Promotion and PRF Information

[slackline]

I'm not screwing with anyone...it is the reality right now. There were a lot of bubbas caught with their pants down after the Gen Jumper road show because they thought AADs were a thing of the past. What I'm trying to say is there is always that future CSAF (probably lurking this board now) who will change it back. Believe me, I don't think there is a single person on this forum who thinks AADs are worthless wastes of time and money more than me. I think most of my posts on this forum address worthless AADs. Like I said in my post, even if Gen Welsh were to change it tomorrow, it is going to take a long time to get it out of our system. I said exactly what you just said, get it done because it is today's requirement, but if you choose to be a tactical expert I support that, but I'm not their commander. I won't give dudes "fight the system" advice when I know their fight won't be won or probably even noticed.

I'm glad you decided to be more of a tactical expert and not waste your time on something that doesn't benefit the AF. You also understand the potential consequences. The young dudes on this forum can make the same choice. I just want to make sure they understand the consequences. While I will continue to be vocal about the worthlessness of the AAD requirement, I'm not going to give a dude bad advice against current policy. I still put "mission first" as a priority in my post, and I stand by it.

Yeah, we're on the same page. I'll never tell guys what to do one way or the other, but I will make sure they understand the potential consequences of whatever path they choose.

I just wish there were a way to organize them all into a way to just ignore the AAD. The penthouse offices would have to take notice if nobody does it anymore. They can't NOT promote everyone. Anyone willing to take it to the CGOC...? Sorry, I forgot, anyone who's a member probably loves the AAD requirement anyway.

ETA: While my above suggestion was tongue-in-cheek, the leadership would definitely notice if they all of a sudden had a more professional, tactical expert force.

Edited July 12, 2013 by slackline

[pawnman]

Yeah, we're on the same page. I'll never tell guys what to do one way or the other, but I will make sure they understand the potential consequences of whatever path they choose.

I just wish there were a way to organize them all into a way to just ignore the AAD. The penthouse offices would have to take notice if nobody does it anymore. They can't NOT promote everyone. Anyone willing to take it to the CGOC...? Sorry, I forgot, anyone who's a member probably loves the AAD requirement anyway.

ETA: While my above suggestion was tongue-in-cheek, the leadership would definitely notice if they all of a sudden had a more professional, tactical expert force.

I am less and less optimistic that our leadership notices anything other than manning numbers on a spreadsheet.

[Van1]

For all you young ones who think that not doing a worthless AAD simply means you might not get promoted need to think harder. It pretty much means that you might not make it into the check of the month club. I thought the same thing when I was young about AADs. I figured I'd be rather be a crusty 0-4 line flyer anyway. Problem is after being passed over for the second time to 0-5 I was given a check for $130k and told to GTFO just 4 years shy of making it into the check of the month club.

Fight the fight if you feel it worth it but you may not win.

In my case, I turned lemons into lemonade and am now an 0-5 in the Guard and have been trucking along on AD orders more or less since I separated AD and future is bright for continued long term orders. Still no AAD. All I wanted to do was retire as an 0-4 but instead I'll have to retire as an 0-5 with an even bigger monthly retirement check. Maybe I did win?

[slackline]

For all you young ones who think that not doing a worthless AAD simply means you might not get promoted need to think harder. It pretty much means that you might not make it into the check of the month club. I thought the same thing when I was young about AADs. I figured I'd be rather be a crusty 0-4 line flyer anyway. Problem is after being passed over for the second time to 0-5 I was given a check for $130k and told to GTFO just 4 years shy of making it into the check of the month club.

Fight the fight if you feel it worth it but you may not win.

Don't skip over the part where we say you need to be aware of the consequences. This is a potential consequence, but since senior leadership appears unwilling to do anything substantial to change the way things currently are working, it's on us middle of the road bubbas, and the young cats to do it.

I hope Liquid is as sincere with his words as he seems, but so far the rest of the guys up there with him refuse to care, or so it appears. Heck, even Liquid is having trouble grasping the fact that the way it stands now, AADs have simply become an additional duty that adds virtually nothing to an AF officer (exceptions already listed ad nauseam), and takes away tons of tactical expertise. Sometimes reading the back and forth between he and Rusty becomes painful because they, for the most part, simply keep repeating the same things over and over again, worded slightly different. Gotta read it anyway because a few golden nuggets are hidden in there.

Edit: ad nauseam, not nausea

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Edited July 12, 2013 by slackline

[hindsight2020]

In my case, I turned lemons into lemonade and am now an 0-5 in the Guard and have been trucking along on AD orders more or less since I separated AD and future is bright for continued long term orders. Still no AAD. All I wanted to do was retire as an 0-4 but instead I'll have to retire as an 0-5 with an even bigger monthly retirement check. Maybe I did win?

From a retirement perspective you didn't win.. The opportunity cost to forego retirement income to age 60 (minus the retirement age rollback you may qualify for depending on how much RPA/MPA money you're pulling in the Guard) cannot be recouped by merely attaining a Resevere retirement in the Guard as an O-5. You're also erroneously assuming the Guard will let you hit sanctuary and thus an Active Duty retirement while a Guardsman by doing it like a bum, one manday at a time. You just can't bank on that.

From a QOL and job satisfaction perspective, you did win. What you're doing now is exactly what you envisioned doing in Active Duty at the twilight of your career. You're just not getting paid what you would want to while doing it. Oh well, we all live within the scarcity of this life. I wanted to fly fighters, no musical chairs at the time and my college broke ass needed an income. Rule #2 of life and all that jazz. There's worse places to be I suppose.

Once again, AD pilots should be well served by assuming their job has a 10 year shelf life. Anything after that is a lifestyle choice between the singular motivation to earn an AD retirement, or doing what they want to do for a living. To bank on doing both concurrently is naive and improbable, about outright poor planning in my book. That social contract went out the window when they booted the 157 O-4s non-continued. In light of that event, today nobody has the ignorance excuse for being punched in the mouth with an involuntary separation from the check o' the month career track. We have a saying back home: "En guerra avisá, no muere gente...". In a scheduled war, nobody dies. It's not suggesting immunity by foresight, but it is suggesting the perils of not exercising foresight due to optimism bias when the information is provided to you otherwise. No one can claim ignorance on this war.

Edited July 14, 2013 by hindsight2020

[LJ Driver]

Hearing that the O-5 list should be out today. My hopes that the best of you are on it.

[Spinner]

I didn't make it on my two-below. I'm so bummed...

[Fifty-six & Two]

Hearing that the O-5 list should be out today. My hopes that the best of you are on it.

Haven't seen stats as they aren't posted, but I wonder if they decreased the promotion rate from the 75% that it's been in order to get rid of the 'glut' of officers. If not, then the machine just keeps feeding itself.

[Champ Kind]

Haven't seen stats as they aren't posted, but I wonder if they decreased the promotion rate from the 75% that it's been in order to get rid of the 'glut' of officers. If not, then the machine just keeps feeding itself.

Nope.

[TarHeelPilot]

Haven't seen stats as they aren't posted, but I wonder if they decreased the promotion rate from the 75% that it's been in order to get rid of the 'glut' of officers. If not, then the machine just keeps feeding itself.

AF Times says 74.4% for IPZ. That's the only stat I've seen.

[BitteEinBit]

No, we're still feeding the "glut"...people will continue to scratch their heads wondering why. It is basic math...the percentage is going to have to decrease as the class sizes increase if you want to decrease the amount of "glut" we keep adding. Of course, as long as everyone "retires" on time, it should really fix itself. Sure it is more complicated than that, but it does not appear we are making any attempts to fix it with the yearly promotion rates as class size increases...which is actually good news to those up for promotion. I haven't heard anything about non-continuation for bubbas this year. Anyone?

...or maybe there really is no "glut" at all...

Edit: Fixed the math "logic"

Edited July 17, 2013 by BitteEinBit

[ThreeHoler]

"FY 14 Officer Voluntary Force Management Programs" message is out for those who have access to myPers: https://gum-crm.csd.disa.mil/app/answers/detail/a_id/24198

[Vetter]

Clif notes?

[Champ Kind]

11X ineligible for Palace Chase.

[Vetter]

Danke! Not like it matters.

[Fifty-six & Two]

11X ineligible for Palace Chase.

Still eligible for palace chase. Not eligible for the reduced commitment palace chase (1 for 1 versus the standard 3 for 1).

[Champ Kind]

Good point.

[Rusty Pipes]

"FY 14 Officer Voluntary Force Management Programs" message is out for those who have access to myPers: https://gum-crm.csd....tail/a_id/24198

OK, so which is it... do we have a "glut" of guys or not? Instead of listing all of those who are ineligible for these programs they should just say who is eligible... "After months of debate, discussion, panning and thousands of man hours from our team, we are pleased to announce that the FY14 Voluntary Force Management Program will apply to both Bob and Stanley!" If they have too many guys in that 16-20 year group you would think they would come out with some sort of early retirement program that would save the DoD money in both the short and long term by offering a reduced percentage of base pay for retirement. These guys have either made O-5 or have been offered continuation already (although I don't know what happened to the twice passed over guys with the results out yesterday). Non-continuation was an absolute disaster a few years ago and they know it would crush retention if they tried it again (stranger things have happened though). These guys who are in this 16-20 year window are still going to work hard for you, but even at that the vast majority of them are coasting to 20. If there really is this "glut" of folks in the FGO range that guys like Chang was talking about and the AF really thinks it is a problem... well the same 75% selection rate to O-5 and these Voluntary Force Management Programs aren't doing anything to thin out the herd. If we have so many 11Ms then why would they be ineligible for all of these programs... hmmmmmm? We may be good on the end strength numbers right now, but this program doesn't seem to reflect what we have been hearing from A1 about our manning situation... just an observation.

Edited July 18, 2013 by Rusty Pipes

[Karl Hungus]

I like the "we reserve the right to change our minds/remove eligible AFSCs from these programs any time we want, with zero notice" bit they threw in this year. Looks like they did learn something from the previous debacles...sorta.

[backseatdriver]

Looking at the O-5 list - I found it interesting that 100% of the BPZers were SDE selects. 130 of the 195 school slots went to the BPZ guys

Edited July 18, 2013 by backseatdriver

[ThreeHoler]

Looking at the O-5 list - I found it interesting that 100% of the BPZers were SDE selects. 130 of the 195 school slots went to the BPZ guys

Pretty sure it has been that way for at least a few years...since they are the "top 1%" or somesuch.

[HeloDude]

...since they are the "top 1%

The elite. The best of the best. We’ll SDE will make you better...

Edited July 18, 2013 by HeloDude

[Sthrndream]

Friend of mine currently in school (IDE) said he heard an unsubstantiated rumor delaying FY14 Lt Col Board till 2015. Has anyone heard/confirm this? Not trying to create any drama, just want to know what is being said in big Air Force. I'm in a JTF so connections are limited to my airframe only and have not gotten any replies.

[Butters]

Friend of mine currently in school (IDE) said he heard an unsubstantiated rumor delaying FY14 Lt Col Board till 2015. Has anyone heard/confirm this? Not trying to create any drama, just want to know what is being said in big Air Force. I'm in a JTF so connections are limited to my airframe only and have not gotten any replies.

Possibly true, but it doesn't matter. Just like when they moved the last Majors board back. Everyone will still pin on at the same time, there will just be less time between getting promoted and pinning on.

[TarHeelPilot]

Possibly true, but it doesn't matter. Just like when they moved the last Majors board back. Everyone will still pin on at the same time, there will just be less time between getting promoted and pinning on.

Pros and Cons to this I suppose. My board met 20 months ago, announced 15 months ago, and I still have to wait 1,000 more line numbers before I can pin-on O-4.