Promotion and PRF Information

[SFG]

https://www.airforcetimes.com/opinion/commentary/2019/12/10/the-end-of-early-promotions-and-the-way-ahead/
 

There’s no perfect system, but I think what “Ned” is proposing would do more good than bad. If the AF does not follow through with at least some of these changes (i.e. 5-year looks) asap, then the latest announcement will be all for naught... or worse.

One point I don’t necessarily agree on is hiding all but recent OPRs. Sure, hide all OPRs from raters, but maybe not from promotion boards or hiring authorities. Even when gamed, OPRs are still sources of information about an officer’s background and experiences that can help put the right person in the right place at the right time. If hidden we’ll be back to promoting and hiring by checked boxes which is what we’re trying to get away from right?

Edited December 11, 2019 by K_O
Point of order.

[dream big]

1 hour ago, K_O said:

https://www.airforcetimes.com/opinion/commentary/2019/12/10/the-end-of-early-promotions-and-the-way-ahead/
 

There’s no perfect system, but I think what “Ned” is proposing would do more good than bad. If the AF does not follow through with at least some of these changes (i.e. 5-year looks) asap, then the latest announcement will be all for naught... or worse.

One point I don’t necessarily agree on is hiding all but recent OPRs. Sure, hide all OPRs from raters, but maybe not from promotion boards or hiring authorities. Even when gamed, OPRs are still sources of information about an officer’s background and experiences that can help put the right person in the right place at the right time. If hidden we’ll be back to promoting and hiring by checked boxes which is what we’re trying to get away from right?

I know several people who “bloomed” early, Ie Shoe Flag DG, and kept earning top strats despite working as little or less than their peers.  They kept riding the wave as FGOs knowing they were gaurenteed school, etc.  Meanwhile, their FGO counterparts worked their tails off but never could reach the golden children in terms of strats or pushes. 

Thus, removing BPZ and eliminating CGO OPRs from a Lt Col board is absolutely the right move and may just retain some talent that, under the previous system, weren’t golden children and thus not given a chance.  It also eliminates the notion of “one mistake Air Force.”  

[17D_guy]

Another interesting thing moving to the merit promotion and 5 year window.

It's a feedback system.  If you promote early, but pin on in Dec...it's an indicator.  If you promote year 5, in Dec... it's another indicator.

By all means not the best, but it's something else to look at.

[SFG]

7 hours ago, dream big said:

I know several people who “bloomed” early, Ie Shoe Flag DG, and kept earning top strats despite working as little or less than their peers.  They kept riding the wave as FGOs knowing they were gaurenteed school, etc.  Meanwhile, their FGO counterparts worked their tails off but never could reach the golden children in terms of strats or pushes. 

Thus, removing BPZ and eliminating CGO OPRs from a Lt Col board is absolutely the right move and may just retain some talent that, under the previous system, weren’t golden children and thus not given a chance.  It also eliminates the notion of “one mistake Air Force.”  

Understood, but I’m also trying no to think more real world lately and less AF world. In the real world I may want or need someone with a certain set of skills or experiences. Someone who deployed to one place or another. Someone with more of a background in A or B. Oh and while that person was doing that job, I also kind of want them to have done it well. It may not matter if it was 5 or 10 years ago, though I might weight that accordingly. There’s no perfect system and the jerks you mentioned might still make it through, but I think it’s less likely if all OPRs are hidden from commanders and SRs. For promotion boards and hiring authorities Duty Titles and AFSC pre-fixes (checked boxes) are not enough to shape the force and put the right people in the right jobs and don’t tell the whole story. Let’s  black out all strats ever received if you want, but when I am considering hiring you or promoting you I want to read about how much crap you hauled, lives you saved, bad guys you killed, and your work with that joint, interagency, or international partner. Just doing your last job well does not tell me much. As we know, working at Popeyes is not the same as working at Chick-fil-a (shots fired!). Last three OPRs would be better, but I’m still not getting that whole-person picture. At some point we need to realize that there is no perfect system to select and promote the right people. In the end there must be a person evaluating on the other end and they should have the information they need to make the best decision based on America’s needs. I’m not an idiot and I trust others won’t be when looking at someone’s records and it’s quite easy to tell if someone was a one hit wonder or not. So go ahead and get rid of strats, but the people promoting the next wave of what we need in this rapidly changing world should have all of the information they need about the person they are considering promoting to make the best decisions for our national security.

