BitteEinBit

No, we're still feeding the "glut"...people will continue to scratch their heads wondering why. It is basic math...the percentage is going to have to decrease as the class sizes increase if you want to decrease the amount of "glut" we keep adding. Of course, as long as everyone "retires" on time, it should really fix itself. Sure it is more complicated than that, but it does not appear we are making any attempts to fix it with the yearly promotion rates as class size increases...which is actually good news to those up for promotion. I haven't heard anything about non-continuation for bubbas this year. Anyone? ...or maybe there really is no "glut" at all... Edit: Fixed the math "logic"

I cannot imagine any reason your safety shop wouldn't release that information to its pilots. Before making stupid decisions, people needs to ask themselves "how would I explain this decision to my boss and his boss" when the poop hits the fan. If you can't answer that, you may want to reconsider your decision. Example: An SIB is released with data that could have prevented the same event from happening again, but for some reason the FSO decides not to release the report for an additional 3 weeks, and the same event happens again. Boss: "So, we had the same mishap happen again....tell us again why you didn't release the report to your squadron for three weeks?" FSO: (crickets) I haven't read the report, so I don't know if this particular report has any information that could prevent future events, but either way as an FSO, I would want this information out soonest! But, maybe he does have a good answer for his boss...good luck!

This is about as WTF as it gets. But then again, could it be a ploy to get a conviction for murder while committing a felony? By claiming "stand your ground" he has essentially admitted to killing the homeowner in the process of committing a felony...armed at that. It would APPEAR the state may be setting up the perfect confession. I'm not a SC Justice (I just studied SC Justiceology for one semester in college) but, I would say "stand your ground" doesn't apply when you are committing a crime. If that's the case, any criminal being chased by the cops who subsequently kills a cop can just claim that he thought his life was in danger... Nothing surprises me anymore...

Are the strippers still an option?? I'll bet I can land on speed, in the zone, gear down, AND at the right airport with her sitting on my lap! Oh wait, my boom might be extended... (that wasn't very officerlike of me was it?)

I'm not screwing with anyone...it is the reality right now. There were a lot of bubbas caught with their pants down after the Gen Jumper road show because they thought AADs were a thing of the past. What I'm trying to say is there is always that future CSAF (probably lurking this board now) who will change it back. Believe me, I don't think there is a single person on this forum who thinks AADs are worthless wastes of time and money more than me. I think most of my posts on this forum address worthless AADs. Like I said in my post, even if Gen Welsh were to change it tomorrow, it is going to take a long time to get it out of our system. I said exactly what you just said, get it done because it is today's requirement, but if you choose to be a tactical expert I support that, but I'm not their commander. I won't give dudes "fight the system" advice when I know their fight won't be won or probably even noticed. I'm glad you decided to be more of a tactical expert and not waste your time on something that doesn't benefit the AF. You also understand the potential consequences. The young dudes on this forum can make the same choice. I just want to make sure they understand the consequences. While I will continue to be vocal about the worthlessness of the AAD requirement, I'm not going to give a dude bad advice against current policy. I still put "mission first" as a priority in my post, and I stand by it. This ^^ Another good idea. I really hope someone is taking notes here to brief the boss...

True

Lots of good ideas out there, but I'm a realist. Even if we started "fixing" some of these things today, it is still going to take a while for it to take hold. Most of us will be retired before we ever see it in action. We pretty much have 18 years worth of this policy running through the ranks right now from the '95 year group to the newest year group. it will take some time to undo this... Initially, I thought it was pretty scary that LTs fresh out of UPT were being told to get their Masters and PME done, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized that at least senior leadership is setting the expectation up front...even if I don't agree with it. Young guys lurking and reading these forums, you know the priorities that currently exist. Even if this current leadership tells you they are finally masking AADs and you don't have to worry about it, get it done anyway. That was probably the best advice I got as a young Capt when the CSAF at that time told us we didn't need one...and yes, while it was masked for my Major's board, history has shown that there is that future CSAF out there who still thinks it is important. Don't be caught without a seat when the music stops because you didn't do what you knew was expected of you. Realize that with the Air Force drawing down you may not have a seat when the music stops so you need to keep yourself competitive. You should all still try to be the best you can at your primary job, find time to get your AAD/PME done, make sure your ideas are heard, and most importantly have fun doing your job. Despite what some of the posters on here have indicated, the Air Force does need you and they need you to keep your head up, stay focused on the mission (yes, the mission) and take care of yourself. Don't try to fight the system by not doing what is asked of you because you want to prove a point...your point will likely not be heard. I still think the Air Force is going to see a significant pilot shortage from all MWSs even if the AF doesn't see it coming. The one thing they have going for them is that if we get another 9-11, dudes will be coming out of the woodworks standing in line to sign up to fight again because even with all the BS, we all still love what we do and what this organization stands for. Fly safe! BT

