Promotion and PRF Information

[brabus]

Agreed. But I don't understand what is accomplished by pointing a digital finger on this forum to those who stayed/are staying in and saying "I told you so". When I leave- if it's next year or in nine more years, I will wish the best of luck to those still serving. In my humble neck of the Air Force, I work with the best folks I could have ever hoped to work with.

Definitely agree. The bullshit trail is a two-way street. Everyone has to eventually make a decision best for their family/themselves, but regardless if it's get out or stay in, they all deserve a "thanks for your service" without finger-pointing.

[di1630]

Most pilots worth a shit can do both.

I'm talking about the guys who really want to be a execs to get close to the boss, etc.

Let's face it. The USAF cares a lot more about how you handle the OG's schedule and outlook skills than it does on how well you fly or many lives you've saved as far as career progression into leadership billets.

[Homestar]

... I'm the officer that this AF needs...

But Chang is the officer the AF deserves...

[Learjetter]

...

Let's face it. The USAF cares a lot more about how you handle the OG's schedule and outlook skills than it does on how well you fly or many lives you've saved as far as career progression into leadership billets.

In my corner of the AF, and in all my previous corners, this is patently false.

[General Chang]

Guys,

I have clearly failed to properly communicate here, and for that, I apologize. I do not, in any way, begrudge Vetter or anyone else who leaves the service; on the contrary, I salute them. My frustration is with the asinine posts on BODN that Vetter makes...it's enough to make a young guy question volunteering. Nothing Vetter has posted here in the last few days can be used to move the conversation forward. That's the kind of officer our young guys shouldn't emulate.

Sorry for not being clear.

GC

In my corner of the AF, and in all my previous corners, this is patently false.

Agree. di1630's post is ridiculous and bitter. THIS is what I was referring to...not leaving the Air Force.

[Bender]

I'm talking about the guys who really want to be a execs to get close to the boss, etc.

Let's face it. The USAF cares a lot more about how you handle the OG's schedule and outlook skills than it does on how well you fly or many lives you've saved as far as career progression into leadership billets.

The system relies on a number of questionable assumptions and processes. "Shiny penny" moved to group, "shiniest penny" moved to wing...associated group/wing stratification follows...next stratification based largely on preceding stratification...promotion/school based on "good stratifications"...assignments based on school...command based on assignments...promotion based on command.

What if the right penny wasn't sent to the wing, only the best penny we had at the time we were asked? What if being the wing exec wasn't the best way to develop that individual into the leader we assumed they would become? Certainly the PME system will pick up the slack for any possible short comings of the process, right?

Who in their right mind wants to be the fucking wing exec? The process works outside of this stream, but it's easier if we use this shit...let's us avoid actually putting in the effort to mentor, lead, and evaluate potential.

I can see why "good bros" get fed up. It takes more than just being good...it takes getting recognized for being good. But, after all this, that's not really any different than any other place.

How are we supposed to go about doing it better, when it obviously works so well?

Bendy

[tac airlifter]

In my corner of the AF, and in all my previous corners, this is patently false.

Concur. My corner is effects based: if you suck you aren't going to succeed.

[di1630]

Agree. di1630's post is ridiculous and bitter. THIS is what I was referring to...not leaving the Air Force.

Chang, I'm not bitter, and while you and Learjetter may disagree with my statement, I'm passing along words of what a ton of people think.

My proudest accomplishments of saving lives during TICs, killing bad guys, training new pilots, etc. has not meant $hit to the USAF in comparison to my skills in my additional duties (which I excelled in) but I can admit that work was std USAF qweep with little to zero real world impact outside keeping leadership happy with green metrics on ppt.

Chang, I advise you to listen to all the people who have realized and reacted to the fact the USAF system does not always promote the best "leaders". Instead it favors risk adverse, metric chasing personnel managers who will go with the system.

Why do you think so many people say Robin Olds, Chuck Yeager and other historic leaders would have been passed over majors in this USAF? They see it...they get it.

[17D_guy]

The system relies on a number of questionable assumptions and processes. "Shiny penny" moved to group, "shiniest penny" moved to wing...associated group/wing stratification follows...next stratification based largely on preceding stratification...promotion/school based on "good stratifications"...assignments based on school...command based on assignments...promotion based on command.

