Jump to content
Baseops Forums
Guest navobd

Promotion and PRF Information

Recommended Posts




Wild speculation here, but this is an opportunity for the AF to separate non-deployable and ALC-C coded folks without MEB'ing or re-MEB'ing them.  To separate someone solely based upon their medical status requires an MEB, but it's certainly possible to not promote someone based upon their medical status.  If a service twice non-selects someone, they can then force them to separate through Title 10, Section 632.  Typically, medical status is not directly considered during the promotion board (though it could be indirectly considered if a person's medical status prevents them from deploying).  Just speculation, but the DoD's Universal Retention Policy ("Deploy or Get Out") was released roughly a week before the board results made it to the SecAF (14 Feb and 21 Feb, respectively).


That's messed up. There's a process to separate people for medical reasons, the MEB. The promotion board is not the place to separate people for medical reasons.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

That's messed up. There's a process to separate people for medical reasons, the MEB. The promotion board is not the place to separate people for medical reasons.

Indeed.  It's highly unlikely that it'd happen.  Also, RJ09 above noted that the reason for the board delay was due to some senior raters trying to squeeze people with QFI through the board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were PRFs mandated for people with negative indicators?  Maybe if we're short Majors and the Wing CC says a guy with some marks on his record is deserving of promotion to that grade anyway ... just give him the damn oak leaves.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, guineapigfury said:

Were PRFs mandated for people with negative indicators?  Maybe if we're short Majors and the Wing CC says a guy with some marks on his record is deserving of promotion to that grade anyway ... just give him the damn oak leaves.

Yup.  I believe the guidance required PRF narratives in two instances- 1.) if the member was being marked as "Do Not Promote",  and 2.) if the member was being marked as "Promote" and they had negative QFI (UIF, Art 15, etc). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yup.  I believe the guidance required PRF narratives in two instances- 1.) if the member was being marked as "Do Not Promote",  and 2.) if the member was being marked as "Promote" and they had negative QFI (UIF, Art 15, etc). 

Yep. This is the guidance. Talked my Wg/CC into writing me one, but AFPC wouldn’t accept it due to no negative indicators. Ugh.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Were PRFs mandated for people with negative indicators?  Maybe if we're short Majors and the Wing CC says a guy with some marks on his record is deserving of promotion to that grade anyway ... just give him the damn oak leaves.


Spot on.

Is there a manning issue, or not?

The USAF has a hard time distinguishing between mistakes and crimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Totally unfounded speculation

I am 99.69% certain that promotion boards are not given any access to any aspect of your medical records. Check PRDA for your selection folder, that’s what the board sees, and there is no way your medical records are included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am 99.69% certain that promotion boards are not given any access to any aspect of your medical records. Check PRDA for your selection folder, that’s what the board sees, and there is no way your medical records are included.

 

That would be all well and good, however, they never put out an “as met” package in PRDA. More shady work from this board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, ihtfp06 said:


I am 99.69% certain that promotion boards are not given any access to any aspect of your medical records. Check PRDA for your selection folder, that’s what the board sees, and there is no way your medical records are included.

Correct.  The board has no access to medical status.  The board results though, still need to go to through the HAF, SecAF, and OSD filters.  And yup, just wild speculation/conspiracy theory on my part. 

41 minutes ago, B.L said:

That would be all well and good, however, they never put out an “as met” package in PRDA. More shady work from this board.

Indeed.  I've never seen PRDA used as they specify in the promo board PSDM.  I usually don't see my promo board folder uploaded until after the board meets, and they've never posted an "as met" folder in my PRDA. 

Edited by The_Vandall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, RJ09 said:

The reason it is taking so long is upon review at HAF, it was noticed that someone people who received a P from their commanders probably should not have when their record contained several QFIs that would otherwise make them not qualified to serve in the next higher grade.  Instead of attaching a PRF and/or sending a PRF, commanders just used this "new" process to slip them in.  As such, HAF went through every record to make sure those who were promoted actually "deserved it" based on members' OPRs, medals, TRs, and the OSB.  

Then why the F did the AF give WG/CCs discretion?  Maybe a WG/CC could be in a better place to analyze an individual with negative indicators and make a more informed decision about their potential to perform at the next rank.

I ask again.... just why in hell did we get rid of PRFs if they are going to go though everyone’s records more thoroughly?

Good hell, who is running this clown show?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then why the F did the AF give WG/CCs discretion?  Maybe a WG/CC could be in a better place to analyze an individual with negative indicators and make a more informed decision about their potential to perform at the next rank.
I ask again.... just why in hell did we get rid of PRFs if they are going to go though everyone’s records more thoroughly?
Good hell, who is running this clown show?

Not the AF anymore I’m guessing. Seems like this just got the attention of the SECDEF. Great work big blue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Duck said:


Not the AF anymore I’m guessing. Seems like this just got the attention of the SECDEF. Great work big blue.

That would be absolutely hilarious if this did get Mad Dog’s attention and he un f’s this thing much to the dismay of the HAF, or get to the bottom of all this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if it is on his radar yet, but that’s the only reason I can think of it getting stopped at the Deputy SecDef level. Not a good look for the AF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, flyusaf83 said:

Then why the F did the AF give WG/CCs discretion?  Maybe a WG/CC could be in a better place to analyze an individual with negative indicators and make a more informed decision about their potential to perform at the next rank.

I ask again.... just why in hell did we get rid of PRFs if they are going to go though everyone’s records more thoroughly?

Good hell, who is running this clown show?

