Promotion and PRF Information

[busdriver]

I'm a staff wiener. As Danny alluded to the "staff shit" is important. Having ding dongs here has negative repercussions in the Ops squadrons. You guys want the new hotness? Well if you send a dumb asses to staff, that shit gets fucked up. The Generals who actually make the decisions are informed by Majors and LtCols. I'm actually astonished by how much push me and my Major pears have with respect to requirements and future plans.

It's always one fucked up briefing away from tanking a community for years, the way the POM process works, you're looking at affecting an MDS for the next 3-5 years, and it's extremely difficult and expensive to change thing once the ships have sailed.

[Danny Noonin]

I do not have a great answer, what do you think?

Fair enough. I get what you're saying and agree...partially.

The problem lies in the big picture. Someone has to do the "undesirable" assignments. It sucks, but it's true. And while I'd rather go to war any day with a bunch of crusty old experienced guys, we have to make room in our squadrons for young pups...every single one we can. Because we are short on 11Fs and the only way we can fix that is to create more. If I create more, I have to be able to absorb them. To absorb them, I need room in a squadron. If we prioritize having all-star teams of experienced guys now, we won't have ANY teams later. It's just a math problem. There has to be a balance.

To say that the solution lies simply in retaining the ones we've got wont work either. What could the AF do to retain them? Give everyone a "great" assignment? Let everyone fly for 20 years? Not fill COCOM taskings for 365s to the Stans because we don't want to hand out bad deals?

I'm telling you, dudes will get out anyway because the reasons people get out often have little to do with a bad deal. It's because they want to move on. It'd because they want to settle down and move less often. Its because their necks and backs fucking hurt and they want to go out on top before they are perma-DNIF. It's because they want more say in their lives. It's a combination of all of the above and more. And--agree or not--right now it's heavily about opportunity. A-words are hiring. Dudes recognize that they can get out now, get a line number, and still contribute to Uncle Sam in the form of 6 sorties a month and a deployment every 3 years in ANG/AFR instead of 8 sorties a month and more frequent deployments on AD. Not a bad trade off--even if you love what you do. Despite all the bitching here and everywhere else, most dudes in the AF still love what they do. But the shine has just worn off a bit. Or a lot.

Mind you, dudes on the fast track still face all of those bad deal things and most of them have spent a year in multi cam somewhere already. So dudes not on the fast track are not alone. Shitty desk job? Check. Moving every year or two between s-word to s-word to DO/CC then on again to s-word, s-word, etc? check. Ripe for 365? Check. Getting little say in your life? Check.

I say all of this as a dude who has made non-standard choices I'm my life. It's worked out well for me, but I've been lucky.

I just think (know) things are pretty damn complicated in the big picture. And what looks on the surface to be easy conceptual answers are not realistic in the bigger scheme of things.

[Breckey]

I'm a staff wiener. As Danny alluded to the "staff shit" is important. Having ding dongs here has negative repercussions in the Ops squadrons. You guys want the new hotness? Well if you send a dumb asses to staff, that shit gets fucked up. The Generals who actually make the decisions are informed by Majors and LtCols. I'm actually astonished by how much push me and my Major pears have with respect to requirements and future plans.

It's always one fucked up briefing away from tanking a community for years, the way the POM process works, you're looking at affecting an MDS for the next 3-5 years, and it's extremely difficult and expensive to change thing once the ships have sailed.

Ref AFGSC/A3H

[SurelySerious]

Ref AFGSC/A3H

In AFGSC, not just limited to A3H (if...and I'm assuming here... the H is for helicopters). We had a SPO rep stand up and tell us recently that essentially they were surprised that Link 16 was viewed as an important capability.

Edited February 15, 2015 by SurelySerious

[10percenttruth]

In AFGSC, not just limited to A3H (if...and I'm assuming here... the H is for helicopters). We had a SPO rep stand up and tell us recently that essentially they were surprised that Link 16 was viewed as an important capability.

And by the time we get it, the rest of the AF will have long since abandoned it for the next thing.

