Promotion and PRF Information

[General Chang]

What gives you that impression? The only thing that I see is constant trolling.

Champ, I normally don't quote from your posts because your thoughts are bitter and unhelpful. Today is no exception.

Gentlemen, I truly believe you are not the heinous, bitter officers in real life that you appear to be on this blog, as you hide behind your avatars. If you are, then I ask that you really consider what comes out of your mouths as you "counsel" the next generation. The AF personnel system is not/has not ever been out to disadvantage rated officers (as is evidenced by the overwhelming number of rated Colonels who become Generals), nor are the tough personnel decisions over the last few years taken lightly or without a good deal of research. If the system and the leaders of that system bother you to the point of losing sleep, then get off of your computers and do something about it. Work your tails off and become senior leaders yourselves. Yes, it takes hard work and sacrifice, but if you feel so strongly that things are horrible, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. I would welcome your fresh, positive ideas in the puzzle palace. When you complain every waking moment, you are of little value to your family, your unit, or the Air Force at large.

[HeloDude]

To each his own. Unlike you, I do not begrudge flyboys who take that career path. However, for the sake of any unfortunate souls that you lead, I hope that you do not present your anti-careerist thoughts to them (if you're even a flight commander, which I know, from an "opportunity for true leadership" perspective, doesn't mean as much in the rated community as it does the non-rated). Your hatred for those of us who were selected to "fill the leadership squares" is unbecoming and disturbing. If you have subordinates, do them a favor and "hide" your...brand...of leadership.

[Champ Kind]

if you feel so strongly that things are horrible, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT

We are.

[General Chang]

We are.

Very well. If you leave, I wish you well. If you stay, I hope you become an asset, not a hindrance, to your leaders who are doing their best to shape the future of the most lethal force on earth.

[Champ Kind]

Very well. If you leave, I wish you well. If you stay, I hope you become an asset, not a hindrance, to your leaders who are doing their best to shape the future of the most lethal force on earth.

If you only knew, troll.... I'm curious, what have you personally done to move the ball forward in this military organization? What have you done to help in the execution of our core competencies? Do tell.

[General Chang]

If you only knew, troll.... I'm curious, what have you personally done to move the ball forward in this military organization? What have you done to help in the execution of our core competencies? Do tell.

I'm proud of the personnel work my FGOs and I have done on more issues than you could count. Deride it, doesn't matter...but I welcome positive, constructive thoughts, not the drivel you often post. You sound like a bitter squadron CGO that has never been exposed to complicated, strategic issues (hit the nail on the head, didn't I?).

[Champ Kind]

Try again.

/troll_encouragement

Edited February 17, 2015 by Champ Kind

[di1630]

If you have subordinates, do them a favor and "hide" your...brand...of leadership.

Ha, Chang, you have no clue. You think from my posts I'm bitter? I'm just pointing out some well known problems that leaders like yourself are either too stupid or out of touch to acknowledge.

I'm truly trying to help the AF that I love.

"Hide" my brand of leadership? Hell no, someone has to stand up to the madness.

One of the reasons I have been highly successful with both officer and enlisted subordinates is I don't "hide" things...I don't play AF games, people see that and LOVE it.

I see a stupid rule...I try to change it. I see a worthless ppt presentation....I cut it. I see a jackass fast burner being a jerk to subordinates, I call him out.

I've proudly not played the game, and it's cost me a few career points but the satisfaction I get from having a steady stream of officers, civilians and enlisted tell me the USAF needs more people like me....it keeps me going.

You think guys like me are causing bitter attitudes??

Get real. The guys causing the problems are the guys like you, who can't understand the core basic issues with things like morale, micromanagement, wasted time/resources, lack of mission focus, etc.

Your welcome Chang...I'm constantly working to fix f-ups caused by people like you. No sweat. I'll keep doing it. You just stay oblivious.

[busdriver]

The AF personnel system is not/has not ever been out to disadvantage rated officers (as is evidenced by the overwhelming number of rated Colonels who become Generals)

Good god, dude this is not a rated vs non-rated thing. No one is angry at (insert non-rated officer position) getting promoted. Everyone is a cog in the giant Air Force machine. But those cogs are people with lives, and that seems to get lost by people too long on staff.

[Guest]

The AF personnel system is not/has not ever been out to disadvantage rated officers (as is evidenced by the overwhelming number of rated Colonels who become Generals), nor are the tough personnel decisions over the last few years taken lightly or without a good deal of research.

