Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Supt, Board Secretariat

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Supt, Board Secretariat"— Presentation transcript:

1 Supt, Board Secretariat

2 OVERVIEW Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) Rules
Officer Performance Report (OPR) Rules Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) Rules AFI eff 1 Jul 2000

3 OES/EES REFERENCES AFI , Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems AFPam , Guide to the USAF OES - OES/EES training is mandatory for all first-time supervisors within 60 days of being appointed as a rater -- Don’t forget civilians - OES/EES refresher training should be given to all active duty members annually -- Up to installation commander - Regardless of installation program, make sure your folks are trained – impacts people’s careers

4 OPR / EPR RULES When Accomplished Annually/Initial
CRO (supv chgs as results of PCS/A, etc) Directed By Norms 120 Days Supervision, Within 1 yr of promotion board, or None since last promotion board On / Off Control Roster

5 OPR / EPR RULES Referral Reports Must serve member
Member has 10 calendar days to reply to next evaluator in chain of command Member’s reply -- limited to 10 pages Must state “I have carefully considered _____’s comments to the referral memo of (date) and…” If next evaluator marks down more…must refer again to member

Vague job description Generalities Jargon, techno-babble, unknown acronyms(when in doubt, spell it out) Text reiterates job description Absence of quantification, results, impact Lack of stratification

Hard-hitting, fact-filled statements Clearly communicated scope of responsibility Specifics Examples of leadership Strong active statements

Clear mission impact Quantify…show results, facts, value, savings Next job & resident PME Enlisted only: clear promotion recommendation Now……this board…..1999….First time eligible Bottom line: how did the person make a difference or have an impact???

9 OPR TECHNIQUES Factors to Consider--Job Title/Duty Description
Job Titles / Duty Descriptions very important Convey progression in career field Convey scope/level of responsibility Show evidence of successful leadership test This is another area that assists in determining scores when records are on the margin--it drives the board’s judgement on breadth and depth. Especially if it shows progressive leadership tests INSIGHT: absent distinctive achievement, job title/duty description can be effective impact discriminator

10 OPR TECHNIQUES (Writing Tips)
Mechanics…bullets, emphasis on results / impact Put strongest on back--make it stand out! Negative perception with lots of white space Assess and stratify…be judicious, consistent Support with appropriate push--be consistent! Review job title/descriptions Show progression, scope/level of responsibility When the time comes to write the OPR, having a clear picture of the previous record sets the stage. You should then capture the performance for the reporting period independent of the previous record But... When making recommendations, the previous record is appropriately taken into account--it forms the basis for potential as reflected in trends and strength of recommendations INSIGHT: limited board time places premium on making the important points easy to see!

11 OPR TECHNIQUES Back of the Form
Front sections--limited value as a discriminator Back of form carries the most weight Opportunity to “speak to the board” Emphasis on stratification, pushes Make the officer come alive It is critical to differentiate--distinctions are becoming finer As the OPR has evolved, the front of the form--The Mission statement, Duty title and Job description, and Impact of Mission--is seen primarily as informational. It serves to convey the level of responsibility the officer has held, and to validate and support the statements made on the reverse side of the form. But, it is not seen by the board as a heavy discriminator--difficult to compare from one officer to another The back of the form provides raters an opportunity to tout the most important accomplishments as a current assessment of the officer’s future potential. Board members consistently tell us they focus on this portion of the OPR. You need to use this section to make it (and the officer) come alive. The last 5 lines are the most important. What does the additional rater personally say about the officer? Stratification, ownership, recommendations, and level of enthusiasm as well as the most important performance bullets are taken very seriously. Objective: Not to make every record promotable but to give you tools to ensure the right officers get promoted!

12 OPR TECHNIQUES Factors to Consider--Recommendations
Consistency Review previous recommendations Another form of stratification…CC vs Ops Deputy Gp/CC vs Group Commander! Now can recommend two jobs in sequence Squadron Command next, SSS, then OSD! Appropriate to member’s grade Additional things to consider in using recommendations to stratify your reports With the recent change allowing two job recommendations on an OPR, care should be given not to reduce the recommended job level unless appropriate. If someone has been receiving consistent recommendations for command, and they deserve such recommendations, making a recommendation for Operations officer now followed by command could be seen as a reduction in support. But for a young major with no previous command recommendations, ops now and command later would be a good mid-tier recommendation.

