PDA

View Full Version : EPRs & Shirt Duty Changes



Ripcord
07-27-2013, 01:12 AM
Got this from a friend of a friend. Excerpt from the email...

Snip
I had a lunch meeting with our new Career Field Manager CMSgt Pfeffer today...she had some good insights.

-New EPR form coming...no more PT block, larger area for Primary Duties, less room for other bullets mostly boxes to check (Army Style). As for how to reflect PT failures on the EPR...she only said member failed a standard...but wasn’t sure how the AFI would want us to state that on the EPR.

-she is working on the updated 2113...didn't go into too much details on that other than the once a shirt is selected they are plucked from the unit and placed in Shadow mode elsewhere OR in a shirt seat in a different unit

-PT change...AC measurement staying, now if you fail the waist you get BMI, you pass that you are good...if not you fail.

-she eluded to more EPR changes but didn’t say much.

Old news....looking to place a MSgt diamond in unit sizes 60-249 personnel...not enlisted but total bodies. If your number are greater it would be up to your unit to change one billet to an 8F position to drive that second Diamond spot, wont be automatic. One SMSgt diamond per base to help the Command Chief with Shirt moves/career development and CMSgt Diamonds at the MAJCOM level and above.

She did speak to the change in the Family Care Program...the move to vMPF is a long way off since they cant seem to capture the POA portion...if we have to monitor that what does it really save us? But she did say the form will change and in turn the AFI will get updated.\

Look for a soon-to-be Special Duty Ribbon to be given to Diamonds at the conclusion of the 1st tour...great more money on ribbons!

Ripcord
07-27-2013, 01:25 AM
Our FSC has a lunch with the AFSPC/CCC next week. I intend on asking him about many of these...

grimreaper
07-27-2013, 04:27 AM
-PT change...AC measurement staying, now if you fail the waist you get BMI, you pass that you are good...if not you fail.

Awesome!!!!...now we going to pile-on even more BS to an already BS process.

Top 10 Reasons Why The BMI Is Bogus

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106268439


Research shows BMI often not an accurate indicator of body fat

http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2007/research-shows-bmi-often-not-an-accurate-indicator-of-body-fat/


Measuring Fat: Why BMI Is Inaccurate and Weight Scales Don’t Cut It

http://www.draxe.com/measuring-fat-why-bmi-is-inaccurate-and-weight-scales-don%E2%80%99t-cut-it/


BMI Calculator Inaccurate, Says Oxford Professor

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/health/2013/01/22/bmi-calculator-inaccurate-says-oxford-professor/

CrustySMSgt
07-27-2013, 04:30 AM
Same info I got... just wasn't sure how "releasable" it was.

Before folks get too excited about the BMI:
- You can't have failed any other portion
-It is a commander's option, not a given and when they looked at the data, less than 5% of people who busted the AC would pass when BMIed. Can't find any numbers to do the math, but less than 5% of AC only fitness failures is a VERY small number, which shoots to shit the urban legend of all these super fit big boned folks who are busting their AC. There are over 300k people on AD, 70k AFRC Airmen, and roughly 100k ANG Airmen, so the PT program applies to just under 500k individuals. No program is going to be able to account for the body compositions of that many people, but again, we're not assessing Olympic athletes... out PT test evaluates basic fitness and there are going to be some people who fall outside what the test can measure, but the fact that less than 5% whatever the percentage of people fail by AC only is virtually statisticaly insignificant. The rest will still be assessed as obese by BMI and their failure will stand.

The "DSD" ribbon is back on hold... Looks like the "good idea fairy" who came up with that idea will get shot in the face, just like the goofballs who came up with the "drone medal" and the "excellent PT patch" :fish


I've known Chief Pfeffer for a long time, she will do good things for y'all!

grimreaper
07-27-2013, 04:43 AM
Same info I got... just wasn't sure how "releasable" it was.

Before folks get too excited about the BMI:
- You can't have failed any other portion
-It is a commander's option, not a given and when they looked at the data, less than 5% of people who busted the AC would pass when BMIed. Can't find any numbers to do the math, but less than 5% of AC only fitness failures is a VERY small number, which shoots to shit the urban legend of all these super fit big boned folks who are busting their AC. There are over 300k people on AD, 70k AFRC Airmen, and roughly 100k ANG Airmen, so the PT program applies to just under 500k individuals. No program is going to be able to account for the body compositions of that many people, but again, we're not assessing Olympic athletes... out PT test evaluates basic fitness and there are going to be some people who fall outside what the test can measure, but the fact that less than 5% whatever the percentage of people fail by AC only is virtually statisticaly insignificant. The rest will still be assessed as obese by BMI and their failure will stand.


Considering that BMI in itself is extremely controversial and disputed by many experts, what does that solve? This does not fix the problem; it adds to it. In fact, I'm willing to bet this can work in reverse...I bet, scratch that, I know that there are plenty of people in the AF who can pass the PT test but are considered overweight and some possibly even obese by using BMI.

So that begs the question...why should someone get a pass on the PT test if they pass the test, but are considered overweight or obese by BMI standards if a BMI alone is enough to fail people? Why not just use BMI then in the FIRST PLACE if it's so accurate???????

CrustySMSgt
07-27-2013, 04:49 AM
Considering that BMI in itself is extremely controversial and disputed by many experts, what does that solve? This does not fix the problem; it adds to it. In fact, I'm willing to bet this can work in reverse...I bet, scratch that, I know that there are plenty of people in the AF who can pass the PT test but are considered overweight and some possibly even obese by using BMI.

So that begs the question...why should someone get a pass on the PT test if they pass the test, but are considered overweight or obese by BMI standards if a BMI is enough to fail people? Why not just use BMI then in the FIRST PLACE if it's so accurate???????

Every signle element of the test can be seen as controvercial. How does 1.5 miles measure fitness better than 2 miles? Or the 100 meter dash. Or "when's the last time 99% of AIrmen had to run 1.5 miles to do their job?" What do push ups and situps have to do with our jobs? So your point is valid, but until they come up with a USB probe to stick up our backside and have a computer spit out a scientific fitness assessment, there has to be some method of measuring fitness. It won't fit everyone and it will never be perfect. If there was a perfect way, all the services would be doing it... OK, strike that, we all know that would require common sense, which is in short supply; I retract my statement lol

CrustySMSgt
07-27-2013, 05:30 AM
I think anything could help AC at this moment. Stats can be misleading.
For one people who fail the AC when they do that first, probably blow off
Remainder of test. If you get a 40 waist, why belt out 60 pushups or
Push a 10min run, only to fail. Why not old school method, waist
Minus neck for body fat. Again, these people are failing anyway, so if some
Pass BMI, why not?

Good points (you're on a roll! ;) )
I have seen folks just go through the motions if they bust one of the earlier elements. Might not be a huge deal on your first failure, as you've got nowhere to go but up. In subsequent failures, decisions to retain or give you the boot factor in the level of effort you put in, so by quitting you're only hurting yourself. But now if you've got a shot at passing BMI, you'd definitely be silly to quit.

grimreaper
07-27-2013, 05:33 AM
Every signle element of the test can be seen as controvercial. How does 1.5 miles measure fitness better than 2 miles? Or the 100 meter dash. Or "when's the last time 99% of AIrmen had to run 1.5 miles to do their job?" What do push ups and situps have to do with our jobs? So your point is valid, but until they come up with a USB probe to stick up our backside and have a computer spit out a scientific fitness assessment, there has to be some method of measuring fitness. It won't fit everyone and it will never be perfect. If there was a perfect way, all the services would be doing it... OK, strike that, we all know that would require common sense, which is in short supply; I retract my statement lol

IMO, the correct answer would be to remove it completely. If a guy can run and do push ups and sit ups, who cares what his waist is?

Just like leadership is hanging their hats on small percentages of people slipping through the cracks, this would be no different. Chances are, MOST people with 40+ inch waists are not going to be great runners, so most would basically self-eliminate just based off of that. Factor in push ups and sit ups as well and I'm willing to bet that the amount of people who are disgusting fat bodies making it through is "statistically insignificant".

CrustySMSgt
07-27-2013, 05:51 AM
IMO, the correct answer would be to remove it completely. If a guy can run and do push ups and sit ups, who cares what his waist is?

Just like leadership is hanging their hats on small percentages of people slipping through the cracks, this would be no different. Chances are, MOST people with 40+ inch waists are not going to be great runners, so most would basically self-eliminate just based off of that. Factor in push ups and sit ups as well and I'm willing to bet that the amount of people who are disgusting fat bodies making it through is "statistically insignificant".

I think appearance does need to be factored in, but the random nature of having a person measuring with a tape is WAY too inconsitant. We're basing decisions on people's careers on a system of measurement that, no matter how many times you read the instructions or get trained to do it, can vary by inches. At least the physical portions you can either do or you can't (yes, there is still the issue of subjectivity in reps not counting), but when one person passes you by inches and another one fails you by .5", there is a problem with the system. Now the tall folks will at least get a shot at the BMI option... probably won't help the short fat folk.

grimreaper
07-27-2013, 06:05 AM
I think appearance does need to be factored in, but the random nature of having a person measuring with a tape is WAY too inconsitant. We're basing decisions on people's careers on a system of measurement that, no matter how many times you read the instructions or get trained to do it, can vary by inches. At least the physical portions you can either do or you can't (yes, there is still the issue of subjectivity in reps not counting), but when one person passes you by inches and another one fails you by .5", there is a problem with the system. Now the tall folks will at least get a shot at the BMI option... probably won't help the short fat folk.

