Promotion and PRF Information

[Tally2]

Liquid—seems like you are listening-truly appreciated. Pressing the “I believe” button that you have a chance to influence the next generation from the perch, I will add my .02. The culture is sadly changing, but I am not sure that isn’t by design. Even worse, when the battle ragged guys need “leadership” when it appears our senior leaders are stuck in a world of management…not entirely their fault. Civilian furloughs and budget choices that I wouldn’t envy seems to have us low on airspeed and altitude. That being said, rising to the top of an organization with talent like the AF is impressive and implies you guys will handle it . There are of ton of lurkers reading this I am sure. Thanks for not blowing it off because only a select few are posting.

My first FLUG ride as a shiny new patch…as the story goes….Pumped for the opportunity mold a steely eyed killer from a bulldog on a leash to a young flight lead. I was already doing an upgrade the day before, but it was a retread. Fun flying, but not like the young guy entering a FLUG sortie. There are few sorties better than this. I walk out of the retread debrief looking to pass some early encouragement and answer what I assumed would be the same hundred questions I had the day before FLUG. In the back…nowhere to be found. I assumed the squadron bar, smiled, and thought….this is the world of fast jets. Old timers in the bar discussing BFM with the young ones while telling “Old Bull / Young Bull” for the 69^th time. (yes I said 69). Nope not there. I actually found him in a common room with books open and papers about. Walked in, and as you have probably guessed…it wasn’t 3-1, 3-3, or the Wing Standards. Hell it wasn’t even one of someone else’s briefs…. The kid had a final that evening. He didn’t want to say anything and miss the opportunity for the FLUG ride and inevitably catch shit from the line IPs. PISSED is an understatement. I couldn’t believe it and walked out without a word. Then it hit me…things changed in a matter of a few years. I didn’t see it because I was head down in my own world. Kid was a hell of a stick and “apparently” working to be a helluva an officer. I realized then this is what the institution wanted. This is the guy that is bitching about having to do AADs over family time and tactical stuff. Then he hears it from his squadron patch/line IPs about “the important sh%t” while a well-meaning commander says—“do it so you can change it when you get there”. He is pissed, his tactical leaders are pissed, his commander’s can’t change it and he’s about to tell mama he got shacked for a 179 and told “suck it up, this ain’t IBM”.

Yes, things are changing. RPA guys were TAMI’d and doing the J.O.B. They are dropping on bad guys, supporting the troops on the ground, going down town in the 21^st Century, but they get shit on for it. The establishment passes blame for creating a culture where they are not valued. WTFO! A new capability requiring talent but a challenge for senior leadership to both manage and inspire and “THEY” blame the younger guys for a less than ideal culture? As Iaccoca said “Where have the leaders gone”? (I will save the story of a sim only 4-FLUG—this post is already not faster or funnier)

The stories are large in number, but after all of these posts, WHAT is changing. If it’s not going to change…SAY IT. Those that embrace the new way…best of luck, kill bad guys, and lead those that follow. Those that don’t..thanks for your service. I am not disgruntled, I am truly just sad. I only speak for myself but I still believe....

I know … FNG post—let the spears fly

edited: because obviously my AAD wasn't English Grammer

Edited July 10, 2013 by Tally2

[pcola]

At the Corona last fall, the MAJCOM CCs and CSAF talked about what we value as an AF and what we should value at promotion boards. I helped chop on the input below that was sent to CSAF and HAF A1 from our MAJCOM CC. He sent this in Oct:

"What we value in every officer for promotion (in priority order)

Capt to Major

1. Job performance (AC, IP, EP, WIC, AMU OIC, FLT CC, etc)

2. Leading Airmen both in garrison and deployed

3. Combat deployments, deployed mission commander

4. SOS

5. Additional duties: exec, safety, training, current ops & scheduling, plans, etc. This provides us insight into which officers can master their primary skill set and also handle increased responsibility.

6. Optional: Masters Degree

Hopefully this guidance will include masking AAD at O-4 board, MLR and prohibit using it for DP consideration.

This is of very little consolation when the Sr Rater puts the most emphasis on #6 when filling out the bottom line of your PRF.

Its too late for me, but I hope they are successful at blocking the AAD all the way down to the Sq/CC rack and stack level, because that is where it currently does the bulk of the damage. I'm at a very competitive West-Coast AMC base and I know from experience that if you don't have your Masters, there is a good chance you'll be overlooked for those top-tier OG and Wg jobs. I've even seen them consider PME and AAD completion when selecting POCs for high-vis events/visits! This shit is out of control.