I beg to differ. To get a rated slot is competitive (either against your ROTC or OTS peers or by virtue of being able to get into the zoo). So you would think that those of us who merited top x% initially would have a better promotion rate. Unfortunately this isn't the case when you look at the results of promotion boards.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pawnman]

Thank you. I was beginning to think the only people who post on BODN are idiots who think a guy with experience only at the squadron-level should be the next CSAF, but am relieved to see voices of sanity like Ho are still posting.

Exec, school, command, staff...they're ALL important to round-out our future GOs. Proficiency in the primary job is assumed once senior leaders push you for the "box-checking" opportunities. It's never going to change, because it never should. Thank heavens most of you on this forum aren't in KLPs. I thank my lucky stars.

Go ahead and bash me. Deep down, you know I'm right.

Perhaps. But where the system fails the other 90% of us is when it doesn't realize not everyone WANTS to be a general.

[General Chang]

Good god, dude this is not a rated vs non-rated thing. No one is angry at (insert non-rated officer position) getting promoted. Everyone is a cog in the giant Air Force machine. But those cogs are people with lives, and that seems to get lost by people too long on staff.

Agree...trying to head off a "rated v. non-rated" argument at the pass by conceding we are an AF run by pilots (as we should be...it is the Air Force, after all).

I beg to differ. To get a rated slot is competitive (either against your ROTC or OTS peers or by virtue of being able to get into the zoo). So you would think that those of us who merited top x% initially would have a better promotion rate. Unfortunately this isn't the case when you look at the results of promotion boards.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Distinguishing Line AFSCs at promotion boards is a discussion that continues and is worth considering, although I don't think you would see a drastic difference in the promotion rates if it were to occur. Promoting more pilots simply because they passed through a screening when the majority of them were 21-22 years-old is not (and actually 16-17 years-old based on your USAFA argument). Goodness, most of you complain that we identify our "high speeders" too early...now you want to give certain people an asterisk at the Board because they competed for pilot slots when they were still kids? I'm sorry...that one is a non-starter.

Ha, Chang, you have no clue. You think from my posts I'm bitter? I'm just pointing out some well known problems that leaders like yourself are either too stupid or out of touch to acknowledge.

I'm truly trying to help the AF that I love.

"Hide" my brand of leadership? Hell no, someone has to stand up to the madness.

One of the reasons I have been highly successful with both officer and enlisted subordinates is I don't "hide" things...I don't play AF games, people see that and LOVE it.

I see a stupid rule...I try to change it. I see a worthless ppt presentation....I cut it. I see a jackass fast burner being a jerk to subordinates, I call him out.

I've proudly not played the game, and it's cost me a few career points but the satisfaction I get from having a steady stream of officers, civilians and enlisted tell me the USAF needs more people like me....it keeps me going.

You think guys like me are causing bitter attitudes??

Get real. The guys causing the problems are the guys like you, who can't understand the core basic issues with things like morale, micromanagement, wasted time/resources, lack of mission focus, etc.

Your welcome Chang...I'm constantly working to fix f-ups caused by people like you. No sweat. I'll keep doing it. You just stay oblivious.

I'm a lucky man to have your vast expertise fixing all of my daily mistakes. Thank you sir.

[pawnman]

Agree...trying to head off a "rated v. non-rated" argument at the pass by conceding we are an AF run by pilots (as we should be...it is the Air Force, after all).

Distinguishing Line AFSCs at promotion boards is a discussion that continues and is worth considering, although I don't think you would see a drastic difference in the promotion rates if it were to occur. Promoting more pilots simply because they passed through a screening when the majority of them were 21-22 years-old is not (and actually 16-17 years-old based on your USAFA argument). Goodness, most of you complain that we identify our "high speeders" too early...now you want to give certain people an asterisk at the Board because they competed for pilot slots when they were still kids? I'm sorry...that one is a non-starter.

But maybe, just maybe...by breaking out AFSCs at the promotion board, you can promote more of a stressed or undermanned AFSC (say, 18X or 11F) and fewer of an "overmanned" AFSC (like, apparently, 12B. And I AM a 12B). Then, maybe the cuts to personnel could be shaped year to year, instead of making everyone undergo the RRF exercise every time there's a drawdown.

