Weezer

Not sure 90-day trips meet the need for non-flying positions. Better is to make sure all billets are required, as discussed in myriad other posts. Deploying to an ISAF job a few years ago, the Finns split staff billets up between 3 guys: something like 12 weeks on, 6 weeks off for a year. Two guys in theater at all times, with overlap for continuity.

So if the goal deploy to dwell for AD is 1:2, then 179s mean 6 months away, 12 at home. 365 means 12 away, 24 at home. I found 179s can be more disruptive, depending on the frequency...it's hard for either you or your family to really get settled.

Sources say the APZ rate to Lt Col is much higher than last year.

It's not masked, but was deemphasized for the last several boards by way of the SECAF's memo of instruction to the board. For the most recent board, she also provided the same instructions to the MLRs. It's available on mypers if you want to read, I think.

DOPMA controls the speed of pin-on (once Senate approved). I'm pretty sure DOPMA is based on FY, so it's possible to start in October, if previous list is exhausted. I guess it could be even earlier if their projections for Lt Col end strength at the end of FY17 adjusts downward because of some sort of larger-than-planned exit.

It seems like it is faster than last year's...that's what I'm hoping.

When they both existed, one was for uniformed members, one was for civilians, if I remember correctly. Now they're together, with the portions that apply differently annotated as such.

Anyone have an idea on how fast the P0517A list is moving? Rumor was it made it through CJCS a little faster than normal. Looking to implement further life plans.

The Army does 360 degree feedback formally...some mixed opinions on the effectiveness (article). If anyone is interested, the site is open for anyone to use at https://msaf.army.mil.

If I understand your point, you want everyone in the MSG and MDG-like jobs across the DOD to wear the same (or no) uniform? That might save on some overhead positions, but at the expense of understanding the services' individual cultures (Logistics is drastically different between the Navy and Army/Air Force). At the end of the day, many of your support functions' manning is tied to a factor, such as end strength, ship size, number of buildings, etc. Unless you reduce the requirement, you can't (or shouldn't) reduce the number of providers.

To an extent, a base commander can declare facilities and real estate excess, which triggers a process to divest them. The problem is the people: moving more than 20 or so positions from a location (off the top of my head) triggers a Congressional notification, at which time they can move to do something about it...maybe. Moving airframes/weapons systems triggers the same notifications.

Concur. Although I think you need civilians in offices that require continuity over the long run, they should not be the ones steering the ship, and they should not be the majority of the office. You also need rated officers outside the 3 shop. Probably wouldn't be bad to have some non-flyers in developmental positions within 3/5 shops as well...get the MSG dudes a taste of everything that goes into Ops and Plans and I think it'll bear fruit...just not anywhere they can drive the bus [faster] off a cliff.

Absolutely. I was privy to the inner turmoil of a guy who got mild paperwork for some fairly modest and harmless buffoonery on a deployment a few years ago. Admonishment only, no UIF. The dude in question did some serious soul searching and came out the better for it. He was able to understand the impact of paperwork when he had to give it a few years later, and was able to talk a few other dudes through some similar challenges. But his paperwork cost him a dec and probably a strat, so he won't be taking that wisdom anywhere further.

Leverage China's desire to establish their New Silk Road effort to bring some economic prosperity to the region. Once you have legitimate commerce (not donor funding or drug proceeds), you'll start to see things settle down, although it will not look like the West. You will have tribes and strongmen. We need to be okay with that. Once there's some stability, then China will start exploiting the natural resources...which will bring more money and ideally further stability. Furthermore, we need to be fostering engagement between Pakistan and India to figure out the Kashmir issue. Pakistan is fomenting insurgency in Afghanistan, because Afghanistan gravitates towards India. Pakistan doesn't want to be hemmed in on both sides. Once Pakistan stops stoking the Taliban, Afghanistan will simmer down to the quiet backwater it should be.

Absolutely...staff should do its function, just like the operators and supporters. Staffs became a milestone to have in your record, so staffs bloated up to "give more people the experience." I've been on a few staff assignments, and I worked banker's hours on all of them (and had time for workouts in the middle of the day). Staff should be a full-time job same as anything else...and not just the self-licking ice cream cone type of job...they should be value added or they shouldn't exist.

