New pipeline for TACP

CDG

Mittens
Verified Military
Joined
Apr 15, 2011
Messages
7,217
Location
Off safe. One away.
SSMP
SOF Mentor
Wanted to update this thread with what's been going on recently. JTACQC is not an official part of the pipeline, but there is a time limit now in place for getting there. It's called the Zero to Hero program, not sure if that's official, and it requires a guy to have gone to JTACQC within 18 months of becoming a 3-level. This essentially puts a guy into JTAC Upgrade status as soon as he graduates all the schools and arrives at an ASOS. This requirement isn't retrograded to require everyone already past that mark to attend first, AFAIK. The talk is still going about making it an official part of the pipeline, but there are logistical issues with QC handling that increased workload and how it would work with all the guys currently at units that aren't JTACs. There has been at least one supplemental class at JTACQC which was an all-ANG class (my class). This was done as an effort to get a jumpstart on plussing up the numbers after all the slots were converted to SEI914 slots. It wasn't all that well received by the Instructors as it required them to have zero downtime between courses to adjust course content, schedule air, etc. They pulled it off without a hitch, but QC probably needs more Instructors if the classes are going to be run more frequently. The only other option is to increase class size, but that does no one any good during air week in particular.

The schoolhouse has moved to Lackland already, although I'm not sure if they are 100% out of Hurby. There was supposed to be some overlap between the two sites as part of the transition.
 

Johca

Pararescue
Verified SOF
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
352
Location
Anchorage Alaska
The last TACP apprentice course at Hurlburt started 10 January 2015. The first TACP apprentice course at Lackland supposedly scheduled to start during April 2015.

To pull your chain a bit - considering rumors of JTACQC imminently becoming a 3-skill level requirement has persisted since at least 1997.

The first TACP zero to hero female students not far behind. No occupational physical fitness standards or mission ready fitness standards to lower, adjust, or modify.

Current TACP integration plan published by SECAF since 24 April 2013:

31 May 15 TACP (1C4X) physical standards validated, congressional notification

30 Sep 15 TACP AFSC open, begin recruit/assess/select phase (one year)

The integration of women into TACP AFSC and performing JTAC duties is clearly on a faster track to happen than JTACQC becoming a 3-skill level mandatory core requirement for award and retention of AFSC 1C431 as there are official source documents disclosing the integration of women into TACP will happen.

You are aware part of the reasoning behind the TACP apprentice course relocation from Hurlburt to Lackland was the availability of female dorms and female Security Forces instructors at Camp Bullis to supervise the field training of female TACP students?
 
Last edited:

Johca

Pararescue
Verified SOF
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
352
Location
Anchorage Alaska
This was done as an effort to get a jumpstart on plussing up the numbers after all the slots were converted to SEI914 slots.
On a more less pulling your chain path of discussion the unit requiring Special Experience Identifier 914 on all Unit Manning Documents, particularly at a Air Guard Unit does not correlate the SIE being a AFSC core skill and knowledge requirement.

The special experience identifiers (SEI) provide a means of retrieving special experience for certain requirements and are intended as management tools to add a degree of flexibility to the personnel system not available by using prefixes and suffixes. SEIs are intended to reflect an unusual or changing management need for identification that may not be common to an AFSC, any group of AFSCs, or to a specific command. SEIs are not used in lieu of AFSCs, suffixes, prefixes, reporting identifiers, or special duty identifiers.

SEIs may be identified on manpower documents, but by themselves do not drive capability need or utilization.

A SIE has slightly similar purpose to the Special Qualification Identifier the Army adds to an MOS to identify certain qualifications such as: V – ranger-parachutist, G – ranger, S – special operations support personnel, P – parachutist, F – flying status and etc.

SIE 914 is similar to going through Ranger School and getting the TAB. Lot of Army officers, warrant officer, and enlisted with Ranger TAB and SQI V or G tagged onto their MOS, but few of them are sporting the Ranger Scroll and being utilized in a 75th Ranger Regiment to perform Ranger duties and accomplish Ranger missions.

SIE 914 identifies those individuals in the Combat Control and TACP AFSCs who have successful completion of a USJFCOM-accredited JTAC qualification course and certification as a JTAC according to AFI 13-112, Volume 1, Terminal Attack Controller Training Program, and Volume 2, Terminal Attack Controller Standardization/Evaluation Program.

