Jump to content
Guest navobd

Promotion and PRF Information

Recommended Posts

pawnman    675
On 7/20/2017 at 8:47 AM, nsplayr said:

For all other categories (CSO, ABM, Non-Rated Ops, & Mission Support) across the board all categories were more promotable in 2017 than in 2016 save for a 1-man-less erosion for APZ CSOs.

This is interesting to me...was the CSO promotion rate that bad in previous years for CSOs, or did AFGSC just perform exceptionally badly.  In my community, the rate to Lt Col was 47% for 12B.  Across all AFGSC, it was about 60%~ish.  Well below the 86% rate across the entire Air Force that was advertised by AFPC for previous years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Duck    852
1 hour ago, Danger41 said:

What's the number of dudes promoting per month?

For Lt Cols its 70 a month. Should exhaust the list by November.

For Majors the list is exhausted by the end of September, leaving the 08 guys to pin on in October. No updates on what the rate will be yet on mypers.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
olevelo    4
This is interesting to me...was the CSO promotion rate that bad in previous years for CSOs, or did AFGSC just perform exceptionally badly.  In my community, the rate to Lt Col was 47% for 12B.  Across all AFGSC, it was about 60%~ish.  Well below the 86% rate across the entire Air Force that was advertised by AFPC for previous years.

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but overall rates for the last few years for CSO's have been around 60-65%. In other words, pretty much the lowest rate of all the categories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nsplayr    599
On ‎8‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 11:50 AM, olevelo said:


I don't have the numbers in front of me, but overall rates for the last few years for CSO's have been around 60-65%. In other words, pretty much the lowest rate of all the categories.

So I'm a nerd and wanted to analyze the source of the weakness in CSO numbers compared to the board average. I looked at 2016 Lt Col and 2017 Lt Col IPZ stats since back in 2015 the DP/P % was significantly different and thus harder to compare apples to apples.

In 2016, CSOs were fairly in line-ish with the overall board selection rate (70.5% for CSOs vs 74.1% for the board). In 2017, CSOs were significantly underperforming (61.4% for CSOs vs 72.6% for the board).

BL conclusion: about 1/3 of the difference is a lower rate of IDE + P dudes being promoted compared to the board average, and 2/3 of the difference is a lower rate of DP allocation for CSOs compared to the board average.

Problems with the analysis are the small number of years (2) considered and the overall small data set (total # of CSOs on AD isn't that large), making definitive conclusions harder to draw. Overall there were about 22 CSOs who didn't make it in 2017 who "should have" for CSOs to perform at the board-average promotion rate. Is that a systematic issue or a few handfuls of dudes not quite being awesome enough? Hard to say. Pilots and mission support are easier to draw conclusions on since the numbers are larger...smaller data sets are more likely to be influenced by a few outliers.

Super-duper BL: if we're in a rated manning crisis then we shouldn't be under-promoting rated aviators, that seems pretty obvious...the AF has no room to complain of 12X shortages now or in the near future since they've recently under-promoted CSOs and provided lower bonus numbers.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Duck    852
1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

Super-duper BL: if we're in a rated manning crisis then we shouldn't be under-promoting rated aviators, that seems pretty obvious...the AF has no room to complain of 12X shortages now or in the near future since they've recently under-promoted CSOs and provided lower bonus numbers.

 

 

I was wondering about this myself. I am very happy with how my situation worked out, but was also expecting the AF to say "fvck you, you are getting promoted and serving out the remainder of your ADSC".

On the other side of the coin, I talked to a couple of my 11x buddies who were passed over unexpectedly. Only one of them had a negative indicator. I had buddies that were current/qualified Viper pilots who ended up getting passed over, who were planning on staying 20+.

How can Goldfinger and Wilson even have a straight face talking about a "Pilot Shortage" to congress, the airlines or whoever the hell else will still listen after the bloodbath from the past O-5 and O-4 board for pilots? 

 

Honest question. I really want to know how they spin this.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

I was wondering about this myself. I am very happy with how my situation worked out, but was also expecting the AF to say "fvck you, you are getting promoted and serving out the remainder of your ADSC".

On the other side of the coin, I talked to a couple of my 11x buddies who were passed over unexpectedly. Only one of them had a negative indicator. I had buddies that were current/qualified Viper pilots who ended up getting passed over, who were planning on staying 20+.

How can Goldfinger and Wilson even have a straight face talking about a "Pilot Shortage" to congress, the airlines or whoever the hell else will still listen after the bloodbath from the past O-5 and O-4 board for pilots? 

