amcflyboy Posted October 17, 2012 Posted October 17, 2012 Here's the big picture problem....the AF had turned into an idiocracy and thus only promotes idiots. It has gone full circle: there was a time where all the good dudes got promoted and moved up. Somewhere along the way, an idiot squeaked past the goalie and then began the degradation. Problem where facing now is that smart, good people have a "stronger scent" than idiots do, and thus are the ones getting "deodorized.". The idiots are afraid of the smart/good people and are forcing them out. But then again, just my opinion. Maybe I'm the idiot...
zmoney Posted October 17, 2012 Posted October 17, 2012 (edited) Look, there is absolutely no excuse for passing a pilot (or ######ing Nav) over for O-3. It is wasteful as hell. Agreed. Summed up perfectly. I do see potential exceptions being made for folks with negative information (Article 15, DUI, etc). That said, even those folks cost the government lots of money. Passing them over for O-3 could potentially cost the government more money than simply keeping them in and passing them over for O-4... Note 1: I didn't sensor the quote... ######ing autosensor. Edited October 17, 2012 by zmoney
ThreeHoler Posted October 17, 2012 Posted October 17, 2012 But that's a sunk cost! The AF is saving ~$327,000 per 1Lt twice passed over and ~$6,600 per 1Lt once passed over! How is it not a boon to our coffers????
sweet I'm SOF Posted October 17, 2012 Posted October 17, 2012 OR (more likely) #2) The USAF is stupid, Idiot's forgot what the mission IS here... I have to ask, why would you remain in an organization that you feel that way about? That seems to me like an act of desperation or lunacy. I can only make one of two assumptions, well, three if you count the lunacy piece. 1. You have a lot of commitment left, in which case you are kind of stuck with the organization for a while - but that means that you are young and are complaining about things that you have no idea about except what you pick up on the internet and the LPA...no foul. 2. You had a chance to escape the madhouse, and instead of going in the direction that is right for you and yours, you elected to stay in and complain in an attempt to make everyone share in your misery...foul. Here's the big picture problem....the AF had turned into an idiocracy and thus only promotes idiots. It has gone full circle: there was a time where all the good dudes got promoted and moved up. Somewhere along the way, an idiot squeaked past the goalie and then began the degradation. Problem where facing now is that smart, good people have a "stronger scent" than idiots do, and thus are the ones getting "deodorized.". The idiots are afraid of the smart/good people and are forcing them out. But then again, just my opinion. Maybe I'm the idiot... Same as the above post. Why would you be part of that organization?
sweet I'm SOF Posted October 17, 2012 Posted October 17, 2012 Wrong dude. The PRF system is super broken and AFPC crunches numbers to see how many of each AFSC they want projected at X timeframe. So, if they are like, "Oh shit we are going to have waaaay too many 11M2X or 11M1X O-3s meeting the FY12 board and subsequently the O-4 board..." then they cut them. Unfortunately, 11M means C-5, C-17, C-130, KC-10, KC-135, and a few others that I doubt many Lts fly. They don't care what airframe/base they come from, they just need to shrink the general numbers. This is why some units get hit harder because usually a commander didn't do such a great job at sending quality paperwork. Also reason for some units of the same airframe being undermanned while others are overmanned. Same generally goes for a RIF. So, again, for dudes who only have training reports going to a board, missing a training report can totally ###### you over because there is a gap in your very short duty history. Instead of fixing the problem or digging deeper, they just put it in the DNP pile to make their job easier. Makes it even worse if there are very few easy cuts; people with UIFs. Oh, AND if promotions were completely equal across the board for line-officers of all types, then aircrew would be at an even bigger disadvantage because the board also has shoeclerks who won't give two shits about what your flght-based training report has to say about you as an officer. What does talk to shoeclerks is how nice and neat your records are and OPRs that don't have operations bullets which remind them they wouldn't have a job without you. Do you know who is "crunching the numbers" at AFPC? It is your functional for your AFSC. I think there might be about 10% truth in your post. I'm being liberal. As far as the importance of the training report, you are missing the point. The majority of folks did not have a missing training report and were promoted. We are picking on this one circumstance of a missing training report. There are thousands of other circumstances. You know how the board looks at a missing training report, when the vast majority of promotion candidates are not missing training reports. Well, maybe you don't - it is not good. And it is not good for the rest of your career - which is why your wing commander harps on you to pay attention to your records. As it turns out, the members of the board have probably had one or two folks in a squadron or group that they were commanding in the past that did not have their records squared away. Better than nine times out of ten, those individuals did not have a lot of other things squared away. And so the board members are sitting there with a going in mindset of what they have experienced in the past. That does not bode well for someone who's records are not correct. So, you can either tell someone on the internet who is telling you that they were not promoted because they were missing a training report that it is not their fault and they need to go through several processes in order to right the ship, which will likely not have any effect on the outcome, or you can give them the perspective of the decision makers. It's the internet, so anything is correct I guess. I prefer to take the opportunity to explain to the broader audience what I believe the organization is looking for. I realize that this makes me the devil, but appeals and waivers and inquiries and so on and so forth take up a lot of time. We are busy right now executing the mission. Do us "idiots" a favor and make sure that your flight commanders and NCOICs know the importance of an individual's records being correct.
ThreeHoler Posted October 17, 2012 Posted October 17, 2012 You really need to take a class on effective communication. 1
Guest Posted October 17, 2012 Posted October 17, 2012 ...you are missing the point. Nope. You are. The very simple. The majority of folks did not have a missing training report and were promoted. You don't know that. There are thousands of other circumstances. Thousands? Really? For an O-3 board? Right. Better than nine times out of ten, those individuals did not have a lot of other things squared away. Get a clue. The context of the conversation is Lt pilots getting passed over coming right out of FTU. Whatever queep they have that is not squared away is grossly overshadowed by their significant accomplishments. Those accomplishments automatically put them in a top 5% grouping which means an auto-promote by exception to O-3 so the nation can get some return for the allocation of her treasure. And so the board members are sitting there with a going in mindset of what they have experienced in the past. That does not bode well for someone who's records are not correct. No shit. That is both the point and the fucking problem. Welcome to yesterday, Sarge.
sweet I'm SOF Posted October 17, 2012 Posted October 17, 2012 Nope. You are. The very simple. You don't know that. Thousands? Really? For an O-3 board? Right. Get a clue. The context of the conversation is Lt pilots getting passed over coming right out of FTU. Whatever queep they have that is not squared away is grossly overshadowed by their significant accomplishments. Those accomplishments automatically put them in a top 5% grouping which means an auto-promote by exception to O-3 so the nation can get some return for the allocation of her treasure. No shit. That is both the point and the ######ing problem. Welcome to yesterday, Sarge. You are retired, I am not. You do not have to execute the mission, I do. I think I can safely assume that you are not currently in command of a combat unit at any echelon. You might have been in command, but not now. And a warm welcome to yesterday to you, internet poster.
SurelySerious Posted October 17, 2012 Posted October 17, 2012 You are retired, I am not. It's too bad you aren't. 2
Fuzz Posted October 17, 2012 Posted October 17, 2012 You are retired, I am not. You do not have to execute the mission, I do. I think I can safely assume that you are not currently in command of a combat unit at any echelon. You might have been in command, but not now. And a warm welcome to yesterday to you, internet poster. We can only hope you aren't in command of anything either. Good god man how naive/low SA do you have to have to call Rainman a retired guy that knows nothing? I may be just a dumb LT but even I'm smart enough to know just cause he isn't in anymore doesn't mean he forgot everything and from what I gather he has many friends who are still AD.
sweet I'm SOF Posted October 17, 2012 Posted October 17, 2012 I'm curious as to what mission that is. It seems you have a great deal of time on your hands since you argue with virtually anything and everything anyone says on here... I have 40 posts. Including this one. We can only hope you aren't in command of anything either. Good god man how naive/low SA do you have to have to call Rainman a retired guy that knows nothing? I may be just a dumb LT but even I'm smart enough to know just cause he isn't in anymore doesn't mean he forgot everything and from what I gather he has many friends who are still AD. There are a thousand Rainmans. You've made the mistake of believing everything you read on the internet....literally, real time. You are an Lt, and you have room and time to grow. You need a couple of decades to get there though. Retirees, while sometimes welcomed at functions...do not run the military. Maybe an internet forum, but not the military. If you are a flyer, you had better be in the vault. And you had better understand what the threat is and how to counter. That changes daily. A retiree does not have SA on that, no matter how much he or she has or has not forgotten. You seem to be going off track here. That worries me.
