Promotion and PRF Information

[bennynova]

Based on your comments, I'm guessing you've only sat on one board, in CY15 then?

 

my understanding has been that ABZ individuals were always tossed aside in previous calendar years, but I heard that the secaf made a change to CY15 boards and beyond in that the board would score every package based on its own merits and not take into consideration the BTZ, ABZ, ITZ aspect of it.   I don't know if CY15 boards followed this directive.   Was awaiting current board results to see if it was evident one way or the other  

[Learjetter]

I think it's unusual for any line Colonel to sit on more than one board in a career. Perhaps in specialty AFSCs.

Not permitted to disclose any Secaf instructions (specifically), but all boards have 'em, and comparing results demographics year to year leads me to believe you may be making the right assumption. I.E. if there were 9 APZ promotions on each of the Cy11,12 O4 boards, then 68 APZ promotions on each of the Cy13,14 boards...then something is different about the way the board is scoring APZ records...or the promotion opportunity % is different...or there's something special about how the board treated those individual officer's records.

[Dupe]

LJ-

 Did going to a small school vice ACSC count for anything at the board?

Was a DP/P from the school MLR treated any different than a DP/P from a DT?

[bennynova]

thanks for the info LJ.   

  I have the actual memorandum to the board for CY15. im well aware of the paragraph stating promotion zone is not supposed to be negatively factored in to this years boards.  So I want asking clarification on that.  

 

 I was curious as to if board members would actually heed that directive, or skip by it and score per CY14 scoring directions.  Seeing as though board members have to somewhat agree on a score range, the answer may be pretty easy to guess

 

 I may have to Track down the CY 13 or 14 memorandum to the board to see exactly how different they are.

[matmacwc]

The rescue officer story, good to hear, breath of fresh air.

[Learjetter]

LJ-

 Did going to a small school vice ACSC count for anything at the board?

Was a DP/P from the school MLR treated any different than a DP/P from a DT?

Speaking only for me: the more selective the school, the better that was viewed in scoring the record. But an awesome school record with little or no-impact operational duty wasn't as good as a "lesser" school record with awesome operational performance. All PRFs given equal weight. Can't recall any PRFs from DTs.

LJ

[Muscle2002]

6 hours ago, Learjetter said:

Speaking only for me: the more selective the school, the better that was viewed in scoring the record. But an awesome school record with little or no-impact operational duty wasn't as good as a "lesser" school record with awesome operational performance. All PRFs given equal weight. Can't recall any PRFs from DTs.

LJ

LJ, how did you view those who received PME credit for such programs as AFIP, TPS, Olmsted, etc?  The AF seems to be moving away from granting credit, so I wonder if IDE/SDE credit is looked upon in an unfavorable fashion.

[Learjetter]

PME not done is not good. You need that educational experience and knowledge to better be able to accomplish the really hard work the AF needs done...like budgets, contracts, multi-FY programs, acquisitions, plans, etc. Tactical flying requires a simpler body of knowledge (yes, even for carnivores) than serious staff work and planning and executing an air war.

For non-res PME, timing irrelevant to me, personally, but earliest completion of was viewed more positively by some.

Again, the more selective the program, the better it was viewed.

But, we're talking small potatoes compared to the duty performance and leadership captured in the record. That's the single biggest determinator. Fail at that, and no school, any other program, will make up for it.

[TnkrToad]

On December 11, 2015 at 9:24 PM, bennynova said:

my understanding has been that ABZ individuals were always tossed aside in previous calendar years, but I heard that the secaf made a change to CY15 boards and beyond in that the board would score every package based on its own merits and not take into consideration the BTZ, ABZ, ITZ aspect of it.   I don't know if CY15 boards followed this directive.   Was awaiting current board results to see if it was evident one way or the other  

If the above is in fact true, one could take this as both very good news and as an indicator of how much the AF has screwed the pooch manning-wise:

TLDR version: Rated force mismanagement + extended airline hiring boom = some very tough choices when it comes to selecting AF leaders. Ignoring BPZ/IPZ/APZ status is a good idea which is long overdue, but it's a bandaid fix at this point.

- Disregarding BPZ/IPZ/APZ status is, in my estimation, a good move, and one that should have been done long ago. Widening the pool of candidates will help ensure the best folks get promoted. I would hope in current year and future boards, the board members would find themselves seriously discussing the relative merits of promoting experienced, above-average performers who barely missed the IPZ promotion cut, IPZ folks who are hovering near the cut line, and BPZ superior performers who likely have significantly less real-world experience, having spent many years in school. The O-6 board meets in the zone at the 20 year point: would you rather select a 20-yr IPZ guy, who's somewhere around the 50th percentile of his year group, a 22-yr APZ type who just barely missed the IPZ cut but who's continued performing well, or a 16-yr dude who's a total of 4 yrs BPZ (2 yrs below to O-5 and O-6)--and has spent multiple years in school/staff/exec/etc.? Obviously depends on the individuals being discussed, but I can imagine a number of cases where it'd be wiser to promote the APZ guy over the BPZ guy with 6 years (likely more, considering time spent out of the cockpit) less operational experience.

- On a less positive note, I read this as an admission that the Air Force has grossly mismanaged its force, especially wrt pilot types. From what I can tell, the APZ year groups are a pretty picked-over lot; the AF produced so relatively few pilots from the 92/93/94 year groups that the majority of high-quality folks have already made O-6 or got out after 20yrs, or never even made it to retirement. The IPZ year group is much the same. Those who stayed past retirement eligibility, aren't already O-6s/O-6 selects, and who didn't spend their careers in the USAFA self-licking ice cream cone (AF funded civlian master's program, to teaching at USAFA, to AF funded civilian phd program, to teaching at USAFA)--or some other similar good deal--are extremely few in number. Bottom line, the Air Force has goofed up manning so badly that it needs to widen the aperture significantly in order to replace the late-Cold War O-6s who are retiring/getting promoted. 

       The problem is, the '96 and later year groups are short of folks, too, and the airline hiring boom will provide a powerful incentive for those folks to retire and never even meet their O-6 boards. If the boards really do ignore APZ/IPZ/BPZ status, that'll work great for a year or two. Some very deserving folks will get selected APZ, and some young true superstars will get opportunities they would not have gotten as early as they would have previously. Once those outliers are picked up over a promotion cycle or two, though, you'll be startled in a year or two by some of the folks selected. Boards will be choosing between guys who are either good dudes, but were never groomed for leadership (and their organizations will suffer for it), and those who've spent a whole lotta time being groomed, but have little operational credibility . . . to an even worse degree than previously. 

TT

Edited December 12, 2015 by TnkrToad
grammer

[17D_guy]

12 hours ago, TnkrToad said:

If the above is in fact true, one could take this as both very good news and as an indicator of how much the AF has screwed the pooch manning-wise:

TLDR version: Rated force mismanagement + extended airline hiring boom = some very tough choices when it comes to selecting AF leaders.

TT

It's happening in Cyber as well.  Very many people who aren't prior are bouncing.  They're tired of the deployments, lack of command clarity, inability to (usually) make positive changes with their customers and for the base support, being cast aside for the sexiness of Offensive/Defensive Cyber.  Who flies planes anymore.. so silly....

We just had our Summer '16 PCS webinar, total AFSC manning currently at 84%, IF you count the new 2Lt's in FY15.  Overall, they'll be filling only 60% of positions requiring a body that cycle.  People are just tired, and the experience and certifications we're walking out with aren't run of the mill server-farm experience.  Starting salary for a lot of these is around six figures.

Hell, the trend lines for the mid 90's folks, and mid-00 folks is well below the sustainment line.  I wasn't a O then, but I seem to remember my bosses (jr-mid Capts) were getting RIF'd at ton in '06-'08... and that was "before the drawdown."

Anyway, has anyone noticed a change in the Maj's getting promoted?  With the increased scrutiny Learjet I was wondering if it had also moved down to O-4 as well.  There's been numerous people who haven't made it I was surprised at.

[GKinnear]

If the above is in fact true, one could take this as both very good news and as an indicator of how much the AF has screwed the pooch manning-wise:

TLDR version: Rated force mismanagement + extended airline hiring boom = some very tough choices when it comes to selecting AF leaders.

