Promotion and PRF Information

[Constant Hotsauce]

Senior rate release on 9 Apr for P0423E.

[Khruangbin33]

Bump regarding Letters to the Board.  Since this topic was brought up in another thread for purposes of hastening separation, I figured I'd ask the question here for those who are trying to achieve the opposite effect.  Internet consensus seems to be that 1) most letters do more harm than good, and 2) you should really ask an O-6 for their opinion before you send something dumb.  Any wisdom out there for someone who does not have access to an O-6 in real life?

[Herkdrvr]

Board members have very little time to review records. Sometimes the paper doesn't tell the story; most times it does.

Letters fail for multiple reasons including excessive emotion, demonstrate lack of responsibility/accountability, don't address the issue(s), redundant to the record, or are far too verbose. 

If you write a letter, it should succinctly bridge a records gap the board members can't resolve without said letter. 
 

Edited October 11 by Herkdrvr

[BashiChuni]

1 hour ago, Khruangbin33 said:

 Any wisdom out there for someone who does not have access to an O-6 in real life?

yeah.

most O-6s in todays environment are fucking losers who obsess over friday shirts and patches. you're better off not associating with them.

[Skitzo]

Bump regarding Letters to the Board.  Since this topic was brought up in another thread for purposes of hastening separation, I figured I'd ask the question here for those who are trying to achieve the opposite effect.  Internet consensus seems to be that 1) most letters do more harm than good, and 2) you should really ask an O-6 for their opinion before you send something dumb.  Any wisdom out there for someone who does not have access to an O-6 in real life?

What is the context?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Weezer]

On 10/11/2024 at 3:21 AM, Khruangbin33 said:

Bump regarding Letters to the Board.  Since this topic was brought up in another thread for purposes of hastening separation, I figured I'd ask the question here for those who are trying to achieve the opposite effect.  Internet consensus seems to be that 1) most letters do more harm than good, and 2) you should really ask an O-6 for their opinion before you send something dumb.  Any wisdom out there for someone who does not have access to an O-6 in real life?

I wrote one for my O-5 board APZ and was picked up with an”P”…so I at least didn’t do it “wrong”…don’t know how much it pushed me over the line..  I was told one page max + attachments.  Allegedly (I have not served on a board) the fact that you wrote a letter is specifically highlighted.  I don’t know if sirens go off or something, but it’s apparently well noted when a package has one.

My letter addressed a gap in my records that occurred due to an odd CRO situation.  I explained the situation, took responsibility for not making sure my stuff was straight, and then attached an LOE that covered the missing months.

You can PM me for more info.

[Khruangbin33]

Copy all!

Quote

"What is the context?"

As a late-to-rate guy who spent a lot of his O-4 time playing catch-up and didn't spend a lot of time performing duties commensurate with his rank, I would like to add a deployed LOE to the record as proof that I'm not a POS.  The favorable contents of that that LOE were never included in any documents that are meeting my board.

Obligatory self-awareness follows: Technically, there is nothing unusual to account for or explain.  My supervisors put what they saw fit to put in my records, and that is that.  If I don't measure up and I'm not what big blue wants, then tough $h!t.  But if I am justified in wanting to advocate for myself appropriately, then I think I shouldn't leave this option on the table.

[DirkDiggler]

11 hours ago, Khruangbin33 said:

Copy all!

As a late-to-rate guy who spent a lot of his O-4 time playing catch-up and didn't spend a lot of time performing duties commensurate with his rank, I would like to add a deployed LOE to the record as proof that I'm not a POS.  The favorable contents of that that LOE were never included in any documents that are meeting my board.

Obligatory self-awareness follows: Technically, there is nothing unusual to account for or explain.  My supervisors put what they saw fit to put in my records, and that is that.  If I don't measure up and I'm not what big blue wants, then tough $h!t.  But if I am justified in wanting to advocate for myself appropriately, then I think I shouldn't leave this option on the table.

I knew a guy in a situation very similar to yours; unfortunately he did not get picked up the year he wrote his letter.  To echo Herkdrv's comments above, letters should be short, concise, and explain a gap that otherwise wouldn't be obvious to the board (boards are pretty good at seeing everything/seeing through fluff).  

  The individual I referenced above did end up getting picked up on his next look where his last deployed LOE was visible/in the system (was in a DO role downrange).  I know/knew far more people at the tail end of my career getting picked up APZ so I'd say the moral is keep working hard towards what you want.  Best of luck to you.

[HeloHawk]

New NDAA for 2025 has the following provision.  Looks like there's no more getting out if twice passed over prior to UPT ADSC. 

