Promotion and PRF Information

[FUSEPLUG]

7 hours ago, joe1234 said:

Oh and you also get invol sep benefits, other than the pay. So, TAMP, 2 years of commissary/BX access....

I find this amusing.  Been out for two years now and not once have I thought, "Man, I wish I still had commissary and/or BX access!"

I can't even count the number of times I was nearly hit by a Lincoln Town Car while in the commissary parking lot during that 20 minute lunch break I got between staff meetings.  I'll take my $12 sandwich from the bakery in the KBNA terminal any day over the 2 years of commissary access "benefit."

[olevelo]

Lear, that sounds like terrible reasoning for someone sitting on the board. You give a promotion to someone who doesn't want it and someone else deserving gets shafted. You can say they had a "lesser" record, but they just scored below the quota. If the board was purely a score cutoff that's the same every year without regard to quotas, I could see this as a valid argument...score above the cutoff and you have nothing to complain about. But with a quota system the scores are purely arbitrary and you are just screwing over someone who may be just tenths of points "lesser" than the last guy who got promoted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pcola]

5 hours ago, Learjetter said:

A promotion board is not charged to find the best records "of the willing"...but is charged to put the records in order, best to last.  IMHBAO, a member's opinion/desire for promotion isn't very relevant to how well the RECORD stacks up against other RECORDS--even for the purposes of promotion...Maybe it should--that WOULD ensure we're only looking at the willing.

It's a HUGE deal to each letter-writer, though.

We should promote neither.  And I'm pretty sure that's what happens in the vast majority of the incredibly small number of letter-writer cases.

OK, I get it that as a sitting member of a promotion board, you interpret the desires of your superiors and you execute your charge in a way that you judge best  materializes those wishes.  If you could set that aside for the sake of this discussion, does it not seem absurd that the system is designed to promote the unwilling?  Why should we aspire to be led by the unwilling, in any quantity (i.e. even if only one?)

You've acknowledged it must've been a huge deal to the letter writer.  Would they not become a "bitter" Major?  Is disregarding the hugely important wishes of the individual on grounds of principle always the best COA?

Again, you reemphasize the relative size of the pool that we are talking about.  We agree that we should not promote either.  Why would it not be in the best interests of the AF to ensure that outcome, especially considering, as you say, the small portion of the total who are affected?

2 hours ago, Learjetter said:

Hmmm. Ok then! Any officer, the instant that officer becomes "bitter" and doesn't want to be in the service anymore, gets a pass and released immediately? Or at the next promotion board? Should we wait two boards? How about promotion from 2LT to 1LT...refuse that and out you go?

This is where you start to lose me...  Are you only concerned with executing what you are "charged with," or are you also moved by your sense of right and wrong?  Here, you make it seem like you are concerned with the slippery-slope precedent of allowing a fear of "bitterness" to create a back door to an individual's commitment. Considering your charge of reviewing RECORDS, should this be something board members are concerned with?  By your preceding post, I took it (and respected it) that you were obligated to execute your duties as directed, and that your personal opinion was beside the point.  This perspective seems to inject your personal opinion as to whether or not an individual should be able to renege on their commitment through a letter to the promotion board.

I propose that there should be two distinct considerations.  First, the board should be charged with promoting the most qualified individuals.  It should be obvious that a person that does not wish to be promoted should be removed from consideration.  Second, the law should determine who stays and who goes.  If the law dictates that a twice-passed over person gets the boot, then so be it, but this should have no bearing on the potential for the person to be promoted.  If there is a concern that twice-passed over officers should not be separated before the end of their obligation, then propose a change to the law.

[sqwatch]

I thought lear's reasoning was reasonable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pcola]

I thought lear's reasoning was reasonable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I also thought it was reasonable. I just disagreed with it.


Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network Forums

[Learjetter]

Fellas, I said systemically, we as a service, should weigh the desires of the officer lower than the performance/potential of the officer and the needs of the service. Good or not, this is what we do in all things...

Further, it is an incorrect assumption that the board can choose to promote or not promote any individual officer. We don't know the cutoff, the number to be promoted, or any of that data. We simply score the record as it sits. We do not know that all 7.5's get promoted and 7.0's do not. So we cannot just give every letter writer a 6.5 to ensure we honor the wishes of that officer above all other criteria. We also ensure every record gets a fair shake with the split system to resolve such differences in scores. It would be a shame if a board member saw the letter as the first thing in the pile and scored 6.5 and didn't even look at the rest of the record. Same with please promote me--should member just score 10.0 without looking at the rest of the record? Of course not. So..the officer's DESIRES as written in a letter to the board are of LESS concern than the rest of the record.

