Promotion and PRF Information

[Ram]

Yes, FLT/CCs and SQ/CCs should be grooming our young officers..yes, even the slugs. Instead, we just "evaluate" those young officers based on how fast they check boxes and "what projects they've done for ME lately." In an organization with good, effective leadership, you shouldn't have any "slugs" in your unit because you should have already identified them, "coached" them on how they can do better, and watch them excel along with your organization. If they don't excel, you give them honest feedback and let them go. That is what leadership should be all about. We just don't have much of that kind of leadership at those levels anymore in today's "take care of yourself" culture. That is why these "gaps" still exist.

I'm sorry that's the case for you (and--from what many dudes say here--other young CGOs around the CAF/MAF). My experience has been VERY different. With the exception of one SQ/CC years ago, I've been mentored/taught/given feedback from every commander I've ever had.

The SQ/CC in any unit is a busy dude. Hopefully, he's spending a lot of time trying to screen his pilots from the inevitable queep stream that rolls downhill in any wing. Once he's done that, attended the meetings that seem SO important, and taken the time to write/edit the 14-ish OPRs/EPRs that cross his desk weekly, he doesn't have much extra time. This is where the Flt/CCs and other senior captains need to play a role in officer development.

Think about it: Aside from the "community involvement" bullets your average CGOC produces in their self-licking ice cream cone of douchery, their original intent is fairly sound. They exist for the non-ops CGOs to provide informal mentoring, advice, cross communication, and growth that you simply can't get as the one CGO in a shop of 50 other SNCOs/NCOs/junior airmen. The mentoring and involvement the CGOC offers is EXACTLY what you get in a fighter squadron of 20 captains. The CGOC might not understand (and probably would be shocked to see) the "feedback" given during a roll call, but those young CGOs would KILL to have that kind of group CGO involvement and growth opportunity. We ops CGOs take it for granted, and the bad senior captains/majors we have ignore (or don't realize) the role they need to play.

Flt/CCs, IPs, senior 4FLs/ACs, and junior majors need to realize that they have a HUGE role in developing the young pups. These are the guys who need to give feedback (mostly informal), motivate, and steer the younger guys. Since the senior captains/young majors can't do the things their SQ/CC does (see above), they need to focus their efforts on the developmental time the SQ/CC wishes he could do (but is stuck queeping in his office or at a meeting instead).

"But the SQ/CC and the OG/CC should be doing XXXX and YYYY to develop the younger dudes!" <----- IPs and Flt/CCs I've heard in real life and here on BO.net

^To that I say "WTF do you think YOUR job is now that you've spent 8 years flying jets and completing your upgrade "normal development" ???

[magnetfreezer]

I'm sorry that's the case for you (and--from what many dudes say here--other young CGOs around the CAF/MAF). My experience has been VERY different. With the exception of one SQ/CC years ago, I've been mentored/taught/given feedback from every commander I've ever had.

The SQ/CC in any unit is a busy dude. Hopefully, he's spending a lot of time trying to screen his pilots from the inevitable queep stream that rolls downhill in any wing. Once he's done that, attended the meetings that seem SO important, and taken the time to write/edit the 14-ish OPRs/EPRs that cross his desk weekly, he doesn't have much extra time. This is where the Flt/CCs and other senior captains need to play a role in officer development.

Think about it: Aside from the "community involvement" bullets your average CGOC produces in their self-licking ice cream cone of douchery, their original intent is fairly sound. They exist for the non-ops CGOs to provide informal mentoring, advice, cross communication, and growth that you simply can't get as the one CGO in a shop of 50 other SNCOs/NCOs/junior airmen. The mentoring and involvement the CGOC offers is EXACTLY what you get in a fighter squadron of 20 captains. The CGOC might not understand (and probably would be shocked to see) the "feedback" given during a roll call, but those young CGOs would KILL to have that kind of group CGO involvement and growth opportunity. We ops CGOs take it for granted, and the bad senior captains/majors we have ignore (or don't realize) the role they need to play.

Flt/CCs, IPs, senior 4FLs/ACs, and junior majors need to realize that they have a HUGE role in developing the young pups. These are the guys who need to give feedback (mostly informal), motivate, and steer the younger guys. Since the senior captains/young majors can't do the things their SQ/CC does (see above), they need to focus their efforts on the developmental time the SQ/CC wishes he could do (but is stuck queeping in his office or at a meeting instead).

Instructors and more experienced dudes seem to do a good job of at least the informal "roll call" style of feedback. However, it never makes it into official documents, leaving the CC to use quantifiable things like PT/masters/CGOC/etc as a basis for rating people. We generally have instructor meetings to discuss dudes for upgrades - maybe the answer is to do the same for strats (and then ADOs meet to discuss FLT/CCs, etc). FLT/CCs often can't effectively mentor in a CAF squadron since they're FAIPs and pushing through MQT/upgrade themselves (because PRF season).

[Herk Driver]

Do ADOs and Flt/CCs in your squadrons have input into the CC rack and stack?

[ThreeHoler]

Do ADOs and Flt/CCs in your squadrons have input into the CC rack and stack?

They do in my sq. Sq/CC expects Flt/CCs to lead...and provide meaningful feedback to the members and the CC.

[Ram]

Do ADOs and Flt/CCs in your squadrons have input into the CC rack and stack?

When I was a Flt/CC, yes. The new SQ/CC wanted our rack/stack (and why) the very first day he was on the job.

Instructors and more experienced dudes seem to do a good job of at least the informal "roll call" style of feedback. However, it never makes it into official documents, leaving the CC to use quantifiable things like PT/masters/CGOC/etc as a basis for rating people. We generally have instructor meetings to discuss dudes for upgrades - maybe the answer is to do the same for strats (and then ADOs meet to discuss FLT/CCs, etc). FLT/CCs often can't effectively mentor in a CAF squadron since they're FAIPs and pushing through MQT/upgrade themselves (because PRF season).

Don't confuse an OPR with a feedback session, and don't think for one second that a lack of official documents means the SQ/CC doesn't have the ability to stratify outside of PT/Masters/CGOC.

If your Flt/CCs are in MQT, you're doing it wrong. (IMHBAO.)

[Herk Driver]

Good. That is what I have seen as well. I agree wholeheartedly with what you said above. I think many dudes in the senior roles don't realize that it is their jobs to do much of the mentoring, etc. Lots of folks just want to wait for the Sq/CC or DO to do it instead. Does the Sq/CC have that responsibility, yes. But can he do it alone with the myriad of other trivial tasks, no.

However, it never makes it into official documents.

Why not? There is a place for much of that in the official feedback form.

[BitteEinBit]

I'm sorry that's the case for you (and--from what many dudes say here--other young CGOs around the CAF/MAF). My experience has been VERY different. With the exception of one SQ/CC years ago, I've been mentored/taught/given feedback from every commander I've ever had.

The SQ/CC in any unit is a busy dude. Hopefully, he's spending a lot of time trying to screen his pilots from the inevitable queep stream that rolls downhill in any wing. Once he's done that, attended the meetings that seem SO important, and taken the time to write/edit the 14-ish OPRs/EPRs that cross his desk weekly, he doesn't have much extra time. This is where the Flt/CCs and other senior captains need to play a role in officer development.

Think about it: Aside from the "community involvement" bullets your average CGOC produces in their self-licking ice cream cone of douchery, their original intent is fairly sound. They exist for the non-ops CGOs to provide informal mentoring, advice, cross communication, and growth that you simply can't get as the one CGO in a shop of 50 other SNCOs/NCOs/junior airmen. The mentoring and involvement the CGOC offers is EXACTLY what you get in a fighter squadron of 20 captains. The CGOC might not understand (and probably would be shocked to see) the "feedback" given during a roll call, but those young CGOs would KILL to have that kind of group CGO involvement and growth opportunity. We ops CGOs take it for granted, and the bad senior captains/majors we have ignore (or don't realize) the role they need to play.

