589 – 01-Jan-78, AFMPC, AFR 36-10, Officer Evaluations [Supersedes AFR 36-10, 15 Sep –  75]

590 – 02-Jan-78, LTE, CAN DO, “Opportunity Exists”, Page 17, Vol. 38, No. 23

Grissom AFB, Ind. – Re December 12 OERs vs. Whole Man letter by the “supervisor.” I would like to ask the writer this: how many truly blossoming young chargers or extremely capable mid-level field graders did you survey to arrive at your conclusion? Anyone (literally or numerically) who drives an airplane or performs any job because of a “1” is self stifling and not stifled by the system.

Most majority promotion boards I have seen have shown that 75% of those considered for the first time in the primary zone have been promoted. So the opportunity for promotion exists.

I would almost guarantee that those who are passed over aren’t competitive even with a string of 1s. I would venture that their string of 1s could go back to nine-4s until the start of time. Their success rests with job descriptions and praise spelled out by the raters.

Promotion boards must compare all that an officer has to offer. Potential is important. Of the officers I have known who have not made the grade, each could trace his problems to overspecialization and narrow horizons.

Any competitive soul will accept an assignment to numbered Air Force, major command or air staff position. In these jobs, he must be able to bring some change. Most “below the zone” people I have known have served in such jobs.

Therefore, the lure is early or timely promotions, rather than the lack of promotion or 3s. If in a reasonable time a young officer cannot earn his 1 in command or higher jobs, he should realize that promotion to O-5, O-6 or higher are out. It’s a fast track, but the truly blossoming young chargers and capable mid-level field graders will accept and rise to the challenge.

The goal is versatility which our future leaders must demonstrate before they can reach stardom.

595 – 09-Jan-78, LTE, Capt. George Gaines, “Square Filling”, Page 15, Vol. 38, No. 24

WASHINGTON D.C. – During the past several months I’ve read in your paper about the debates concerning the military as a professional career or just another job. Recently, the debate has spilled over into pay-related areas, with Reginald Brown stating that it’s not a factor and military pay should be the minimum required to fill the roles.

This naturally incensed me since I joined the AF to be a professional officer. Also, I was confident that the AF’s position was that it supported comparability so as to maintain the career oriented professional military man.

Obviously, minimum pay would purchase the minimum quality for the military. However, with all the AF protests about caring deeply that all its members are mission and career oriented, I find that recent trends in promotion boards reflect a disinclination to promote officers for mission accomplishment. It’s more square filling.

I referred to the figures given for promotion boards were degrees, schools, staff assignments and testing scores counted more than line or combat experience. Recently, SEA and NVN combat missions were dropped from the RIP because they were unimportant. Also, aerial victories were dropped from the RIP.

If the AF persists in emphasizing square filling over mission accomplishment in promotions, then Mr. Brown has every right to insist on paying for only the minimum skills to fill the job and not the quality required to defend the country. I hope not.

597 – 09-Jan-78, Staff, “55% Selection Rate Predicted for O-4s”, Page 10, Vol. 38, No. 24

WASHINGTON – Air Force has projected a 55% overall selection rate for the majors board that is scheduled to meet in June 1978. The rate for new eligibles should be 72%.

The last majors’ board that met in October 1976 had a selection rate of 57%.

Headquarters said the reason for the expected drop in the selection rate is year group size. The 1967 year group that will be considered in June is significantly larger that the 1966 year group. There were 3759 new eligibles in the 1966 group, and it is expected that there will be 4845 in the 1967 group.

• The 4845 new eligibles multiplied by the promotion opportunity for major of 80% equals the board quota of 3876. A maximum of 5%, or 194, will come from the secondary zone.

601 – 16-Jan-78, LTE, Name Withheld, “Getting Out”, Page 15, Vol. 38, No. 25

EUROPE – Today I made my decision to separate from the AF. At my last assignment I receive what is termed a “noncompetitive OER.” A result being that I was passed over for promotion. My appeal of this OER was approved and notification dated the day I received a letter informing me of my pending separation for failure to be selected for major.

I can apply to remain on duty for a second consideration for promotion. I can appeal the decision of the promotion board, too, as an OER used in the selection was voided. However, I shall not for I do not desire to belong to an organization where one competitive OER can lead to the end of a career.

This could easily have occurred if I had had 15 years in service. Fortunately, I’ve only three.

Secondary to my decision is the uncertainty of AF pay, benefits and retirement. The rules under which I entered active duty have been changed in midstream.

As a general dentist, my promotion should have been on a 100-percent qualified basis. At least I had been informed of this the last two years. Yet I was among the first group to meet a promotion board. The game rules were changed.

I prefer not to play by rules that are changed at a moments notice. Nor is the secure AF career as secure because of congressional and DoD meddling.

Does the AF expect personnel to remain on duty when it cannot guarantee that its pay retirement system will not be changed? In my three years I’ve seen several benefits eliminated.

So, with the realization that there is no contract and no guarantees, I prefer to compete in the civilian sector. The game may be harder, but the rules are defined.

605 – 23-Jan-78, LTE, Capt. Dale R. Lynn, “Faulting the System”, Page 15, Vol. 38, No. 26

Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif. – It’s time for top AF management to realize that the OER system is a failure.

As a nine-and-a-half-year captain, I see my AF career fading away and feel almost helpless to stop it. I’m sure many others feel the same frustration.

Some career background is necessary to illustrate the situation. My first seven years were spent as a missile launch officer with the majority of the time spent as an instructor. During these years I earned an MBA degree, completed SOS by correspondence and in residence, and ACSC by correspondence. I received a regular commission by the seven-year board when there was only a 4% selection opportunity. I also was selected for an ASTRA assignment to the Pentagon. Only 75 were selected from the 2100 or so that applied. In other words, my career was successful and you my superiors had confidence in my potential. Several supervisors believed I had a good chance for a secondary zone promotion to major.

I completed the ASTRA assignment with about eight years on active duty. Several senior officers advised career broadening into Systems Command. Hesitant at first since I was approaching consideration for major, I went ahead believing in the long run that it would be good for my career.

The assignment was to a systems program office within Systems Command. After only 72 days in a new career field and job, the system dealt me a controlled OER which of course was a 3. As an ASTRA officer the previous year I got only a training report. So to insure an OER on the next cycle, the supervision period was lowered to 60 days, regardless of circumstances. I hadn’t even received the proper schooling required at Wright-Patterson AFB yet, but received a controlled OER on the new job.

