Page 101 of 135 FirstFirst ... 519199100101102103111 ... LastLast
Results 1,001 to 1,010 of 1346

Thread: Any Truth In This?

  1. #1001
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    143
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Any Truth In This?

    Quote Originally Posted by Measure Man View Post
    Fogleman started the drum-roll for accountability.

    Which was fine when it ruined the lives and careers of enlisted...but, when that drumline steamrolled one of his buddies, BGen Terry Schwalier, Fogelman resigned in protest.

    After a long battle, Schwalier eventually won and got promoted to MGen in retirement.

    At least that's how I remember it.
    Unfortunately for Brig Gen (Ret) Schwalier, the AFBCMR action wasn't sufficient to carry the day. AFBCMR's finding was that by its rules, Schwalier's nomination, confirmation and appointment to major general all took place prior to SECDEF's redlining of the promotion, that as a matter of law he was promoted on schedule, and that SECDEF's subsequent removal of Schwalier from the promotion list was null and void.

    OSD claimed that AFBCMR acted beyond its legal authority and noted that there was never a public act of appointment taken to promote Schwalier before SECDEF redlined the promotion. There was also some institutional nastiness, with the AF General Counsel instructing AFBCMR to adhere to the OSD opinon. OSD trumped SecAF (in whose name AFBCMR acted). Schwalier's bio was changed back to 1-star on the USAF site, and there the case sits.

    Stuff happens. I once got a 3-0 favorable decision out of the AFBCMR which would have meant sizeable back pay for me. It was overturned by an assistant secretary.

  2. #1002

    Re: Any Truth In This?

    Quote Originally Posted by Z1911 View Post
    This was posted today on the USAF Aim Points:

    "Standards"
    Commentary by by Chief Master Sgt. Eric Molloy
    438th Air Expeditionary Wing Command Chief


    Must be something in the CENTAF CCM blue kool-aid...
    Great commentary. Slackers will hate.

  3. #1003
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Any Truth In This?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefB View Post
    Come on, Pueblo...this is an assumption on your part and a stereotypical one at that. The General specifically said.... "I think that in the end this is not an issue of adultery....This is an issue about an officer who is entrusted to fly nuclear weapons, who disobeyed an order, who lied. That's what this is about." (Decoded, she was a liar and disobeyed a lawful order!)
    But if a no-contact order had almost never been used against a flying officer in a similar situation up until that point, doesn't that mean adultery is a bigger part of the dynamic than Fogleman was willing to admit?

  4. #1004
    Member Z1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    77
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Any Truth In This?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefB View Post
    Now, here's a man that knows the protocol. Well done!
    Protocol...AKA: The fine art of sucking .................................................. ..up....
    Air Force standards must be uniformly known, consistently applied and non-selectively enforced.
    - Gen. Ronald R Fogleman, Air Force Chief of Staff


    "If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
    - General George Patton Jr


    Never tell people how to do things.
    Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.
    - General George Patton Jr

  5. #1005
    Member Z1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    77
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Any Truth In This?

    Quote Originally Posted by OtisRNeedleman View Post
    I remember about a year ago a number of commanders being fired due to nuclear-related issues. Believe at least one general was forced to retire. And a couple of years ago the AF JAG ended up retiring without his stars due to hanky-panky with the ladies. And believe late last year or earlier this year some O-6 JAG ended up retiring as an O-2 when it was found out he'd been disbarred many years ago, but apparently never told anyone in the AF about it. Those are the ones that immediately come to mind.
    It would be interesting to find out how many enlisteds were shit-canned vs officers being shit-canned during the same timeframes of the incidents mentioned. I'd be willing to bet a helluva lot more enlisteds.
    Air Force standards must be uniformly known, consistently applied and non-selectively enforced.
    - Gen. Ronald R Fogleman, Air Force Chief of Staff


    "If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
    - General George Patton Jr


    Never tell people how to do things.
    Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.
    - General George Patton Jr

  6. #1006
    Senior Member ConfusedAirman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Right behind you
    Posts
    199
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Any Truth In This?

    Quote Originally Posted by Comm Chief View Post
    Great commentary. Slackers will hate.
    The concept is good but the written commentary itself sucks.

    "Will you please roll down the sleeves of your freaking flight suit and un-cuff your ABUs?" The use of "freaking" is inappropriate.

