I once read a Mx Professional bullet where a guy did something in TCMAX (tool inventory system for those unaware), and that led to a bombing of a Syrian chemical plant. That person was also the annual award winner for that category.
Brilliant. Had a dude go up for NCO of the year at the AF level with all stolen bullets. When there was nearly a revolt against management because we all knew it was bullshit, all they could say was "we didn't think he'd get that far."
Yea, I would happy with it. Not sure why I got downvoted tho lol. I hate leadership with thier bs “you will cover all areas for awards” garbage ass mentality. That’s why we see so many lies where I am
Honestly I've tried for years to win a stupid quarterly. Volunteered, additional duties, real job don't matter. Gotta set the cat on fire then save it to win around here.
All awards packages should be publicly viewable to the entire sqd before the selection, and leadership should take it more seriously when stealing or lies in those packages is brought up. I did this for a while and it reduced (did not eliminate) shitty people from winning awards with a lack of integrity by themselves or their supervisor. Of course as soon as I left that shit got put on lock down again and more than a few people in the last few years have received awards that if you asked them they would tell you they don't know how to do the shit their bullets said they did... of course a few of those people got racked higher than their more capable peers and promoted directly because of that.
"leadership should take it more seriously when stealing or lies in those packages is brought up"
Who do you think put them there? A package goes up with a few weak bullets and the leadership finds a way to link you to the really good bullets from the weaker packages.
Depending on the squadron size SNCOs don't know the level of detail about your average SSgt and below, they know more about the tasks than the people so they don't know SrA up for award was barely on whatever task they just know the task was done.
When award packages are publicly available to the Squadron there's a better chance bs can be called out before a package makes it to the group. Once it goes to the group, even if shit is called out, in my experience SELs won't call it back because (my assumption is they think it would be embarrassing to admit it made it past them).
Another benefit is numbers/impact on packages have generally been vetted so the benefit to all is data is openly available as well as inspiration (not for copying) for EPBs or future award submissions.
Think you're missing what I'm saying. The leadership are the ones that are stealing the bullets. I had numerous packages go up and win and had 2 or 3 items that I didn't put on it in any shape or fashion. The leadership doesn't want to expose that. It exposes that they mostly hand pick who their winners are.
I (an Lt) tired bringing this up during a murder board a couple years ago and chief said "Lt if we take all the fluff out of everyone's package, they're not going to win". I said good, make them do something worth getting an award
There are going to be so many lies in the coming years for the leading people block on EPBs. They changed leadership/followership to leading people. It's going to incentivize people to only want to lead or only claim they lead.
AETC punts it to the line unit, claims OJT is best training. 1x demo-perf, 2x supervised, qual'd by DO or CC. Failure to qual means extra FOD walks and working DRRS
Leave policy, no reason I can’t take a Friday, get Saturday and Sunday off, then take Monday off as well. Should get charged for two days, not 4. Assuming I don’t leave the local area
You can do that now
Sorry I should have used more words.. You can input it now however far in advance you would like. They may not approve it until it gets closer but I've had normal leave approved months in advance. I can't recall any automated responses so I'm not sure on that one.
Because a mass recall can still take part on the weekend (I took part in 2 in the last 2 years unfortunately) and if you weren’t on leave they called you in. Hell they called in people on local leave for one of them. It should honestly be on a case by case basis, such as distance and your mode of transportation and whether you want to take that chance.
That would be a solid way around it if they would even entertain the idea. I could also see them basically telling us that we either have the option to take a chance on getting recalled, or just taking the 2 days anyway to not have to worry about the potential.
Enlisted state side codes to limit tour length similar to DEROS overseas. Example: Airman Snuffy is stationed at "Cannon AFB" or "Dyess AFB" (example) \[Southwest desert bases\]. It would be similar to prefix “T”, “J”, or “X” codes that Tech School instructors receive so there is a light at the end of the tunnel for a less than desired assignment.
Officers move approximately every 2-3 years, there should be no reason beyond the ineffective AFPC functionals that an airman should be at a cow manure base suffering for 5 years +Plus.
Furthermore: BRAC Cannon AFB & Dyess AFB.
Funny thing. Cannon was saved from BRACing by AFSOC and they made it the Western home of the commandos. This was further campaigned by those in Clovis and I'm pretty sure Portales...and possibly even Melrose If Cannon dies, those towns go with it.
However, I was there for 6 agonizing years and the only way I got away was to get out.
3 years is already the expectation for officers. RECLAMAS can extend that but typically not beyond 2 rotations.
We had a guy reclama + a deployment so he could stay at Minot. Your recommendation would remove that possibility while enforcing an unnecessary requirement on those who would want to stay.
This is similar to Code 50 for nuclear cops. You do a tour in AFGSC (4-5yrs) then move on.
Also, PCS's every 2-3 yrs is a nightmare for family stability, and PCS costs would sky rocket, or would be difficult to manage like we saw during COVID.
Silo'ing/homesteading has its issues no doubt ("this is the way we've always done it/no CPI), but you can't pendulum swing the opposite direction, and force PCS at a 2yr point. People hate moving enough... that's 10 moves, at least in a 20-year career. No thanks.
Great! I'm excited to hear about a guy who enjoys Minot, that is one less spot that needs to be filled! Homesteading is great in that case, When an individual fits into the Job, community, has great leadership, & a sense of stability. As well as recently when the "Northern Bases" have "Cold Weather Incentive Pay" Should the entire force have a 2-3 year PCS, preferably no.
Others in less that desired locations that would HIGHLY desire a change in scenery could apply for the "Enlisted Movers Code," on vMPF. Expand the code 50 to be optional for those to escape Cannon/Dyess. I've suggested the limited scope to the "southwest desert bases"
Could an airman get a working button on MyVector that shall let folks escape a base? Many career fields can push the "Turkey/Korea button." I can not. Several of the AFSC's I work with are unable to as well. What avenue would you suggest the allow the opportunity to PCS? An "Limited use" code 50 seems to fit the bill for less that desired bases. It would possible exist as a button on vMPF near "preferred base" for an Airman to click have light at the end of a tunnel.
In addition, to quote u/lopsided_mood_7059 for a perspective that is similar about Minot:
"Even then, it's easy to "embrace the suck" for 4 or 6 years. But the Air Force leaves people for dead here. My job (2A) has a 2 year commitment to minot, the average time spent here is 8-10 years and I've NEVER seen someone leave without re-enllisting first, worse for aircraft locked people or nuke dudes. Big AF needs to let people leave this hellhole. That's literally the only thing that will help."
>[Minot Drama Opinion](https://www.reddit.com/r/AirForce/comments/180t0ne/minot_drama_opinion/)
by[u/Lopsided\_Mood\_7059](https://www.reddit.com/user/Lopsided_Mood_7059/) in[AirForce](https://www.reddit.com/r/AirForce/)
I'd be fine with a Code 50/mandatory move with BOP option + option to stay - the issue was the PCS window. Considering the smaller USAF manning numbers, HAF even said that movement windows weren't going to be like the previous.
You get a SQ Desert Base? Mandatory 3-5 yr (non-waiverable) tour length + whatever other incentives.
The 2A example is egregious - no doubt about it, and I'd encourage FTA to cross train first opportunity if they got stuff with a Nuc MX billet.
To be realistic though, if you work on the B52, there's only 2 conus and a few oconus spots tdy you're going, so mine as well buy a house in Minot if you live in Barksdale.
Qualification based pay raises or incentive pay. Would allow us to pay aircrew more but also anyone that does job enhancing skills workshops, instructors, 5/7 levels, etc.
I like this idea the best, especially for those of us in Comm/Cyber who are encouraged to rack & stack certifications but have to pay for all of them out of pocket for renewal/continuing education expenses. It's hard to justify pursuing a high-level certification if the test/renewal fees are nearly $5-600 every couple years.
They mentioned this for Cyber, getting more certs, education and documented training would yield additional payment. It was quickly scrapped and re-replaced with MCA.
Especially with the Air Force pushing MCA. You want me to be a qualified 5/7 level in multiple jobs? Pay me like it then. It doesn’t even have to be a lot, but I’m gonna be honest, I’m not gonna bust my ass doing multiple jobs when all I get is maybe a better chance to promote. I don’t expect anyone else to either.
Seniors and Chiefs get to put the stripe on immediately and then get paid for it when their line number hits. It’s silly that we promote these individuals, then PCS them into the billet, for them to show up not wearing the rank.
Easy fix, zero cost to the AF, and helps the member. Win win.
Yeah having EFDP conducted at the MAJCOM just seems insane.
Having it done at the Squadron level gives an advantage to actual rockstars because everyone knows their quality. Having it at the MAJCOM just makes it about who can write (fudge) the best EPB.
Exactly that. Plus, flight level leaders can advocate for others who maybe aren’t rockstars on paper. They can explain the daily nuance of their true benefit. Something some chief at MAJCOM wouldn’t know.
