PDA

View Full Version : No course 14, no CCAF = Forced retirement



Pages : 1 [2]

tiredretiredE7
06-10-2012, 03:23 AM
Well, without addressing each point of your LONG diatribe, I actually do agree with most of what you have said. Can I fix any of the issues? Absolutely not. I work on a staff where we are all (enlisted and officers) just "action officers," standing by to answer the next email or tasker thrown our way. In fact, if I were king for a day all Os/Es on staff would remove our rank and simply wear AO buttons.

FLAPS,

You can fix the problem with a simple push note. This is a great legal tool because you may be forced to mark down an MSgt who does not have a CCAF but has a Bachelors. It's a "legal" tool in case the MSgt is smart enough to push for "False official statement" charge through the IG or a Congressional complaint if you sign the EPR as the rater of CC with a markdown in the training block. Today’s AF would never press this charge but things could always change. Some Wings are dumb enough to have this as a policy but I know of one Wing that did not route their policy through legal. It’s nice to have friends in the JAG office. Just present the push note to the investigator along with the guidance and they will gladly move up the chain.

FLAPS
06-10-2012, 11:21 PM
FLAPS,

You can fix the problem with a simple push note.

If I were in an operational unit, and a CC, this is exactly what I would do.

Tak
06-11-2012, 12:29 AM
If I were in an operational unit, and a CC, this is exactly what I would do.

Two excuses in one sentence, nice. Your ready for Lt Col.

For Col, you need three excuses in a sentence and lay blame
Squarely at an ncos feet.

DWWSWWD
06-11-2012, 02:51 PM
To all Os who think you have a clue,
I originally addressed this to FLAPS but it deserves its own thread.
I have been holding off responding to your posts about enlisted but your complete lack of knowledge of the issue concerning CCAF gives the opportunity to enlighten you.
First the Course 14 must be completed I absolutely agree with that requirement, there is no excuse. The CCAF program is completely jacked. My first point is there are MSgts who have finished their Course 14 and have an Associate’s degree and Bachelor degree from an accredited college but no CCAF. How can this happen? The Ramstien education center was openly telling anyone who asked them how this happens is for 1 of 2 reasons. Call and ask them if you don’t believe me. The first reason is the college's curriculum does not meet CCAF standards. So the CCAF is trying to direct accredited colleges on how to write their curriculum. Of course colleges are pushing back and that’s why the CCAF is worthless outside of the AF. The second reason is the college professor did not have a Master's degree or higher. I know of CCAF instructors who are currently teaching classes with only a Bachelor degree. So as an officer FLAPS, I would expect a lot more from you when you said you agree with the policy. We have SNCOs with Bachelor degree who is getting screwed for promotion because of a CCAF issue and that’s OK with you?
Additionally SF, maintainers and other large careerfields have two tracks once you reach SSgt. You are either behind a desk (leading no one) or leading troops on the flight line or around the installation for 12 hour shifts. As a SF supervisor, you typically get 8 to 10 troops. I don’t know how many other troops are assigned to supervisor in other careerfields. Most training records have gone from hard copy to electronic. So when does the actual documentation of the training happen? After the shift is over. There still EPRs, feedbacks and Decs to complete as well. Meanwhile, you have the person who has the desk job that has plenty of time to go to school to get their CCAF since they don't have any subordinates and only work 07:30 until 16:30. Most current MSgts could not have completed their CCAF requirements online as A1Cs or SrA because the internet was a pipedream back then. I still can’t believe you posted that statement, it shows how out of touch you are. The swapping out of a desk job to the other side rarely happens especially if the desk job requires special schooling to get certified and these people follow these tracks until they reach MSgt. So who is going to get promoted to SMSgt? Obviously the person who had the desk job. I also left out deployments since the people who work desk jobs rarely get picked for those. So now we have a SMSgt who has not lead large groups of people but has both the requirements completed. How well do you think they actually perform in their duties? On the face of it, they are awesome because they have been groomed to give the PC answer the commander wants to hear and usually throw one of their MSgts under the bus which is easy since the MSgt has not completed the requirements for Senior rater endorsement and is a substandard SNCO and this is why things are messed up and the MSgt is the cause of the problem. Read this link for a prime example of how a chain of command in an SF squadron unfairly blamed a SNCO when it was the CC and his staff’s failure: http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/11/airforce-master-sgt-acquitted-in-suicide-dereliction-case-113010/
There is also the matter of the crusty SMSgts and Chiefs who somehow got by the VSSI/SSB push in the early 90’s who are waiting for HYT. You find them happily reviewing and routing EPRs and Decs instead of performing their assigned duties. They should all be out within 3 years and I would hope the SNCO corps would improve but their influence and leadership by example have already infected the newly promoted SMSgts and Chiefs. Are there some great examples of Chiefs? Of course and ChiefB is the example that most on these forums can relate too. However, Command Chiefs are pushing no Senior Rater endorsement for MSgts who do not have the CCAF even though the MSgt has their Bachelor. So as an Officer, when you said you agree with this policy, that is what you agreed was correct; to punish an individual who has clearly exceeded the standard. This is why Officers in the Air Force are laughed at by other branches and you are a prime example. It is further a disgrace that some of you were prior enlisted and still by the Air Force PC song. As an Officer you could fix the problem instead of embracing the problem.

In the amount of time it took you to write that e-mail...... you could have gotten your CCAF. No officer can give an SRE with no CCAF, push note or not. Command Chiefs are not advocating for no SRE in the example you pointed out, they are enforcing the AFI. Seems simple to me but I am a CCAF alum.

SotaPop
06-11-2012, 03:04 PM
To all Os who think you have a clue,
I originally addressed this to FLAPS but it deserves its own thread.
I have been holding off responding to your posts about enlisted but your complete lack of knowledge of the issue concerning CCAF gives the opportunity to enlighten you.
First the Course 14 must be completed I absolutely agree with that requirement, there is no excuse. The CCAF program is completely jacked. My first point is there are MSgts who have finished their Course 14 and have an Associate’s degree and Bachelor degree from an accredited college but no CCAF. How can this happen? The Ramstien education center was openly telling anyone who asked them how this happens is for 1 of 2 reasons. Call and ask them if you don’t believe me. The first reason is the college's curriculum does not meet CCAF standards. So the CCAF is trying to direct accredited colleges on how to write their curriculum. Of course colleges are pushing back and that’s why the CCAF is worthless outside of the AF. The second reason is the college professor did not have a Master's degree or higher. I know of CCAF instructors who are currently teaching classes with only a Bachelor degree. So as an officer FLAPS, I would expect a lot more from you when you said you agree with the policy. We have SNCOs with Bachelor degree who is getting screwed for promotion because of a CCAF issue and that’s OK with you?


tiredretiredE7,

While what you are saying is correct, you are misguided as to intent and reasoning.

You first point out that there are MSgts who have an Associate’s degree and Bachelor degree from an accredited college. You use the term "accredited" like that is the end all be all. However there are different types of accreditation. The main issue is the transferability of credits from one school to another, if a student has gone to a nationally accredited school it may be particularly difficult to transfer credits (or even credit for a degree earned) if he or she then applies to a regionally accredited college.( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_accreditation )

CCAF is regionally accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) the same body that accredits Alabama, Auburn, Florida and therefore has a hard time transferring credit from nationally credited schools. It’s not that CCAF is trying to direct accredited colleges on how to write their curriculum; it is that CCAF has to meet the requirements of SACS.

You also stated that CCAF will not accept credit if the college professor did not have a Master's degree or higher. It is a SACS requirement that general education requirements be taught by a professor who has a Master's degree or higher in the subject being taught. Once again a SACS requirement, but I can see the intent and why CCAF would require this.

By saying that CCAF is worthless outside of the Air Force is ridiculous and unsubstantiated. CCAF is a terminal degree designed to further develop NCO’s to fill managerial and supervisory roles in the Air Force while translating Air Force curriculum and experience to civilian academia. CCAF is in place to help us develop, just the same as the Course 14 which you have no problem with. So CCAF is doing what it was intended to do. I do know that CCAF has a student services section which fields over 100 calls a week from outside employers to verify degree completions, so some people are using it.

