Jump to content
Baseops Forums
Guest navobd

Promotion and PRF Information

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, olevelo said:


They gave me the authority to stand up a new test unit and do O-5 things, but that experience doesn’t really matter apparently.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did you have g-series? Request a DAFSC duty history change in vMPF to put a prefix on your afsc and if that doesn't work BCMR it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you have g-series? Request a DAFSC duty history change in vMPF to put a prefix on your afsc and if that doesn't work BCMR it.

Unfortunately no. Basically everything but.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2018 at 1:55 PM, pawnman said:

Non-compliance with...the AFI?  Because the AFI is pretty clear that you shouldn't be writing your own OPR anyway.  So if you're already passed over and running out the clock on retirement, go ahead and fight that battle.  What are they going to do...pass you over again?

Pass you over and make you the first snacko to receive his own patch. Win - win situation.

Edited by HarleyQuinn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2018 at 2:53 AM, Chuck17 said:

Some good changes coming wrt PRFs and OPRs outta Corona.... the table was slapped, but the timeline wasn't determined, so hold on to your butts.

1. Two line PRFs. It was determined through survey that the majority of board and MLR members use the top and bottom lines to make their determination.... So they're moving on that - two lines is all you get. If you've seen the form for command consideration, it's similar. Line 1: this dude is great because reasons. Line 2: #x of XX, absolutely promote etc. 

2. Strats on OPRs are going away (like EPRs) - instead they are replaced with a by-commander recorded top-middle-bottom designation (or like the army, above, in, below center of mass), with a redesign of the form. Commanders ratings of their people will be tracked, so they only get X amount of each rating and if commanders are grading heavier or too light that will be recorded and reported at THEIR next promotion board... Undetermined: timeline for implementation, mainly because this style of rating is going to drive toward rating all of each rank at the same time, which is going to cause thrash as it did on the E side.

Chuck

So where does this new rating system leave those passed over APZ? Considering promotion rates to O-5 are 70%-ish wouldn’t that leave any remainders in the bottom third for essentially the rest of their careers?

 

What I am wondering is, does this new rating system guarantee “bottom” designations for the final 2-4 OPRs of everybody passed over 1APZ? That would seem to give CC’s an out to speed on other officers. Need an extra “top” recommendation? Just give a passed over Officer a “bottom” designation.

 

Maybe it doesn’t matter but I would think it would have a negative effect on any potential employer that reviews OPRs (no idea if that happens).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2018 at 5:53 AM, Chuck17 said:

Some good changes coming wrt PRFs and OPRs outta Corona.... the table was slapped, but the timeline wasn't determined, so hold on to your butts.

1. Two line PRFs. It was determined through survey that the majority of board and MLR members use the top and bottom lines to make their determination.... So they're moving on that - two lines is all you get. If you've seen the form for command consideration, it's similar. Line 1: this dude is great because reasons. Line 2: #x of XX, absolutely promote etc. 

2. Strats on OPRs are going away (like EPRs) - instead they are replaced with a by-commander recorded top-middle-bottom designation (or like the army, above, in, below center of mass), with a redesign of the form. Commanders ratings of their people will be tracked, so they only get X amount of each rating and if commanders are grading heavier or too light that will be recorded and reported at THEIR next promotion board... Undetermined: timeline for implementation, mainly because this style of rating is going to drive toward rating all of each rank at the same time, which is going to cause thrash as it did on the E side.

Chuck

This shouldn't change much in the manner of the rack and stack, but will definitely make the system more transparent.  People with early top ratings will continue to get them in order to have competitive records.  Late bloomers will be disillusioned because no matter what they do, they will never move out of middle rankings.  Without placating but meaningless strats, like #1/69 IPs, you can make informed decisions on if you should stay active duty, or go guard/reserves where they value different things.

The beauty of the current system is that your OPR doesn't have to say if your just outside the strat cutoff, or at the bottom the barrel.  The AF uses that ambiguity to keep people taking crap jobs in order to advance.  Once you know where you stand, you can make more informed choices for you and your family.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe it doesn’t matter but I would think it would have a negative effect on any potential employer that reviews OPRs (no idea if that happens).

I’ve never heard of a single employer looking at OPR’s, and when I was briefly out a few years ago, no one ever asked or even hinted at wanting to see one. They look at your resume, and maybe talk to some references. So make sure to give them ones of guys who like you!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, matmacwc said:

Awesome, this does nothing for the secret rack and stack that WILL take place behind every members back.  

