PDA

View Full Version : "Exec" Duties



Chief_KO
06-14-2013, 04:26 PM
Pulling an Airman (officer or enlisted) out of the CAFSC to perform duties as an sq, gp, wg, & command chief exec flies directly against AFI 36-2101 (Classifying Military Personnel (Officer and Enlisted)) para 3.34. The MPS may authorize this for up to 130 days in a 12 month period.

We all see it happen all the time.."career broadening"...for up to a year. A member taken out of hide (still reported against the unit UPMR), taken out of their AFSC (what they were recruited, trained and paid to do). Career broadening defined as DTS travel agent, note taker, phone & email answerer, protocol arranger ("Col X likes Diet Dr Pepper with 2 ice cubes in a glass (not plastic!) tumbler), dog walker, etc.

If it is truly a position (according to AF manpower agency), then make a Special Duty Identifier, fund a billet and make it right. Kind of hard to fight manpower battles when blatant disregard to AFIs is accepted as the "norm" by commanders at so many levels.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
06-14-2013, 04:45 PM
Pulling an Airman (officer or enlisted) out of the CAFSC to perform duties as an sq, gp, wg, & command chief exec flies directly against AFI 36-2101 (Classifying Military Personnel (Officer and Enlisted)) para 3.34. The MPS may authorize this for up to 130 days in a 12 month period.

We all see it happen all the time.."career broadening"...for up to a year. A member taken out of hide (still reported against the unit UPMR), taken out of their AFSC (what they were recruited, trained and paid to do). Career broadening defined as DTS travel agent, note taker, phone & email answerer, protocol arranger ("Col X likes Diet Dr Pepper with 2 ice cubes in a glass (not plastic!) tumbler), dog walker, etc.

If it is truly a position (according to AF manpower agency), then make a Special Duty Identifier, fund a billet and make it right. Kind of hard to fight manpower battles when blatant disregard to AFIs is accepted as the "norm" by commanders at so many levels.

I wonder how many unfunded "out of hide" civil servant or contractor positions there are. I'm guessing zero.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
06-14-2013, 04:58 PM
Pulling an Airman (officer or enlisted) out of the CAFSC to perform duties as an sq, gp, wg, & command chief exec flies directly against AFI 36-2101 (Classifying Military Personnel (Officer and Enlisted)) para 3.34. The MPS may authorize this for up to 130 days in a 12 month period.

We all see it happen all the time.."career broadening"...for up to a year. A member taken out of hide (still reported against the unit UPMR), taken out of their AFSC (what they were recruited, trained and paid to do). Career broadening defined as DTS travel agent, note taker, phone & email answerer, protocol arranger ("Col X likes Diet Dr Pepper with 2 ice cubes in a glass (not plastic!) tumbler), dog walker, etc.

If it is truly a position (according to AF manpower agency), then make a Special Duty Identifier, fund a billet and make it right. Kind of hard to fight manpower battles when blatant disregard to AFIs is accepted as the "norm" by commanders at so many levels.

I wonder how many unfunded "out of hide" civil servant or contractor positions there are. I'm guessing zero.

SomeRandomGuy
06-14-2013, 05:09 PM
Pulling an Airman (officer or enlisted) out of the CAFSC to perform duties as an sq, gp, wg, & command chief exec flies directly against AFI 36-2101 (Classifying Military Personnel (Officer and Enlisted)) para 3.34. The MPS may authorize this for up to 130 days in a 12 month period.

We all see it happen all the time.."career broadening"...for up to a year. A member taken out of hide (still reported against the unit UPMR), taken out of their AFSC (what they were recruited, trained and paid to do). Career broadening defined as DTS travel agent, note taker, phone & email answerer, protocol arranger ("Col X likes Diet Dr Pepper with 2 ice cubes in a glass (not plastic!) tumbler), dog walker, etc.

If it is truly a position (according to AF manpower agency), then make a Special Duty Identifier, fund a billet and make it right. Kind of hard to fight manpower battles when blatant disregard to AFIs is accepted as the "norm" by commanders at so many levels.

I understand what you are saying here but this post misses one important point. How will the "additional duty" be handled if someone is not pulled from their AFSC to handle it? Let us look at the DTS Travel agent role. How did the role come about? Is the position really needed or is it a question of someone creating a job? If the person goes away who does the responsibility fall to?