Fuzz Posted October 17, 2012 Posted October 17, 2012 (edited) I have no idea how being retired means you don't have the SA to call bullshit on this situation, but then again much of what you post doesn't make sense. Edited October 17, 2012 by Scaredfuzz21
whodat Posted October 17, 2012 Posted October 17, 2012 3 main points. 1. Don't feed the troll. 2. sweet I'm SOF: Lets assume you are actually are in some command position. If this is true I have 3 things to say; 1) Thank god im not in your unit and I feel sorry for the people in your command. 2) If you spent a little less time on a pointless internet forum and more time focused on your people or "doing the mission" you keep saying then maybe the AF would be a slightly better organization; but given your communication skills and rationale I seriously doubt it. 3) Just because a dude is retired doesn't mean he doesn't have a wealth of knowledge to share. 3. I just fed the troll. ######. 1
10percenttruth Posted October 17, 2012 Posted October 17, 2012 I have 40 posts. I have no idea who or what the threat actually is, but by god what I'm saying is gospel truth and you'd better believe it. But don't make the mistake of believing everything you read on the internet. You are an Lt, and know nothing. I'm an FOG who may have known something once, but learned the entirely wrong lessons from my life & career, which i now perpetuate on my subordinates, because, ###### em if they cant take it. I love queep. you had better be in the vault, to the exclusion of all else, but if your PRF dates are off, I'd rather waste millions firing you than contemplating how my style of cheifership caused this problem. You seem to not buy wholeheartedly into my asinine world view. That worries me. FIFY You spout some of the most mind-bogglingly myopic leadership wisdom I have ever heard. The inference that you are in a position of power with this maxwell kool-aid tinted view of how the force works worries me.
Fuzz Posted October 17, 2012 Posted October 17, 2012 FIFY You have too much time on your hands but well done.
Cap-10 Posted October 17, 2012 Posted October 17, 2012 Isn't his new IPZ based on his DOR to O-4, so it's still technically APZ compared to his commissioning year group? You are correct...he is (and will be) a year behind his original commissioning year group...just trying to show that a flyer that got picked up above the zone to O-4, still competed and selected to O-5 during his IPZ look. Cheers, Cap-10
Guest Posted October 17, 2012 Posted October 17, 2012 You do not have to execute the mission, I do. "Execute the mission"...Cool. Sounds like you are probably pretty important. And tough. The hard nosed steely eyed mission executor kind of tough, which I freely admit is impressive to old retired guys like me. So anyway Sarge, can you explain to me how that has the square root of fuck all to do with this discussion or how that is relevant to the topic at hand? I think I can safely assume that you are not currently in command of a combat unit at any echelon. Rest assured, you are totally safe to assume that, Sarge. Help me out here, are you implying that you are in command of a combat unit at some echelon? I only ask because it seems like you are more of an NCO kind of guy by the way you talk. At some echelon? Who talks like that, anyway, Sarge? Again, relevance to this discussion? You might have been in command... LOL Again, who cares right? Not sure why you want to get into a dick measuring contest about who commanded what and who killed the most people when we're talking about this fucked up situation wrt promotion boards passing aviators over for promotion before they even become full up MR contributor toward your vital combat mission. So...relevance? BTW, there are some connections to the topic and your ability to "execute the mission." You would definintely know what they were if you were a commander of a combat fighter unit "at any echelon." The fact that you cannot seem to make those connections is why you are getting so much push back on your comments, Sarge.
Kilgore Trout Posted October 17, 2012 Posted October 17, 2012 I enjoy that training reports are the linchpin. I hope that the promotion board doesn't find out that they're canned and reused for every single UPT graduate in every single class. Just print out the MASS list and go from #1 to #bottom, open the "Training Report Bullets" spreadsheet, find the bullets that line up to number 3 or whoever, and copy paste them in to the training report... #1 guy gets: "Will be an outstanding asset to gaining squadron", #Last guy gets "Will be an above average performer for gaining squadron" ... You know, so it doesn't appear that anyone received wings that shouldn't have. It's amazing the promotion board is intelligent/prescient enough to read that BS and make a decision about someone's worthiness to make O-3. Must be some smart dudes.
frog Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 I really don't buy the "shoe clerks are out to get us" sentiments related to this promotion board. Somebody came up with some really dumb ideas to implement this board, and it unintentionally hurt the younger flyers in a bad way . Leadership needs to recognize this and give a free pass to flyers without a UIF on the next captain board due to the training pipeline requirements. End of story...really not very complicated. I really don't have a suggestion for the guys that got hosed on this board...that really sucks. 1
DC Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 I enjoy that training reports are the linchpin. I hope that the promotion board doesn't find out that they're canned and reused for every single UPT graduate in every single class. Just print out the MASS list and go from #1 to #bottom, open the "Training Report Bullets" spreadsheet, find the bullets that line up to number 3 or whoever, and copy paste them in to the training report... #1 guy gets: "Will be an outstanding asset to gaining squadron", #Last guy gets "Will be an above average performer for gaining squadron" ... You know, so it doesn't appear that anyone received wings that shouldn't have. It's amazing the promotion board is intelligent/prescient enough to read that BS and make a decision about someone's worthiness to make O-3. Must be some smart dudes. Mostly canned. But not entirely. Not anymore. All the above is still on there, don't worry. But because of the O-3 board we're now adding bullets that describe how many times they helped change out the nav kits or how many times they watched dudes pee for drug tests, etc. If you think asking a brand new co-pilot w/ "120 days" under you to give you bullets sucks try writing them for UPT students. It took us two whole classes to come up with canned bullets to add to the canned paragraphs that were already there. I'd complain that the new queep added to the 475s is pointless....but apparently is isn't! Lt Peter peeked at 169 dudes during drug tests, Lt Johnson peeked at 168. Lt Peter, congrats, you've made O-3. Lt Johnson, you should've peeked a little closer, good luck APZ.
