Promotion and PRF Information

[Liquid]

Liquid,

Let me guess-you take leave on Saturdays and Sundays so you don't ever have use or lose...

smh

Wow, strong first post. No, I take leave the normal way, a week at a time with the family. Hunting almost every October too. And usually a few weeks between assignments.

[Rusty Pipes]

I've given 4 DPs to APZ over the past few years and the board honored those recommendations by promoting them all APZ. Got one on this Lt Col board too.

Curious as to the circumstances in which this happened. I have a friend who was at the Pentagon and had 3 guys in the office and his boss somehow had 3 DPs to give (one guy was APZ and got picked up for O-5 with the DP). Maybe I haven't been in situations where it was an option, but I've never seen anyone APZ given a DP when there was an eligible IPZ (at a Wing or on Staff). In your cases did you have multiple IPZ candidates (I'm not talking Article 15 or DUI types) that you could have given the DP to and chose the APZ guy for it?

[TheInner]

Capt to Major

1. Job performance (AC, IP, EP, WIC, AMU OIC, FLT CC, etc)

2. Leading Airmen both in garrison and deployed

3. Combat deployments, deployed mission commander

4. SOS

5. Additional duties: exec, safety, training, current ops & scheduling, plans, etc. This provides us insight into which officers can master their primary skill set and also handle increased responsibility.

6. Optional: Masters Degree

Liquid, thanks for the insight and honesty. One of the ideas I would be interested in hearing a senior leaders thoughts on are shifting the IDE selection to the right. This idea was previously mentioned by another poster, so certainly not trying to claim it but I think it is a valid point, especially with the shifting of the O-4 board to the left compared to “back in the day.” Even if a person is picked up on their first look, it still provides a couple of years between PRF being written and their 3849 being written. These couple of years could alleviate some of the pressure to squeeze in all of the items the leadership values into a relatively short timeframe, which for all intents and purposes make or break a career. I would argue that most people consider making O-5 and keeping relevant enough to have a say in their assignments is the recipe for a solid career. However, that is becoming more and more difficult and that has shifted the focus on “checking the boxes” further to the left. By shifting school selection to the right, you allow for a couple of more years to accomplish the “potential leader indicators” like AADs and actual job performance, not just duty titles. At some point a quality cut has to be made, but looking at this from a bottom-up perspective I believe the “masses” would view this as a step in the right direction to provide a little more mission focus earlier in a career and allow the school cut to be based on a little more meat. The values that make a good major select shouldn’t change, but the focus seems to have shifted so much towards the school selection that people are being asked to prove too much before the board. This has effects on the individual because they choose to prioritize AADs and PME because it is 100% in their control and it affects the leadership who have to push guys into IPUGs or Flt/CC jobs before they are ready. All of that combined can crush morale which will ultimately affect the performance of the squadron as a whole, and not just for the younger crowd. I would venture a guess that the IDE selects wouldn’t shift much if the change is made but if it allows for a transition back to a time when getting good in the jet was step one and then proving potential as an officer/leader was step two, it could mean a lot for the morale/performance of the force. Thoughts?

[Liquid]

So then why practice bleeding on APZ PRFs? If an APZ PRF with a P has a 0% promotion rate then why bother going through the motions and wasting everyone's time and money for zero results? Does this mean officers are only qualified as promotable leaders based on the instructions given to the particular board they meet?

I guess when the CSAF says he is looking for XYZ criteria for promotion he means he is only looking for those qualities in that particular year group... and even if that criteria changes 6 months later now making them more qualified than a good percentage of the next group they are basically told "sorry, thanks for playing... you had your chance!" Good luck keeping those guys motivated. Even worse... you give them a kick square in the junk by showing them the door after 15 yrs of service! And we wonder why there is a morale problem in the AF? You get three looks to compete for school, but just one for promotion... do we want to promote our best officers or not?

So are you upset that the bottom 10-15% passed over to Maj and Lt Col are the wrong people, or that anyone is passed over and kicked in the junk? How would you identify the 10-15% that need to be passed over to meet congressionally mandated grade limits? Are you saying that our best are being passed over?

Boards rack and stack every record, based on the documents in the record. Breadth, depth, stratification, distinction, combat experience and deployments are valued. Recommendations from senior raters and supervisors are weighted heavily. The gray zone records are evaluated several a times to make sure the red line is drawn in the best place. It is hard to distinguish clear differences a few places up and down, but there is a clear difference between the gray zone and the top 20% (best officers). Many say the records don't match the people (square fillers, lousy Flt CCs, only got the good job because of early AAD completion, ducked TDYs and deployments, senior raters value the wrong things, etc). But the board can only evaluate promotion potential based on what the supervisors and senior raters say. I hear you, the lack of early AAD and PME may hurt you at the sq, group and wing strats, jobs and pushes, but the last major board was lenient on lack of AAD.

Several MAJCOMs will leave the PRF blank for multiple APZ after continuation. Saves some time at the board, but not much. BPZ and APZ with a DP are long shots that board members don't usually spend much time on. For BPZ there is a yes no vote first to cull the thousands of records into hundreds. Most Ps fall out there.

Sorry for the choppy wording. I'm dealing with movers wrecking my stuff.

[Herk Driver]

Curious as to the circumstances in which this happened. I have a friend who was at the Pentagon and had 3 guys in the office and his boss somehow had 3 DPs to give (one guy was APZ and got picked up for O-5 with the DP). Maybe I haven't been in situations where it was an option, but I've never seen anyone APZ given a DP when there was an eligible IPZ (at a Wing or on Staff). In your cases did you have multiple IPZ candidates (I'm not talking Article 15 or DUI types) that you could have given the DP to and chose the APZ guy for it?

Each SR gets a set number of DPs for BTZ and a set number for IPZ/APZ (combined). Any DP given to an APZ comes out of hide. Seen it happen one time with a guy that was just flat out better qualified than the next IPZ guy. The APZ guy got picked up...he was passed over multiple times.

I cannot speak as to why the one look IPZ...I will say that when the BTZ went away for O-4, I think that most people welcomed the relief that it brought from the same issues that you have discussed in this forum (especially when coupled with the move to drive down pin-on times to O-4 from around 12 years to 9.5-10 years). I think that what senior leaders missed is that when you push the O-4 board to that pin-on time and then you bring back the requirement for the AAD that you push back when a guy has to start the AAD and create the second and third order effects that have been discussed in this thread.

On another note, I know that one SR has used 942 data before when allocating his DPs. Not sure how you quantify the same type of job performance for those MSG and other non-ops types when doing so.

[Liquid]

Liquid, thanks for the insight and honesty. One of the ideas I would be interested in hearing a senior leaders thoughts on are shifting the IDE selection to the right. This idea was previously mentioned by another poster, so certainly not trying to claim it but I think it is a valid point, especially with the shifting of the O-4 board to the left compared to “back in the day.” Even if a person is picked up on their first look, it still provides a couple of years between PRF being written and their 3849 being written. These couple of years could alleviate some of the pressure to squeeze in all of the items the leadership values into a relatively short timeframe, which for all intents and purposes make or break a career. I would argue that most people consider making O-5 and keeping relevant enough to have a say in their assignments is the recipe for a solid career. However, that is becoming more and more difficult and that has shifted the focus on “checking the boxes” further to the left. By shifting school selection to the right, you allow for a couple of more years to accomplish the “potential leader indicators” like AADs and actual job performance, not just duty titles. At some point a quality cut has to be made, but looking at this from a bottom-up perspective I believe the “masses” would view this as a step in the right direction to provide a little more mission focus earlier in a career and allow the school cut to be based on a little more meat. The values that make a good major select shouldn’t change, but the focus seems to have shifted so much towards the school selection that people are being asked to prove too much before the board. This has effects on the individual because they choose to prioritize AADs and PME because it is 100% in their control and it affects the leadership who have to push guys into IPUGs or Flt/CC jobs before they are ready. All of that combined can crush morale which will ultimately affect the performance of the squadron as a whole, and not just for the younger crowd. I would venture a guess that the IDE selects wouldn’t shift much if the change is made but if it allows for a transition back to a time when getting good in the jet was step one and then proving potential as an officer/leader was step two, it could mean a lot for the morale/performance of the force. Thoughts?

I agree with what you propose here and before this year, it was mostly last look or second look candidates and selects that went to IDE, for the reasons you hit on. Now we are only sending selects, even some first look with bad timing, no AAD/PME. We got one candidate at the last DT. Word is it will be that way for a few years. We need more IDE seats, but they don't make it above the cut line. That is not good news and hopefully it will change.

[Rusty Pipes]

So are you upset that the bottom 10-15% passed over to Maj and Lt Col are the wrong people, or that anyone is passed over and kicked in the junk? How would you identify the 10-15% that need to be passed over to meet congressionally mandated grade limits? Are you saying that our best are being passed over?

Not at all... what I'm saying is that while the overall Board process looks at the whole record, #4-7 of the list you posted from the CSAF are Y/N questions. So when Maj Snuffy has his PRF written at Shaw AFB and then immediately PCSs to TRANSCOM/CENTCOM/PACOM the "points" given to him for Staff credit are zero when in reality he "checked the box" for what the CSAF says is his #4 on his list. With the current system he is just SOL apparently because since he is APZ on the next round in reality his PRF isn't really even being looked at, but if you use whatever standard point system the board is using his "score" would now be well above the cut off line for that APZ Board (assuming he was AAD/PME complete). Unless the several O-6s and GOs that I have talked to who sat on these Boards have all lied to me, they said that an APZ with a P is not something they spent time on and they are not in the same pile as the IPZ PRFs with a P... so essentially it doesn't matter what they would "score" at that Board, they aren't realistically even being considered. Am I wrong?

Edited July 10, 2013 by Rusty Pipes

[Liquid]

Curious as to the circumstances in which this happened. I have a friend who was at the Pentagon and had 3 guys in the office and his boss somehow had 3 DPs to give (one guy was APZ and got picked up for O-5 with the DP). Maybe I haven't been in situations where it was an option, but I've never seen anyone APZ given a DP when there was an eligible IPZ (at a Wing or on Staff). In your cases did you have multiple IPZ candidates (I'm not talking Article 15 or DUI types) that you could have given the DP to and chose the APZ guy for it?

Yes, I had 4 I/APZ DPs to give and I gave an APZ a DP and an IPZ a P. I went with who was more deserving and had a better record and considered the fact the APZ should have been promoted last time.

[Liquid]

Not at all... what I'm saying is that while the overall Board process looks at the whole record, #4-7 of the list you posted from the CSAF are Y/N questions. So when Maj Snuffy has his PRF written at Shaw AFB and then immediately PCSs to TRANSCOM/CENTCOM/PACOM the "points" given to him for Staff credit are zero when in reality he "checked the box" for what the CSAF says is his #4 on his list. With the current system he is just SOL apparently because since he is APZ on the next round in reality his PRF isn't really even being looked at, but if you use whatever standard point system the board is using his "score" would now be well above the cut off line. Unless the several O-6s and GOs that I have talked to who sat on these Boards have all lied to me, they said that an APZ with a P is not something they spent time on.

Rusty, in my experience the board doesn't spend much time on APZs with a P. The stats show they don't get picked up either. I wouldn't say 4-7 are y/n, but experiences we value with differing levels depending on how well they were done. Aced combat mission command, DG SOS, etc. The lists I posted are not the CSAF's as far as I know, but recommendations we made. Not saying the HAF or the boards value them in that order, but they should.

[Rusty Pipes]

Rusty, in my experience the board doesn't spend much time on APZs with a P. The stats show they don't get picked up either.

Ummm... yeah I'd say that a 0% selection rate for all APZ with a P for the last several O-4/O-5 Boards are a pretty good indication of that!

I wouldn't say 4-7 are y/n, but experiences we value with differing levels depending on how well they were done.

OK...

4. Joint job - GCC, OSD, JS, Inter-agency... Yes (if so, where?) or No

5. HQs job- HAF, MAJCOM... Yes (if so, where?) or No

6. IDE either in-residence or correspondence... Yes (which one?) or No

7. Masters degree... Yes or No (he's a dirtbag... DNP)

Better? Maj Snuffy had no Staff when his PRF was written at Shaw 6 months ago so got zero credit for #4-5... he now works for Adm Jenkins or SES Wilson at TRANSCOM on their Staff in an O-5 billet, but the 4 Star has to give all his DPs to his School Grads IPZ (understandable). If the Board actually scored his PRF he would be well above the line, but since he is an APZ with a P they don't waste their time even though by their own scoring criteria he is clearly above many they do select for promotion. How does this make sense?

This is a serious question... with the Board criteria changing every year why does a 3 year window for School work and not for promotion? Congress mandates how many officers we are allowed to have in each rank, but it doesn't mandate that we need to have X amount of rank per year group, right? I get it that Maj Snuffy isn't the typical case, but I think we miss out on a lot of good talent by the way we do things. When the young guy sitting on the fence with his ADSC coming up looks at how Maj Snuffy is treated it makes their "on the fence" decision pretty easy if they have options.

Edited July 10, 2013 by Rusty Pipes

[BitteEinBit]

Rusty, in my experience the board doesn't spend much time on APZs with a P. The stats show they don't get picked up either. .

Do you think one has something to do with the other? I'm a gambling man, and I would wager that if you don't spend much time on APZs with a P, the resulting stats would indicate they don't get picked up much either....thats just me though.

Liquid, I already understand that by law, we can't promote everyone. There has been (in past boards) an 85% promotion opportunity for Lt Cols. Even if 100% of those eligible were shit hot, we'd still have to pass over 15% shit hot officers...we get it. We also get that the top 20% really do stand out on boards. But do you really think there is a distinction between the guy who falls in the bottom 15% range and that 16% guy who makes the cut? I know, that is the gray area and I think that is where we lose some of those quality officers because of the asinine criteria our SRs are using WRT rack and stack.

I would say the bottom 50% of records (minus the bottom 5%-10%) look pretty much the same...so this is where these stupid rules regarding AAD completion dates are becoming a factor WRT the gray area. I think that is where the AF is getting it wrong, and it starts with the SRs. When an SR rack and stacks those who end up competing in the gray area based on AAD completion/completion date, then the system is skewed. Yes, it is happening...I witnessed it first hand. I may agree that a small percentage of those who wait until the last minute to complete AAD/PME may really be slackers in your bottom 15% (their records would show it though), but to assume that 100% of those who finish AAD/IDE before they pin on Major are somehow great leaders is absolutely the wrong assumption...and THAT is how those competing in the gray area are being rack and stacked.

So yes, there are some outstanding bubbas in that "bottom 15%" that don't really belong there but are put there because they were a little more mission focused than the one guy above him who dodged deployments and the flying schedule to finish his AAD/PME as early as possible. I guarantee you everyone on this board knows at least one of those guys who got promoted on last year's O-5 board. Not everyone has the same amount of free time...especially when you are actually leading on the line instead of in that cushy 0800-1630 staff jobs I hear exist.

So, to grade someone's leadership potential based on WHEN an AAD was completed is completely asinine. That is part of the problem with your gray area. I've seen the rack and stack process in action...the only difference between my view and the WG/CCs view was I actually knew the people he was stacking higher because of AAD completion/completion dates. And I know, at least by my criteria, they weren't leadership material. They were the ones who race for the door at 1635 (after retreat and national anthem so they won't thave to stand at attention) to get home before the boss comes down to the office for a line of sight tasker at 1645...yes, the same guys who after they were Lt Col selects basically said (to junior officers none the less) "Now if I can just skate to 20 without a 365, life will be good." How can we take those guys seriously?! But who am I to determine leadership potential? Just my personal observation.

Yeah, regarding the top 50%, the AIr Force does get it right MOST of the time. (not sarcasm)

BT

[TreeA10]

You could pick this thread up and drop it in the mid-90s and it would fit.

[Liquid]

Rusty, I wouldn't say the board criteria changes every year. The instructions to the board, from SECAF, may change, but even those directions (value time in Afghanistan, or value RPA experience, or value acquisition experience, etc) are hard to enforce because each board member scores the records the way they think they should be scored. The particular biases of a particular 5-6 person panel has some variance, but I'm not sure giving the same person three different IPZ looks at promotion will solve anything. We do that now with APZ eligibility. If TRANSCOM wanted to promote Snuffy, they could give him a DP and make it happen. That effectively gives you multiple shots at promotion. Reality is, most APZ records are not as deserving as the last DP IPZ record. It is the top half argument. Top half gets DPs. Bottom 10-15% get passed over. Usually a difference between the records.

[Rusty Pipes]

The particular biases of a particular 5-6 person panel has some variance, but I'm not sure giving the same person three different IPZ looks at promotion will solve anything. We do that now with APZ eligibility. If TRANSCOM wanted to promote Snuffy, they could give him a DP and make it happen. That effectively gives you multiple shots at promotion. Reality is, most APZ records are not as deserving as the last DP IPZ record. It is the top half argument. Top half gets DPs. Bottom 10-15% get passed over. Usually a difference between the records.

You are completely missing my point... If Maj Snuffy didn't get a DP on his IPZ he probably won't get one APZ. But if he doesn't get a DP APZ then you aren't even looking at it! I am saying that in reality the APZ guys aren't even being allowed to compete with the IPZ Ps even though with the Board's scoring process they could possibly well excede the cut.

[Liquid]

Do you think one has something to do with the other? I'm a gambling man, and I would wager that if you don't spend much time on APZs with a P, the resulting stats would indicate they don't get picked up much either....thats just me though.

Liquid, I already understand that by law, we can't promote everyone. There has been (in past boards) an 85% promotion opportunity for Lt Cols. Even if 100% of those eligible were shit hot, we'd still have to pass over 15% shit hot officers...we get it. We also get that the top 20% really do stand out on boards. But do you really think there is a distinction between the guy who falls in the bottom 15% range and that 16% guy who makes the cut? I know, that is the gray area and I think that is where we lose some of those quality officers because of the asinine criteria our SRs are using WRT rack and stack.

I would say the bottom 50% of records (minus the bottom 5%-10%) look pretty much the same...so this is where these stupid rules regarding AAD completion dates are becoming a factor WRT the gray area. I think that is where the AF is getting it wrong, and it starts with the SRs. When an SR rack and stacks those who end up competing in the gray area based on AAD completion/completion date, then the system is skewed. Yes, it is happening...I witnessed it first hand. I may agree that a small percentage of those who wait until the last minute to complete AAD/PME may really be slackers in your bottom 15% (their records would show it though), but to assume that 100% of those who finish AAD/IDE before they pin on Major are somehow great leaders is absolutely the wrong assumption...and THAT is how those competing in the gray area are being rack and stacked.

So yes, there are some outstanding bubbas in that "bottom 15%" that don't really belong there but are put there because they were a little more mission focused than the one guy above him who dodged deployments and the flying schedule to finish his AAD/PME as early as possible. I guarantee you everyone on this board knows at least one of those guys who got promoted on last year's O-5 board. Not everyone has the same amount of free time...especially when you are actually leading on the line instead of in that cushy 0800-1630 staff jobs I hear exist.

So, to grade someone's leadership potential based on WHEN an AAD was completed is completely asinine. That is part of the problem with your gray area. I've seen the rack and stack process in action...the only difference between my view and the WG/CCs view was I actually knew the people he was stacking higher because of AAD completion/completion dates. And I know, at least by my criteria, they weren't leadership material. They were the ones who race for the door at 1635 (after retreat and national anthem so they won't thave to stand at attention) to get home before the boss comes down to the office for a line of sight tasker at 1645...yes, the same guys who after they were Lt Col selects basically said (to junior officers none the less) "Now if I can just skate to 20 without a 365, life will be good." How can we take those guys seriously?! But who am I to determine leadership potential? Just my personal observation.

Yeah, regarding the top 50%, the AIr Force does get it right MOST of the time. (not sarcasm)

BT

BT,

I agree with this. One of the problems is that we are not honest in our feedback and performance reports. OPRs are all firewalls, with the same "good" bullets that show job performance, impact, leadership, breadth, etc. It is really hard to read 10 OPRs and determine who is the skater and who is the leader. It shouldn't be. We use some "code", strength of push lines, command pushes for strong Capts, MAJCOM job pushes for low performers, use the word "potential" and you are saying bottom 10%. I've had good success helping the board see through an average record into my real assessment of the officer's limited promotion potential with weak push lines and DNPs. The board sees them and understands the recommendation. But the key is sq CCs, group CCs and SRs need to use the right criteria to make good recommendations to the board, not ones based on stupid criteria like how soon you did PME/AAD. Supervisors, Flt CCs and sq CCs need to call out the skaters that duck out early, avoid deployments, bust ops limits, etc.

Here is some advice: give your commanders direct feedback when you see them make bad decisions and bad assessments of leadership ability. Don't be afraid to get a little dirty or bloody when arguing for the right thing.

You are completely missing my point... If Maj Snuffy didn't get a DP on his IPZ he probably won't get one APZ. But if he doesn't get a DP APZ then you aren't even looking at it! I am saying that in reality the APZ guys aren't even being allowed to compete with the IPZ Ps even though with the Board's scoring process they could possibly well excede the cut.

I get your point, but why would the board kick save a passed over dude when his senior rater says another dude IPZ is more worthy? You would pass over many more IPZ if you started promoting APZ Ps. We all know Ps are at risk of being passed over. DPs help make sure the top half is right. The gray area gets tough and APZ don't do well there with a P.

Not saying it is right, but not sure how to fix what you are concerned about.

[Rusty Pipes]

BTW, it was just released today that the FAA will be requiring Commercial Pilots to have 1500 hrs and an ATP... but military pilots only need 750 hrs. Not good for the Embry Riddle kid about to graduate, but with the 65 yr old crowd starting to retire at the Majors and this new ATP requirement it looks like the military pilot hitting his ADSC might have some considerable options when weighing whether to study for his ATP or his AAD.

https://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-10/pilot-qualifications-raised-by-u-s-faa-to-improve-safety.html

[Vetter]

Today's Sr Leadership are the former CGOs that thrived during the Clinton Era.

[brickhistory]

Here is some advice: give your commanders direct feedback when you see them make bad decisions and bad assessments of leadership ability. Don't be afraid to get a little dirty or bloody when arguing for the right thing.

While the sentiment is nice, and I actually agree with that, the truth is that those same (majority) of SRs who worked the system to get where they are will score according to that system and will not appreciate the "feedback." Rather, it'll be Capt Snuffy is not a team player, at least not my team. And Capt Snuffy will then join your APZ pile that apparently deserve their status.

[Rusty Pipes]

I get your point, but why would the board kick save a passed over dude when his senior rater says another dude IPZ is more worthy? You would pass over many more IPZ if you started promoting APZ Ps. We all know Ps are at risk of being passed over. DPs help make sure the top half is right. The gray area gets tough and APZ don't do well there with a P.

Not saying it is right, but not sure how to fix what you are concerned about.

Nope, still missing my point... all I'm saying is to let the APZ guy with a P compete with an IPZ guy with a P (in that 3 year window for example). Why do you say the senior rater is saying the IPZ guy is more worthy? I'm saying to let the 2002 guy compete with the 2003 guy... score them both out and the best record wins. Are you saying that you think it is better to have the 2003 guy promoted over the 2002 guy with a far better score sheet just because he was comissioned 6 months later? How does that make sense to anyone?

What I'm saying is that we would not have those guys fall through the cracks if your IPZ was a 2-3 year window instead of just a one time look.

Edited July 10, 2013 by Rusty Pipes

[Liquid]

While the sentiment is nice, and I actually agree with that, the truth is that those same (majority) of SRs who worked the system to get where they are will score according to that system and will not appreciate the "feedback." Rather, it'll be Capt Snuffy is not a team player, at least not my team. And Capt Snuffy will then join your APZ pile that apparently deserve their status.

Willing to risk burning to death or taking an RPG in the head, but unwilling to risk that next promotion or assignment? Courage is more than risking your life to defend your country and your team. It is also doing the right thing in the face of possible adverse consequences. Do it respectfully and with some passion and your commander should at least respect your opinion and your courage to say something unpopular but founded in logic and truth. Not calling you out brick, or saying you are not courageous. Just countering your caution to not have the discussion because it may piss off your boss.

[General Chang]

Rusty,

Liquid has your head spinning so fast, nobody can keep up with your flip flopping!

Your first argument is that APZ guys should have a shot to compete for DPs in future years with IPZ guys (without somehow hurting the IPZ guys), and when Liquid replies that the "best APZ guy" is almost always less deserving of a DP than the "last IPZ 'DP' guy" in any given year, you switch gears and say that APZ 'P' records should get looked at at promotion boards! That's after you earlier complained about writing APZ PRFs that nobody will look at!

You are moving into the "severely complaining" realm!

[brickhistory]

Willing to risk burning to death or taking an RPG in the head, but unwilling to risk that next promotion or assignment? Courage is more than risking your life to defend your country and your team. It is also doing the right thing in the face of possible adverse consequences. Do it respectfully and with some passion and your commander should at least respect your opinion and your courage to say something unpopular but founded in logic and truth. Not calling you out brick, or saying you are not courageous. Just countering your caution to not have the discussion because it may piss off your boss.

Again, not getting the point.

Ok, Gen Liquid, you just racked and stacked your guys.

Me, I'm Capt Snuffy and I think you screwed the pooch on Maj(S) Bagodonuts.

And just how would Gen Liquid, Col Piningaway, or any other senior rater react in their gut?

Never mind the how does Capt Snuffy know how you ranked anybody to be able to call you out?

I can assure you that the average O-6 and above bear does not like being second-guessed either by a senior or junior.

I wouldn't either. But the aforementioned rater being called out has recourse to his challenge. You seriously gonna say it won't be done? Different from my experience.

Fix what is graded, not rely on the 'courage' of the next 'troublemaker' highlighting his need for a 179.

And please don[t come back with a "that's poor leadership and/or that would never happen."

Yes, it is poor leadership. It is the rule rather than the exception.

And it has and will happen.

I get that you think the system needs work but overall performs well.

There is an awful lot of folks who disagree and are voting with their feet. Again, nothing new in our AF history.

I also will argue that being rated is not the be all and end all and that's who must be taken care of. The CE guy busting his hump, getting it done, take care of his folks, and the other support folks deserve as fair a shot as any rated guy. But the discriminators in play don't work and rewards the wrong things.

I will also argue the trap being laid by the Corona piece you put out and that AADs might get hidden again. That'd be great until the next time a new guy decides to reinvent the wheel like happened recently. How many guys got caught flat-footed by that little move?

I am all for the wing commander or equivalent being the guy/gal to decide the ranking of his people. But the standards need to be known and of value to military readiness and mission accomplishment, not AAD (nice to have, but of what value?) or Shoe U by correspondence.

But the Neidermeyer "all is well" doesn't play well.

[Rusty Pipes]

Rusty,

Liquid has your head spinning so fast, nobody can keep up with your flip flopping!

Your first argument is that APZ guys should have a shot to compete for DPs in future years with IPZ guys (without somehow hurting the IPZ guys), and when Liquid replies that the "best APZ guy" is almost always less deserving of a DP than the "last IPZ 'DP' guy" in any given year, you switch gears and say that APZ 'P' records should get looked at at promotion boards! That's after you earlier complained about writing APZ PRFs that nobody will look at!

You are moving into the "severely complaining" realm!

1) Actually APZ guys always have a shot to compete for DPs in future years with IPZ guys... nobody was saying they couldn't

2) I agreed with Liquid that a guy who didn't get a DP IPZ will probably not beat out someone for a DP APZ

3) Liquid agreed that an APZ with a P is essentially not really even looked at which is why I asked why we practiced bleeding with APZ PRFs with Ps

4) I then suggested that instead of having a single year IPZ that it be a window like School looks, possibly 2-3 yrs so those in the grey area that we all agreed were about the same didn't fall between the cracks because of something as simple as changing Board criteria or Staff opportunities that were out of the individual's control.

I have an idea... instead of talking about my head spinning from discussions with Liquid who actually seems to know what he is talking about, maybe you should take your head out of your ass and go troll somewhere else!

Airman Chang... You're dismissed!

[sqwatch]

I have an idea... instead of talking about my head spinning from discussions with Liquid who actually seems to know what he is talking about, maybe you should take your head out of your ass and go troll somewhere else!

Airman Chang... You're dismissed!

You're out of your mind.

Nope, still missing my point...

You are completely missing my point...

Not at all... what I'm saying is ...

I think you missed his point.

Getting the point yet, Liquid?

At what point do you pause to consider that after 169 long winded, redundant posts, maybe there is a problem with the presentation rather than the comprehension?

[Gravedigger]

So just to clarify, you are suggesting that DPs compete against other DPs regardless of IPZ/APZ, and Ps compete against Ps? Thereby giving you 3 "IPZish" looks at major with a P?

That's what I'm taking away here. Not a bad idea, but I wonder if DPs would still be allocated against IPZ numbers or if under that construct they would use a total population. Obviously it depends on end strength, so rates would have to drop for the Ps to accommodate.