Promotion and PRF Information

[Vprdrvr69]

Thanks for pointing that out. I totally forgot that I had a 69 in there. Guess I better change it. It's kind of funny that things like (sts), or 69, and Box or Head were part of my military indoctrination. I never used any of those prior to the military, and now those traditions are engrained into my mind. I sincerely don't know how to get rid of them without the full frontal o-6 lobotomy. The traditions and culture I was expected to adopt and that I have fully, is now not allowed. Ahhhh, you can't make this shit up!

[ThreeHoler]

I think most of my frustration stems from our collective propensity as a service to do the same thing over and over, yet we expect different results. That, gentlemen, is the definition of insanity.

For the youngins, pick up a copy of "Over the Hump" and "Overlord" if you want to see what I'm talking about. For us old farts, actually read the books if you haven't.

As personally disappointed as I am in the senior leadership I've seen over the last few years, I still desire to stay in and take care of my guys and gals. Maybe I am naive to think I can make lasting positive change on a broad scale, but I have done it before at the wing level and I will continue to do it at whatever level I work today and in the future.

[Muscle2002]

Sexist call signs are wrong. Balls, Fingers, Crab, Porno, Nasty, Lick, Woody, Hung, Banger, etc, etc. Funny in the 8th grade. Embarrassing and unacceptable in a professional fighting force.

Fine, however, your original statement listed call signs along with other inappropriate items/actions without making any qualifications. The implication was that all call signs are inappropriate--that's simply not true.

[Chuck17]

Sexist call signs are wrong. Balls, Fingers, Crab, Porno, Nasty, Lick, Woody, Hung, Banger, etc, etc. Funny in the 8th grade. Embarrassing and unacceptable in a professional fighting force.

Copy all, everyone has to have something to keep them up at night I guess...

Like I said, I never understood the obsession with this kinda stuff. We've branched off from the focus on sexual assault to a focus on white whales. Since we have to toe the Big Blue line and show that we are doing SOMETHING....

I got it, message received. Move along folks, nothing to see here.

Chuck

Edited July 6, 2013 by Chuck17

[herkbum]

No doubt I will be outed soon. I say these things in public all the time so it shouldn't be too hard to figure it out. I do like having the ability to post without officially representing the AF. That will change when my rank and name are associated with my observations and opinions.

Anyone can come on here and claim to be senior leadership. Most guys on BODN knows the old hats' backgrounds, therefore they know who to trust and not to trust. Folks in the past have come on here claiming to be someone similar to you and they were outed to be trolls. Everyone is cautious because some of the statements you made we're trollish and you have given no background other than you work in Pentagon and today that you are at least a pilot. If you are who you claim to be, awesome, welcome to BODN and continue to engage in conversations. If not, hit the road. Same goes for GC.

Everyone else, keep it civil and respectful. This forum is a great source of info and also provides a place to vent our frustrations. Let's keep it the way Rich wanted!

[F16Deuce]

Sexist call signs are wrong. Balls, Fingers, Crab, Porno, Nasty, Lick, Woody, Hung, Banger, etc, etc. Funny in the 8th grade. Embarrassing and unacceptable in a professional fighting force.

Noted.

[Danny Noonin]

You guys and your stupid ass infatuation with the number 69. F*ing retards.

You call others "retards" while lecturing to others about the offensive, juvenile nature of 69?

Interesting.

[Vetter]

No doubt I will be outed soon. I say these things in public all the time so it shouldn't be too hard to figure it out. I do like having the ability to post without officially representing the AF. That will change when my rank and name are associated with my observations and opinions.

Got snagged by the troll. I am looking forward to you coming out of the closet.

Edited July 6, 2013 by Vetter

[Wing Sweep]

PRF timelines in CY '14 for the '05 year group? Anyone? Anyone?

Not saying anything about killing songs, drinking stories or warrior ethos. Just the sex jokes and rape songs at work. Don't care what you post here, think, or do off duty (obviously unless you are breaking the law/UCMJ). The AF will change how you act at work. No more nudge, nudge, wink, wink, it's ok because it is tradition and makes us better fighters. I'm more warrior minded than you think. I just know you don't need this stupid sexist shit to be a warrior.

1. I agree 100% we don't need stupid sexist shit to be a warrior. I'm just not sure which stupid sexist shit you are referring to. You speak very well in generalities, but I have yet to hear specifics.

