PDA

View Full Version : Top enlisted to-do



Measure Man
07-13-2009, 03:16 PM
Top enlisted to-do


James Roy took over last week as chief master sergeant of the Air Force, the enlisted adviser to Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz. His job: to look out for the best interests of 262,000 enlisted airmen throughout the Air Force.

Over the next four years, any number of issues will arise to grab his attention. Here are six he can — and should — tackle right away:

• End grade inflation. Enlisted performance reports have lost touch with reality. Not every airman can be “outstanding.” This may require a new EPR or at least a new scoring system, which would be costly, but a meaningless system is even more costly. Fix this, quickly.

• Stop fiddling with the uniform. Drop the green boots, and go back to black. They’re fine. Drop the heritage coat, and keep the existing uniform. Time to move on.

• Extend day-care center hours. The Air Force doesn’t operate on a strict 6:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. schedule. Neither should on-base day care. Extend closing time to 7 p.m. on every base.

• Fix the first sergeant shortage. Not enough airmen volunteer for the duty. So establish incentives to get their attention — extra credit toward promotion is one incentive. Special duty assignment pay is another.

• De-stigmatize “special needs.” Airmen who have disabled or ill dependents — those with special needs — are marked by an assignment limitation code, “Q,” that bars them from certain jobs. That’s meant to help, but can actually hurt careers. It shouldn’t.

• Make deployments fair. War tours aren’t spread evenly across the force, and that’s driving too many E-5s and E-6s to quit the force, wasting talent. Close the loopholes so no one can skate by without carrying his share of the load. No more excuses.

There are, no doubt, more things Roy can add to his list over time. But if he can solve these in his tour of office, he will have had a very successful tour indeed.

Whoever wrote this commentary is pretty much a man after my own heart.

My only disagreement is with the "special needs" point. If having a "special needs" dependent, resulted in a member having primarily stateside assignments, or kept at the same assignment for most of their career...and having those assignments resulted in him/her being less fully developed than their counterparts...then it should affect their promotion potential. Sorry, but that's life...the AF bends over backwards to accomodate special needs,and we do pretty well at it. But, we shouldn't promote somewho hasn't served in "the certain jobs" necessary to develop them, regardless of the reason.

All other points, I agree 100%

imported_Seasons
07-13-2009, 04:04 PM
All very good points. I think I see both sides of that "special needs" problem, and its a doozy. Imagine that would almost be the most difficult one to impliment fairly.

Shaken1976
07-13-2009, 06:00 PM
As the parent of a child who is considered special needs I have not been kept out of deployments at all. There are a few places she might not be able to go with me but so far it hasn't gotten me out of anything. That is what my Family Care Plan is for. Why should I be punished for having a special needs child? My daughter was born with a heart condition. I sitll do my job. I still deploy. It doesn't affect my job. I have to take her to her doctor once every few months. But what parent doesn't take a kid to the doctor every few months.

Measure Man
07-13-2009, 06:03 PM
As the parent of a child who is considered special needs I have not been kept out of deployments at all. There are a few places she might not be able to go with me but so far it hasn't gotten me out of anything. That is what my Family Care Plan is for. Why should I be punished for having a special needs child? My daughter was born with a heart condition. I sitll do my job. I still deploy. It doesn't affect my job. I have to take her to her doctor once every few months. But what parent doesn't take a kid to the doctor every few months.

If it hasn't affected your job...how have you been punished?

Shaken1976
07-13-2009, 06:33 PM
I was referring to the comment in the original post about promotions not being the same if you have a special needs child. Maybe not in those exact words. If I read it wrong then I apologize.

Measure Man
07-13-2009, 06:41 PM
I was referring to the comment in the original post about promotions not being the same if you have a special needs child. Maybe not in those exact words. If I read it wrong then I apologize.

Well...I guess we're sort of commenting on a hypothetical...BUT.

The article stated that having a "special needs" dependent often prevents a service member from getting "a certain job"...and implied that not having that "certain job" should not be used against the service member for promotion.

I think it should be used against them...if that "certain job" is required to fully qualify the person for promotion.

Let's TRY and make it more concrete...

Let's say...the person is in Public Affairs, okay.

Let's say that a large portion of the public affairs career field, only takes place overseas (running an AFN television and radio program).

Now, let's say MSgt A has a special needs child...as a result of that special need, he was only able to be assigned to stateside locations...where he primarily worked on the base newspaper...but he did that very well.

MSgt B does not have a special needs dependent...and served both overseas and stateside on a variety of assignments, including the base paper, AFN TV and radio...and did that equally as well as MSgt A.

IMO, MSgt B is more qualified for promotion...and should be promoted over MSgt A...through no fault of MSgt A. Nothing against MSgt A, but due to his special needs situation, he has not been as well developed professionally as MSgt B. Why should he be promoted...just to be "fair"?

If someone has a "Q" code that prevents him/her from taking assignments...it should be expected that it will affect his/her career progression.

Disclaimer: I am not a PA expert and do not really know the dynamics of this particular career field...this is just an example of where it may apply.

Rev Mike Large
07-13-2009, 07:05 PM
Well...I guess we're sort of commenting on a hypothetical...BUT.

The article stated that having a "special needs" dependent often prevents a service member from getting "a certain job"...and implied that not having that "certain job" should not be used against the service member for promotion.

I think it should be used against them...if that "certain job" is required to fully qualify the person for promotion.

Let's TRY and make it more concrete...

Let's say...the person is in Public Affairs, okay.

Let's say that a large portion of the public affairs career field, only takes place overseas (running an AFN television and radio program).

Now, let's say MSgt A has a special needs child...as a result of that special need, he was only able to be assigned to stateside locations...where he primarily worked on the base newspaper...but he did that very well.

MSgt B does not have a special needs dependent...and served both overseas and stateside on a variety of assignments, including the base paper, AFN TV and radio...and did that equally as well as MSgt A.

IMO, MSgt B is more qualified for promotion...and should be promoted over MSgt A...through no fault of MSgt A. Nothing against MSgt A, but due to his special needs situation, he has not been as well developed professionally as MSgt B. Why should he be promoted...just to be "fair"?

If someone has a "Q" code that prevents him/her from taking assignments...it should be expected that it will affect his/her career progression.

Disclaimer: I am not a PA expert and do not really know the dynamics of this particular career field...this is just an example of where it may apply.