And I second all the comments about the challenges the young guys are facing (shit, I am barely beyond the "young guy" group, and I'm sure that I'm a relative babe compared to some of you old fucks.) But when I got my wings in early '06, nobody was lecturing me about getting a Masters. In my first assignment from 06-09, very few of us LTs were working on AADs (I wasn't.) But now, it's all the young guys talk about around the Sq. I'm getting sick and tired of having co-pilots stumble over very basic ops limits types of questions, only to hear them at the scheduling desk talking about their TUI or AMU or UMT. I was a Sq exec when the first round of Lt-to-Capt PRFs hit, and an OG exec when we were doing RRF forms for new guys facing the RIF. I have zero doubt that this shit played a huge role in sparking the intense interest amongst the brand new guys in this careerist attitude that used to be reserved for the FGOs.

I am currently working at the Wing level, and I have a pretty good rapport with individuals from the 3 different heavy MWSs at my base, and I know for a fact that a mass exodus of new-FGO 11M experience is looming. Between the -10, -17, and -5 communities, I can't even count the number of guys that I know or have heard of that have interviewed and are awaiting their chance to pull chocks, but I can think of very few guys that are verbally committed to the bro network to staying. This, combined with what I said in the preceding paragraph, is disturbing. We (the AF) have the "experience" switch preselected to "jettison," while the up and comers are too busy working on useless AADs to bother with learning the jet/mission.

Edited July 10, 2013 by pcola

[pcola]

I agree, requiring AAD at Maj board is bad policy and a misprioritization of time... The reality now is, the board uses it to discriminate in the grey zone, so commanders want good dudes to get it done and get promoted. Most Capts that didn't have it done got promoted.

Not sure how a wing commander or GO does a better job acknowledging how ragged our force is. We know it, but don't say it enough I guess. We just finished a four day weekend (for most, but not all). We (I) try to give a much down time as possible, since time is very valuable these days. I haven't done a single wing run or mandatory PT, ever. A waste of time. I cancelled all meetings on my first day of three commands. I hold people accountable for missed suspenses, but don't dwell on metrics.

Three of your four observations about how senior leaders don't get it is that we don't acknowledge things. Acknowledged. You can do better than that, but it was a good start.

You're a smart guy... Surely you know that words are shit - even on a forum of nothing but words. Acknowledge, Acknowledge, Acknowledge... Words - they may get you promoted, but they won't get you respect, nor will they fix any issues. You say that you can't fathom how to better acknowledge how ragged our force is...right after you acknowledge that our BS AAD requirement is bad policy and a waste of time. How about we acknowledge a tired and overworked force with a reprieve from the BS, and not another wordy acknowledgement? Novel idea, right?

The solution isn't that cosmic, but it somehow seems overly difficult for senior leadership to either grasp or embrace, not sure which. Stop wasting our time with extraneous nonsense when what we really want is to be dedicated to the mission. Actively de-emphasize the AAD at the CGO level. Tear up the SOS correspondence program (we're all supposed to go in res anyway, right?) And stop telling us we're over-manned when 80% of the Sq still has use/lose leave in August.

[Rusty Pipes]

Maybe Liquid can answer this question for me or maybe Herk...

Why is it that with our promotion system we have essentially limited ourselves to giving our officers only one shot at getting promoted? Yes, for O-5 and O-6 there is the possibility of getting promoted below the zone, but that is an approximate 1% chance. For everyone else you essentially have your IPZ look and that's it. The reason I ask this is because I had two good friends who were part of the 157 that were shown the door at 15 years when they were non-continued after being passed over for O-5. The reason they were both given for being passed over IPZ was because they had not had a Staff job... of course they were both told this when the results came out 6 months after PCSing to Staff. Both were late rated pilots (prior Nav/WSO) who were told by AFPC that they needed two Ops tours as pilots before they could go to Staff, so them even going to Staff before they did was not even an option.

I have heard the anecdotal story of someone getting promoted APZ, but those are almost too rare to even consider mentioning. Every O-6 and above that I have asked about this topic have said that essentially when they have the Boards there are 4 piles of PRFs... DPs BPZ, DPs, Ps IPZ, and then the Above PRFs that essentially are there to rest coffee on. If the AF is going to give every Wing CC or equivalent on Staff 1 BPZ DP that doesn't count against the IPZ DPs then why would they also not give them a DP APZ that doesn't count against the IPZ DPs that is their option whether they want to use it or not? Every time Board results come out you see the names of those who didn't make it and most of those names won't surprise anyone, but there is always that one or maybe even two folks that even the Wing CC is scratching their head surprised that Maj Snuffy didn't make the cut. I get that "timing is everything", but giving Wing CC's or those at Staff this option may be a way to keep some good leaders that if they PCS'd or got commissioned 3 months earlier or later would have made the cut.

