Wow, AFA Losing Cadets!

[MombaBomba]

As far as where the lines are that can be crossed, the cadets are counseled when their performance in whatever area, is substandard. The academy isn't going to publish an article or website listing all of their standards. Just like most job interviews don't tell you why you didn't get the job. Or why "At Will" employees aren't always told why they are being let go. It's not important that the academy post or publish some place all of their standards. What is important, is that the cadets know what is expected of them. That they are counseled when their performance doesn't meet standards. And that they know what will happen if they don't improve. And I assure you, the cadets know these things. They may not like them. They may not agree with the evaluation sometimes. But they do know them. And because these cadets are either legal adults of 18 years or greater; or they are emancipated individuals who signed the paper with their parents permission; that's all that matters.

It isn't about if it was the right decision or if the basic is counseled enough or properly. It isn't even about a specified published list. I don't think any of us civilian parents expected something that detailed. At least, I did not expect that. It is about the type of thing that can get someone kicked out, outside of the obvious (stealing, cheating, drugs etc..) from the academy before Acceptance.

For instance, an attitude problem. What constitutes an attitude problem? I know as a civilian what I would consider crossing the line, but at the Academy and in the military that line may be different.

We cut injuries by over a third, beat the record for inprocessing by 2 hours, and had a Form 34 rate less than a half a percent higher than last year, including the much greater number of basics who were found unfit to enter the wing by a board at the end of the summer.

(The emphasis is mine)

What constitutes being unfit to enter the wing by a board? As a civilian, I am confused. The way I interpret the statement above implies that the basic is physically unfit. How would a basic be disqualified based upon physical fitness as the basic had to achieve a minimal CFA score to be accepted and basics can be placed in recondo if they fail to meet the PFT minimal standards during the PFT/AFT tests. I understand turn backs due to injury or even a serious enough injury resulting in medical disqualification, but I don't understand how a cadet can be "unfit" enough to be disqualified, unless "unfit" encompasses more than just "physical fitness."

This isn't about questioning the Academy's or military's authority or their judgement. This is an attempt understand the environment and expectations.

 

[MemberLG]

My guess is that it is more than physical fitness. For West Point, new cadets receive military grade for the basic training and can be boarded for conduct issue (a class mate of mine made an inappropriate suggestion for our class motto and was the first to walk the area).

 

[Patience]

I took the time to aggregate all of the questions I saw since my last post and will answer each here as I am able.

Where did the encouragement to step up the mental game come from?
It came from all in charge of BCT. The policies governing standards in BCT were written to be a little more strict so that a Basic would not get away with repeated failures to perform. Cadre were detailed oriented 100% of the time to induce mental stress. In past years there would be times when certain things would slide but cadre were trained more intensively to spot errors. Additionally, time was built into the schedule to allow for talks (and I honestly mean talks, not yelling) where cadre, AOCs, and AMTs discussed the military and its implications with the Basics.

What are some of the things that can result in a Basic not being Accepted?
Medical Turnback/Medical Discharge (rare), extreme cases of low physical performance coupled with lack of improvement, extreme cases of failing to maintain Air Force height and weight standards coupled with lack of improvement, severe disciplinary or UCMJ action, severe attitude issues coupled with counseling and failure to improve, and failure to complete the required number of days of training. I would not say this list is exhaustive but that covers everything I’ve seen. Waivers are available for almost all of these situations.

What constitutes a bad attitude?
This one is obviously hard to quantify but it usually came down to someone who was still trying to “be the hot shot” in BCT. That may sound strange but the military doesn’t have room for someone who thinks they don’t ever need to be told what to do, are better than this, etc. People who have a problem with follwership and act accordingly without improvement fall in this category. If you cannot be taught and don't want to try and change to let the Academy teach you the most basic things, then you are negatively affecting the training of those around you.

General Question: I thought basics couldn’t fail…
They can. They may meet a Summer Training Review Committee if they are found to meet one or possibly an unnamed criteria from the “not being Accepted” question. They are involuntarily separated and sent home. Just because someone makes it in here does not mean they deserve to make it through. We have standards and beginning with the Class of 2018, those standards started to be enforced with consequences at the end of BCT.

Side note: Stealing and cheating may not get you kicked out. The Honor Process hands out various punishments, not always disenrollment.

How can they be failing physically if they take the CFA?
The CFA is a portion of their entry score, not its entirety. Some people with exceptional achievement in one area may get by with lower CFA scores, just like some athletes get by with lower grades. It almost always averages out and people do fine. However, when you have someone scoring below a 20 out of 500 (226 is minimum) on the Cadet Physical Fitness Test, they are monitored more closely. If they don’t improve, depending on how well they are doing on everything else, they may be dismissed.

 

[USAFA83GradWife]

Thank you Patience. That was very informative.

