Promotion and PRF Information

[TnkrToad]

Some very basic analysis from the recent O-6 board that folks here might find illuminating. I don't know what the breakdown is by pilot community; just going off the overall stats:

Bottom line is making O-6 is more possible than some on this forum might think:

- For pilots who met the O-6 board in the zone, 87/170 got selected in the zone, for a 51% overall promo rate

o Not bad odds, really, they are even better than one might think

- If you discount those who didn’t bother to do SDE by correspondence or in residence (correspondence SDE ain’t a huge hurdle), the effective IPZ promo rate pilots who really cared was 87/140, for an effective promo rate of 62.1%

- This is, of course, after the top perhaps 10% have been skimmed off the top via BPZ promotion

What the above all means to me is that, for those pilots in the ’94 year group that recently met the board:

- If they made O-5, stayed on active duty and did the minimal work of doing at least SDE by correspondence, they essentially had a 70+% chance of making O-6

- If you factor in folks whose ADSCs/other circumstances kept them on Active Duty long enough to meet the board, but who 1) initially kept their options open by doing corr SDE, but 2) have little interest in actually making O-6, then the chances for those who really want to make O-6 are even better still (although I can’t find a way to quantify this)

What this might mean to folks on this forum who haven’t met the O-6 board yet (if the most recent board is any indication):

- If you managed to make O-5 and actually want to wear chickens on your shoulders:

o Do SDE by correspondence (minimal work required—if you really care, I’m sure you know this and already have it done anyway), and keep plugging away (whether you’ve ever been an exec, WIC grad, Sq/CC, or not). Your chances are demonstrably very good

What this might mean to USAF leadership:

- An effective promo rate of 70+% to O-6 (among those who are actually trying) hardly sounds all that competitive

- I suspect future O-6 boards will be even less competitive—especially for 11M types—given both A-word hiring and HAF/A1M’s mismanagement of the 11M community

TT

[Techsan]

Some very basic analysis from the recent O-6 board that folks here might find illuminating. I don't know what the breakdown is by pilot community; just going off the overall stats:

Bottom line is making O-6 is more possible than some on this forum might think:

- For pilots who met the O-6 board in the zone, 87/170 got selected in the zone, for a 51% overall promo rate

o Not bad odds, really, they are even better than one might think

- If you discount those who didn’t bother to do SDE by correspondence or in residence (correspondence SDE ain’t a huge hurdle), the effective IPZ promo rate pilots who really cared was 87/140, for an effective promo rate of 62.1%

- This is, of course, after the top perhaps 10% have been skimmed off the top via BPZ promotion

What the above all means to me is that, for those pilots in the ’94 year group that recently met the board:

- If they made O-5, stayed on active duty and did the minimal work of doing at least SDE by correspondence, they essentially had a 70+% chance of making O-6

- If you factor in folks whose ADSCs/other circumstances kept them on Active Duty long enough to meet the board, but who 1) initially kept their options open by doing corr SDE, but 2) have little interest in actually making O-6, then the chances for those who really want to make O-6 are even better still (although I can’t find a way to quantify this)

What this might mean to folks on this forum who haven’t met the O-6 board yet (if the most recent board is any indication):

- If you managed to make O-5 and actually want to wear chickens on your shoulders:

o Do SDE by correspondence (minimal work required—if you really care, I’m sure you know this and already have it done anyway), and keep plugging away (whether you’ve ever been an exec, WIC grad, Sq/CC, or not). Your chances are demonstrably very good

What this might mean to USAF leadership:

- An effective promo rate of 70+% to O-6 (among those who are actually trying) hardly sounds all that competitive

- I suspect future O-6 boards will be even less competitive—especially for 11M types—given both A-word hiring and HAF/A1M’s mismanagement of the 11M community

TT

Interesting, but thanks, I'm good.

[Jaded]

Alternatively, what's the chance of getting kicked out at 15 years as an O-4?

[Guest]

About 0%. Know a guy, twice passed over to major, who got continued to 20. I don't think we'll see another instance of majors getting booted in our current situation.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HeloDude]

Alternatively, what's the chance of getting kicked out at 15 years as an O-4?

I think the AF will let everyone know in June/July...I know some good 11H's who got passed over for O-5 last year so I'm curious as to what happens this time around, assuming they are passed over again. My bet is that most will get continued to 20, especially guys in stressed fields.

[di1630]

If one gets non-continued but has taken a retention bonus up front, must that be repaid?

[Champ Kind]

Now that's why I love the AF: "You're so valuable we will pay you extra to stay in....sign here."

Years later...

"Yeah you remember how we said you were valuable? Not so much to offer you continuation. See ya."

[Jaded]

Yes, it must be repaid.

[Bender]

Yes, it must be repaid.

The PSDM says the unearned portion must be repaid, but is also waiverable (SecAF). Seems unlikely anyone would be in a situation to need to repay the entire amount and even more unlikely to get any repayment waived.

Bendy

[Jaded]

A non continued major could get a bill for $125k and it was only a few years ago that 157 individuals were shown the door at 15. I think that would make it tough to actually spend any more than 1 year of the bonus at a time.

[Bender]

A non continued major could get a bill for $125k and it was only a few years ago that 157 individuals were shown the door at 15. I think that would make it tough to actually spend any more than 1 year of the bonus at a time.

History is what it is, so shouldn't say always or never. Were any of the 157 on active ARP agreements extending beyond 15 years of service? The current program cuts the starting point of the offer off at 15 years, I believe.

Uncommitted pilots taking a lump sum the year they are looking at 2 APZ should be well aware that the money may need to turn right back around...pilots still BTZ, have 2 to 4 years to work off, fulfilling almost the first half of the 5/9 year commitments.

I'm consistently surprised at how the "world" around me functions, but to sign an ARP contact to be non-continued, following the drawdown that just occurred...seems unlikely.

Can the AF terminate the ARP contract without an FEB/MEB cause?

Bendy

Edited April 5, 2015 by Bender

[WeTheSheeple]

I know it's not Friday, but perhaps it's time to review a little history. It seems funny how Arnold, Spaatz, Vandenberg, LeMay, etc., didn't seem to spend a whole lotta time (if any at all) as execs, and they certainly didn't each have 3-4 master's degrees--yet they all were effective CSAFs (ok, technically, Arnold was never CSAF, but the AAF he led had 2.4 million people in it, and kicked the crap out of Germany, Italy & Japan). As far as I can tell, the last PME school LeMay attended was ACTS--during the '39-'40 academic year, when they shortened the course in order to quadruple throughput. As far as I can tell, LeMay was a two-star before he even had a Pentagon tour . . . and that was when two-stars had way more responsibility than two-buttons today. Norstad never even attended CGSC, yet ended up as SHAPE commander, Kuter's last school was ACTS, yet he was Arnold's rep at the Yalta Conference and served as both CINCPACAF and CINCNORAD. I could go on, but I'll spare you.

Bottom line, it seems to me that there was a time when the Air Force (and its predecessors--AAC, AAF) produced better strategic, global leaders. They did so without going through innumerable schools and spending inordinate time as execs. I wish current senior leaders could and would think and write as clearly and effectively as Hal George, Haywood Hansell, Larry Kuter and others did in their day.

It seems to me that GC and his A1 buddies need to read some history. What made early Air Force leaders so effective? It certainly wasn't the current system (that GC is promoting), and which many on this forum are railing against. I think AF leaders did better when they promoted folks based on performance and potential, rather than PME diplomas and secretarial skills.

Both Arnold & Spaatz served as execs, went to school, did their staff time, and still had time to be effective combat leaders. Edited April 6, 2015 by WeTheSheeple

[Chicken]

Both Arnold & Spaatz served as execs, went to school, did their staff time, and still had time to be effective combat leaders.

My favorite color is red.

[WeTheSheeple]

Regarding recent O-4 board--higher promo % overall (92), but lower school select % (16). Masking grad school info had the desired result: for the bottom 20% of bubbas with a P, they competed on their official records.

Officers from non-ops career fields have 5 distinct advantages in both the competition for DPs and the O-4 board itself:

1) 100% have been Flight Commanders and supervised other people, which is not the case in ops. I expect that the non-selects for O-4 were not cycled through the Mickey Mouse flight command positions (A/B/C Flt vs DOV, DOT, etc) in their ops squadrons;

2) Non-ops have spent their entire careers trying to articulate their value to the broader AF. Everyone has an important role to play, but It is more of a stretch that a FSS 1Lt advances the national interests of the US than the officers in the OG. Every CGOM/CGOQ/CGOY/functional awards package requires them to think about and to justify their operational-to-strategic impact that is assumed away by many operators.

3) Ops bubbas do not get the same credit for deployed experience. Most non-ops folks have deployed to IZ and Afghan, while many (not all) ops frames supported from bases in other countries. Similar to #2 above, ops records--OPRs & citations--often use MDS-specific language and assume that the reader knows both the mission sets as well as the officer's role in that mission.

4) Ops communities have trouble weeding out folks due to ADSCs. Non-ops career fields have more weed-out options due to the shorter ADSC.

5) Competing for O-4 from a staff billet. Smaller pool of officers for strats/DPs, but their Sr Raters will probably be FO/GOs.

Grad school, SOS, performance in combat was not masked for the Sr Rater/Wg CC to give out DPs to the top 75% or to fight for folks on the bubble at the MLR.

Edited April 5, 2015 by WeTheSheeple

[17D_guy]

1) 100% have been Flight Commanders and supervised other people, which is not the case in ops. I expect that the non-selects for O-4 were not cycled through the Mickey Mouse flight command positions (A/B/C Flt vs DOV, DOT, etc) in their ops squadrons;

Uh.. ok.

