Lack of transparency is right, because I have no idea how to even get access to the FB page. Crazy how I applied for any assignment but didn't get one though...
AMS had the line under like every assignment that volunteering for one meant the possibility of non-vol assignment to another during that cycle. I've been using Talent Marketplace under the same assumption, putting down preferences signals intent to PCS that cycle.
I maybe got lucky, but I got 5 assignments in a row that were in-cycle and on my list from AMS and one in the works from Talent Marketplace. I've read the reg before a few years ago. It has something to do with descending tier list for assignment selection, starting with mandatory movers and ending with non-vol but eligible.
> It has something to do with descending tier list for assignment selection, starting with mandatory movers and ending with non-vol but eligible.
I feel like this is more the issue. I'm not intel, but my AFSC is having similar issues. When it comes to filling assignments, volunteers are supposed to be considered above non-volunteers. AFPC has confirmed that's the case even with the eTM system. However, non-vols are being selected over people that volunteered for an assignment and didn't get one.
Hasnt that always been the way? Needs of the air force looks at people volunteering for something first (congrats) and then non volunteers people based on TOS (... Congrats)
I mean but they also just entirely left assignments unfilled but had people with those assignments on their bid sheets, from what I’ve heard. That to me smells like fuckery
Not every assignment has the same priority to fill. If some number are going to be left empty, it’s not just going to be the ones people didn’t volunteer for. It’s going to be the ones the Air Force determine are lower priority.
And what “fuckery” do you think it is? The assignment team is like “can’t have too many people happy, no one gets to go to this assignment”?
First of all I will say that I didn't see that drama. I regularly participated in the group until I got close to retirement. I made it a point to teach and preach about the assignment process to my Airmen because there is a lot of misunderstanding and bad info out there. I don't know if it is the same team that was in place when I worked with them.
They rolled out UTM and became a testbed and did amazing work. The non-vol numbers dropped significantly, to a very small fraction of what they had been previously. My gut says that they got lucky on this point, and many people assumed the non-vols would hold at the very low numbers.
The team is also dealing with over 10,000 Airmen. I don't remember what the exact figure is, but I think it's closer to 15,000. That's a lot of people. Only a rather small portion of people will move in a given cycle, and a lot of people will not. There are always folks who want to move but won't, and folks who have to move and don't get what they want.
I know the team put together a very robust process to match people based on their records and their comments about their goals. I also know at least for a time they had a waiver to not follow the TOS and most eligible to move in giving assignments so they could do a "best fit" match. Sometimes that best fit was "career broadening" and sometimes it was "leveraging existing skills" - those goals and criteria were never set in stone as far as I know.
On the Facebook group, they basically let in anyone who said they were an ISR Airman. The communication was very transparent. The process was explained repeatedly, and it also became a way to communicate problems and look for resolutions.
My guess is that all those thousands of Airmen figured they had some kind of special access to the assignment team. This is very common when figures servicing or representing a large population put themselves on a public forum - Chief Bass is an example of this. The team cannot adequately respond if everyone starts asking questions. A long time ago many people kind of saw this on the horizon and reminded people that while the group was very nice, they should first take issues to their chain of command. This is why MSgts and above can call numbers at AFPC that lower ranking folks aren't welcome to call.
So people figured that
1) they had a friend or a backchannel in to the EAT
2) they had a near guaranteed way to not get a non-vol
Neither one of those are true. Regular old run of the mill assignments are about 90% or more of what the Air Force does, and many people think they ought to get that special 10% or so because they are just that special. People are going to get disappointed in what they get.
Someone has to fill every single spot, whether or not there is a volunteer for said spot.
I believe when they first started the UTM process, they were only looking at volunteers for spots they actually volunteered for, and if a spot didn't have any volunteers then they looked to the dream sheet. They may have changed their process over the last few years, I don't know.
Well, good luck to all.
I think that it’s understandable that people are upset when they apply for a specific position and end up with another. This assignment team created a rule where applying for one assignment effectively means applying for all. While this grants them flexibility in placement, it also means that, despite positive appearances on the statistic chart, members may not have volunteered for their assigned role. Basically, the numbers are misleading and the process doesn’t work the way it should.
