Promotion and PRF Information

[DFRESH]

This has probably been posted already:

http://byothermeans.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/02/08/an_air_force_officer_the_military_doesnt_want_to_retain_talent_or_at_least_that_s_t

Let's go ahead and admit it. The military stifles talent -- in fact, it seems almostdesigned to drive out talent. No rational actor would choose to play this game. Before you label me as bitter or disloyal, consider the following flaws endemic to our system. What I offer are the perceptions that junior officers have of the bureaucracy they're trying to navigate. Put yourself in their shoes. Ask yourself what your chances of staying in would be, once your four-to-five-year commitment was up. Caveat emptor: These are the observations of a top performing mid-career Air Force officer across four bases, five skill communities, and ten years, based on the beliefs observed among the company grade officers around him.

- The promotion system offers no opportunity to excel or advance. As an officer, the first truly competitive promotion (where you can get promoted ahead of your peer group) is at your 15th year. Fifteen years. Before that you can only disqualify yourself; you can miss a critical gate and fall behind the rest of your peer group.

- The retirement system discourages risk taking. It's an all-or-nothing, up-or-out system. If you fall behind your peer group, you will get passed over for promotion. Getting passed over makes it nearly impossible to remain in the force long enough to draw retirement. Retirement is only paid upon reaching 20 years; if you serve fewer than 20, you get nothing. Risks can only hurt you.

- The assignment system directs assignments based on the need for an officer of a particular career code (i.e., "Security Forces") and rank (i.e., "Major") in a location. It makes no attempt to catalog their skills, intentionally develop them, or track officers towards experiences they will need for higher command. Most officers don't even talk to their assignment team before being handed an assignment. Refusing any assignment means you must resign within seven days.

- Deployments, remote tours, hardship tours, and thankless staff jobs are frequently cited as ways to "pull ahead" of the pack. Successful senior leaders emphasize their divorces and flaunt how many years they've been away from their families. Rewards appear to be aligned with willingness to sacrifice work/life balance; no rational organization defines success by how much they can give up.

- Officer performance management offers no transparency; officers are not given real, honest, or timely feedback. Only the top 25% are ever quantified and stratified ("My #1 of 25 Captains!") in performance reports. The rest are left to assume they're doing ok; that they're somewhere just below that top 25%. Lacking stratification, reports are written as if each officer is fantastic. Grade inflation leads to ego inflation which encourages both complacency and mediocrity.

- Officer performance reports offer no objective measures of success or mission accomplishment. Absent objective measures, officers are left with subjective measures -- specifically, how much their bosses like them compared to their peers. When promotion and stratification depend on your boss' regard for you, a system creates perverse incentives toward politicking, backstabbing, and whitewashing your record. This system should naturally select towards the selfish and power-hungry.

- Promotion boards appear arbitrary and capricious. The Air Force freely admits that each officer's paper records get fewer than 30 seconds of review when being scored for promotion. Given the lack of stratification on most officers' records and the grade inflation for lack of objective criteria, most officers can only guess at what might be missing. The board presents no feedback to the officers being considered for promotion.

- The career field structure creates sub-competitions which do not select the best available talent for senior leadership. Some career fields top out at Major, meaning those career fields are effectively ineligible for senior leadership. Others are disproportionately selected because of cultural bias (e.g., fighter pilots) despite being relatively less equipped to manage large organizations. Note that your career field is selected for you, after you've agreed to commission, and is exceptionally difficult to change.

- Promotion is a one-way street -- officers cannot be demoted and then promoted again -- so one mistake (sometimes one bad performance report) can be a career killer. Negative feedback will only occur when someone is already on the way out -- this pattern encourages passive aggressive leadership. Officers will not be afforded a chance to learn from their mistakes or grow.

- There are no established success criteria for reaching senior leadership; officers are left to infer the right career path from anecdotes, most of which are not positive. Since generals are most exposed to promising and like-minded colonels within their career field, the flag officer ranks appear to be primarily driven by nepotism and politics.

- The decision structure is exceptionally vertical, resulting in a top-down economy of ideas even though the information resides at the bottom. Important decisions must go through multiple levels of commanders, each time being "fixed" by officers with less knowledge of the problem. Much of an officer's time (and career) are spent simplifying complex problems to be presented to a flag officer who has very little time to understand them. New ideas and initiatives are generally unwelcome, and especially from the junior ranks.

Why would a bright and enterprising young officer want to compete in this Air Force? Is there a sense of efficacy? Can they expect to manage their growth, develop their skills, or guide their own career? What young strategic thinker would choose this life? What senior leader would design this system?

