PDA

View Full Version : EPR Rating Change Rumor



Modus
03-05-2015, 04:17 PM
I heard they were getting rid of the overall number ratings from EPRs, and it'll basically look like an Officer's PRF. Definitely Promote, Promote, and Do Not Promote blocks. Can anyone confirm?

CrustySMSgt
03-08-2015, 02:04 PM
No rumor; been in the news for over a year

http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/494060/af-implements-static-epr-closeout-dates-eliminates-change-of-reporting.aspx

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/careers/air-force/2015/01/12/new-epr-system/21460541/

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/09/17/air-force-epr-chief-this-is-the-kc46-of-promotions.html

http://www.stripes.com/news/air-force/sweeping-changes-coming-to-air-force-evaluation-promotion-systems-1.296272

Niirs
03-08-2015, 11:10 PM
More info in this new AFSA article, Onward and Upward by Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force Cody.

https://aforganizing.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/onward-and-upward-cmsaf-cody-afsa-jan-feb-2015.pdf

jpeters
03-09-2015, 05:57 AM
More info in this new AFSA article, Onward and Upward by Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force Cody.

https://aforganizing.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/onward-and-upward-cmsaf-cody-afsa-jan-feb-2015.pdf

I was trying to post this right after it came out but I couldn't figure out how to do it.

Rusty Jones
03-09-2015, 11:00 AM
Ah, so it's in this order: Do Not Promote, Not Ready Now, Promote, Must Promote, Promote Now. For E6 and below PN is limited to 5%, and MP is limited to 15%. For E7 and E8, it's 10% and 20%.

Can't say I'd bitch about that, but since we don't use WAPS in the reserves... it's not going to affect me one way or the other.

In the Navy, it's 20% and 30% for E6 and below; and 20% and 20% for E7 and above. I think that the Air Force has it pretty good, as 5% and 15% aren't enough to raise the cutoff scores to make it impossible for anyone with a P to get promoted. I mean, maybe it will happen, but it shouldn't be as bad as it is in the Navy.

LogDog
03-09-2015, 07:05 PM
It sounds like getting "face time" with the commander is going to be even more important than ever to get the promote now nod. The brown nosers are really going to be putting in overtime.

CrustySMSgt
03-09-2015, 08:14 PM
It sounds like getting "face time" with the commander is going to be even more important than ever to get the promote now nod. The brown nosers are really going to be putting in overtime.

The brown nosers are the ones getting lumped in with the folks actually working, with all of them getting 5s now. While it won't keep all of them down, the hard workers will finally have a chance to stand out.

And in the end, it isn't going to change the number of selects, so there will be folks getting promoted with "promote" recommendations.

LogDog
03-09-2015, 08:29 PM
The brown nosers are the ones getting lumped in with the folks actually working, with all of them getting 5s now. While it won't keep all of them down, the hard workers will finally have a chance to stand out.
I see your point but I think those actually working are going to have to make time for face time meaning the quality and/or quantity of their work will diminish. From my experience of observing brown nosers is they do enough work sufficiently well but they spend too much time with or near the commander so as to make themselves seem "indispensable" and therefore more apt to get the promote now nod.


And in the end, it isn't going to change the number of selects, so there will be folks getting promoted with "promote" recommendations.
I agree that it won't change the number of selects but it could hold back those more deserving of the promotion.

jpeters
03-09-2015, 11:40 PM
The brown nosers are the ones getting lumped in with the folks actually working, with all of them getting 5s now. While it won't keep all of them down, the hard workers will finally have a chance to stand out.

And in the end, it isn't going to change the number of selects, so there will be folks getting promoted with "promote" recommendations.

I agree it isn't going to change the number of selects. But there is just something that pisses me off when I see someone who does just enough of their job to keep it from going under, but spends a majority of their time of doing anything and everything they can to get face time with CC.

I had a UDM at base X I just left. Worthless! I pretty much did her job for her when one of my guys was deploying for the first time. The only thing she did was his final out, and that was a huge mess. But she was all over the SQ booster club, all the CFC/AFAF campaigns that come out, and doing all the CCs pet projects. Is it smart? Absolutely! But it still pisses me off to know that she will be in the same category as me, maybe even higher because I don’t get as much face time with the CC.

Ripcord
03-10-2015, 01:58 AM
Ah, so it's in this order: Do Not Promote, Not Ready Now, Promote, Must Promote, Promote Now. For E6 and below PN is limited to 5%, and MP is limited to 15%. For E7 and E8, it's 10% and 20%.