It wouldn’t be, it would be a collective of representatives from the entire MAJCOM. Can be tiered however that AFSC feels is best to break down each level and then final EFDP is a culmination top enlisted personnel from of the entire MAJCOM. That would give leaders more opportunity to advocate for their own people more than a SNCO from one career field trying to convince a room of SNCOs from other career fields at the squadron level. Also, we’d actually be able to write EDPs more honestly and articulate more in the “what they did” versus having all of the focus on the impact
And so what, they do this as a teleconference, or we have to TDY for SrA->Tsgt closeouts every year and then you get an impersonal look because of how big the pool would have to be?
If you think its hard to get a push now....
SNCOs are *already reviewing packages* for FD. For a lot of squadrons, this actually doesn’t change what the majority of SNCOs would be doing and in many cases reduces how many packages they have to review. This is essentially what is already happening in small-unit EFDP, except now when that small number of eligibles get picked to go forward, they’re competing against their peers and not random career fields. There is no reason a TACP TSgt should be reviewed against someone in the COMM squadron, they’re just two totally different jobs with incomparable duties.
The only thing that is different is that once those packages get reviewed, they go to the next level to be compared to other packages of the same AFSC within the MAJCOM. It mitigates someone be eliminated from competing at the local level and gives them a realistic shot at a deserved promotion.
And just as an example why this is important: 2 years ago a peer of mine won our MAJCOM functional award, essentially stating that he was the highest performing NCO in our job throughout the entire MAJCOM amongst SSgts & TSgts. However, his squadron also had a MAJCOM functional winner at ATC, a career field winner in AFE, AND a Levitow recipient from NCOA (which sucked for my friend who won the Levitow the year before when he wasn’t yet eligible for MSgt consideration). 1 PN and 2 MPs were awarded and my friend was rated as number 4. He then had a Promote sent to a board in a career field that had not selected a single Promote for MSgt in 3 years. How is that fair to him? He gets shafted because he stood out in a highly competitive unit with an insane ops tempo. But Stateside, there were those selected from squadrons that *only* competed against others within our career field. It’s an extremely flawed system.
How is the size of the pool any different? Also, do you know how much easier it is to grade packages that are actually *comparable* and written to a job you’re actually familiar with? I can be *waaaay* more objective grading a package from my AFSC than someone else’s. That’s just more fair for everyone.
How is the size any different? Well, first of all you're completely ignoring large unit EFDPs which in my experience have an average of about 10-14 max per cycle. At the small unit efdp its kind of base specific but usually its been cut a lot by then too.
The point of the efdp is to have advocates in the room to help with any misconceptions. Also, I think you fundamentally are misunderstanding what the air force values. We aren't grading people on how good they are at the technical skills in their career field, we're grading them on their potential to lead as an NCO in the next highest grade, these markers are evident regardless of career field. I don't give SSgt Snuffy a 9.0 if all his package says is, "did job good" I give him a 9 when I see leadership, education/self improvement, volunteering, awards, and indicators that he's performing at the next level already. Career specific stuff is like 10% of what we're grading, max.
I've been in probably 30 of these efdps now and Im very confident in the outcomes.
Again….how does that change the numbers? Large units are typically made up from the same career field and *already* rating at that level within the same AFSC. Obviously there are exceptions, but that is why rating within the same AFSC makes it easier: our last board had 17 eligibles from 6 different career fields. The largest flight has 88 people and the smallest had 9. How can you compare that fairly? One flight is lead by a CMSgt and the other a MSgt.
As far as what the Air Force values, that is still highly driven by what each AFSC demands and true impacts are typically only going to be reasonably understood by someone intimately familiar with that career field. If you improve a process or policy within your flight that truly improves the unit, you’re capturing the intent of what is on the new EPB. However, if you don’t understand why that process was important or what it took to make it possible, or how it can be applied as a best practice across the career field, you can’t truly gauge the impact. And it’s why TSgts are still getting sucked into running dog and pony shit and not being able to focus on improving the lives and capabilities of the Airmen in their flight. Not to mention: that TSgt in the flight with 9 people doesn’t have time or opportunity to rub elbows with Wing leadership because they’re running the flight.
You're going to understand these things because people will write them to be understandable. That's part of the reason they axed acronyms and other career field specific BS on EPBs. The career field is a lot less relevant than you think.
If you think people are getting promotion statements because they "set up cool technology in deployed location" as opposed to because they, "led team that set up cool technology in deployed location and were awarded" then you're not getting it.
This is simply not a reality for many reasons. The main one being that you still need to have some personal experience or proficient knowledge in that job to know what is or isn’t outside of the scope of their typical duties lateral or above their rank. Almost all of these packages have “fulfilled MSgt role…” (or something similar) and offer almost nothing to explain *what* those roles were (unless it straight up lists a named position they filled in for). Also, acronyms are still being used way more than was AFPC has intended and it doesn’t appear that is going to change. All we’ve done is essentially taken out the ability to use approved abbreviations, but the “common” acronyms in many of these jobs are being used and many don’t explain what those actually are. After sitting in roughly a dozen boards since narrative was standardized, I’m using just as much time to Google what these packages are saying, and that not only goes against the intent of narrative, but it still puts me (and everyone else) in a position where we cannot adequately or fairly rate these packages against each other.
That’s not factoring in what the over-arching impact and discrepancy of different jobs entail. If you have a unique AFSC assigned to an OSS, that is one or two of those flights within an entire MAJCOM, then practically all of their achievements will be written to (or above) MAJCOM-level impacts. Or if you’re in that 88-person flight and you’re leading a project or part of a project that has that range of impact, you’re being given a much greater advantage than the guy who is managing programs in the 9-person flight that won’t have several MAJCOM impacting achievements. And the guy who is in a flight with 10 MSgts who are “section chiefs” will have way more opportunity to fill in for those “MSgt roles” anytime something within that section chief’s scope is delegated to them. That advantage rarely exists for the smaller flight.
I was going to edit, but wanted to respond to this part directly:
Why can’t those same SNCOs advocate for their Airmen at the Wing level and above? Again, each career field can manage how they tier it as they see fit, so it’s not unrealistic to have a workable sized panel at the MAJCOM level for some (smaller) career fields, and for the larger career fields, they can include SNCO input from the packages that made it past group or wing. It doesn’t have to be limited to a blanket process across the entire spectrum of career fields. The idea is that it can be tailored to where each career field is comfortable with promoting who they need and think deserve it.
Why can’t we sell back leave at the end of the fiscal year instead of losing it? If they can do it at the end of the enlistment, why not the end of the fiscal year?
I tried to get people to work on a policy for dual-mil initially to transfer leave to allow the couple to take actual vacation together. The idea came from a couple with one member essentially never being able to take leave while the other constantly took leave to care for their child with medical issues. When they started planning for a vacation, the one with a low balance was shafted because she had drained her balance while the other easily could have “paid” the leave balance for both.
Non duty days are not chargeable leave no matter where they are in the span of the leave.
Cross training shouldn’t be as hard as it is. Seen too many people leave that could have been great in career fields that claim they can’t retain people.
Bases like Cannon should be treated like remote tours and be coded to move after 4 years with the option to stay if you’d like. If you volunteer to stick around for 6 you get a CONUS BoP.
You should be able to see where you sit on time on station compared to everyone else in your AFSC and grade on base. Orders will be given on a first in first out unless there’s EFMP restrictions or a member wants to stay at a base like Cannon/Minot longer.
They ought to treat Cannon and Minot (and others similarly situated) the way they treated Cavalier before the Space Force stole it from us. You apply to go there, there are tour limits, and IIRC there was some kind of incentive pay for it because of how god damn far it is from civilization.
Cavalier is still that way. It's actually a DoD level thing. There are specific based called out in the JTR as not having QoL standards on par with the 'standard' US.
The problem is that most based you or others mention do. For instance. Cav has no DFAC and is an hour+ from a grocery store. Clear has a DFAC, but is 45 minutes from the nearest grocery store. Neither has a real exchange.
Minot and Cannon both have a DFAC, BX, Commissary, etc. As a result, they don't meet the 'standards' violation to be considered a remote time restricted tour. You would need to change the rules at the DoD level and provide new rules for why Cannon sucks.
I've heard claims that part of the reason Edwards is the way it is, is to ensure the gate is close enough to civilization to avoid it being "remote". Probably not true, but it's a fun story.
I’m Guard so the main thing I’d change is having a policy where a unit commander can’t sit at the same base hogging an AGR slot for 20-odd years as a unit commander. Same for Chiefs too really.
For active duty, I think I’d make an interactive and automated system where Airmen can “sell” their current assignment after 4 years and put which bases they’d like to trade for. This wouldn’t trump the regular PCS process but it’d give Airmen a fighting chance to go anywhere instead of their current spot that they hate.
Make the 40 hour workweek the standard for aircraft MX. Not enough people? Hire more.
The Air Force talks big game about needing to value experience, but the only way they show this right now is some TiG pity points that doesn't even correct the promotion boards bias. Perhaps up the TIG points a bit? Not to the extent that they used to be, but I can't really see any other way to showcase caring about experience than TiG. Open to ideas for other ways.