[Guest]

Chang, just wondering, did you wash out of UPT, or did flight screening serve its intended purpose?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DirkDiggler]

The funniest thing about Chang's posts on here is that, at least at AF IDE (a program Chang talks up), the senior leader guest speakers specifically reject the kind of officer he presents himself as. Most of the 2-4 stars that come here to talk are very candid about the long list of problems and challenges the AF currently faces. Last week a senior leader asked the audience if they thought there was a serious lack of trust between senior leadership and the rest of force, to which almost the entire audience raised their hands affirmative. This 2 star thought that a lack of trust in the AF was one of the biggest leadership problems in the AF today. This week a 3 star briefed that many of the AF promotion and personnel practices were inefficient and out of date. He also mentioned that "yes men" were a serious problem in the force. Multiple four stars here have noted that, with the really tough fiscal times ahead, the AF needs no shit leadership; "yes men" and guys unable use brutal, honest assessments of the state of their units aren't going to cut it.

The military studies courses here give numerous examples of how in combat (an experience that I suspect Chang knows very little about), guys like him get their people killed. Officers like him also contribute to an institutional rot (LtCol Tater Tots and the missile fields article comes to mind, followed by a blood bath of firings of leadership despite same leadership saying everything great, nothing to see here) that is dangerous for a lot of reasons. His contributions here aren't helpful and fly in the face of most of the guidance being put out by the leaders he holds in such high regard.

[General Chang]

Chang, just wondering, did you wash out of UPT, or did flight screening serve its intended purpose?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know you meant this tongue-in-cheek, but to answer your question, no, I did not wash out of pilot training.

I have an admiration for our rated force. I also appreciate the support force and recognize their value. As few support officers peruse the BODN blogs (compared to operators), I want to make sure they understand the importance of their contributions.

As for those working tirelessly on staffs, thank you, thank you, thank you for what you do.

[one1]

I beg to differ. To get a rated slot is competitive (either against your ROTC or OTS peers or by virtue of being able to get into the zoo). So you would think that those of us who merited top x% initially would have a better promotion rate. Unfortunately this isn't the case when you look at the results of promotion boards.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not really. Especially if you lump all rated slots together. I applied to the rated and non-rated boards. In my board, the rated board was around a 60% selection rate and a 100% rate for AD Air Force. The non-rated board was around a 3% selection rate. We had CSO selects at OTS that had 2.7 GPAs from degree mills. That isn't a knock on them, I just wouldn't call the process of them getting selected, and me getting selected for that matter as being very competitive. OTS is a different animal when it comes things being competitive. The last 7-10 years, most non-rated careers were harder to get selected for than rated careers.

[General Chang]

The funniest thing about Chang's posts on here is that, at least at AF IDE (a program Chang talks up), the senior leader guest speakers specifically reject the kind of officer he presents himself as. Most of the 2-4 stars that come here to talk are very candid about the long list of problems and challenges the AF currently faces. Last week a senior leader asked the audience if they thought there was a serious lack of trust between senior leadership and the rest of force, to which almost the entire audience raised their hands affirmative. This 2 star thought that a lack of trust in the AF was one of the biggest leadership problems in the AF today. This week a 3 star briefed that many of the AF promotion and personnel practices were inefficient and out of date. He also mentioned that "yes men" were a serious problem in the force. Multiple four stars here have noted that, with the really tough fiscal times ahead, the AF needs no shit leadership; "yes men" and guys unable use brutal, honest assessments of the state of their units aren't going to cut it.

The military studies courses here give numerous examples of how in combat (an experience that I suspect Chang knows very little about), guys like him get their people killed. Officers like him also contribute to an institutional rot (LtCol Tater Tots and the missile fields article comes to mind, followed by a blood bath of firings of leadership despite same leadership saying everything great, nothing to see here) that is dangerous for a lot of reasons. His contributions here aren't helpful and fly in the face of most of the guidance being put out by the leaders he holds in such high regard.

On the contrary, while I acknowledge we are always a work-in-progress, I offer the voice of optimism to the young officers who read the daily sadness that BODN has become. The opportunity to serve in the Blue is a fantastic honor and responsibility...I want our young guys to take pride in that, not become disillusioned and bitter. We are a long, long, LONG way from the problems of the mid-to-late 1990's, and most of the bloggers here weren't around then to even understand how good things are now.

