Promotion and PRF Information

[Fuzz]

Right. What is the problem of keeping your original DOR If you were a ROTC grad that was on AD for 2-3 weeks as a 2d Lt before the USAFA guys graduated? You were a 2d Lt when they were still cadets and should keep your original DOR and not a halfway date the MPF draws from the lottery.

5. DATE OF RANK OF SECOND LIEUTENANTS OR ENSIGNS APPOINTED IN MAY OR

JUNE NOT THROUGH THE SERVICE ACADEMIES. The date of rank of second lieutenants

or ensigns appointed in accordance with section 2106 or 2107 of Reference (f) in May or June of

any year who enter active duty during either of those months is the date that the class of cadets or

midshipmen graduated from one of the Service Academies

That's not what the reg says, me and several of my buddies EAD'd within days of commissioning in early may, however because of the reg our DORs were pushed back to the end of May to match the academy Lts' DOR. My buddies that EAD'd in April were able to keep their April DOR.

[Right Seat Driver]

5. DATE OF RANK OF SECOND LIEUTENANTS OR ENSIGNS APPOINTED IN MAY OR

JUNE NOT THROUGH THE SERVICE ACADEMIES. The date of rank of second lieutenants

or ensigns appointed in accordance with section 2106 or 2107 of Reference (f) in May or June of

any year who enter active duty during either of those months is the date that the class of cadets or

midshipmen graduated from one of the Service Academies

That's not what the reg says, me and several of my buddies EAD'd within days of commissioning in early may, however because of the reg our DORs were pushed back to the end of May to match the academy Lts' DOR. My buddies that EAD'd in April were able to keep their April DOR.

Alright, I looked for further references. What is the definition of "appointed?" Example, commissioned in April and EAD'd in May.

BTW, when I in-processed my DOR was initially half-way between commissioning and EAD (which was still before USAFA graduated), but it was adjusted to my commissioning date a few months afterwards. I also received an automated e-mail informing me of my DOR change as well as a notification stating my Reserve ROTC commission was now a Regular commission. Which I think happened to everyone after 2005ish.

Perhaps DoD 1310.01 pre-2013 read differently.

Edited December 27, 2013 by Right Seat Driver

[SPiF]

5. DATE OF RANK OF SECOND LIEUTENANTS OR ENSIGNS APPOINTED IN MAY OR

JUNE NOT THROUGH THE SERVICE ACADEMIES. The date of rank of second lieutenants

or ensigns appointed in accordance with section 2106 or 2107 of Reference (f) in May or June of

any year who enter active duty during either of those months is the date that the class of cadets or

midshipmen graduated from one of the Service Academies

That's not what the reg says, me and several of my buddies EAD'd within days of commissioning in early may, however because of the reg our DORs were pushed back to the end of May to match the academy Lts' DOR. My buddies that EAD'd in April were able to keep their April DOR.

This. I commissioned in early May, and was on AD about 2 1/2 weeks later. Sometime in September they adjusted my DOR, which was after I came on AD (I was about 3-4 days into ASBC TDY enroute to my first duty station when the Academy graduated that year). And that's the DOR they've used to calculate promotions ever since.

Another guy I was on casual with was in the same situation, same timeline, and CPTS actually went after his pay from that time. How could he have been paid from 26 May if his DOR is 30 May? They eventually gave him his money back...after withholding an entire paycheck from him to "correct the debt." (They took the pay, TDY money, and PCS money for everything that occurred before 30 May).

[Skitzo]

Wow somehow I got a line number before the academy guys. Maybe I shouldn't be saying that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fuzz]

Alright, I looked for further references. What is the definition of "appointed?" Example, commissioned in April and EAD'd in May.

BTW, when I in-processed my DOR was initially half-way between commissioning and EAD (which was still before USAFA graduated), but it was adjusted to my commissioning date a few months afterwards. I also received an automated e-mail informing me of my DOR change as well as a notification stating my Reserve ROTC commission was now a Regular commission. Which I think happened to everyone after 2005ish.

Perhaps DoD 1310.01 pre-2013 read differently.

Appointed I believe is the technical term for commissioned, sounds like you slipped through the cracks.

This. I commissioned in early May, and was on AD about 2 1/2 weeks later. Sometime in September they adjusted my DOR, which was after I came on AD (I was about 3-4 days into ASBC TDY enroute to my first duty station when the Academy graduated that year). And that's the DOR they've used to calculate promotions ever since.

