Jump to content

Promotion and PRF Information


Guest e3racing

Recommended Posts

Board doesnt see PT scores. If someone had a referral OPR for PT failures, the OPR was seen. It counted the same as any other referral for a documented failure to meet standards...but there weren't that many folks with referrals. It helped soften the score reduction when the OPR after the referral was an excellent one. It hurt a score when there were more than one referral or the subsequent OPRS sucked.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SnapLock said:

This whole OPR/PRF/Promotion game is terrible.  

 

What's amazing to me is that we have the HPO program under all of this. Why the AF believes it needs a secret and separate process is beyond me.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

High performing officer... its like choosing your quarterly award winners before the quarter starts, so you can get them everything they need to win. We try to choose our Generals when they're Captains because of it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

HPO may mean different things to different people but it stands for High Potential Officer. This term gets thrown around a lot but in AMC you are identified as an HPO when you are promoted below the zone, typically. There are a few caveats to that and I don't know them all but that is the gist of it. I think technically an HPO is multiple below the zone or you have 4-star interest. Capts are not HPOs but may be getting special attention in order to build their record to make them competitive for BTZ. It actually takes a lot of effort and time to build a record that is competitive for BTZ promotion. YMMV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On December 13, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Herk Driver said:

HPO may mean different things to different people but it stands for High Potential Officer. This term gets thrown around a lot but in AMC you are identified as an HPO when you are promoted below the zone, typically. There are a few caveats to that and I don't know them all but that is the gist of it. I think technically an HPO is multiple below the zone or you have 4-star interest. Capts are not HPOs but may be getting special attention in order to build their record to make them competitive for BTZ. It actually takes a lot of effort and time to build a record that is competitive for BTZ promotion. YMMV.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a562062.pdf

Educate yourselves, gents, it's the only way to stay ahead in this business.

Chuck

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Let's continue to focus on making good Flag Officers and continue neglecting making good Squadron Commanders...

Interesting excerpts from the paper Chuck shared:

"Earning "distinguished graduate" (DG) status is as important as the educational aspects of SOS..."

Of course it is...DG status is the first of 2 0/1 bits for HPO designation at O-3/O-4 transition.

"...acquiring an advanced academic degree is deemed by the Air Force as a requisite milestone for either promotion consideration and/or IDE in-residence selection."

Of course it is...IDE in-residence selection is the second 0/1 bit for HPO designation at O-3/O-4 transition.

DG status and IDE in-residence, topped off with a week long Squadron Commander's course is the first half (the important half) of making a senior leader...

"Like squadron command, in-residence SDE is another indicator of high potential."

These are naturally exactly the same thing, right...If we have failed you so far, AWC will fix it.

"Squadron command is a key indicator for increased rank and responsibility and usually is the result of careful growth within the squadron structure itself (e.g., squadron DO, deputy commander)."

Of course it is...very careful growth within the dilapidated, struggling, squadron structure itself...led by a squadron commander we completely fucked over getting him/her ready for more than half the responsibility to grow the very senior leaders we claim to have a problem with.

This topic is super fun,
Bendy

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On December 16, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Chuck17 said:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a562062.pdf

Educate yourselves, gents, it's the only way to stay ahead in this business.

Chuck

            Methinks HPO should be changed to mean Hyper-Professionalized Officer. The thing that stands out to me in the doc Chuck gave the link to and in senior officers’ bios is the overemphasis on education. While PME should certainly play an important part in future senior officers’ careers, we clearly seem to have gone overboard with education, at the expense of operational competence/credibility. 

 

Current Chief of Staff (Welsh):

- 4 yrs at USAFA

- SOS

- Master’s from Webster U

- 3 yrs at USAFA as an AOC & Commandant’s exec

- 1 yr at CGSC

- 1 yr at National War College

- 1 yr commanding CADRE (College of Aerospace Doctrine, Research & Education)

- 2 yrs as USAFA Commandant

- 5 different fellowships—MIT, Harvard x2, NDU, Center for Creative Leadership

- Payback on the above investment in/around PME: check the JQP thread

 

First Chief of Staff (Spaatz):

- 4 yrs at West Point (hardly a major push for aviation in the 1910s at USMA)

- Never went to any company-grade officers’ PME course

- Never got a master’s degree

- 1 yr at Air Service Field Officers’ School (predecessor to ACTS—before they’d developed High-Altitude Precision Daylight Bombing doctrine)

- 1 yr at Army CGSS . . . again, hardly a center for innovative airpower thinking in the 30s

- As far as I can tell, he never served as a PME instructor/commander

- Payback on the above investment: set a record with the Question Mark; won the air wars in Africa, Europe & Japan; & oversaw the creation of the independent Air Force  

 

LeMay (5th CSAF) graduated from Army ROTC & got all of three months of ACTS in his entire military career . . . yet was one of the Air Force’s great tactical leaders, who also built SAC into an effective combat organization. Was a general for over 21 years—3.5 of them as CSAF (when the AF reached at least 880k people).

 

McConnell (6th CSAF) graduated from West Point—and as far as I can tell he never attended any other PME (or civilian school) throughout his entire military career. Was a general for 25 years—3.5 of them as CSAF (when the AF reached over 900k people).