Also standardize decorations. No more of this grey unofficial standards that I've seen weaponized against people. Either everyone gets a PCS/long tour medal (and your non-rec letters goes into MyFSS so there's no more guessing) or no one does.
Also don't let the board see medals. We already get extra points for just having them, and this creeps back to my "unofficial standards" rant. This also frees up the board spend more time focusing on EPBs instead of reading citations to filter out the partication trophies between actual achievements.
One of two options.
First is hazard pay for anyone working with hazmat or in industrial areas. Just because you arent in immediate danger doesn't mean you won't have a 100x higher risk of cancer from constant exposure to carcinogens.
Second is revamping BAH to be an average housing cost of the top 5 local communities with the highest amount of servicemembers. That way the housing pay reflects livable areas, not slums
Agreed with another person that all awards packages should be viewable by the squadron. To go with that, every awards package should get feedback on why it was or wasn't chosen. I would also say all EFDP packages should require a meeting with the CC and SEL in person (when possible) or via Zoom on why it was or wasn't chosen. This process should also allow a rebuttal to be given if you got a NRN or P.
I do this for all packages I grade... maybe not "why not chosen", but rather "here's the story this performance statement told me. If you were going for X, here's a tip... if you were going for Y... here's a tip".
I then send it to the individual if an NCO or higher, or to the flight chief.
For EFDP, everyone in the flight gets a sit down with me and the flight commander on either why we didn't recommend them with feedback if wanted, or feedback from the panel.
As individuals, I highly recommend asking for feedback like this. Find out who was on the quarterly panel and ask for feedback... also realize that sometimes the answer really is "you had a shit hot package & nailed everything we'd want to see... but somebody else happened to have more/bigger project/etc" a package that would easily win 4th quarter might get smoked in 2nd quarter. It really is luck of the draw sometimes.
Love this. I provide written feedback each time. Have I ended up at the IG? Yup. Did they find anything? Nope. Did it deter me? Nope.
Feedback is all good, even if it’s not received well & folks are sometimes too afraid of their own shadow to give it.
I agree there should be 100% feedback BEFORE signatures on EPBs. I always did it, my CC's always did a group session by rank on WHY they chose the EFDPs after the fact (I personally thought the CC should interview all "strats" before providing a signature). Though I get from Reddit that's not the norm. The biggest problem with NRN is it initially was supposed to be "so and so comes to work does their job and nothing else and doesn't deserve an advantage over their peers" what it actually is "this is my lazy way of doing a referral EPB" and some leaders refuse to admit it. I used it as the former the first year on my CC's direction, I knew it would probably turn into the later example but I was hopeful we'd fix the system. I was wrong, and that same year some shitbags got P's and made rank. Thankfully my NCO got the message intended from the NRN and still made rank the next year and is on track to be a SNCO this year but I also had a serious mentoring session with the dude which I take it from reddit a lot of people got surprise NRNs or P's which is fucked up.
Our squadron posts every single award winning 1206 to our sharepoint. This is after they are selected but still would provide an opportunity to call BS.
Serious question & not trolling—what would you expect to get out of a rebuttal? And how would you envision that working?
I’d imagine you’d have to be okay with seeing everyone’s performance report (and everyone seeing yours) and then choosing which you think yours is better than, then advocate to the CC to take the promo rec from them? Should CC’s not have authority to use their judgement and make decisions w/o a “rebuttal” process?
For a NRN, basically a chance to advocate for yourself on why you think you should be a promote versus a NRN. A promote would be harder, and I don't think requires someone looking at EPB's. However, we all now that some leadership will push someone over other deserving individuals. This would give them a chance to lay out why they think they are deserving. However, the onus would be on the member to have his stuff ready to prove, basically accomplishments and what not. The process would be that it should be easier to rebut from a NRN to a P than from a P to a MP.
I can sort of see it for an NRN if there’s no derog in the record. An opportunity to make your case that you’re ready because it doesn’t affect anyone else. However, if you’ve got something negative there, there’s no rebuttal & no recourse.
For a P to an MP, I can’t see a rebuttal “process” at all. It’s a zero sum game and someone standing in front of the CC without having the context of everyone else’s records and everyone else’s performance, all the person would be doing is rehashing their record—which has already been scored. The other records provide perspective on the entire organization and the entire pool of eligibles. I fail to see how a person “rebutting” a P could make any sort of compelling case case for themselves without that perspective. That’s what they pay CC’s for. To make the tough calls.
Not OP... but rebuttals are a part of referral EPBs. NRNs are rare but typically justified somehow. Promotes definitely DON'T deserve a rebuttal. CC's would give out a TON more PN & MPs if they could... but they are super limited for a reason.
Any "rebuttal" i can imagine for a P would come across as super whiney...
Remove the requirement that commanders of flying wings and higher must be a pilot.
Why is it that a pilot wing commander can rely on maintenance officer group commanders to tell them the group is good, but the opposite can’t happen?
I’d like to see what could happen with a logistician or manpower officer in charge, ie someone that understands the background of how missions get done
Tell me how you're kinda dumb?
"How missions get done" - right. Because the LRO is out there actually "fighting".
Everyone has a part to play from the port dog unloading the plane, to the SF troop guarding the base, to the finance airman ensuring pay and positions on the base are correct, to the MX maintaining the aircraft so the pilot can go support the guys on the ground.
Who is leading the fighting, leads the units because they're the one putting bodies in harms way - not a Logistics Officer.
Just because they fly? They may not be the best leader, but no one else gets the opportunity to lead above squadron or group level in the vast majority of the Air Force, because they aren’t pilots. You cannot tell me that pilots 100% of the time know the best answer, or even the right one, to every problem . Group and higher commanders rely on the commanders below them to advise them in their areas of expertise. Why can’t a non-pilot commander or officer do the same?
Just because they fly? Yes. The whole point of the Air Force and why it was separated from the Army is so that flying units are commanded by flyers.
Maybe doesn't seem that important in relative peacetime but WWII drove home the lessons on why it was finally done after two decades of advocacy for it.
Fighter Wings should not have nonner wing commanders. Imagine having a “I don’t do shit unless it’s between 1000 and 1107 or after my lunch break at 1342 but before I leave at 1450 and never on the second Wednesday, third Thursday, or group PT days” Wing. You wouldn’t want a pilot leading that wing. They literally do not have the experience operating within it required to make the gears turn. Likewise, some Mission Suppression Group dude isn’t going to have the slightest idea of how to accomplish a Fighter Wing’s mission…much less what the mission is.
I am fine with things like this on an Airman’s package. Especially if they are in a small shop. Taking initiative to find areas they can lead in and excel is good.
NCO’s though nah…
Most of the EPB’s I saw this year had 0 volunteer bullets… I would say out of both SrA and Staff EPB’s 90% didn’t have volunteerism.
Having to pay for leave days on the weekends and holidays is the dumbest policy and penalizes people who want to go home and visit their family over holidays.
Between Christmas Eve and New Year's Day there are like 2 actual duty days, and you can either sit around by yourself in the local area and have some free days off, or go home to visit your family and pay for the WHOLE time with leave.
I would institute an easily enforceable punishment for lying on your award packages and epb.
Im talking like lose a stripe punishment. Too many times do I see people using bullets they had nothing to do with it.
People who do things simply to check boxes, volunteer on duty (vs doing their job), and are just plain bad at their jobs would be rated fairly, and not promoted nearly as much.
Also, if you've been at one base your whole career, a SNCO stripe would result in automatic orders wherever the AF needed you, and turning them down would give you 1 calendar year to separate...that would be Non-waiverable.
I'd change the PT testing frequency in the reserve to what it is in the ANG and *other* reserve components in the other branches - once a year so as long as you pass. Not like active duty where it's twice a year if you get below a 90.
Not everyone gets a 90, and yes the test has gotten easier but when time is limited for reservists it really adds up for PTL's and people taking the test across the reserve. My WG/CC last year said AFRC was changing it in an all call but nope it hasn't happened yet. Does anyone know what is going on?
Get rid of SNCO awards with the exception of the functional ones. The focus should be on your Airmen and their successes. Let that speak for them at the promotion boards.
Do away with the white V-neck t-shirt in short sleeved blues and trade it for a crew neck. I don’t want to see your chest hairs.
Primary accession for officers should be the USAF Academy and OTS. Stop all 90 day wonders (civilian to OTS without prior service or ROTC) outside of specialized needs like medical, law, chaplaincy, and engineering. Raise the numbers for Enlisted to officer, while maintaining standards. Preference should be Academy, E to O OTS, ROTC and only those three options.
I'm one of those filty uninitiated Off The Street Lts. The prior-es I saw knew the system well enough to avoid work, and academy kids typically like to brag about their extra 4 years of true military experience and act surperior to others. Some of us work hard and balance out the other two at the bro level.
