Jump to content
Guest navobd

Promotion and PRF Information

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, FUSEPLUG said:

And now he deleted his post...  

If I end up in a cyber-bullying/manslaughter case, this is really going to fuck with my drill weekend. I need to get water survival done...

We do ours in San Diego, it would be a shame to miss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, dream big said:

Do you provide anything of value on here, or anywhere for that matter? What is your issue? Wife ran out on you and alimony payments taking their toll? 

Whatever his issue is... it should no longer be an issue for us.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For whatever it's worth, I ran some statistics on some numbers from AFPC's static stats site (under "RAW" on the AFPC secure apps site).

My nerdery is attached.

I reckoned if the AF values pilots (or some other field) over another, then that field will have a higher representation in the "Select" pool as compared to its proportion of the "Considered" pool for a promotion board. 

For example, in the 2017 Lt Col Board, 30.3% of those considered were pilots, while 31.39% of those selected were pilots.  31.48% of those considered were mission support, while 32.82% selected were.  So, pilots and mission support ended up with a bigger piece of the pie than CSO, ABM, and non-rated ops.  Theoretically, that would mean the AF values those fields more.

What I found was, using a statistical test of significance (Z value), there isn't a significant over/under representation over the past 5 years among pilots, CSOs, ABMs, non-rated ops, and mission support for the IPZ board to Lt Col.  However, for BPZ to Lt Col, and in BPZ and IPZ to Col, pilots make up a larger share, both historically and over the past 5 years.

What I think this indicates is that your IPZ rates are based on steady state staff and squadron command opportunities within each community.  But, the high representation of pilots in the BPZ pool shows that the AF is ensuring its HPOs and future GOs will be pilots.  I don't have data to show if those making BPZ are the best pilots/officers/leaders, or whatever; just that the AF values pilots as senior leaders.

Not sure I'll affect anyone's opinions, but I thought I'd share.  Also, I don't think I have to ask, but please point out any errors I've made in the analysis.

Hist LAF Stats.xlsx

LAF Promotions Proportion Study.pdf

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Weezer said:

  So, pilots and mission support ended up with a bigger piece of the pie than CSO, ABM, and non-rated ops.  Theoretically, that would mean the AF values those fields more.

This is what's starting to get chatted around about in Cyber.  We're getting told one thing about how important we are, and how important our retention is...but not promoting at even normal rate levels compared to "support."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

This is what's starting to get chatted around about in Cyber.  We're getting told one thing about how important we are, and how important our retention is...but not promoting at even normal rate levels compared to "support."

So, I'm not sure at what point you guys officially crossed over in the historical data from support to non-rated ops...2008 or 9?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2009 was when they started the AFSC change...they still haven't figured out how to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

This is what's starting to get chatted around about in Cyber.  We're getting told one thing about how important we are, and how important our retention is...but not promoting at even normal rate levels compared to "support."

By my count, more cyber bubbas BPZ in 2017 O-5 brd (8) than any community outside of 11F (29) or 11M (28). Mostly AFSOC support and true cyber (vice base comm sq) background. It is a change, and probably a good one.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And here we go again. Mods... please? What has this guy added in the last few weeks?  Even Butters took a clue and trolled elsewhere. 

I wanted this to be professional, efficient, adult, cooperative. Not a lot to ask. Alas, your Mr. hatedont did not see it that way... so he won't be joining us for the rest of his life.

Yes, that was a new account, and apparently created by the same person who created two others prior (which he stopped using after getting shit on). He has been put into permanent time out.
  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Toro said:


... so he won't be joining us for the rest of his life.
 

1191825.jpg

Mad dog approves.

:beer:

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't fuck with Duck

Edited by tk1313
edit to add: I made it rhyme so the Simple Jacks of the world can remember it.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back on topic...AFPC answered, when asked about why the next O-5 board was slipped, that it's due to the 3 yr TIG requirement to compete for promotion. Basically when they slipped the O-4 boards a few years ago, they bought time on the back end.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/9/2017 at 4:18 PM, daynightindicator said:

Back on topic...AFPC answered, when asked about why the next O-5 board was slipped, that it's due to the 3 yr TIG requirement to compete for promotion. Basically when they slipped the O-4 boards a few years ago, they bought time on the back end.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Just curious--is the 3 yr TIG requirement the issue for the IPZ year group, or the 1- and/or 2-yr BPZ groups? 