BTW... both my buds mentioned above who were part of that 157 are working full time Res and Guard and are now O-5s. All boxes checked for their IPZ look on their PRFs (except Staff, although when the actual board met they were both at Staff), IP/EP types with competitive strats and both had the "Super P... If I had one more DP to give"... just to give some background.

Edited July 10, 2013 by Rusty Pipes

[Liquid]

You're a smart guy... Surely you know that words are shit - even on a forum of nothing but words. Acknowledge, Acknowledge, Acknowledge... Words - they may get you promoted, but they won't get you respect, nor will they fix any issues. You say that you can't fathom how to better acknowledge how ragged our force is...right after you acknowledge that our BS AAD requirement is bad policy and a waste of time. How about we acknowledge a tired and overworked force with a reprieve from the BS, and not another wordy acknowledgement? Novel idea, right?

The solution isn't that cosmic, but it somehow seems overly difficult for senior leadership to either grasp or embrace, not sure which. Stop wasting our time with extraneous nonsense when what we really want is to be dedicated to the mission. Actively de-emphasize the AAD at the CGO level. Tear up the SOS correspondence program (we're all supposed to go in res anyway, right?) And stop telling us we're over-manned when 80% of the Sq still has use/lose leave in August.

Easy dude. My point is that it is easy to acknowledge something so why are you asking for that? You think we don't know how busy and tired everyone is? If only we knew and acknowledged it everything would be ok? My point is that it takes more than ack to change. We need policy changes to drive priority changes to drive CGO behavior changes. There are some good policy change recommendations on this thread. You mentioned a few. Reprieve from bs is good. AAD and double tapping SOS are good things to hit. I already talked about eliminating mandatory PT, too many meetings, practice bleeding. The manning piece is tough. We have combat requirements, limited money and new manpower positions are almost impossible to come by.

Btw, if you take leave during CTO, you won't have use or lose. Guys like you on 1 to 1 dwell, 60-90 day rotations, get up to six weeks of CTO a year. A generous program for those who deploy a lot. No leave charged if you stay in the local area. Most have the opportunity to take leave during cto but don't, so the use or lose whining in August doesn't fly with me.

[Liquid]

Maybe Liquid can answer this question for me or maybe Herk...

Why is it that with our promotion system we have essentially limited ourselves to giving our officers only one shot at getting promoted? Yes, for O-5 and O-6 there is the possibility of getting promoted below the zone, but that is an approximate 1% chance. For everyone else you essentially have your IPZ look and that's it.

I have heard the anecdotal story of someone getting promoted APZ, but those are almost too rare to even consider mentioning. Every O-6 and above that I have asked about this topic have said that essentially when they have the Boards there are 4 piles of PRFs... DPs BPZ, DPs, Ps IPZ, and then the Above PRFs that essentially are there to rest coffee on. If the AF is going to give every Wing CC or equivalent on Staff 1 BPZ DP that doesn't count against the IPZ DPs then why would they also not give them a DP APZ that doesn't count against the IPZ DPs that is their option whether they want to use it or not? Every time Board results come out you see the names of those who didn't make it and most of those names won't surprise anyone, but there is always that one or maybe even two folks that even the Wing CC is scratching their head surprised that Maj Snuffy didn't make the cut. I get that "timing is everything", but giving Wing CC's or those at Staff this option may be a way to keep some good leaders that if they PCS'd or got commissioned 3 months earlier or later would have made the cut..

I guess you get one primary shot at promotion to manage the force levels. We are limited by law how many officers in different grades we have, so not everyone can move up. The board gives senior raters the opportunity to fix a past board mistake when the wrong person is passed over. They can give all of the their DPs to APZ eligibles if they want, their choice. I've given 4 DPs to APZ over the past few years and the board honored those recommendations by promoting them all APZ. Got one on this Lt Col board too. Had an APZ to major get sq cc and make O-6, so the option is there. The tough choice is that the DPs for APZ come out of IPZ eligibles, so you effectively give a P to an IPZ to give a DP to APZ. That is why some senior raters don't do it much, they rationalize that the APZ already had a shot and they want to maximize IPZ promotees, even if they are less qualified and deserving than the APZ. The good news is boards usually have a 100% promote rate for APZ with a DP, so senior raters know it is a good investment.

[NotADude]

Liquid,

Let me guess-you take leave on Saturdays and Sundays so you don't ever have use or lose...

smh

[Rusty Pipes]

That is why some senior raters don't do it much, they rationalize that the APZ already had a shot and they want to maximize IPZ promotees, even if they are less qualified and deserving than the APZ. The good news is boards usually have a 100% promote rate for APZ with a DP, so senior raters know it is a good investment.