[pawnman]

I'd argue there's a pretty wide gulf between what the promotion boards are doing and what hiring authorities are doing.  My command chain has access to my entire record, including the fact I have a master's...but the board doesn't.

The point is to give the promotion boards the information they need to PROMOTE people.  Not to vector them to the next job.  Not to put people on the command list.  Not to fill vacancies in a staff.  There are other process for those things, and the people that run those processes have access to the entire record.  Promoting someone to Lt Col shouldn't hinge on the fact that they finished #20/21 in their UPT class as a 2 Lt or were the DG of SOS 8 years ago.

I think last 3-5 OPRs should be plenty for that.  The enlisted side only uses last 3 EPRs for all SNCO ranks.  

[SFG]

42 minutes ago, pawnman said:

I'd argue there's a pretty wide gulf between what the promotion boards are doing and what hiring authorities are doing.  My command chain has access to my entire record, including the fact I have a master's...but the board doesn't.

The point is to give the promotion boards the information they need to PROMOTE people.  Not to vector them to the next job.  Not to put people on the command list.  Not to fill vacancies in a staff.  There are other process for those things, and the people that run those processes have access to the entire record.  Promoting someone to Lt Col shouldn't hinge on the fact that they finished #20/21 in their UPT class as a 2 Lt or were the DG of SOS 8 years ago.

I think last 3-5 OPRs should be plenty for that.  The enlisted side only uses last 3 EPRs for all SNCO ranks.  

As stated, black out strats if you want, but promotion creates the pool from which to hire and skills and experiences should matter for promotion. It does outside the AF and it should inside. 3 OPRs don’t provide the whole picture.

Edited December 11, 2019 by K_O
Add: I don’t expect folks to DG or get #1 everywhere and everyone makes mistakes. How many of our best leaders had issues at one point or another? Let’s let this play out a bit more following these massive changes.

[FltDoc]

On 12/10/2019 at 2:31 AM, Chuck17 said:

IPZ only, starting with the (now May scheduled) O5 board.... no more BPZ. 

And the Five year window (Once in place) starts on your fragged IPZ as well. 

These are big changes for the better for the service. Maybe we will gain some credibility in the joint world...

They are So big In fact that the way I heard it was the “Senior Statesmen” (retired four stars) started lobbying the CSAF to slow or reverse the train... because, by god the promotion system (which hadn’t changed this substantially since 1986) worked for them. They were told their input was welcome and appreciated, but the train has left the station (AKA decision-made...).

Chuck

So, I know there's a telecon coming up on 16th to discuss details, but you seem to know quite a bit.

The idea that this somehow does away with the "anointed" seems silly to me.  Are raters and boards going to lose the ability to count?  Everyone can count to five.

Edited, because I found what I think are answers here:
https://www.airforcemag.com/app/uploads/2019/12/Talking-Points-BPZ-and-Merit-based-Reordering_ao-9-Dec-19.pdf

Edited December 11, 2019 by FltDoc
new info

[14N Guy]

2 hours ago, FltDoc said:

So, I know there's a telecon coming up on 16th to discuss details, but you seem to know quite a bit.

The idea that this somehow does away with the "anointed" seems silly to me.  Are raters and boards going to lose the ability to count?  Everyone can count to five.

Edited, because I found what I think are answers here:
https://www.airforcemag.com/app/uploads/2019/12/Talking-Points-BPZ-and-Merit-based-Reordering_ao-9-Dec-19.pdf

Concur. All this seems to do is create new push-line language that tells the board who should/shouldn't be promoted. I don't see how these changes would have any impact on any current APZ folks due to the fact that our records have been so disregarded over the last few years that they look terrible (no strats, etc.)

Raters are going to push for the folks they know will get promoted on their 1st, 2nd, or 3rd look. All this does is change the timeline for the shiny pennies. Will there be some type of requirement to promote a specific percentage from each "look group"? if not, how will this system allow raters to highlight the folks on their 4th or 5th look that are performing at a higher level?  Those folks still won't be able to compete against the folks with better records that are on their 1st or 2nd look. In fact, I think it would be more of a negative that you have been non-selected for promotion the first 3-4 times.

