Your Response was posted! Click here to see it.
Posted on Nov 30, 2015
What are your Pro's and Con's to the new AF promotion system?
18.5K
50
39
4
4
0
Technical Sergeant Promotion cycle has begun with the new rack and stack promotion. How do you feel this will help, hurt or do nothing to change the prior system.
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 13
For me, the pros are yet to be seen...as are the cons for that matter. One con that I see already though and one that bugs the life out of me is that instead of holding poor raters accountable, we changed the system to be one that made it harder for them to mess up. There were individuals out there that were using the old system appropriately and now that flexibility is out of their hands. If I am a rater in a DSD unit (MTI, MTL, PME, Tech Training, Thunderbirds, etc.) and I have a full unit of hand picked NCOs, all of which were competitively selected for their position, you are telling me that only 5% of those NCOs deserve the top rating? I don't buy it. You can't tell me they are the best of the best one day and then second class the next day. The thing I find funniest though is that the old system is the one that produced the very E-9s that decided it no longer worked. You telling me that Chief Cody didn't receive a promotion assist from his off-duty record? He made it purely on his job performance? This system will create the same heartburn that everyone before it has produced.
(15)
(0)
SMSgt (Join to see)
PO1 Andrew Gardiner - While those are good points, our promotion system doesn't allow for those type of statements (#1 of..., #2 of...etc.) in our performance reports with the exception of MSgt and SMSgt but even then you can only use those statements for the top 10% and 20% respectively. So I can't say he is my #1 TSgt, or he would be #3 but I ran out of quotas...it isn't allowed.
In regards to your last statement, the issue is that we receive promotion points based on the final rating of the EPR. So an individual on honor guard receiving a "3" will get significantly lower points than the basketball hander that gets a "5". (the actual number depends on many things but it could be as much as 50 points less). Making up 50 points through the other promotion factors can be very tough to accomplish.
In regards to your last statement, the issue is that we receive promotion points based on the final rating of the EPR. So an individual on honor guard receiving a "3" will get significantly lower points than the basketball hander that gets a "5". (the actual number depends on many things but it could be as much as 50 points less). Making up 50 points through the other promotion factors can be very tough to accomplish.
(2)
(0)
SMSgt (Join to see)
PO1 Andrew Gardiner - I think we do just fine ;) Honestly, people bithced about the old system but I think it was effective. There will always be that portion of people that got passed over and thus feel screwed by the man. The AF has laid out a very easy to understand list of expectations in AFI 36-2618 and yet people decided to not meet those expectations and then say they got hosed. I am by no means a perfect airman but I did my job well, "checked the blocks" in the whole person concept and ended up getting promoted to E8. That is still the way it is. The old system was fair...you made it all the way to E7 purely by testing. Not one person got promoted to E7 by volunteering...everyone on here will say that "everyone got a 5" so that means everyone started out with max EPR point for promotion. The rest was TIG/TIS decorations and testing. If you studied you had an equal chance of getting promoted just like anyone else. Volunteer work and education played zero role in getting to E7.
(0)
(0)
CMSgt (Join to see)
I believe the new system will work, the cream always rises to the top and so will your #1 guy/gal in the unit. To me the performance 1st rant is being misinterpreted. There is a ton of focus about performance 1st = no more volunteering (or being an active visible leader) and education (setting the example for your troops). I believe Chief Cody is looking at us to ensure we are promoting the correct people, example being your top performers in the work center who are also leaders in the community etc. Leaders are going to lead, and not complain about meeting the standards in 2618. If you truly read the PDG/2618 etc., you will quickly realize most SMSgts/CMSgts were merely meeting and those standards and setting the example. If you are a SNCO and cannot grasp that, the AF pasted you up a long time ago.
(1)
(0)
MSgt Michael Lane
The problem is Excellent became the standard a long time ago, and as long as there is a human factor involved the system will be subjective and flawed. As an example I was a TSgt and I was the supervisor of an SSgt that wrote an EPR on an A1C, he had given her an overall rating of 4. The Chief in charge of the shop called me into the office (I’ll never forget these words) I would consider it a personal favor if you would see to it that this airman gets a fire wall 5 rating. (He wanted her to go below the zone and a 4 would have killed any chance) I told him I would think about it. My plan was to just not do anything and maybe it would pass. A few months went by I was called in to the office again and was asked if I made a decision on what we had talked about. I told he that I would not change the rating it would not be fair to the others in the section and the man went into a rage a told me I would pay the price for my decision which I did. The airmen got out of the service after 8 years and to be honest had I known she would not stay in I would have changed the rating. Point being as long as people are involved in the process the system will be gamed and flawed.
