FY-15 ADHSB

[Pags]

Here's a graph of Ben4prez's numbers:

And here's a bar graph of pies I like:

It would be interesting to see some actual stats beyond percentages that show factors with high correlation for selection. Can "sustained superior performance" be quantified? Does being a certain community help/hurt? Do things like a masters and JPME play well? If so, how much?

 

[Brett327]

^^ Complete BS. Everyone knows that cherry is the superior pie.

 

[insanebikerboy]

stats and stuff

The part of the equation that you're leaving out is the number of people in zone. Big Navy fucked away the numbers by their epic reshuffling of zones and year groups a few years ago. That's evident in the deviation per year. However, if you look at the average it's roughly 461 per year. Combined with the average of the selectees, 329, you get roughly a 72% selection rate over the past 6 years. Unfortunately, the huge in zone group fucked a lot of people in this year's selection board (me included).

What will be interesting to see is if the resultant DH screen next year is all f'd up and/or if there's a huge swing downward in the size of the in zone group for the FY-16 board.

Where the real blood bath will occur is next year for all of these guys that will now be above zone. With the historically abysmal numbers for AZ selection there are going to be a lot of really good guys that will get shown the door simply because PERS can't manage numbers and statistics properly.

 

[Recovering LSO]

http://www.askskipper.com/2014/07/09/throwing-blind-darts/


^ Best commentary on the interwebs. Go. Now. Check it out. And while you're there, check out the rest of his stuff, if you haven't already. Solid writing.

 

[BusyBee604]

http://www.askskipper.com/2014/07/09/throwing-blind-darts/


^ Best commentary on the interwebs. Go. Now. Check it out. And while you're there, check out the rest of his stuff, if you haven't already. Solid writing.

Haven't read it all, but it's quite interesting so far. May help fill the huge void in quality writing, insight, and humour. by the sudden and tragic loss of the beloved 'Prosemeister' Neptunus Rex Lex.

EDIT: Oops!
BzB

BzB

 

[Pags]

Haven't read it all, but it's quite interesting so far. May help fill the huge void in quality writing, insight, and humour. by the sudden and tragic loss of the beloved 'Prosemeister' Neptunus Rex Lex.

EDIT: Oops!
BzB

BzB

Yeah, I'll second that the writing over at "Ask the Skipper" is excellent and he's got some good observations and commentary on Navy happenings and a few good sea stories. Lex had more sea stories, but hopefully the Skipper is just getting started.

 

[picklesuit]

So, senior O's,
Please humor me here:
There were 19 URL members on the O-4 selection board:
6x1110 = 32%. (Them)
4x1120 = 21%
4x1310 = 21%. (Me)
3x1320 = 16%
1x1130 = 5%
1x1140 = 5%
Yet when I look at the number of In Zone board eligible candidates the breakdown (out of 1233) is:
571x1310= 46%. (Me)
298x1110= 24% (Them)
155x1320= 12%
149x1120= 12%
31x1130= 2%
18x1140= 2%
Throwing out the 1130/1140 outliers (because really this is a 1310 vs 1110 argument) it seems that the SWO LT cadre was substantially over represented on this board, while NA was underrepresented by even more.

I had the opportunity to assist on a ACSB, so got to sit in on tanks, etc.; I understand the voting process. What I don't understand is the board member selection process, nor how the math works for board makeup and representation.

Anyone in the current know want to enlighten me please?

Thanks,
Pickle
(I'm two boards out, not sweating at all!)

 

[webmaster]

http://www.askskipper.com/2014/07/09/throwing-blind-darts/


^ Best commentary on the interwebs. Go. Now. Check it out. And while you're there, check out the rest of his stuff, if you haven't already. Solid writing.

Maybe Ask Skipper will chime in on this thread perhaps?

 

[HooverPilot]

Look at a longer view. This is just for 1310 PILOTS:

FY09 508 IZ, 420 selected (23 AZ) 82.68%
FY10 428 IZ, 359 selected (3 AZ) 83.88%
FY11 473 IZ, 378 selected (2 AZ) 79.92%
FY12 338 IZ, 282 selected (2 AZ) 83.43%
FY13 511 IZ, 342 selected (5 AZ) 66.93%
FY14 450 IZ, 295 selected (19 AZ) 65.56%
FY15 571 IZ, 321 selected (20 AZ) 56.22%

The number of folks IZ matters. The number of 1310's selected this year isn't out of the norm. Whether that was an adequate number to feed the DH/CDR CMD machine is another discussion.