 

            Bottom line, the Air Force’s obsession with education doesn’t necessarily seem to be producing substantially better results than were seen with earlier generations of senior Air Force leaders who had little to no significant PME experiences. Given that the early AF leaders all grew up in the Army, not the Air Force, one could say their PME experiences were likely detrimental to their development as airmen. Considering how much time our current GOs end up spending in school, they sure don’t have much to say (few of them publish much of anything worthwhile). Perhaps if Air Force officers spent less time in school, they might have more time to build operational credibility . . . and we might see better decisions on personnel, acquisitions, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be careful though in recommending that we let the pendulum swing too far the other way.  Remember, some of the criticism of current policy/strategy is that we have folks making decisions who lack a deep understanding of the underlying problems (the debate over how to handle ISIS is but one example) involved in each situation.  There's something to be said about folks who take the time to think deeply every once in a while.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind the top brass having all the jointness and schoolness in the world. They are bureaucrats, not operators anymore. An average operational background is probably good enough, but if they don't have a sound foundation of international relations, domestic policy, glad-handing, etc they're going to have a tough time as CSAF.
 
Now operators on the other hand should be able to choose to stay in their chosen profession and become tactical experts without the up-or-out problems of the current day.
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Muscle2002 said:

I'd be careful though in recommending that we let the pendulum swing too far the other way.  Remember, some of the criticism of current policy/strategy is that we have folks making decisions who lack a deep understanding of the underlying problems (the debate over how to handle ISIS is but one example) involved in each situation.  There's something to be said about folks who take the time to think deeply every once in a while.  

I think we're in violent agreement, but my point is that getting a degree--particularly one from a PME school--does not necessarily equate to getting an education. We must ensure our senior leaders get adequately educated. My primary point is that operational experience has educational value all its own, but those we seem to be grooming for senior leadership ain't getting a whole lot of real-world education. We've had real-world learning opportunities for airpower leaders to learn their trade for the past 25 years (Desert Shield/Desert Storm was way back in '90-'91, which morphed into OSW/ONW, with Allied Force, OEF, OIF, etc.), but when I look at many senior leaders' bios they often seem to have done little in the way of operational deployments in the past 25 years.

Traditionally, interwar education served to compensate for the lack of real-world experience (Sam Huntington had something to say about that in Soldier and the State). Now--at least for the future senior leaders we're developing--it seems we live in a bizarro world where real-world experiences "get in the way" of educational opportunities. There seems to be something wrong with this construct.

If we do care about education, you'd think we'd make it a point to send our smart folks to good civilian schools to get their degrees, while allowing them to stay promotable. We should have at least some senior generals with decent civilian pedigrees and/or published books. On the Army side, General Petraeus got a Ph.D. from Princeton, and on the Navy side, Admiral McRaven (SEAL & SOCOM commander) published a book (some might say the book) on special operations. General Shaud (West Point '56/retired in '91) is the only Air Force 4-star with a Ph.D. who comes to mind. The most senior guy Air Force thought leader that comes to mind--Dave Deptula--retired as a 3-star. When it comes to advanced educations, the Air Force seems to do the most ridiculous thing of all; we take our smartest SAASS grads and--rather than pushing them for senior leadership--we send them to get their Ph.D.s and have them go right back to Maxwell . . . to teach at SAASS, where they top out as O-6s. 

Going back to Homestar's point--learning to work and play well with others can be learned in a multinational operational headquarters, too. You're much more likely to get a better education in diplomacy and you'll be challenged with different perspectives there, than you would at Air War College. 

My $.02

TT

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the failure starts with SOS. Largely regarded by most as a joke or a nice break to practice your golf swing and drink. With the push to go to all these joint/sister-service schools we never give future leaders any solid Air Force centric PME before shuttling them between Joint PMEs/Staffs, civilian internships etc. The Army has career courses that they send thier captians (usually 4-5 months) and the PMEs are branch specific not some mile wide-inch deep overview of the AF.

 

 

 

Edited by Fuzz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On December 19, 2015 at 8:43 PM, Fuzz said:

I think the failure starts with SOS. Largely regarded by most as a joke or a nice break to practice your golf swing and drink. With the push to go to all these joint/sister-service schools we never give future leaders any solid Air Force centric PME before shuttling them between Joint PMEs/Staffs, civilian internships etc. The Army has career courses that they send thier captians (usually 4-5 months) and the PMEs are branch specific not some mile wide-inch deep overview of the AF.

 

 

 

The Army also has the advantage of time. It does not take two years to make platoon leader. Whereas, that's about what it takes to make a 1 each rated air power practitioner in the AF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, bennynova said:

Board results delayed again, another 15 days to "early to mid February"

Are you talking about the Colonel or Major results? Major is still end of January to early February.  If you are talking about Major they slid everything to the left in the doc, because they are sneaky like that.  

Edited for clarity. 

Edited by SnapLock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, SnapLock said:

Are you talking about the Colonel or Major results? Major is still end of January to early February.  If you are talking about Major they slid everything to the left in the doc, because they are sneaky like that.  

Edited for clarity. 

You are correct. 

  I missed the slide to the left

 

thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On December 30, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Dupe said:

The Army also has the advantage of time. It does not take two years to make platoon leader. Whereas, that's about what it takes to make a 1 each rated air power practitioner in the AF.

 

Agreed and I'm not advocating for a 4-5 month course (especially being an AMC guy). My point is though other services take their early officer PME seriously or at least devote time to it more than a 2 week course jammed into a 5 week course. 

My ideal look at PME would be 2-3 weeks of generic officer PME with all officers together and then another 2-3 weeks where people separate into their specific career areas (rated, MX, services, etc) and focus on of job specific PME and development.

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...