Air University

Joseph J. Redden, Lt Gen, Commander

Air War College

Timothy A. Kinnan, Maj Gen, Commandant

Ronald J. Kurth, PhD, Dean

Lawrence E. Grinter, PhD, Series Editor

Gail I. Arnott, Col, Essay Advisor

Air University Press

Allan W. Howey, Col, Director

Richard Bailey, PhD, Content Editor

Joan Hickey, Copy Editor

Prepress Production: Linda C. Colson

Cover Design: Daniel M. Armstrong

Please send inquiries or comments to:

Editor

The Maxwell Papers

Air War College

Bldg 1401

Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6427

Tel: (334) 953-7074

Fax: (334) 953-4028

Internet: lagrinter@maxl.au.af.mil
AIR WAR COLLEGE

AIR UNIVERSITY

Core Values

Foundation for the

Twenty-First Century

DANIEL R. SIMMONS

Lieutenant Colonel, USAF

Air War College

Maxwell Paper No. 11

MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE, ALABAMA

September 1997
Disclaimer

This publication was produced in the Department of Defense school environme

the interest of academic freedom and the advancement of national defense re

concepts. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author an

not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U

States government.

This publication has been reviewed by security and policy review authorities a

cleared for public release.

ii
Foreword

In this important study, Lt Col Daniel R. Simmo

USAF, argues that the United States Air Force (USAF) o

cer success in the twenty-first century will depend on 

robust ethical and professional foundation based on 

Force core values. The Air Force has widely promulga

the following core values: “Integrity first, Service bef

self, and Excellence in all we do.” However, recently w

publicized cases of core values failures among some 

Force officers suggest a crisis in character that threat

leadership effectiveness in the Air Force. To attack and 

solve this core value deficiency and the related charac

problems among USAF officers, Colonel Simmons reco

mends that the Air Force significantly increase its focus 

core values in its officer accession schools and professio

military education programs. While current USAF ini

tives to address the character problems are steps in 

right direction, the study argues that the Air Force needs 

do more.

Referring to the Center for Character Development at 

Air Force Academy, and other core value training at 

Force professional military education schools, Colonel S

mons recommends that the Air Force create a center 

core value development. This Center for Core Values Dev

opment (CCVD) would build a core values architecture t

directs integrated training and education across the en

Air Force. The CCVD would be a single, central office 

charge of core values education for the Air Force, a

would create a close dialogue and better standardization 

honor codes and values instruction among the Air Forc

separate schools currently teaching core values. These 

teresting proposals deserve to be read by a wide Air Fo

audience.

TIMOTHY A. KINN

Major General, US

Commandant

Air War College

iii

About the Author

Lt Col Daniel R. Simmons, USAF, is a command p

whose previous experience includes operations, dep

commander, and commander assignments with train

squadrons and operations groups. With early experience 

the Strategic Air Command and flying KC-135s, Colo

Simmons is a 1997 graduate of the Air War College.

v
Core Values

Foundation for the Twenty-First Century

On New Year’s Day, 1997, the Rose Bowl parade a

football game in Pasadena, California, included salutes 

the United States Air Force (USAF). This salute was j

one of many tributes in a year-long celebration of 

USAF’s 50th birthday. It is a refreshing change to see 

vorable publicity regarding the Air Force, because so

aspects of recent history have not been kind to the natio

youngest service. Claims of gross negligence in numero

tragic incidents—a B-52 crash at Fairchild Air Force B

(AFB), a CT-43 crash in Croatia, a US Army Black Ha

helicopter shoot-down in Iraq, to name just a few—h

minimized the overwhelming success the Air Force enjoy

during Operation Desert Storm. It is also a sad irony t

the Air Force’s greatest publicity event of recent h

tory—the rescue of Capt Scott O’Grady—actually invol

a major USAF mission failure, for example, getting s

down, and the real heroes were the Marine Corps resc

team members.

What is wrong with today’s Air Force? Is there a fa

flaw or is the Air Force just in a “slump”? And, what is 

this uproar over accountability? How can so much 

wrong when the Air Force is allegedly getting the “best a

the brightest” of America’s youth? Or is it?

In September 1996 a USAF Academy cadet was arres

for murder. This incident was the first of its kind in 

40-year history of the academy. If officials had not c

tured this individual, would he have developed into an o

standing Air Force leader? Fortunately, we may ne

know the answer to this question. But this incident a

the USAF’s recent negative track record raise more qu

tions about the health and well-being of the Air Force a

the caliber of leadership that will be in charge of the 

Force in the twenty-first century. Cadets at the US

Academy and the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Co

(AFROTC) who began their education in the summer 

1996 will be the first new officers of the twenty-first c

tury, graduating as second lieutenants in the summer 

1
the year 2000. In addition, the Officer Training Sch

(OTS) already is producing some of the first captains of 

next century. If there is a problem in today’s Air Force w

the quality of its officers, now is the time to figure out wh

that problem is. From there, the Air Force can take corr

tive action to assure that the USAF leaders of tomorr

will possess “the right stuff.”

This paper seeks to convince current Air Force lead

ship that future officer success depends on a robust fou

dation based on Air Force core values. This paper a

recommends how the Air Force can better instill these c

values into its officers and its officer candidates. To acc

this thesis regarding the importance of core values to 

Force officers, we need to understand that there is a fun

mental deficiency in the character attributes of today’s n

officer candidates. In addition, I contend the study of c

values offers the best possible solution to this poten

“crisis of character.”

While a review of current Air Force officer accession p

grams and professional military education does reveal 

inclusion of some core values education, the effort has 

solved the problem. Even with a recent initiative by 

chief of staff to address this character issue, there is s

considerable room for improvement. I believe the Air Fo

could best implement improvements in character grow

programs by establishing a center for core value devel

ment for all USAF officers and officer candidates. While 

Air Force does seem to be going through a difficult tim

the current ailment is not fatal; it only needs a good d

of core value “medication.” This is good news, because 

increasingly complicated and uncertain world highlig

the importance of having competent young Air Force le

ers prepared for the immense challenges of the future.

It would be easy but inappropriate to blame current 

Force woes on today’s crazy, mixed-up world. Although 

current period in Air Force history does seem to be frau

with many challenges—a potentially unstable global en

ronment, downsizing of military forces, shrinking 

sources, proliferation of technology and weapons of m

destruction, and an information explosion—this type 

turbulence is nothing new. In the Air Force’s relati vely sh
history, leaders have successfully handled the transit

from propeller airplanes to jet aircraft, the advent of atom

weapons, and the incorporation of stealth and precisi

guided and space-guided weapons, to name just a few 

the significant developments. The old adage, “the o

thing that remains constant is change,” indicates t

change is just a normal part of life. In fact, effective lead

ship manifests itself during these ever-present periods 

change.

Burt Nanus, a professor of management and policy s

ences at the University of Southern California, sums 

this thought by saying, “If one thinks of the great pub

leaders of history—Moses, Abraham Lincoln, Mar

Luther King, Winston Churchill, etc.—it is immediately 

vious that all of them were effective precisely in times 

great change, complexity and uncertainty. In fact, the 

cret of managing change and complexity is none other th

leadership itself.”1

If leadership is the key to a better tomorrow in the 

Force, the USAF needs to teach the universally approv

time-tested keys to successful leadership. Right? Unfor

nately, over the years the voluminous literature on 

attributes of an effective leader has resulted in one conc

sion—there is no conclusion. There seems to be no clos

on whether trait, behavior, or situation approaches prov

the answers to an individual’s becoming a good or b

leader. In addition, the question of leaders being born 

made has been debated extensively, again with no agr

ment from the “experts.” Simply stated, the fact that th

is a USAF Academy and AFROTC/OTS programs, as w

as professional military education (PME), suggests the 

Force believes leaders can be made—or at least improv

Today’s challenge, then, is to determine what lessons 

Air Force should teach in its officer training and PME p

grams to prepare its officers to meet the leadership ch

lenges of the future.