    "I have never met an outstanding service member with poor uniform standards." This is because he clearly shows his definition of "outstanding" must include his personal idea of uniform standards and not the AF standards.

    "While 95 percent of active duty personnel start their duty day in uniform, the number that wear the uniform correctly, unfortunately, comes nowhere close to that number." Where is his data for this claim? He seems to be confusing the AF standard of wearing the uniform correctly with his own personal standards.

    "I cringe when I am forced to work with service members incapable of wearing their uniforms properly." "It saddens me that the slacker is breathing my air and trying to suck the pride out of my unit by their mere presence."

    His day must really suck with non-stop cringing and sadness based on his observation that "no where near" the number of Airmen wearing a uniform every day are wearing it correctly, hence not meeting his high standards and hence, are slackers.




    Simply because he gives every indication that his expectations of uniform standards

  7. #1007
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    84
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Any Truth In This?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pueblo View Post
    But if a no-contact order had almost never been used against a flying officer in a similar situation up until that point, doesn't that mean adultery is a bigger part of the dynamic than Fogleman was willing to admit?
    Are you one of those "The military is a bunch of white male chauvanists/racists/homophobes/xenophobes/islamophobes/(insert phobia here)" types who just looks for any possible opening to try and prove what a bunch of neanderthals we all are?

    Why don't you get a life and find something useful to concern yourself with?
    Perfect is the enemy of good enough.
    The pursuit of excellence only for the sake of achieving excellence is a waste:
    Time and energy spent pursuing excellence in one area is
    time and energy that could have been used to improve in another area.

  8. #1008

    Re: Any Truth In This?

    Quote Originally Posted by ConfusedAirman View Post
    The concept is good but the written commentary itself sucks.

    "Will you please roll down the sleeves of your freaking flight suit and un-cuff your ABUs?" The use of "freaking" is inappropriate.

    "I have never met an outstanding service member with poor uniform standards." This is because he clearly shows his definition of "outstanding" must include his personal idea of uniform standards and not the AF standards.

    "While 95 percent of active duty personnel start their duty day in uniform, the number that wear the uniform correctly, unfortunately, comes nowhere close to that number." Where is his data for this claim? He seems to be confusing the AF standard of wearing the uniform correctly with his own personal standards.

    "I cringe when I am forced to work with service members incapable of wearing their uniforms properly." "It saddens me that the slacker is breathing my air and trying to suck the pride out of my unit by their mere presence."

    His day must really suck with non-stop cringing and sadness based on his observation that "no where near" the number of Airmen wearing a uniform every day are wearing it correctly, hence not meeting his high standards and hence, are slackers.




    Simply because he gives every indication that his expectations of uniform standards
    I appreciate the "in your face" style. I say good for him. His kool-aid is spiked, I like that.

  9. #1009
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    84
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Any Truth In This?

    Quote Originally Posted by Comm Chief View Post
    Great commentary. Slackers will hate.
    From some people who have already articulated what I (and others) think and would reply to you with:

    This is from the Baseops forum and was previously linked to and pasted here by somebody else, but I think it is worthy of repeating: http://www.flyingsquadron.com/forums.../page__st__240

    The conceptual idea that one absolutely must get the uniform standard right all the time or you simply aren't qualified to fight the war is fundamentally flawed. The true professional puts everything on a hierarchy of importance, a hierarchy that changes depending on many variables. As operators we're very comfortable living like this, and we usually call it SA. Sometimes your gas state is the most important thing, sometimes it's the weather, sometimes it's the mission then the icing on your wings, and when the critical part of the mission is over you RTB the area because now the icing is most important. The hierarchy is always changing, and a good flyer stays aware of what's at the top and the handful of items under it. This idea of juggling a group of variables which all slide up and down the priority list used to confuse the shit out of me in pilot training, resulting in my average performance. But with a few thousand hours it's natural to all of us.

    And I think this is why we all know his argument is bullshit, but an articulate response is hard because the concept is so simple. We think "of course my mission planning is more important than having my sleeves rolled down." Or "of course I put my sunglasses on my head, I'm doing shit with my hands."

    And that's the issue with this guy, and this entire school of thought with non-operators that if you can't get the uniform right how can you fly an airplane? They think "how can you possibly do the important things when you can't get this thing right?" And we think "how can you possibly worry about the unimportant things when there are so many others that matter?" Of course our perspective is right and theirs is wrong. We prove that by flying successful missions everyday wearing baseball hats with a dip in our mouth; and if they understood priorities they wouldn't correct an officer about a minor uniform violation by yelling at him in public-- a customs and courtesies breach that manifests their inability to differentiate importance levels between issues.

