sounds like an extreme case.

I'm sure it is, but yes, it did happen. And clearly not for a lack of deployments, as well as I assume awards/strats/etc. were good (he did get into WIC). The latter is an assumption, but I've never heard of/seen a total "slug" go to WIC, have you? Either way, the point is shit is out of control when it comes to using good judgement/metrics to promote the right people. The AF values bullshit and scoffs actual indicators of good officership and future job/leadership potential.

Let DTs select for promotion and development opportunities. AF/A1 can just push down how many of each AFSC we need.

This.

O-5 board turned on (sts) for March 2014.

You read it on BODN first.

It was off? Or did you mean O-4?

I've seen some dooseys man....some really stupid/embarrassing/shameful stuff.

Go with story.

O-5 board turned on (sts) for March 2014.

You read it on BODN first.

Say source? Confirm O-5 board?

It was off? Or did you mean O-4?

People (majs) here (C-NAF staff) have been stressing since no CY14 promotion board calendar has been published--meaning they're working PCS & OPR dates blind, and that can have some effect on the ol' PRF.

Yeah. ....littering and??? ....littering and???

Smokin' the reefer...yeah, who knows, you could be completely right. Either way, train left the tracks a long time ago.

I would just like to point out that this thread is on page 69. That is all.

I would just like to point out that this thread is on page 69. That is all.

What does that have to do with anything? It is just a number....

Actually, it's the 2nd greatest number of all time due to its many uses. The greatest number of all time, of course, is #1. This is especially true when speaking of yourself.

No good RUMINT on the O-4 still then huh?

No good RUMINT on the O-4 still then huh?

I know what gives? It's October now - the schedule's almost always out by late September... Where are the execs on this board? Somebody has to have seen it....

zb

I know what gives? It's October now - the schedule's almost always out by late September... Where are the execs on this board? Somebody has to have seen it....

zb

Yea, I had the same thought so I called up AMC A1 shop and asked for an update. Apparently the schedule is hung up at Air Staff...no guess as to when it'll be released.

My Wing is working on the idea that the first few boards of the year will be the same as 2013 which was pretty much the same as 2012...so there's that...I got nothing for the '05 kids who have been in limbo for going on a year + now.

Good luck!

I got nothing for the '05 kids who have been in limbo for going on a year + now.

;

They fixed the glitch.

Assuming both strats were given to 1Lt's, which would be a better OPR strat from a secondary rater (Squadron CC, in this case):

#1/6 Lts

#2/15 CGOs

I recently received an OPR with the #2/15 strat, while another Lt received the #1/6 strat, literally less than a month later. I have always been under the impression (mainly from lurking here at BODN) that a #1 strat was better, no matter what the "/XX" was, but my primary rater said that the #2 was better, because it was out of a larger pool.

I realize trying to split hairs between the two may be trivial. It's not my intent to quibble about OPR strats... I'm simply trying to figure out the super-secret code used in OPR-writing.

Does it even make sense to give those ratings to two different Lts? If one guy is the "#1 Lt," and another Lt is the "#2 CGO," wouldn't logic tell you the first guy is the #1 CGO?

2/15 is better. ....based on math and peer-group.

A) From my experience, SR's look for percentages. Many of them actually have calculators in front of them at the MLR/CSB. 1/6 is top 16.6%. 2/15 is top 13.3%.

Everyone thinks a #1 is sexy......it is, sometimes, but do the math. For example, #1/3 means you're top 33%. That's not good. #15/80 means you're top ~19%. Better. ....and shows that you excel out of a much larger pool of peers.

You can tell when raters and SR's are #1-happy and it's lame......lots of:

--"#1/XX as ...<quarterly award winner>" (....awards are good...but trying to use it as a pseudo-strat is lame)

--"#1/2 flight commanders." (sweet....top 50%)

--"#1/6 4-ship flight leads." (...a "qualified strat"....i.e. can only compare it against other '4-ship flight leads')

Another consideration is who gave the strat.....I've seen raters put "#1/4 CGOs (Flt/CC)" but omit "#4/55 CGOs (Gp/CC)" on a PRF because the latter wasn't a "#1. Stupid.

