USAF ICBM Force Proficiency Test Cheating - Outcome
 

At a Pentagon Press Conference yesterday:

Nine senior officers fired and the Wing Commander "resigned". An unhealthy culture of an "expectation" of achieving 100% in monthly proficiency tests - as opposed to the 90% required - and the difference being the sole differentiator in some promotion assessments - was deemed to have contributed to the problem.

Air Force fires 9 officers in nuke missile cheating scandal - Videos - CBS News

9 Air Force commanders fired over nuclear missile test cheating - CNN.com

points make prizes, right VSO's?

PEI

Agree.

But the other factor is, this is another cock up in the Nuclear area of the USAF after the more dangerous "unaccountability" of nukes and failure of procedures.

As part of the USAFE personal reliability programme 30 years ago, I remember that it being zealot-like in terms of personal integrity. I wonder if we really were any different or if there simply wasn't the means available at the time, to cheat. I notice as well, that the Secret Service is in the merde again - maybe this always happened, maybe the means to expose it and the need to be publically responsive and accountable are more pressing, that's all.

Hmm.

"Leadership's focus on perfection led commanders to micromanage their people," said Wilson, pointing to pressure to get 100% scores on monthly proficiency exams when only 90% was necessary to pass. "... Leaders lost sight of the fact that execution in the field is more important than what happens in the classroom."

According to CBS: 'Cheating began with a handful of officers who were also under investigation for drug possession'.....

Illegal drug possession in the Armed Forces is bad enough - but amongst Officers? Officers with access to nuclear weapons??....:eek:

Whatever happened to 'We will not lie, steal or cheat, nor tolerate among us anyone who does. Furthermore, I resolve to do my duty and to live honorably, so help me God.'?

I could be a lone voice in the wilderness, and I'll probably be shot down in flames for writing this but does that statement not come over as a tad snobbish?

(Welcome to 2014)

Simply from the ethos of "lead by example", the officers should be the last group you would expect to have a drug problem. Yes, that is holding them to a much higher standard, and yes, that is exactly what they signed up to.

I wouldn't say snobbish, I would say expected, as per post above, lead by example and yes, hold them to a higher standard, that is why they are officers.

IMHO, even more so with access to nuclear Weapons.

Need to remove all of them and replace them with an automatic system.........dunno call it Cybernet as what could go wrong.

Two's in & 500N

Thank you, I see what was meant by it now. My thoughts were simply that I would expect that standard from everyone involved in such a responsible duty, across all ranks and grades.

P6, that is an admirable goal and one that is perfectly attainable in an open, fair and just organization! I've yet to see it in the real world.