On The Threshold - Air Force Suicides

There has been a great deal of emphasis on suicides in the Air Force recently.  By that I mean several mandatory briefings led by mental health professionals who did so well in their training that they joined the military.  Speeches by chaplains fill in the rest, where they balance the line between what is appropriate to say and what is not, but make it clear that God prevents suicides.  I enjoy these briefings.  They bring me back in time to the third grade, just without the dolphin hand puppet.

The Air Force does have a problem with suicides, and the military overall.  A lot of people who joined have made the decision to take their own life.  I have encountered suicide a few times.  The first time was a kid in elementary school who asked his teacher if he could borrow a tie.  The teacher gave it to him, and the kid went home that night and hung himself with it.  I have no idea why a fourth grader would do such a thing, but I do remember that growing up in America was tough as a youngster.  It's a sad story.  When I was in college, my grandfather took his own life because his leg was going to be cut off and he didn't want to be a burden on others.  Or put another way, he demanded his independence as a condition for living.  This was the same man who in the Army Air Corps hit an officer with the butt of his weapon, and got kicked out.  He was fiercely independent and while he didn't always make the best decisions, he demanded he live life on his own terms.  I defended his decision to other family members who naturally were grieving and who used words like "selfish" to describe his action.  It was his life and he didn't want to live it anymore.  Agree or disagree, but it was his life.  To tell another they don't have the right to die is to tell them they don't own their own life.  As far as the military goes, I've only known one person to commit suicide.  He was a Major, good humored, funny, and he loved to kill the enemy and had a lot of experience doing so.  He killed himself on the day of his retirement after he was forced out at twenty.  He had children.  I don't understand his decision.

My personal view toward suicide is a bit different from the flavor I've seen in briefings.  First, I respect the individual's decision.  Second, in the off chance I'm given the opportunity to discuss their decision with them, I would weigh the pros and cons.  In most circumstances, the pros of living are much greater, I would guess, than the benefits of death.  Life can be a wonderful thing.  But it's not always peaches and dream for everybody, and it's important to not approach such a discussion with third grade insight.  I'm not going to take suicide off the table and treat the person like they're crazy or irrational for contemplating leaving life.  They're not, and the list of great and valuable people who have taken their own lives for valid reasons is long and distinguished.  We should be careful not to forget that our comfortable existence, and officer's paycheck, and the educated wife we met in college, and our winning lottery ticket in life's raffle are not shared by all people in the military, in the United States, and especially not around the world or throughout history.  Life is a struggle, and much more so for some people.

If the Air Force wants to do something useful to prevent suicide, then it needs to focus on educating airmen to make good life decisions that reduce stress.  There needs to be serious and mandatory financial training from the beginning of an airman's career.  Young airmen need to stop being treated like children who are made to live in dorms with inspections by their First Nanny, where the incentive to "grow up" and prove they are adults to their parents is fostered in another form.  We tell these youngsters that if they get married, then they can be like real adults and live off base and we'll even pay them more.  So they get married without thinking through one of life's most important decisions and the biggest cause of stress and feeling of entrapment of most any life decision.  Add a young immature wife with dreams of being married to the military, and you are almost guaranteed to add children and debt.  This is a recipe for disaster and stress.  Not for all, but for the least among us.  Then add on the sagging economy that many feel will crumble, the overwhelming dissatisfaction with our government representatives, long hours, deployments, and all the other problems that military life has to offer.  Airmen need options in their life to not feel trapped, and the Air Force in my experience seeks to box airmen in to make them feel trapped, to feel like they couldn't possibly leave the Air Force.  Where will you work?  You want to flip hamburgers and live on the street?  As the great Colonel John Boyd used to say, if you need nothing from the Air Force, then the Air Force can't take that away from you.

Or we could make airmen sign pledges not to kill themselves like certain Chinese iPad factories do.  Then again, perhaps we could learn from the deaths of those workers in China instead?  We don't like to admit that the same root causes could exist, but most airmen know that certainly can't be ruled out.  We need our leadership to realize it too.  They probably do.  We need them to act on it.