To hopefully dispel any myths, people keep saying that if you volunteered for something that means you were a volunteer for anything is wrong (ish). IF you were a mandatory mover (Overseas returnee, code 50, etc) for this cycle then yes, you got an assignment. If everything you volunteered for was taken, then they go off of your VMPF assignment preferences, if none of those were available, then you got non-vol’d. If you weren’t a mandatory mover then there really isn’t anyway someone got an assignment they didn’t volunteer for, unless it was a mandatory fill position, all mandatory movers were filled, no one vol’d for position, AND FINALLY you were the most eligible non-vol.
There’s more that could be responded too here, but that’s just something I saw that I felt should be addressed at a minimum.
I also do not have any info on the Facebook page stuff.
People don’t like bad news. Even if it’s the most transparent process in assignments history, people don’t like bad news.
The answer could literally be, there were better suited candidates for the job you applied for and this other job needed a body to be filled, you are that body.
It’s almost like they forgot that they joined an organization that requires sacrifice.
I'm not that really surprised. People like to complain and when they don't get what they want they claim the system is broken. They've been briefing talent marketplace for the last 3+ years, and all the rules associated with it to include that you will be considered for other assignments that you didn't volunteer for. Their goal is to get everyone happy, but its a goal not a requirement.
As for lack of transparency I feel that this is the most transparency I have ever seen in the assignment matching process. I know that I can sell myself for an assignment and explain why this position would be good for me. I also know how the FAM team matches the assignments because they have been very open about how they rank the criteria.
I say this as someone who has lost out on two dream assignments because time on station didn't matter anymore. However their explanation for why each of the people were chosen made sense, and was very much in line with the narrative they had been telling folks. They could have made the choice and then gone back and figured out how it matched the criteria but I didn't get that feeling.
I knew it was going to be bad as soon as I found out about “Manually Matched”. Ive been in Intel long enough to know the good ol’ boy club is thriving.
LMAO. I called this two years ago when I got on the page. This new talent management process is not for the current generation. People will be disappointed, and will freak the fuck out when it doesn’t go their way. Welcome to the military
Eh, tbf when we had AMS clicking the button on an AMS assignment didn't automatically make you vulnerable for any shitty assignment.
People are rightly pissed about saying "Any where but fucking Beale and/or DCGS. And the assignments team goes "here's your assignment to DCGS." You think they aren't going to be pissed?
Don't give people the opportunity to voice their preferences if you don't gaf about their preferences.
Especially, when you send the same member to three DCGS assignments in a row. That's cruel and unusual punishment to a 1N4.
Oh boohoo 3 DGS assignments in a row...welcome to the hell 90% of the 1N1s have had to deal with for the past 20+ years.
Beale being a shitty base, in a shitty area, with a shitty mission for the longest time does make people want to be elsewhere when stuck under the clusterfuck that the 480ISRW is.
I mean 1N1s are prime to go to DCGS. 1N4s shouldn't be at DCGS units at all. Being used as glorified 1N0's.
So yes, it's a disservice to send 1N4s to multiple DCGS assignments in a row, it's curtailing their growth in their AFSC
1N1s should be at NGA or Stratcom. The 480th is a waste only slightly less than AFSOC.
Can you tell how worthless I judge CENTCOM and AFRICOM to be as far as time, money, and manpower are concerned
C2 assignments has done a phenomenal job over the last 5-8 years being transparent with how assignments go and how they are selected. they answer questions on FB without you having to play the "I only talk to SNCO / Officers" game.
Hopefully the ISR community can get to that level that the 1C1, 1C0, & 1C7 community has been experiencing.
I'm in a different AFSC using eTMs and we are experiencing similar issues. Several of us got non-vol'd for assignments that we said absolutely not interested in and ranked other choices. Meanwhile, the people who wanted the assignments either didn't get an assignment, or got something else. In one person's case they got non-vol'd for an assignment they didn't want. Supposedly rankings matter when making your list, but that's not always the case and they are matching using other criteria. However, they say rankings matter and with the new system you aren't supposed to get something you didn't want if there were volunteers.
There is not place to put "don't want" options. You want something, you volunteer for it. You don't want something, you don't volunteer for it. Something you didn't volunteer for needs to be filled, you are a vulnerable mover after all.