And finally you state there are SNCOs with Bachelor degrees that are getting screwed for promotion because of a CCAF. I ask you how they are getting screwed? Because they took an English class that is not accepted by CCAF? They are not being screwed, they are being held to a standard, the very same as everyone else. Would it be fair if I go to Podunk U, and pass ENGRISH 101 and CCAF accepts it? Everyone can choose to go a different path, that's fine. But they had the very same opportunity as everyone else. No one is getting screwed.

So I implore you that the next time you try to educate our Officer corps that you don’t use your personal feelings towards a subject, but explore the meaning and intent of the policies behind them.

Kegler
06-11-2012, 07:46 PM
tiredretiredE7,

While what you are saying is correct, you are misguided as to intent and reasoning.

You first point out that there are MSgts who have an Associate’s degree and Bachelor degree from an accredited college. You use the term "accredited" like that is the end all be all. However there are different types of accreditation. The main issue is the transferability of credits from one school to another, if a student has gone to a nationally accredited school it may be particularly difficult to transfer credits (or even credit for a degree earned) if he or she then applies to a regionally accredited college.( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_accreditation )

CCAF is regionally accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) the same body that accredits Alabama, Auburn, Florida and therefore has a hard time transferring credit from nationally credited schools. It’s not that CCAF is trying to direct accredited colleges on how to write their curriculum; it is that CCAF has to meet the requirements of SACS.

You also stated that CCAF will not accept credit if the college professor did not have a Master's degree or higher. It is a SACS requirement that general education requirements be taught by a professor who has a Master's degree or higher in the subject being taught. Once again a SACS requirement, but I can see the intent and why CCAF would require this.

By saying that CCAF is worthless outside of the Air Force is ridiculous and unsubstantiated. CCAF is a terminal degree designed to further develop NCO’s to fill managerial and supervisory roles in the Air Force while translating Air Force curriculum and experience to civilian academia. CCAF is in place to help us develop, just the same as the Course 14 which you have no problem with. So CCAF is doing what it was intended to do. I do know that CCAF has a student services section which fields over 100 calls a week from outside employers to verify degree completions, so some people are using it.

And finally you state there are SNCOs with Bachelor degrees that are getting screwed for promotion because of a CCAF. I ask you how they are getting screwed? Because they took an English class that is not accepted by CCAF? They are not being screwed, they are being held to a standard, the very same as everyone else. Would it be fair if I go to Podunk U, and pass ENGRISH 101 and CCAF accepts it? Everyone can choose to go a different path, that's fine. But they had the very same opportunity as everyone else. No one is getting screwed.

So I implore you that the next time you try to educate our Officer corps that you don’t use your personal feelings towards a subject, but explore the meaning and intent of the policies behind them.

+1.

To help further translate this and what the education office said for trE7: You cannot enroll in the Podunk U online diploma mill and take the easy way out. Exactly why, once a year, I had a friend who was an education specialist for a university come in and brief the different accreditation processing and what they really mean and "how to" choose the proper educational institution. Too many people do not understand and think their $400 online diploma from Podunk is "da bomb" and it was so easy (ummm...lazy mans way). So what the ed office really told you is people are uneducated about different educational institutions and have chosen the "easy" pay for a piece of paper method. They were so lazy or were the "know it alls" they didnt even take the time to come or call and ask the Education Office. Read Sota's link about halfway down that compares the accreditations. Might even educate you a bit...but I doubt it since you already seem to know it all!

tiredretiredE7
06-11-2012, 10:38 PM
+1.

To help further translate this and what the education office said for trE7: You cannot enroll in the Podunk U online diploma mill and take the easy way out. Exactly why, once a year, I had a friend who was an education specialist for a university come in and brief the different accreditation processing and what they really mean and "how to" choose the proper educational institution. Too many people do not understand and think their $400 online diploma from Podunk is "da bomb" and it was so easy (ummm...lazy mans way). So what the ed office really told you is people are uneducated about different educational institutions and have chosen the "easy" pay for a piece of paper method. They were so lazy or were the "know it alls" they didnt even take the time to come or call and ask the Education Office. Read Sota's link about halfway down that compares the accreditations. Might even educate you a bit.

KEGLER,

So let me get this straight. I have already pointed out the problem of the CCAF taking credits from professors without a Master's degree even though the Master's degree IS a requirement. Another forum member has VERIFIED this as FACT and it’s still happening. Some people's credits get caught by this but some do not but it’s an obvious problem that has resulted in a systemic failure affecting MSgts with Bachelor degrees and you believe this is OK? Drink alittle bit too much of BigBlues KoolAid today? i'm just making people aware of a simple problem, how to help their MSgts but some forum members are too drunk on BigBlues KoolAid to understand the simple problem. I would change the requirement to Associates degree from a regionally accredited college and this problem would be solved instantly. Chiefs could help with this issue but they are NOT.

Kegler
06-11-2012, 11:24 PM
KEGLER,

So let me get this straight. I have already pointed out the problem of the CCAF taking credits from professors without a Master's degree even though the Master's degree IS a requirement. Another forum member has VERIFIED this as FACT and it’s still happening. Some people's credits get caught by this but some do not but it’s an obvious problem that has resulted in a systemic failure affecting MSgts with Bachelor degrees and you believe this is OK? Drink alittle bit too much of BigBlues KoolAid today? i'm just making people aware of a simple problem, how to help their MSgts but some forum members are too drunk on BigBlues KoolAid to understand the simple problem. I would change the requirement to Associates degree from a regionally accredited college and this problem would be solved instantly. Chiefs could help with this issue but they are NOT.

OK. As DWWSWWD said...I dont know why I am replying...but here it goes anyways. Let me help you with reading comprehension.

Sota said "It is a SACS requirement that general education requirements be taught by a professor who has a Master's degree or higher in the subject being taught. "

Gen Ed requirements! NOT ALL REQUIREMENTS. The 5 GEN ED courses will either be from a regionally accredited college or DANTES/CLEP. The technical or "military trained" courses are NOT GENERAL EDUCATION COURSES. REPEAT; NOT GENERAL EDUCATION COURSES...AGAIN I SAY NOT GENERAL EDUCATION COURSES. That is where reading 101 comes in. The "military courses" that are certified by CCAF and the SAC in a completely different way. I have been through a CCAF accreditation for courses I managed. Painful process to say the least...and costs the unit alot of money. You better have your crap together. A group of AU personnel and a SAC person will inspect, watch, and overturn every little area in the course you are trying to certify as one of the core technical courses for the degree...which must be taught by someone with at least a CCAF in that field or within one year of getting it. HAS NOTHING TO DO, AGAIN, WITH THE GENERAL EDUCATION COURSES. They are TWO completely different animals. Read what that "forum member" said...not what you interpreted him to say.

The systematic failure you are trying to articulate falls on the individual trying to get credit for GENERAL EDUCATION requirements that do not meet the Regional accreditation requirements. I can get a "Bachelors Degree" from many worthless diploma mill schools that target the "ignorance" (not a slam) of individuals thinking that because it says Bachelors or College etc it is really worth a shit. When in fact it is not. Again...exact reason I had an expert come in and brief my folks.

You say you are trying to make people aware of the simple problem. I do not believe you actually understand the problem yourself. You think it is a CCAF problem when in fact it is an individual problem not understanding the "How to select a higher Educational Institution" problem. Is this all the individuals fault? NO. Most of it is because the individual tries to take the easy way out instead of actually asking the Education Office questions or he "knows everything". Part of the blame does lie within Air University for not educating our Airman on the differences (which you are obviously one who does not). If you take a general education course from a college/university that is represented on base I guarantee you it WILL transfer to CCAF. If you sign up for Podunk U for a general ed course and go through the 100 slide show in 10 minutes...write a 20 word essay...and get a 100% on the final. YOU FAIL.

Please understand what you are talking about before you drivel on in 5 threads and make a fool of yourself. Sometimes it is better to be thought of as a fool than to open your mouth (or in this case: type) and prove it.

imported_SRZ
06-14-2012, 08:07 PM
I've always looked at it this way, their game--their rules. Period. Didn't get my CCAF either but reitred w/ my masters.

fufu
07-07-2013, 05:38 AM
So, I might have heard of the first casualty today. A MSgt on my base, who does not have a CCAF, is being denied reenlistment. Not promotion eligible, not retainable I guess.

You heard it here first.

akruse
07-07-2013, 06:01 AM
So, I might have heard of the first casualty today. A MSgt on my base, who does not have a CCAF, is being denied reenlistment. Not promotion eligible, not retainable I guess.