    The only possible fix to our plight (two incompatible schools of thought) is leadership. Leadership must set the standard and leadership must judge what is most important when. And of course, leadership is what we are mostly lacking. Approaching the end of my commitment, this is a pretty strong argument for me to stay and try to fix it.


    And another one I found by chance, but I think describes the individuals in question particularly well - enlisted as well as officers:
    http://www.pickyourbattles.net/2010/...dustrious.html

    The Stupid and the Industrious
    "I divide officers into four classes -- the clever, the lazy, the stupid and the industrious. Each officer possesses at least two of these qualities. Those who are clever and industrious are fitted for the high staff appointments. Use can be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy is fit for the very highest commands. He has the temperament and the requisite nerves to deal with all situations. But whoever is stupid and industrious must be removed immediately."

    The quote above is attributed to a German General who apparently gave an order for any stupid/industrious officers to be removed once so identified. His classification system is presented in Benton's Air Force Officer Guide. The Guide quotes the officer on the stupid and industrious:

    Great damage may result from their actions. Attacking the ill-advised with zeal and energy, they may induce a disaster. They are the most dangerous. They must be eliminated!

    I have had similar thoughts as I watched officers labor for promotion in one non-combatant command. They put in long hours, prioritize their job over time spent with the family, come in on the weekends, and rarely produce anything useful for the Air Force. Time is spent crafting perceptions, wording reports to support whatever position the boss wants to be reflected, and many hours are spent combing through administrative minutia that has lost all real connection with the actual mission it purports to improve. If the mission was making a peanut-butter and jelly sandwich, there would be rules made requiring only certain types of watches to be worn while making said sandwiches, and reports and spreadsheets to track timepiece compliance. Pet projects would shape and craft how many people wore watches, what kind, the accuracy in relation to the official time zone (which would change weekly) and lost in the process would be making a PB&J. But the industrious would sacrifice themselves and their family life to track Swatches versus G-shocks in the hope of pleasing the boss and getting promoted. Nobody would dare suggest time was being wasted because watch wearing doesn't have squat to do with the task at hand.

    There is nothing wrong with hard work and long hours of course. There is a problem with change for the sake of change, self-licking ice cream cone processes removed from actual mission benefit, and busy work that keeps officers from spending time on actual mission enhancement. Unfortunately there are plenty who are stupid in that they prioritize tasks devoid of mission impact, or with negative impact, yet who are industrious because they spend long hours on such useless endeavors. They take pride in their contributions and long hours at work. Look what I have sacrificed for my country, they opine. The substance isn't important, just the hard work they exhibit.

    I remember a commander and I having a discussion over officership and more broadly what makes a good American. Suffice it so say we disagreed on the requirements. He wasn't pleased with my diagnosis of his viewpoint and at the end of the conversation, as I was leaving, revisited the topic. My previous comment on his thinking being un-American had clearly bothered him. He told me as I was leaving, "I work hard. That's what makes me a good American." I left without mentioning that North Koreans, Chinese, and Russians also work hard but they are hardly good Americans.

    Being industrious is not an excuse for failing to think. Failing to think makes one stupid and, as the German tells us, the industrious stupid are a grave threat to a military organization.
    Perfect is the enemy of good enough.
    The pursuit of excellence only for the sake of achieving excellence is a waste:
    Time and energy spent pursuing excellence in one area is
    time and energy that could have been used to improve in another area.

  10. #1010
    Senior Member TJMAC77SP's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    3,156
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)

    Re: Any Truth In This?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pueblo View Post
    But if a no-contact order had almost never been used against a flying officer in a similar situation up until that point, doesn't that mean adultery is a bigger part of the dynamic than Fogleman was willing to admit?
    I can't cite specific examples but I am pretty assured in my assumption that had ANY officer were suspected of banging the dependant husband of a member of the officer’s squadron, particularly if that member was pregnant that at the very least, a no-contact order would have been issued. I frankly, at the time considered that she was lucky in receiving the warning (no-contact order) and that for whatever reason (possible arrogance) she chose to ignore the order and continued banging who she wanted to bang.
    ___________________
    Read carefully, think, then write thoughtfully……………………………..

    I don’t have any quotes……you can pick one for yourself

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •