I debated posting this because it reads like sour grapes. But it's important--let's discuss.

There are so many reasons to decline. I accepted, but I know several who didn't, and I completely understand why.

Here are several generic bad things:

• STILL no rank names, despite heavy implications that they would be announced at the Space Symposium 9 months ago.
• Requiring a beyond-legal-necessity 2-year ADSC for transferring officers for "fairness". Let's be honest--military life isn't fair.
• A one-time one-month transfer application window in May. There were so many outstanding questions that nobody could really make an informed decision. (That's still feels true today.)
• "You can decline up to the day before transfer."
  "Just kidding! You have 3 weeks. You're on leave right now? Meh..."
  (This was foolish to promise in the first place, but having promised, they should have stuck with it.)

There are more reasons for acquisition officers

• Have to love L.A.
• We are absolutely being treated as second-class. Yes, it's true that we're support officers (for now). However, we're pretty important when we make up ~50% of the officer force. Below are some real examples from officers at all levels.
  • to Cadets:
    "I'd love to give you a grad school slot, but SF won't commit to a payback tour. AF will though..."
  • to Capts:
    "We understand your join-spouse request, but SF won't commit to honor it, even though AF already has..."
  • to Majs:
    "Your scheduled future assignment is an AF committment. If you transfer to SF it gets wiped out because 'needs of the SF'."
  • to Cols:
    "Your Presidention nomination and Senate confirmation to this permanent position is an AF appointment. If you transfer to SF we'll put you somewhere else because 'needs of the SF'."

Look, I get it. "Standing up a branch is hard." "Needs of the SF." The thing is, we were always subject to "needs of the AF" too. Somehow that wasn't so callous.

"We're too busy focused on the important things." Some of these things ARE the important things.

SF has lost out on several quality officers because they're unwilling to make sensible decisions and commit to them. Will we survive? Sure. Yes. Absolutely. However, with such a small branch we really COULD use the opportunity to take care of people in a personal way. We're not doing it.

My wife asked "Why do you want to transfer to SF if they're doing such a bad job with personnel policies and communication?" I have lots of good reasons, and I'm excited about SF. However, the fact that she's even asking the question indicates that something is wrong.