I don't know if you saw my comment in another thread, but just last year, I had my test cancelled 3 days in a row due to winds. They still completed height, weight and tape, but could not do the run or p/u-s/u. For 3 days in a row I had to do height, weight and tape and each day the tape measurement was different, up to as much by 1 and 1/2 inches. Didn't really make a difference to me since I wasn't near 39, but that can make or break someone who struggles with their waist.

PT GOD
07-27-2013, 06:44 AM
this is total BS!!! and it betta not be true!! what the point of PT if it aint on the EPR, whats the point of all tehse people being kicked out if we now decide it aints what matters!!! I dont mind the BMI thing, even though fat is fat, i aint never seen no fat skeleton!! but, keep it on the EPR, dats how you be promoting those whotruely encompasses the military image!! Damn i just got so mad from reading this that I ripped my shirt off ina hulk like flexing rage!!

grimreaper
07-27-2013, 07:07 AM
this is total BS!!! and it betta not be true!! what the point of PT if it aint on the EPR, whats the point of all tehse people being kicked out if we now decide it aints what matters!!! I dont mind the BMI thing, even though fat is fat, i aint never seen no fat skeleton!! but, keep it on the EPR, dats how you be promoting those whotruely encompasses the military image!! Damn i just got so mad from reading this that I ripped my shirt off ina hulk like flexing rage!!

You're a riot dude!

imported_StandardsAMust
07-27-2013, 08:01 AM
IMO, the correct answer would be to remove it completely. If a guy can run and do push ups and sit ups, who cares what his waist is?

Just like leadership is hanging their hats on small percentages of people slipping through the cracks, this would be no different. Chances are, MOST people with 40+ inch waists are not going to be great runners, so most would basically self-eliminate just based off of that. Factor in push ups and sit ups as well and I'm willing to bet that the amount of people who are disgusting fat bodies making it through is "statistically insignificant".

If you removed the waist measurement, then most of the fatties would get on a profile keeping them from even taking the test...what do you do then?

akruse
07-27-2013, 08:17 AM
If you removed the waist measurement, then most of the fatties would get on a profile keeping them from even taking the test...what do you do then?

The same thing that is done now when someone is on a profile for consecutive tests.

imported_StandardsAMust
07-27-2013, 08:35 AM
The same thing that is done now when someone is on a profile for consecutive tests.

If you are referring to the DAWG process, I am not holding my breath.

imported_StandardsAMust
07-27-2013, 08:40 AM
Got this from a friend of a friend. Excerpt from the email...

Snip
I had a lunch meeting with our new Career Field Manager CMSgt Pfeffer today...she had some good insights.

-New EPR form coming...no more PT block, larger area for Primary Duties, less room for other bullets mostly boxes to check (Army Style). As for how to reflect PT failures on the EPR...she only said member failed a standard...but wasn’t sure how the AFI would want us to state that on the EPR.

-she is working on the updated 2113...didn't go into too much details on that other than the once a shirt is selected they are plucked from the unit and placed in Shadow mode elsewhere OR in a shirt seat in a different unit

-PT change...AC measurement staying, now if you fail the waist you get BMI, you pass that you are good...if not you fail.

-she eluded to more EPR changes but didn’t say much.

Old news....looking to place a MSgt diamond in unit sizes 60-249 personnel...not enlisted but total bodies. If your number are greater it would be up to your unit to change one billet to an 8F position to drive that second Diamond spot, wont be automatic. One SMSgt diamond per base to help the Command Chief with Shirt moves/career development and CMSgt Diamonds at the MAJCOM level and above.

She did speak to the change in the Family Care Program...the move to vMPF is a long way off since they cant seem to capture the POA portion...if we have to monitor that what does it really save us? But she did say the form will change and in turn the AFI will get updated.\

Look for a soon-to-be Special Duty Ribbon to be given to Diamonds at the conclusion of the 1st tour...great more money on ribbons!

Simple...leave it up to the member to maintain the POAs or implement a way they can upload a copy into vMPF. If this isn't possible, have the member print their plan from vMPF and include a copy of the POA in the FCP folder that is maintain by the shirt.

Mr. Happy
07-27-2013, 09:38 AM
Removing the fitness as its own block is all I ever really wanted. Great news if true. Giving referral EPRs just over one fit test was crazy.

KellyinAvon
07-27-2013, 10:57 AM
Possible return to some level of sanity following the Schwartz/Roy regime?

imported_DannyJ
07-27-2013, 12:13 PM
There's always going to be some contention over every portion, just like Crusty said. Now, I've got my problems with the test (male vs. female, subjectivity of what constitutes breaking 90 on push-ups, etc), but I understand that PT is a condition of employment with the USAF. The whole deployment issues (broke vs. not) is becoming less of an issue everyday; so if they are going to pull some of the negatives off, there needs to be some more positives attached. I'd love to see priority choice for deployment or assignments go to the healthy folks or something along those lines. Although I can see how that might be unfair. Still thinking some way of tying it to WAPS is the best solution.

CrustySMSgt
07-27-2013, 12:24 PM
Still thinking some way of tying it to WAPS is the best solution.

I think it ought to be a factor, but not a major one. I've always said it should be like decs, 95-100 = 5 points; 90-94.9 = 3 points; 86.9-89.9=1. Give you credit for exceeding standards, but not but doesn't put an undue amount of weight on PT over job performance.

imported_StandardsAMust
07-27-2013, 02:23 PM
I think it ought to be a factor, but not a major one. I've always said it should be like decs, 95-100 = 5 points; 90-94.9 = 3 points; 86.9-89.9=1. Give you credit for exceeding standards, but not but doesn't put an undue amount of weight on PT over job performance.

What about those who only do the "waist only" and get 100's everytime?

CrustySMSgt
07-27-2013, 02:29 PM
What about those who only do the "waist only" and get 100's everytime?

I'd have to default to the same "no exemptions" currently used to keep those folks from only testing once a year.

SomeRandomGuy
07-27-2013, 03:59 PM
I think it ought to be a factor, but not a major one. I've always said it should be like decs, 95-100 = 5 points; 90-94.9 = 3 points; 86.9-89.9=1. Give you credit for exceeding standards, but not but doesn't put an undue amount of weight on PT over job performance.

I do think this would help people care about PT more. I sort of doubt it would solve any problems though. You always hear about someone missing the next rank by 1 point or even 0.5. Can you imagine giving the PTGOD types an extra 5 points for getting over 95? An AFCM is 1 point (I think) and can be earned on a 6 month deployment or one year tour. Giving 5 points for a 95 would be equivalent to a person doing an excellent job on 5 separate tours. I think that is a little skewed. Maybe just 1 point over 90 and half a point for over 80.

euripedes
07-27-2013, 04:05 PM
Wonder if the BMI will be similar to the Navy method? AF possibly going back to the old school weight management days, taping necks and waists.

Anybody hearing anything about EPR quotas being on the table as well? Our MAJCOM Command Chief was here this past week and he put it out there that it's an option not just being talked about but seriously considered. I follow service news pretty closely but i had not heard anything about that being on the table before.

waveshaper2
07-27-2013, 04:55 PM
Wonder if the BMI will be similar to the Navy method? AF possibly going back to the old school weight management days, taping necks and waists.

Anybody hearing anything about EPR quotas being on the table as well? Our MAJCOM Command Chief was here this past week and he put it out there that it's an option not just being talked about but seriously considered. I follow service news pretty closely but i had not heard anything about that being on the table before.

EPR quotas may again become a necessary evil but if it becomes a new requirement Command Chief's/CMSGT's need to lead by example. Lets see what type of EPR quotas they set for and enforce on themselves FIRST and then we can move EPR quotas down to the rest of the enlisted force rank structure with more confidence/buy in.

Ripcord
07-27-2013, 05:25 PM
Old news....looking to place a MSgt diamond in unit sizes 60-249 personnel...not enlisted but total bodies. If your number are greater it would be up to your unit to change one billet to an 8F position to drive that second Diamond spot, wont be automatic. One SMSgt diamond per base to help the Command Chief with Shirt moves/career development and CMSgt Diamonds at the MAJCOM level and above.

This is an interesting one. I actually like it and it makes sense with the potential for more overall diamonds populating the AF with the new DSD selection process. I just hope the CCC takes into account experience levels for SMSgts in these positions. Just because someone is a SMSgt doesn't mean they have a ton of experience as a diamond. Units often vary a great deal as far as workload goes for diamonds. Also, guys like me (made SMSgt in previous AFSC at the very beginning of our shirt tours) are no different then any of the other MSgt Diamonds experience wise. I suppose if there is more than one E8 shirt at a base some will still be filling the unit level Shirt duties.

Like the idea of that Shirt ribbon too. Especially for those of us that do not retire with the diamond on.

euripedes
07-27-2013, 05:38 PM
This is an interesting one. I actually like it and it makes sense with the potential for more overall diamonds populating the AF with the new DSD selection process. I just hope the CCC takes into account experience levels for SMSgts in these positions. Just because someone is a SMSgt doesn't mean they have a ton of experience as a diamond. Units often vary a great deal as far as workload goes for diamonds. Also, guys like me (made SMSgt in previous AFSC at the very beginning of our shirt tours) are no different then any of the other MSgt Diamonds experience wise. I suppose if there is more than one E8 shirt at a base some will still be filling the unit level Shirt duties.

Like the idea of that Shirt ribbon too. Especially for those of us that do not retire with the diamond on.