I think the example spells out your point just fine. I have a special needs child also, and haven't seen that limit the type or number of my assignments or deployments. To be fair, I think there are many people out there with EFMP members who require much more care and much more specialized locations -- and those folks might have their careers impacted by their need to be with their family member. It would also suck to be a single parent with custody of a special needs child. Since my wife can handle things well when I'm gone, I still deploy when called upon and I still seek a variety of jobs as I've mapped my career path.

If I was in a situation where I had to make a choice between taking the best care of my family and making the most stripes, I would not think twice nor feel any regret about retiring as a TSgt or MSgt because I took care of my family. I would think most people feel the same. The bottom line is that the AF didn't issue us families and taking care of them is our responsibility -- and it is a responsibility that should factor into each decision about whether to stay in or get out.

I also agree with you, MM, that whoever wrote that commentary definitely got it right on all the other points.

Slap
07-13-2009, 07:14 PM
as a new officer in the air force i PROMISE im going to give ppl the grade they DESERVE on their EPR.

i'll counsel them straight up and be brutally honest and tell them i will grade on performance. if they aren't a 5 i'm going to tell them throughout their eval. period. and if they dont fix it then boom they're going to get a 3 or 4 or whatever they deserve.

VFFSSGT
07-13-2009, 07:19 PM
Well...I guess we're sort of commenting on a hypothetical...BUT.

The article stated that having a "special needs" dependent often prevents a service member from getting "a certain job"...and implied that not having that "certain job" should not be used against the service member for promotion.

I think it should be used against them...if that "certain job" is required to fully qualify the person for promotion.

Let's TRY and make it more concrete...

Let's say...the person is in Public Affairs, okay.

Let's say that a large portion of the public affairs career field, only takes place overseas (running an AFN television and radio program).

Now, let's say MSgt A has a special needs child...as a result of that special need, he was only able to be assigned to stateside locations...where he primarily worked on the base newspaper...but he did that very well.

MSgt B does not have a special needs dependent...and served both overseas and stateside on a variety of assignments, including the base paper, AFN TV and radio...and did that equally as well as MSgt A.

IMO, MSgt B is more qualified for promotion...and should be promoted over MSgt A...through no fault of MSgt A. Nothing against MSgt A, but due to his special needs situation, he has not been as well developed professionally as MSgt B. Why should he be promoted...just to be "fair"?

If someone has a "Q" code that prevents him/her from taking assignments...it should be expected that it will affect his/her career progression.

Disclaimer: I am not a PA expert and do not really know the dynamics of this particular career field...this is just an example of where it may apply.

Good example and right on point... The idea they should be catered to is no different than affirmative action; you want a particular job or position, you should be QUALIFIED for it, period. Standards and Qualifications should not be waivered, changed, or lowered just because the events of life changed your priorities in life or you are of any particular status or group.

Measure Man
07-13-2009, 07:26 PM
as a new officer in the air force i PROMISE im going to give ppl the grade they DESERVE on their EPR.

i'll counsel them straight up and be brutally honest and tell them i will grade on performance. if they aren't a 5 i'm going to tell them throughout their eval. period. and if they dont fix it then boom they're going to get a 3 or 4 or whatever they deserve.

That is awesome.

If the system does not change however...expect that your ppl to be recognized, decorated and promoted at a rate far slower than their peers...

As your an officer, I assume you will be rating SNCOs...so expect that you will stop their career dead in it's tracks...which is fine, if you given them necessary expectations and feedback. Just know up front, that the troop you may have molded into a superior SNCO, will likely not be promotable.

Shaken1976
07-13-2009, 07:28 PM
Granted the AF did not issue me my family but they damn sure make sure I take care of them. (Not that they need to) No one asks to have a special needs child but it happens to the best of people. The AF demands that you provide proper care for you child. They can't then go back and say well you have a special needs child so you drop to the bottom of the list for promotions.

Slap
07-13-2009, 07:30 PM
i accept that wise advice.

however if they are superior then they will have nothing to worry about.

my goal is to always let my troops know where they stand, no bullshit about it.

if someone is performing at a '3' level i'll tell that troop...and tell them how to get a 5.

i'll lay out the steps and improvement i need to see in their performance.


maybe im just the naive LT but it seems like a pretty black and white issue to me...then again i've never actually had to stop someone's career...im sure it gets a lot harder in that situation.

Measure Man
07-13-2009, 07:35 PM
i accept that wise advice.

however if they are superior then they will have nothing to worry about.

my goal is to always let my troops know where they stand, no bullshit about it.

if someone is performing at a '3' level i'll tell that troop...and tell them how to get a 5.

i'll lay out the steps and improvement i need to see in their performance.


maybe im just the naive LT but it seems like a pretty black and white issue to me...then again i've never actually had to stop someone's career...im sure it gets a lot harder in that situation.

You are right...the superior ones isn't where you'll have the problem.

Nor is it with the dirtbags...easy to write them 3s.

The tough ones...are the excellent troops...who may not be the superior top...but work hard, give you their best blood sweat and tears, you depend on them everyday...and if they worked for most anyone else would get a firewall 5...but in your honest estimation they are a strong 4...which, in a perfect world, shouldn't kill their careers, but it does.

Those are the tough ones...when you know your honest assessment will create an unjust result.

Slap
07-13-2009, 07:39 PM
you're right that will be tough.

imported_oih82w8
07-13-2009, 07:43 PM
as a new officer in the air force i PROMISE im going to give ppl the grade they DESERVE on their EPR.

i'll counsel them straight up and be brutally honest and tell them i will grade on performance. if they aren't a 5 i'm going to tell them throughout their eval. period. and if they dont fix it then boom they're going to get a 3 or 4 or whatever they deserve.


"Vanna, can slap buy a vowel"? One of the worse EPR's that I have seen came from an officer. EPR's should be written by Enlisted for Enlisted. Officers (especially 2lt's) should not be permitted to offer their opinion to someone they have occasional contact with. Have you seen an OPR? "Meets Standards" or "Does Not Meet Standards". How can you mess that subjectivity up? Either you are up for it or you are not, much unlike the EPR which has five levels of comparison. Sorry to drift off of subject.

Silver Fox
07-13-2009, 11:47 PM
Agreed, minus black boots. Stick with the tan. The Army, Navy and Marines have mechanics, no one else is bitching.

ART
07-14-2009, 12:27 AM
I would love to see promotion rates plummet.

No more E-3's out of BMT for simply signing up for 6 years.
TIG as an A1C should be 24-28 months.
Min TIS for E-4 should be 36 months
And of course....Buck Sergeant should be brought back
Staff should be almost as hard to make as Tech.