 

Honest question. I really want to know how they spin this.

Any chance you saw or have a good idea of the viper dudes' records?  i'm astonished they aren't promoting every 11F who doesn't have a negative indicator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Truman08    3

Since the pilot shortage/rention problem has been brought to light, in terms of rated boards convening, have the instructions to those sitting on the board changed at all?  

If not, then it's highly doubtful anything will change in the interim no matter what an 11X record looks like, good or negative indicators. Unless Big AF is stressing the promotion of rated officers in critically manned career fields, nothing is going to change. The board members will continue to look at all records the same and grade accordingly, allegedly. 

( This may have already been brought up in another forum but I was too lazy to look for it. )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
olevelo    4
So I'm a nerd and wanted to analyze the source of the weakness in CSO numbers compared to the board average. I looked at 2016 Lt Col and 2017 Lt Col IPZ stats since back in 2015 the DP/P % was significantly different and thus harder to compare apples to apples.
In 2016, CSOs were fairly in line-ish with the overall board selection rate (70.5% for CSOs vs 74.1% for the board). In 2017, CSOs were significantly underperforming (61.4% for CSOs vs 72.6% for the board).
BL conclusion: about 1/3 of the difference is a lower rate of IDE + P dudes being promoted compared to the board average, and 2/3 of the difference is a lower rate of DP allocation for CSOs compared to the board average.
Problems with the analysis are the small number of years (2) considered and the overall small data set (total # of CSOs on AD isn't that large), making definitive conclusions harder to draw. Overall there were about 22 CSOs who didn't make it in 2017 who "should have" for CSOs to perform at the board-average promotion rate. Is that a systematic issue or a few handfuls of dudes not quite being awesome enough? Hard to say. Pilots and mission support are easier to draw conclusions on since the numbers are larger...smaller data sets are more likely to be influenced by a few outliers.
Super-duper BL: if we're in a rated manning crisis then we shouldn't be under-promoting rated aviators, that seems pretty obvious...the AF has no room to complain of 12X shortages now or in the near future since they've recently under-promoted CSOs and provided lower bonus numbers.
 
 

So datapoint within those datapoints for you...I'm one of those IPZ pass-overs this year (should have been IPZ last year, but that's another story). TPS grad, TPS instructor, and currently in a Sq/CC equivalent position. But not enough strats and awards (because I compete with a bunch of high performer fighter pilots and such).
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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


So datapoint within those datapoints for you...I'm one of those IPZ pass-overs this year (should have been IPZ last year, but that's another story). TPS grad, TPS instructor, and currently in a Sq/CC equivalent position. But not enough strats and awards (because I compete with a bunch of high performer fighter pilots and such).

You don't fall under USAFWC do you?  PM if you'd like, just curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1111    37
On 8/11/2017 at 3:19 PM, olevelo said:


So datapoint within those datapoints for you...I'm one of those IPZ pass-overs this year (should have been IPZ last year, but that's another story). TPS grad, TPS instructor, and currently in a Sq/CC equivalent position. But not enough strats and awards (because I compete with a bunch of high performer fighter pilots and such).

Pretty impressive, just poor OPRS or negative discriminator in your records?

I would like to assume that TPS grad then instructor has to be above the run of the mill. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
matmacwc    1,093
On 8/10/2017 at 11:19 PM, olevelo said:


So datapoint within those datapoints for you...I'm one of those IPZ pass-overs this year (should have been IPZ last year, but that's another story). TPS grad, TPS instructor, and currently in a Sq/CC equivalent position. But not enough strats and awards (because I compete with a bunch of high performer fighter pilots and such).

Quit, join AATC, get promoted.  See, not hard.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
olevelo    4
Pretty impressive, just poor OPRS or negative discriminator in your records?
I would like to assume that TPS grad then instructor has to be above the run of the mill. 

No negative discriminators. Well, except I was RIF'd in 2014, and then that was subsequently undone a year later (hence why I'm being my original year group). But I had all of that on my record in the RIF too...basically a function of being a 12M core and luck of the draw (I'm a 12S now). No one had any good answer for why it happened in the first place. But in any case, now I have an "OPR" (Form 77) that says "restored to active duty by order of the SECAF". The promotion board doesn't necessarily know why, but I'm guessing they can work it out by the dates....and it just looks weird.

As for the rest of my records, I have a UNT DG, TPS of course, a smattering of quarterly awards, decent vectors, but not many strats at all (remember, competing against fighter pilots and other TPS grads...we can't all be #1!), and that's the killer. I have better recent strats (post-RIF) but not extraordinary.

