Jump to content

Promotion and PRF Information


Guest e3racing

Recommended Posts

Guess they RIF'd you or you've been arrested a few times. Stop drinking the Hateraid.

Everyone stop feeding the shoe clerk.....my god I can't read his sh*t anymore. Everything that is wrong with big blue is detailed in every damn thought he expresses.

And what kind of moron uses absolutes like that - 1 arrest is fine, but 2 is crossing the line? So 1 murder is cool, but add in shoplifting and suddenly you are 'toxic'? You baboon! You couldn't lead a ESSS down the hall without intervention.....get a clue!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My CC does not believe in the one mistake Air Force mentality and neither do I. I told someone who showed up with a blemish that I didn't want to know what happened. New base, equates to a brand new start in my eyes. Additionally, I told the individual you have to show leadership you have moved beyond whatever happened and continue to strive as an officer and leader. If you become a "toxic" individual after your ordeal and unreliable, you can expect leadership to maintain a negative mindset about you.

I had to tell someone months ago that SOS may not be in their future. When supervisors annotate something in an OPR and a board or the OG/CC sees those remarks it's an easy kill for not going in residence. I told the individual you have to be "seen" and "heard" in this squadron and exceed the standard in the CC's viewpoint so he goes to bat for you.

At SOS, my class did a mock PRF. One of the groups grading the PRF did not see a person had been arrested twice so they scored his package pretty high. I pointed out their error. I had a reservist ask how long I'm going to hold the arrests against the officer? I could only respond that the other officers have been doing what's right and deserve to be promoted. I could understand if he got arrested once, but twice is my limitation. Now look at how much trouble you can get into while in the Army and still get promoted. I'm an Army brat and I've seen it first hand. Different services...different personnel.

Slick, dude, you have got to listen to the guys on this message board. We don't know you. The only motivation for everyone saying these things is our interest in making a better Air Force. You need to stop right now and recognize that everything you've said is 100% wrong. The mentality you're espousing is what's wrong with the Air Force, and it's got to stop. I won't rehash the points that have already been made, but suffice to say, everyone here is giving you honest to God feedback. Take it to heart.

Everything you've spoken of is just plain lazy leadership. Leadership is a messy gray area. Nothing is black and white. Trying to deal in absolutes is why advanced academic degrees are required to make Major. It's why PT test scores actually mean something to some people. It's why OPRs are chock full of numbers instead of credible assessments of leadership potential. Change you course, man. Don't be a lazy leader.

If you're a wing exec, you very well may be on your way to a leadership position yourself. You've gotten through the system so far because you've blended in and followed the examples of leadership given to you (for better or worse). If you make it to a command position, take the opportunity to change what the Air Force has begun.

Edited by Seriously
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe not a sweeping change, but I'll take it...

Everyone please post all the stuff you heard when you were at SOS that never came true. Just a few years ago--ops guys who were IDE selects were probably not going to go because of operational requirements/365s/etc...but the promotion board would be told why you did not go in-res. This was (supposedly) going to happen to a lot of folks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4) He said a lot of the senior leaders think the AAD should be masked until the O-6 board, however gave no indication on how Gen Welsh thought about that or what direction they were going, but hinted at changes for it.

I was sitting 8 feet from Gen Welsh last month and he talked at length about how stupid practice bleeding was and how it made no sense at all to suggest an AAD should have anything to do with getting promoted to O-4 or O-5. His words were something along the line of "this is one of the dumbest things we do as a service." He then acknowledged that masking AAD for the O-4 & O-5 board won't fix the problem because senior raters will probably still use it as a discriminator. And that was it - din't really offer a solution, which I found odd seeing as he's the Chief and all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was sitting 8 feet from Gen Welsh last month and he talked at length about how stupid practice bleeding was and how it made no sense at all to suggest an AAD should have anything to do with getting promoted to O-4 or O-5. His words were something along the line of "this is one of the dumbest things we do as a service." He then acknowledged that masking AAD for the O-4 & O-5 board won't fix the problem because senior raters will probably still use it as a discriminator. And that was it - din't really offer a solution, which I found odd seeing as he's the Chief and all.