2) Non-ops have spent their entire careers trying to articulate their value to the broader AF. Everyone has an important role to play, but It is more of a stretch that a FSS 1Lt advances the national interests of the US than the officers in the OG. Every CGOM/CGOQ/CGOY/functional awards package requires them to think about and to justify their operational-to-strategic impact that is assumed away by many operators.

Begrudging true.

3) Ops bubbas do not get the same credit for deployed experience. Most non-ops folks have deployed to IZ and Afghan, while many (not all) ops frames supported from bases in other countries. Similar to #2 above, ops records--OPRs & citations--often use MDS-specific language and assume that the reader knows both the mission sets as well as the officer's role in that mission.

And.... you're an idiot.

4) Ops communities have trouble weeding out folks due to ADSCs. Non-ops career fields have more weed-out options due to the shorter ADSC.

See above.

5) Competing for O-4 from a staff billet. Smaller pool of officers for strats/DPs, but their Sr Raters will probably be FO/GOs.

What? Never mind, don't answer.

[zach braff]

Regarding recent O-4 board--higher promo % overall (92), but lower school select % (16).

It was still about the usual 20% school selection - for IPZ Captains. The 16% overall is because there were a sh-t ton more APZ dudes that made major this round that added to the denominator.

zb

[WeTheSheeple]

3) Ops bubbas do not get the same credit for deployed experience. Most non-ops folks have deployed to IZ and Afghan, while many (not all) ops frames supported from bases in other countries. Similar to #2 above, ops records--OPRs & citations--often use MDS-specific language and assume that the reader knows both the mission sets as well as the officer's role in that mission.

And.... you're an idiot.

>>> My bad for the lack of clarity. Ops units do not appropriately document deployed experience in reports, dec citations, etc, which is the primary reason for not getting credit. I have read post-CENTCOM AOR reports that do not mention CENTCOM, anywhere in the AOR, what they did, or what msns they supported. The handful of passed-over-for-O4-ops folks that I know were in this boat. Edited April 6, 2015 by WeTheSheeple

[WeTheSheeple]

It was still about the usual 20% school selection - for IPZ Captains. The 16% overall is because there were a sh-t ton more APZ dudes that made major this round that added to the denominator.

zb

Incorrect. Overall, 16.5%. IPZ only, 17.0%. The 73 APZ bubbas didn't move the needle that much.

It amounts to more than 100 fewer officers designated as IDE selects from this board compared with the last one.

This will increase raw numbers and % of candidates going to school (particularly in the '05-'07 Year Groups), assuming that the number of schools slots remains constant (after the 30% reduction a few years ago).

[zach braff]

Incorrect. Overall, 16.5%. IPZ only, 17.0%. The 73 APZ bubbas didn't move the needle that much.

It amounts to more than 100 fewer officers designated as IDE selects from this board compared with the last one.

This will increase raw numbers and % of candidates going to school (particularly in the '05-'07 Year Groups), assuming that the number of schools slots remains constant (after the 30% reduction a few years ago).

Well there you have it. I stand corrected… Hope it does mean a better shot for candidates - at least for the ones that want to go to school.

ZB

Edited April 7, 2015 by zach braff

[Day Man]

3) Ops bubbas do not get the same credit for deployed experience. Most non-ops folks have deployed to IZ and Afghan, while many (not all) ops frames supported from bases in other countries.

Relevant, because people get to pick where they're sent/staged from.

Edited April 7, 2015 by day man

[ThreeHoler]

Incorrect. Overall, 16.5%. IPZ only, 17.0%. The 73 APZ bubbas didn't move the needle that much.

It amounts to more than 100 fewer officers designated as IDE selects from this board compared with the last one.

This will increase raw numbers and % of candidates going to school (particularly in the '05-'07 Year Groups), assuming that the number of schools slots remains constant (after the 30% reduction a few years ago).

That is the plan.

[246check]

And what a

That is the plan.

And what a damn fine plan that is. I'm an IDE and on-time SDE select and the sooner we get rid of selects and treat everybody as a candidate, the better.

[DirkDiggler]

And what a

And what a damn fine plan that is. I'm an IDE and on-time SDE select and the sooner we get rid of selects and treat everybody as a candidate, the better.

Checks

[Champ Kind]

The thing to keep in mind is that there are fewer seats overall. I've heard guys interpreting the shift from 20% to 15% selects as meaning there will be *more* opportunity for candidates to go. ....Realize the shift is being made so that there is *any* opportunity for candidates to go.

All they've done is trick-fuck the numbers so that not every single seat at IDE is occupied by a select. As always, it'll be very very competitive to get picked up as a candidate. And now it'll be more competitive to get designated as a select off the board.

Source on the total number of seats?

[zach braff]

They cut waaaaaay back on equivalency credit this year as well. You can only get DE credit if you are 1) a DE select on your board and 2) did the program during your DE window. What's up with that? Any ideas or RUMINT?

ZB