Promotion and PRF Information

[Azimuth]

In July my bosses' exec asked me for a draft push line and I told him absolutely not.

I like seeing a draft filled out with nothing in the main blocks, but all the of the admin queep done, then a paragraph for each potential bullet in a word document or email. Plain language what you did and what the impact was. When someone provides only the no-vowel, chopped sentences with bullshit adjectives and fake impact (100% mission success), they are focusing too much on style. Most drafts I edit I eliminate the bullshit impact and add vowels back in. I also change the AFSC specific jargon into plain language. Nobody reads the acronym list on the back and it does no good to say something nobody understands. I've been given plenty of inputs in "bullet format" but I always changed them significantly.

I know people write their own OPRs and PRFs. I remind them to not be a self serving careerists, but to assist in the process by providing the details that only you know best. You can also simply say to your boss, "be careful sir, the AFI specifically prohibits people from writing their own performance reports". You can also make sure that you and your peers don't do it and teach people to not do it.

Great advice, I do the same with subordinates. Give me the admin fill out from the shell (if its wrong, fix it), good content with action, impact maybe, and possibly result, I'll be the wordsmith, and leave the push lines blank.

Edited August 25, 2013 by Azimuth

[backseatdriver]

Yep. The MLRs I've done did just that and provided direct feedback to the senior raters.

Did those that received spears from their peers change their ways or was it just feedback? Honest question, not smartassedness.

[Liquid]

The MLR does a quality review of all PRFs to find mistakes (wrong DE push, prohibited statements, capitalization) and bad style (speeding/exaggeration, duplicative strats, etc) as well as determine carryover and aggregate DPs. When the GOs said fix the PRF, it got fixed and re-signed. We then did a VTC with all senior raters to talk about techniques, trends and quality. Technique and style are opinion and they vary quite a bit, so that feedback is mostly for discussion and consideration. Mistakes and speeding feedback was more directive and the reports were reaccomplished. One data point from one MAJCOM's process. No idea how everyone else does it and I'm sure it changes year to year.

On OPRs, the most important lines are the top and bottom bullets in each block. Put your most important info on those lines. Many board members read the OPRs, but focus mostly on those lines. It is incredible how many key accomplishment like AF level Sijan, SOS DG or DFC get buried in the middle blocks, towards the end of the bullet. I'd rather read three lines about why you were awarded the AF Tunner Award or Combat Action Medal than what your additional duty was. Put the good stuff that shows leadership, breadth, depth, distinction, deployments first. Nobody cares how many staff packages you processed, trouble tickets you worked, lines you scheduled, pubs you posted, FMC rate you generated or vouchers you returned. The data and metrics about your daily job don't paint the picture of why you should be promoted, only what your particular career field does. Make sure your inputs to your rater include the good info and make sure your subordinates provide you with it.

[17D_guy]

...On OPRs, the most important lines are the top and bottom bullets in each block. Put your most important info on those lines. Many board members read the OPRs, but focus mostly on those lines...

I want to bitch about why we have all these "extra bullets" if they're not even really read. But I can't think of a better way to do a eval system without some sort of narrative, even if only a portion of it is read for promotion processes.

However, much like the push to deflate EPR's is there a push at senior levels about the magic wording and/or different styles that are emerging out of each base? Hell, between 2 Wing CC's we had a change to the C-model, and acronyms/approved words shift significantly.

Additionally is leadership, in your MAJCOM if that's your purview, aware to get this strat-by-excel process that appears to be happening all over that place (by that I mean my 2-assignments).

Finally.. how aware are they/you of the douche-CC's who pass of their rating privileges on their subordinates? Got any advice on how to deal with it at a O2/O3 level?

Thanks.

[ThreeHoler]

I didn't write our ORI rating in one of my OPRs. I included the fact that I solely drove the success of operations during the ORI? Can I include the ORI rating of "Excellent" that the squadron received although it's not listed on a previous OPR?