You heard it here first.

Need more details. No way reenlistment is denied for lack of course 14. No way.

KC-10 FE
07-07-2013, 06:09 AM
I think it's a great idea. When I was an AETC instructor, they required us to complete our CCAF within 12 months, and I knocked out 2 in less than that, and now have 3 CCAF's. you can CLEP all your General Ed requirements...I did. So I have no sympathy for anybody who can't knock one out.

I mean seriously, how does a Master Sergeant not have a single CCAF yet unless they are just pencil whipping their educational bullets on their EPR's their whole career?

CrustySMSgt
07-07-2013, 12:09 PM
So, I might have heard of the first casualty today. A MSgt on my base, who does not have a CCAF, is being denied reenlistment. Not promotion eligible, not retainable I guess.

You heard it here first.

:bsflag:

Not having a CCAF does NOT render you ineligible for promotion. It just keeps you from getting SRE (which leaves you little chance of promotion... but not ineligible)

Eastwood
07-07-2013, 02:51 PM
I'm hearing rumors that SNCOs without a Course 14 or CCAF and retirement eligilbe will have to retire or complete the requirements in 12 months. Having said that, 65% of the SNCOs my group have not completed both Crs 14 and a CCAF.

Anybody heard this?

Nothing formal. But CCC has pushed this concept for years. Cant force a person to retire but you can stop S/R. We had a few ROAD SNCO's just coasting so we closed their EPR out at the Squadron and denied them reenlistment. All that’s required is honest feedback and an LOC documenting their lack of leadership or progression.

fufu
07-07-2013, 04:23 PM
Need more details. No way reenlistment is denied for lack of course 14. No way.

You're right, I'm working on that.


Not having a CCAF does NOT render you ineligible for promotion. It just keeps you from getting SRE (which leaves you little chance of promotion... but not ineligible)

Come on CrustySMSgt, go back to the original post. We were told if you aren't working towards promotion then you were considered not retainable.

CrustySMSgt
07-07-2013, 04:28 PM
Nothing formal. But CCC has pushed this concept for years. Cant force a person to retire but you can stop S/R. We had a few ROAD SNCO's just coasting so we closed their EPR out at the Squadron and denied them reenlistment. All that’s required is honest feedback and an LOC documenting their lack of leadership or progression.

Still not buying it... an LOC isn't going to rate justifying denying re-enlistment, neither is closing out the EPR at the SQ. If it isn't a referral EPR there is no way this flies. Until CCAF and PME are REQUIRED, you can't say they don't meet standards for not doing them. Mark them average all day long, but I just can't see the passing the sniff test; one call to a congressman to get them to look in to why you were discharged based on a "should" would open up a shit storm no CC would want to have to answer to.

The percentage of MSgts that have both done is 50-60%; that's a whole lot of folks that would be run out the door if this was really happening.

CrustySMSgt
07-07-2013, 04:31 PM
Come on CrustySMSgt, go back to the original post. We were told if you aren't working towards promotion then you were considered not retainable.

Who ever is pushing this is a fool. THere is no requirement to "work towards promotion." The promotion rate to SMSgt is 10%, so there is no way everyone is going to get promoted. We need MSgts who are good MSgts and wouldn't be good SMSgts. HYT will take care of the rest.

DWWSWWD
07-07-2013, 04:36 PM
I could see it if the guy is over 20. There are a few dirtbags around that are going to ride it out to HYT. Course 14 is a PME rqmnt for a MSgt. Refusal to get it is as good a reason as any to deny re-enlisment for a retirement eligible Airman.

KC-10 FE
07-07-2013, 04:37 PM
Still not buying it... an LOC isn't going to rate justifying denying re-enlistment, neither is closing out the EPR at the SQ. If it isn't a referral EPR there is no way this flies. Until CCAF and PME are REQUIRED, you can't say they don't meet standards for not doing them. Mark them average all day long, but I just can't see the passing the sniff test; one call to a congressman to get them to look in to why you were discharged based on a "should" would open up a shit storm no CC would want to have to answer to.

The percentage of MSgts that have both done is 50-60%; that's a whole lot of folks that would be run out the door if this was really happening.

That frees up some slot for us Techs who already have them knocked out.

KC-10 FE
07-07-2013, 04:38 PM
I could see it if the guy is over 20. There are a few dirtbags around that are going to ride it out to HYT. Course 14 is a PME rqmnt for a MSgt. Refusal to get it is as good a reason as any to deny re-enlisment for a retirement eligible Airman.

Exactly

CrustySMSgt
07-07-2013, 04:46 PM
I could see it if the guy is over 20. There are a few dirtbags around that are going to ride it out to HYT. Course 14 is a PME rqmnt for a MSgt. Refusal to get it is as good a reason as any to deny re-enlisment for a retirement eligible Airman.

Sorry my friend, maybe I'm having a brain fart, but where is the directive making it required?

Per the little brown book:


MSgt-selects should immediately enroll in and complete the AFSNCOA by distance learning in preparation for their new roles. MSgts should complete the CCAF degree in their current Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC), if not already earned.

HeyEng
07-07-2013, 04:51 PM
I could see it if the guy is over 20. There are a few dirtbags around that are going to ride it out to HYT. Course 14 is a PME rqmnt for a MSgt. Refusal to get it is as good a reason as any to deny re-enlisment for a retirement eligible Airman.

And where is that written? Sure, most folks will not see a SRE without it and thus aren't promotable. Last time I checked SNCOA was required for promotion to the rank of SMSgt. And Course 14? A CBT based on courseware that you are required to take in-residence? And NO formal requirement.

And "dirtbag" that rides to HYT? There is a reason there is HYT...to get rid of those "dirtbags" and make room for the douchebag TSgts who think they would be better suited as the CMSGT of the AF.

Also, I haven't read through the AFI(s) on re-enlistment lately, but I have a hard time believing that you can deny re-enlistment unless there are quality of force issues and an LOC for doing something that ISN'T required ain't gonna fly.

You wonder what's wrong with big-blue? It's people being raised in the AF to this bullshit.

KC-10 FE
07-07-2013, 04:59 PM
Sorry my friend, maybe I'm having a brain fart, but where is the directive making it required?

Per the little brown book:

If individuals aren't doing what they "should" do, they are doing what they shouldn't do. If they aren't knocking the requirements out that they "should" be doing, then their EPR scores should reflect, which will limit their HYT and promotion chances. Just like the addition of the check box for passing your PT test has been added to the EPR's, perhaps a box for CCAF completion and course 14 completion should be added to the AF FORM 911.

The cream of the crop should be at the top.

HeyEng
07-07-2013, 05:03 PM
If individuals aren't doing what they "should" do, they are doing what they shouldn't do. If they aren't knocking the requirements out that they "should" be doing, then their EPR scores should reflect, which will limit their HYT and promotion chances. Just like the addition of the check box for passing your PT test has been added to the EPR's, perhaps a box for CCAF completion and course 14 completion should be added to the AF FORM 911.

The cream of the crop should be at the top.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have someone that is being perfectly groomed to be a fabulous E-9. Oye.

akruse
07-07-2013, 05:08 PM
If individuals aren't doing what they "should" do, they are doing what they shouldn't do. If they aren't knocking the requirements out that they "should" be doing, then their EPR scores should reflect, which will limit their HYT and promotion chances. Just like the addition of the check box for passing your PT test has been added to the EPR's, perhaps a box for CCAF completion and course 14 completion should be added to the AF FORM 911.

The cream of the crop should be at the top.

You're barking up the wrong tree. He's arguing that its not REQUIRED, therefore not a "punishable" item. You can't kick someone out for failing to complete course 14 or CCAF. You can mark them down all day on the EPR but you no CC is going to be able to not allow reenlistment with just those against the guy

tiredretiredE7
07-07-2013, 05:13 PM
You're barking up the wrong tree. He's arguing that its not REQUIRED, therefore not a "punishable" item. You can't kick someone out for failing to complete course 14 or CCAF. You can mark them down all day on the EPR but you no CC is going to be able to not allow reenlistment with just those against the guy

Thank you. KC-10 FE is drunk on BigBlue's koolaid and can't see simple logic.

KC-10 FE
07-07-2013, 05:26 PM
Thank you. KC-10 FE is drunk on BigBlue's koolaid and can't see simple logic.