I never said the service should promote someone who doesn't want promotion. I said that person's desires were weighed as equal to someone who DID want promotion but had a lousy record. I also said I don't remember ever hearing that a letter writer was forced to accept promotion.

I'm also saying that if you permit someone to DQ himself before consideration that's a bad thing.

Look at the bigger picture for a second. The up or out system has a few drawbacks. But it also makes long term career paths possible, ensures a quality force, and attracts the determined, adventerous, hungry kind of person we want to attract into Service. Do you want to serve in an organization that doesn't care about career paths and individual growth? That's the postal service or DMV, or any other civil bureaucracy.

Up or out makes room for younguns. It sustains the all-volunteer aspect (you can still refuse promotion). By ensuring EVERY record gets looked at at specific intervals we try to ensure the best performers who demonstrate the potential to serve in the higher grade get a fair shake.

Im sure some of these concepts are also codified in the officer promotion reg.

Does SOS not cover the promotion process anymore? Don't you get to score actual records and discuss all these theories in class? It used to be so. Probably have some federally-mandated social justice training instead.

PM me if you want to tell me I'm a f.u.c.k.in' idiot. Definitely PM me with your thoughts after you sit a board or two.

[Duck]

Learjetter, how long ago did you sit on the board? Was it a Maj or Lt Col board? Thanks for the insight. The rate now for Pilots is damn near 95%, so hoping for a miracle cause the AF has practically shut all voluntary paths to the ANG outside of 6 months.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Learjetter]

I last sat an O4 board two years ago. Duck, you and I discussed some of this a few months ago. I still wish your leadership would've looked at your situation and designed a different path forward.

When bosses attitudes and lack of creative thinking "force" good, quality, motivated officers to actively try to derail their careers instead of coming up with win-win ideas just pisses me off.

I don't know if you'll be promoted or not. Neither do the individual board members as they score your record. You may get a panel that honors your request and scores your record low enough to be passed over again. Maybe you don't get continued. Maybe you get continued--thus forcing you to quit (w/o invol Sep bennies). You may get a panel that doesn't rate your request as high, and you end up on the list. You don't have to accept it and can bail w/o invol Sep bennies.

There is a school of thought that says "quitters" (letter writers) shouldn't benefit from privately quitting via letter to the board with involuntary Sep benefits...so letter writers should not be considered involuntary separatees...and to ensure that, put them in the stack where they belong and make them "publicly" reject their promotion and separate voluntarily. Kinda individually shitty, but I've heard people say that and understand (institutionally) where that comes from.

Only you can decide what's best for you in your situation. Just understand all the rules and how they can be applied to your situation.

I hope you get the result you want.

[Karl Hungus]

2 hours ago, Learjetter said:

You may get a panel that doesn't rate your request as high, and you end up on the list. You don't have to accept it and can bail w/o invol Sep bennies.
 

Is this possible?  Hadn't heard about an option to get promoted, decline promotion, and then separate.  If it exists, why would Duck even care about writing a DNP letter in order to intentionally be passed over and then separate?  Probably sounds better in future job interviews to say "I was promoted but declined in order to pursue other interests" than "I had to game an archaic, inflexible system to remove myself from promotion consideration so that I could pursue other interests".  

 

[pawnman]

7 hours ago, Learjetter said:

Fellas, I said systemically, we as a service, should weigh the desires of the officer lower than the performance/potential of the officer and the needs of the service. Good or not, this is what we do in all things...

Further, it is an incorrect assumption that the board can choose to promote or not promote any individual officer. We don't know the cutoff, the number to be promoted, or any of that data. We simply score the record as it sits. We do not know that all 7.5's get promoted and 7.0's do not. So we cannot just give every letter writer a 6.5 to ensure we honor the wishes of that officer above all other criteria. We also ensure every record gets a fair shake with the split system to resolve such differences in scores. It would be a shame if a board member saw the letter as the first thing in the pile and scored 6.5 and didn't even look at the rest of the record. Same with please promote me--should member just score 10.0 without looking at the rest of the record? Of course not. So..the officer's DESIRES as written in a letter to the board are of LESS concern than the rest of the record.

