Agree here. PT test, long run, pull-ups, mental. My second day there was awful. I did mediocre on everything. However, plenty of good dudes told me "move on to the next event." Thank goodness for that advice.
Women in Combat Arms/ SOF Discussion
- Thread starter AWP
- Start date
Agree here. PT test, long run, pull-ups, mental. My second day there was awful. I did mediocre on everything. However, plenty of good dudes told me "move on to the next event." Thank goodness for that advice.
The recent movements for inclusion and diversity in the Air Force have had an interesting effect on the AF EOD pipeline (not SOF, I know). I certainly hope all of this experimentation won't end up popcorn-worthy over the next few years.
Jay_Pew
Verified Military
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2016
- Messages
- 44
I believe you're reffering to the somewhat recent move to remove the PAST requirement for EOD correct? I remember watching some video a while back, where they were wiggling there way through explaining why the PAST was not necessary for that career field anymore. I certainly felt bad for them lol.
The suspension of the PAST is definitely part of it. To further aggravate problems, they've allowed the Preliminary Course to continue teaching the physical fitness portion and administer the progress checks (Evals), but students cannot be held back or eliminated due to failure to meet the standards on any fitness PCs.
The course was previously using the PAST as a risk management tool; students weren't allowed to start the course until they could successfully complete the PAST. Now, with the removal of the tool, some students are coming in day one and running 1.5 miles in 13-14 minutes, unable to perform a single pull-up, and destroying themselves on the first mile of their first ruck.
Once the PAST was removed, it caused a terrible chain reaction in much of the support provided to the course. The Doc that came through twice a week to provide support to students quit coming, the CDSS that provided training and guidance to candidates from DEP to enlistment stopped providing physical fitness help, recruiters told Airmen there are no fitness requirements in EOD anymore, and many other reactions from services that didn't get the memo in the proper format.
The EOD CFM put out a message with General Green stating that an occupational fitness assessment was in the works and that standards are still important to be met, but by the time that came out so much wildfire had been spread it is proving difficult to contain.
Unfortunately, much of this is simply the tip of the iceberg; being an AETC course at Sheppard AFB brings a whole other series of systemic issues that the keepers of the course are constantly at war with.
The course was previously using the PAST as a risk management tool; students weren't allowed to start the course until they could successfully complete the PAST. Now, with the removal of the tool, some students are coming in day one and running 1.5 miles in 13-14 minutes, unable to perform a single pull-up, and destroying themselves on the first mile of their first ruck.
Once the PAST was removed, it caused a terrible chain reaction in much of the support provided to the course. The Doc that came through twice a week to provide support to students quit coming, the CDSS that provided training and guidance to candidates from DEP to enlistment stopped providing physical fitness help, recruiters told Airmen there are no fitness requirements in EOD anymore, and many other reactions from services that didn't get the memo in the proper format.
The EOD CFM put out a message with General Green stating that an occupational fitness assessment was in the works and that standards are still important to be met, but by the time that came out so much wildfire had been spread it is proving difficult to contain.
Unfortunately, much of this is simply the tip of the iceberg; being an AETC course at Sheppard AFB brings a whole other series of systemic issues that the keepers of the course are constantly at war with.
Jay_Pew
Verified Military
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2016
- Messages
- 44
@Ohge
Wow that's quiet a conundrum. I hope this kind of failure doesn't spread to the other Battlefield Airmen AFSC's. This sounds like an utter disaster. An what seems weird about all of this is that EOD (in the Air Force anyway) was open to women even before Sec. Carter made the descision to open up all jobs to women. So women could already go out for this job, so why the pretty much removal of any physical standards?
Wow that's quiet a conundrum. I hope this kind of failure doesn't spread to the other Battlefield Airmen AFSC's. This sounds like an utter disaster. An what seems weird about all of this is that EOD (in the Air Force anyway) was open to women even before Sec. Carter made the descision to open up all jobs to women. So women could already go out for this job, so why the pretty much removal of any physical standards?