 

[Kanye's Dad's Sock Puppet]

I took the time to aggregate all of the questions I saw since my last post and will answer each here as I am able.

Where did the encouragement to step up the mental game come from?
It came from all in charge of BCT. The policies governing standards in BCT were written to be a little more strict so that a Basic would not get away with repeated failures to perform. Cadre were detailed oriented 100% of the time to induce mental stress. In past years there would be times when certain things would slide but cadre were trained more intensively to spot errors. Additionally, time was built into the schedule to allow for talks (and I honestly mean talks, not yelling) where cadre, AOCs, and AMTs discussed the military and its implications with the Basics.

Patience,

Respectfully that is maybe more unintended obfuscation than a direct answer to the question. You originally stated that there was encouragement to "up the mental game." What some posted in terms of individuals being isolated to be weeded out might be seen as consistent with that. "Isolated is my paraphrase and there may be a better term but you can understand broadly what the complaint/accusation was and how that, if accurate, might be viewed by some as different than past practice or even over a line. In this response you state "cadre were detail orientated 100% of the time to induce mental stress." I doubt few would disagree that is appropriate and clear. That is why I asked and would still like a direct answer if possible: I am interested to know where "encouragement" came from and how was it communicated? Was that decision made by 4C cadets or commissioned officers? Was that encouragement outlined in written directives regarding BCT training or all done word of mouth?

In your earlier post you implied a fairly high level of authority when stating: "The "cadre discipline" issues all crossed my desk." I am therefore assuming you would be able to directly answer the questions above and I am not trying to pin you down. I really am interested to understand. There is a difference if the encouragement came from 4C or commissioned officers in charge just as there is if its written or verbal communication. A direct answer provides insight to the extent the encouragement was ordained (4C vs commissioned), and to the extent the encouragement had bounds that could be understood and consistently applied (verbal vs written). This is the kind of thing I would think and hope you would want to shed the light of day on.

Thanks if you are able to further clarify.

 

[USAFA83GradWife]

That is why I asked and would still like a direct answer if possible: I am interested to know where "encouragement" came from and how was it communicated? Was that decision made by 4C cadets or commissioned officers? Was that encouragement outlined in written directives regarding BCT training or all done word of mouth?

I'm assuming you actually meant C1 cadets? Those are the seniors. The freshmen/doolies are C4C.

At the risk of being flamed big time (flame-retardant suit is on): this is the military after all and IMHO, so long as its communicated, what does it matter if it was a written or verbal directive? If an order was given, should it not be followed regardless of medium?

Honestly, I'm trying to figure out what the point of those questions might be?

 

[Kanye's Dad's Sock Puppet]

Yes; C1. I am brain dead. Got the plague in middle of summer and its killing me. Thanks for the correction.

No flame suit needed. Homey don't play that. Happy to explain. I actually thought I did.

My point is if you were to verbally tell a bunch of 20 year olds in charge of a group of younger kids to "up the mental game" and nothing more specific, I think its not unlikely that you would see behavior that ranged from being "detail orientated 100% of the time to induce mental stress" to something more extreme that somebody could view as over a line.

I could easily be wrong but I would be willing to bet that if the commisioned officers running USAFA wanted the cadre to up the mental game on the new cadets, that they would have the experience to consider that such a statement could be viewed and acted on in widely varying ways and therefore would have likely provided some form of written guidelines.

 

[MemberLG]

At the risk of being flamed big time (flame-retardant suit is on): this is the military after all and IMHO, so long as its communicated, what does it matter if it was a written or verbal directive? If an order was given, should it not be followed regardless of medium?

Yes, if the order is clear and legal.

Unless it's a clear legal order, how an order is communicate is very important. There is a big difference between an order and a suggestion. The original quote is "Cadre were also encouraged to step up the mental game." From my perspective (Army background) - "encourage" and "mental game" are not words I expect to see in an order.

So if I was a cadre member being told such, I would have exercise my personal judgement and act accordingly.

 

[USAFA83GradWife]

So if I was a cadre member being told such, I would have exercise my personal judgement and act accordingly.

Makes sense and exactly what I would expect.

I'm afraid we're going to get into a discussion again about who determines what is good personal judgement, how do you know that the cadre are acting within legal bounds, etc.

Just some background: My DD was one of those "targeted" last year because she sustained hidden injuries -- well, hidden to the cadre and her squad. The medical staff found them to be significant! So, she was placed under quite a bit of mental stress during that time. I can completely empathize! I didn't like it and DH didn't like it. Of course we didn't! We're her parents! My DH said it was worse watching her go through that than going through it himself. But she survived it and her first year. She is now thriving at the Academy and even got on the Supt's list. She has also mentioned that she "gets it." She may have done things differently were she the cadre, but that experience will make her a better leader because she now as empathy. She's even admitted that there were some "fun things" during BCT -- which she NEVER would have said a year ago. The process isn't perfect & it gets tweaked and changed every year. Personalities make for different BCT experiences -- personalities of the cadre AND of the basics. Cadets must learn how to survive in a tough, mentally challenging environment. I don't want my daughter in a war time situation freaking out because she can't handle the mental stress. Those around her will depend on her being steady and strong in the face of adversity.