Tac LL at night is not that hard. Not a fighter guy so I can't speak for BFM, but we're talking about dudes in their 40s....I'm not suggesting (as indicated in my post) that guys stay in until age 65. Yes, Guard/Reserve bubbas over 40 are doing BFM and Tac LL at night...and they also fly for the airlines. I guess I'm not following your counter point... I would imagine Tac LL at night and BFM would be difficult for the young Capt who doesn't focus on it as much or doesn't get the opportunity to fly it as much...but I'd just be guessing.

Joe, that is a good idea. I've always been a fan of increasing our reserve rated forces for continuity...but did you know a twice passed over officer on active duty has to get a waiver to go to the reserves and continue service? Granted, I've never seen anyone denied the waiver, but that is my point...why have a waiver in the first place? I think it would be in the best interest of the AF if they started strategically increasing the rated officer numbers on the ARC side of the house...make it easy for your bubbas to make the transition. Joe is right, you retain experience and continuity at a discount You'll be glad you did it in a few years.

Flying for a career (to age 65) is realistic and safe...the airlines do it all the time (granted someone in the AF would time out long before 65, but you get the point). An NMR O-6 and above flying once a month (only with an IP nonetheless) for currency and to build hours to put a new airframe on their resume is not safe, but we do it all the time. Forcing our youngest aviators to focus on everything but their primary job of flying is very dangerous...but we do that also. Yes, the Air Force needs strategic leaders and if rated officers want to take that route, stop flying and leave that to the younger guys who "just want to fly." In all my years of flying, I've had exactly 1 OG and 1 WG/CC who were fully qualified in the aircraft and didn't require an IP to fly their once-a-month hours-building sorties. The OG was actually an IP and a very good one at that. Can the Air Force afford a bunch of passed over Majors to fly through 20 years of service or do we get more bang for the buck with the senior Captains and junior Majors? From a fiscal perspective, probably not the most cost effective, but real question is can the Air Force afford NOT to have those experienced aviators training the newest pilots given our current climate and "focus?" Chances are, those crusty passed over Majors flew their whole careers and didn't worry about things other than their primary job so they're probably good at it. Nowadays, the chances are the senior guys and the "young Captains" who are supposed to be training these new pilots focused on AADs and PME moreso than the mission during their developmental years all while we non-continued our experience. So, Yes...in that regard, that is dangerous. For Liquid's question...AADs shouldn't be masked for O-5 and of course it is a no-brainer that PME is required at ALL levels. I just don't see the value of the AAD before that point unless, like others have said in earlier posts, the Air Force has sent someone to an actual brick and mortar school to specialize in something that will benefit the AF. BT

Don't forget about the failed $1B logistic system that never got off the ground but somehow took 7 years to figure out it wouldn't work...I know the reasons are much more complicated than 'junior officers' not speaking out, but I do wonder how many times anyone not in a position of power ever said 'this isn't going to work' and was told to shut up and PCS to a less than lateral position....