If the 3 yrs TIG is a requirement for promotion consideration, and the O-5 board was delayed accordingly, this can only mean one of two things:

Option 1--The IPZ folks don't even have 3 yrs TIG by now: 

- Either Big Blue is hemorrhaging folks so fast that they have to push promo boards ever-earlier, such that even IPZ folks are meeting their O-5 boards with only 3 yrs TIG/will pin with 4 yrs TIG

- Funny thing is, I take this to mean that nobody could meet this board BPZ. If the IPZ group is delayed due to TIG concerns, then the BPZ year groups couldn't possibly meet the board. If so, heads must be exploding all around the Air Force. 

Option 2--The BPZ folks are the ones with the 3 yrs TIG limfac:

- In this case, Big Blue is pushing back promotions solely to protect its shiny penny BPZ types. If such is the case, I'd have a hard time accepting that my promotion was being delayed so that the AF could take care of its blue chip folks. 

I have no idea which of the two options is driving the promo board timing. Regardless, if the O-5 promo is delayed due to TIG issues, this indicates a real challenge for the Air Force. 

TT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Title 10, Sec 619

(2)Subject to paragraph (4), an officer who is on the active-duty list of the Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps and holds a permanent appointment in a grade above first lieutenant or is on the active-duty list of the Navy and holds a permanent appointment in a grade above lieutenant (junior grade) may not be considered for selection for promotion to the next higher permanent grade until he has completed the following period of service in the grade in which he holds a permanent appointment:

(A)
Three years, in the case of an officer of the Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps holding a permanent appointment in the grade of captain, major, or lieutenant colonel or of an officer of the Navy holding a permanent appointment in the grade of lieutenant, lieutenant commander, or commander.
 
******************************
Since the AF wants to promote entire year groups together, the most junior guy/gal can't be "considered" until 3-years after pin on.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the IPZ group is delayed due to TIG concerns, then the BPZ year groups couldn't possibly meet the board. If so, heads must be exploding all around the Air Force....

.....Regardless, if the O-5 promo is delayed due to TIG issues, this indicates a real challenge for the Air Force. 


I think this was pretty much a given aside from the promotion board rolex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TnkrToad said:

Just curious--is the 3 yr TIG requirement the issue for the IPZ year group, or the 1- and/or 2-yr BPZ groups? 

If the 3 yrs TIG is a requirement for promotion consideration, and the O-5 board was delayed accordingly, this can only mean one of two things:

Option 1--The IPZ folks don't even have 3 yrs TIG by now: 

- Either Big Blue is hemorrhaging folks so fast that they have to push promo boards ever-earlier, such that even IPZ folks are meeting their O-5 boards with only 3 yrs TIG/will pin with 4 yrs TIG

- Funny thing is, I take this to mean that nobody could meet this board BPZ. If the IPZ group is delayed due to TIG concerns, then the BPZ year groups couldn't possibly meet the board. If so, heads must be exploding all around the Air Force. 

Option 2--The BPZ folks are the ones with the 3 yrs TIG limfac:

- In this case, Big Blue is pushing back promotions solely to protect its shiny penny BPZ types. If such is the case, I'd have a hard time accepting that my promotion was being delayed so that the AF could take care of its blue chip folks. 

I have no idea which of the two options is driving the promo board timing. Regardless, if the O-5 promo is delayed due to TIG issues, this indicates a real challenge for the Air Force. 

TT

This board should be IPZ for the '04 year group.  The '04 year group pinned on in 2014, so 2018 would be 3 years TIG for the vast majority of IPZ.

But the 3 years TIG for BPZ can't be a show-stopper.  The '02 year group met their 2 yr BTZ board in 2014, but had only pinned on O-4 in 2012, so the 2 yr BTZ dudes only had 2 years TIG...therefore, it shouldn't be a showstopper for even shiny pennies.

I reckon it's got more to do with DOPMA grade ceiling calculus somewhere along the line.

Edited by Weezer
Additional info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Weezer said:

This board should be IPZ for the '04 year group.  The '04 year group pinned on in 2014, so 2018 would be 3 years TIG for the vast majority of IPZ.

But the 3 years TIG for BPZ can't be a show-stopper.  The '02 year group met their 2 yr BTZ board in 2014, but had only pinned on O-4 in 2012, so the 2 yr BTZ dudes only had 2 years TIG...therefore, it shouldn't be a showstopper for even shiny pennies.

