Promotion and PRF Information

[Champ Kind]

The absolute biggest factor I've seen driving "fast-burners" to surprise everyone and quit are 365s (or other similar bad-deals), or the expectation of getting one soon.

Bingo.

Dudes have been busting their asses to get as far as they did (different topic as to what they had to do to get there...it was work and time either way) only to be "rewarded" with this great opportunity to spend even more time away from the fam to the tune of 365 days. No way.

Edited July 21, 2014 by Champ Kind

[Liquid]

Wasn't trying to be dramatic, and I agree with your points. I've honestly seen a shift in the mindset of our best and brightest, at least in my small corner of the AF. More talented, PME/AAD complete, high strat folks are leaving or actively planning on leaving than even a few years ago. That should be a concern.

Karl, I hear you. I don't see the exodus in my world yet, but I know it is out there and it will hurt. People are tired and they are sick of the bullshit. The culture of compliance, risk aversion (Korea alcohol ban), infatuation with glorifying support missions and ridiculous move towards complete centralized control are crushing us. There is no end to the deployments, ops tempo or chickenshit priorities, and the airlines are hiring and our skills are in high demand in many industries. Retention is a problem we need to get on now, and listening to those who are disgusted and separating is important. Now, I'm deployed again and life is good. Mission focus, no bullshit, killing the enemy, protecting the friendlies and the innocent. It is why I joined. Protecting what makes our AF great is why I'll continue to serve until asked to leave. If I knew how to put one of those beer mugs at the end I would do that here ___.

[guineapigfury]

If I knew how to put one of those beer mugs at the end I would do that here ___.

Click the smiley face in the middle of toolbar on top of the reply container. A list of animations should appear below your reply container.

[Liquid]

[AnimalMother]

The last thing people should want is commanders and boards discriminating the quality and location of your AAD for promotion to O-6. Setting the minimum standard relatively low for a subjective requirement prevents alma mater discrimination and bullshit assessments about how hard you worked to get your degree, or how often you were published, like we see in the academic world.

I agree, but I think it will inevitably come to this regardless. After all, when the preponderance of candidates have a master's degree, what's the next "logical" discriminator? Maybe at the O-6 level there's more relevant substance in one's records, i don't know, I can't speak from experience, just playing devil's advocate here. In either case, I think we (the AF), just took a baby step towards the trust tree on the whole master's thing-which is good.

Agree, we should be discriminating and selective about who gets promoted and I would argue that we are. But I also think the senior leaders need to be the people who determine how to discriminate and select, not the CGOs. What CGOs value at the time may not be what makes them successful at FGO responsibilities.

As Ive gotten older and perhaps a bit more mature, I agree with this more and more. However, for this construct to be truly effective, there needs to be a solid foundation of trust, from the bottom up and the top down. Otherwise, people will not accept the "trust me" explanation when/if they fail to understand the root of the issue; leading to disillusioned and disgruntled employees. We are seeing a lot of this right now and it is costing the AF substantially. The fact that many people are continuing to pursue master's degrees is proof positive of this, as are many of the posts on this forum.

The best critiques we can make are to point out how our system needs to be improved and how we selected the wrong leaders should be based on the specific leader's shortcomings and leadership failures. When morale is low, unit performance is below standards, resources are wasted, and the mission is not being accomplished, there is an obvious failure of leadership (possibly at many levels) that must be corrected. I think AF senior leadership is trying to correct that rotten core of leadership in the missile community. We should reassess what we got wrong at promotion boards and command screening boards that predicted these officers would succeed when they clearly did not. A useful way for senior leaders to evaluate the performance of their subordinate commanders is to read the anonymous but honest opinions of that commander's subordinates and peers. Unit climate assessments, IG/congressional complaints, face to face feedback, informal feedback (including social media) can all give indications of leadership failures. 360 feedback should be implemented immediately for all commanders. I'm not sure why we are so reluctant to do this. Commanders and senior leaders should be held to higher, more stringent standards and their leadership abilities should be more formally evaluated.

I hope to see more of this, after all, malicious and public belittlement of subordinates isn't exactly an attribute I generally associate with stellar leadership-not that Ive seen that in the squadron or anything...

Finally, I don't think some people over-inflate their value [to the service], I think most people do. Self-aggrandizement and an inability to accurately self-critique are byproducts of a system that fails to provide honest feedback, and are exacerbated by excessive pomp and circumstance, and obsequious and sycophantic staff officers. But, nowhere have I found this more apparent than in much of the squadron and wing leadership I've served under over the last decade. Most of us know-at least at some level-just how expendable we really are. A lot of brass seem to forget that stuff pretty quickly and may even think otherwise. Our CSAF was fired a few years back wasn't he? His name escapes me right now though...