1. How did the role come about?-DTS people within the unit came about when Finance began pushing their responsibility back to the unit level.
2. Is the position needed?-Yes and no. DTS was intended to be a user friendly system where the traveler computes the voucher and then the commander or resource advisor approves it. The DTS people within the unit came about because people started adding unnecessary authorizations into the routing chain. To fix this problem just edit the routing list where they go from traveler, to resource advisor, to commander. No one else should be involved and under no circumstances should commanders have other people creating their vouchers and doing their job for them.
3. If the job goes away where does the responsibility go?- It goes back to the proper AFSC responsible for that function. As in the person who was trained on how to do the job properly.

Basically, I just used the DTS example to make one key point. Along with eliminating "exec positions" we need to force the AFSCs to take back their duties. If you are the unit finance guy (resource advisor) you should be approving the vouchers. If your AFSC is safety you should be handling those duties instead someone tasked as an additional duty. If unit deployment manager is a legit job make it an AFSC. The biggest offenders in this have always been people from customer service organizations. I know this because I worked in finance and it really frustrated me how much we were asking of our customers. The same can cleary be said of Personnel as well. In order to correct the problem we need to give back duties to the AFSC they belong to.

In exchange for accepting my primary duties back I would also ask that you take yours back. During my career I was an ammo account custodian, security forces augmentee, self aid and buddy care instructor, and equipment custodian. I do not expect to be doing any of those things as they are not finance related. I will be busy computing your travel voucher while you teach the self aid and buddy care class. I am much faster at working the voucher and you are probably a better instructor than me. Let us all agree to quit passing the buck just because everyone else is doing it.

Pullinteeth
06-14-2013, 05:15 PM
Pulling an Airman (officer or enlisted) out of the CAFSC to perform duties as an sq, gp, wg, & command chief exec flies directly against AFI 36-2101 (Classifying Military Personnel (Officer and Enlisted)) para 3.34. The MPS may authorize this for up to 130 days in a 12 month period.

We all see it happen all the time.."career broadening"...for up to a year. A member taken out of hide (still reported against the unit UPMR), taken out of their AFSC (what they were recruited, trained and paid to do). Career broadening defined as DTS travel agent, note taker, phone & email answerer, protocol arranger ("Col X likes Diet Dr Pepper with 2 ice cubes in a glass (not plastic!) tumbler), dog walker, etc.

If it is truly a position (according to AF manpower agency), then make a Special Duty Identifier, fund a billet and make it right. Kind of hard to fight manpower battles when blatant disregard to AFIs is accepted as the "norm" by commanders at so many levels.

I think you meant 3.34.1.1. (applies to MPS only) and if you kept reading (all the way to 3.34.3.1.) you would see that AFPC can approve assignments over 130 days...

DWWSWWD
06-14-2013, 05:24 PM
Many of them went on to
Command Chiefs. I'm sure they are out there but I have never met a Chief that was a Command Chief's exec. I've met a ton of them that aspired to be, and few of them were STEP'd but they seem to have got sorted out by the E8/9 board. Weirdly, many of them were coddled, protected or cared for by the CCM. That does not translate well back at the ranch.

Chief_KO
06-14-2013, 05:32 PM
I understand what you are saying here but this post misses one important point. How will the "additional duty" be handled if someone is not pulled from their AFSC to handle it? Let us look at the DTS Travel agent role. How did the role come about? Is the position really needed or is it a question of someone creating a job? If the person goes away who does the responsibility fall to?

1. How did the role come about?-DTS people within the unit came about when Finance began pushing their responsibility back to the unit level.
2. Is the position needed?-Yes and no. DTS was intended to be a user friendly system where the traveler computes the voucher and then the commander or resource advisor approves it. The DTS people within the unit came about because people started adding unnecessary authorizations into the routing chain. To fix this problem just edit the routing list where they go from traveler, to resource advisor, to commander. No one else should be involved and under no circumstances should commanders have other people creating their vouchers and doing their job for them.
3. If the job goes away where does the responsibility go?- It goes back to the proper AFSC responsible for that function. As in the person who was trained on how to do the job properly.

Basically, I just used the DTS example to make one key point. Along with eliminating "exec positions" we need to force the AFSCs to take back their duties. If you are the unit finance guy (resource advisor) you should be approving the vouchers. If your AFSC is safety you should be handling those duties instead someone tasked as an additional duty. If unit deployment manager is a legit job make it an AFSC. The biggest offenders in this have always been people from customer service organizations. I know this because I worked in finance and it really frustrated me how much we were asking of our customers. The same can cleary be said of Personnel as well. In order to correct the problem we need to give back duties to the AFSC they belong to.