When it was masked the first go around, were SRs using it as a discriminator?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why take everything I say out of context? Enlisted and officers make mistakes in life. If someone got arrested because of public intoxication I'm not going to end a person's career. I don't have time to sit here and go over every scenario or arrest with you. It's a forum, get real.

yet by your own argument you say someone that hasnt been arrested shouldnt be punished over someone who has.....yet you also say 1 arrest is fine....so what is it boss?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone please post all the stuff you heard when you were at SOS that never came true. Just a few years ago--ops guys who were IDE selects were probably not going to go because of operational requirements/365s/etc...but the promotion board would be told why you did not go in-res. This was (supposedly) going to happen to a lot of folks.

That may not have materialized, but the new rumor is that only 1 IDE candidate in all of AMC got picked up for school this year...so much for the 15%... candidates getting to go in-residence is now a thing of the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My CC has not questioned how I go about disciplining certain individuals. In fact, my course of action has always been backed by the shirt and CC. I'm doing something right, but I don't have time to go over every scenario with you. Lead how you lead and let me do things my way. I would rather listen to Liquids advice in this forum about PRFs rather than you questioning me when you don't know me and you don't work for me.

Slick for fucks sake cut it out. I've never seen a captain so self righteously drop tales if his supervisory prowess like you do. How many posts now have you casually thrown in the fact that you're a supervisor? Enough SOS stories and enough talk of your own "leadership" techniques. Aren't you a shop chief? Get over yourself.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slick for ######s sake cut it out. I've never seen a captain so self righteously drop tales if his supervisory prowess like you do. How many posts now have you casually thrown in the fact that you're a supervisor? Enough SOS stories and enough talk of your own "leadership" techniques. Aren't you a shop chief? Get over yourself.

tumblr_lw7qn58NxG1qii6tmo1_500.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My CC has not questioned how I go about disciplining certain individuals. In fact, my course of action has always been backed by the shirt and CC. I'm doing something right, but I don't have time to go over every scenario with you. Lead how you lead and let me do things my way. I would rather listen to Liquids advice in this forum about PRFs rather than you questioning me when you don't know me and you don't work for me.

rick_perry_badass.jpg

Edited by tunes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are reviewing records during a promotion board (or a practice one at SOS) and you read about the arrest of an officer, it usually means it was written on a referral OPR that checked "Does Not Meet Standards". Most of the time, you will not be promoted at your next board with a referral OPR. There is a difference between one mistake and one referral OPR. Some LTs can recover, but it is rare that a Capt or Maj will get promoted with a referral OPR.

If you want to "mentor" your officers about an arrest and keep it from hurting their career (bar fight, public urination, etc), don't put it in their permanent record. Sometimes a good old fashioned ass chewing is more effective in the long run than paperwork.

Beating up Slick isn't entertaining or informative. Cheap shots are easy and stale.

Thread re-reail: So what are your thoughts on the stratification pendulum? Have we gone so far overboard that we need HAF guidance about how to strat like the Es have? "#1 Blue-eyed, left-handed EWO in my flight during October" is a little ridiculous. How do we fix over-reliance on strats during promotion boards and DTs?

Heard single digit across the entire AF.

During the last DT, each board received one candidate nominee. The rest of the seats went to selects. HAF plans to keep the number of candidates that go to school very low to take care of the selects in a fiscally constrained DE world. I think sending candidates to IDE/SDE is a very good thing because it makes sure the promotion boards aren't the only ones who pick school designees. DTs and senior raters have a better idea of who should go to school.

tumblr_lw7qn58NxG1qii6tmo1_500.gif

That Michael Jackson avatar freaks me the f*ck out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beating up Slick isn't entertaining or informative.

Disagree. It should be informative--to Slick, if he lets it be.

Slick has good intentions but he has misplaced confidence in his own limited experience level. He has chosen to over represent his own leadership while condescendingly lecturing those with vastly more experience than he has. On this forum, that type of behavior is met with a correction. Just as it would be in any squadron. He doesn't get a pass because he's on the Internet.

He has over 60 posts in this thread but has asked only a handful of actual questions. Given that he's never written a PRF or met a promotion board before in his life, I find it more than a bit curious that he has such supreme confidence in his understanding of how things work that he can condescend about anything to anyone on this particular topic. So a little mentoring is appropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disagree. It should be informative--to Slick, if he lets it be.