If change and uncertainty are “givens,” there must 

some common thread for all leaders, independent of 

“changes du jour,” that would serve as the foundation 

officer education and training. In my opinion, that comm

thread is what is rooted inside the individual—in the in
vidual’s character. According to the great football coa

Vince Lombardi, “Character, not education, is man’s gre

est need and man’s greatest safeguard; for character 

higher than intellect.”2

 It is character that stands the t

of time and weathers periods of change, complexity, a

uncertainty which always seem to be the order of the d

Carl von Clausewitz, arguably the greatest military thin

in history, strongly supports the importance of charac

in his writings about military genius. During his disc

sions of the “fog of war,” Clausewitz emphasizes the imp

tance of leaders following an inner light leading to trut

This statement embodies the essence of character at 

best. As the Air Force prepares for the “fog” of the n

century, character will be the foundation on which to bu

a bright future.

While definitions of character are as numerous and v

ied as definitions of leadership, the best “short list” of pr

ciples I have found to describe character is a list the 

Force has already provided—the Air Force core values. “

tegrity first, Service before self, and Excellence in all we 

is a superb list of character traits because of its al l-

compassing simplicity—unlike the six core values the 

Force initially developed several years ago. Although 

previous list—courage, competency, service, patriotism, 

tegrity, and tenacity—was larger, it was overly specific a

allowed for exclusions. The current list of three enables 

incorporation of all positive character traits. While du

honor, and country have become the character battle 

for the Army, integrity, service, and excellence can serv

similar purpose for the Air Force.

Essentially, the Air Force core values should serve a

way of work and a way of life, as well as a yardstick 

success and a criterion for effective decision making. In 

vernacular of an aircrew member, the list of core valu

can double as an officer’s “boldface” checklist for mak

correct decisions. A boldface checklist offers a list of k

steps for a pilot to follow in the event of an in-flight em

gency. The pilot memorizes these and relies on them wh

the going gets rough. Basically, boldface supports the 

lots during a difficult situation—when they need to ta

the right course of action. In this light, officers can u
core values as a boldface checklist in their daily actio

For this reason, training and education on the basic c

values, with the resultant positive character developme

is where the Air Force needs to focus its preparation 

future officers.

A Crisis of Character

The current social climate in the United States indica

the development of core values in future Air Force lead

may be a bigger challenge than before. I mentioned 

recent disturbing incident at the USAF Academy; unfor

nately, other serious developments have gained natio

attention. A 1993–94 survey conducted by the General 

counting Office revealed 78 percent of female USAF Ac

emy cadets had suffered sexual harassment on a recurr

basis. This result had climbed from 59 percent in a sim

survey in 1990–91.4

 In addition, during the 1994 sch

year the academy received reports of 15 sexual assaults 

incidents of sexual misconduct ranging from rape to 

proper fondling.5

 After these incidents, Brig Gen Patr

Gamble, then the commandant of cadets, reflected on 

caliber of an enrollee at the USAF Academy. “The raw m

terial is not coming in the door with the same values o

grandparents and parents taught us 30 and 35 ye

ago.”6

 Certainly, this trend is not limited to USAF Acade

cadets but seems to be prevalent among all of the arm

services. The past year—1996—was not a good one for a

of the services as scandals were all too prevalent. I n 

vember 1996 the Army was rocked by sexual abuse alle

tions at the Army Ordnance Center and School at its Ab

deen Proving Ground in Maryland. A captain and two d

sergeants currently face charges that go beyond sex

harassment into sexual assault and rape. One of the 

cused men allegedly threatened to kill some of his victi 

In addition, when the Army established a toll-free sex

abuse hot line at Aberdeen, more than three thousand c

from all over the country poured in after the first week. 7

The Navy was not immune from the negative spotli

even while it continued to recover from the Tailhook inc id

of 1991. The Naval Academy expelled 15 of its midshipm
in 1996 for their role in a drug and car theft ring. 8

 T

latest Naval Academy problem follows a massive cheat

scandal at Annapolis in 1994.9

Although these incidents received extensive media cov

age, readers should not assume that these scandals pos

problem solely with the military. On the contrary, eviden

suggests this negative pattern reflects the entire post-ba

boom generation.

Individuals born between 1961 and 1981 make up 

13th generation of Americans and have come to be kno

by several names—“13ers,” “Generation X,” and 

“Twenty-somethings.” No matter what authors call the

they all seem to agree that this generation may not be o

of our finest. Dissatisfied, slackers, whiners, unskill

cynical, and wild are just some of the words authors use 

describe this latest generation.10

Tales of violence and unethical behavior seem comm

place in America’s schools today. If these stereotypes 

true, we should be careful not to place all the blame 

these “kids” who are now growing up. According to Cha

Meier, a member of the first graduating class from 

USAF Academy, “Today’s societal standards are differ

than the standards of 35 years ago. White collar crime 

tolerated in society today. Our children learn from our 

havior. They have different concepts of what is wrong

Jeff McFadden, an ex-Navy officer and Naval Acade

graduate, agrees. “What we’re seeing today in the class 

2000 are the offspring and byproduct of what is proba

the most self-centered, self-absorbed, hedonistic culture 

American history.”12 What society previously accepted 

“givens” in the area of core values—and the difference 

tween right and wrong—cannot be assumed anymore.

Importance of Core Value Education

If the core values and the character of our future 

Force leaders are suspect, how does the USAF develop th

attributes? Can it teach core values to members who do 

measure up to Air Force standards? I believe the answe 

yes! John Gardner, a renowned scholar and author, emph

cally denies the importance of an individual’s innate att

utes. “The individual’s hereditary gifts, however notab
leave the issue of future leadership performance un

cided, to be settled by later events and influences.” 13 Peo

can learn the difference between appropriate and inapp

priate behavior and modify their actions accordingly.

Certainly, if we carry this thought to an extreme, we w

find countless examples of criminals who have been re

bilitated and gone on to become respected members of 

ciety. Furthermore, in an address to the USAF Acade

cadet corps, Secretary of the Air Force Dr. Sheila E. Widn

summed up the relationship of habitual behavior a

character development with the following quote from 

YMCA leader:

Watch your thoughts; they become words.

Watch your words; they become actions.

Watch your actions; they become habits.

Watch your habits; they become character.

Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.

(Emphasis added)14

If habits do form an individual’s character, it ma

sense that correcting a flawed character would invo

breaking a bad habit, not unlike quitting smoking ci

rettes. The challenge is finding the right education a

training program to break those “value habits” th

counter effective leadership. The obvious and easiest w

to stop a bad habit is by preventing it in the first place. “

ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” applies 

core value education and is more important than ever 

the Air Force faces some significant challenges.