You are absolutely correct that women have always been open to enlist in the EOD Career field. I believe women have accounted for roughly 5% of Air Force EOD Techs (I'm sure I could find the data but it isn't that pertinent). Additionally, attrtion rates throughout the pipeline have pretty much stayed the same; updates to the preliminary course are done to assure success at the joint-service school, but this tends to create excessive wash-out/SIE rates for the course.
That typically creates an issue with programmed elimination rates (PERs); while NAVSCOLEOD (the joint-service school in Eglin) is experiencing great results with attrition 15-20% below the PER, the Preliminary Course is seeing the opposite. While this is truly meeting the intent of the course, each agency within the chain is laser-focused solely on their production numbers instead of big-picture. I'm sure you can imagine what that means for a course that is consistently hitting far over their PER, and I believe that is playing a large part in the myriad changes that have been evolving over the last few years.
In my personal opinion, what it means in the short-term truly pales in comparison to what it may mean in regards to the long-term health, climate, and culture of the AF EOD career field. Now, more than ever, will we need the very best front-line supervisors in order to keep the ship afloat. And an even more personal opinion? That's a scary thought.
That typically creates an issue with programmed elimination rates (PERs); while NAVSCOLEOD (the joint-service school in Eglin) is experiencing great results with attrition 15-20% below the PER, the Preliminary Course is seeing the opposite. While this is truly meeting the intent of the course, each agency within the chain is laser-focused solely on their production numbers instead of big-picture. I'm sure you can imagine what that means for a course that is consistently hitting far over their PER, and I believe that is playing a large part in the myriad changes that have been evolving over the last few years.
In my personal opinion, what it means in the short-term truly pales in comparison to what it may mean in regards to the long-term health, climate, and culture of the AF EOD career field. Now, more than ever, will we need the very best front-line supervisors in order to keep the ship afloat. And an even more personal opinion? That's a scary thought.
I taught an advanced pistol/rifle class for some USAF EOD, they had a few females in that unit. One of them was pretty hot, and I though I was gonna be able to give some after hours instruction, until a particular Senior MSG dissuaded me. She had that Jessica Alba, daddies little princess thing going on...
:-"
:-"Have a name? There are only a handful who could possibly meet that description...
What did you teach and where? Most flights source out their advanced pistol/carbine training to companies like TMG (TSAC/HITT/CQBT) or Gunsite (Advanced/Team Tactics). Every once in a while a shop will try out a local company, and I always like to hear how it went.
What did you teach and where? Most flights source out their advanced pistol/carbine training to companies like TMG (TSAC/HITT/CQBT) or Gunsite (Advanced/Team Tactics). Every once in a while a shop will try out a local company, and I always like to hear how it went.
First Army TF SARG APRM course, out of FT Sill Oklahoma, the summer of 2006. I was TDY there to teach the class and eval the new platform/OCT's. Can't remember her name though, it's been a minute. I think they were heading to the sandbox, but honestly can't remember for sure.
Most likely, as back than that was the name of the game (predeployment). The APRM course was just a week long stand in brass unfuck the fundamentals type course. Not really "tactical" training, and was only given by request, kinda like SDM, Sniper sustainment, etc. TF SARG was all the President Hundred tabbed/shooting team guys. I was only at FT Sill for about 6 weeks during 2006, the summer June/July I believe.
AF EOD never actually had a PAST requirement to begin with. A fitness program touting a PAST standard was sort of implemented in 2012 (only four years ago) because too many AF EOD students were failing the AF Fitness test and not meeting weight standards by the time they got to final phase of training at NAVSCOLEOD, Eglin AFB, FL.
This video is an informational release about fitness becoming more important to performing day-to-day AF EOD duties. Although 782nd TRG and 96th Force Support Squadron, Eglin AFB are mentioned as developing the standards, no mention is made concerning involvement of getting any Department of the Air Force official approval needed to implement an occupation specific fitness standard for award and retention of AFSC. It was a course fitness standard only, it was never implemented as a career or as a duty occupational fitness assessment by the Department of the Air Force.