[MSCguy]

In medical I have met many Sq CCs that did not do IDE in-res, and a couple guys who did IDE in-res that were non-selected for Sq command. It might have something to do with our IDE process where you have to apply for IDE to go in-res-not via the promotion board picking who they want to send to IDE.

[brabus]

Good points Danny - I understand what you're saying. Maybe the best way is to just accept that those who want the 20 years of flying, more control, etc. are just going to go guard/reserve/out completely regardless of what AD does. But, it still wouldn't hurt to at least loosen the death grip the AF has on the idea that everyone should want to be a WG/CC+ until they are deemed unfit and sent another direction (deservedly or not). For the most part, it is still a potentially very dumb move to show any cards leading to other than "I want to be a WG/CC!" while still on AD, at least until you're at the point you have to show them to move in the direction you want. I think that's a foul, why can't AD just accept someone's desire to do that and let them serve out their full commitment without fear of retribution. If anything it would do a great deal for morale and in turn get better productivity out of people until the very end.

[11F]

Of all the services, the USAF tends to try and wait as long as possible to pick its senior leaders, and this is a double-edged sword.

Good news: Larger pool of eligibles for senior leadership. Tool-burgers initially thought to be fast-burners can (can, not always will (Foglesong)) be cast aside due to better choices.

Bad news: Everyone is expected to want to be a senior leader, thus leading to our "up-or-out" system. It is extremely difficult or at least unenjoyable to stay in simply to fly the line.

The opposite of the USAF would be the USN, where they place a few select officers on paths for senior leadership incredibly early.

Good news: Many more officers can stay in simply to do what they got in to do without having to act like they want to be an admiral some day.

Bad news: The USN gets stuck with their bad picks as senior leaders due to the small pool. (I mean seriously, have you ever met some of their admirals?!?!)

[drewpey]

Of all the services, the USAF tends to try and wait as long as possible to pick its senior leaders

I don't know much about the USN selection process, but I often feel the USAF is too quick to hedge their bets on future leaders. Once guys get knighted as a shiny penny, there seems to be very little that can stop that momentum.

[Dupe]

I don't know much about the USN selection process, but I often feel the USAF is too quick to hedge their bets on future leaders. Once guys get knighted as a shiny penny, there seems to be very little that can stop that momentum.

I feel like the opposite is true as well: its hard to pull above the pack if you weren't the most stellar Lt/young capt.

In AFGSC, not just limited to A3H (if...and I'm assuming here... the H is for helicopters). We had a SPO rep stand up and tell us recently that essentially they were surprised that Link 16 was viewed as an important capability.

Hopefully, you have strong platform reps in your MAJCOM/A3 (I'm assuming this is for a bomber platform). I'm currently in a staff program office job, and I see the ops community that I work for having no collective idea what they want. It's really hard to acquire when I have to guess at requirements.

[17D_guy]

In medical I have met many Sq CCs that did not do IDE in-res, and a couple guys who did IDE in-res that were non-selected for Sq command. It might have something to do with our IDE process where you have to apply for IDE to go in-res-not via the promotion board picking who they want to send to IDE.

Was going to say the same about Cyber. Sure, there's the cookie cutter path. But 1 of 4 CC's I've had has done that. The rest were's RAS's, led an engagement team in Afghanistan and the other was just wierd. Also, we've got a lot of 2 time CC's for some reason.

I find it interesting the people railing against the exec/school path are those that lack perspective.. the same thing the exec/school path is supposed to teach.

Had a Marine O6 that I worked for and we talked briefly about selection. He was infantry, but said he could have easily been selected for Supply. He said, "You can't just have all your shit-hot Officers in Infantry. We need good ones in all the jobs or the whole thing breaks. I got lucky, that's all."

[General Chang]

Thank you. I was beginning to think the only people who post on BODN are idiots who think a guy with experience only at the squadron-level should be the next CSAF, but am relieved to see voices of sanity like Ho are still posting.