Also, he should insist that enlisted micromanaging cease.

We have too many Chiefs and not enough Indians.

Silver Fox
07-14-2009, 12:37 AM
What needs to happen is the entire promotion system needs to be reformed.

Currently, the only requirements up until E-7 are you pass a test. That's great if you're testing for a job where you have no leadership position and are simply required to have technical knowledge. Sure you have to have good EPRs, but good test scores can overcome bad ones, AND we all know the EPR is absolutely NO JUDGE of real leadership ability at all. A test is a great measure of technical skill, but it is no evaluation of leadership ability, and that's we need is leaders. It doesn't matter if you ace your SKT, that has no bearing on how you would supervise someone. I think the evaluation system needs to be revamped to include a true evaluation of someone's leadership potential and capability, and that needs to take a large part in the promotion system. Senior NCOs need to be tasked with the integrity to evaluate their people and recommend subordinates for promotion. That 'promote now' block on the EPR needs to be just that: Promote now. If you don't get that endorsement, you don't need to test. You should pass a screening for leadership potential FIRST, and THEN let them test you and see if you have the technical/professional know-how. As the system stands currently, it's a gateway for brainiacs with no leadership ability to excel, while people with great leadership skills but a less firm grasp on the technical aspects of the job can be swept aside. I would know, I had no real desire to become an NCO at first. I didn't even study for the test. I sat down and did my best, but didn't care if I made it. When I did make it the first time, I took it seriously. I stepped up and did what I had to. Tried to become a good leader, and had I been evaluated for leadership potential, yeah they'd have still probably let me test, I was a decent airmen. Not the best, but far from the worst. That said, I knew plenty of people who tested and made it the first time around who definitely had no right being an NCO, and I know we've seen them all daily. This really needs to be looked at.

Also, we need to recognize the potential of 'career technicians', meaning guys who are good at their job and have no leadership potential. You should be able to retire as an E-4 and spend twenty years in that paygrade. Increase the pay raises for veteran E-4's, and keep them in the service. You can be a great technician and a poor leader, and we need to recognize that doesn't mean you're not an Air Force asset, to the contrary, there's a lot to be said for a skilled E-4 that can assist in mentoring and is an expert in his job. Younger NCOs can learn a lot from an old hat underneath them technically too. I'm sure most would eventually make E-5, but there is no reason a man should NOT be allowed to join the Air Force and serve 15 or 20 years an E-4. Some people take a long time to prepare and grasp leadership, others just have something inside they need to overcome to take that responsibility, in the meantime, if they're good at their job, we should NOT boot them out.


I would rather have a great leader with no technical ability in his job what-so-ever that listened to the technical advice of subordinates with the know-how, then a horrible leader with all the knowledge that makes poor decisions.

Examples, one of the best flight chiefs I ever had was not in my AFSC. He was an IMA Augmentee. We had a severe lack of SNCOs and he was literally the only guy that could take the job. He knew NOTHING about it, but our E-5s and E-6's got him through it, and he was great at taking the information given to him, and making sound decisions. He also picked up concepts and procedures quickly, and was not afraid to go to bat for stuff. Sadly, I must say he was one of the greatest flight chiefs I had. He was also good enough at it that when active duty SNCO manning levels rose, he still held this job for sometime. Meanwhile, there is one flight chief in particular I can remember who could tell you anything about the job duties, but when incidents occured and a decision needed to be made, he would freak out, change his mind continually, then after he finally stuck with something and it turned out to be wrong, he would try and shift the blame onto his junior ncos.

Capt Alfredo
07-14-2009, 03:24 AM
as a new officer in the air force i PROMISE im going to give ppl the grade they DESERVE on their EPR.

i'll counsel them straight up and be brutally honest and tell them i will grade on performance. if they aren't a 5 i'm going to tell them throughout their eval. period. and if they dont fix it then boom they're going to get a 3 or 4 or whatever they deserve.

And when the commander strongly suggests that you reevaluate that policy? What then? Just curious.

imported_Gigglendorf
07-14-2009, 03:56 AM
i accept that wise advice.

however if they are superior then they will have nothing to worry about.

my goal is to always let my troops know where they stand, no bullshit about it.

if someone is performing at a '3' level i'll tell that troop...and tell them how to get a 5.

i'll lay out the steps and improvement i need to see in their performance.


maybe im just the naive LT but it seems like a pretty black and white issue to me...then again i've never actually had to stop someone's career...im sure it gets a lot harder in that situation.

I once worked for a young Lt who said much the same thing.

He argued with 3 MSgts about what my EPR should be marked overall, saying that none of them (including the immediate supervisor) were willing to give me the guidance I needed.

I managed (as a young SSgt) to get the USAF level career field functional manager to get me a new assignment in a matter of months, as a direct response to his abuse, that he thought was guidance.

I told the young Lt I was going to stop doing the specialized work I had been doing, but I would help train my replacement.

When I left the unit, the Lt said that he hadn't realized how much I did, or why it mattered so much.

Don't ever think that you know so much that if the SNCOs are telling you you have it wrong, you should dismiss them. That rule is important regardless of how much rank you make as an officer.

Silver Fox
07-14-2009, 04:16 AM
On the opposite end of that, you gotta have the testicular fortitude to stand up to SNCOs when they're playing the good ol' boy system. It's a double edged sword. Some of the guys will be hard workers, and others will just know the right people. Not saying you're one, just saying for every guy like you there's a guy who gets an inflated rating because people like him.

technomage1
07-14-2009, 04:56 AM
I agree with him on the deployment thing. While we need to root out all the slackers, there are more problems than just that. In my career field, for example, there are so many short tours and deployments for MSgt and above. This is creating a shortage as they get fed up with the life of short tour/deployment/short tour and retire. In turn, this stresses out E-5 and 6 as we take up the slack from them leaving. I don't blame them for punching, mind you, I'm just saying that the problem is more than just people who don't deploy, it's the system that needs work as a whole.

Slap
07-14-2009, 05:00 AM
And when the commander strongly suggests that you reevaluate that policy? What then? Just curious.

i'll have to evaluate if that's a battle im willing to dig in for. maybe it will be maybe it won't be. i guess it would depend on the situation.

if someone were a very average performer and i was being "suggested" to give them a five, i want to believe that i'd have the courage to stick with what i knew was true.

i don't have a whole lot of rank ambition...i love my job and don't care too much for the political aspect of the air force so it won't bother me to not conform to the good ol boy system.