The key issues in retaining top talent, at least for the Air Force, revolve around transparency, efficacy, and the incentive structure. Most of these rules are self-imposed. This is the culture we've ossified into. If we want to keep our top talent as we downsize and pivot to newer and more complex warfighting domains (e.g., drones, cyber) we have to fix this now.

[Ram]

This has probably been posted already:

http://byothermeans...._least_that_s_t

Most of those bullets above are identified gaps in "the system" of promotion/recognition that SHOULD be filled/countered with good leadership at the Flt/CC and Sq/CC level.

[BitteEinBit]

This has probably been posted already:

http://byothermeans...._least_that_s_t

- Deployments, remote tours, hardship tours, and thankless staff jobs are frequently cited as ways to "pull ahead" of the pack. Successful senior leaders emphasize their divorces and flaunt how many years they've been away from their families. Rewards appear to be aligned with willingness to sacrifice work/life balance; no rational organization defines success by how much they can give up

This is the only bullet I disagree with. I think it is actually the opposite. Seems like the ones who take these deployments/hardships because the mission dictates it are the ones most often being left behind. I've seen far too many "senior leaders" with less total flying hours after 15 years of "flying" than a some FAIPs after their first tour. I've seen deployed commanders(s..plural) (16+ years of service) who were on their first, yes FIRST deployment in the Herk since OEF/OIF. I can't even begin to think about how that could happen...but I know the answer in their cases. The secret to success in this Air Force is take care of yourself first...at least until the rules change. The AF doesn't care about how many flying hours or deployments you have under your belt...only that you check your boxes. Until that changes, these gaps will stay gaps in "the system." We keep feeding it, so that is how it will stay...for now.

Most of those bullets above are identified gaps in "the system" of promotion/recognition that SHOULD be filled/countered with good leadership at the Flt/CC and Sq/CC level.

Ram, I agree with you here. These are issues GOs can't, and quite frankly shouldn't, worry about at their level. This is a GP/CC and below leadership issue. The problem is, our leadership is too worried about self preservation (see my comment above) to fix any of these problems. These "problems" just happen to be how one gets ahead in this Air Force...so we groom our future leaders this way...all to grow up to groom other future leaders this way. The Air Force forces us to do it...or you get sent home with nothing to show in the end.

Yes, FLT/CCs and SQ/CCs should be grooming our young officers..yes, even the slugs. Instead, we just "evaluate" those young officers based on how fast they check boxes and "what projects they've done for ME lately." In an organization with good, effective leadership, you shouldn't have any "slugs" in your unit because you should have already identified them, "coached" them on how they can do better, and watch them excel along with your organization. If they don't excel, you give them honest feedback and let them go. That is what leadership should be all about. We just don't have much of that kind of leadership at those levels anymore in today's "take care of yourself" culture. That is why these "gaps" still exist.

[Jaded]

It's just a bad system. Just because some people can make it work despite the system doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed.

Do you think it's easier to find more awesome squadron commanders or to just fix the broken system?

[Dupe]

This is the only bullet I disagree with. I think it is actually the opposite. .

I suspect the author was not rated: Within the MX, CE, or Contracting world, those with the most deployments and highest alimony payments are the "winners."

[BitteEinBit]

It's just a bad system. Just because some people can make it work despite the system doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed.

Do you think it's easier to find more awesome squadron commanders or to just fix the broken system?

Jaded, I absolutely think it needs to be changed, but I think it is less the fact what we don't have awesome SQ/CCs and more the culture that we have created so deeply, that it covers every active year group currently in the Air Force. Our youngest officers are already thinking this way and I'm sorry, but it does not help the organization to have 90% of its people focusing mainly on doing things that will get them promoted. We need people focused on making the organization better...and in theory, the promotions should come.

We are in the mess we're in now because for too long we've been making decisions with the assumption that we have unlimited money. Now we have to make tough decisions because of budget constraints, and our leadership doesn't know what the fuck to do. Their solutions to problems have been "throw money at it" instead of fixing the root causes. Now there is no more money to throw at the problems. It is time to fix them.