BTW, AF EOD is not a Battlefield Airman (BA) AFSC.
Last edited:
policemedic
Verified SWAT
Were you a bomb jockey before you became a PJ ?
Just a few corrections:
- The AF side of NAVSCOLEOD is Detachment 3, and falls under the 782 TRG (out of Sheppard AFB, not Eglin).
- The PAST requirements were provided to the EOD career field via Dr. Baumgartner, the Exercise Physiologist for the Air Force. Whether or not this altered version was based on collected data I'm uncertain (more on that later).
- As far as saying that the Department of the Air Force has never formally acknowledged EOD's PAST, look no further than AF/A1's previous discussions on EOD's attrition within the context of BA/CS AFSCs (http://www.acq.osd.mil/rd/hptb/hfet...nnel_SubTAG_2014_BA_CS_Brief_DSYX_&_AFRS.pptx); this discussion included both the TAPAS and PAST requirements and was developed by the Air Force's Strategic Research and Assessment (AFPC/DSYX).
You could also look at the most recent version of AFI 32-3001, dated 13 May 2016, which discusses the PAST requirement for retrainees/officers/ANG personnel during their 10-day orientation (http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a4/publication/afi32-3001/afi32-3001.pdf); this is signed by the AF Civil Engineer (AF/A4C), Major General Gren, who is in the first video you posted. I assume those illustrate a top-level acknowledgement, but if not I'm sure I could provide more data.
Now, to elaborate on the removal of the PAST, I am guessing that during the WISR, when the current BA career fields were being scrutinized on their fitness standards, it was discovered that EOD has been using the PAST as a disqualifying benchmark but was no longer considered a BA/CS AFSC. This would leave me to believe that the next step would be to take a look at the data that was used in creating the modified version that EOD uses, and this is where I speculate that there wasn't actually any data collected, just some sort of drug deal with Dr. Baumgartner. I don't know if this is true at all, but this is the sort of thing that would gravitate at the CFM level, and it certainly isn't my place to dig (though I am terribly curious). Couple this with AETC's rigorous intent to reduce attrition and boost throughput in the Preliminary Course, and the rest of the chips fall comfortably into place.
The PAST was a great tool for risk mitigation; as soon as the floodgates were open, people were getting hospitalized, injuring themselves out of the pipeline (and even the Air Force), and SIEs went up. Worst of all, the communication given to recruiters was minimal, and basically equated to them telling people to jump into EOD now, because there weren't any physical requirements at all. The Preliminary Course, as well as NAVSCOLEOD, have not modified their physical fitness at all (the Air Force couldn't modify the NAVSCOLEOD course if they wanted to).
Currently, the CFM is working towards the creation of an occupational fitness assessment that better correlates to the physical requirements of performing EOD duties, both state-side and overseas, with full backing from the AF Civil Engineer. I am honestly very excited for the change, since the new tool will be required to be met by everyone in the career field on a yearly basis, not just candidates.
- The AF side of NAVSCOLEOD is Detachment 3, and falls under the 782 TRG (out of Sheppard AFB, not Eglin).
- The PAST requirements were provided to the EOD career field via Dr. Baumgartner, the Exercise Physiologist for the Air Force. Whether or not this altered version was based on collected data I'm uncertain (more on that later).
- As far as saying that the Department of the Air Force has never formally acknowledged EOD's PAST, look no further than AF/A1's previous discussions on EOD's attrition within the context of BA/CS AFSCs (http://www.acq.osd.mil/rd/hptb/hfet...nnel_SubTAG_2014_BA_CS_Brief_DSYX_&_AFRS.pptx); this discussion included both the TAPAS and PAST requirements and was developed by the Air Force's Strategic Research and Assessment (AFPC/DSYX).
You could also look at the most recent version of AFI 32-3001, dated 13 May 2016, which discusses the PAST requirement for retrainees/officers/ANG personnel during their 10-day orientation (http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a4/publication/afi32-3001/afi32-3001.pdf); this is signed by the AF Civil Engineer (AF/A4C), Major General Gren, who is in the first video you posted. I assume those illustrate a top-level acknowledgement, but if not I'm sure I could provide more data.
