Promotion and PRF Information

[LookieRookie]

3 hours ago, xaarman said:

 

It's kind of a back door way out of an ADSC early, at the cost of closing some doors. To go to the USAFR or ANG, it takes a bit more leg work (waiver) but is doable (pendulum swings.) Someone who has gone through the process can probably speak more intelligently to it.

AFRC wise a Snowflake (Custom E-SSS with a bunch of tabs) is routed in TMT from the wing to the NAF to AFRC/A1 for approval. It's not particularly "hard," but time consuming.

Edited December 20, 2016 by LookieRookie

[HeloDude]

13 hours ago, Duck said:

Because I can turn down continuation, separate early from my UPT ADSC, move to help my parents and in-laws and join the local ANG unit.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

I totally understand and appreciate your reasons for wanting to get out early...I just don't see it happening in today's environment.  But I do wish you the best of luck.

[Learjetter]

20 hours ago, Duck said:

Thanks man! I'm wondering how the board deals with these Do Not Promote letters. So far everyone I know who got a P and wrote a letter was passed over, but I don't know how solid their records were.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Every board is different..every board member has personal opinions on the subject...but I'll say this:  the board is charged with evaluating the records of a couple thousand officers.  The personal opinions of the member aren't really relevant to the "quality" of the record.  I didn't give much weight to letters that begged for promotion in the face of gross buffoonery in a record...and I didn't give much weight to letters begging for non-promotion either.

IIRC there was something in the rules/regs/policy letters/AFPC message/Promotion Board announcement or message/SECAF board instructions/AFPC people processing guides (or somewhere) about officers who write DNP me letters NOT being eligible for invol sep pay and invol sep benefits...unknown if that's still the case.  

Use caution when employing tactics such as these...

[pcola]

I didn't give much weight to letters that begged for promotion in the face of gross buffoonery in a record...and I didn't give much weight to letters begging for non-promotion either.

The first part I can understand...but why on earth would you not give much weight to a do not promote me letter? I would think that a demonstrated unwillingness to perform at the next higher grade would be about the clearest indication of inability to perform at the next higher grade that you could hope for. That's like refusing to accept someone's SIE from UPT; wouldn't happen because it's ridiculous. If a person is telling you that they do not want something, you shouldn't try to force them to take it. Learned that little gem in SAPR training.


Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network Forums

[Learjetter]

I saw it more as an equality issue...if I wasn't going to lend much credence to "please promote me" letters, then I wanted to give equal weight to ""DNP" me letters...in other words--give all letters to the board equal weight.   Comparing it to an SIE from UPT is like apples to Tuesday, though.  A promotion board is not charged to find the best records "of the willing"...but is charged to put the records in order, best to last.  IMHBAO, a member's opinion/desire for promotion isn't very relevant to how well the RECORD stacks up against other RECORDS--even for the purposes of promotion. For DNP me letter writers, if it were possible, I suppose it would be OK to specifically request your record NOT compete for promotion at all.  But that's not how our system works.  Maybe it should--that WOULD ensure we're only looking at the willing.

To me the officer's performance, as recorded in OPRS/DECS/PRF (in that order) are much more relevant to determining the "quality" of the record.  Also, specific SECAF instructions to the board  play into how the letters are treated....and how individual officer traits are treated.

There are never very many letters to the board.  This isn't a widespread issue, nor a big deal for 99+% of officers meeting a board.  It's a HUGE deal to each letter-writer, though...and every letter was read (some several times, because they were tragic, or long, or just interesting examples of the varied human condition)...and I gave every letter I read equal weight in calculating the score of the record.  So they weren't disregarded.  Just not highly regarded.

I don't recall being surprised that someone with a "DNP me" letter made the promotion list.  If it happened, then that officer still has options:  take it or not. Circumstances change.  People change their minds...some who are promoted won't accept, or will wait until pin-on day to reject it.  Some who thought they WOULD be promoted won't be, and will make choices based on that.  Some 5APZ dude with a P who thought promotion was never gonna happen gets the nod and has to make new choices based on that info. Some "DNP me" letter writers may change their minds in the months between letter and list release and pin-on. What we should NOT do (institutionally, as a SERVICE) is accept a "lesser" officer for promotion in lieu of a "better" one just because the "better" one doesn't want promotion, or because the "lesser" one made a really good argument for promotion in a letter.  We should promote neither.  And I'm pretty sure that's what happens in the vast majority of the incredibly small number of letter-writer cases.

[Jaded]

I can't imagine anyone less qualified than a person who does not want to be in the service anymore. Promoting bitter officers just creates bitter squadrons.

[Learjetter]

Hmmm. Ok then! Any officer, the instant that officer becomes "bitter" and doesn't want to be in the service anymore, gets a pass and released immediately? Or at the next promotion board? Should we wait two boards? How about promotion from 2LT to 1LT...refuse that and out you go?

[xaarman]

To follow up, if the board offers the Officer continuation and the Officer turns it down, he is not given invol separation pay. Same with writing a DNP me letter, no invol sep pay given.

AFI 36-2501 

2.10.3. Title 10, U.S.C., Section 617, Reports of Selection Boards requires that the board shall include in its report the name of any officer the board did not recommend for promotion who requested not to be promoted or otherwise caused nonselection through written communication to the board.

2.10.3.2. An officer who causes his/her non-selection through communication to a selection board is not entitled to involuntary separation pay.

 

Re: writing letters and still getting promoted - I see Learjetter's side of the story, and while I don't agree with the direction, it's understandable. Realize board members aren't the ones to get upset at, blame SECAF, HAF/A1, and AFPC guidance.

Edited December 21, 2016 by xaarman

[Duck]

Thanks guys! Good discussion. Really hoping in my case the board helps my family out and I can continue my career a long time in the ANG.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[FUSEPLUG]

7 hours ago, joe1234 said:

Oh and you also get invol sep benefits, other than the pay. So, TAMP, 2 years of commissary/BX access....

I find this amusing.  Been out for two years now and not once have I thought, "Man, I wish I still had commissary and/or BX access!"

I can't even count the number of times I was nearly hit by a Lincoln Town Car while in the commissary parking lot during that 20 minute lunch break I got between staff meetings.  I'll take my $12 sandwich from the bakery in the KBNA terminal any day over the 2 years of commissary access "benefit."

[olevelo]

Lear, that sounds like terrible reasoning for someone sitting on the board. You give a promotion to someone who doesn't want it and someone else deserving gets shafted. You can say they had a "lesser" record, but they just scored below the quota. If the board was purely a score cutoff that's the same every year without regard to quotas, I could see this as a valid argument...score above the cutoff and you have nothing to complain about. But with a quota system the scores are purely arbitrary and you are just screwing over someone who may be just tenths of points "lesser" than the last guy who got promoted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pcola]

5 hours ago, Learjetter said:

A promotion board is not charged to find the best records "of the willing"...but is charged to put the records in order, best to last.  IMHBAO, a member's opinion/desire for promotion isn't very relevant to how well the RECORD stacks up against other RECORDS--even for the purposes of promotion...Maybe it should--that WOULD ensure we're only looking at the willing.

It's a HUGE deal to each letter-writer, though.

We should promote neither.  And I'm pretty sure that's what happens in the vast majority of the incredibly small number of letter-writer cases.

OK, I get it that as a sitting member of a promotion board, you interpret the desires of your superiors and you execute your charge in a way that you judge best  materializes those wishes.  If you could set that aside for the sake of this discussion, does it not seem absurd that the system is designed to promote the unwilling?  Why should we aspire to be led by the unwilling, in any quantity (i.e. even if only one?)

You've acknowledged it must've been a huge deal to the letter writer.  Would they not become a "bitter" Major?  Is disregarding the hugely important wishes of the individual on grounds of principle always the best COA?

