What's wrong with the Air Force?

[SurelySerious]

Why? You don't promote against the peers in your career field.

You don't, but you should. That way performance comparisons are easier and don't require some super secret code. The expectations and responsibilities of maintenance, intel, and even mobility vs fighter (one could argue) career fields are so different that we wind up with absurd discriminators like Christmas parties, volunteer hours, and AAD that mean nothing.

[hispeed7721]

You don't, but you should. That way performance comparisons are easier and don't require some super secret code. The expectations and responsibilities of maintenance, intel, and even mobility vs fighter (one could argue) career fields are so different that we wind up with absurd discriminators like Christmas parties, volunteer hours, and AAD that mean nothing.

Bingo...I made my previous comment somewhat tongue in cheek and with this exact thought in mind

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Herk Driver]

Bingo...I made my previous comment somewhat tongue in cheek and with this exact thought in mind

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's a whole different windmill to go tilt against.

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

[SurelySerious]

That's a whole different windmill to go tilt against.

Agree, but it goes for actual problem vs trying to treat symptoms.

[Herk Driver]

Agree, but it goes for actual problem vs trying to treat symptoms.

A little over simplistic...even in that system many of these other issues would still be problems

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

[Homestar]

You don't, but you should.

[Dupe]

You don't, but you should. That way performance comparisons are easier and don't require some super secret code. The expectations and responsibilities of maintenance, intel, and even mobility vs fighter (one could argue) career fields are so different that we wind up with absurd discriminators like Christmas parties, volunteer hours, and AAD that mean nothing.

This is spot on.

I've long thought promotion to O-4 & O-5 should be done by DTs vice a whole-of-the-AF board. Then, inputs and stratification will become much more detailed. At the same time, the DT could have the RIF during the same board if there's a need. It mystified me these last few years why we are generating PRFs for whole-of-the-AF promotion boards then generating RRFs for AFSC-specific DTs to judge who gets to stay... that should all be one board and one recommendation form staffing cycle.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Dupe

[Miles 69]

Multiple A1 studies have been done on whether there should be separate promotion boards (I actually had to do one while I was on staff), the latest one I remember was a RAND study that the AF requested to find out why RPA pilots were not getting promoted, one of the factors was because they were unable to go to SOS due to mission demand and they were penalized on their O-4 Board for not completing SOS. So why not have separate boards

Here's why: The analysis always proves that rated officers would actually fare worse at O-5 and O-6 if you had separate promotion boards because, by-law you can never promote higher than your actual requirement and if you have separate promotion boards then aviators could only get promoted based on the requirement for rated officers for example, from the study I lead, the requirement for Rated O-6s in FY-12 was 33% and support was 54 % but Rated bubbas were promoted at rate of 47% (more than the requirement). If you had separate boards Rated O-6s could only be promoted at a rate of 33%.

Consequently, BPZ is far worse from 1998-2012 Rated officers made up only 37% of the Officer force but they averaged way over 50% of the BPZ selects.

[Slander]

Sounds like that law needs changing if the USAF wants to promote at the current ratio of rated:non-rated and change to a style of promotion board which better reflects workplace accomplishment reality.

[Lord Ratner]

Multiple A1 studies have been done on whether there should be separate promotion boards (I actually had to do one while I was on staff), the latest one I remember was a RAND study that the AF requested to find out why RPA pilots were not getting promoted, one of the factors was because they were unable to go to SOS due to mission demand and they were penalized on their O-4 Board for not completing SOS. So why not have separate boards

Here's why: The analysis always proves that rated officers would actually fare worse at O-5 and O-6 if you had separate promotion boards because, by-law you can never promote higher than your actual requirement and if you have separate promotion boards then aviators could only get promoted based on the requirement for rated officers for example, from the study I lead, the requirement for Rated O-6s in FY-12 was 33% and support was 54 % but Rated bubbas were promoted at rate of 47% (more than the requirement). If you had separate boards Rated O-6s could only be promoted at a rate of 33%.

Consequently, BPZ is far worse from 1998-2012 Rated officers made up only 37% of the Officer force but they averaged way over 50% of the BPZ selects.

There are plenty of ways to fudge that, I'm guessing. Combined boards with different sections, etc.

[guineapigfury]

Or have a certain percentage of the promotion billets reserved for certain AFSCs and the remainder left for an "at large" category. That way the Air Force can address manning deficiencies in certain AFSCs while still leaving room to promote top performers.