Now, to elaborate on the removal of the PAST, I am guessing that during the WISR, when the current BA career fields were being scrutinized on their fitness standards, it was discovered that EOD has been using the PAST as a disqualifying benchmark but was no longer considered a BA/CS AFSC. This would leave me to believe that the next step would be to take a look at the data that was used in creating the modified version that EOD uses, and this is where I speculate that there wasn't actually any data collected, just some sort of drug deal with Dr. Baumgartner. I don't know if this is true at all, but this is the sort of thing that would gravitate at the CFM level, and it certainly isn't my place to dig (though I am terribly curious). Couple this with AETC's rigorous intent to reduce attrition and boost throughput in the Preliminary Course, and the rest of the chips fall comfortably into place.
The PAST was a great tool for risk mitigation; as soon as the floodgates were open, people were getting hospitalized, injuring themselves out of the pipeline (and even the Air Force), and SIEs went up. Worst of all, the communication given to recruiters was minimal, and basically equated to them telling people to jump into EOD now, because there weren't any physical requirements at all. The Preliminary Course, as well as NAVSCOLEOD, have not modified their physical fitness at all (the Air Force couldn't modify the NAVSCOLEOD course if they wanted to).
Currently, the CFM is working towards the creation of an occupational fitness assessment that better correlates to the physical requirements of performing EOD duties, both state-side and overseas, with full backing from the AF Civil Engineer. I am honestly very excited for the change, since the new tool will be required to be met by everyone in the career field on a yearly basis, not just candidates.
The PowerPoint overview beyond the title page states "Battlefield Airman (BA) and Combat Support. AF EOD and AF SERE were the two Combat Support AFSCs being included. The first video I posted concisely and clearly indicated the stated the AF EOD entry PAST is suspended until a relevant based on EOD tasks occupational fitness test is developed.
Although the PAST standards were provided by The PAST requirements were provided to the EOD career field via Dr. Baumgartner, he provided a correlated recommendation lacking any actual AF EOD job analysis studies, he also lacked the approval to implement these standards as Gender-Neutral Occupational performance standards for the AF EOD occupation. It was the none compliance to get AF EOD's occupational fitness standards put forth for approval or disapproval to the Secretary of the Air Force and subsequently the Secretary of Defense that caused the EOD PAST to be suspended. Further the process is a bit more complicated by the 2013 repeal of combat exclusion policies as the fine print of that action states any implementation of Gender-Neutral Occupational performance standards now also gets securitized by the U.S. Congress before being implemented.
I'm also aware of AFI 32-3001 which states:
Unfortunately AFI 32-3001 doesn't prescribe or identify what the occupational fitness standard is or refer to any Air Force policy that stipulate whether the fitness standard is Air Force service wide fitness test or gender-neutral AF EOD occupation fitness standard.
Further the Air Force Officer Classification Directory or Air Force Enlisted Classification Directory only identify PAST as required for entry into career field and not for award and retention of AFSC.
This differs from the BA AFSCs which stipulate "Physical certification and maintenance of personal physical standards as defined in AFI 10-3502, Volume1, Pararescue and Combat Rescue Officer Training or Physical qualification and maintenance of personal physical standards as defined in AFI 13-219 Volume 2, Combat Control and Special Tactics Officer Standardization and Evaluation, and AFSI 13-219 Volume 1. is required for award of 3-level, 5-level, 7-level. and 9-level AFSC in these occupational specialties.
The Department of the Air Force never implemented an EOD occupational fitness standard in compliance with DODI 1308.3, DoD Physical Fitness and Body Fat Programs Procedures, November 5, 2002.
DOD policy concerning occupational fitness standards drives from U.S. Congress implementing Gender-Neutral Occupational performance standards public law in 1993 pertinent to Women in the Service.
