Promotion and PRF Information

[cragspider]

7 hours ago, nunya said:

Man, I hope you're kidding, otherwise I must be way out on the bell curve if that's what I'm supposed to worry about.  I don't GAF what's on my retirement dec.  I hope it says, "Did some cool shit.  Learned a lot and improved what he could.  Still married.  Loves his kids.  Good luck."  I guess that wouldn't get past CCE, huh?

Crew reports sarcasm detector inop. Mx R2 and it checks normal. 

 

Yes I’m joking. Im at the point in my career now that I don’t care what’s on the opr anymore.  Sadly the careerist will care still so this train must move on. 

[pawnman]

17 hours ago, ThreeHoler said:

 

I just want to stop writing my own OPRs since I’m passed over enough times to never get promoted again. Because that would be better that the waste of text that they are with no push line since they’ll never get me promoted.

 

Just turn it in blank, like your PRF.

[pawnman]

2 hours ago, joe1234 said:

Technically, non-compliance can be punished. Just write crazy shit into your OPR and see how many times they kick it back before they get frustrated and do it themselves. Then do that same thing year after year until they learn their lesson.

Non-compliance with...the AFI?  Because the AFI is pretty clear that you shouldn't be writing your own OPR anyway.  So if you're already passed over and running out the clock on retirement, go ahead and fight that battle.  What are they going to do...pass you over again?

[matmacwc]

5 hours ago, joe1234 said:

Technically, non-compliance can be punished. Just write crazy shit into your OPR and see how many times they kick it back before they get frustrated and do it themselves. Then do that same thing year after year until they learn their lesson.

Personal experience?

[bennynova]

No one should ever have to write their own OPR.   Although I’ve always written mine.... 

 

 but I’ve also always written those that I have rated

personally, I do t trust someone else to write mine.   Only two bosses have known what the push lines mean/can mean.

 

current one has no clue

[Fuzz]

On 10/12/2018 at 8:23 AM, olevelo said:

Yeah, as said above it should have been mentioned in the letter if you were 1APZ. You have 60 days to accept. On myPers, under Promotion, then Selective Continuation Information, there’s some general information, then at the bottom a link to the specific 18B Major’s Board for this particular board. That’s where it lists this board’s critical skills, such as all pilots, a couple of CSO’s, engineers, and a few others like folks in degree programs. Those are the folks that are supposed to be offered 24 years, everyone else just 20. However, I fall in two of those critical buckets and my letters only said 20 and everyone’s trying to figure out why. Yes letters, because I got one from my previous Wing CC, one from AFIT, and one from the ROTC Det CC at the school where I’m attached to while in school! And yeah, the 20 versus 24 matters because I’m trying to make sure they don’t kick me out of the PhD program if I’m continued to 20!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wait the AF selected you and is paying to get a PhD but you aren't good enough to make O-4? YGFSM!

[pawnman]

5 hours ago, Fuzz said:

Wait the AF selected you and is paying to get a PhD but you aren't good enough to make O-4? YGFSM!

Happens in the Army as well.

Quote

... just shared that he had recently been told that he would not be promoted and was at risk of being forced out of the Army. Why? Because after being commissioned, he had spent two years studying at Oxford instead of holding the standard military jobs expected of junior officers during that period of their careers.

...this story reveals the depths of the problems within the military personnel system — that even promoting a Rhodes Scholar to a relatively junior rank requires active intervention by senior officers, up to and including the Chief of Staff of the Army.

 

[gearhog]

5 hours ago, Fuzz said:

Wait the AF selected you and is paying to get a PhD but you aren't good enough to make O-4? YGFSM!

Last thing the AF needs is to give a little authority to some hoity-toity Maj who thinks he can go fixin things that don't need to be fixed with all his fancy book-learnin'.

[olevelo]

Wait the AF selected you and is paying to get a PhD but you aren't good enough to make O-4? YGFSM!

Yup. Granted, I wasn’t in the program yet when the board happened, or even have a push on my PRF to say I was going, because it was a very last minute program. So I have a small amount of hope for the next board since supposedly they’re supposed to be emphasizing it more on the boards now (which was the whole reason the program I was I was stood up in the first place).

Even more baffling though is that I was passed over with a Sq/CC equivalent position the last two years (no C-code, but OPR and PRF say it), and a #1/69 Major strat from the OG. But you know all those strats I didn’t have as a captain while I was at Test Pilot School are the death knell.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[olevelo]

Last thing the AF needs is to give a little authority to some hoity-toity Maj who thinks he can go fixin things that don't need to be fixed with all his fancy book-learnin'.

They gave me the authority to stand up a new test unit and do O-5 things, but that experience doesn’t really matter apparently.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[matmacwc]

On 10/13/2018 at 5:53 AM, Chuck17 said:

Some good changes coming wrt PRFs and OPRs outta Corona.... the table was slapped, but the timeline wasn't determined, so hold on to your butts.

1. Two line PRFs. It was determined through survey that the majority of board and MLR members use the top and bottom lines to make their determination.... So they're moving on that - two lines is all you get. If you've seen the form for command consideration, it's similar. Line 1: this dude is great because reasons. Line 2: #x of XX, absolutely promote etc. 

2. Strats on OPRs are going away (like EPRs) - instead they are replaced with a by-commander recorded top-middle-bottom designation (or like the army, above, in, below center of mass), with a redesign of the form. Commanders ratings of their people will be tracked, so they only get X amount of each rating and if commanders are grading heavier or too light that will be recorded and reported at THEIR next promotion board... Undetermined: timeline for implementation, mainly because this style of rating is going to drive toward rating all of each rank at the same time, which is going to cause thrash as it did on the E side.

Chuck

Awesome, this does nothing for the secret rack and stack that WILL take place behind every members back.  

[nunya]

Make sure Boeing or Space X or Northrop sends the AF a thank you note for gifting them an employee, trained and educated, without costing them a dime.

[LookieRookie]

2 hours ago, olevelo said:

They gave me the authority to stand up a new test unit and do O-5 things, but that experience doesn’t really matter apparently.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did you have g-series? Request a DAFSC duty history change in vMPF to put a prefix on your afsc and if that doesn't work BCMR it.

[olevelo]

Did you have g-series? Request a DAFSC duty history change in vMPF to put a prefix on your afsc and if that doesn't work BCMR it.

Unfortunately no. Basically everything but.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HarleyQuinn]

On 10/14/2018 at 1:55 PM, pawnman said:

Non-compliance with...the AFI?  Because the AFI is pretty clear that you shouldn't be writing your own OPR anyway.  So if you're already passed over and running out the clock on retirement, go ahead and fight that battle.  What are they going to do...pass you over again?

Pass you over and make you the first snacko to receive his own patch. Win - win situation.

Edited October 16, 2018 by HarleyQuinn

[14N Guy]

On 10/13/2018 at 2:53 AM, Chuck17 said:

Some good changes coming wrt PRFs and OPRs outta Corona.... the table was slapped, but the timeline wasn't determined, so hold on to your butts.

1. Two line PRFs. It was determined through survey that the majority of board and MLR members use the top and bottom lines to make their determination.... So they're moving on that - two lines is all you get. If you've seen the form for command consideration, it's similar. Line 1: this dude is great because reasons. Line 2: #x of XX, absolutely promote etc. 

2. Strats on OPRs are going away (like EPRs) - instead they are replaced with a by-commander recorded top-middle-bottom designation (or like the army, above, in, below center of mass), with a redesign of the form. Commanders ratings of their people will be tracked, so they only get X amount of each rating and if commanders are grading heavier or too light that will be recorded and reported at THEIR next promotion board... Undetermined: timeline for implementation, mainly because this style of rating is going to drive toward rating all of each rank at the same time, which is going to cause thrash as it did on the E side.

Chuck

So where does this new rating system leave those passed over APZ? Considering promotion rates to O-5 are 70%-ish wouldn’t that leave any remainders in the bottom third for essentially the rest of their careers?

 

What I am wondering is, does this new rating system guarantee “bottom” designations for the final 2-4 OPRs of everybody passed over 1APZ? That would seem to give CC’s an out to speed on other officers. Need an extra “top” recommendation? Just give a passed over Officer a “bottom” designation.

 

Maybe it doesn’t matter but I would think it would have a negative effect on any potential employer that reviews OPRs (no idea if that happens).

[NKAWTG]

On 10/13/2018 at 5:53 AM, Chuck17 said:

Some good changes coming wrt PRFs and OPRs outta Corona.... the table was slapped, but the timeline wasn't determined, so hold on to your butts.

1. Two line PRFs. It was determined through survey that the majority of board and MLR members use the top and bottom lines to make their determination.... So they're moving on that - two lines is all you get. If you've seen the form for command consideration, it's similar. Line 1: this dude is great because reasons. Line 2: #x of XX, absolutely promote etc. 

2. Strats on OPRs are going away (like EPRs) - instead they are replaced with a by-commander recorded top-middle-bottom designation (or like the army, above, in, below center of mass), with a redesign of the form. Commanders ratings of their people will be tracked, so they only get X amount of each rating and if commanders are grading heavier or too light that will be recorded and reported at THEIR next promotion board... Undetermined: timeline for implementation, mainly because this style of rating is going to drive toward rating all of each rank at the same time, which is going to cause thrash as it did on the E side.

Chuck

This shouldn't change much in the manner of the rack and stack, but will definitely make the system more transparent.  People with early top ratings will continue to get them in order to have competitive records.  Late bloomers will be disillusioned because no matter what they do, they will never move out of middle rankings.  Without placating but meaningless strats, like #1/69 IPs, you can make informed decisions on if you should stay active duty, or go guard/reserves where they value different things.

The beauty of the current system is that your OPR doesn't have to say if your just outside the strat cutoff, or at the bottom the barrel.  The AF uses that ambiguity to keep people taking crap jobs in order to advance.  Once you know where you stand, you can make more informed choices for you and your family.   

[olevelo]

Maybe it doesn’t matter but I would think it would have a negative effect on any potential employer that reviews OPRs (no idea if that happens).

I’ve never heard of a single employer looking at OPR’s, and when I was briefly out a few years ago, no one ever asked or even hinted at wanting to see one. They look at your resume, and maybe talk to some references. So make sure to give them ones of guys who like you!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chuck17]

19 hours ago, matmacwc said:

Awesome, this does nothing for the secret rack and stack that WILL take place behind every members back.  

The alternative?  Nothing changes, commanders don’t rack and stack, and that everyone gets promoted? Serious question.

I’ll tell you as a Sq/CC I spent more time taking care of people on reports than was required. But yeah there was a rack n stack and it didn’t always end up fair in my opinion. I don’t think there can be any other way as things stand. I also don’t think we do it right... but if you don’t change the way EVERYONE does it then doing it right doesn’t matter because you screw your people. (I.e. The only way the Enlisted force got away from firewall fives was to change the entire system)

The above-center-below rating system will require some caveat I’d think, some that the Army and USMC have stipulated in varying degrees. First, all reports for each rank close on the same date (common reporting period) - although this will drive its own issues as there’s a huge difference between new guy captain wingman and old guy star on his wings WIC instructor pilot / mission commander. Second, that there is zero access to the individuals previous reports - what you did during the period of report is all that counts - no halo effect, “this guy was great last year” or “this guy was lousy last year” bias. (This, as has been identified, presents its own challenges and there’s questions of realistic expectations too). I’d say these changes have a lot of growing up to do before they are ready for prime time, so don’t hold your breath - my guess is two or three years before we see movement, though A1 states otherwise.

As to the PRF, Id think the recognition that all the work put into those things is wasted is a good thing. I’d expect that change almost immediately. There’s a lot of unanswered questions, but less meaningless work is a good development. 

Edit: one additional I need to add after looking at my notes. Allegedly, the LAF category at promotion boards is going to be split. Pilots will compete against pilots and so on... Caveat: I’d expect quotas (i.e. ceiling to number of promotions per year) to follow in trail. So aircrew got what they wanted (a good thing, I think), now we will see how long it takes for us to start bitching about it... 

Chuck

edited: to add the bit about promotion boards

Edited October 16, 2018 by Chuck17

[Weezer]

6 hours ago, Chuck17 said:

 Caveat: I’d expect quotas (i.e. ceiling to number of promotions per year) to follow in trail. So aircrew got what they wanted (a good thing, I think), now we will see how long it takes for us to start bitching about it... 

