Is it fair for increased promotion in some AFSCs?

MSgt Alan H — Mon, 03 Aug 2015 14:49:02 -0400

Very seldom addressed or discussed in official military channels..... Air Force times just completed a huge multi year study on top ten jobs for making promotions faster looking at average time in grade for selectees. Drone operators from E6 to E8 are being promoted with only an average of 2 as in yes (Two) years time in grade!?! The article lists the top ten fastest and some of the lowest slowest as well. Can you believe that recruiter is at the very very bottom of the list!! No wonder they don't discuss these facts officially. My question for you, do you think this is fair and ethical?

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 3 at 2015 3:30 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 03 Aug 2015 15:30:49 -0400

I don't think it's fair, but perhaps it is needed for retention/recruitment? I'm sure there are probably better ways. You would think that recruiters could get an incentive as their job is difficult, it's just a different kind of difficult. They have to be PR specialists.

They didn't happen to say that promotion rates for Security Forces was being boosted, did they? I mean, if I can get back in, I can probably make E9 in 5 years...lol!

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 3 at 2015 3:53 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 03 Aug 2015 15:53:54 -0400

Unfortunately the only way to make it "fair" would be to forcibly retrain people based off of their promotions; which would not work. Promotion cut offs, by AFSC, are largely based off of projected rank openings. For example First Sergeants saw a huge increase in promotion to SMSgt because Security Forces called back all of their SMSgts from Shirt duties, which left a need for more SMSgt First Sergeants.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Aug 3 at 2015 4:05 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Mon, 03 Aug 2015 16:05:49 -0400

It's not a question of "fairness." It's a question of "structure."

We build the Task Organization, designate what "skill level" & "authorization" we think each "billet" should be at, which equates to a "rank." From there, everything else is a result of influx/attrition.

As an example. Using my own MOS 0231. We had 9x 0291 (E9 02xx since they were a feeder MOS). Depending on how long those E9 sat in grade, depended on how long it took to pick up E7-E9. Higher Tenure created hard caps of 8 years for Cpl reaching Sgt, 12 for Sgt reaching SSgt, 18 for SSgt to reach GySgt. For the most part, we anticipated Cpl at 2-3, Sgt at approximately 4, with SSgt "near" 8-9. But that's field specific. Other fields were lucky to see Sgt before 7.

The field dictated what was "needed." If we didn't need as many E9, as was the case when I joined, then E8 promotions slowed WAYYYYY down, that affected E7 & E6 as well. If we had a heavy batch a "lateral movers" (people changing MOS), then promotion to Cpl & Sgt slowed way down (I was affected by the Sgt advancement because of this).

The issue however is that this changed every year, based on who is retiring. The top three ranks retiring massively affects promotion opportunities for those below them, as does their decision to stay to 22/26/30 (and beyond), as it prevents promotions. When people "exodus" in droves from a specific specialty because civilian opportunities are too enticing, the promotion speed is going to jump A LOT.

It's not about fairness, it's a product of how our system works. We have to wait for the guy in front of us to get out, retire, or get promoted. As long as that is the case, the desire is going to be for that to happen as "quickly as possible" and for E9 to not sit in grade, as they are killing YOUR promotion opportunities, by getting promoted before the 20~ year mark.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 3 at 2015 4:17 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 03 Aug 2015 16:17:38 -0400

The reason for the low TIG average for selectees is due to the fact that Demand (RPAs and RPA operators) are high and Supply (People in that specialty/ranks) is low. People are leaving in droves due to the high Ops tempo and higher paying/lower stress civilian jobs. This creates a need to fill the power vacuum and people getting faster promotions in order to repair the structure. Is this practice fair and ethical? Yes. However, it is a Band Aid fix and the underlying cause needs to be addressed.

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 3 at 2015 5:35 PM

SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 03 Aug 2015 17:35:08 -0400

I think it is not only fair but it is necessary. There is so much to this answer that is way to in depth to get into but the basics of it is this...we have to have a certain number of each rank in each AFSC. So you kind of have two routes you can take...promote the same % across the AFSCs and then cross-train members to balance the ranks needed, or you can promote more individuals within an AFS to a particular rank and avoid the cross-training. Go back a few years and we went through option A. Maybe you noticed that as soon as promotions were announced, most of those newly promoted received a cross-train notification. In the 3E world we had a need for 3E5 and 3E6 so we promoted 3E2s (which there were no need for) and then cross-trained them to 3E5/6. Then the next year we went with option B. For 3E2 the rate promoted to MSgt was around 12% and for 3E5 it was around 40%. In both situations we ended up with the target end strength for that AFS and grade. I would argue that option B is better because at least you are promoting people that are familiar with the AFS, as opposed to cross-training someone at the TSgt/MSgt level creating a steep learning curve.

There simply are AFSCs that have lower retention for a myriad of reasons. High tempo, marketability in the private sector and so on. As long as we have AFSCs that are unable to meet their targeted retention goals, we will have to promote more in that AFS to fill those vacancies. If you happen to be in a high retention AFS, it means you love your job a little more but you will have to wait to promote (possibly) longer.

Response by SSgt Michael Hacker made Aug 4 at 2015 1:07 PM

SSgt Michael Hacker — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 13:07:05 -0400

In my former AFSC (8D000), it was mathematically impossible to ever achieve E-6. I went in as a Sgt (E-4) and had to share a chance at ONE promotion per year with 5 other highly-motivated geniuses. But if you entered as E-7, you were guaranteed E-9 within a few years because there was no one else there.

Response by Sgt Dave Otte made Aug 4 at 2015 2:17 PM

Sgt Dave Otte — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 14:17:03 -0400

yes after E-6 it should be based on the need of the pay grade based on the AFSC

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Aug 4 at 2015 3:45 PM

TSgt Joshua Copeland — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 15:45:43 -0400

Some AFSC's get the 2% above the AF average because they are critically manned, others are well below the AF avg because they are over manned. If you look at each promotions break out by AFSC, you will find a wide range of percentages that can vary dramatically from the AF average for that rank that cycle based purely on the needs of the AF and how many people actually made the same score for the cut off score. It really is this simple. For this AFSC we need X number of XSgts. After WAPS/Boards are complete, we rack and stack the scores for each AFSC and literally count down from the highest to to whatever number is X. If it is 15 out of 100 eligible and they count down 15 and the next 5 people have the same WAPS score, well all 20 get promoted. This is why we have NCORP to balance out the force and move folks from overage AFSC to undermanned AFSCs. As mentioned by other folks, critically manned AFSC often promote much faster because so many folks get out of the AFSC and there is a high demand and low supply.

BL: If you want to promote faster, crosstrain in to those low manned AFSC.

Response by SSgt Stuart Jurrens made Aug 4 at 2015 6:58 PM

SSgt Stuart Jurrens — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 18:58:11 -0400

No.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 4 at 2015 7:17 PM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 19:17:37 -0400

I don't believe 2 years TIG is enough time for development and growth regardless on how high speed you are and that goes for NCO's or Officers. Promoting to fill voids and not based off of performance, experience, maturity and potential will hurt the overall strength of any Armed service in the long run.

Response by SMSgt Bryan Raines made Aug 5 at 2015 3:28 PM

SMSgt Bryan Raines — Wed, 05 Aug 2015 15:28:08 -0400

Yes it is if the AFSC's in question are undermanned. When I was in they started the process of taking away slots (across the board % promotion rate) from overmanned AFSC's and giving them to undermanned AFSC's

Response by SMSgt Matthew Hoyer made Aug 5 at 2015 4:10 PM

SMSgt Matthew Hoyer — Wed, 05 Aug 2015 16:10:07 -0400

I don't think that fair really figures into it. Each AFSC has its requirements for grades, and if the field is either critically low on upper leadership due to retirements or separations, we need to promote to fill those spots. It just kind of is what it is.

Response by MSgt Marvin Kinderknecht made Aug 5 at 2015 7:11 PM

MSgt Marvin Kinderknecht — Wed, 05 Aug 2015 19:11:32 -0400

I am not sure if it is fair or ethical. When I was in,munitions were a piece of cake--with pro pay to boot.All depends on the demand for qualified people.As a Flight Engineer, after Korea we were always surplus. Rank was hard to get. I did make my E-7. I did it in 12 years. 8 years E-5 t0 E-6. Vietnam and a few Air Medals helped to make E-7.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Aug 5 at 2015 10:29 PM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Wed, 05 Aug 2015 22:29:05 -0400

I was in an AFSC that promoted one person per year. It's one of the reasons I left active duty.

Response by Maj William Gambrell made Aug 5 at 2015 10:33 PM

Maj William Gambrell — Wed, 05 Aug 2015 22:33:25 -0400

I said this earlier in another post, but rank is rank and the promotion system should stay the same. However, I think Congress/Military should adjust the military pay scale to adapt to commercial pay scales to keep the brightest in the military. Leave the retirement system alone.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 13 at 2015 12:13 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 13 Aug 2015 12:13:20 -0400

Fair or ethical? I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 13 at 2015 1:58 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 13 Aug 2015 13:58:18 -0400

I am in a career field that always has one of the highest cutoff scores and the promotion rates are always well below the AF average. The last 3 years in a row I have scored several points higher than the cutoff for every other AFSC in my squadron, yet have been 10 points or more below the cutoff for my own AFSC. You know what this tells me; what I am doing about it? Study harder. No I do not feel it is "fair", but I understand it, and deal with it. Life is not always "fair", adapt and overcome it.

As mentioned by others, the only other solution would be to cross train upon making rank, which honestly not many would want to do. There are a few other AFSCs I would prefer over my own, though unless guaranteed one of those, would not like this option. Simply studying harder to improve my scores for next year is a better choice for me.

If you are that upset about it, you could always look at cross training into one of the career fields that consistently has higher promotion rates. After all, the reason those promotion are so high is because they need people.

Response by SMSgt Cary Baker made Aug 25 at 2015 10:03 AM

SMSgt Cary Baker — Tue, 25 Aug 2015 10:03:27 -0400

No its not fair. I'm a retired SMSgt (28 yrs). I see career fields promote at such a high rate - 11 & 12 yr MSgt's (E7). These folks will make Chief if they choose to because they have the Time in Service (many years) on their side. I understand that promotions are based off of percentages in each AFSC, determined by manning documents. I believe this is one of those things that we have to live with.