Although the PAST standards were provided by The PAST requirements were provided to the EOD career field via Dr. Baumgartner, he provided a correlated recommendation lacking any actual AF EOD job analysis studies, he also lacked the approval to implement these standards as Gender-Neutral Occupational performance standards for the AF EOD occupation. It was the none compliance to get AF EOD's occupational fitness standards put forth for approval or disapproval to the Secretary of the Air Force and subsequently the Secretary of Defense that caused the EOD PAST to be suspended. Further the process is a bit more complicated by the 2013 repeal of combat exclusion policies as the fine print of that action states any implementation of Gender-Neutral Occupational performance standards now also gets securitized by the U.S. Congress before being implemented.
I'm also aware of AFI 32-3001 which states:
Unfortunately AFI 32-3001 doesn't prescribe or identify what the occupational fitness standard is or refer to any Air Force policy that stipulate whether the fitness standard is Air Force service wide fitness test or gender-neutral AF EOD occupation fitness standard.
Further the Air Force Officer Classification Directory or Air Force Enlisted Classification Directory only identify PAST as required for entry into career field and not for award and retention of AFSC.
This differs from the BA AFSCs which stipulate "Physical certification and maintenance of personal physical standards as defined in AFI 10-3502, Volume1, Pararescue and Combat Rescue Officer Training or Physical qualification and maintenance of personal physical standards as defined in AFI 13-219 Volume 2, Combat Control and Special Tactics Officer Standardization and Evaluation, and AFSI 13-219 Volume 1. is required for award of 3-level, 5-level, 7-level. and 9-level AFSC in these occupational specialties.
The Department of the Air Force never implemented an EOD occupational fitness standard in compliance with DODI 1308.3, DoD Physical Fitness and Body Fat Programs Procedures, November 5, 2002.
DOD policy concerning occupational fitness standards drives from U.S. Congress implementing Gender-Neutral Occupational performance standards public law in 1993 pertinent to Women in the Service.
Last edited:
All of the items you posted are things I don't dispute (or even stated myself, albeit differently); I'm not sure if you are in disagreement or simply providing more context to others. I maintain that the PAST was likely provided to EOD as a quick fix to a systemic problem that ended up providing only a temporary cure; luckily, a permanent fix is in the works, but the current state is abysmal due to poor communication between multiple agencies in the mix (CDSS, recruitment, AETC, NAVSCOLEOD).
It's a context more so than agreeing or disagreeing on EOD needing or not needing a PAST or an AF occupational fitness standard.
What I'm focusing on is the perspective of "I hope this kind of failure doesn't spread to the other Battlefield Airmen AFSC's." AF EOD was in a "politically" bad position in sustaining it's entry PAST requirements particularly when the 2013 repeal of combat exclusion policies happened.
I'm also not sure when AF EOD was opened to women, but it happened no later than 1993. The politics are further complicated in that EOD is a joint occupation based on award of a joint badge (much like the Airborne Parachutist Badge being used by all the services) in that Army, Navy, USMC have EOD techs, but although the EOD badge is a joint badge the duties do differ. It's extremely complicated to analyze the where, when, how, and why utilized differences but the Navy EOD PST has a 500 yard swim requirement which the AF EOD PAST never had. This is where AF considering AF EOD combat support rather than Battlefield Airman complicates the "politics". It is this politics that make comparing AF EOD with the AF Battlefield Airman AFSCs a very messy comparison.
Air Force EOD has never been closed to women. The only time it has been closed to women was when it was moved to a combat role in the Marines, I believe, but this is obviously no longer the case.
It's somewhat of a moot point to say it's messy to compare EOD across the board when the Navy PST includes a swim portion. For one, not only do the pipelines and additional training differ, but joint instructions spell out a fundamental difference that easily creates an understanding that an occupational fitness assessment would place more emphasis on swimming for Navy EOD than the Air Force. Additionally, I'm sure you are aware of how CCT was brought into the fold with pararescue as far as the PAST and selection processes; there are now seven AFSCs that are utilizing the PAST under the BA construct, but they don't all match in requirements. That certainly doesn't negate their legitimacy.