On top of that, if you aren't promoted on your 1st/2nd/3rd look, won't that make you less likely to be selected for a Command position or be considered for future promotion? These changes seem to solidify who the chosen ones are much more than the old system did and I think it will turn into a, "not promoted on your first 3 looks? Well, you might want to consider a different career because this isn't going to happen for you".

Finally, fully support removing CGO OPR's from O-5 promotion packages. If a person performed well as an FGO, and was given leadership opportunities, then what they did as a 2LT is, for the most part, irrelevant. Looking at the last 4-5 years of a candidates professional record would a.) give the board more time to spend on reviewing packages, and, b.) Even the playing field for folks that have been riding the gravy train because they were an exec as an O-3 (or folks that had a rater crap on them as a CGO).

My only other question is, what happens if you don't get promoted after your 5th look? Does the AF boot you? If my math is right, wouldn't a 5th look non-select put a lot of folks at 18-19 years active duty time if your IPZ/1st look is at 13/14 years? 

[ThreeHoler]

Yes. Part of the new authority is the ability to disregard “up or out”.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[pawnman]

22 hours ago, K_O said:

As stated, black out strats if you want, but promotion creates the pool from which to hire and skills and experiences should matter for promotion. It does outside the AF and it should inside. 3 OPRs don’t provide the whole picture.

I didn't say anything about blacking out strats.  I said limit the number of OPRs.  Skills and experiences should matter for the job at hand, but if you're talking specific skills, those are usually already reflected as an SEI or language on the SURF...which no one is arguing to black out.

What we ARE arguing to remove is some dudes glowing report from IQT 12 years ago.  How is that possibly relevant to the kind of leader he would be as a Lt Col?

Quote

My only other question is, what happens if you don't get promoted after your 5th look? Does the AF boot you? If my math is right, wouldn't a 5th look non-select put a lot of folks at 18-19 years active duty time if your IPZ/1st look is at 13/14 years?

I suspect that's part of the move.  Now people who are passed over twice can't get out of a UPT or bonus commitment.  They have to stay to 18+ years of service, and then they'll likely not be booted because of sanctuary.  That's one way to improve retention, I guess.

Edited December 12, 2019 by pawnman

[mcbush]

Congrats on your good timing, Duck!

[panchbarnes]

8 hours ago, ThreeHoler said:

Yes. Part of the new authority is the ability to disregard “up or out”.

So I'm guessing if the passed over member is automatically added back to the next promotion pool, he/she no longer has the option of receiving involuntary separation pay?

[war007afa]

13 hours ago, ThreeHoler said:

Yes. Part of the new authority is the ability to disregard “up or out”.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Which jives with the last rated retention report. Nearly a third of those pilots who separated did so as a result of being passed over (either via the system or exploitation). This “fixing the glitch” will equate to around 6-9% change in rated retention (at least for a few years). Now your 5th look to O-5 will take you within spitting distance to retirement. 

May the odds ever be in your favor. 

[Champ Kind]

Now your 5th look to O-5 will take you within spitting distance to retirement. 

What’s the first year group wholly affected by the BRS only/no pension at 20 years deal? Will people in that year group (or those that opted in) even be motivated to stick it out till 20? I doubt it.

[raimius]

41 minutes ago, Champ Kind said:

 

 

What’s the first year group wholly affected by the BRS only/no pension at 20 years deal? Will people in that year group (or those that opted in) even be motivated to stick it out till 20? I doubt it.

 

 

BRS still has a 40% pension after 20, last I heard.

[BADFNZ]

I'm going to hug my DD-214 blanket a little tighter tonight.  Good luck guys.

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, raimius said:

BRS still has a 40% pension after 20, last I heard.

Affirm.  2% per year of service instead of 2.5, plus a match to TSP.  I don't know where this idea of "no pension" started, but it sure is pervasive.

[afthunderchief16]

So the mysterious PDSM that everyone has been waiting on was released this afternoon. Looks like most of the '07 YG and all of the '08 YG are excluded from this board and the 5 year window begins with the 06 YG for the most part. OPBs should flow to SRs on 17 Dec and the board convenes 4 May 20.