LOL, I believe that if this becomes the norm and is something that the AF wants to mandate, an AFI will eventually support it. Obviously not until then will it be required.

UH1FE
07-07-2013, 05:27 PM
The simple answer is to just remove it from the promotion system. We would have to find another way to help in deciding to promote though. There will always be subjectivity in the system.

raustin0017
07-07-2013, 05:43 PM
And where is that written? Sure, most folks will not see a SRE without it and thus aren't promotable. Last time I checked SNCOA was required for promotion to the rank of SMSgt. And Course 14? A CBT based on courseware that you are required to take in-residence? And NO formal requirement.

And "dirtbag" that rides to HYT? There is a reason there is HYT...to get rid of those "dirtbags" and make room for the douchebag TSgts who think they would be better suited as the CMSGT of the AF.

Also, I haven't read through the AFI(s) on re-enlistment lately, but I have a hard time believing that you can deny re-enlistment unless there are quality of force issues and an LOC for doing something that ISN'T required ain't gonna fly.

You wonder what's wrong with big-blue? It's people being raised in the AF to this bullshit.

AFI 36-2618, The Enlisted Force Structure outlines SNCO requirements. Look under "Specific SNCO Responsibilities." It is a very common mistake that many MSgts make. The most common argument folks use is the AFI states the word 'Should' when describing the responsibilities.

The member's commander has the authority to deny reenlistment. Sort of stops right there if the member is retirement eligible.

raustin0017
07-07-2013, 05:52 PM
Capt. Ross: Corporal Barnes, I hold here the Marine Outline for Recruit Training. You're familiar with this book?
Cpl. Barnes: Yes, sir.
Capt. Ross: Have you read it?
Cpl. Barnes: Yes, sir.
Capt. Ross: Good. Would you turn to the chapter that deals with code reds, please?
Cpl. Barnes: Sir?
Capt. Ross: Just flip to the page of the book that discusses code reds.
Cpl. Barnes: Well, well, you see, sir code red is a term that we use, I mean, just down at Gitmo, I don't know if it's actually...
Capt. Ross: Ah, we're in luck then. Standard Operating Procedures, Rifle Security Company, Guantanamo Bay Cuba. Now I assume we'll find the term code red and its definition in that book. Am I correct?
Cpl. Barnes: No sir.
Capt. Ross: No?
Corporal Barnes, I'm a Marine. Is there no book. No manual or pamphlet, no set of orders or regulations that lets me know that, as a Marine, one of my duties is to perform code reds?
Cpl. Barnes: No sir. No book, sir.
Capt. Ross: No further questions.
[as Ross walks back to his table Kaffee takes the book out of his hand]
Kaffee: Corporal, would you turn to the page in this book that says where the mess hall is, please.
Cpl. Barnes: Well, Lt. Kaffee, that's not in the book, sir. Kaffee: You mean to say in all your time at Gitmo you've never had a meal?
Cpl. Barnes: No, sir. Three squares a day, sir.
Kaffee: I don't understand. How did you know where the mess hall was if it's not in this book?
Cpl. Barnes: Well, I guess I just followed the crowd at chow time, sir.
Kaffee: No more questions.

Great movie!

DWWSWWD
07-07-2013, 06:15 PM
We all know folks that have done their time, are retirement eligible, but are no longer getting it done. When this person is a SNCO, it hurts because they are an influence on the younger Airmen and officers. There is more to this than a speech CLEP, I'm sure. It is pretty easy for a CC to move along a retirement eligible Airman. It should be and is not done often enough.

grimreaper
07-08-2013, 02:21 AM
AFI 36-2618, The Enlisted Force Structure outlines SNCO requirements. Look under "Specific SNCO Responsibilities." It is a very common mistake that many MSgts make. The most common argument folks use is the AFI states the word 'Should' when describing the responsibilities.

The member's commander has the authority to deny reenlistment. Sort of stops right there if the member is retirement eligible.

That is a very valid argument though. Having been on a number of inspection teams, "should" is essentially a recommendation, not a requirement. If the AFI would have said "will", "shall" or "must" then it becomes a mandatory compliance item. Something that says "should" can only be identified as a recommended improvement area, not a deficiency.

You are obviously correct though that the commander can deny reenlistment. Hopefully that decision was made using sound reasoning and logic.

tiredretiredE7
07-08-2013, 02:29 AM
We all know folks that have done their time, are retirement eligible, but are no longer getting it done. When this person is a SNCO, it hurts because they are an influence on the younger Airmen and officers. There is more to this than a speech CLEP, I'm sure. It is pretty easy for a CC to move along a retirement eligible Airman. It should be and is not done often enough.

I was one of the SNCO who this post is referring to. However, I busted my @$$ right up until retirement. My last troop asked me why I was retiring since I stood up for the Amn in the unit, scored excellent on my FA (assisted anyone who needed help on the run), was progressing towards my degree and ensuring he attained his degree. I had to explain to him that it was time for me to go. The AF did not want my type of SNCO anymore and preferred the "new" breed of SNCO. My CC even asked me why I was retiring and my answer to him was much different. I told the CC I was tired of being the only MSgt who came in on down-days, weekends and holidays while other MSgts got their time off. I was assigned two full-time jobs in addition to my primary duties due two individuals who were unable to perform at a SNCO level. My duties were divided among three "new" type of SNCOs when after I retired. I do not miss the "new" AF and I am glad ever day I wake up and I do not have to deal with "new" AF. The two individuals jobs that I took over are still on AD and were/are retirement eligible. I completely concur that more CCs should force people to retire.

grimreaper
07-08-2013, 02:50 AM
Since people are wanting to go by AFI, per below NCOs (SSgt/TSgt) should complete CCAF.

AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 36-2618
27 FEBRUARY 2009, Certified Current 23 March 2012
Personnel
THE ENLISTED FORCE STRUCTURE

Chapter 4
NCO RESPONSIBILITIES
4.1. General NCO Responsibilities. NCOs must:

4.1.4. Maintain the highest level of readiness to meet mission requirements:
4.1.4.1. Be technically ready to accomplish the mission. 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. Additionally, they must train and develop their subordinates to ensure
they are also technically ready to accomplish the mission. NCOs should earn a CCAF degree, if
not already earned, to further expand their professional development and technical expertise.

4.1.16. Secure and promote PME and professional enhancement courses for themselves and
subordinates to develop and cultivate leadership skills and military professionalism. NCOs should
enroll in and complete the CCAF degree, if not already earned, and encourage completion by
subordinates. They should also continue development for themselves and subordinates through
available professional enhancement courses, on- and off-duty education, leadership lectures and
seminars, and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force reading program.

It also says they should be participating in the Chief of Staff of the Air Force reading program. Are we going to deny re-enlistment to people not following that? How many people do you think actually do that? If I had to guess, it is less than 20%...and that is probably being generous. Probably more like 10%.

grimreaper
07-08-2013, 03:07 AM
I worked with plenty of good for nothing SNCOs and Officers with degrees on their walls who didn't know shit about their job and were hated by their people.

Seems to be a lot of these types of people in the AF these days. Since the AF has made it about filling squares, they are encouraging this type of "me first" mentality. If the AF expects people to do education and all this other stuff on top of their jobs, when are they actually supposed to be a good NCO/SNCO and mentor the younger guys/gals?

I guess I'm just waaaay off now. As I understood it, you had to have CCAF, Course 14 and SRE if you wanted a shot at making E-8. Apparently now, there are Commanders out there using these things as requirements just for you to keep your job and are essentially using them as weapons to justify getting rid of you.

KC-10 FE
07-08-2013, 03:59 AM
I find it amazing how some on here are getting so pissed that they might have to go take some CLEPS and get a little degree.

In all seriousness, how do you make it to MSgt without being only a few credits away from a simple CCAF?

imported_KnuckleDragger
07-08-2013, 04:11 AM
I find it amazing how some on here are getting so pissed that they might have to go take some CLEPS and get a little degree.

In all seriousness, how do you make it to MSgt without being only a few credits away from a simple CCAF?

People are pissed, because it looks as if unofficial rules are being enforced, when they weren't before.

Everyone has different priorities in life.

If this is the new standard, so be it. Make it an official standard, official & standard across the AF.

4 years/22 days to go for this guy:dispirited:

KC-10 FE
07-08-2013, 04:15 AM
Let me give you a bit of advice. Take it or leave it, it's up to you.