Depends on what criteria you use to determine who is "better" than who...hint: AADs is not it, and that could be why a dude is an APZ to begin with. Sure, his fault for not doing what he knew was considered by the board...but it doesn't necessarily make him less qualified to lead. Dont worry, we'll start to figure that one out. Why don't we just stop treating all APZ bubbas as "not promotable" and lacking leadership potential just because they didn't get picked up in their IPZ board. Sure, most will probably never be promoted because of the quality of their records, but we already know some good ones slip through the cracks...but the APZ label rarely gives them a chance to rebound. Remember, the dudes in the last three promotion cycles (96-99) joined this AF at a time where 12 years was the average pin on time for O-4. There was plenty of time back then to get a Master's degree or finish PME. Just look at some of the senior leader bios of guys who didn't get a Masters until their 12-14 year point. That would get them kicked out of the AF these days. It was the AF who accelerated promotions to O-4 to the 10 year pin-on point (that is an 8-year IPZ point). Add a war in there when these young bucks were deployed 300 days a year without the online degree mills we have now and you have a significant number of bubbas who are behind the power curve when it comes to AAD completion. I'll be willing to bet the statistics would show that specific AFSCs fall into this category. Add in the Gen Jumper "we'll-send-you-to-get-a-degree-if-we-want-you-to-have-a-degree-just-focus-on-the-mission" roadshow, and it didn't help matters either. Does it make them poor leaders because they didn't complete that Masters by their 6th year while the REMF who might have one deployment under their belt was able to get it done? No. Stop using BS criteria to determine who future leaders are. I assure you it isn't necessarily the guy who got his AAD/PME completed in record time like some want to believe. Leadership is way more than AAD completion dates. Leadership is mostly about connecting with people and motivating them, inspiring them, molding them, mentoring them...leaving a lasting impression. Until someone can show me how obtaining an AAD in record time somehow gives dudes the ability to lead this way, I'll stand by my assertion that AADs as a leadership indicator is the wrong way to identify your leaders. My opinion only. Edit to change my definition of "leadership"

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

Liquid, there are at least 3 solid posts on this thread that addresses what many have been complaining about for YEARS...the system that rewards selfishness and lack of mission focus. When I say "selfishness" I'm talking about that toxic attitude I see spreading around that puts self-serving box checking above the mission. It has become a necessity in this organization if you want to continue serving. The Air Force not only encourages it, but rewards it...and it discriminates against those who put mission first and check the boxes when they have the time...even if it is before their board. "You didn't finish it soon enough..you must be a dirtbag," the Air Force says. Yes, my former SQ/CC hinted that now boards look at WHEN you finished your AAD not just that you finished it. Really? Please tell me that is not true. The Air Force doesn't see less mission focus and more box checking as selfish...they see it as "This guy cares about the Air Force because he is motivated to finish a Masters as a 2Lt" Yes, even people who successfully navigate the system are complaining about misplaced priorities...not just the bitter passed over officers. That should worry you because those toxic attitudes will be with us for a while. Just take note of how the tone in this thread changes when you seem to be actually listening to the "bitching" on this thread instead of saying "suck it up." The disconnect I see with the "leadership" at levels above the Wing is that they don't (and really can't) have the pulse of what is happening at the tactical level...they have to just rely on input and metrics from those levels that don't always tell the whole story. Just how many staffers representing the tactical level do you think are really going to tell leadership that their policies are perceieved as misguided and are creating toxic attitudes? Not many. ...a few more points from Liquid's post: I agree that mission is a high priority. If you take care of your people, they will take care of the mission. That is why it is important for our "leadership" to connect with its people. If there is a toxic attitude out there and "leadership" hasn't addressed it, there is a problem with leadership. Attitdue is a reflection of leadership. The mission will always get done, even with the toxic attitudes...now get rid of the toxic attitudes by engaging your people and addressing their issues, and just watch how more efficient the mission gets done. THAT is leadership. No sentence from any "leader" should start with "well, the metrics say..." it should be "well, my people are saying...." - Yes, the Wings do the family stuff while HQ does the management stuff...the problem is you have a bunch of Wings that want to be at the management level so they tell you everything is ok. Again, do you really think ANY WG/CC is going to say the morale at his/her wing is broken?!?! Maybe they don't know because those at the SQ are trying to get to the WG, so they don't tell their bosses either...and so on, and so on. You're right, we don't say it enough. it is time to call a spade a spade. If I have to do it in an internet forum to get anyone to listen, I will. Morale is broken, and I don't see anything in the near future attempting to fix it. But I can tell you that MONEY is not the answer. - "Uncertainty is more frequent now" is an understatement. We have been taking "additional cuts" since 2008 and every year the (former) CSAF and SECAF say, "Ok, this is the last of the cuts" and then the next year we take more cuts. It gives the appearance that our manpower bubbas don't know that they hell they are doing. Cutting AFSCs in one place then having crossflow boards to fill those same AFSCs they now identify as "critically manned" just appears like a mismanagement problem. How are these types of programs getting briefed? "Sir, we just cut a bunch of experienced 14Ns this week to save you money. Next week we plan to have an involuntary crossflow board to fill 14Ns billets which are now critically manned." We are "fat" on 11Ms and staffers are saying we don't need them to stay, yet you don't want to let any of them voluntarily separate to get your numbers back to normal? Seriously, how does that make sense to anyone? I know, I don't have the big picture. Perhaps the Pentago actually does forcast an exodus...they just don't want to say anything because then they'll have to offer money TODAY to get people to stay. My advice, listen to the people (not the metrics) about why people are thinking about leaving...address them. - I agree, any assignment is what you make of it. What makes an assignment a "bad" assignment is really individual experience. I've worked with people who thought Spangdahlem was a bad assignment. I can't imagine they ever left the base. Every assignment is what you make of it. If mission focus is really what we want, then you'll go where the AF needs you. The problem is that too many of those tactical level "get er done" kind of guys who DO go where the Air Force "needs" them a lot of time get told "Oh, you spent too much of your time at the tactical level...you're not leadership material." The year before I took my current assignment we weren't releasing anyone to staff unless you were a school graduate because the Air Force "needed" pilots in the squadrons. Do you want to know the feedback I got before my PRF? "You don't have any staff experience." How can I not shake my head at that?!? I know we preach "needs of the AF" and that would be great if we really meant it, but if your DT vector reads "needs of the AF," that is not a good thing...be honest.

