Promotion and PRF Information

[FLEA]

Seems like it. My 2 BTZ will cover about 1.3 years of me being a Major. 

[Skyryder]

Now that the Senate has confirmed Major promotions, any idea if those individuals that were expecting to pin on September 1st are entitled to back pay? 

[Bode]

From what I saw on the MAF mentorship page, no back pay entitlement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Craft Beer]

No back pay, same thing happened last year with the O-5 release, just immediate pin on for those with a number that was already up. Not sure if the DOR was all the same or back dated tho.

[F-15E WSO]

 

Farewell, Line of the Air Force: Massive officer category broken out into six groups

The first promotion board to use the new categories will be the lieutenant colonel board scheduled to meet next March, Air Force personnel chief Lt. Gen. Brian Kelly said at the briefing.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2019/10/21/farewell-line-of-the-air-force-massive-officer-category-broken-out-into-six-groups/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=Socialflow+AIR

 

The complete list of career fields in each category is as follows:

♦ Air Operations and Special Warfare, or LAF-A: pilot (11X), combat systems (12X), remotely piloted aircraft pilot (18X), air battle manager (13B), special tactics (13C), combat rescue (13D), tactical air control party (13L);

♦ Space Operations, or LAF-S: space operations (13S), astronaut (13A);

♦ Nuclear and Missile Operations, or LAF-N: nuclear and missile operations (13N);

♦ Information Warfare, or LAF-I: cyber operations (17X), intelligence (14N), operations research analyst (61A), weather (15W), special investigations (71S), information operations (14F), public affairs (35X);

♦ Combat Support, or LAF-C: airfield operations (13M), aircraft maintenance (21A), munitions and missile maintenance (21M), logistics readiness (21R), security forces (31P), civil engineering (32E), force support (38F), contracting (64P), financial management (65X);

♦ Force Modernization, or LAF-F: chemist (61C), physicist/nuclear engineer (61D), developmental engineer (62E), acquisition management (63A).

 

[Bender]

“The promotion boards for officers in each developmental category will not be stacked entirely with officers from that same category, Kelly said, though some will be from that category. Instead, there will be a mix of officers, depending on the size of the board, to make sure the board gets an “institutional perspective.””

So how is that any different than what we have now?

~Bendy

[SFG]

1 minute ago, Bender said:

“The promotion boards for officers in each developmental category will not be stacked entirely with officers from that same category, Kelly said, though some will be from that category. Instead, there will be a mix of officers, depending on the size of the board, to make sure the board gets an “institutional perspective.””

So how is that any different than what we have now?

~Bendy

I believe the quote is poorly communicated.  I'm pretty sure Gen Kelly is referring to the makeup of the board.  All officers up for promotion will be from the same competitive category, but there will be a few board members from outside the cores represented to spice things up.

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, K_O said:

I believe the quote is poorly communicated.  I'm pretty sure Gen Kelly is referring to the makeup of the board.  All officers up for promotion will be from the same competitive category, but there will be a few board members from outside the cores represented to spice things up.

Still seems like it's defeating the purpose of splitting the categories.

[brabus]

So we still have some shoe clerk who knows jack shit about flying and puts no score emphasis on WIC, #1 IP, flying combat related awards/rankings, etc. They’ll still be putting emphasis on bullshit that doesn’t have to do with flying jets and killing bad guys. Not a whole lot different from what it has been. At least you won’t compete against the PA officer who has a shitload of time to projo and volunteer for a ton of stuff while doing their second masters. 

[SFG]

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

Still seems like it's defeating the purpose of splitting the categories.

What's the purpose?  To promote more of what core AFSCs value and less of what other AFSCs want right?  Whether we all agree with that or not I think that having 90% core folks on the board accomplishes that.  Having 10% from elsewhere (not that those are the actual numbers) might save the one guy who did the broadening tour and actually knows something about the AF outside his AFSC... who knows. // No offense to those who are really damn good at their core... but we need to keep all sorts.

[HossHarris]

The real proof of the pudding will be if the promotion rates for each category are tailored to the needs and missions of the af. 
 

I don’t really care who’s on the operator board if the promotion rate is 90+%. 

Edited October 22, 2019 by HossHarris

[jice]

40 minutes ago, brabus said:

So we still have some shoe clerk who knows jack shit about flying and puts no score emphasis on WIC, #1 IP, flying combat related awards/rankings, etc. They’ll still be putting emphasis on bullshit that doesn’t have to do with flying jets and killing bad guys. Not a whole lot different from what it has been.

True, but it also means that ops folks will still have input on combat support boards, which I don’t think is something we’d be willing to give up. The proof will be in how the rates are distributed.

[jrizzell]

The real proof of the pudding will be if the promotion rates for each category are tailored to the needs and missions of the af. 
 
