Promotion and PRF Information

[tac airlifter]

4 hours ago, panchbarnes said:

Some really solid points in this article, should be required reading for all FOGOs

Not Every Officer Wants to Be a General

https://www.wsj.com/articles/not-every-officer-wants-to-be-a-general-11558390890

 

Can you post the article?  Link requires subscription.  Thanks

[panchbarnes]

Not Every Officer Wants to Be a General

Allowing service members to pursue different career paths would ease the strain on military families.

Kate Bachelder Odell

May 20, 2019 6:21 p.m. ET

A chronic problem has attracted bipartisan attention recently: Military spouses have trouble finding work or developing careers. Karen Pence, the vice president’s wife, has devoted much of her public profile to helping military spouses. Sens. Tom Cotton and Jeanne Shaheen have introduced a bill that aims to make it easier for military spouses to transfer occupational licenses across state lines, which would mitigate one hassle of moving. But the real problem is a military assignment system that is managed like a game of musical chairs.

A White House Council of Economic Advisers report diagnoses the headache for those married to service members: America’s 690,000 military spouses, mostly women, are roughly twice as likely to be unemployed as the rest of the civilian workforce. The rate of underemployment is worse. These trends persist even though military spouses tend to be more educated than the general workforce—some 40% have a college degree. So why do military spouses disproportionately end up in licensed trades such as cosmetology? Why are nursing and teaching common choices? Because they’re among the few careers the military lifestyle can accommodate.

In my years as a Navy wife, my employer has made accommodations for my spouse’s inflexible location. Most don’t have this luxury. Corporations are periodically called on to “do more” for military spouses, but companies that hire military spouses know that there is a high risk they won’t stick around as long as typical employees. Tax credits wouldn’t change that.

The real problem is how the military shuffles service members through various jobs and locations, which can be more of a box-checking exercise than a process that cultivates talent and skills. Spouses are along for the ride, and that means frequently having to build new career networks, which over time erodes earning potential.

Some 90% of more than 1,200 spouses surveyed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation reported moving farther than 50 miles at least once for their partner’s career. More than a third reported four or more moves. About half who had moved said they had less than three months to prepare. This is expensive for the government, and there’s reason to wonder whether it’s necessary.

Military assignments are managed through a centralized process where large personnel outfits are “just trying to match names against available billets, and almost always not knowing the people individually,” says Tim Kane, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution who served as an Air Force intelligence officer. This top-down process can only minimally incorporate a service member’s personal preferences, never mind a spouse’s career.

Mr. Kane summed up the problem to Congress last year. The military is composed of volunteers who are dealt with more like conscripts, he said. Every young officer is treated as an aspiring general or admiral, and thus is pushed into an “ideal” set of jobs with rigid timing for promotion, without respect to competing priorities, like a wife’s job or kids who don’t want to go to a new high school every year.

Mr. Kane tells me he’s known of people who “will terminate their careers early because the Air Force or the Marines won’t tell them, ‘You know what? if you don’t want to become a general, and you just want to stay at whatever base it is for the next four years, we’ll let you.’ ”

The services know these dynamics are contributing to retention problems, and the branches have been slowly starting to experiment with different career tracks for, say, pilots, where talent shortages are pronounced. Congress last year offered the branches flexibility to reform an “up or out” system that requires officers to promote through the ranks or leave the service, among other good reforms pioneered by Mr. Kane.

Mr. Kane’s other recommendations include allowing local commanding officers to conduct interviews. Another important change would be tailored promotion and compensation, which would align the assignment process with a service member’s personal—and familial—preferences.

Yet the problem is also cultural. One Navy pilot unloaded about the service’s retention problems in Proceedings, the U.S. Naval Institute’s magazine, last year, and he hit on something: Those in charge of making changes have often been those whose careers have proceeded smoothly.

As he put it: “Every admiral to whom I’ve spoken has had an impressive career. But the common thread in all of their careers is that they never have lost or been exposed to the other side of the processes. For an overwhelming majority of them, the system has worked, so the processes must be good.”