I never said the service should promote someone who doesn't want promotion. I said that person's desires were weighed as equal to someone who DID want promotion but had a lousy record. I also said I don't remember ever hearing that a letter writer was forced to accept promotion.

I'm also saying that if you permit someone to DQ himself before consideration that's a bad thing.

Look at the bigger picture for a second. The up or out system has a few drawbacks. But it also makes long term career paths possible, ensures a quality force, and attracts the determined, adventerous, hungry kind of person we want to attract into Service. Do you want to serve in an organization that doesn't care about career paths and individual growth? That's the postal service or DMV, or any other civil bureaucracy.

Up or out makes room for younguns. It sustains the all-volunteer aspect (you can still refuse promotion). By ensuring EVERY record gets looked at at specific intervals we try to ensure the best performers who demonstrate the potential to serve in the higher grade get a fair shake.

Im sure some of these concepts are also codified in the officer promotion reg.

Does SOS not cover the promotion process anymore? Don't you get to score actual records and discuss all these theories in class? It used to be so. Probably have some federally-mandated social justice training instead.

PM me if you want to tell me I'm a f.u.c.k.in' idiot. Definitely PM me with your thoughts after you sit a board or two.

 

 

 

I'm not sure why you think letting someone opt-out of the promotion system is a bad thing, especially when you follow it up with "up or out makes room for the younguns"...then make room for one more youngun by not promoting someone who has no desire to be promoted.

[pawnman]

2 hours ago, Karl Hungus said:

Is this possible?  Hadn't heard about an option to get promoted, decline promotion, and then separate.  If it exists, why would Duck even care about writing a DNP letter in order to intentionally be passed over and then separate?  Probably sounds better in future job interviews to say "I was promoted but declined in order to pursue other interests" than "I had to game an archaic, inflexible system to remove myself from promotion consideration so that I could pursue other interests".  

 

I'm pretty sure declining a promotion doesn't get you out of your ADSC either.

[tac airlifter]

Lear, thanks for explaining your rationale.  I disagree with your logic because I think the needs of the Air Force are better served by people who want to be there.  That said, you bring up some interesting points I'd never considered.

almost every problem that appears simple and obvious to outsiders can be complicated once you're in the drivers seat and privy to all the variables.  This is why we (pilots) get agitated listening to civilians speculate about aircraft accidents..... who knows what that pilot was dealing with, just let the board do it's work, you know?  Same principal here-- You've been in the drivers seat WRT promotion and clearly there's more to think about than I had thought.

 I still feel like the rare case of a guy declining should be handled in a unique manner, but I have some radical thoughts about human capitol and individual worth.  So I'm coming from a tainted perspective.  Regardless, thank you for your honest explanation.

[guineapigfury]

3 hours ago, Karl Hungus said:

Is this possible?  Hadn't heard about an option to get promoted, decline promotion, and then separate.  If it exists, why would Duck even care about writing a DNP letter in order to intentionally be passed over and then separate?  Probably sounds better in future job interviews to say "I was promoted but declined in order to pursue other interests" than "I had to game an archaic, inflexible system to remove myself from promotion consideration so that I could pursue other interests".  

 

I was twice passed over for promotion and separated earlier this month.  I interviewed for my dream job and got it.  They never asked why I didn't get promoted.  YMMV.

Also, there seems to be some confusion over how continuation works.  I thought posting an actual continuation offer might clear some of that up.  So, here's a picture of my continuation offer with my signature block scrubbed out from the bottom left:

 

[bennynova]

I agree with lear

 

  Being bitter is not a reason to get out of a service commitment.   And if allowed, would ultimately lead to more

 

ducks snap letter and wanting out is medical/family related and should be considered.    Realistically, his wing should be taking care of him, but have not.

 

duck wants to stay in the reserves even.... doesn't seem right in his case considering the circumstances. 

[xaarman]

5 hours ago, pawnman said:

I'm pretty sure declining a promotion doesn't get you out of your ADSC either.

It does. DOPMA takes priority over ADSCs. 

[otsap]

36 minutes ago, xaarman said:

It does. DOPMA takes priority over ADSCs. 

Yes and no.  DOPMA does supersede, but the AFI governing Officer Promotions has a sneaky little caveat in the section titled Declining Promotion.  If you are put on the promotion list, and subsequently decline the promotion (which sounds like a damn headache, by the way), then you will not be promoted.  However, your name REMAINS on the promotion list.  So practically speaking, you will not pin on the next rank, but you will also not be considered a "twice passed over" officer.  It's a weird area, but in effect, you can't get out of your ADSC if you go this route.