Break break

I remember Detailer briefings WAY back in 2004 telling us that the bureau wanted to move the hard screen up to O-4 and the DH board. The feeling then was that too many folks were getting just a ticket punch DH tour and the O-5 board & CDR CMD boards were major bloodbaths. The bureau was of the opinion that this was too late in the career path for a culling, so they wanted to move the "hard" screen to earlier in the Aviators career path. They seem to have been successful. This, along with over accessions in the 04 YG has caused a perfect storm.

 

[nittany03]

I'm confused. I thought statutory boards did not consider community manning numbers.

 

[HooverPilot]

I'm confused. I thought statutory boards did not consider community manning numbers.

Statutory boards don't look at designators, you are correct. My thoughts above aren't perfect, more of a developing explanation/theory.

 

[Pags]

Statutory boards don't look at designators, you are correct. My thoughts above aren't perfect, more of a developing explanation/theory.

Reading the responses here and at "I don't know, Ask the Skipper" makes me think that a lot of us have a very murky understanding on how statutory boards are run and what they look at. Most of us have a very good idea of what plays well at admin boards, specifically ADHSB and ACSB, but the statutory boards seem to be a bit of a black box with a precept selection percentage number on it; X officers go in and Y come out.

If 100 URL officers go into the board and 70 are selected and then you break down the 70 in to designators you'd imagine that, if everything was equal, each designator would have 70% selected. But that's not the case here and hasn't been the case for several years. Is Naval Aviation doing something wrong that makes it people get selected at 50% when various black shoes are selecting at 95%. If the board is blind to designator than that means that non-aviators are producing officers with stronger records and things that big navy likes. Where's the disconnect? What is NAE doing wrong?

Or does a stat board look at designators and know that the total % has to equal 70 but only so many can be 13xx?

 

[HooverPilot]

Sorry, maybe I phrased it wrong. Your designator is not hidden to the statutory board, to do so would be futile. Your command history would tell them your designator. But, the board does Not select to any quota based on designators. This year, the board was directed in the precepts to select up to 70% of those URL officers who were eligible for the board. The precepts also gave what each community would value in an O-4 select and big Navy also gave some guidance on characteristics they would like to see in the selects. During the board, none of the members are aware of how many of each flavor designator has been selected. big Navy just wants the top 70% to be selected.

 

[nittany03]

Sorry, maybe I phrased it wrong. Your designator is not hidden to the statutory board, to do so would be futile. Your command history would tell them your designator. But, the board does Not select to any quota based on designators. This year, the board was directed in the precepts to select up to 70% of those URL officers who were eligible for the board. The precepts also gave what each community would value in an O-4 select and big Navy also gave some guidance on characteristics they would like to see in the selects. During the board, none of the members are aware of how many of each flavor designator has been selected. big Navy just wants the top 70% to be selected.

I just don't get it then. Because SWOs, Subs, and SEALs have over the past three years promoted ~20 percent higher than us. If not the retention issue, what logical reason can anyone come up with for that? Are they briefing such a pie-in-the-sky expectation in the tank that the average EP aviator still can't cut it? It would seem that if the board has no idea how many of each designator they're promoting, then the retention piece is a non-issue, because "we need to promote X people in order to fill X O-4 billets" wouldn't come up before the board. So why are the numbers of aviators selected so consistent as per ben4prez's data if there's no target being aimed at? Voodoo?

 

[e6bflyer]

There are only a few people that know the answer to that question, and they are all sworn to secrecy.

This is another epic screw up in the "NAE" and their effort to retain talent. If this does not send a loud message, I don't know what does. The sad thing is that there are real people behind the numbers who have done all the right things and made huge sacrifices to do them. Now they are left shaking their heads in disbelief because someone sold them on "the path" and the old "fog a mirror" criteria that was in effect when I screened for O-4.

Folks, the Navy is a great place full of great people, but your leadership is sending you a message. If you stick around, do it because you love the people you work with and the equipment that you occasionally get to fly and operate, not because you think that you will someday be rewarded and valued for your efforts.

I have been very fortunate in my career, and it honestly pains me to watch this happening to good people.
Oh well, it was a good ride.

Say it with me..."I love the fucking Navy, and the Navy loves fucking me"