Jump to content

Promotion and PRF Information


Guest e3racing

Recommended Posts



Thanks for the feedback flea. I think they are not also, but i don't have a reference AFI or regulation that implicitly states this is not permitted. I've learned that if you bring something up in the AF you need to have a reference that says this is not authorized or else you are screwed. Also, how do you go about highlighting this?, especially if those contractors/individuals are connected with IG and leadership already. Many people have said this is unethical and a conflict of interest, but when they make any slight mention of it they are quickly shown the door to a closet or dead end job like asst flt/cc of the mobility shop as a senior Major right before their O5 board. Got a friend thats been trying to PCS from his base but is not in good graces with this contractor and has been stuck there for over 11 years. Unofficial/sidebar word from his leadership is that so-and-so stopped your PCS. Just looking for a reference pub or best form to approach this. 


You cannot have a contractor as your rater or additional rater. Must be an officer or civilian of equal or higher grade to you. Here's the reference:

AFI 36-2406 OFFICER AND ENLISTED
EVALUATIONS SYSTEMS


1.5.2.1. Raters.
1.5.2.1.1. For officers. The rater will be an officer of the U.S. or foreign military, or a civilian of equal or higher rank or grade than the ratee. (T-1).



1.5.2.2. Additional Raters.
1.5.2.2.1. For officers. The additional rater will be an officer in the U.S. or foreign military or a civilian serving in a grade equal to or higher than the rater, and in a grade higher than the ratee. Exception: An O-6 of the U.S. or a foreign military service may be the additional rater for an O-6. (T-1).



1.5.2.3. Civilian Additional Raters.
1.5.2.3.1. For officers, a civilian additional rater must be in a civilian grade equal to or higher than the rater.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 6.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Well Gents, it’s been fun but Duck is now a twice passed over Captain on his way out the door. I appreciate all of you who reached out and offered me advice throughout the years. I know that I will ha

They are missing WHY dudes are disgruntled. I've been around a long time, as you have. There have certainly been boom and bust cycles for morale. This one is far different than what I think can f

Yes...and shockingly, got picked up 1 APZ with a 5/10 push line and P on the PRF. Sometimes there is justice in the system.

Posted Images

28 minutes ago, jazzdude said:


 

 


You cannot have a contractor as your rater or additional rater. Must be an officer or civilian of equal or higher grade to you. Here's the reference:

AFI 36-2406 OFFICER AND ENLISTED
EVALUATIONS SYSTEMS




 

 

Hi Jazzdude,  the situation i provided is not that the contractor is the rater on anyones performance report; however, they are involved/making career impacting decisions--i.e.; determining assignments, stratifications, jobs, and career vectors for active service members. A contractor should not be involved nor providing recommendations nor suggestions as to whether or not you should be released for a staff assignment, or if you should or should not receive a stratification. I also think also not be involved in the  development of performance reports for airmen. That is the situation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, BKANO said:

Hi Jazzdude,  the situation i provided is not that the contractor is the rater on anyones performance report; however, they are involved/making career impacting decisions--i.e.; determining assignments, stratifications, jobs, and career vectors for active service members. A contractor should not be involved nor providing recommendations nor suggestions as to whether or not you should be released for a staff assignment, or if you should or should not receive a stratification. I also think also not be involved in the  development of performance reports for airmen. That is the situation. 

Unfortunately, you'll have a hard time proving that is the case if the contractor's name isn't on any performance reports or promotion recommendations.

Link to post
Share on other sites



Hi Jazzdude,  the situation i provided is not that the contractor is the rater on anyones performance report; however, they are involved/making career impacting decisions--i.e.; determining assignments, stratifications, jobs, and career vectors for active service members. A contractor should not be involved nor providing recommendations nor suggestions as to whether or not you should be released for a staff assignment, or if you should or should not receive a stratification. I also think also not be involved in the  development of performance reports for airmen. That is the situation. 


Unfortunately it gets murky... it depends on what the contractor was hired to do, as they may have been hired specifically to provide advise to a military/civilian decision maker.

Ultimately, those decisions are owned by either an officer or civilian equivalent in the appropriate position (I know I'm staying the obvious, sorry). However, they may have contractor support hired on for advisory and assistance services, where they essentially work as action officers for tasks which feeds into the decision making process. So they do have influence similar to any other action officer (that's what they are contacted to do), but they don't own any decision.

