New SOS in-correspondence

[17D_guy]

The problem won't be directing the boards to not consider AAD. The problem is that your Sq/CC to Wg/CC will know your AAD status and you can expect to be racked and stacked accordingly. Since 90% of OPRs look the same, there are only a few ways to determine who gets the number one strat. Until we find a way to get supervisors to give honest and critical feedback then board instructions will not matter. Seems to me that most CCs would rather write OPRs using the secret decoder ring and let the boards act as the anonymous bad guy than deliver the news personally that a member isn't making the cut.

Yep, just submitted the Excel form for rack/stack at my location. Had SOS Corr, PT scores, and Master's Status. Then a small block for DG and/or other awards. My CC, a good dude, told me I was "behind my peers" since I hadn't finished SOS yet (pinned Capt on Jun 13). Been hammering out a non-Internet Masters. Think I'll keep doing that, and kicking ass at job vs PME corr.

If getting the fake-PME done a year later is going to keep me from O4.. that's fine. The AF gets what it selects.

[Tonka]

He also said you will not be allowed to do IDE in correspondence and residence... He did not address the issue of candidates completing correspondence in order to be competitive for residence.

Logically you would not be able to complete correspondence to be competitive for residence if you are barred from doing both... You would either complete correspondence early and eliminate yourself from the potential of residence or you wait until midnight after your last look to register and try to complete it before all of your non-selected peers.

Things will not improve by changing the rules, they will improve when it is no longer a game.

[Tnkr]

If getting the fake-PME done a year later is going to keep me from O4.. that's fine. The AF gets what it selects.

You can either get a fake masters or a fake pme. Your choice.

[Champ Kind]

One of the big points they have pitched on this is that PME above SOS will be accredited for a Masters (distance and residence), so if you complete the appropriate PME, your degree requirement will be fulfilled.

So how long until the rack and stack reflects that you didn't obtain an AF-sponsored Masters/AAD program, instead of simply completing an AAD and ACSC via correspondence?

You would either complete correspondence early and eliminate yourself from the potential of residence or you wait until midnight after your last look to register and try to complete it before all of your non-selected peers.

Things will not improve by changing the rules, they will improve when it is no longer a game.

If they make it to where IDE via correspondence counts as much as/the same as going in residence, I could care less.

It'll never happen though. Too many people have profited from the current system to just let it go.

[ram02]

So how long until the rack and stack reflects that you didn't obtain an AF-sponsored Masters/AAD program, instead of simply completing an AAD and ACSC via correspondence?

Reminds me of a MSgt I had working for me. She had a master's degree completed before entering the military, yet was still required to complete her CCAF to obtain senior rater endorsement.

[hispeed7721]

Reminds me of a MSgt I had working for me. She had a master's degree completed before entering the military, yet was still required to complete her CCAF to obtain senior rater endorsement.

We've got a SrA in this situation with a bachelors degree. The box checking is just plain ridiculous

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Seriously]

Lazy leadership.... It's disgusting really.

[FBomb]

Perhaps we should change the name of this thread to "New PME in-competence."

[one1]

We've got a SrA in this situation with a bachelors degree. The box checking is just plain ridiculous

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This makes sense for a SrA because a CCAF has OJT and skill level requirements but I am not sure how this can be possible for a MSgt with a Master's degree. You only need 15 "real" college credits that are general education which would almost certainly be included from the MSgt's undergraduate general education. The CCAF has ridiculous requirements, so I guess it doesn't surprise me that much.

You have to complete a speech class as a requirement to get your CCAF. I had two 400 level speech classes and a 500 level speech class at a good university. The 500 level class was a course that required you to lecture your thesis in front of a few hundred people. I sent in the syllabi of these courses to the CCAF and they said that I had to take a 101 level speech course. I enrolled in an online course taught by the prestigious Clovis Community College. That set me back $91 of my own hard earned money. I recorded three speeches and promptly received my CCAF diploma in the mail 7 months later.

$91 is too much to pay for a CCAF degree.