This past year I worked diligently to recover from the 3. My immediate supervisor was pleased with my progress and performance, and awarded me a 1. However, many other captains who were good workers in key positions had much more experience. The system dealt me another 3 by the time the OER reached the final reviewer.

In a short 16 months my AF record deteriorated from a possible secondary zone promotion opportunity to a probable passover in the primary zone. After eight years did I suddenly lose the potential my earlier supervisors saw?

The point to be made is that the system is at fault and not the officers who, at any level, are required to implement it. I have witnessed many cases were fine officers have suffered similarly.

An officer’s OER rating comes down to a matter of circumstances. These equate to experience in the career field, time on station in the same relative job, personal contact with the reviewer, how the reviewer views the job, sponsorship in your assignment by senior officer and last, but not least, your ability to manage the system in your favor (so as to time your assignments and PCS lose to best coincide with the OER and promotion cycles).

I feel a strong loyalty to the AF and will do my utmost to overcome the problems encountered. The real frustration is not success or failure itself, but that success or failure is more independent on how you manage the circumstances described above, rather than on your performance as a USAF officer.

608 – 30-Jan-78, Craver, “769 Temporary Colonels Named”, Page 10, Vol. 38, No. 27

WASHINGTON – The selection board that met December 5 picked 769 officers for promotion to temporary colonel.

Of the new eligibles, 530 were selected from 1545 considered, for a selection rate of 34%.

There were 4050 total eligibles and 660 selected (16%). Officers selected from the secondary zone totaled 109. There were 1016 nominated for consideration in the secondary zone.

• Line officers in the primary zone considered for the first time totaled 1409, with 482 picked (34%).
• Pilots had the best selection rate, new eligibles 293 of 1700 at 39%, total eligibles 240 of 620 at 17% and secondary zone eligibles 66 of 347 at 4.9%.
• Navigator new eligibles had a selection rate of 25%, 89 of 350. For total eligibles, 129 of 887 for 15%. Secondary zone selections were 17 of 87 for 2 2%
• New eligible non-rated officers had a selection rate of 35%, 153 out of 439.
• Officers with doctorates were picked at a rate of 34%, masters at 24%, and bachelors at 11%.
• Controlled OER rating statistics appear in the February 20, 1978 issue.

613 – 13-Feb-78, LTE, Name Withheld By Request, “OERs”, Page 15, Vol. 38, No. 29

GAITHERSBURG, Md. – I’m a captain with over 3,000 hours in three aircraft and almost 1100 hours of combat time, most of it below 10,000 feet.

I made aircraft commander in minimum time. Six out of eight OERs were 9-4s. I was selected to attend AFIT and graduated with a master’s in nuclear physics.

I was assigned to an “elite” tri-service agency where to be nominated you have to be in the top 25 percent (says MPC).

I headed a reactor affiliated with weapons effects research. Five months after I arrived, the three-star head of the agency, who had never met me and was far removed physically and organizationally, gave me my first quota restricted OER, a 3.

However, it was accompanied by an explanation of the “eliteness” of his group of captains.

At about the same time, I received a letter of appreciation from the laboratory commander for the results of my efforts on an inspection.

This is a case of how versatility, broadening of horizons, and much more can be aced out by a system not flexible enough to handle special situations. And it is not the only case. I personally know of two similar situations at this lab and in another “elite” group.

Moral: Because it hasn’t happened to you, doesn’t mean it’s not happening.

614 – 13-Feb-78, LTE, Name Withheld by Request, “Getting Out”, Page 15, Vol. 38, No. 29

EUROPE – I am one AF officer who has decided to end my brief career. This was not an easy decision. However I am now convinced it is a wise one.

During my three years of service, I have seen benefits done away with for retirees, paltry raises that did not keep pace with inflation, good officers riffed after years of service, careers ruined by an outrageous OER system and career-minded people turned off by inflexible, unreasonable officers in command positions.

The pages of your paper herald a dark future for career people. Changes in the pay system, retirement, commissaries, base exchanges and Champus are constantly advocated by Congress. The new DOPMA legislation promises harder promotions, longer time in grade between promotions and more rapid separation for failure to be promoted.

Is it any wonder to DoD or Congress that the volunteer force is losing personnel?

It is my conviction that a civilian has better opportunities for advancement and more personal freedom.

Security in the AF? It’s a myth.

623 – 20-Feb-78, Staff, “Selection Rates Explained For Temporary Colonels”, Page 7, Vol. 38, No. 30

WASHINGTON – While the temporary colonel board had a selection rate of 34.2% for first-time eligibles, the rate increased to 91.9% for those with one or two OER ratings of 1, Headquarters has said.

First-time eligibles whose last OERs were 1s but had 2s on the previous OER had a selection rate of 46.1%. A 1 on the last OER but a 3 on the previous one brought a selection rate of 33.3% for first-timers. A 2 on the last and a 1 on the OER before that brought a selection rate of 22.5%.

Officers “previously considered” had an overall selection rate of 5.4%. However, those with two straight 1s on their OERs were selected at a rate of 60.6%, while those with 1s the last time but 2s on the previous OER had a selection rate of 28.2%. Those with 1s on the last and 3s on the previous had a selection rate of 4.3%.

• The overall selection rate for officers to the secondary zone was 15.7%.

 

 

O-6 Board				PRIMARY ZONE					SECONDARY ZONE
		1st time Eligibles				Previous Nonselect
OER		Sel.	Con.	Pct.		Sel.	Con.	Pct.		Sel.	Elig.	Pct.
11		339	369	91.9%		80	132	60.6%		95	445	21.3%
12		101	219	46.1%		35	124	28.2%		9	165	5.5%
13		16	48	33.3%		2	47	4.3%		0	11	0.0%
21		18	80	22.5%		0	85	0.0%		1	27	3.7%
Other		8	963	0.8%		9	1946	0.5%		1	27	3.7%
		482	1679	28.7%		126	2334	5.4%		106	675	15.7%
AFT 2-20-78. Board 12-5-77. Line Officers Only.

 

Table 7 – Colonel Selection Board #6-3

 

625 – 27-Feb-78, LTE, Carol J. Ovalle, “OER”, Page 15, Vol. 38, No. 31

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. – I have not yet found anyone who would presume to suggest that this OER system is either workable or equitable. Officers from lieutenants to generals seemed to be dissatisfied, disappointed, disillusioned or departing the service altogether!

It is in the interest of the Air Force to find a fair method to evaluate and implement personnel management decisions. The system should accurately reflect achievement and potential of each officer, as well as provide a means of effectively, efficiently and equitably guiding the decisions of the promotion boards.