What if the right penny wasn't sent to the wing, only the best penny we had at the time we were asked? What if being the wing exec wasn't the best way to develop that individual into the leader we assumed they would become? Certainly the PME system will pick up the slack for any possible short comings of the process, right?

Bendy

The part that I've always wondered about in this process of "grooming" is where is the feedback back to the beginning about what is desired? We've been in war for a long time, how come the process hasn't changed?

In a peacetime AF the above process might work, but with dudes out the door as often as we did in the mid 00's (and currently) why wasn't this process modified to account for that?

Or did it and I'm just not aware? I've gotten the same game prep from O7's to O4's and it should be different.

Additionally.. how the hell does someone get kicked off the hype train outside a personal decision and/or crime? Why the hell is the path to O6 for a bro-turned-douche (mostly) bullet-proof?

[Bender]

I'm not sure I'm tracking the repeated mention of the "bro-turned-douche" concept. The concept I am tracking is that being the group exec, wing exec, CAG director, etc. are not additional duties beyond your primary role as a tactical operator executing the unit's mission. The primary duty is staff work (normally before it's time for a staff job), you just get away to fly here and there. It's more than just not pulling the weight of an "out of hide" body filling these roles, the "shiny penny" is no longer devoting the bulk of time to teaching and growing the young guys in a squadron.

Big Blue values the work done by the average wing exec as more valuable than the (next) most gifted tactical operator. Big Blue assumes the most gifted tactical operator was coughed up as the wing exec and should be taken care of as such. As long as that's true, the system works just fine...minus the loss to the squadron members' development.

These are things that don't NEED to be fixed. There are far to many real problems that people focus on when they reach spots to do something about it...nor do they feel the need to sacrifice their provided executive services of their own accord.

The exec should be the #1 CGO/FGO at the next lowest level, the system assumes this to be true...fortunately you do not need to be #1 of 6969 officers to have a successful career...nor to make O-6.

If the stratification process was pure and applied throughout the domain of every senior rater, none of this would matter. The shit bag wing exec would get the shit bag stratification, regardless of his "primary duties".

Bendy

[nrodgsxr]

Looks like maj board results will be out on 10 feb if I'm reading mypers correctly.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[pawnman]

The part that I've always wondered about in this process of "grooming" is where is the feedback back to the beginning about what is desired? We've been in war for a long time, how come the process hasn't changed?

In a peacetime AF the above process might work, but with dudes out the door as often as we did in the mid 00's (and currently) why wasn't this process modified to account for that?

Or did it and I'm just not aware? I've gotten the same game prep from O7's to O4's and it should be different.

Additionally.. how the hell does someone get kicked off the hype train outside a personal decision and/or crime? Why the hell is the path to O6 for a bro-turned-douche (mostly) bullet-proof?

No, it didn't change. I've actually had combat bullets (weapons dropped, lives saved, enemy killed) taken off my OPR because "they aren't competitive". Replaced with things like "Air Force Assistance Fund" and "tour guide for local civic group".

[RRRR]

No, it didn't change. I've actually had combat bullets (weapons dropped, lives saved, enemy killed) taken off my OPR because "they aren't competitive". Replaced with things like "Air Force Assistance Fund" and "tour guide for local civic group".

Honest question: shouldn't things like weapons dropped, lives saved, enemy killed show up in some sort of deployment medal citation (Air Medal, etc.)? If it does, it would make sense to document other AFAF type stuff on OPRs since it won't show up elsewhere if promotion is the concern.

[Ram]

Honest question: shouldn't things like weapons dropped, lives saved, enemy killed show up in some sort of deployment medal citation (Air Medal, etc.)? If it does, it would make sense to document other AFAF type stuff on OPRs since it won't show up elsewhere if promotion is the concern.

Well, I'm just CERTAIN that the promotion board is reading every line of every citation for every AM/AAM medal I have. Of course...

[Learjetter]

Well, I'm just CERTAIN that the promotion board is reading every line of every citation for every AM/AAM medal I have. Of course...

I did. And so did my fellow panel members. Some read faster, some slower, but we had a duty to each officer to fairly evaluate each record, in its entirety.

So that's what we did.