The current Air Force training and approach is a waste of time and perhaps counterproductive in my view.  We don't have the best mental health professionals, and those we train at the Base Theatre to go out and "save lives" might just do more harm than good with their snooty attitudes and their third grader approach to life's ultimate decision.  The Teacher in the book of Eccelesiastes, one of my favorite works of all time, examined the very question of suicide.  Attributed to the smartest man that ever lived, Solomon asked the question, "why is life worth living?"  The Teacher tells us that emptiness of emptiness, all is emptiness and says that better the man who has witnessed all the pain and oppression under the sun is the man who is now dead and doesn't have to witness it.  Better than both, he says, is the man who never was, and never will be, and who will never experience all the pain and oppression under the sun.  But Solomon later reasons that life is worth living because of the quest for knowledge and good friends.  Despite his conclusion, he still believes the man who never will exist has it better than he does.  Suicide is not a third grade matter.

I'll leave the reader with this poem I discovered in college in a class I took called Death and Dying.  For those airmen who feel they are experts ready to tackle the problems in another's life, please consider if you really have the life experiences to do so.  You don't want to be just another moron from an oppressive service under the sun, that has crowded somebody into leaving the room to get away from you.

On the Threshold

I am standing on the threshold of eternity at last,
As reckless of the future as I have been of the past;
I am void of all ambition, I am dead of every hope;
The coil of life is ended; I am letting go the rope.

I have drifted down the stream of life till weary, sore oppressed;
And I'm tired of all the motion and simply want a rest.
I have tasted all the pleasures that life can hold for man.
I have scanned the whole world over till there's nothing left to scan.

I have heard the finest music, I have read the rarest books,
I have drunk the purest vintage, I have tasted all the cooks;
I have run the scale of living and have sounded every tone,
There is nothing left to live for and I long to be alone.

Alone and unmolested where the vultures do not rave,
And the only refuge left me is the quiet, placid grave;
I am judge and jury mingled, and the verdict that I give
Is, that minus friends and money it is foolishness to live.

In a day or two my body will be found out in the lake;
The coroner will get a fee, and the printer get a "take";
The usual verdict-"Suicide, from causes yet unknown."
And Golgotha draws another blank, a mound without a stone.

To change the usual verdict I will give the reason now,
Before the rigid seal of death is stamped upon my brow.
'Tis the old familiar story of passion, love and crime,
Repeated thru the ages since Cleopatra's time.

A woman's lips, a woman's eye-a siren all in all,
A modem Circe fit to cause the strongest men to fall;
A wedded life, some blissful years, and poverty drops in
With care and doubt and liquor from whisky down to gin.

The story told by Tolstoi in comparison to mine
Is moonlight unto sunlight, as water unto wine;
The jealous pangs I suffered, the sleepless nights of woe
I pray no other mortal may ever undergo.

But I've said enough, I fancy, to make the reason plain-
Enough to show the causes of a shattered heart and brain;
What wonder then that life holds not a single thread to bind
A wish or hope to live for, an interest in mankind.

Already dead but living, a fact that I regret,
A man without desire excepting to forget,
And since there is denied me one, why should I linger here,
A dead leaf from the frost of a long-forgotten year?

So au revoir, old cronies; if there's a meeting place beyond,
I'll let you know in spirit, and I know you will respond;
I'm going now, old comrades, to heaven or to hell;
I'll let you know which shortly-farewell, a long farewell.

Perception of Whistle Blowing or Reality?

As most everybody knows now, a couple of F-22 pilots have gone public with their concerns over the stealth fighter's elusive ability to produce oxygen related problems for those who fly it.  They have been deemed whistle blowers.  But are they really?  I'm skeptical.