I reckon it's got more to do with DOPMA grade ceiling calculus somewhere along the line.

Did a bit more research: Jun '18 makes sense for 3 yrs TIG for the IPZs/substantially less for BPZs.

The last '04 year group bubba pinned on NLT 31 May 15, so a Jun 2018 IPZ board for them exactly matches min 3 yrs TIG.

What this means is that '06 year group folks (the last of whom didn't pin on 'til Dec '16) will meet the 2 BPZ board with as little as 1.5 yrs as O-4s (2 yrs at the outside).

The really shiny penny '06 year group bubbas who get picked up two below will thus be selected for O-5 at the 12 yr point in their careers & pin on at barely 13 yrs into their careers . . . with substantial portions of those 13 years almost inevitably spent outside of ops units.

The upshot is this: if the AF does grow substantially (thus increasing promotion opportunities/driving boards even earlier) and the AF continues to hemorrhage talent (driving even earlier promo boards, to backfill those who retired/separated), it's conceivable that we'll soon have 16 year pinned-on O-6s (who knows--possibly even younger if this trend continues; 15 yrs to O-6 for some?).

Good news for the super-striver types, I guess . . .

TT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TnkrToad said:

it's conceivable that we'll soon have 16 year pinned-on O-6s (who knows--possibly even younger if this trend continues; 15 yrs to O-6 for some?).

Good news for the super-striver types, I guess . . .

TT

Spending 8-10 years as an O-6 maneuvering for O-7 sounds like the shittiest deal going.  

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The really shiny penny '06 year group bubbas who get picked up two below will thus be selected for O-5 at the 12 yr point in their careers & pin on at barely 13 yrs into their careers . . . with substantial portions of those 13 years almost inevitably spent outside of ops units.

Awesome. The lead class of millennials will hit squadron command with the least ops experience, the most entitlement in the ranks, and a decade of leadership crisis paving the way for them. I know several great '06 folks. God be with you gents, I'll be looking for other employment.


Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network Forums
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think 13 years means anything...some people will do a legendary job. The problem is the latter part of the last quote, we pick these people due to being execs and aides and staffers and schoolers...not operational experts (or god forbid, a little of both).

The pole year is crippling us. We have rigid metrics of what is important to hit BTZ, aka pole year set up.

Shiny pennies rarely even deploy, the path doesn't provide time for such inconveniences. If they do, it's only to get the command box check.

Check the box, check the box...what's not in the brochure is only the first three are actually boxes you check. Who likes you while you checked those three determines if you'll check the remainder.

The number of dudes I've heard of getting BTZ to O-5 but then direct back to the IDE, which they didn't get before...gross. The number of SDE getting picked up candidates because they can't get people to take it...gross.

It's all just upside down fvcked up. (My phone just autocorrected upside down to unpaid, it was tough to fix.)

Bendy


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone heard any gouge on the release of the O-4 board? MyPers still not updated since 7 Jun and still showing "late Jun - mid-July" for the release. 

Unconfirmed words from the minions in my OG is that "it should be any day now..." but I'll believe that as soon as it happens. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, afthunderchief16 said:

Anyone heard any gouge on the release of the O-4 board? MyPers still not updated since 7 Jun and still showing "late Jun - mid-July" for the release. 

Unconfirmed words from the minions in my OG is that "it should be any day now..." but I'll believe that as soon as it happens. 

It's pretty sad that I'm in this board but my give-a-shit factor is so low that I forgot the results were going to be released this summer.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, afthunderchief16 said:

Anyone heard any gouge on the release of the O-4 board? MyPers still not updated since 7 Jun and still showing "late Jun - mid-July" for the release. 

Unconfirmed words from the minions in my OG is that "it should be any day now..." but I'll believe that as soon as it happens. 

I heard through the grapevine, indirectly from AFPC, that it might be next week...not understanding what takes so long about the process, and why the projected release date was pushed back.  How long does it really take to validate board results?

Edited by 08Dawg
engrish
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 08Dawg said:

I heard through the grapevine, indirectly from AFPC, that it might be next week...not understanding what takes so long about the process, and why the projected release date was pushed back.  How long does it really take to validate board results?

OSD and congress have to sign off on it I'm pretty sure.  Takes time!  

Share this post


Link to post
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


×