Can't say I'd bitch about that, but since we don't use WAPS in the reserves... it's not going to affect me one way or the other.

In the Navy, it's 20% and 30% for E6 and below; and 20% and 20% for E7 and above. I think that the Air Force has it pretty good, as 5% and 15% aren't enough to raise the cutoff scores to make it impossible for anyone with a P to get promoted. I mean, maybe it will happen, but it shouldn't be as bad as it is in the Navy.

Rusty mostly true...except for E7/E8. That 10%/20% is the limit for stratification/SRE not promotion recommendation.

Rusty Jones
03-10-2015, 11:29 AM
Someone brought up the fact that it won't change the number of selectees. That's true. But with "everyone" getting 5's, "everyone" had reason to remain hopeful before the selectees were announced. So they're motivated to keep up the good work and keep pushing.

With the promotion rate to those paygrades equalling or falling short of the total available quotas for MP & PN, that's no longer going to be the case. You're gonna have plenty of defeatists walking around. So be ready for that.

hustonj
03-10-2015, 02:23 PM
You're gonna have plenty of defeatists walking around. So be ready for that.

I'm not sure that will be seen as a point of failure.

People whose performance starts down the slippery slope will become the low-hanging fruit for force shaping programs.

hustonj
03-10-2015, 02:29 PM
I see your point but I think those actually working are going to have to make time for face time meaning the quality and/or quantity of their work will diminish.

The senior-most CMSgt at my current location was explicit that duty performance supermen will never see SMSgt or CMSgt, and may never see MSgt with the MSgt boards. People MUST get outside the gate, outside the shop and involved, or their careers will stagnate.

He seemed to be trying to make it clear that this has been a conscious choice on the part of the USAF leadership, and that desires for it to be different are as irrelevant as the promotion opportunities will be for those who think mastering their duties is all that is required.

Rusty Jones
03-10-2015, 04:01 PM
I'm not sure that will be seen as a point of failure.

People whose performance starts down the slippery slope will become the low-hanging fruit for force shaping programs.

That's only assuming that the Air Force has such programs at that given time. Otherwise, someone knowing that they're not going to get promoted ahead of time isn't a good thing. Because now, you'll have people who know they have nothing left to gain.

I watched this happen while I was in the Navy - the categories are almost similar to what the Air Force is moving to, only the quotas for the top two categories 20% and 30% for E6 and below. As soon as someone got a "promotable" when they thought they should have gotten something better, how do they react? "Promotable? They think I'm "promotable?" Oh, they haven't seen "promotable" yet! They want to see "promotable;" I'll show them "promotable!"

I'm not saying that they all do this, however, enough do it for there to be a problem.

CrustySMSgt
03-10-2015, 05:01 PM
The focus is "supposed to" return to core functions being more important. I'm not so blind to believe there won't be some who slip through the crack by getting more face time, but I have to have faith in the system and hope my peers do the right thing.

Having said that, there has to be some balance. We need senior enlisted leaders that are very familiar with the functional area they oversea, but we don't need a Chief who is great at humping a tool box and can spend 6 hours tearing down an engine to change a part. At some point you have to make the change from technician to supervisor and then manager (while being a LEADER throughout)... so if you never get outside your comfort zone and learn to interact with other base agencies, you're only hurting yourself.

The average test scores aren't going to change, so there will be plenty of "promotes" who pass up "must promotes" by testing well.

Rusty Jones
03-10-2015, 06:22 PM
The focus is "supposed to" return to core functions being more important. I'm not so blind to believe there won't be some who slip through the crack by getting more face time, but I have to have faith in the system and hope my peers do the right thing.

Having said that, there has to be some balance. We need senior enlisted leaders that are very familiar with the functional area they oversea, but we don't need a Chief who is great at humping a tool box and can spend 6 hours tearing down an engine to change a part. At some point you have to make the change from technician to supervisor and then manager (while being a LEADER throughout)... so if you never get outside your comfort zone and learn to interact with other base agencies, you're only hurting yourself.

The average test scores aren't going to change, so there will be plenty of "promotes" who pass up "must promotes" by testing well.

You're talking about promotions to paygrades that incorporate test scores into a mathematical formula to determine whether or not you get promoted. When you're talking about selection boards... that all goes out the window.