As the turn of the century nears, the Air Force bra

itself for a period of turmoil. Although the bulk of restr

turing and downsizing is accomplished, the USAF is s

not at its end-strength numbers directed by the Depa

ment of Defense (DOD) Bottom-up Review. Over the n

two years, the Air Force will have to reduce further 

numbers by a total of 10,000 members. Not only will 

Air Force have a smaller force, but many traditional m

tary services will transition to the civilian work force. “O

sourcing” and “privatization” have been gaining popula

as solutions to shrinking budgets and costly new weap

systems. The Air Force plans to use the savings to help p
for new aircraft and such systems as the Joint Str

Fighter, F-22, C-17, and the Milstar satellite system. 15

While this study is not the proper forum to discuss 

pros and cons of outsourcing and privatization, the po

holds that the future Air Force will look very different fr

the way it looks today. Unlike military members, contr

tors do not have to swear to “support and defend the C

stitution” and “to bear true faith and allegiance to 

same.” A smaller, “less military” Air Force emphasizes on

again the importance of a core foundation based on po

tive character values. This increased focus on core valu

also will hold the solution to another problem the US

currently faces—the “accountability” issue.

Accountability—the word brings forth emotions amo

all USAF officers, young and old. Why does this word p

sent such an emotional topic? Accountability is really 

straightforward issue that requires us to answer for 

actions, and, if warranted, to receive punishment for th

inappropriate actions. What is wrong about this? T

problem seems to be that everybody is focusing on 

wrong side of the issue.

A Core Value Foundation

Put the focus where it should be—on integrity, serv

and excellence. Reducing core value “violations” will 

crease the need for these accountability cases, and t

issue should die a long-overdue death. The current ce

bral “feeding frenzy” about accountability is just one m

reason the Air Force’s foundation for the future rests w

the three core values.

Integrity

The first core value necessary in the character foun

tion of future Air Force leaders is integrity. Military lead

virtually agree that this value is the bedrock of effect

leadership. Gen Ronald R. Fogleman, former Air Fo

chief of staff, summarized the importance of integrity in 

Force officers by pointing to the business we’re in—

profession of arms: “The US Air Force exists for one re as

and one reason alone. That is to fight and win Americ
wars when called on to do so. That is the only reason 

exist as an institution.”16 Furthermore, former Air Fo

Chief of Staff David C. Jones provided additional emphasi

the role of integrity by saying, “Integrity is certainly no

unique military attribute, but stakes are higher in 

business than in almost any other. We must be right, 

must be competent, we must admit our mistakes and c

rect them when they do occur, and above all we m

never permit either the fact or image of duplicity to ta

our honor. The watchword must be, as always, the tru

the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” 17 Integ

does not just mean always telling the truth, although t

is important. As General Fogleman and Dr. Widnall h

written, “If you always tell the truth, you never have to 

and remember what you told someone.” The best definitio

ever heard for integrity is also the most simple—do

what is right when nobody is looking.18 This definition c

ers a variety of areas—as it should! Integrity involves ke

ing commitments, which in turn builds trust. When 

commitment is to support and defend the Constitution of 

United States, the importance of integrity becomes obvio

Pencil-whipping training records, violating technical da

falsifying documents, and making inaccurate reports 

all examples of integrity violations. According to Gene

Fogleman, “We can ill afford such behavior in a busin

like ours that deals in lethal instruments and the lives 

people.”19

Some recent Air Force disasters point to integrity fla

that have resulted in significant loss of life to military a

civilian personnel. In 1994 a B-52 crashed at Fairch

AFB during a practice air show flyover, killing all on boa

Several times the pilot in control of the aircraft had v

lated aircraft technical data and performed unsafe fli

maneuvers, which investigators revealed was the cause 

this crash. Not only was the pilot’s integrity at fault, so w

his commander’s. His commander, despite numero

warnings and complaints about this pilot’s inappropri

actions, allowed the pilot to continue flying when 

should have been grounded. This multiple breakdown 

integrity met with the most severe of consequences.
Another example of an integrity fault having disastro

results occurred in the former Yugoslavia. A USAF CT

from Ramstein AFB, carrying Ron Brown, the US secret

of commerce, crashed while attempting an approach 

Dubrovnik Airport in Croatia, killing all on board. Wh

the safety report (which was read live on CNN) identif

numerous causes for the accident, the most disturbing f

tor was the Air Force unit’s disregard for Air Force regu

tions. Had the aircrew complied with these regulatio

they never would have attempted to approach this airpo

Integrity does go much deeper than simply telling 

truth, and the penalties for integrity flaws can have d

consequences. This explanation tells why it is so import

to drill this particular core value deep into the soul of 

Force leaders.

As examples in the two previous paragraphs illustra

maintaining integrity is not always easy. Often, it invol

making difficult decisions, illustrated all too painfully b

well-publicized case from the Vietnam War. Gen John 

Lavelle, commander of the Seventh Air Force in Saig

from August 1971 to April 1972, faced a dilemma a

subsequently failed the integrity test. Restricted by rules 

engagement that placed his pilots’ safety at risk, Lav

elected to violate those rules under the guise of pilot p

tection. He was then found responsible for fostering a co

mand environment that allowed misreporting of the r

violations.20

While it is true Lavelle was torn between a “rock an

hard place,” more appropriate options were available. 

hindsight, Lavelle should have refused to fly until the ob

lete rules of engagement were changed. His ill-advised 

tions caused him to lose his command and forced him 

retire as a major general. And if Lavelle’s decision did 

seem difficult enough, consider the sergeant who unc

ered this incident by exposing the false reports coming 

of Lavelle’s unit! This young sergeant “did the right thin

that is, this is the kind of message we need to get to o

future Air Force leaders. Integrity, the most important c

value, has to be the first brick in the foundation of 

Force leadership training.
Service before Self

The second core value, service before self, is another k

attribute separating the Air Force officer from most ot

professionals. While some people call integrity “the mot

of all core values,” service before self may be the “father 

all core values.” In fact, if you hold this core value dea

you should automatically embrace integrity because se

ice before self means you will “do what is right.” Serv

before self, simply stated, is selflessness.

Gen Duane H. Cassidy, former commander in chief 

the Military Airlift Command (MAC), defines selflessness 

“putting your own personal desires second to a hig

cause or to other people.”21 General Cassidy believes 

Force people must be selfless because “we are in a life a

death business—our success guarantees freedom for 

other Americans—our failure is unconscionable.”22 Serv

before self is “the mission.” It is a 24-hour-a-day occu

tion, generating a satisfaction for doing the most import

job in the country—protecting its freedom and its way 

life.

While movie stars and sport heroes earn millions of d

lars but often lead turbulent, unhappy lives, the job sa

faction from serving one’s country is a priceless gem t

lasts a lifetime. If the Air Force can instill this value into 

future officers, it will assure a major step towards effect

leadership. Unfortunately, this objective may result in 

uphill battle as well.

The negative trend of values in today’s society does 

favor a selfless attitude, an attribute which is so import

in the military. In an NBC television report about proble

at the service academies, Pentagon correspondent F

Francis correctly captured the importance of selflessn

by saying, “In the military where teamwork is vital to 

national interests, a selfish future officer is a formula 

future military failure.”23 Furthermore, in the same N

segment, Brig Gen Ruben A. Cubero, dean of faculty at 

USAF Academy, said, “There is a philosophy of individu

ism now as opposed to teamwork and caring for the co

munity.”24 Many times this type of selfishness manife

itself in officers who are labeled “careerists”—those w

will do whatever is required to succeed. While careerism 
serious in itself, the results of selfishness can be mu

worse. It can lead to abuse of position, with officers e

ploying their authority to satisfy their own personal int

ests. This violation of trust by officers can lead to ev

more serious offenses in the Air Force, including inapp

priate sexual behavior.

