Weezer

You really don't see how that would backfire?

A lot of what they're promising has more to do with combatant commanders, component commands (e.g., AFCENT), Joint Staff, and SecDef. These aren't things the A3 can just decree away. Granted, the CSAF may have administrative influence over the AF component commanders for the COCOMs, it's not as simple as just telling AFCENT to stop asking for rated staff.

Not sure I would trust it even then: was on a 365 back in the early days with about 120 others. AFPC/CC at the time came out and was "so impressed," that he personally guaranteed we could have any assignment we wanted afterwards. He went so far as to say he would move people out of jobs to get us where we wanted to go. Needless to say, he issued a correction a few weeks later to say that AFPC would "do their best" to get us where we wanted to go.

And there's that problem that DOPMA creates: if you want to keep people in, you have to promote them. But, militarily speaking, O-5s shouldn't be instructing future IPs...they should be providing their experience on a staff so that everything from personnel policy to logistics to operations don't continue to get screwed up. But, your most experienced fliers are Lt Cols, so you have to use their experience as rated instructors instead of in a staff billet to take advantage of their operational knowledge to make the Air Force better. So, you put some non-rated guy (like me) in there who has no idea how to manage rated manpower, or how to plan an air campaign, and you get what we currently have.

Just going to put this here for your amusement.

Yes. The P0517A folders showed up three weeks or so before release.

I've got to believe that they take into account floors and ceilings in the promotion board, even if they don't publish it. If there are 200 rated Lt Col jobs they have to fill, and 800 non-rated ones, then surely they make sure that the cut line includes something greater than 200 rated guy. Can anyone speak to that? Then, follow on question: If you were the rated guy who isn't going to get picked up for rated squadron command, and further advancement means you will probably command a recruiting squadron somewhere or sit on staff the rest of your career, then do you still want to be promoted?

MS historically outperforms the other categories in IPZ. Pilots usually come out way ahead on BPZ.

Even passed over he should have been offered continuation...

True statement: I was a duly deputized DTS approving official for my squadron back when this happened. Although it was the PCS budget that those guys were busted for, it had an impact on TDY policy as well, at least from where I sat. We sent teams TDY all the time, many times including young Airmen. I made every effort to make sure those guys were taken care of. I had a folder full of MFRs documenting the chapter and verse of the JTR, but I did whatever was moral, legal, and ethical to make sure dudes got paid. After the event I linked above, the base CPTS started putting out all sorts of "guidance" that our Resource Advisor started giving me crap about. I often pulled out the JTR to show how he and they were wrong, and won every fight. Fortunately, I left that unit soon after. Bottom line, Approving Officials have broad latitude to approve things within the JTR. Local management often curtails it due to risk aversion.

Is there more to the story? MyPers strongly implies everyone "determined by the board to be fully qualified" will be continued. Pilots (11X) are listed as a critical skill that will be offered continuation to 24 years.

Are you calling me strange?

I wish I'd had the benefit of this advice 8-10 years ago. I went 4 years in a unit, and the only stray I got was "#X/XX as group CGOQ." The one time I asked what it asked to actually get a strat, my boss, who had been the CGO assignments officer for my career field at AFPC, lied and said "X/XX as award winner IS a good strat." I didn't figure out how hard I'd been screwed until three years later, when an O-6 sat me down and told me I was a good officer and a hard worker, but I was probably not going to able to make Lt Col and was very likely to get RIFed because of those non-strat years. Super bad on me for not better knowing what it takes to get promoted and even worse on me for not asking harder.

Why would you not measure everyone in this way?

I apologize profusely for assuming those designated as leaders in our service could operate their weapons systems. Is it fair to say that most could at one time operate a weapon system to some degree of competence?

So much for leading from the front. Good on you for trying.