CrustySMSgt
03-10-2015, 08:36 PM
You're talking about promotions to paygrades that incorporate test scores into a mathematical formula to determine whether or not you get promoted. When you're talking about selection boards... that all goes out the window.

All enlisted ranks test for promotion. For testing to E7, you've got to make the cut of Phase 1, which means a score above 60 on tests and in the top 60%. Then EPR scores go away and board scores count... but test score will still be a factor.

For E8/9, the board score carries much more weight than testing points, but scores do matter. The number 1 non-select in my AFSC got a 412 board score and scored a 91 on the test... in the future, when TIG/TIS goes away, he'd be a select.

TSat75
03-11-2015, 02:24 AM
The senior-most CMSgt at my current location was explicit that duty performance supermen will never see SMSgt or CMSgt, and may never see MSgt with the MSgt boards. People MUST get outside the gate, outside the shop and involved, or their careers will stagnate.

He seemed to be trying to make it clear that this has been a conscious choice on the part of the USAF leadership, and that desires for it to be different are as irrelevant as the promotion opportunities will be for those who think mastering their duties is all that is required.



And this is what is wrong with the AF. I have no problem with a MSgt stepping out of his/her comfort zone and learn about the politics at the higher levels - you need that experience to be a good SMSgt and CMSgt. But, now we are saying that to even make MSgt, you have to have already done that.

Okay - you have to make the transition to leader/manager/supervisor at some point. Got it. But, what is the focus now - promote, promote, promote. Folks are making rank faster now - and now the new direction is to take experience/longevity out of WAPS - so now you can get promoted even earlier - experience be damned.

So with everyone trying to get promoted earlier, and knowing they have to step out of the box to make rank, you have younger folks spending more time on the "extra curricular" functions (squadron booster club, holiday party, volunteer, PT, etc...). Afterall, that is the real secret to getting a good EPR (everyone can manufacture good work bullets without actually "lying" - if you helped with something that had a great impact - you are golden).

So with everyone focused on things other than their primary duties - with mastery of your actual AFSC duties are not AS important as before - who is left to do the job? Amn-A1Cs-SrA (apprentice/journeyman level technicians).

Is it any wonder when we see ORI failures? The experience and expertise is gutted. If you are GREAT, you get promoted beyond your technical usefulness to be a "leader" early in your career. If you suck, you are pushed out. If you are average, you are being pushed to be above average - and so you dive into the things you can control (since the leaders say point blank that you won't get promoted by being a duty performance/technical superman, and work bullets are easy to write) - so you volunteer for everything on and off-base.

So if you tell people that, where is the motivation to be the duty performance/technical superman? Who are the experts? The no-kidding "walk up to an engine and listen for 30 seconds, and tell you what the problem is" - or the TSgt on a crew who gets the satellite up in the middle of nowhere with no backup, with paperclips and a soldering iron - or the mx troop on a nuclear base that KNOWs the policies/AFIs by heart - or the finance troop that KNOWs just what to do to FIX it when your BAH is not showing up pay period after pay period.

We have gutted our experience - and are focused (deliberately) to gut it more. To have 10 year TSgts focused on everything "outside" of their duties so they can make MSgt. So now the ones actually LEADING the JOB are the 6-8 year SSgts...and the technical experts are the 4-6 year SrA. What happened to the 15-17 year TSgt EXPERT LEADING the JOB, and the 8-14 year SSgt learning and managing the tasks, and the 4-7 SrA learning slowly, correctly, and focused on the tasks? When I was an Amn, our TSgts were in the 14-19 year TIS area - and they knew the equipment inside and out - they didn't even need the TOs anymore, they KNEW (and would be right) the equipment. They had memorized the schematics - they could look at a wire in a drawer full of hundreds, and know which one was loose from the symptoms. They had been in the equipment for so long, they were experts! If we had to go on a deployment where the system was critical, they knew they could get the system up...even when it didn't work right (95% of the time). The SSgts were learning - and shadowing - and going where the TSgts led them. Then, when the TSgts made MSgt, they were ready to sit back and lead - they KNEW your job...and they could do what the leaders are supposed to do - get you what you needed so you could do your job. Leaders SUPPORT their troops - and the best way to do that is to KNOW their job. We had TSgts that had been there and done that for so long, they knew exactly what needed to be fixed...so when they made MSgt, they tried to fix it. Not now. Now, you have TSgts stepping "out" of the job to focus on making MSgt - so the "expert" line is usually drawn at the SSgt level (at least, when I got out 6 mos ago, it was). Many TSgts in my field had lost that expertise - and depeneded almost solely on their SSgts for the actual "work".

Who do you want fixing your car (ages are not relevant - I'm just using them as a baseline to illustrate experience)? The 35 year old foreman who has been there, done that - and can tell you what is wrong with your car by listening to it, can tell you how much it will cost to fix, and how long it will take - and he calls over to his 30 year journeyman and gives him the high level so he can go fix it with a few technicians...and the foreman will check on him in an hour or so? Or the 26 year old shop foreman who is on his cell phone managing his shop's holiday party, while telling you he needs to go through his manuals to make sure he is right about what is wrong - and then calling over this 21 year old kid who has to ask you how to open the hood - and the young foreman gives the manual to the kid to go fix so he can get to his CFC meeting.

What we have are the MSgts running shops that haven't been technicians since they were really SSgts. And the TSgts are trying to make MSgt by being involved in "other" things that they start to lose the expertise. And the SSgts are trying to be experts without the experience that is needed to be a true expert. And then we get Commanders getting fired because they failed an ORI.

Enlisted Leaders should be about the primary duties!!!!!! Officer Leaders should be about the other stuff!!!!!! Have standards - PT is a standard, off-duty education is a standard (CCAF). But if I'm a Commander and I'm deploying - give me the 17 year TSgt with a wrench in his back pocket, a grease rag in his front pocket, and a keen sense of troubleshooting - over the 10 year TSgt with great "potential" who led the best Holiday Party in 10 years, and who is a great office manager who ensures his troops are always training while he is at meetings, and who scored really high on his WAPS SKT test and PT test. Now, if you give me a 2LT or Capt who fits that second profile - that will go great with my crusty TSgt! And give me an even crustier MSgt who won't take any shit and will make sure the crusty TSgt has what he needs from leadership to fix what he needs to fix.

I get so frustrated even talking about it!

Niirs
03-11-2015, 08:53 AM
Someone brought up the fact that it won't change the number of selectees. That's true. But with "everyone" getting 5's, "everyone" had reason to remain hopeful before the selectees were announced. So they're motivated to keep up the good work and keep pushing.

With the promotion rate to those paygrades equalling or falling short of the total available quotas for MP & PN, that's no longer going to be the case. You're gonna have plenty of defeatists walking around. So be ready for that.

There will be PLENTY of people in the "promote" category who get promoted; remember that the forced distribution of the MP and PN is by pay grade - the promotion percentage is by AFSC. So while each pay grade up to E6 in the Air force will be 5% and 10% only a very small percentage of the total Airmen in each AFSC will end up with MP and PN - heck some AFSCs might have zero MP and PN in the whole AF and all promotes will be selected from the promote category

elitechairmaster
03-11-2015, 11:58 AM
I have watched these forums for some time without posting and TSat75 gave the best example of what is happening in today's Air Force. I have watched job knowledge degrade, but personnel can tell you exactly how to set up an Air Force Ball. While I believe you can be multifaceted, something will eventually suffer. You can attempt to do it all, but soon either family life, work knowledge, expiration of necessary certifications etc... will erode. We are a military force designed to strike at a moments notice. We are no longer being led as a Military Force, but as a group of people concerned about perception or what will make us recruit better. I dont know, some may say I am wrong, but you cannot deny the changes seem to be in the wrong direction or misguided. I do have a question maybe someone could explain better. Why are we receiving EPR's annually? Why not create a system designed to give us an EPR only when promotable? This could decrease the timeframe a supervisor is working on bullets and increase the amount of time spot checking to ensure airman are performing or getting the required training. We are so focused on an annual report, when they only matter when you are promotable. Some will say it gives the individual a guideline of how they are doing. Is this what training records do? They ensure we are task qualified and enable us to gain the necessary training we need (although this is not being done everywhere). So why not grow a better emphasis on the use of the training records and when someone becomes promotable to the next rank, create a document that highlights why. I do know just a thought. However I would like it to be part of the discussion.

Rainmaker
03-11-2015, 01:13 PM
The thing for everyone to understand is that All of these changes have not a thing to do with ensuring the best qualified or most experienced personnel are promoted.... The Single goal of ALL of this garbage is to make sure that the AF SNCO corps ends up looking more "Diverse", and In order to do that the promotion system MUST be made more subjective. By having a board for E-7 they can ensure that more minorities will have a greater opportunity to advance to E-8 and E-9. As it stands now, the individual has too much control of their own destiny.