(0)
(0)
Too close to a repeat of history from the 60's before WAPS. Only test was a 00 question skill test. What they called the Whole Man System, I believe. During that time E1-E4 was 100%. After that promotion was based on the percentage of your AFSC to the base population. It was a very unfair system and a lot depended on how well your boss liked you. It was quite common to see guys getting ou as E-3's or approaching 20 as an E-4. Guys with college degrees getting out after 4 as two stripers. I won't bore you with minor details or horror stories, but its almost as if someone researched those days and tweaked it a bit to come up with this coming nightmare. Each new iteration was supposed to fix the old one. But, you can't fix people. Just an old farts take on things.
(4)
(0)
20 years service.... the last 5 years showed me that people who are book smart and can test good to get promoted, cant teach young people how to do the job, nor can they covert knowledge to the job....
(4)
(0)
MSgt Marvin Kinderknecht
I only tested for the 9 level. I met a Navy Guy in the Azores that made Chief (E-7) and had less time in service than I had as an E-5. Testing did it. It took me 8 years in grade to make E-6 (to many left over from Korea). 12 years to make E-7. retired with 8 years in grade. SURPLUS as usual. E-8 and E-9 were new. My supervisor (E-7) retired with 18 years in grade--so shut my mouth. As far as I am concerned we don't need super grades. At Ton Sun Nute the E-8 and E-9s were 2 rows deep at the bar in the NCO Club.
(0)
(0)
The old system was wrong but I believe this one is too. Under the old system everyone inflated the EPRs to try and get their guys promoted. The good about the new system is that not everyone gets a firewall five. only a handful. The bad thing is that it is based on an allotted system. One unit may have three shining stars for the entire base and another unit have a bunch of seat warmers. The prior unit is not going to be allowed to give all three of those shining stars a top rating and the other unit is going to be able to give it to at least one of theirs maybe more depending on their pool of NCO's because it was allocated to them. Unless I missed the mark, it got taken out of the Superintendents and commanders hands of who they think needs to be pushed forward. I think the intent is there to make it better but no matter what you do, there will always be a way that seat warmers get through and some performers don't. In my mind, a step in the right direction, just needs some revectoring. I think it will help the system grow and adapt, hurt some unfortunate ones along the way, but it will at least do something to get eyes on a system, that in my mind has been broken for a while.
(3)
(0)
Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth
SMSgt Johnson...I believe in our CC's and Superintendents that they will do the right thing and push back on the pressure to give 5's to those who don't warrant it. When I was a commander prior to this system, we did just that and we got pushed hard to inflate. We didn't and I know me and my team can stand in front of the mirror and know we did our part. I hope more SNCOs are like you and will do the right thing.
(0)
(0)
SMSgt (Join to see)
Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth - I agree with you...at least in civil engineering, where I believe in the majority of my CCs and Chiefs and that they will administer this program effectively. Thanks to you for your leadership when in uniform and your willingness to make tough decisions!
(0)
(0)
TSgt Daniel Wareham
From what is being said, it only enforces what was always there, the "Good Ol' Boy" system.. Or, more crudely, 'It's not what you know, but who you blow". I can only hope that I am wrong.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Marvin Kinderknecht
This system sounds a whole lot like Civil Service. Quotes. I thinks commanders should/can give all outstanding if they warrant it. If you have 5 cars all the same and you could only pick one, you would really have to pore over it. While I was stationed in Japan and had to meet the promotion board for E-5, I was the only one who was NOT from Johnson AFB (headquarters). The Major asked if I would be out of a job if I made Staff. I said Sir, I would not be out of a job if I made E-7. I was the only qualified Flight Engineer to fly 4 airplanes. One guy went to the states to pick up his family, one guy went to the AF golf tournament and the other guy was not qualified.
(0)
(0)
I personally think this is great, the old system was absolutely worthless. We had people who were grossly overweight, could not pass the PT test, and were generally not good at their jobs receiving 3s. A 3 was supposed to be given to your average Airman. Of course this was about 5 or so years ago and before they got much stricter about the PT test on EPRs. I don't think the AF was sending the right quality message. If you give people who are not 4 or 5s 4 or 5s then you are basically validating their behavior or bad habits and diminishing the actions of those who are truly deserving.