Again, you reemphasize the relative size of the pool that we are talking about.  We agree that we should not promote either.  Why would it not be in the best interests of the AF to ensure that outcome, especially considering, as you say, the small portion of the total who are affected?

2 hours ago, Learjetter said:

Hmmm. Ok then! Any officer, the instant that officer becomes "bitter" and doesn't want to be in the service anymore, gets a pass and released immediately? Or at the next promotion board? Should we wait two boards? How about promotion from 2LT to 1LT...refuse that and out you go?

This is where you start to lose me...  Are you only concerned with executing what you are "charged with," or are you also moved by your sense of right and wrong?  Here, you make it seem like you are concerned with the slippery-slope precedent of allowing a fear of "bitterness" to create a back door to an individual's commitment. Considering your charge of reviewing RECORDS, should this be something board members are concerned with?  By your preceding post, I took it (and respected it) that you were obligated to execute your duties as directed, and that your personal opinion was beside the point.  This perspective seems to inject your personal opinion as to whether or not an individual should be able to renege on their commitment through a letter to the promotion board.

I propose that there should be two distinct considerations.  First, the board should be charged with promoting the most qualified individuals.  It should be obvious that a person that does not wish to be promoted should be removed from consideration.  Second, the law should determine who stays and who goes.  If the law dictates that a twice-passed over person gets the boot, then so be it, but this should have no bearing on the potential for the person to be promoted.  If there is a concern that twice-passed over officers should not be separated before the end of their obligation, then propose a change to the law.

[sqwatch]

I thought lear's reasoning was reasonable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pcola]

I thought lear's reasoning was reasonable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I also thought it was reasonable. I just disagreed with it.


Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network Forums

[Learjetter]

Fellas, I said systemically, we as a service, should weigh the desires of the officer lower than the performance/potential of the officer and the needs of the service. Good or not, this is what we do in all things...

Further, it is an incorrect assumption that the board can choose to promote or not promote any individual officer. We don't know the cutoff, the number to be promoted, or any of that data. We simply score the record as it sits. We do not know that all 7.5's get promoted and 7.0's do not. So we cannot just give every letter writer a 6.5 to ensure we honor the wishes of that officer above all other criteria. We also ensure every record gets a fair shake with the split system to resolve such differences in scores. It would be a shame if a board member saw the letter as the first thing in the pile and scored 6.5 and didn't even look at the rest of the record. Same with please promote me--should member just score 10.0 without looking at the rest of the record? Of course not. So..the officer's DESIRES as written in a letter to the board are of LESS concern than the rest of the record.

I never said the service should promote someone who doesn't want promotion. I said that person's desires were weighed as equal to someone who DID want promotion but had a lousy record. I also said I don't remember ever hearing that a letter writer was forced to accept promotion.

I'm also saying that if you permit someone to DQ himself before consideration that's a bad thing.

Look at the bigger picture for a second. The up or out system has a few drawbacks. But it also makes long term career paths possible, ensures a quality force, and attracts the determined, adventerous, hungry kind of person we want to attract into Service. Do you want to serve in an organization that doesn't care about career paths and individual growth? That's the postal service or DMV, or any other civil bureaucracy.

Up or out makes room for younguns. It sustains the all-volunteer aspect (you can still refuse promotion). By ensuring EVERY record gets looked at at specific intervals we try to ensure the best performers who demonstrate the potential to serve in the higher grade get a fair shake.

Im sure some of these concepts are also codified in the officer promotion reg.

Does SOS not cover the promotion process anymore? Don't you get to score actual records and discuss all these theories in class? It used to be so. Probably have some federally-mandated social justice training instead.

PM me if you want to tell me I'm a f.u.c.k.in' idiot. Definitely PM me with your thoughts after you sit a board or two.

[Duck]

Learjetter, how long ago did you sit on the board? Was it a Maj or Lt Col board? Thanks for the insight. The rate now for Pilots is damn near 95%, so hoping for a miracle cause the AF has practically shut all voluntary paths to the ANG outside of 6 months.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Learjetter]

I last sat an O4 board two years ago. Duck, you and I discussed some of this a few months ago. I still wish your leadership would've looked at your situation and designed a different path forward.