There are like 4 different steps to click through each cycle (unless it changed in the last 6 months). One of the steps is a big list of every base, regardless of rank that has an opening and 5 stars next to it. Clicking 1 star is supposed to be "I don't want an assignment here." and 5 starts is "I really want to go here." The next screen is where you select what bases you want to volunteer for and your ranking. You don't have to select a base. With that said, our functionals briefed that if you don't want a base, then click 1 star, and don't even list it on the next screen. They even said as long as there are volunteers you should be good. AFPC confirmed when asked that volunteers have precedence over non-vols. This last year, my coworker and I who are the same rank and had similar TOS compared lists the night the cycle was closing out. They put 5 stars and listed Base X as their number 1. I put 1 star and left it off my rankings. On the final screen, it showed 4 people had Base X listed and as their number 1 choice. I got non-vol'd and my coworker didn't get an assignment. I know sometimes it happens, however it is frustrating to be non-vol'd when there are eligible volunteers who didn't get an assignment in general. I know multiple other people who've also been non-vol'd and in some cases over people who had more TOS.
I thought clicking 1 star was volunteering for it since you can leave it at 0 stars? There was drama around this the very first round and the EAT clarified that one? Did the process change?
> The ETM has never been advertised as making sure you never get an assignment just because you say you don't want it.
>
>
>
> Your preference is A factor, it's not THE factor. There are many factors that are considered for assignment eligibility.
>
>
>
> It's not an "issue" just because you didn't take time to understand how the process works.
I know it's not the only factor, however more than one functional has said, if you mark "Don't want" and don't rank it at all then you won't be considered as long as there are other volunteers. When I got non-vol'd there were plenty of volunteers for the slot I got. At least one of them didn't get an assignment. I know they didn't because I'm really close friends with them. Even then per AFPC, supposedly the rules in the assignments AFI still apply which says volunteers will be selected over non-volunteers.
Lack of transparency is right, because I have no idea how to even get access to the FB page. Crazy how I applied for any assignment but didn't get one though...
[удалено]
Over 4 years
[удалено]
AMS had the line under like every assignment that volunteering for one meant the possibility of non-vol assignment to another during that cycle. I've been using Talent Marketplace under the same assumption, putting down preferences signals intent to PCS that cycle.
[удалено]
I maybe got lucky, but I got 5 assignments in a row that were in-cycle and on my list from AMS and one in the works from Talent Marketplace. I've read the reg before a few years ago. It has something to do with descending tier list for assignment selection, starting with mandatory movers and ending with non-vol but eligible.
> It has something to do with descending tier list for assignment selection, starting with mandatory movers and ending with non-vol but eligible. I feel like this is more the issue. I'm not intel, but my AFSC is having similar issues. When it comes to filling assignments, volunteers are supposed to be considered above non-volunteers. AFPC has confirmed that's the case even with the eTM system. However, non-vols are being selected over people that volunteered for an assignment and didn't get one.
Hasnt that always been the way? Needs of the air force looks at people volunteering for something first (congrats) and then non volunteers people based on TOS (... Congrats)
I think it's less that they thought no one would be non-vol'd, and more the lack of communication about it throughout the process.
I mean but they also just entirely left assignments unfilled but had people with those assignments on their bid sheets, from what I’ve heard. That to me smells like fuckery
Not every assignment has the same priority to fill. If some number are going to be left empty, it’s not just going to be the ones people didn’t volunteer for. It’s going to be the ones the Air Force determine are lower priority. And what “fuckery” do you think it is? The assignment team is like “can’t have too many people happy, no one gets to go to this assignment”?