I wonder how that will affect the smaller bases where there is one group shirt assigned to MSG, OPS or MDG but not the individual squadrons. 60 is a pretty low threshold. Probably why you need that SMSgt on base to say ye or nay to those type of situations. Sounds like the number of First Sgt's required AF wide is about to blow up.

euripedes
07-27-2013, 05:40 PM
Man 60 is a low threshold especially at the smaller bases where they only have shirts assigned to the Group and not the individual squadrons.

Ripcord
07-27-2013, 05:49 PM
With manning the way it is, how can anyone
With a straight face say we need more shirts?

Af can function without shirts.

Without getting into a philosophical debate I would agree with you especially if all SNCOs did their jobs. However, there are countless things that a good shirt does everyday that more often then not goes unseen that keeps the machine running. Can the AF function without shirts? Probably. But I'm convinced its a much better place with them here...

CrustySMSgt
07-27-2013, 06:34 PM
I do think this would help people care about PT more. I sort of doubt it would solve any problems though. You always hear about someone missing the next rank by 1 point or even 0.5. Can you imagine giving the PTGOD types an extra 5 points for getting over 95? An AFCM is 1 point (I think) and can be earned on a 6 month deployment or one year tour. Giving 5 points for a 95 would be equivalent to a person doing an excellent job on 5 separate tours. I think that is a little skewed. Maybe just 1 point over 90 and half a point for over 80.

Given the alternative of using the raw score, I think this is a fair compromise.


This is an interesting one. I actually like it and it makes sense with the potential for more overall diamonds populating the AF with the new DSD selection process. I just hope the CCC takes into account experience levels for SMSgts in these positions. Just because someone is a SMSgt doesn't mean they have a ton of experience as a diamond. Units often vary a great deal as far as workload goes for diamonds. Also, guys like me (made SMSgt in previous AFSC at the very beginning of our shirt tours) are no different then any of the other MSgt Diamonds experience wise. I suppose if there is more than one E8 shirt at a base some will still be filling the unit level Shirt duties.

Like the idea of that Shirt ribbon too. Especially for those of us that do not retire with the diamond on.

I don't believe the discussion was to have a shirt specific ribbon; it was going to be a generic DSD ribbon.

Ripcord
07-27-2013, 06:58 PM
I don't believe the discussion was to have a shirt specific ribbon; it was going to be a generic DSD ribbon.

Gotcha. I read it wrong.

imported_DannyJ
07-27-2013, 07:31 PM
I do think this would help people care about PT more. I sort of doubt it would solve any problems though. You always hear about someone missing the next rank by 1 point or even 0.5. Can you imagine giving the PTGOD types an extra 5 points for getting over 95? An AFCM is 1 point (I think) and can be earned on a 6 month deployment or one year tour. Giving 5 points for a 95 would be equivalent to a person doing an excellent job on 5 separate tours. I think that is a little skewed. Maybe just 1 point over 90 and half a point for over 80.

Well with the decs as messed up as they are (AFAM = 1, AFCM = 3, MSM = 5) I suggested something like 75-79.99 = 3 pts (cause anything over fail should rewarded), 80-84.99 = 5 pts, 85-89.99 = 7.5 pts, and 90 and over is 10 pts. 3 pts for testing and getting an excellent is too little and 20/25 is bonkers. I think it should be done like EPR points (with a weighted average) to make the most current the most relevant. Any kind of exemption would either remove the test from weight or if permanent, would be worth just a portion of the full test. Just so everyone is on the same page, I don't score in the 90s, never have. No system is perfect, but there really needs to be more of a positive on passing rather than just not getting a referral EPR.

imported_StandardsAMust
07-28-2013, 11:09 AM
Well with the decs as messed up as they are (AFAM = 1, AFCM = 3, MSM = 5) I suggested something like 75-79.99 = 3 pts (cause anything over fail should rewarded), 80-84.99 = 5 pts, 85-89.99 = 7.5 pts, and 90 and over is 10 pts. 3 pts for testing and getting an excellent is too little and 20/25 is bonkers. I think it should be done like EPR points (with a weighted average) to make the most current the most relevant. Any kind of exemption would either remove the test from weight or if permanent, would be worth just a portion of the full test. Just so everyone is on the same page, I don't score in the 90s, never have. No system is perfect, but there really needs to be more of a positive on passing rather than just not getting a referral EPR.

I say just add the entire score to WAPS, no matter what we score. Weight it similiar to the EPR formula and include the last 5 PT Tests. This way, the most recent PT Test will bear more than the one 5 tests ago. Then, if any test score came with an exemption, the test would not be considered. Anyone with 5 PT scores with exemptions should not be eligible for promotion.

This would solve two things...one, fitness would become a priority and people would actually want to get fit...two, those on chronic profiles will wake up and try to ensure their medical issues are solved in a timely manner...gone would be the days people jump on profiles just before thier PT Test.

The administrative nightmare of dealing with failures would be over.

CrustySMSgt
07-28-2013, 11:24 AM
I say just add the entire score to WAPS, no matter what we score. Weight it similiar to the EPR formula and include the last 5 PT Tests. This way, the most recent PT Test will bear more than the one 5 tests ago. Then, if any test score came with an exemption, the test would not be considered. Anyone with 5 PT scores with exemptions should not be eligible for promotion.

This would solve two things...one, fitness would become a priority and people would actually want to get fit...two, those on chronic profiles will wake up and try to ensure their medical issues are solved in a timely manner...gone would be the days people jump on profiles just before thier PT Test.

The administrative nightmare of dealing with failures would be over.

Another false assumption that most people WANT to be on a profile. Scores don't count? So if you can still score an excellent on a waiver, you lose 90 points?!? Absolute fail.

Chief_KO
07-28-2013, 12:20 PM
Other numbers to be included in EPRS and WAPS: cholesteral, blood pressure, sitting pulse rate, credit score, golf handicap, bowling average, tithing percentage, all CBT scores, weapons qualification, QA evaluations, CDC scores, and vision.
Simple fact: Those in favor of including PT scores in EPRs and particularly WAPS are typically those that score higher.
Why not give WAPS points for other things of value? That way everyone can at least get 2-5 bonus points...

imported_DannyJ
07-28-2013, 12:56 PM
Other numbers to be included in EPRS and WAPS: cholesteral, blood pressure, sitting pulse rate, credit score, golf handicap, bowling average, tithing percentage, all CBT scores, weapons qualification, QA evaluations, CDC scores, and vision.
Simple fact: Those in favor of including PT scores in EPRs and particularly WAPS are typically those that score higher.
Why not give WAPS points for other things of value? That way everyone can at least get 2-5 bonus points...

Because we don't measure the others on a regular basis, nor do we make them a condition for employment (barring extreme circumstances). Actually, I'm in favor of adding it to WAPS mostly because it's a good compromise between kicking highly qualified (though physically unfit) personnel out and promoting a strong PT program. It should have NEVER been the end all on promotion (read: referral), but it should get some influence on it, which is WAPS points would do. If anything in your list SHOULD have weight on promotion, it should be QA evals; but simply put, they aren't done enough to effectively measure across the board, which would only hurt people in the end.

imported_StandardsAMust
07-28-2013, 01:14 PM
Another false assumption that most people WANT to be on a profile. Scores don't count? So if you can still score an excellent on a waiver, you lose 90 points?!? Absolute fail.

Trust me...there are alot of people on profile just to avoid the test. Yes, there are some that are legit, but when 25% of the Air Force is on a profile, 1 in 4, something is wrong.

When PME changed the rules saying you had to have a passing PT Test to attend, it was noted that 1 in 5 members attending NCOA came with an exemption in thier most recent PT score....hmmmmm....

As far as WAPS goes...if your score had an exemption, it simply wouldn't be considered, but your other scores would. But, if all 5 are with exemptions, you shouldn't be eligible to promote and should be considered for an automatic MEB.

CrustySMSgt
07-28-2013, 01:36 PM
Trust me...there are alot of people on profile just to avoid the test. Yes, there are some that are legit, but when 25% of the Air Force is on a profile, 1 in 4, something is wrong.

When PME changed the rules saying you had to have a passing PT Test to attend, it was noted that 1 in 5 members attending NCOA came with an exemption in thier most recent PT score....hmmmmm....

As far as WAPS goes...if your score had an exemption, it simply wouldn't be considered, but your other scores would. But, if all 5 are with exemptions, you shouldn't be eligible to promote and should be considered for an automatic MEB.

So if your doc, commander, and the DAWG all say you are good to go to do your job, can deploy, and are fully functioning other than being able to do one element of the eval, we should throw away whatever investment we've made in your leadership and job skills? Using me for example: I have arthritis in my shoulders. I do fine on a day to day basis, with minor pain and restricted range of motion, but nothing that keeps me from functioning at all. Add repetative motion exercise (pushups) and the pain increases exponentially; it hurts to do things as simple as picking up my coffee cup and my range of motion decreases. I score right around 90 on my evals, without doing pushups. If forced to, I could max out my pushups (and I do max my situps every time), but as we've heard numerous cases of... at what cost? Pain and range of motion issues that last the rest of my life... for what, to accomlish an element of the fitness test that doesn't affect my ability to serve? No thanks.