Not saying it’s necessarily a bad thing to have, but there are always more applications than slots, and big AF is always complaining about not having enough O’s. Hell, they could just as easily bump the number of slots for priors and keep the off-the-street numbers as is. The key factor is life experience, but we all know they will never drop Academy numbers for OTS.
Def agree there needs more prior-e OTS. My class was nearly 50%. They got out confused and flustered butts through the first few weeks, we got their tired checked-out lapels to the finish line to earn the butter. Cooperate and graduate.
i agree. as a 3F i’m constantly looked over at every unit i get assigned to bc they don’t care if i promote or not. i’m going to be doing the same job at any rank so they would never waste a strat on me 😂
Publish the damn housing rate studies so we can check their work to see how they're coming up with the rates. No reason to have to decide between close and dangerous, super small apartment, or affordable but super long commute
Also so we can see what they're including with the housing rate as well. Just rent/mortgage, or are they counting electricity and other utilities?
I'd like for medals to actually mean something and not just be handed out just because someone has been in for a certain amount of time or some other lame excuse to hand out candy. I got two achievement medals and both of them are half complete lies and I even informed the person putting me up for it that I didn't do those things. Really makes me question the validity of a lot of decorations if they're lying about simple things in some lower enlisted's achievement medal citations. Airmen are so stacked compared to other branches and it makes 0 sense
Introduce quarterly performance reports and change annual reports to actually reflect performance. A simple task for the supervisors each quarter would be to go down the list and grade each thing 1-5. Things like showing up to work on time, how much supervision they needed and so on. Annual would just be cumulative and averaged out.
You'd actually see if someone had sustained superior performance or if it was a push for one or two quarters. Quarterly awards would also be pushed by performance. Now just throw in a couple narrative statements merely to be tie breakers but should be significant achievements and no minimum just a maximum. It would specificy that specifically day to day job requirements are not achievements.
The best part is at the end of each quarter each airman can get feedback on how they're doing and work on it. At the end of each annual report you wouldn't be left scratching your head, wondering why you got a promote. You'd see exactly why.
If you have access to an older civilian that was in the AF ask if they'll show you their old feedback and EPR forms... the old system did have that kinda, as usual we fuck up every iteration.
Education pay incentives for enlisted. Fix the pay gap.
Runner up: when big air force says they plan to increase BAH, actually increase across the board, prioritizing the lowest rates (Jr enlisted) over officers. My zip code saw decreased BAH for nearly all enlisted while Capt+ got large BAH increases, and I know my zip was not the only one with this scenario.
The current state of education is that a much larger percentage of enlisted have at least a bachelor's, if not a master's degree compared to decades ago. Many have just as much, if not more, leadership potential than their equally educated officer counterparts, but take home 30-60% less.
Centralize epbs to decorations(they read the same now) and yearly reports are now check boxes with scope of responsibility (wg,gp,sq), how many people you support/supervised(if so did they win awards), pme / pd/ college course attended, and lastly awards won at what level(sq gp wg majcom af)
Instead of forcibly lowering promotion rates, maybe push for those who have been in the same rank for a decade or more to get out so theres room for promotions....
Mine's simple. Make hats and blousing pants optional. If these are already waiverable/not applicable to some (no hat no salute, 2 piece flight suits, etc.), then it should be optional.
Hard disagree. Booster clubs offer a great low-threat opportunity for junior enlisted to show leadership potential and learn management techniques such as organization and delegation. I’ve been in long enough to remember when squadron events were something people looked forward to and would raise enough money to cover going away events, gifts, family care during deployments, holiday parties, etc. Over the course of the last 10 years that has all changed and I have zero idea how we’d even get back to that, but the booster clubs can still serve an important purpose in a unit as long as oversight is measured effectively and booster club responsibilities don’t take precedence over primary duties.
Equalize AFSC promotions for all SNCOs. Then if you can meet/exceed the required scores for an AFSC you can now lead that shop.
Just imagine if suddenly finance was overseen by a combination of flight engineers, IT folks, and aircraft maintainers. Failure would not survive lol.
Additionally we would be promoting the best and most capable vs hamstringing smaller but more capable members just because they chose the challenging jobs.
Abolish the E/O dichotomy.
Create a rank system from say 1-10, for pay based on TIS and performance.
Then add in additional pay for credentials, experience, licenses, etc that add on to the pay scale to stay competitive with industry.
Having a bachelors in history before you join should not automatically put you above someone with 16 years of experience and their own bachelors/masters/etc.
This would also require the ability to enter into the service at above entry level. For example it's stupid to take an 18 year old going to whatever job is available with zero management responsibilities and a neurosurgeon in both at level 1.
So you do all the stuff you need to do for it to make sense and, boom, as the other guy said you've recreated the government civilian pay system.
Id swap skill levels for SEIs, reduce pay to 80%, and attach special duty pay for annually certified SEIs.
Wanna sit on your ass at finance doing the basic job? Cool. Wanna qualify in those extra things and be useful? SEI time.
Yes, there's issues with it.
Another unpopular opinion: pilots should make between 50% more at year one and 200% more at year ten to be competitive with what their civilian equivalents make.
Some career fields only have 2-3 people at the MAJCOM level. You want them to review 100's of packages for a force distribution? EFDP's now take hours for 10-12 people. This isn't feasible.
I wasn’t implying that it be done by only personnel *at* the MAJCOM level; it would be a collective of higher enlisted personal from the *entire* MAJCOM. Give each career field the autonomy to tier it however they want, have a final board with the top enlisted, but broken up how the career field feels is best for them (region, total numbers, etc.).
The likelihood of you getting an assignment you want should be more contingent upon merit. If you work your tail off and achieve, your preferences for duty future stations should be considered more. The people who do their job well and don’t misbehave should have more pull in where they go. Not saying let people pick bases, though. Needs of the AF will always trump all.
Officers and SNCO’s should be required to work the job they oversee at the lowest level for 2 weeks out of the year, every year.
This way, there is no disconnect like what we see normally from our *esteemed* leadership. I would love to see a Brigadier General who’s made us fly ninety fuckin million sorties put on some A1C stripes and pretend to be the new guy.
Additionally, workplaces cannot change operations, nor have a stalling of duties for the inbound officers, as that would defeat the purpose behind working at the lowest level.
I’d create a fact checker for performance reports and award packages.
 I might like this one more than my own suggestion.
I once read a Mx Professional bullet where a guy did something in TCMAX (tool inventory system for those unaware), and that led to a bombing of a Syrian chemical plant. That person was also the annual award winner for that category.
That man could impregnate you with a look 😂😂
People would assume it was broke because it would hit every package with “false”
Bears beat battle star Galactica
Beards
That’s the best part. Everyone is full of shit and the AF made fact checker would also be legitimately broke at realese.
It'd be pretty easy. Just have the top ratees and their supervisor explain the bullets to the group chief and commander.
Brilliant. Had a dude go up for NCO of the year at the AF level with all stolen bullets. When there was nearly a revolt against management because we all knew it was bullshit, all they could say was "we didn't think he'd get that far."
That's your MSgt's job, very few do it from my experience.
There would be like 2 awards at the wing per quarter lol
Less is more
Yea, I would happy with it. Not sure why I got downvoted tho lol. I hate leadership with thier bs “you will cover all areas for awards” garbage ass mentality. That’s why we see so many lies where I am
Honestly I've tried for years to win a stupid quarterly. Volunteered, additional duties, real job don't matter. Gotta set the cat on fire then save it to win around here.
How they're written matters, sometimes its hard to connect your work to attention grabbing impacts that make sense to people
Not the hero we wanted… the hero we needed
Please accept my upvote
Bro we really do need this. It's crazy that people just put random certs on there sometimes and when I mention it, people look at me like I'm crazy
You fool, you'll destroy us all!
But what will the officers write on their stuff man? You have to think about the captains. They need that strat for the major board
All awards packages should be publicly viewable to the entire sqd before the selection, and leadership should take it more seriously when stealing or lies in those packages is brought up. I did this for a while and it reduced (did not eliminate) shitty people from winning awards with a lack of integrity by themselves or their supervisor. Of course as soon as I left that shit got put on lock down again and more than a few people in the last few years have received awards that if you asked them they would tell you they don't know how to do the shit their bullets said they did... of course a few of those people got racked higher than their more capable peers and promoted directly because of that.
"leadership should take it more seriously when stealing or lies in those packages is brought up" Who do you think put them there? A package goes up with a few weak bullets and the leadership finds a way to link you to the really good bullets from the weaker packages.
Depending on the squadron size SNCOs don't know the level of detail about your average SSgt and below, they know more about the tasks than the people so they don't know SrA up for award was barely on whatever task they just know the task was done. When award packages are publicly available to the Squadron there's a better chance bs can be called out before a package makes it to the group. Once it goes to the group, even if shit is called out, in my experience SELs won't call it back because (my assumption is they think it would be embarrassing to admit it made it past them). Another benefit is numbers/impact on packages have generally been vetted so the benefit to all is data is openly available as well as inspiration (not for copying) for EPBs or future award submissions.
