Weezer

How about instead of a flat out time standard (3 years TIG, minimum by DOPMA, waived for BPZ), you have a performance-based one? Pick a key qualification or upgrade (or set thereof) that you have to meet before you're eligible...could be as simple as "Pilot" rating for Captain, "Senior Pilot" for Major, and "Command Pilot" for Lt Col. Could be something else. Similar to how the enlisted have to have a certain skill-level at a certain grade. That way, you balance experience with quality. Probably have to figure out something similar for maintenance and mission support, but the possibility is there.

It's supposed to be...

Interesting: I saw (AF wide) - IPZ: 1045/1439 (72.62%) APZ: 57/1063 (5.36%) I don't have the BPZ at my fingertips. Wonder where the delta is...I like your numbers for APZ and BPZ better, but obviously not great for IPZ.

I think it serves as a quality check and a second chance. Dudes were nonselects in the gray can bust their butt the next year if they really want to and still possibly make it, while those IPZ guys who were just kind of coasting get a wakeup call that they need to improve somehow if they want to get the nod. If my numbers are correct, the APZ numbers this year were around 57, which is a fairly small percentage (although much higher than last year). In my mind that also accounts for subjectivity and human error in the promotion board process. Basically, if 1-5% of the promotions are going to APZs, then they're acknowledging that there's a 1-5% margin of error over the year before.

Correct...the 10% is the percentage of the IPZ slots that are given to BPZers. This year, since there are 1223 IPZ, there are ~122 BPZ promotions theoretically available. Given that there are 2 YGs competing BPZ (that are often larger than the IPZ), that means it's at most a ~5% selection rate, assuming the 1 and 2 BPZ YGs are equal to the IPZ one. For some reason, the RAW application where the stats are stored on AFPC Secure isn't showing up for me right now, so I can't give the actual numbers.

They don't lower the "IPZ opportunity." What they've done for the past few years is instruct the board to discount the IPZ/APZ status of the record and compete them equally. So, the IPZ opportunity isn't lowered, but APZ records that have good paper on top could "steal" an IPZ slot.

So with an overall promotion opportunity of 85%, that equates to a 75% I/APZ selection rate if the 10% BPZ opportunity is used completely. If I was a betting man, I'd put this year's IPZ rate at 73% and APZ at 5%. So: There were around 1439 IPZ elibles. the 85% opportunity equates to ~1223 promotions available. ~122 are available for BPZs. That leaves ~1101 for I/APZs to share. The IPZ DP rate was 50%, so there were 719 DPs, so 382 Ps that got promoted in the I/APZ category (assuming 100% of DPs got picked up). So the P selection rate for I/APZ (with ~1063 APZ) was 382/(719+1036) or 21%. Realistically, that'll skew towards IPZ vice APZ. Historically, IPZ rates are (from AFPC): 2016: 74.13% 2015: 72.03% 2014: 67.00% (opportunity was only 75% that year I believe) 2013: 74.40% 2012: 75.43% 2002-2011 average: 73.69% So, USUALLY (2014 and 2012 being probable exceptions), 10% gets taken off the 85% opportunity to give to BPZ. Some small percentage of the remaining 75% goes to APZ guys, and the rest goes to IPZ.

What stuck out to me wasn't her strategy...getting 360-degree feedback is great (although I'm not sure about the sample that reddit provides). What stuck out to me was that she did feel unprepared both personally, and, by her statement regarding "a week of training and some speechifying...", by the Air Force. Whereas other services (and some communities within the AF) spend 10-15 years preparing and grooming someone for command, that does not seem to be the case with this particular individual. I find the whole thing interesting and revealing.

So, this is a website they set up to take ideas on fixing the AF in line with CSAF's priorities to revitalize squadrons, etc. It's not anonymous to submit an idea, but it is to vote. Seems way better than the old Airmen Powered by Innovation garbage that was full of bureaucratic hurdles.

Saw this post on Reddit...interesting pre-command prep strategy.

If the problem really is a DFAS (and not a screw-up by local finance), then the IG will likely only be able to make inquiries or refer you to the DFAS IG. Sometimes inquiries work...just the phrase "I'm with the IG" can get stuff moving. Unfortunately, I wouldn't be hopeful: I had an issue once where I was getting paid too much. After almost of dealing with local finance and DFAS, the only way it got resolved was I had a random casual conversation with a guy who happened for the Air Force Audit Agency who had enough clout to make a phone call and get them to take money from me...it was ridiculous.