I can't argue the fact that there are people who abuse the system and use the exemptions to their advantage. I can't say I have a good answer on how to stop it, but forcing people to suck it up and incur debilitating injuries and live in pain for the rest of their life certainly isn't the answer. Neither is continuing to artificially inflate the weight PT holds when ignoring things such as weapons quals, QA, CDC scores, and the long list of other standard measurements. Using your logic, anyone with an exemption wouldn't be promoted, despite MEETING STANDARDS. And we'd continue to use PT as a major driver in selecting who advances, further watering down the importance of knowing/being able to do your job and promoting the PT GOD types.

imported_StandardsAMust
07-28-2013, 01:58 PM
So if your doc, commander, and the DAWG all say you are good to go to do your job, can deploy, and are fully functioning other than being able to do one element of the eval, we should throw away whatever investment we've made in your leadership and job skills? Using me for example: I have arthritis in my shoulders. I do fine on a day to day basis, with minor pain and restricted range of motion, but nothing that keeps me from functioning at all. Add repetative motion exercise (pushups) and the pain increases exponentially; it hurts to do things as simple as picking up my coffee cup and my range of motion decreases. I score right around 90 on my evals, without doing pushups. If forced to, I could max out my pushups (and I do max my situps every time), but as we've heard numerous cases of... at what cost? Pain and range of motion issues that last the rest of my life... for what, to accomlish an element of the fitness test that doesn't affect my ability to serve? No thanks.

I can't argue the fact that there are people who abuse the system and use the exemptions to their advantage. I can't say I have a good answer on how to stop it, but forcing people to suck it up and incur debilitating injuries and live in pain for the rest of their life certainly isn't the answer. Neither is continuing to artificially inflate the weight PT holds when ignoring things such as weapons quals, QA, CDC scores, and the long list of other standard measurements. Using your logic, anyone with an exemption wouldn't be promoted, despite MEETING STANDARDS. And we'd continue to use PT as a major driver in selecting who advances, further watering down the importance of knowing/being able to do your job and promoting the PT GOD types.

No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that if ALL 5 are with component exemptions, then you would not be eligible for promotion.

I understand what you are saying. But I see many AFFMS reports and there are not many with just one single exemption. Most component exemptions dominate the Cardio portion, and that is the area I think matters most...after all, it is weighted 60% of the entire test.

According to the most recent AFFMS report, 15,374 members failed their PT Test within the past 90 days. I'm looking to see if there is a way to see how many people tested with exemptions that passed.

Found it...looks like about 9% of those testing in the past 6 months were exempt from p/u. They same rate applies to s/u. But, a whopping 16% were exempt from cardio over the same period. That's 45,000 people that can't walk.

imnohero
07-28-2013, 03:17 PM
In my opinion, there shouldn't be ANY bullets on an EPR. And it should be one page, front only. 10 categories and 3 ratings: doesn't meet (0 point), meets (7 points), exceeds (10 points).

1) Technical Performance
2) Technical Knowledge
3) Dress and Appearance
4) Customs and Courtesies
5) Training Requirements
6) Physical Fitness
7) Professional Education
8) Off duty Involvement (volunteering, education, community, etc.)
9) Leadership
10) Management

And a promotion recommend: Not ready(15 Points), Ready(35 points)

Followed by 4 electronic signatures: Rater, Rater's Rater, CC, and member

15 points for a "not ready" rating to temper the subjective nature. A "not ready" rating will not stop promotion testing.

The AF has other mechanisms for awarding performance (qtr awards, decorations, etc.) and to document disciplinary problems that will stop promotion testing.


You meet all standards and get a "ready" for promotion, that's 105 points in WAPS.
Exceed all standards and "ready" = 135
Mixed bag of meets and exceeds falls somewhere in between.

imnohero
07-28-2013, 03:20 PM
Oh, and it should be 3 tiered: One form for E1-E4, One for E5-E7, and one for E8-E9.

Absinthe Anecdote
07-28-2013, 03:26 PM
I think the new EPRs should be on tablet computers and include videos of the ratee singing the Air Force song and reciting the Airman’s Creed.

imported_AFKILO7
07-28-2013, 03:50 PM
No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that if ALL 5 are with component exemptions, then you would not be eligible for promotion.

I have never seen anyone exempt from every component of the PT test, I'm sure there are people who are, but I wonder what it is they are dealing with that would prevent them from even getting taped. My current profile has me limited to just waist measurement, I would hate to imagine what someone would be going through to on a profile where they are completely exempt. Are you in a position where you could give examples? This makes me very curious.


Found it...looks like about 9% of those testing in the past 6 months were exempt from p/u. They same rate applies to s/u. But, a whopping 16% were exempt from cardio over the same period. That's 45,000 people that can't walk.
Are you saying they can't take the walk test or walk in general?


And we'd continue to use PT as a major driver in selecting who advances, further watering down the importance of knowing/being able to do your job and promoting the PT GOD types. I believe a compromise between your two opinions on this issues would work for the AF. Something I do not understand is why so many people are hell bent on promoting and pushing the PT agenda, their passion is borderline obsession. Yet a vast majority hardly speak of job knowledge or paying attention to detail. In my opinion, physical fitness IS important, but the people that have jumped on the bandwagon of "PT is all important" are just as much the problem as people who can't perform in their primary roles. I'm not personally attacking anyone in this forum either so if I come across that way I apologize.

imported_StandardsAMust
07-28-2013, 04:31 PM
Component exemption means someone was exempted from one or more of the components...

And yes, according to the Air Force Fitness database, 45k members couldn't complete a cardio component, run or walk, on their last evaluation.

CJSmith
07-28-2013, 05:32 PM
Anybody hearing anything about EPR quotas being on the table as well? Our MAJCOM Command Chief was here this past week and he put it out there that it's an option not just being talked about but seriously considered. I follow service news pretty closely but i had not heard anything about that being on the table before.

Doubt quotas would ever get brought into the mix. Too much heat on that one. There are a million reasons why it wouldn't work but here's one of them. I'm getting ready to PCS to a pretty small base. Where I work, there will only be 2 MSgt's - me and the person that has been there for 3 years. That person is already a favorite among their peers and leaders. I'm the FNG and nobody knows me. Do you think I'll get faired accurately when it comes to a quota system? I don't think so.

imported_DannyJ
07-28-2013, 07:08 PM
In my opinion, there shouldn't be ANY bullets on an EPR. And it should be one page, front only. 10 categories and 3 ratings: doesn't meet (0 point), meets (7 points), exceeds (10 points).

1) Technical Performance
2) Technical Knowledge
3) Dress and Appearance
4) Customs and Courtesies
5) Training Requirements
6) Physical Fitness
7) Professional Education
8) Off duty Involvement (volunteering, education, community, etc.)
9) Leadership
10) Management

And a promotion recommend: Not ready(15 Points), Ready(35 points)

Followed by 4 electronic signatures: Rater, Rater's Rater, CC, and member

15 points for a "not ready" rating to temper the subjective nature. A "not ready" rating will not stop promotion testing.

The AF has other mechanisms for awarding performance (qtr awards, decorations, etc.) and to document disciplinary problems that will stop promotion testing.


You meet all standards and get a "ready" for promotion, that's 105 points in WAPS.
Exceed all standards and "ready" = 135
Mixed bag of meets and exceeds falls somewhere in between.

HILARIOUS!

imnohero
07-28-2013, 08:12 PM
HILARIOUS!

Is that good or bad?

imported_DannyJ
07-28-2013, 09:53 PM
Is that good or bad?

http://www.taylorclark.co/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/picard.jpg

Absinthe Anecdote
07-28-2013, 09:58 PM
http://allthingsd.com/files/2011/11/double_facepalm.png

grimreaper
07-28-2013, 11:01 PM
Patrick Stewart must practice his face palms since they are nearly identical in both pics.

imnohero
07-29-2013, 12:03 AM
Well, I guess you don't like it.

imnohero
07-29-2013, 12:28 AM
it's not that we don't like it, its just that its stupid

Said the guy that hasn't expressed a single coherent thought with this account or any other.

imported_AFKILO7
07-29-2013, 04:40 AM
Component exemption means someone was exempted from one or more of the components...

And yes, according to the Air Force Fitness database, 45k members couldn't complete a cardio component, run or walk, on their last evaluation.
I know what exemption means, I was asking if you knew anyone exempt from all portions and if so, what was the reason for the profile.

CrustySMSgt
07-29-2013, 04:53 AM
I have never seen anyone exempt from every component of the PT test, I'm sure there are people who are, but I wonder what it is they are dealing with that would prevent them from even getting taped. My current profile has me limited to just waist measurement, I would hate to imagine what someone would be going through to on a profile where they are completely exempt. Are you in a position where you could give examples? This makes me very curious.


Are you saying they can't take the walk test or walk in general?

I believe a compromise between your two opinions on this issues would work for the AF. Something I do not understand is why so many people are hell bent on promoting and pushing the PT agenda, their passion is borderline obsession. Yet a vast majority hardly speak of job knowledge or paying attention to detail. In my opinion, physical fitness IS important, but the people that have jumped on the bandwagon of "PT is all important" are just as much the problem as people who can't perform in their primary roles. I'm not personally attacking anyone in this forum either so if I come across that way I apologize.

Pregnancy is the one that most often gets you a complete exemption. AFI used to state abdominal surgery was the only other, but now it is a general "CC determination."

Waist only is great for skinny folk, since it now makes the "weight" of the AC require you to have a 37.5 to pass. This is another HUGE flaw in the equation that I haven't heard anything about but hope is addressed. If a 39 is good enough to pass with all components, it should be good enough to pass with exemptions.


Doubt quotas would ever get brought into the mix. Too much heat on that one. There are a million reasons why it wouldn't work but here's one of them. I'm getting ready to PCS to a pretty small base. Where I work, there will only be 2 MSgt's - me and the person that has been there for 3 years. That person is already a favorite among their peers and leaders. I'm the FNG and nobody knows me. Do you think I'll get faired accurately when it comes to a quota system? I don't think so.