First of all, I don't believe for a second that the Lt Col promotion opportunity will remain at 85% over the next few years...but that is a great carrot to put out there for those O-6 hopefulls to stay competetive. Pay attention to the wording Liquid used... While reducing IDE slots saves money, it slightly fixes the playing field to allow more non-res IDE graduates to compete well on those future promotion boards that will have reduced promotion opportunities. It makes they guy who may have been in the bottom 20% of IDE selects have to rely more on actual job performance and less on a guaranteed IDE slot because they worked for a 3-button. I actually like the idea....especially since we currently make the determination of who goes to IDE in-res at the Capt level...up to 4 years before a "select" actually goes to school. Have we really seen REAL future leadership potential at that point or are we just sayin "this guy finished his Masters as a Lt..he'll be a great leader!" Maybe we should change the way we "look" at IDE candidates all together so that we consider their last few OPRs as an actual FGO prior to an IDE class start date instead of making a "legally binding" decision while the candidate is still a Capt, that essentially guarantees an O-5 promotion as long as they graduate (except for that 1 or 2 AAD/In-Res grad who seems to be non-selected for promotion every year...weird).

This is good news, but tell me again how this fixes the "glut" of officers in the 16-20 years of service groups? The numbers of officers per year group for those already promoted to Major has been increasing since the 1997 year group...if you keep the promotion rates the same for increasing numbers of eligible offers, how do you expect the "glut" to decrease? You are actually adding to the "glut" every year the eligibles increase yet the promotion rate stays the same. Also, are these promotion rates based on actual O-4 and O-5 positions expecting to become available or are we just arbitrarily saying 85% is the magic number regardless of class size? Please help me understand this magic math our mapower professionals are using. Edit: To remove thread Hijack...moved to appropriate thread.

...funny. I'm no personnelist, nor do I have A1 experience, but based solely on numbers in year groups from 90-99 which happen to have some of the smallest year groups (95-98) over the past few decades because of the 90s drawdown, I'm thinking this glut will be around for a long time. If you're telling me these small year groups are causing the glut and you want to replace them with even larger year groups coming up the ranks, I'm not sure how the math will work. The non-continuation fiasco that apparently tried to help 'fix' the glut just happened to be in the 2 smallest accession year groups in the 90s (96-97) with the jury still out on the 98 year group (mine). The only real solution to fixing the glut is lower promotion rates and 'creative force management' tools to limit continuation. While many of us don't think that is fair, it is reality. We cannot promote everyone, and at the same time we can't keep everyone we don't promote without having to deal with some kind of glut. So, while my year group had about 2400 accessions and we are part of the glut, I can't imagine what the glut from still strong 2003-2005 year groups who are still large even after the RIFs late last decade. The year groups are larger, yet the 'promotion opportunities' are the same, meaning even more glut is added every year. I can't see how that is an 'unplanned glut' in the system...but again, I'm not a personnelist. That is why I give warning to the bubbas who sign up for 9 more years of obligation to the Air Force so they realize that there are no guarantees especially in this fiscal environment and the shadow of 'the glut.' One more unrelated point. From the outside, it looks like the Air Force is just managing numbers to make them look good without regard to real quality and experience or even development. I say experience because that glut you say we don't need to stay is actually your 'experience.' i would imagine you want your experience to stay. Exactly who are we replacing them with?? Larger, younger year groups we rushed through the system with minimal time and experience. Are we really trying to build a quality, experienced force or just pump people through the system until they can retire and then get rid of them? I know the machine will keep turning, I just question the methods and priorities we use to replace that experience. But that is a whole other thread.....

