Promotion and PRF Information

[Bender]

People now want to fix the EPR system, unfortunately those that want to "fix it" were the ones promoted by it to senior leadership.

It's like a circle. Not a square, not a triangle, but a circle.

Bendy

[Gravedigger]

Liquid I'm with everything you are saying except I would alter the rated vs non-rated promotion board idea. I think that works well for the Navy, but the Air Force is much more unique WRT career fields. In the rated vs. non-rated scheme, you still have non-rated ops competing against support, and within support, very few AFSCs speak the same language. A space ops officer that goes through IQT/MQT, takes evals that result in Q1/Q2/Q3, moves to OSS/OGV and gets a K or Q prefix, and has ops bullets looks a lot more like a pilot on paper than a force support officer. A 61S, 62E, and 63A might look alike, but compared to MSG-type AFSCs, they might as well be in another service.

In my opinion, the solution is to base promotions on career fields. Not all promotion rates need to be the same either. It would be based on sustainment needs for each AFSC. School selection would be sustainment based as well. For example, CROs/STOs might have 97% promotion, and 10% school. But it would be the CRO/STO senior leaders selecting these individuals. It would be sort of like an MLR, except each AFSC, or group of closely related AFSCs, would be responsible for filling the quota they are given by HAF.Pilots compete for promotion and school only against other pilots.

I hear Senior Officers say that they can read any OPR from any AFSC and make an informed assessment. That holds true for the very top and very bottom, but it's complete bullshit for the area that really matters. The gray area is what board members actually need to understand, and that gray area is vastly different across the Air Force. Who better to sort that out than senior leaders from that specific AFSC? We already do this for JAG, MSC, Chaplain...it's time to expand.

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

[panchbarnes]

People now want to fix the EPR system, unfortunately those that want to "fix it" were the ones promoted by it to senior leadership.

The EPR/OPR system is okay. It's more about how we determine our top airman/future O-6s.

For example, on the CGO side, you are usually not the top dog unless you:

1. have excellent PT score (meeting the standards is not good enough)

2. have masters degree (early)

3. have SOS in-residence (early)

4. have done exec duty (just don't rock the boat if you really want this)

5. have lots of hi-vis volunteer experience (this leads to qtrly/annual awards that translate to strats)

6. don't screw up in your primary duty

Meet the above criteria and you are a lock for a good strat or a strong push.

Not one of those criteria is about military leadership. You'll have a very limited AF career if your priority is being good at your primary duty and/or leading your peers/subordinates.

This is what's wrong with our promotion system and why all the good dudes/dudettes are leaving.

Edited April 30, 2014 by PanchBarnes

[BitteEinBit]

Liquid I'm with everything you are saying except I would alter the rated vs non-rated promotion board idea.

In my opinion, the solution is to base promotions on career fields. Not all promotion rates need to be the same either. It would be based on sustainment needs for each AFSC. School selection would be sustainment based as well. For example, CROs/STOs might have 97% promotion, and 10% school. But it would be the CRO/STO senior leaders selecting these individuals. It would be sort of like an MLR, except each AFSC, or group of closely related AFSCs, would be responsible for filling the quota they are given by HAF.Pilots compete for promotion and school only against other pilots.

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

This is probably the best solution I've seen yet. You would THINK that is how we would do it all along, but we don't. That is the reason you have overages of officers in certain career fields and not others. Hard to see when you just deal in overall beans instead of specific beans. No doubt these are (mostly) quality officers, but if you can't crossflow your officers to effectively "lead" as experts in other AFSCs, those overages do nothing for the organization other than make it more difficult for the AF to place those quality officers within those AFSCs. Meanwhile, you may have a rated officer (for example) who may not have stacked well against the COMM officer who was the 2-star's exec, but is still a quality expert in the flying world who is shown the door because he/she wasn't promoted. I still need experienced IPs to actually fly, but said COMM officer will not be able to fill the shoes of the rated guy. So, I guess I'll just spend extra money to replace the IP...yes, it can be done, but it costs money and I may lose experience/knowledge in the process. That seems to be "just good enough" in today's Air Force. Wash, rinse, repeat. Its ok, we have unlimited funds.

We all know not everyone can be promoted...but we also know that promoting an arbitrary number of officers (75-85% depending on the board) without regard to AFSC promotes a lot of quality officers, but not necessarily the right flavor of quality officer. They'll make good managers somewhere, but won't replace my quality IP who maybe isn't GO or exec material ( per current AF definition as listed in PBs post above). I don't care what your education background is...I want quality instructors producing quality pilots, so I value the experience in my squadron. Those aren't necessarily the phoenix touch and go IPs we seem put on pedestals.

Name one successful company on the civilian side who let expertise go just because they aren't management material, and I'll show you a company getting ready to fail....

Edited April 30, 2014 by BitteEinBit

[Gravedigger]

I don't care what your education background is...I want quality instructors producing quality pilots, so I value the experience in my squadron.

Exactly. That's the other huge benefit of promoting based on AFSC. Each community decides what is important to them. A pilot most likely doesn't need an AAD going up for major, but a 62E with a Masters is a lot more versatile and has more assignment opportunities, and is therefore more useful to the career field. For their promotion boards, AAD and acquisition code/level would be big factors. For almost every other AFSC, both of those mean very little.

Additionally, things that should transcend AFSC often do not. For example, in the flying world, going to WIC is extremely competitive and selective, in space ops, it's not. At my last base, the only 4 people that wanted to go to WIC were mediocre at best, but since nobody else wanted to go, they all went. Don't get me wrong, some really great dudes go to WIC, but all of them were great dudes before going.

Finally, by promoting by AFSC, you lessen the need for force management measures in higher ranks. If pilot manning is falling because airlines are hiring, make promotion for pilots 100%. If nobody is leaving a career field which could lead to a future surplus, drop it to 80%. It's really not that complicated. Although, I'm sure we would find a way to make it so.

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

[Rusty Pipes]

Senior Officers say THINK that they can read any OPR from any AFSC and make an informed assessment. FIFY

My last two O-6 Commanders (both non-rated) were VERY proud of the fact that they have sat on promotion boards and have participated in MLRs, but when I showed them pictures of an F-22, F-16, C-5 and C-17 they both got every one of them wrong when I asked them what they were. If they can't even tell you what an F-22 or a C-17 looks like then the fact that you were a 4 Ship Flight Lead or SOLL II Left Seater as mid level Captain means absolutely NOTHING to them when they read it on your PRF with their 60 second glance. It's easy for any O-6 to pick out the top and bottom 10% from almost any AFSC, but when you have that group of about 10% that are right on the bubble of whether or not they are going to get promoted, the idea that the person voting on their fate doesn't know what half of their PRF even means doesn't help... and that goes for whatever career field you may be in! One of these two O-6s fully admitted that they didn't understand what most of the stuff on my PRF meant... and then said when it came down to it they looked for who had more #1 strats and who checked all the boxes. At least they were honest. I think promotion by career field is a better direction to go IMHO.

[Bobby]

My last two O-6 Commanders (both non-rated) were VERY proud of the fact that they have sat on promotion boards and have participated in MLRs, but when I showed them pictures of an F-22, F-16, C-5 and C-17 they both got every one of them wrong when I asked them what they were. If they can't even tell you what an F-22 or a C-17 looks like then the fact that you were a 4 Ship Flight Lead or SOLL II Left Seater as mid level Captain means absolutely NOTHING to them when they read it on your PRF with their 60 second glance. It's easy for any O-6 to pick out the top and bottom 10% from almost any AFSC, but when you have that group of about 10% that are right on the bubble of whether or not they are going to get promoted, the idea that the person voting on their fate doesn't know what half of their PRF even means doesn't help... and that goes for whatever career field you may be in! One of these two O-6s fully admitted that they didn't understand what most of the stuff on my PRF meant... and then said when it came down to it they looked for who had more #1 strats and who checked all the boxes. At least they were honest. I think promotion by career field is a better direction to go IMHO.

F'ing THIS!!!

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

[Rusty Pipes]

Cue Rusty with another anecdotal "....these 2 guys I know........THEREFORE....the whole promotion system is fucked" story.

It's true, not every single MWS/AFSC is represented at the board. Would that ever be possible? No, so of course there's going to be an understanding gap when it comes to records. As you said, it applies across all AFSCs. Even within the flying world, although we can VID most aircraft in the inventory, we still face the same challenges when comparing records. Do most fighter/bomber guys really understand what SOLL II is in terms of being able to apply it to job performance or promotion potential? .....I don't. Does a C-130 guy really understand what it means to be a F-15C MSN/CC or Sandy 1 in terms of promotion? Probably not.