Silver Fox
07-14-2009, 05:07 AM
i'll have to evaluate if that's a battle im willing to dig in for. maybe it will be maybe it won't be. i guess it would depend on the situation.

if someone were a very average performer and i was being "suggested" to give them a five, i want to believe that i'd have the courage to stick with what i knew was true.

i don't have a whole lot of rank ambition...i love my job and don't care too much for the political aspect of the air force so it won't bother me to not conform to the good ol boy system.

The problem being, you gotta make rank to stay in, and the same people making these suggestions write your OPRs, so you fighting to keep an average troops rating average may land you an average or sub average rating yourself.

I empathize with you, and know where you're coming from, and not being a political guy myself, I'm getting out. I'm just saying, don't love that job too much, because if you buck too hard you won't have it long. On this ranch, they shoot stubborn horses.

garhkal
07-14-2009, 02:46 PM
Good example and right on point... The idea they should be catered to is no different than affirmative action; you want a particular job or position, you should be QUALIFIED for it, period. Standards and Qualifications should not be waivered, changed, or lowered just because the events of life changed your priorities in life or you are of any particular status or group.

Well said VFFT. I have gotten sick and tired of being told the qualification standard for getting XYZ is This, but if you are of ABC your standard for the exact same thing is only XY....


Those are the tough ones...when you know your honest assessment will create an unjust result.

IMO part of that comes in cause of theose who DON'T give an honest assessment and so your great performers look like dirt bags in comparrison.
Case and point. I was stationed at JMF St Mawgan in the UK back in 97-99. We had one guy who not only did his job, but what ever other jobs he could get his hands into, and did them so well, in his first 8 months with us he had our calibration shop (not even his primary area) up from the 18th ranked to the third ranked from cal inspections. BUT the person in charge of that shop, who barely made the muster for her job, cause of all her command level collateral duities, off duty education (which she always seemed to do ON the job, espeially the home work), divisional collaterals and volunteer work which kept her OUT of the job a good chunk of the time, was given our command's Sailor of the year due to being the "Most well rounded sailor"...

To me that makes no sense, that one who works their butt off and actually improves things at the command is not considered for said 'acolade' but the one who works less, and made that low rating in the first place cause of all their other stuff IS given the acolade.


I think the evaluation system needs to be revamped to include a true evaluation of someone's leadership potential and capability, and that needs to take a large part in the promotion system. Senior NCOs need to be tasked with the integrity to evaluate their people and recommend subordinates for promotion. That 'promote now' block on the EPR needs to be just that: Promote now. If you don't get that endorsement, you don't need to test. You should pass a screening for leadership potential FIRST, and THEN let them test you and see if you have the technical/professional know-how

So you are basically asking for your branch to adopt how the Navy does things.
You first need to have hte leadership courses for the next grade before you are allowed to test. The test score AND your eval are used to see if you qualify.


Also, we need to recognize the potential of 'career technicians', meaning guys who are good at their job and have no leadership potential. You should be able to retire as an E-4 and spend twenty years in that paygrade.

I have known about a dozen E4 / E5 who got out cause they were at high year tenure cause they did not studdy to make rate. Cause they LIKED where they were and they loved doing hte job.


Not saying you're one, just saying for every guy like you there's a guy who gets an inflated rating because people like him.


Yup. It is not what you know, but who.

imported_blacksheep1208
07-15-2009, 12:37 AM
as a new officer in the air force i PROMISE im going to give ppl the grade they DESERVE on their EPR.

i'll counsel them straight up and be brutally honest and tell them i will grade on performance. if they aren't a 5 i'm going to tell them throughout their eval. period. and if they dont fix it then boom they're going to get a 3 or 4 or whatever they deserve.

All I can say is good luck. Have fun trying to explain to the flight chief, superintendant, first sergeant and commander the rating on the EPR. You sound like the born agains who come back from ALS and are going to change the Air Force. I'm not saying a scum bag shouldn't be rated as such, but if you think you're going to be able to rate someone based off of your personal opinion and it will end there, you're in for some interesting times.

Silver Fox
07-15-2009, 12:49 AM
Well said VFFT. I have gotten sick and tired of being told the qualification standard for getting XYZ is This, but if you are of ABC your standard for the exact same thing is only XY....

Cheers to that!





So you are basically asking for your branch to adopt how the Navy does things.
You first need to have hte leadership courses for the next grade before you are allowed to test. The test score AND your eval are used to see if you qualify.

Yeah, a similar way I guess. I think we could use the EPRs, and the rating and endorsement should both mean something. Example: You should be able to have a three EPR and be endorsed with a "Promote Now", because a three is an average person, and should be able to promote. A three would be the minimum required to be eligible. And then after everyone that's been endorsed they test, if there were a good way to do it, I would be in favor of a board.

I also think that promotion ceremonies should be handled at a squadron level at not the wing. If the wing commander wants to show up, fine. But really, you work for your squadron commander, they'd be the one that signed off on your promotion endorsement. It should be your squadrons leaders that do your promotion ceremony, and not a one star you never see and that wants to do it to get his warm fuzzy helped the troops feeling, when in reality he doesn't know a single thing about you.




I have known about a dozen E4 / E5 who got out cause they were at high year tenure cause they did not studdy to make rate. Cause they LIKED where they were and they loved doing hte job.

Same.




Yup. It is not what you know, but who.

And it's a shame.

imported_Raptor81
07-15-2009, 09:21 AM
I would love to see promotion rates plummet.

No more E-3's out of BMT for simply signing up for 6 years.
TIG as an A1C should be 24-28 months.
Min TIS for E-4 should be 36 months
And of course....Buck Sergeant should be brought back
Staff should be almost as hard to make as Tech.

Also, he should insist that enlisted micromanaging cease.

We have too many Chiefs and not enough Indians.

I agree with you on this. I decided not to "try" to make SSgt at my 3-4 year mark because i wanted to know my job and be the better supervisor when the time came. I've had to train many of my friends that became SSgt's way too early because they just wanted that stripe to boss people around but they forgot their job.

It feels weird being the 1 to train them because according to the Enlisted Force Structure, AFI 36-2618 Chapter 4 - NCO Responsibilities, Section 4.1.2.1:

"Attain and maintain a skill level commensurate with their rank and maintain a high degree of proficiency in their duties as outlined in their CFETP."