The alternative?  Nothing changes, commanders don’t rack and stack, and that everyone gets promoted? Serious question.

I’ll tell you as a Sq/CC I spent more time taking care of people on reports than was required. But yeah there was a rack n stack and it didn’t always end up fair in my opinion. I don’t think there can be any other way as things stand. I also don’t think we do it right... but if you don’t change the way EVERYONE does it then doing it right doesn’t matter because you screw your people. (I.e. The only way the Enlisted force got away from firewall fives was to change the entire system)

The above-center-below rating system will require some caveat I’d think, some that the Army and USMC have stipulated in varying degrees. First, all reports for each rank close on the same date (common reporting period) - although this will drive its own issues as there’s a huge difference between new guy captain wingman and old guy star on his wings WIC instructor pilot / mission commander. Second, that there is zero access to the individuals previous reports - what you did during the period of report is all that counts - no halo effect, “this guy was great last year” or “this guy was lousy last year” bias. (This, as has been identified, presents its own challenges and there’s questions of realistic expectations too). I’d say these changes have a lot of growing up to do before they are ready for prime time, so don’t hold your breath - my guess is two or three years before we see movement, though A1 states otherwise.

As to the PRF, Id think the recognition that all the work put into those things is wasted is a good thing. I’d expect that change almost immediately. There’s a lot of unanswered questions, but less meaningless work is a good development. 

Edit: one additional I need to add after looking at my notes. Allegedly, the LAF category at promotion boards is going to be split. Pilots will compete against pilots and so on... Caveat: I’d expect quotas (i.e. ceiling to number of promotions per year) to follow in trail. So aircrew got what they wanted (a good thing, I think), now we will see how long it takes for us to start bitching about it... 

Chuck

edited: to add the bit about promotion boards

Edited by Chuck17
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Chuck17 said:

 Caveat: I’d expect quotas (i.e. ceiling to number of promotions per year) to follow in trail. So aircrew got what they wanted (a good thing, I think), now we will see how long it takes for us to start bitching about it... 

This will be the obvious result...and will result in more sub-par MSG O's getting the nod.  There were 14 out of 38 IPZ passed over in my career field, 6% below the mission support average.  Assuming, some of those passed over were passed over for good reason,  a "fair share" quota could have the perverse effect of promoting ~3 of those, and ensuring ~3 officers in some other category did not get the nod.

Hopefully they don't go with a "fair share" scheme and instead run some calculus on future requirements by category...but I don't trust the AFPC community's ability to do that sort of thing very well.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This will be the obvious result...and will result in more sub-par MSG O's getting the nod.  There were 14 out of 38 IPZ passed over in my career field, 6% below the mission support average.  Assuming, some of those passed over were passed over for good reason,  a "fair share" quota could have the perverse effect of promoting ~3 of those, and ensuring ~3 officers in some other category did not get the nod.

Hopefully they don't go with a "fair share" scheme and instead run some calculus on future requirements by category...but I don't trust the AFPC community's ability to do that sort of thing very well.

 

1. Promotion opportunity should equate to “how many of x AFSC do we need?”

 

2. UMDs should be updated as well to allow for O-5 billets in the squadron besides the DO and CC position—allowing the above question to not backfire when AFPC suddenly says we are healthy on O-5s.

 

3. Individual MAJCOMs need to be able to define these requirements outside of the insane and pointless math that manpower and personnel types use. It needs to be like this “I need 4 Lt Col types in my x squadron because at anyone point I only have 2 on hand because of random TDYs, Leave and Deployments, and must fills at the OG or higher level. We believe that 2 x O-5s on station is the appropriate leadership when in garrison, 4 will get me 2.”

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to the PRF, Id think the recognition that all the work put into those things is wasted is a good thing. I’d expect that change almost immediately. There’s a lot of unanswered questions, but less meaningless work is a good development. 

By immediately, do you mean to hint that the next O-5 board could see this new PRF? PRFs are due already in Jan, so most are already spinning up the processes.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Share this post


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


By immediately, do you mean to hint that the next O-5 board could see this new PRF? PRFs are due already in Jan, so most are already spinning up the processes.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Yep.  I think they're due to the OG in my wing in the next couple weeks.

Edit to add: Gen Ray (AFGSC/CC) was just here for an all-call, and he said that the last Corona talked extensively about looking at breaking the LAF into more competitive categories.  He explicitly said he needs different expertise from a MX officer than an FSS officer, a CE officer, or a flyer, yet our promotion system causes people to go out of their way to look like people in other specialties, even when that is actually detrimental to the execution of their own duties.  He also talked at length about the silliness of the 24-year requirement for 1-star, saying that it isn't written guidance anywhere in the Air Force and we need to stop pushing people along an artificial timeline just to meet it.

