3 OES/EES REFERENCESAFI , Officer and Enlisted Evaluation SystemsAFPam , 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 ByNorms120 Days Supervision,Within 1 yr of promotion board, orNone since last promotion boardOn / 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 commandMember’s reply -- limited to 10 pagesMust 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
6 OPR / EPR TECHNIQUES (WEAKNESSES) Vague job descriptionGeneralitiesJargon, techno-babble, unknown acronyms(when in doubt, spell it out)Text reiterates job descriptionAbsence of quantification, results, impactLack of stratification
7 OPR / EPR TECHNIQUES (STRENGTHS) Hard-hitting, fact-filled statementsClearly communicated scope of responsibilitySpecificsExamples of leadershipStrong active statements
8 OPR / EPR TECHNIQUES (STRENGTHS) Clear mission impactQuantify…show results, facts, value, savingsNext job & resident PMEEnlisted only: clear promotion recommendationNow……this board…..1999….First time eligibleBottom 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 importantConvey progression in career fieldConvey scope/level of responsibilityShow evidence of successful leadership testThis 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 testsINSIGHT: absent distinctive achievement, job title/duty description can be effective impact discriminator
10 OPR TECHNIQUES (Writing Tips) Mechanics…bullets, emphasis on results / impactPut strongest on back--make it stand out!Negative perception with lots of white spaceAssess and stratify…be judicious, consistentSupport with appropriate push--be consistent!Review job title/descriptionsShow progression, scope/level of responsibilityWhen 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 recordBut...When making recommendations, the previous record is appropriately taken into account--it forms the basis for potential as reflected in trends and strength of recommendationsINSIGHT: 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 discriminatorBack of form carries the most weightOpportunity to “speak to the board”Emphasis on stratification, pushesMake the officer come aliveIt is critical to differentiate--distinctions are becoming finerAs 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 anotherThe 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 ConsistencyReview previous recommendationsAnother form of stratification…CC vs OpsDeputy Gp/CC vs Group Commander!Now can recommend two jobs in sequenceSquadron Command next, SSS, then OSD!Appropriate to member’s gradeAdditional things to consider in using recommendations to stratify your reportsWith 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.
13 THE PRF/ROP RELATIONSHIP PRF a temporary part of Record of Performance…captures career highlightsAdds SR’s personal knowledge / assessmentWill not generally stand on its ownROP is complete record of impact, stratification, and support from day 1!Will normally stand on its ownParamount 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
14 PRF WRITING TIPS Mechanics Same as OPR…bullets, emphasize results/impactOne line, hard-hitting bullets are bestBalance…2-3 bullets should be in current jobChronological PRFs easiest to followEnsure PRF word picture is accurateSome 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!
15 PRF WRITING TIPS Mechanics Assess and stratify…be judicious, consistentSupport with appropriate job and PME pushesConversational DP--for records with notable weakness, explain why promotion is still a mustWork Ps harder than the DPsStratify “Promotes” clearlyWord 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 boardIntegrity of DP is paramountROP should justify award of “DP” or...Address obvious detractors in narrativeAward Small Group Size “DPs” judiciously…boards recognize these as “non-competitive”The DP PRF - Still the most powerful single signal to the boardIn most cases the record of performance should support the DPMLRs review PRFs with this concept in mindIf 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 verbalAt 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 decisionsSECAF MOI tries to keep AAD in perspectiveBut so many quality records have it….Remarkable when missingOPTEMPO argument lacks weightMajority in high OPTEMPO environment have completed AADTwo 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 degreeJust 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 AADLt 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 generalThe 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 / supportMost recent trend of stratificationTrend of job / school recommendationsSR ownership / enthusiasm for rateeDuty titles / job descriptions that convey progression, scope of responsibilityOften differentiate impactSo, 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 testsParticularly when coupled with a DPThese 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 recordEnthusiasm is always goodJobs that show increasing responsibility and authority--good