A bit more combat need substance of validated concept of operations and mission utilization needs to exist beyond SEI914 being a unit recruiting and retention tool to drive making JTACQC a mandatory required 3-skill level training and qualification requirement.

Origins of SIE914 is ca. 1986/87 as Enlisted Terminal Attack Controller (ETAC). AFSCs authorized SIE 914 was limited to 1C451/71/91. Requirement for SIE 914 ETAC was successful completion of TAC course 228560 (PDS code ZEP) or 228561 (PDS code 5RG), certification as an ETAC according to applicable MAJCOM directives, and recommendation by unit commander.

Concurrent with the development and implementation of Joint Publication 3-09.3 Joint Close Air Support (ca. 2000) that began establishing a common, joint training and evaluation standard that applies across the components. This resulted in SIE 914being renamed from ETAC to JTAC and the list of AFSCs authorized SIE 914 expanding to 1C400, 1C200, 1C291, 1C271/51, 1C491 and 1C471/51.
 
Last edited:

Johca

Pararescue
Verified SOF
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
352
Location
Anchorage Alaska
I was not aware of that.
How about this award and retention of TACP AFSC criteria found in the AFECD: "3.5.2.3. Must maintain eligibility to deploy and mobilize worldwide. Personnel with an Assignment Limitation Code of C-1 or C-2 may retain AFSC 1C4X1 as long as they are capable of successfully completing all core tasks in the 1C4X1 Career Field Education and Training Plan. " reference http://specialtactics.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/download/Number/6/filename/AFECD-Apr 14-TACP.pdf.

TACP is the "only" enlisted Battlefield Airman AFSC currently allowing individuals with an Assignment Limitation Code of C-1 or C-2 may retain AFSC stipulation. It correlates to AFI 10-203 Duty limitations policy of "3.5.1.3. Duty limitations associated with pregnancy may require temporary removal from certain AFSC duties. Retraining will not be required. " AND other managing pregnant airman policies. It is also the only enlisted AFSC in the AFECD having such policy stipulation.

BTW the all the battlefield airman AFSC classification description can be found at http://specialtactics.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/6/Selected_AFECD_and_AFOCD_speci.html#Post6
 
Last edited:

DA SWO

SOWT
Verified SOF
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
8,973
Location
San Antonio Texas
How about this award and retention of TACP AFSC criteria found in the AFECD: "3.5.2.3. Must maintain eligibility to deploy and mobilize worldwide. Personnel with an Assignment Limitation Code of C-1 or C-2 may retain AFSC 1C4X1 as long as they are capable of successfully completing all core tasks in the 1C4X1 Career Field Education and Training Plan. " reference http://specialtactics.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/download/Number/6/filename/AFECD-Apr 14-TACP.pdf.

TACP is the "only" enlisted Battlefield Airman AFSC currently allowing individuals with an Assignment Limitation Code of C-1 or C-2 may retain AFSC stipulation. It correlates to AFI 10-203 Duty limitations policy of "3.5.1.3. Duty limitations associated with pregnancy may require temporary removal from certain AFSC duties. Retraining will not be required. " AND other managing pregnant airman policies. It is also the only enlisted AFSC in the AFECD having such policy stipulation.

BTW the all the battlefield airman AFSC classification description can be found at http://specialtactics.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/6/Selected_AFECD_and_AFOCD_speci.html#Post6
Why is a C-2 code such a show stopper for you?
 

Johca

Pararescue
Verified SOF
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
352
Location
Anchorage Alaska
Why is a C-2 code such a show stopper for you?
It's not a show stopper but rather an availability of trained and qualified combat mission ready capability concern. It gets more of a concern when how much training time is needed after medical condition causing the medical condition is resolved. Although not an absolute will happen reality, typically a medical condition causing a not qualified to perform duties of AFSC and not mission ready qualified available for six months or longer generally drives a MEB for involuntary retraining into another AFSC or involuntary medical separation for Pararescue, CCT and presumable for Special Operations Weather. One of the causals resulting in origin implementation of SOW AFSC is that combat weather parachutist positions have been open to women and have had women in those positions since 1993.

The SOW AFSC was needed to implement occupational fitness and mission ready fitness standards that didn't exist and couldn't be justified while SOW shared the combat weather parachutist alpha AFSC shredout with combat weather parachutist.
 