PRF a temporary part of Record of Performance…captures career highlights Adds SR’s personal knowledge / assessment Will not generally stand on its own ROP is complete record of impact, stratification, and support from day 1! Will normally stand on its own Paramount in considering the PRF is the relationship to the officer’s record of performance. Together they form the core of the record of performance and cover from day one (first OPR or Training report) through the last word to the central board (PRF) Paramount in considering the PRF is the relationship to the officer’s record of performance. Together they form the core of the record of performance and cover from day one (first OPR or Training report) through the last word to the central board (PRF) INSIGHT: should be some ROP/PRF congruency

Same as OPR…bullets, emphasize results/impact One line, hard-hitting bullets are best Balance…2-3 bullets should be in current job Chronological PRFs easiest to follow Ensure PRF word picture is accurate Some insight from the boards is important here also. This is the opportunity you have to sell the individual at the appropriate level of push. The PRF: your 30-second briefing to the board on your officer’s promotion potential!

Assess and stratify…be judicious, consistent Support with appropriate job and PME pushes Conversational DP--for records with notable weakness, explain why promotion is still a must Work Ps harder than the DPs Stratify “Promotes” clearly Word changes after MLR OK--even necessary! Finally, the PRF is between you and the board--talk to them about the individuals merit-- Records that receive DPs that have observable weaknesses need special attention as well as those with Ps that are at the top of your must promote list. Don’t worry about making changes that are warranted. Even after the PRF is sent to AFPC, if there is sufficient reason, we will accept new PRFs up to the date the board starts--be sure to work with your MAJCOM DP office and our evaluation office to ensure all the individual’s rights are protected and that you have followed the rules--changes strengthening the PRF are a bit easier to justify--those that weaken it can be made, but with a bit more care

16 DP PRFs Factors to Consider
DP is a clear discriminator to board Integrity of DP is paramount ROP should justify award of “DP” or... Address obvious detractors in narrative Award Small Group Size “DPs” judiciously…boards recognize these as “non-competitive” The DP PRF - Still the most powerful single signal to the board In most cases the record of performance should support the DP MLRs review PRFs with this concept in mind If there is a disparity, the Senior Rater needs to explain. There will be situations where weaknesses in a record make it appear not to be DP quality--yet the Senior Rater has a valid rationale as to why this officer has DP potential. At the MLR, explanation of such a recommendation is often verbal At the CSB, the PRF itself is the tool to explain the inconsistency. Such a PRF should say “I know that this weakness exists in the record, but let me tell you why he/she must be promoted.” That way, the promotion board can understand why the DP is awarded to this individual. Special care should be taken with small group sizes--where the senior officer is the management level and can give a DP to his/her only officer. These are identified on PRFs with group size of 0 or 1. They are carefully scrutinized by board members (even board adds--those that become eligible after the DP allocation is established). Disconnects between the DP and the ROP must be fully explained. INSIGHT: DP is NOT Automatic Promotion!

17 WHAT THE BOARD SEES Professional Development
PME / AAD can significantly impact board decisions SECAF MOI tries to keep AAD in perspective But so many quality records have it…. Remarkable when missing OPTEMPO argument lacks weight Majority in high OPTEMPO environment have completed AAD Two factors in the officer’s selection brief that affect promotion selection both at the Management Level Review and/or central selection board are PME completion and an advanced academic degree Just how important is professional development? Let me offer you some statistics on IPZ promotions over the past 5 years: Promotion % Eligibles % Selected of Eligibles w/ %Selected of Eligibles w/ to Selected No PME Corr/Sem In-Residence No AAD AAD Lt Col 63% 8% 59% 98% 24% 67% Col 42% 4% 38% 91% 11% 43% Clearly, education matters, and officers need to be made aware of that! Even in functions experiencing high ops tempo, the majority of officers have managed to complete both PME and AAD. Therefore, those that have not completed them are at a disadvantage. If there was a true mission barrier to completion, the PRF is the only way to inform the board--but such an explanation must be unique to the person--not simply address high ops tempo in general The next three slides tell the complete story about professional development and OPSTEMPO. INSIGHT: lack of PME/AAD can negate a DP