TT

It's happening in Cyber as well.  Very many people who aren't prior are bouncing.  They're tired of the deployments, lack of command clarity, inability to (usually) make positive changes with their customers and for the base support, being cast aside for the sexiness of Offensive/Defensive Cyber.  Who flies planes anymore.. so silly....

We just had our Summer '16 PCS webinar, total AFSC manning currently at 84%, IF you count the new 2Lt's in FY15.  Overall, they'll be filling only 60% of positions requiring a body that cycle.  People are just tired, and the experience and certifications we're walking out with aren't run of the mill server-farm experience.  Starting salary for a lot of these is around six figures.

Hell, the trend lines for the mid 90's folks, and mid-00 folks is well below the sustainment line.  I wasn't a O then, but I seem to remember my bosses (jr-mid Capts) were getting RIF'd at ton in '06-'08... and that was "before the drawdown."

Anyway, has anyone noticed a change in the Maj's getting promoted?  With the increased scrutiny Learjet I was wondering if it had also moved down to O-4 as well.  There's been numerous people who haven't made it I was surprised at.

The Comm Field was a high pick on my dream sheet 16ish years ago, when a plan to do my 4 yrs and walk. At the time, I knew Doctors who were leaving medicine to work for telecoms and getting 3x the pay. I would think the current environment is even more magnified. But what do I know, that personnelist is a really good leader and more deserving than everyone else.

[Duck]

How were PT fails looked at? Auto DNP for most?

[Learjetter]

Board doesnt see PT scores. If someone had a referral OPR for PT failures, the OPR was seen. It counted the same as any other referral for a documented failure to meet standards...but there weren't that many folks with referrals. It helped soften the score reduction when the OPR after the referral was an excellent one. It hurt a score when there were more than one referral or the subsequent OPRS sucked.

[SnapLock]

This whole OPR/PRF/Promotion game is terrible.  

[guineapigfury]

This is sadly apropos.

 

[Dupe]

1 hour ago, SnapLock said:

This whole OPR/PRF/Promotion game is terrible.  

 

What's amazing to me is that we have the HPO program under all of this. Why the AF believes it needs a secret and separate process is beyond me.

[bennynova]

What is HPO?

[Tonka]

High performing officer... its like choosing your quarterly award winners before the quarter starts, so you can get them everything they need to win. We try to choose our Generals when they're Captains because of it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[Herk Driver]

HPO may mean different things to different people but it stands for High Potential Officer. This term gets thrown around a lot but in AMC you are identified as an HPO when you are promoted below the zone, typically. There are a few caveats to that and I don't know them all but that is the gist of it. I think technically an HPO is multiple below the zone or you have 4-star interest. Capts are not HPOs but may be getting special attention in order to build their record to make them competitive for BTZ. It actually takes a lot of effort and time to build a record that is competitive for BTZ promotion. YMMV.

[Chuck17]

On December 13, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Herk Driver said:

HPO may mean different things to different people but it stands for High Potential Officer. This term gets thrown around a lot but in AMC you are identified as an HPO when you are promoted below the zone, typically. There are a few caveats to that and I don't know them all but that is the gist of it. I think technically an HPO is multiple below the zone or you have 4-star interest. Capts are not HPOs but may be getting special attention in order to build their record to make them competitive for BTZ. It actually takes a lot of effort and time to build a record that is competitive for BTZ promotion. YMMV.

https://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a562062.pdf

Educate yourselves, gents, it's the only way to stay ahead in this business.

Chuck

[Bender]

Let's continue to focus on making good Flag Officers and continue neglecting making good Squadron Commanders...

Interesting excerpts from the paper Chuck shared:

"Earning "distinguished graduate" (DG) status is as important as the educational aspects of SOS..."

Of course it is...DG status is the first of 2 0/1 bits for HPO designation at O-3/O-4 transition.

"...acquiring an advanced academic degree is deemed by the Air Force as a requisite milestone for either promotion consideration and/or IDE in-residence selection."

Of course it is...IDE in-residence selection is the second 0/1 bit for HPO designation at O-3/O-4 transition.

DG status and IDE in-residence, topped off with a week long Squadron Commander's course is the first half (the important half) of making a senior leader...