2. The AF has not changed how I nor 99.69% of AF officers act at work because we DO NOT and HAVE NOT condoned or taken part in sex jokes or rape songs in the work place...EVER. Singing and joking that some might deem inappropriate in the workplace, if and when it happens, is done on people's personal time once the J-O-B is done. Again I say, and as you also point out, what we do outside of work (without breaking the law) is our business.

3. It seems the upper officer echelons think there is a sexually perverse (i.e. sexist) mindset across our officer corps that has led to a serious wave of sexual assault and/or mistreatment of women in the workplace. Does sexual misconduct happen in the workplace? Yes, but very rarely! Do I consider this part of the culture? ABSOLUTELY NOT. In fact, I would say women have more opportunities and equality now than ever before in the DoD! It certainly doesn't help that there are high profile cases in the news, displaying certain AF officers as the poster boys of all that is sexually deviant. But I would argue that, by and large, the vast majority of us comply with, accept, and promote equality and professionalism in the workplace.

4. Sexual assualt is not a disease that has all of a sudden infected us wholesale, but rather a few idiots have been highlighted for their very poorly timed improper sexual actions. Political points are now being won in the legislative branch of the Federal government and all DoD members are getting their diapers changed with a new scent of Gold Bond so we can "rid ourselves" of "sexist thinking."

BONUS ... For Pete's sake, the whole .69 thing...take a joke and smile man. If you shut me off at .69, then I would say you have bigger issues to deal with. Just smile, it will make you feel better.

Mods- Sorry for the thread jack. I believe this would be more appropriate in the SARC thread.

Edited July 6, 2013 by g2s

[pawnman]

You know what ADSC stands for right? Palace Chase is a force management tool used when supply exceeds demand. Not just to allow the disgruntled and under performers the opportunity to get out early.

So we have a huge glut of pilots, which is why we haven't changed the bonus, but the pilots are too valuable to let them Palace Chase?

Please, run me through that logic.

[Liquid]

So we have a huge glut of pilots, which is why we haven't changed the bonus, but the pilots are too valuable to let them Palace Chase?

Please, run me through that logic.

41 pages of good discussion on the ACP topic. Even if we did have a too many pilots, why would we regularly approve early release from ADSC? Serve your time, payback your training, then do whatever you want. Just don't complain when the request for a ADSC waiver (Palace Chase) is disapproved.

[Merged]

Liquid, GC, or anyone else in the know...

I have heard some discussion of IDE/SDE in-residence being almost cut all together for non-selects (ie: candidates) this year and additionally for the foreseeable future. Does this check with what others have been hearing? As a CAF guy, if big blue isn't providing advancement opportunities how are they going to expect pilots to stick around past their UPT commitment regardless of the bonus $ being offered? No school usually takes you out of the running for advancement opportunities therefore making you prime for the less than ideal 365's. What have others been hearing across all of the MAJCOM's? Is it true that non-select is going to mean no school in residence?

[pawnman]

41 pages of good discussion on the ACP topic. Even if we did have a too many pilots, why would we regularly approve early release from ADSC? Serve your time, payback your training, then do whatever you want. Just don't complain when the request for a ADSC waiver (Palace Chase) is disapproved.

Got it. We can afford to RIF people from the force entirely, but we can't afford to send them to the guard and reserve.

More insight from the AFPC machine.

[Danny Noonin]

Even if we did have a too many pilots, why would we regularly approve early release from ADSC?

Seriously? Because if there are too many pilots on AD and you let some go to the ARC where there are not too many pilots then there would no longer be too many pilots on AD yet you'd still get payback on the training and have the experienced services of those pilots available in both an operational and strategic reserve capacity. You do know that ARC guys are still on the team, right?

Plus, if you believe Chang there is talk of a RIF otherwise known as non-voluntary separation. Always a winner for morale of the force.

Plus, palace chase is free.

If Chang is right about this "glut" of pilots, then it's a win-win.

Good think we are all so educated with advanced degrees from ERAU. It creates great "thinkers" and problem solvers.

[General Chang]

Liquid, GC, or anyone else in the know...

I have heard some discussion of IDE/SDE in-residence being almost cut all together for non-selects (ie: candidates) this year and additionally for the foreseeable future. Does this check with what others have been hearing? As a CAF guy, if big blue isn't providing advancement opportunities how are they going to expect pilots to stick around past their UPT commitment regardless of the bonus $ being offered? No school usually takes you out of the running for advancement opportunities therefore making you prime for the less than ideal 365's. What have others been hearing across all of the MAJCOM's? Is it true that non-select is going to mean no school in residence?