18 WHAT THE BOARD SEES Obvious detractors: No PME/AAD, weak OPRs, DOS
Strong, clear trends of rater stratification / support Most recent trend of stratification Trend of job / school recommendations SR ownership / enthusiasm for ratee Duty titles / job descriptions that convey progression, scope of responsibility Often differentiate impact So, what does a board see in these records that enables them to make these critical decisions? The truth is, many records are clearly at one extreme (highly promotable) or the other (non-competitive). They are the low hanging fruit and are relatively each to score--either high or low. The clear non-promotes are distinguished by obvious detractors, such as lack of PME or advanced academic degree, weak OPR’s or a date of separation. The clear promotes are those with strong, consistent trends of rater stratification and support and duty histories that convey breadth, depth and progressive leadership tests Particularly when coupled with a DP These are the items that can make the difference in the final score… Stratification is good, as long as the trend doesn’t go in the wrong direction. I should stress again, that we provide these insights on weaknesses in records not to suggest that they should be avoided for all records--only that they stand out as negative trends and should be use consciously--if the performance warrants a weakened record, then a deliberate reduction in stratification is a good way to send that signal. Same with school/job recommendations. Going from ops officer to commander recommendation is a good trend--commander to ops officer recommendation weakens the record Enthusiasm is always good Jobs that show increasing responsibility and authority--good

19 WHAT THE BOARD SEES Board Insights
“DPs” should only go to “DP quality” records Indicate awareness of unique situations “DNP” PRFs: Explain exactly “Why Not” Stratify rankings…but do so consciously Highlight significant achievements…previous BPZ Chronological PRFs are easiest to follow Officers can prevent many record errors Letters to the board--be concise, appropriate tone This and the next slide summarize observations directly from the board members perspective--and should guide you as you fulfill your role in OES. The largest number of records do fall in the margins--and not just the margins between promote and don’t promote. There are also difficult decisions that must be made to select officers BPZ and to determine school candidacy. Deciding among these very similar records consumes a great deal of the selection board’s time and energy. It is critical for raters to understand how difficult it is to distinguish among these records, and to make their case as clearly as possible. Here are some tips. These points have all been made elsewhere in this briefing. I’m repeating them here because these are issues the boards have specifically raised as concerns to senior leadership. There should normally be consistency between the quality of the record and the Promotion Recommendation on the PRF. If not, and there will be legitimate cases there a disconnect occurs, then you need to acknowledge the apparent discrepancy and explain your reasons for believing the officer must be promoted.

20 WHAT THE BOARD SEES Board Insights
Senior Rater’s Credibility is on the Line Don’t stretch the truth Ensure PRF word picture is accurate Be careful about having multiple “#1s” Enthusiasm of PRF should match recent OPRs (especially if SR signs both) Few can say “best in AF” Feedback from the promotion boards also indicates OES is not serving its current purpose well. Probably the most powerful message we have received from the boards is that perceived inflation of evaluations by a rater casts doubt on the value of every recommendation that rates makes. We need to heed this advice--if we don’t, we lose a critical input on who will be our future AF leaders Lose your credibility and you lose your vote!

21 Positive Indicators My #1,2, or 3 of XXX” were most impressive
Consistent “Firewall” 5s; solid senior rater promote statements Reporting chain quantification or stratification My #1,2, or 3 of XXX” were most impressive Numbers beyond #3 were not as significant...unless at a large unit Top 1% bullets firmly said Chief potential Top 5% - 10% for those serving in grades limited to top 2% and competing for top 1% of enlisted force sent mixed signal “One of my best” viewed as not very strong...nor very weak It told me to look deeper Bullets that emphasized impact to the largest of groups made the largest promotion board impact

22 Positive Indicators EPRs closest to top weighted greatest…SMSgt EPRs, so on SSgt/TSgt EPRs showed record of sustained excellence (or not) Comments with large group and scope of responsibility The bigger or more diverse the better with “measurable” achievements Leading teams outside normal chain of command Tiger teams, etc….involvement outside normal area of AFSC expertise “Outstanding” inspection ratings/team comments praising programs and team leadership sent a very strong message Supervision over diverse personnel population AMN/NCOs/SNCOs/civilians/volunteers/contractors