When bosses attitudes and lack of creative thinking "force" good, quality, motivated officers to actively try to derail their careers instead of coming up with win-win ideas just pisses me off.

I don't know if you'll be promoted or not. Neither do the individual board members as they score your record. You may get a panel that honors your request and scores your record low enough to be passed over again. Maybe you don't get continued. Maybe you get continued--thus forcing you to quit (w/o invol Sep bennies). You may get a panel that doesn't rate your request as high, and you end up on the list. You don't have to accept it and can bail w/o invol Sep bennies.

There is a school of thought that says "quitters" (letter writers) shouldn't benefit from privately quitting via letter to the board with involuntary Sep benefits...so letter writers should not be considered involuntary separatees...and to ensure that, put them in the stack where they belong and make them "publicly" reject their promotion and separate voluntarily. Kinda individually shitty, but I've heard people say that and understand (institutionally) where that comes from.

Only you can decide what's best for you in your situation. Just understand all the rules and how they can be applied to your situation.

I hope you get the result you want.

[Karl Hungus]

2 hours ago, Learjetter said:

You may get a panel that doesn't rate your request as high, and you end up on the list. You don't have to accept it and can bail w/o invol Sep bennies.
 

Is this possible?  Hadn't heard about an option to get promoted, decline promotion, and then separate.  If it exists, why would Duck even care about writing a DNP letter in order to intentionally be passed over and then separate?  Probably sounds better in future job interviews to say "I was promoted but declined in order to pursue other interests" than "I had to game an archaic, inflexible system to remove myself from promotion consideration so that I could pursue other interests".  

 

[pawnman]

7 hours ago, Learjetter said:

Fellas, I said systemically, we as a service, should weigh the desires of the officer lower than the performance/potential of the officer and the needs of the service. Good or not, this is what we do in all things...

Further, it is an incorrect assumption that the board can choose to promote or not promote any individual officer. We don't know the cutoff, the number to be promoted, or any of that data. We simply score the record as it sits. We do not know that all 7.5's get promoted and 7.0's do not. So we cannot just give every letter writer a 6.5 to ensure we honor the wishes of that officer above all other criteria. We also ensure every record gets a fair shake with the split system to resolve such differences in scores. It would be a shame if a board member saw the letter as the first thing in the pile and scored 6.5 and didn't even look at the rest of the record. Same with please promote me--should member just score 10.0 without looking at the rest of the record? Of course not. So..the officer's DESIRES as written in a letter to the board are of LESS concern than the rest of the record.

I never said the service should promote someone who doesn't want promotion. I said that person's desires were weighed as equal to someone who DID want promotion but had a lousy record. I also said I don't remember ever hearing that a letter writer was forced to accept promotion.

I'm also saying that if you permit someone to DQ himself before consideration that's a bad thing.

Look at the bigger picture for a second. The up or out system has a few drawbacks. But it also makes long term career paths possible, ensures a quality force, and attracts the determined, adventerous, hungry kind of person we want to attract into Service. Do you want to serve in an organization that doesn't care about career paths and individual growth? That's the postal service or DMV, or any other civil bureaucracy.

Up or out makes room for younguns. It sustains the all-volunteer aspect (you can still refuse promotion). By ensuring EVERY record gets looked at at specific intervals we try to ensure the best performers who demonstrate the potential to serve in the higher grade get a fair shake.

Im sure some of these concepts are also codified in the officer promotion reg.

Does SOS not cover the promotion process anymore? Don't you get to score actual records and discuss all these theories in class? It used to be so. Probably have some federally-mandated social justice training instead.

PM me if you want to tell me I'm a f.u.c.k.in' idiot. Definitely PM me with your thoughts after you sit a board or two.

 

 

 

I'm not sure why you think letting someone opt-out of the promotion system is a bad thing, especially when you follow it up with "up or out makes room for the younguns"...then make room for one more youngun by not promoting someone who has no desire to be promoted.