Curb this big blue Kool-aid attitude before you PCS. It will do you no favors. The squadron you are going to will accept you with open arms, but if you come in with this crap you will very quickly find yourself labeled as "that guy". That's NOT the place you want to start off at.

This is a message board forum, we use it for a combination of things. However when I am at work, I shut up and grind it out like everybody else and that includes keeping my opinions to myself.

KC-10 FE
07-08-2013, 04:18 AM
Originally posted by Mr. Happy:

Re: Course 14 Mandatory?

I've sat through a few briefings recently and it appears the Air Force is proposing dramatic changes to PME. They are going to start using distance learning courses as the primary delivery and only targeted ranks with certain TIS will get into actual in-resident NCOA and SNCOA slots.

This is what I recall: At 3 years TIS complete ALS DL, and then everyone must attend resident ALS as well. For NCOA everyone will complete NCOA DL at 7 years TIS I believe, and then only TSgts and TSgt-selects between 8 to 11 years TIS attend the actual NCOA. Meaning, if you make TSgt at 12 years, you will never attend NCOA in-resident. For SNCOA, I think it was complete SNCOA DL at 12 years or something, and to attend the actual SNCOA it was something ridiculous like being a SMSgt or SMSgt-select between 12 to 15 years TIS. How many people are actually a SMSgt between 12 and 15 years TIS?

They're selling it as a way to "close the PME gap" over the course of one's career, but as you can see, they are really looking to significantly reduce the eligible pool of attendees to NCOA and SNCOA to save money. In-resident attendance to the NCOA and SNCOA will be geared for fast burners and will probably give them an unfair advantage with the promotion boards if they are able to discern who went in-resident or not. Based on the timeframe that SNCOA DL (Course 14 replacement?) is required and the fact that 8 years is the minimum TIS to pin on MSgt, I doubt SNCO DL would be mandatory to pin on, but there's no telling what other craziness is coming down the pike.

How soon is this planned to take effect?

KC-10 FE
07-08-2013, 04:20 AM
Cool thanks. Trust me, I keep my opinions to myself in the real world and am really laid back and easy to get along with.

TWilliams
07-08-2013, 04:42 AM
Hi everyone. I'm a long time lurker but decided I wanted to participate in this conversation with all the threads relating to square filling, etc.. The CCAF reminds of me that scene in Office Space where Jennifer Aniston's boss is giving her a hard time about not wearing enough flare. I think it is okay to make it and Course 14 a requirement promotion or re-enlistment eligibility if it is communicated effectively as such as part of official policy with an AFI. This moving of the goalpost only serves to cause discontent and erodes mission effectiveness by forcing people to focus on scrambling to meet ever changing requirements rather than focusing on mission accomplishment. When I joined in 2000, the CCAF was explained to me as one of many benefits of serving in the Air Force as you could earn a degree and accredited college credits through accomplishing your military training. As I have continued my career it turned into being pushed as mandatory but I didn't get the memo until after I had my line number for MSgt. I joined the Air Force specifically to not go to college. I was more interested in entering the workforce in a profession that had meaning. I had no expectations of being entitled to promotions and was perfectly content to being the best technician I could be, but I did not like the judging the comes along with not pursuing promotion. While I do have my CCAF and course 14 done, I am finding it difficult adjusting to what is expected of me as a SNCO with regards to "actively supporting" leader's personal bias for educational requirements and unhealthy focus on pursuing promotion as the most important part of professional development. The command chief at my base straight out said that his expectation is CCAF as an Airman, Bachelor's as an NCO and Masters as a SNCO. I think encouraging folks to meet these goals is fine, but it goes well beyond AFI requirements and there is no way to push back on this with out backing of other Chiefs and/or Wing Commanders. When will the douche-baggery end, and is there anything we can do about it?

imported_KnuckleDragger
07-08-2013, 04:49 AM
The command chief at my base straight out said that his expectation is CCAF as an Airman, Bachelor's as an NCO and Masters as a SNCO.

Wow. WTF???

While we are doing more-with-less(less-with-less), assclowns are encouraging professional students.

KC-10 FE
07-08-2013, 04:53 AM
Agreed. However, it took me about 10 min to create an account, review your post history and pretty much confirm who I thought you were. You aren't as anonymous as you may think.

Thanks for looking out. I also posted in a thread asking for info from 10 FE's. If you would be willing to provide some helpful info for success on the jet and life in the squadrons there (in addition to what you have already provided) I would greatly appreciate it.

http://forums.militarytimes.com/showthread.php?1579123-Looking-For-Info-on-Travis-AFB-amp-KC-10-FE-s

EDIT: Apparently this guy wasn't who he claimed to be and has since had his account deleted and all his posts. Seriously???

CrustySMSgt
07-08-2013, 05:53 AM
If individuals aren't doing what they "should" do, they are doing what they shouldn't do. If they aren't knocking the requirements out that they "should" be doing, then their EPR scores should reflect, which will limit their HYT and promotion chances. Just like the addition of the check box for passing your PT test has been added to the EPR's, perhaps a box for CCAF completion and course 14 completion should be added to the AF FORM 911.

The cream of the crop should be at the top.

We don't need more blocks to check on the form, we need to use the ones already there, the RATINGS blocks! See the "block checking" thread. If you make the focus checking blocks then you reward the block checkers who will focus more on the blocks then the job or their Airmen.

Here's my general rule of thumb (which of course varies by an individual's performance): No CCAF/PME first time TIG eligible, markdown on the front. 2nd time another markdown on front and strong consideration for a 4. 3rd time, meets and no question, you're a 4. Ratings don't affect promotion, because you're not going to get promoted without them being done/SRE.


I was one of the SNCO who this post is referring to. However, I busted my @$$ right up until retirement. My last troop asked me why I was retiring since I stood up for the Amn in the unit, scored excellent on my FA (assisted anyone who needed help on the run), was progressing towards my degree and ensuring he attained his degree. I had to explain to him that it was time for me to go. The AF did not want my type of SNCO anymore and preferred the "new" breed of SNCO. My CC even asked me why I was retiring and my answer to him was much different. I told the CC I was tired of being the only MSgt who came in on down-days, weekends and holidays while other MSgts got their time off. I was assigned two full-time jobs in addition to my primary duties due two individuals who were unable to perform at a SNCO level. My duties were divided among three "new" type of SNCOs when after I retired. I do not miss the "new" AF and I am glad ever day I wake up and I do not have to deal with "new" AF. The two individuals jobs that I took over are still on AD and were/are retirement eligible. I completely concur that more CCs should force people to retire.

I know we pitch a lot of shit back & forth, but you get a big HUA from me on this post. Certainly can't speak to whether in "real life" you should or shouldn't have made SMSgt or Chief, but even if you were an awesome MSgt, there is no reason to run you off. As I sad, the promotion rate to SMSgt is 10%, so it is mathematically impossible for everyone to make it. Why should we punish/separate those who are great MSgts and realize they're right where the need to be and could give a shit about their CCAF (the benefits of PME can be debated and I would argue that it does contain tools that could make anyone a better supervisor/leader). We need good MSgts and as long as you're earning your paycheck, you're good to go in my book... there are plenty of others who are doing everythign they need to do to be promoted.


It also says they should be participating in the Chief of Staff of the Air Force reading program. Are we going to deny re-enlistment to people not follow that? How many people do you think actually do that? If I had to guess, it is less than 20%...and that is probably being generous. Probably more like 10%.

I actually do LOL when I read an EPR/award package bullet that says you read # books on the CSAF reading list.


As I have continued my career it turned into being pushed as mandatory but I didn't get the memo until after I had my line number for MSgt. I joined the Air Force specifically to not go to college. I was more interested in entering the workforce in a profession that had meaning. I had no expectations of being entitled to promotions and was perfectly content to being the best technician I could be, but I did not like the judging the comes along with not pursuing promotion. While I do have my CCAF and course 14 done, I am finding it difficult adjusting to what is expected of me as a SNCO with regards to "actively supporting" leader's personal bias for educational requirements and unhealthy focus on pursuing promotion as the most important part of professional development. The command chief at my base straight out said that his expectation is CCAF as an Airman, Bachelor's as an NCO and Masters as a SNCO. I think encouraging folks to meet these goals is fine, but it goes well beyond AFI requirements and there is no way to push back on this with out backing of other Chiefs and/or Wing Commanders. When will the douche-baggery end, and is there anything we can do about it?