So, When SECAF James says "We're looking for officers and enlisted members who have demonstrated the ability, specifically, to nurture and lead in a diverse and inclusive Air Force culture". what this means in Washington D.C. Mouth Full O' Dicks speak is: "we want less white males calling the shots".

We have the SECAF briefing the NEOCON think tank CNAS on the need for gender neutral standards for combat arms fields, and telling them Welsh is very, very like-minded (translation: just lobby Congress to give him his concept airplane and he'll shut up and color). These people are ideologues, that believe the Military's primary mission is to serve as social petri-dish for the agenda and a cash cow for their Defense Industry friends.

Rusty Jones
03-11-2015, 02:08 PM
The thing for everyone to understand is that All of these changes have not a thing to do with ensuring the best qualified or most experienced personnel are promoted.... The Single goal of ALL of this garbage is to make sure that the AF SNCO corps ends up looking more "Diverse", and In order to do that the promotion system MUST be made more subjective. By having a board for E-7 they can ensure that more minorities will have a greater opportunity to advance to E-8 and E-9. As it stands now, the individual has too much control of their own destiny.

Prove it. You know how you can prove it?

Consider this: up until now, the Air Force was the only service to not use selection boards for promotion to E7. By that logic, Air Force E7's should be the least diverse E7's in the military compared to the lower enlisted ranks; right? Are you able to show this?

CrustySMSgt
03-11-2015, 02:46 PM
The thing for everyone to understand is that All of these changes have not a thing to do with ensuring the best qualified or most experienced personnel are promoted.... The Single goal of ALL of this garbage is to make sure that the AF SNCO corps ends up looking more "Diverse", and In order to do that the promotion system MUST be made more subjective. By having a board for E-7 they can ensure that more minorities will have a greater opportunity to advance to E-8 and E-9. As it stands now, the individual has too much control of their own destiny.

So, When SECAF James says "We're looking for officers and enlisted members who have demonstrated the ability, specifically, to nurture and lead in a diverse and inclusive Air Force culture". what this means in Washington D.C. Mouth Full O' Dicks speak is: "we want less white males calling the shots".

We have the SECAF briefing the NEOCON think tank CNAS on the need for gender neutral standards for combat arms fields, and telling them Welsh is very, very like-minded (translation: just lobby Congress to give him his concept airplane and he'll shut up and color). These people are ideologues, that believe the Military's primary mission is to serve as social petri-dish for the agenda and a cash cow for their Defense Industry friends.

Having actually been on a promotion board, I can assure you, other than the canned instructions at the beginning, reminding everyone to consider all qualified records, diversity or picking a fair number of "not white males" doesn't come up in the discussion before, during, or after.

Rainmaker
03-11-2015, 03:21 PM
Prove it. You know how you can prove it?

Consider this: up until now, the Air Force was the only service to not use selection boards for promotion to E7. By that logic, Air Force E7's should be the least diverse E7's in the military compared to the lower enlisted ranks; right? Are you able to show this?

Rusty, It's primarily intended to increase promotion % of women. Although the AF has a high number of women relative to the other branches, AF doesn't retain them in large enough numbers to satisfy the Headquarters Air Force Global Diversity Division's (seriously) mandated agenda

Anyhow, Here's the raw numbers...

https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=716197

Conclusion : from page 3....." Other airman had a substantially lower promotion rate to E-9"



WAPS was the most objective promotion system of all the branches ever invented. EVAL inflation creep could've been fixed simply by enforcing a quota on the percentages for each rating, as the Navy does it. It doesn't take a think tank to figure out that the reason the AF doesn't retain women is because, they voluntarily separate after getting married or starting a family. But, No matter because, The Ideologues have determined that the system Must be inherently biased. "Which, could lead to “invisible privilege”—a condition in which a dominant group cannot comprehend those who do not fit the “norm” of that culture."


It's not just the Enlisted though, the real concern for them is with the Senior Officer corps. See the latest " objective non-profit" Project RAND report for more detail if you really want to know.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR400/RR495/RAND_RR495.pdf

we can both site numbers(Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics) all day long to argue both sides of any argument, You work in a HR. I'm sure you're aware that there's a whole billion dollar industry and Bureaucracy around this diversity pseudo-science stuff.

Rusty Jones
03-11-2015, 04:30 PM
Rusty, It's primarily intended to increase promotion % of women. Although the AF has a high number of women relative to the other branches, AF doesn't retain them in large enough numbers to satisfy the Headquarters Air Force Global Diversity Division's (seriously) mandated agenda

Anyhow, Here's the raw numbers...

https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=716197

Conclusion : from page 3....." Other airman had a substantially lower promotion rate to E-9"



WAPS was the most objective promotion system of all the branches ever invented. EVAL inflation creep could've been fixed simply by enforcing a quota on the percentages for each rating, as the Navy does it. It doesn't take a think tank to figure out that the reason the AF doesn't retain women is because, they voluntarily separate after getting married or starting a family. But, No matter because, The Ideologues have determined that the system Must be inherently biased. "Which, could lead to “invisible privilege”—a condition in which a dominant group cannot comprehend those who do not fit the “norm” of that culture."


It's not just the Enlisted though, the real concern for them is with the Senior Officer corps. See the latest " objective non-profit" Project RAND report for more detail if you really want to know.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR400/RR495/RAND_RR495.pdf

we can both site numbers(Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics) all day long to argue both sides of any argument, You work in a HR. I'm sure you're aware that there's a whole billion dollar industry and Bureaucracy around this diversity pseudo-science stuff.

Well, I don't know about that, RM... but here's a possibility, based off of what I've seen happen while I was in the Navy: you have a male commander who is single and a total chump, or married and a total womanizer... who is influenced by the women's looks when deciding who gets the MP's and PN's, and the hot chicks he gives them to are ditzy as hell and don't know a damned thing. I've only seen this happen at one command I was attached to, but am told that this is the norm at Naval Hospitals and some aviation squadrons.

Rainmaker
03-11-2015, 05:12 PM
Having actually been on a promotion board, I can assure you, other than the canned instructions at the beginning, reminding everyone to consider all qualified records, diversity or picking a fair number of "not white males" doesn't come up in the discussion before, during, or after.

Thanks for the re-assurance of how things worked in the past and that's good to know. But, The way forward is to increase the number of selects by increasing the number of Women eligibles. They're not talking about giving strict quotas to the board evaluators of who they can and can't select. because, that would never fly.

COS of the AF comes out and says we're not combat ready and the next very week, The SAIC Diversity Queen announces her 9-step plan to fix this by increasing the number of 5'2" females in the cockpit.

Rainmaker
03-11-2015, 05:31 PM
Well, I don't know about that, RM... but here's a possibility, based off of what I've seen happen while I was in the Navy: you have a male commander who is single and a total chump, or married and a total womanizer... who is influenced by the women's looks when deciding who gets the MP's and PN's, and the hot chicks he gives them to are ditzy as hell and don't know a damned thing. I've only seen this happen at one command I was attached to, but am told that this is the norm at Naval Hospitals and some aviation squadrons.

No doubt, This is the same reason Women generally fair better than men on NCO of the year boards and what not. and physically attractive women earn more money than ugly ones. Board members are just more sympathetic (and forgiving) to them. It's just human nature. But, this natural order of things, is completely unacceptable to the Cult. American Men must be de-balled and sacrificed to the Diversity Gods on the Alter of Political Correctness. THE FUTURE WILL BE BETTER TOMMORROW !!!FORWARD!!!

CrustySMSgt
03-11-2015, 10:33 PM
No doubt, This is the same reason Women generally fair better than men on NCO of the year boards and what not. and physically attractive women earn more money than ugly ones. Board members are just more sympathetic (and forgiving) to them. It's just human nature. But, this natural order of things, is completely unacceptable to the Cult. American Men must be de-balled and sacrificed to the Diversity Gods on the Alter of Political Correctness. THE FUTURE WILL BE BETTER TOMMORROW !!!FORWARD!!!

Must be past time for your meds...

I can't remember the last time I even heard of an actual board, much less participated in one.

Rainmaker
03-12-2015, 01:45 AM
Must be past time for your meds...

I can't remember the last time I even heard of an actual board, much less participated in one.

You're not even all the way out to pasture yet Crusty and already you got CRS??!!.....Maybe you have early onset Alzheimers? They say the mind is the 2nd thing to go (Rainmaker don't remember the first)....Rainmaker retired in 2011. The last unit he was in still conducted annual awards boards.