First, before their episode on 60 Minutes, several media sources reported on the upcoming episode while explaining that both pilots were talking to the media without permission from the Air Force.  Why would any media source include that tidbit?  If the Air Force didn't want them to speak out, why stoke the fire?  That is, of course, assuming there was fire to be found.  There wasn't.  There were no new revelations.  The jet has issues.  We already knew that.  Some pilots don't want to fly it.  That's perhaps new, but is that trinket of information worthy of going on 60 Minutes?  I don't think so.  These guys aren't whistle blowers, they didn't add anything substantially new to the public debate.  Or so it seems to me.

When I first saw the reports of the upcoming 60 Minutes episode, my initial suspicion was that this wasn't going to be a case of whistle blowing, and that the Air Force probably did in some way give these two permission to tell their "story" to the media.  Why?  Because it highlights a problem with an aircraft, and likely has some political or monetary benefits to highlighting issues with the service's poster child jet.  Beyond that, with all the repetitive throwing around of the term "whistle blower," I couldn't help but think about the recent GAO report that highlighted just how horrible the Air Force deals with whistle blower complaints.  This would be an easy opportunity for the service to look like it has improved, while at the same time pushing for some unknown agenda dealing with the F-22.  I figured nothing would happen to these pilots.  Maybe I'm just a cynic.

And then I saw this article just a couple days after the interview on CBS, F-22 Pilots To Get Whistle- Blower Protection.  Not only did the Air Force not punish them, but it went out of its way to make it known that it wasn't going to punish them.  So the media plays up the fact that they didn't have Air Force permission to speak on 60 Minutes, before the episode.  The episode itself doesn't say anything earth shattering, and doesn't add anything of real substance to the discussion.  Then after the episode, the Air Force makes sure everybody knows that they are "whistle blowers" and the Air Force will not punish them, in accordance with the law.

In my opinion, these F-22 pilots have found a new job working for Public Affairs.  They're not whistle blowers.  For a good discussion of what real a whistle blower does and endures, listen to Jesselyn Radack's presentation.

What Moral Courage Is, and Is Not

Moral courage is not physical courage.  It is not the act of pressing a button and ending the life of another.  It is not turning a wrench or loading a bomb.  Moral courage involves standing apart, telling the Wing Emperor he has no clothes, refusing an unlawful order, blowing the whistle on a crime, or taking another action based on principle.  A good litmus test to distinguish acting with moral courage, versus just doing your job, is to count the number of folks around you doing the same thing.  If others are doing the same as you, you may be doing something courageous, but you're likely just doing your job.  If you're the only one taking a stand for principle or for the law, and those around you aren't joining you (out of concern for their careers or financial well being), then it's possible you may be acting with moral courage.

This is an important distinction.  Some conveniently forget the meaning of words and phrases.  Language is often warped to avoid the truth behind words.   Some who are not morally courageous may try to pretend they are.  I see that often in the flying world, where simply doing the job is stretched into some sort of self delusional concept of courage.

Words matter.  When it comes to moral courage, we are not entitled to claim it, unless we actually have it.

Dave Blair - Ten Thousand Feet and Ten Thousand Miles

Major Dave Blair has been taking some flak recently, after an article he wrote in the Air & Space Power Journal, got picked up over at Time Magazine's website in a blog post entitled, Drone Pilots: We Don't Get No Respect.  Time's website didn't do him any favors with their article.  I know Dave, and in the past he has shared some of his thoughts on this blog.  He was a co-pilot in the Gunship after I left the squadron, but I got to know him later through online correspondence, and still later in person when I volunteered to join the RPA community.  Dave has some good ideas.  Most importantly, he is motivated to think and share his thoughts.  That's refreshing and important in our largely non-intellectual service community.  We do have some very serious differences, however, concerning our professed ideas and values, and our translation of those professed ideas and values into action for the good of the nation.   Still, Dave has some good stuff to offer, and he professes some excellent values that are necessary for overcoming many of the cultural challenges we face in the air service.  All that being said, I think he missed the mark in this article.