Dr. Widnall correctly blames self-interest as the cau

for sexual harassment by military supervisors. She 

lieves this type of incident “is not measured by the sex

character of it but because it is an abuse of power, a c

flict of interest, a violation of trust.” 25 It is not hard to 

the selfishness inherent in some of the sex-related in

dents that became public in 1996. An A-10 pilot fa

criminal charges for “conduct unbecoming an offic

stemming from alleged sexual advances against an enlis

woman in the bathroom of a charter aircraft. The aircr

was returning to the United States from a deployment 

Kuwait, where A-10 unit members had participated in 

illegal drinking party the night before their departure

further example of selfish behavior.26

In addition, selfish conduct, demonstrated by sexual 

propriety, is not limited to junior Air Force officers. A g

eral officer wing commander was found guilty of misc

duct with a female subordinate. The commander, who w

forced to retire as a colonel, “twice embraced a female su

ordinate while unsuccessfully pursuing an intimate re

tionship with her.”27

Selfishness, as evidenced by inappropriate sexual 

havior, is totally incompatible with military service. T

type of selfish behavior violates the core value of serv

before self and destroys the foundation so critical to 

Force operations. Although examples of selfish behav

often make the headlines, it is reassuring to know th

are also good examples of Air Force individuals who de

onstrate the core value of service before self every day.

In October 1993 TSgt Tim Wilkinson, an Air Fo

pararescueman, demonstrated the core value of service 

fore self during a firefight in Mogadishu, Somalia. Wh

treating injured Army helicopter crew members, Wilkins

was injured in the face and arm by shrapnel. In spite 

these injuries, he proceeded through enemy fire to atte
to Army Rangers in need of help. He treated the soldie

went back for supplies, then returned through enemy 

to finish his work. Wilkinson received the Air Force Cr

for his heroic efforts in the line of duty. 28 Although few 

Force personnel face the imminent danger Serge

Wilkinson faced in Somalia, he clearly demonstrated 

core value of service before self—an attribute important 

all other Air Force members.

Excellence

The third Air Force core value, excellence, also separa

the Air Force officer from his or her peers. This “catch 

core value encompasses vision and competence and gui

an officer’s daily actions. Once again, as a core value, 

cellence reflects the importance of this profession, that 

nation entrusts its security with the leadership of its m

tary officers. Vision is the ability to look forward and h

a sense of direction for where an organization needs 

go.29 Although it may not be possible to increase an in

vidual’s capacity for vision, there are ways to focus 

direction an individual will take. Emphasizing the three 

Force core values is the right way to focus that directi

“As the pace of change in our world continues to accel

ate, strong basic values become increasingly necessary 

guide leadership behavior.”30 Vision that is guided by c

values will certainly serve the Air Force well as it meets 

challenges of the next century. Vision without competen

however, is comparable to a train being on the right tra

but without a qualified engineer at the wheel.

The other important part of excellence is competence

leader must have the necessary qualifications to make 

cisions that could affect the lives of many. For a milit

officer, these qualifications often include the expert

gained from technical training and follow-on training at 

operational unit. Professional military education at the 

propriate time during one’s career provides the additio

Air Force knowledge to facilitate correct decision maki

Once we achieve competence, we must dedicate oursel

to maintain, or even improve, this level of competen

through recurring training. Unfortunately, a lack of co

petence contributed to a tragic mistake leading to 
friendly shoot-down of two US Army Black Hawk helic

ters and the death of 26 people.

The story of the military disaster over Northern Iraq 

April 1994 is all too well known. Two F-15s mistake

identified two US helicopters in the no-fly zone as Ir

aircraft and subsequently shot them down. As the inve

gation of this mishap revealed, incompetence was evid

at numerous levels. According to Secretary Widnall, “T

mishap was not the result of any one individual’s actio

The conduct of numerous officers and the system it

contributed.”31 First of all, the Air Force and the Army w

operating with two different friend-or-foe identificat

codes required for all US aircraft entering Iraq. The 

tasking order, a USAF product directing all US flights 

the area, instructed the helicopters to set a wrong co

leading to the F-15 pilots’ suspicions they were 

friendly. In addition, officers on board an airborne warn

and control aircraft responsible for monitoring all air tra

in the area failed to intervene to prevent the incident. 

nally, the two F-15 pilots incorrectly identified the Bla

Hawks as Iraqi Hind helicopters. The Air Force cannot 

erate incompetence in the profession of arms, as dem

strated in this terrible incident. Should the Air Force som

how instill in its officers the excellence that was 

brilliantly demonstrated by Gen Curtis E. LeMay, it c

prevent incidents like the Black Hawk shoot-down.

General LeMay will be remembered for many things—

Force chief of staff, “father” of the Strategic Air Comma

(SAC), architect of the fire-bombing campaign in Japa

but his example of excellence may be his most valua

legacy to the Air Force today. General LeMay had an 

credible work ethic, and he would never tolerate incom

tence. His dedication to excellence resulted in SAC’s 

coming the most powerful military force ever assembled.

Although General LeMay was considered a tough co

mander, he never expected more from his people than 

did from himself. As a young officer, he was considered 

best pilot in his unit; he then attended navigator train

and afterwards was considered the best navigator in the u

But, his quest for excellence did not stop there. General 

May studied the B-17 aircraft systems and was considere
be one of the best B-17 crew chiefs—he was often seen 

on the flight line training young maintainers!32

Although not everybody can be a Curt LeMay, the exa

ple he set for excellence can be a noble target for toda

Air Force officers. Like integrity and service before self, 

core value of excellence must be an integral part of ea

officer’s foundation. The officer training schools and P

programs offer the best hope for incorporating these c

values into the Air Force way of life. Considering the n

merous examples of serious violations of Air Force sta

ards, it may be beneficial to review the current core va

training of these institutions.

Current Air Force Core Value Education

The current Air Force core value education provide

yardstick by which to advance military education. A care

study of the considerations outlined below enables read

to understand better these core values.