Not only does the OER system avoid fulfilling any of the above, it actually manages to accomplish much more damaging results. First, under this rating system visibility is a more desirable quality then true achievement. Success is a more attractive goal than true accomplishment.

These sad and demoralizing facts can be attributed to two primary factors. First, not all officers are highlighters – they are not the ones who brief generals and are in the general’s sight constantly. Second, the general is farthest removed from the officer’s daily performance. The general cannot possibly be in touch on a consistent basis with each officer’s values, attitudes and depth of commitment. In spite of the general’s relative ignorance of most of the personnel he is responsible for reviewing, he has the final word on placing an officer in a 1, 2 or 3 category.

Aside from the injustice of such a situation, the thought of determining the lives and careers of dedicated men in such a manner is both simplistic and reprehensible. Isn’t it blatantly clear to all involved that no one is fairly served by the system? Isn’t it obvious that raters and reviewers are forced to value quotas over conscience and to value a promotion system over the personnel it was created to serve?

I sincerely hope, as I know many others do, that a workable OER system will be found and implemented. Any amendments to the tragically inept system now in use will emphasize its intrinsic shortcomings. In some cases, as with the removal of the quota percentage on 2 ratings, this terrifically farcical procedure actually has been made worse.

We are assured upon inquiry to those in authority that the OER system is being constantly reviewed, critiqued and modified accordingly. We are assured that changes will be made as merited. Meanwhile, what about all the officers who are facing drastically altered career goals and aspirations at this moment?

626 – 27-Feb-78, LTE, Maj. James S. Mosbey, “Job Dissatisfaction”, Page 15, Vol. 38, No. 31

Santa Anna, Calif. – Reginald Brown was quoted as saying that those in the military who do not like the proposed compensation and retirement plans can “vote with their feet” (Dec. 26). If he were around the gates of the aviation community, he would run the risk of being trampled. As to his comments concerning the competitiveness of military pay scales and the elimination of flight pay, I suggest he check the pay rates of commercial airlines in the United States. Highly qualified combat air crew members are returning to civilian careers in ever-increasing numbers. The effect of this exodus on front-line operational squadrons is devastating in its impact on both morale and combat readiness.

Two common threads seem to recur in the reasons given for separation by these previously career-motivated officers: the increasingly austere financial environment that has resulted in curtailment of necessary training funds, and the subsequent loss of the flights required to maintain basic combat proficiency. In management terms, this probably relates to job satisfaction. The other common theme deals directly with future financial security (or in the case of Brown’s comments, insecurity) and a recognizable system of advancement.

I have urged each officer who cites these reasons for leaving the service to let his Congressman also know these reasons. Perhaps when the lawmakers become aware of the results of repeated negatively perceived studies, inquiries and programs pertaining to personnel costs, they will seek better ways of retaining our personnel, thus maintaining our military strength at reasonable levels. Forcing out career personnel and continually training replacements is unnecessarily expensive and degrades our nation’s readiness.

629 – 10-Mar-78, AFMPC, AFR 36-10 – Change 1

630 – 13-Mar-78, Staff, “Fliers Told Plans for Supplement”, Page 4, Vol. 38, No. 33

WASHINGTON – Distribution objectives for officers available for rated supplement duty during FY 1979 were released by Headquarters last week.

The distribution was determined through a formula developed by the Rated Supplement Prioritization Board, which met at the Military Personnel Center last November. The board, composed of senior officers, met specifically to decide where rated officers were needed most.

“The board came up with the AFSC distribution schedule. It gives AF and internal management tool to put the rated officer where he is needed most – according to his area of expertise. This was not done before,” explained an official.

• 4106 pilots and navigators are available to fill jobs in support areas in FY 1979. Most of the officers will be in research and development, logistics and construction instruction.
• The rated supplement has been declining steadily and is expected to be exhausted by FY 1980. In FY 1977, a total of 6904 officers filled support jobs, as did 5443 officers in FY 1978.

632 – 03-Apr-78, LTE, NAME WITHHELD, “Nature of Potential”, Page 15, Vol. 38, No. 36

OMAHA, Neb. – A recent AF publication, AFP 36-26, Officer’s Evaluator’s Handbook, contains a definition of officer potential which points out a fallacy in our officer promotion system.

In chapter 3, “The Nature of Potential,” we read, “potential for the purpose of OER rating decisions will be determined primarily by the evaluator’s assessment of the ratee’s accomplishments during the period of the report and with consideration given to other ‘whole person’ factors, e.g., career pattern, integrity, PME, etc. Evaluators will focus primarily on near-term capabilities for increased responsibilities; from an evaluator’s perspective, long-range assessment is a subordinate element for which primary responsibility rests with the selection board.”

There is an apparent contradiction between the first and second sentences which points out a true state of ambivalence and Air Force policy on officer OER evaluations. The second sentence says that long-term, whole-person factors should not be considered in the OER evaluation, as this is the purpose of promotion boards. The first sentence says these factors should be considered.

If the evaluator bases his near-term evaluation on long-range factors, the result is what I called the double B.S. The individual is evaluated [on] his OER and by the promotion board on the items easily quantified in his record, i.e. PME and career pattern. Nowhere is he evaluated strictly on near-term capabilities.

The OER evaluation is a document which should be considered prima facie evidence of job performance by the promotion board. They, in turn, consider other whole-person factors to arrive at the decision to promote or not to promote.

If the near-term evidence is based even partially on whole-person factors (already visible in promotion files), these factors are going to have an inordinate impact on the promotion board. Therefore I suggest that the words “with consideration given to ‘whole person’ factors, e.g., career pattern, integrity, PME, etc.” should be changed to read, “whole-person factors which are not evident in personnel records, such as integrity, dedication and other human qualities.”

Also, under inappropriate factors (paragraph 3-3) we should include PME and career pattern. These items are important but already on the record and in no way indicators of near-term job performance.

In fact, the faster an individual moves from one assignment to another, the less he contributes to each. In other words, the more central he is to the AF in any capacity, the less likely he is to have a good career pattern. Also, as a general rule, the more demanding a person’s job, the less likely he is to have completed his PME. Therefore, letting PME and career pattern influence performance ratings results in the tendency to promote nonessential people in noncritical jobs. (This accounts for the old adage, “screw up and move up.”)

If we let PME, career pattern and education influence whether or not the officer gets the top performance rating, we’re putting ourselves in the position of the promotion board and are letting his likelihood of being promoted influence what we feel about how he does his job (instead of letting how he does his job influence his likelihood of promotion).