So then why practice bleeding on APZ PRFs? If an APZ PRF with a P has a 0% promotion rate then why bother going through the motions and wasting everyone's time and money for zero results? Does this mean officers are only qualified as promotable leaders based on the instructions given to the particular board they meet?

I guess when the CSAF says he is looking for XYZ criteria for promotion he means he is only looking for those qualities in that particular year group... and even if that criteria changes 6 months later now making them more qualified than a good percentage of the next group they are basically told "sorry, thanks for playing... you had your chance!" Good luck keeping those guys motivated. Even worse... you give them a kick square in the junk by showing them the door after 15 yrs of service! And we wonder why there is a morale problem in the AF? You get three looks to compete for school, but just one for promotion... do we want to promote our best officers or not?

Edited July 10, 2013 by Rusty Pipes

[Liquid]

Liquid,

Let me guess-you take leave on Saturdays and Sundays so you don't ever have use or lose...

smh

Wow, strong first post. No, I take leave the normal way, a week at a time with the family. Hunting almost every October too. And usually a few weeks between assignments.

[Rusty Pipes]

I've given 4 DPs to APZ over the past few years and the board honored those recommendations by promoting them all APZ. Got one on this Lt Col board too.

Curious as to the circumstances in which this happened. I have a friend who was at the Pentagon and had 3 guys in the office and his boss somehow had 3 DPs to give (one guy was APZ and got picked up for O-5 with the DP). Maybe I haven't been in situations where it was an option, but I've never seen anyone APZ given a DP when there was an eligible IPZ (at a Wing or on Staff). In your cases did you have multiple IPZ candidates (I'm not talking Article 15 or DUI types) that you could have given the DP to and chose the APZ guy for it?

[TheInner]

Capt to Major

1. Job performance (AC, IP, EP, WIC, AMU OIC, FLT CC, etc)

2. Leading Airmen both in garrison and deployed

3. Combat deployments, deployed mission commander

4. SOS

5. Additional duties: exec, safety, training, current ops & scheduling, plans, etc. This provides us insight into which officers can master their primary skill set and also handle increased responsibility.

6. Optional: Masters Degree

Liquid, thanks for the insight and honesty. One of the ideas I would be interested in hearing a senior leaders thoughts on are shifting the IDE selection to the right. This idea was previously mentioned by another poster, so certainly not trying to claim it but I think it is a valid point, especially with the shifting of the O-4 board to the left compared to “back in the day.” Even if a person is picked up on their first look, it still provides a couple of years between PRF being written and their 3849 being written. These couple of years could alleviate some of the pressure to squeeze in all of the items the leadership values into a relatively short timeframe, which for all intents and purposes make or break a career. I would argue that most people consider making O-5 and keeping relevant enough to have a say in their assignments is the recipe for a solid career. However, that is becoming more and more difficult and that has shifted the focus on “checking the boxes” further to the left. By shifting school selection to the right, you allow for a couple of more years to accomplish the “potential leader indicators” like AADs and actual job performance, not just duty titles. At some point a quality cut has to be made, but looking at this from a bottom-up perspective I believe the “masses” would view this as a step in the right direction to provide a little more mission focus earlier in a career and allow the school cut to be based on a little more meat. The values that make a good major select shouldn’t change, but the focus seems to have shifted so much towards the school selection that people are being asked to prove too much before the board. This has effects on the individual because they choose to prioritize AADs and PME because it is 100% in their control and it affects the leadership who have to push guys into IPUGs or Flt/CC jobs before they are ready. All of that combined can crush morale which will ultimately affect the performance of the squadron as a whole, and not just for the younger crowd. I would venture a guess that the IDE selects wouldn’t shift much if the change is made but if it allows for a transition back to a time when getting good in the jet was step one and then proving potential as an officer/leader was step two, it could mean a lot for the morale/performance of the force. Thoughts?

[Liquid]

So then why practice bleeding on APZ PRFs? If an APZ PRF with a P has a 0% promotion rate then why bother going through the motions and wasting everyone's time and money for zero results? Does this mean officers are only qualified as promotable leaders based on the instructions given to the particular board they meet?

I guess when the CSAF says he is looking for XYZ criteria for promotion he means he is only looking for those qualities in that particular year group... and even if that criteria changes 6 months later now making them more qualified than a good percentage of the next group they are basically told "sorry, thanks for playing... you had your chance!" Good luck keeping those guys motivated. Even worse... you give them a kick square in the junk by showing them the door after 15 yrs of service! And we wonder why there is a morale problem in the AF? You get three looks to compete for school, but just one for promotion... do we want to promote our best officers or not?