 

[Kanye's Dad's Sock Puppet]

I don't want my daughter in a war time situation freaking out because she can't handle the mental stress. Those around her will depend on her being steady and strong in the face of adversity.

For sure. But is the USAFA there to teach her over 4 years how to be that leader that is steady and strong in the face of adversity, or to use mental pressure to isolate and weed somebody out who is not at that point 4 weeks in? I think I know what any commissioned officer at USAFA would say.

A lot of this is going to be a judgment call. My question is around judgment call. I am giving the benefit of the doubt to USAFA. I really can't imagine a commissioned officer giving cadre verbal direction to "up the mental game" with no further guidance. That strikes me as a recipie for potential trouble that most any seasoned leader would see coming from a mile away and want to mitigate. I doubt it happened that way. That's why I asked who provided the guidance (commissioned officer or not) and was there any written guidelines.

Patience presented himself as an authority. Its not hard question and I would guess its not what USAFA would do. But I welcome correction from Patience if I am wrong.

Do not read too much of a value judgment into this. Its a simple question and fact. Yes or no. Black or white. Either answer is a learning.

 

[MemberLG]

I'm afraid we're going to get into a discussion again about who determines what is good personal judgement, how do you know that the cadre are acting within legal bounds, etc.

Well, this is where we have to take a leap of faith that majority of cadre will do the right thing. In a year or two, these cadre will be commissioned and serving possible making life and death decisions.

There are bad cadres that will become bad officers, but in the military most things are designed based on the norms, not the exceptions.

 

[Christcorp]

Some points:
1. The cadets are dealing with Mental and Physical games (Challenges) their entire 4 years there.
2. The Mental and Physical games during BCT have a totally different purpose than the rest of the 4 years.
3. During BCT, trainees aren't being taught how to be "Leaders" or "Officers". Actually, more the opposite. Totally different purpose.
4. During the balance of their 4 years after BCT, cadets are being gradually taught how to be a leader, how to handle adversity, how to make decisions, etc. Different than any similar training during BCT
5. Never believe that the Cadre running BCT are given complete free reign to do as they please, and that the AOC's and AMT's (Real officers and NCO) are taking the summer off. They are well aware of the progress of the BCT trainees.
6. The Cadre are well trained in how to operate BCT and how to train the trainees.
7. Once a C4C makes it through BCT and becomes part of the Wing, the academy does everything they can, depending on the situation, to keep that individual in the academy. They don't like investing and wasting money and resources just to kick someone out. But equally true, during BCT, they will give the trainees the knowledge and the opportunity to succeed, but the academy is not going to spend as much effort or resources on keeping a BCT trainee as they would a current member of the cadet wing.

These facts are obviously debatable. But I won't debate them. Some may think it's too easy to kick someone out of BCT or there isn't enough "Encouragement" to stop them from quitting. I also won't debate that. I'm personally fine with it. The academy, and the military in general (To include enlisted basic training and tech school), is not a "Jobs Program" and it's not a "College Program". Cadets, enlisted, active duty, will definitely receive some quality education. Most will receive college degrees and/or college credit. They will/can learn some very valuable skills. Skills and education that can help them when they leave the military. But that isn't the military's goal or purpose. The education and skills are simply tools the military gives individuals, so those individuals can do the "Job" that the "Military Needs Them to Do". No other reason whatsoever. NONE.

 

[MombaBomba]

Yes, if the order is clear and legal.

Just a quick question. Does something have to be in writing to be considered clear and legal in the military world? If an order is given verbally, does it then need to be documented at some point in time for it to be clear and legal? Or is that only if the order will result in actions/consequences that are outside the usual or expected boundaries?

With all the latest UCMJ issues on the news (cadet, generals, officers, etc..). It made me wonder what is and isn't considered "clear and legal".

(editors note: In the civilian world, the outlook seems to be if there is no law specifically designed to address it, then it is legal. I don't know if the military operates the same way. And clear is basically "in the eyes of the beholder" or how good the attorney is at muddying the water )

 

[MemberLG]

Yes, if the order is clear and legal.

Just a quick question. Does something have to be in writing to be considered clear and legal in the military world? If an order is given verbally, does it then need to be documented at some point in time for it to be clear and legal? Or is that only if the order will result in actions/consequences that are outside the usual or expected boundaries?

