Promotion and PRF Information

[ThreeHoler]

All the AMC slides tell me is AMC is shitty at developing officers [on paper] who don't fit the "magic mold" (i.e. do a Phoenix program).

[pawnman]

2 hours ago, ArcticGator said:

So help me understand slide 50 (performance based review) of the Lt Col Promotion Results brief...

Is that saying that 1 of the 28 guys who were passed over for O-5 had every one of those "boxes" checked in his record and didn't get selected?

That is very useful information when trying to figure out your chances.

I'm curious how slide 18 flows from slide 17.  2 guys with only basic quals in the aircraft, both got DPs...yet a lack of instructor/examiner qual is called out on the next slide as a "detractor".

I also find it hilarious that they say "duty performance is job #1", when the slides seem to say the best way to succeed is to get a job that involves not doing your primary duty.

Edited April 3, 2016 by pawnman

[Homestar]

9 hours ago, pawnman said:

2 guys with only basic quals in the aircraft, both got DPs...yet a lack of instructor/examiner qual is called out on the next slide as a "detractor".
 

I wonder if in these cases they had instructor duty in previous aircraft, but due to crossflow hadn't upgraded to IP yet?

Everything you need to know about AMC is on slide 27:

AMC IPZ Recommendation:

DP: 69 Considered, 68 Promoted

P: 57 Considered, 8 Promoted.

If you get a P, you know exactly where you stand in AMC.

[Hot Sauce Hoy]

Something else I found of interest was slide 5. It states that MAJCOMs had a 64.3% select rate but "other" had an 82.3% select rate. Is "other" places like HAF, COCOMs, etc?  I wouldn't have thought that 43% of eligibles would have come from that pool. 

[Bode]

What is interesting is the promotion rate difference between AMC and CAF. I don't know what to make of it other than AMC doesn't take care of their people.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ThreeHoler]

What is interesting is the promotion rate difference between AMC and CAF. I don't know what to make of it other than AMC doesn't take care of their people.

QFT. If you compare the overall "punch" of PRFs coming out of the CAF vs MAF, you will see why. The CAF is better at telling the story. AMC/18 AF does not learn from other commands' successes and continues to write the same limp-dick PRFs with the same limp-dick results (I saw several C-method PRF with punch written for dudes by a very highly rated officer in AMC...get turned into mush by the group and wing leadership).

I'm curious to see what the real weight of "job above wing level" is on the O-5 boards as everyone I personally know who was passed over had no staff job at all (including someone with a DP). I only know of one (again my personal observation) person who was passed over on staff and he made every effort to be passed over (refused to do IDE).

[Chuck17]

Well you had a string of commanders in the Scott zip code who refused to do C-method PRFs for a while... I'm not saying everyone can sport a C-method, but if they can, than they should.

I didn't hang the "other PRF how-to" I have on hand because I need to edit it and remove the authors name (GO).  Then you'll see how bad the flavor of AMC PRFs can be - especially compared to the CAF... Hopefully we've moved past that...

Chuck

[Longhorn15]

1 hour ago, ThreeHoler said:

QFT. If you compare the overall "punch" of PRFs coming out of the CAF vs MAF, you will see why. The CAF is better at telling the story. AMC/18 AF does not learn from other commands' successes and continues to write the same limp-dick PRFs with the same limp-dick results (I saw several C-method PRF with punch written for dudes by a very highly rated officer in AMC...get turned into mush by the group and wing leadership).

I'm curious to see what the real weight of "job above wing level" is on the O-5 boards as everyone I personally know who was passed over had no staff job at all (including someone with a DP). I only know of one (again my personal observation) person who was passed over on staff and he made every effort to be passed over (refused to do IDE).

This is an interesting concept.  Very few CAF guys are going to staff these days.  In fact, as part of the CAF match, guys are volunteering for remote staff to get staff credit.  To give MAF guys an idea, I provide these two examples that I've seen in the last 2 years.  

1.  A FS/DO who turned down command, went Ops-to-Ops, and not for a command opportunity

2. An O-5, who has never been an IP, got non-vol'd to the FTU for IP duty

We saw a few pure-ops guys get BTZ last year from the CAF and AFSOC.  I'd be curious to know what directions to the board were.  Maybe staff matters more for MAF than CAF?

Notice you rarely see 11Fs anywhere but a fighter base of staff?  Strange times.

[ThreeHoler]

Agreed. My examples were MAF only. Most of my friends in the CAF have already bailed.

[pawnman]

14 hours ago, ThreeHoler said:

QFT. If you compare the overall "punch" of PRFs coming out of the CAF vs MAF, you will see why. The CAF is better at telling the story. AMC/18 AF does not learn from other commands' successes and continues to write the same limp-dick PRFs with the same limp-dick results (I saw several C-method PRF with punch written for dudes by a very highly rated officer in AMC...get turned into mush by the group and wing leadership).

I'm curious to see what the real weight of "job above wing level" is on the O-5 boards as everyone I personally know who was passed over had no staff job at all (including someone with a DP). I only know of one (again my personal observation) person who was passed over on staff and he made every effort to be passed over (refused to do IDE).

Hilarious, because my wing was preaching to us a couple years ago to stop using so many acronyms in OPRs to make them more readable because "that's what the MAF does and they have higher promotion rates".

[TnkrToad]

16 hours ago, Lstcause257 said:

What is interesting is the promotion rate difference between AMC and CAF. I don't know what to make of it other than AMC doesn't take care of their people.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Slides 9 & 10 on the AMC promo brief supports your assertion, particularly for WIC grads:

- IPZ O-5 promo rate for WIC grads:

-- AMC: 33% (2/6) . . . I can't for the life of me figure out how/why WIC grads fared so poorly

-- Overall AF: 72.7% (16/22) . . . The overall AF pilot promo rate was 73.4%; MAF WIC grads actually got promoted at a marginally lower rate that pilots across the entire AF

- BPZ O-5 promo rate:

-- Exactly Zero WIC, Phoenix Reach & Phoenix Mobility grads were selected BPZ in AMC

The funniest part is the banner across the bottom of the slide that touts, "Development Programs are Achieving Desired Outcome." I guess the desired outcome is for everyone but MAF experts to lead AMC/the AF.

TT

 

[Duck]

Ha ha. That doesn't match the slide I saw 8 years ago saying AMC WIC was being promoted at the same rate as Phoenix Reach programs.

Again, I know of guys essentially non-vol'd to WIC as heavy guys

[ThreeHoler]

AMC still doesn't know how to utilize WIC grads. Especially in the KC-10 where we stupidly stiff-armed the creation of a WIC...and now our only option for WOs is a -135 pilot who may or may not be able to effectively teach in the -10 (the same would apply the other way if there was a KC-10 WIC and no KC-135 WIC).

[Chuck17]

2 hours ago, TnkrToad said:

Slides 9 & 10 on the AMC promo brief supports your assertion, particularly for WIC grads:

- IPZ O-5 promo rate for WIC grads:

-- AMC: 33% (2/6) . . . I can't for the life of me figure out how/why WIC grads fared so poorly

-- Overall AF: 72.7% (16/22) . . . The overall AF pilot promo rate was 73.4%; MAF WIC grads actually got promoted at a marginally lower rate that pilots across the entire AF

- BPZ O-5 promo rate:

-- Exactly Zero WIC, Phoenix Reach & Phoenix Mobility grads were selected BPZ in AMC

The funniest part is the banner across the bottom of the slide that touts, "Development Programs are Achieving Desired Outcome." I guess the desired outcome is for everyone but MAF experts to lead AMC/the AF.

TT

 

Don't overthink it. It makes no difference what Phoenix program you're in, if you can't pass your PT test, you will not be promoted. Patch or no patch.