Merged,

Not my program, but I've been hearing the same thing through the grapevine; a token "1 candidate from CAF, 1 candidate from MAF, 1 candidate from cyber, yadda yadda..."

If you look at the numbers of school designees from 2011 (2012-2013 school year) vs. 2012 (2013-2014 school year), the numbers fell by darn near 200 Majors. That's fairly significant if you're going from 750ish down to 550ish.

If what we're hearing through the rumor mill is correct, it sounds like another reduction may be in order at DEDB 2013, likely due to budget cuts. However, we still have a legal requirement to send all of the selects (top 20% from the Major's board) to school. To date, there has been no reduction in the "select" rate on the O-4 board, so the classes of 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 all have a full 20% select rate.

This year's DEDB schedule is: 2001- last look, 2002- second look, 2003- first look. When the Air Force reduces the number of DEDB school designees, but does not reduce the select rate, the segment that gets squeezed is the candidates, IF the rumors are true (again, I have no first hand knowledge that they are true- just conjecture on my part, since you guys love reading conjecture on these threads).

IF all of this is correct...I suspect the following is likely to happen:

- WHEN the class of 2005 finally has their major's board, the school "select" rate will be set at 15%.

- This year and next year, the candidates will be squeezed out

- Starting at the DEDB in 2015 (when the class of 2005 hits their first school look), the "squeeze" will start to abate, and more candidates will be selected for school

- Candidates will have even better shots in 2016 and 2017, as the last of the "20% classes" meet their last looks

Bottom line- IF IF IF all of this is true, yes, the classes of 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 will have severely reduced, borderline impossible opportunities for candidates to go to school from this year forward, which means the Air Force would finally, no kidding, no hiding behind glass doors, be selecting nearly ALL of its future Wing Commanders and Brigadier Generals from those four class years....while they were Captains. For all of you "late bloomers" out there, let that sit in your craw for a second.

**A BIT OF GOOD NEWS, HOWEVER**- the Air Force is STILL promoting to Lieutenant Colonel at an 85% clip per class year, and STILL promoting at a 50-55% clip to Colonel. Even if those rates slip by 5% each over the next couple of years, you will still have a significant number of O-5 and O-6 promotees that have NEVER been to school. Soooo...unlike in the past, when 35% of a given class year went to IDE and those made up a significant chunk of your future Colonels, now, you may have 25% or less going to IDE for 2001-2004, opening a wider promotion gap for non-attendees. Just food for thought.

[Champ Kind]

Only makes my decision that much easier in the near future.

[Liquid]

Liquid, GC, or anyone else in the know...

I have heard some discussion of IDE/SDE in-residence being almost cut all together for non-selects (ie: candidates) this year and additionally for the foreseeable future. Does this check with what others have been hearing? As a CAF guy, if big blue isn't providing advancement opportunities how are they going to expect pilots to stick around past their UPT commitment regardless of the bonus $ being offered? No school usually takes you out of the running for advancement opportunities therefore making you prime for the less than ideal 365's. What have others been hearing across all of the MAJCOM's? Is it true that non-select is going to mean no school in residence?

This is true for IDE and will be for at least a few years. DTs have met or will soon. Each MAJCOM can send only one candidate and as many selects as they can. Will likely be the same next year. Like GC said, not enough seats for all the selects, so very few candidates will go. More latitude on SDE. This IDE limit will hurt us. The ability to identify candidate talent after the O-4 board is critical to develop future leaders. Not sure how this one will work out. It will mean more commanders, colonels and generals won't have IDE in residence complete. Some may see that as a good thing.

Seriously? Because if there are too many pilots on AD and you let some go to the ARC where there are not too many pilots then there would no longer be too many pilots on AD yet you'd still get payback on the training and have the experienced services of those pilots available in both an operational and strategic reserve capacity. You do know that ARC guys are still on the team, right?

Plus, if you believe Chang there is talk of a RIF otherwise known as non-voluntary separation. Always a winner for morale of the force.

Plus, palace chase is free.

If Chang is right about this "glut" of pilots, then it's a win-win.

Good think we are all so educated with advanced degrees from ERAU. It creates great "thinkers" and problem solvers.

Good point. I don't really understand force management policies and I'm not involved in making them. If we are going to RIF certain year groups in certain AFSCs, it makes perfect sense to approve Palace Chase for them. They should use all force management tools to meet their objectives. Yes, TFI is a good thing. Most career fields I am familiar with are undermanned so I'm not a huge fan of ADSC waivers without overages to support.