So are you upset that the bottom 10-15% passed over to Maj and Lt Col are the wrong people, or that anyone is passed over and kicked in the junk? How would you identify the 10-15% that need to be passed over to meet congressionally mandated grade limits? Are you saying that our best are being passed over?

Boards rack and stack every record, based on the documents in the record. Breadth, depth, stratification, distinction, combat experience and deployments are valued. Recommendations from senior raters and supervisors are weighted heavily. The gray zone records are evaluated several a times to make sure the red line is drawn in the best place. It is hard to distinguish clear differences a few places up and down, but there is a clear difference between the gray zone and the top 20% (best officers). Many say the records don't match the people (square fillers, lousy Flt CCs, only got the good job because of early AAD completion, ducked TDYs and deployments, senior raters value the wrong things, etc). But the board can only evaluate promotion potential based on what the supervisors and senior raters say. I hear you, the lack of early AAD and PME may hurt you at the sq, group and wing strats, jobs and pushes, but the last major board was lenient on lack of AAD.

Several MAJCOMs will leave the PRF blank for multiple APZ after continuation. Saves some time at the board, but not much. BPZ and APZ with a DP are long shots that board members don't usually spend much time on. For BPZ there is a yes no vote first to cull the thousands of records into hundreds. Most Ps fall out there.

Sorry for the choppy wording. I'm dealing with movers wrecking my stuff.

[Herk Driver]

Curious as to the circumstances in which this happened. I have a friend who was at the Pentagon and had 3 guys in the office and his boss somehow had 3 DPs to give (one guy was APZ and got picked up for O-5 with the DP). Maybe I haven't been in situations where it was an option, but I've never seen anyone APZ given a DP when there was an eligible IPZ (at a Wing or on Staff). In your cases did you have multiple IPZ candidates (I'm not talking Article 15 or DUI types) that you could have given the DP to and chose the APZ guy for it?

Each SR gets a set number of DPs for BTZ and a set number for IPZ/APZ (combined). Any DP given to an APZ comes out of hide. Seen it happen one time with a guy that was just flat out better qualified than the next IPZ guy. The APZ guy got picked up...he was passed over multiple times.

I cannot speak as to why the one look IPZ...I will say that when the BTZ went away for O-4, I think that most people welcomed the relief that it brought from the same issues that you have discussed in this forum (especially when coupled with the move to drive down pin-on times to O-4 from around 12 years to 9.5-10 years). I think that what senior leaders missed is that when you push the O-4 board to that pin-on time and then you bring back the requirement for the AAD that you push back when a guy has to start the AAD and create the second and third order effects that have been discussed in this thread.

On another note, I know that one SR has used 942 data before when allocating his DPs. Not sure how you quantify the same type of job performance for those MSG and other non-ops types when doing so.

[Liquid]

Liquid, thanks for the insight and honesty. One of the ideas I would be interested in hearing a senior leaders thoughts on are shifting the IDE selection to the right. This idea was previously mentioned by another poster, so certainly not trying to claim it but I think it is a valid point, especially with the shifting of the O-4 board to the left compared to “back in the day.” Even if a person is picked up on their first look, it still provides a couple of years between PRF being written and their 3849 being written. These couple of years could alleviate some of the pressure to squeeze in all of the items the leadership values into a relatively short timeframe, which for all intents and purposes make or break a career. I would argue that most people consider making O-5 and keeping relevant enough to have a say in their assignments is the recipe for a solid career. However, that is becoming more and more difficult and that has shifted the focus on “checking the boxes” further to the left. By shifting school selection to the right, you allow for a couple of more years to accomplish the “potential leader indicators” like AADs and actual job performance, not just duty titles. At some point a quality cut has to be made, but looking at this from a bottom-up perspective I believe the “masses” would view this as a step in the right direction to provide a little more mission focus earlier in a career and allow the school cut to be based on a little more meat. The values that make a good major select shouldn’t change, but the focus seems to have shifted so much towards the school selection that people are being asked to prove too much before the board. This has effects on the individual because they choose to prioritize AADs and PME because it is 100% in their control and it affects the leadership who have to push guys into IPUGs or Flt/CC jobs before they are ready. All of that combined can crush morale which will ultimately affect the performance of the squadron as a whole, and not just for the younger crowd. I would venture a guess that the IDE selects wouldn’t shift much if the change is made but if it allows for a transition back to a time when getting good in the jet was step one and then proving potential as an officer/leader was step two, it could mean a lot for the morale/performance of the force. Thoughts?

I agree with what you propose here and before this year, it was mostly last look or second look candidates and selects that went to IDE, for the reasons you hit on. Now we are only sending selects, even some first look with bad timing, no AAD/PME. We got one candidate at the last DT. Word is it will be that way for a few years. We need more IDE seats, but they don't make it above the cut line. That is not good news and hopefully it will change.