Slick has good intentions but he has misplaced confidence in his own limited experience level. He has chosen to over represent his own leadership while condescendingly lecturing those with vastly more experience than he has. On this forum, that type of behavior is met with a correction. Just as it would be in any squadron. He doesn't get a pass because he's on the Internet.

He has over 60 posts in this thread but has asked only a handful of actual questions. Given that he's never written a PRF or met a promotion board before in his life, I find it more than a bit curious that he has such supreme confidence in his understanding of how things work that he can condescend about anything to anyone on this particular topic. So a little mentoring is appropriate.

Good point, mentoring is good. But it is not entertaining to watch.

In OPRs and Decs, there is a big difference between OEF and Afghanistan. If a board was advised to "value time served in Afghanistan", it may have been useful to have your record reflect the fact you served in Afghanistan. It is amazing how frequently we don't just say in plain language what the hell was actually accomplished. Too many acronyms and too much OPSEC paranoia in our official records.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do we fix over-reliance on strats during promotion boards and DTs?

how about boards grouped by like AFSCs for 0-4 & 0-5? That way, at least the board would have a clue what the actual bullets and acronyms mean and a chance at discriminating intelligently without over reliance on stratification.

During the last DT, each board received one candidate nominee. The rest of the seats went to selects. HAF plans to keep the number of candidates that go to school very low to take care of the selects in a fiscally constrained DE world. I think sending candidates to IDE/SDE is a very good thing because it makes sure the promotion boards aren't the only ones who pick school designees. DTs and senior raters have a better idea of who should go to school.

Then HAF has neutered the DT and taken away the only carrot many senior rafters have. Is there a glass ceiling for non-selects now or do you foresee command positions populated by non residence guys/gals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thread re-reail: So what are your thoughts on the stratification pendulum? Have we gone so far overboard that we need HAF guidance about how to strat like the Es have? "#1 Blue-eyed, left-handed EWO in my flight during October" is a little ridiculous. How do we fix over-reliance on strats during promotion boards and DTs?

HAF already put their fingers in the strat pie a couple years ago with the A1 guidance memo that worked its way into the reg in Jan (emphasis on peer group labeling, etc). But that was semi worthless. Strats have gotten out of hand because everyone believes the only way to say someone is a good dude is through a strat, when we both know there are useful strats (#x/x CGOs in sqdn) and there are worthless strats that seem forced (#x/3 wingmen in my flight). Not every strat is the same obviously, but to the masses in the cheap seats who only hear "must have strat to be good" they take that too far and create the BS ones because they don't know any better.

The root cause is the OPR form itself. It is not an evaluation. It is a list of things you did followed by a push line. And the push line is an art where it should be a science.

Since, minus the push lines, the "list of things you did" OPR makes it difficult to sort the 30th percentile from the 70th percentile we have found ourselves in the over-reliance on square filling to sort the lists. Which very few would agree is the right way to do business.

The evaluation form should emphasize actual evaluation...subjective assessments on job performance, leadership qualities, communication skills, etc. maybe a small section on "stuff you did" but a focus on actual evaluation. I know subjective assessments scare people because they might not be "fair", but quite frankly its what we have now just in a different format. And there really is no way to evaluate some of the things that are truly important (leadership qualities) against truly objective criteria. Each officer should also get graded on major subject areas with a numerical grade. To avoid the EPR everyone gets a 5 debacle, those grades should be tied to a unit commander (or div chief, etc) and entered into a database. Upon meeting a board, those scores get compared to that commanders career long "grade point average" and presented to the board along with that average. If you got 4s but his average was a 3.5, you did okay. If you got 4s but his average is 4.8, then you are below average. If everyone gets a five, then that cc screwed his true top performers. Built in stratification, difficult to BS the system, no more challenge determining the 30% from the 60%, much less need to resort to square filling to rack n'stack.

But that's too different, so we'll keep doing the same old thing and just complain about how inadequate it is.

Edited by Danny Noonin
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

During the last DT, each board received one candidate nominee. The rest of the seats went to selects. HAF plans to keep the number of candidates that go to school very low to take care of the selects in a fiscally constrained DE world. I think sending candidates to IDE/SDE is a very good thing because it makes sure the promotion boards aren't the only ones who pick school designees. DTs and senior raters have a better idea of who should go to school.

