Bender

What you wrote: What I read: Personally, I love to go to Rome or Barcelona - if only the Air Force would send me. I refuse to waste my family's time, my time and taxpayer money doing something that I full well know will further my career and support my family for no other reason than to further my career and continue supporting my family. I feel like doing less work is more important than making sure the career I have is secure, again, the one I use to support my family. The funny part is, although I could take the opportunity to work really hard and do something worthwhile, I'm just going to pass on it now and waste my kid's education benefits that I chose not to give them (they'd have just wasted the opportunity anyways.)

Are the two components a) being pulled over, and b) driving while impaired? ...or is 1 component, being pulled over for driving while impaired? If so, what's the other one? Bendy

It's like a circle. Not a square, not a triangle, but a circle. Bendy

That's a good question. I don't think anyone is going to agree with your suggested explanation, but I'd suspect they'd tell you the number 20 is bigger than the number 10, then avoid (actually be unable to answer) the question using the "whole person concept" and "it depends". But, all other things being equal...it's a good question. It's certainly a complication to have multiple different career fields on the same board. Bendy

If only you were right. Accountability, much like leadership, has had a lot of research done. Probably so much that the chaff throws us off the practical application. I'd be interested to know how much study of accountability leaders have really done...often doesn't seem like much. Most seem content to use it as a buzz word. This involves people, thus it's actually a lot harder than rocket science. Bendy

Valid. ...and that had not crossed my mind. Is this because I said you argued like a little girl? That was phrased as well as I could to make it clearly a joke. I hope I didn't offend you. Oddly enough, I don't think I would joke like that if it was an argument. Bendy ETA: Quibbling does not a conversation make. Just get it right the first time next time and we won't have to go through this. You can add an imaginary little smiley face to the end of this if it makes you feel better.

Of course it does; I think you have very good inputs and I'm glad you made them. I agree with your comment the "tiers" are an oversimplification, but you have to fight that off with complete information, not a vague answer. Because if someone doesn't know what you mean or guesses wrong, I think it could be a very bad thing. So, agree to disagree a bit there, but the inputs are solid even if you do argue like a little girl sometimes. Bendy

So, you're saying "it depends" is a good answer if I really understand what you mean by it this time? Good stuff. I don't disagree, just thought it would be nice if you just said what you meant by it, this time...forgo the "it depends". It always depends. That's a problem. We aren't arguing; well, I don't think so. We're having a conversation in a public forum for the betterment of all. You type A personalities can't help but see it as arguing, which is kind of amusing. That way someone can always win. Makes leadership kind of tough. Sorry for wasting your precious time. Bendy

At the time you wrote that, for the people you were rating on, yes. Are you saying that you take your shittiest officer and call him "average" on his performance report because that actually means oxygen stealer? A stratification being "taken literally" is not the same as promoting someone based upon a single stratification like you "slightly below average officer" example. (Not all positive words by the way). So no. It makes no sense whatsoever. The only thing that makes sense is that you are writing performance reports that do not accurately reflect actual performance in an effort to inflate their potential for promotion, because that is what everyone else is doing. It's just like 5's on EPRs. It's just like ironing wrinkle free uniforms. Clearly you "see the bigger picture" and are acting accordingly. I'm not saying you shouldn't do what you're doing, I'm saying....no, it doesn't make sense. It is important to understand why. That makes it important to be able to explain why. When you can't do that, it means what you (you as in the Air Force here, not you as in BODN Danny Noonin) are fucking up. This is a beautiful capture of the problem, well done. There isn't a right answer here at this point in time. It is currently what it is and we have to operate under planned change concepts here, so there is no benefit to "blazing the trail" or being a "moral crusader". It is worthy to note that it's sad a person of you caliber would need to defend themselves using such words. I know you know it. ...and, no, I can't change it either (at least not yet). Is it possible that this "correct message" you speak of is the "message" built over the course of the previous strats? "Average + Top Tier + Average" does not equal "Top Tier + Average + Average". The problem here is you can't share the decoder ring, you only do it the way you do it because that's how it was taught to you and melded with how you think it is, which is different than how others were taught and different than how they think it is. Even if we don't change, we could standardized by explaining why...something the CSAF should have someone doing. This problem is pale in comparison to our bankrupting nation though, so we'll just make due with promotion boards as they are for the time being (which is actually a pretty decent system, it could be much worse). I never said it was, Danny. I said it wasn't that important to a board wether you write "above average" or "top tier" to a board that is looking at every other stratification as well. Clearly it's important, it's just not relatively as important. That choice is unlikely to alter the outcome, that choice made 8 times in a row definitely will. It's a good topic. I appreciate you taking the time to write out your thoughts. Bendy