Again, I'm in full agreement that the EOD PAST was most likely a "quick fix", which is unfortunate given the last 15 years of operations, but I agree that no one should be concerned about the BA AFSCs getting their PAST shut down and I appreciate you pointing that out.
It's somewhat of a moot point to say it's messy to compare EOD across the board when the Navy PST includes a swim portion. For one, not only do the pipelines and additional training differ, but joint instructions spell out a fundamental difference that easily creates an understanding that an occupational fitness assessment would place more emphasis on swimming for Navy EOD than the Air Force. Additionally, I'm sure you are aware of how CCT was brought into the fold with pararescue as far as the PAST and selection processes; there are now seven AFSCs that are utilizing the PAST under the BA construct, but they don't all match in requirements. That certainly doesn't negate their legitimacy.
Again, I'm in full agreement that the EOD PAST was most likely a "quick fix", which is unfortunate given the last 15 years of operations, but I agree that no one should be concerned about the BA AFSCs getting their PAST shut down and I appreciate you pointing that out.
I am aware with how CCT was brought into the realm of having an occupational-specific fitness requirement and into the realm of having a formal entry screening requirement in 1988 by assimilating the pararescue PAST and adopting the the Pararescue Indoctrination Course as being the Pararescue and Combat Control Indoctrination Course.
Although the Pararescue PAST had been certified as Gender-Neutral Occupational performance requirement since 1967, the brining in CCT to create the PJ-CCT PAST resulted in this PAST being recertified as a Gender-Neutral Occupational performance requirement for award and retention of PJ and CCT 3-level, 5-level, 7-level, and 9-level AFSCs regardless of age and duty assignment.
Several changes to the PAST happened in 1988 to make it the PJ/CCT PAST, elimination of eight count body builders and flutter kicks. There was also some minor changes done to the swimming and running requirements. Current PAST standards show PJ and CCT PAST standards have become delinked pertinent o the swimming and running requirements. Although there is much occupational similarity between PJ and CCT there are fundamental utilization differences that place more emphasis on swimming and other functional fitness standards for Pararescue which is also clearly reflected in the TAPAS score requirement.
There were only seven Air Force specialties (CCT, PJ, SOW, TACP, CRO, STO, and SOW officer not opened to woman when the Combat Exclusion Policies were rescinded effective in January 2013. At this time not all of these AFSCs had a certified Gender-Neutral Occupational performance requirement although all, like EOD, had an entry PAST. As SOW Officer became nonexistent since 2013 the number of formerly closed to woman AFSCs is now six, four enlisted and two officer specialties.
Two of the four enlisted specialties, TACP and SOW, never had any certified Gender-Neutral Occupational performance requirements. This is why the January 2013 elimination of the Combat Exclusion Policy forced the Air Force the April 2013 Implementation Plan for integrating women into Career Fields engaged in Direct Ground Combat. The critical policy statement is that AETC (thus Dr. Baumgartner direct involvement) develop and validate occupationally specific, operationally relevant, and gender-neutral Air Force physical performance tests for all seven (now 6) closed AFSCs; AND establish the Air Force precedent and methodological process for the previous step for all other physically demanding AFSCs. Each career field will remain closed until physical tests and standards for each AFSC have been validated for operational relevance and improved for implementation by Headquarters Air Force Director of Force Management Policy.
The October 2016 Air Force Enlisted Classification Directory has implemented no policy changes pertinent to Gender-Neutral Occupational performance requirements pertinent to the remaining six closed AFSCs. The PAST requirements have yet to be changed in any way as results of AETC developing and validating occupationally specific, operationally relevant, and gender-neutral Air Force physical performance tests for the CCT, PJ, SOW, TACP, CRO, STO AFSCs,
However EOD classification requirements no longer has the "3.5.1.3. Successful completion of the EOD physical ability and stamina test (PAST) located on the AF Portal under AETC A2/3/10 Divisions, AETC/A3T." requirement.