I don’t really care who’s on the operator board if the promotion rate is 90+%. 

I’m afraid that this won’t be the case; unless they distribute more DP’s to the Ops group, then this “new system”will be what we have now. It almost seems like it could be worse, as the only guys meeting the board are all operators, but no one else records to establish the promotion record “cut line”. The devil will be in the details...

[bennynova]

the old system helped keep promotion rates per AFSC all within the same level.  
 

this new system will allow for tailoring of increasing or decreasing promotion rates depending on need/retirements.

 

to me, this is the answer to pilot retention in the promotion system.  If we are truly low on pilots, then why would their promotion rate be the same?  It makes little sense.   This is a step in the right direction.   

[ThreeHoler]

The real proof of the pudding will be if the promotion rates for each category are tailored to the needs and missions of the af.

I am just amazed someone used that phrase correctly.

[GKinnear]

9 minutes ago, ThreeHoler said:

 

I am just amazed someone used that phrase correctly.

 

Nerd trap...

[SFG]

2 hours ago, bennynova said:

to me, this is the answer to pilot retention in the promotion system.  If we are truly low on pilots, then why would their promotion rate be the same?  It makes little sense.   This is a step in the right direction.   

According to the AF, we are not short on FGOs. We are over.

We are short on CGOs. So as far as feelings go, for FGOs it is probably going to get worse before it gets better.

[jrizzell]

3 hours ago, bennynova said:

the old system helped keep promotion rates per AFSC all within the same level.  
 

this new system will allow for tailoring of increasing or decreasing promotion rates depending on need/retirements.

 

to me, this is the answer to pilot retention in the promotion system.  If we are truly low on pilots, then why would their promotion rate be the same?  It makes little sense.   This is a step in the right direction.   

I absolutely agree with you that the Air Force SHOULD promote more pilots, but I’m not holding my breath that they actually will implement an effective plan in a way it would actually help out the problem.

From the article:

Kelly said that the “overall promotion board process for officers will remain the same. “We don’t want to change that at all, and we’re not changing it, But instead of competing against airmen from some 40 other Air Force specialty codes, Kelly said, “officers will be competing against a much smaller cohort of officers that are in jobs closer to their own.”
 

To me, that doesn’t sound like they’re looking to just promote all the pilots...

[HossHarris]

5 hours ago, ThreeHoler said:

 

I am just amazed someone used that phrase correctly.

 

I am a Renaissance man. 
 

[WheelsOff]

19 hours ago, K_O said:

According to the AF, we are not short on FGOs. We are over.

We are short on CGOs. So as far as feelings go, for FGOs it is probably going to get worse before it gets better.

That doesn’t make any sense. I think what you really mean is the AF is short on (pilot) CGOs who want to stay in. When pilots hit their 10 year commitment and separate, they are already an FGO, not a CGO. And *those* are the people the AF needs to keep around...

[Duck]

That doesn’t make any sense. I think what you really mean is the AF is short on (pilot) CGOs who want to stay in. When pilots hit their 10 year commitment and separate, they are already an FGO, not a CGO. And *those* are the people the AF needs to keep around...

Had one of my old Commanders on my jumpseat, he had just separated from the AF and was going through training. He told me that during his 2 year Command tour he didn’t PCS a single Major. 100% separated. Glad we fixed the pilot crisis.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[SFG]

2 hours ago, WheelsOff said:

That doesn’t make any sense. I think what you really mean is the AF is short on (pilot) CGOs who want to stay in. When pilots hit their 10 year commitment and separate, they are already an FGO, not a CGO. And *those* are the people the AF needs to keep around...

I don’t mean anything. The slides say CGOs (pilots) and FGOs (pilots). We have way less CGOs than the AF wants and way more FGOs, at this very moment. I’m just relaying the data.

[SurelySerious]

7 minutes ago, K_O said:

I don’t mean anything. The slides say CGOs (pilots) and FGOs (pilots). We have way less CGOs than the AF wants and way more FGOs, at this very moment. I’m just relaying the data.

That’s not what CAF squadrons look like. 

[SFG]

4 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

That’s not what CAF squadrons look like. 

Not broken down by sub-category.
 

I’d expect to continue to see incentives focused on 11Fs and less staff jobs for 11Fs. The glut of FGOs from other communities will pick up the slack.

 

Plus, we all know AF facts aren’t always facts, despite what they put on the slide. Still interesting to see what data we’re using to make our decisions.

Edited October 23, 2019 by K_O

[ThreeHoler]

Glut of FGOs in what communities? Our one O-5 (not CC or DO) is a reservist in sanctuary. Most of our O-4s are separating at the end of their commitment. Another squadron has one O-5 (the CC) and only a handful of O-4s.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app