Officer Accession Programs

For a review of core value awareness training at acc

sion and PME schools, the USAF Academy provides a go

place to start. The academy has always had an honor co

“We will not lie, steal or cheat, nor tolerate anyone w

does.” This code is fairly straightforward and covers f

important aspects of integrity. Cadets have a grace per

of six weeks during initial basic training when they lea

the code and the penalty for violating it—expulsion fr

the academy. Considering the evidence of the questiona

values characteristic of cadets entering the academy tod

it is debatable whether six weeks is long enough to tea

these important values to cadets. According to Brig G

Jack K. Gamble, “Their definition of cheating and ours 

different because their value system is different. You ca

say ‘don’t lie, cheat, or steal,’ anymore. You’ve got to re

fine for them what lying, cheating and stealing is 

about.”33 This atmosphere of doubt led the USAF Acade

to develop a Center for Character Development, an ini

tive which should serve the USAF well for many years 

come.
The USAF established the Center for Character Devel

ment in 1993 to instill character into new cadets, w

emphasis on core value development. The USAF Acade

organized this new agency into three divisions—charac

and ethics, human relations, and honor education. T

impetus for the center’s development was the environm

of doubt surrounding the character of new cadets enter

the academy. According to Lt Col Terrence Moore, eth

director of the center in 1994, “Blame white collar crim

broken families, MTV, whatever. But the result is we

fighting trends of extreme individualism in the society a

whole. We’ve gotten away from a focus on those comm

values that people share. Things like integrity and selfle

ness, responsibility, decisiveness, honesty—basic core v

ues that everybody agrees on.”34

The Center for Character Development offers train

programs to increase cadet knowledge of moral/ethical 

sues, honor, and human diversity. During basic train

the academy tasks new cadets to reflect on situations t

test their commitment to core values. Scenarios inclu

actual cases of cadets who have made decisions contr

to Air Force core values. This revelation is certain to be 

eye-opening experience for some individuals who rea

from the start they are in a whole new ball game. In ad

tion, during their four-year stay, cadets receive a tota

43 lessons on the honor code—as it applies to the ac

emy, officership, the Air Force, and service to country. 35

History will judge the effectiveness of this new initiat

at the Air Force Academy, but I think the Center for Ch

acter Development is right on track for training new 

Force leaders for the twenty-first century, particularly 

the area of the most important core value, integrity. T

Air Force Academy seems to understand the importance 

enhanced core value education. Its Reserve Officer Tra

ing Corps is working toward this same goal. The AFRO

program also includes core value training as part of 

curriculum. First year cadets receive two hours of cla

room time on officership and core values; second year 

dets receive two more hours on ethics and values. Mos

the core value-related training, however, comes in a cad

third year. During their junior year the cadets receiv
total of eight hours on ethics, core values/officership v

ues, and character development. Finally, in their sen

year, AFROTC cadets culminate their undergraduate e

cation with a one-hour core values capstone session

While the AFROTC program does not have an educat

asset that is comparable to the USAF Academy’s Center 

Character Development, it understandably offers more c

value training than does the 13-week Officer Train

School.

An abbreviated training program like OTS does not h

the luxury of conducting in-depth lessons on any one su

ject. Nevertheless, OTS does manage to include core va

training in its curriculum. During their first week, O

students receive a session on core values from the O

commander. The commander defines core values and th

lectures on their importance to Air Force operations. La

in the program a chaplain talks to the students about e

ics and the difference between right and wrong. For ma

of the OTS students who are former Air Force enlis

personnel, these sessions serve as a review since they 

already familiar with these core values from prior exp

ence. To further integrate core value awareness, OTS f

ulty members also have used the school’s leadership re

tion course to emphasize proper character values to 

students.37 It is evident, then, that like the USAF Acade

and AFROTC, OTS does address core values in its p

gram, as do the officer PME schools.

Professional Military Education

At Squadron Officer School (SOS) company grade offic

receive core value awareness primarily through the study 

the Black Hawk shoot-down and the crash of the Fairch

B-52. SOS also includes additional core value-related re

ings as part of its “officership” phase of the curriculum. F

thermore, during the students’ participation in a leaders

exercise known as “Project X,” faculty members highli

good and bad examples of core values—as demonstrated 

the students themselves.38 SOS is an important part o

young officer’s professional development, and core val

awareness is included in the agenda, as it is for the 

Command and Staff College (ACSC).
For most field grade officers, ACSC is the sole professio

military education they receive prior to assuming comma

of an Air Force squadron. Arguably, a squadron comman

has more impact on the core value climate of the Air Fo

than any other officer, as he or she is still accessible to m

ranks on a day-to-day basis. For this reason, ACSC offer

three-week block of instruction entitled “Leadership a

Command” that includes five primary lessons covering eth

and morality. ACSC students also evaluate case studies, 

cluding the Fairchild B-52 crash and the Black Hawk sho

down, to further increase their understanding of the imp

tance of core values.39 For future squadron commanders, t

curriculum offers valuable guidance on the standards 

pected from Air Force leaders.

If core value education is important at the field gra

rank level, it may be even more important at the sen

rank level. In the Air Force, part of that responsibility re

with the Air War College (AWC). A look at the crash of 

Fairchild B-52 and the Ramstein CT-43 makes it painfu

obvious that leadership failures occurred at the most s

ior levels—including operations group and wing co

mander positions. To help the Air Force to circumvent t

kind of occurrence, the AWC program provides the l

PME to officers before they assume these senior leaders

positions. Although by this juncture in an officer’s care

one would hope the core values would be deeply ingrain

the AWC still addresses core value issues in its curri

lum. As part of the school’s leadership and ethics agen

AWC students discuss core values during case studies 

the Lavelle incident, the Black Hawk shoot-down, and 

Fairchild B-52 crash. The AWC spreads its leadership a

ethics syllabus out throughout the year so students 

periodic reinforcement about the importance of core valu

in the Air Force. AWC, as well as SOS and ACSC, d

address core values as a normal part of its curriculu

apparently, this effort has not been enough.

New Air Force Core Value Initiatives

With core values being a part of all officer training p

grams and all PME curriculum, current character proble
in the Air Force suggest the plans have not been adequa

In the perceived environment of declining character 

ues—so painfully apparent in the highly publicized, sen

tional cases mentioned earlier—General Fogleman directe

plan to strengthen core value education throughout the 

Force. He released this plan in November 1996 as part o

26-page document, “Global Engagement: A Vision for 

21st Century Air Force.” While the Air Force has be

teaching core values at the officer training schools and 

PME, the new initiative goes much further at the unit lev

Commanders at all levels will now get directly invol

not only in setting the example but also in teaching lesso

as part of a recurring core value education program. T

new program requires commanders to give a lesson on c

values to their subordinate commanders by June of t

year. To standardize the lesson Air Force-wide, the 

Force will provide commanders with lesson material as w

as case studies for discussion. The intent of this initiat

is for commanders to “make our core values an operatio

reality within their unit.”40 This “top-down” approach 

just one of the initiatives General Fogleman directed 

make core values a way of life in the Air Force.

The Little Blue Book

Part of the “re-valuing” of the Air Force involves the d

tribution of “The Little Blue Book” to all Air Force me

bers. This book, which was printed on 1 January 19

under the official name the “United States Air Force C

Values,” is a 25-page pamphlet designed to serve as a c

values guide for the Air Force “family.” The first section 

the book outlines the basic definitions of the core valu

and how they apply in the workplace. The second sect

explains why core values are important to the Air Fo

and how a “climate of ethical corrosion” has led to in

dents like the crash of the Fairchild B-52 and the Ra

stein CT-43. Finally, the little blue book outlines a c

values strategy that hopefully will fix the corrosive ethi

climate in today’s Air Force. Essential to this strategy 

what the blue book calls “The Core Values Continuum.”

Core Values Continuum
The core values continuum emphasizes the need for 

Air Force not only to teach core values, but equally imp

tant, to live them. Core values education begins at 

officer training schools and is continuously reemphasi

throughout an officer’s career at PME schools, dur

training, and in the unit. Persons responsible for educat

and training will be expected to conduct a “schoolhou

weave” to integrate further core values into the curriculu

This statement means core values will be woven into ex

ing courses by (1) creating a short introductory less

dedicated to explaining core values, (2) building plann

opportunities into the course to discuss core values in 

context of the subject being taught, and (3) taking adv

tage of unexpected opportunities that arise in a course 

instruction to emphasize core values. In addition to beef

up core values education at the schoolhouses, the c

values continuum directs the “operationalizing” of core v

ues.41

The added emphasis of core values at the operatio

unit level includes not only a “top-down approach” as p

viously mentioned but also a “bottom-up approach.” Wh

commanders and other leaders are conducting core va

lessons and setting the right example, all members of 

organization should examine the unit’s moral health. T

critical look has been labeled a “corrosion analysis” w

the goal of surfacing problem areas to the unit leadersh

The bottom line regarding the core values continuum 

that everybody in the Air Force is responsible for mak

core values a way of life. 42

Air and Space Basic Course

Another initiative by General Fogleman to integrate c

values totally throughout an officer’s career involves 

addition of two PME courses—the Air and Space Ba

Course and the Company Grade Officers Professional 

velopment Program. Both courses are in the developmen

stages, and although both schools will address a variety 

professional issues, initial curriculum plans show core v

ues as key parts of the syllabi. The Air and Space Ba

Course wants to get officers to think of themselves first 

Air Force officers and second as specialists in their fiel
The course would require that officers attend class direc

after receiving their commission. Although the location 

this course has not been selected yet, it will definitely b

resident PME school.43 The Company Grade Officers P

fessional Development Program, on the other hand, will 

an in-unit PME course.