No doubt the level of importance placed on CCAF has changed; I'll be the first to admit I didn't get my CCAF until I had MSgt on for 2 years. But the stress on it was different 12 years ago; if I'd have been told earlier it was important, I'd have made it a priority (but then I never dreamed I'd be a Cheif).

So I guess your CCM is smarter than the CSAF, who chose the CMSAF who only had a CCAF at the time.

grimreaper
07-08-2013, 06:00 AM
So I guess your CCM is smarter than the CSAF, who chose the CMSAF who only had a CCAF at the time.


Hell, our acting Secretary only has a Bachelor's and now we've got CCM's saying that SNCO's should have a Masters? LOL

RobotChicken
07-08-2013, 06:02 AM
"Guess there wouldn't be any room in the 'O'Club' for 'Ring knockers' When all enlisted with degrees where treated equal..."

grimreaper
07-08-2013, 06:08 AM
It says in an afi that snco should get a mess dress uniform...no mess dress, markdown???

What? No mess dress? Dishonorable discharge!!! Now GTFO! LOL

CrustySMSgt
07-08-2013, 06:09 AM
It says in an afi that snco should get a mess dress uniform...no mess dress, markdown???

It does?

Usually all your multiple posts aggrivate the shit out of me, but for some reason this morning I don't mind them! :hypnotized:

grimreaper
07-08-2013, 06:11 AM
And a history degree at that!

Funny thing is that I would bet money that anyone studying for WAPS still knows more about AF history than he does.

grimreaper
07-08-2013, 06:19 AM
SECDEF Hagel also has a history degree, at least a bachelor's using gi bill, I can't
Find whether he went on to a masters.

Every bio I've read on Hagel shows his BA in history from Nebraska as his highest level of education completed.

RobotChicken
07-08-2013, 06:31 AM
"Talk about 'gettin' stuffed for the 'Roasting'!!!"

grimreaper
07-08-2013, 06:37 AM
This is classic.

We have confirmed Chiefs telling SNCOs to get education beyond the current acting
SECAF and SECDEF or risk EPR markdown.

That ^^^ right there is all that should be needed to be said to shut somebody up who's pushing that kind of nonsense. Even in the "O" world, you don't need a Masters basically until O-4 going up for 0-5. When they start paying enlisted to have the same education as officers is when they can start requiring enlisted to have Bachelor's and graduate degrees.

grimreaper
07-08-2013, 06:44 AM
Sorry, let me recalibrate my comment.
Officers and Commanders say SNCOs
should have mess dress.
AFI says:
AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 36-2903
18 JULY 2011
Incorporating Change 1, 1 JUNE 2012
Personnel
DRESS AND PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF
AIR FORCE PERSONNEL

4.3. Men’s Mess Dress Uniform (Mandatory for Officers/Optional for Enlisted). The mess
dress uniform is worn for social functions of a formal and/or official nature (e.g., black tie
affairs). The tuxedo is the civilian equivalent. Enlisted may wear the semiformal service dress
uniform if they do not have a mess dress (ref paragraph 4.6). When in mess dress, saluting is
not required.

{break}{break}

I personally had commanders all but try to order me to get one
when I made MSgt. I never did, as I simply showed them the reg.

But of course, it is the old unwritten rule that SNCO's will have a mess dress, and if you don't, you're going to get the stink eye from a few Chiefs and the MSgt's that do, as well as be a topic of discussion. "Hey, how come MSgt so-and so doesn't have a mess dress?"

RobotChicken
07-08-2013, 07:28 AM
"I Believe the TV show 'BAA BAA Black Sheep' did it best on the white dress mess uniform! (Black sheep squadron; Which one of the Corsairs flown during the filming of the show was an Navy one flown during combat missions in N Korea by my neighbor and flew it again for the first time since Korea last november.)"

BRUWIN
07-08-2013, 08:34 AM
The command chief at my base straight out said that his expectation is CCAF as an Airman, Bachelor's as an NCO and Masters as a SNCO.

This was the biggest problem I was having with some of my peers and almost every officer I dealt with just before I retired. I don't know...it just seems like some they think the entire purpose of an AF career these days is self improvement. Some seem to have forgotten we were all brought in to do a job. However, doing the job well is not good enough. In fact...for many Chiefs and most FGO's these days it means very little. I don't get it. I remember when I was a young troop we had Chief's watching our every move on the flightline and if you performed they said nothing...which is exactly what you strived for. But even though they weren't cheerleaders they did reward the guys that put planes in the air. If they had actually something to say to you it was never good. I would see them walk past 10 other engine troops and go to the guy that knew what the fuck he was doing....and not to be cocky but that was usually me. Those guys coulda gave two shits about my PT score or my education level. How was I rewarded? Well I made MSGT in 12 years which back in the early 90s was a pretty remarkable achievement. Then McPeak rolled in and everything went to shit. The AF was all about filling squares and looking out for #1 after that. I felt like a dinosaur at age 30 already and one day actually had a SMSgt insinuate I was acting like one.

akruse
07-08-2013, 08:41 AM
[QUOTE=TWilliams;638480] The command chief at my base straight out said that his expectation is CCAF as an Airman, Bachelor's as an NCO and Masters as a SNCO./QUOTE]

This was the biggest problem I was having with some of my peers and almost every officer I dealt with just before I retired. I don't know...it just seems like some they think the entire purpose of an AF career these days is self improvement. Some seem to have forgotten we were all brought in to do a job. However, doing the job well is not good enough. In fact...for many Chiefs and most FGO's these days it means very little. I don't get it. I remember when I was a young troop we had Chief's watching our every move on the flightline and if you performed they said nothing...which is exactly what you strived for. But even though they weren't cheerleaders they did reward the guys that put planes in the air. If they had actually something to say to you it was never good. Those guys coulda gave two shits about my PT score or my education level. It's too bad it ain't that way anymore.

Have definitely noticed the shift in Chief involvement over the last 15 years. If you were talking to the Chief you either did something really good or you fucked something up. Never in between. They let their subordinate leaders actually do their job. Now they are involved in every level of leadership. It is very aggravating.

Juggs
07-08-2013, 12:59 PM
But of course, it is the old unwritten rule that SNCO's will have a mess dress, and if you don't, you're going to get the stink eye from a few Chiefs and the MSgt's that do, as well as be a topic of discussion. "Hey, how come MSgt so-and so doesn't have a mess dress?"

That answer is simple. Because he doesnt need to have one. He/she has the option of wearing semi-formal.

I had one as an A1C wore it then, wore it as a SrA at a couple weddings (they were military weddings), and wore it to the AF ball as a staff. I got it because I wanted to. I sat next to SNCOs that didnt have them. Did I not have respect for these SNCOs that had years of proven leadership in combat because of they took the option of not having mess dress? Heck no. I respected the heck out of these guy. They simply took a different approach. Maybe they saw it as a financial decision. When you're in certain jobs and your MSgt you look like a mexican general with your minimedals on. Your mess dress will most likely cost over 450 to get everything. Whats the point when you can just buy a white shirt for the same events?

Pullinteeth
07-08-2013, 06:33 PM
Today's enlisted force is FAR more educated than when I was enlisted in the early 90s, but still no comparison (percentage wise) to the level of education required for officers....considering all officers have bachelors, plus the majority (I believe) of FGOs who have Masters. I'm not going to look it up again, but I think you made the case.

You are wrong...wrong...wrong... It is not a requirement for all officers to have a bachelor's degree and not all do. Without even leaving the Air Force, you can find dozens (if not hundreds) that do not have a degree. All you have to do it look at the ANG. They follow the AFI and per AFI, a degree is not required in order to be commissioned. It is RARE on AD and in the Reserve but is still allowed.


I'm sure the figures are accurate, though.

I wouldn't be so sure. Unless you take the time to update your education level....they would never know.


If you're are asking me personally, only a piece of fucking shit commander would force retire someone for not having a CCAF,
that also goes for any Chief agreeing with it. Anytime people start picking fly shit out of AFI's, they show just how fucking
disconnected they really are. There's a world outside of PME and off duty education, I worked with plenty of good for nothing
SNCOs and Officers with degrees on their walls who didn't know shit about their job and were hated by their people. Fuck them!