So, to me, if I'm sitting on the board, here's the fix if that one piece of information ends up being the tie-breaking discriminator:

1) Re-read the bullet/PRF It's up to commanders and SR's to craft each bullet in a way that board members can understand/apply it. This is routinely fucked up, and if it's fucked up enough, it can make for a very weak overall PRF. In line with your later comment that said anecdotal O-6 couldn't understand most of the stuff on your PRF, well dude, sorry to break it to you but the people in your chain of command who have written/reviewed your PRF have failed you. They've written you a shitty PRF. I would recommend you intervene using all available resources prior to the PRF going final, or write a letter to the board. But yes, that's one of the classic pitfalls in this process.....too much cryptic jargon, lingo, and acronyms. People trying to jam too much into each line until the thing comes out reading like manderin chinese. Less is more. I was always taught and mentored to "write it so your Grandmother can understand it."

2) Ask another board member. A CAF/MAF dude as required.

3) Reference the board instructions.

You try to make it sound like these types (that can't ID a C-17/F-16) are:

--The majority of folks that sit on the board

--Single-handedly deciding the fate of the eligible officer

--Unable to have any cross-talk with the other board members if they have a questions.

All false.

But I like sport bitching as much as the next guy and the last part about AFSC-specific boards is interesting.

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

OK, Hoss... I'll bite. Not a "2 guys I know... therefore the whole system is screwed up story". We all tend to live in our own little bubbles in the AF which isn't a major secret to anyone (even within CAF/MAF like you said), but even after working for multiple Generals, Wing and OG CC's and having been involved with probably over a dozen PRF rounds throughout the years... I was surprised by the fact that these guys had no idea what they were reading. I'm not saying they were not quite up to speed on some of the terms/concepts/acronyms... they actually had no idea what they even meant! Of course cross-talk with the other board members is happening when there are questions. The O-6 who flew F-15Cs his whole career could go through a PRF and might not know what a SOLL II Left Seat guy is in a C-17, but you could explain it to him in about 5 seconds so that he completely understands. When that same F-15C O-6 looks at the next PRF for a MX guy and doesn't understand half of the PRF... how long do you think it would take someone to explain it to him such that he completely understands? Especially when they probably spend only about a minute or two going through the entire promotion package. I'm not saying the whole system is screwed up... I'm saying that maybe it isn't the best idea to have the English teacher grading the Math exam!

We have countless pages on here of people bitching about AADs, PME, useless Strats and Christmas Party planning being used to decide who gets promoted, school, ect (guilty as charged)... but if the Board members don't know the relevance of the 4 Ship Flight Lead, SOLL II Left Seater or Supreme Level 9 Combat FOD Manager then what do they do? Hmmm... he has more #1 strats than she does. This guy got his AAD in 2009 and he got his in 2010! I think that stuff was originally used with good intentions as a tie breaker when everything else was even, but when the only way to compare me as a pilot against my peer who is MX officer is the queep then the queep just became my #1 priority! You're obviously never going to have a perfect system, I just think we would do much better by having Rated Officers doing Rated promotions, MX Officers doing MX promotions, etc. It would sure as hell keep me from failing my Math exam due to poor grammar! Something tells me that as a Hog Driver you would much rather have the Little Rock OG/CC scoring your promotion package than the MSG/CC from Hanscom... just sayin'

Edited April 30, 2014 by Rusty Pipes

[Homestar]

M

M bu

Indeed

[Liquid]

Indeed

Now that was some classic senior leader nonsense...damn iPhone

[Breckey]

Butt-posting on the Baseops App?

[Liquid]

Butt-posting on the Baseops App?

That or BQ Zip's mom hacked my iPhone while I was in the bathroom.

Name one successful company on the civilian side who let expertise go just because they aren't management material, and I'll show you a company getting ready to fail....

There are plenty of industries that prefer young, cheap labor. Hooters waitresses, NFL Cheerleaders, show business, hostesses, interns, the girls that hold the round numbers at MMA matches, the fry machine guy at McD's, lifeguards, etc. Cheap labor, adequate supply of entry level applicants, no need to pay more for the same job tasks done with experience (employees tend to expect more pay for the same job done for a long time), experience doesn't really make you better, the older you get the less effective you are, etc. Sometimes experienced, more expensive people performing jobs that are usually done with a younger, cheaper force may need to be moved along if they aren't able to move up. Not true for aviators, or most officers, but applicable on the civilian side.

[Skitzo]

That or BQ Zip's mom hacked my iPhone while I was in the bathroom.

Post of the year... burn on BQ ZIP!!!

[Dupe]

That or BQ Zip's mom hacked my iPhone while I was in the bathroom.