CDG

Mittens
Verified Military
Joined
Apr 15, 2011
Messages
7,217
Location
Off safe. One away.
SSMP
SOF Mentor
Interesting reads. I'll have to crack open the CFETP and see what exactly constitutes a core task. For example, we have a 20km ruck with a minimum of 90# total weight that must be completed annually. I'm not sure if this qualifies as a core task, but a pregnant woman wouldn't be able to complete this task. I strongly disagree with the inclusion of women as enlisted JTACs, for reasons that have been covered ad nauseum in the other threads on this topic. I think Security Forces women overseeing the training of potential female TACPs is about the worst combination I can think of. ACC continues to force things on TACP that it does not want, need, or ask for. First they attempted to eliminate DORs (technically they did, but the cadre are crafty), then 13Ls were not required to pass the PAST during the Schoolhouse, which directly led to the first female ALO. TACPs struggle enough to maintain second class citizen status amongst CCTs/PJs/SOWTs. This certainly doesn't help anything.
 

Johca

Pararescue
Verified SOF
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
352
Location
Anchorage Alaska
For example, we have a 20km ruck with a minimum of 90# total weight that must be completed annually. I'm not sure if this qualifies as a core task, ...
It does not. It was never validated as an occupational standard and if it was the must be tested to this standard would be implanted in other policies that comply with occupational specific fitness standards policies of DOD Instruction 1308.3 and AFI 36-2905 .

The CFETP ruck march policy is "Progressive foot marches of 5 and 10 kilometers with minimum combat load of 72 pounds includes boots/clothing, helmet, body armor and weapon are mandatory training for 1C4X1s assigned to operational units and must be scheduled regularly per FM 21-18." There is no AFI policy implemented this as a mandatory requirement for award of AFSC, retention of AFSC, or requirement to obtain and sustain TACP or JTAC mission readiness.

Further scrutiny of TACP CFETP from mid 1990 to current CFETP reveals TACP PAST is only a COIE and apprentice course requirement only recently put into the CFETP.

It doesn't help TACP that the rated ALO standards implemented for the 13L ALO officer specialty are the same standards unchanged from WWII which is a complete lack of implemented mission ready and specific occupational fitness standard.

It doesn't help TACP that JTAC certification and qualification completely lacks any any physical fitness human performance standards (PAST, ruck march, foot march, running and etc) connected to performing such duties.

It doesn't help TACP that at no time from the 1977 origins of the enlisted TACP AFSC being established there has never been any officially approved and scientifically validated mission ready fitness standards or occupational specific fitness standard implemented in any AFI or other official document.

It doesn't help TACP that the first female rated officers obtained JTAC qualification and certification ca. 1994 and that these rated female officers have significant not to happy on how they were bared from getting TACP ALO duty assignments back during the Gulf War. Best look at the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) for who the rated female JTACs are having these not to happy memories who have influence with DACOWITS particularly if increased or tougher physical standards for TACP are pushed.

Although many in the TACP ranks and community share opinion of " I strongly disagree with the inclusion of women as enlisted JTACs", the argument went out the widow/door with the bath water when the first female rated officers obtained JTAC qualifications back in 1994. This is why the 13Ls lost the remain closed to women battle tears ago and why TACP has nothing of sufficient human performance utilization to justify or validate why "now" specific occupational or mission ready fitness standards are needed for reliable and dependable occupational and mission utilization that hasn't needed such standards from WWII to present. To implement such standards TACP needs to convince SECAF who subsequently much convince the US Congress. Current SECAF, a women, is on record all the BA AFSCs will be opened to women with no lowering or changing of standards. Finding support to increase standards or making tougher standards is unlikely to get SECAF support and US Congressional approval.
 
Last edited:

Wild Bill

TACP
Unverified
Joined
Dec 6, 2014
Messages
22
This is FUBAR. Although I've been out of the career since my deployment to Iraq in 2003 after 11 years , I just can't see a female making it through the course. If standards must stay the same any female that gets through will definitely be in shape. Maybe when they have the Lightning Challenge every year they will create a separate one for them. This seems all to nuts but I guess we'll have to wait to see if one gets through.
 