It is going to take time to change the mindset. Upper management needs to trust their SQ/CCs to make the right calls on leadership potential and not just tie it to dudes who have AAS/PME completed. SQ/CCs are reluctant to support a sharp dude who doesn't have his/her boxes checked because they know their O-6 above them is going to not only override them, but then question their judgement. So we just do what makes the boss happy. WG/CCs are literally putting PRFs in separate piles (PME complete, AAD complete) without even looking at them. This is a sad reality. Leadership means knowing your people...and we are so strung up on e-everything, that we have resorted to e-commander's calls. Back to the basics. Maybe an E-mail For Life down day is what we needed to get MFs out of the office and down the hall for once. Fucking LEAD!

I suspect the author was not rated: Within the MX, CE, or Contracting world, those with the most deployments and highest alimony payments are the "winners."

Dupe, good point. I also got the impression he/she was not rated, but I didn't know how they identified their "winners." I stand corrected.. I guess in certain AFSCs the AF does care about deployments...

[Herk Driver]

If they don't excel, you give them honest feedback and let them go.

Can you explain what you mean by "let them go?"

[BitteEinBit]

Can you explain what you mean by "let them go?"

Meaning exactly what we are doing now, releasing them from service. I think we all agree that the bottom 5% are pretty easily identifiable, but if you're RIFing a dude for performance and he is surprised, that is a failure of leadership. All these secret codes in OPRs and PRFs do nothing to help us realize true officer potential. Who knew that "MAJCOM staff next" was a negative? All it does is give a secret code message to the board, while at the same time makes Capt Schmukatelli think he's doing such a great job that he should be going to staff next. Save everyone the time deciphering codes and just tell Schmukatelli that he's below average and he needs to do X, Y, and Z to improve. If he is truly an untrainable dirtbag, we need to let him go, but if you're going to "let someone go" or non-select them for promotion it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

Be a leader, identify his strengths, and help him focus on those strengths to make the organization better. I may be way off base here, but that was always my understanding of what leaders do...they motivate people to succeed. Some won't make it...and it will be obvious.

[Herk Driver]

Meaning exactly what we are doing now, releasing them from service.

If there is a RIF or after they get passed over twice...got it. One a separate note, I disagree that a MAJCOM staff push is a nail in the coffin. A senior Capt or Maj having no staff push or a HAF or Wing Staff push is a nail in the coffin. MAJCOM isn't the best push out there but it is not a career killer as some have alluded to.

Back on topic, I thought you had figured out some easy way to show an officer the door when their performance was below standards. Brief them up on their shitty performance, document in an OPR and then a 'good game' as they head out the door to greener pastures when they don't improve. BTW, it is not easy to get an officer out of the service before their ADSC is up unless through VSP, RIF or other approved programs (i.e. Palace Chase) even when they have serious misconduct. It takes SECAF decision/approval and their is due process involved to make that happen. Just trying to clarify what you meant.

Edited July 31, 2013 by Herk Driver

[FUSEPLUG]

I'm curious if anyone has a good list of good vs bad push lines. If MAJCOM staff is bad, is HAF staff good? Having never been an exec, I want to scrub my OPRs for mediocrity.

Edit: Not trying to derail, just want to know what sort of crap I'll be putting on my PRF whenever '05 gets a chance to submit one.

Edited July 31, 2013 by FUSEPLUG

[Herk Driver]

JS or HAF is good.

[Ram]

Yes, FLT/CCs and SQ/CCs should be grooming our young officers..yes, even the slugs. Instead, we just "evaluate" those young officers based on how fast they check boxes and "what projects they've done for ME lately." In an organization with good, effective leadership, you shouldn't have any "slugs" in your unit because you should have already identified them, "coached" them on how they can do better, and watch them excel along with your organization. If they don't excel, you give them honest feedback and let them go. That is what leadership should be all about. We just don't have much of that kind of leadership at those levels anymore in today's "take care of yourself" culture. That is why these "gaps" still exist.

I'm sorry that's the case for you (and--from what many dudes say here--other young CGOs around the CAF/MAF). My experience has been VERY different. With the exception of one SQ/CC years ago, I've been mentored/taught/given feedback from every commander I've ever had.

The SQ/CC in any unit is a busy dude. Hopefully, he's spending a lot of time trying to screen his pilots from the inevitable queep stream that rolls downhill in any wing. Once he's done that, attended the meetings that seem SO important, and taken the time to write/edit the 14-ish OPRs/EPRs that cross his desk weekly, he doesn't have much extra time. This is where the Flt/CCs and other senior captains need to play a role in officer development.