Meeting an SSB in September after getting another straggler correction fixed finally, so maybe the new board members will see differently. Or there's always next year!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1111    37
1 hour ago, olevelo said:


No negative discriminators. Well, except I was RIF'd in 2014, and then that was subsequently undone a year later (hence why I'm being my original year group). But I had all of that on my record in the RIF too...basically a function of being a 12M core and luck of the draw (I'm a 12S now). No one had any good answer for why it happened in the first place. But in any case, now I have an "OPR" (Form 77) that says "restored to active duty by order of the SECAF". The promotion board doesn't necessarily know why, but I'm guessing they can work it out by the dates....and it just looks weird.

As for the rest of my records, I have a UNT DG, TPS of course, a smattering of quarterly awards, decent vectors, but not many strats at all (remember, competing against fighter pilots and other TPS grads...we can't all be #1!), and that's the killer. I have better recent strats (post-RIF) but not extraordinary.

Meeting an SSB in September after getting another straggler correction fixed finally, so maybe the new board members will see differently. Or there's always next year!

Good luck that is insane! I guess we r not hurting bad enough for rated folks (end sarcasm)!

Edited by 1111

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
olevelo    4

Y'all should see the facial reactions I get when I tell the story in person. :) I will say, my Wg/CC did say before this board that he'd grade my record as basically an average score, so it would depend on how the board valued TPS and rated, and where the cut line ended up being. AFPC feedback was that with all of the RIFs, Force Shaping, and voluntary departures, its left mostly stronger performers so the cut line has moved up.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gearpig    1,553
1 hour ago, olevelo said:

AFPC feedback was that with all of the RIFs, Force Shaping, and voluntary departures, its left mostly stronger performers so the cut line has moved up.

That's some fascinating insight into how AFPC views the rated exodus.

They're shrinking to perfection.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GKinnear    115
1 hour ago, gearpig said:

That's some fascinating insight into how AFPC views the rated exodus.

 

The counselor at AFPC doesn't have a clue, really, as to why someone got passed over. All they do is compare your record against 10 promoted records. I want to say they are close to the cut line, but I'm not a confident in that assumption. What did that they have that yours didn't? That's it. They don't get access to any notes and they don't have any insight into what the board members were thinking. Its a guessing game. FWIW, after the reduced promotions in 2014, they've used the increased number of stronger APZ records getting promoted as an excuse for the decreased IPZ chances.

 

Regardless, don't invest your ego in the rank you wear on your shoulder. Bust your ass, do the job well, provide officership to best of your ability, and let the chips fall where they may. Whether or not you get promoted, you'll be a lot happier for it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dream big    129

The shoeclerks at AFPC and the managers who sit on the board who somehow got eagles on their shoulders don't give a F about things like TPS, WIC, your instructional ability, or how many air medals you earned while their execs were sitting at home station polishing said manager's you know what and earning the top strats.  Heck many of them may not even be able to tell you the difference between a B1 and B2, or ever stepped out of the MSG building, but they have the biggest influence on who leads the Air Force.

If this mentality changes it will take a while. In the mean time, most of my peers and I will do what we believe is right: be good in the airplane, enable the flying mission, make the young guys better and go hack the mission.  If we get promoted, great.  If we don't, well Delta/AA/UAL/SW, the guard/reserves could use a few people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
olevelo    4
The counselor at AFPC doesn't have a clue, really, as to why someone got passed over. All they do is compare your record against 10 promoted records. I want to say they are close to the cut line, but I'm not a confident in that assumption. What did that they have that yours didn't? That's it. They don't get access to any notes and they don't have any insight into what the board members were thinking.

That's correct, except the records are a random sampling of P's who were promoted...she doesn't know which if any are near the cut line. While she doesn't know what the specific board looked at, she has seen the "random sampling" over the last several years so has seen the relative strength increase, for what it's worth.

Meeting with your senior rater (hopefully one who has sat on a board previously) is much more valuable than the AFPC talk, but it's not entirely worthless either. Wish they had that for the RIF too. Instead it was "too bad so sad see ya later".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve C    7
15 hours ago, olevelo said:

As for the rest of my records, I have a UNT DG...

You buried the lead, NAV.  

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
panchbarnes    163

FWIW, our O-6 recently mentioned to us that they are now looking for combat/deployment time on the Lt Col board PRF.

Edited by panchbarnes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
olevelo    4
You buried the lead, NAV.  

Well considering my first reply about it was in reference to 12X promotion rates, pretty sure it was implied!
  • Haha 1

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


×