Jump to content

Promotion and PRF Information


Guest e3racing

Recommended Posts

Assuming both strats were given to 1Lt's, which would be a better OPR strat from a secondary rater (Squadron CC, in this case):

#1/6 Lts

#2/15 CGOs

I recently received an OPR with the #2/15 strat, while another Lt received the #1/6 strat, literally less than a month later. I have always been under the impression (mainly from lurking here at BODN) that a #1 strat was better, no matter what the "/XX" was, but my primary rater said that the #2 was better, because it was out of a larger pool.

I realize trying to split hairs between the two may be trivial. It's not my intent to quibble about OPR strats... I'm simply trying to figure out the super-secret code used in OPR-writing.

Does it even make sense to give those ratings to two different Lts? If one guy is the "#1 Lt," and another Lt is the "#2 CGO," wouldn't logic tell you the first guy is the #1 CGO?

2/15 is better. ....based on math and peer-group.

A) From my experience, SR's look for percentages. Many of them actually have calculators in front of them at the MLR/CSB. 1/6 is top 16.6%. 2/15 is top 13.3%.

Everyone thinks a #1 is sexy......it is, sometimes, but do the math. For example, #1/3 means you're top 33%. That's not good. #15/80 means you're top ~19%. Better. ....and shows that you excel out of a much larger pool of peers.

You can tell when raters and SR's are #1-happy and it's lame......lots of:

--"#1/XX as ...<quarterly award winner>" (....awards are good...but trying to use it as a pseudo-strat is lame)

--"#1/2 flight commanders." (sweet....top 50%)

--"#1/6 4-ship flight leads." (...a "qualified strat"....i.e. can only compare it against other '4-ship flight leads')

Another consideration is who gave the strat.....I've seen raters put "#1/4 CGOs (Flt/CC)" but omit "#4/55 CGOs (Gp/CC)" on a PRF because the latter wasn't a "#1. Stupid.

The board sees through all that shit.

B) As a Lt, it's much stronger to be strated against "CGOs" than "Lts." "CGOs" encompass both Lts and Capts so you're being deliberately compared (favorably, in this case) with guys performing at the next higher rank.

Not at all. It's your record. Strats are a big deal. .....You know how close a lot of records look to one another? ...2/15 CGOs from a Sq/CC as a Lt is good and you never know what tiny difference might set you apart later down the road.

No, not at all. The #1 CGO is probably a Capt.

I get that you're thinking the two strat groups have to overlap. Not necessarily. .....welcome to the game.

- If you knew that one officer had been strated #1/6 Lts and another had been strated #2/15 CGOs, then yes, logic wold tell you that the 1st officer was #1/15 CGOs. However, the audience of your OPR won't have that info, so they would probably assume that the #1 CGO is a captain...

- "#1/6 Lts" is arguably better than "#2/15 CGOs", because you are being strated against your peers, rather than a group that includes non-peers. #2/15 CGOs could include a captain that has been passed over for major.

- A more relevant question may be, "which is better, #2/6 Lts or #2/15 CGOs?" If your leadership thinks the other Lt is #1 and your are #2 their choices are to strat you against Lts or CGOs. In this case, they may decide to go with the larger denominator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a blow-hard with a PhD in charge of curriculum development? Sorry, no IDE credit.

Sadly that is probably true.

That said, I'd be curious to know what percentage of patches are not IDE-selects.

This is the wrong way of thinking of it. Increasing the competency of the office corps should be the intent of developmental education, not identifying which officers were selected.

Edited by albertschu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you call a Major select?

Captain

What do you call a Captain that's been passed over?

Captain

Some bases have OPRs close out with Maj sel strats since the time of 'selection' was pushing two years to time of 'pin-on'. Something like "Wg's #1/40 Maj sels"

I would suggest that #1/40 FGOs as a Maj is a good strat as that implies that you're competing against and performing better than other Lt Cols (Sq/CCs excluded) & possible non-command Cols.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some bases have OPRs close out with Maj sel strats since the time of 'selection' was pushing two years to time of 'pin-on'. Something like "Wg's #1/40 Maj sels"

I would suggest that #1/40 FGOs as a Maj is a good strat as that implies that you're competing against and performing better than other Lt Cols (Sq/CCs excluded) & possible non-command Cols.

Saw this at my old base. Several OPRs late to the Group/Wing/AFPC waiting on board results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

They also set the O-5 board for 3 Mar 14.