The board sees through all that shit.

B) As a Lt, it's much stronger to be strated against "CGOs" than "Lts." "CGOs" encompass both Lts and Capts so you're being deliberately compared (favorably, in this case) with guys performing at the next higher rank.

Not at all. It's your record. Strats are a big deal. .....You know how close a lot of records look to one another? ...2/15 CGOs from a Sq/CC as a Lt is good and you never know what tiny difference might set you apart later down the road.

No, not at all. The #1 CGO is probably a Capt.

I get that you're thinking the two strat groups have to overlap. Not necessarily. .....welcome to the game.

- If you knew that one officer had been strated #1/6 Lts and another had been strated #2/15 CGOs, then yes, logic wold tell you that the 1st officer was #1/15 CGOs. However, the audience of your OPR won't have that info, so they would probably assume that the #1 CGO is a captain...

- "#1/6 Lts" is arguably better than "#2/15 CGOs", because you are being strated against your peers, rather than a group that includes non-peers. #2/15 CGOs could include a captain that has been passed over for major.

- A more relevant question may be, "which is better, #2/6 Lts or #2/15 CGOs?" If your leadership thinks the other Lt is #1 and your are #2 their choices are to strat you against Lts or CGOs. In this case, they may decide to go with the larger denominator.

Is there a blow-hard with a PhD in charge of curriculum development? Sorry, no IDE credit.

Sadly that is probably true.

That said, I'd be curious to know what percentage of patches are not IDE-selects.

This is the wrong way of thinking of it. Increasing the competency of the office corps should be the intent of developmental education, not identifying which officers were selected.

Edited October 13, 201312 yr by albertschu

According to your logic, no strat would be be a good one unless it specifically qualified "#1/25 non-passed over Capts," or something to that effect.

Nice! That would be a good strat.

What do you call a Major select?

Captain

What do you call a Captain that's been passed over?

Captain

What do you call a Major select?

Captain

What do you call a Captain that's been passed over?

Captain

Some bases have OPRs close out with Maj sel strats since the time of 'selection' was pushing two years to time of 'pin-on'. Something like "Wg's #1/40 Maj sels"

I would suggest that #1/40 FGOs as a Maj is a good strat as that implies that you're competing against and performing better than other Lt Cols (Sq/CCs excluded) & possible non-command Cols.

Some bases have OPRs close out with Maj sel strats since the time of 'selection' was pushing two years to time of 'pin-on'. Something like "Wg's #1/40 Maj sels"

I would suggest that #1/40 FGOs as a Maj is a good strat as that implies that you're competing against and performing better than other Lt Cols (Sq/CCs excluded) & possible non-command Cols.

Saw this at my old base. Several OPRs late to the Group/Wing/AFPC waiting on board results.

For those in the 2005 year group, the milestones for the 2014 LAF Majors Board are now posted on myPers:

https://gum-crm.csd.disa.mil/app/categories/p/8,9/c/656

shows a board date of 1 December 2014

They also set the O-5 board for 3 Mar 14.

They also set the O-5 board for 3 Mar 14.

It seems as if combat time/hours are becoming more important on promotion boards. A few PRFs on the last board had XXXX combat hours/top 10% combat hours in ACC/AFSOC etc.. where do they get information wrt where someone stands compared to the rest of the AF for combat hours to write a bullet like that?

It seems as if combat time/hours are becoming more important on promotion boards. A few PRFs on the last board had XXXX combat hours/top 10% combat hours in ACC/AFSOC etc.. where do they get information wrt where someone stands compared to the rest of the AF for combat hours to write a bullet like that?

There's a way to look at your total hours and total combat hours in comparison to every aviator in the Air Force. Seen it myself...not sure if it's a tool on portal or what. Gotta ask the guy who showed me.

Good to hear that metrics related to, ya know, flying and combat are mattering more!

Edited November 1, 201312 yr by nsplayr