Promotion and PRF Information

[BFM this]

Seen a number of IPUGs rammed through in min time, only to watch the newly minted IP go up to wing and occasionally log some IP time on the 781 to maintain currency for the next year or so, and then it's off to school. But hey, got that K prefix...check.

[Guest]

 

You sound arrogant here, but typical for the number of careerists I've encountered in my career.  Can you explain what a "run-of-the-mill" Sq/CC job is as opposed to a "special" Sq/CC job?  At any point in your career, does the word "leadership" ever come across your mind (besides required PME readings/discussions) and/or is a part of your normal decision-making process?

 

For the first time, I find myself coming to Chang's defense. He said Sq/CC EA, as in Exec. From what I've seen, GO's Execs are subjected to much, much longer workdays. Before undertaking such a job, which would normally happen as an O-5, it would probably be ideal to have a Masters knocked out given the presumption that you are on track for O-6, at which point it would be required for promotion.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[panchbarnes]

Okay, I re-read that particular sentence and I agree that Chang meant Sq/CC EA jobs and not Sq/CC jobs.

Since these jobs are open to O-4s, you are essentially sending the message that you better get your Masters knocked out early to be competitive for one of these "opportunities."  And this takes us right back to the pre-Gen Welsh days.  It makes sense for an IPZ O-5 applicant to complete the AAD beforehand but not for an O-4 applicant.

 

11 hours ago, General Chang said:

If they don't already have their Master's degree complete as a Major (and especially Lt Col), the person volunteering for this job is likely to be working on one in the very near future.

And if you are a Major who gets selected to be a GO Exec, you are more than likely to get a school slot later and a Master's along with it.  So this is really not an issue, unless you just wanted to see how devoted someone is to climbing the career ladder.

[General Chang]

Two very good points.

Edited March 21, 2016 by General Chang

[Herk Driver]

Two very good points.

Who has gotten the password to this account and started posting as Chang?

[ArcticGator]

Is there a rule of thumb for what level of strats should be included in a PRF?  I have seen some senior raters include only top 10% ones and I have seen others include top 25% or even top 50% level strats. I have seen some only include 1 if there are 2 similar stats of the same category from different OPRs, while I have seen others include all, even if they are repetitive. 

Is it better to include every strat or include only the best (if enough) to try and paint a top 10% performer and leave some out?

Edited March 24, 2016 by ArcticGator

[BADFNZ]

This is coming from a Capt who spent a couple years as an exec, so feel free to disregard the rest of my post.

The answer is "it depends".  If you have only top 10% strats, then you'd want to include them all.  If you have some top 10%, some top 25%, and some top 50%, I'd say include only the top 10% and 25% strats.  Of course, this will vary based on how many of each you have.   If you have 7 10% strats and 1 top 25%, then omit the top 25%.  If you have 2 10% strats, but 5 top 25% strats, omitting all but the top 10% to paint a better picture would look awkward.  When writing it, keep in mind your overall goal.  If it's to get a school slot, then obviously you're going to have to paint a rosier picture.  If you're just trying to prove that you're not in the bottom 10% of your YG, then throwing in a top 50% strat (who gives these out anyways) wouldn't hurt anything.

[HeloDude]

3 hours ago, BADFNZ said:

When writing it, keep in mind your overall goal.  If it's to get a school slot, then obviously you're going to have to paint a rosier picture. 

What does this mean?  Th board doesn't directly decide who gets promoted with school and who doesn't...it just scored the PRF's and AFPC gives the top X number of PRF's selects with school based off how many there's to go it that year.  So why would a senior rater not make the PRF the best it can look?

[TheInner]

I think I am tracking where BADFNZ is coming from.  The ultimate goal of a promotion board is to select individuals who show the potential to excel at the next rank, which is why a SR may elect to leave off some strats if they are heavily weighted towards a lack of breadth.  For example, we all agree on this forum that being an expert in your airframe should be a top priority but a PRF that is overwhelming geared towards flying strats (#1/69 IPs, Top 10% ACs, etc) would not "look" appealing to a promotion board that is looking for an officer with future leadership potential (don't hate the player, hate the game).  That thought process is why I have seen "decent" strats left off (assuming there is a decent size pool to choose from) to include a lesser strat of a different category or even a strong bullet that highlights FGO potential (lead team of SARM NCOs through MAJCOM inspection over #1/15 Flight Leads from an OPR 3 cycles ago).  Of course, if all the strats are #1 type strats it would be hard to argue leaving them off.  The PRF also has limited space to relay the SRs message so filling it with "soft" starts may look more like a way of masking a perceived weakness or lack of breadth.  