Flt/CCs, IPs, senior 4FLs/ACs, and junior majors need to realize that they have a HUGE role in developing the young pups. These are the guys who need to give feedback (mostly informal), motivate, and steer the younger guys. Since the senior captains/young majors can't do the things their SQ/CC does (see above), they need to focus their efforts on the developmental time the SQ/CC wishes he could do (but is stuck queeping in his office or at a meeting instead).

"But the SQ/CC and the OG/CC should be doing XXXX and YYYY to develop the younger dudes!" <----- IPs and Flt/CCs I've heard in real life and here on BO.net

^To that I say "WTF do you think YOUR job is now that you've spent 8 years flying jets and completing your upgrade "normal development" ???

I agree with everything you said. I wish I had the CCs you had growing up. My experience was about 50/50 with commanders I consider "good" in that regard.

I'm not saying the SQ/CCs need to do all the work here...I know they are busy. But they need to create an environment that encourages the kind of mentorship we are talking about. Instead, the CCs are just identifying their weak swimmers and leaving them out to dry...the ole' "you're only as good as your last mistake" environment.

Athletic coaches don't just take the talent they have and go with it...even the good players need some coaching to perfect their skillsets. The point I was trying to make about not having that kind of leadership is that even the FLT/CCs are too busy with their own developmental queep to do what we agree they should be doing for the up and coming officers. FLT/CCs in my squadron weren't made FLT/CCs to lead and develop...we literally shuffled them through so they would have it on their OPR/PRFs. No joke. I'd go on a TDY and come back and the flight commanders changed while I was gone. Again, we are too busy box checking these days to care about mentoring young dudes. And that is where leadership fails. I can only speak for my small corner of the world, but It is worse today than when I first joined.

Edit: Erase extra quote...not sure why it did that

Edited July 31, 2013 by BitteEinBit

[Herk Driver]

Bitte, I will say that I rolled into a squadron that had some of the same issues that you describe above. Some of that was CC driven but some of that was individual driven. Dudes pushing to be a Flt/CC so that it was on their SURF and then on to greener pastures. Box checking (sts) at its finest. But, I believe that much of that was driven by the Capts that were doing it as much as any external influences. People get the itch if they have been in a job for more than 6 months for some reason. It takes a concerted effort to stop this from happening and also a deliberate approach to development. There are AF-level decisions that factor into this (e.g, no masking of AAD for the O-4 board, etc), but many of these things are in your control. Not directed at you, but stop blaming everyone else and fix the problems that you can control when you have the chance to fix them. Don't let others drive the decisions that you make and make the best decision for the AF, the unit and the individual...while that does not always make everyone happy, it tends to work in the long run.

[Recut]

I don't understand the reasoning w/MAJCOM pushes being bad. Push lines are supposed to be logical -- I've seen several solid new majors go to MAJCOM staff -- that is a normal progression.

I don't care about the secret codes, I really don't. Often, I think people really look into them too much. Granted, I am not a member of the secret society of secret OPR code writers..........

[nrodgsxr]

I'm curious if anyone has a good list of good vs bad push lines. If MAJCOM staff is bad, is HAF staff good? Having never been an exec, I want to scrub my OPRs for mediocrity.

Edit: Not trying to derail, just want to know what sort of crap I'll be putting on my PRF whenever '05 gets a chance to submit one.

it depends on the SR but ive seen the order as joint, HAF, MAJCOM, then NAF or some generic staff push. No staff push as a younger cgo is normal since staff isn't really where you belong.

also there should always be a rank appropriate PME push along with a job push

[zach braff]

I don't understand the reasoning w/MAJCOM pushes being bad. Push lines are supposed to be logical -- I've seen several solid new majors go to MAJCOM staff -- that is a normal progression.

I don't care about the secret codes, I really don't. Often, I think people really look into them too much. Granted, I am not a member of the secret society of secret OPR code writers..........