23 Positive Indicators Decorations of MSM at regular PCS or extended tours; expected Excellence at PME, especially if repeat winner (SNCOA/NCOA) Education; most had CCAF/AA degree Higher degree OK, but only strengthened an already strong record Community leadership….not just participation or involvement Top 3 organization officers, AFSA/NCOA elected officers, booster or morale club officials, community leadership positions History of leadership positions throughout a career was a big plus Awards served as discriminators between outstanding people Pointed to or quantified the “best of the best” SSgt/TSgt awards says person dedicated to excellence early in career Annual career field awards at MAJCOM/AF viewed very favorably

24 Positive Indicators Consistent job and career progression across a wing…. across MAJCOMs...and across the Air Force (other bases) Serving in jobs normally filled by Chiefs Special duty assignments or jobs also served as delineators As long as time spent in these duties was not excessive Different jobs helped expand abilities and contributions to the Air Force First sergeant, recruiters, MTIs, MTAs, PME instructors/commandants

25 Not So Positive Indicators
Obvious 4 or lower EPR or 5 EPR with front side mark downs EPRs without Senior Rater Indorsement Board being told “don’t promote”…and none were Further back from top the “not so good” EPR...better the score If EPRs closer to top showed an appropriate turnaround Senior raters (SRs) with multiple #1s We could understand perhaps two #1s over a year with different report close-out dates….but actually saw some SRs with half a dozen #1s Those with many years at same base Did not show much desire to broaden career perspective Too much time at jobs with little or no supervision/leadership Those that choose to remain in one-deep slots beyond normal tours

26 Not So Positive Indicators
No decoration after tour or lower than “normal” decoration Levels of decorations beyond (or below) norm throughout career EPRs with lackluster duty achievements or accomplishments No CCAF Degree; indicated lack of self-improvement desire Innovatively worded job titles, job descriptions, decoration citations Flowery titles meant little...its what’s done on the job that really counts AFSC or profession specific terms caused some difficulty There can not be someone from every AFSC on every panel

27 Other Personal Tidbit “My top draft choice…or my quarterback”
I very much disliked “witty” writing styles “My top draft choice…or my quarterback” “Gets touchdown, home-run every time...MVP” “My pinch-hitter in the clutch” Comments like these did not set the professional tone I would expect in the official records of individuals competing for the top enlisted grade of our nation

28 EPR EXAMPLES (W) - Aggressively ensure applications are submitted within Air Force guidelines and time (S) - Aggressive management of maintenance inspection resulted in 99% up-time rates -- USAFE ORI “outstanding” in equipment reliability

29 EPR EXAMPLES (W) - Led subordinates to improve leave processing by establishing a system whereby leaves can be processed via telephone (S) - Turned around “broken” leave processing system…paperwork simplified, automation maximized…accountability rates now over 90%

30 OPR EXAMPLES (W) - Great job handling several unit change-of-command ceremonies…attention to detail evident (S) - Protocol ace--orchestrated four squadron change-of-command ceremonies…all picture perfect, wing/cc said “best seen”

31 OPR EXAMPLES (W) - Great job planning largest deployment exercise to date. Passenger flow, beddown and training maximized (S) - Crucial planner in 600 person deployment exercise--wing’s largest to date. Pax flow, beddown flawless, training effectiveness up 15%

32 OPR EXAMPLES Last Lines
(W) - Among my best, professional and dedicated…ready for MAJCOM staff and resident PME (S) - Top 2% of all officers I’ve known--extraordinary leader--no job too tough…joint duty now then ACSC (S) - #1 major in this wing--mature, visionary, natural leader. ACSC now then tough joint job!

33 PRF EXAMPLES Opening Lines
(S) - Pure Platinum! Mike’s proven he can star in any job / master any challenge--most dedicated I’ve ever seen -- Shines in competition--ROTC DG; SOS DG and Outstanding Contributor; top-third graduate at ACSC (S) - Jane is my top major, my #1 support SQ/CC; a franchise player even better than her awesome record -- DG top 2% ACSC, DG Adv Comm Officer Trng; ‘94 PACAF CGOY, Honors/4.0 GPA AFIT MA (W) - Joe has risen to the top in every assignment…praise abounds for this outstanding officer and chaplain

34 PRF EXAMPLES Last Lines
(S) - None better, period. Destined for top command and technical duties--Definitely Promote, pick for NWC! (S) - My #1 choice for Lt Col, 150% ready--definitely promote now! Must be a flying Sq/CC--then NWC (W) - Superb capable leadership coupled with precious breadth of experience--promote (W) - Accelerated Protestant program and worship service; increased chapel attendance in time of downsizing