I realize that the new OER system is in part an attempt to reduce the impact of certain whole-person factors on the promotion system, but we still have a slight hangover from the days of “walking on water.” In my opinion we still need to get back to basics and performance evaluations if we want to promote the best people. An officer who does his job in an outstanding manner (with integrity and dedication) should need no other justification to support a top performance rating.

(To satisfy your curiosity, I’m an LC selectee.)

634 – 17-Apr-78, Craver, “Seven-Year Retention Up, 10-Year and 15-Year Off”, Page 2, Vol. 38, No. 38

WASHINGTON – More officers at the seven-year point are staying in the Air Force then in recent years. But more officers at the 10 and 15-year points are getting out, Air Force Times has learned.

The retention data, provided by Headquarters in response to a query by Air Force Times, compared figures for Line officers at the seven, 10- and 15-year points in 1975, 1976 and 1977.

At the seven-year point, AF had a retention rate of 50% in 1975, 52% in 1976 and 54% in 1977. At the 10-year point, the retention rate was 46% in 1975, increasing to 47% in 1976, and the decreasing to 45% in 1977. The retention rate at the 15-year point was 36% in 1975, 35% in 1976 and 33% in 1977.

• Normalized data removes from the sample those who leave the Air Force involuntarily, such as during a RIF, promotion failure, death or disability and, for rated officers, those who were suspended from flying.
• The retention rates for non-rated officers are greater during these years than are those for rateds. However, over the three-year period, the retention rates for non-rated increased. The rates for rateds over the same period stayed about the same or decreased.

645 – 01-May-78, Staff, “Mistakes Found in ANG OERs & Inadequate Review”, Page 24, Vol. 38, No. 40

WASHINGTON – The Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver has received a significant number of officer efficiency reports for Air National Guard people that contained mistakes, the National Guard Bureau has said.

ARPC corrected some errors, the NGB said, but the center also returned a number of the reports because the errors make them unacceptable for filing. The NGB said, in a recent message, “Few, if any, of the errors can be attributed to changes to the OER system.” Rather, nearly all resulted from inadequate review by evaluators and CBPO people responsible for handling the reports, NGB noted.

The NGB message contained statistics on OERs received at the center last year. They showed that ARPC corrected 25% of the colonel OERs it received last year and had to return more than 10%. ARPC corrected many lieutenant colonel OERs and returned about 9%. The statistics for captain OERs show that ARPC corrected nearly 50% and returned slightly more than 16%. Nearly 60% of the lieutenants OERs were corrected last year, with about 11% returned because of mistakes, the figures showed.

• Among the mistakes corrected were incorrect periods of supervision, date report signed prior to date of reports, periods of reports incorrect and duty levels and/or duty titles omitted from the OERs.
• NGB officials said, “We are unaccustomed to having to employ such measures but OERs are two important to an officer’s career to be dismissed lightly.”

654 – 12-Jun-78, Staff, “ROPA Majors Board Picks 1304 for Hikes”, Page 20, Vol. 38, No. 46

WASHINGTON – The board that met April 3 through April 7 in Denver has named 1304 Reserve officers for permanent promotion to major, including 126 on active duty, 394 Air Guardsmen and 784 not on extended active duty.

Overall, 77% of the 1691 eligible officers were selected. There were 130 officers passed over for the second time, including 14 in the ANG and 116 Reservists not on active duty. Those passed over twice face involuntary separation.

• Overall results by promotion category were: line 74%, chaplain 100%, dental 67%, medical 73%, nurse 99%, medical service 79%, veterinary 89%, biomedical sciences 90%.

• The fully qualified method of selection was used, with no ceiling.

656 – 19-Jun-78, Staff, “Pilot Hiring Takes Toll”, Page 8, Vol. 38, No. 47

WASHINGTON – Vigorous hiring by the airline industry is taking its toll on Air Force’s supply of pilots, Air Force Times has learned.

The retention problem is particularly acute in the 6 to 11 year groups, an official said.

“The airlines are making their big raids now and this hiring is a major factor in the retention problem,” the official said.

• Loss of benefits is another factor compounding the problem of retention, the official continued.

659 – 26-Jun-78, Craver, “Retention Drive Is On & Pilot Losses”, Page 1, Vol. 38, No. 48

WASHINGTON – A major campaign is underway to stem the growing exodus of pilots from the Air Force, officials said. It is estimated that in coming years AF will lose 1000 pilots a year to the airline industry.

In response to a query by Air Force Times, Headquarters officials said the campaign to improve pilot retention will be in two phases.

First phase is a series of briefings on the problem by Military Personnel Center officials to all USAF active wings. (Details of the briefings were not available at press time.) These briefings will be coupled with stepped-up career counseling for pilots, officials said.

Phase 2 will feature attempts to improve duty conditions for pilots and increased emphasis on the “challenge of military aviation by reminding AF people of the vital contributions they make to national defense,” said officials.

• MAC is the first individual command to develop its own rated retention program, and has been reviewing its policies to try to improve conditions and job satisfaction.
• The retention problem is particularly acute in the 6-to-11 year groups. Losses in these groups from March 1977 to March 1978 totaled 1650. The year before (March 1976 to March 1977) the total was 1500. (These losses include pilots leaving the force for all reasons, including medical suspensions, death and disability.)
• Headquarters said about six of every 10 pilots remain on active duty beyond the minimum obligation.
• In the post-Vietnam years, Air Force Undergraduate Pilot Training rates have been significantly reduced because of reductions in requirements. In FY 1979, for example, the pilot training rate will be only 1050. Heavy losses from these small year groups will significantly deplete our pilot force unless we can increase our retention, Headquarters said.

668 – 17-Jul-78, Craver, “2 Programs to Ease Technical Shortages & Officer Recall, – Continuation”, Page 4, Vol. 38, No. 51

WASHINGTON – Critical shortages in some career fields have prompted Air Force to create special officer recall and continuation programs to fill the need.

Recall program involves Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve officers in the grades of second lieutenant through captain. The selective continuation program is aimed at career Reserve officers in the grades of lieutenant colonel and below who are scheduled to retire at 20 years.

Both programs seek to ease the shortage of technically trained personnel, especially in engineering and computers.

• This criteria includes rated officers too. As Air Force Times has reported recently, Air Force is plagued with a pilot retention problem that shows no sign of abating.
• The recall program already has selected people for FY 1978. There were only 41 officers selected this year, but the number is expected to increase to 300 and FY 1979.

670 – 17-Jul-78, LTE, “Pilot Drain”, Page 11, Vol. 38, No. 51

PANAMA CITY, Fla. – I’m an Air Force Academy graduate, a pilot, and after 10 years of active duty, I’m separating from the Air Force. Blaming the pilot retention problem on the airlines is missing the point. The airline hiring spree is not the cause of pilots leaving the USAF in many cases; it is merely an outstanding opportunity for leaving. The military establishment is being increasingly attacked – both from without and within.

Congress begrudges us our pay, benefits are being continuously scrutinized and eroded, and it’s impossible to predict with any certainty the far or even near-term quality of military life.

Many flying unit commanders are “mickey-mousing” their people to death. Initiative is squelched and over-supervision prevails. It’s frustrating to see officers rise to positions of command who are motivated by fear or who are solely interested in “not making waves” and preserving their own careers. In this kind of environment, one’s sense of patriotism is overridden by a genuine survival instinct (both for physical and emotional survival).

Those of us who know we are worth more than we are being given credit for are shedding the military security blanket and heading to the civilian job market. Because of our exodus, a lot of pilots who could and should be RIFed will be able to hang on for 20 years.

It’s time for Congress and military leaders to wake up to the real problem behind the pilot retention situation.

671 – 24-Jul-78, LTE, “Pilot Dissatisfaction”, Page 15, Vol. 38, No. 52

EUROPE – The “experts” have done it again. The Air Force’s analysis of the major factor contributing to the loss of AF pilots (airline hiring and wages) shows an astonishing inability of those responsible to recognize the forest while gazing intently at the trees.

As a 10-year fighter pilot, I am familiar with, and sympathetic toward, the growing exodus of pilots to the airlines. I’m not qualified to speak for other commands but in the fighter business, this trend is not primarily caused by the promise of dizzying salaries. Instead, it is directly influenced by the understandable desire of a highly trained professional to be treated as such.

General, your pilots are not greedy materialists with dollar signs superimposed on their eyeballs. The vast majority of them are dedicated people who obtain a great deal of satisfaction from a challenging mission. Obviously, we’re not in the same tax bracket as the average Concorde captain, but to most pilots this is not the principal complaint.

Why then are pilots stepping over the side at such a rapid rate? Ask the lieutenant who just spent most of his 12-hour day answering telephones behind a squadron duty desk or sitting in a runway supervisory unit to ensure that his fellow professionals haven’t neglected to lower their wheels. Checked the morale of the captain who has fought for flying hours and proficiency for five years, and then receives orders to an Army unit as a non-flying forward air controller. Spend a few hours in an operational squadron watching pilots who should be studying tactics and enemy capabilities but instead are shuffling papers concerned with vehicle maintenance, going to drug abuse lectures and cleaning up the building in anticipation of visiting VIPs.

Want to retain your pilots, General? First, then cancel phase 1 of your retention program. MPC briefing teams who tell us how good we really have it merely insult our intelligence and constitute another irritant. Second, press on with phase two and make it mean something. Asked the pilots (not their Wing Commander) what the problems are and take positive action to prove conditions. Air Force pay could be better, but I believe most pilots are more concerned with real job satisfaction. If the Air Force is unwilling to provide this basic reward people will seek it elsewhere. Can anyone blame them?

674 – 31-Jul-78, Staff, “Major Scores OER Debate & ‘Destructive'”, Page 2, Vol. 39, No. 1

WASHINGTON – No other issue draws as much heated debate as the new Officer Effectiveness Report, but it is a self-destructive and team-destructive debate, says Major Daniel R. Peterson in an article in the May-June issue of Air University Review.

“The new OER has drawn more flak than any other single subject since our involvement in Vietnam. Opponents of the new system seem to outnumber the proponents by far,” Peterson says.

“Not only is the collective peace of mind of the officer corps in a state of unrest – as the heated flurry of discussion would imply – but many believe that the very foundation of the officer corps is threatened because of the new system’s avowed effect on individual integrity and cooperativeness.”

• Peterson says if the issue isn’t resolved, the Air Force and the nation are heading for a “disastrous chapter.”
• To officers who say the OER system is unfair, unjust and unnecessary, Peterson points out that just as many officers will be separated under the new system as under the old.
• “… If you did not perceive a threat under the old system but you do under the new, it is the extent to which it occupies your mind and influences your concept of collective integrity that should concern you,” Peterson says.
• “Are we going to continue the dialogue until the atmosphere and working environment are really hazardous due to all the unsheathed knives for backstabbing and throat cutting?” he asks.

675 – 31-Jul-78, Staff, “Two-Ratings Rise Sharply”, Page 2, Vol. 39, No. 1

WASHINGTON – The December 31, 1977, major’s OER cycle showed a sharp increase in the number of 2s rendered.

The cycle is the first one since Headquarters decontrolled the 2 rating.

In response to a query from Air Force Times, Headquarters said 9.3% of the OERs were 3s. Since the top-block rating still is controlled at 22%, this presumably means that about 68% of the majors received 2s.

• Overall, 11,250 OERs were rendered during this cycle. Some of those majors will face the temporary lieutenant colonels board August 21.

676 – 31-Jul-78, LTE, Capt. Randy D. Smith, “Keeping Pilots In”, Page 15, Vol. 39, No. 1

CONUS – I read with great interest the June 26 article on the pilot retention problem. It is good to see that officials have at least recognized the problem that flying squadrons have been facing for quite some time. We’re trying to assign a qualified mission-ready aircrew, not just keep the authorized slots filled with warm bodies.

The Air Force Times reported that “hiring by the airline industry was the major factor in the retention problem.” That statement shows a basic misunderstanding of the problem. The loss-rate statistics have been mounting for the last several years, but were never felt to be important because we were trying to reduce the total force anyway. Voluntary separations probably seemed the easiest way to achieve that goal.

The rate has most certainly increased over the past few months as airline hiring began to pick up. But if you go back and look, a healthy percentage of those separating were and are doing so not to move to a better job, but to leave one that they could no longer tolerate.

Recent letters appearing in this section show what’s going on. The same irritants are identified over and over — an OER system implemented with the thoughts of not wasting a 1 on Junior Goldengloves because Capt. Lead Gauntlet is in the primary zone this time around.

“And by the way, Goldengloves, you may be the best pilot in the squadron, but unless you get SOS and a Masters degree and a new additional duty I’m really going to have trouble filling all the squares on your 2. I know you wouldn’t want your 2 to look just like the 2 I’m giving Capt. Lastclass DoNothing. You’ve worked much too hard for that,” the writer might be heard mumbling.