Same reason we give them discretion in assigning the DPs and Ps in the first place, then overturn them at the board when someone else, with no personal contact, decides the records don't support what the WG/CC is seeing.

I don't know why we don't just get rid of the DPs and Ps entirely if the board isn't even going to take them into consideration.

Share this post


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

Same reason we give them discretion in assigning the DPs and Ps in the first place, then overturn them at the board when someone else, with no personal contact, decides the records don't support what the WG/CC is seeing.

How do you "overturn" a recommendation?

Quote

I don't know why we don't just get rid of the DPs and Ps entirely if the board isn't even going to take them into consideration.

So because a couple recent O-5 boards had a few guys with a DP get non-selected, the board now doesn't take DPs vs Ps into consideration?

Read my post on this issue from a couple weeks ago--I understand some of the frustration and agree that the promotion process can always use some improvements, but using nonsense to make your point does not add credibility to your argument.

As for what's going on with the recent O-4 board, I have no idea. I think it's poor form to not release some info as to why there is a delay but I bet SRs already know the reason.  The SRs knew well before the official release that there was going to be "100% promotion opportunity to Major" (or whatever they called it).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, flyusaf83 said:

Then why the F did the AF give WG/CCs discretion?  Maybe a WG/CC could be in a better place to analyze an individual with negative indicators and make a more informed decision about their potential to perform at the next rank.

I ask again.... just why in hell did we get rid of PRFs if they are going to go though everyone’s records more thoroughly?

Good hell, who is running this clown show?

That's a very good question.  Never said any of this made any sense.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/4/2018 at 5:46 AM, SocialD said:

If not, you'll likely be promoted to Major ASAP after transferring into the ANG.  This can depend on the state as some states make all their Captains ROPMA, which I will never understand...talk about fucking your people over.  

Truth, we'll hire you Duck, captains are almost free to hire in the ANG.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/4/2018 at 5:27 AM, The_Vandall said:

Wild speculation here, but this is an opportunity for the AF to separate non-deployable and ALC-C coded folks without MEB'ing or re-MEB'ing them.  To separate someone solely based upon their medical status requires an MEB, but it's certainly possible to not promote someone based upon their medical status.  If a service twice non-selects someone, they can then force them to separate through Title 10, Section 632.  Typically, medical status is not directly considered during the promotion board (though it could be indirectly considered if a person's medical status prevents them from deploying).  Just speculation, but the DoD's Universal Retention Policy ("Deploy or Get Out") was released roughly a week before the board results made it to the SecAF (14 Feb and 21 Feb, respectively).

I know how to fight this, if it happens to anyone (and I'm able) post it and I can let the correct people know.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did some searching on Air Force Portal and clicked on the promotion section.  If you click on the PDF that lists the promotion increments for Maj it says that the first increment for the 09 Maj group will be 213 folks.  If thats the case then that means the total promoted is ~2343 for the 09 Maj board.  The 08 Maj board only promoted 2096.   

 

 

54992395732__330F8B00-9101-4EB4-B8E3-C03F20F126C5.jpg

Edited by Chromedome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did some searching on Air Force Portal and clicked on the promotion section.  If you click on the PDF that lists the promotion increments for Maj it says that the first increment for the 09 Maj group will be 213 folks.  If thats the case then that means the total promoted is ~2343 for the 09 Maj board.  The 08 Maj board only promoted 2096.   
 
 
54992395732__330F8B00-9101-4EB4-B8E3-C03F20F126C5.jpg.e239f338f7c079ebfd59b3a8ddd09ee7.jpg

That’s a good thought, except I don’t think you can draw too many conclusions from that number. The ‘07 guys we’re promoting at a rate of 250ish a month if I remember correctly. Although if that’s the case, I think 2,343 would be damn near 100%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Duck said:


That’s a good thought, except I don’t think you can draw too many conclusions from that number. The ‘07 guys we’re promoting at a rate of 250ish a month if I remember correctly. Although if that’s the case, I think 2,343 would be damn near 100%.

Yeah, i tried to see how many folks competed last year but they haven't posted the 08 stats yet, the 07 stats had about ~2400 who went up to the board.  Thats including the APZ folks.  

Edited by Chromedome
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/4/2018 at 2:05 PM, The_Vandall said:

Correct.  The board has no access to medical status.  The board results though, still need to go to through the HAF, SecAF, and OSD filters.  And yup, just wild speculation/conspiracy theory on my part. 

Indeed.  I've never seen PRDA used as they specify in the promo board PSDM.  I usually don't see my promo board folder uploaded until after the board meets, and they've never posted an "as met" folder in my PRDA. 

Hmm...I've gotten an as-met board for every promotion board (BPZ/IPZ/APZ) and the RIF board since 2013...four total.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Chromedome said:

Yeah, i tried to see how many folks competed last year but they haven't posted the 08 stats yet, the 07 stats had about ~2400 who went up to the board.  Thats including the APZ folks.  

As of EOM Feb 2018, per AFPC's RAW site, there were 2,395 active duty line captains who hadn't been somehow considered for a board before (there were 69 2009YG captains showing "selected" and 3 showing once deferred...not sure how that happens).  Looking at years groups above, there appear to be about 283 APZ LAF Capts.  So, that looks like a total of about 2,478 I/APZ LAF Capts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm...I've gotten an as-met board for every promotion board (BPZ/IPZ/APZ) and the RIF board since 2013...four total.


That’s what I was told when I went up for this board. And even got one back in the day when Captains had to have PRFs. Glad I’m not going crazy.

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



×