Edit: grammar

Edited February 5, 2015 by Learjetter

[Ram]

I did. And so did my fellow panel members. Some read faster, some slower, but we had a duty to each officer to fairly evaluate each record, in its entirety.

So that's what we did.

Edit: grammar

[Warrior]

I'm going to go with Ram on this one.

However, all that shit should be documented on your AM/AAM citations. Which are source documents for your PRF. And I do believe that the board looks at the PRF for the 69 seconds or less they look at each record.

[discus]

Looks like maj board results will be out on 10 feb if I'm reading mypers correctly.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Checks

[pawnman]

Honest question: shouldn't things like weapons dropped, lives saved, enemy killed show up in some sort of deployment medal citation (Air Medal, etc.)? If it does, it would make sense to document other AFAF type stuff on OPRs since it won't show up elsewhere if promotion is the concern.

Well, ideally. However, since I don't have any single-sortie air medals, they all just say "employed the aircraft at extreme operational limits, blah blah blah"...no actual number of hours or weapons dropped in any of the citations.

[Warrior]

Well, ideally. However, since I don't have any single-sortie air medals, they all just say "employed the aircraft at extreme operational limits, blah blah blah"...no actual number of hours or weapons dropped in any of the citations.

Why not? You should be putting all that crap in your citations. If you're not, you're missing out.

[pawnman]

Well, I've certainly learned something today. I always thought the air medal citations for twenty combat missions were cookie-cutter (mine all are, and so are 95% of the ones for guys I deployed with). I thought it was standard, pre-approved verbiage, not individually broken out statistics.

I'll file that knowledge away for future deployments.

[daynightindicator]

Well, I've certainly learned something today. I always thought the air medal citations for twenty combat missions were cookie-cutter (mine all are, and so are 95% of the ones for guys I deployed with). I thought it was standard, pre-approved verbiage, not individually broken out statistics.

I'll file that knowledge away for future deployments.

Dude, I'm in the same boat, but really do you think #enemy killed, etc, really tells the board whether you are able to command at the next level? Lt-mid-level captain, those are good bullets. Above that, you need to demonstrate that you can coordinate the killing of a-holes. And believe me, as a dude with 10 AMs, I really wish they would carry me on the promotion board, but being a "leader" these days requires more than just putting bombs on target. I say that half-sarcastically, but at the same time, you know most of your bros have the same exact stats, so if you were in charge, how would you choose your promotion rates/leaders? Honest question...

[Karl Hungus]

Dude, I'm in the same boat, but really do you think #enemy killed, etc, really tells the board whether you are able to command at the next level? Lt-mid-level captain, those are good bullets. Above that, you need to demonstrate that you can coordinate the killing of a-holes. And believe me, as a dude with 10 AMs, I really wish they would carry me on the promotion board, but being a "leader" these days requires more than just putting bombs on target. I say that half-sarcastically, but at the same time, you know most of your bros have the same exact stats, so if you were in charge, how would you choose your promotion rates/leaders? Honest question...

And AF Assistance Fund, AF Ball/Holiday Party Planning, SOS DG, Change of Command POC, fraud/waste/abuse online AAD, insert-whatever-additional-duty-bullshit-here bullets/box checking demonstrates that someone can coordinate the killing of a-holes?

How about the OPR, as a reflection of your primary duty, actually allow you to talk about your primary duty? You shouldn't have to "hide" that on some Air Medal in order to backdoor its way onto your PRF. Ugh.

How would I fix it? At a minimum, separate promotions by AFSC up to the O-4 level. Allow each individual AFSC to determine what's important for promotion. Perhaps bullshit and box checking and a valid AAD are important to, say, 17Ds. Then let their promotions reflect that. Perhaps deployments and combat missions/weapons employed/etc are important for a 12B. Let their promotions reflect that.

Retention in a particular AFSC sucks? Combine this with targeted incentives- most likely monetary since we all know that QOL isn't improving in this never-ending "do more with less" environment. You already see this a bit- missileers getting money thrown at them to make them less miserable, 11Fs getting expanded bonus options (though it's still just 18k/year after taxes, the same since the late 1990s...), etc. 11Ms bailing left and right as the airlines hire thousands a year? Adjust the career field accordingly, and/or throw more money at them.