There are plenty of industries that prefer young, cheap labor. Hooters waitresses, NFL Cheerleaders, show business, hostesses, interns, the girls that hold the round numbers at MMA matches, the fry machine guy at McD's, lifeguards, etc. Cheap labor, adequate supply of entry level applicants, no need to pay more for the same job tasks done with experience (employees tend to expect more pay for the same job done for a long time), experience doesn't really make you better, the older you get the less effective you are, etc. Sometimes experienced, more expensive people performing jobs that are usually done with a younger, cheaper force may need to be moved along if they aren't able to move up. Not true for aviators, or most officers, but applicable on the civilian side.

This is true for a labor market. In a knowledge market, decidedly not the case. Akamai or Amazon are still very much keeping the network engineers and cyber security experts who don't want to move up to management. It seems like the AF regards aviators as somewhere in the middle (i.e. further experience is valuable, but becoming a deep career-long expert is not).

[BitteEinBit]

There are plenty of industries that prefer young, cheap labor. Hooters waitresses, NFL Cheerleaders, show business, hostesses, interns, the girls that hold the round numbers at MMA matches, the fry machine guy at McD's, lifeguards, etc. Cheap labor, adequate supply of entry level applicants, no need to pay more for the same job tasks done with experience (employees tend to expect more pay for the same job done for a long time), experience doesn't really make you better, the older you get the less effective you are, etc. Sometimes experienced, more expensive people performing jobs that are usually done with a younger, cheaper force may need to be moved along if they aren't able to move up. Not true for aviators, or most officers, but applicable on the civilian side.

Touche! Ok, you got me. You just had to ruin my argument by bringing hot chicks into the mix...my weakness! Hooters probably won't be failing any time soon. That is a good thing with Hooter girls though, as I get older, they stay the same age!!

Now, if I could just convince US Airways to do the same with their aging talent pool, I may make the switch to the airlines. Looks like I'll just have to stick to the young Air Force Flight Nursing Corps instead....when is graduation again?!

[sqwatch]

My last two O-6 Commanders (both non-rated) were VERY proud of the fact that they have sat on promotion boards and have participated in MLRs, but when I showed them pictures of an F-22, F-16, C-5 and C-17 they both got every one of them wrong when I asked them what they were.

Trying to imagine a commander that has a bullsh1t threshold high enough to let rusty trap him in a corner with a VID quiz.

[Rusty Pipes]

Trying to imagine a commander that has a bullsh1t threshold high enough to let rusty trap him in a corner with a VID quiz.

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1398952069.865206.jpg

I was actually the one trapped in the corner when he asked me to translate all the flyer PRFs because he didn't understand what they meant... he was doing the rack and stack recommendations for the Staff Agency for the SES who also did not speak aviation in a very non-flyer organization. Luckily I never had to put my own PRF there because flyers didn't do well.

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

[panchbarnes]

Can someone confirm if the 2006 YG O-4 board is going to be March of 2015? That's the word on the street...

Thanks.

[Whitman]

Can someone confirm if the 2006 YG O-4 board is going to be March of 2015? That's the word on the street...

Thanks.

Isn't 2005 YG's board in December 2014? Seems like March would be too fast for another one.

[Guest ThatGuy]

Isn't 2005 YG's board in December 2014? Seems like March would be too fast for another one.

Affirmative.

Edited May 3, 2014 by slick999

[Cell Dweller]

Can someone confirm if the 2006 YG O-4 board is going to be March of 2015? That's the word on the street...

Thanks.

Um, as mentioned previously, the 2005 year group's board is in Dec. The results will be released around March. Odds are the schedule for the 06 board will be released somewhere in there.

[panchbarnes]

Isn't 2005 YG's board in December 2014? Seems like March would be too fast for another one.

That's what I thought so too. But apparently certain people are asked to write their PRFs now for the O-4 board next March.

Has AFPC ever compressed the timeline between O-4 boards for any reason?

[backseatdriver]

That's what I thought so too. But apparently certain people are asked to write their PRFs now for the O-4 board next March.

What? Who the eff is talking about PRFs a YEAR out from a (supposed) board?!

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

[panchbarnes]

What? Who the eff is talking about PRFs a YEAR out from a (supposed) board?!

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

I've heard that a couple of times recently at the squadron level.

I think it's strange as well, but that's the guidance that's been given.

Edited May 3, 2014 by PanchBarnes

[Herk Driver]

Has AFPC ever compressed the timeline between O-4 boards for any reason?

Yes, in order to drive the pin-on time down to below 10 years.

Edit to add: there have been 2 O-4 boards in the same calendar year before.

Edited May 3, 2014 by Herk Driver