35 THOUGHTS You must teach Flt/CCs and SNCOs how to write EPRs / OPRs / PRFs effectively Focus on impact / results Efficiency, savings, time, money Final lines of EPRs / OPRs / PRFs crucial Include all relevant recommendations

36 THOUGHTS Specify: Resident PME vs actual school
Special programs….AFIT/intern Command…if appropriate Stratify ID relative standing if significant My #1...My best...Top 1%...Best seen… #1 of 24 IPZ elig, #2 of my 270 Majors…

37 THOUGHTS Assess your officers…independent of boards
Know the top, 2nd, 3rd level rankings Review entire record when doing OPRs, PRFs At least, know what you said last year! Know Professional Development requirements I’ve presented a lot of information...ideas that will help you more clearly communicate with the selection board. To effectively use this information, you need to prepare long before the OPR or PRF is being written Reviewing records of your officers will allow you to see trends started by previous raters so you will not inadvertently stop an appropriate trend. A break or shift in a trend is the right thing to do when warranted, but it needs to be a conscious decision Such a review will allow you to critically compare your officers and identify the strongest and the weakest The review should be done long before preparing any report---it forms the basis against which to mentor your officers and evaluate the strength of their record and long-term performance-based potential Don’t be among the hundreds of “I didn’t know / realize” appeals we review every year!

38 TIME FOR A 10 MINUTE BREAK! (if required)

FEEDBACK PERFORMANCE PROMOTION OUTLOOK OPORTUNITY / SELECTION MLR AND BOARD PROCESS The Officer Evaluation System, particularly as it impacts promotions. Central Selection Boards rely heavily on input from Raters as they try to distinguish our top performers for promotion, PME attendance and command opportunities. The basic truth is that some officers are more qualified than others for promotion. Differentiating between those officers is the challenge every senior rater faces, and it’s what we’re here to address today. Unfortunately, feedback from recent boards indicates Senior Raters may not fully understand how OES contributes to this process and the quality of their input reflects this. A recent board president observed that “We are seeing many areas where a more universal appreciation and understanding of the evaluation system, the OPR, the PRF and what to write on each would be helpful.” We hope you will leave here today with that very appreciation and understanding Not everyone is your #1 Major How to tell the Selection Board and the officer AO: Lt Colonel Nancy A.K. Lee/DPPF/

Private and Informal Feedback AF Requirement and foundation of OES Provides officer with “how’s it going” Form is NOT retained in records Only date of feedback is placed on OPR Provides performance expectations and results Meant to be honest, it was between just the supervisor and the individual The initial focus was on improving current job performance by setting standards and then providing a report card on performance prior to the annual performance rating

Tool to document performance / achievement Comments only from rater/additional rater Review by Senior Rater Permanent part--Record of Performance (ROP) Some early confusion--resolved over time Veiled promotion statements PME, next job recommendations This report focused on the impact the individual had on accomplishing the unit mission and on examples of performance that would help the central selection board assess the officer’s potential. Raters could also include recommendations for appropriate training (both functional and professional) and future assignments By establishing a specific senior rater(final endorser) based on position, we significantly reduced the involvement of our senior officers in reviewing and signing reports on officers they did not know In support of the new promotion recommendation form we will discuss next, we prohibited mention of promotion potential on this form. Although this caused a bit of confusion in the beginning, we quickly became aware of what could be said and, with few exceptions, are following the rules

New tool--highlights career achievements Sr Rater opportunity to communicate to board Prepared only before promotion board Not a permanent part of ROP All important: DP, P, DNP recommendations DP a powerful indicator, but not a sure bet P select rate “controlled”...ensure acceptability The PRF was added to OES specifically to highlight career achievements and make a specific promotion recommendation. In fact, it is the only vehicle for making such recommendations. It allows SRs to communicate directly with the promotion board. This form offers an opportunity to send a VERY STRONG SIGNAL on current management’s view of an officer’s promotion potential With controls on the number of Definitely Promotes (DPs) set well below the promotion opportunity for the grade, the board could infer these officers were the cream of the crop. From the start, a caution was given that DPs should not be gamed--given to weaker records with the expectation that the strong record would be selected with a P It was also explained that they were not a guarantee of promotion The percent of DPs was also set to ensure that a reasonable percent of officers receiving a P would be selected