Company Grade Officers Professional

Development Program

The draft curriculum plan for the Company Grade O

cers Professional Development Program identifies a tw

phase approach that will be mandatory for all officers 

fore they attend SOS. Phase 1 will be the Company Gra

Officers Professional Development Course (CGOPDC), a

Phase 2 will be the Company Grade Officers Professio

Development Group and Independent Study. In Phase 

the CGOPDC, officers will receive added exposure both 

core values and their role in the Air Force.

The mission of the CGOPDC will be “to improve a

broaden the professional competence of company grade 

ficers so they may better perform their duties in suppor

Air Force Global Engagement and associated mission 

quirements.”44 The course is designed to expand on kno

edge gained in officer training programs and to compl

the Air and Space Basic Course. The unit commander w

be responsible for this new school and will appoint a b

course director to oversee the program. Instructors will 

senior captains and majors from the unit who will acco

plish this as an additional duty. During the leaders

phase of the CGOPDC, these unit instructors again w

address core value definitions and importance while a

leading case studies on relevant core value issues. 

Richard I. Lester, from the Ira C. Eaker College for Prof

sional Development, is responsible for developing this n

program and believes the core values part of the curricul

is critical to enhanced officer training. “Values build char

ter,” Lester said, and “this new initiative will go a long w

to further core values education among Air Force officers

The Company Grade Officers Professional Development P

gram should become a major step in improving the integ

tion of positive character values at the unit level.
Center for Core Value Development

A Need for the Future

With all of these new Air Force initiatives address

core values and their importance, the problem is solv

right? Not necessarily. Although these enthusiastic effo

are positive steps in developing character within the offi

corps, the Air Force still has a long way to go to make c

values a universally understood requirement for memb

ship in its ranks. A “knee-jerk” reaction to a problem, 

matter how noble, resulting in a flood of information fr

all directions, is bound to generate negative feelin

around the Air Force. Gen Billy J. Boles, former co

mander of the Air Education and Training Command, 

lieves it is important that Air Force people do not view t

initiative as just another program. Regarding the new p

that emphasizes core values, Boles says, “The idea is 

make it more of a way of life than it is a program. Peo

tend to be skeptical of programs.” 46

A good example of this skepticism focuses on the on

ing effort to make Quality an integral part of Air Fo

business. Despite the obvious benefits of a quality-ba

approach, many Air Force personnel still are not “onbo

the quality bandwagon.” I firmly believe this is due to 

Air Force not doing a good job of selling the quality p

gram. Air Force units were deluged with reams of qua

information, but there was no coordinated effort from 

top to implement the program. Nor were there enough 

Force personnel adequately educated to implement qua

at the unit levels. The Air Force should not make this sa

mistake with the new core values initiative.

The new core values awareness plan needs to be 

rected from a central Air Force office responsible for c

values education at all levels of an officer’s career. T

office should direct core value curriculums for all offi

training programs, all PME courses, and all in-unit ini

tives. As the program exists right now, there is no o

looking at all core values training to ensure key issues 

covered at the right stage of an officer’s career, and there 

no unnecessary repetition in the process.

The developers of the Air and Space Basic Course a

the CGOPDC have not been given detailed guidance 
what their core values syllabus will include. With a lack 

direction, the developers are considering covering su

core value definitions and incidents as the Fairchild B

and Ramstein CT-43 crashes. These are lesson-plan ite

that are already included in traditional PME programs. 

though there is something to be said for repetitious tra

ing, the more likely result will be a decrease in effecti

ness. To avoid implementing a disjointed Air Force–w

core values program, a central office for planning and e

cution of core values education would provide “cradle 

grave” management of core value training. Normally, 

lecting an office to be responsible for directing an Air Fo

core values plan would be difficult. However, a new 

Force organizational change may have provided the ob

ous answer to this problem.

In January 1997 Brig Gen (major general select) Ron

E. Keys was chosen to command the new headquarters 

the Air Force Doctrine Center at Maxwell AFB, Alabama

this position, General Keys will report directly to the 

Force chief of staff. As commander, Keys will be respon

ble for leading an organization tasked with researchi

developing, and writing doctrinal literature for the en

Air Force. According to Keys, “Doctrine is the guiding pr

ciple of an entire organization—it is what is important

This level of importance is exactly where core values 

long. Core values should be as much a part of Air Fo

doctrine as is air superiority and strategic bombing. T

doctrine center should establish an office—a center 

core value development, or CCVD—to take the lead 

building an Air Force core values architecture directing 

integrated, well-coordinated training and awareness p

gram across the spectrum of the Air Force. Specifically, 

core values architecture should include the proper s

jects to be covered in officer training schools, at PME, a

in the operational unit. With a single, central office 

charge of core values education for the Air Force, this off

should consider a number of suggestions to improve c

values awareness across the Air Force.

In the area of officer training programs, the USAF Ac

emy’s Center for Character Development is a “state-of-t

art” initiative offering the best hope for positive charac
development. The CCVD should look at the USAF Acade

program as a benchmark to enhance core value training 

all of the officer accession programs. Currently, there is 

regular system of review—no sharing of lessons learne

between the academy’s character development center a

either AFROTC or OTS.48 This is a missed opportunity 

the Air Force to benefit from dialogue between the th

programs. An annual review of lessons learned sho

prove valuable as faculty members could incorporate 

good ideas into all three curricula. Standardizing core v

ues education to the maximum extent possible should 

the goal of the new CCVD office. This concern is parti

larly important in the area of the most important c

value, integrity.

Although it is commonly advertised that the USAF Ac

emy has an honor code, few people realize that AFRO

and OTS also have honor codes. While the honor codes 

virtually the same across the board—“We will not lie, ch

or steal, nor tolerate those who do”—the three programs 

not enforce this code the same way. The Air Force Acade

uses an honor probation system to “rehabilitate” some v

lators of the code. According to Lt Col Mick Fekula, of 

academy’s Character Development and Ethics Divisi

most probation cases involve younger, inexperienced 

dets, but more senior cadets also can be eligible for re

bilitation.49 OTS students, on the other hand, do no t hav

probation option; they will be disenrolled if found guilty 

honor code violations.50 In the case of AFROTC, adminis

tion of the honor code lies somewhere between the ri

enforcement of OTS and the rehabilitation option of 

academy. While AFROTC students are to comply with 

same honor code, the administration of violations is 

at the unit level.51 This delegation of responsibility 

each unit could result in wide interpretation— and 

forcement—of honor code violations.

