Promotion and PRF Information

[Cell Dweller]

So, to recage this thread, I saw a few pages back before the pissing contest that AMC/A1 was stating that the promotion board for '05 comissionees was pushed another year? Is that legit, or just misstated? The board should have been this December, but was pushed into 2014 as of Sept 2012. Is there scuttlebutt that now the board will be sometime in 2015?

[zach braff]

The two rumors I've seen/heard from this thread and from AF folks semi-in-the-know are 1) pushed back a full year - so Dec 2014 or 2) Sometime Apr-Jun(ish) 2014. Of course nothing official is out so both could be completely off the mark. I haven't heard anything about pushing all the way to 2014.

CY2014 board schedule should (key word) drop within the next couple weeks - it's usually released in late September.

I had a narrative PRF already completed from a previous gig due to a long school, but with the board delay my accounting date will fall at my new unit, so I'll get to do the whole process again... Hooray.

zb

[Wing Sweep]

For PRF purposes to those who qualify, is total career info included (i.e. officer and enlisted) or just officer time?

Thanks for the help!

[Champ Kind]

Officer only.

[Wing Sweep]

Can LOE bullets that didn't make it to an OPR be included in the PRF? It was after a PCS and my CC didn't add too many bullets from my LOE because he wanted most of the bullets from my new job/squadron.

[Herk Driver]

Can LOE bullets that didn't make it to an OPR be included in the PRF? It was after a PCS and my CC didn't add too many bullets from my LOE because he wanted most of the bullets from my new job/squadron.

No

[Liquid]

A senior rater can put whatever he/she wants on the PRF. The MAJCOM may or may not direct changes. Almost none of them put info on the PRF that is not in the record since the PRF should summarize the record. A mandatory LOE (command) will be in the record. An optional one won't. The optional LOE info that is good enough to be in the PRF should be in the OPR, so the senior rater will put it in the PRF without question.

[Herk Driver]

A senior rater can put whatever he/she wants on the PRF. The MAJCOM may or may not direct changes. Almost none of them put info on the PRF that is not in the record since the PRF should summarize the record. A mandatory LOE (command) will be in the record. An optional one won't. The optional LOE info that is good enough to be in the PRF should be in the OPR, so the senior rater will put it in the PRF without question.

He is talking about an optional LOE. Otherwise, it would be in the record and not being used as source info for an OPR.

I stand corrected...what I should have said is that it is a long shot. YMMV.

IMHO, short answer is still No. The real question is why would you want to? I am sure that there is plenty in your record to put in a PRF and have watched people put some pretty mediocre info from OPRs in PRFs that was easily overshadowed by other documented info in the record.

[BUSTED]

Assuming both strats were given to 1Lt's, which would be a better OPR strat from a secondary rater (Squadron CC, in this case):

#1/6 Lts

#2/15 CGOs

I recently received an OPR with the #2/15 strat, while another Lt received the #1/6 strat, literally less than a month later. I have always been under the impression (mainly from lurking here at BODN) that a #1 strat was better, no matter what the "/XX" was, but my primary rater said that the #2 was better, because it was out of a larger pool.

I realize trying to split hairs between the two may be trivial. It's not my intent to quibble about OPR strats... I'm simply trying to figure out the super-secret code used in OPR-writing.

Does it even make sense to give those ratings to two different Lts? If one guy is the "#1 Lt," and another Lt is the "#2 CGO," wouldn't logic tell you the first guy is the #1 CGO?

[GearMonkey]

I got a "Top 5% of 15 CGOs" one time. Mathematically that's better than #1!

[Fuzz]

Assuming both strats were given to 1Lt's, which would be a better OPR strat from a secondary rater (Squadron CC, in this case):

#1/6 Lts

#2/15 CGOs

I recently received an OPR with the #2/15 strat, while another Lt received the #1/6 strat, literally less than a month later. I have always been under the impression (mainly from lurking here at BODN) that a #1 strat was better, no matter what the "/XX" was, but my primary rater said that the #2 was better, because it was out of a larger pool.

I realize trying to split hairs between the two may be trivial. It's not my intent to quibble about OPR strats... I'm simply trying to figure out the super-secret code used in OPR-writing.

Does it even make sense to give those ratings to two different Lts? If one guy is the "#1 Lt," and another Lt is the "#2 CGO," wouldn't logic tell you the first guy is the #1 CGO?

That would mean the stratification system made sense.

[TheInner]

#1/6 Lts

#2/15 CGOs

I agree with HOSS. I was part of a small group sit down with our O-7 wing king and he gave us a no holds barred discussion on PRFs/strats/etc. He explained that based on his experience, a board adds some assumptions to strats, i.e. #10/100 CGOs on your O-4 PRF doesn't necessarily equal top 10% material. Logic being someone on the board may assume 50 of those CGOs are Lts, which then drives the strat to #10/50 Capts at best. Drilling down more says ~12 of those 50 Capts are meeting their O-4 board and so, in theory, that strat could equal #10/12. This is clearly a "glass half empty" thought process but one my wing king said he has to be prepared for when writing PRFs. The bottomline is that he encourages a strat that clearly states the individuals standing, so like HOSS said the CGO strat as a Lt is better than the #1 Lt strat, an FGO strat as a Maj would be better than one as a Lt Col, excluding a #1/2/3 strat. The example he referenced was dealing with an O-5 BPZ PRF where he wants to ensure everything screams top 3-4% or better because that is who is statistically likely to be promoted so he may exclude a #8/100 type strat in favor of a smaller pool but better percentage/more competitive breakdown.

Edited September 30, 2013 by TheInner

[17D_guy]

I can not believe that in 2013 a system this stupid is in place to rate commissioned officers in the United States Air Force.

Dear higher ranking members how can you not be clearing this shit up so we get honest, easy to digest feedback on how to improve as leaders, managers and (some of you) warriors? This black magic nonsense helps no one.

[SocialD]

I can not believe that in 2013 a system this stupid is in place to rate commissioned officers in the United States Air Force.

Dear higher ranking members how can you not be clearing this shit up so we get honest, easy to digest feedback on how to improve as leaders, managers and (some of you) warriors? This black magic nonsense helps no one.

They are more worried about not offending that 1 person in the MAJCOM who gets offended by anything they don't like/agree with. We'll move on to less important things like developing our future leaders after we can go a whole year w/o 1 person being offended.

Edited October 1, 2013 by SocialD

[GBock]

If we need a calculator to choose who has the ability to perform in the next higher rank, we might be doing it wrong.

[Crewin323]

Officer only.

Do decorations you were awarded as an enlisted guy translate into the package the board sees? In my case, I got an MSM when I PCS'd to OTS and I'm curious if any promotion board will see it...or do decorations get filed in the same category as performance reports?

[Champ Kind]

They'll see your decs earned while enlisted, but information from the citation itself is generally disregarded unless it was a big-level (think AF-level) impact. The focus on promotion boards is supposed to be your ability to serve in the next higher grade, not reflect on achievements as an E. Those EPRs/decs probably led to you getting a commission. Your performance as an officer after that gets you promoted. Make sense?

[Crewin323]

Makes 100% sense...thanks for the info

[Champ Kind]

So, other than "General Chang" running his cake hole, has anyone seen/heard anything definitive from reliable sources on the rumor that IDE opportunities for candidates (non-selects) will be non-existent for the near future?

[Techsan]

So, other than "General Chang" running his cake hole, has anyone seen/heard anything definitive from reliable sources on the rumor that IDE opportunities for candidates (non-selects) will be non-existent for the near future?

My AFPC functional said something to that effect, although I'm not sure how reliable he is.

[Cell Dweller]

My office is flush with guys putting in for IDE, and they are getting the same information. It's so bad that RUMINT says that selects will have to compete for limited spots.

And it is the third day of the fiscal year, and no info is yet out about the LAF Major board schedule...sigh.

[Liquid]

So, other than "General Chang" running his cake hole, has anyone seen/heard anything definitive from reliable sources on the rumor that IDE opportunities for candidates (non-selects) will be non-existent for the near future?

Each of the DTs that met this summer were only allowed to submit one candidate for IDE. The rest of the reduced number of "seats" were for selects. The results of the DEDB, which assigns the school selects (and one candidate) from each DT to specific schools should be released sometime in November.

AFPC and HAF A1 have briefed that it will most likely be the same for DTs 2014 and maybe 2015. MAJCOMs and HAF have discussed how bad this is for our force development and is recommending we fund more school slots so we can still send non-selects. It will be difficult with BCA cuts.

I haven't seen official policy on this, but it was what our DT did this summer and what I have discussed with AFPC and A1. Hopefully we will get it worked out before next summer so commanders can nominate a reasonable number of quality non-selects.

[Champ Kind]

Thanks. Never saw this trickle down to the working man's level.

Anyone actually been briefed what Liquid said by upper mgmt at their bases?

I don't doubt you, but it does suck that if I hadn't read it on BODN, I would have never heard about it.

[Herk Driver]

Thanks. Never saw this trickle down to the working man's level.

Anyone actually been briefed what Liquid said by upper mgmt at their bases?

I don't doubt you, but it does suck that if I hadn't read it on BODN, I would have never heard about it.

I have been told this before today.

[Champ Kind]

I have been told this before today.

Saw something about it posted on here weeks ago (maybe months...they say sense of time is the first thing to go), but it was only on here. Never at work.