Johca

Pararescue
Verified SOF
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
352
Location
Anchorage Alaska
Back during the 1990s the only prerequisites for the ACC JFCC Joint Firepower course was meet AF weight management program and comply with dress and appearance standards. It was a 3-week course with the FTX during the third week. The FTX was a 4 day bivouac field exercise focusing on control of close air support, control of theater airlift, adjustment of artillery and providing instruction in land navigation.

Unfortunately in 1996, and perhaps still today, the 13L ALO and enlisted TACP AFSCs had or have limited if any influence in the training of rated officers to be ALOs who are qualified to control CAS.

Joint Firepower course also was not the ca. 1996 Tactical Air Command and Control Apprentice Course (14 weeks) either. The physical fitness requirements in effect for the apprentice course in 1996 was "Graduating students must obtain a minimum score of 60 points on each of the following exercises: pushups, situps, and a two-mile run. The Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT), stated in FM 21-20, is used to conduct and evaluate physical training." The enter day-one training physical fitness prerequisites however were "no speech impediment or any physical limitations preventing students from participating in a rigorous physical conditioning program and meeting and maintaining worldwide mobility criteria."

I do agree the FTX the enlisted TACP were put through is significantly more physically demanding then and now, but unfortunately the physically demanding difficulties of an apprentice course FTXs do not drive implementation of physical fitness pass-fail, or go/no-go criteria for award of AFSC and retention of AFSC. From a different perspective the controlling CAS support the U.S. Army depends and expects is much different post 9-11. How the Army goes with implementing its Physical Readiness Test/Army Combat Readiness Test standards is likely what TACP will follow.
 

CDG

Mittens
Verified Military
Joined
Apr 15, 2011
Messages
7,217
Location
Off safe. One away.
SSMP
SOF Mentor
We need to do a better job of documenting and educating on what the AFSC needs and what the official standards should be. Having dedicated officers helps, but it's going to take time for that train to catch up to itself and allow significant change. There's a lot of frustration in the careerfield right now, and some even think we will be abolished as an AFSC within the next 10 years.
 

amlove21

Pararescue
Administrator
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
4,801
Location
The City of Destiny
SSMP
SOF Mentor
We need to do a better job of documenting and educating on what the AFSC needs and what the official standards should be. Having dedicated officers helps, but it's going to take time for that train to catch up to itself and allow significant change. There's a lot of frustration in the careerfield right now, and some even think we will be abolished as an AFSC within the next 10 years.
We are victims of the exact same thing.

"Girls? What if they need to pull me, a 215lb dude in my kit, out of fire?! THEY CANT NO GIRLS!!!"

Hate to say it- but nowhere in the entire pipeline is a buddy carry/drag of that nature any sort of graded event. Ever. Nor is it a core task. You need the PAST (3 mile run, pushups, situps, pullups, swim) every 18 months as a physical requirement to be a PJ. No buddy drag/carry/functional fitness test of any kind in there. Guys take a shit on this test, PS, for any number of reasons and still work. We do the Operator Ugly (at the Vegas unit) and hold the guys to a standard for points- but if push came to shove and I wanted to reprimand a guy for not making that standard? I have ZERO leg to stand on if he wants to IG/lawyer up.

Inevitably, what follows is, "Well, Mr. PJ, if this is SO important that you're using it to discount and entire population (women), then why haven't you taken the time to make it a core task/graded event? Maybe it isn't that important?" I still haven't met a single PJ with a good answer for that, or for the "physiological output" argument.

I think the biggest question here is a simple manning issue. If women occupy combat jobs, are we then allowed to ORDER them not to get pregnant? Because holy shit what a nightmare that conversation would be. Legally, morally, ethically- no one wants to touch it. But a female getting pregnant takes her out of the operational game for 12 months, period. That's a serious issue.
 

Johca

Pararescue
Verified SOF
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
352
Location
Anchorage Alaska
t
But a female getting pregnant takes her out of the operational game for 12 months, period. That's a serious issue.
Longer than that. 9 months to get to term to delivery the baby, six more months (180 days) of post child birth (after completion of pregnancy) physical fitness test waiver and then the time to do all the requalification training. 18 months at minimum.

Also consider a female student getting pregnant in the training pipeline to include the apprentice course is in medical limbo of not medically qualified to be trained for at least 18 months too.
 
Last edited:
Top