In the article above he essentially makes three key points.  First, that there is at least as much risk flying an RPA as there is flying a manned aircraft in a combat zone.  Second, that RPA operators should get the same medals that manned aircraft get in combat, to include the Air Medal and the Distinguished Flying Cross, if their actions result in saving lives on the ground through weapon employment.  Third, the message sent by medals, matters for developing the capability and community of a new weapon system.  I agree with his third point.

While I concur with Dave that the capability and the community has been poorly managed, I disagree on this particular solution.  RPA operators do not risk like those in manned aircraft do, and especially not manned aircraft in combat zones.  While our technology and the current state of affairs have made it relatively safe to fly in bad guy land, it can't be credibly argued that RPA operators experience as much operational risk.  As to medals, that is an area of opinion.  I agree with Dave that medals send a message, accurate or not.  I don't think the answer is, however, to take medals that were meant to be awarded to those in harm's way and apply them to those who are not.  While his goal is worthy, to bring some pride to the RPA community and hopefully get the service to manage it better, the solution isn't to demean awards given to bomber crews in World War II and fighter pilots who braved SAMs in Vietnam.  Dave says, “On the current trajectory, the only Air Medals will be the ones in history books.”  That may be true, but if our technology continues to take away or eliminate the risk associated with air power, the answer is to let those awards fade into the history books along with the heroes who earned them, back when air power meant risking yourself.  When airmen no longer have to display courage in combat, then those medals belong in the annals of a bygone era.  Besides, if we're really interested in our service culture, we should stop putting so much focus on courage in combat operations, and start putting more on courage displayed at home.  That is where the courage is needed, and where courage will have the best effects for the service and the nation.

John Brennan on Targeting Americans

John Brennan has joined a small group of government voices discussing using America's military power against American citizens.  I have been particularly interested in this topic, as I think it represents a huge shift of military focus since the Civil War, and because I think this shift will continue.  Jake Tapper discussed targeting Americans at the White House and asked some outstanding questions, and recently we have seen the Pentagon's top lawyer and the Attorney General weigh in on the discussion.  Most recently, John Brennan joined the discussion at the Woodrow Wilson Center.  Among his comments:

Earlier this year, Attorney General Holder discussed how our counterterrorism efforts are rooted in, and are strengthened by, adherence to the law, including the legal authorities that allow us to pursue members of al-Qa’ida—including U.S. citizens—and to do so using “technologically advanced weapons.”

In addition, Jeh Johnson, the general counsel at the Department of Defense, has addressed the legal basis for our military efforts against al-Qa’ida. Stephen Preston, the general counsel at the CIA, has discussed how the Agency operates under U.S. law. These speeches build on a lecture two years ago by Harold Koh, the State Department Legal Adviser, who noted that “U.S. targeting practices, including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, comply with all applicable law, including the laws of war.”

Mr. Brennan also stated:

When that person is a U.S. citizen, we ask ourselves additional questions. Attorney General Holder has already described the legal authorities that clearly allow us to use lethal force against an American citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qa’ida. He has discussed the thorough and careful review, including all relevant constitutional considerations, that is to be undertaken by the U.S. government when determining whether the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States.

To recap, the standards and processes I’ve described today—which we have refined and strengthened over time—reflect our commitment to: ensuring the individual is a legitimate target under the law; determining whether the individual poses a significant threat to U.S. interests; determining that capture is not feasible; being mindful of the important checks on our ability to act unilaterally in foreign territories; having that high degree of confidence, both in the identity of the target and that innocent civilians will not be harmed; and, of course, engaging in additional review if the al-Qa’ida terrorist is a U.S. citizen.

I strongly disagree with the legal "arguments" being systematically peddled.  I have previously blogged about my legal understanding of assassinating American citizens here.

The Air Force PFT Age Penalty

I'm done digging into the Air Force Physical Fitness Test (PFT) scoring charts.  While people have a great many opinions on the test and how to make it better, here is my one recommendation.  Get rid of the aging penalty on those approaching retirement eligibility!