Great insight from the Pentagon....thanks for being honest and forthcoming with this! Please also be honest with the guys actually taking the 9-year 'retention' pay. The fact that the 'contract' was extended really just means a longer ADSC for the member who cannot voluntarily separate, but the Air Force can still involuntarily separate members (not including Artical 15s and nornal administrative discharges) as manpower requirements change. Chances are with the projected shortage, most if not all of them will see the full contract, but you've already eluded to smaller staffs, more cuts, and the fact that the AF has an unplanned glut of FGOs, albeit in the 11M world. Smaller staffs and future personnel cuts really means creative 'force manangement' tools which may or may not include an 11F manning shortage that corrects itself over the next 9 years. A lot can happen between now and then. Hopefully the verbiage in those 'contracts' makes that clear. Some of these guys may be literally banking on that pay over the next 9 years. I know a few passed over Majors a few years back who were also let go while on 'contract' (the bonus) and they too were banking on that pay. We all know it is budget driven, but as long as bubbas know this going in, all is fair.

Yes

Reposted from the WTF thread...more appropriate here: I agree that his sexual orientation or the sexual orientation of anyone serving is irrelevant. The problem I have is how we not only identify, but glorify a group of people based on any "sexual" orientation, yet we seem to have a problem with "sexuality" of the heterosexual kind in the workplace in DoD. So, homosexuals come to work identifying themselves as "homosexual," we call it diversity and tolerance. If I, a flaming male lesbian, were to come to work bragging about how much I love women, they call it sexual harassment or inappropriate talk in the workplace. With all the news in the media today about sexual abuse, sexual harassment, sexual assault, why is anyone's "sexuality" being celebrated as if it is ok to say "I love cock" in the workplace. Gay people are (mostly) only identifiable because they tell you they are gay. Why is that ok, but it is not ok for me to celebrate my love of boobies by telling people at work?? THAT double standard is what I have a problem with....

I agree that his sexual orientation or the sexual orientation of anyone serving is irrelevant. The problem I have is how we not only identify, but glorify a group of people based on any "sexual" orientation, yet we seem to have a problem with "sexuality" of the heterosexual kind in the workplace in DoD. So, homosexuals come to work identifying themselves as "homosexual," we call it diversity and tolerance. If I, a flaming male lesbian, were to come to work bragging about how much I love women, they call it sexual harassment or inappropriate talk in the workplace. With all the news in the media today about sexual abuse, sexual harassment, sexual assault, why is anyone's "sexuality" being celebrated as if it is ok to say "I love cock" in the workplace. Gay people are (mostly) only identifiable because they tell you they are gay. Why is that ok, but it is not ok for me to celebrate my love of boobies by telling people at work?? THAT double standard is what I have a problem with.... Edit: I have problems with the grammers...

Im guessing the AF tried to get a higher pay rate, but somehow had a hard time justifying it when they just paid a bunch of pilots to involuntarily separate. I'm not on the inside of that staffing process (nor do I want to be) but i imagine it was difficult to explain. And so, we have more of the same. I can't imagine the take rate being any higher than previous rates, but I do think it will still be close to whatever the Air Force considers 'normal' overall...doesn't matter what the rate is, the AF will say it is 'normal' or 'what was expected' in the next Air Force Times. Unless the verbiage changed from when I signed mine, the AF did get an extra 9 months out of some guys since your ADSC clock starts when you take the bonus...so those eligible last October whose clocks should have started last October will now start their commitments in July. Nicely played Big Blue! Sorry dudes, I was really hoping big blue would come through for you newly eligible guys. I'm not eligible, and even I'm disappointed...