Although determining school selects is not a separate process but a function of taking a slice off the top XX% of the PRFs, a SR could certainly shift focus on a PRF when compared to an individual he/she may be more concerned about simply making the promotion list.  I would imagine an individual a SR wants to get promoted but their record isn't great would prioritize grabbing everything remotely positive when compared to an individual the SR is trying to push for school via the promotion board.  That person's PRF would probably have some decent bullets/strats left off in order to present the "big picture" of someone who is primed for leadership (more whole person compared to the greatest IP I have ever seen).  Although most of us would prefer to have the greatest IP promoted it is not how the system works.  So this is why the SR is making the PRF look the best it can, but what is best for one person is not the best for another. 

[HeloDude]

9 hours ago, TheInner said:

  Although most of us would prefer to have the greatest IP promoted it is not how the system works.

Why would you just want the greatest IP promoted?  Some of the best IP's are Capt's and Maj's...does this automatically equate to these IP's being good commanders?  Some of these great IPs are average officers, at best.  Regardless of whether or not you agree with the promotion 'system' (I definitely agree it can be approved upon), you are very foolish if you believe technical skill (i.e. being a sharp IP) should trump overall officership.  Being good at your craft (i.e. a good pilot/IP) is only a piece of what makes this person a good officer/commander.  So while being good at your technical skill should be weighed, it should not be weighed as much as your post suggests...it should be more of a binary question:  Is this person a strong/solid pilot:  Yes or No.

So I guess I'm not in your 'most' category...and this is from someone who has worked for awesome commanders who were average to above average pilots, and who has also worked for commanders who were awesome pilots but below average officers/commanders.  

[General Chang]

14 hours ago, TheInner said:

I think I am tracking where BADFNZ is coming from.  The ultimate goal of a promotion board is to select individuals who show the potential to excel at the next rank, which is why a SR may elect to leave off some strats if they are heavily weighted towards a lack of breadth.  For example, we all agree on this forum that being an expert in your airframe should be a top priority but a PRF that is overwhelming geared towards flying strats (#1/69 IPs, Top 10% ACs, etc) would not "look" appealing to a promotion board that is looking for an officer with future leadership potential (don't hate the player, hate the game).  That thought process is why I have seen "decent" strats left off (assuming there is a decent size pool to choose from) to include a lesser strat of a different category or even a strong bullet that highlights FGO potential (lead team of SARM NCOs through MAJCOM inspection over #1/15 Flight Leads from an OPR 3 cycles ago).  Of course, if all the strats are #1 type strats it would be hard to argue leaving them off.  The PRF also has limited space to relay the SRs message so filling it with "soft" starts may look more like a way of masking a perceived weakness or lack of breadth.  

Although determining school selects is not a separate process but a function of taking a slice off the top XX% of the PRFs, a SR could certainly shift focus on a PRF when compared to an individual he/she may be more concerned about simply making the promotion list.  I would imagine an individual a SR wants to get promoted but their record isn't great would prioritize grabbing everything remotely positive when compared to an individual the SR is trying to push for school via the promotion board.  That person's PRF would probably have some decent bullets/strats left off in order to present the "big picture" of someone who is primed for leadership (more whole person compared to the greatest IP I have ever seen).  Although most of us would prefer to have the greatest IP promoted it is not how the system works.  So this is why the SR is making the PRF look the best it can, but what is best for one person is not the best for another. 

B-E-A-Utiful analysis.  People should read, then re-read, then re-re-read this post.  Spot on.

[Hot Sauce Hoy]

Is recent performance in the current grade most important?  For example, for Lt Col board does performance as a Major weigh a lot more than CGO performance?

