Air Force vs Navy promotion timeline comparison

[insanebikerboy]

I'm currently working for an Air Force Colonel and having to gotten to know him and his deputy (also a Col), they have both pinned on O-6 much faster than what I've ever seen in the Navy. Both guys are flyers (one's a nav, the other a pilot).

The first, the current commander, pinned on O-6 at his 19 year mark (was selected below zone twice) and the deputy pinned on at 21 years (selected below zone once). So that means they were selected at their 18 and 20 year mark, which is about 3-4 years early by comparison.

My total sample size is 3 (I know one other Colonel that had similar timelines) but I've never heard of a Navy pilot/nfo getting deep selected in a below-zone look and not get screwed on the next board.

I don't know what my question is, if I even have one. I guess I'm curious and somewhat amazed at how the Air Force, for all of their personnel problems, can identify fast track-high performing guys and promote them so early while also not screwing the rest of their career.

 

[kmac]

I recall hearing this when I was going through ACSC. The problem on the back side is that an AF colonel has far less experience than his/her peers in the other services. Apparently they are not as competitive for those joint jobs.

Is it really fast tracking or is it just the norm across the board for them?

 

[Pags]

I personally know of one USN pilot who was deep selected for O4. So far hasn't impacted their career. Not sure if their O5 selection was deep as well but they've since been screened for O5 command.

 

[Swanee]

My brother (AF AWACS pilot type) tells me that it's fairly common for someone to be ID'd at an O3 and fast tracked for promotion to O6 and beyond.

 

[Recovering LSO]

I recall hearing this when I was going through ACSC. The problem on the back side is that an AF colonel has far less experience than his/her peers in the other services.

This works most of the way down the chain as well. I'd take a competent Navy LT to do most of what is asked/expected of an AF O-4, and in some cases, an O-5.

See also: The Air Force Doesn't Have a Pilot Crisis, It Has A Leadership Crisis. And, while I would rarely consider JQP much more than a gadfly, this seems relevant.

 

[sevenhelmet]

The "early identification" personnel model is interesting, but it clearly has some drawbacks. Identifying talent is important, but sometimes the better leader is the one who has struggled, because they are more understanding of how to motivate folks who don't just "get it" on day one. Quantifying the folks who struggled and made huge improvements is important too- I recall as a divo seeing PTS/ERB punishing some of my most improved sailors by booting them out of the Navy. Many of those guys worked HARD- much harder than the guys who were maintaining an already great record.

But I digress. There is clearly a lot of frustration in the USAF. This didn't happen overnight, and it won't be fixed overnight, either.

 

[HuggyU2]

A few comments...
The AF used to start below the zone promoting with the O-4 Board. But that went away around 15 years ago. At the time, however, the AF took the longest of all the Services to promote to O-4.
Many believe the identifying of High Performing Officers (HPO) is a problem because the guys and gals are "put on the track" before they should be.
Being promoted early to O-6 does not derail their career. On the contrary. When I was active, there wasn't a single General-officer that wasn't early to O-6. I'd bet nothing has changed there.
Here's the link to the bios of AF Generals, past and present: http://www.af.mil/About-Us/Biographies/
It's a good reference, especially when you know or work for a General and want to see their career progression. You'll note that near the bottom, it shows their promotion dates.

 

[Pags]

The "early identification" personnel model is interesting, but it clearly has some drawbacks. Identifying talent is important, but sometimes the better leader is the one who has struggled, because they are more understanding of how to motivate folks who don't just "get it" on day one. Quantifying the folks who struggled and made huge improvements is important too- I recall as a divo seeing PTS/ERB punishing some of my most improved sailors by booting them out of the Navy. Many of those guys worked HARD- much harder than the guys who were maintaining an already great record.

But I digress. There is clearly a lot of frustration in the USAF. This didn't happen overnight, and it won't be fixed overnight, either.

Without thinking too hard about the specifics I'd think that "deals well with adversity" would be a trait I'd look for in future leaders. Anyone can look great when things are humming along but dealing with situations when things go off the rails are what really counts. Because it's going to go off the rails somehow someday and you'll want people who can figure out how to get the train running again.

 

[sevenhelmet]

Many believe the identifying of High Performing Officers (HPO) is a problem because the guys and gals are "put on the track" before they should be.

I agree. Putting guys "on the track" that soon does two things: One, It doesn't account for the guys that might burn out later (think fleet/SFTI/training-O track for USN- I've seen what that does to guys.) and B, it doesn't account for the late bloomers. A guy shouldn't get passed over because he had a rough patch as a JO, just as the guy who is a golden child JO shouldn't necessarily be put on the fast-track to flag rank. I would have been @#$%ed as a USAF JO, because I didn't "get it" on day one. Or day two, or three... you get the idea.

Putting a guy "on the track" shouldn't guarantee early promotions any more than not being "on the track" should preclude them.

 

[BACONATOR]

This works most of the way down the chain as well. I'd take a competent Navy LT to do most of what is asked/expected of an AF O-4, and in some cases, an O-5.