Did it make it onto your PCS medal?

[theat6bisasham]

If it's not written anywhere else in black and white, then it needs to be written into a MFR if I remember correctly. Or am I thinking about PCS medals..?

[Danny Noonin]

I didn't write our ORI rating in one of my OPRs. I included the fact that I solely drove the success of operations during the ORI? Can I include the ORI rating of "Excellent" that the squadron received although it's not listed on a previous OPR?

No. PRFs summarize your record. If its not in your record (OPRs, training reports, medals) you are SOL. You cannot introduce new facts into evidence on the PRF regardless of how true. Only caveat is for things that happened since your most recent OPR closed out.

[Techsan]

No. PRFs summarize your record. If its not in your record (OPRs, training reports, medals) you are SOL. You cannot introduce new facts into evidence on the PRF regardless of how true. Only caveat is for things that happened since your most recent OPR closed out.

I'm not so sure about that, as I swear I've seen MFRs in dudes' PRFs.

[Danny Noonin]

I'm asking because I keep in touch with a previous ADO from my old squadron who can vouch for the rating. Not to mention, the rating is published in an Air Force news article that talks about my previous squadron and how well we did during the ORI. I was hoping to ask my CC to include the rating in my PRF since I am strated in that line of my OPR in question. The ORI was the reason for the strat.

Dude stop. You squadrons ORI rating is not going to make any difference in the world to your promotion. You are getting spun up over nothing important. You cant just have people "vouch" for it. It isn't in your record. You can't use it.

I'm not so sure about that, as I swear I've seen MFRs in dudes' PRFs.

The only facts that can go on a PRF that weren't already in your record are things that have occurred since your last OPR closed out. You dont have to believe me. you can read the reg for yourself. Its in there. Typically you would write a bullet using the facts in question onto a draft OPR form and submit with the PRF coord, but maybe you've seen someone do it differently.

[Danny Noonin]

Interesting. I'm not even remotely spun up and wasn't ripping on you. You might want to note that your "yes or no" question had already been directly answered with a "no" in the very post that you quoted plus an explanation of why---

No. PRFs summarize your record. If its not in your record (OPRs, training reports, medals) you are SOL. You cannot introduce new facts into evidence on the PRF regardless of how true. Only caveat is for things that happened since your most recent OPR closed out.

PRFs do not have to be verbatim from your OPRs, but can't introduce new facts (i.e. ORI grade) regardless of how true or what newspaper it's confirmed by. You can combine things (e.g. total combat sorties by adding up numbers from multiple OPRs.). You can change acronyms to plain English as you suggested, etc. Those don't introduce new facts.

Edited August 27, 2013 by Danny Noonin

[Champ Kind]

He speaks the truth. Reference the PRF chapter (8?) of AFI 36-2406.

PRF fodder comes from your record of performance (ROP). If it isn't written down, it probably won't make it in. The only instances I've heard of an MFR being used are to highlight major awards that for whatever reason did not make it onto a report/dec. There is a blurb that mentions the use of "other reliable information", but I don't think it applies in your case.

FML for knowing that.

Edit to add excerpt, because I had the time:

8.1.4.1. The Senior Rater:

8.1.4.1.1. Reviews the ratee's Officer’s Command Selection Records Group (OCSRGp), decoration citations, Duty Qualification History Brief (DQHB) and Unfavorable Information File (UIF) (if applicable) before preparing the PRF. May consider other reliable information about duty performance and conduct except as paragraph 1.12. or other regulatory guidance prohibits. Examples of other reliable information may include but are not limited to LOE, bullets from a draft OPR and/or decoration, etc. To reference the “other reliable information” in their record, the officer meeting the board may submit a letter to the CSB. Do not use any other Single Uniform Request Formats (SURFs) other than those indicated above when preparing the PRF (i.e., AMS SURFs). Note: The intent of the "other reliable information" passage is to allow SRs to comment on performance accomplishments since the closeout of the last evaluation. This allows a SR who has personal knowledge of an accomplishment to comment about it in the PRF although not part of the official record yet.