Of course I do understand the dilemma of there possibly being people who are truly 4s or 5s not getting the proper rating because of a forced ranking system, but let us be honest with ourselves, this will be the exception not the rule. However, I do think there should be a system that allows a supervisor to go through his chain of command and petition for a rating waiver if he or she truly believes their Airman deserves a better rating.
Of course I do understand the dilemma of there possibly being people who are truly 4s or 5s not getting the proper rating because of a forced ranking system, but let us be honest with ourselves, this will be the exception not the rule. However, I do think there should be a system that allows a supervisor to go through his chain of command and petition for a rating waiver if he or she truly believes their Airman deserves a better rating.
(2)
(0)
SSgt Nick Parson
I personally disagree. I think it would help to curb the good old boy system. If a 5 actually means something, the supervisor is putting their own reputation on the line just giving it to their buddy. Also, it is usually pretty obvious who the 5s are.
You are right, noone is a 5 everyday, but an EPR shouldn't be based on one day (unless you royally screwed up), it should be based on a body of work over the period it covers.
In my squadron bad EPR writers weren't really a problem, so many people reviewed them and forced edits. I can only speak to my experience, but it seemed like it worked pretty good.
At my current civilian company, we rarely give out 5s and 4s. Most people get 3s because in reality most people are 3s, but that is not a bad thing. It is in no way a detriment to your career here. It will not prevent you from being promoted. Sure the 4s and 5s will promote earlier, but they are so rare that there is not enough of them. I would think it should work just like that for most of the AF.
You are right, noone is a 5 everyday, but an EPR shouldn't be based on one day (unless you royally screwed up), it should be based on a body of work over the period it covers.
In my squadron bad EPR writers weren't really a problem, so many people reviewed them and forced edits. I can only speak to my experience, but it seemed like it worked pretty good.
At my current civilian company, we rarely give out 5s and 4s. Most people get 3s because in reality most people are 3s, but that is not a bad thing. It is in no way a detriment to your career here. It will not prevent you from being promoted. Sure the 4s and 5s will promote earlier, but they are so rare that there is not enough of them. I would think it should work just like that for most of the AF.
(0)
(0)
Col Robert Ginn
When you gents solve the enlisted EPR problem, take a shot at the OER and officer promotion system. Years ago, when I was on AD, I frequently counseled incoming enlisted troops and officers to just learn your job and DO it, don't try to decipher the rewards program or to "game" the system. The AF personnel system was/is the most complex and contradictory mess possible, imho. But I loved it. 21 years, 17 days. Salute to you all.
(1)
(0)
MSgt Marvin Kinderknecht
You are spot on. In order to have a flying chance at E-6 somehow. my EPR was signed off by the Wing Commander. The higher the rank the better chance of promotion.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Marvin Kinderknecht
Col, you must have been a "barn burner". I am curious what your field was. When I came in (52) gray haired Capt's and S/Sgt were common. When I left (72) I never saw an 0-6 with gray hair. Of course a lot of hair dye had hit the market by then!! LOL
(0)
(0)
One big problem is the same we had involving officer evals back in the 70's and 80's. Only an x per cent can get the top ratings. That may work out ok in a line unit but personnel assigned to DSD units don't fit into those rating schemes. Just as SMS Eric Johnson Jr pointed out there are some units that have only the top personnel. I was in a unit my last six years where all candidates were personally interviewed and often we would pore over records and then invite someone in for an interview. We only took the best personnel and made very few mistakes in our hiring. Those people all deserved promotions and the top evals.
(2)
(0)
Col Robert Ginn
Spot on, Major Wood. I, too, ran a select activity, yet was told to grade on a certain curve. My guys (no women) were all HQ at the upshot of the program. Among others of the same grade, certainly. But, if one of them did something stupid, in my not so humble opinion, he and others read about it. In essence, I encouraged them to realize the ratings system was quite subjective, like it or not, and to try to compete against themselves and let me do the report card as I saw it. Usually prevailed. I'd do it again...I think. Yup.
(0)
(0)
MSgt John Carroll
Minimum E-6. That has been policy in ALL branches for a long time. I don't know when it was started but I learned about it in 2001.
(1)
(0)
I think it makes sense. You can mark someone's performance and give a promotion recommendation separately. If someone a great performer but isn't top 15% that'll be documented. The rating didn't matter to the board before because everyone had the same score. Now even if forced there is some differentiation.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next

Air Force
Promotions