17D_guy Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 truth truth truth..... Leadership needs to recognize this and give a free pass to flyers without a UIF on the next captain board due to the training pipeline requirements...... But that's not fair to us support folks!
Jughead Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) As far as the importance of the training report, you are missing the point. The majority of folks did not have a missing training report and were promoted. The point is not that these lieutenants were missing training reports (though some undoubtedly were; different topic). The point is that, due to the realities of the training pipeline and the way training reports in lieu of OPRs work, many newly-minted aviators simply don't have an OPR by the time they meet their O-3 board*. The board evidently treated a lack of an OPR as a "missing" OPR, without looking at all for a reason. Huge foul. Huge waste, as Rainman said--and inexcusable. *the existence of such a board is ridiculous; again, different topic EDIT: Clarity Edited October 18, 2012 by Jughead
sweet I'm SOF Posted October 21, 2012 Posted October 21, 2012 The point is not that these lieutenants were missing training reports (though some undoubtedly were; different topic). The point is that, due to the realities of the training pipeline and the way training reports in lieu of OPRs work, many newly-minted aviators simply don't have an OPR by the time they meet their O-3 board*. The board evidently treated a lack of an OPR as a "missing" OPR, without looking at all for a reason. Huge foul. Huge waste, as Rainman said--and inexcusable. *the existence of such a board is ridiculous; again, different topic EDIT: Clarity I think the kid had a missing training report according to his posts. He needs to have his records squared away. He does not need to be coddled. His supervisor should have taken the time to ensure that his subordinate's records are good to go. If his supervisor cannot cut that, he needs to go. All of the excuses on an internet forum, unfortunately, do not keep you from being passed over or force shaped. It is more than being good in the jet. It is certainly more than wanting to be left alone and not being "cheifed." Take care of your people.
sweet I'm SOF Posted October 21, 2012 Posted October 21, 2012 "Execute the mission"...Cool. Sounds like you are probably pretty important. And tough. The hard nosed steely eyed mission executor kind of tough, which I freely admit is impressive to old retired guys like me. So anyway Sarge, can you explain to me how that has the square root of ###### all to do with this discussion or how that is relevant to the topic at hand? Rest assured, you are totally safe to assume that, Sarge. Help me out here, are you implying that you are in command of a combat unit at some echelon? I only ask because it seems like you are more of an NCO kind of guy by the way you talk. At some echelon? Who talks like that, anyway, Sarge? Again, relevance to this discussion? LOL Again, who cares right? Not sure why you want to get into a dick measuring contest about who commanded what and who killed the most people when we're talking about this ######ed up situation wrt promotion boards passing aviators over for promotion before they even become full up MR contributor toward your vital combat mission. So...relevance? BTW, there are some connections to the topic and your ability to "execute the mission." You would definintely know what they were if you were a commander of a combat fighter unit "at any echelon." The fact that you cannot seem to make those connections is why you are getting so much push back on your comments, Sarge. I guess the relevance is, is that I was not getting into a dick measuring contest, I was providing a correct vector. Who said anything about who killed the most people? To quote you, are you drunk or something? Additionally, the relevance is, you are not active duty, you are retired. Commanders do not defer to retirees to make decisions. Retirees are not responsible for command authority. If you are arguing that, I assert that you are doing damage on an internet forum where young officers and enlisted log in to seek advice - however perilous that might be. If your intent is to attempt to persuade USAF officers on an internet forum as a retiree by taking advantage of their lack of experience and building yourself up into some kind of relevant actor based on your dated experience, we have a problem.
JPStryker Posted October 21, 2012 Posted October 21, 2012 He needs to have his records squared away. His supervisor should have taken the time to ensure that his subordinate's records are good to go. If his supervisor cannot cut that, he needs to go. Unrealistic expectation for someone that is still in a FTU or not MR yet. Focus needs to be on more important things. I would bet if you were in similar circumstances at that point in your career, you would be oblivious to how your records met the board as well. As for supervisors, if we get rid of every AF supervisor that fails to look out for their subordinates' best interests, we would be a lean force indeed. Additionally, most first level supervisors cannot even access their subordinates' records. The responsibility falls on the SQ/CC, most of whom I'm sure are cursing this ludicrous process and are, apparently, unable to afford it the attention it demands.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now