Promotion and PRF Information

[ClearedHot]

At the risk of changing the topic from the Chang Show back to original intent...

So to change the subject up a bit. Does anyone have any insight into what the promotion board was looking for specifically during this past December board for major? Our AAD's were masked and our status for SOS indicated simply whether it was complete or not. Did this make things easier or harder for the board?

I had a friend not promoted and this individual checked all of the boxes. I do not know exactly what boxes this individual checked, but I assume the board saw something that excluded him from promotion. I remember you guys/gals saying some people think too highly of themselves in regard to promotion and the promotion board will usually get it right.

Some clear messages out of this board and the O-6 board...when other things are masked...strats matter, being an IP made zero difference, AFSOC's run is OVER.

[LJ Driver]

At the risk of changing the topic from the Chang Show back to original intent...

Some clear messages out of this board and the O-6 board...when other things are masked...strats matter, being an IP made zero difference, AFSOC's run is OVER.

No kidding, we didn't do too well on this one.

[di1630]

No kidding, we didn't do too well on this one.

Can you elaborate for those of us without the #'s?

[Guest ThatGuy]

At the risk of changing the topic from the Chang Show back to original intent...

Some clear messages out of this board and the O-6 board...when other things are masked...strats matter, being

an IP made zero difference, AFSOC's run is OVER.

So making the bad people go away and deploying your butt off to support special needs around the world isn't viewed well by the board? Interesting....

[SnapLock]

Some other tactics: delay the PCS or get a 1-VML reclama.

Tried both. Got shot down.

[Herk Driver]

Tried both. Got shot down.

Sent you a PM.

[Skitzo]

Some clear messages out of this board and the O-6 board...when other things are masked...strats matter, being an IP made zero difference, AFSOC's run is OVER.

CH... If I am not mistaken AFSOC has recently been behind most other MAJCOMs wrt promotion selection to O4. How bad has it gotten?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dupe]

At the risk of changing the topic from the Chang Show back to original intent...

Some clear messages out of this board and the O-6 board...when other things are masked...strats matter, being an IP made zero difference, AFSOC's run is OVER.

This is why promotions through O-5 should be done at the DT level vice the whole-of-the AF. I believe strongly that each community can select its next leaders better than a whole-of-the-AF panel.

[Guest ThatGuy]

Question is how does the rate compare to ACC? Before this past board in December, ACC promotion rates to major were far less than those posted by AMC. Was it mentorship, bomb dropping only PRF's, or just bad luck? Is the same possible thing going on in AFSOC right now?

One of my buds from UPT was a DG out of T-44s, he received gunships and he got promoted this past board.

Edited February 20, 2015 by slick999

[F16Deuce]

But maybe, just maybe...by breaking out AFSCs at the promotion board, you can promote more of a stressed or undermanned AFSC (say, 18X or 11F) and fewer of an "overmanned" AFSC (like, apparently, 12B. And I AM a 12B). Then, maybe the cuts to personnel could be shaped year to year, instead of making everyone undergo the RRF exercise every time there's a drawdown.

That just makes too much sense, clearly it couldn't work.

[Guest ThatGuy]

That just makes too much sense, clearly it couldn't work.

Then the RPA community would see promotion rates skyrocket. Edited February 20, 2015 by slick999

[SurelySerious]

Then the RPA community would see promotion rates skyrocket.

It'd probably be cancelled out by how many people opt to separate after their commitment despite getting promoted anyway.

[Guest ThatGuy]

It'd probably be cancelled out by how many people opt to separate after their commitment despite getting promoted anyway.

Valid point.

[TnkrToad]

Some very basic analysis from the recent O-6 board that folks here might find illuminating. I don't know what the breakdown is by pilot community; just going off the overall stats:

Bottom line is making O-6 is more possible than some on this forum might think:

- For pilots who met the O-6 board in the zone, 87/170 got selected in the zone, for a 51% overall promo rate

o Not bad odds, really, they are even better than one might think

- If you discount those who didn’t bother to do SDE by correspondence or in residence (correspondence SDE ain’t a huge hurdle), the effective IPZ promo rate pilots who really cared was 87/140, for an effective promo rate of 62.1%

- This is, of course, after the top perhaps 10% have been skimmed off the top via BPZ promotion

What the above all means to me is that, for those pilots in the ’94 year group that recently met the board:

- If they made O-5, stayed on active duty and did the minimal work of doing at least SDE by correspondence, they essentially had a 70+% chance of making O-6

- If you factor in folks whose ADSCs/other circumstances kept them on Active Duty long enough to meet the board, but who 1) initially kept their options open by doing corr SDE, but 2) have little interest in actually making O-6, then the chances for those who really want to make O-6 are even better still (although I can’t find a way to quantify this)

What this might mean to folks on this forum who haven’t met the O-6 board yet (if the most recent board is any indication):

- If you managed to make O-5 and actually want to wear chickens on your shoulders:

o Do SDE by correspondence (minimal work required—if you really care, I’m sure you know this and already have it done anyway), and keep plugging away (whether you’ve ever been an exec, WIC grad, Sq/CC, or not). Your chances are demonstrably very good

What this might mean to USAF leadership:

- An effective promo rate of 70+% to O-6 (among those who are actually trying) hardly sounds all that competitive

- I suspect future O-6 boards will be even less competitive—especially for 11M types—given both A-word hiring and HAF/A1M’s mismanagement of the 11M community

TT

[Techsan]

Some very basic analysis from the recent O-6 board that folks here might find illuminating. I don't know what the breakdown is by pilot community; just going off the overall stats:

Bottom line is making O-6 is more possible than some on this forum might think:

- For pilots who met the O-6 board in the zone, 87/170 got selected in the zone, for a 51% overall promo rate

o Not bad odds, really, they are even better than one might think

- If you discount those who didn’t bother to do SDE by correspondence or in residence (correspondence SDE ain’t a huge hurdle), the effective IPZ promo rate pilots who really cared was 87/140, for an effective promo rate of 62.1%

- This is, of course, after the top perhaps 10% have been skimmed off the top via BPZ promotion

What the above all means to me is that, for those pilots in the ’94 year group that recently met the board:

- If they made O-5, stayed on active duty and did the minimal work of doing at least SDE by correspondence, they essentially had a 70+% chance of making O-6

- If you factor in folks whose ADSCs/other circumstances kept them on Active Duty long enough to meet the board, but who 1) initially kept their options open by doing corr SDE, but 2) have little interest in actually making O-6, then the chances for those who really want to make O-6 are even better still (although I can’t find a way to quantify this)

What this might mean to folks on this forum who haven’t met the O-6 board yet (if the most recent board is any indication):

- If you managed to make O-5 and actually want to wear chickens on your shoulders:

o Do SDE by correspondence (minimal work required—if you really care, I’m sure you know this and already have it done anyway), and keep plugging away (whether you’ve ever been an exec, WIC grad, Sq/CC, or not). Your chances are demonstrably very good

What this might mean to USAF leadership:

- An effective promo rate of 70+% to O-6 (among those who are actually trying) hardly sounds all that competitive

- I suspect future O-6 boards will be even less competitive—especially for 11M types—given both A-word hiring and HAF/A1M’s mismanagement of the 11M community

TT

Interesting, but thanks, I'm good.

[Jaded]

Alternatively, what's the chance of getting kicked out at 15 years as an O-4?

[Guest]

About 0%. Know a guy, twice passed over to major, who got continued to 20. I don't think we'll see another instance of majors getting booted in our current situation.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HeloDude]

Alternatively, what's the chance of getting kicked out at 15 years as an O-4?

I think the AF will let everyone know in June/July...I know some good 11H's who got passed over for O-5 last year so I'm curious as to what happens this time around, assuming they are passed over again. My bet is that most will get continued to 20, especially guys in stressed fields.

[di1630]

If one gets non-continued but has taken a retention bonus up front, must that be repaid?

[Champ Kind]

Now that's why I love the AF: "You're so valuable we will pay you extra to stay in....sign here."

Years later...

"Yeah you remember how we said you were valuable? Not so much to offer you continuation. See ya."

[Jaded]

Yes, it must be repaid.

[Bender]

Yes, it must be repaid.

The PSDM says the unearned portion must be repaid, but is also waiverable (SecAF). Seems unlikely anyone would be in a situation to need to repay the entire amount and even more unlikely to get any repayment waived.

Bendy

[Jaded]

A non continued major could get a bill for $125k and it was only a few years ago that 157 individuals were shown the door at 15. I think that would make it tough to actually spend any more than 1 year of the bonus at a time.

[Bender]

A non continued major could get a bill for $125k and it was only a few years ago that 157 individuals were shown the door at 15. I think that would make it tough to actually spend any more than 1 year of the bonus at a time.

History is what it is, so shouldn't say always or never. Were any of the 157 on active ARP agreements extending beyond 15 years of service? The current program cuts the starting point of the offer off at 15 years, I believe.

Uncommitted pilots taking a lump sum the year they are looking at 2 APZ should be well aware that the money may need to turn right back around...pilots still BTZ, have 2 to 4 years to work off, fulfilling almost the first half of the 5/9 year commitments.

I'm consistently surprised at how the "world" around me functions, but to sign an ARP contact to be non-continued, following the drawdown that just occurred...seems unlikely.

Can the AF terminate the ARP contract without an FEB/MEB cause?

Bendy

Edited April 5, 2015 by Bender

[WeTheSheeple]

I know it's not Friday, but perhaps it's time to review a little history. It seems funny how Arnold, Spaatz, Vandenberg, LeMay, etc., didn't seem to spend a whole lotta time (if any at all) as execs, and they certainly didn't each have 3-4 master's degrees--yet they all were effective CSAFs (ok, technically, Arnold was never CSAF, but the AAF he led had 2.4 million people in it, and kicked the crap out of Germany, Italy & Japan). As far as I can tell, the last PME school LeMay attended was ACTS--during the '39-'40 academic year, when they shortened the course in order to quadruple throughput. As far as I can tell, LeMay was a two-star before he even had a Pentagon tour . . . and that was when two-stars had way more responsibility than two-buttons today. Norstad never even attended CGSC, yet ended up as SHAPE commander, Kuter's last school was ACTS, yet he was Arnold's rep at the Yalta Conference and served as both CINCPACAF and CINCNORAD. I could go on, but I'll spare you.

Bottom line, it seems to me that there was a time when the Air Force (and its predecessors--AAC, AAF) produced better strategic, global leaders. They did so without going through innumerable schools and spending inordinate time as execs. I wish current senior leaders could and would think and write as clearly and effectively as Hal George, Haywood Hansell, Larry Kuter and others did in their day.

It seems to me that GC and his A1 buddies need to read some history. What made early Air Force leaders so effective? It certainly wasn't the current system (that GC is promoting), and which many on this forum are railing against. I think AF leaders did better when they promoted folks based on performance and potential, rather than PME diplomas and secretarial skills.

Both Arnold & Spaatz served as execs, went to school, did their staff time, and still had time to be effective combat leaders. Edited April 6, 2015 by WeTheSheeple