It seems as if combat time/hours are becoming more important on promotion boards. A few PRFs on the last board had XXXX combat hours/top 10% combat hours in ACC/AFSOC etc.. where do they get information wrt where someone stands compared to the rest of the AF for combat hours to write a bullet like that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems as if combat time/hours are becoming more important on promotion boards. A few PRFs on the last board had XXXX combat hours/top 10% combat hours in ACC/AFSOC etc.. where do they get information wrt where someone stands compared to the rest of the AF for combat hours to write a bullet like that?

There's a way to look at your total hours and total combat hours in comparison to every aviator in the Air Force. Seen it myself...not sure if it's a tool on portal or what. Gotta ask the guy who showed me.

Good to hear that metrics related to, ya know, flying and combat are mattering more!

Edited by nsplayr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a way to look at your total hours and total combat hours in comparison to every aviator in the Air Force. Seen it myself...not sure if it's a tool on portal or what. Gotta ask the guy who showed me.

Good to hear that metrics related to, ya know, flying and combat are mattering more!

Serious question: how does this "more combat hours" bullet show the board that this O-4 is a better leader than the next?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Serious question: how does this "more combat hours" bullet show the board that this O-4 is a better leader than the next?

This one is straight from the top dudes, and it is a breath of fresh air in the form of direction that promotion boards WILL understand and weigh what it means if a dude has a gabazillion combat hours and deployments and zero community involvement / party-planning bullshit OPR bullets.

This is the parity that the mission hackers have been dreaming about for years. Hopefully it continues, because common sense breaking out is not all that common....

Chuck

Edited by Chuck17
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Serious question: how does this "more combat hours" bullet show the board that this O-4 is a better leader than the next?

It's just another piece of the "whole person" pie, but it's an important piece. As Chuck said, it can help explain the timing of an AAD or a lack of "community involvement." The bigger picture to me though is it shows who's been on the front lines actually carrying out the mission of the USAF. Combat time, total flight time, combat support, whatever...all that should be important because aren't we supposed to be flying, fighting and winning?

Max time isn't everything or the most important thing in evaluating future leaders but it is what I would consider an important piece of an aviator's records that should be considered by the board at least as much as some of the other BS factors that we all bitch about.

Edited by nsplayr
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just another piece of the "whole person" pie, but it's an important piece. As Chuck said, it can help explain the timing of an AAD or a lack of "community involvement." The bigger picture to me though is it shows who's been on the front lines actually carrying out the mission of the USAF..

This...

As it was explained to me when my senior rater handed out PRFs it was a way to communicate exactly this.

Edited by Skitzo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe this works well when comparing similar airframes or across ACC but my combat hours as a herk pilot doing 16 hour days for a 3.5 bouncing around Afghanistan it doesn't illustrate the difference between my experience to -135s or -17s pulling combat time for their couple hour layover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe this works well when comparing similar airframes or across ACC but my combat hours as a herk pilot doing 16 hour days for a 3.5 bouncing around Afghanistan it doesn't illustrate the difference between my experience to -135s or -17s pulling combat time for their couple hour layover.

You sound like a crybaby. This is a good change, and I'm glad the AF is at least acknowledging the importance of mission accomplishment when evaluating that whole person thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only issue i see with that is some airframes that don't deploy (ie UH-1). If they do it may be a piecemeal selection of aircrew who do the Mi-17 gig, especially now with only a couple of pilot opportunities per year. We have pilots who are scrounging for MC-12 gig's but MAJCOM won't let them go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only issue i see with that is some airframes that don't deploy (ie UH-1). If they do it may be a piecemeal selection of aircrew who do the Mi-17 gig, especially now with only a couple of pilot opportunities per year. We have pilots who are scrounging for MC-12 gig's but MAJCOM won't let them go.

This exact argument was used to mask deployment dates from the Officer Selection Brief. Non-deployers thought the advantage given to deployers was unfair, so we took the information off the brief. You can get the AF wide combat flight hours from the HARM office. I agree with Chuck, including this factual data is a good thing.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The '03 maj select list is projecting about 13 months to clear through. At that rate the '04 guys will be exhausted before the '05 results are released (if '05's board is in December with results in March).

If I'm lucky enough to get picked up, considering a January date of rank I should have a couple weeks to finish ACSC and check the "ACSC complete before maj pin on" box. ;-)

Not complaining - just interesting how quick the pendulum will swing from guys (and gals, and transgenders) waiting 18-24 months to pin on to what may be only 1-2 months for some of the early line numbers.

zb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those in the 2005 year group, the milestones for the 2014 LAF Majors Board are now posted on myPers:

https://gum-crm.csd.disa.mil/app/categories/p/8,9/c/656

shows a board date of 1 December 2014

I just saw this today, too. Is that confirmed to be the Maj board for '05 guys? I guess the good news is a shorter wait to pin on. Bad news for those of us who are already hot for a 365.

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...