-APZ (which I thought we were doing away with this terminology...) begins for folks with a DOR of 31 Mar 16 and earlier  

-IPZ is folks with a DOR between 1 Apr 16 - 31 Dec 16

[pawnman]

My functional called me when the PSDM dropped. He thinks it'll be a unique opportunity for APZ guys to get promoted.

I'm not giving up, but I'm also not as optimistic as he is.

[SFG]

On 12/11/2019 at 7:54 AM, pawnman said:

Promoting someone to Lt Col shouldn't hinge on the fact that they finished #20/21 in their UPT class as a 2 Lt or were the DG of SOS 8 years ago.

I read this as you being concerned about strats.

Either way, I think a person’s record of performance and life experiences are important and frankly think the bullets that talk about work with joint, interagency, and international partners and various operational achievements and deployments are relevant and don’t come close to being captured by SEIs or joint experience indicators that often have a high and somewhat superficial bar to meet to get those boxes checked.

[SFG]

2 hours ago, pawnman said:

My functional called me when the PSDM dropped. He thinks it'll be a unique opportunity for APZ guys to get promoted.

That’s what I’m trying to tell you. And frankly I don’t give two shits if your last 3 OPRs show that you’ve done a great job as General whoever’s Aide and Chief Exec to the Wg/CC. I also want to see how you did in other positions, particularly in the Ops world.

Edited December 13, 2019 by K_O

[pawnman]

6 hours ago, K_O said:

I read this as you being concerned about strats.

Either way, I think a person’s record of performance and life experiences are important and frankly think the bullets that talk about work with joint, interagency, and international partners and various operational achievements and deployments are relevant and don’t come close to being captured by SEIs or joint experience indicators that often have a high and somewhat superficial bar to meet to get those boxes checked.

How many Lts have those experiences, do you think?

And do you believe the board is promoting people based on experiences, or push lines?  I suspect it's the latter.  Especially since the people who get those joint or international jobs are usually the #1/x anyway.

[SFG]

2 hours ago, pawnman said:

How many Lts have those experiences, do you think?

And do you believe the board is promoting people based on experiences, or push lines?  I suspect it's the latter.  Especially since the people who get those joint or international jobs are usually the #1/x anyway.

Maybe not many, but I want to know who they are. That said I’ve worked with plenty of USAF LTs imbedded with joint forces. You may need to think outside of your community a bit.

Like it or not your record tells a story. Maybe it’s that you are a box-checking douche or maybe it shows you’re not at the same level of boxes checked as your peers because you were a nonstop volunteer for opportunities to kill ISIS. Can’t get that story with 3 OPRs.

Also, push lines, those are gone. At least in their absurd previous form.

We need to be careful that we don’t apply old ways of thinking to these new tools, and move forward. The worst thing we can do is to think of all these changes in terms of the past. Some people will try to conform them to past practices. I hope they get fired.

Edited December 13, 2019 by K_O

[pawnman]

46 minutes ago, K_O said:

Maybe not many, but I want to know who they are. That said I’ve worked with plenty of USAF LTs imbedded with joint forces. You may need to think outside of your community a bit.

Like it or not your record tells a story. Maybe it’s that you are a box-checking douche or maybe it shows you’re not at the same level of boxes checked as your peers because you were a nonstop volunteer for opportunities to kill ISIS. Can’t get that story with 3 OPRs.

Also, push lines, those are gone. At least in their absurd previous form.

We need to be careful that we don’t apply old ways of thinking to these new tools, and move forward. The worst thing we can do is to think of all these changes in terms of the past. Some people will try to conform them to past practices. I hope they get fired.

Only works if you are willing to promote the nonstop volunteers to kill ISIS.  The idea that someone will make a great senior leader because they were DG at USAFA or SOS is insane.  It separates out potential leaders way too early.  

Make it 5 OPRs.  Make it 6.  But I don't think the board really needs your commissioning training report and your first OPR as a 2 LT to make a promotion decision to Lt Col.  

And, one more time, promotion boards aren't matching people with experience to jobs.  There are other mechanisms for that, with the from records available.  

I'm curious... Would you unmask Masters degrees if you could?  That's part of someone's qualification and experience, right?

[ThreeHoler]

PSDM is out. 5 year window starts at when you would be IPZ. 06 is the youngest year group for the May 20 board.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app