[Rusty Pipes]

So are you upset that the bottom 10-15% passed over to Maj and Lt Col are the wrong people, or that anyone is passed over and kicked in the junk? How would you identify the 10-15% that need to be passed over to meet congressionally mandated grade limits? Are you saying that our best are being passed over?

Not at all... what I'm saying is that while the overall Board process looks at the whole record, #4-7 of the list you posted from the CSAF are Y/N questions. So when Maj Snuffy has his PRF written at Shaw AFB and then immediately PCSs to TRANSCOM/CENTCOM/PACOM the "points" given to him for Staff credit are zero when in reality he "checked the box" for what the CSAF says is his #4 on his list. With the current system he is just SOL apparently because since he is APZ on the next round in reality his PRF isn't really even being looked at, but if you use whatever standard point system the board is using his "score" would now be well above the cut off line for that APZ Board (assuming he was AAD/PME complete). Unless the several O-6s and GOs that I have talked to who sat on these Boards have all lied to me, they said that an APZ with a P is not something they spent time on and they are not in the same pile as the IPZ PRFs with a P... so essentially it doesn't matter what they would "score" at that Board, they aren't realistically even being considered. Am I wrong?

Edited July 10, 2013 by Rusty Pipes

[Liquid]

Curious as to the circumstances in which this happened. I have a friend who was at the Pentagon and had 3 guys in the office and his boss somehow had 3 DPs to give (one guy was APZ and got picked up for O-5 with the DP). Maybe I haven't been in situations where it was an option, but I've never seen anyone APZ given a DP when there was an eligible IPZ (at a Wing or on Staff). In your cases did you have multiple IPZ candidates (I'm not talking Article 15 or DUI types) that you could have given the DP to and chose the APZ guy for it?

Yes, I had 4 I/APZ DPs to give and I gave an APZ a DP and an IPZ a P. I went with who was more deserving and had a better record and considered the fact the APZ should have been promoted last time.

[Liquid]

Not at all... what I'm saying is that while the overall Board process looks at the whole record, #4-7 of the list you posted from the CSAF are Y/N questions. So when Maj Snuffy has his PRF written at Shaw AFB and then immediately PCSs to TRANSCOM/CENTCOM/PACOM the "points" given to him for Staff credit are zero when in reality he "checked the box" for what the CSAF says is his #4 on his list. With the current system he is just SOL apparently because since he is APZ on the next round in reality his PRF isn't really even being looked at, but if you use whatever standard point system the board is using his "score" would now be well above the cut off line. Unless the several O-6s and GOs that I have talked to who sat on these Boards have all lied to me, they said that an APZ with a P is not something they spent time on.

Rusty, in my experience the board doesn't spend much time on APZs with a P. The stats show they don't get picked up either. I wouldn't say 4-7 are y/n, but experiences we value with differing levels depending on how well they were done. Aced combat mission command, DG SOS, etc. The lists I posted are not the CSAF's as far as I know, but recommendations we made. Not saying the HAF or the boards value them in that order, but they should.

[Rusty Pipes]

Rusty, in my experience the board doesn't spend much time on APZs with a P. The stats show they don't get picked up either.

Ummm... yeah I'd say that a 0% selection rate for all APZ with a P for the last several O-4/O-5 Boards are a pretty good indication of that!

I wouldn't say 4-7 are y/n, but experiences we value with differing levels depending on how well they were done.

OK...

4. Joint job - GCC, OSD, JS, Inter-agency... Yes (if so, where?) or No

5. HQs job- HAF, MAJCOM... Yes (if so, where?) or No

6. IDE either in-residence or correspondence... Yes (which one?) or No

7. Masters degree... Yes or No (he's a dirtbag... DNP)

Better? Maj Snuffy had no Staff when his PRF was written at Shaw 6 months ago so got zero credit for #4-5... he now works for Adm Jenkins or SES Wilson at TRANSCOM on their Staff in an O-5 billet, but the 4 Star has to give all his DPs to his School Grads IPZ (understandable). If the Board actually scored his PRF he would be well above the line, but since he is an APZ with a P they don't waste their time even though by their own scoring criteria he is clearly above many they do select for promotion. How does this make sense?

This is a serious question... with the Board criteria changing every year why does a 3 year window for School work and not for promotion? Congress mandates how many officers we are allowed to have in each rank, but it doesn't mandate that we need to have X amount of rank per year group, right? I get it that Maj Snuffy isn't the typical case, but I think we miss out on a lot of good talent by the way we do things. When the young guy sitting on the fence with his ADSC coming up looks at how Maj Snuffy is treated it makes their "on the fence" decision pretty easy if they have options.