AMC gets it, and it's getting better. The CCs Aide and Exec are both patches - but they didn't get there because of the patch. It's just one step, of many possible and many required...

Chuck

[Azimuth]

58 minutes ago, ThreeHoler said:

AMC still doesn't know how to utilize WIC grads. Especially in the KC-10 where we stupidly stiff-armed the creation of a WIC...and now our only option for WOs is a -135 pilot who may or may not be able to effectively teach in the -10 (the same would apply the other way if there was a KC-10 WIC and no KC-135 WIC).

How would they not be able to effectively teach in the -10? I know two -135 WO's, who taught in the -135 FTU, who have done fine in the -10.

[Champ Kind]

Slides 9 & 10 on the AMC promo brief supports your assertion, particularly for WIC grads:

- IPZ O-5 promo rate for WIC grads:

-- AMC: 33% (2/6) . . . I can't for the life of me figure out how/why WIC grads fared so poorly

-- Overall AF: 72.7% (16/22) . . . The overall AF pilot promo rate was 73.4%; MAF WIC grads actually got promoted at a marginally lower rate that pilots across the entire AF

- BPZ O-5 promo rate:

-- Exactly Zero WIC, Phoenix Reach & Phoenix Mobility grads were selected BPZ in AMC

The funniest part is the banner across the bottom of the slide that touts, "Development Programs are Achieving Desired Outcome." I guess the desired outcome is for everyone but MAF experts to lead AMC/the AF.

TT

 

Don't overthink it. It makes no difference what Phoenix program you're in, if you can't pass your PT test, you will not be promoted. Patch or no patch.

AMC gets it, and it's getting better. The CCs Aide and Exec are both patches - but they didn't get there because of the patch. It's just one step, of many possible and many required...

Chuck

How is that Everhart's aide and exec being patches is a good thing? Why aren't they out building, teaching, and leading.

CAF dudes, pipe in. What do you guys do with your patches from about 1-2 years TIG to O-4 and beyond.

[Chuck17]

Don't know how better to explain it brother. One is a graduated sq/cc, the other will be one soon enough. Maybe they've been there, done that re: the post-WIC tour... And now the next one they're going to work on/with is the AMC/CC...? You only owe so much commitment after getting that patch - it's not endentured servitude for life...

I don't think it's a bad thing. I can think of no other programs - except for maybe SAASS - for which the USAF actively manages, places and critiques where the graduates end up working. 

If a command "doesn't know what to do with WIC grads" the thinking should be that getting a few in the front office would help them figure it out.... Which is why my original comment was that AMC gets it.

Chuck

[TnkrToad]

On April 2, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Chuck17 said:

Pile on, and gonna play devils advocate because I'm sitting in cue for my O-5 board results, and I've just had this conversation with two flag officers.

 

2 hours ago, Chuck17 said:

Don't overthink it. It makes no difference what Phoenix program you're in, if you can't pass your PT test, you will not be promoted. Patch or no patch.

Chuck

31 minutes ago, Chuck17 said:

I don't think it's a bad thing. I can think of no other programs - except for maybe SAASS - for which the USAF actively manages, places and critiques where the graduates end up working. 

If a command "doesn't know what to do with WIC grads" the thinking should be that getting a few in the front office would help them figure it out.... Which is why my original comment was that AMC gets it.

Perhaps it's a generational thing--since you're still awaiting your O-5 results, you're substantially younger than I, but I have seen little evidence of AMC patches being well-managed. Maybe there's a difference between the C-17 and other MAF communities. The C-17 WIC is younger than the C-130 and KC-135 WICs; perhaps this indicates your community is doing something more right than the others, I don't know. 

Not knocking on the AMC WO functionals, but rather my impression is that, between local commanders who don't have a clue how to best utilize their skill sets, sending patches to assignments that screw guys' careers and other leadership/managerial malpractice, I've seen multiple instances of WOs' careers getting needlessly frittered away. Your mileage has clearly varied from mine--and, it would seem, that of the MAF WOs who met this last board.