Nice ERAU shot, asshole.

[osulax05]

Nice ERAU shot, asshole.

Shot/Kill confirms valid shot.

[olevelo]

Will this affect candidates eligible for in-res credit as well? Since we still have to compete at the board, is the cut line just higher and even if you are eligible for credit you just have to be that much better? Any thought to just allowing people who are eligible for credit just letting us take it instead of taking away a spot and/or wasting board members time reviewing a 3849?

[Champ Kind]

This is true for IDE and will be for at least a few years. DTs have met or will soon. Each MAJCOM can send only one candidate and as many selects as they can. Will likely be the same next year. Like GC said, not enough seats for all the selects, so very few candidates will go. More latitude on SDE. This IDE limit will hurt us. The ability to identify candidate talent after the O-4 board is critical to develop future leaders. Not sure how this one will work out. It will mean more commanders, colonels and generals won't have IDE in residence complete. Some may see that as a good thing.

Why is this not being made public via the DT announcement then?

This is a game changer in that a lot of people are about to start caring WAY less if the prospect of getting ahead in the rat race decreases even more. It was no secret that the shiney toys were picked early. This takes it to another level.

You say that the AF will have to change the characteristic of its leadership (less CCs with IDE in-res.). Sorry if I don't share your confidence in the system, but I envision the rich continuing to get richer while upper mgmt continues to dangle the prospect of IDE in front of candidates.

I say that this is a game changer because I get the feeling that I'm not the only person out there with these "goals" should I choose to stay in: do what it takes to make O-5, mainly so that I don't have to worry about non-continuation (that debacle not too long ago rocked the officer corps more than the higher ups think). AAD, right jobs, timely upgrades, IDE via correspondence hoping to get picked up for in-res because that historically all but guarantees O-5. Not closing any doors along the way by balancing that this is pay to play but at the same time trying to help others along the way. Ultimately, should I get picked out of the litter for command, great. But if not, I would be fine with that. The problem though, is if I tell my senior rater that, I am self-identifying that I don't want to be CSAF one day and I am moved down in the rack and stack for those who continue to say what Big Blue wants to hear.

Edited July 7, 2013 by Champ Kind

[slackline]

41 pages of good discussion on the ACP topic. Even if we did have a too many pilots, why would we regularly approve early release from ADSC? Serve your time, payback your training, then do whatever you want. Just don't complain when the request for a ADSC waiver (Palace Chase) is disapproved.

Curious if you think that the same training and money that got sunk in a 6 year commitment is equivalent to the training sunk into an 8 or 10 year commitment? Even with inflation taken into account, UPT costs come at an enormous bargain for a 10 year commitment.

Not saying we aren't accountable for what we sign, but if you're going to use a cost argument to disallow Palace Chase, you're off base. The Air Force is coming out on top of that contract. Guys nowadays are doing the same training that guys did 15 years ago, but getting stuck with a much longer commitment, and a much rougher work environment. It feels as if upper level leadership is forgetting where it came from.

My $.02.

[TnkrToad]

41 pages of good discussion on the ACP topic. Even if we did have a too many pilots, why would we regularly approve early release from ADSC? Serve your time, payback your training, then do whatever you want. Just don't complain when the request for a ADSC waiver (Palace Chase) is disapproved.

Problem is 41 pages, with nobody yet able to provide a rational, numerically supported rationale for the ACP/ARP. Given that promotions, Palace Chase, ARP, RIF, VSP, SERB and IDE/SDE are part of the same force management continuum, it's natural that there'll be crosstell between the two threads.

- Just as Big Blue uses promotions (timing and rate) to control for surpluses or shortages, so it also uses (or should use) Palace Chase as one of the tools, along with ACP, to control for surpluses/shortages, respectively, in the years between those promo boardsg in

-- Promoted too many to Capt/Maj? "Fix the glitch" by slashing the ARP program/encouraging Palace Chase. Not enough staying in? Shut off Palace Chase/beef up the ARP

- It's totally reasonable for pilots to expect Big Blue leadership to encourage Palace Chase . . . assuming said leadership is rational and if there is in fact a glut of pilots

- Problem is GC seems thus far to be impervious to reason and is incapable/unwilling to provide data to support any of what he's saying

Given that a picture is worth a thousand words, and you purport to be in senior leadership, can you not post a reasonably current "Red Line/Blue Line" chart, showing pilot requirements vs inventory, by year group and pilot community?