[Karl Hungus]

Here's why: The analysis always proves that rated officers would actually fare worse at O-5 and O-6 if you had separate promotion boards because, by-law you can never promote higher than your actual requirement

I don't see many people advocating for AFSC-specific promotion boards at the O-5 and O-6 level. At the O-1 through O-4 levels, though, it makes a hell of a lot of sense.

[SurelySerious]

I don't see many people advocating for AFSC-specific promotion boards at the O-5 and O-6 level. At the O-1 through O-4 levels, though, it makes a hell of a lot of sense.

Shack.

[Smokin]

Here's why: The analysis always proves that rated officers would actually fare worse at O-5 and O-6 if you had separate promotion boards because, by-law you can never promote higher than your actual requirement and if you have separate promotion boards then aviators could only get promoted based on the requirement for rated officers for example, from the study I lead, the requirement for Rated O-6s in FY-12 was 33% and support was 54 % but Rated bubbas were promoted at rate of 47% (more than the requirement). If you had separate boards Rated O-6s could only be promoted at a rate of 33%.

Consequently, BPZ is far worse from 1998-2012 Rated officers made up only 37% of the Officer force but they averaged way over 50% of the BPZ selects.

Unless we change the way we interpret the law. If you have an AF wide promotion board that is broken down into various AFSC panels, then AF wide you are promoting at the by law required rate. But you could manage each AFSC panel to have promotion rates at a specific level the AF desires to promote. We need more fighter guys, promote 95%. We need less service guys, promote 10%. Then overall you could average out to make the required cut. I haven't read the law you mentioned, but I bet there could be some wiggle room to be creative and still adhere to both the letter and intent.

[BB Stacker]

I don't see many people advocating for AFSC-specific promotion boards at the O-5 and O-6 level. At the O-1 through O-4 levels, though, it makes a hell of a lot of sense.

So you really just mean the O-4 boards, because O-1 through O-3 promotion boards are completely pointless.

[Smokin]

There's a promotion board for O-1? What's the promotion rate?

[Dupe]

I don't see many people advocating for AFSC-specific promotion boards at the O-5 and O-6 level. At the O-1 through O-4 levels, though, it makes a hell of a lot of sense.

I think it makes sense up to the O-5 level. Community-specific sq/cc boards could happen concurrently.

[Karl Hungus]

There's a promotion board for O-1? What's the promotion rate?

So you really just mean the O-4 boards, because O-1 through O-3 promotion boards are completely pointless.

Yes, but it wasn't that long ago we were wasting a shitload of time on PRFs/RRFs for Lts straight out of UPT/FTU. Because, well, they had to "compete" with their MXG/MSG "peers", and heaven fucking forbid they have a blank form.

[Miles 69]

So your really talking about O-4s and the avg promotion rate to Maj from 1989-2013 was 89% so you've got to really be an unlucky jet not to make Maj (not saying it doesn't happen, I know some good dudes that got passed over but it wasn't because they didn't do the Christmas Party), so your real beef is IDE. Because if you get IDE you will make O-5 and if you get SDE you make O-6. And Yes I agree the DT boards should pick IDE selects. If I was king you wouldn't be allowed to be selected for IDE off of your Majs board. If you think about it 20-25 % of Capts that get selected for Maj are also getting selected for LT COL (promotion rate to Lt Col is 99% if you are an in res IDE grad) based off of 9 yrs of work and if they are rated their people leadership resume isn't that thick. Additionally some of those guys then throttle back as a Maj cause they know they've got it made to Lt Col.

[Homestar]

I haven't read the law you mentioned...

Cool...

[Majestik Møøse]

FYSA, DOPMA is the law that governs officer promotions. It's been discussed in the PRF and non-continuation threads.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Officer_Personnel_Management_Act

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_or_out

[SuperWSO]

words words words. <complete bullshit> Because if you get IDE you will make O-5 and if you get SDE you make O-6. </complete bullshit>

You have got to be kidding me. I know tons of dudes who have IDE done and didn't get promoted. IDE and Masters and didn't get promoted. O-6 is a lot more about your skills as a politician, although not getting DE complete is a good way to remove yourself from consideration.

[Breckey]

I think he meant IDE in residence.

[Miles 69]

You have got to be kidding me. I know tons of dudes who have IDE done and didn't get promoted. IDE and Masters and didn't get promoted. O-6 is a lot more about your skills as a politician, although not getting DE complete is a good way to remove yourself from consideration.

IDE/SDE in residence

Edited November 8, 2014 by Miles 69

[Azimuth]

This Colonel gets it. Good read.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123430954