Think about it: Aside from the "community involvement" bullets your average CGOC produces in their self-licking ice cream cone of douchery, their original intent is fairly sound. They exist for the non-ops CGOs to provide informal mentoring, advice, cross communication, and growth that you simply can't get as the one CGO in a shop of 50 other SNCOs/NCOs/junior airmen. The mentoring and involvement the CGOC offers is EXACTLY what you get in a fighter squadron of 20 captains. The CGOC might not understand (and probably would be shocked to see) the "feedback" given during a roll call, but those young CGOs would KILL to have that kind of group CGO involvement and growth opportunity. We ops CGOs take it for granted, and the bad senior captains/majors we have ignore (or don't realize) the role they need to play.

Flt/CCs, IPs, senior 4FLs/ACs, and junior majors need to realize that they have a HUGE role in developing the young pups. These are the guys who need to give feedback (mostly informal), motivate, and steer the younger guys. Since the senior captains/young majors can't do the things their SQ/CC does (see above), they need to focus their efforts on the developmental time the SQ/CC wishes he could do (but is stuck queeping in his office or at a meeting instead).

"But the SQ/CC and the OG/CC should be doing XXXX and YYYY to develop the younger dudes!" <----- IPs and Flt/CCs I've heard in real life and here on BO.net

^To that I say "WTF do you think YOUR job is now that you've spent 8 years flying jets and completing your upgrade "normal development" ???

[magnetfreezer]

I'm sorry that's the case for you (and--from what many dudes say here--other young CGOs around the CAF/MAF). My experience has been VERY different. With the exception of one SQ/CC years ago, I've been mentored/taught/given feedback from every commander I've ever had.

The SQ/CC in any unit is a busy dude. Hopefully, he's spending a lot of time trying to screen his pilots from the inevitable queep stream that rolls downhill in any wing. Once he's done that, attended the meetings that seem SO important, and taken the time to write/edit the 14-ish OPRs/EPRs that cross his desk weekly, he doesn't have much extra time. This is where the Flt/CCs and other senior captains need to play a role in officer development.

Think about it: Aside from the "community involvement" bullets your average CGOC produces in their self-licking ice cream cone of douchery, their original intent is fairly sound. They exist for the non-ops CGOs to provide informal mentoring, advice, cross communication, and growth that you simply can't get as the one CGO in a shop of 50 other SNCOs/NCOs/junior airmen. The mentoring and involvement the CGOC offers is EXACTLY what you get in a fighter squadron of 20 captains. The CGOC might not understand (and probably would be shocked to see) the "feedback" given during a roll call, but those young CGOs would KILL to have that kind of group CGO involvement and growth opportunity. We ops CGOs take it for granted, and the bad senior captains/majors we have ignore (or don't realize) the role they need to play.

Flt/CCs, IPs, senior 4FLs/ACs, and junior majors need to realize that they have a HUGE role in developing the young pups. These are the guys who need to give feedback (mostly informal), motivate, and steer the younger guys. Since the senior captains/young majors can't do the things their SQ/CC does (see above), they need to focus their efforts on the developmental time the SQ/CC wishes he could do (but is stuck queeping in his office or at a meeting instead).

Instructors and more experienced dudes seem to do a good job of at least the informal "roll call" style of feedback. However, it never makes it into official documents, leaving the CC to use quantifiable things like PT/masters/CGOC/etc as a basis for rating people. We generally have instructor meetings to discuss dudes for upgrades - maybe the answer is to do the same for strats (and then ADOs meet to discuss FLT/CCs, etc). FLT/CCs often can't effectively mentor in a CAF squadron since they're FAIPs and pushing through MQT/upgrade themselves (because PRF season).

[Herk Driver]

Do ADOs and Flt/CCs in your squadrons have input into the CC rack and stack?

[ThreeHoler]

Do ADOs and Flt/CCs in your squadrons have input into the CC rack and stack?

They do in my sq. Sq/CC expects Flt/CCs to lead...and provide meaningful feedback to the members and the CC.

[Ram]

Do ADOs and Flt/CCs in your squadrons have input into the CC rack and stack?

When I was a Flt/CC, yes. The new SQ/CC wanted our rack/stack (and why) the very first day he was on the job.

Instructors and more experienced dudes seem to do a good job of at least the informal "roll call" style of feedback. However, it never makes it into official documents, leaving the CC to use quantifiable things like PT/masters/CGOC/etc as a basis for rating people. We generally have instructor meetings to discuss dudes for upgrades - maybe the answer is to do the same for strats (and then ADOs meet to discuss FLT/CCs, etc). FLT/CCs often can't effectively mentor in a CAF squadron since they're FAIPs and pushing through MQT/upgrade themselves (because PRF season).

