What's wrong with the Air Force?

[nrodgsxr]

The reason why promotion boards love the SOS DG discriminator is because it's the first time since you commissioned that you are stratified against all your peers regardless of your career field..

[hispeed7721]

The reason why promotion boards love the SOS DG discriminator is because it's the first time since you commissioned that you are stratified against all your peers regardless of your career field..

Shouldn't the peers you're being compared to be the peers in your career field?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Homestar]

Shouldn't the peers you're being compared to be the peers in your career field?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why? You don't promote against the peers in your career field.

[Spartacus]

The reason why promotion boards love the SOS DG discriminator is because it's the first time since you commissioned that you are stratified against all your peers regardless of your career field..

That's what they say. However, when you really think about it this statement is totally inaccurate.

[nrodgsxr]

That's what they say. However, when you really think about it this statement is totally inaccurate.

I'm dumb. Why is that?

[zach braff]

How many times does this make that have we had this DG discussion on baseops?

zb

[BitteEinBit]

Unfortunately, you couldn't be more wrong. I've seen commanders ask for year group lists that included if they have been a Flt/CC, completed a masters and if they were an SOS DG. Every rack and stack that I've seen at the Group and Wing level had a column for whether or not you were an SOS DG. Oddly, the people at the top of the lists were always SOS DGs. Recently a "nobody" in my Wing went from barely having a crappy squadron level strat to suddenly getting a Wing CGO strat. The only reason that I could see for this happening was that he "returned from SOS as a DG."

I can't tell you how much I hate SOS and the weight that SOS DG carries. It makes me sick.

Edited because I can't write good.

...and there is part of the problem. Every situation is different, but if the people closest to the "nobody" at the squadron level can't give the guy a decent strat, then why should the Wing? If the only reason is because the guy can study at SOS or possibly have gouge to help them ace a test at SOS, then we are "stratting" the wrong people the wrong way. Don't know the guy or his story, but the AF has a hard-on for "nerds" who are book smart, but have little to no application or required "people skills" to execute efficiently. It is part of the reason we are in the mess we are in now.

I'm not at all saying education isn't important, but it isn't the only thing that is important. Believe me, the AF has a good mix of great leaders and great managers, but what is most important (IMO) to mission execution is how well you work with the people you're supposed to lead. Who would you rather work for? 1) a timid, nutless, manager who is academically smart and will press forward ONLY on the black line because that's all they know and they aren't comfortable deviating from said line because what they studied at whatever school doesn't cover deviations from the norm. Or 2) a proven manager who can also lead because they understand the black line, but understand more importantly that the black line should be a guide to move forward but requires, on occasion, some deviation along the way to get the most efficient end result.

I haven't been to SOS in a long time, but the DG in my class had no leadership qualities, was timid, average briefer, but aced the final test. I can't speak for other DGs. I'm sure there were some great, well-rounded ones out there, but it doesn't necessarily mean they should go from "stratless" in their workplace to #1 of 30 WG CGOs just because they aced a test. The longer the AF keeps this hard-on for academics as its top priority, especially in a time where personnel trust leadership less, the more personnel problems we will continue to have. There are just some managers who are better left behind the scenes and not in charge of people.

This is "Revenge of the Nerds" at an institutional level...although sometimes I think I'd rather have "Booger" leading the squadron.

[SurelySerious]

Why? You don't promote against the peers in your career field.

You don't, but you should. That way performance comparisons are easier and don't require some super secret code. The expectations and responsibilities of maintenance, intel, and even mobility vs fighter (one could argue) career fields are so different that we wind up with absurd discriminators like Christmas parties, volunteer hours, and AAD that mean nothing.

[hispeed7721]

You don't, but you should. That way performance comparisons are easier and don't require some super secret code. The expectations and responsibilities of maintenance, intel, and even mobility vs fighter (one could argue) career fields are so different that we wind up with absurd discriminators like Christmas parties, volunteer hours, and AAD that mean nothing.

Bingo...I made my previous comment somewhat tongue in cheek and with this exact thought in mind

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Herk Driver]

Bingo...I made my previous comment somewhat tongue in cheek and with this exact thought in mind

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's a whole different windmill to go tilt against.

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

[SurelySerious]

That's a whole different windmill to go tilt against.

Agree, but it goes for actual problem vs trying to treat symptoms.

[Herk Driver]

Agree, but it goes for actual problem vs trying to treat symptoms.

A little over simplistic...even in that system many of these other issues would still be problems

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

[Homestar]

You don't, but you should.

[Dupe]

You don't, but you should. That way performance comparisons are easier and don't require some super secret code. The expectations and responsibilities of maintenance, intel, and even mobility vs fighter (one could argue) career fields are so different that we wind up with absurd discriminators like Christmas parties, volunteer hours, and AAD that mean nothing.

This is spot on.