[pawnman]

2 hours ago, Karl Hungus said:

Is this possible?  Hadn't heard about an option to get promoted, decline promotion, and then separate.  If it exists, why would Duck even care about writing a DNP letter in order to intentionally be passed over and then separate?  Probably sounds better in future job interviews to say "I was promoted but declined in order to pursue other interests" than "I had to game an archaic, inflexible system to remove myself from promotion consideration so that I could pursue other interests".  

 

I'm pretty sure declining a promotion doesn't get you out of your ADSC either.

[tac airlifter]

Lear, thanks for explaining your rationale.  I disagree with your logic because I think the needs of the Air Force are better served by people who want to be there.  That said, you bring up some interesting points I'd never considered.

almost every problem that appears simple and obvious to outsiders can be complicated once you're in the drivers seat and privy to all the variables.  This is why we (pilots) get agitated listening to civilians speculate about aircraft accidents..... who knows what that pilot was dealing with, just let the board do it's work, you know?  Same principal here-- You've been in the drivers seat WRT promotion and clearly there's more to think about than I had thought.

 I still feel like the rare case of a guy declining should be handled in a unique manner, but I have some radical thoughts about human capitol and individual worth.  So I'm coming from a tainted perspective.  Regardless, thank you for your honest explanation.

[guineapigfury]

3 hours ago, Karl Hungus said:

Is this possible?  Hadn't heard about an option to get promoted, decline promotion, and then separate.  If it exists, why would Duck even care about writing a DNP letter in order to intentionally be passed over and then separate?  Probably sounds better in future job interviews to say "I was promoted but declined in order to pursue other interests" than "I had to game an archaic, inflexible system to remove myself from promotion consideration so that I could pursue other interests".  

 

I was twice passed over for promotion and separated earlier this month.  I interviewed for my dream job and got it.  They never asked why I didn't get promoted.  YMMV.

Also, there seems to be some confusion over how continuation works.  I thought posting an actual continuation offer might clear some of that up.  So, here's a picture of my continuation offer with my signature block scrubbed out from the bottom left:

 

[bennynova]

I agree with lear

 

  Being bitter is not a reason to get out of a service commitment.   And if allowed, would ultimately lead to more

 

ducks snap letter and wanting out is medical/family related and should be considered.    Realistically, his wing should be taking care of him, but have not.

 

duck wants to stay in the reserves even.... doesn't seem right in his case considering the circumstances. 

[xaarman]

5 hours ago, pawnman said:

I'm pretty sure declining a promotion doesn't get you out of your ADSC either.

It does. DOPMA takes priority over ADSCs. 

[otsap]

36 minutes ago, xaarman said:

It does. DOPMA takes priority over ADSCs. 

Yes and no.  DOPMA does supersede, but the AFI governing Officer Promotions has a sneaky little caveat in the section titled Declining Promotion.  If you are put on the promotion list, and subsequently decline the promotion (which sounds like a damn headache, by the way), then you will not be promoted.  However, your name REMAINS on the promotion list.  So practically speaking, you will not pin on the next rank, but you will also not be considered a "twice passed over" officer.  It's a weird area, but in effect, you can't get out of your ADSC if you go this route.

Duck, I mentioned this before I think, and it's only anecdotal, but in our squadron on both of the last two Major boards, we had someone with a DP and no letter (common), DP and a DNP me letter, a P with no letter, and a P with a letter.  On both boards, the proverbial "line in the sand" between who got promoted and who did not, was the DP v. P.  In other words, the DPs with no letter and DP with a DNP me letter were all promoted, and the P with no letter and the P with a DNP me letter were not promoted.

I don't think this means that the letter carries no weight.  I think it confirms what Learjetter was saying about the priority being on the AF's needs via the DP/P, which is seen as your CC's recommendation.  It can only help though, in my opinion, if your CC's recommendation (P), and your own wishes (letter), are aligned.