Don't confuse an OPR with a feedback session, and don't think for one second that a lack of official documents means the SQ/CC doesn't have the ability to stratify outside of PT/Masters/CGOC.

If your Flt/CCs are in MQT, you're doing it wrong. (IMHBAO.)

[Herk Driver]

Good. That is what I have seen as well. I agree wholeheartedly with what you said above. I think many dudes in the senior roles don't realize that it is their jobs to do much of the mentoring, etc. Lots of folks just want to wait for the Sq/CC or DO to do it instead. Does the Sq/CC have that responsibility, yes. But can he do it alone with the myriad of other trivial tasks, no.

However, it never makes it into official documents.

Why not? There is a place for much of that in the official feedback form.

[BitteEinBit]

I'm sorry that's the case for you (and--from what many dudes say here--other young CGOs around the CAF/MAF). My experience has been VERY different. With the exception of one SQ/CC years ago, I've been mentored/taught/given feedback from every commander I've ever had.

The SQ/CC in any unit is a busy dude. Hopefully, he's spending a lot of time trying to screen his pilots from the inevitable queep stream that rolls downhill in any wing. Once he's done that, attended the meetings that seem SO important, and taken the time to write/edit the 14-ish OPRs/EPRs that cross his desk weekly, he doesn't have much extra time. This is where the Flt/CCs and other senior captains need to play a role in officer development.

Think about it: Aside from the "community involvement" bullets your average CGOC produces in their self-licking ice cream cone of douchery, their original intent is fairly sound. They exist for the non-ops CGOs to provide informal mentoring, advice, cross communication, and growth that you simply can't get as the one CGO in a shop of 50 other SNCOs/NCOs/junior airmen. The mentoring and involvement the CGOC offers is EXACTLY what you get in a fighter squadron of 20 captains. The CGOC might not understand (and probably would be shocked to see) the "feedback" given during a roll call, but those young CGOs would KILL to have that kind of group CGO involvement and growth opportunity. We ops CGOs take it for granted, and the bad senior captains/majors we have ignore (or don't realize) the role they need to play.

Flt/CCs, IPs, senior 4FLs/ACs, and junior majors need to realize that they have a HUGE role in developing the young pups. These are the guys who need to give feedback (mostly informal), motivate, and steer the younger guys. Since the senior captains/young majors can't do the things their SQ/CC does (see above), they need to focus their efforts on the developmental time the SQ/CC wishes he could do (but is stuck queeping in his office or at a meeting instead).

"But the SQ/CC and the OG/CC should be doing XXXX and YYYY to develop the younger dudes!" <----- IPs and Flt/CCs I've heard in real life and here on BO.net

^To that I say "WTF do you think YOUR job is now that you've spent 8 years flying jets and completing your upgrade "normal development" ???

I agree with everything you said. I wish I had the CCs you had growing up. My experience was about 50/50 with commanders I consider "good" in that regard.

I'm not saying the SQ/CCs need to do all the work here...I know they are busy. But they need to create an environment that encourages the kind of mentorship we are talking about. Instead, the CCs are just identifying their weak swimmers and leaving them out to dry...the ole' "you're only as good as your last mistake" environment.

Athletic coaches don't just take the talent they have and go with it...even the good players need some coaching to perfect their skillsets. The point I was trying to make about not having that kind of leadership is that even the FLT/CCs are too busy with their own developmental queep to do what we agree they should be doing for the up and coming officers. FLT/CCs in my squadron weren't made FLT/CCs to lead and develop...we literally shuffled them through so they would have it on their OPR/PRFs. No joke. I'd go on a TDY and come back and the flight commanders changed while I was gone. Again, we are too busy box checking these days to care about mentoring young dudes. And that is where leadership fails. I can only speak for my small corner of the world, but It is worse today than when I first joined.

Edit: Erase extra quote...not sure why it did that

Edited July 31, 2013 by BitteEinBit

[Herk Driver]

Bitte, I will say that I rolled into a squadron that had some of the same issues that you describe above. Some of that was CC driven but some of that was individual driven. Dudes pushing to be a Flt/CC so that it was on their SURF and then on to greener pastures. Box checking (sts) at its finest. But, I believe that much of that was driven by the Capts that were doing it as much as any external influences. People get the itch if they have been in a job for more than 6 months for some reason. It takes a concerted effort to stop this from happening and also a deliberate approach to development. There are AF-level decisions that factor into this (e.g, no masking of AAD for the O-4 board, etc), but many of these things are in your control. Not directed at you, but stop blaming everyone else and fix the problems that you can control when you have the chance to fix them. Don't let others drive the decisions that you make and make the best decision for the AF, the unit and the individual...while that does not always make everyone happy, it tends to work in the long run.

