maj will get promoted with a referral OPR. If you want to "mentor" your officers about an arrest and keep it from hurting their career (bar fight, public urination, etc), don't put it in their permanent record. Sometimes a good old fashioned ass chewing is more effective in the long run than paperwork. Beating up Slick isn't entertaining or informative. Cheap shots are easy and stale. Thread re-reail: So what are your thoughts on the stratification pendulum? Have we gone so far overboard that we need HAF guidance about how to strat like the Es have? "#1 Blue-eyed, left-handed EWO in my flight during October" is a little ridiculous. How do we fix over-reliance on strats during promotion boards and DTs? During the last DT, each board received one candidate nominee. The rest of the seats went to selects. HAF plans to keep the number of candidates that go to school very low to take care of the selects in a fiscally constrained DE world. I think sending candidates to IDE/SDE is a very good thing because it makes sure the promotion boards aren't the only ones who pick school designees. DTs and senior raters have a better idea of who should go to school. That Michael Jackson avatar freaks me the f*ck out

HAF is struggling with the BCA cuts in FY13 and the FY14 budget. PCS accounts are low. Not sure how they are going to deal with it, but freezing PCS in some areas is being discussed. Moves will still happen, but there will be budget pressure to minimize them. Top people are on it...what could possibly go wrong...

1QFY15 is the earliest, possibly later. Probably HRT first for U-28 recap, still working the details. AF plans some MC-12 mods, but funding is at risk. SOCOM will also do some mods so they are true U-28 replacements. CSO position planned. Schoolhouse TBD. New houses start going up at CVS this fall, should have several hundred done by spring, 670+ new Single family homes within three years. Belfour Beatty Communities has the housing contract and they are squared away.

The MLR does a quality review of all PRFs to find mistakes (wrong DE push, prohibited statements, capitalization) and bad style (speeding/exaggeration, duplicative strats, etc) as well as determine carryover and aggregate DPs. When the GOs said fix the PRF, it got fixed and re-signed. We then did a VTC with all senior raters to talk about techniques, trends and quality. Technique and style are opinion and they vary quite a bit, so that feedback is mostly for discussion and consideration. Mistakes and speeding feedback was more directive and the reports were reaccomplished. One data point from one MAJCOM's process. No idea how everyone else does it and I'm sure it changes year to year. On OPRs, the most important lines are the top and bottom bullets in each block. Put your most important info on those lines. Many board members read the OPRs, but focus mostly on those lines. It is incredible how many key accomplishment like AF level Sijan, SOS DG or DFC get buried in the middle blocks, towards the end of the bullet. I'd rather read three lines about why you were awarded the AF Tunner Award or Combat Action Medal than what your additional duty was. Put the good stuff that shows leadership, breadth, depth, distinction, deployments first. Nobody cares how many staff packages you processed, trouble tickets you worked, lines you scheduled, pubs you posted, FMC rate you generated or vouchers you returned. The data and metrics about your daily job don't paint the picture of why you should be promoted, only what your particular career field does. Make sure your inputs to your rater include the good info and make sure your subordinates provide you with it.

If you give him a draft PRF (or OPR) that has content but not style or strats. Highlight the top 20 or so things in your record that should be highlighted on the PRF. Source everything (2009 OPR, block IV line 2). Turn in more data than they need so they can choose which ones to use. Never write your own push line (last line). In July my bosses' exec asked me for a draft push line and I told him absolutely not. I like seeing a draft filled out with nothing in the main blocks, but all the of the admin queep done, then a paragraph for each potential bullet in a word document or email. Plain language what you did and what the impact was. When someone provides only the no-vowel, chopped sentences with bullshit adjectives and fake impact (100% mission success), they are focusing too much on style. Most drafts I edit I eliminate the bullshit impact and add vowels back in. I also change the AFSC specific jargon into plain language. Nobody reads the acronym list on the back and it does no good to say something nobody understands. I've been given plenty of inputs in "bullet format" but I always changed them significantly. I know people write their own OPRs and PRFs. I remind them to not be a self serving careerists, but to assist in the process by providing the details that only you know best. You can also simply say to your boss, "be careful sir, the AFI specifically prohibits people from writing their own performance reports". You can also make sure that you and your peers don't do it and teach people to not do it.

Squadron commanders should review the record and write the draft PRF with input from the member, supervisors and staff. Group commanders should edit and recommend stratifications and style. Senior raters, usually wing commanders, and their staffs should verify content, adjust style and content, stratify. and give DPs. Nowhere in this process should the member be writing and editing the bullets. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I am saying squadron commanders that aren't deeply involved in the process are f*ing lazy and not doing their jobs. Yep. The MLRs I've done did just that and provided direct feedback to the senior raters.

When the senior rater exaggerates the record on the PRF (or flat out lies), those scoring the record may take that into account. Multiple #1s for example. If the credibility of the senior rater is questioned, how would you like them to account for it? Some may hammer the record score, some may not notice, some may disregard andnhonestlynscore. Look, I can't possibly speak for every board member or tell you what is going to happen. All I can tell you is what I learned during my experience and give advice. My advice is don't write your own ticket and don't allow misleading bullets on your PRF. I give advice to officers, commanders and board members. Sometimes it is useful, sometimes not. I don't really care if you agree with it or not. Gather as much info and advice as you can and make your own decisions about what to do and how to mentor.

Your commander should draft your PRF. The best way to help is to highlight key accomplishments like combat, upgrades, participation in major world events, breadth, depth, distinction, etc. At the wing level, the record is reviewed to make sure sq and grp CC's put it the right highlights and modify the PRF style to senior rater preferences. Some board members read the whole PRF, some skim the top and bottom lines and the left side. The least interesting/useful info should be at the end of the middle to bottom bullets since they get read less frequently. Strong top and bottom bullets are keys. Scanning the records themselves is better since too many senior raters speed/lie on the PRF. That is dangerous as senior rater credibility is very important to board members. For instance, if you were the copilot of the month and the OPR say #1/30 as the copilot of the month and the PRF says "#1/30...great guy..." you will get hammered on your score due to senior rater speeding. Stratified DPs and Ps in the push line carry a lot of weight. Be very careful about writing your own ticket. It is easy to see in a record, since the style is the same on different reports with different raters. If the same senior rater has drastically different styles on his PRFs, it shows he didn't write the PRFs and does really care about his guys. Most senior raters get this and protect their credibility. Bottom line, you should not write your own ticket, in oprs, prfs or decs. Provide good info about what you did, but let your rater write it in their style. Monitor and assist for mistakes, omissions and timeliness. Sq and group CCs that allow it are lazy, not taking care of their troops and should get a boot up their ass. And I get it. It happens because there are shitty commanders who only planned Christmas parties, got useless degrees and avoided deployments. Doesn't mean we should tolerate it. Yep. The tough part is getting your top people into the school selects. Strats matter there.

Work on your PRF? Why would your commander allow you to do that?

I can't stand the humidity in FL, I prefer the dry climate and it cooling off at night. My kids went to FWB HS and Clovis HS. Clovis High is better than FWB, fewer drugs, fewer fights, fewer pregnancies, fewer racists, decent AP program, good sports program. Rent is higher, but insurance, taxes, fees, electricity, food and everything else is cheaper. Overall, a much lower cost of living. And the restaurants are below average so you don't eat out as much. Sure you cancel for winds every now and then, but the Crestview line impacts training more. Tap water sucks in Florida too and there are plenty of bases where bottled water is the standard in the home. At Cannon you get it free at two locations. It takes 30 minutes to get on base at MacDill during rush hour, with an hour commute from Brandon. It smells like cow shit, but Tyndall smells like paper mills. Fort Campbell and Tinker took real storm damage, not almost damage. I thought it was a great place to be with my family. I get it that you didn't like it, but I don't get the "keep me at Hurlburt or I will separate" bullshit. And yes, I would go to Chernobyl. K2, KAF, BAF and DJ aren't much worse. My family will go wherever I go, including overseas, they are great. The real estate conspiracy is bullshit. BRAC, housing crisis, credit crunch and long MILCON lead time created a housing shortage. People at Creech and Nellis can't sell their houses or rent them and are underwater. People who bought early at Cannon make money on rentals. You can still buy for bargains. Free market is a bitch and a cash cow, but it is better than rent control. Haters will be haters, just don't expect special treatment. Why?

People that whine and bitch about PCS orders crack me up. All assignments have pros and cons and are what you make of them. People bitch about the commute and cost of living at the Pentagon, living anywhere overseas, traffic at Travis, being underwater in your house in Vegas, and being so far away from mommy and daddy. Cannon isn't for everyone, but the weather is great, the cost of living is low, crime is low, traffic is light, schools are good, MWR is well funded and there is plenty to do outdoors. When you joined, you had to understand the concept of going where the AF needs you to go, when the AF needs you to go. If you opt out of an assignment by establishing a date of separation, you will be thanked for your service. If you do it with retainability left on your ADSC, you will probably get orders anyway. But if you think the AF should close bases and adjust assignments because you don't like the locations, you are naive. Willing to risk dying in an aircraft, getting an 88mm rocket dropped on your head, or engaging an enemy, but not willing to accept an assignment the AF needs you to take because it isn't on your list of acceptable assignments? Not sure you were ever really cut out for this profession anyway. Good luck on the outside.

The savings take into account cancelling the CRH (expensive new start), buying new CV-22s and SLEP the remaining 60s. It compares O&M of CV-22 vs CRH estimates, not new HH-60s or old HH-60s. The big money savings is in canceling the CRH and using established supply chain and parts available with the mature V-22 program. The proposed reduction in the number of aircraft is mitigated by AFSOC's CV-22s and MC-130s. 7.62 and .50 cal aren't great at defeating threats in CSAR role. CV-22 has .50 cal on ramp and AFSOC is looking at options for forward firing rockets, missiles and guns. The CV-22's range, speed, cargo capacity, defensive systems and terrain following capability make it a very good CSAR platform for contested objectives. It makes total sense to put CSAR into a MAJCOM that generates and employs C-130Js and CV-22s, specializes in short notice taskings, understands mobility missions, is partially funded with joint dollars, is globally positioned far forward in small units and has unique command and control capabilities suited for MCO and IW. All AFSOC has done is articulate options for the decision makers. With 32/50 CV-22s delivered, they have plenty of iron and plenty to do. No emotion, drama or hidden agendas, just warfighting options in a fiscally constrained environment.

The AF are OSD are looking for ways to save money. AFSOC offered to take CSAR and replace CRH with CV-22s. Since AFSOC flies CV-22s, and MC-130Js are virtually identical to HC-130Js, there are efficiencies. Replacing CRH with CV-22s and HH-60 SLEP would save billions. $3-8B depending how you do the math. Real money in today's tough fiscal environment. The money to buy new CV-22s and SLEP 60s would come from Air Force TOA (MFP-4) not SOCOM (MFP-11). SOCOM would not pay for CSAR, since it is not a special ops mission. SOCOM CDR agreed to AFSOC taking the CSAR mission and allowing efficiencies in organizing, training and equipping. SOCOM also agreed to efficiencies with CSAR mission tasking, like they do now. CV-22 may not be as capable as the CRH that doesn't exist yet (based on requirements) but it is very capable of specialized mobility. But combined with SLEP HH-60s and H/MC-130Js, CV-22s would provide a robust CSAR capability. AFSOC doesn't want to steal money. They would keep AF funding separate from SOCOM funding because the law requires it. They do it every day. 58 SOW at Kirtland trains AFSOC crews and CSAR crews in AETC with mixed funding, not hard. AFSOC didn't screw up CSAR or give it back. SOCOM commander GEN Brown made comments about MH-47Gs being selected for CSAR-X and moving them all into USASOC and CSAF moved CSAR back to ACC the next day. AFSOC didn't agree with the comments and SOCOM didn't have the authority to do either, but it made CSAF nervous. And ACC has slipped CSAR-X/CRH out of the FYDP for years. Frees up money for higher priorities. We have been unwilling to recap our aging HH-60s, period. AFSOC, or AMC or any other MAJCOM, would not deliberately refuse a mission they were tasked to do. It is ridiculous to say only ACC values fighter pilots and anyone else would choose another "higher priority" mission over rescuing a downed airmen. The "contract" to never leave a downed airman behind is not something only ACC can do. The chow hall you eat in and the compound you work from depends on who your boss is. It doesn't matter which MAJCOM you come from. Your OPCON commander will determine where you eat and sleep. If you weren't OPCON to JSOAC at Balad, why would they be responsible for your care and feeding? You were in AFSOC, but assigned via DEPORD to AFCENT. Same goes for AFSOC enablers supporting AEF taskings. AFSOC CSAR crews deployed to conduct CSAR may or may not be assigned to SOCOM commanders (TSOCs, JSOACs, or Task Forces). It would depend on the RFF, DEPORD and OPORD defined by the GCC. Combining the equipment and expertise in CSAR and AFSOC makes sense, especially in certain areas of the world now. Right now, it seems ACC and HAF don't support the move. AFSOC offered to help pay a big bill by offering an alternative to CRH but doesn't really have dog in the fight. OSD may have a different view. We'll see in a few months.

The Lt Col list will be released on 17 Jul. Do any of you think AAD and IDE (res or corr) should be complete prior to IPZ to O-5? Should SR, MLRs and boards consider advanced education when determining who should be promoted? I am in favor of completely masking AAD at O-4 board, but not O-5. Thoughts?

Willing to risk burning to death or taking an RPG in the head, but unwilling to risk that next promotion or assignment? Courage is more than risking your life to defend your country and your team. It is also doing the right thing in the face of possible adverse consequences. Do it respectfully and with some passion and your commander should at least respect your opinion and your courage to say something unpopular but founded in logic and truth. Not calling you out brick, or saying you are not courageous. Just countering your caution to not have the discussion because it may piss off your boss.

BT, I agree with this. One of the problems is that we are not honest in our feedback and performance reports. OPRs are all firewalls, with the same "good" bullets that show job performance, impact, leadership, breadth, etc. It is really hard to read 10 OPRs and determine who is the skater and who is the leader. It shouldn't be. We use some "code", strength of push lines, command pushes for strong Capts, MAJCOM job pushes for low performers, use the word "potential" and you are saying bottom 10%. I've had good success helping the board see through an average record into my real assessment of the officer's limited promotion potential with weak push lines and DNPs. The board sees them and understands the recommendation. But the key is sq CCs, group CCs and SRs need to use the right criteria to make good recommendations to the board, not ones based on stupid criteria like how soon you did PME/AAD. Supervisors, Flt CCs and sq CCs need to call out the skaters that duck out early, avoid deployments, bust ops limits, etc. Here is some advice: give your commanders direct feedback when you see them make bad decisions and bad assessments of leadership ability. Don't be afraid to get a little dirty or bloody when arguing for the right thing. I get your point, but why would the board kick save a passed over dude when his senior rater says another dude IPZ is more worthy? You would pass over many more IPZ if you started promoting APZ Ps. We all know Ps are at risk of being passed over. DPs help make sure the top half is right. The gray area gets tough and APZ don't do well there with a P. Not saying it is right, but not sure how to fix what you are concerned about.

Rusty, I wouldn't say the board criteria changes every year. The instructions to the board, from SECAF, may change, but even those directions (value time in Afghanistan, or value RPA experience, or value acquisition experience, etc) are hard to enforce because each board member scores the records the way they think they should be scored. The particular biases of a particular 5-6 person panel has some variance, but I'm not sure giving the same person three different IPZ looks at promotion will solve anything. We do that now with APZ eligibility. If TRANSCOM wanted to promote Snuffy, they could give him a DP and make it happen. That effectively gives you multiple shots at promotion. Reality is, most APZ records are not as deserving as the last DP IPZ record. It is the top half argument. Top half gets DPs. Bottom 10-15% get passed over. Usually a difference between the records.