Edited February 25, 2014 by one1

[Azimuth]

We've got a SrA in this situation with a bachelors degree. The box checking is just plain ridiculous

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Enlisted educational world is a 180 from the Officer one. You could have a PhD, however the SMSgt/CMSgt board looks at a CCAF in "your career field" as more board points than a undergrad in Aeronautical Engineering. Most people who enlist with a degree for some reason are required to take a speech class to finish their CCAF. A lot of them refuse on the grounds they are pissed that their undergrad/grad degree doesn't just award them a CCAF. If you don't have a CCAF/PME done by your first TIG eligible EPR as a MSgt, you won't get the Senior Rater Endorsement. Without that, good luck at getting a decent board score to be competitive for SMSgt.

Some of the box checking from the Officer world is spilling over in the Enlisted world. From signing up for the easiest undergrad/grad degree from a for-profit school to knocking out PME as early as possible to send a "positive" message to the board.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Azimuth

[Liquid]

Many here on this forum have a false sense of the quality of officers we promote in the top 20% (school selects to Maj), and BPZ to Lt Col. Many argue that only party planners, burger flippers, box checkers and execs get the good paper and strats. The top 20% records I've seen, including hundreds at the last Lt Col MLR, had instructor, evaluator, combat, weapons school, command and DG at FTUs. The exec only, careerist officer is easily spotted and appropriately dinged. Strats are not the most important discriminator.

Most of the criticism rattled off here at BODN describes the great pilot with golden hands, long mustache, high combat time and natural leadership abilities that gets screwed by the shoe commander who values early PME completion and bake sales over skill in the jet or ability to lead a crew. Bullshit. The harsh reality is that there are a large number of ing squared away operators who dominate the top 20% and knock out mediocre, non-conformist crybabies who rationalize their low strats and weak push lines with an overinflated sense of how good they think they are in the jet or with a crew or how effective they think they will be in the joint, staff or senior leader world. From what I've seen at boards, MLRs and thousands of records and PRFs, the bottom 15-20% are the no shit bottom. Nothing personal, I'm sure there are good people below the line, but you have to draw the line somewhere and we tend to get it right much more often than we get it wrong. We value job performance and we document it in the formal record. The biggest challenge is telling the top 20-50% crowd they aren't as talented as they think they are.

Do your ing PME, in time and stop encouraging young officers to blow it off because you think it is stupid.

We should promote by AFSC. LAF grouping doesn't meet our specific leadership requirements. No need I compare a comptroller squadron commander to a flight lead. If we do this, more good pilots will be passed over and will miss the school cutoff, but we will promote experience we need.

Fire away, I appreciate the no holds barred honesty and flight level perspective.

Edit for gramer

Edited February 25, 2014 by Liquid

[ThreeHoler]

Question: why did it take a RIF [currently on hold] to require SR strats from #1 to #last? Instead, I have to guess if my push line is good, bad, or if my rather is just an idiot and doesn't know how to strat/push people.

I know [with decent confidence] that I fall somewhere between the top 20% and bottom 20%...but I don't know fuckall beyond that broad range...I'd love to know where I really stand WRT my peers.

[Liquid]

Question: why did it take a RIF [currently on hold] to require SR strats from #1 to #last? Instead, I have to guess if my push line is good, bad, or if my rather is just an idiot and doesn't know how to strat/push people.

I know [with decent confidence] that I fall somewhere between the top 20% and bottom 20%...but I don't know ######all beyond that broad range...I'd love to know where I really stand WRT my peers.

Ask your senior rater or another Col. I stratified my DPs and the top 50% of my Ps so the officers I rated knew exactly where their records ranked in relation to their peers and why.

[nsplayr]

Liquid,

AFSOC, and from what I hear other MAJCOMS, have an unspoken but well known policy of not sending anyone to SOS in residence if they have not completed the correspondence course. Why is this? Why did this policy arrise in the first place? I can't make any logical sense of how that decision was made other than using the DL course as a "test of commitment" to big blue. Am I supposed to gain something from that course that is not gained in residence?

Beyond worrying about the past, I now have a direct quote from the CSAF telling people like my younger peers not to do practice bleeding. If you are a WG/CC again at Cannon or Hurlburt, would you be willing to send someone who has not completed DL to the in-res course? The current leaders of 1 & 27 SOWs apparently still say no. Why do you think this is still going on when the vector from CSAF seems pretty clear?