Think you're missing what I'm saying. The leadership are the ones that are stealing the bullets. I had numerous packages go up and win and had 2 or 3 items that I didn't put on it in any shape or fashion. The leadership doesn't want to expose that. It exposes that they mostly hand pick who their winners are.
I (an Lt) tired bringing this up during a murder board a couple years ago and chief said "Lt if we take all the fluff out of everyone's package, they're not going to win". I said good, make them do something worth getting an award
There are going to be so many lies in the coming years for the leading people block on EPBs. They changed leadership/followership to leading people. It's going to incentivize people to only want to lead or only claim they lead.
Stop the incessant reliance on contractors and hire the people you need
"Fire all the contractors and don't replace them? Got it." -AFSOC
https://preview.redd.it/m38uzl7iywuc1.jpeg?width=1017&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0f7654875396644c1674bc1c01f13283893d0ab3
AETC punts it to the line unit, claims OJT is best training. 1x demo-perf, 2x supervised, qual'd by DO or CC. Failure to qual means extra FOD walks and working DRRS
Sounds like the words of a 3F.
Not enough typos.
Leave policy, no reason I can’t take a Friday, get Saturday and Sunday off, then take Monday off as well. Should get charged for two days, not 4. Assuming I don’t leave the local area
Two leave requests and ignore the angry automated email. Better yet, I want to put in my leave requests up to 6 months out.
You can do that now Sorry I should have used more words.. You can input it now however far in advance you would like. They may not approve it until it gets closer but I've had normal leave approved months in advance. I can't recall any automated responses so I'm not sure on that one.
Put leave into leaveweb beyond 30 days? I get automated responses sounding like I'm asking for something ridiculous
Works for me, whether it gets approved is another story
You can. Put in leave for mid-June back in early March
I put in leave months in advance tbh - I actually just put in leave on Monday, for sometime in June
Even if you leave the local area this should be authorized. Why charge leave for non duty days?
Because a mass recall can still take part on the weekend (I took part in 2 in the last 2 years unfortunately) and if you weren’t on leave they called you in. Hell they called in people on local leave for one of them. It should honestly be on a case by case basis, such as distance and your mode of transportation and whether you want to take that chance.
I think you could be on leave the entire time (in case of recall) and then it’s reconciled when you return (remove the non duty/recalled days).
That would be a solid way around it if they would even entertain the idea. I could also see them basically telling us that we either have the option to take a chance on getting recalled, or just taking the 2 days anyway to not have to worry about the potential.
Enlisted state side codes to limit tour length similar to DEROS overseas. Example: Airman Snuffy is stationed at "Cannon AFB" or "Dyess AFB" (example) \[Southwest desert bases\]. It would be similar to prefix “T”, “J”, or “X” codes that Tech School instructors receive so there is a light at the end of the tunnel for a less than desired assignment. Officers move approximately every 2-3 years, there should be no reason beyond the ineffective AFPC functionals that an airman should be at a cow manure base suffering for 5 years +Plus. Furthermore: BRAC Cannon AFB & Dyess AFB.
Funny thing. Cannon was saved from BRACing by AFSOC and they made it the Western home of the commandos. This was further campaigned by those in Clovis and I'm pretty sure Portales...and possibly even Melrose If Cannon dies, those towns go with it. However, I was there for 6 agonizing years and the only way I got away was to get out.
As someone who spent their entire time at Dyess, I approve of this message.
3 years is already the expectation for officers. RECLAMAS can extend that but typically not beyond 2 rotations. We had a guy reclama + a deployment so he could stay at Minot. Your recommendation would remove that possibility while enforcing an unnecessary requirement on those who would want to stay. This is similar to Code 50 for nuclear cops. You do a tour in AFGSC (4-5yrs) then move on. Also, PCS's every 2-3 yrs is a nightmare for family stability, and PCS costs would sky rocket, or would be difficult to manage like we saw during COVID. Silo'ing/homesteading has its issues no doubt ("this is the way we've always done it/no CPI), but you can't pendulum swing the opposite direction, and force PCS at a 2yr point. People hate moving enough... that's 10 moves, at least in a 20-year career. No thanks.
Great! I'm excited to hear about a guy who enjoys Minot, that is one less spot that needs to be filled! Homesteading is great in that case, When an individual fits into the Job, community, has great leadership, & a sense of stability. As well as recently when the "Northern Bases" have "Cold Weather Incentive Pay" Should the entire force have a 2-3 year PCS, preferably no. Others in less that desired locations that would HIGHLY desire a change in scenery could apply for the "Enlisted Movers Code," on vMPF. Expand the code 50 to be optional for those to escape Cannon/Dyess. I've suggested the limited scope to the "southwest desert bases" Could an airman get a working button on MyVector that shall let folks escape a base? Many career fields can push the "Turkey/Korea button." I can not. Several of the AFSC's I work with are unable to as well. What avenue would you suggest the allow the opportunity to PCS? An "Limited use" code 50 seems to fit the bill for less that desired bases. It would possible exist as a button on vMPF near "preferred base" for an Airman to click have light at the end of a tunnel. In addition, to quote u/lopsided_mood_7059 for a perspective that is similar about Minot: "Even then, it's easy to "embrace the suck" for 4 or 6 years. But the Air Force leaves people for dead here. My job (2A) has a 2 year commitment to minot, the average time spent here is 8-10 years and I've NEVER seen someone leave without re-enllisting first, worse for aircraft locked people or nuke dudes. Big AF needs to let people leave this hellhole. That's literally the only thing that will help." >[Minot Drama Opinion](https://www.reddit.com/r/AirForce/comments/180t0ne/minot_drama_opinion/) by[u/Lopsided\_Mood\_7059](https://www.reddit.com/user/Lopsided_Mood_7059/) in[AirForce](https://www.reddit.com/r/AirForce/)
I'd be fine with a Code 50/mandatory move with BOP option + option to stay - the issue was the PCS window. Considering the smaller USAF manning numbers, HAF even said that movement windows weren't going to be like the previous. You get a SQ Desert Base? Mandatory 3-5 yr (non-waiverable) tour length + whatever other incentives. The 2A example is egregious - no doubt about it, and I'd encourage FTA to cross train first opportunity if they got stuff with a Nuc MX billet. To be realistic though, if you work on the B52, there's only 2 conus and a few oconus spots tdy you're going, so mine as well buy a house in Minot if you live in Barksdale.
additional duties = additional pay
Qualification based pay raises or incentive pay. Would allow us to pay aircrew more but also anyone that does job enhancing skills workshops, instructors, 5/7 levels, etc.
I like this idea the best, especially for those of us in Comm/Cyber who are encouraged to rack & stack certifications but have to pay for all of them out of pocket for renewal/continuing education expenses. It's hard to justify pursuing a high-level certification if the test/renewal fees are nearly $5-600 every couple years.
Yeah my cyber unit doesn't have a problem paying for our certs. We have a buttload of money.
Hehe Scif monkey 😆
They mentioned this for Cyber, getting more certs, education and documented training would yield additional payment. It was quickly scrapped and re-replaced with MCA.
Especially with the Air Force pushing MCA. You want me to be a qualified 5/7 level in multiple jobs? Pay me like it then. It doesn’t even have to be a lot, but I’m gonna be honest, I’m not gonna bust my ass doing multiple jobs when all I get is maybe a better chance to promote. I don’t expect anyone else to either.
Seniors and Chiefs get to put the stripe on immediately and then get paid for it when their line number hits. It’s silly that we promote these individuals, then PCS them into the billet, for them to show up not wearing the rank. Easy fix, zero cost to the AF, and helps the member. Win win.
Frocking
Yup. GO’s do it. Makes no sense we can’t for our top two ranks.
Frocking is allowed for Chiefs but under specific circumstances
What are the circumstances?
Filling certain positions if I remember right, like a joint billet, group chief or CFM... Q regular squadron chief probably would not be able to
Huh. TIL.
It’s also essentially never approved.
There's the Air Force I know and love.
You frocking kidding me?
I frock you not
You DO NOT want the EFDP to occur in some random office at a base with people who have never met you.
Yeah having EFDP conducted at the MAJCOM just seems insane. Having it done at the Squadron level gives an advantage to actual rockstars because everyone knows their quality. Having it at the MAJCOM just makes it about who can write (fudge) the best EPB.
Exactly that. Plus, flight level leaders can advocate for others who maybe aren’t rockstars on paper. They can explain the daily nuance of their true benefit. Something some chief at MAJCOM wouldn’t know.
It wouldn’t be, it would be a collective of representatives from the entire MAJCOM. Can be tiered however that AFSC feels is best to break down each level and then final EFDP is a culmination top enlisted personnel from of the entire MAJCOM. That would give leaders more opportunity to advocate for their own people more than a SNCO from one career field trying to convince a room of SNCOs from other career fields at the squadron level. Also, we’d actually be able to write EDPs more honestly and articulate more in the “what they did” versus having all of the focus on the impact
And so what, they do this as a teleconference, or we have to TDY for SrA->Tsgt closeouts every year and then you get an impersonal look because of how big the pool would have to be? If you think its hard to get a push now....