So, let me get this straight....I was supposed to 'learn' writing skills from my Master's classes? Unfortunately, I didn't take a single class in either of my Master's degrees that 'taught' me how to write. Almost all of them just evaluated my ability to remember and regurgitate information I learned in 'class,' or should I say from my 'readings and group discussions.' Writing a comment on the topic of the week and responding to three of my classmate comments is hardly 'learning' how to write. You are supposed to 'learn' how to write in your undergraduate studies. I do remember taking speech and writing classes in my undergraduate studies....are they not requiring those classes for undergrad degrees anymore? I think everyone knows what we mean by diploma mill. Defend it all you want, but getting a worthless Master's degree does not help the individual or the Air Force. Not all of those degrees even require a thesis. Some of them just require comprehensive exams that you can cram and study for a week before the test and then brain dump a week after. The Air Force needs to go back to the time they used to identify future strategic leaders, send them to strategy specific degree programs (logistics, strategic communications, national security studues, PolMil, business, etc) so they can learn to better run this machine. There used to be more programs out there like that when I was growing up in this AF. You just can't convince me that an advance degree in english folklore, while it satisfies the AAD requirement for advancement, is going to help any individual or this institution operate more efficiently. That is what I mean by "worthless" degree. Yes, an AAD is required to advance in this AF...if you don't want to get one to specifically enhance your career, then at least get one that will help you when, yes WHEN, you separate from the service because eventually you will. The AF isn't the only place you'll need an AAD to stand out and be competitive. You need them on the outside too.

....that answers my first question She probably came over for tea and crumpets like a lot of drunk victims do....good thing you didn't have any or we might be reading about you in the Air Force Times..... ...am I being insensitive??

Liquid, I agree with most of what you say. Most of those who are promoted deserve it and do a great job...most meaning as little as one promotee better than 50%. I understand that we can't promote everyone...even if 100% of those up for promotion were sh*t hot, but there was only a 90% promotion opportunity, 10% of those sh*t hot officers would be denied promotion. Got it. There is some consistency in your posts that actually relates to what we are talking about here...and it is no secret. YOU the individual don't get promoted, your records do. So, yes, the bottom 50% are easy to identify if you are using criteria like AAD, PME, etc to select them. Without ever looking at one single OPR, I could probably predict with accuracy who was going to get promoted on this last Majors board if you just give me information on PME/AAD, in-res/corr completion alone. The stats don't lie. Don't tell me they weren't racked and stacked mainly based on AAD completion. Job performance? Really, we had IPs and EPs (presumably experts at their jobs) shown the door. Please tell me those dirtbag officers weren't out there training and evaluating our rated force. Ok, I know they weren't dirtbags...I knew several of them. They were some of the most experienced aviators in the squadron. What did they all have in common? BAC+ or less. I know they were racked and stacked based on that...I witnessed the process. Clean kill? Depends on how you look at it. I can't imagine any other flying organization in the world who would pick the guy with the AAD in cultural studies over the experienced IP/EP...but thats just me. Believe me, AAD does not make the officer. It just means in a lot of cases, those guys took themselves off the flying schedule or a TDY to finish that Masters. Sure, probably just in my small corner of the world, but it happened too often to be just something happening in my squadron. Certainly someone else out there not in my squadron has seen the same things. My real point is that the record does not always accurately describe a great leader....they look like a great leader because of a great writer. Inversely, the poor records don't mean a poor leader...just a bad writer...and most likely written by the member anyway. In 15 years of service, I had a rater write exactly 3 of my many OPRs. I wrote the rest. That is a problem in our Air Force. I can list many instances where our "top" strat officers on paper are really less than stellar in real life...like the one who shows for work at 0900, takes a 2 hour lunch with wife and family, races for the door at 1630 (or before to avoid retreat), avoids the schedulers phone call for that weekend mission because he has to take the kids to Legoland or finish a Master's paper (not on leave by the way), or the guy who manages to avoid deployments and even pulled strings to get a staff job to get out of one after being identified on the short list for that iTDY. Their records look spectacular, and some of them are "good dudes," but they hardly fit the model of quality "leadership" (IMHO). They just managed to do a couple of pretty good things in the past...so that plus an AAD completed 5 years ago makes them a better leader. Got it. Tell me where the mission first mentality is? The ones I know that think mission first are exactly the ones taking those weekend missions and not doing the Masters papers...they also aren't getting promoted. I think that is where the arguments about OPRs and the promotion process are coming from. We see it at our level...promotion boards do not see it...and realistically can't see it. So, we need to be more accurate in those "records" that seem to be so important. Our OPR system is so inflated because we so don't want to hurt anyone's feelings that even the obviously bottom 1% guy who is passed over for promotion is surprised he/she didn't get promoted.