And what about our commanders? The Air Force has become a “one mistake per customer” organization. For 18 years an officer does a great job and then he stubs his toe on a four-day ORI.

His career is over and he’s put out to pasture at some headquarters. How do we expect anyone to use initiative and try anything except the “old proven way” with the promise of that kind of hatchet job?

There are good commanders who will back their troops to the hilt. But did you ever notice how many of the really good ones aren’t bucking for a star at the same time?

Other problems include non-mobility weapons systems, forced over-education (PME and graduate degrees) — the list is endless.

The one that bothers me most is the lack of upward communication. Look at this page in Air Force Times over the last few months. How many are signed Name Withheld by Request? If we can’t talk to each other we’re really in trouble, Air Force.

Well, at least someone has started a two-phase briefing and a PR program to tell us how important we are as pilots.

Air Force leaders, I hope you read and heed. The species that feeds on its own young doesn’t last long.

678 – 07-Aug-78, Craver, “3957 Win Promotion to Major”, Page 10, Vol. 39, No. 2

WASHINGTON – The selection board which met June 5 named 3957 officers for temporary promotion to major, including 197 from the secondary zone.

Overall, 3760 of the 6235 officers considered in the primary zone were picked (60%), and 197 of 1729 looked at in the secondary made it (11%).

Reserve officers passed over for the first time will be separated involuntarily, with readjustment pay, unless they request and receive permission to remain on active duty to be considered by the next temporary majors board.

• For line officers, 3195 of the 4670 new eligibles were selected for 68%, leaving 1475 that were passed over for the first time. They must leave by January 31, 1979, unless approved for retention until they have another shot at temporary major. If they again are passed over, they will be separated and will be paid adjustment pay if eligible.
• Other promotion category selections were: Judge Advocate 82%, chaplain 52%, nurse 47%, medical service 57%, veterinary 65%, and biomedical sciences 58%.
• Selected statistics for this board are shown in the 14 August 1978 article.

680 – 07-Aug-78, LTE, Major Joe Weinrich, “Pilot Discontent”, Page 15, Vol. 39, No. 2

Vahdati AB, Iran — Headquarters must find it very convenient to hurl the blame at the airlines hiring surge. Honorable mentions or “other factors” include “lack of job satisfaction, insufficient flight hours and extended family separations.” I contend the other factors are for more cogent reasons that the airlines’ big money lure. And, I will add a brushed-over factor — job security.

The 7-to-10 year pilot core is spiraling toward the endangered species status because they view pilots’ waning promotion opportunity rates to permanent captain and temporary major as threats to their career intentions. While the apparent effort to spread the wealth of promotions throughout the entire cadre of officers may be worthy of applause, it is not smart to pare pilots’ chances for promotion and not expect a backlash of exits.

The airlines were not hiring at today’s frenzied pace 7 to 9 years ago when the USAF experienced the marked exodus of backseat F-4 pilots disgruntled with their jobs.

The Air Force must concentrate on looking inward when assessing responsibility for pilot separations. One area of concern is the emphasis on off-duty participation in advanced degree and professional military education programs. The axiom that participation reflects on officer’s motivation and initiative is tired, outdated and ignorant of the “balanced person” concept.

Why does leadership virtually demand that flyers spin 12 to 14 hours a day engaged in work and work-related activity? Because leaders have forgotten that rational, emotionally stable and healthy individuals stay that way via an equitable balance of job, family and social contact in their lives. We should be careful to r the balanced person concept gained momentum in the late 60s and early 70s timeframe. Is it coincidental that today’s exiting pilots or the collegians of that era? Of course educational emphasis is not the only culprit and that could be riveted by allowing job performers into residence programs.

There are other reasons: disenchantment with the OER program (some in the exodus don’t believe a 3 rating is competitive for promotion), early, early morning flights without a shift in the units quitting time, and for some, the inability to take their yearly 30-day leave during a single stretch.

I hope the retention briefing teams go to the pilots with more colorful slides and promises of “how it’s going to be better in the Air Force.” This crowd is too smart. It will take substantive action not already in effect to sway them. Finally, deglamorizing the airlines will have no more effect than Brer Rabbit’s, “don’t throw me in that briar patch.”

681 – 07-Aug-78, LTE, Capt. Bob Fratt, “Nav Retention”, Page 15, Vol. 39, No. 2

SPANGDAHLEM AB, Germany — The pilot who expressed his opinions on the pilot retention problem (July 24 issue) hit the nail right on the head. Unfortunately, there also is a navigator retention problem which the Air Force either fails to recognize or just doesn’t care about. The reasons the author gives for pilot dissatisfaction are almost identical to those of the navigator if you tack on OERs and promotion rates. The lure of the airlines is one of the biggest cop-outs I have heard in my nine years in the Air Force. Have airlines started hiring navigators again?

It’s about time the Air Force realized that AF flyers are a highly motivated group of people who want nothing more than to become the most professional aviators in the world. However, they are being “burned out” by Air Force paperwork, additional duties, extra details, mandatory briefings, required meetings, OERs, 12-hour duty days and cost reductions which severely limit their combat effectiveness. If the Air Force would only realize that a flyers only duty is to “fly and fight” and that anything else is rubbish it would not have to invent scapegoats like the airlines for retention problems and would not have to waste everyone’s valuable time and money on MPC briefing teams.

But then, why should I care? I’m bailing out in 17 days.

683 – 14-Aug-78, Craver, “AF Battles Exodus of Pilots”, Page 3, Vol. 39, No. 3

WASHINGTON – Air Force is on a collision course with the airline companies.

That’s the way Headquarters officials see the problem as they watch more and more pilots leave the service to fly commercial planes.

“The airline demand is increasing and it promises to increase even more. In fact we expect that they will be needing as many pilots each year as we will be producing,” one official said.

Air Force recently launched a program to reduce the number of pilots who are separating. The first part of the program is to send briefing teams out to talk with the pilots.

“We want to open up lines of communication. This way we can find out what is troubling them and let them know that those in top management care,” an official said.

• The services have a few excess pilots and their inventories of planes have shrunk about all they are likely to.
• Officials concede that the retention problem is not entirely one of the airlines’ sudden need for pilots. But they think the combination of circumstances – some discontent with service careers coinciding with the increase commercial hiring – has worked to hurt retention.
• In their letters to Air Force Times, pilots have said they didn’t find that the lure of big money from the airlines is the prime cause of the retention problem. They mentioned family separation, limited flying time, the OER system and other career factors as contributing to the overall lack of job satisfaction. This, and not the lure of big money, is tempting them to leave, they say.
• Air Force officials said they are “locked in” to the OER system, at least for the present, and if Congress gets its way, flying hours will diminish even more in FY 1979.