Another guy I was on casual with was in the same situation, same timeline, and CPTS actually went after his pay from that time. How could he have been paid from 26 May if his DOR is 30 May? They eventually gave him his money back...after withholding an entire paycheck from him to "correct the debt." (They took the pay, TDY money, and PCS money for everything that occurred before 30 May).

Yeah my buddies and I were on AD within days of commissioning, one guy EAD'd the day after we commissioned, me and the other guys were 2-3 days after. Thankfully we didn't run into any pay issues, just happened to notice it when I was looking a vMPF one day that my DOR had been changed to the USAFA graduation date.

[albertschu]

I don't see a problem with this. If you EAD while USAFA guys are still cadets, then the earlier DOR should stand.

I agree. It used to be that way.

Perhaps DoD 1310.01 pre-2013 read differently.

Yep.

I just realized I haven't been drinking enough. (I've fixed that glitch.)

If you EAD prior to the academy graduation, and they set your your DOR to the academy graduation date, you will still get a lower line number than grads because you will have an earlier TAFCSD.

[Cell Dweller]

Bump

With all the talk about force management, has there been anything going on with the Major board that's supposed to happen at the end of the year? It seems like every year prior, the promotion board to O-4 has been a hot topic around all the bases, but with the Force Mgmt fiasco going on, it seems like the intel on the promotion boards has dried up.

[zach braff]

Bump

With all the talk about force management, has there been anything going on with the Major board that's supposed to happen at the end of the year? It seems like every year prior, the promotion board to O-4 has been a hot topic around all the bases, but with the Force Mgmt fiasco going on, it seems like the intel on the promotion boards has dried up.

Haven't heard a thing - let's get some RUMINT started!

- Masters Degrees? Masked or Unmasked? What's it gonna be?

- Promotion %... Same as previous years (~90%)?

- School slots... Still top 20%? Reduced to allow some candidates to go in the future?

zb

edit fer speling

Edited March 30, 2014 by zach braff

[USAF Pilot]

Can't speak to the Maj's board but the Lt Col Line of the AF just got done recently. I think those results will be telling in how much their promotion rate takes a dive. DP allocations went from 60% to 40% which leads me to believe that the promotion rates will probably also go down. It seems to reason that if Lt Col promotion rates drop by say 10-20% that the Maj's promotion rates will likely be lower too. I think promotion rates will be influx/lower than usual for all of 2014 and 2015 (except for maybe medical) as the AF tries to work its way through the current manning issues.

[Guest ThatGuy]

The term "Top Tier" in an OPR is considered a third level stratification correct? Does the term mean or help you during a board if there isn't a number after it to back it up?

Can moving to a new MWS prior to your board hurt you? As in moving from AC to copilot.

[FBomb]

The term "Top Tier" in an OPR is considered a third level stratification correct? Does the term mean or help you during a board if there isn't a number after it to back it up?

Phrases don't help you on boards. Concrete strats do.

[Herk Driver]

The term "Top Tier" in an OPR is considered a third level stratification correct? Does the term mean or help you during a board if there isn't a number after it to back it up?

Can moving to a new MWS prior to your board hurt you? As in moving from AC to copilot.

Agree with Fbomb.

As far as a second MDS, I think it depends. Typically a second MDS helps. Your example says AC to copilot...Is there a reason you were not an IP in the first MDS? That is the question that a board member will ask.

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

[ak47]

Agree with Fbomb.

As far as a second MDS, I think it depends. Typically a second MDS helps. Your example says AC to copilot...Is there a reason you were not an IP in the first MDS? That is the question that a board member will ask.

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

I believe in this instance it will (could?) probably be a third MWS for Slick and some of the other MC-12 guys, since right now we have more questions than answers. Legacy Herk guys maybe or maybe not going to the J, Hog guys going who knows where and all the mobility guys who came here due to 169% manning in their previous communities. Many waiting on May 1, the AF isn't creating any more cockpits...

[BitteEinBit]

That's part of the problem....the boards shouldn't be trying to interpret what may or may not be bad on an OPR. I thought they didn't have time to think about why someone was an IP in one MWS and an FP in the next. Stick to what the OPR actually says instead of trying to interpret what the writer might be trying to say.