- This discussion would make a lot more sense, and (assuming Big Blue is making rational decisions based on those charts) you'd get a whole lot more buy-in from the crowd here

- Problem is you'll have to explain how/why pilot requirements vs. inventory is so screwed up . . . then you'll have a have a really hard time explaining why the "just trust us" mantra you & GC have been pushing has any credibility (after all, it was senior AF leaders that created the "pilot bathtub" in the mid-90s year groups, the VSP debacle and all manner of other tomfoolery)

Is it possible to provide any stats/data that supports the force management policies that Big Blue leadership is enacting?

[Cap-10]

Valid at Pickle? Yes.

Valid at Termination? Yes.

Color that man white!

Cheers,

Cap-10

[Liquid]

Will this affect candidates eligible for in-res credit as well? Since we still have to compete at the board, is the cut line just higher and even if you are eligible for credit you just have to be that much better? Any thought to just allowing people who are eligible for credit just letting us take it instead of taking away a spot and/or wasting board members time reviewing a 3849?

No, your record is compared to those going to school in residence. If you rank above the line, you get credit. This does not affect the number of seats or those going to school. It is just a quality check to make sure we give IDE equivalency credit to high quality officers. Most I've seen get approved.

Problem is 41 pages, with nobody yet able to provide a rational, numerically supported rationale for the ACP/ARP. Given that promotions, Palace Chase, ARP, RIF, VSP, SERB and IDE/SDE are part of the same force management continuum, it's natural that there'll be crosstell between the two threads.

- Just as Big Blue uses promotions (timing and rate) to control for surpluses or shortages, so it also uses (or should use) Palace Chase as one of the tools, along with ACP, to control for surpluses/shortages, respectively, in the years between those promo boardsg in

-- Promoted too many to Capt/Maj? "Fix the glitch" by slashing the ARP program/encouraging Palace Chase. Not enough staying in? Shut off Palace Chase/beef up the ARP

- It's totally reasonable for pilots to expect Big Blue leadership to encourage Palace Chase . . . assuming said leadership is rational and if there is in fact a glut of pilots

- Problem is GC seems thus far to be impervious to reason and is incapable/unwilling to provide data to support any of what he's saying

Given that a picture is worth a thousand words, and you purport to be in senior leadership, can you not post a reasonably current "Red Line/Blue Line" chart, showing pilot requirements vs inventory, by year group and pilot community?

- This discussion would make a lot more sense, and (assuming Big Blue is making rational decisions based on those charts) you'd get a whole lot more buy-in from the crowd here

- Problem is you'll have to explain how/why pilot requirements vs. inventory is so screwed up . . . then you'll have a have a really hard time explaining why the "just trust us" mantra you & GC have been pushing has any credibility (after all, it was senior AF leaders that created the "pilot bathtub" in the mid-90s year groups, the VSP debacle and all manner of other tomfoolery)

Is it possible to provide any stats/data that supports the force management policies that Big Blue leadership is enacting?

I don't have the current red line, blue line charts or supporting data, not in my wheelhouse. I can get them and will post if they aren't FOUO. They usually are. AFPC and HAF A1 prefer to officially publish force management policy after it has been approved rather than while it is being developed.

Curious if you think that the same training and money that got sunk in a 6 year commitment is equivalent to the training sunk into an 8 or 10 year commitment? Even with inflation taken into account, UPT costs come at an enormous bargain for a 10 year commitment.

Not saying we aren't accountable for what we sign, but if you're going to use a cost argument to disallow Palace Chase, you're off base. The Air Force is coming out on top of that contract. Guys nowadays are doing the same training that guys did 15 years ago, but getting stuck with a much longer commitment, and a much rougher work environment. It feels as if upper level leadership is forgetting where it came from.

My $.02.

I'd say the value of the training and experience goes up when the demand is high and the supply is low. I should have made a value argument rather than a cost argument. An IP/EP with 7 years of experience is valuable. We protect that value with ADSC and retention bonuses. When low demand or high supply put the force management machine out of synch, they adjust. I'm not A1 and have very little to do with force management policies. I do recommend approval and disapproval requests for early separation and needs of the AF and unit are always considered with need of the individual. I think AFPC has been disapproving most Palace Chase requests, even the several I recommended they approve.

[Vetter]

Liquid, is the Air Force better or worse today than when you entered it? Serious question.