Edited August 27, 2013 by Champ Kind

[BFM this]

Been away from a .mil computer.

'03 year group: 113 again this month?

[Fifty-six & Two]

Been away from a .mil computer.

'03 year group: 113 again this month?

Hasn't been posted yet.

[disgruntledemployee]

You need to relax and lay off the downrange "rip it's." Nobody is getting spun up over an Excellent rating for an ORI. It was a simple question that requires a yes or no answer. Since my CC or me will have to change HVI to terrorist and VBIED to bomb if they are used in my PRF, the question about the ORI rating came to mind.

If you want ORI Excellent in your PRF, draft up an MFR with the facts and have the commander sign it. If he thinks its worthy of the ink and effort, you can have your excellent. If not, then he/she doesn't think it will affect your outcome (that's what I think). Now if you earned some special ORI recognition, that's worth something.

Enjoy writing your PRF, many of today's generals wrote their own back in the day.

Out

[Danny Noonin]

If you want ORI Excellent in your PRF, draft up an MFR with the facts and have the commander sign it.

Can't do that. Read the reg champ posted.

Why is this do difficult?

[Homestar]

Hasn't been posted yet.

...but all signs point to YES

[ThreeHoler]

Your Wg/CC is full of shit. Or the 3-star that briefed last year's ACSC residence class that they were directed to mask the AAD for the future O-4 boards is full of shit.

[ak47]

Back off my WG/CC ThreeHoler. You have never met the man so don't judge him. He was a great SQ/CC to me and now he is an awesome WG/CC. BLUF: He cares about his people and takes care of his enlisted and officers alike.

Slow down there slick. You can't leave the rest of the story out. He also sent the clear message that even if AADs are masked in the future, he still thinks they are extremely important. To the point where I and others around me took it to mean that he "won't consider it in the rack and stack, but will consider it." It was one hell of a party line speech.

[Champ Kind]

Slick, that seems to be strike 2 against you in this thread.

[Champ Kind]

You're acting like a SNAP.

Stop.

[Jaded]

Huh. I listened to the CSAF himself last week say that the fact that senior raters are considering masters degrees for the major's board is "insane." He went on to say that a masters degree should only be required for O-6.

[Guest ThatGuy]

He didn't reference a particular promotion board level (Maj/Lt Col). He said a lot of the people who did not get promoted at our base was because of not having an AAD.

Edited August 29, 2013 by slick999

[Jaded]

Sounds like insubordination to me.

[AlphaMikeFoxtrot]

He didn't reference a particular promotion board level (Maj/Lt Col). He said a lot of the people who did not get promoted at our base was because of not having an AAD.

How many of those got a P vs a DP from that same WG/CC? That's the real issue. Your chances to promote decline significantly with a P, the WG/CC determines who gets what (DP/P) on their PRF. All the board sees is the recommendation from your base and then look at the supporting data. No AAD and a P is pretty much the kiss of death. Just saying, your WG/CC is the problem not the lack of the AAD if he's not giving DP's to people because they don't have an AAD.

On a side not, my WG/CC recently addressed many of us here about the next O-4 board and made the statements that CSAF policy is not to require AAD and you should only do SOS corr if you don't go in residence. Many left there with a smile feeling like the CSAF finally made an impact. A week or so later an "email" from my SQ/CC clarified policy and that is that to be competitive for SOS in res you must complete it in corr. It also went on to say similar things about competitiveness and the AAD.

Which is it? This sh!ts gotten out of control.

[Toro]

Which is it? This sh!ts gotten out of control.

Weird...it used to always be so clear.

Nothing new here, folks. I've heard of lots of great ideas, but don't bank on anything that seems too good to be true because in a few years when there's a new CSAF, it will all swing back in the other direction. All of a sudden those things we didn't need to do will be required once again, and folks are going to scramble to get them done.