I've long thought promotion to O-4 & O-5 should be done by DTs vice a whole-of-the-AF board. Then, inputs and stratification will become much more detailed. At the same time, the DT could have the RIF during the same board if there's a need. It mystified me these last few years why we are generating PRFs for whole-of-the-AF promotion boards then generating RRFs for AFSC-specific DTs to judge who gets to stay... that should all be one board and one recommendation form staffing cycle.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Dupe

[Miles 69]

Multiple A1 studies have been done on whether there should be separate promotion boards (I actually had to do one while I was on staff), the latest one I remember was a RAND study that the AF requested to find out why RPA pilots were not getting promoted, one of the factors was because they were unable to go to SOS due to mission demand and they were penalized on their O-4 Board for not completing SOS. So why not have separate boards

Here's why: The analysis always proves that rated officers would actually fare worse at O-5 and O-6 if you had separate promotion boards because, by-law you can never promote higher than your actual requirement and if you have separate promotion boards then aviators could only get promoted based on the requirement for rated officers for example, from the study I lead, the requirement for Rated O-6s in FY-12 was 33% and support was 54 % but Rated bubbas were promoted at rate of 47% (more than the requirement). If you had separate boards Rated O-6s could only be promoted at a rate of 33%.

Consequently, BPZ is far worse from 1998-2012 Rated officers made up only 37% of the Officer force but they averaged way over 50% of the BPZ selects.

[Slander]

Sounds like that law needs changing if the USAF wants to promote at the current ratio of rated:non-rated and change to a style of promotion board which better reflects workplace accomplishment reality.

[Lord Ratner]

Multiple A1 studies have been done on whether there should be separate promotion boards (I actually had to do one while I was on staff), the latest one I remember was a RAND study that the AF requested to find out why RPA pilots were not getting promoted, one of the factors was because they were unable to go to SOS due to mission demand and they were penalized on their O-4 Board for not completing SOS. So why not have separate boards

Here's why: The analysis always proves that rated officers would actually fare worse at O-5 and O-6 if you had separate promotion boards because, by-law you can never promote higher than your actual requirement and if you have separate promotion boards then aviators could only get promoted based on the requirement for rated officers for example, from the study I lead, the requirement for Rated O-6s in FY-12 was 33% and support was 54 % but Rated bubbas were promoted at rate of 47% (more than the requirement). If you had separate boards Rated O-6s could only be promoted at a rate of 33%.

Consequently, BPZ is far worse from 1998-2012 Rated officers made up only 37% of the Officer force but they averaged way over 50% of the BPZ selects.

There are plenty of ways to fudge that, I'm guessing. Combined boards with different sections, etc.

[guineapigfury]

Or have a certain percentage of the promotion billets reserved for certain AFSCs and the remainder left for an "at large" category. That way the Air Force can address manning deficiencies in certain AFSCs while still leaving room to promote top performers.

[Karl Hungus]

Here's why: The analysis always proves that rated officers would actually fare worse at O-5 and O-6 if you had separate promotion boards because, by-law you can never promote higher than your actual requirement

I don't see many people advocating for AFSC-specific promotion boards at the O-5 and O-6 level. At the O-1 through O-4 levels, though, it makes a hell of a lot of sense.

[SurelySerious]

I don't see many people advocating for AFSC-specific promotion boards at the O-5 and O-6 level. At the O-1 through O-4 levels, though, it makes a hell of a lot of sense.

Shack.

[Smokin]

Here's why: The analysis always proves that rated officers would actually fare worse at O-5 and O-6 if you had separate promotion boards because, by-law you can never promote higher than your actual requirement and if you have separate promotion boards then aviators could only get promoted based on the requirement for rated officers for example, from the study I lead, the requirement for Rated O-6s in FY-12 was 33% and support was 54 % but Rated bubbas were promoted at rate of 47% (more than the requirement). If you had separate boards Rated O-6s could only be promoted at a rate of 33%.

Consequently, BPZ is far worse from 1998-2012 Rated officers made up only 37% of the Officer force but they averaged way over 50% of the BPZ selects.

Unless we change the way we interpret the law. If you have an AF wide promotion board that is broken down into various AFSC panels, then AF wide you are promoting at the by law required rate. But you could manage each AFSC panel to have promotion rates at a specific level the AF desires to promote. We need more fighter guys, promote 95%. We need less service guys, promote 10%. Then overall you could average out to make the required cut. I haven't read the law you mentioned, but I bet there could be some wiggle room to be creative and still adhere to both the letter and intent.

[BB Stacker]

I don't see many people advocating for AFSC-specific promotion boards at the O-5 and O-6 level. At the O-1 through O-4 levels, though, it makes a hell of a lot of sense.

So you really just mean the O-4 boards, because O-1 through O-3 promotion boards are completely pointless.

[Smokin]

There's a promotion board for O-1? What's the promotion rate?

[Dupe]

I don't see many people advocating for AFSC-specific promotion boards at the O-5 and O-6 level. At the O-1 through O-4 levels, though, it makes a hell of a lot of sense.

I think it makes sense up to the O-5 level. Community-specific sq/cc boards could happen concurrently.

[Karl Hungus]

There's a promotion board for O-1? What's the promotion rate?

So you really just mean the O-4 boards, because O-1 through O-3 promotion boards are completely pointless.

Yes, but it wasn't that long ago we were wasting a shitload of time on PRFs/RRFs for Lts straight out of UPT/FTU. Because, well, they had to "compete" with their MXG/MSG "peers", and heaven fucking forbid they have a blank form.