Well, when you have to choose between "encouraging" someone to retire that hasn't done what is asked of and forcing someone that isn't retirement eligible out so that we can pay for a shiny new airplane, who would you choose to get rid of?


People are pissed, because it looks as if unofficial rules are being enforced, when they weren't before.

If this is the new standard, so be it. Make it an official standard, official & standard across the AF.

Be pissed all you like but that isn't the way the AF works now nor is it the way it will ever work. When they are looking at getting rid of people, those optional items become more important. They don't have to change the rules, they just become more selective in their retention. Like the above reference, there is no REQUIREMENT for you to have a degree to become an officer but just try to become one on AD or in the Reserve without one... If the day comes that we need officers desperately, then AD and the Reserve will also start to allow those without degrees get their commissions once again. There is no reason to change the rule to fit today's needs, they just enforce a stricter standard and press on....

Not saying I agree with it...just saying that your reaction doesn't match reality....

KellyinAvon
07-08-2013, 11:45 PM
PBD 720 Audit
www.foia.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100528-099.pdf

That's some weak stuff there. I was very involved with PBD 720 implementation at ACC, this report looks at what's on the edges. The Personnel action followed what happened to the UMDs. It was brutal to say the least and a complete GOLF FOXTROT at best. Cuts were based on sh!t that hadn't been vetted by anybody.

Pullinteeth
07-08-2013, 11:57 PM
pretty sure the whole saying money on personnel to buy planes didn't work out, reference PBD 720
and failed policies of the fired CSAF and SECAF.

Oh I agree 100%. It failed completely and they (leadership) actually admitted it didn't work. However, the personnel cuts keep coming and you didn't answer my question....

Pullinteeth
07-10-2013, 02:26 PM
Okay...here was the question:
"Well, when you have to choose between "encouraging" someone to retire that hasn't done what is asked of and forcing someone that isn't retirement eligible out so that we can pay for a shiny new airplane, who would you choose to get rid of?"
Here is my answer:
The AF has programs to address reduction in manning, either through HYT changes, DOS rollback, early retirement offer to wave ADSC, etc etc
There is no AF program for commanders to randomly try to decide a guy on a base should retire for not having a CCAF, when 50% +/- do not have
one as a MSgt and they are not forced retired. I already pointed out in a post where by 36-2618, NCOs should have CCAF, doubt they'll be force
retiring TSgts next. Here's the deal, this is a small percentage situation and the AF needs big numbers, so they come up with vetted, fair programs.
I remember years ago they floated force retiring C coded guys over 20, then quickly changed their minds. I have showed that in adherence to
AF and AETC guidance a MSgt without CCAF and Course 14 is not uncompliant with requirements. You don't hear of mass MSgts force retiring
of lack thereof, due to a massive outcry that would commence. Again, having a CCAF is required for SRE, to enable making SMSgt. Course 14
is required to be completed within 72 months. If someone is challenging this, show me what you have. Commanders cannot go on some
crusade to enforce their personal desires and end careers. The average promotion scores shows the massive EPR inflation at MSgt rank, so
you will hardly get any people on EPR alone. I never saw an AF program to separate SNCOs for lack of career progression, because it's
far too subjective and the numbers would not amount to savings or plane buying. Anything the govt touches turns to shit and costs more
on top of saving nothing close to the amounts they claimed, as they never plan for secondary and tiertiary affects. Hope I answered question.

You have obviously never seen a 418....the TITLE of the form is SELECTIVE reenlistment program consideration....
Might also want to peruse AFI 36-2606...

1.5. Unit Commander. Initiates (as required), reviews and coordinates on all requests for action and recommends approval/disapproval of reenlistment program actions that are consistent with other qualitative actions.

2.2. SRP Authority. Commanders have total SRP selection authority as long as no other factors barring immediate reenlistment exist. Commanders may non-select any Airman for SRP as long as the Airman is in his/her SRP window according to paragraph 2.4. The selection/non-selection decision should not be based on Airman’s career intent and should be consistent with other qualitative decisions. Commanders will not use the SRP to deny reenlistment when involuntary separation is more appropriate. Commanders may reverse their selection/non-selection decision at any time.

2.4.3. Commander’s should consider the following before making a decision:
2.4.3.1. Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) ratings.
2.4.3.2. Unfavorable information from any substantiated source.
2.4.3.3. The Airman’s willingness to comply with Air Force standards (i.e. fitness, dress/appearance, timeliness etc.).
2.4.3.4. The Airman’s ability (or lack of) to meet required training and duty performance levels.

grimreaper
07-10-2013, 06:52 PM
2.4.3. Commander’s should consider the following before making a decision:
2.4.3.1. Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) ratings.
2.4.3.2. Unfavorable information from any substantiated source.
2.4.3.3. The Airman’s willingness to comply with Air Force standards (i.e. fitness, dress/appearance, timeliness etc.).
2.4.3.4. The Airman’s ability (or lack of) to meet required training and duty performance levels.

So out of these, which one is a SNCO who doesn't have CCAF or Course 14 in violation of?

TWilliams
07-10-2013, 08:13 PM
So out of these, which one is a SNCO who doesn't have CCAF or Course 14 in violation of?

None for CCAF because should does not mean you must do it as has been pointed out before. Course 14 could possibly fall under the last two.

grimreaper
07-10-2013, 08:20 PM
None for CCAF because should does not mean you must do it as has been pointed out before. Course 14 could possibly fall under the last two.

Sure, but since you will now have 72 months to complete Course 14, a CC shouldn't be making a decision based on that until that suspense is busted. And another question I have for anyone that may know, is enrollment mandatory/automatic for the new Course 14? If it is not, then that 72 month timeline to complete it only applies to someone if they are actually enrolled in it and a CC would not be able to use that as justification if the member was never enrolled in the course.

TWilliams
07-10-2013, 08:24 PM
Sure, but since you will now have 72 months to complete Course 14, a CC shouldn't be making a decision based on that until that suspense is busted. And another question I have for anyone that may know, is enrollment mandatory/automatic for the new Course 14? If it is not, then that 72 month timeline to complete it only applies to someone if they are actually enrolled in it and a CC would not be able to use that as justification if the member was never enrolled in the course.

So when does the timer start for a SNCO to secure PME for themselves as outlined in the enlisted force structure?

grimreaper
07-10-2013, 08:33 PM
So when does the timer start for a SNCO to secure PME for themselves as outlined in the enlisted force structure?

It doesn't say, which is another problem with many AFI's (vagueness). It says the same exact thing regarding PME under the NCO Responsibilities as it does for the SNCO responsibilities.


Secure and promote PME and professional enhancement courses for themselves and subordinates to develop and cultivate leadership skills and military professionalism.

TWilliams
07-10-2013, 08:37 PM
Well....course 14 can be done as a TSgt with two years tig and NCOA completed, but doesnt have to be.
A MSgt doesn't have to, only for sre. If a MSgt doesn't enroll and they use it against them, simply enroll
and take 72 months. Again, 36-2618 says ncos should have ccaf. It is widely subjective
And I contend would not hold up for jag or hhq review.

I think when things like this aren't sharply defined, it allows supervisors to set the standard. I would contend that since the AFI doesn't say when you must enroll that your supervisor has every right to tell you when you have to. Failure to meet that standard I suppose could be grounds to say that an Airman is failing to meet required training and duty performance levels, which would give a commander the right to deny enlistment. Your thoughts?

grimreaper
07-10-2013, 08:43 PM
I think when things like this aren't sharply defined, it allows supervisors to set the standard. I would contend that since the AFI doesn't say when you must enroll that your supervisor has every right to tell you when you have to. Failure to meet that standard I suppose could be grounds to say that an Airman is failing to meet required training and duty performance levels, which would give a commander the right to deny enlistment. Your thoughts?

I would agree with you up to a point. If your supervisor set the standard, then that should have been briefed to you and explained in feedback sessions and reflected in your EPRs. If it is not reflected in your EPR, than how can a CC or supervisor hold that against you? His time to raise the concern was before he signed off on the EPR, since the AFI quoted above says:


2.4.3. Commander’s should consider the following before making a decision:
2.4.3.1. Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) ratings.
2.4.3.2. Unfavorable information from any substantiated source.
2.4.3.3. The Airman’s willingness to comply with Air Force standards (i.e. fitness, dress/appearance, timeliness etc.).
2.4.3.4. The Airman’s ability (or lack of) to meet required training and duty performance levels.