But yet the quotas for the 2012 and the 2013 IDE boards changed by one. The number is very close to 500 when looking at the PSDMs. Was that number later reduced after the PSDM dropped? Are the number of selects in the 2001-2003 year groups that much larger and so now they are the ONLY ones who have it made to Lt Col? For example, the promotion rate this year to O-5 was just under 75% for LAF. The promotion rate for those attending DE is 99% and now the pool has been narrowed to those who performed the first six to seven years of a twenty year career.

I agree with you that the promotion boards shouldn't have that much pull in who gets to go to school as I don't think it is an accurate representation when the DEDB meets 2-5 years later. Unfortunately, this doesn't help those currently caught in this mess.

Edited by Fifty-six & Two
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is amazing how frequently we don't just say in plain language what the hell was actually accomplished. Too many acronyms and too much OPSEC paranoia in our official records.

Another problem with the form. One line bullets that must fill the space to within 2-3 characters force all kinds of absurd abbreviations and acronyms to try and get max info into minimum space. Paragraph format for key areas would allow plain English, full explanations of key accomplishments. Some folks have done really good things that are quite frankly impossible to communicate adequately in one line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok I'll repost it. Currently at SOS, briefed by the AU/CC 3 star... he gave us a preview and told us it's coming. The whole system is changing, not simply a masking of whatever, but from my memory:

1) SOS being shortened to 5 weeks because of the 100% requirement

2) SOS Correspondence eligibility potentially moving until after in residence criteria has passed (have heard this one for a while)

3) Promotion boards will require a certain amount of credits instead of mandatory PME completion. PME in res will fulfill required credits for that perspective board, however if you got a Masters in say, International Security Studies, and a PME class is International Security, you will get PME credit hours for taking that Masters class

4) He said a lot of the senior leaders think the AAD should be masked until the O-6 board, however gave no indication on how Gen Welsh thought about that or what direction they were going, but hinted at changes for it.

That's all I can remember right now...

I was in the last class before they lengthened (sta) SOS to 8 weeks. They said the same stuff then...at least your points 1, 2 and 4. Not arguing with you, just saying the color and vintage of the koolaid at maxwell never changes.

Do they still have the gallon jugs of beer at the shopette?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we're only using 4 lines on an OPR anyway, why not reduce an OPR to 4 lines? No need to do a PRF at the 8 year point since your entire record would be 32 lines total.

If this idea gets implemented, one of my lines would include "100,000 man hours saved."

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have we gone so far overboard that we need HAF guidance about how to strat like the Es have?

The funny part is that E's don't need a strat to get promoted if the overall record is good enough. Plenty of Chiefs walking around they may have only been strated once in their career and were promoted over the person who was strated multiple times and couldn't pick up a stripe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In OPRs and Decs, there is a big difference between OEF and Afghanistan. If a board was advised to "value time served in Afghanistan", it may have been useful to have your record reflect the fact you served in Afghanistan. It is amazing how frequently we don't just say in plain language what the hell was actually accomplished. Too many acronyms and too much OPSEC paranoia in our official records.

We need to give up the metaphor of a "form", as though in the modern digital era character counts and "two-pages" mean anything. We use acronyms and incomprehensible language for two reasons:

1) Once upon a time someone had to write performance reports on a typewriter.

2) When you force bad communication, it becomes really easy to hide bullshit.

Those are both really bad reasons to recreate OPRs in some wonky document viewer program rather than using the flexibility electronic records should provide. Not sure what a bullet means? Click the expand button to see a plain english description. Not sure about an acronym? Mouse over. Had a kick ass year? Write 20 bullets. No so much? Put down a good 5. One line not enough? Add an explanatory paragraph. PRF time? Click your best 10, then let your boss revise the list, on up to your senior rater. You're a board member and you want to see an officer's strats? Click "Show Strats". Want to see if a senior rater is speeding? View all of their submitted strats for this year group. Tired of printing out records for promotion boards? Here's an iPad.

All of that becomes easy if we just get away from the idea that OPRs are a sheet of paper and instead think of them as information.

For my next rant, TAFs, METARs, and NOTAMs written as though we were still paying to send them via teletype...

Edited by BuddhaSixFour
  • Upvote 16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...