19 WHAT THE BOARD SEES Board Insights “DPs” should only go to “DP quality” recordsIndicate awareness of unique situations“DNP” PRFs: Explain exactly “Why Not”Stratify rankings…but do so consciouslyHighlight significant achievements…previous BPZChronological PRFs are easiest to followOfficers can prevent many record errorsLetters to the board--be concise, appropriate toneThis 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 LineDon’t stretch the truthEnsure PRF word picture is accurateBe 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 leadersLose 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 statementsReporting chain quantification or stratificationMy #1,2, or 3 of XXX” were most impressiveNumbers beyond #3 were not as significant...unless at a large unitTop 1% bullets firmly said Chief potentialTop 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 weakIt told me to look deeperBullets that emphasized impact to the largest of groups made the largest promotion board impact
22 Positive IndicatorsEPRs closest to top weighted greatest…SMSgt EPRs, so onSSgt/TSgt EPRs showed record of sustained excellence (or not)Comments with large group and scope of responsibilityThe bigger or more diverse the better with “measurable” achievementsLeading teams outside normal chain of commandTiger teams, etc….involvement outside normal area of AFSC expertise“Outstanding” inspection ratings/team comments praising programs and team leadership sent a very strong messageSupervision over diverse personnel populationAMN/NCOs/SNCOs/civilians/volunteers/contractors
23 Positive IndicatorsDecorations of MSM at regular PCS or extended tours; expectedExcellence at PME, especially if repeat winner (SNCOA/NCOA)Education; most had CCAF/AA degreeHigher degree OK, but only strengthened an already strong recordCommunity leadership….not just participation or involvementTop 3 organization officers, AFSA/NCOA elected officers, booster or morale club officials, community leadership positionsHistory of leadership positions throughout a career was a big plusAwards served as discriminators between outstanding peoplePointed to or quantified the “best of the best”SSgt/TSgt awards says person dedicated to excellence early in careerAnnual career field awards at MAJCOM/AF viewed very favorably
24 Positive IndicatorsConsistent job and career progression across a wing…. across MAJCOMs...and across the Air Force (other bases)Serving in jobs normally filled by ChiefsSpecial duty assignments or jobs also served as delineatorsAs long as time spent in these duties was not excessiveDifferent jobs helped expand abilities and contributions to the Air ForceFirst sergeant, recruiters, MTIs, MTAs, PME instructors/commandants
25 Not So Positive Indicators Obvious 4 or lower EPR or 5 EPR with front side mark downsEPRs without Senior Rater IndorsementBoard being told “don’t promote”…and none wereFurther back from top the “not so good” EPR...better the scoreIf EPRs closer to top showed an appropriate turnaroundSenior raters (SRs) with multiple #1sWe could understand perhaps two #1s over a year with different report close-out dates….but actually saw some SRs with half a dozen #1sThose with many years at same baseDid not show much desire to broaden career perspectiveToo much time at jobs with little or no supervision/leadershipThose that choose to remain in one-deep slots beyond normal tours
26 Not So Positive Indicators No decoration after tour or lower than “normal” decorationLevels of decorations beyond (or below) norm throughout careerEPRs with lackluster duty achievements or accomplishmentsNo CCAF Degree; indicated lack of self-improvement desireInnovatively worded job titles, job descriptions, decoration citationsFlowery titles meant little...its what’s done on the job that really countsAFSC or profession specific terms caused some difficultyThere 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 THOUGHTSYou must teach Flt/CCs and SNCOs how to write EPRs / OPRs / PRFs effectivelyFocus on impact / resultsEfficiency, savings, time, moneyFinal lines of EPRs / OPRs / PRFs crucialInclude all relevant recommendations
36 THOUGHTS Specify: Resident PME vs actual school Special programs….AFIT/internCommand…if appropriateStratifyID relative standing if significantMy #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 rankingsReview entire record when doing OPRs, PRFsAt least, know what you said last year!Know Professional Development requirementsI’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 writtenReviewing 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 decisionSuch a review will allow you to critically compare your officers and identify the strongest and the weakestThe 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 potentialDon’t be among the hundreds of “I didn’t know / realize” appeals we review every year!