"Like squadron command, in-residence SDE is another indicator of high potential."

These are naturally exactly the same thing, right...If we have failed you so far, AWC will fix it.

"Squadron command is a key indicator for increased rank and responsibility and usually is the result of careful growth within the squadron structure itself (e.g., squadron DO, deputy commander)."

Of course it is...very careful growth within the dilapidated, struggling, squadron structure itself...led by a squadron commander we completely fucked over getting him/her ready for more than half the responsibility to grow the very senior leaders we claim to have a problem with.

This topic is super fun,
Bendy

[bennynova]

New dates for board

 

pushed another half month

 

 expected late Jan to feb now

[TnkrToad]

On December 16, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Chuck17 said:

https://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a562062.pdf

Educate yourselves, gents, it's the only way to stay ahead in this business.

Chuck

            Methinks HPO should be changed to mean Hyper-Professionalized Officer. The thing that stands out to me in the doc Chuck gave the link to and in senior officers’ bios is the overemphasis on education. While PME should certainly play an important part in future senior officers’ careers, we clearly seem to have gone overboard with education, at the expense of operational competence/credibility. 

 

Current Chief of Staff (Welsh):

- 4 yrs at USAFA

- SOS

- Master’s from Webster U

- 3 yrs at USAFA as an AOC & Commandant’s exec

- 1 yr at CGSC

- 1 yr at National War College

- 1 yr commanding CADRE (College of Aerospace Doctrine, Research & Education)

- 2 yrs as USAFA Commandant

- 5 different fellowships—MIT, Harvard x2, NDU, Center for Creative Leadership

- Payback on the above investment in/around PME: check the JQP thread

 

First Chief of Staff (Spaatz):

- 4 yrs at West Point (hardly a major push for aviation in the 1910s at USMA)

- Never went to any company-grade officers’ PME course

- Never got a master’s degree

- 1 yr at Air Service Field Officers’ School (predecessor to ACTS—before they’d developed High-Altitude Precision Daylight Bombing doctrine)

- 1 yr at Army CGSS . . . again, hardly a center for innovative airpower thinking in the 30s

- As far as I can tell, he never served as a PME instructor/commander

- Payback on the above investment: set a record with the Question Mark; won the air wars in Africa, Europe & Japan; & oversaw the creation of the independent Air Force  

 

LeMay (5^th CSAF) graduated from Army ROTC & got all of three months of ACTS in his entire military career . . . yet was one of the Air Force’s great tactical leaders, who also built SAC into an effective combat organization. Was a general for over 21 years—3.5 of them as CSAF (when the AF reached at least 880k people).

 

McConnell (6^th CSAF) graduated from West Point—and as far as I can tell he never attended any other PME (or civilian school) throughout his entire military career. Was a general for 25 years—3.5 of them as CSAF (when the AF reached over 900k people).

 

            Bottom line, the Air Force’s obsession with education doesn’t necessarily seem to be producing substantially better results than were seen with earlier generations of senior Air Force leaders who had little to no significant PME experiences. Given that the early AF leaders all grew up in the Army, not the Air Force, one could say their PME experiences were likely detrimental to their development as airmen. Considering how much time our current GOs end up spending in school, they sure don’t have much to say (few of them publish much of anything worthwhile). Perhaps if Air Force officers spent less time in school, they might have more time to build operational credibility . . . and we might see better decisions on personnel, acquisitions, etc.

[Muscle2002]

I'd be careful though in recommending that we let the pendulum swing too far the other way.  Remember, some of the criticism of current policy/strategy is that we have folks making decisions who lack a deep understanding of the underlying problems (the debate over how to handle ISIS is but one example) involved in each situation.  There's something to be said about folks who take the time to think deeply every once in a while.  

[Homestar]

I don't mind the top brass having all the jointness and schoolness in the world. They are bureaucrats, not operators anymore. An average operational background is probably good enough, but if they don't have a sound foundation of international relations, domestic policy, glad-handing, etc they're going to have a tough time as CSAF.

 

Now operators on the other hand should be able to choose to stay in their chosen profession and become tactical experts without the up-or-out problems of the current day.