If all graduates of the three officer training programs 

going to be officers in the Air Force, why aren’t some of 

key standards the same? Despite necessary differences 

the three curricula due to course length, student matur

and cost, there are still some areas ripe for stan

ardization. The first task of the CCVD should be to stan
ardize the honor code policy among all three of the offi

accession programs. All three schools’ students should 

given a grace period until they fully understand the imp

tance of the core value of integrity. The use of a probat

option during this time, along the lines of the academ

should be considered as a useful education tool. Once 

students pass the grace period, the penalty for integ

violations should be expulsion. This is a stiff penalty, b

aspiring Air Force officers need to understand early in th

careers the importance of honor. Integrity has to be 

first agenda item for all officer training programs, follow

closely by service before self.

To best instill the service core value into future office

the Air Force needs to advertise—and emphasize—its m

sion and vision from “day one.” The words, “to defend 

United States through control and exploitation of spac

and “building the world’s most respected air and sp

force” are powerful; they should set the proper stage fo

rigorous training program. This program should then 

clude extensive study of successful leaders in military h

tory and the sacrifices they made in the service of th

country. The list of possible subjects is lengthy—Mitch

Eisenhower, MacArthur, LeMay, Sijan—but the the

would be the same. The attribute of service before s

should be emphasized so officer candidates can understa

the essence of their profession and the sacrifice required.

The USAF Academy does provide military hist

courses for its cadets, but primarily to those who decl

military history as a major—normally a very small perce

age of the cadet corps. The academy needs to strength

the curriculum so all cadet year-groups receive courses 

key military leaders in history. “Stories of events and p

sonalities in the history of the Air Force that exemplify c

values validate their importance to the organization. Th

also serve to inspire those who hear them to follow in 

footsteps of those who have gone before.” 52 In fact, no m

ter what is a cadet’s major, he or she should rece

enough courses in military history for a minor in milit

history. This is the business of the academy—military le

ership—and its officer training programs should refl

that. As General Fogleman so aptly stated, “The Air Fo
Academy does not exist to provide a first-class education 

some of the brightest young men and women in America

exists to produce leaders of our Air Force.” 53 In the cas

the AFROTC program, while the cadets receive eight ho

of study on Air Force leaders and heritage, it is not enou

to cover a 50-year history of service before self. AFRO

cadets need to receive additional military history train

that highlights examples of officers who have dem

strated the highest of standards. An extensive education 

military history and the Air Force mission/vision will 

sure our future leaders understand the core value of se

ice before self. Service before self is so critical to fut

successful Air Force operations, but this core value w

mean nothing without the excellence that must accompa

it.

While it is true the USAF Academy has developed 

outstanding reputation for academic excellence, it is m

important for this institution to be recognized for exc

lence in military leadership. The USAF Academy offers m

jors in 23 areas of study—from aeronautical engineering 

economics to management. Despite the fact the US

Academy exists to produce military leaders, it offers 

major in military leadership. Why doesn’t the academy 

fer a major in leadership? Why isn’t there even a separ

academic leadership department?54 I mentioned the n

for additional military history study at the academy and 

AFROTC, but there are also outstanding literary works 

the essence of effective leadership. The study of works 

Stephen R. Covey, Peter F. Drucker, and Max De Pree, 

name just a few, provide invaluable guidance in prepar

our future leaders. According to Covey, “Those people 

organizations who have a passion for learning— learn

through listening, seeing emerging trends, sensing and 

ticipating needs in the marketplace, evaluating past s

cesses and mistakes, and absorbing the lessons that c

science and principles teach us, to mention just a 

ways—will have enduring influence. Such learning lead

will not resist change; they will embrace it.” 55 Learn

about leadership is where excellence will manifest it

because leadership education is a career investment—u

like education in other areas.
While it is valuable to have some academy cadets maj

ing in special fields of study, the Air Force should rese

this option for a select few who will actually use this deg

in the Air Force. While it is debated how much of 

academic knowledge gained at the academy is ever used 

cadets proceed on to pilot training or other fields, lead

ship study, on the other hand, will be valuable for all US

Academy graduates, no matter what field they enter a

graduation. Majoring in leadership at the academy sho

be the norm; this would be a superb way to instill the c

value of excellence into future military leaders. The CC

should look at this option for the USAF Academy a

evaluate its feasibility at AFROTC units as well. In ad

tion, the Air Force should consider other suggestions fr

the CCVD to increase the effectiveness of its core va

education.

A number of important core value lessons addressed e

lier should be a part of all three officer training program

The CCVD should ensure case studies covering the Lav

incident, the Black Hawk shoot-down, and crashes of 

Fair-child B-52 and Ramstein CT-43 are a part of all offi

training curriculum. These classic examples of core va

violations clearly demonstrate the impact—and the lethalit

of not doing what is right. In addition, the new core va

center could evaluate classic civilian and cadet cases, 

well as “issues of the day,” and add them to the th

syllabi. This standardization will put all new officers 

common ground in regards to “big ticket” core value f

ures.

This is not to say emphasizing the negative should 

the only approach. Officer trainees also should study ca

of positive core value examples—like the case of Gen Cu

LeMay. The main point is that the Air Force should eva

ate the main lessons it teaches all of its officer candidat

decide what is best, then implement these lessons in 

programs. With the CCVD directing the best possible c

values education at all three officer training schools, c

values will become ingrained in future Air Force officers.

After the officer accession programs, professional m

tary education offers the next prime opportunity to emp

size core values as the foundation for officer decisions a
actions. This scenario is particularly true as the Air Fo

continues to downsize. According to General Foglem

“History clearly shows us that when you get smaller, P

becomes more important rather than less important.” 56 

though all current and projected PME programs addr

core values in their curricula, they appear to be a min

part of the syllabi. If the Air Force is serious about elev

ing core values to a foundation level, then PME sho

reflect this effort.

As previously discussed, the Air Force now offers th

different PME schools and proposes two more, with 

recent addition of the Air and Space Basic Course and 

Company Grade Officers Professional Development P

gram. For all five courses, the CCVD should oversee 

core values curriculum to present the right education 

the right stage of an officer’s career. The CCVD also co

promote phased development and prevent unnecess

repetition between the PME programs and the officer tra

ing schools. This effort would be a “building block” 

proach to core value education during an officer’s en

career. For example, if all officer trainees already are fam

iar with such “classic” core value cases as Lavelle and 

Black Hawk shoot-down, there is no need to cover them 

depth in the Air and Space Basic Course. For the rema

der of the in-residence courses—SOS, ACSC, a

AWC—the classics should be reviewed only enough to 

dress the preferred behavior at the captain, squadron co

mander, group/wing commander, and strategic levels, 

spectively. Since the Company Grade Officers Professio

Development Program is a precursor to SOS, core va

discussions in this wing-executed course should be 

stricted to specific cases from each unit, again to av

repetition. These few examples illustrate how the CC

could help direct Air Force core values education acr

the spectrum of officer PME programs. An office like th

one that serves as a central authority for all officer c

value education, would be a major step in insuring c

value practice and in elevating core value importance.