Edited July 10, 2013 by Rusty Pipes

[BitteEinBit]

Rusty, in my experience the board doesn't spend much time on APZs with a P. The stats show they don't get picked up either. .

Do you think one has something to do with the other? I'm a gambling man, and I would wager that if you don't spend much time on APZs with a P, the resulting stats would indicate they don't get picked up much either....thats just me though.

Liquid, I already understand that by law, we can't promote everyone. There has been (in past boards) an 85% promotion opportunity for Lt Cols. Even if 100% of those eligible were shit hot, we'd still have to pass over 15% shit hot officers...we get it. We also get that the top 20% really do stand out on boards. But do you really think there is a distinction between the guy who falls in the bottom 15% range and that 16% guy who makes the cut? I know, that is the gray area and I think that is where we lose some of those quality officers because of the asinine criteria our SRs are using WRT rack and stack.

I would say the bottom 50% of records (minus the bottom 5%-10%) look pretty much the same...so this is where these stupid rules regarding AAD completion dates are becoming a factor WRT the gray area. I think that is where the AF is getting it wrong, and it starts with the SRs. When an SR rack and stacks those who end up competing in the gray area based on AAD completion/completion date, then the system is skewed. Yes, it is happening...I witnessed it first hand. I may agree that a small percentage of those who wait until the last minute to complete AAD/PME may really be slackers in your bottom 15% (their records would show it though), but to assume that 100% of those who finish AAD/IDE before they pin on Major are somehow great leaders is absolutely the wrong assumption...and THAT is how those competing in the gray area are being rack and stacked.

So yes, there are some outstanding bubbas in that "bottom 15%" that don't really belong there but are put there because they were a little more mission focused than the one guy above him who dodged deployments and the flying schedule to finish his AAD/PME as early as possible. I guarantee you everyone on this board knows at least one of those guys who got promoted on last year's O-5 board. Not everyone has the same amount of free time...especially when you are actually leading on the line instead of in that cushy 0800-1630 staff jobs I hear exist.

So, to grade someone's leadership potential based on WHEN an AAD was completed is completely asinine. That is part of the problem with your gray area. I've seen the rack and stack process in action...the only difference between my view and the WG/CCs view was I actually knew the people he was stacking higher because of AAD completion/completion dates. And I know, at least by my criteria, they weren't leadership material. They were the ones who race for the door at 1635 (after retreat and national anthem so they won't thave to stand at attention) to get home before the boss comes down to the office for a line of sight tasker at 1645...yes, the same guys who after they were Lt Col selects basically said (to junior officers none the less) "Now if I can just skate to 20 without a 365, life will be good." How can we take those guys seriously?! But who am I to determine leadership potential? Just my personal observation.

Yeah, regarding the top 50%, the AIr Force does get it right MOST of the time. (not sarcasm)

BT

[TreeA10]

You could pick this thread up and drop it in the mid-90s and it would fit.

[Liquid]

Rusty, I wouldn't say the board criteria changes every year. The instructions to the board, from SECAF, may change, but even those directions (value time in Afghanistan, or value RPA experience, or value acquisition experience, etc) are hard to enforce because each board member scores the records the way they think they should be scored. The particular biases of a particular 5-6 person panel has some variance, but I'm not sure giving the same person three different IPZ looks at promotion will solve anything. We do that now with APZ eligibility. If TRANSCOM wanted to promote Snuffy, they could give him a DP and make it happen. That effectively gives you multiple shots at promotion. Reality is, most APZ records are not as deserving as the last DP IPZ record. It is the top half argument. Top half gets DPs. Bottom 10-15% get passed over. Usually a difference between the records.

[Rusty Pipes]

The particular biases of a particular 5-6 person panel has some variance, but I'm not sure giving the same person three different IPZ looks at promotion will solve anything. We do that now with APZ eligibility. If TRANSCOM wanted to promote Snuffy, they could give him a DP and make it happen. That effectively gives you multiple shots at promotion. Reality is, most APZ records are not as deserving as the last DP IPZ record. It is the top half argument. Top half gets DPs. Bottom 10-15% get passed over. Usually a difference between the records.

You are completely missing my point... If Maj Snuffy didn't get a DP on his IPZ he probably won't get one APZ. But if he doesn't get a DP APZ then you aren't even looking at it! I am saying that in reality the APZ guys aren't even being allowed to compete with the IPZ Ps even though with the Board's scoring process they could possibly well excede the cut.

[Liquid]

Do you think one has something to do with the other? I'm a gambling man, and I would wager that if you don't spend much time on APZs with a P, the resulting stats would indicate they don't get picked up much either....thats just me though.