The PFT singles out this group of individuals (30-39 years of age), and while it giveth a sliver of aging benefit with the left hand, it taketh it away with the right hand.  As the charts make perfectly clear, a 39 year old in this group is expected to run the same as an 18 year old.  Some will note that the 39 year old has an extra 24 seconds to keep from failing the running component of the test (giving with the left hand).  That is true, but what should also be noted, is that if a 39 year old uses that extra 24 seconds to pass the running component, they are penalized point wise.  All other age brackets are not penalized for passing the running component in the slowest allowable run time.  The 39 year old, however, will pass the running component, but then they must make up an entire three points on other areas of the test.  For example, by adding 23 additional push-ups, to crawl back to the same point level as individuals from all other age groups that also run in the slowest allowable time.  So while it looks at first glance like the 39 year old gets an aging benefit for run time, the right hand quickly takes it away.

I am operating under the assumption, of course, that aging is somewhat constant.  If there is evidence that a 39 year old's ability to run isn't greatly affected after 21 years of aging, or that the amount it is affected isn't as much as the person who ages from 39 to 40 years of age, then I'll retract my recommendation.  But I don't think that is the case, and I think aging can be factored much better into the test.  Beyond what my body tells me through aging aches and pains, a quick non-academic Google search finds several sources that indicate that our lungs start aging at 20 years of age, with a corresponding decrease in the ability of the lungs to place oxygen into the blood stream.  Bones start to age at 30-35 and joint issues begin to be experienced.  Muscles start to age at 30 years of age, and while the muscle fitness component of the PFT takes this into account, it does not take this into account for the running component that comprises 60% of an individual's score.

For those who might be tempted to think this test discriminates against a certain age group, it does rightly or wrongly.  Whatever your view on the morality, such singling out is perfectly legal to do in the United States, as long as those singled out are not yet forty years old.  Congress' law, designed to prevent companies from kicking out employees just prior to earning a pension, does not apply to the crusty 39 year old.

This hasn't stopped at least one officer, Lt Col Chris Cote, from filing a complaint about the walk test portion of the PFT being discriminatory against older individuals.  Says Lt Col Cote,  “And it’s not just me, the 56-year-old... If you’re 30, the 20-year-old’s got a better deal than you.”  While I've never done the walk test, the math clearly shows he is absolutely correct that age is directly penalized in the walk test.  The formula is calculated (with a higher number equating to more points) as: 132.853 – 0.0769(Weight) – 0.3877(Age) + 6.315(Gender) – 3.2649(Time) – 0.1565(HR).  If a person's weight, walk time, and heart rate stay the same, then they get penalized each year they age.  That being said, apparently heart rate is supposed to decrease as a person ages (I've heard one heart beat per minute per year, and I've read 5-7 beats per minute per decade).  From the article above, the Lt Col recognizes this but says the formula doesn't account for this appropriately.

An individual at age 38 that walks the test in X minutes, and has a heart rate of Y will get a VO2 score.  That VO2 score will then equate to a running component score to be factored into their final PFT score.  If a year later they walk the test in the same time, and have the same heart rate, they will get a lower VO2 score simply for aging one year, and it will translate to a lower component score and a lower score on the PFT.  The walk test would appear then to uniformly penalize aging.  In actuality, however, it penalizes those under forty years of age more because the VO2 scores of those forty years and older is converted into a higher score on a different chart.  The bias against those under 40 years of age is crystal clear in the walk test portion of the test, as well.

Whether one thinks the test is easy, or difficult, scores excellent or fails, the fact of the matter is this test has a strong bias against those in the 30-39 age bracket.

The "Old" PFT & Approaching Retirement

The other day I dug into the Air Force's Physical Fitness Test (PFT), and discovered that the test is the most difficult (relative to age) for members in the 30-39 year age bracket, particularly with the run.  So I decided to chart out the numbers of the older PFT, to see if age brackets were treated any differently.