Duck, I mentioned this before I think, and it's only anecdotal, but in our squadron on both of the last two Major boards, we had someone with a DP and no letter (common), DP and a DNP me letter, a P with no letter, and a P with a letter.  On both boards, the proverbial "line in the sand" between who got promoted and who did not, was the DP v. P.  In other words, the DPs with no letter and DP with a DNP me letter were all promoted, and the P with no letter and the P with a DNP me letter were not promoted.

I don't think this means that the letter carries no weight.  I think it confirms what Learjetter was saying about the priority being on the AF's needs via the DP/P, which is seen as your CC's recommendation.  It can only help though, in my opinion, if your CC's recommendation (P), and your own wishes (letter), are aligned.

[olevelo]

Lear, thanks for the added explanation, although I still disagree with the logic of promoting someone who is not willing over someone who is probably just as deserving but is just below the cut line for that particular board (but might not be on another). You say you don't know what scores are the cut line...but you do know that by giving someone asking not to be promoted any score at all they have a chance of bumping someone else. I don't think you can equally compare the letters of those asking not to be promoted versus those asking for consideration to be promoted...they are vastly different concepts. One should be automatic (I nor most want a field grader around who doesn't want to be there at that rank), while the other should be considered. Also, you say you don't want to give folks an "out" from their commitments...come back to me when the air force stops kicking people out then two years later deciding it needs to add 30k airmen. But that's a whole other conversation!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bennynova]

I think the answer is simple, but I don't run things

 

no one should be writing DNP letters because there should be no way that 2 times passed over automatically relinquished you from your ADSC

 

on the flip side, there should be an option up to AFPC to cut chalks due to extenuating family emergency circumstances, especially when willing to transfer any service commitments to reserves.  

[joe1234]

8 hours ago, bennynova said:

I think the answer is simple, but I don't run things

 

no one should be writing DNP letters because there should be no way that 2 times passed over automatically relinquished you from your ADSC

DOPMA was passed in 1980. Since then, the Air Force has had to increase the pilot commitment to an absurdly long 10 years (1999 or 2000) due to the fact that the attractiveness of a full military career has absolutely plummeted.

If it was still 6 years, this wouldn't be a problem, but the rather than fix the problem, the military just used the AFI as a hammer to keep people longer.

When you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.

[mcbush]

On 12/20/2016 at 11:58 PM, Learjetter said:

Does SOS not cover the promotion process anymore? Don't you get to score actual records and discuss all these theories in class? It used to be so. Probably have some federally-mandated social justice training instead.

 

For the record, this is still part of the curriculum down at Maxwell. It's definitely one of the more interesting lessons in illustrating the differences between most rated and non-rated perspectives.

[SurelySerious]

5 minutes ago, mcbush said:

For the record, this is still part of the curriculum down at Maxwell. It's definitely one of the more interesting lessons in illustrating the differences between most rated and non-rated perspectives.

True story.  Where they want to rank the failed-out-of-wic guy behind joe bagodonuts finance guy because he didn't pass training.

[daynightindicator]

True story.  Where they want to rank the failed-out-of-wic guy behind joe bagodonuts finance guy because he didn't pass training.

I think that's the point of the exercise. It works both ways - I was about to rate (highly) a PRF for a combat rescue officer, before another CRO in my flight showed me the "magic words" on the form that meant the guy was actually a shitbag. It was enlightening.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Champ Kind]

I think that's the point of the exercise. It works both ways - I was about to rate (highly) a PRF for a combat rescue officer, before another CRO in my flight showed me the "magic words" on the form that meant the guy was actually a shitbag. It was enlightening.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Which is a datapoint to the ridiculousness of our evaluation system. We don't just rate the guy a shitbag, but instead we use cute "continue to challenge" or "upgrade when ready" language, or leave off the SOS push.

[daynightindicator]

Which is a datapoint to the ridiculousness of our evaluation system. We don't just rate the guy a shitbag, but instead we use cute "continue to challenge" or "upgrade when ready" language, or leave off the SOS push.

Agreed. The system could use more transparency and fewer unwritten rules.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Skitzo]

"Monitor for command" is a great one...

So is "vectoring towards sqd cc"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk