B52Herc

I'd be interested in hearing some historical perspectives. The CGOC (formerly known as the "junior officer council") used to sponsor "JOC Night" at the Mather Club in the early 80s (and probably well before that) - I think anyone there at the time would have been beholden to the "JOC" (probably our UNT instructors) for the hang-overs and social diseases, but all-in-all a pretty good time for the lieutenants. But, by the time I got to the my 1st B52 assignment the JOC was pretty much a no-air-crew organization unless they needed help with an event - in which case they would just route their requirements through command. I wonder if the JOC/CGOC was ever worth a bucket of spit in the past. Was Mather the last dying gasps of something better?

Yes, really, and you are almost correct in observing that PME will likely avail a unit vacancy to O4, and if so you will likely wear that rank earlier than some of your AD (same commissioning date) peers. But there are other factors that will affect unit vacancy promotion: lacking maturity as aircrew or just being an asshole are probably the two most effective ways to ensure that you would proceed to ROPMA instead of getting the unit vacancy promotion. Like I said before, there are differences between the AD and ANG and there are issues/problems with both systems as there is some merit with both systems. Thank you for posting the ANGI, and I'm sure guim appreciates it, but I'm sure you've the experience and perspective to know that AFIs and ANGIs are just a part of the picture.

How about we just try and answer your question . . . a good number of the replies so far are a bit dated in perspective. For promotion in the ANG as a pilot (at this time, and at most ANG bases), you will promote via standard timelines to O2 & O3 without regard to an advanced degree or completion of PME. For promotion to O4 you will have to complete SOS for a ROPMA promotion, and almost all units require it for the "unit vacancy" promotion. At least at this time, there still isn't much emphasis on the advanced degree to O4. Now, if you decide that you want to do more than "just fly", then there are (limited) O5 and O6 positions at the air wings similar to what you would find at any AD air wing. To make O5, it is not very likely that the unit (or state) will approve a unit vacancy promotion unless you appear viable for O6. That means you'll need to be on track with your PME, and if you don't have an advanced degree you should have some pretty compelling credentials otherwise. If you don't get promoted to O5 via unit vacancy, then you would meet a ROPMA board (and you would want an advance degree if you are going to board - though you might get promoted without). For O6 there has to be a position vacancy and you have to have completed SDE, and you have to be selected by the state and approved by ANG. I'm not aware of a hard rule on an advanced degree, but you would be in a very small minority of officers if you did not have one at this point in your career. There are certainly differences between the ANG and AD with regards to promotion and what one needs to do in their career to be viable for promotion. That's a longer discussion and one replete with opinions. The best source for the ANG intel will be the unit to which you are assigned - to the extent that the unit is keeping up with national trends.

I'm cautious about attributing these changes to any one thing . . . but I suspect that you're hitting at least one of the nails squarely on the head. Do you think the USAF Creed reflects this, or contributes to this? I'll admit to finding that thing a little cult-like (I just sort of feel repelled when this gets chanted). I don't see the shooters out there memorizing it, but it's HUGE with support folks and seems to resonate particularly with the mid level NCOs. Don't mean to hijack L-ship at the Deid, but I think there might be a link. Please don't interpret as a knock on support (it's pretty much what I do now) - most still "get it", but it does not take many to alter the picture.

It was different in some ways . . . (and though I would never have seen the whole SIOP . . . . "bail out over the polar ice cap" . . . . our location was a little warmer!), but the captains in 1985 are the senior leadership today. One of the best officers I knew at that grade was the subject of some ridicule on this thread, and having not seen him for 20+ years I've no basis to dispute the posts. Old heads asks here and on other posts "what happened?" My sense of it is that the more dramatic shifts in structure and subtle abdication of leadership have occurred mainly in just the past 10 years . . . but things that were understood and accepted in 1983, were already out of sync by 1990, and that pattern continues. Things will change, and the challenge is to try and influence change in better directions so that we can keep bringing the fight (or supporting the fight).

To address your question: Saying "no" and walking off is not wrong provided you are an O-1 or above and provided the chief was not being disrespectful in tone, words, or approach (insofar as we're addressing good order and discipline). If the chief was in anyway disrespectful, then pausing for correction is in order provided the circumstances allows for this to be accomplished constructively - if not then report the chief's conduct to your commander. (If your commander does not seem to care, that's a shame, but for your part you can recall this event when you're the commander and your folks come to you with similar experiences) Assuming the chief was being respectful, but possibly mistaken (or perhaps you are mistaken), don't you think it preferable to take charge of the situation and discuss a little more fully? - e.g. introduce yourself, get his/her name unit and contact information, let the chief know that you're not aware of a published rule that clearly prohibits this small utility light, and since you are not subject to his/her direct authority you will continue to wear the light until presented with proof of this rule. Keep your words and tone good natured and professional. State your position clearly and move along - you are under no obligation to engage in debates with the enlisted force.* (*I am not suggesting that being routinely dismissive of the opinions and ideas of our enlisted members is an acceptable SOP, but the scenario you present would be resolved by reference to published directives - no need for a debate) I might anticipate replies that my comment demonstrates ignorance of how things actually are with regard to officer/chief conduct and authority. I know full well how it is, but the chiefs are not going to fix this - it's up to ALL the officers. All-in-all, even if you were mistaken on the rule on the wearing of the light, what you did was better than removing the light and conveying that the chief has authority to direct your actions. But, if you knew you were in error, then you should not have been wearing the %$&# light on your uniform out where this chief was going to see you (sorry guys).

Any casual reader of this blog site should have the perspective that there exists mis-behavior in all of the components. My narrow experience was that it was worse active duty, but that's hardly a basis for asserting a conclusion about the active duty air force. The ANG is vulnerable to this sort of long term fiefdom clown act because of the absence of PCS moves, but promoting and PCS-ing insufferable dolts so they can spread their poison broadly is a vulnerablity of the other components. The many subjects and comments in this site are testament. I admit that I believe most ANG members cringe when they see stories like this.

"2" - great advice for all of us - that is, the presentation part. Knew him (AEW/CC) 20+ years ago as a new aircraft commander. This guy is well worth the benefit of the doubt - one of the best all around guys I knew while active duty. Good luck!

Back in July I posted: "Just stumbled across news of a new 379AEW/CC this July. He was the best Aircraft Commander I ever had, and a great guy all around. I haven't seen him for about 20 years, but there may be a ray of hope for some reduction in the dumbness, or at least a guy with a sense of humor about it." 20 years ago (had we had BaseOps.Net) this guy would have been right here - same sensibilities, same outlook, so I can only wonder if I stand corrected. AEW/CCs are pretty busy - not a lot of time to cross check every stupid thing some knob wants published in the Dispatch. Still, I'd be pissed if somebody attributed to me "desires" about which I give not a shit.

Just stumbled across news of a new 379AEW/CC this July. He was the best Aircraft Commander I ever had, and a great guy all around. I haven't seen him for about 20 years, but there may be a ray of hope for some reduction in the dumbness, or at least a guy with a sense of humor about it. BTW - if you want to get his attention just shout out "How do you like that? Big Boy!" next time you see him. He'll think it's funny so don't worry about him getting pissed.