The Pentagon hasn’t had a Senate-confirmed undersecretary for personnel and readiness since Robert Wilkie left the post in 2018 to become secretary of veterans affairs. The position has no nominee, and a good one would be someone who hasn’t spent a career marinating in the military’s culture. Anyone who takes on the massive task of reform will face bureaucratic resistance. He’ll need air support from the civil-society groups seeking better prospects for military spouses.

Fixing these dysfunctions will be essential if the military is to compete for talent in society in which fewer appear interested in signing up. An untold number of Americans never consider the military because of the crazy transience it requires. That’s regrettable.

Mrs. Odell is an editorial writer for the Journal.

Appeared in the May 21, 2019, print edition.

[FLEA]

I would say my wife's inability to hold a career is probably the single biggest motivating factor to me getting out. Even financially, when you run the numbers, adding a meaningful income to anything you make in the military is going to out weigh any bonus offers, etc.... and then there is the whole effect on spouses mental health. The feeling that they lack contribution to society or identity. The fact that they are only known as "Capt So-and-so's Wife" instead of by their name. And the fact that the Military keeps trying to push this creepy 1950s family model that relegated them to the home when they are better educated than their peers. 

[Shazaam]

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

I would say my wife's inability to hold a career is probably the single biggest motivating factor to me getting out. Even financially, when you run the numbers, adding a meaningful income to anything you make in the military is going to out weigh any bonus offers, etc.... and then there is the whole effect on spouses mental health. The feeling that they lack contribution to society or identity. The fact that they are only known as "Capt So-and-so's Wife" instead of by their name. And the fact that the Military keeps trying to push this creepy 1950s family model that relegated them to the home when they are better educated than their peers. 

So true. I'm not even married. I have had CC's ask why my old lady doesn't follow me around. Because she has a great job in engineering. Then I get a puzzled look from them. I say she makes a lot of money 💰 and I leave it at that.

[MechGov]

Honestly am surprised it took this long.  Seems like most people on here are ignoring the bizarre posting though.

Don’t feed the trolls

[gearhog]

11 hours ago, FLEA said:

I would say my wife's inability to hold a career is probably the single biggest motivating factor to me getting out. Even financially, when you run the numbers, adding a meaningful income to anything you make in the military is going to out weigh any bonus offers, etc.... and then there is the whole effect on spouses mental health. The feeling that they lack contribution to society or identity. The fact that they are only known as "Capt So-and-so's Wife" instead of by their name. And the fact that the Military keeps trying to push this creepy 1950s family model that relegated them to the home when they are better educated than their peers. 

You nailed it. On AD with my wife in the 2000s, we had 9 addresses in almost 10 years, and she couldn't hold much more than part time work. Leaving AD gave her the ability to start a career and it had an enormous positive impact on her state of mind and our relationship.

[HeloDude]

On May 22, 2019 at 6:56 PM, FLEA said:

And the fact that the Military keeps trying to push this creepy 1950s family model that relegated them to the home when they are better educated than their peers. 

While I totally get a dude's reason for getting out to allow his spouse to have a more stable career, I don't know what this "1950s family model" you're saying is being pushed on us?  

1) CDC--don't really need much of one when you have this "1950s family model"...

2) Gay marriage...definitely not 1950s

3) The fact that the vast majority of female AD AF officers are married to another officer...again, not what I would call a 1950s family model.

Active duty definitely makes it a challenge for both spouses to have a career, but that is the nature of the beast with PCSing and families desiring to stay together...if only people knew about PCSing before going on AD and then could also get out after just a few years after joining (vast majority of military aren't on commitments more than a few years).

In the end, do what's best for yourself and your family, but don't blame the AF for something you voluntarily accepted.

 

[BashiChuni]

2. 

The Air Force has zero responsibility to consider your civilian spouses career. 

Those are choices you and your spouse made. 

[Shazaam]

33 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

2. 

The Air Force has zero responsibility to consider your civilian spouses career. 

Those are choices you and your spouse made. 