Exec, school, command, staff...they're ALL important to round-out our future GOs. Proficiency in the primary job is assumed once senior leaders push you for the "box-checking" opportunities. It's never going to change, because it never should. Thank heavens most of you on this forum aren't in KLPs. I thank my lucky stars.

Go ahead and bash me. Deep down, you know I'm right.

[Danny Noonin]

Holy shit, you just can't help but act like a fucking idiot, can you.

[brickhistory]

Right? No.

Accurate? Not really. "Rounding out" via squares...

Descriping the past, current, and future situation? Absolutely.

The ones that recognize how the game is played "successfully" regarding higher rank and positions of authority/change, then proceed to attempt to make it better, are the ultimate goal keepers.

The rest of them that adhere to/praise/never want the system to change are you...

Each of us has to look himself in the mirror in the morning.

[SurelySerious]

Also applies to Ho's alternate personality here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaPWwyC6CDI

Proficiency in the primary job is assumed once senior leaders push you for the "box-checking" opportunities.

Because blind assumption never fails.

Edit: why do you want the system to stay as-is? It can be improved upon.

Edited February 17, 2015 by SurelySerious

[disgruntledemployee]

Thank you. I was beginning to think the only people who post on BODN are idiots who think a guy with experience only at the squadron-level should be the next CSAF, but am relieved to see voices of sanity like Ho are still posting.

Exec, school, command, staff...they're ALL important to round-out our future GOs. Proficiency in the primary job is assumed once senior leaders push you for the "box-checking" opportunities. It's never going to change, because it never should. Thank heavens most of you on this forum aren't in KLPs. I thank my lucky stars.

Go ahead and bash me. Deep down, you know I'm right.

Ah, the KLPs. So you think that many of us don't have the influence that you wish to get someday?

Men, here's my guess. Chang volunteered for one of those exec jobs, probably above the sq level. Maybe he's on a staff somewhere and thus because of his "position" and the dude he hears everyday, he's a really swell leader. But he is most likely one of those that I mentioned earlier, a dude that knows the exec gets good paper and thus promotion and jobs. So he plays the game and drops terms like KLPs. Because this is the way he's gotten this far in the AF, it has to be the best way because he thinks he's the best. "It's never going to change, because it never should" is how we will continue to have shitty bosses and the Chang pathway will remain open.

You are right though chang, the exec pathway will not change and there will always be a shoe path for you because the best will not always want it.

Out

[Longhorn15]

“Tiger, one day you will come to a fork in the road,” he said. “And you’re going to have to make a decision about which direction you want to go.” He raised his hand and pointed. “If you go that way you can be somebody. You will have to make compromises and you will have to turn your back on your friends. But you will be a member of the club and you will get promoted and you will get good assignments.” Then Boyd raised his other hand and pointed another direction. “Or you can go that way and you can do something – something for your country and for your Air Force and for yourself. If you decide you want to do something, you may not get promoted and you may not get the good assignments and you certainly will not be a favorite of your superiors. But you won’t have to compromise yourself. You will be true to your friends and to yourself. And your work might make a difference.” He paused and stared into the officer’s eyes and heart. “To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. That’s when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do. Which way will you go?

[Guest ThatGuy]

So to change the subject up a bit. Does anyone have any insight into what the promotion board was looking for specifically during this past December board for major? Our AAD's were masked and our status for SOS indicated simply whether it was complete or not. Did this make things easier or harder for the board?

I had a friend not promoted and this individual checked all of the boxes. I do not know exactly what boxes this individual checked, but I assume the board saw something that excluded him from promotion. I remember you guys/gals saying some people think too highly of themselves in regard to promotion and the promotion board will usually get it right.

[General Chang]

Every time I read one of Chang's posts.....

Thank you.

[Dupe]

So to change the subject up a bit. Does anyone have any insight into what the promotion board was looking for specifically during this past December board for major? Our AAD's were masked and our status for SOS indicated simply whether it was complete or not. Did this make things easier or harder for the board?