[DirkDiggler]

On the contrary, while I acknowledge we are always a work-in-progress, I offer the voice of optimism to the young officers who read the daily sadness that BODN has become. The opportunity to serve in the Blue is a fantastic honor and responsibility...I want our young guys to take pride in that, not become disillusioned and bitter. We are a long, long, LONG way from the problems of the mid-to-late 1990's, and most of the bloggers here weren't around then to even understand how good things are now.

Do you really think the majority of the people who frequent these forums (a lot of whom make daily life or death decisions employing airpower in combat) don't have pride in what they do, know that they're part of the 0.5% that volunteered to serve, and recognize the responsibilities of their positions? Your "voice of optimism" comes across as real condescending, especially considering the amount of operational experience present among the guys on this forum. A lot of guys on here are bitter and disillusioned for good reason; toxic leadership, 13 years of deployments, constant instability, and, up until recently, a promotion system that didn't always focus on what's important. That doesn't mean they're out there actively poisoning the AF youth, on the contrary, most of the guys on here are pulling the serious weight in line squadrons. Dudes want their units to succeed, it's often difficult to believe that will happen when a lot of the O6-O7 level leadership comes across as careerist managers that actively resist the course the CSAF is trying to chart. AFPC's actions and messaging lately hasn't done anything to reinforce a sense that the AF knows what its doing with its people.

If you truly have insight into the intricacies of the A1/personnel system, a lot of guys on here would be thrilled to listen. Your "voice of optimism" posts fall flat on an audience that deals with the difficult realism of non-stop ops with lessening personnel and resources.

[General Chang]

Do you really think the majority of the people who frequent these forums (a lot of whom make daily life or death decisions employing airpower in combat) don't have pride in what they do, know that they're part of the 0.5% that volunteered to serve, and recognize the responsibilities of their positions? Your "voice of optimism" comes across as real condescending, especially considering the amount of operational experience present among the guys on this forum. A lot of guys on here are bitter and disillusioned for good reason; toxic leadership, 13 years of deployments, constant instability, and, up until recently, a promotion system that didn't always focus on what's important. That doesn't mean they're out there actively poisoning the AF youth, on the contrary, most of the guys on here are pulling the serious weight in line squadrons. Dudes want their units to succeed, it's often difficult to believe that will happen when a lot of the O6-O7 level leadership comes across as careerist managers that actively resist the course the CSAF is trying to chart. AFPC's actions and messaging lately hasn't done anything to reinforce a sense that the AF knows what its doing with its people.

If you truly have insight into the intricacies of the A1/personnel system, a lot of guys on here would be thrilled to listen. Your "voice of optimism" posts fall flat on an audience that deals with the difficult realism of non-stop ops with lessening personnel and resources.

'Sigh'. We can debate the resources aspect, but non-stop ops? Really? The numbers simply do not back that up, my friend. Dwell times continue to get better and better.

I'm rooting for you to get a Pentagon job out of ACSC this summer, hopefully here in A1. It will really open you aperture.

[Chuck17]

'Sigh'. We can debate the resources aspect, but non-stop ops? Really? The numbers simply do not back that up, my friend. Dwell times continue to get better and better.

I'm rooting for you to get a Pentagon job out of ACSC this summer, hopefully here in A1. It will really open you aperture.

And your flippant statement re: such assertions clearly backs up that you have no clue what commitments exist for aircrew when they're not deployed. There's some things HQ numbers don't capture my friend. It takes a lot to keep current and qualified, even if you're not on a 1:1, not to mention the desk job...

While I think you have a good point, you need to apply some give and take.

Chuck

[TnkrToad]

I know it's not Friday, but perhaps it's time to review a little history. It seems funny how Arnold, Spaatz, Vandenberg, LeMay, etc., didn't seem to spend a whole lotta time (if any at all) as execs, and they certainly didn't each have 3-4 master's degrees--yet they all were effective CSAFs (ok, technically, Arnold was never CSAF, but the AAF he led had 2.4 million people in it, and kicked the crap out of Germany, Italy & Japan). As far as I can tell, the last PME school LeMay attended was ACTS--during the '39-'40 academic year, when they shortened the course in order to quadruple throughput. As far as I can tell, LeMay was a two-star before he even had a Pentagon tour . . . and that was when two-stars had way more responsibility than two-buttons today. Norstad never even attended CGSC, yet ended up as SHAPE commander, Kuter's last school was ACTS, yet he was Arnold's rep at the Yalta Conference and served as both CINCPACAF and CINCNORAD. I could go on, but I'll spare you.

