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, 201411 yr by Dupe

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

So your really talking about O-4s and the avg promotion rate to Maj from 1989-2013 was 89% so you've got to really be an unlucky jet not to make Maj (not saying it doesn't happen, I know some good dudes that got passed over but it wasn't because they didn't do the Christmas Party), so your real beef is IDE. Because if you get IDE you will make O-5 and if you get SDE you make O-6. And Yes I agree the DT boards should pick IDE selects. If I was king you wouldn't be allowed to be selected for IDE off of your Majs board. If you think about it 20-25 % of Capts that get selected for Maj are also getting selected for LT COL (promotion rate to Lt Col is 99% if you are an in res IDE grad) based off of 9 yrs of work and if they are rated their people leadership resume isn't that thick. Additionally some of those guys then throttle back as a Maj cause they know they've got it made to Lt Col.

I haven't read the law you mentioned...

Cool...

FYSA, DOPMA is the law that governs officer promotions. It's been discussed in the PRF and non-continuation threads.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Officer_Personnel_Management_Act

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_or_out

words words words. <complete bullshit> Because if you get IDE you will make O-5 and if you get SDE you make O-6. </complete bullshit>

You have got to be kidding me. I know tons of dudes who have IDE done and didn't get promoted. IDE and Masters and didn't get promoted. O-6 is a lot more about your skills as a politician, although not getting DE complete is a good way to remove yourself from consideration.

I think he meant IDE in residence.

You have got to be kidding me. I know tons of dudes who have IDE done and didn't get promoted. IDE and Masters and didn't get promoted. O-6 is a lot more about your skills as a politician, although not getting DE complete is a good way to remove yourself from consideration.

IDE/SDE in residence

Edited November 8, 201411 yr by Miles 69

This Colonel gets it. Good read.

https://www.wpafb.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123430954

This Colonel gets it. Good read.

https://www.wpafb.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123430954

That's what happens when you have an AF culture that emphasizes negatives over positives. It's okay to be mediocre with no PT fails, paperwork, etc. but if a high performer has one slip up it could be the end.

This Colonel gets it. Good read.

https://www.wpafb.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123430954

Gone from leadership to fortune 500 management, Airman screws up once and it shows up on a Wing PPT slide she gets the big blue weenie even though she is one of your top performers. Glad I'm retired, in the 80's the CC took care of you if made him money on the flightline, the working troops were the ones you wanted to be and they were the ones to get promoted to Senior and Chief, today those guys don't make it past Tech. CC's Might as well take their uniform off and wear a polo and slacks and tell you lies just like their civilian counter parts in the airlines.

ProSuper, I know you didn't specify but Sq/CCs many times get overruled on things such as decs etc when someone has a failed PT test or some other negative issue.

ProSuper, I know you didn't specify but Sq/CCs many times get overruled on things such as decs etc when someone has a failed PT test or some other negative issue.

Which is equally as disturbing.

Which is equally as disturbing.

I don't disagree, but Sq/CCs are not and have never been the approval authority for decs. I would assert that functionals have taken over the AF. Commanders are given all the responsibility and much of their authority has been taken away over the course of the last 5-10 or more years. That is really the biggest problem with the AF right now, as I see it. I certainly hope that the CSAF is working on some of this. There are some indicators that he is.

I don't disagree, but Sq/CCs are not and have never been the approval authority for decs. I would assert that functionals have taken over the AF. Commanders are given all the responsibility and much of their authority has been taken away over the course of the last 5-10 or more years. That is really the biggest problem with the AF right now, as I see it. I certainly hope that the CSAF is working on some of this. There are some indicators that he is.

Good point; I guess that taking away Sq/CC judgement over the years is more what I was getting at.