So I don't think you'll find anything saying that contractors can't influence decisions; the AF (and DoD) routinely does contract out for A&AS to help in decision making routinely including things such as budget/acquisitions/strategy.

A good boss could overcome bad contractor support/advice, but a bad boss is going to be a bad boss regardless of the contractor support they have (though a bad boss with bad contractor advice is going to be even worse).

Unfortunately it seems you're in the latter position, so I guess it's off to the IG.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So in addition to the AFIs stated above Contractors are restricted by law from performing certain inherently governmental functions as specified in Federal Acquisition Regulations FAR 7.5; see link below. Specifically FAR 7.503 (c) (3) and (5) states contractors cannot Command or determine agency policy or content and application of regulations. 

https://prhome.defense.gov/Portals/52/Documents/RFM/TFPRQ/docs/Subpart 7.5 - IG Functions.pdf

I suspect that the contractor at this Wing has been inadvertently given a gross reach of authority. A quick call to the contracting squadron commander will/should squash this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would recommend focusing efforts not on the contractor advice, but on addressing your commander not performing the duties he's required to (offering continuation without regard to ADSC/bonus/whatever). That's the root cause of your problem.

The contractor angle probably wouldn't solve your issue-the Wg/CC still owns the decision/action regardless of the advise given to them. The strats and job pushes don't come from the contractor, the Wg/CC is putting their name/signature on those, so it's unlikely that the COR will find anything that changes your situation, and that just burns time that you don't have to resolve the issue

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, budderbar said:

So in addition to the AFIs stated above Contractors are restricted by law from performing certain inherently governmental functions as specified in Federal Acquisition Regulations FAR 7.5; see link below. Specifically FAR 7.503 (c) (3) and (5) states contractors cannot Command or determine agency policy or content and application of regulations. 

https://prhome.defense.gov/Portals/52/Documents/RFM/TFPRQ/docs/Subpart 7.5 - IG Functions.pdf

I suspect that the contractor at this Wing has been inadvertently given a gross reach of authority. A quick call to the contracting squadron commander will/should squash this.

The very big take away here is if a commander needs a contractor to advise him on these types of tasks, he is not suited for command. That to me is a significant problem. A commander needing to solicit advice on policy, strategy, geo political relationships is one thing, because those are fields that take a lifetime of expertise. However, if a commander needs to solicit advice on the very basics of leadership, that is problematic. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

Meeting is tomorrow right?  Good Luck!

I walked in and sat down. Grabbed a drink out of the wing king's mini fridge and sat the ice cold drink on his table without using a coaster (joking). The meeting turned into a huge apology festival with the wing king. He took part of the blame and mentioned that "douche" called his executive director being partially responsible too. My continuation paperwork was signed on the spot!

He mentioned the NAF/CC I know and the NAF/CC for the wing. They totally wrecked him. Apparently, they both have interest in my next assignment. Wing king asked me to send him a list of assignment preferences. 

Wing king might be trying to pull me over to work for him directly. We are not boys after this BS incident. I appreciate the Generals trying to push an assignment for me. However, I am content with my continuation paperwork just being signed. 

Thanks again for the support guys!

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, MyCS said:

I walked in and sat down. Grabbed a drink out of the wing king's mini fridge and sat the ice cold drink on his table without using a coaster (joking). The meeting turned into a huge apology festival with the wing king. He took part of the blame and mentioned that "douche" called his executive director being partially responsible too. My continuation paperwork was signed on the spot!

He mentioned the NAF/CC I know and the NAF/CC for the wing. They totally wrecked him. Apparently, they both have interest in my next assignment. Wing king asked me to send him a list of assignment preferences. 

Wing king might be trying to pull me over to work for him directly. We are not boys after this BS incident. I appreciate the Generals trying to push an assignment for me. However, I am content with my continuation paperwork just being signed. 

Thanks again for the support guys!

Shaazam, did you used to write for "Dear Penthouse Forum"?

Edited by panchbarnes
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Should I request a PCA because of this specific line in an email from the wing king's executive director (ED) before the calvary stepped in to help? For some reason, his email still pisses me off. Or will this be perceived the wrong way?

ED:  "Wing king will not sign the continuation memo if it means you're staying in the wing for longer than summer of 2021."