No large civilian organization lumps all of their junior to mid-level employees together into one big pile, regardless of specialty, and then has them compete for promotion. An 11F's CGO experience could not be more different than a 17D, a finance guy, PA, Security Forces, MX, etc. Yet we treat them as equals. It doesn't make any fucking sense. So why does the AF do it this way?

Because leadership is hard and time consuming. It's easier to just come up with a ridiculous one-size-fits-all career path, and pretend that all career fields are equal- "officer first!!!!1". Shifting from macro LAF promotions to micro AFSC promotions would require the AF to acknowledge that some career fields are more equal than others. And the AF absolutely HATES that fact.

[daynightindicator]

And AF Assistance Fund, AF Ball/Holiday Party Planning, SOS DG, Change of Command POC, fraud/waste/abuse online AAD, insert-whatever-additional-duty-bullshit-here bullets/box checking demonstrates that someone can coordinate the killing of a-holes?

How about the OPR, as a reflection of your primary duty, actually allow you to talk about your primary duty? You shouldn't have to "hide" that on some Air Medal in order to backdoor its way onto your PRF. Ugh.

How would I fix it? At a minimum, separate promotions by AFSC up to the O-4 level. Allow each individual AFSC to determine what's important for promotion. Perhaps bullshit and box checking and a valid AAD are important to, say, 17Ds. Then let their promotions reflect that. Perhaps deployments and combat missions/weapons employed/etc are important for a 12B. Let their promotions reflect that.

Retention in a particular AFSC sucks? Combine this with targeted incentives- most likely monetary since we all know that QOL isn't improving in this never-ending "do more with less" environment. You already see this a bit- missileers getting money thrown at them to make them less miserable, 11Fs getting expanded bonus options (though it's still just 18k/year after taxes, the same since the late 1990s...), etc. 11Ms bailing left and right as the airlines hire thousands a year? Adjust the career field accordingly, and/or throw more money at them.

No large civilian organization lumps all of their junior to mid-level employees together into one big pile, regardless of specialty, and then has them compete for promotion. An 11F's CGO experience could not be more different than a 17D, a finance guy, PA, Security Forces, MX, etc. Yet we treat them as equals. It doesn't make any ######ing sense. So why does the AF do it this way?

Because leadership is hard and time consuming. It's easier to just come up with a ridiculous one-size-fits-all career path, and pretend that all career fields are equal- "officer first!!!!1". Shifting from macro LAF promotions to micro AFSC promotions would require the AF to acknowledge that some career fields are more equal than others. And the AF absolutely HATES that fact.

Dude, great answer.

And for the record, the party-planning, fundraising, SOS-DG stuff is complete horseshit and should not be considered.

I totally agree with AFSC-segregated promotions, even if stats prove that would be detrimental to rated dudes. I don't care about an advantage. Give me fair, and I will win through hard work and performance.

I wasn't trying to justify the system at all - my only point is that if we go "combat only" with our bullets, we won't really win the game since most of us rated guys have done nothing but fight the good fight for 10+ years. There has to be a way to establish your promotion rates and priorities. Your examples are great ideas and I can only hope our "leaders" (and that's in parentheses for a god damned reason) take notice.

I am just as frustrated as anyone on this board. But we need to offer concrete examples of improvement, just like you did, in order to effect any change.

[ViperStud]

Dude that's a good post. Funny anecdotal story, my SIL is married to a skycop and we were casually BSing when she mentioned us being peers because we are in the same year group. I chuckled and said we weren't, to which she went on her insecure anti-pilot rant (she's AF too).

I replied with the same argument - if we worked at Apple as a designer and an accountant, would we be paid the same because we are the same age? Would we compete for the same jobs outside the AF? He couldn't fly an airliner any more than I could compete for a private security gig or donut taster. The look of bewilderment on her face was hilarious. It's like she never realized the options available to some of us on the outside are far greater than those available to others.

It amazes me how many people inside and outside the mil think we are all peers and equals even though we have vastly different specialties. This is the biggest problem with lumping us all together for promotions and trying to compare a fighter pilot to a pharmacist. It shouldn't be happening in the first place.

Edited February 7, 2015 by ViperStud