The older test differed only slightly from the current test.  While it had five year age brackets, instead of ten year brackets, those split brackets only applied to push-ups and sit-ups.  The old run was scored using ten year age brackets just like the current test.  The abdominal circumference measurement was also like the current test, in that the score was the same across all age brackets.  The largest difference with the old test was that it weighted the waist measurement with 30% of the total score, and the run counted for only 50%.  The test also differed in that there were no minimum component scores - as long as the member was able to get 75 points, they passed the test.

The old test charts show the current PFT isn't much different than the older one, at least in terms of the standards required of the 30-39 year group, as opposed to those who are retirement eligible in their forties and on up.

The old test push-ups are the exception.  There the test evenly distributes benefit for aging, as would be expected if aging was considered to be constant.  Sit-ups, however, have a slight aging bias against those approaching retirement, and a huge bias in terms of the run.

BOTTOM LINE

The aging bias against the 30-39 year old group is not something that started with the current PFT scoring system.

Is the PFT Harder For Those Coming up on Retirement?

Short answer? Absolutely.

It is widely believed within the ranks that the Air Force's relatively recent Physical Fitness Test (PFT), doubling of testing from every year to twice year, and failure policy (booting airmen after four failures within two years) is less about saving money on future health care costs, and more about saving money by reducing the force. As recent military retirement overhaul discussion shows, only seventeen percent of those in the service retire and collect health care benefits.

The service is drawing down and has taken some drastic measures to thin the force, including showing the door to 157 majors with fifteen years of service, despite law mandating that officers with less than six years until retirement be normally allowed to continue until retirement.

As I age and near retirement eligibility, I have unfortunately found that the PFT is not as easy as it once was. I had assumed since the test had age brackets, my aging would be compensated for in some way and things would continue as long as my lifestyle stayed the same. I have never been on a medical profile, but my body is telling me that something is different. So I decided to dig into the numbers a little bit to see if the only thing changing was my body ache and soreness.

We all age and have to fight to stay in shape. I have never enjoyed running and I have consistently only done so when required by the Air Force. Physical fitness was a priority and a vanity in my younger years, but as I've gotten older I've found other things to be more worth my time. In my first four years taking the Air Force PFT, I ran the mile and a half in 9:30, and felt like I was doing little more than jogging. My best time was 8:34. I was twenty-years old. Almost two decades later, I have to train in order to run it in under 14:00.

I have noticed that the test has become much harder for me to pass, and I wondered if the scoring system for the test hadn't been engineered to target, like the promotion board that separated the 157 majors referenced above, service members just before they are eligible for retirement. After all, kicking out those service members who have given 75% or more of twenty years of war time service without a pension, makes a lot of sense fiscally. At least in the short term, and on paper.

Charting the numbers shows that is likely the case. Those between 30-39 years of age have the most difficult PFT testing standards in the Air Force. That is the age group approaching a twenty year retirement. Enlisted personnel likely will reach retirement eligibility at age 38, while officers have to punch through to age 42 to earn a pension. The Air Force PFT treats those nearing retirement more harshly, and differently, than it does anybody else serving. I'll explain how I came to this conclusion. I'll limit my observations to males and the three brackets representing the ages up to a twenty year retirement. This information can be checked using the Air Force PFT scoring charts.

ABDOMINAL CIRCUMFERENCE IS CONSTANT FOR ALL AGES

In all age brackets, the target abdominal circumference is the same at 37.5 inches. The maximum is also the same at 39 inches, and the score component is the same for all ages. Unlike the other components of the test, service members do not get any leeway for their waist size as they age. This portion of the test, therefore, affects all age brackets equally. Therefore we can dismiss it and turn to the other PFT components.

TARGET NUMBER AND MINIMUMS

The target number of push-ups for the under 30 crowd is 44 (the minimum required to pass the test is 33). For those 30-39, it is 36 (the minimum is 27). And for those retirement eligible at over 40 years of age, it is 29 push-ups (the minimum is 21).