I had a friend not promoted and this individual checked all of the boxes. I do not know exactly what boxes this individual checked, but I assume the board saw something that excluded him from promotion. I remember you guys/gals saying some people think too highly of themselves in regard to promotion and the promotion board will usually get it right.

My gut opinion: Senior raters have very few tools to delineate the middle of the pack. The current system is really good at highlighting rock stars, but is pretty bad at providing grainularity in the middle.

[Clark Griswold]

Exec, school, command, staff...they're ALL important to round-out our future GOs. Proficiency in the primary job is assumed once senior leaders push you for the "box-checking" opportunities. It's never going to change, because it never should. Thank heavens most of you on this forum aren't in KLPs. I thank my lucky stars.

I see the point that a guy who is going to lead at Wing and above level needs broad based experiences to be an effective leader at that level, but do you really think changing happy to glad or getting a bullet all the way to the end of the block on an OPR is a consequential development in the process of an effective AF senior officer?

I get that there is an administrative, day to day aspect to the role of a leader but there is a point that once a person is so involved in that world they loose sight of the fact that we are actually supposed to fly airplanes, man missile stations, patrol flight lines, fix airplanes, etc.... it becomes background noise while they are responding to another pointless email with the subject "Hot Tasker!"

You know I am right.

[DirkDiggler]

So to change the subject up a bit. Does anyone have any insight into what the promotion board was looking for specifically during this past December board for major? Our AAD's were masked and our status for SOS indicated simply whether it was complete or not. Did this make things easier or harder for the board?

I had a friend not promoted and this individual checked all of the boxes. I do not know exactly what boxes this individual checked, but I assume the board saw something that excluded him from promotion. I remember you guys/gals saying some people think too highly of themselves in regard to promotion and the promotion board will usually get it right.

FWIW, my community had several APZ guys get picked up on this last board, guys that had been passed over previously for not having their "boxes checked" in some form or fashion. I regarded this a positive sign, maybe the ship's course is moving the direction we want. Liquid posted a list of items that were proposed as discriminators to the CSAF several pages back in this thread I believe, that would probably be a good place to start.

[di1630]

Thank you. I was beginning to think the only people who post on BODN are idiots.

Chang, if you are indeed USAF leadership (which by your comments, all indications are yes you are indeed), you prove just about everything I've said about the way we choose leaders in the USAF as correct....we promote (not always but too often) out of touch, careerist square fillers who can't identify with the other 69% who actually keep this bureaucratic inefficient mess of a system up and running.

I'll take my 3,000 hrs of flying, numerous deployments, a real world job working in NATO and filling A LTC billet as a Capt at the wing to your exec learning how to create an outlook calendar and maxwell school taught how would Clausewitz fight ISIS lessons learned ppt bullsh!t anyday.

[Champ Kind]

Chang, if you are indeed USAF leadership (which by your comments, all indications are yes you are indeed),

What gives you that impression? The only thing that I see is constant trolling.

[General Chang]

Chang, if you are indeed USAF leadership (which by your comments, all indications are yes you are indeed), you prove just about everything I've said about the way we choose leaders in the USAF as correct....we promote (not always but too often) out of touch, careerist square fillers who can't identify with the other 69% who actually keep this bureaucratic inefficient mess of a system up and running.

I'll take my 3,000 hrs of flying, numerous deployments, a real world job working in NATO and filling A LTC billet as a Capt at the wing to your exec learning how to create an outlook calendar and maxwell school taught how would Clausewitz fight ISIS lessons learned ppt bullsh!t anyday.

To each his own. Unlike you, I do not begrudge flyboys who take that career path. However, for the sake of any unfortunate souls that you lead, I hope that you do not present your anti-careerist thoughts to them (if you're even a flight commander, which I know, from an "opportunity for true leadership" perspective, doesn't mean as much in the rated community as it does the non-rated). Your hatred for those of us who were selected to "fill the leadership squares" is unbecoming and disturbing. If you have subordinates, do them a favor and "hide" your...brand...of leadership.