More on topic with your last post, I can tell from my year group and those IVO my own who will likely be a school select and thus compete to be future AFSOC squadron commanders. Some of those people are absolutely the best and have it all...I'd follow them anywhere. Great leaders, smart, all the right jobs and boxes and excellent in the seat so to speak. Others...not so much...paper tigers if you will. SQ/CC loved them as an LT or very young Captain, got early strats and upgrades and maybe worked a OG exec gig here or there. But ask any bro flying the line in the squadron and they'll immediately PID that some of those folks are average at best and often not even that. Future ineffective or even toxic commanders.

How do we keep the parts of our promotion and advancement system that are picking the real winners but enact enough reform to pump the breaks on my above-described paper tigers? I want to see the best of my peers be my boss one day and I want those future mistakes stopped now before they are a school select and thus mostly unstoppable on their rise.

I vote for the 360 feedback you said GOs we're doing and come up with a way that senior raters see those numbers. Too often I've seen flight commanders and shop chiefs give honest feedback to the squadron CC on paper tigers only to see the final-form OPR still includes sky-high strats that they, the front-line supervisors, believe are not warranted.

BTW I agree that many complaints here don't reflect what I've seen in my career, but in my little world paper tigers are a big problem for the future of my community and I'm worried too many of the great dudes will punch before they have a chance to make a big impact as a CC someday. PME should and will get done my almost all and the sooner we get on the CSAF's anti-practice bleeding, MA-not-required, job performance-based evaluations and strats the better.

Thanks for engaging.

[hispeed7721]

Experience

Experience

Thanks guys, I appreciate the schooling on the subject. I'm still trying to figure out some of the intricacies and oddities of the E-side of the house

We should promote by AFSC

TRUTH

[ram02]

This makes sense for a SrA because a CCAF has OJT and skill level requirements but I am not sure how this can be possible for a MSgt with a Master's degree. You only need 15 "real" college credits that are general education which would almost certainly be included from the MSgt's undergraduate general education. The CCAF has ridiculous requirements, so I guess it doesn't surprise me that much.

You have to complete a speech class as a requirement to get your CCAF. I had two 400 level speech classes and a 500 level speech class at a good university. The 500 level class was a course that required you to lecture your thesis in front of a few hundred people. I sent in the syllabi of these courses to the CCAF and they said that I had to take a 101 level speech course. I enrolled in an online course taught by the prestigious Clovis Community College. That set me back $91 of my own hard earned money. I recorded three speeches and promptly received my CCAF diploma in the mail 7 months later.

$91 is too much to pay for a CCAF degree.

Checks. IIRC, she also had to take a speech class to receive the prestigious, be-all, end-all CCAF degree.

[Liquid]

AFSOC, and from what I hear other MAJCOMS, have an unspoken but well known policy of not sending anyone to SOS in residence if they have not completed the correspondence course. Why is this? Why did this policy arrise in the first place? I can't make any logical sense of how that decision was made other than using the DL course as a "test of commitment" to big blue. Am I supposed to gain something from that course that is not gained in residence?

BTW I agree that many complaints here don't reflect what I've seen in my career, but in my little world paper tigers are a big problem for the future of my community and I'm worried too many of the great dudes will punch before they have a chance to make a big impact as a CC someday. PME should and will get done my almost all and the sooner we get on the CSAF's anti-practice bleeding, MA-not-required, job performance-based evaluations and strats the better.

Agree. The no SOS in correspondence policy should be out soon.

Great dudes need to gut it out, stay in in spite of the bullshit, and make a difference with contrarian and effective leadership. Lead the way you should lead, regardless of the consequences. We are ed if they all get out because it is hard.

[pcola]

Great dudes need to gut it out, stay in in spite of the bullshit, and make a difference with contrarian and effective leadership. Lead the way you should lead, regardless of the consequences. We are fucked if they all get out because it is hard.

Disclaimer up front - I'm not one of the "great ones," so really, WTF do I know?

You said you appreciate the flight level perspective. I can give you the Wing level perspective, having been at AMC's largest wing for almost 5 years with jobs at the OG and Wg levels: The great dudes aren't getting out because it's hard. They are getting out because they are capable of recognizing the zugzwang. The great dudes that I've known see right through the box checking bullshit and call it for what it is: a system doomed for failure. I know a guy that somehow came out as a select without a single credit hour of Master's work done. Subsequently, he was told he had to do IDE correspondence and get a box checking Masters or he'd miss out on IDE "opportunities" and end up at ACSC on the 3rd look. He obligingly started TUI and dropped after one semester because it was a ridiculous waste of time. He's now a reservist and a Southwest pilot. That is just one story of dozens (just those who I personally know) where the ridiculous nature of the AF queep are driving dudes out the door. As has been pointed out on here many times, this system is a self-feeding fire. You can't hope to get into a position to change it without getting burnt along the way. None of the great ones are afraid of hard work, but most are smart enough to recognize a losing hand and fold before betting the house.

