Jump to content

Promotion and PRF Information


Guest e3racing

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

I dont think thats true. You just have to figure out how that crop wants to be developed. No, they probably don't want crap like ACSC because that shit is designed for people going to command or work on a staff. However, they may appreciate a year long internship with the FAA/NTSB, cross training to a different weapons platform, late turn options to WIC/TPS, etc... 

But I think there is a crop of people who really want to see the AF become like the airlines in the sense that you make six figures doing nothing but just showing up to work, getting the mission packet, and coming home 8 hours later.

Ok, yeah all fair points.

So, I could see a fly only track basically having the branches - tactics, training, test, safety. I think you're right about having later than normal windows available for those who elect to go that path. So maybe target like a 10-11 year point for either getting to WIC, expecting multiple AETC tours sprinkled in, TPS, or like you said, FAA/NTSB for the safety types.

Totally agree on the latter - that's a mindset which needs to be changed or removed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion. For all the legitimate gripes [and gratuitous sport-bitches alike] I have about AFRC, I can say they've haven't yet treated the nuances of my career motivations with the level of backhanded derision intimated on this thread of much of AD. In further fairness to AFRC, at least under my current NAF, they've made inroads towards keeping the conga line moving on the promotion front for those so interested in management, by converting line O-5 AGR positions into term billets. Separating them from those of us in non-term (AFRC speak for voluntary-permanent) positions (an O-4 control grade). This is being done in order to not get stuck with MSD "squatters" in O-5 AGRs who tended to time out younger guys with aspirations/grooming for command. That had been a legitimate problem for a decade plus. 

Shocker as it may be to the AD audience, not everybody has a penchant for making O-5 as the litmus test for feeling dignified/properly compensated in life. The ARC doesn't penalize you for it by forcing an up-or-out on the lower (O-4) control grade. I think that was a good balance and compromise all things considered. One man's opinion and all that.

Of course, one is encouraged to keep all avenues open, which is why I completed ACSC DL. But my point is that in general, nobody around here is shaming me (so far) for taking pride in being a high time IP/EP, expending my time and energy in mentorship roles in ADCON/OPCON alike, while looking forward to a very much earned 20-24yr O-4 (or even O-5 in the right circumstances) AD retirement and Tricare in my late 40s. Based on this thread, it's clear to me  that is viewed with derision if not outright contempt in AD. Maybe they should work on that cultural blind spot. 

I suppose if one wanted to be believed when uttering that tactical experts are indeed a quantity to be valued/retained, perhaps don't start off the salvo by insinuating that role should be compensated at the level of a slick wing O-3 with no bonus, just because the O-5 aspirants regard flight ops to be menial CGO scutwork on their way to middle management. Dynamic which I find ironic, given half of them weren't worth a shit at flying/employing in the first place. I could further retort that AD grants IP/EP credentials to these managers-in-training waaay too soon/liberally for their britches, leading AD flying organizations looking like a bunch of unsupervised children who end up bending metal, while petulantly smearing the bystanders' (ANG/AFRC Silverbacks and Iron-Majors et al) warnings as ramblings of irrelevant malcontents. I could further point at the dozen or so class-As as exhibit A thru L to further illustrate the fruits of that blind spot, but I think I've made my point, so I  digress.

I like some of the ideas floated previously, especially a non-punitive look at later-in-life opportunities to cross-flow/special flying programs. "Choose your own adventure" indeed. Cheers!

 

Edited by hindsight2020
Trying to dumb it down...failed.
  • Like 4
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

hindsight i roll my eyes every time i read your posts, but then after re-reading them almost always agree with the basic theme you're trying to get across! ha!

very much agree with giving out IP/EP too early....seems like EP is given to "check the box" for the shiny pennies...at least anecdotal experience

Edited by BashiChuni
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

hindsight i roll my eyes every time i read your posts, but then after re-reading them almost always agree with the basic theme you're trying to get across! ha!

You should catch his live act sometime.  Totally worth the cover plus two drink minimum.  🤘

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, jazzdude said:


Don't think AFPC considers ADSC for assignments, but could be wrong. It might make sense on the surface (though it's probably just being paranoid), but I think the flesh peddlers at AFPC don't really care/don't keep it in their cross check. Maybe they do put out the feelers for bad 365s so they don't get a wave of 3 day opts, but I doubt they put the same amount of attention on regular assignments. Plus with where pilot manning is, if you don't want to go to staff and just keep flying, you probably won't go to staff. Which is why I like MyVector, I can rank order everything available out there that'd I'd be fine with, improving my odds of getting what I'd want or at least be fine with (lots of jobs out there that I didn't know existed, or wouldn't waste space under the old dream sheet), while making AFPC's job of meeting AF needs while lining up people with assignments they want easier for them.

 

They don't.  If they did, we wouldn't lose a bunch of pilots every time a 365 came down.  

Maybe it's gotten better, but a few years ago my DO got a 365 with about a week's worth of notice because 10 other people opted to get out of the Air Force instead of taking it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/3/2020 at 7:06 AM, pawnman said:

They don't.  If they did, we wouldn't lose a bunch of pilots every time a 365 came down.  

Maybe it's gotten better, but a few years ago my DO got a 365 with about a week's worth of notice because 10 other people opted to get out of the Air Force instead of taking it.  

It may not get you out of 365s but I know a lucky few that were released and selected for special programs where the ADSC became a factor in releasability. According to the A1 our field is quite undermanned and getting released for anything outside flying the line is a real pain.

I doubt they would fess up here but I would be interested to hear from anyone that worked assignments. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
anyone that was a non-select on the last O5 board do that briefing with AFPC? 

