PERFORMANCE REPORTS

1. UNCLASSIFIED PERFORMANCE REPORTS Supt, Board Secretariat UNCLASSIFIED

2. OVERVIEW • Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) Rules • Officer Performance Report (OPR) Rules • Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) Rules AFI36-2406 eff 1 Jul 2000

3. OES/EES REFERENCES • AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems • www.afpc.randolph.af.mil/evaluations • www.afpc.randolph.af.mil/offprom • www.afpc.randolph.af.mil/eprom • AFPam 36-2404, Guide to the USAF OES

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

6. OPR / EPR TECHNIQUES(WEAKNESSES) • 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

7. OPR / EPR TECHNIQUES(STRENGTHS) • Hard-hitting, fact-filled statements • Clearly communicated scope of responsibility • Specifics • Examples of leadership • Strong active statements

8. OPR / EPR TECHNIQUES(STRENGTHS) • 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 TECHNIQUESFactors 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 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 INSIGHT: limited board time places premium on making the important points easy to see!

11. OPR TECHNIQUESBack 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 Objective: Not to make every record promotable but to give you tools to ensure the right officers get promoted!

12. OPR TECHNIQUESFactors 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

13. THE PRF/ROP RELATIONSHIP • 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 INSIGHT: should be some ROP/PRF congruency

14. PRF WRITING TIPSMechanics • 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 The PRF: your 30-second briefing to the board on your officer’s promotion potential!

15. PRF WRITING TIPSMechanics • 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!

16. DP PRFsFactors 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” INSIGHT: DP is NOT Automatic Promotion!

17. WHAT THE BOARD SEESProfessional 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 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

19. WHAT THE BOARD SEESBoard 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

20. WHAT THE BOARD SEESBoard 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”

21. Positive Indicators • 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 • 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 EXAMPLESLast 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 EXAMPLESOpening 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 EXAMPLESLast 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 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)

39. THE OFFICER EVALUATION SYSTEM(OES) • FEEDBACK • PERFORMANCE • PROMOTION • OUTLOOK • OPORTUNITY / SELECTION • MLR AND BOARD PROCESS Not everyone is your #1 Major How to tell the Selection Board and the officer

40. OFFICER PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK • 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

41. OFFICER PERFORMANCE REPORT • 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

42. PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION FORM • 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

43. PROMOTION OUTLOOKThe Reality of the “Promotion Pyramid” 10 Cols 28 Lt Cols 45 Majors 86 Captains 97 1st Lieutenants 100 2ndLieutenants

44. PROMOTION OPPORTUNITY “Definitely Promote” IPZ/APZ Allocations PROMOTION TO: DEFINITELY PROMOTE ALLOCATIONS 65% 40% 45% 25%

45. PROMOTION TIMELINESOfficer vs Enlisted 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2LT 1LT CAPT MAJ LT COL COL 2yrs 4yrs 11.33yrs 16.25yrs 21.5yrs AB Amn A1C SrA SSgt TSgt MSgt SMSgt CMSgt 5yrs 1.25yrs 3yrs 6.8 yrs 14.1yrs 16.5yrs 19.8yrs 21.9yrs

46. PROMOTION OPPORTUNITY“Promote” PROMOTION TO: IPZ LIKELIHOOD OF PROMOTION 40% 35% 25%

47. MLR REVIEW ALL I/APZ PRFs FOR QUALITY REVIEW; AWARD AGGREGATE AND CARRY OVER DPs USAFE SENIOR RATERS; NON-LINE INCLUDES A CORPS REP CURRENT PRF; ALL OPRs/TRs; DUTY HISTORY BRIEF (AAD NOT MASKED) CENTRAL BOARD SELECT OFFICERS FOR PROMOTION BROAD SPECTRUM OF LINE OFFICERS, MIRRORS ELIGIBLES; NON-LINE INCLUDES A CORPS REP CURRENT PRF; ALL OPRs/TRs; DEC CITATIONS; ART 15/COURTS MARTIAL; LETTERS TO BOARD; DUTY HISTORY BRIEF (AAD MASKED FOR MAJ) MLR VS CENTRAL BOARD FUNCTION: COMPOSITION: WHAT THEY SEE:

48. MLR DISCUSS PRFs AND RECORDS OPENLY CAN DISCUSS OFFICER IF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE CAN MAKE PHONE CALLS TO GATHER INFO CAN MARK/PLACE STICKERS IN RECORD CAN REMOVE RECORD FROM TABLE FOR CHANGE CENTRAL BOARD NO DISCUSSION, UNLESS RESOLVING SPLITS OR TIES NO PHONE CALLS CANNOT MARK/ PLACE STICKER ON RECORD RECORDS CANNOT LEAVE THE TABLE NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF OFFICER PROVIDED TO MEMBERS MLR VS CENTRAL BOARD ROES:

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 -- 600 officers/yr solicit Non-Select Counseling -- Senior Raters have questions, too Insights from Promotion Boards/Non-Select Counseling Can Provide Some Answers

50. 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! After that: DIFFERENTIATION becomes increasingly difficult!