[MSCguy]

Gen Moseley was the one that was fired, Gen Fogleman was the one that quit.

[Sizzofoshizzo]

Gen Moseley was the one that was fired, Gen Fogleman was the one that quit.

Fogleman was great. Quit to make a point about politicians interfering with military leaders holding their officers to high standards. Wish we had more like him.

[StoleIt]

Fogleman was great. Quit to make a point about politicians interfering with military leaders holding their officers to high standards. Wish we had more like him.

[Seriously]

Fogleman, not Foglesong.

[zach braff]

Fogleman, not Foglesong.

Amazing how many people mix this up still.

"'Man' was grand, 'Song' was wrong..."

Back to the topic... I got a suspense to submit some input for the PRF but I've been out the game for a minute...Are most of the MAJCOMs still C-Zoning or is there a new hot-format on the streets?

zb

[WheelzUp]

Amazing how many people mix this up still.

"'Man' was grand, 'Song' was wrong..."

Back to the topic... I got a suspense to submit some input for the PRF but I've been out the game for a minute...Are most of the MAJCOMs still C-Zoning or is there a new hot-format on the streets?

zb

C-method is still all the rage in ACC. Dunno about the rest.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[StoleIt]

Fogleman, not Foglesong.

Oh thank God!

[Herkasaurus]

Amazing how many people mix this up still.

"'Man' was grand, 'Song' was wrong..."

Back to the topic... I got a suspense to submit some input for the PRF but I've been out the game for a minute...Are most of the MAJCOMs still C-Zoning or is there a new hot-format on the streets?

zb

AMC isn't using it, at least not at my base. Now it's line by line.

Line 1-standard sh!t

Line 2-strats

Line 3-awards

Line 4-combat/deployed leadership bullet

Line 5-7: random sh!t

Line 8: best bullet

Line 9: standard push bull sh!t

Or something to that effect....I can't remember how many lines are in the damn thing. Clearly I shouldn't be promoted

[akele]

Got my DQHB today and found my academic info blank. I immediately thought I was going to have to fix it until I read the instructions attached that said effective 1 Dec 14, academic data is masked for any promotion board under O-6. First real proof I've seen that masking academic data is happening instead of just reading or hearing about it at commander calls.

[Jaded]

So, not for the 05 major's board then?

[Fifty-six & Two]

So, not for the 05 major's board then?

2005 major's board is listed as 1-12 Dec. It will be masked.

Edited August 12, 2014 by Fifty-six & Two

[Herk Norris]

My Academic info is blank as well...

Are they masking Masters and Bachelors?

[WheelzUp]

My Academic info is blank as well...

Are they masking Masters and Bachelors?

Seems like it. Mine is the same. Well intended no doubt, but the Senior Raters still pull your SURF, then allocate DPs. So how does this help?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ThreeHoler]

Seems like it. Mine is the same. Well intended no doubt, but the Senior Raters still pull your SURF, then allocate DPs. So how does this help?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When the rules they are given (AFI 36-2501) are re-written to forbid using it in their rack-and-stack. Although, this is still in work, it has been specifically addressed by CSAF.

[Hugo Stiglitz]

Got my DQHB today and found my academic info blank. I immediately thought I was going to have to fix it until I read the instructions attached that said effective 1 Dec 14, academic data is masked for any promotion board under O-6. First real proof I've seen that masking academic data is happening instead of just reading or hearing about it at commander calls.

Reading the instructions...good move. My PME was missing from it too...is that being masked?

[brewskis]

Those of you that received their DQHB or equivalent recently: what MAJCOM/base do you belong to? My MPF has been months late with the RRF and O-6 boards (leaving us with 3-5 days to produce the products), so I'm just wondering if it's a MAJCOM issue or wing issue.

[zach braff]

Mine came from PACAF. It had PME in there as Developmental Education. Which leads me to….

Other big change…anyone else notice on the DQHB that PME states only "PDE Complete?" (or incomplete I assume for anyone who didn't do SOS) No date, no specifics as to which PDE and no differentiation between in-res or correspondence.

Dope.

zb

edited as I saw someone else mentioned PME in the thread.

Edited August 13, 2014 by zach braff

[Craft Beer]

ACC, M Word blank (complete), PDE-Complete (went in res) on OPB.

[akele]

I'm in AFSPC...mine just said PDE Complete as well with no specifics.

[Spinner]

Any word on the timeline for the next LAF O-5 board?I've been effectively booted from myPers, the unit CCE gives me the blinkie-blinkies when I asked, and Shaw ignores all of my inquiries. I'm permanent party with AFCENT, in theater.