The significant context of ALL my comments and opinion pertinent to AFSCs having PAST is politically there is minimal interest or effort being exerted to develop and implement Gender-Neutral Occupational performance requirements for physically demanding AFSCs that are not the six AFSCs that were closed to women when the combat exclusion polices were rescinded in January 2013. At least one of the six, TACP, has yet to establish operationally relevant and being operational specific due to being primarily integrated as support into Army direct ground combat units, and not necessarily to perform JTAC duties, that the Army has yet to establish their operationally relevant physical fitness standards for assignment to those units. The context being in terms of joint instructions seldom identify how Army units fundamentally differ in terms of needed occupational fitness assessment regardless of MOS or AFSC held. TACP duty assignments to support the 75th Ranger Regiment is currently the most obvious current exception.
Although the Pararescue PAST had been certified as Gender-Neutral Occupational performance requirement since 1967, the brining in CCT to create the PJ-CCT PAST resulted in this PAST being recertified as a Gender-Neutral Occupational performance requirement for award and retention of PJ and CCT 3-level, 5-level, 7-level, and 9-level AFSCs regardless of age and duty assignment.
Several changes to the PAST happened in 1988 to make it the PJ/CCT PAST, elimination of eight count body builders and flutter kicks. There was also some minor changes done to the swimming and running requirements. Current PAST standards show PJ and CCT PAST standards have become delinked pertinent o the swimming and running requirements. Although there is much occupational similarity between PJ and CCT there are fundamental utilization differences that place more emphasis on swimming and other functional fitness standards for Pararescue which is also clearly reflected in the TAPAS score requirement.
There were only seven Air Force specialties (CCT, PJ, SOW, TACP, CRO, STO, and SOW officer not opened to woman when the Combat Exclusion Policies were rescinded effective in January 2013. At this time not all of these AFSCs had a certified Gender-Neutral Occupational performance requirement although all, like EOD, had an entry PAST. As SOW Officer became nonexistent since 2013 the number of formerly closed to woman AFSCs is now six, four enlisted and two officer specialties.
Two of the four enlisted specialties, TACP and SOW, never had any certified Gender-Neutral Occupational performance requirements. This is why the January 2013 elimination of the Combat Exclusion Policy forced the Air Force the April 2013 Implementation Plan for integrating women into Career Fields engaged in Direct Ground Combat. The critical policy statement is that AETC (thus Dr. Baumgartner direct involvement) develop and validate occupationally specific, operationally relevant, and gender-neutral Air Force physical performance tests for all seven (now 6) closed AFSCs; AND establish the Air Force precedent and methodological process for the previous step for all other physically demanding AFSCs. Each career field will remain closed until physical tests and standards for each AFSC have been validated for operational relevance and improved for implementation by Headquarters Air Force Director of Force Management Policy.
The October 2016 Air Force Enlisted Classification Directory has implemented no policy changes pertinent to Gender-Neutral Occupational performance requirements pertinent to the remaining six closed AFSCs. The PAST requirements have yet to be changed in any way as results of AETC developing and validating occupationally specific, operationally relevant, and gender-neutral Air Force physical performance tests for the CCT, PJ, SOW, TACP, CRO, STO AFSCs,
However EOD classification requirements no longer has the "3.5.1.3. Successful completion of the EOD physical ability and stamina test (PAST) located on the AF Portal under AETC A2/3/10 Divisions, AETC/A3T." requirement.
The significant context of ALL my comments and opinion pertinent to AFSCs having PAST is politically there is minimal interest or effort being exerted to develop and implement Gender-Neutral Occupational performance requirements for physically demanding AFSCs that are not the six AFSCs that were closed to women when the combat exclusion polices were rescinded in January 2013. At least one of the six, TACP, has yet to establish operationally relevant and being operational specific due to being primarily integrated as support into Army direct ground combat units, and not necessarily to perform JTAC duties, that the Army has yet to establish their operationally relevant physical fitness standards for assignment to those units. The context being in terms of joint instructions seldom identify how Army units fundamentally differ in terms of needed occupational fitness assessment regardless of MOS or AFSC held. TACP duty assignments to support the 75th Ranger Regiment is currently the most obvious current exception.
Similar threads