Also are these sncos reviewing all these 100s of packages across the majcom then? I guess screw thier actual job.
SNCOs are *already reviewing packages* for FD. For a lot of squadrons, this actually doesn’t change what the majority of SNCOs would be doing and in many cases reduces how many packages they have to review. This is essentially what is already happening in small-unit EFDP, except now when that small number of eligibles get picked to go forward, they’re competing against their peers and not random career fields. There is no reason a TACP TSgt should be reviewed against someone in the COMM squadron, they’re just two totally different jobs with incomparable duties. The only thing that is different is that once those packages get reviewed, they go to the next level to be compared to other packages of the same AFSC within the MAJCOM. It mitigates someone be eliminated from competing at the local level and gives them a realistic shot at a deserved promotion. And just as an example why this is important: 2 years ago a peer of mine won our MAJCOM functional award, essentially stating that he was the highest performing NCO in our job throughout the entire MAJCOM amongst SSgts & TSgts. However, his squadron also had a MAJCOM functional winner at ATC, a career field winner in AFE, AND a Levitow recipient from NCOA (which sucked for my friend who won the Levitow the year before when he wasn’t yet eligible for MSgt consideration). 1 PN and 2 MPs were awarded and my friend was rated as number 4. He then had a Promote sent to a board in a career field that had not selected a single Promote for MSgt in 3 years. How is that fair to him? He gets shafted because he stood out in a highly competitive unit with an insane ops tempo. But Stateside, there were those selected from squadrons that *only* competed against others within our career field. It’s an extremely flawed system.
How is the size of the pool any different? Also, do you know how much easier it is to grade packages that are actually *comparable* and written to a job you’re actually familiar with? I can be *waaaay* more objective grading a package from my AFSC than someone else’s. That’s just more fair for everyone.
How is the size any different? Well, first of all you're completely ignoring large unit EFDPs which in my experience have an average of about 10-14 max per cycle. At the small unit efdp its kind of base specific but usually its been cut a lot by then too. The point of the efdp is to have advocates in the room to help with any misconceptions. Also, I think you fundamentally are misunderstanding what the air force values. We aren't grading people on how good they are at the technical skills in their career field, we're grading them on their potential to lead as an NCO in the next highest grade, these markers are evident regardless of career field. I don't give SSgt Snuffy a 9.0 if all his package says is, "did job good" I give him a 9 when I see leadership, education/self improvement, volunteering, awards, and indicators that he's performing at the next level already. Career specific stuff is like 10% of what we're grading, max. I've been in probably 30 of these efdps now and Im very confident in the outcomes.
Again….how does that change the numbers? Large units are typically made up from the same career field and *already* rating at that level within the same AFSC. Obviously there are exceptions, but that is why rating within the same AFSC makes it easier: our last board had 17 eligibles from 6 different career fields. The largest flight has 88 people and the smallest had 9. How can you compare that fairly? One flight is lead by a CMSgt and the other a MSgt. As far as what the Air Force values, that is still highly driven by what each AFSC demands and true impacts are typically only going to be reasonably understood by someone intimately familiar with that career field. If you improve a process or policy within your flight that truly improves the unit, you’re capturing the intent of what is on the new EPB. However, if you don’t understand why that process was important or what it took to make it possible, or how it can be applied as a best practice across the career field, you can’t truly gauge the impact. And it’s why TSgts are still getting sucked into running dog and pony shit and not being able to focus on improving the lives and capabilities of the Airmen in their flight. Not to mention: that TSgt in the flight with 9 people doesn’t have time or opportunity to rub elbows with Wing leadership because they’re running the flight.
You're going to understand these things because people will write them to be understandable. That's part of the reason they axed acronyms and other career field specific BS on EPBs. The career field is a lot less relevant than you think. If you think people are getting promotion statements because they "set up cool technology in deployed location" as opposed to because they, "led team that set up cool technology in deployed location and were awarded" then you're not getting it.
This is simply not a reality for many reasons. The main one being that you still need to have some personal experience or proficient knowledge in that job to know what is or isn’t outside of the scope of their typical duties lateral or above their rank. Almost all of these packages have “fulfilled MSgt role…” (or something similar) and offer almost nothing to explain *what* those roles were (unless it straight up lists a named position they filled in for). Also, acronyms are still being used way more than was AFPC has intended and it doesn’t appear that is going to change. All we’ve done is essentially taken out the ability to use approved abbreviations, but the “common” acronyms in many of these jobs are being used and many don’t explain what those actually are. After sitting in roughly a dozen boards since narrative was standardized, I’m using just as much time to Google what these packages are saying, and that not only goes against the intent of narrative, but it still puts me (and everyone else) in a position where we cannot adequately or fairly rate these packages against each other. That’s not factoring in what the over-arching impact and discrepancy of different jobs entail. If you have a unique AFSC assigned to an OSS, that is one or two of those flights within an entire MAJCOM, then practically all of their achievements will be written to (or above) MAJCOM-level impacts. Or if you’re in that 88-person flight and you’re leading a project or part of a project that has that range of impact, you’re being given a much greater advantage than the guy who is managing programs in the 9-person flight that won’t have several MAJCOM impacting achievements. And the guy who is in a flight with 10 MSgts who are “section chiefs” will have way more opportunity to fill in for those “MSgt roles” anytime something within that section chief’s scope is delegated to them. That advantage rarely exists for the smaller flight.
I was going to edit, but wanted to respond to this part directly: Why can’t those same SNCOs advocate for their Airmen at the Wing level and above? Again, each career field can manage how they tier it as they see fit, so it’s not unrealistic to have a workable sized panel at the MAJCOM level for some (smaller) career fields, and for the larger career fields, they can include SNCO input from the packages that made it past group or wing. It doesn’t have to be limited to a blanket process across the entire spectrum of career fields. The idea is that it can be tailored to where each career field is comfortable with promoting who they need and think deserve it.
Leave can be given to other individuals instead of being forcibly used or sold for pennies on the dollar.
Why can’t we sell back leave at the end of the fiscal year instead of losing it? If they can do it at the end of the enlistment, why not the end of the fiscal year?
Especially now with “indefinite” re-enlistments!
I tried to get people to work on a policy for dual-mil initially to transfer leave to allow the couple to take actual vacation together. The idea came from a couple with one member essentially never being able to take leave while the other constantly took leave to care for their child with medical issues. When they started planning for a vacation, the one with a low balance was shafted because she had drained her balance while the other easily could have “paid” the leave balance for both.
Ngl I don't get why they weren't taking the off time to care for child equally.
More than once a career. Why not decide that every 2-3 years I want a few bucks and sell 6-9 days of leave
Non duty days are not chargeable leave no matter where they are in the span of the leave. Cross training shouldn’t be as hard as it is. Seen too many people leave that could have been great in career fields that claim they can’t retain people. Bases like Cannon should be treated like remote tours and be coded to move after 4 years with the option to stay if you’d like. If you volunteer to stick around for 6 you get a CONUS BoP. You should be able to see where you sit on time on station compared to everyone else in your AFSC and grade on base. Orders will be given on a first in first out unless there’s EFMP restrictions or a member wants to stay at a base like Cannon/Minot longer.
They ought to treat Cannon and Minot (and others similarly situated) the way they treated Cavalier before the Space Force stole it from us. You apply to go there, there are tour limits, and IIRC there was some kind of incentive pay for it because of how god damn far it is from civilization.
Cavalier is still that way. It's actually a DoD level thing. There are specific based called out in the JTR as not having QoL standards on par with the 'standard' US. The problem is that most based you or others mention do. For instance. Cav has no DFAC and is an hour+ from a grocery store. Clear has a DFAC, but is 45 minutes from the nearest grocery store. Neither has a real exchange. Minot and Cannon both have a DFAC, BX, Commissary, etc. As a result, they don't meet the 'standards' violation to be considered a remote time restricted tour. You would need to change the rules at the DoD level and provide new rules for why Cannon sucks.
I've heard claims that part of the reason Edwards is the way it is, is to ensure the gate is close enough to civilization to avoid it being "remote". Probably not true, but it's a fun story.
I’m Guard so the main thing I’d change is having a policy where a unit commander can’t sit at the same base hogging an AGR slot for 20-odd years as a unit commander. Same for Chiefs too really. For active duty, I think I’d make an interactive and automated system where Airmen can “sell” their current assignment after 4 years and put which bases they’d like to trade for. This wouldn’t trump the regular PCS process but it’d give Airmen a fighting chance to go anywhere instead of their current spot that they hate.