685 – 14-Aug-78, Staff, “How Controlled OER Added Up”, Page 3, Vol. 39, No. 3

WASHINGTON – The CY 1978 temporary major promotion board was the first of its kind to consider officers with three controlled OERs.

The accompanying table shows how officers with various combinations of ratings fared in the selections. The data are based on both first-time eligibles and those previously considered.

Here’s how the table works: the most recent OER appears first. For example, a 123 combination means that an officer received a 1 on the most recent cycle (October 31, 1977), a 2 on the one before that (October 1976) and a 3 on the October 1975 cycle. Officers who missed a controlled OER and receive some other evaluation instead (abbreviated or training reports) have and “X” placed in that entry.

 

 

O-4 Board				PRIMARY ZONE
		1st time Eligibles				Previous Nonselect
OER		Sel.	Con.	Pct.		Sel.	Con.	Pct.
1xx		105	106	99.1%		8	8	100.0%
11x		396	397	99.7%		44	44	100.0%
111		349	349	100.0%		10	10	100.0%
112		192	193	99.5%		25	25	100.0%
113		105	105	100.0%		44	44	100.0%
12x		261	262	99.6%		23	24	95.8%
121		74	74	100.0%		2	2	100.0%
122		127	127	100.0%		19	19	100.0%
123		116	118	98.3%		42	43	97.7%
13x		109	120	90.8%		23	30	76.7%
131		19	19	100.0%		0	0
132		36	36	100.0%		9	9	100.0%
133		48	63	76.2%		16	27	59.3%
2xx		80	96	83.3%		2	13	15.4%
21x		126	130	96.9%		15	17	88.2%
211		107	108	99.1%		3	3	100.0%
212		60	63	95.2%		3	3	100.0%
213		36	37	97.3%		10	11	90.9%
22x		232	266	87.2%		18	35	51.4%
221		68	70	97.1%		1	1	100.0%
222		146	152	96.1%		12	17	70.6%
223		113	173	65.3%		12	28	42.9%
224		1	2	50.0%		0	0
23x		73	212	34.4%		2	48	4.2%
231		23	24	95.8%		1	2	50.0%
232		31	56	55.4%		3	11	27.3%
233		22	161	13.7%		0	53	0.0%
3xx		17	65	26.2%		0	23	0.0%
31x		16	42	38.1%		0	6	0.0%
311		23	25	92.0%		0	2	0.0%
312		9	13	69.2%		0	7	0.0%
313		4	11	36.4%		0	3	0.0%
32x		17	118	14.4%		2	43	4.7%
321		7	15	46.7%		0	2	0.0%
322		16	61	26.2%		0	19	0.0%
323		2	79	2.5%		1	39	2.6%
33x		5	290	1.7%		1	179	0.6%
331		1	14	7.1%		0	4	0.0%
332		1	75	1.3%		0	37	0.0%
333		3	299	1.0%		0	262	0.0%
TOT		3176	4626	68.7%		351	1153	30.4%

 

Board: 5-Jun-78; AFT: 14-Aug-78

 

Table 8 – Major Selection Board #4-2

 

686 – 14-Aug-78, LTE, Col. Frederick B. Walters, “MPC Reply”, Page 17, Vol. 39, No. 3

RANDOLPH AFB, Tex. – I want to take this opportunity to address the letter in the July 24 issue about pilot dissatisfaction. I hope the writer will take the opportunity to catch the late August spread-the-word briefing that will be traveling in USAFE. It’s one of the more than 50 we plan this year in conjunction with the major commands, to bring the “un-garbled word” to people in flying units around the world. It’s not, as our anonymous author suggested, a “sunshine” briefing. It is a good opportunity for open discussion of career options and the role aircrew manning plays.

As a measure of the scope of this effort, we expect to look 20,000-plus rated officers, including most aircrews, in the eye and get their feelings about their jobs, the Air Force and themselves. We are indeed “asking the pilots” as the author suggested. AFMPC isn’t alone in working on the problem either. One majcom commander recently hosted a three-day retention workshop during which he personally worked with both career and separating aircrews on identifying and correcting the problems at hand. Other commands are following suit.

I fully recognize the importance of job satisfaction and the role personnel folks can play. Along this line, another thrust of our spread-the-word effort is to show how different categories of assignments fit into the total manning picture. The author’s example of the fighter pilot dissatisfied with his assignment is common. We would press for an understanding on his part that how TACS do their job has been a big player in getting the flying hours and air-two-ground mission he had enjoyed for five years.

I am confident that my rated officer career managers – each with a wealth of recent squadron-level experience – understand the concerns of our anonymous author and his contemporaries and are working hard to mesh personal concerns and desires with demands of the mission. I would entreat all rated officers to join our forum of face-to-face discussion, because I firmly believe it’s this kind of discourse that will get us on the way towards eliminating causes of the writer’s dissatisfaction.

[Author: Colonel Walters was the AFMPC Director of Personnel Resources and Distribution]

690 – 21-Aug-78, LTE, Name Withheld, “A 3 is a 3”, Page 15, Vol. 39, No. 4

TINKER AFB, Okla. – Having been just selected for non-promotion to major on the last board, I would like to offer a few thoughts and suggestions to those other non-selectees and future pass overs of whom there will be many if current percentages and policies hold true.

I made only one error in judgment during my 12-year career. I believed MPC’s line that a three on my OER was competitive and promotable. I volunteered for a special assignment and promptly receive the new-guy three. Having all the other squares filled (SOS, ACSC, master degree, MajCom assignment), I thought that the promotion board would take that into account as it was a very selective position at a major command.

A three is a three, regardless of where it is obtained. If it’s sitting on top when you go into the primary zone, you are guaranteed not to be selected.

The only way to change this up or out feature is to write your congressmen concerning this tremendous waste of manpower, experience, talent and careers. There’s no better time than right now. The Senate committee on Armed Services now is considering changing the up or out feature.

Sen. Sam Nunn, (D-Ga.) is leading this issue, and I would recommend that you make him the focal point of your letters. He is most receptive concerning personnel policies, especially the up-or-out feature of DOPMA. It’s now or never, captains.

692 – 28-Aug-78, LTE, Capt. Ronald W. McCracken, “Pilot Problems”, Page 15, Vol. 39, No. 5

CONUS — The official position on the pilot retention problem indicates that once again, the symptom has been mistaken for the cause. True, pilots are going to the airlines. Where else do you go if flying is the only salable skill you possess? Nor is the reason better pay. For the first few years at least, airline pay is not significantly higher than Air Force pay. True, a 747 Capt. pulls down 80 grand a year, but he had to work 15 to 20 years to reach that point. Airline hiring merely presents an opportunity to escape a bad situation.