Bottom line, it seems to me that there was a time when the Air Force (and its predecessors--AAC, AAF) produced better strategic, global leaders. They did so without going through innumerable schools and spending inordinate time as execs. I wish current senior leaders could and would think and write as clearly and effectively as Hal George, Haywood Hansell, Larry Kuter and others did in their day.

It seems to me that GC and his A1 buddies need to read some history. What made early Air Force leaders so effective? It certainly wasn't the current system (that GC is promoting), and which many on this forum are railing against. I think AF leaders did better when they promoted folks based on performance and potential, rather than PME diplomas and secretarial skills.

[10percenttruth]

COL SELECT Tater Tots and the missile fields article comes to mind, followed by a blood bath of firings of leadership despite same leadership saying everything great, nothing to see here)

FIFY

and THAT, is the epitome of the problem that A1 guys never see. That clueless "leader" got a bird right as her ship ran into the rocks at the base of the lighthouse. Maybe we'll get lucky & she'll go to A1, eh Chang? Then we'll have several levels of sunshine and rainbows issuing forth from the deck quartet of the Titanic.

Here's the issue that you seem to have trouble grasping GC: We are not the loud, disgruntled minority. We are not poison in the ears of the youth. WE are the masses that YOU have been charged to lead, and this is our water cooler. If you can't effectively relate to us here... You see where I'm going with this?

Regardless of whether or not you believe our version of the AF story or yours, even you must realize the massive disconnect between you (the staff & the leadership) and us (the rank & file). Surely something in your years of PME told you that such a thing is bad. You keep telling us to "get on board" without really seeing why we don't want to.

Edited February 18, 2015 by 10percenttruth

[DirkDiggler]

'Sigh'. We can debate the resources aspect, but non-stop ops? Really? The numbers simply do not back that up, my friend. Dwell times continue to get better and better.

I'm rooting for you to get a Pentagon job out of ACSC this summer, hopefully here in A1. It will really open you aperture.

Here is one of the many gulfs of misunderstanding we're talking to each other across. When I say ops, I'm not just talking about deployments. They've held fairly steady in my community over the last couple years. Even as deployments have gone away in OIF and OEF those blocks have just been filled by other requirements Non-stop ops is all encompassing of the deployments, TDYs, and intensive home-station training most AFSOC units deal with on a constant basis. There isn't enough of us to go around so we're constantly busy. Most guys come to AFSOC understanding this; most guys relish it. But it gets tiring. A lot of dudes that want to go do something else for a tour aren't released because the manning doesn't support it. School slots for candidates are very difficult to get right now and guys aren't being released in any serious numbers for staff. So they start to get burnt out, bitter, jaded, whatever you want to call it. Lately, a lot of them have ended up punching. I don't believe the sky is necessarily falling in the AF or my community but things are tough right now. We've had over fifteen 12+ year guys leave in the last year for the civilian side; in a community as small as mine the loss of that experience is very difficult to deal with.

Your data may say things are getting better for some communities and in some places it may be true. Those numbers are only part of the whole story. I talked about the lack trust one two star felt was prevalent between senior leadership and the ranks. This little discussion we're having is symbolic of that. You, in the HQ are saying things are super duper awesome and the line guys are saying we're in serious trouble. The reality is somewhere in between I'm sure. Like I said before most dudes have a serious issue with what you spout because it doesn't match the reality they see on the line.

[gimmeaplane]

So to change the subject up a bit. Does anyone have any insight into what the promotion board was looking for specifically during this past December board for major? Our AAD's were masked and our status for SOS indicated simply whether it was complete or not. Did this make things easier or harder for the board?

I had a friend not promoted and this individual checked all of the boxes. I do not know exactly what boxes this individual checked, but I assume the board saw something that excluded him from promotion. I remember you guys/gals saying some people think too highly of themselves in regard to promotion and the promotion board will usually get it right.

Let's get back to ignoring Chang. Does anybody have gouge on instructions to the board? I (incorrectly) thought one of my guys was competitive for school and the best I could tell him was it's probably in the instructions. He's doing just fine in the big blue machine, but getting the right people IDE slots sets things in motion.

Edit for Engrish.

Edited February 18, 2015 by gimmeaplane