What i mean is, I have to train them on 5-level tasks when they should be signing off on their 7-level tasks. I'm sitting at like 96% of my profiency tasks completed and i'm working on some of my 7-level tasks as a SrA and here i am wasting their and my time getting them spun up to take charge of the area. What's wrong with this picture? I could be totally completed with my 5-level tasks and possibly even my 7-level tasks if i didn't have to train them.

I'm to point now that I hope i made SSgt this year because i can train the people under me to know their job faster so they're not clueless when they make SSgt at their 3-4 year mark.

Oh, about the E-3 for signing up for 6 years....I had E-3 while in basic because i had 2 years of college under my belt so i may not have been wearing the rank the whole time, but i was getting paid it. Now only if my college here at my overseas base had a BS of Mathematics, i could put in for OTS after a couple classes.

imported_kvnhlstd
07-15-2009, 09:47 AM
Originally Posted by Slap
as a new officer in the air force i PROMISE im going to give ppl the grade they DESERVE on their EPR.

i'll counsel them straight up and be brutally honest and tell them i will grade on performance. if they aren't a 5 i'm going to tell them throughout their eval. period. and if they dont fix it then boom they're going to get a 3 or 4 or whatever they deserve.

In the Security Forces world... Lts are seen but never heard. Let the SNCO's do the job, you just need to sit back, shut up, learn how to lead from the NCOs, and last...learn how to type correctly. Your i's are killing me.

imported_Raptor81
07-15-2009, 09:56 AM
Oh, some other stuff that the top enlisted should do.....

1. fix the PT Program and i don't mean "change it".....FIX IT! Fairness across the boards, Heat Index at bases taken into account....I'm at a tropical base where it's already 80 degrees at 7am. Should be tested at midnight or something.

2. Morale issues stemming from "bad" leadership. I won't go into detail with this.

3. Quality of Life should be going up...if it's not up, then something's wrong.

4. Deployment Opportunities....my shop has a weird system in place that deploys the same person over and over....spread the wealth....seriously!(I wouldn't mind a combat tour either)

5. I'm not sure if i mentioned this, but PT Program needs fixed. If anyone hasn't noticed, this is my soap box. "Fit to Fight" concept isn't in the current PT Test and neither is the "Warrior Ethos" we're expected to show senior leaders.

6. I'm probably the 1st to admit it but the "Airman's Creed" needs the axe or rewritten that shows all aspects of the AF. Me, for one, would rather go back to "the old way" of things. Reason why i say this is because everyone had their own creed that they lived by....it's what made that job seem that much more important. I'm almost willing to bet that someone either got a star or made Chief from the "Airman's Creed." The creed doesn't give me that sense of pride....i get more pride out of buying girl scout cookies then reciting the "Airman's Creed." I know for a fact that Medics took their creeds to heart and now look what "replaced" it...something that isn't as meaningful and it's a shame. We're all about customs and taking away all the creeds and replacing them with one took a lot of our customs and a ton of our heritage away. Who's bright idea was it to "make and enforce" the "Airman's Creed?" Oh yeah, 1 more bit of information....It's not pride i get when i recite the creed, it's shame. I'm in the World's Greatest Air Force and we just pissed away our heritage in the wind for what? nothing.

I accidently found this quote in "The America's Air Force Joint Vision 2020"

"We are America's Airmen. We are warriors...we will fight and win wherever our nation needs us. The aerospace realm is our domain, and we are vigilant in our commitment to defend, control, and (protect) our nation's interests."

I believe that would make a much better creed than what we have. I get a better sense of pride and glory when i read that than recite the "Airman's Creed." Of course, other agencies in the AF would also have their own creeds back again because i'm a heritage person myself but then again, i'm just a lowly SrA.

Slap
07-15-2009, 02:34 PM
Originally Posted by Slap
as a new officer in the air force i PROMISE im going to give ppl the grade they DESERVE on their EPR.

i'll counsel them straight up and be brutally honest and tell them i will grade on performance. if they aren't a 5 i'm going to tell them throughout their eval. period. and if they dont fix it then boom they're going to get a 3 or 4 or whatever they deserve.

In the Security Forces world... Lts are seen but never heard. Let the SNCO's do the job, you just need to sit back, shut up, learn how to lead from the NCOs, and last...learn how to type correctly. Your i's are killing me.

good thing i'm not in the SF world. i love typing police like yourself too. i already know how to lead. i lean on my SNCO's to learn the job from them and let them tell me all the "in's and out's"

garhkal
07-15-2009, 02:41 PM
Oh, some other stuff that the top enlisted should do.....

1. fix the PT Program and i don't mean "change it".....FIX IT! Fairness across the boards, Heat Index at bases taken into account....I'm at a tropical base where it's already 80 degrees at 7am. Should be tested at midnight or something.

Wow what a concept. And one i agree with. I also think they should take into account the work load and the location. IE if you work on a base where there is little chance for PT< or you work in a locale higher up in the mountains (???) where there is less air, then you should get a little more time on your run..



4. Deployment Opportunities....my shop has a weird system in place that deploys the same person over and over....spread the wealth....seriously!(I wouldn't mind a combat tour either)

I have seen that myself. A lot of times in the Seabee command i am at we have to send people over to Iraq to supervise a turn over between batallions (as the regiment it is our responsibility), but they seem to send the same folks..

imported_blacksheep1208
07-15-2009, 05:56 PM
I would love to see promotion rates plummet.

No more E-3's out of BMT for simply signing up for 6 years.
TIG as an A1C should be 24-28 months.
Min TIS for E-4 should be 36 months
And of course....Buck Sergeant should be brought back
Staff should be almost as hard to make as Tech.

Also, he should insist that enlisted micromanaging cease.

We have too many Chiefs and not enough Indians.

If you make it take longer to become an NCO the people at joint assignments are going to be screwed. It's already bad enough where the Army average is 8.5 years to make E-6 and ours is 12.9 years.

imported_Raptor81
07-17-2009, 08:51 AM
If you make it take longer to become an NCO the people at joint assignments are going to be screwed. It's already bad enough where the Army average is 8.5 years to make E-6 and ours is 12.9 years.

I think the person ment it's about the maturity and job knowledge is what dictates when you actually put on rank. I'm a SrA and i'm training SSgt how to do their job and how to be a Team Leader which shouldn't happen. They should be training me how to be a Team Leader and helping me sign off on my 7-level tasks.