See also: The Air Force Doesn't Have a Pilot Crisis, It Has A Leadership Crisis. And, while I would rarely consider JQP much more than a gadfly, this seems relevant.

I agree about the work, but not the authority. I heard this argument my whole military career but when it came to working with Air Force, I saw a bit of it but it seemed more like the Air Force doesn't delegate the work as much as the Navy, so when a product is supposed to be generated by an O-5, he does the work. Take this as an example: on the boat as Ops duty, I had "message release authority", but before it ever got released it went up through the OPSO/CDO to the captain and back. So who really has the "authority" here? In the Air Force, the commander would probably just release the message himself (with guidance from an admin type). Things seemed to happen more at the right level in the AF with less delegating the work only to be chopped later by the originator. This is purely an observation and I could be off-base, but the Air Force seems to handle things at higher levels with less delegation while the Navy delegates all the work but the brass still want their hands in the pot leading to lots of bog down in the process.

 

[nittany03]

Without thinking too hard about the specifics I'd think that "deals well with adversity" would be a trait I'd look for in future leaders. Anyone can look great when things are humming along but dealing with situations when things go off the rails are what really counts. Because it's going to go off the rails somehow someday and you'll want people who can figure out how to get the train running again.

And that person who is forced to struggle but makes it is much more likely to empathize with Joe Average as opposed to the extremely talented rockstar. Often, those latter types of people think "average" is higher than it is, because things have come so much more easily to them. Some of them seem to subconsciously view people going through a rough patch as people who are bagging it, i.e. "it's not THAT hard, so you must not care enough." Above average individual aviator doesn't always equal above average instructor or mentor. Two different skill sets.

It's also foolish to assume that you can deep-select an O-3 for command and beyond. The Peter Principle is in full effect - the best JOs may not make good DHs, who may not make good COs, etc.

 

[DanMa1156]

In fairness, is Naval Aviation's system much better?

Granted, I am basing my experience off my single point of view from my fleet tour alone, but not once in my 3.5 years did I see someone who struggled but then rose to the top get rewarded over someone who just "got it" from day one; that's over the course of 3 different Skippers, none of them SWTI types either, which in and of itself is uncommon. I can't tell you how many times I was praised for how my character shined and I proved my mettle when I rose past adversity when I struggled with a qual or something else and how that was "the most important thing," but when it came time for my high water... it suddenly wasn't the most important thing. I'd argue that the guys who got the #1's practically knew they were set up for #1 the second they made H2P because their board went so well.

Secondly, while we aren't pre-selecting guys for command, we've made a system so competitive that we may as well be. Admiral Bull claims that for the VFA/VAQ CO's, they had to look back at their Advanced Jet Bombing grades to split hairs of who got to command a squadron (seriously? There wasn't a single other metric that could have been used?!) and in the helo community, if you're not a #1/#2 guy, then you're not getting command and DH will be tough, with the exception of maybe the east coast expeditionary guys where a #3/46 still could look good.

 

[sevenhelmet]

Words...

Your first paragraph definitely has some merit. A lot of the impetus is on the individual CO to pick the next generation of DH from the JOPA, his replacement from the DHs, etc... a process which definitely has its drawbacks. However, as you said, it's an extremely competitive system. Late-bloomers or off-track folks have to make up for lost time. It's tough, and involves some element of luck/timing, but it is possible to do so. The USAF system sounds a little more ironclad, based on what I've heard and read about it. You don't get the good deals unless you're picked early, so- like a drinking game- once you start losing, you tend to lose worse.

The second paragraph sounds like complete bullshit. Even if CNATRA actually said that, it's bullshit. I don't think the ACSB even has access to jet bombing grades- it's not in service records as far as I know. The discriminator for years (so I'm told) has been length of ticket as DH, which gets back to your first (valid) point. The admiral was probably just using that as a cheap tactic to try and motivate students or something.

 

[DanMa1156]

Your first paragraph definitely has some merit. A lot of the impetus is on the individual CO to pick the next generation of DH from the JOPA, his replacement from the DHs, etc... a process which definitely has its drawbacks. However, as you said, it's an extremely competitive system. Late-bloomers or off-track folks have to make up for lost time. It's tough, and involves some element of luck/timing, but it is possible to do so. The USAF system sounds a little more ironclad, based on what I've heard and read about it. You don't get the good deals unless you're picked early, so- like a drinking game- once you start losing, you tend to lose worse.

The second paragraph sounds like complete bullshit. Even if CNATRA actually said that, it's bullshit. I don't think the ACSB even has access to jet bombing grades- it's not in service records as far as I know. The discriminator for years (so I'm told) has been length of ticket as DH, which gets back to your first (valid) point. The admiral was probably just using that as a cheap tactic to try and motivate students or something.

I don't doubt that it was bullshit; in fairness, he was talking to new CNATRA IP's when he said that. It was part of a larger rant of "CNATRA pilots aren't as competitive as their FRS counterparts. You have to be better than they are. How? I don't know, but you have to, look how competitive getting CO is!" Really motivating to hear on check in...

My points about the helo community stand though.

 

[sevenhelmet]

The old "it's too late for you, but try anyway" mantra. I hate that.