39 THE OFFICER EVALUATION SYSTEM (OES) FEEDBACKPERFORMANCEPROMOTIONOUTLOOKOPORTUNITY / SELECTIONMLR AND BOARD PROCESSThe 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 understandingNot everyone is your #1 MajorHow to tell the Selection Board and the officerAO: Lt Colonel Nancy A.K. Lee/DPPF/
40 OFFICER PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK Private and Informal FeedbackAF Requirement and foundation of OESProvides officer with “how’s it going”Form is NOT retained in recordsOnly date of feedback is placed on OPRProvides performance expectations and resultsMeant to be honest, it was between just the supervisor and the individualThe 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
41 OFFICER PERFORMANCE REPORT Tool to document performance / achievementComments only from rater/additional raterReview by Senior RaterPermanent part--Record of Performance (ROP)Some early confusion--resolved over timeVeiled promotion statementsPME, next job recommendationsThis 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 assignmentsBy 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 knowIn 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
42 PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION FORM New tool--highlights career achievementsSr Rater opportunity to communicate to boardPrepared only before promotion boardNot a permanent part of ROPAll important: DP, P, DNP recommendationsDP a powerful indicator, but not a sure betP select rate “controlled”...ensure acceptabilityThe 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 potentialWith 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 PIt was also explained that they were not a guarantee of promotionThe 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” 10Cols28Lt Cols45 MajorsPURPOSE: 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 issue86 Captains97 1st Lieutenants100 2nd LieutenantsAO: Lt Colonel Nancy A.K. Lee/DPPF/
44 PROMOTION OPPORTUNITY “Definitely Promote” IPZ/APZ Allocations PROMOTION TO: DEFINITELY PROMOTEALLOCATIONS65%40% %25%PURPOSE: Explain “Definitely Promote” allocation ratesBACKGROUND/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 DPBOTTOMLINE:Earning a “DP” gets harder as you go to higher ranksAO: Lt Colonel Nancy A.K. Lee/DPPF/
46 PROMOTION OPPORTUNITY “Promote” PROMOTION TO: IPZ LIKELIHOODOF PROMOTION40%35%25%PURPOSE: Explain the likelihood of being promoted with a Promote (“P”) recommendationBACKGROUND/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 chanceBOTTOMLINE:- While these are the guaranteed minimums, IPZ promotion rates with a “P” have always exceeded these advertised ratesAO: Lt Colonel Nancy A.K. Lee/DPPF/
47 MLR VS CENTRAL BOARD MLR CENTRAL BOARD REVIEW ALL I/APZ PRFs FOR QUALITY REVIEW; AWARD AGGREGATE AND CARRY OVER DPsUSAFE SENIOR RATERS; NON-LINE INCLUDES A CORPS REPCURRENT PRF; ALL OPRs/TRs; DUTY HISTORY BRIEF (AAD NOT MASKED)FUNCTION:COMPOSITION:WHAT THEY SEE:CENTRAL BOARDSELECT OFFICERS FOR PROMOTIONBROAD SPECTRUM OF LINE OFFICERS, MIRRORS ELIGIBLES; NON-LINE INCLUDES A CORPS REPCURRENT PRF; ALL OPRs/TRs; DEC CITATIONS; ART 15/COURTS MARTIAL; LETTERS TO BOARD; DUTY HISTORY BRIEF (AAD MASKED FOR MAJ)
48 MLR VS CENTRAL BOARD CENTRAL BOARD MLR ROES:CENTRAL BOARDNO DISCUSSION, UNLESS RESOLVING SPLITS OR TIESNO PHONE CALLSCANNOT MARK/ PLACE STICKER ON RECORDRECORDS CANNOT LEAVE THE TABLENO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF OFFICER PROVIDED TO MEMBERSMLRDISCUSS PRFs AND RECORDS OPENLYCAN DISCUSS OFFICER IF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGECAN MAKE PHONE CALLS TO GATHER INFOCAN MARK/PLACE STICKERS IN RECORDCAN REMOVE RECORD FROM TABLE FOR CHANGE
49 Promotion Board Anomalies - Every board has seemingly inexplicable results-- “DP” Non-Selects-- “P” Selects Below or Above the zone- Outcome is puzzling to manyofficers/yr solicit Non-Select Counseling-- Senior Raters have questions, tooMLRs 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 haveWe 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 haveInsights 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 notreviewing 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 opportunityThat’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 weightINSIGHT: 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, etcMore 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 stratifyINSIGHT: 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 ratingsTop 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”...it 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 accomplishmentPURPOSE: Provide examples of statements not allowed on a PRFBACKGROUND/INSIGHTS:AFI , Para 1.4 and 7.1 list inappropriate evaluator considerations and administrative prohibitionsIt'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 presidentBOTTOMLINE:Know what you can and can’t say in an PRF--if you’re not sure, askAO: Lt Colonel Nancy A.K. Lee/DPPF/
55 SUMMARY OF OES/EES CHANGES PROMOTION OPPORTUNITY RISING / BOARDS ACCELERATEDMORE DEFERRED CAPTS CONTINUEDNO SEP PAY FOR OFFICERS TWICE NON-SELECTED BECAUSE THEY COMMUNICATED TO BOARDBG (S)/(SEL) FOR SIGNATURE BLOCK ON PRFs / OPRs / EPRsGRADE APPROPRIATE, MULTIPLE ASSIGNMENT RECOMMENDATIONS NOW ALLOWED ON OPRsPURPOSE: Summarize recent changes to promotion systemBACKGROUND/INSIGHTS:AO: Lt Colonel Nancy A.K. Lee/DPPF/
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.