Liquid, I already understand that by law, we can't promote everyone. There has been (in past boards) an 85% promotion opportunity for Lt Cols. Even if 100% of those eligible were shit hot, we'd still have to pass over 15% shit hot officers...we get it. We also get that the top 20% really do stand out on boards. But do you really think there is a distinction between the guy who falls in the bottom 15% range and that 16% guy who makes the cut? I know, that is the gray area and I think that is where we lose some of those quality officers because of the asinine criteria our SRs are using WRT rack and stack.

I would say the bottom 50% of records (minus the bottom 5%-10%) look pretty much the same...so this is where these stupid rules regarding AAD completion dates are becoming a factor WRT the gray area. I think that is where the AF is getting it wrong, and it starts with the SRs. When an SR rack and stacks those who end up competing in the gray area based on AAD completion/completion date, then the system is skewed. Yes, it is happening...I witnessed it first hand. I may agree that a small percentage of those who wait until the last minute to complete AAD/PME may really be slackers in your bottom 15% (their records would show it though), but to assume that 100% of those who finish AAD/IDE before they pin on Major are somehow great leaders is absolutely the wrong assumption...and THAT is how those competing in the gray area are being rack and stacked.

So yes, there are some outstanding bubbas in that "bottom 15%" that don't really belong there but are put there because they were a little more mission focused than the one guy above him who dodged deployments and the flying schedule to finish his AAD/PME as early as possible. I guarantee you everyone on this board knows at least one of those guys who got promoted on last year's O-5 board. Not everyone has the same amount of free time...especially when you are actually leading on the line instead of in that cushy 0800-1630 staff jobs I hear exist.

So, to grade someone's leadership potential based on WHEN an AAD was completed is completely asinine. That is part of the problem with your gray area. I've seen the rack and stack process in action...the only difference between my view and the WG/CCs view was I actually knew the people he was stacking higher because of AAD completion/completion dates. And I know, at least by my criteria, they weren't leadership material. They were the ones who race for the door at 1635 (after retreat and national anthem so they won't thave to stand at attention) to get home before the boss comes down to the office for a line of sight tasker at 1645...yes, the same guys who after they were Lt Col selects basically said (to junior officers none the less) "Now if I can just skate to 20 without a 365, life will be good." How can we take those guys seriously?! But who am I to determine leadership potential? Just my personal observation.

Yeah, regarding the top 50%, the AIr Force does get it right MOST of the time. (not sarcasm)

BT

BT,

I agree with this. One of the problems is that we are not honest in our feedback and performance reports. OPRs are all firewalls, with the same "good" bullets that show job performance, impact, leadership, breadth, etc. It is really hard to read 10 OPRs and determine who is the skater and who is the leader. It shouldn't be. We use some "code", strength of push lines, command pushes for strong Capts, MAJCOM job pushes for low performers, use the word "potential" and you are saying bottom 10%. I've had good success helping the board see through an average record into my real assessment of the officer's limited promotion potential with weak push lines and DNPs. The board sees them and understands the recommendation. But the key is sq CCs, group CCs and SRs need to use the right criteria to make good recommendations to the board, not ones based on stupid criteria like how soon you did PME/AAD. Supervisors, Flt CCs and sq CCs need to call out the skaters that duck out early, avoid deployments, bust ops limits, etc.

Here is some advice: give your commanders direct feedback when you see them make bad decisions and bad assessments of leadership ability. Don't be afraid to get a little dirty or bloody when arguing for the right thing.

You are completely missing my point... If Maj Snuffy didn't get a DP on his IPZ he probably won't get one APZ. But if he doesn't get a DP APZ then you aren't even looking at it! I am saying that in reality the APZ guys aren't even being allowed to compete with the IPZ Ps even though with the Board's scoring process they could possibly well excede the cut.

I get your point, but why would the board kick save a passed over dude when his senior rater says another dude IPZ is more worthy? You would pass over many more IPZ if you started promoting APZ Ps. We all know Ps are at risk of being passed over. DPs help make sure the top half is right. The gray area gets tough and APZ don't do well there with a P.

Not saying it is right, but not sure how to fix what you are concerned about.

[Rusty Pipes]

BTW, it was just released today that the FAA will be requiring Commercial Pilots to have 1500 hrs and an ATP... but military pilots only need 750 hrs. Not good for the Embry Riddle kid about to graduate, but with the 65 yr old crowd starting to retire at the Majors and this new ATP requirement it looks like the military pilot hitting his ADSC might have some considerable options when weighing whether to study for his ATP or his AAD.

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-10/pilot-qualifications-raised-by-u-s-faa-to-improve-safety.html

[Vetter]

Today's Sr Leadership are the former CGOs that thrived during the Clinton Era.