Unpopular opinion: more rated dudes in staff positions where they can impact the AF's organize/train/equipping of airpower role as well as the COCOM/DoD employment of airpower role. I'm in a directorate on the Joint Staff that has a big role in what units are deployed and when. There are 9 AF officers...only 3 are aircrew. None are pilots. How do you expect the staffs that have input into the concerns raised on this forum if they are devoid of rated officers? In my opinion, the AF got away from a focus on the flyer because it reduced the amount of flyers (specifically CAF flyers) on staffs. It had to do that because there weren't enough flyers, which was only exacerbated by the loss of focus on the flyer/mission. It's a downward spiral. Is it wasted time as far as flying gates and experience? Sure. Is it wasted time as far as making the AF more pilot/warfighter focused? Absolutely not. Additionally, open up non-rated command positions to rated officers. Does an FSS squadron need to be commanded by an FSS officer? Nope...all the technical expertise resides with the NCO technicians. Put a pilot in charge, and you'll get that mission focus that seems noticeably absent. Of course, all of this is dependent on fixing the pilot shortage, which is dependent on fixing these issues, and so on... I'd also say make every officer who isn't bona fide pilot qualified...all the dudes with air sickness and bad eyes...spend their first assignment flying RPAs. Every Marine's a rifleman...why not every Airman an operator of some sort? Then when they track over to a mission support assignment, they'll have more of a mission focus. You'll free up the more physically qualified to fly manned aircraft as a bonus.

I may be stretching, but AFI 36-2406, paragraph 3.16.2.5.5.1 almost implies a hierarchy of strats in its sequence, which seems to support your thought... 3.16.2.5.5.1. Stratification based on peer comparisons: Peers (#1/10 Majors or #1/5 Captains); Peer Group (#1/10 FGOs or #1/10 CGOs); Duty Positions (#1/7 Action Officers, #1/7 Sq/CCs); Aggregate Groups (#1/50 officers in my Group; #1 of my 50 officers; #1 of 50 majors in my 20 years of service); Additional Qualifiers (#1/4 Force Support CGOs; Best Major in my 32 years); Recognition Level (Wing CGO/yr, #1/200).

As you're following the good advice BeerMan provided, don't forget about the Base Fire Marshall (CE) and the fire inspectors in the CE squadron...when you're talking that many people in a two-room TLF, you're probably looking at sofa beds and whatnot, so you might be violating some NFPA egress codes. Just a thought.

How long ago did you submit your travel voucher, or are you currently deployed?

Screenshot of a report pulled off of AFPC attached: This was filtered by all line Majors with a 92S DAFSC (Student) assigned to Maxwell AFB as of the end of June 2016 (Lt Col results came out ~9 Jun). '02 was IPZ; '03 and '04 were 1 and 2 BPZ, respectively. All of the IPZ guys (45/45) were selected. 20/54 (~37%) of the 1 BPZ were selected. 3/46 (~6.5%) of the 2 BPZ were selected. Numbers may be off slightly, but it should give you a reasonable idea of how the in-school folks end up.

From AFI 36-2406: 8.3.5.2. AF Level Students - officers assigned as permanent party students training outside their utilization field. Outside utilization training includes DE, degree-granting programs (usually AFIT sponsored), language training, Education With Industry (EWI) programs, attaché/designate training, MC/DC residency programs (when a new AFSC or suffix is awarded upon completion of training or when determined by the competitive category functional representatives), internships, and initial qualification training into a new utilization field. 8.3.5.2.1. HQ AFPC/DP2SPE acts as the ML for AF level students and receives “DP” allocations based on the number of BPZ or IPZ officers eligible for consideration by the HQ USAF Student MLR discussed in paragraph 8.3.5.2. The allocation rate is applied to students, patients and MIAs/POWs separately and rounded up at the ML. 8.3.5.2.2. HQ USAF Student ML Review. Convened by USAF/A1, it considers both Line and Non-Line permanent party students, patients and MIAs/POWs. It convenes approximately 70 days prior to the CSB. HQ USAF/A1 designates an MLR president and a minimum of four MLR members consistent with the minimum grade requirements for senior raters. The MLR is responsible for the following: 8.3.5.2.2.5. Awarding all promotion recommendations. There are no separate procedures to award aggregation and carry-over allocations. 8.3.5.2.2.6. Ensuring the R-O PRF is accomplished for each officer, the appropriate recommendation in Section IX is marked, the PRF is signed by the MLR president, and is attached to the N-O PRF prepared by the officer’s last permanent party SR. 8.3.5.2.2.7. Ensuring ratees receive a copy of the completed R-O and the attached N-O PRFs. NOTE: These are distributed per paragraph 8.1.4.2.13.

So what else is new?

Question on DOPMA: I understand the limitation on grades O-4 and above is based on the amount of total officers in the force. Is that based on authorized end strength (as allowed in the NDAA), or on actual population of officers at a given point in time? Based on the end-strength increase from the FY17 NDAA (4K total?), will we see an immediate increase in the amount of Maj/Lt Col/Cols allowed, or will we not see that increase until the additional officers are assessed? Will this have an impact on promotion and continuation for CY17 boards?