Also, if the inflation with the EPR's comes to a complete halt either by taking the EPR system out of the WAPS system or totally "axing" the EPR's totally, then expect it to take a long time getting that E-6 stripe. We also need to take the EPR system out of the awards and decorations we write because i know of some shadey supplements that are out there preventing people with mark downs(but still a 5) to get their medals they deserve. We've added too many rules to the requirements already set forth just to get the medal. There's a lot of people that should've been awarded the Medal of Honor that didn't and they did almost the exact same thing some past reciepiants(sp?) sacrificed to be awarded the MoH. :(

imported_blacksheep1208
07-17-2009, 01:57 PM
I think the person ment it's about the maturity and job knowledge is what dictates when you actually put on rank. I'm a SrA and i'm training SSgt how to do their job and how to be a Team Leader which shouldn't happen. They should be training me how to be a Team Leader and helping me sign off on my 7-level tasks.

Also, if the inflation with the EPR's comes to a complete halt either by taking the EPR system out of the WAPS system or totally "axing" the EPR's totally, then expect it to take a long time getting that E-6 stripe. We also need to take the EPR system out of the awards and decorations we write because i know of some shadey supplements that are out there preventing people with mark downs(but still a 5) to get their medals they deserve. We've added too many rules to the requirements already set forth just to get the medal. There's a lot of people that should've been awarded the Medal of Honor that didn't and they did almost the exact same thing some past reciepiants(sp?) sacrificed to be awarded the MoH. :(

If you want maturity and job knowledge to be what decides who gets promoted, take TIG and TIS out of the equation. Now you might say, well that makes no sense. Or does it? Now the guy that's been hanging around and only makes it because he has enough longevity won't be pushed to the top of the list. Being in 10 yrs doesn't make you mature. So why not promote based off of job knowledge and past experiences. You might not score as well as someone thats been to different assignments if you homestead, but that's the choice you make by not trying to leave a base.

garhkal
07-17-2009, 10:47 PM
In the navy, TIS and TIR (time in rate) are just minimums required before getting the chance to test for your next rate.

imported_Raptor81
07-18-2009, 12:58 AM
If you want maturity and job knowledge to be what decides who gets promoted, take TIG and TIS out of the equation. Now you might say, well that makes no sense. Or does it? Now the guy that's been hanging around and only makes it because he has enough longevity won't be pushed to the top of the list. Being in 10 yrs doesn't make you mature. So why not promote based off of job knowledge and past experiences. You might not score as well as someone thats been to different assignments if you homestead, but that's the choice you make by not trying to leave a base.

But the commander needs to sign off on the sheet that allows you the opportunity to test. If you don't show the maturity or job knowledge, then your flight chief would tell the commander "i don't believe SrA (whoever) is ready to test for SSgt" and then the commander won't sign the sheet.

I've already held the position of Team Leader in my work center which is normally held by a SSgt but most the time a TSgt. I've also been Prod Super a couple of times as a SrA but it's normally been during exercises when my leadership is killed off. Every once in a while, i'll be Prod Super for a couple of hours here and there but all the decisions i make during isn't that important....mostly letting people go for lunches and stuff. Most of the fun i have is during the exercises because i get to shine and run the shop for more than a couple of hrs until i'm relieved by an NCO from the other shift that probably had to come in early. So, i already know i'm capable of a Team Leader position in my work center and i'm getting more and more comfortable being in the Prod Super's shoes. In my eyes, I'm ready for that next stripe because i'm already doing that job.

Changing assignments doesn't "give" you that knowledge. I learned how to be a Team Leader from my 1st base. Actually, that same week i put on SrA my Team Leader took me off to the side and told me I would end up being Team Leader of the area and that i needed to pay attention to the stuff he did. He showed me a lot of things that a Team Leader needs to do and this was only my 1st week as a SrA. Talk about immersion. I had to check supply reports, awp listings, make sure my people got to work on time, everything under the sun. Now, here i am at my 2nd base being the 2nd highest ranking SrA in the shop showing SSgt's how to be a Team Leader and getting them trained on how to run the area, check awp listings...just about everything i was taught in my 1st week of being a SrA. Mind you, these SSgt's have been in 8 years and yes, their trainers before them had failed them so i'm not putting the blame on just 1 person. As a "total" force, we all failed them and it just sucks that i'm the 1 that has to go over everything with them. In some ways, i'm saying they shouldn't be a SSgt because they don't have the training and the job knowledge as outlined in the EFS but if they came from another base and they put on SSgt like 3 weeks before they left that base, then i can understand them not knowing and it's my job as someone that's trained to be a Team Leader to bring them up to speed and be there as a knowledge base to help them out if they get stuck on something...almost like the SNCO being the knowledge base for the flight OIC or squadron commander.

fufu
07-18-2009, 01:47 AM
where there is less air, then you should get a little more time on your run[/I]..

Um, you do......

However, are these "fitness cells" going to be open during midshift? swings? I doubt it. So, once again, we stick it to the shift worker. I'll have to test at MY 11pm, just after working all night...... Great, can't wait.:rolleyes:

imported_Raptor81
07-18-2009, 02:24 AM
Um, you do......

However, are these "fitness cells" going to be open during midshift? swings? I doubt it. So, once again, we stick it to the shift worker. I'll have to test at MY 11pm, just after working all night...... Great, can't wait.:rolleyes:

Actually, i haven't seen any point scale taking elevation into effect or humidity or heat index. It's also easy for those "fitness cells" to be open for mids, swings and whatever....just tell the HAWC that it's mandatory that they're open 24/7 like all gyms should be for those shift workers. It's not hard to make a policy that says that. If that policy isn't made, then leadership(wing, group, squadron on down) has failed you.

Don't you remember back in tech school when it was 110 degrees black flag out and you were hoping there wasn't any PT for that day but the MTL's would tell you it drops down to 85 degrees and yellow flag so PT was on? That happened to me all the time and it's poor leadership on their part because the MTL's didn't work out with the tech school students in the "actual" black flag....they got to work out at the nice air conditioned gym that was open 24 hours a day that refused students. MTL's and MTI's have the biggest Integrity issues in the Air Force...don't see how anyone could do that special duty.

fufu
07-18-2009, 03:00 AM
Actually, i haven't seen any point scale taking elevation into effect or humidity or heat index.

I just did the calculator and there was no difference. However,
6.5.2. Run times/scores will be adjusted for those members who test at facilities with altitudes > 5,000
feet.. The adjustment is automatically calculated by the AF FMS when the applicable base is selected
on entry by the UFPM of member’s score.