If failure to complete PME was not taken into consideration at EPR time, how can a CC use that as justification for denying re-enlistment?

TWilliams
07-10-2013, 08:57 PM
If failure to complete PME was not taken into consideration at EPR time, how can a CC use that as justification for denying re-enlistment?

I 100% agree that these types of things ought to be clearly spelled out in formal and informal feedback sessions (which we know doesn't happen like it should) and should be reflected in the EPR. I think that would end up being a mark down in only one area though. So it is possible for someone to fail to meet this training standard but still have a good EPR. A commander dead set on denying reenlistment for this would have to point straight to the Airman's unwillingness to meet required training levels and not necessarily at the overall EPR rating. If it wasn't even taken into consideration at EPR time, then I don't think a commander could use it as a justification at all unless there is some other place it would be documented while not making it onto the EPR.

KC-10 FE
07-10-2013, 11:35 PM
While I don't agree that people should be forced to retire (who are eligible) if they don't complete their CCAF or Course 14, I don't understand why it's such a big deal to get them knocked out.

Course 14...ya it's tedious. But a CCAF is required for most special duty assignments. And if you have a CCAF, you are only 60 credits away from a bachelors through the AU-ABC program through the education office.

Why not at least get your CCAF?

grimreaper
07-11-2013, 12:32 AM
I 100% agree that these types of things ought to be clearly spelled out in formal and informal feedback sessions (which we know doesn't happen like it should) and should be reflected in the EPR. I think that would end up being a mark down in only one area though. So it is possible for someone to fail to meet this training standard but still have a good EPR. A commander dead set on denying reenlistment for this would have to point straight to the Airman's unwillingness to meet required training levels and not necessarily at the overall EPR rating. If it wasn't even taken into consideration at EPR time, then I don't think a commander could use it as a justification at all unless there is some other place it would be documented while not making it onto the EPR.

That's the thing though...what's the requirement? Saying something is a requirement means that it says so in some authoritative document (AFI, DoDI, USC, etc.). Unless you can point to a training requirement in a AFI that says that person was supposed to do x, y, or z and did not, you cannot realistically say that he doesn't meet required training levels.

Airborne
07-11-2013, 02:50 AM
By continuing to make things mandatory there will have to be another discriminator. PT? Must score 90 or above...ya right. Bachelors? Now its just getting rediculous. I think we have taken it for granted that we have been doing this on the back of 100% TA for over a decade. We saw what happened when they took away that golden egg laying goose. It's back for now but I dont suspect for long. I believe WAPS works lovely through those mid ranks. Sure there should be "some" discriminators for the top two but lets put some weight back into testing for top two to stop some of this rediculousness.

KC-10 FE
07-11-2013, 03:18 AM
Again, why aren't individuals motivated enough to get their CCAF without being ordered to do so? I mean heck 2 stripers get their CCAF without the threat of being kicked out just because they want to help improve their shot at BTZ. If an A1C is willing to do it for promotion consideration without it being necessarily a requirement, what does it say when a MSgt isn't willing to CLEP a few classes and earn one for the same consideration?

Vrake
07-11-2013, 04:02 AM
Again, why aren't individuals motivated enough to get their CCAF without being ordered to do so? I mean heck 2 stripers get their CCAF without the threat of being kicked out just because they want to help improve their shot at BTZ. If an A1C is willing to do it for promotion consideration without it being necessarily a requirement, what does it say when a MSgt isn't willing to CLEP a few classes and earn one for the same consideration?

Have not read the whole thread but that is the way the the Navy has been awhile now. More focused on education then learning their job. Now we have to hire field teams to repair our jets because the knowledge base is not there anymore. We have squadrons asking for contractors to come in and do the same things Sailors did 5 years ago. It became more important to get education and volunteer then know their primary jobs. The skill base got eroded and now the filed teams are retired guys making 30 bucks an hour.

I mentioned it before but I love how a site in VA is doing furloughs. They send them away on Fridays then offer them as much overtime as they want on Sat and Sun at time and a half because the money for overtime is "another color"

Plus a lot of what they are fixing is stuff Sailors used to but don't know how anymore due to pursuit of that degree in criminal justice or general studies.

KC-10 FE
07-11-2013, 04:23 AM
Have not read the whole thread but that is the way the the Navy has been awhile now. More focused on education then learning their job. Now we have to hire field teams to repair our jets because the knowledge base is not there anymore. We have squadrons asking for contractors to come in and do the same things Sailors did 5 years ago. It became more important to get education and volunteer then know their primary jobs. The skill base got eroded and now the filed teams are retired guys making 30 bucks an hour.

I mentioned it before but I love how a site in VA is doing furloughs. They send them away on Fridays then offer them as much overtime as they want on Sat and Sun at time and a half because the money for overtime is "another color"

Plus a lot of what they are fixing is stuff Sailors used to but don't know how anymore due to pursuit of that degree in criminal justice or general studies.

Except not everybody who pursues education isn't good at their job. AETC instructors are required to get their CCAF within 1 year after they become an instructor or they risk not being an instructor anymore since AETC courses are accredited through the CCAF which requires the instructors of those courses to posses their own CCAF within 12 months of assignment.

From my experience, aircraft maintenance FTD instructors are some of the very best in their respective AFSC's. So having a CCAF doesn't automatically imply that one isn't great at their job as is being described in a few posts in this thread it seems. It is possible to do both.

BRUWIN
07-11-2013, 05:17 AM
Something a 2-striper said last week in my duty section;

"Anybody that fails the PT test has no business being in the AF."

Obviously...this comes from a kid that passes the PT test and passes it with ease. What he failed to bring up was he has failed his 5-lvl CDC's and is getting ready for a 2nd try. But I guess he belongs in the AF. This is the mentality that's being filtered down to the young troops.

KC-10 FE
07-11-2013, 05:26 AM
Something a 2-striper said last week in my duty section;

"Anybody that fails the PT test has no business being in the AF."

Obviously...this comes from a kid that passes the PT test and passes it with ease. What he failed to bring up was he has failed his 5-lvl CDC's and is getting ready for a 2nd try. But I guess he belongs in the AF. This is the mentality that's being filtered down to the young troops.

That is pathetic.

fufu
07-11-2013, 05:49 AM
Something a 2-striper said last week in my duty section;

"Anybody that fails the PT test has no business being in the AF."

Obviously...this comes from a kid that passes the PT test and passes it with ease. What he failed to bring up was he has failed his 5-lvl CDC's and is getting ready for a 2nd try. But I guess he belongs in the AF. This is the mentality that's being filtered down to the young troops.

This is the problem with the AF. PT is everything and the only thing. I'm thinking of failing on purpose just so the careerists will leave me the fuck alone.

CrustySMSgt
07-11-2013, 10:47 AM
Something a 2-striper said last week in my duty section;

"Anybody that fails the PT test has no business being in the AF."

Obviously...this comes from a kid that passes the PT test and passes it with ease. What he failed to bring up was he has failed his 5-lvl CDC's and is getting ready for a 2nd try. But I guess he belongs in the AF. This is the mentality that's being filtered down to the young troops.

DUDE, you found PT GOD!

tiredretiredE7
07-11-2013, 01:13 PM
Something a 2-striper said last week in my duty section;

"Anybody that fails the PT test has no business being in the AF."

Obviously...this comes from a kid that passes the PT test and passes it with ease. What he failed to bring up was he has failed his 5-lvl CDC's and is getting ready for a 2nd try. But I guess he belongs in the AF. This is the mentality that's being filtered down to the young troops.

This is the "infection" I always refer to.

Pullinteeth
07-11-2013, 02:12 PM
This is the problem with the AF. PT is everything and the only thing. I'm thinking of failing on purpose just so the careerists will leave me the fuck alone.

Don't do it....you want to have OPTIONS...whether you choose to use those options or not, you want to have them.

TWilliams
07-11-2013, 08:42 PM
That's the thing though...what's the requirement? Saying something is a requirement means that it says so in some authoritative document (AFI, DoDI, USC, etc.). Unless you can point to a training requirement in a AFI that says that person was supposed to do x, y, or z and did not, you cannot realistically say that he doesn't meet required training levels.

I agree. That is why I also said I don't think a commander could use it as a justification at all unless there is some other place it would be documented while not making it onto the EPR.