Like I said...that sucks. And those commanders suck. So I might as well come out of the closet: I'm not a pilot or even an operator. I'm an MSG guy (CE) who cares about where the AF is headed. These forums seem to have pretty good gouge on what the nuts and bolts of the rated force is thinking. When people ask me how I like my job, it's mixed. I like the technical nerdery, but I always wish I was working more directly with operations. It's kind of like working at Microsoft...unclogging toilets. It's cool to say I work at Microsoft, but... I'm not sure if I'll ever be a squadron commander...I got to be a deputy for a year overseas. Tried my best to bust my a$$ to make the mission happen, and also make sure our Airmen understood the impact they were having on the mission. It wasn't easy...the MSG has its own kind of salt...but I tried to do my best. Now I'm on Joint Staff working plan sourcing, as I said. If we were sitting down at a bar, what would you say to me that I can do to help?

Do you mean as far as knowing what they are, or connecting their squadrons to the bigger mission, or both? Either way, that sucks.

I get it that airpower is more than just acronyms. But integrating airpower is also more than just airpower. Personal example: my job right now involves plan sourcing on a joint staff. Every single joint officer up here, regardless of service, understands that A-10s do CAS...the pointy end of the spear. Easy. The ground pounders make sure that they have JTACs as integral part of their units, and the JMD guys make sure there's the requisite number of 11F dudes on the JTF staff. The integrating I get to do is going back on all those TPFDDs and adding in the shaft to the spear...everything from maintenance, to logistics, to medical, to engineering. There are very few AF functional capabilities that stand alone. The AF as a whole (not just the operational side, as Beerman pointed out) does a pis-poor job of integrating our vertical stove-pipes such that our field grade officers, who are our face to the joint staffs (which actually fight wars, since services just organize, train, and equip, if I remember my ACSC correctly) understand how to do that.

Can't do much with that weapon system without effectively leading and managing people...I'm pretty sure there are countless examples on this very forum of how the AF has failed to manage people. It doesn't do well to have billion dollar weapons systems sitting idle because all of our pilots have walked out the door because no one's doing leadership above the tactical level. I have no doubt every general in the AF can operate their weapon system effectively and I have no doubt they can tactically lead. It's the leadership of large and complex organizations that we're often missing. The problem is not lack of tactical leadership. But, we're not translating that tactical leadership into the large organization management skills that are required to run the AF. As a result, all of that tactical leadership is heading out the door. Quick side note, though...other services graduate to operational and strategic leadership much earlier than we do. As a result, we are behind when we sit on joint staffs. Joint staffs (specifically COCOMs) are what does the strategic and operational planning to fight the nation's wars. Those plans are what drives the demand for the combat power the AF provides. We need to make sure we're dialed into the bigger picture, while maintaining tactical expertise. It is garbage that some mission support O's are not dialed into the mission of our service...the questions you give above are pretty easy ones (although a non-pilot can't be a JFACC). I will say that the more successful ones who have risen to Sq/CC level and above that I've met are well aware of these things and don't lose an opportunity to connect their squadron mission with the wing and theater mission. I wouldn't expect them to know how to but an OCA package together, but knowing the acronym should be something they learned way back in per-commissioning, or at least ASBC/SOS.

No...my source was limited to the joint officer and overall stats.

Oooorrrr...you could incorporate maintenance back into OGs and have it be a legit leadership position and still fly.

Hope they add flickerball back in. Probably would increase retention.

STOs/CROs probably do this, as do security forces and some elements in CE. Maintenance and LRS, I think, get good opportunities to lead sections/flights. However, when an Army/USMC captain is a company commander, he/she actually has UCMJ command authority. AF flight commanders (I'm sure there are exceptions) cannot issue Article 15s, etc. Being an actual commander on g-series orders is an order of magnitude different level than supervisory flight "commander." I think fliers/space dudes are at a huge disadvantage when they are suddenly thrust into Wing command. MXG officers get a pretty decent exposure to both supporting flying operations and the mission support side (through dealing with so many Airmen). MSG officers co-exist in a multi-function group of 6 different types of squadrons. Most fliers/space Os go from operations squadron commander of their primary type of squadron, to operations group commander of their primary type of group, to Wing commander of everything there is. And its all well and good to lead through your Group/CCs, until something comes out of left field that catches you off guard because you couldn't read the tea leaves because it's a whole other language (contracting, for example).