Promotion and PRF Information

[FUSEPLUG]

13 hours ago, Duck said:

Unfortunately this is only the Lt Col portion of the board.

My bad.  I thought the banner I saw on the Portal yesterday included Maj as well.  Must have mis-read it.

[Duck]

My bad.  I thought the banner I saw on the Portal yesterday included Maj as well.  Must have mis-read it.

This is the first time I’ve ever heard of the AF splitting a board after it met.

[Duck]

I got a joke for ya. CY17D Majors board release date.

In all seriousness, something is going on. I’ve never seen a board delayed this bad with ZERO explanation from our Senior Overlords.

[Chromedome]

 

1 hour ago, Duck said:

I got a joke for ya. CY17D Majors board release date.

In all seriousness, something is going on. I’ve never seen a board delayed this bad with ZERO explanation from our Senior Overlords.

Yeah, this is freaking weird.  Who wants to bet that they delay it for the end of the month/first week of july? 

[Skitzo]

...from our Senior Overlords.

 

LOL I nearly spit my beer out.

 

[RJ09]

2 hours ago, Duck said:

I got a joke for ya. CY17D Majors board release date.

In all seriousness, something is going on. I’ve never seen a board delayed this bad with ZERO explanation from our Senior Overlords.

They are probably going to say: "Well that was a nice experiment.  We are going to file that one as evidence, throw the results out, and skip over '09.  CY18D will proceed without '09.  '09, thank you for your service; it reflects great credit upon yourself and the United States Air Force.  Now goodbye."

[BashiChuni]

4 minutes ago, RJ09 said:

They are probably going to say: "Well that was a nice experiment.  We are going to file that one as evidence, throw the results out, and skip over '09.  CY18D will proceed without '09.  '09, thank you for your service; it reflects great credit upon yourself and the United States Air Force.  Now goodbye."

They soften the blow by giving meritorious service license plates for all ‘09 peeps LOL

Edited June 2, 2018 by BashiChuni

[dream big]

5 hours ago, RJ09 said:

They are probably going to say: "Well that was a nice experiment.  We are going to file that one as evidence, throw the results out, and skip over '09.  CY18D will proceed without '09.  '09, thank you for your service; it reflects great credit upon yourself and the United States Air Force.  Now goodbye."

They can’t do that, where will they find all the FGOs to fill 365 taskers for Chief of PowerPoint?

[SurelySerious]

9 minutes ago, dream big said:

They can’t do that, where will they find all the FGOs to fill 365 taskers for Chief of PowerPoint?

WHMO is looking for O-4s as well... for when Duck inevitably gets picked up. 

[Duck]

Meh, make fun all you want. I am expecting to get picked up at this point. I am now just curious as to what kind of BS the AF has concocted to “make the spreadsheet green”. As soon as I get word back, I am throwing in a Palace Chase app.

[flyusaf83]

1 hour ago, Duck said:

Meh, make fun all you want. I am expecting to get picked up at this point. I am now just curious as to what kind of BS the AF has concocted to “make the spreadsheet green”. As soon as I get word back, I am throwing in a Palace Chase app.

I thought the latest is AFPC isn’t approving any palace chase apps outside of 6 months of ADSC left.

 

[Duck]

I thought the latest is AFPC isn’t approving any palace chase apps outside of 6 months of ADSC left.
 

I’m sitting close to 1.5 years left now, so I’ll push the button to request a 6 monther.

[bennynova]

We live in interesting times.....

    aF is being ran by pilots

      AfPC is being run by OAs who don't know what a dampening function is...

 

 

[The_Vandall]

On 6/1/2018 at 6:09 PM, Duck said:

In all seriousness, something is going on. I’ve never seen a board delayed this bad with ZERO explanation from our Senior Overlords.

When you hear a bunch of noise in your kid's room, you generally know that nothing suspicious is going on.  It's when the room becomes suddenly silent that you worry that they're doing something they shouldn't be doing.  I kinda get a feeling that the AF is doing something they shouldn't be doing for CY17D. 

Normally, we promote roughly 90% of Captains to Major.  There's a sizable portion of that 10% that don't make it that already have something significantly negative in their history which would generally disqualify them from promotion anyway.  So why is it then that the AF, and presumably now the DepSecDef, is taking so long to process the board results? 

----------------------------------------------

Wild speculation here, but this is an opportunity for the AF to separate non-deployable and ALC-C coded folks without MEB'ing or re-MEB'ing them.  To separate someone solely based upon their medical status requires an MEB, but it's certainly possible to not promote someone based upon their medical status.  If a service twice non-selects someone, they can then force them to separate through Title 10, Section 632.  Typically, medical status is not directly considered during the promotion board (though it could be indirectly considered if a person's medical status prevents them from deploying).  Just speculation, but the DoD's Universal Retention Policy ("Deploy or Get Out") was released roughly a week before the board results made it to the SecAF (14 Feb and 21 Feb, respectively).

Edited June 4, 2018 by The_Vandall
Grammar and stuff.

[SocialD]

On 6/2/2018 at 9:52 AM, Duck said:

Meh, make fun all you want. I am expecting to get picked up at this point. I am now just curious as to what kind of BS the AF has concocted to “make the spreadsheet green”. As soon as I get word back, I am throwing in a Palace Chase app.

If not, you'll likely be promoted to Major ASAP after transferring into the ANG.  This can depend on the state as some states make all their Captains ROPMA, which I will never understand...talk about fucking your people over.  