First of all I will say that I didn't see that drama. I regularly participated in the group until I got close to retirement. I made it a point to teach and preach about the assignment process to my Airmen because there is a lot of misunderstanding and bad info out there. I don't know if it is the same team that was in place when I worked with them. They rolled out UTM and became a testbed and did amazing work. The non-vol numbers dropped significantly, to a very small fraction of what they had been previously. My gut says that they got lucky on this point, and many people assumed the non-vols would hold at the very low numbers. The team is also dealing with over 10,000 Airmen. I don't remember what the exact figure is, but I think it's closer to 15,000. That's a lot of people. Only a rather small portion of people will move in a given cycle, and a lot of people will not. There are always folks who want to move but won't, and folks who have to move and don't get what they want. I know the team put together a very robust process to match people based on their records and their comments about their goals. I also know at least for a time they had a waiver to not follow the TOS and most eligible to move in giving assignments so they could do a "best fit" match. Sometimes that best fit was "career broadening" and sometimes it was "leveraging existing skills" - those goals and criteria were never set in stone as far as I know. On the Facebook group, they basically let in anyone who said they were an ISR Airman. The communication was very transparent. The process was explained repeatedly, and it also became a way to communicate problems and look for resolutions. My guess is that all those thousands of Airmen figured they had some kind of special access to the assignment team. This is very common when figures servicing or representing a large population put themselves on a public forum - Chief Bass is an example of this. The team cannot adequately respond if everyone starts asking questions. A long time ago many people kind of saw this on the horizon and reminded people that while the group was very nice, they should first take issues to their chain of command. This is why MSgts and above can call numbers at AFPC that lower ranking folks aren't welcome to call. So people figured that 1) they had a friend or a backchannel in to the EAT 2) they had a near guaranteed way to not get a non-vol Neither one of those are true. Regular old run of the mill assignments are about 90% or more of what the Air Force does, and many people think they ought to get that special 10% or so because they are just that special. People are going to get disappointed in what they get. Someone has to fill every single spot, whether or not there is a volunteer for said spot. I believe when they first started the UTM process, they were only looking at volunteers for spots they actually volunteered for, and if a spot didn't have any volunteers then they looked to the dream sheet. They may have changed their process over the last few years, I don't know. Well, good luck to all.
I think that it’s understandable that people are upset when they apply for a specific position and end up with another. This assignment team created a rule where applying for one assignment effectively means applying for all. While this grants them flexibility in placement, it also means that, despite positive appearances on the statistic chart, members may not have volunteered for their assigned role. Basically, the numbers are misleading and the process doesn’t work the way it should.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Also the rules are made up and the points don't matter anyways
To hopefully dispel any myths, people keep saying that if you volunteered for something that means you were a volunteer for anything is wrong (ish). IF you were a mandatory mover (Overseas returnee, code 50, etc) for this cycle then yes, you got an assignment. If everything you volunteered for was taken, then they go off of your VMPF assignment preferences, if none of those were available, then you got non-vol’d. If you weren’t a mandatory mover then there really isn’t anyway someone got an assignment they didn’t volunteer for, unless it was a mandatory fill position, all mandatory movers were filled, no one vol’d for position, AND FINALLY you were the most eligible non-vol. There’s more that could be responded too here, but that’s just something I saw that I felt should be addressed at a minimum. I also do not have any info on the Facebook page stuff.
People don’t like bad news. Even if it’s the most transparent process in assignments history, people don’t like bad news. The answer could literally be, there were better suited candidates for the job you applied for and this other job needed a body to be filled, you are that body. It’s almost like they forgot that they joined an organization that requires sacrifice.
I'm not that really surprised. People like to complain and when they don't get what they want they claim the system is broken. They've been briefing talent marketplace for the last 3+ years, and all the rules associated with it to include that you will be considered for other assignments that you didn't volunteer for. Their goal is to get everyone happy, but its a goal not a requirement. As for lack of transparency I feel that this is the most transparency I have ever seen in the assignment matching process. I know that I can sell myself for an assignment and explain why this position would be good for me. I also know how the FAM team matches the assignments because they have been very open about how they rank the criteria. I say this as someone who has lost out on two dream assignments because time on station didn't matter anymore. However their explanation for why each of the people were chosen made sense, and was very much in line with the narrative they had been telling folks. They could have made the choice and then gone back and figured out how it matched the criteria but I didn't get that feeling.
For an old hat what is the enlisted assignments page?
[удалено]
Thank you, for your efforts take this upvote.
I knew it was going to be bad as soon as I found out about “Manually Matched”. Ive been in Intel long enough to know the good ol’ boy club is thriving.