Who knows if Gen Ray's vision will be present at the next promotion board?  But at least it's being talked about by senior leadership.  I think we're finally learning from the things the Army does correctly.

Edited by pawnman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2018 at 8:10 AM, olevelo said:


Yup. Granted, I wasn’t in the program yet when the board happened, or even have a push on my PRF to say I was going, because it was a very last minute program. So I have a small amount of hope for the next board since supposedly they’re supposed to be emphasizing it more on the boards now (which was the whole reason the program I was I was stood up in the first place).

Even more baffling though is that I was passed over with a Sq/CC equivalent position the last two years (no C-code, but OPR and PRF say it), and a #1/69 Major strat from the OG. But you know all those strats I didn’t have as a captain while I was at Test Pilot School are the death knell.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh good and you're a TPS grad to boot, great job AF. 🙄

Share this post


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


By immediately, do you mean to hint that the next O-5 board could see this new PRF? PRFs are due already in Jan, so most are already spinning up the processes.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

You don’t actually expect the AF to not screw this up do you...?

That said, I’ll ask my contact in the 1 if they’ve considered that timeline in the guidance rollout. Likely not. Change is slow.

Chuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha of course I expect them to screw it up. But the dreamer in me still hopes that this’ll be the time where everything comes together and we have a just in time implementation of a revolutionary new process that saves everyone a ton of unnecessary work. Nah...


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh good and you're a TPS grad to boot, great job AF.

Yup!

In regards to two line PRF’s...I wonder how they would handle those of us in school that have narrative only PRF’s written by our previous SR. Push them through as is, or would they just take the top and bottom lines and that’s all they see?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2018 at 4:22 PM, pawnman said:

Unpopular opinion... But if you took the bonus and the accompanying ADSC, you knew what you were signing up for. I'd personally be all for forcing folks with an ADSC for the bonus to serve it the remainder, regardless of promotion results.

Thankfully it's still an unpopular opinion with official USAF. After passed over x2 to O-5 I was offered continuation to 24 years! Thanks, but no thanks. I checked box #5 to decline continuation in favor of getting out in six months, and seven months out of ADSC. I've never been so happy to visit the local MPF. Congrats to all the selects. It was rough for pilots and ACC pilots particularly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the AF publish the numbers of pilots turning down continuation?

If you decline continuation, are you still eligible for guard/reserve?

Anyone get offered 24 and negotiate to only 20?

Edited by IDALPHA
More questions

Share this post


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


Yup!

In regards to two line PRF’s...I wonder how they would handle those of us in school that have narrative only PRF’s written by our previous SR. Push them through as is, or would they just take the top and bottom lines and that’s all they see?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Second that.

 

Also, on a side note.  For those that don’t know (which was me) the AFPC counselor is only for IPZ amd APZ. I was hoping she might still provide feedback as to why someone did not make the cut regardless of where they are at in the timeline. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Continuation provides an option, not an ADSC.  If you sign for over 20, you have the option to stick around but you don't have to stay until the last day.  If you have an ADSC that takes you out past 20 (bonus acceptance, for instance) and you accept to 20, you return the unearned portion of the bonus at the DOS established based on your acceptance of 20.  Make sense?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

It was rough for pilots and ACC pilots particularly.

Sorry about the way the cards fell. 

Pilots fared better than everyone else the way I looked at the stats...what did I miss?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry about the way the cards fell. 
Pilots fared better than everyone else the way I looked at the stats...what did I miss?
 

We don’t fair nearly as well as Doctors and Lawyers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don’t fair nearly as well as Doctors and Lawyers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



What’s up with that? Do LAF-J and MSC have 100% promotion opportunity all the way up? Never heard of those guys ever being passed over.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Continuation provides an option, not an ADSC.  If you sign for over 20, you have the option to stick around but you don't have to stay until the last day.  If you have an ADSC that takes you out past 20 (bonus acceptance, for instance) and you accept to 20, you return the unearned portion of the bonus at the DOS established based on your acceptance of 20.  Make sense?

So that’s another wrinkle in my situation. I have bonus to 24, because I expected to get continued to then, plus my PhD commitment will take me there. But if I only accept to 20 now, but they fix the glitch on the next board to 24 like they’re supposed to, so they stop my bonus now, or once I hit 20? Such a pain...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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



×