[NotADude]

We are ######ed if they all get out because it is hard.

Not this,

None of the great ones are afraid of hard work, but most are smart enough to recognize a losing hand and fold before betting the house.

but this.^

What's the payoff after another 10 years deploying and not seeing the family? To parlay experience into a 6-figure public speaking tour? Pass. Also, if the generals currently running the show can't improve things, do I have to wait to be a 4-star before I can make a difference? Cost-benefit analysis leaning heavily toward cost...

[AFsock]

AFSOC, and from what I hear other MAJCOMS, have an unspoken but well known policy of not sending anyone to SOS in residence if they have not completed the correspondence course. Why is this? Why did this policy arrise in the first place? I can't make any logical sense of how that decision was made other than using the DL course as a "test of commitment" to big blue. Am I supposed to gain something from that course that is not gained in residence?

OG/CC out here said do not bother with correspondance. It will not have any impact on who he choses for residence. Now that doesn't speak for the rest of the command and can change as fast as the CC... but there ya go. Depends on your boss.

Edited February 25, 2014 by AFsock

[HossHarris]

I am certainly not defending practice bleeding, but one of the reasons to do IDE and SDE in correspondence, even as a select, was to be more competitive for a NON-Maxwell residence program (go to a real university, naval post grad, foreign IDE/SDE, etc).

Obviously not applicable to SOS.

[pawnman]

So how long until the rack and stack reflects that you didn't obtain an AF-sponsored Masters/AAD program, instead of simply completing an AAD and ACSC via correspondence?

If they make it to where IDE via correspondence counts as much as/the same as going in residence, I could care less.

It'll never happen though. Too many people have profited from the current system to just let it go.

Bingo. Make correspondence the same as residence, then Maxwell moves itself firmly into the crosshairs for budget cuts. Why keep the schools open when I can run an on-line only program for half the cost?

[pcola]

Bingo. Make correspondence the same as residence, then Maxwell moves itself firmly into the crosshairs for budget cuts. Why keep the schools open when I can run an on-line only program for half the cost?

Best idea yet. Go to 100% online. Then allow the select few to do the small schools programs or AFIT for the tech types. Save boatloads while still developing that next CSAF.

[Karl Hungus]

The harsh reality is that there are a large number of fucking squared away operators who dominate the top 20% and knock out mediocre, non-conformist crybabies who rationalize their low strats and weak push lines with an overinflated sense of how good they think they are in the jet or with a crew or how effective they think they will be in the joint, staff or senior leader world.

We should promote by AFSC. LAF grouping doesn't meet our specific leadership requirements. No need I compare a comptroller squadron commander to a flight lead. If we do this, more good pilots will be passed over and will miss the school cutoff, but we will promote experience we need.

What about the top 20% who are fleeing at their first opportunity? Are they "non-conformists" as well? I hope that's not really what you meant... having senior managers who value conformity is a troubling thought.

As for promoting by AFSC... been saying that for years. At a minimum, rated and non-rated promotions should be separate through the O-5 level. FEFs part of promotion packages. AADs not just masked, but eliminated from tracking by any AF system until you pin on O-5. Officers ineligible for TA. Simple fixes that would get a lot of fence sitters to re-think their plans.

Great dudes need to gut it out, stay in in spite of the bullshit, and make a difference with contrarian and effective leadership. Lead the way you should lead, regardless of the consequences. We are fucked if they all get out because it is hard.

This sounds a lot like the "have you thought about service before self?" line people get on their way out the door. Even the most promising CSAF in a generation hasn't been able to fix a lot of this service's problems... but sure, stay in and play the game and maybe you can change things in 10-15 years.

[Bobby]

FEFs part of promotion packages.

Absolutely big furcking 2 on this. Definitely helps tell a tale of the CSAF's "job performance matters" mantra. Including FEF details can/will help weed out those pepper grinding a$$ clowns that can't fly the jet...you know their "primary duty".