I respect your opinion, I do. So please understand why I even take the time to respond here. At the moment of the boarding process, no...no it does not. Over the course of 2 or 3 boards spread out by 4 to 10 years, I agree with you that this distinction matters. I do see that it is now "pretty easy" to do. I only assume that is with words if not numbers, with only symbols (i.e. $@&?!$) reserved for only the extremely special among us. We probably just use words that parrot the Article 15 there though. So, agreed...it's important to stratify everybody appropriately to take care of their careers come board time. However, a strat that goes on a report is not a board ranking. It is this board ranking that was I referencing, not an annual strat itself. However, they are intimately connected. Meh, if it's 35% instead of 20% then change the number in my statement and don't sidetrack the conversation like that. So...the promotion board cares about (and takes time to) carefully racking and stacking all of the records into 30-50-70 percentile on a board with a 70 to 95 percent promotion rate that is sending 20% to developmental education? Even the most cursory look at the process shows this is not true. It does not matter if you are 30 or 70. If you are 70, the words do take on this importance you're trying to convey here, because they will be looked at more closely. But, keep in mind this is 70th percentile of the record on the board, not of the people in a unit they were actually stratified against... It definitely depends...if 8 raters in a row say someone is "average" that does not make them average. If 7 raters give a numerical stratification and one rater says they are average on their last report, they are not "average". The answer here lies in how individual sets of stratification create the corresponding component to board ranking...that matters (a lot). I agree with you that "Top Tier" on an OPR is stratification. I don't even think it's "fluff" on a PRF. If every line started with the same strat, I think I would agree with you more easily here. "Top Tier", "Above Average", "Average"....done, right? Wrong. As a commander, you must stratify each individual every year. THIS effort can be "pretty accurately" piled into 30-50-70. However, when there are 8-10 push strats to deal with for every individual, the water gets murkier. This is the place where the comment about "Top Tier" being "fluff" is coming from. So then...One pile is still all numbers (30-ish), one pile is some numbers and some words (50-ish), the other is all words (70+) right? Wrong again. As you pointed out with Champ, there is gaming that goes into the numbers alone. The progression or regression of these stratification could add logic into a board ranking (in the gray zone, not 40 vs 50 on a board promoting 80 percent). It is the differentiation of records within this gray zone that matters within the current system. At the time of the board, it does not matter if you are 40 or 70th percentile; you both get promoted as school candidates. Does it matter come the next board (with a much lower promotion rate) that your record previously ranked 40 vs. 70th? Of course it does, that part of your record is still there unchanged, but there are also a lot of reports on top now. In the end, "getting the bigger picture" and "It depends" are always shitty vague answers. It doesn't make them untrue, just unhelpful. Bendy

Who are you talking to? He didn't reference a major in his post at all in any unique way...he merely pointed to a rank based peer group. How is major different here? Are you encouraging him to use the words "Top Tier" on his PRF? I suspect you'd look through the documents again to make sure you didn't miss something. Of course there is a way to write to TRY to differentiate 30th from 70th...that statement doesn't really say anything. The "box checking" mentality is a direct symptom of not doing this part well. "Top tier" is fluff, fluff that most of the 30 to 70 percentile has in their reports. Perhaps you do a better job distinguishing..."excellent squadron RA, ready for group RA!" Yup, got it, but that isn't a strat... May be? I disagree with you here that it's "pretty easy" "using all positive words". Write out 10 strats using all positive words that even half of a board would order the way you intend them to. If you can, that's what we should be teaching everyone if we aren't going to strat everyone. Get past the literal words? It's like you've never sent an email before or something...this is ludicrous. Look for the message being sent? Which one? You mean the one being conveyed by the words on the paper? I think you might be on the other side of the kool-aid line here. I feel like you're trying to help here, I do. I think this is one of the issues that belongs in the "what's wrong with the Air Force" thread. Part of the problem is it doesn't really matter if your in the 30th or 70th percentile...only in the top 20 or not. It's a self-ball licking situation...except that lick you own balls would have benefits. Maybe I don't "understand the bigger picture". I think the biggest problem the Air Force has is people that "understand the bigger picture". That's implicit code wording for conformity. Bendy

30,000? No shit; That's a lot of missiles. Bendy

Roosevelt's successful New Deal presidency? It all makes better sense when you figure out that success is measured against horribly ridiculous failure. Hopefully we'll have shook the rust off our force downsizing before the post-default version of this shit. Bendy