There are many reasons why someone would be an IP in one MWS but an FP in another. One example comes from the old Little Rock days back in 2007 when the 41st was still transitioning to the J-model. It was squadron policy to be an FP until one deployment and then you couldn't upgrade to IP until you deployed once as an AC. If someone had shitty timing and just crossflowed from being an IP in another airframe to an FP in the J just prior to their promotion board and some numbnut O-6 tries to interpret why, they'd probably be screwed because the O-6 would get it wrong not knowing how the 41st did their upgrade training. Epic fail. Now fast forward to Ramstein in 2009 when they started transitioning to the J-model and upgraded everyone as soon as they had 50 hours of FP time (LR TR course time included). Same airframe, same crew position, same upgrade...different criteria. (no knocking the Ramstein bubbas, just trying to show perspective).

Rock bottom line...non-rated O-6s (or anyone for that matter) have no business trying to interpret what aircrew progression (or perceived regression) really means. Chances are, they will get it wrong. If someone was an IP and is no longer an IP for performance reasons, their records SHOULD should show some kind of derogatory information...but we don't do that. Everyone gets a trophy in today's Air Force. So we leave it to some jacknut at a promotion board to ask questions about something that isn't even in an individual's records.

Edit to add: Yeah, we aren't creating any more cockpits, we're fixing the pilot shortage without having to train any additional pilots. It is the numbers game. Oh, and by the way, we're still going to do more with less!

Edited April 26, 2014 by BitteEinBit

[tunes]

I believe in this instance it will (could?) probably be a third MWS for Slick and some of the other MC-12 guys, since right now we have more questions than answers. Legacy Herk guys maybe or maybe not going to the J, Hog guys going who knows where and all the mobility guys who came here due to 169% manning in their previous communities. Many waiting on May 1, the AF isn't creating any more cockpits...

Except the mc12 isn't a mws....

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

[Bender]

The term "Top Tier" in an OPR is considered a third level stratification correct? Does the term mean or help you during a board if there isn't a number after it to back it up?

Can moving to a new MWS prior to your board hurt you? As in moving from AC to copilot.

I believe you are correct in your categorization of the stratification. There isn't much positive to say about it from the perspective of a promotion board. As the categorization suggests, it is not competitive with a pure peer stratification, or even an inflated group (second level) stratification. It would help in so much as the report doesn't say something obviously negative, which likely would need to be a referral report anyways...not getting into the silly code word/phrase conversation, which I'm not sure I really buy into at this point. The answer to your question is it's not going to hurt, but it's not going to help without a number to back it up...it almost doesn't matter what it says, and as such isn't what you want to put on your PRF. You most likely want to put first level strats at the beginning of the line followed by supporting information that strat is based on (which is the "C method" of writing a PRF). There are others, so I'd talk to a few people to find the method that works best for the reports you have to work with.

As for moving airframes, it shouldn't hurt you. It should help you. It broadens your experience which is something that sets you apart from others. The fact that you are new to the airframe, it is intuitive that you would not walk in as an EP, even if you were previously an IP in your last platform. That said, leaving one platform prior to becoming an IP and not obtaining that qual in the new platform prior to the board does leave an open question. There is no way to know how this will be resolved in the mind of each member of the board. This, like having multi-platform experience, sets you apart from others...this time in a negative way.

It is a Line of the Air Force promotion board, not a rated promotion board. The IP qual is part of normal progression, but will not kill you without it (especially for an O-4 board). The stratifications, accomplishments, duty progression, and aircrew qualifications (arguably in that order) will be what determines if you have the capacity to serve in the next higher grade. ...you know, that whole person concept thing.

I would humbly submit that you should not worry about how moving to a new airframe will impact your board. Do not choose to stay where you don't want to be, doing something you don't want to do, just to improve your chances at the board. You will get that IP qual (maybe), but everything else will suffer from your struggle to stay motivated and excel. If you think you can do that "artificially", by which I mean you get that you're an officer and a leader first and what airplane you fly isn't as important as that, then by all means go for it.

Bendy

Edited April 26, 2014 by Bender

[Winchester]

Except the mc12 isn't a mws....

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

Checks

Edited April 26, 2014 by Winchester

[Champ Kind]

The term "Top Tier" in an OPR is considered a third level stratification correct? Does the term mean or help you during a board if there isn't a number after it to back it up?

For anyone interested:

In my experience, the following are the "tiers" of stratification:

1: x/xx Capts (or Lts, Majs, whatever.. specific to your rank)

2: x/xx CGOs/FGOs (larger pool, but not as specific. The only way a "CGO" strat would be top-tier would be a Lt getting a #1 or 2/XX CGOs strat because it implies that he/she is performing above the level of Capts also in that CGO category. Open to interpretation.)