You are speaking from an officer perspective, speaking of which you are vastly out of touch. Don't speak for everyone. Most enlisted live paycheck to paycheck. Additional income is necessary at times. As a prior, you can save your ass off and still not get ahead. I'm not even married.

Edited May 24, 2019 by Shazaam

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, BashiChuni said:

2. 

The Air Force has zero responsibility to consider your civilian spouses career. 

Those are choices you and your spouse made. 

They may not have a responsibility, but they better start considering it if they want to retain anyone after their ADSC.

[BashiChuni]

Give me a break. You join to serve. Your wife didn’t join. 

Copy they have a retention problem. It’s not caused by civilian spouse job problems. Let’s focus on the real issues

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, BashiChuni said:

Give me a break. You join to serve. Your wife didn’t join. 

Copy they have a retention problem. It’s not caused by civilian spouse job problems. Let’s focus on the real issues

You really think momma not being able to hold down a job doesn't affect the QOL discussion at home?

[BashiChuni]

No I don’t. 

[pawnman]

1 minute ago, BashiChuni said:

No I don’t. 

Must be nice.  People wouldn't be taking to Congress about it if they were content with the status quo.  But I guess we can just try increasing the bonus some more, maybe that will help.

[BashiChuni]

Get real bro the airlines sucking everyone up (sts) is what’s causing the retention problem. Always has and always will. 

Maybe momma not keeping a job is on the list of factors...but I don’t think it cracks the top 3.

[raimius]

23 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

Get real bro the airlines sucking everyone up (sts) is what’s causing the retention problem. Always has and always will. 

Maybe momma not keeping a job is on the list of factors...but I don’t think it cracks the top 3.

Being a pilot-centric forum, airline hiring is an outsized factor for our retention, but this is a broader issue than just pilot retention.

[BashiChuni]

Show me in any survey or report where spouse job opportunity ranks. 

Edited May 24, 2019 by BashiChuni

[Guest]

I'm not even married.

Color us all shocked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Shazaam]

15 minutes ago, ihtfp06 said:

Color us all shocked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nope, but my unmarried ass has a sugar momma who is an engineer holding it down in a great place to live and work. She has a great career and neither one of us sacrificed our goals or careers. When I walk into a room with her I am very proud of her accomplishments because she builds highways and bridges across the state that everyone utilizes. 🤣 Can you say the same thing when you walk into the room with your old lady or does she jet toward the punch bowl just to get away from you?

Edited May 24, 2019 by Shazaam

[Bigred]

2 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

Get real bro the airlines sucking everyone up (sts)

I’ll throw a grenade here, but the fact that you put (sts) behind a comment like that is also part of the culture/retention problem. It’s the same thing as flying in the 60s at Nellis and hearing all of the Air Force call it the ‘container’ vice ‘box’, or ‘Hook-152’ vice ‘prick-152’.

Flame away, but from the outside looking in, that’s an obvious contributor. 

 

 

[BashiChuni]

Yeah guys are leaving the Air Force cause 69, sts, container *eye roll*

[Bigred]

4 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

Yeah guys are leaving the Air Force cause 69, sts, container *eye roll*

I didn’t say that was ‘the’ reason why, but part of it. 

[SurelySerious]

7 minutes ago, Bigred said:

I didn’t say that was ‘the’ reason why, but part of it. 

Quite the opposite, man. 

[pawnman]

46 minutes ago, Bigred said:

I’ll throw a grenade here, but the fact that you put (sts) behind a comment like that is also part of the culture/retention problem. It’s the same thing as flying in the 60s at Nellis and hearing all of the Air Force call it the ‘container’ vice ‘box’, or ‘Hook-152’ vice ‘prick-152’.

Flame away, but from the outside looking in, that’s an obvious contributor. 

 

 

I'd say the fun police preventing people from saying STS is a bigger contributor to people leaving.

[Bigred]

3 minutes ago, pawnman said:

I'd say the fun police preventing people from saying STS is a bigger contributor to people leaving.

Educate a guy, as I’m genuinely curious. Are you saying that adding STS is now verboten too?