 

[the g-man]

Wow.  Fuck that shit.

[StoleIt]

7 hours ago, HeloHawk said:

New NDAA for 2025 has the following provision.  Looks like there's no more getting out if twice passed over prior to UPT ADSC. 

[illusive]

 Original Title 10 law;

§632. Effect of failure of selection for promotion: regular captains and majors of the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps and regular lieutenants and lieutenant commanders of the Navy

(a) Except an officer of the Navy and Marine Corps who is an officer designated for limited duty (to whom section 5596(e) or 6383 of this title applies) and except as provided under section 637(a) of this title, each officer of the Regular Army, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps who holds the regular grade of captain or major, and each officer of the Regular Navy who holds the regular grade of lieutenant or lieutenant commander, who has failed of selection for promotion to the next higher regular grade for the second time and whose name is not on a list of officers recommended for promotion to the next higher regular grade shall-

(1) be discharged on the date requested by him and approved by the Secretary concerned, which date shall be not later than the first day of the seventh calendar month beginning after the month in which the President approves the report of the board which considered him for the second time;

(2) if he is eligible for retirement under any provision of law, be retired under that law on the date requested by him and approved by the Secretary concerned, which date shall be not later than the first day of the seventh calendar month beginning after the month in which the President approves the report of the board which considered him for the second time; or

(3) if on the date on which he is to be discharged under clause (1) he is within two years of qualifying for retirement under section 3911, 6323, or 8911 of this title, be retained on active duty until he is qualified for retirement and then retired under that section, unless he is sooner retired or discharged under another provision of law.

(b) The retirement or discharge of an officer pursuant to this section shall be considered to be an involuntary retirement or discharge for purposes of any other provision of law.

This would be slipped in at the bottom then;

Section 632(c) of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

``(c)(1) If an officer is subject to discharge under subsection (a)(1) and, as of the date on which the officer is to be discharged under that subsection, the officer has not completed the officer's active duty service obligation, the officer shall be retained on active duty until completion of such active duty service obligation, and then be discharged under subsection (a)(1), unless sooner retired or discharged under another provision of law.

``(2) The Secretary concerned may waive the applicability of paragraph (1) to any officer if the Secretary determines that completion of the active duty service obligation of that officer is not in the best interest of the service.''.

 

I do not know if a UPT ADSC counts as a "active duty service obligation" under title 10 or if that differs than ADSC in any legal way. 

Would the AFMAN need to change as well or could you still leave if that didn't change?

It says FY2025 but any idea when it would take effect?  Once its signed into law or is there a delay because its still in committee right now.

 

 

Edited December 9 by illusive

[illusive]

On 1/12/2024 at 3:03 PM, BE36 said:

At an all-call yesterday, our OG said there might not be an O-4 board for the 16YG.  I was tracking that the board would likely move to February to accommodate the SCOD.  But no board whatsoever?  Anybody have the inside scoop on this?   

Can you confirm this?

[LiquidSky]

9 hours ago, the g-man said:

Wow.   that shit.

Shit news for someone that wrote a letter to the board just a few weeks ago. Guess I fuked myself.

Edited December 9 by LiquidSky

[LiquidSky]

7 hours ago, illusive said:

Can you confirm this?

Majors boards were moved to Jan25. I assume it will stay there so 17YG would meet the Jan26 board. 

Edited December 9 by LiquidSky

[Khruangbin33]

Quote

It says FY2025 but any idea when it would take effect?  Once its signed into law or is there a delay because its still in committee right now

Seems like if there was ever a time to write your representative, now would be it.  As best I can tell, both houses have agreed upon common language, but it hasn't been put to a vote.

Selfishly, the amendment doesn't seem to be very well written...

For people like me who would hit the 2 year "sanctuary" period and then have their ADSC expire later on within that period, a strict reading of this looks like "hit your ADSC under (c)(1), then get separated under (a)(1), and do not continue to retirement, TYFYS."

More flimsy argument follows: The "first day of the seventh calendar month" under (a) did at least give the member a built-in six month advance notice as the consequence of an administrative action.  Although it is fringe, I can see situations where some people would have much less than 6 months between board announcement, ADSC expiration, and apparent/immediate separation.

Curious what others think...if there's merit to these thoughts, I'll probably be typing up a letter tonight.

[Boomer6]

Remember you're dealing with the service where the CSAF released a memo saying you could roll your sleeves up, and dudes had to carry around the memo for months because chiefs were trying to pull the, "its not in the regs.." BS. They could write this into law tomorrow and it'd take the mental athletes at MPF 6 months to figure out how to change this in their computer system.