Oh actually going to a MAJCOM staff isn't bad, just having it as your push is...

So a couple years ago I had a supervisor/div chief (I'm a support guy) who was a 4 times passed over captain who somehow eventually made major and became my supervisor. She was actually a very nice person just dumb as rocks. Well I also had a new CC at the time who was adamant about officers NOT writing their own OPRs. In most cases I get it, but this situation was not a good combination.

Well I just happened to be filling in temporarily on the Senior Rater's staff one week and I see my OPR come through with a "big MAJCOM program next" push, zero PME push and lots more bad code. This in a year when without the boring details had done some major mission-shit and also had some high level recognition to boot. She really was trying to write me a good OPR as best she knew how, she just didn't and was going off her old OPRs that I'm sure she thought were great. And the CC being new, he didn't really know most of us yet so I'm sure saw the OPR and thought "oh, I see the message here" and moved it on. Anyway, THANK GOD I had a couple good mentors earlier who taught me some of this sh-t... Additionally the exec also knew the code and called a WTF, called the CC and got things fixed before it went for signature.

So yeah it sucks that code is there but somebody needs to be teaching it. That was my top OPR in my last RIF board - if nobody had known that Fing code that could have been a very bad thing.

F the code - but until it goes away the young bucks need to know it.

zach "MAJCOM Next" braff

[Cell Dweller]

Oh actually going to a MAJCOM staff isn't bad, just having it as your push is...

To echo this, serving on a MAJCOM staff is generally good for a career, but getting it as the bottom line push is seen as bad. Also note that a push for a staff job should normally be seen at a mid-to-senior captain point, or for a major or above. The point of a staff push is that a senior rater is telling anyone who reads that this officer is competent enough to be trusted managing a portion of the USAF corporate structure. Thanks to the over-inflated performance reporting system, the senior rater is expected to put the push that they believe is best for the officer based on his/her performance. Therefore a push for MAJCOM staff indicates that the senior rater does not think that the officer is ready to represent the USAF (in a joint staff) or their core specialty (at HAF), therefore they should be kept in their community if they are to be put in a staff position. The downside is that this now is a quasi-black mark since everyone thinks there own sh!t don't stink, and will think that this officer has something wrong with them if their OPR does not say "Future CSAF material!"

[LockheedFix]

When does the Air Force normally announce the major's promotion board month for 2014?

Well, the board for '13 would normally have been announced 4 months ago, but it has been delayed indefinitely. I wouldn't say there is any kind "normal" for the '14 board. It's gonna be a while.

[Dupe]

Can you receive credit for Flt/CC from the promotion board if you did it while you were deployed and it's annotated in your OPR due to being in an LOE? Subsequently, you add it to your PRF. Or must the board disregard the fact that you were a Flt/CC because it's not listed on your surf? I know a job performed downrange as an officer cannot be listed in your surf.

If its in an OPR, it can be put into a PRF. How your flt/CC experience affects your strat and DP/P status is up to your WG/CC. The board does not spend enough time on your record to do a punch-list of positions held.

[sqwatch]

Can you receive credit for Flt/CC from the promotion board if you did it while you were deployed and it's annotated in your OPR due to being in an LOE? Subsequently, you add it to your PRF. Or must the board disregard the fact that you were a Flt/CC because it's not listed on your surf? I know a job performed downrange as an officer cannot be listed in your surf.

More importantly, it needs to be in your duty history. The board looks at that

[Dupe]

More importantly, it needs to be in your duty history. The board looks at that

Sure...but comparing duty titles amongst all officers in the Air Force is a difficult to near useless exercise. Being a Flt/CC in an Ops squadron is a very different responsibiilty level than being a Flt/CC in a CE squadron or LRS. The board members know this... which is why senior rater strat, being DG, PME completion, DP vs P, and AAD so important. Those things are comparable for all AFSCs.