[Recut]

I don't understand the reasoning w/MAJCOM pushes being bad. Push lines are supposed to be logical -- I've seen several solid new majors go to MAJCOM staff -- that is a normal progression.

I don't care about the secret codes, I really don't. Often, I think people really look into them too much. Granted, I am not a member of the secret society of secret OPR code writers..........

[nrodgsxr]

I'm curious if anyone has a good list of good vs bad push lines. If MAJCOM staff is bad, is HAF staff good? Having never been an exec, I want to scrub my OPRs for mediocrity.

Edit: Not trying to derail, just want to know what sort of crap I'll be putting on my PRF whenever '05 gets a chance to submit one.

it depends on the SR but ive seen the order as joint, HAF, MAJCOM, then NAF or some generic staff push. No staff push as a younger cgo is normal since staff isn't really where you belong.

also there should always be a rank appropriate PME push along with a job push

[zach braff]

I don't understand the reasoning w/MAJCOM pushes being bad. Push lines are supposed to be logical -- I've seen several solid new majors go to MAJCOM staff -- that is a normal progression.

I don't care about the secret codes, I really don't. Often, I think people really look into them too much. Granted, I am not a member of the secret society of secret OPR code writers..........

Oh actually going to a MAJCOM staff isn't bad, just having it as your push is...

So a couple years ago I had a supervisor/div chief (I'm a support guy) who was a 4 times passed over captain who somehow eventually made major and became my supervisor. She was actually a very nice person just dumb as rocks. Well I also had a new CC at the time who was adamant about officers NOT writing their own OPRs. In most cases I get it, but this situation was not a good combination.

Well I just happened to be filling in temporarily on the Senior Rater's staff one week and I see my OPR come through with a "big MAJCOM program next" push, zero PME push and lots more bad code. This in a year when without the boring details had done some major mission-shit and also had some high level recognition to boot. She really was trying to write me a good OPR as best she knew how, she just didn't and was going off her old OPRs that I'm sure she thought were great. And the CC being new, he didn't really know most of us yet so I'm sure saw the OPR and thought "oh, I see the message here" and moved it on. Anyway, THANK GOD I had a couple good mentors earlier who taught me some of this sh-t... Additionally the exec also knew the code and called a WTF, called the CC and got things fixed before it went for signature.

So yeah it sucks that code is there but somebody needs to be teaching it. That was my top OPR in my last RIF board - if nobody had known that Fing code that could have been a very bad thing.

F the code - but until it goes away the young bucks need to know it.

zach "MAJCOM Next" braff

[Cell Dweller]

Oh actually going to a MAJCOM staff isn't bad, just having it as your push is...

To echo this, serving on a MAJCOM staff is generally good for a career, but getting it as the bottom line push is seen as bad. Also note that a push for a staff job should normally be seen at a mid-to-senior captain point, or for a major or above. The point of a staff push is that a senior rater is telling anyone who reads that this officer is competent enough to be trusted managing a portion of the USAF corporate structure. Thanks to the over-inflated performance reporting system, the senior rater is expected to put the push that they believe is best for the officer based on his/her performance. Therefore a push for MAJCOM staff indicates that the senior rater does not think that the officer is ready to represent the USAF (in a joint staff) or their core specialty (at HAF), therefore they should be kept in their community if they are to be put in a staff position. The downside is that this now is a quasi-black mark since everyone thinks there own sh!t don't stink, and will think that this officer has something wrong with them if their OPR does not say "Future CSAF material!"

[LockheedFix]

When does the Air Force normally announce the major's promotion board month for 2014?

Well, the board for '13 would normally have been announced 4 months ago, but it has been delayed indefinitely. I wouldn't say there is any kind "normal" for the '14 board. It's gonna be a while.

[Dupe]

Can you receive credit for Flt/CC from the promotion board if you did it while you were deployed and it's annotated in your OPR due to being in an LOE? Subsequently, you add it to your PRF. Or must the board disregard the fact that you were a Flt/CC because it's not listed on your surf? I know a job performed downrange as an officer cannot be listed in your surf.

If its in an OPR, it can be put into a PRF. How your flt/CC experience affects your strat and DP/P status is up to your WG/CC. The board does not spend enough time on your record to do a punch-list of positions held.