The target number of sit-ups for the under 30 crowd is 46 (the minimum is 42). For those 30-39, it is 42 (the minimum is 39). And for those retirement eligible at over 40 years of age, it is 37 sit-ups (the minimum is 34).

The target run time for the under 30 crowd is 13:14 (the slowest it can be run is 13:36). For those 30-39, it is also 13:14 (the slowest it can be run is 14:00). And for those retirement eligible at over 40 years of age, it is 14:25 (and the slowest they can run it and still pass is 14:52).

ABOVE THE MINIMUM

If a service member scores more than the minimum required for a component, they get more points. The number of points, however, differs by age bracket and also gives an indication of the age correlation to the test.

Somebody in the under 30 crowd that does one more push-up than the minimum, earns an additional .3 points. Somebody 30-39 will also earn .3 additional points. Somebody 40 years old will, however, earn .5 points.

Somebody in the under 30 crowd that does one more sit-up than the minimum, earns an additional .3 points. Somebody 30-39 will also earn .5 additional points. Somebody 40 years old will also earn .5 points.

Somebody in the under 30 crowd that shaves 22 seconds off the maximum run time, earns an additional 2.6 points. Somebody 30-39 that shaves 24 seconds off the maximum run time, earns an additional 3.0 points. Somebody 40 years old will, if they shave 27 seconds off the maximum run time, earn and additional 2.9 points.

MAXING A COMPONENT

Somebody in the under 30 crowd must do 67 push-ups for the full ten points. Somebody 30-39 will need to do 57 push-ups for the full ten points. Somebody 40 years old will require 44 push-ups for the full ten points.

Somebody in the under 30 crowd must do 58 sit-ups for the full ten points. Somebody 30-39 will need to do 54 sit-ups for the full ten points. Somebody 40 years old will require 50 sit-ups for the full ten points.

Somebody in the under 30 crowd must run in 9:12 for the full sixty points. Somebody 30-39 will need to run 9:34 for the full sixty points. Somebody 40 years old will need to run 9:45 for the full sixty points.

THE IN BETWEEN (DEVIL'S IN THE DETAILS)

The real question is how much effort must be put in to score the most points? How much is gained by each additional push-up, sit-up, or second of run time? This is where we can really see if the test gets any easier to pass as our bodies age. Note: for a better look at the charts, click them.

From the charts above, we see that the "close to retirement" group, between 30 and 39 years old, gets a bit of a break on push-ups and sit-ups, not unlike retirement eligible people in their forties. The trend line shows, however, that those nearing retirement eligibility require the same level of pain for the same corresponding amount of score gain as the eighteen year old, at least when it comes to push ups.  Less pain is required for more gain for those who are retirement eligible in their forties. As to sit-ups, the pain-to-gain ratio is even across all age brackets.  It appears taken together, the muscular fitness section is just slightly harder for those in the 30-39 group, but not by much. But these two areas are only 20% of the score required. The mile and half run, on the other hand, comprises 60% of that score and it's in that chart that my suspicions were confirmed.

The group close to retirement age, between 30-39, gets an extra 24 seconds to keep from failing the run event, while those of retirement age in their forties get a whopping 52 extra seconds of run time. Not only that, but those in their forties also get significantly more gain for running faster, while a crusty thirty-nine year old gets absolutely nothing beyond what the eighteen year old gets. Age is barely considered at all, when it comes to run, for the 30-39 year old group approaching retirement unlike every other age bracket. It's almost as though they haven't aged at all since they graduated high school.

In addition, the 30-39 year bracket gets penalized for "just making the run time," unlike every other male age bracket. The same is true for the female age brackets, with the exception of 60+ year old women who serve in the Air Force (if there are any). This means the 30-39 year old group that just barely passes the running portion, must make up at least three extra points to be treated as the other brackets. To get these three extra points, they must do an extra 23 push-ups, or an extra 13 sit-ups, or have a two inch smaller waist measurement to get the same points all other age brackets get for just barely passing the running portion. This point clearly demonstrates that the Air Force PFT singles out those approaching retirement, and gives them the most difficult physical fitness test in the service.

