Leaderboard

Approximately 2% of all USAF officers fly the Eagle.

Liquid I'm with everything you are saying except I would alter the rated vs non-rated promotion board idea. I think that works well for the Navy, but the Air Force is much more unique WRT career fields. In the rated vs. non-rated scheme, you still have non-rated ops competing against support, and within support, very few AFSCs speak the same language. A space ops officer that goes through IQT/MQT, takes evals that result in Q1/Q2/Q3, moves to OSS/OGV and gets a K or Q prefix, and has ops bullets looks a lot more like a pilot on paper than a force support officer. A 61S, 62E, and 63A might look alike, but compared to MSG-type AFSCs, they might as well be in another service. In my opinion, the solution is to base promotions on career fields. Not all promotion rates need to be the same either. It would be based on sustainment needs for each AFSC. School selection would be sustainment based as well. For example, CROs/STOs might have 97% promotion, and 10% school. But it would be the CRO/STO senior leaders selecting these individuals. It would be sort of like an MLR, except each AFSC, or group of closely related AFSCs, would be responsible for filling the quota they are given by HAF.Pilots compete for promotion and school only against other pilots. I hear Senior Officers say that they can read any OPR from any AFSC and make an informed assessment. That holds true for the very top and very bottom, but it's complete bullshit for the area that really matters. The gray area is what board members actually need to understand, and that gray area is vastly different across the Air Force. Who better to sort that out than senior leaders from that specific AFSC? We already do this for JAG, MSC, Chaplain...it's time to expand. Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

I think they will use the dart board method, what you describe seems far too complicated for AFPC to ever figure out.

The EPR/OPR system is okay. It's more about how we determine our top airman/future O-6s. For example, on the CGO side, you are usually not the top dog unless you: 1. have excellent PT score (meeting the standards is not good enough) 2. have masters degree (early) 3. have SOS in-residence (early) 4. have done exec duty (just don't rock the boat if you really want this) 5. have lots of hi-vis volunteer experience (this leads to qtrly/annual awards that translate to strats) 6. don't screw up in your primary duty Meet the above criteria and you are a lock for a good strat or a strong push. Not one of those criteria is about military leadership. You'll have a very limited AF career if your priority is being good at your primary duty and/or leading your peers/subordinates. This is what's wrong with our promotion system and why all the good dudes/dudettes are leaving.

True but this is Army Aviation we are taking about. Most of us in the Warrant corps are already spending half our base pay keeping 1-2 dependapotamus harpy monsters happy and fed. Now that I think about it that would be a good discriminator on who we send.

I think we're going to see a moderate number of rated VSPs approved over the next few days and many YG/AFSCs taken out of the mix for RIF. I doubt they want to cut rated numbers so much as they want it to seem like everybody is feeling the cuts. We wouldn't want the shoe force to get their feelings hurt or they'll never process my travel voucher. Approve my laundry expenses motherf&%$#&s!

Exactly. That's the other huge benefit of promoting based on AFSC. Each community decides what is important to them. A pilot most likely doesn't need an AAD going up for major, but a 62E with a Masters is a lot more versatile and has more assignment opportunities, and is therefore more useful to the career field. For their promotion boards, AAD and acquisition code/level would be big factors. For almost every other AFSC, both of those mean very little. Additionally, things that should transcend AFSC often do not. For example, in the flying world, going to WIC is extremely competitive and selective, in space ops, it's not. At my last base, the only 4 people that wanted to go to WIC were mediocre at best, but since nobody else wanted to go, they all went. Don't get me wrong, some really great dudes go to WIC, but all of them were great dudes before going. Finally, by promoting by AFSC, you lessen the need for force management measures in higher ranks. If pilot manning is falling because airlines are hiring, make promotion for pilots 100%. If nobody is leaving a career field which could lead to a future surplus, drop it to 80%. It's really not that complicated. Although, I'm sure we would find a way to make it so. Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

After your cheating scandal.

That and Alimony payments are the two things I would be most worried about

If anyone hears about no-shit GS positions available out there please post up...

You'd think they'd cover this in SABC.

The other services stratify everyone, but there are problems with their promotion systems as well. No system is perfect. Ours works. Feedback is for the ratee. Too many raters do a shitty job giving real feedback. Chickenshits I guess. OPRs and PRFs are for the boards, not for those outside the AF. The OPR isn't really written for the ratee, so it isn't the most appropriate place to put real, useful feedback like "your interpersonal skills suck and people think you are an arrogant, self-serving jackass" or "you will never be an effective leader because people can't stand being around you and they won't follow you anywhere". Ratees are confused by the unwritten but broadly understood words in the push lines and on the reports because their raters and/or senior raters don't want to explain them or the ratees don't care. There are plenty of people who can look at an OPR, PRF or record and give you an idea of how strong it is. The key is teaching those who write performance reports how to describe a strong performer and what to avoid saying with a strong performer (potential, MAJCOM, ADO next, continue to challenge, etc). There are plenty of writing guides, and there is good, accurate advice on this forum. The promotion boards get it right most of the time. The top 15-20% is sharp, and most of those passed over have the worst records of all those scored. There are a few outliers, there always will be. Boards look at job performance, breadth, depth, stratification, distinction (DG, awards), deployments and ability to lead at next grade. Strats are important, but virtually non-existent in the records of the bottom 50%. There is not much difference between writing "#10/20 Capts" and "Top Tier" in the push line. Raters are better off just explaining the ratees best character traits and performance. Describe what they do really well, in plain language. If you want them promoted, include a school push and good staff job. If you want them to command or be promoted BPZ, you'll need a great strat, a school push, a joint job push and a command push to go along with the demonstrated job performance, depth, breadth, distinction, deployments and ability to lead at the next grade. Most of the commonly recommended changes to the performance report and promotion board processes have been tried and don't really work. The current one may suck, but it sucks less than all of the others. There are very few truly merit based, perfect promotion systems in our world. Some people will always bitch, even about your version of the "perfect" promotion system. The one change I would make is splitting the LAF boards into rated and support. I would also adjust promotion quotas to requirements in each AFSC, not chance. But nobody has asked me and I doubt anything will change in the near future. And we are still waiting for CSAF to give guidance on AADs (not required before O-6) and not double tapping PME (no practice bleeding). Lawyers recommended he rewrite the draft guidance, not sure why. Hopefully the guidance will come out soon.