It's also easy for those "fitness cells" to be open for mids, swings and whatever....just tell the HAWC that it's mandatory that they're open 24/7 like all gyms should be for those shift workers. It's not hard to make a policy that says that. If that policy isn't made, then leadership(wing, group, squadron on down) has failed you.

Being that I've lost complete faith in my leadership, I doubt this will ever happen.

imported_Raptor81
07-18-2009, 06:06 AM
Being that I've lost complete faith in my leadership, I doubt this will ever happen.

I agree with you on this. It would seem ever since the resigning or firing(however you want to look at it) over the whole nuke issue, I've lost complete faith in my leaders. Now don't get me wrong, i'm still doing as i'm told.

The problem is from the failures from changing stuff up to try to fix it but just making stuff worse(PT Program).

The next issue that our leaders fail big time at is the uniforms.

A -- They approved one version of the PT uniform just to go back to redesign the 1st failures(shorts way too short and not being comfortable). A lot of the time, i don't see people wearing the PT Uniform to the gym but yet my work center forces me to wear it constantly even if i'm doing my own thing.

B -- Heritage coat. My question: How often do we wear Service Dress to even warrent this new Heritage Coat? I am all about heritage but when you want your service to go out and get something they might wear once a year(if that), then there's a HUGE problem. I'm a maintainer, i'm never in my blues is why i'm pissed at this.

C -- ABU's. It's almost the same thing as the PT uniform. One version comes out just for them to go back and make a "summer" uniform and move some pockets around. Isn't the phase out date like 1 Oct 2011 or 2012? That means people might be forced to get 1 version of the ABU's just have the more comfortable version come out in 2015 at the rate we're going with uniform changes.

D -- I've already seen some people starch the new ABU's and it even says in the AFI, if i remember, that starching/ironing is prohibited. I think you get iron it to put the crease in the rank but that's it.

I could go on and on about a lot of things but i have homework i need to finish for Monday.

technomage1
07-18-2009, 06:15 AM
D -- I've already seen some people starch the new ABU's and it even says in the AFI, if i remember, that starching/ironing is prohibited. I think you get iron it to put the crease in the rank but that's it.


Remind these tools that they don't need to starch the uniform, it looks fine as is.

imported_BigNasty82476
07-18-2009, 06:22 AM
Hell yes.....remind those tools to not starch the damn thing. Next thing you know that will be the new standard.

imported_Raptor81
07-18-2009, 09:15 AM
Hell yes.....remind those tools to not starch the damn thing. Next thing you know that will be the new standard.

I told them about the AFI and they got pissed...people get pissed and give attitude when they know they're wrong:cool:

Freelancer
07-18-2009, 09:34 AM
When the ABUs came out around here and we had the revised regs on them. Our chief and shirt made it very clear that no one will be starching and ironing their ABUs as it would be concidered willful disobeying of orders. Fast forward a bit... a few article 15s and I believe we have so far kept the starch/iron nazis at bay for a while. Hopefully we can keep this up. Used to hate having to starch and press my uniform to the point where my BDUs could stand on their own without the aid of a maniquin.

imported_Modus
07-18-2009, 03:57 PM
;)

The things some people say on here lol. Someone got an article 15 for starching ABUs? Really? Really? I'll just take your word for it.

Nodhmo
07-18-2009, 06:10 PM
;)

The things some people say on here lol. Someone got an article 15 for starching ABUs? Really? Really? I'll just take your word for it.

Never say an Art. 15 but I know of one SSgt that got a LOC after being told not to iron his ABUs again and he did. When asked why he did it the responce was "I wanted to make an impression"

procrastination
07-18-2009, 07:22 PM
good thing i'm not in the SF world. i love typing police like yourself too. i already know how to lead. i lean on my SNCO's to learn the job from them and let them tell me all the "in's and out's"

You're a dork. Clearly an immature response -
It's fine - As you grow up you will look back on yourself as you are now and realize your immaturity. You will realize just how little you really knew about life, the Air Force and leadership.

Just file this away - It will be fun for you to look back on in a few years and a few more bars.

I have one myself. I look at it from time to time and think about how little I really knew.

Good luck.

imported_oih82w8
07-20-2009, 07:00 PM
...It's also easy for those "fitness cells" to be open for mids, swings and whatever....just tell the HAWC that it's mandatory that they're open 24/7 like all gyms should be for those shift workers. It's not hard to make a policy that says that. If that policy isn't made, then leadership(wing, group, squadron on down) has failed you.

It might be harder than you think about keeping civilians beyond "normal" hours, 9-5. I believe (I could be wrong, again) that the civilians receive some sort of differential pay for working outside bankers hours. Then you are back in the extra cost to operate the HAWC during these additional hours outside the norm. Yes, it would be great to have the HAWC at the disposal of the shift workers, but I doubt that it will happen.

fufu
07-21-2009, 03:55 AM
It might be harder than you think about keeping civilians beyond "normal" hours, 9-5. I believe (I could be wrong, again) that the civilians receive some sort of differential pay for working outside bankers hours. Then you are back in the extra cost to operate the HAWC during these additional hours outside the norm. Yes, it would be great to have the HAWC at the disposal of the shift workers, but I doubt that it will happen.

You are right, they do get differential pay. I used to work for services part-time. I got paid more after 5pm and even more after 10pm. They will never pay for this..........

imported_Raptor81
07-21-2009, 11:26 AM
It might be harder than you think about keeping civilians beyond "normal" hours, 9-5. I believe (I could be wrong, again) that the civilians receive some sort of differential pay for working outside bankers hours. Then you are back in the extra cost to operate the HAWC during these additional hours outside the norm. Yes, it would be great to have the HAWC at the disposal of the shift workers, but I doubt that it will happen.

If the AF can afford to "purchase" more civilians to administer our PT Test, they can obviously afford to offset their pay to work 24/7. We have 2 choices to make. Keep the civilians to administer the tests or get rid of the PT program.....which do you think the AF will do? Keep in mind the AF overpays for just about everything.:confused:

imported_BRAVO10000
07-21-2009, 12:04 PM
If the AF can afford to "purchase" more civilians to administer our PT Test, they can obviously afford to offset their pay to work 24/7. We have 2 choices to make. Keep the civilians to administer the tests or get rid of the PT program.....which do you think the AF will do? Keep in mind the AF overpays for just about everything.:confused:

Woohoo, then I am retraining into Basketball-Hander-Outer Guy! Gimme my polo and khakis...what color stripes do you use on these things? :cool:

Shaken1976
07-21-2009, 03:34 PM
Woohoo, then I am retraining into Basketball-Hander-Outer Guy! Gimme my polo and khakis...what color stripes do you use on these things? :cool:

I think pink might be the correct color. Not sure. Maybe you get to choose the color. Just pick your favortie color.