[Rusty Pipes]

... which is why senior rater strat, being DG, PME completion, DP vs P, and AAD so important. Those things are comparable for all AFSCs.

Hmmm... is being DG at UPT the same as being DG of Finance, Com, LRS school? Is the #1 CGO strat of the MSG the same as the #1 strat of the OG of a flying Wing? Is the #1 CGO strat of the OG at Charleston where they have 4 flying Sqs the same as McGuire where they have 2 or maybe Andrews where they have 2 Sqs, but only a half dozen CGOs in the whole OG? When the AF sends Lt Snuffy to MIT to get his Aero Masters so he can work in a Research Lab at Hanscom is that the same as Lt Jenkins getting his Aviation Management masters from Embry Riddle Online while turning left for 8 hours a day in Sandcamp? Sorry... these things aren't even close to being comparable for all AFSCs unless all you are comparing is whether the box was checked or not. For some reason that part was left out of "The Big Picture" and Big Blue hasn't figured that out yet! I've talked to way too many O-6 types who think all of those are the same... a #1 strat is a #1 strat... a Masters is a Masters... a DG is a DG!

[ThreeHoler]

McGuire where they have 2

Three, sir!

#montypythonandtheholygrail

[Fuzz]

Three, sir!

#montypythonandtheholygrail

Hashtags....really?

[Dupe]

Hmmm... is being DG at UPT the same as being DG of Finance, Com, LRS school? Is the #1 CGO strat of the MSG the same as the #1 strat of the OG of a flying Wing? Is the #1 CGO strat of the OG at Charleston where they have 4 flying Sqs the same as McGuire where they have 2 or maybe Andrews where they have 2 Sqs, but only a half dozen CGOs in the whole OG? When the AF sends Lt Snuffy to MIT to get his Aero Masters so he can work in a Research Lab at Hanscom is that the same as Lt Jenkins getting his Aviation Management masters from Embry Riddle Online while turning left for 8 hours a day in Sandcamp? Sorry... these things aren't even close to being comparable for all AFSCs unless all you are comparing is whether the box was checked or not. For some reason that part was left out of &quot;The Big Picture&quot; and Big Blue hasn't figured that out yet! I've talked to way too many O-6 types who think all of those are the same... a #1 strat is a #1 strat... a Masters is a Masters... a DG is a DG!

Rusty... I'm not arguing that the system is dumb here... I'm explaining the threat picture to others who may not understand it. The sad reality is that 4 of 5 dudes seeing a guy's record at the promotion table only have scant or passing knowledge of Air Force aviation... much less the guy's specific community or his performance within it. The 5th guy is probably rated, but he may not be familiar with the promotee's community. As a result, the board falls back on what they can easily quantify: strats, DGs, PME, DP vs P, and AAD.

I personally think promotions should be AFSC or community-specific, and AF/A1 should just set the number of officers required in each year group and AFSC. That way, we're not stuck with trying to keep officers who are walking out the door in some careers, while simultaneously trying to boot officers in other careers. Career-specific boards could then decide what criteria they want to promote... engineers and scientists can look harder at AADs, the MAF can look at AC to IP progression, the CAF can promote WIC grads, MX officers can promote based on number of denied 2407s, etc. ...but nobody asked me.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Dupe

[matmacwc]

#Itsallaguess, #Ifyouaintyoudontknow, #Trydirtyknees

[General Chang]

I've talked to way too many O-6 types who think all of those are the same... a #1 strat is a #1 strat... a Masters is a Masters... a DG is a DG!

Umm, earth to Rusty...by definition, they are all the same. Stop whining.

[matmacwc]

GC has a point there. You know, air is air and ground is....well, have another!

Edited August 15, 2013 by matmacwc

[Fuzz]

Yeah I mean being the CEO of Apple is exactly the same as being the CEO of a fortune 100 company, "by definition".

[slackline]

Umm, earth to Rusty...by definition, they are all the same. Stop whining.

You can't possibly believe that?! You're just trying to stir the pot right?

If this guy runs anything we're all hosed.