3: x/xx pilots, ACs, instructors, whatever.

No number=not a strat, and therefore fluff. If a CC truly wanted to mark someone as "top tier", they would stratify them as such, not use words in a push line.

I hate that I know this.

[Skitzo]

Or if you are really good your push will say "joint staff." But if you are really shit hot it will say "Joint Staff."

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Danny Noonin]

For anyone interested:

In my experience, the following are the "tiers" of stratification:

1: x/xx Capts (or Lts, Majs, whatever.. specific to your rank)

2: x/xx CGOs/FGOs (larger pool, but not as specific. The only way a "CGO" strat would be top-tier would be a Lt getting a #1 or 2/XX CGOs strat because it implies that he/she is performing above the level of Capts also in that CGO category. Open to interpretation.)

3: x/xx pilots, ACs, instructors, whatever.

No number=not a strat, and therefore fluff. If a CC truly wanted to mark someone as "top tier", they would stratify them as such, not use words in a push line.

I hate that I know this.

I don't agree with you. That may be what someone told you, but it's a vast over generalization and misleads young guys trying to learn.

The real answer--as always--is "it depends". Most of it depends on the pool size. Would you rather be #1/2 captains or #1/6 CGOs? I know which one I'd pick. Also, you're way off when it comes to majors. A major getting an FGO strat--which includes Lt Cols in the pool--could be a very good thing depending on how the numbers compared. Would you rather be #1/3 majors or #2/10 FGOs? Literally it's top 33% of rank peers compared to top 20% of a pool which includes more senior folks. So in this case, I'd take the #2 over the #1 without question. It's way better.

But the real fallacy of what you wrote is that if there is no strat, it's all fluff. Not at all true. That's the kind of myth that makes for terrible OPR writers because they don't understand the bigger picture. Generally you strat the top 20%. Promotion rates are way beyond that, right? So there is a way to write such that you try to communicate the differential between the 30th percentile guy and the 70th percentile guy. Using phrases like "Top tier" may be one of those ways. It's really pretty easy to make that differentiation even when using all positive words. You have to get past the literal words on the paper and look for the message being sent. They are not the same thing.

Edited April 27, 2014 by Danny Noonin

[Guest ThatGuy]

I don't agree with you. That may be what someone told you, but it's a vast over generalization and misleads young guys trying to learn.

The real answer--as always--is "it depends". Most of it depends on the pool size. Would you rather be #1/2 captains or #1/6 CGOs? I know which one I'd pick. Also, you're way off when it comes to majors. A major getting an FGO strat--which includes Lt Cols in the pool--could be a very good thing depending on how the numbers compared. Would you rather be #1/3 majors or #2/10 FGOs? Literally it's top 33% of rank peers compared to top 20% of a pool which includes more senior folks. So in this case, I'd take the #2 over the #1 without question. It's way better.

But the real fallacy of what you wrote is that if there is no strat, it's all fluff. Not at all true. That's the kind of myth that makes for terrible OPR writers because they don't understand the bigger picture. Generally you strat the top 20%. Promotion rates are way beyond that, right? So there is a way to write such that you try to communicate the differential between the 30th percentile guy and the 70th percentile guy. Using phrases like "Top tier" may be one of those ways. It's really pretty easy to make that differentiation even when using all positive words. You have to get past the literal words on the paper and look for the message being sent. They are not the same thing.

Thanks for explaining. I saw the phrase listed on the OG/CC stratification level slides.

[Bender]

Also, you're way off when it comes to majors.

Who are you talking to? He didn't reference a major in his post at all in any unique way...he merely pointed to a rank based peer group. How is major different here?

But the real fallacy of what you wrote is that if there is no strat, it's all fluff. Not at all true. That's the kind of myth that makes for terrible OPR writers because they don't understand the bigger picture. Generally you strat the top 20%. Promotion rates are way beyond that, right? So there is a way to write such that you try to communicate the differential between the 30th percentile guy and the 70th percentile guy.

Are you encouraging him to use the words "Top Tier" on his PRF? I suspect you'd look through the documents again to make sure you didn't miss something. Of course there is a way to write to TRY to differentiate 30th from 70th...that statement doesn't really say anything. The "box checking" mentality is a direct symptom of not doing this part well. "Top tier" is fluff, fluff that most of the 30 to 70 percentile has in their reports. Perhaps you do a better job distinguishing..."excellent squadron RA, ready for group RA!" Yup, got it, but that isn't a strat...