[RJ09]

1 hour ago, The_Vandall said:

Wild speculation here, but this is an opportunity for the AF to separate non-deployable and ALC-C coded folks without MEB'ing or re-MEB'ing them.  To separate someone solely based upon their medical status requires an MEB, but it's certainly possible to not promote someone based upon their medical status.  If a service twice non-selects someone, they can then force them to separate through Title 10, Section 632.  Typically, medical status is not directly considered during the promotion board (though it could be indirectly considered if a person's medical status prevents them from deploying).  Just speculation, but the DoD's Universal Retention Policy ("Deploy or Get Out") was released roughly a week before the board results made it to the SecAF (14 Feb and 21 Feb, respectively).

1

And they think they are getting sued now from HIV guy.  If the military stops promoting people based on medical status, I could see this going wrong in so many ways, it's not even funny.  And to pick a board that should've been 100% promote to test it out is beyond stupid.  

[The_Vandall]

5 minutes ago, RJ09 said:

And they think they are getting sued now from HIV guy.  If the military stops promoting people based on medical status, I could see this going wrong in so many ways, it's not even funny.  And to pick a board that should've been 100% promote to test it out is beyond stupid.  

Agreed!  As far as I know though, the military is freely able to discriminate based upon medical status.  For instance, someone with asthma is essentially banned from any potential physically stressful military career (pilot, SOF, TACP, etc).  Again, it's just my wild speculation.  It's just doesn't make much sense as to why an supposedly easy promotion board is being tied up for so long.

[RJ09]

6 minutes ago, The_Vandall said:

Agreed!  As far as I know though, the military is freely able to discriminate based upon medical status.  For instance, someone with asthma is essentially banned from any potential physically stressful military career (pilot, SOF, TACP, etc).  

1

To an extent permitted by law, which is why they have experts who adjudicate these matters through the MEB process and not the promotion board process.

The reason it is taking so long is upon review at HAF, it was noticed that someone people who received a P from their commanders probably should not have when their record contained several QFIs that would otherwise make them not qualified to serve in the next higher grade.  Instead of attaching a PRF and/or sending a PRF, commanders just used this "new" process to slip them in.  As such, HAF went through every record to make sure those who were promoted actually "deserved it" based on members' OPRs, medals, TRs, and the OSB.  

[The_Vandall]

4 minutes ago, RJ09 said:

To an extent permitted by law, which is why they have experts who adjudicate these matters through the MEB process and not the promotion board process.

The reason it is taking so long is upon review at HAF, it was noticed that someone people who received a P from their commanders probably should not have when their record contained several QFIs that would otherwise make them not qualified to serve in the next higher grade.  Instead of attaching a PRF and/or sending a PRF, commanders just used this "new" process to slip them in.  As such, HAF went through every record to make sure those who were promoted actually "deserved it" based on members' OPRs, medals, TRs, and the OSB.  

Whoa!  That's way more info than the Air Force has been offering up.  They've been comms silent on CY17D board.  On AF Portal they're just pushing the blame on OSD for the current reason as to why they're so late on announcing the board results.

[jazzdude]

Wild speculation here, but this is an opportunity for the AF to separate non-deployable and ALC-C coded folks without MEB'ing or re-MEB'ing them.  To separate someone solely based upon their medical status requires an MEB, but it's certainly possible to not promote someone based upon their medical status.  If a service twice non-selects someone, they can then force them to separate through Title 10, Section 632.  Typically, medical status is not directly considered during the promotion board (though it could be indirectly considered if a person's medical status prevents them from deploying).  Just speculation, but the DoD's Universal Retention Policy ("Deploy or Get Out") was released roughly a week before the board results made it to the SecAF (14 Feb and 21 Feb, respectively).

That's messed up. There's a process to separate people for medical reasons, the MEB. The promotion board is not the place to separate people for medical reasons.

[The_Vandall]

4 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

That's messed up. There's a process to separate people for medical reasons, the MEB. The promotion board is not the place to separate people for medical reasons.

Indeed.  It's highly unlikely that it'd happen.  Also, RJ09 above noted that the reason for the board delay was due to some senior raters trying to squeeze people with QFI through the board.

[guineapigfury]

Were PRFs mandated for people with negative indicators?  Maybe if we're short Majors and the Wing CC says a guy with some marks on his record is deserving of promotion to that grade anyway ... just give him the damn oak leaves.

[The_Vandall]

50 minutes ago, guineapigfury said:

Were PRFs mandated for people with negative indicators?  Maybe if we're short Majors and the Wing CC says a guy with some marks on his record is deserving of promotion to that grade anyway ... just give him the damn oak leaves.

Yup.  I believe the guidance required PRF narratives in two instances- 1.) if the member was being marked as "Do Not Promote",  and 2.) if the member was being marked as "Promote" and they had negative QFI (UIF, Art 15, etc). 

[Duck]

Yup.  I believe the guidance required PRF narratives in two instances- 1.) if the member was being marked as "Do Not Promote",  and 2.) if the member was being marked as "Promote" and they had negative QFI (UIF, Art 15, etc). 

Yep. This is the guidance. Talked my Wg/CC into writing me one, but AFPC wouldn’t accept it due to no negative indicators. Ugh.

[Champ Kind]

Were PRFs mandated for people with negative indicators?  Maybe if we're short Majors and the Wing CC says a guy with some marks on his record is deserving of promotion to that grade anyway ... just give him the damn oak leaves.

Spot on.

Is there a manning issue, or not?

The USAF has a hard time distinguishing between mistakes and crimes.