Nothing in AFI 36-2501...must be just a customary thing.

Updated today on mypers...public release for CY17A O-5 LAF board is 23 May.

Comparing infantry officer to pilot is apples to oranges as far as post-military employment goes. I would say flying aircraft of any kind in any mission directly correlates to pretty good post-military employment prospects.

Maybe it's hard to be competitive for a pilot slot without flight hours to boost your PCSM score. Maybe socioeconomic factors make it less likely a minority candidate has a private pilot's license.

10 hours was a pretty short time in those days...might as well have been simultaneous. My point isn't how great he was, but that the system promoted him despite an earlier "blemish."

I think evidence of risking one's professional advancement to do the right thing should be required. Looking into flag officers generally regarded as "great:" As a captain, MacArthur had his first Medal of Honor denied because his boss didn't know what he was doing. As a captain, Eisenhower was threatened with court martial for aggressively advocating tank-centric tactics that looked a lot like Germany's successful blitzkreig scheme. Nimitz was court-martialed as an ensign for running his ship aground. George Washington gave advice to his general in the French and Indian War that essentially got him killed. Mistakes and risks are what make a leader better, and should be forgiven (when they aren't crimes, of course), and rewarded (when appropriate). Most importantly, they should be learned from.

As far as RPA bases, there's no reason not to have an RPA flying squadron at every base in the AF.

If anyone wasn't aware, there's a PSDM for this out on mypers now.

Interesting discussion on locations of AFBs and incentives, etc. The Air Force has been trying to close locations since the last round of BRAC in 2005 (Article). In fact, Cannon AFB was on the closure list in 2005. The NM governor and associated politicians wrangled for its survival (Article). Same for several other garden spots. Implying the AF is responsible for the locations of its bases misses the point of why there are so many bases and why some of them are in such crapholes. To a limited extent, spreading your forces out is a good idea militarily...during the Cold War, it wouldn't have been a great idea to have all your bases in LA and NYC. Not only could you take them out with one strike, but you'd also take millions of people out with them. Maybe that idea still holds today, but I'd say that argument has lost weight over time. A more compelling arguments on why bases in crappy locations exist is the relative power of particular Congressmen and Senators. As the case of Cannon showed, powerful politicians exert influence by way of funding over the location of military bases. Grand Forks, that completely lacked a mission for several years, is another example. Politicians from these lousy areas leverage their votes or influence on committees to protect these cash cows for their constituents. A related political concern is the proximity of flying ops to population centers. Bases that were originally way out of town now find themselves surrounded by suburbs. Upper middle class suburbanites start complaining when F-15s are doing touch and gos all day over their house, regardless of the fact the runway was there long before they were. Additionally flight operations require clear zones at the end of the runways, which take up valuable real estate local developers would love to get their hands on. All of that makes the case for Big Blue coming up with more creative ways to offset the morale lost by putting young Airmen of any type in these lousy areas. Not sure if it's still the case, but for a long time space guys at Cavalier got remote credit and benefits for that assignment.

MILCON and BRAC are funny things. A lot of times they will get pushed through regardless of what the service wants. Both are fully in Congress's wheelhouse. MILCON is line-item approved by Congress, so there's no way that senator from Illinois is going to let a MILCON get turned off if it's directly benefiting his constituents in the very near future.

"As Met" records were posted in PRDA for the P0517A board...must be getting close. Still no update on mypers since first week of April.

For what it's worth, the divestment of much of Kelly was a BRAC decision, not the AF's. Furthermore leasing facilities vice owning them has different types of costs, and you may get some benefits as far as the owner being responsible, more or less, for maintenance and repair. As far as government fiscal policy goes, the handling of leased facilities instead of owning them comes from a different pot of money. Offramping Kelly also got rid of a duplicate management chain...Kelly was a whole separate AFMC logistics center that had a huge manpower tail. Not all of that went away, but a large amount of it did.

Maybe.

Same amount of total time, but more frequent. Being gone shorter but more frequently means it's hard to reintegrate, since you'll just leave in a year. Being home for two years makes it easier to be a meaningful part of your family. Just my experience.