I'm really curious to get your insight on the WO O-5 promo rate in AMC. Only 2 out of 6 were promoted--are you telling me that the other 4 couldn't pass a PT test? Likewise, MAF patches fared no better than pilots as a whole. I don't know how to motivate folks to go through that much pain, when stats indicate that doing so won't help one's career one bit.

TT

 

[Champ Kind]

Guys go to WIC to help their careers?

[TnkrToad]

2 hours ago, Champ Kind said:

Guys go to WIC to help their careers?

Not necessarily; I'd hope they'd go there to be better at their jobs. I don't figure they want to endure 6 months of arse pain to retire as O-4s, though. 

[Mark1]

12 hours ago, TnkrToad said:

- IPZ O-5 promo rate for WIC grads:

-- AMC: 33% (2/6) . . . I can't for the life of me figure out how/why WIC grads fared so poorly

-- Overall AF: 72.7% (16/22) . . . The overall AF pilot promo rate was 73.4%; MAF WIC grads actually got promoted at a marginally lower rate that pilots across the entire AF...

 

I see you've attended the official AF course on statistics...where last year one person  in an organization of 300,000 had a fatal motorcycle accident and this year there have been three.  That's a 300% increase in carelessness leading to death and a sure sign of complacency!  Everybody panic.  

Or it may be completely meaningless given the sample size.  Either one.

 

 

[pawnman]

12 hours ago, Champ Kind said:

How is that Everhart's aide and exec being patches is a good thing? Why aren't they out building, teaching, and leading.

CAF dudes, pipe in. What do you guys do with your patches from about 1-2 years TIG to O-4 and beyond.

Sadly, exec is a common path.

[PlanePhlyer]

My last base had an O-4 patch, OG Exec. Instead of leading tactics talks, he was slinging OPRs. Sad...

[brabus]

I have never personally seen an 11F patch be an exec in the last 7 years; I'm sure there's an exception somewhere, but overall I don't think crap like that happens in the CAF for the most part.  Most dudes do two assignments as a patch (SQ/WG level, then OT/teach WIC/another CAF assignment for the most part) then they're off to school/staff or the guard/airlines...you can guess which one of those two categories a metric shit ton fall into.

[TnkrToad]

11 hours ago, Mark1 said:

I see you've attended the official AF course on statistics...where last year one person  in an organization of 300,000 had a fatal motorcycle accident and this year there have been three.  That's a 300% increase in carelessness leading to death and a sure sign of complacency!  Everybody panic.  

Or it may be completely meaningless given the sample size.  Either one.

Or perhaps I was primarily trying to highlight an anomaly and found the explanation that the AMC WOs who didn't get promoted to O-5 were disgusting fatbodies who couldn't pass a PT test to be unsatisfactory. Not panicking; just skeptical of the notion that AMC does a good job of developing/properly utilizing its patches. My insights are based on more than a one-year statistical snapshot. Rather, I worked with & for the initial cadre and graduates from the first KC-135 WIC class and many others afterward. This is from before they could call it a WIC and before they could carry a W-prefix, because AMC and the wider Air Force were so awesome when it came to managing mobility WOs. 

Clearly, I'm a graybeard, and I'd love to hear that AMC is doing well by its WOs. Looking at the AMC promo briefs for the last 5 O-5 boards (CY11-CY15), though, I tend to see a trend. In every single one of them, AMC WOs were promoted at a lower rate than the overall Air Force. 

I still can't reconcile Chuck's assertions with (1) the data points I've found--which cover more than just one year, and (2) my personal experience--which exceeds his. 

To head off a bunch of bickering over statistical significance, I will readily admit you win--a one-year snapshot and small sample size by itself should not be cause for alarm.

TT

 

Edited April 5, 2016 by TnkrToad
grammer