Conclusions
Core values are the key to preparing tomorrow’s lead

to handle the challenges of the twenty-first century. C

tainly there will be complexity, uncertainty, and chan

facing these new commanders, but these concerns are 

new. The key to effective leadership tomorrow is the sa

as it was yesterday—character. While Air Force offi

training programs and PME programs address core valu

in their curriculum, there is still room for improveme

This is particularly true considering the uncertainty of 

values held dear by today’s youth. General Fogleman’s n

initiative to instill core values better into Air Force me

bers is definitely a step in the right direction, but the 

Force needs to integrate core values education and awa

ness smartly into the life cycle of its officers. An Air Fo

center for core value development would be extremely va

able in directing this effort, outlining the right educat

and training at all officer training and PME schools. T

core values “surge” is critical for future Air Force succ

because the core values of integrity first, service before s

and excellence will always be in vogue and offer the b

hope for outstanding leadership in any century. As G

John A. Wickham Jr., USA, Retired, so ably stated, “T

better the values and character, the more effective 

leadership in any organization—military or civilian. B

values come first. They are the bedrock for a character 

excellence.”57

Notes

1. Burt Nanus, “Doing the Right Thing,” in AU-24, Concepts fo

Force Leadership, reprinted from The Bureaucrat, eds. Richard I. Le

PhD, and A. Glenn Morton, PhD (Maxwell AFB, Ala.: Air University Pr

1996), 315.

2. Gen Bennie L. Davis, “Leadership,” in AU-24, Concepts for Air F

Leadership, reprinted from Richard I. Lester, PhD, and A. Glenn Mor

PhD (Maxwell AFB, Ala.: Air University Press, 1996), 313.

3. Carl von Clausewitz, On War, ed. and trans. Michael Howard 

Peter Paret (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1976), 101–8.

4. Rick Maze, “Academy Incidents on the Rise?” Air Force Times

April 1995, 3.

5. Genevieve Anton, “Nontraditional Women,” Air Force Time

March 1994, 14.

6. Genevieve Anton and Jeff Thomas, “A Question of Honor,” Air F

Times, 7 March 1994, 12.
7. Jane McHugh and G. E. Wills, “Army Leaders Wonder What W

Wrong,” Air Force Times, 25 November 1996, 8.

8. Fred Francis, “NBC News In-depth—Breaking Ranks,” NBC Nig

News, 8 November 1996.

9. Pope Brock, “The Extremes of Honor,” Esquire, October 1

114–20.

10. Neil Howe and Bill Strauss, “What’s Ahead,” in Col Gail Arnott, 

Leadership in the 21st Century, reprinted from US News and World 

port (Maxwell AFB, Ala.: Air University Press, August 1996), 225–26.

11. Jeff Thomas, “Values: How They Changed,” Air Force Time

March 1994, 13.

12. Francis.

13. Maj Donald H. Horner Jr., “Leader Development and Why It 

mains Important,” Military Review, July–August 1995, 77.

14. Dr. Sheila E. Widnall, “Watch Your Character—It Becomes Y

Destiny,” Airman, April 1994, 39.

15. William Matthews, “Jobs on the Line,” Air Force Times, 16 Decem

1996, 12–13.

16. Gen Ronald R. Fogleman, “Integrity,” Air Force Magazine, Febr

1996, 90.

17. Gen Duane H. Cassidy, “A Leadership Perspective,” in AU-24, 

cepts for Air Force Leadership, ed. Richard I. Lester, PhD, and A. Gl

Morton, PhD (Maxwell AFB, Ala.: Air University Press, 1996), 378.

18. Gen Ronald R. Fogleman and Sheila E. Widnall, “Core Values

AU-24, Concepts for Air Force Leadership, ed. Richard I. Lester, PhD, 

A. Glenn Morton, PhD (Maxwell AFB, Ala.: Air University Press, 1996), 

19. Fogleman, “Integrity,” 91.

20. Maj Lee E. DeRemer, “Leadership Between a Rock and a H

Place,” Airpower Journal 10, no. 3 (Fall 1996): 88–93.

21. Cassidy, 378.

22. Ibid.

23. Francis.

24. Ibid.

25. Sheila E. Widnall, “Perspectives on Leadership,” in AU-24, 

cepts for Air Force Leadership, ed. Richard I. Lester, PhD, and A. Gl

Morton, PhD (Maxwell AFB, Ala.: Air University Press, 1996), 422.

26. Julie Bird, “Pope Pilot Convicted of Conduct Violations,” Air F

Times, 26 August 1996, 9.

27. Bryant Jordan and William Matthews, “Retirement with Demo

Is OK’d,” Air Force Times, 6 January 1997, 2.

28. Sheila Widnall, “Of Three Who Did the Right Thing,” Air F

Times, 13 November 1995, 35.

29. James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner, “Seven Lessons for Lead

the Voyage to the Future,” in the Drucker Foundation Future Series, 

Leader of the Future: New Visions, Strategies, and Practices for the N

Era (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1996), 103.

30. Warren Wilhelm, “Learning From Past Leaders,” in the Dru

Foundation Future Series, The Leader of the Future: New Visions, Str

gies, and Practices for the Next Era (San Francisco: Jossey-B

Publishers, 1996), 223.
31. Mark Thompson, “So, Who’s to Blame?” Time, 3 July 1995, 27

32. Thomas M. Coffey, Iron Eagle: The Turbulent Life of General Cu

LeMay (New York: Crown Publishers, 1986), 11–18.

33. Thomas, 13.

34. Ibid.

35. Maj Brian F. Hall and Col David A. Wagie, “The US Air Fo

Academy’s Cutting-Edge Character Development Program,” Airpo

Journal 10, no. 2 (Summer 1996): 35–39.

36. AY 96–97 AFROTC Curriculum Content, Lt Col Mykel D. Ga

Education Branch, Headquarters AFROTC, 10 January 1997.

37. Capt Jason Walls, OTS Leadership Studies Curriculum, in

viewed by author, 8 January 1997.

38. Maj Sharon Latour, SOS Officership Curriculum, interviewed 

author, 8 January 1997.

39. Maj Jerry Szpila, ACSC Leadership and Command Curricul

interviewed by author, 23 January 1997.

40. Julie Bird, “The Chief’s Vision,” Air Force Times, 2 Decem

1996, 13.

41. USAF, United States Air Force Core Values (Department of the 

Force: Washington, D.C., 1997).

42. Ibid.

43. Bird, “The Chief’s Vision,” 14.

44. Ira C. Eaker College for Professional Development, draft curr

lum plan, subject: Company Grade Officers Professional Developm

Program, December 1996.

45. Dr. Richard I. Lester, Ira C. Eaker College for Professional De

opment, interviewed by author, 9 January 1997.

46. Bird, “The Chief’s Vision,” 14.

47. Frank Mastin Jr., “New Center Officer Answers to Pentag

Montgomery Advertiser, 18 January 1997.

48. Lt Col Mick Fekula, US Air Force Academy Character Developm

and Ethics Division, interviewed by author, 10 January 1997.

49. Ibid.

50. Walls.

51. Lt Col Mykel D. Gable, Education Branch, Headquarters AFRO

interviewed by author, 10 January 1997.

52. Chaplain, Lt Col Alexander B. Roberts, “Core Values in a Qua

Air Force: The Leadership Challenge,” Airpower Journal 8, no. 2, Sum

1994, 50.

53. Fogleman, “Integrity,” 90.

54. At the USAF Academy, leadership studies are combined with 

havioral science education.

55. Stephen R. Covey, “Three Roles of the Leader in the New P

digm,” in the Drucker Foundation Future Series, The Leader of the Fut

New Visions, Strategies, and Practices for the New Era (San Franc

Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1996), 150.

56. Al Rod, “CSAF Discusses Downsizing, Tricare, PME,” Maxw

Gunter Dispatch, 16 August 1996.

57. Gen John A. Wickham, “The Role of Values in Organizatio

Signal, August 1988, 20.