[disgruntledemployee]

One other thing about strats is many commanders try to take care of many folks and thus there are a few more categories these days like x of y ACs or IPs.  Its not hard to find those gifted aviators with gifted leadership, they're often well known, a minority, and they get #1 (I'm making it sound easy, but it takes time and effort).  The rest of us I think pick a route, either a master of all things aviation and fill in enough squares to make rank or those that play the game to its fullest and fill squares, volunteer for jobs, and try to show leadership.  The irony is #1 CGO is likely weighed more than #1 AC or IP at a board.  Part of that I think is that FGO and CGO are universal across all AFSCs.

Saucy, I think that sustained/improved performance is the more weighty item.  Ever seen the #1 Lt get lost in the crowd later on as a Capt or Maj?  Petered out.  Move along, next record. 

Out

[di1630]

You guys want to get good strats and pushes in the USAF....learn outlook/excel/memo writing skills at a young age. Those $7.50 an hour secretary skills will get you further than your $3 million pilot training education. Don't crash a jet and be a good exec, you'll go places.

No kidding. I wish this were sarcasm but it's not.

[Duck]

You guys want to get good strats and pushes in the USAF....learn outlook/excel/memo writing skills at a young age. Those $7.50 an hour secretary skills will get you further than your $3 million pilot training education. Don't crash a jet and be a good exec, you'll go places.

No kidding. I wish this were sarcasm but it's not.

Man I hate to say this but I really agree. So much of making rank in the Air Force is really all about just organizing activities and programs successfully, pushing for those jobs that you know are going to be painful and are going to make you hate your life!

[TheInner]

4 hours ago, di1630 said:

You guys want to get good strats and pushes in the USAF....learn outlook/excel/memo writing skills at a young age.

The real key is developing the ability to effectively communicate, which I believe is what you are saying but in a more sarcastic fashion.  

In the flying community (at least in my corner of it) we do an exceptional job of building verbal communication skills through our brief/airborne comm/debrief but don't get exposed to any written communication skill sets unless we go to the staff.  I once had a commander spend over an hour with some of us discussing email writing.  On the surface it sounds ridiculous, especially when the commander has more tactical credibility then a handful of some of my past commanders combined but he made an effective point in saying that the world's greatest idea may never be heard if you are unable to communicate it appropriately.  

 

[di1630]

You guys want to get good strats and pushes in the USAF....learn outlook/excel/memo writing skills at a young age.

The real key is developing the ability to effectively communicate, which I believe is what you are saying but in a more sarcastic fashion.  

No sarcasm intended. I'm mainly intending for the young'ens looking to get the strats or anyone wanting the F-35/KC-46....just saying the strats, assignment pushes etc go to the guys who align themselves with the leadership.

When I was a young Capt, I remember working my butt off pulling 12 hour days, dedicating myself to flying, being a great IP etc.. Then I got moved to a paper pushing job for "broadening" and worked 1/2 as hard for 3x the results of when I was flying focused at least as far as OPR's were concerned.

Sad truth.

Now as far as communication skills....have you seems some of the ppt, memos, emails etc. that big blue loves? It's complete crap.

[ArcticGator]

Does a board recognize and appreciate "late bloomers" or people who were lost in the shuffle for periods of their career?  For example if someone goes from staff pushes of NAF to MAJCOM to HAF and command pushes in a 3-4 year period, does that improvement carry significance? 

I can appreciate steady improvement because I think we identify future leaders at too early of an age at times. 

Edited March 27, 2016 by ArcticGator

[SnapLock]

2 hours ago, ArcticGator said:

Does a board recognize and appreciate "late bloomers" or people who were lost in the shuffle for periods of their career?  For example if someone goes from NAF to MAJCOM to HAF and command pushes in a 3-4 year period, does that improvement carry significance? 

I can appreciate steady improvement because I think we identify future leaders at too early of an age at times. 

Due to the competitive nature of the AF I don't think that will matter if you are looking to be a select at your board or get selected for school later as a candidate.  It really depends though and if your senior rater is pushing for you then good things can happen.  However, a consistent record of #1 strats sprinkled with DGs and a strong senior rater push with a high DP strat are what is going to matter to a board.  There are people out there who have done well as late bloomers, but that is rare.  I'll admit I'm getting old and crusty, and can be pretty jaded, but Big Blue is going to do what it is going to do...so keep looking for people to get selected for leadership too early.  