Using phrases like "Top tier" may be one of those ways. It's really pretty easy to make that differentiation even when using all positive words. You have to get past the literal words on the paper and look for the message being sent. They are not the same thing.

May be? I disagree with you here that it's "pretty easy" "using all positive words". Write out 10 strats using all positive words that even half of a board would order the way you intend them to. If you can, that's what we should be teaching everyone if we aren't going to strat everyone.

You have to get past the literal words on the paper and look for the message being sent. They are not the same thing.

Get past the literal words? It's like you've never sent an email before or something...this is ludicrous. Look for the message being sent? Which one? You mean the one being conveyed by the words on the paper? I think you might be on the other side of the kool-aid line here.

I feel like you're trying to help here, I do. I think this is one of the issues that belongs in the "what's wrong with the Air Force" thread. Part of the problem is it doesn't really matter if your in the 30th or 70th percentile...only in the top 20 or not. It's a self-ball licking situation...except that lick you own balls would have benefits.

Maybe I don't "understand the bigger picture". I think the biggest problem the Air Force has is people that "understand the bigger picture". That's implicit code wording for conformity.

Bendy

Edited April 27, 2014 by Bender

[Champ Kind]

I figured my take on it would draw some attention.

Danny, you are right... it absolutely does depend. But what does it depend on? It's a result of the senior rater's boss (NAF/MAJCOM). What I said in my post has been the case as I've seen it in AMC. I gather from your posts over the years that you're a CAF guy, and it wouldn't surprise me to learn that bottom lines of OPRs are yet another difference between the two communities.

You are correct about the Maj vs FGOs strat. I thought my logic of giving a Lt a CGO strat would translate into a Maj receiving an FGO strat, as I was trying to prevent posting a wall of TL;DR words. Giving a Capt a CGO strat is padding the denominator. Capts are supposed to perform above Lts. That's not always the case, so that's why you'll see Lts with CGO strats. The same is true for Majs.

I get what you're saying about my "fluff" comment, but I still disagree. You either have a strat, or you don't. I never said you're hosed if you didn't pull a strat, and yes, the language used does help to differentiate between dead wood and solid citizens. But, to lump a rater saying a guy is "top tier" into actual stratifications is simply apples and oranges. It's a nice way of saying "not my top 20%, but close". Depending on where I was at in my career and who was saying that about me could lead to a little bit of concern.

Edit to add:

Part of the problem is it doesn't really matter if your in the 30th or 70th percentile...only in the top 20 or not.

^ This.

Edited April 27, 2014 by Champ Kind

[nsplayr]

Part of the problem is it doesn't really matter if your in the 30th or 70th percentile...only in the top 20 or not. It's a self-ball licking situation...except that lick you own balls would have benefits.

Amen.

See attached for a .ppt I recently saw on writing performance reports. Written by a current WG/CC back when he was somewhere between O-5 and O-6 based on the date. Great insight into how he, and I imagine many senior raters, do the dirty work of getting these reports done.

Names/dates/location info have been redacted to protect the innocent/guilty depending on how you see it.

Writing Performance Reports.ppt

Edited April 27, 2014 by nsplayr

[Danny Noonin]

Part of the problem is it doesn't really matter if your in the 30th or 70th percentile...only in the top 20 or not.

^ This.

Amen.

Wrong. It definitely matters who is a 30%-ish guy vs a 50%-ish guy vs a 70%-ish guy. While you may not give them a numerical start, you can pretty easily communicate about what level the guy is at with words.

Why does it matter beyond 20%? Well, until our recent budget fiascos, the top 35% of a year group went to IDE in res. That's one reason. Another one is that the 30% guy--if he sticks around--will likely be an O-6 some day, while the 70% guy will not. Don't believe me? Look at the O-6 promotion statistics, project forward to this mythical captain or major's O-6 board, then remove all the guys who stratted above that 30% guy who got out at 12 or retired at 20 from consideration. He makes it easily. The 50% guy is on track to eventually make O-5 and the 70% guy is probably on the bubble.

While no, Bendy, I do not expect that without a numerical strat a board could put 10 guys in perfect rank order based solely on words, but they could definitely group them pretty accurately into 30-ish%, 50-ish% and 70-ish% piles. Which is a stratification.

Edited April 27, 2014 by Danny Noonin