I wouldn't bet money on your doubt...

Like any other process, it won't be perfect. And there will have to be allowances for small units and jobs where folks are hired (I suspect DSDs will have some sort of hook up), but for the rest, it is the perfect solution to take the onus of being "the bad guy" off supervisors and force them to make the tough calls. As with any major change, it'll take a couple years to stabalize and some people will be negatively affected, but in the end, I think this is the only way to make EPR ratings mean something. I am 100% for this!

imported_StandardsAMust
07-29-2013, 07:13 AM
I know what exemption means, I was asking if you knew anyone exempt from all portions and if so, what was the reason for the profile.

Yes...I've had male SNCOs get on total exemption waivers...the reason...thyroid tests...and diet pills.

CrustySMSgt
07-29-2013, 08:21 AM
Good point chief. Had an ncoic who used to have to make a case to do the walk test, cuz
He couldnt pull that AC only waist. He had real jacked up back, now medically retired.

Is it still true if you pass all minimums you still overall fail,
I know it was that way years ago.

Yes, mathmatically if you come in right at the mins your overall score won't hit 70, which of course makes no sense.

I was in the same boat one year... docs thought I had phneumonia and I was due to test... despite the fact I was spitting up blood and couldn't really breathe, I talked them in to letting me do the walk instead of getting an exemption, because my AC was at 38 and I knew I'd fail if I taped only. Sucked it up and gutted it out... that night I woke up and couldn't breathe; went to the docs (for the 3rd time in two weeks); MRI showed my lung was full of blood, and they finally figured out it wasn't pneumonia, but a pulmonary embolism (blood clot) and I was admitted for a week and had to give myself blood thinner shots for 6 months! But I passed the damn PT test!!

John Jameson
07-29-2013, 03:22 PM
I wouldn't bet money on your doubt...

Like any other process, it won't be perfect. And there will have to be allowances for small units and jobs where folks are hired (I suspect DSDs will have some sort of hook up), but for the rest, it is the perfect solution to take the onus of being "the bad guy" off supervisors and force them to make the tough calls. As with any major change, it'll take a couple years to stabalize and some people will be negatively affected, but in the end, I think this is the only way to make EPR ratings mean something. I am 100% for this!

No, it won't be perfect. My guess is that in typical AF fashion, establishing the rankings will turn into a complete CF and supervisors will be cut out of the loop. The CC will end up doing the rankings directly and we'll end up with an expansion of the abortion that is the SNCO stratification process. Only now, the entire enlisted force will be affected. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that most of the number ones (5s?) won't be the guys who kick ass on the J O B. It'll be the face time folks and PT superstars.

Ugh. Thank God I'm retired and won't have to live through another bad AF idea...

Filterbing
07-29-2013, 03:23 PM
I think that the test should be added to WAPS at raw score average of the last 5 test as well. I'd say if you do complete at least 1/2 of the test portions then it should count, exempt on three and it does not count.

The reason I like this is that it serves as motivation. Now there would be a reason to score higher. I still think the waist measurement is suspect but all the other components can be accomplished with hard work.

Look at the current WAPS test. I wouldn’t give two shits about what is in the PDG. I made damn sure to read it in order to promote.

fufu
07-29-2013, 03:36 PM
I think that the test should be added to WAPS at raw score average of the last 5 test as well. I'd say if you do complete at least 1/2 of the test portions then it should count, exempt on three and it does not count.

The reason I like this is that it serves as motivation. Now there would be a reason to score higher. I still think the waist measurement is suspect but all the other components can be accomplished with hard work.

Look at the current WAPS test. I wouldn’t give two shits about what is in the PDG. I made damn sure to read it in order to promote.

All you people that want PT included into WAPS, are failing to realize that it is already in WAPS...b/c you can't test w/out a passing score. Furthermore, we should never promote one person over another b/c one scored 89.9 and the other 90.0.

imported_DannyJ
07-29-2013, 04:08 PM
Glad you didn't die. When doing pt test at NCOA in 05, guy dropped due to clot, me
And few folks stopped to help him off track, they left that time in our score,
I didn't give a shit, you don't run bye someone needing help.

I would seriously question someone's integrity/morals if they attempted to do that. What kind of human being would penalize another for trying to render aid?

DWWSWWD
07-29-2013, 04:09 PM
All you people that want PT included into WAPS, are failing to realize that it is already in WAPS...b/c you can't test w/out a passing score. Furthermore, we should never promote one person over another b/c one scored 89.9 and the other 90.0. One of the very few articulate and succinct points I ever heard CMSAF Roy make was something along these lines. A young lady stood up and asked why one couldn't be given promotion points for an advanced college degree. He said, (I'm paraphrasing a bit. I don't remember the exact words) "I assume you have an advanced college degree. You are like the fitness folks wanting extra testing points for an excellent or perfect fitness score." I agree with you, fufu. The requirement is a 75 and don't look fat. When we start looking for more, for awards, strats and special duties, we are on a slippery slope.

Rusty Jones
07-29-2013, 04:28 PM
I think that the overall point of people wanting to include PT scores and college degrees into WAPS, is that they want a greater percentage of the total possible points to be directly controlled by Airmen.

We have that same problem in the Navy. When I look at the Army's promotion system... if the board that you have to appear before is equal to the exams in the Air Force and Navy, and Soldiers have direct control of those points... then, at least from what I've seen of their promotion system, Soldiers have direct control of over 60% of their overall possible score. In the Navy, at least before I left two years ago, we only had direct control of about 35%; and I think it's similar in the Air Force. The exam is the ONLY source of points that we have direct control over. If the Air Force and Navy doesn't want to add more sources of points where the service member has direct control - i.e., PT, marksmanship, college education, etc - then the least they could do is shift greater weight over to the exams.


I would seriously question someone's integrity/morals if they attempted to do that. What kind of human being would penalize another for trying to render aid?

Do you not have qualified medical personnel standing by when the PT test is being administered? At every PT test I've taken, we've always had at least two Corpsmen there.

fufu
07-29-2013, 04:34 PM
Do you not have qualified medical personnel standing by when the PT test is being administered? At every PT test I've taken, we've always had at least two Corpsmen there.

Nope. Here in the "Every man for himself" Air Force, you are instructed NOT to render aid during a PT Test. If you do, the clock keeps running. However, we do have one to two A1Cs or SrA to monitor all the runners.

Rusty Jones
07-29-2013, 04:43 PM
Nope. Here in the "Every man for himself" Air Force, you are instructed NOT to render aid during a PT Test. If you do, the clock keeps running. However, we do have one to two A1Cs or SrA to monitor all the runners.

Same thing in the Navy. Reason being, is because we are to let the Corpsmen do their jobs.

Filterbing
07-29-2013, 04:43 PM
What Rusty said is the point of including your actual score. It would then have real promotional impact besides a pass or fail. What is the motivation to score above the cut off? A day off? what if it was a real promotional component? I think PT scores would go up. Like the PDG, it's not just about memorizing it to be a better NCO, a good score should prove you are willing to work hard enough to get it.

Measure Man
07-29-2013, 04:45 PM
One of the very few articulate and succinct points I ever heard CMSAF Roy make was something along these lines. A young lady stood up and asked why one couldn't be given promotion points for an advanced college degree. He said, (I'm paraphrasing a bit. I don't remember the exact words) "I assume you have an advanced college degree. You are like the fitness folks wanting extra testing points for an excellent or perfect fitness score." I agree with you, fufu. The requirement is a 75 and don't look fat. When we start looking for more, for awards, strats and special duties, we are on a slippery slope.

While I understand and agree with that sentiment.

I almost think that it would have the opposite effect. Compare the emphasis on PFE/SKT scores vs. emphasis on PT score.

Not only do awards, strats, special duties not look at PFE/SKT scores, they are prohibited from even the supervisor knowing what they are unless the ratee tells him...and then there isn't much he can do with that information. Seems like it would make more sense if your fitness/health score was somewhat confindential and your PFE/SKT scores were used to qualify for special duties, etc.

I did once have a commander who promised to use your SKT score to mark the "knowledge of duties" block on EPRs, though...yeah, that puckered up some sphincters.

Filterbing
07-29-2013, 04:46 PM
As for the reffereal EPR for test failure, I am not a fan of that. You can be fit and have a bad day and get a failure. It's BS.

Rusty Jones
07-29-2013, 04:48 PM
I do believe that PT scores should count for something. It would kill instances of SNCOs enforcing standards that they don't meet themselves. Having to answer to a fatass wouldn't be so bad, if that same fatass wasn't counseling others about PT and weight management.

Make the PT score part of promotion, and you won't see this scenario as much.

CrustySMSgt
07-29-2013, 06:01 PM
Glad you didn't die. When doing pt test at NCOA in 05, guy dropped due to clot, me
And few folks stopped to help him off track, they left that time in our score,
I didn't give a shit, you don't run bye someone needing help.

When I was finally diagnosed, they gave me a piece of paper describing the condition; second sentence said 10% of people die within the first hour of getting one... that about killed me right there; I'd been walking around spitting up blood in extreme pain for almost 2 weeks! And it was the head of internal medicine, a Lt Col, who told me I just had pneumonia!

Bware
07-30-2013, 12:48 AM
Any update on the EPR?