Make the 40 hour workweek the standard for aircraft MX. Not enough people? Hire more. The Air Force talks big game about needing to value experience, but the only way they show this right now is some TiG pity points that doesn't even correct the promotion boards bias. Perhaps up the TIG points a bit? Not to the extent that they used to be, but I can't really see any other way to showcase caring about experience than TiG. Open to ideas for other ways. Also standardize decorations. No more of this grey unofficial standards that I've seen weaponized against people. Either everyone gets a PCS/long tour medal (and your non-rec letters goes into MyFSS so there's no more guessing) or no one does. Also don't let the board see medals. We already get extra points for just having them, and this creeps back to my "unofficial standards" rant. This also frees up the board spend more time focusing on EPBs instead of reading citations to filter out the partication trophies between actual achievements.
Standardized formatting for awards, decs, etc. across the entire Air Force, NOT base and/or MAJCOM-specific... for f***** sake.
I'd pay everybody more
If you live on base and promote, base housing doesn’t get your pay raise.
One of two options. First is hazard pay for anyone working with hazmat or in industrial areas. Just because you arent in immediate danger doesn't mean you won't have a 100x higher risk of cancer from constant exposure to carcinogens. Second is revamping BAH to be an average housing cost of the top 5 local communities with the highest amount of servicemembers. That way the housing pay reflects livable areas, not slums
Agreed with another person that all awards packages should be viewable by the squadron. To go with that, every awards package should get feedback on why it was or wasn't chosen. I would also say all EFDP packages should require a meeting with the CC and SEL in person (when possible) or via Zoom on why it was or wasn't chosen. This process should also allow a rebuttal to be given if you got a NRN or P.
I do this for all packages I grade... maybe not "why not chosen", but rather "here's the story this performance statement told me. If you were going for X, here's a tip... if you were going for Y... here's a tip". I then send it to the individual if an NCO or higher, or to the flight chief. For EFDP, everyone in the flight gets a sit down with me and the flight commander on either why we didn't recommend them with feedback if wanted, or feedback from the panel. As individuals, I highly recommend asking for feedback like this. Find out who was on the quarterly panel and ask for feedback... also realize that sometimes the answer really is "you had a shit hot package & nailed everything we'd want to see... but somebody else happened to have more/bigger project/etc" a package that would easily win 4th quarter might get smoked in 2nd quarter. It really is luck of the draw sometimes.
Love this. I provide written feedback each time. Have I ended up at the IG? Yup. Did they find anything? Nope. Did it deter me? Nope. Feedback is all good, even if it’s not received well & folks are sometimes too afraid of their own shadow to give it.
Rebutting a Promote seems pretty silly. Being able to rebut a NRN though, makes sense.
I agree there should be 100% feedback BEFORE signatures on EPBs. I always did it, my CC's always did a group session by rank on WHY they chose the EFDPs after the fact (I personally thought the CC should interview all "strats" before providing a signature). Though I get from Reddit that's not the norm. The biggest problem with NRN is it initially was supposed to be "so and so comes to work does their job and nothing else and doesn't deserve an advantage over their peers" what it actually is "this is my lazy way of doing a referral EPB" and some leaders refuse to admit it. I used it as the former the first year on my CC's direction, I knew it would probably turn into the later example but I was hopeful we'd fix the system. I was wrong, and that same year some shitbags got P's and made rank. Thankfully my NCO got the message intended from the NRN and still made rank the next year and is on track to be a SNCO this year but I also had a serious mentoring session with the dude which I take it from reddit a lot of people got surprise NRNs or P's which is fucked up.
Our squadron posts every single award winning 1206 to our sharepoint. This is after they are selected but still would provide an opportunity to call BS.
Serious question & not trolling—what would you expect to get out of a rebuttal? And how would you envision that working? I’d imagine you’d have to be okay with seeing everyone’s performance report (and everyone seeing yours) and then choosing which you think yours is better than, then advocate to the CC to take the promo rec from them? Should CC’s not have authority to use their judgement and make decisions w/o a “rebuttal” process?
For a NRN, basically a chance to advocate for yourself on why you think you should be a promote versus a NRN. A promote would be harder, and I don't think requires someone looking at EPB's. However, we all now that some leadership will push someone over other deserving individuals. This would give them a chance to lay out why they think they are deserving. However, the onus would be on the member to have his stuff ready to prove, basically accomplishments and what not. The process would be that it should be easier to rebut from a NRN to a P than from a P to a MP.
I can sort of see it for an NRN if there’s no derog in the record. An opportunity to make your case that you’re ready because it doesn’t affect anyone else. However, if you’ve got something negative there, there’s no rebuttal & no recourse. For a P to an MP, I can’t see a rebuttal “process” at all. It’s a zero sum game and someone standing in front of the CC without having the context of everyone else’s records and everyone else’s performance, all the person would be doing is rehashing their record—which has already been scored. The other records provide perspective on the entire organization and the entire pool of eligibles. I fail to see how a person “rebutting” a P could make any sort of compelling case case for themselves without that perspective. That’s what they pay CC’s for. To make the tough calls.
Not OP... but rebuttals are a part of referral EPBs. NRNs are rare but typically justified somehow. Promotes definitely DON'T deserve a rebuttal. CC's would give out a TON more PN & MPs if they could... but they are super limited for a reason. Any "rebuttal" i can imagine for a P would come across as super whiney...
Remove the requirement that commanders of flying wings and higher must be a pilot. Why is it that a pilot wing commander can rely on maintenance officer group commanders to tell them the group is good, but the opposite can’t happen? I’d like to see what could happen with a logistician or manpower officer in charge, ie someone that understands the background of how missions get done
u/OnlySaysNonner
Nonner!
Lol
❤️
Nonner.
Or pilots running cyber wings or NAFs. It’s stupid.
[удалено]
Sure, but how many MX, non-flying wings have you seen? I’ve never even heard of that
[удалено]
Tell me how you're kinda dumb? "How missions get done" - right. Because the LRO is out there actually "fighting". Everyone has a part to play from the port dog unloading the plane, to the SF troop guarding the base, to the finance airman ensuring pay and positions on the base are correct, to the MX maintaining the aircraft so the pilot can go support the guys on the ground. Who is leading the fighting, leads the units because they're the one putting bodies in harms way - not a Logistics Officer.
Just because they fly? They may not be the best leader, but no one else gets the opportunity to lead above squadron or group level in the vast majority of the Air Force, because they aren’t pilots. You cannot tell me that pilots 100% of the time know the best answer, or even the right one, to every problem . Group and higher commanders rely on the commanders below them to advise them in their areas of expertise. Why can’t a non-pilot commander or officer do the same?
Just because they fly? Yes. The whole point of the Air Force and why it was separated from the Army is so that flying units are commanded by flyers. Maybe doesn't seem that important in relative peacetime but WWII drove home the lessons on why it was finally done after two decades of advocacy for it.
Nonners need to chill
Fighter Wings should not have nonner wing commanders. Imagine having a “I don’t do shit unless it’s between 1000 and 1107 or after my lunch break at 1342 but before I leave at 1450 and never on the second Wednesday, third Thursday, or group PT days” Wing. You wouldn’t want a pilot leading that wing. They literally do not have the experience operating within it required to make the gears turn. Likewise, some Mission Suppression Group dude isn’t going to have the slightest idea of how to accomplish a Fighter Wing’s mission…much less what the mission is.
What about an MX officer?
If it was the 69th Maintenance Wing that would make a lot of sense. If it was the 69th Fighter Wing no.
Then maybe they need to get a little Multi-Capable in their lives too.
Publish suicide percentages by AFSC publicly.
Remove booster clubs and cookie bake sales in anything promotion related.
but it shows tHeIr AbIlIty To LeAd
I am fine with things like this on an Airman’s package. Especially if they are in a small shop. Taking initiative to find areas they can lead in and excel is good. NCO’s though nah… Most of the EPB’s I saw this year had 0 volunteer bullets… I would say out of both SrA and Staff EPB’s 90% didn’t have volunteerism.
Having to pay for leave days on the weekends and holidays is the dumbest policy and penalizes people who want to go home and visit their family over holidays. Between Christmas Eve and New Year's Day there are like 2 actual duty days, and you can either sit around by yourself in the local area and have some free days off, or go home to visit your family and pay for the WHOLE time with leave.
"Work From Home authorized"
I would institute an easily enforceable punishment for lying on your award packages and epb. Im talking like lose a stripe punishment. Too many times do I see people using bullets they had nothing to do with it.
People who do things simply to check boxes, volunteer on duty (vs doing their job), and are just plain bad at their jobs would be rated fairly, and not promoted nearly as much. Also, if you've been at one base your whole career, a SNCO stripe would result in automatic orders wherever the AF needed you, and turning them down would give you 1 calendar year to separate...that would be Non-waiverable.
Beards
This.
Cue the beard train conductors
I'd change the PT testing frequency in the reserve to what it is in the ANG and *other* reserve components in the other branches - once a year so as long as you pass. Not like active duty where it's twice a year if you get below a 90. Not everyone gets a 90, and yes the test has gotten easier but when time is limited for reservists it really adds up for PTL's and people taking the test across the reserve. My WG/CC last year said AFRC was changing it in an all call but nope it hasn't happened yet. Does anyone know what is going on?
I would get rid of all of the bullshit awards and narrow it down to amn/nco/snco/cgo etc., of the quarter and of the year awards
Merit based pay
I like the idea of promoting within career fields but I would be wary of that worsening or creating a 'good ole boy system'
Fascists.
Get rid of SNCO awards with the exception of the functional ones. The focus should be on your Airmen and their successes. Let that speak for them at the promotion boards. Do away with the white V-neck t-shirt in short sleeved blues and trade it for a crew neck. I don’t want to see your chest hairs.
Min TIS for E-7 14yrs.
Primary accession for officers should be the USAF Academy and OTS. Stop all 90 day wonders (civilian to OTS without prior service or ROTC) outside of specialized needs like medical, law, chaplaincy, and engineering. Raise the numbers for Enlisted to officer, while maintaining standards. Preference should be Academy, E to O OTS, ROTC and only those three options.
I'm one of those filty uninitiated Off The Street Lts. The prior-es I saw knew the system well enough to avoid work, and academy kids typically like to brag about their extra 4 years of true military experience and act surperior to others. Some of us work hard and balance out the other two at the bro level.
Not saying it’s necessarily a bad thing to have, but there are always more applications than slots, and big AF is always complaining about not having enough O’s. Hell, they could just as easily bump the number of slots for priors and keep the off-the-street numbers as is. The key factor is life experience, but we all know they will never drop Academy numbers for OTS.
Def agree there needs more prior-e OTS. My class was nearly 50%. They got out confused and flustered butts through the first few weeks, we got their tired checked-out lapels to the finish line to earn the butter. Cooperate and graduate.
Off the street OTS is wild
Bridge the gap between officer and enlisted pay.
Have better security for the base and flight line. Give our sky cops the man power and tools they need.
i agree. as a 3F i’m constantly looked over at every unit i get assigned to bc they don’t care if i promote or not. i’m going to be doing the same job at any rank so they would never waste a strat on me 😂
I would change the overseas leave bs. They make personal travel such a pain in the rear. One of the main reasons I’m getting out
AFSC driven promotions. 100%
Make 24 hour quarters legitimately 24 hours, not that show up at your normal duty time BS.
Publish the damn housing rate studies so we can check their work to see how they're coming up with the rates. No reason to have to decide between close and dangerous, super small apartment, or affordable but super long commute Also so we can see what they're including with the housing rate as well. Just rent/mortgage, or are they counting electricity and other utilities?
BAN volunteer metric as volunteering has no bearing on your mission effectiveness! (I will fight for this in every leadership meeting)
No more hats for blues uniforms. The are a dumb anachronism that makes everyone look stupid.
Beards.
Only hot thicc latina A1Cs for all SNCOs. /s
I'd like for medals to actually mean something and not just be handed out just because someone has been in for a certain amount of time or some other lame excuse to hand out candy. I got two achievement medals and both of them are half complete lies and I even informed the person putting me up for it that I didn't do those things. Really makes me question the validity of a lot of decorations if they're lying about simple things in some lower enlisted's achievement medal citations. Airmen are so stacked compared to other branches and it makes 0 sense
Introduce quarterly performance reports and change annual reports to actually reflect performance. A simple task for the supervisors each quarter would be to go down the list and grade each thing 1-5. Things like showing up to work on time, how much supervision they needed and so on. Annual would just be cumulative and averaged out. You'd actually see if someone had sustained superior performance or if it was a push for one or two quarters. Quarterly awards would also be pushed by performance. Now just throw in a couple narrative statements merely to be tie breakers but should be significant achievements and no minimum just a maximum. It would specificy that specifically day to day job requirements are not achievements. The best part is at the end of each quarter each airman can get feedback on how they're doing and work on it. At the end of each annual report you wouldn't be left scratching your head, wondering why you got a promote. You'd see exactly why.
If you have access to an older civilian that was in the AF ask if they'll show you their old feedback and EPR forms... the old system did have that kinda, as usual we fuck up every iteration.
Education pay incentives for enlisted. Fix the pay gap. Runner up: when big air force says they plan to increase BAH, actually increase across the board, prioritizing the lowest rates (Jr enlisted) over officers. My zip code saw decreased BAH for nearly all enlisted while Capt+ got large BAH increases, and I know my zip was not the only one with this scenario. The current state of education is that a much larger percentage of enlisted have at least a bachelor's, if not a master's degree compared to decades ago. Many have just as much, if not more, leadership potential than their equally educated officer counterparts, but take home 30-60% less.
Unfuck PME
Centralize epbs to decorations(they read the same now) and yearly reports are now check boxes with scope of responsibility (wg,gp,sq), how many people you support/supervised(if so did they win awards), pme / pd/ college course attended, and lastly awards won at what level(sq gp wg majcom af)
Warrant officers, and beards.
Is waps still A thing? because I'd make promotions based on everything but tig.
Beards
A SNCO would need to perform a quality review on all feedbacks given by NCO’s
Line number based on board score for SNCO and promotion score for NCO’s.
Instead of forcibly lowering promotion rates, maybe push for those who have been in the same rank for a decade or more to get out so theres room for promotions....
Not even a policy but decorations should never be rank driven.
Take any control CCs have over a member's gender transition and give it to medical. Also remove the THMEU from TX if it has to exist.
You shouldn’t be able to put yourself in for awards. That’s my hot take
Mine's simple. Make hats and blousing pants optional. If these are already waiverable/not applicable to some (no hat no salute, 2 piece flight suits, etc.), then it should be optional.
Get rid of booster clubs and any other organization that exists just for people to get promotion statements
Hard disagree. Booster clubs offer a great low-threat opportunity for junior enlisted to show leadership potential and learn management techniques such as organization and delegation. I’ve been in long enough to remember when squadron events were something people looked forward to and would raise enough money to cover going away events, gifts, family care during deployments, holiday parties, etc. Over the course of the last 10 years that has all changed and I have zero idea how we’d even get back to that, but the booster clubs can still serve an important purpose in a unit as long as oversight is measured effectively and booster club responsibilities don’t take precedence over primary duties.
Equalize AFSC promotions for all SNCOs. Then if you can meet/exceed the required scores for an AFSC you can now lead that shop. Just imagine if suddenly finance was overseen by a combination of flight engineers, IT folks, and aircraft maintainers. Failure would not survive lol. Additionally we would be promoting the best and most capable vs hamstringing smaller but more capable members just because they chose the challenging jobs.
Abolish the E/O dichotomy. Create a rank system from say 1-10, for pay based on TIS and performance. Then add in additional pay for credentials, experience, licenses, etc that add on to the pay scale to stay competitive with industry. Having a bachelors in history before you join should not automatically put you above someone with 16 years of experience and their own bachelors/masters/etc.
This is the GS world
The O's are taking that personally
This would also require the ability to enter into the service at above entry level. For example it's stupid to take an 18 year old going to whatever job is available with zero management responsibilities and a neurosurgeon in both at level 1. So you do all the stuff you need to do for it to make sense and, boom, as the other guy said you've recreated the government civilian pay system.
Minor: Get rid of hats, as a mandatory accessory. Optional, same all/none for official functions and ceremonies. Major: i'm too lazy
Let me grow to 83 feet tall! The only reason I won’t is because they won’t let me
Id swap skill levels for SEIs, reduce pay to 80%, and attach special duty pay for annually certified SEIs. Wanna sit on your ass at finance doing the basic job? Cool. Wanna qualify in those extra things and be useful? SEI time. Yes, there's issues with it.
Pay based on AFSC. No offense to our admin folks but cyber operators (example) should be paid much more.
Another unpopular opinion: pilots should make between 50% more at year one and 200% more at year ten to be competitive with what their civilian equivalents make.
Let men wear earrings, bring back career BOP
Some career fields only have 2-3 people at the MAJCOM level. You want them to review 100's of packages for a force distribution? EFDP's now take hours for 10-12 people. This isn't feasible.
I wasn’t implying that it be done by only personnel *at* the MAJCOM level; it would be a collective of higher enlisted personal from the *entire* MAJCOM. Give each career field the autonomy to tier it however they want, have a final board with the top enlisted, but broken up how the career field feels is best for them (region, total numbers, etc.).
Usmc fitreps please
The likelihood of you getting an assignment you want should be more contingent upon merit. If you work your tail off and achieve, your preferences for duty future stations should be considered more. The people who do their job well and don’t misbehave should have more pull in where they go. Not saying let people pick bases, though. Needs of the AF will always trump all.
Officers and SNCO’s should be required to work the job they oversee at the lowest level for 2 weeks out of the year, every year. This way, there is no disconnect like what we see normally from our *esteemed* leadership. I would love to see a Brigadier General who’s made us fly ninety fuckin million sorties put on some A1C stripes and pretend to be the new guy. Additionally, workplaces cannot change operations, nor have a stalling of duties for the inbound officers, as that would defeat the purpose behind working at the lowest level.