Edited by MyCS
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the ball is in your court for whatever you want to request. You may or may not realize it but professionally right now you have more power in your career than you have probably had before based on what you said. So I’d try to figure if this is your last assignment before retiring then figure out where you want to end up, and then what jobs are there and request that.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Guardian and I agree a lot more on this topic.

You need to figure out where you want to be in 5ish years and work backwards from there.  Guardian is right, you have immensely more power because they're going to be less inclined to outright fuck you, but might give you some kind political stink on exit...but who cares?

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

I mentioned it in the COVID thread but there is a HAF/A1 email circulating that says they are examining VSP options for FY21. No details on career fields or numbers though. FY20 had the second highest retention since 2000 (including the year after 9/11). 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Throw in likely budget pressures with an administrator change and response to the pandemic, it's going to get interesting. Plus the AF likes to pay for new toys by cutting personnel costs.

If the pandemic is still going strong next summer, I have a feeling that VSP is going to turn into RIF, and it'll be 2014 all over again... May the odds ever be in your favor

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

If the pandemic is still going strong next summer, I have a feeling that VSP is going to turn into RIF, and it'll be 2014 all over again... May the odds ever be in your favor

A RIF in 2021 would be politically disastrous for whoever okays that plan I would think.  Has the government furloughed during COVID?

I started game planning in my mind what I'd do if they offered TERA in 2021.  I'd be 2 years from 20 at that point and would lose 2 bonus payments.  I gotta say, there aren't many great options.

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

A RIF in 2021 would be politically disastrous for whoever okays that plan I would think.  Has the government furloughed during COVID?

I started game planning in my mind what I'd do if they offered TERA in 2021.  I'd be 2 years from 20 at that point and would lose 2 bonus payments.  I gotta say, there aren't many great options.

Can you take TERA if you have an ADSC remaining?  

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

A RIF in 2021 would be politically disastrous for whoever okays that plan I would think.  Has the government furloughed during COVID?

I started game planning in my mind what I'd do if they offered TERA in 2021.  I'd be 2 years from 20 at that point and would lose 2 bonus payments.  I gotta say, there aren't many great options.

The RIF was set in motion when the USG decided to cut FY21 DoD budget in 2019.  Then in Summer 2020 we announced we are pulling out (STS) of Germany and sending some folks back to CONUS while starbursting then rest all over Europe.  We are also pulling chock on AFG.  With the AFG troops coming home, what will they be doing?  You factor in COVID, no one is leaving the military.  We don't have another war to replace AFG (yet) to keep everyone gainfully employed.

Also this:

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1063718995

https://federalnewsnetwork.com/defense-main/2020/11/focus-on-military-families-defense-strategy-changes-likely-coming-under-biden-administration/   

My bet is on Tammy Duckworth to be the next SecDef.

Edited by panchbarnes
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, panchbarnes said:

The RIF was set in motion when the USG decided to cut FY21 DoD budget in 2019.  Then in Summer 2020 we announced we are pulling out (STS) of Germany and sending some folks back to CONUS while starbursting then rest all over Europe.  We are also pulling chock on AFG.  With the AFG troops coming home, what will they be doing?  You factor in COVID, no one is leaving the military.  We don't have another war to replace AFG (yet) to keep everyone gainfully employed.

Also this:

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1063718995

https://federalnewsnetwork.com/defense-main/2020/11/focus-on-military-families-defense-strategy-changes-likely-coming-under-biden-administration/   

My bet is on Tammy Duckworth to be the next SecDef.

She’s a bit of a zealot; that’ll get interesting. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, panchbarnes said:

We don't have another war to replace AFG (yet) to keep everyone gainfully employed.

This is certainly how Congress will see it - but maybe we are better about arguing for steady manning even during non-war periods...I doubt it, but it sure would help the laundry list of things plaguing the services' morale.

54 minutes ago, panchbarnes said:

My bet is on Tammy Duckworth to be the next SecDef.

My bet is on Flournoy

Link to post
Share on other sites



This is certainly how Congress will see it - but maybe we are better about arguing for steady manning even during non-war periods...I doubt it, but it sure would help the laundry list of things plaguing the services' morale.

More likely, big cuts to active duty to match commitments (and years of do more with less is going to make that more painful), while expanding the reserves (not guard, unless it's to buy off support of a senator or congressman).

That, or we find an excuse to fight elsewhere...
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...