43 PROMOTION OUTLOOK The Reality of the “Promotion Pyramid”
10 Cols 28 Lt Cols 45 Majors PURPOSE: illustrates what happens to a typical group of 100 officers as they make personal career decisions and meet promotion boards. BACKGROUND/INSIGHTS: - For every 100 officers who are commissioned as 2nd Lts, about 10 will stay and/or survive the climb to Colonel. -- Most won’t make it to Major -- either by their own choice or the decision of a promotion board. - Lower promotion opportunity complicates the climb. -- In 1991, we lowered the promotion opportunity to all field grades to the minimum levels prescribed by the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA). --- AFPD contains policies on Force Management -- This action was necessary to maintain the right balance within a smaller officer force structure during and after the drawdown. -- We need enough people to meet the mission - Promotion opportunity to Major was lowered from 90% to 80%; from 75% to 70% for Lieutenant Colonel; and from 55% to 50% to Colonel. The cumulative impact is significant. The promotion opportunity for Major went back to 90% in FY97. We expect to see promotion opportunity go back to 75% for Lt Col and 55% for Col in the next 5 years. BOTTOMLINE: -- Promotions is a force management issue 86 Captains 97 1st Lieutenants 100 2nd Lieutenants AO: Lt Colonel Nancy A.K. Lee/DPPF/

44 PROMOTION OPPORTUNITY “Definitely Promote” IPZ/APZ Allocations
PROMOTION TO: DEFINITELY PROMOTE ALLOCATIONS 65% 40% % 25% PURPOSE: Explain “Definitely Promote” allocation rates BACKGROUND/INSIGHTS: - Major DP rate went to 65% for the CY97 board which concluded 27 Jun -- Public release of the results was 19 Aug 97 - Every officer wants a DP going into a promotion board - What is the likelihood of me receiving a DP? - Just over 1/2 of Capts going to Maj receive DPs - Only 1 in 5 going to Col get a DP BOTTOMLINE: Earning a “DP” gets harder as you go to higher ranks AO: Lt Colonel Nancy A.K. Lee/DPPF/

45 PROMOTION TIMELINES Officer vs Enlisted
2LT LT CAPT MAJ LT COL COL 2yrs yrs yrs yrs yrs AB Amn A1C SrA SSgt TSgt MSgt SMSgt CMSgt 5yrs 1.25yrs 3yrs yrs yrs yrs yrs yrs

PROMOTION TO: IPZ LIKELIHOOD OF PROMOTION 40% 35% 25% PURPOSE: Explain the likelihood of being promoted with a Promote (“P”) recommendation BACKGROUND/INSIGHTS: - The majority of people meet a promotion board with a P -- To Maj, if I get a P, my likelihood of getting promoted is 40% -- To Col, it’s a 1 in 4 chance BOTTOMLINE: - While these are the guaranteed minimums, IPZ promotion rates with a “P” have always exceeded these advertised rates AO: Lt Colonel Nancy A.K. Lee/DPPF/



49 Promotion Board Anomalies
- Every board has seemingly inexplicable results -- “DP” Non-Selects -- “P” Selects Below or Above the zone - Outcome is puzzling to many officers/yr solicit Non-Select Counseling -- Senior Raters have questions, too MLRs can reduce the frequency of contradictory OES input by arbitrating, validating and recommending changes when needed. Based on board feedback there are still many records with inconsistent information, leading to incongruous board decisions. This process could be strengthened. The better we differentiate between officers, writing clear OPRs and PRFs which support each other, the fewer anomalies we will have We also know, from the number of officers who request non-select counseling and the number of SRs who question board outcomes, that the process is not well understood. We believe that the source of confusion is not only a lack of education on the promotion system, but a lack of realistic expectations as well. The better we counsel with our officers on promotion realities and the relative strengths of their records, the fewer surprises we will have Insights from Promotion Boards/Non-Select Counseling Can Provide Some Answers

50 After that: DIFFERENTIATION becomes increasingly difficult!
On Closer Look - Obvious “DP”/ROP disconnects -- “DP” PRF on clearly inferior record -- “DP” PRF on average record lacking PME/AAD - Notable drops in stratification, support -- May be unintentional…rating chain not reviewing officers’ records! Closer review of the record reveals other comparisons that also tend to quickly impact scores. These types of records are fairly evident and raise the eyebrows of the board. If not selected, they also tend to raise questions on why the officer wasn’t a contender--the quality of the records is the most frequent answer-- weaknesses like these can result in nonselection. As a word of caution to raters, any notable drop in stratification or support implies a weakness in the record. This is a valuable tool if the rater is deliberately signaling a drop in performance. Unfortunately, it may also be the unintentional result of a failure to review the officer’s record thoroughly. That still leaves a large number of records that look a lot alike--they consume a lot of the the selection board’s time. After that: DIFFERENTIATION becomes increasingly difficult!

51 Factors to Consider Achievement/Impact
- Fact: few officers’ achievements truly stand out - Exceptions: -- Combat...significant contingency participation -- Functional or unit awards and recognition -- Distinguished graduate distinction -- Competitive selection for CC opportunity That’s the reality of the promotion system and how the board views the information they see. Let’s look at your role in this process. I’ll start by reviewing each element of the OES, what it conveys, and how you can capitalize it to distinguish your top performers. Impact on mission and factoids in general influence the board score when they are well above the norm. Virtually every Lt Col is making significant contributions--to be powerful, facts have to really stand out and are usually strongest when found on the back of the OPR. Most records we see for nonselect counseling fit into the “good, but not distinctive” category. That is not to say that crafting these fact-based bullet statements isn’t important--but other aspects of the OPR carry more weight INSIGHT: most often, the best that can be said about impact: “good, but not distinctive.”

52 Factors to Consider Rater Ownership/Stratification
- Stratification: Relative Rating of Officers - Levels of Stratification Emerging -- Top - My #1 of 12…Finest officer ever known -- 2d Level…top 10%er! -- 3d Level…one of my best -- Lowest level…Outstanding, Superior, etc More than any other factor, stratification helps define promotion potential. The key to stratifying your officers effectively is understanding the need to depict each officers’ potential across a spectrum of potential. Here we show various levels/types of stratification. They all have their place in OPRs and PRFs and the one you use should be determined by how you characterize the individuals’ potential relative to that of their peers. INSIGHT: stratification, used full spectrum; very useful message to promotion boards

53 Factors to Consider Recommendations
- PME/Job “pushes” reinforce stratification -- CC vs Ops Officer - Ownership/enthusiasm convey rater conviction -- My #1 pick for command! or... -- Ready for Command (Less push) -- Jim’s finest officer I’ve seen in 25 yrs…#1 or -- Jim’s an effective officer (Least Push) Another form of stratification can be found in the recommendations--most frequently found in the last line of the rater and additional rater blocks. Again, there are many ways to recommend for a job or school. For example you can recommend for command by saying “make her a commander now” or you can use “command potential” or make no recommendation at all--result: a powerful way to stratify INSIGHT: while ownership/enthusiasm enhance the report, PME and job pushes add differentiation!

54 HELPFUL HINTS Examples of Inappropriate PRF Comments
"My #1 squadron commander”...another Lt Col had received a "DP" "My best Logistics Group Commander”...senior rater only has one LG commander "Has the experience and ability to be a regional CINC"...veiled promotion recommendation to a grade higher than which he's being considered "Received a "DP" BPZ two consecutive years”...cannot make reference to previous PRF ratings Top 1% of all my Majors -- senior rater gave out 2 DPs already….must have 300 Majors in wing to make this statement! “Member respectfully requests non-consideration for promotion” is not the senior rater’s role to inform board of member’s desires “Attended AFIT and ISS in residence”…cannot mention attendance to/completion of ADD or PME, unless significant accomplishment PURPOSE: Provide examples of statements not allowed on a PRF BACKGROUND/INSIGHTS: AFI , Para 1.4 and 7.1 list inappropriate evaluator considerations and administrative prohibitions It's not the senior rater's role to inform a promotion board (via PRF) when an officer doesn't want to be promoted. The appropriate method for an officer to express a desire for non-selection is to write a personal letter to the central selection board president BOTTOMLINE: Know what you can and can’t say in an PRF--if you’re not sure, ask AO: Lt Colonel Nancy A.K. Lee/DPPF/


Download ppt "Supt, Board Secretariat"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google