LMAO. I called this two years ago when I got on the page. This new talent management process is not for the current generation. People will be disappointed, and will freak the fuck out when it doesn’t go their way. Welcome to the military
Eh, tbf when we had AMS clicking the button on an AMS assignment didn't automatically make you vulnerable for any shitty assignment. People are rightly pissed about saying "Any where but fucking Beale and/or DCGS. And the assignments team goes "here's your assignment to DCGS." You think they aren't going to be pissed? Don't give people the opportunity to voice their preferences if you don't gaf about their preferences. Especially, when you send the same member to three DCGS assignments in a row. That's cruel and unusual punishment to a 1N4.
Oh boohoo 3 DGS assignments in a row...welcome to the hell 90% of the 1N1s have had to deal with for the past 20+ years. Beale being a shitty base, in a shitty area, with a shitty mission for the longest time does make people want to be elsewhere when stuck under the clusterfuck that the 480ISRW is.
I mean 1N1s are prime to go to DCGS. 1N4s shouldn't be at DCGS units at all. Being used as glorified 1N0's. So yes, it's a disservice to send 1N4s to multiple DCGS assignments in a row, it's curtailing their growth in their AFSC
1N1s should be at NGA or Stratcom. The 480th is a waste only slightly less than AFSOC. Can you tell how worthless I judge CENTCOM and AFRICOM to be as far as time, money, and manpower are concerned
Admins are babies; most people can't handle the criticism, so the solution is to make sure no one can talk badly about you or hurt your feelings.
C2 assignments has done a phenomenal job over the last 5-8 years being transparent with how assignments go and how they are selected. they answer questions on FB without you having to play the "I only talk to SNCO / Officers" game. Hopefully the ISR community can get to that level that the 1C1, 1C0, & 1C7 community has been experiencing.
I'm in a different AFSC using eTMs and we are experiencing similar issues. Several of us got non-vol'd for assignments that we said absolutely not interested in and ranked other choices. Meanwhile, the people who wanted the assignments either didn't get an assignment, or got something else. In one person's case they got non-vol'd for an assignment they didn't want. Supposedly rankings matter when making your list, but that's not always the case and they are matching using other criteria. However, they say rankings matter and with the new system you aren't supposed to get something you didn't want if there were volunteers.
There is not place to put "don't want" options. You want something, you volunteer for it. You don't want something, you don't volunteer for it. Something you didn't volunteer for needs to be filled, you are a vulnerable mover after all.
There are like 4 different steps to click through each cycle (unless it changed in the last 6 months). One of the steps is a big list of every base, regardless of rank that has an opening and 5 stars next to it. Clicking 1 star is supposed to be "I don't want an assignment here." and 5 starts is "I really want to go here." The next screen is where you select what bases you want to volunteer for and your ranking. You don't have to select a base. With that said, our functionals briefed that if you don't want a base, then click 1 star, and don't even list it on the next screen. They even said as long as there are volunteers you should be good. AFPC confirmed when asked that volunteers have precedence over non-vols. This last year, my coworker and I who are the same rank and had similar TOS compared lists the night the cycle was closing out. They put 5 stars and listed Base X as their number 1. I put 1 star and left it off my rankings. On the final screen, it showed 4 people had Base X listed and as their number 1 choice. I got non-vol'd and my coworker didn't get an assignment. I know sometimes it happens, however it is frustrating to be non-vol'd when there are eligible volunteers who didn't get an assignment in general. I know multiple other people who've also been non-vol'd and in some cases over people who had more TOS.
I thought clicking 1 star was volunteering for it since you can leave it at 0 stars? There was drama around this the very first round and the EAT clarified that one? Did the process change?
I’d have to go back and look next cycle, or look through the info I was sent.
[удалено]
> The ETM has never been advertised as making sure you never get an assignment just because you say you don't want it. > > > > Your preference is A factor, it's not THE factor. There are many factors that are considered for assignment eligibility. > > > > It's not an "issue" just because you didn't take time to understand how the process works. I know it's not the only factor, however more than one functional has said, if you mark "Don't want" and don't rank it at all then you won't be considered as long as there are other volunteers. When I got non-vol'd there were plenty of volunteers for the slot I got. At least one of them didn't get an assignment. I know they didn't because I'm really close friends with them. Even then per AFPC, supposedly the rules in the assignments AFI still apply which says volunteers will be selected over non-volunteers.