Okie
07-21-2009, 08:10 PM
Woohoo, then I am retraining into Basketball-Hander-Outer Guy! Gimme my polo and khakis...what color stripes do you use on these things? :cool:

The best part is when the services Lt sends out a base-wide e-mail letting everybody know that this is an official uniform and that folks need to salute him when he's wearing it.

h0vit0
07-21-2009, 08:15 PM
I think you have to work your way up from the I check IDs section to the I hand out towels department to the I'm the Basketball-Hander-Out position.

BRUWIN
07-21-2009, 11:23 PM
Yep...everyone pokes fun of the services people. They seem to get a lot of visibility from folks when they aren't doing their job the way people think they should be. Wonder why that is? Could it be that when they do their job well they are actually making a difference?

takthekak
07-21-2009, 11:43 PM
Services got it bad...kind of a catch all career field...
working along side alot of civilians...Dealing with
gym (fitness center), lodging (billeting), chow hall (dining facility),
and mortuary affairs...Who would come in the AF to a career
field titled "services?"

imported_blacksheep1208
07-22-2009, 12:38 AM
Services got it bad...kind of a catch all career field...
working along side alot of civilians...Dealing with
gym (fitness center), lodging (billeting), chow hall (dining facility),
and mortuary affairs...Who would come in the AF to a career
field titled "services?"

That's why they just merged with the Mission Support squadrons. It's probably part of some rebranding to trick people. They go to the recruiter and say, "I don't want to be in Services". And they say, "Oh you won't be in Services, you'll be in Force Support". Has a catchy ring to it doesn't it?

Shrike
07-22-2009, 05:19 AM
Yep...everyone pokes fun of the services people. They seem to get a lot of visibility from folks when they aren't doing their job the way people think they should be. Wonder why that is? Could it be that when they do their job well they are actually making a difference?


Services got it bad...kind of a catch all career field...
working along side alot of civilians...Dealing with
gym (fitness center), lodging (billeting), chow hall (dining facility),
and mortuary affairs...Who would come in the AF to a career
field titled "services?"

Very true. Services folks get a lot of ribbing, but they really do have to have a large breadth of knowledge. And their mortuary affairs duties alone get my utmost respect.

imported_Raptor81
07-22-2009, 09:50 AM
Woohoo, then I am retraining into Basketball-Hander-Outer Guy! Gimme my polo and khakis...what color stripes do you use on these things? :cool:

Only problem is the people that administer the PT test are civilians...not enlisted personnel so you would need to separate or retire and then try to get one of those positions.:tongue:

imported_BRAVO10000
07-22-2009, 10:27 AM
Only problem is the people that administer the PT test are civilians...not enlisted personnel so you would need to separate or retire and then try to get one of those positions.:tongue:

I see. So no stripes then.

Woo hoo! No more leech tailors at Clothing Sales!

OK, just trying to accentuate the positive but it appears I have no inertia.

Measure Man
08-07-2013, 05:24 AM
Whoever wrote this commentary is pretty much a man after my own heart.

My only disagreement is with the "special needs" point. If having a "special needs" dependent, resulted in a member having primarily stateside assignments, or kept at the same assignment for most of their career...and having those assignments resulted in him/her being less fully developed than their counterparts...then it should affect their promotion potential. Sorry, but that's life...the AF bends over backwards to accomodate special needs,and we do pretty well at it. But, we shouldn't promote somewho hasn't served in "the certain jobs" necessary to develop them, regardless of the reason.

All other points, I agree 100%

Well, Chief Roy has come and gone...but, I think all of these remain.

Jeebs
08-07-2013, 02:33 PM
Whoever wrote this commentary is pretty much a man after my own heart.

My only disagreement is with the "special needs" point. If having a "special needs" dependent, resulted in a member having primarily stateside assignments, or kept at the same assignment for most of their career...and having those assignments resulted in him/her being less fully developed than their counterparts...then it should affect their promotion potential. Sorry, but that's life...the AF bends over backwards to accomodate special needs,and we do pretty well at it. But, we shouldn't promote somewho hasn't served in "the certain jobs" necessary to develop them, regardless of the reason.

All other points, I agree 100%

I have a special needs son and it hasn't kept me from doing any deployments or TDYs and I'm doing a short-tour right now without my son. I don't think the air force has ever bent over backwards to meet my needs, in fact quite the opposite was true. It was a nightmare just getting him the care he needs, and I ended up having to pay for some of the specialist out of pocket after a air force doctor looked at him for five minutes and said he was fine, even though I recommendations from everyone else stating this was not true. I am good at my job and filled positions that a lot of other people don't want to do so holding my child's needs against me or him is just wrong. I have sat in briefings and been personnely attacked by people who have no clue how the EFMP program actually works. Its not something that you can just walk into MPF and say you want to be on. Most of the time the only individuals who have a problem with EFMP people are individuals who have never actually done the research on it.

Measure Man
08-07-2013, 02:38 PM
I have a special needs son and it hasn't kept me from doing any deployments or TDYs and I'm doing a short-tour right now without my son. I don't think the air force has ever bent over backwards to meet my needs, in fact quite the opposite was true. It was a nightmare just getting him the care he needs, and I ended up having to pay for some of the specialist out of pocket after a air force doctor looked at him for five minutes and said he was fine, even though I recommendations from everyone else stating this was not true. I am good at my job and filled positions that a lot of other people don't want to do so holding my child's needs against me or him is just wrong. I have sat in briefings and been personnely attacked by people who have no clue how the EFMP program actually works. Its not something that you can just walk into MPF and say you want to be on. Most of the time the only individuals who have a problem with EFMP people are individuals who have never actually done the research on it.

Then the scenario doesn't apply to you.

If being on EFMP has not stopped you from fully developing your career...then it should not and would not prevent you from being promoted. As i said, it depends on a lot of things, like assignments you can do, the type of career field you are in, etc.

Not everyone is like you.

My argument is with people saying, "Okay, I couldn't take all the necessary assignments to be the most qualified, but since that isn't my fault I should still get promoted."

That is what I have a problem with.