I believe you are correct in your categorization of the stratification. There isn't much positive to say about it from the perspective of a promotion board. As the categorization suggests, it is not competitive with a pure peer stratification, or even an inflated group (second level) stratification. It would help in so much as the report doesn't say something obviously negative, which likely would need to be a referral report anyways...not getting into the silly code word/phrase conversation, which I'm not sure I really buy into at this point. The answer to your question is it's not going to hurt, but it's not going to help without a number to back it up...it almost doesn't matter what it says, and as such isn't what you want to put on your PRF. You most likely want to put first level strats at the beginning of the line followed by supporting information that strat is based on (which is the "C method" of writing a PRF). There are others, so I'd talk to a few people to find the method that works best for the reports you have to work with. As for moving airframes, it shouldn't hurt you. It should help you. It broadens your experience which is something that sets you apart from others. The fact that you are new to the airframe, it is intuitive that you would not walk in as an EP, even if you were previously an IP in your last platform. That said, leaving one platform prior to becoming an IP and not obtaining that qual in the new platform prior to the board does leave an open question. There is no way to know how this will be resolved in the mind of each member of the board. This, like having multi-platform experience, sets you apart from others...this time in a negative way. It is a Line of the Air Force promotion board, not a rated promotion board. The IP qual is part of normal progression, but will not kill you without it (especially for an O-4 board). The stratifications, accomplishments, duty progression, and aircrew qualifications (arguably in that order) will be what determines if you have the capacity to serve in the next higher grade. ...you know, that whole person concept thing. I would humbly submit that you should not worry about how moving to a new airframe will impact your board. Do not choose to stay where you don't want to be, doing something you don't want to do, just to improve your chances at the board. You will get that IP qual (maybe), but everything else will suffer from your struggle to stay motivated and excel. If you think you can do that "artificially", by which I mean you get that you're an officer and a leader first and what airplane you fly isn't as important as that, then by all means go for it. Bendy

Where does it say that? I just re-read it (the email sent via 489th) and I don't see that request. I assume there is a counterpart email for the 427th...is that where that is coming from? There would be some logic to giving those people assignments that would not require immediate replacement (i.e. Not one deep). I'm not saying it's sound logic, just logic. ...or, it's to fuck you over with a shitty assignment, that would be logical too. Bendy

Well, when your separation/retirement application is subsequently denied...you wouldn't want to have "given up your vote" would you? It's actually a bit amusing how much so many of the military processes (like assignments) are similar to other big government processes (like social security). You don't have a choice but to do it, and you aren't going to get anything from doing it. Just do it. Like I said, amusing, eh? Making you pick one preference is like the government's inability understand that the dude with AIDS has a point when he said he doesn't think he should have to pay that social security tax. Bendy Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

I don't know about the ADP system's functionality, I'm still trying to figure out what to put on the damn thing. No reason to actually critically think about your career, just put down something....to...to...today junior! If you say you don't have all the information, it will be considered quibbling and you will meet the QFRB for being a whiner. There isn't really anything short notice about the VML notice. The rub is the "due date" for ADP submittal that is prior to the assignment visibility window opening. Starting with having no clue where MC-12's will be, decide if you want to stay with the MC-12 to having simply no clue on any other billet AFPC needs to fill. Why do you need any detailed information to make career decision anyways? Just write down what you want in general terms limited by character length. AFPC will take care of it. WTF is the purpose of having people turn in ADPs on Monday when the visibility window opens on Friday? If you want to know how many people want to stay with the MC-12, just ask! Never mind, just submit official documentation on your desires with incomplete information and you can redo it later after the window opens. I mean, you have time, what else are you doing...it's not like you have to deploy or anything. Bendy Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

Ahh, the classic "respond to only the parts of the email I want and ignore the rest" technique. Funny how the part that doesn't get answered is the only question you needed the answer to. But, don't go trying to only include that question, or highlighting this question is important or they will go with the other technique, "do not send read reply, delete that shit". These techniques, and many more can be found in the same leadership text that first brought you the "sandwich technique" of saying something bad surrounded by good...yeah, don't do that shit either. Bendy

...or his Detal Detector. Bendy

Agree! That should help speed things along. If only this one GS-7 felt a little pressure this whole thing should start straightening itself out. It's completely understandable to wait for processing if people that were I eligible are now eligible. I do think they should publish the decision criteria you reference though, if for no other reason than to prove they have one. That type of action is transparency, a "status update" (regardless who sends it) is not. Good luck guys, Bendy

Nobody said that, I don't believe. Were the words not, "knowledgable in the ways of"? He (among others) are likely more knowledgable in the ways of A1 than Chang. Now if you need someone knowledgable in the ways of WarCraft, Chang's your man...unless you have a Nav or a TSO handy, then just go with what you have readily available. At least they stay and fight back when someone goes LeRoy Jenkins. Bendy

Chang is funnier than Liquid. All depends on what you're looking for... Personally, I'd rather read Chang's account of how awesomely this has all gone. The previously posted email was almost there (i.e. only 48 hours before the retractions went out), but I know for a fact Chang can do better. Now, if you all are actually looking for answers...sure, Liquid would be a much better choice. Bendy

That's what she said. Edit: okay, so upon further review...there is evidence TrunkMonkey is a dude. However, much like mIRC, I just assume you are all smokin' hot chicks. It makes talking to you easier when you're being stupid. ...and by stupid I mean not agreeing with me or not immediately giving me what I want. What he said... Bendy

Edwards has a Panda Express, Starbucks, Subway, and 2 different pizza places (Anthony's and Pizza Hut)...the IHOP is a new one though. As for the PFT, just waive your dwell and deploy so that you're exempt when your report is due and you can eat all the crap you want. Duh. Bendy

That was easy. ;) Bendy