This will be the obvious result...and will result in more sub-par MSG O's getting the nod.  There were 14 out of 38 IPZ passed over in my career field, 6% below the mission support average.  Assuming, some of those passed over were passed over for good reason,  a "fair share" quota could have the perverse effect of promoting ~3 of those, and ensuring ~3 officers in some other category did not get the nod.

Hopefully they don't go with a "fair share" scheme and instead run some calculus on future requirements by category...but I don't trust the AFPC community's ability to do that sort of thing very well.

[Skitzo]

This will be the obvious result...and will result in more sub-par MSG O's getting the nod.  There were 14 out of 38 IPZ passed over in my career field, 6% below the mission support average.  Assuming, some of those passed over were passed over for good reason,  a "fair share" quota could have the perverse effect of promoting ~3 of those, and ensuring ~3 officers in some other category did not get the nod.

Hopefully they don't go with a "fair share" scheme and instead run some calculus on future requirements by category...but I don't trust the AFPC community's ability to do that sort of thing very well.

 

1. Promotion opportunity should equate to “how many of x AFSC do we need?”

 

2. UMDs should be updated as well to allow for O-5 billets in the squadron besides the DO and CC position—allowing the above question to not backfire when AFPC suddenly says we are healthy on O-5s.

 

3. Individual MAJCOMs need to be able to define these requirements outside of the insane and pointless math that manpower and personnel types use. It needs to be like this “I need 4 Lt Col types in my x squadron because at anyone point I only have 2 on hand because of random TDYs, Leave and Deployments, and must fills at the OG or higher level. We believe that 2 x O-5s on station is the appropriate leadership when in garrison, 4 will get me 2.”

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pcola]

As to the PRF, Id think the recognition that all the work put into those things is wasted is a good thing. I’d expect that change almost immediately. There’s a lot of unanswered questions, but less meaningless work is a good development. 

By immediately, do you mean to hint that the next O-5 board could see this new PRF? PRFs are due already in Jan, so most are already spinning up the processes.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[pawnman]

2 hours ago, pcola said:

By immediately, do you mean to hint that the next O-5 board could see this new PRF? PRFs are due already in Jan, so most are already spinning up the processes.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Yep.  I think they're due to the OG in my wing in the next couple weeks.

Edit to add: Gen Ray (AFGSC/CC) was just here for an all-call, and he said that the last Corona talked extensively about looking at breaking the LAF into more competitive categories.  He explicitly said he needs different expertise from a MX officer than an FSS officer, a CE officer, or a flyer, yet our promotion system causes people to go out of their way to look like people in other specialties, even when that is actually detrimental to the execution of their own duties.  He also talked at length about the silliness of the 24-year requirement for 1-star, saying that it isn't written guidance anywhere in the Air Force and we need to stop pushing people along an artificial timeline just to meet it.

Who knows if Gen Ray's vision will be present at the next promotion board?  But at least it's being talked about by senior leadership.  I think we're finally learning from the things the Army does correctly.

Edited October 18, 2018 by pawnman

[Fuzz]

On 10/15/2018 at 8:10 AM, olevelo said:

Yup. Granted, I wasn’t in the program yet when the board happened, or even have a push on my PRF to say I was going, because it was a very last minute program. So I have a small amount of hope for the next board since supposedly they’re supposed to be emphasizing it more on the boards now (which was the whole reason the program I was I was stood up in the first place).

Even more baffling though is that I was passed over with a Sq/CC equivalent position the last two years (no C-code, but OPR and PRF say it), and a #1/69 Major strat from the OG. But you know all those strats I didn’t have as a captain while I was at Test Pilot School are the death knell.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh good and you're a TPS grad to boot, great job AF. 🙄

[Chuck17]

3 hours ago, pcola said:

By immediately, do you mean to hint that the next O-5 board could see this new PRF? PRFs are due already in Jan, so most are already spinning up the processes.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

You don’t actually expect the AF to not screw this up do you...?

That said, I’ll ask my contact in the 1 if they’ve considered that timeline in the guidance rollout. Likely not. Change is slow.

Chuck