Yes, did mine in October or November. They compare your records to the bottom 10 above the cut line. Biggest takeaway was having Definitely Promote on your push line if you don’t have the box checked. Strats, of course, matter. I didn’t have any FGO awards, but he said that was offset by the CGO awards I had. SDE push lines on OPRs help. Jobs above the Wing level help. Basically all things that it’s probably too late to improve on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
5 hours ago, BeefBears said:

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2499406/all-services-including-department-of-the-air-force-to-furnish-adverse-informati/

Seems like the one-mistake air force just got a little more one-mistakier.  It even retroactively includes all paperwork and inquiries/investigations back to 2012. 

So it seems like the big change is that LOCs and LOAs will now need to generate a UIF or find some other mechanism to ensure they get to the board. I don't think people that make these decisions recognize the full fallout though. There was already a hesitation to give officers discipline except in the most extreme of circumstances. This is just going to amplify that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2499406/all-services-including-department-of-the-air-force-to-furnish-adverse-informati/
Seems like the one-mistake air force just got a little more one-mistakier.  It even retroactively includes all paperwork and inquiries/investigations back to 2012. 


“We’re not a one mistake Air Force”

2021: “Hold my beer”

What a troubling force shaping decision this is...


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, FLEA said:

So it seems like the big change is that LOCs and LOAs will now need to generate a UIF or find some other mechanism to ensure they get to the board. I don't think people that make these decisions recognize the full fallout though. There was already a hesitation to give officers discipline except in the most extreme of circumstances. This is just going to amplify that. 

Curious how they plan to square this decision with the "need for diversity" they keep pushing, given the IG report that shows minorities are more likely to be punished than white dudes.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2499406/all-services-including-department-of-the-air-force-to-furnish-adverse-informati/
Seems like the one-mistake air force just got a little more one-mistakier.  It even retroactively includes all paperwork and inquiries/investigations back to 2012. 

The Air Force IG has record of all adverse actions on officers?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I got my PRF back for the upcoming O-5 board.

Keep in mind that I am a 4x APZ, but I got the following on my push line:

#1/2 Eligible, #5/24 O-4's, Def Promote

I also got a DP

I checked last years stats and APZ, w/IDE complete, and a DP was 15/15 selected (for my board).

But, it would be really on-brand for me to be the first ever (under the new board process) APZ w/DP to not get promoted. So that is what I am expecting. But, who knows.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 14N Guy said:

So I got my PRF back for the upcoming O-5 board.

Keep in mind that I am a 4x APZ, but I got the following on my push line:

#1/2 Eligible, #5/24 O-4's, Def Promote

I also got a DP

I checked last years stats and APZ, w/IDE complete, and a DP was 15/15 selected (for my board).

But, it would be really on-brand for me to be the first ever (under the new board process) APZ w/DP to not get promoted. So that is what I am expecting. But, who knows.

Congrats man. Still a good sign. I'll hope the best for you. 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I got my PRF back for the upcoming O-5 board.
Keep in mind that I am a 4x APZ, but I got the following on my push line:
#1/2 Eligible, #5/24 O-4's, Def Promote
I also got a DP
I checked last years stats and APZ, w/IDE complete, and a DP was 15/15 selected (for my board).
But, it would be really on-brand for me to be the first ever (under the new board process) APZ w/DP to not get promoted. So that is what I am expecting. But, who knows.


If you have a DP checked PRF, with good push line, you’re in a strong position to be promoted. Good luck


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tiger said:

I think just FGO’s and above.  From what I’ve seen the current AFI mandates those folks’ adverse actions are sent to the IG.
 

My question is since this is apparently retroactive to almost 10 years ago, is the AF IG now going to go digging for paperwork that was never put in someone’s’ selection folder in the first place?  That could really hurt some people when their LOC’s/A’s/R’s from their Captain or even LT time pop up and now they’re a major/lt col with a permanent black mark.  It also sounds like this new policy gets rid of the provision that adverse info would stick in the OSR for only one ITZ promotion period.

The retroactive part is my big issue. The Air Force changed the rules of the game after the fact.  I also like how the head shoe clerk said that it wasn't a one mistake air force because... he said so. 

Does every lieutenant that has an LOC for... dumb lieutenant things... have a UIF now?  Does it count if the paperwork was removed?  The article even mentions adding inquiries to the board where no command discipline occurred.  I can think of a dozen good dudes that will get thrown under the bus by this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The retroactive part is my big issue. The Air Force changed the rules of the game after the fact. 


Congress changed the rules/law. The AF is just complying with the law.

Congress is probably fed up with embarrassments in the senior ranks, and thinks making adverse information available to boards will fix that. Funny thing is, most of those wayward senior leaders likely never had any formal documentation on poor behavior at any point in their careers, so it's moot.
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, BeefBears said:

The retroactive part is my big issue. The Air Force changed the rules of the game after the fact.  I also like how the head shoe clerk said that it wasn't a one mistake air force because... he said so. 

Does every lieutenant that has an LOC for... dumb lieutenant things... have a UIF now?  Does it count if the paperwork was removed?  The article even mentions adding inquiries to the board where no command discipline occurred.  I can think of a dozen good dudes that will get thrown under the bus by this. 

If the LOC/LOA isn't in your PIF anymore, my hunch is, its gone for good. 

 

Other things you said though are spot on. Just because Gen Kelly says its not a 1 mistake AF doesn't make it so. And the second and third order effects of this law were clearly not thought through.  

Edited by FLEA
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

 


Congress changed the rules/law. The AF is just complying with the law.

Congress is probably fed up with embarrassments in the senior ranks, and thinks making adverse information available to boards will fix that. Funny thing is, most of those wayward senior leaders likely never had any formal documentation on poor behavior at any point in their careers, so it's moot.

 

Honestly, we could use a few more senior leaders that bounced back from issues early on rather than the risk adverse ones we get. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...