Anon
07-31-2013, 12:23 AM
Other numbers to be included in EPRS and WAPS: cholesteral, blood pressure, sitting pulse rate, credit score, golf handicap, bowling average, tithing percentage, all CBT scores, weapons qualification, QA evaluations, CDC scores, and vision.
Simple fact: Those in favor of including PT scores in EPRs and particularly WAPS are typically those that score higher.
Why not give WAPS points for other things of value? That way everyone can at least get 2-5 bonus points...

Okay, how about this. Although I haven't thought it all the way through....has nothing to do with PT score, only pass fail.

Last 5 years of tests, with no more than 10 (most recent) tests factored in. Percentage of pass vs. fails. Score for promotion max points is 20.
Formula: Tests passed divided Tests taken (in the last 5 years) = .XXXX times 20.
Example 1. 10 passed of 10 taken = 1 X 20 = 20 points for promo.
Example 2. 7 passed of 10 taken = .70 X 20 = 14 points for promo.

grimreaper
07-31-2013, 12:59 AM
Okay, how about this. Although I haven't thought it all the way through....has nothing to do with PT score, only pass fail.

Last 5 years of tests, with no more than 10 (most recent) tests factored in. Percentage of pass vs. fails. Score for promotion max points is 20.
Formula: Tests passed divided Tests taken (in the last 5 years) = .XXXX times 20.
Example 1. 10 passed of 10 taken = 1 X 20 = 20 points for promo.
Example 2. 7 passed of 10 taken = .70 X 20 = 14 points for promo.

That's actually worse than what we have now. Someone can fail a test and re-test with a passing score before EPR closeout without it really affecting them. Under your proposal, any failure will hurt.

Anon
07-31-2013, 01:08 AM
That's actually worse than what we have now. Someone can fail a test and re-test with a passing score before EPR closeout without it really affecting them. Under your proposal, any failure will hurt.

Then don't fail! Having said that, I think fixing the test issues needs to happen too (counting/not counting push-ups sit-ups; waist measurement vs BMI, etc) I would also remove from EPR as a separate block. Allowing people to FAIL, and re-test before close-out, without any negative impact de-values the whole premise and is BS IMO. Not everyone has that option, depending on when their test falls compared to EPR close-out, so it's totally unfair. Saying that any failure hurts under this proposal may be valid, but I think it's fair across the board. It's simple, you get points toward promotion that you earn, if you don't earn them (by failing), you can make it up in other areas (maybe by studying).

grimreaper
07-31-2013, 01:23 AM
Allowing people to FAIL, and re-test before close-out, without any negative impact de-values the whole premise and is BS IMO

No it doesn't, because people have bad days. I've seen people fail, retest less than 2 weeks later and get over a 90. Obiously that had nothing to do with fitness.


Not everyone has that option, depending on when their test falls compared to EPR close-out, so it's totally unfair.

No it's not unfair. If your PT test butts-up against an EPR closeout, then change when you test.

Nothing in the AFI says that you can't test earlier than the 6 month for sat or 12 months for excellent. All the AFI says is that you must be assessed BY the last day of the month, 6 months/12 months following the previous one. If you wait to do at PT test right next to an EPR closeout, you are, well let's just say, not smart.




2.12.1. Excellent/Satisfactory. To remain current, RegAF, AFR, and ANG (Title 10) must be assessed by the last day of the month, six calendar months following the previous passing test (e.g., if member tested on 15 Apr, then member must retest on/before 31 Oct of the same year and would be non-current on 1 Nov of the same year). ANG (Title 32) must be assessed by the last day of the month, 12 months following the previous passing test (e.g., if member tested 15 Apr, then member must retest on/before 30 Apr of the next year and would be non-current on 1 May of the next year).


2. RegAF, AFR, and ANG (Title 10) Airmen who test in all four components (1.5 mile run or 1.0 mile walk, abdominal circumference (AC) measurement, push-ups, and sit-ups) and score an Excellent (90 or above) are only required to test once a year. These Airmen must retest by the last day of the month, 12 calendar months following the previous test date on which they achieved an Excellent score. This guidance supersedes the scheduling and currency guidelines established in AFI 36-2905 (dated 1 July 2010), paragraphs 2.11.1.1 and 2.12.1.

Anon
07-31-2013, 01:37 AM
No it doesn't, because people have bad days. I've seen people fail, retest less than 2 weeks later and get over a 90. Obiously that had nothing to do with fitness.



No it's not unfair. If your PT test butts-up against an EPR closeout, then change when you test.

Nothing in the AFI says that you can't test earlier than the 6 month for sat or 1 year mark for excellent. All the AFI says is that you must be assessed BY the last day of the month, 6 months following the previous one. If you wait to do at PT test right next to an EPR closeout, you are, well let's just say, not smart.

Some people have bad days, some are fat and lazy. Not sure we can, or should have a program that conforms to both situations. Fail is a fail and if things were taken down a notch (ditch the referrals/"PT only" EPR markings) and reward those who consistently meet standards, I would suggest that would be a WIN. As far as testing early to allow for retesting if you fail. Don't disagree with you. I will say that not everyone ALWAYS has their EPR close as an annual. CROs due to PCS/PCA, by the ratee or rater can happen at anytime making lining up the PT test, not always feasible. As I said earlier, don't fail and there is no issue.

grimreaper
07-31-2013, 01:41 AM
As I said earlier, don't fail and there is no issue.

That is...until it happens to you. How many people do you know go into their test planning to fail? Yes, there are those who are fat/out-of-shape, but your broad brush smacks people who are not and they do not deserve to be punished because of a bad day at the track IMO.

Anon
07-31-2013, 01:58 AM
That is...until it happens to you. How many people do you know go into their test planning to fail? Yes, there are those who are fat/out-of-shape, but your broad brush smacks people who are not and they do not deserve to be punished because of a bad day at the track IMO.

Can't say if you're right or wrong here because I wouldn't suggest that people "plan to fail". I will suggest; however, that most of those that do fail, did not plan to pass, or they are one of the few (very few, IMO) who had a "bad day". Of course, after the fact, it's easy to say, "I had a bad day". Unless, that bad day happens to come every year (or 2X/year) right when the test does, the impact of one failure would be minimal (2 points toward promotion lost; or not gained/earned). Still better than the impacts we have today (referral 4)....

grimreaper
07-31-2013, 02:03 AM
Can't say if you're right or wrong here because I wouldn't suggest that people "plan to fail". I will suggest; however, that most of those that do fail, did not plan to pass, or they are one of the few (very few, IMO) who had a "bad day". Of course, after the fact, it's easy to say, "I had a bad day". Unless, that bad day happens to come every year (or 2X/year) right when the test does, the impact of one failure would be minimal (2 points toward promotion lost; or not gained/earned). Still better than the impacts we have today (referral 4)....

Not sure if I understand your position then. You've gone from the hardline answer of "Then Don't Fail" to it's better than a referral 4. If someone has a failure at closeout, they were below standards. The hardline "Don't Fail then" response would be defending that policy.

Measure Man
07-31-2013, 02:10 AM
planning to fail?

Failing to plan is planning to fail.

grimreaper
07-31-2013, 02:15 AM
Failing to plan is planning to fail.

If that's really true, then the policy needs to be changed to reflect that and any failure at any point in the rating period automatically makes the next report a referral.

Anon
07-31-2013, 02:17 AM
Not sure if I understand your position then. You've gone from the hardline answer of "Then Don't Fail" to it's better than a referral 4. If someone has a failure at closeout, they were below standards. The hardline "Don't Fail then" response would be defending that policy.

I do think you misinterpret my intent. Not trying to take a hardline. The current PT program/EPR ramifications are out of control. IMO, we need to back off on all the negativity associated with the program. Points toward promotion for those that MEET STANDARDS is one way. My statement of "Then don't fail" was in response to your comment on it being worse than what we have now. I don't see how. Don't fail if you want max points for promotion. If PT were removed from the EPR as it's own block and referral EPRs were not solely based on PT failure, how is that a hardline? There has to be some impact for those that fail, otherwise it's pointless.

Anon
07-31-2013, 02:20 AM
If that's really true, then the policy needs to be changed to reflect that and any failure at any point in the rating period automatically makes the next report a referral.

That would be hard line!

grimreaper
07-31-2013, 02:50 AM
There has to be some impact for those that fail, otherwise it's pointless.

Then just change the policy to having a failing PT score at closeout means you cannot get a 5. Get rid of the automatic referral part.

grimreaper
07-31-2013, 02:51 AM
That would be hard line!

Yep, it is, but there are people in leadership positions that have that mindset.

Anon
07-31-2013, 03:06 AM
Then just change the policy to having a failing PT score at closeout means you cannot get a 5. Get rid of the automatic referral part.

Tying PT directly to the EPR (as it's own entity) is part of the problem. It is one standard that currently carries too much weight (IMO) wrt the overall EPR. Do I think someone who failed a PT test during the rating period should be a firewall "5"? NO. Should it have its own block, be an automatic referral, and in-turn impact points for promotion? NO. Is there a "one size, fits all" solution? Doubt it.

grimreaper
07-31-2013, 04:12 AM
Tying PT directly to the EPR (as it's own entity) is part of the problem. It is one standard that currently carries too much weight (IMO) wrt the overall EPR. Do I think someone who failed a PT test during the rating period should be a firewall "5"? NO. Should it have its own block, be an automatic referral, and in-turn impact points for promotion? NO. Is there a "one size, fits all" solution? Doubt it.