In exchange for accepting my primary duties back I would also ask that you take yours back. During my career I was an ammo account custodian, security forces augmentee, self aid and buddy care instructor, and equipment custodian. I do not expect to be doing any of those things as they are not finance related. I will be busy computing your travel voucher while you teach the self aid and buddy care class. I am much faster at working the voucher and you are probably a better instructor than me. Let us all agree to quit passing the buck just because everyone else is doing it.

The root of the problem is highlighted. All the tools we now have are designed for the member (ALL MEMBERS) to do it for themselves. The problem with the tools are that they were designed by the people (AFSC) that is most familiar with the job...not with a user-friendly concept in mind.
The problem only gets worse when each echelon of command (and I include chiefs (lower case intentional) and others) does not do it themselves and has no idea of the problems and time involved with those various tools. When I was still AD I did my own DTS, and was dissapointed to hear that my peers were being "taken care of".

Chief_KO
06-14-2013, 05:32 PM
I think you meant 3.34.1.1. (applies to MPS only) and if you kept reading (all the way to 3.34.3.1.) you would see that AFPC can approve assignments over 130 days...

Yes, I am including the sub-paragraphs as part of the main. Good luck with anyone asking for (and getting) MPS & AFPC approval...it never happens (in my experience).

BigBaze
06-14-2013, 05:37 PM
I have to admit I've had a chance to meet some of these execs, some very fine young ladies..

raustin0017
06-14-2013, 06:54 PM
Additional Duties, On-loan personnel, to support Gp/Wg anything is a necessary evil. Never going to go away. Never will be funded positions. Squadrons will always pay the manning price and be shorthanded for those selected to do the job.

raustin0017
06-14-2013, 07:11 PM
There I fixed it for you.

Thank you very much...don't know how I missed that?

imported_DannyJ
06-14-2013, 07:12 PM
Additional Duties, On-loan personnel, to support Gp/Wg anything are unnecessary evils. Never going to go away. Never will be funded positions. Squadrons will always pay the manning price and be shorthanded for those selected to do the job.

There I fixed it for you.

Chief_KO
06-14-2013, 07:14 PM
No one will ever throw flag on this though.
Easier to say yes, I've heard.

Fought the battle everytime...won once in 4 years. Convinced Wg/CCC to utilize existing 3D0x1 alread in wing office to manage workflow and other associated adminstrative positions. Funny, there is a wg secretary...but some reason that person can't work for the wg command chief, only the wing commander and vice...

raustin0017
06-14-2013, 07:22 PM
There I fixed it for you.

Thank you very much...don't know how I missed that?

Chief_KO
06-14-2013, 07:31 PM
The battle is fought constantly by the functional communities but without any real power (enforcement), the local command (wg, gp, sq) ignores.
And of course the functional community then has the data to support manning cuts at base "X" when local command is utilizing said Airmen outside their CAFSC.
And who pays the price...the squadron (mission).
I did submit this as part of the "Every Dollar Count$" campaign...I got a response that said "Your idea submission has merit, but is already in place or in work".
I have replied back to see if this response is for this idea or for others I submitted since it was a canned response...we'll see...

DocBones
06-14-2013, 08:36 PM
I say, let the XO, (EXECUTivE Officer) doing all of the executing that will be needed, to make for a much trimmed down and aggressive Air Force.

imported_chipotleboy
06-15-2013, 04:37 PM
Pulling an Airman (officer or enlisted) out of the CAFSC to perform duties as an sq, gp, wg, & command chief exec flies directly against AFI 36-2101 (Classifying Military Personnel (Officer and Enlisted)) para 3.34. The MPS may authorize this for up to 130 days in a 12 month period.

We all see it happen all the time.."career broadening"...for up to a year. A member taken out of hide (still reported against the unit UPMR), taken out of their AFSC (what they were recruited, trained and paid to do). Career broadening defined as DTS travel agent, note taker, phone & email answerer, protocol arranger ("Col X likes Diet Dr Pepper with 2 ice cubes in a glass (not plastic!) tumbler), dog walker, etc.