ROCK BOTTOM LINE

Those who are coming close to retirement eligibility have a relatively harder Physical Fitness Test than the youngsters who enter the service, and than those in their forties who are eligible to retire. If you want to retire, you have to work harder the closer you get in order to achieve it.

It's interesting that those who implemented this new PFT program were likely already past the 30-39 age bracket.

ETA: For those interested in the Female Charts, those approaching retirement have a more difficult push-up standard, and the run standards are similarly biased against those approaching the twenty year service point.

Is the Air Force Failing in the Character Department?

Apparently there is some significant data to show that the Air Force's most prized and most illustrious commissioning source is failing in its mission to produce ethical Air Force officers.  A recent article entitled, Cracks in the code: The Air Force Academy might be losing its hold on the nation's future officers, by Pam Zubeck reports that a class of 1964 researcher, and Vietnam bomber pilot, named Fred Malmstrom has released a study showing, among other things:

1. USAFA cadets who reported engaging in honor code violations rose from 29% with the Class of 1959 to 66% with the Class of 2010.
2. USAFA cadets who tolerated, and did not report, honor violations rose from 5% with the Class of 1959 to 68% with the Class of 2010.
3. Those who reported having respect for the honor code stayed nearly 90% for the fifty years prior to 2007, but from 2007-2010 dropped to 70%.

The data was taken from voluntary surveys of USAFA graduates.  The data indications don't stop there, however.  According to the article:

Now, another barometer has delivered more bad news. The Defining Issues Test, a scientific yardstick for measuring moral thinking, has found no significant difference in the highest level of moral reasoning between academy seniors and seniors at other colleges and universities. It's also found that one in four members of the Class of 2010 regressed to lower levels of ethical decision-making while at the academy, despite 60 hours of honor and character development training.

All at an institution where taxpayers pay more than $400,000 per graduate to create "leaders of character."

From my own personal experience, I think this data makes sense and is just the tip of the iceberg.  This is a much larger cultural issue.  The article shows that similar results were found in all of the service academies.  In my years of service it has become painfully clear to me that the higher standard of ethical conduct expected from Air Force officers is a myth.  Nobody expects particularly ethical conduct, and such conduct is not role modeled or rewarded (in fact in the rare chance it's encountered, it is often punished).  Instead, what is expected is the perception of ethical conduct.  That perception is achieved through proclamations and recruiting posters and speeches, and through the inertia of social and media expectations.  I would guess that our young zoomies at the Air Force Academy learn that lesson quickly.  Our Air Force has become a political landscape where we say one thing, and do another, not unlike the standard issue American politician.  The air service is no longer a cut above.  It's no longer a profession populated by the courageous who are willing to sacrifice for their country (outside of rarely dangerous combat missions that are touted as being little less than the Normandy invasion).  Instead, the Air Force has become a place where airmen learn to "play the game."

Service in the Air Force has become a game.  One that Andy Fastow could have coached.

Fred Malmstrom has tapped into something very important, in my opinion.  The United States Air Force is suffering an enormous and very dangerous ethical crisis.  If I were king for a day, I would study the differences between military officers and the non-commissioned officer corps.  I have no data to back it up, but in my experience the more courageous and ethical individuals are not the officers with the educations, but rather our NCOs.

Twelve O' Clock High with a Twist

I love the old black and white films. It's interesting to note the difference in how things are said and presented when watching the outstanding classic, Twelve O' Clock High, with Gregory Peck as compared to that same time period portrayed through the masterpiece series, Band of Brothers.

Nothing beats the real thing though. Here is actual American government footage from that time period, narrated by General Eisenhower's brother Milton, who was the head of the War Relocation Authority (WRA) that worked with the United States military to force American citizens into concentration camps in the desert. It's an amazing look at recent American history, and there are indications that the military may again be ordered to focus energies on American citizens within our borders, rather than solely on foreign forces.