One of the biggest things that I saw that disgusted me about this stuff in the AF was when my DO got called to do other things unexpectedly.  There was no one else left at my base that could leave their current job who had gone through school and staff to take over as DO, so they put in the best Lt Col non-school/non-staff guy.  The dude absolutely rocked it and everyone really looked up to him.  He did an outstanding job, but as soon as someone with the right "credentials" showed up he was immediately yanked out and the "credentialed" person was put in as DO.  That left a pretty bad taste in my mouth, I shouldn't have been surprised.   

[NKAWTG]

8 hours ago, ArcticGator said:

Does a board recognize and appreciate "late bloomers" or people who were lost in the shuffle for periods of their career?  For example if someone goes from staff pushes of NAF to MAJCOM to HAF and command pushes in a 3-4 year period, does that improvement carry significance? 

I can appreciate steady improvement because I think we identify future leaders at too early of an age at times. 

Your “late bloomer” will have a chance, but I wouldn’t hold your breath over it.  Consistent job performance, i.e stratification is the most important factor for the boards.  One bad rater or OPR writer won’t derail your promotion potential.  But going from having strats to no strats will cost you school slots and command opportunities. 

Stratifications are also a mix of what your strats were before and what you did during the reporting period.  Getting a strat mid-career when you didn’t have one previously is heavily weighted toward luck.  By that, I mean someone ahead of you has to PCS, or you need move into a more favorable pool.  You don’t have control of either of those situations.

Having talked some recent board members, they mentioned having the senior rater stratify beyond the typical 20% threshold was helpful.  Picking out the top of the list was easy, but past that, the records all look the same.  Having your senior rater push you as top 3^rd or half would be enough to make the cut when they promote 70 to 80% of the eligibles.  

[Hot Sauce Hoy]

On March 19, 2016 at 4:30 PM, Bender said:

How are we in a spot where a guy even wonders here? Unless there is "the rest of the story", this is a slam dunk. Almost makes think there is something you're now sharing and trying to get a half truth here.

Bendy

It would be helpful to know what a gray zone "P" PRF looks like for O-5 IPZ. I have no idea what a record at the "cut line" would look like. I don't have access to previous years PRFs. If I knew what a PRF right on the edge of the promotion line looked like (assuming all boxes checked and no big negatives) I would probably be able to better discern my chances. 

[Bode]

So a complete random question. If someone ends up with 5 strats on an OPR which may be their top one before their PRF is that a signal to leadership? I'm used to seeing one per block on an OPR. This guy's were all top 10-15 percent type all strated in different ways.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skitzo]

Most I've ever seen has been three, and that was a major being pushed for 2BPZ. Had an ADO, Maj overall and YG strat.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ArcticGator]

Is being on an AOC staff considered similar to NAF staff?

Edited April 1, 2016 by ArcticGator

[Bender]

It would be helpful to know what a gray zone "P" PRF looks like for O-5 IPZ. I have no idea what a record at the "cut line" would look like. I don't have access to previous years PRFs. If I knew what a PRF right on the edge of the promotion line looked like (assuming all boxes checked and no big negatives) I would probably be able to better discern my chances. 

Naturally. You'll have to ask people to share them individually...although it would be in interesting topic to see people post their PRF bullets with basic demographic data (B/I/APZ, DP/P/NP, etc.) and result. I always tell people they should find a PRF early on from a mentor they respect, so they have an idea of where they're going OPR to OPR.

I have no secret repository, nor have I kept any that I've worked on (other than my own). That said, I would imagine a starting point here would be having trouble finding a stratification for each line, being forced to use third tier stratifications, or CGO stratification for the O-5 IPZ. Shrug...the actual "gray zone" generalization will change every time, but I bet it has some commonality through out.

Probably not very helpful. I'd share mine, but it's a 1 below and (I'd like to think, at least) not in the area that would shed light on your question.

Bendy