If it is truly a position (according to AF manpower agency), then make a Special Duty Identifier, fund a billet and make it right. Kind of hard to fight manpower battles when blatant disregard to AFIs is accepted as the "norm" by commanders at so many levels.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ0CNiXYq6A

LC-45
06-16-2013, 01:37 PM
Over the last 10 years or so I have noticed an increase in these "Out of Hide" positions. We have 15 people on the AMXS staff that run programs flight. The Command Chief has an enlisted aide that works along side the exec. They even have a GS-13 that is the Director of Staff.

Chief_KO
06-16-2013, 07:40 PM
The Command Chief has an enlisted aide that works along side the exec.

God forbid the CCC answers his own phone, books his own travel, manages his own calendar...God forbid the wing admin section manages workflow for awards packages/STEP packages...

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
06-16-2013, 08:19 PM
Over the last 10 years or so I have noticed an increase in these "Out of Hide" positions. We have 15 people on the AMXS staff that run programs flight. The Command Chief has an enlisted aide that works along side the exec. They even have a GS-13 that is the Director of Staff.

15 military doing programs?

BOSS302
06-17-2013, 07:32 AM
Over the last 10 years or so I have noticed an increase in these "Out of Hide" positions. We have 15 people on the AMXS staff that run programs flight. The Command Chief has an enlisted aide that works along side the exec. They even have a GS-13 that is the Director of Staff.

The Command Chief at my previous base also had an "enlisted aide" or "exec" or whatever. When we had job orders in that office area due to a rash of faults from bad weather and immediately after we also had to start on a multi-craft job order involving the renovation of their kitchen. He (a Staff Sergeant) acted like he was an O-6 and was an absolute annoyance; we began to ignore him after being on site for half an hour, much to his displeasure. When one of our flight supers arrived to get an "eyes-on" briefing from us, the "exec/aide" tried to pull him aside and complain; the super (a SMSgt) told him to go away and leave us alone.

Needless to say, I do not have a very high opinion of these "out of hide" exec/aide positions or for the people who pursue them. If a Command Chief REALLY needs a "Hand of the King" to run his "small council", they can hire a civilian on the squadron's dime; let the airmen and NCOs do the job the Air Force paid & trained them to do.

SENDBILLMONEY
06-17-2013, 12:30 PM
Pulling an Airman (officer or enlisted) out of the CAFSC to perform duties as an sq, gp, wg, & command chief exec flies directly against AFI 36-2101 (Classifying Military Personnel (Officer and Enlisted)) para 3.34. The MPS may authorize this for up to 130 days in a 12 month period.

We all see it happen all the time.."career broadening"...for up to a year. A member taken out of hide (still reported against the unit UPMR), taken out of their AFSC (what they were recruited, trained and paid to do). Career broadening defined as DTS travel agent, note taker, phone & email answerer, protocol arranger ("Col X likes Diet Dr Pepper with 2 ice cubes in a glass (not plastic!) tumbler), dog walker, etc.

If it is truly a position (according to AF manpower agency), then make a Special Duty Identifier, fund a billet and make it right. Kind of hard to fight manpower battles when blatant disregard to AFIs is accepted as the "norm" by commanders at so many levels.

I once worked an out of hide position like this for almost two years. I didn't appeal it (I had good leadership and they were helping me out during a difficult time). If the powers that be at AFPC had seen the duties I was performing, they'd have called it duty out of CAFSC. My SKT was based on three sets of CDCs, each with three volumes, and none of it addressed my duties. A funded slot would have definitely been in a different CAFSC. I picked up my line number anyway, but some in that position would have suffered. It needs to be policed better.

imported_KnuckleDragger
06-17-2013, 12:31 PM
I once worked an out of hide position like this for almost two years. I didn't appeal it (I had good leadership and they were helping me out during a difficult time). If the powers that be at AFPC had seen the duties I was performing, they'd have called it duty out of CAFSC. My SKT was based on three sets of CDCs, each with three volumes, and none of it addressed my duties. A funded slot would have definitely been in a different CAFSC. I picked up my line number anyway, but some in that position would have suffered. It needs to be policed better.

CDCs are never an accurate guage of your current duties. As you figured out, good SKT scores go to those who put forth the most effort studying the material...not knowing their job.

BOSS302
06-17-2013, 12:35 PM
CDCs are never an accurate guage of your current duties. As you figured out, good SKT scores go to those who put forth the most effort studying the material...not knowing their job.

The absolute worst worker I ever met in CE in my career field made 90s on both sets of his CDCs. He was denied re-enlistment due to his inability to secure his 5-Level; not a single NCO would sign him off on his core tasks.