With all the latest UCMJ issues on the news (cadet, generals, officers, etc..). It made me wonder what is and isn't considered "clear and legal".

I am not a military lawyer, but I am pretty sure that something doesn't have to be in writing to be considered clear and legal in the military world, subsequently don't have to documented later on if a verbal order was given.

Order #1 - "pass the inspection and I don't care how you pass it." I would say this is unclear and possibly illegal order.
Order #2, "prioritize your efforts to pass the upoming inspection." I would say this is better than #1, acceptable
Order #3, "conduct a pre-inspection to determine what we need to do to pass the upcoming inspection and let me know." I would say this is better than #2, clear and legal.

I could make up things to show what I think are clear and legal orders, but we can't create a template or standard on what clear and legal orders is as there are too many situation or scenarios. Again, the normal is that leaders know what clear and legal orders and receivers know what the clear and legal orders are. We start running into problems when there is misunderstanding.

As for some of the UCMJ issues, don't take a legalistic view of it. Of course offenders are going say I didn't to anything illegal, but they might agree to doing something they shouldn't have done. Think about about Mrs. Clinton and her email. Her first response is something like I didn't do anything illegal.

 

[MombaBomba]

I am not a military lawyer, but I am pretty sure that something doesn't have to be in writing to be considered clear and legal in the military world, subsequently don't have to documented later on if a verbal order was given.

Thanks.!

So does the military work the same way as the civilian world when it comes to unclear vs. clear? This seems to be the scale in the civilian world
unclear---------plausible deniability------------crystal clear

Do they use that in the military too?

 

[Christcorp]

The military has a whole list of AFI. Air Force instructions. These are in writing. But the military allows vagueness, for the sole purpose of NOT getting caught up in a legalistic world in a soldier, airman, etc. doesn't follow an order.

In the civilian world, you are free to say NO to your boss. Free to quit. Free to not do something. The military doesn't have that luxury. Unless it's an order that is a direct safety issue, illegal (which are spelled out), or has moral issues (that you will have to address or be kicked out), you can't just say no. You will go to jail or be court martialled. That's why the regulations allow for charges to be as simple and vague as "disobeying a lawful order" or "unbecoming of an officer/airman".

This is also why in a civilian job, they don't have any say so on your non working hours. As long as you come to work and do your job, all is good. The military is 24/7/365. You can get in trouble and/or kicked out for what you do on your off time.

So now, the military doesn't have to be as clear as the civilian world. There are many rules in the regulations and ucmj which are pretty specific. But there are definitely generalizations that must be followed.

 

[MombaBomba]

This is also why in a civilian job, they don't have any say so on your non working hours. As long as you come to work and do your job, all is good. The military is 24/7/365. You can get in trouble and/or kicked out for what you do on your off time.

On the civilian aspect, that is not quite true. The employer can have a say though it is usually not spelled out in writing, but implied. People have been fired for "after work" activities depending on the "magnitude" of the activity. I have read a couple of private civilian corporation employment contracts that stipulate behaviors which are grounds for immediate dismissal, and the scope of that behavior included those that occur on "personal" time. The difference between the military and civilian employers is the military is far more upfront, open, direct and honest about this. Also, the military tends to have far higher personal conduct rules than the civilian world.

 

[LineInTheSand]

How unlikely is it that upperclassmen did what they were allowed to do, some freshman couldn't handle it, quit and make up excuses to their parents and friends after they're safely 1,000 miles away from where the truth can be provided?

 

[Christcorp]

Momba. I do agree. Some civilian jobs don't necessarily have a say so in what you do on your off time, but if your actions have a direct or indirect impact on the company, their reputation, your job performance, etc, they can definitely have a say so.

In the military, you better be real careful on what you do in your off time. I received a reprimand for getting a really bad sunburn. "Destruction of government property". I could still perform my job. But I was disciplined non the less. My roommate received a reprimand for being involved in a protest. If your civilian job didn't require you to drive a vehicle, and you made it to work, your employer doesn't care. Get a DWI in the military and see what happens.

Bottom line, there are a lot of rules and policies that aren't necessary written down on the military. So the airman has to think....., "will this have any impact or be interpreted as having an impact on the military, it's public image, or reputation"? It gets even more complicated overseas when you have to also not insult the local country and their customs. Create an incident there, and you'll be disciplined for that to. Even though it may not be a big deal in the USA.

 

[MemberLG]

So does the military work the same way as the civilian world when it comes to unclear vs. clear? This seems to be the scale in the civilian world
unclear---------plausible deniability------------crystal clear

Do they use that in the military too?

Yes, one way explain it. Pretty much almost everything else in life has something in te middle.

This discussion reminds me of the Honor Code. A lesson I learned was not to think about if I am violating the honor code or not, rather is it right or wrong thing to do. Of course, we could get into whole another discussion about what's right or wrong . . .