It carries so much weight simply because it's an automatic referral for failing. Whether it's its own block or not, failing PT shouldn't be a referral, but you can't really say that people with failing PT should be a 5 EPR either. The "No 5" policy should not only apply to PT, but other areas as well such as failing CDCs. There are certain things of such importance that non-compliance should automatically eliminate people from being rated a 5. We are trying to get inflation out of the EPR system?...let's start by a guaranteed "No 5" for certain things.

imported_StandardsAMust
07-31-2013, 12:19 PM
I've said this all along...the PT Program is not about "fitness" or "how fit someone is." It's simply a program that measures discipline. Your PT score is really a discipline score. Are you disciplined enough to simply pass it?

Filterbing
07-31-2013, 12:48 PM
Okay, how about this. Although I haven't thought it all the way through....has nothing to do with PT score, only pass fail.

Last 5 years of tests, with no more than 10 (most recent) tests factored in. Percentage of pass vs. fails. Score for promotion max points is 20.
Formula: Tests passed divided Tests taken (in the last 5 years) = .XXXX times 20.
Example 1. 10 passed of 10 taken = 1 X 20 = 20 points for promo.
Example 2. 7 passed of 10 taken = .70 X 20 = 14 points for promo.


I'm not in favor of this since it doesn't reward getting a higher score. The pass or fail (go and no go) mentality is why so many people are satisfied with getting a 78 or something and that's good enough for them. I think you could even drop the idea of a failed test. example. If someone maintains a 60 pnt average on the PT test they may become unpromotable under a 5 test weighted system. example below

94x5= 475
88x4= 352
91x3= 273
78x2= 156
85x1= 85
Total 1341/15=89.4 promotion points

20+Years
07-31-2013, 01:17 PM
Wow... applying the EPR equation to fitness. So the message is, "The PT test is as important as your EPR. Which its included on". Confused on standards yet?

USAF-Controller
07-31-2013, 01:22 PM
Making PT count towards promotion is a silly idea. We have other far more important things that don't count towards promotion as it is. The PT block on the EPR says "meets" or "does not meet". That is not past tense by the way. At the time your EPR closes out if you have a passing score you "meet". One of the reasons that the Air Force is in a tail spin is because we are focusing too much on appearances and not enough on doing our jobs.

Pullinteeth
07-31-2013, 01:36 PM
Old news....looking to place a MSgt diamond in unit sizes 60-249 personnel...not enlisted but total bodies. If your number are greater it would be up to your unit to change one billet to an 8F position to drive that second Diamond spot, wont be automatic. One SMSgt diamond per base to help the Command Chief with Shirt moves/career development and CMSgt Diamonds at the MAJCOM level and above.

That is retarded. So if your unit has 20 officers, 18 civilians, and two enlisted, you would have to convert one of those enlisted slots to an 8F to represent the ONE other enlisted member? A bit extreme I know but these blanket rules are just stupid. A Shirt is supposed to be there for the enlisted members, if there are no enlisted members in a unit, why have one?

imported_StandardsAMust
07-31-2013, 01:41 PM
I did it...I was able to cheat the system and it was rather easy to do.

I went to the doctor and complained of some back and knee pain after my typical running routine. The doctor asked if I needed a profile in case I had to take a PT test. I told him no...I wasn't due. He said that I should take some time off from exercising and take some motrin for the pain. As we were wrapping up the session, I did mention that I "could" be subject to a mock test. So, to be safe, he put me on a waist only profile for one month!!!!

Wow, that was really easy. I wonder who else is doing this.

Ripcord
07-31-2013, 01:45 PM
That is retarded. So if your unit has 20 officers, 18 civilians, and two enlisted, you would have to convert one of those enlisted slots to an 8F to represent the ONE other enlisted member? A bit extreme I know but these blanket rules are just stupid. A Shirt is supposed to be there for the enlisted members, if there are no enlisted members in a unit, why have one? Shirts are not exclusively there for enlisted. In fact we are taught in FSA now that civilians and officers are just as important as far as care and feeding. I believe one of the reasons this is being addressed is the tech training units. I'm the shirt of a unit with 100 per party 50-100 NPS and 50-100 officer accessions depending on the time of year. There are training units out there with total numbers over 600+. Currently a 8F billet is driven off perm party numbers only even though most of my work is caring for the students. New rules will allow for better proportionality so units don't have to pull T-shirt s out of hide which is what happens now.

Anon
07-31-2013, 01:53 PM
Wow... applying the EPR equation to fitness. So the message is, "The PT test is as important as your EPR. Which its included on". Confused on standards yet?

A few folks in here have suggested adding it to promotion, I was merely suggesting a way to do it without using the actual score or giving more points to the guys who spend all day at the gym. Why not let the EPR get back to an assessment of job performance? Ditch PT as a factor on it. PT as important as EPR? 20 points vs. 135. Doesn't sound equal to me. Hell, make it only 10 points max, doesn't matter to me.

Anon
07-31-2013, 02:01 PM
Wow... applying the EPR equation to fitness. So the message is, "The PT test is as important as your EPR. Which its included on". Confused on standards yet?


Making PT count towards promotion is a silly idea. We have other far more important things that don't count towards promotion as it is. The PT block on the EPR says "meets" or "does not meet". That is not past tense by the way. At the time your EPR closes out if you have a passing score you "meet". One of the reasons that the Air Force is in a tail spin is because we are focusing too much on appearances and not enough on doing our jobs.

It already counts toward promotion indirectly through the EPR. If you fail and get a referral 4, you lose EPR points. Pretty sure none of the EPR blocks are written in past tense, so I guess we should only measure all standards from the time of close out? Not sure your point here.

imported_StandardsAMust
07-31-2013, 02:08 PM
A few folks in here have suggested adding it to promotion, I was merely suggesting a way to do it without using the actual score or giving more points to the guys who spend all day at the gym. Why not let the EPR get back to an assessment of job performance? Ditch PT as a factor on it. PT as important as EPR? 20 points vs. 135. Doesn't sound equal to me. Hell, make it only 10 points max, doesn't matter to me.

It's best to just use the raw score. It's simple to understand. Most people score around a 90. If 100 people tested, 60 would score 90 or higher. 37 would score somewhere between 75-90. The other 3 would be below 75.

What does this mean? Those that score 100 would only have a few points advantage over those scoring in the 90's anyway. So, 60 people would only be separated by 10 points at most. 37 people scoring below a 90 would most likely be separated by 5 to 10 points from them. The failures would feel the most affects by being 20 points or more behind the power curve.

Remember, only 3% of the Air Force fail the test...that's a pretty small number of folks.

USAF-Controller
07-31-2013, 03:59 PM
It already counts toward promotion indirectly through the EPR. If you fail and get a referral 4, you lose EPR points. Pretty sure none of the EPR blocks are written in past tense, so I guess we should only measure all standards from the time of close out? Not sure your point here.

What I mean is that only the most current PT test should count for the EPR block. Some commands count any failed test during the reporting period as a "does not meet" for the EPR. I've also been in a squadron where I was told to mark someone down in the standards block for scoring a 76 on their PT test because they were just doing the minimum. I told them I wouldnt do it because there is already a block for PT.

imported_DannyJ
07-31-2013, 03:59 PM
It's best to just use the raw score. It's simple to understand. Most people score around a 90. If 100 people tested, 60 would score 90 or higher. 37 would score somewhere between 75-90. The other 3 would be below 75.

What does this mean? Those that score 100 would only have a few points advantage over those scoring in the 90's anyway. So, 60 people would only be separated by 10 points at most. 37 people scoring below a 90 would most likely be separated by 5 to 10 points from them. The failures would feel the most affects by being 20 points or more behind the power curve.

Remember, only 3% of the Air Force have failures on their record...that's a pretty small number of folks.

There, fixed it for you.

Anon
07-31-2013, 04:05 PM
What I mean is that only the most current PT test should count for the EPR block. Some commands count any failed test during the reporting period as a "does not meet" for the EPR. I've also been in a squadron where I was told to mark someone down in the standards block for scoring a 76 on their PT test because they were just doing the minimum. I told them I wouldnt do it because there is already a block for PT.

So, should we only worry about ALL standards as of the close-out then. Guy fails a job related eval just prior to close-out, mark down. Another guy fails early in his reporting period, but passes one just before close-out and he's good to go? The EPR should capture performance throughout the period, not a single point in time, to include PT. I realize what the guidance says, so no need to point that out. Just giving my opinion.

USAF-Controller
07-31-2013, 04:27 PM
So, should we only worry about ALL standards as of the close-out then. Guy fails a job related eval just prior to close-out, mark down. Another guy fails early in his reporting period, but passes one just before close-out and he's good to go? The EPR should capture performance throughout the period, not a single point in time, to include PT. I realize what the guidance says, so no need to point that out. Just giving my opinion.

All of the blocks besides the PT block allow for more than just "meets" or "does not meet" The PT block is a simple Go/No go. To be honest, I think the PT program in the Air Force is stupid to begin with. I believe it has nothing to do with fitness and everything to do with force shaping and appearance.

20+Years
07-31-2013, 04:34 PM
A few folks in here have suggested adding it to promotion, I was merely suggesting a way to do it without using the actual score or giving more points to the guys who spend all day at the gym. Why not let the EPR get back to an assessment of job performance? Ditch PT as a factor on it. PT as important as EPR? 20 points vs. 135. Doesn't sound equal to me. Hell, make it only 10 points max, doesn't matter to me.

I agree the EPR should get back to job assesment. But, I don't think PT justifies its own score for promotion. PT is a standard, just like saluting or properly wearing your uniform. If people get points for PT, I want points for having better communication skills (writing and public speaking - both on the EPR). Fair is fair.

WeaponsTSGT
07-31-2013, 04:48 PM
All of the blocks besides the PT block allow for more than just "meets" or "does not meet" The PT block is a simple Go/No go. To be honest, I think the PT program in the Air Force is stupid to begin with. I believe it has nothing to do with fitness and everything to do with force shaping and appearance.

Agreed, except for the appearance part, force shaping...yes. I had a discussion at work yesterday about an EPR. The kid had failed one of his CDC sets, and one of the MSgt's thought he had earned a 5 for his EPR. My mindset was Amn XXX earned a 4 for failing his PT test, yet for whatever reason this kid failed his CDC's and you think he earned a 5? We ended up bringing another MSgt into the mix and I got my way....I just don't know what goes through some peoples heads. PT takes too much focus off of what we should be focusing on, period. Toss it.

Anon
07-31-2013, 05:22 PM
All of the blocks besides the PT block allow for more than just "meets" or "does not meet" The PT block is a simple Go/No go.

This is part of the problem. As I already alluded to, taking a snapshot in time (at close-out only) to determine a marking is counter to how everything else is measured (performance over an entire period). Hoping all the discussion about changing the EPR includes fixing this.

Filterbing
07-31-2013, 05:40 PM
This is part of the problem. As I already alluded to, taking a snapshot in time (at close-out only) to determine a marking is counter to how everything else is measured (performance over an entire period). Hoping all the discussion about changing the EPR includes fixing this.

I agree completely with this.

I just think if you take it off the EPR and add it to WAPS you would see a lot more people motivated to get fit (for points) then send the consecutive failures to MEBs. As for how to score it, My idea was just a way to make a higher score relavent to promotional importance vrs a go no go. Hell, instead of an 89.1 it could be 8.91. Problem there is it is only two points from a 6.91 which would be a average for a failing Amn. Even if it were an 89.1 score range. it wouldn't matter since everyone averages around the 90's. I got a 92 on my last and I know that I can diet harder and work on my run and improve that score. Right now I have no motivation to score higher than 90.

Anon
07-31-2013, 05:50 PM
I agree completely with this.

I just think if you take it off the EPR and add it to WAPS you would see a lot more people motivated to get fit (for points) then send the consecutive failures to MEBs. As for how to score it, My idea was just a way to make a higher score relavent to promotional importance vrs a go no go. Hell, instead of an 89.1 it could be 8.91. Problem there is it is only two points from a 6.91 which would be a average for a failing Amn. Even if it were an 89.1 score range. it wouldn't matter since everyone averages around the 90's. I got a 92 on my last and I know that I can diet harder and work on my run and improve that score. Right now I have no motivation to score higher than 90.

Not a fan of giving more points based on raw score, at least with the PFT as it stands. Too many variables that need fixed. 90-degree rule, some people count, some don't. Giving the person who scores a 100 on test even one more point than a person who score a 90 just doesn't make sense to me. Even if points were based on category (Excellent, etc...), I think it goes to far. Pass/fail, over time provides a representation of a persons career and would provide resonable recovery for those who failed, but can recover, without the serious impacts we see today.

20+Years
07-31-2013, 05:52 PM
I agree completely with this.

I just think if you take it off the EPR and add it to WAPS you would see a lot more people motivated to get fit (for points) then send the consecutive failures to MEBs. As for how to score it, My idea was just a way to make a higher score relavent to promotional importance vrs a go no go. Hell, instead of an 89.1 it could be 8.91. Problem there is it is only two points from a 6.91 which would be a average for a failing Amn. Even if it were an 89.1 score range. it wouldn't matter since everyone averages around the 90's. I got a 92 on my last and I know that I can diet harder and work on my run and improve that score. Right now I have no motivation to score higher than 90.

This whole concept is purely judgmental on which aspect of military service is most important. I could use your whole argument for giving points to having advanced degrees because the AF pushes us to do that too, right? Its an expectation we go to school, just as staying fit is. Why not assign a point value to it? Because its not the hot topic and we don't need long term decisions made on ONE Generals priorities. If you will remember, thats where the PT stink came from.

Filterbing
07-31-2013, 05:55 PM
I agree, there are flaws with the test. The waist is tops with me.

Filterbing
07-31-2013, 06:08 PM
PT has always been here in one form or another. The bike test wasn't accounted for on the EPR. I'm not even sure how failures were handled since I was an amn back then and never had problems with it so I didn't care. The importance level of the test has become a huge issue. I think we should stop crucifying failing scores and just make it a promotional value and we are done. You score low and your promotional chances fall. I worked hard for a 92 but, being honest with myself I know I can do better I know I can better control what I eat and I can run more often. As for applying it to promotion, look at the Army’s example below.

•Military Training (maximum 100 points) - Points are given for scores achieved on the Army Physical Fitness Test, and scores achieved on the Rifle/Pistol Range.

grimreaper
07-31-2013, 06:20 PM
Military Training (maximum 100 points) - Points are given for scores achieved on the Army Physical Fitness Test, and scores achieved on the Rifle/Pistol Range.

Most people know the Army involves PT points as part of their promotion system. Different service with different roles and expectations. Look at the last part of that sentence...would you want the AF using M-16 AFQC scores as points in promotions? If they did, a lot of people would never get promoted since they can't hit the broad side of a barn.

Filterbing
07-31-2013, 06:38 PM
M16 would work for me! but your right, they do have diff roles i'm just showing that PT could be used for promotion. The Army also add college degrees and PME courses to the promotion system, seems like something a more technical force would also do....

imported_StandardsAMust
08-01-2013, 07:18 AM
Most people know the Army involves PT points as part of their promotion system. Different service with different roles and expectations. Look at the last part of that sentence...would you want the AF using M-16 AFQC scores as points in promotions? If they did, a lot of people would never get promoted since they can't hit the broad side of a barn.

Not sure how the fatties in the Army are promoting through the ranks if PT score is a requirement for promotion. Must be a lot of "fudging" going on over there.

BUDJR8
08-01-2013, 12:45 PM
Went to a CSAF and CMSAF "all-call" today and not one mention of PT or EPRs, nor any questions about it...July has come and gone...what's up with the PT changes mentioned?

CrustySMSgt
08-01-2013, 02:15 PM
Went to a CSAF and CMSAF "all-call" today and not one mention of PT or EPRs, nor any questions about it...July has come and gone...what's up with the PT changes mentioned?

I guess you should have sacked up and asked them and not a bunch of people in the internet who know no more than you do.

Ripcord
08-01-2013, 04:22 PM
I guess you should have sacked up and asked them and not a bunch of people in the internet who know no more than you do.

LOL you said sack.

imported_StandardsAMust
08-01-2013, 06:35 PM
The reason no one asked is because Spangdahlem has one of the best pass rates in the Air Force. A lot are on a Profile.

Measure Man
08-01-2013, 07:15 PM
Went to a CSAF and CMSAF "all-call" today and not one mention of PT or EPRs, nor any questions about it...July has come and gone...what's up with the PT changes mentioned?

I would consider it a positive that PT was not mentioned.

BUDJR8
08-01-2013, 07:58 PM
I guess you should have sacked up and asked them and not a bunch of people in the internet who know no more than you do.

True, true, but by the time it got to Q & A time I didn't want to prolong it any longer.

Silverback
08-01-2013, 11:29 PM
True, true, but by the time it got to Q & A time I didn't want to prolong it any longer.

They usually screen the questions in that kind of forum also.

imported_DannyJ
08-02-2013, 03:02 AM
True, true, but by the time it got to Q & A time I didn't want to prolong it any longer.

Thanks for not being "That Guy".

CrustySMSgt
08-02-2013, 05:28 AM
They usually screen the questions in that kind of forum also.

Not any one I've been to in the last several years.


Thanks for not being "That Guy".

While I'm all for not making those any longer, it would seem like this is a question a lot of people have. They were probably avoiding the topic, since they didn't deliver by the July suspense they gave themselves, so by asking ha'd have forced them to give an answer. There is a difference between just trying to get some face time by asking a fluff question and putting them on the spot and getting information the masses want.

BUDJR8
08-02-2013, 01:19 PM
I saw questions yesterday literally read from a piece of paper...hmmm

akruse
08-02-2013, 01:44 PM
Not any one I've been to in the last several years.



You're not paying close enough attention then. I haven't been to one where there weren't pieces of paper handed out with scripted questions on them. We had the 9th AETF CC here the other week and our group chief slipped a note to one of the newer Airmen as the CC was talking. Guy asked for questions and Airmen stood up, put the paper up for everyone to see and read word for word. It was great stuff. Even the CC got a kick out of it.

CrustySMSgt
08-02-2013, 03:23 PM
You're not paying close enough attention then. I haven't been to one where there weren't pieces of paper handed out with scripted questions on them. We had the 9th AETF CC here the other week and our group chief slipped a note to one of the newer Airmen as the CC was talking. Guy asked for questions and Airmen stood up, put the paper up for everyone to see and read word for word. It was great stuff. Even the CC got a kick out of it.

We've had both old & new CSAFs and CMSAFs through while I've been here, along with the ACC/CC, CENTAF/CC, VCSAF, 9th AETF-A/CC, and many other stars. At none of those all calls, breakfast, lunches, or dinners, office calls, shop visits, or anywhere else was there scripted/screened questions. Sounds like a problem where you're at.

Filterbing
08-02-2013, 03:34 PM
Last year CMSgt Roy came to base, no scrpited screened questions there.