[illusive]

56 minutes ago, Boomer6 said:

Remember you're dealing with the service where the CSAF released a memo saying you could roll your sleeves up, and dudes had to carry around the memo for months because chiefs were trying to pull the, "its not in the regs.." BS. They could write this into law tomorrow and it'd take the mental athletes at MPF 6 months to figure out how to change this in their computer system.

This is a fair point.  The issue is multiple people are trying to line their lives up with what they think is going to happen.  At AETC I know of multiple students who were passed over because they were stuck in training for years, and incur another 10 year ADSC.  How is that going to play out?

[LiquidSky]

I can't imagine how little work you're going to get out of a late to rate passed over Captain who's got 7 years left with no chance of promotion. 

From the "JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT TO ACCOMPANY THE SERVICEMEMBER QUALITY OF LIFE IMPROVEMENT AND NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025" Seems the house simply accepted the Senate's version during discussions.
 

Edited December 9 by LiquidSky

[HeloDude]

26 minutes ago, LiquidSky said:

I can't imagine how little work you're going to get out of a late to rate passed over Captain who's got 7 years left with no chance of promotion. 

From the "JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT TO ACCOMPANY THE SERVICEMEMBER QUALITY OF LIFE IMPROVEMENT AND NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025" Seems the house simply accepted the Senate's version during discussions.
 

So they’ll suddenly become shitty pilots because they’re passed over and have to fulfill the commitment they agreed to?

[illusive]

11 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

So they’ll suddenly become shitty pilots because they’re passed over and have to fulfill the commitment they agreed to?

No likely not become shitty pilots.  I just think it will cause a lot of non rated to think twice about swapping to pilot on the active duty side.  I also think it will cause anger for them for the next 7 years if they were a higher performer, then by some fluke of bureaucracy they are trapped in a job with no growth potential.  I think that will lead to a lot of disengagement.  

[the g-man]

21 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

So they’ll suddenly become shitty pilots because they’re passed over and have to fulfill the commitment they agreed to?

They sure as hell won’t be planning any Xmas parties or anything.

 

ADO offices will have even saltier folks, haha

[HeloDude]

11 minutes ago, illusive said:

No likely not become shitty pilots.  I just think it will cause a lot of non rated to think twice about swapping to pilot on the active duty side.  I also think it will cause anger for them for the next 7 years if they were a higher performer, then by some fluke of bureaucracy they are trapped in a job with no growth potential.  I think that will lead to a lot of disengagement.  

1) In my time in the AF, I was rarely surprised that those who got passed over for O-4 were passed over…

2) To be a Captain (or soon to be) and get picked picked up for UPT means they most likely had a solid record to begin with…my bet is the percentage of late to rate (pilots) Captains getting passed over for O-4 is much lower than those in their original career fields, as well as their non-late to rate fellow pilots.

3) The UPT ADSC is to go to pilot training and become a pilot, that’s it.  Promotion is definitely not a gurantee, and if said potential late to rate officer is concerned about promotions (though see point above), my advice for them is to focus not on becoming a pilot, but being the best officer they can be and getting promoted in their original career field.

4) The AF is not hurting for qualified candidates to go to UPT…if fewer non-rated officers want to become pilots, then it’s not much of a loss IMO.

5) It’s the AF, and it’s far from anything we all think is “fair” in our own minds.  If we’re going down that rabbit hole, I’m sure I got quite a few people beat, willing to discuss offline.

6) They signed up to serve, meeting the minimum standard isn’t that hard.  And if they really want to get out, there are ways to do it.

[LiquidSky]

1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

So they’ll suddenly become shitty pilots because they’re passed over and have to fulfill the commitment they agreed to?

A comittment which 9 years ago was signed with the up or out rules in place. Why does one side get unilaterally modify that contract after the fact? 

Shitty pilots? No. Salty and ROAD CGO life? You bet. If I'm locked in with 0 chance of promotion, 0 incentives, and get paid the same regardless there's a lot of queep that's someone else problem. What are you going to do, not promote me? 

It's on equal stupidity as the 15% E1-E4 pay bump. E5s are going to make $100/month more than E4s. A whole lot of responsibility for $1200/yr. Lots of E5s are going to start asking  why bother? 

Edited December 9 by LiquidSky

[LiquidSky]

53 minutes ago, the g-man said:

They sure as hell won’t be planning any Xmas parties or anything.

 

ADO offices will have even saltier folks, haha

ADO? Sounds like a job above my paygrade.

Edited December 9 by LiquidSky