The situation is created by the rating system and the up-or-out promotion system, which is so closely intermeshed as to defy independent consideration. The rating problems are the predictable result of rating people against one another, rather than against a standard.

People do not like to rate or be rated in this matter. The promotion system then adds injury to insult. Under the present system, you do not have an assured career until you make permanent major. DOPMA will push that point back to lieutenant colonel, a planned 35% opportunity. Not very encouraging odds! Thus, the Air Force has turned “motivators,” that is achievement and promotion, into “hygiene factors.” Instead of looking forward to promotion, everyone fears failing promotion.

Now, what do we do about it? First, make the evaluation of “Potential” a confidential rating. Only the rater and the board should see it. Realistic ratings here are crucial, and this will remove an impediment to honest evaluations.

Second, keep only the last four OERs in the promotion folder, and do not reveal to the board the number of prior considerations. This will afford an opportunity to live down a past mistake.

Third, eliminate up-or-out. The retirement system will ensure a young and dynamic force structure. Force separation for substandard performance will eliminate deadwood. The absurdity of up-or-out is apparent when badly needed senior pilots are forced out because they failed promotion at an arbitrary year-point. After all, promotion is not a reward for service, but the logical result of accepting increased responsibility. By extension, separation should be the result of incapacity, not for not being promoted.

So there you have it. To stay in the Air Force today, you must be promoted. To be promoted, under the present system, you must leave the cockpit. Not much of a choice for someone who wants to keep on flying, is it?

[Ed.] – We’ll be interested to hear the reactions of other readers to your proposed solutions. By “confidential,” for example, do you mean you don’t want to know your rating either? Why only the last OERs? Suppose your fifth oldest were your best or your fourth old is your worst? How do you answer AF’s argument that eliminating up-or-out could slow promotions almost to a standstill? And have you run into very many senior pilots who agree they would have been content indefinitely to stay in the cockpit – and in grade? We aren’t putting down your criticism, only wondering if you have found alternatives which will (1) satisfy AF’s requirements and (2) prove acceptable to the majority of pilots.

706 – 11-Sep-78, LTE, Capt. Goodbody, “Pilots Write”, Page 19, Vol. 39, No. 7

RANDOLPH AFB, Tex. – There has been a lot of hubbub lately about pilot retention in the Air Force. Everybody, it seems, is scurrying around to talk to pilots, get feedback from pilots and generally give pilots the impression that somebody really gives a damn. As an exiting pilot myself, I feel compelled to comment on this renaissance in personnel management.

First of all, I sympathize with Air Force planners who are striving to make the Air Force a better organization. Theirs is a continuous, uphill struggle. Unfortunately, I’m at a loss to make any recommendations that would entice others like myself to stay in the Air Force. However, if the Air Force ever again has the problem of having too many pilots, I feel that I can offer some concrete suggestions (short of a RIF) on how to get rid of some of them. Based on my experience, I think the following would work well:

– Have no comprehensive personnel program. Let everything be determined by the whim of Congress.

– Keep young pilots off-balance by changing promotion phase points.

– Make pilots attend as many meetings as possible to clutter their minds with insignificant information

– Give pilots lots of trivial additional duties to remind them of their miniscule status and that there are no unions in the Air Force.

– Constantly harp on the needs of the Air Force and how they come first in personnel decisions. This will reinforce the idea that the individual is nothing more than another nine digit number in the AFMPC computer.

– Give pilots less than their share of regular commissions on their first consideration.

– Never give a pilot his first choice for next assignment. If he wants to fly fighters, give him a bomber. If he wants to fly bombers, give him a desk. If you don’t know what else to do with him, make him an instructor pilot.

– Enforce stricter weight standards so as to have a more effective harassment program.

– Above all, keep changing everything. This will not only make the young pilot feel that life in the Air Force is unpleasant, it will convince him that a career in the Air Force rests on quicksand.

One last comment. Upper echelons are fond of repeating the phrase that “although the numbers of the Air Force have dwindled over the past few years, we have never had better, more highly qualified people than we do now.”

While this kind of statement can carry one far in political circles, I would offer a few words of caution. Don’t blink or you’ll miss seeing the best people the Air Force ever had leaving the Air Force. Then what is deterrence based on, reality or a lot of empty words?

707 – 11-Sep-78, LTE, Capt. Russ Hamilton, “Pilot Writes”, Page 19, Vol. 39, No. 7

ALASKAN AIR COMMAND – I am one of the pilots who plans to get out of the Air Force. Many of my friends, especially in MAC, are taking advantage of the job opportunities offered by the airlines. In every comparison the Air Force falls behind in pay, work, etc. That may be some justification for a few of my friends, but I and many of my friends are not taking the airline jobs. The reason is we are turning out is the uncertainty of what lies ahead as far as an Air Force career is concerned. I definitely do not recommend Air Force to anyone who wants to make it a career.

When I came in to the service our pay was good enough to scarcely live on compared to our civilian counterparts, but sacrifices could be made as long as the medical care for our families was good, the commissaries and the BXs offered us a shelter and we could look forward to our retirement.

The so-called erosion of benefits is a real thing, not just a perceived idea. We have had many pay caps on our raises which over many years adds up to a considerable amount, the commissaries are threatened as well as the BXs, DoD acts as though medical and dental care for our families are a nice thing to have but not really necessary, we have a cut off date on our GI education benefits, which was not the case when I entered the Air Force, and no one knows where the retirement plan will end up.

Because of a portion of the pay raise being applied to housing, I will have or would have had a reduced retirement. So many entitlements are being reduced or removed and few are being added. Some of our congressmen are trying to do something about maintaining a strong professional Air Force while a few think that because we are not at war we do not need the military. Many sound like some of those leaders who went down in history books saying that if we ignore war it will go away.

The study of military science is one of the most demanding careers a person could want. However, very few can continue to sacrifice what they feel certain about the future of the military as a way of life. Incidentally, I received a 1-1-2 and a 1-1-1 on my last 2 OERs and would have been up for major next year. I’m getting out so I can work on my education before the time limit is up on my GI benefits and while I am still young enough to get into another profession where I won’t have to worry about my future and my loss of entitlements.

708 – 18-Sep-78, LTE, Capt. G. Reagan Russey, “Pilots’ Views”, Page 15, Vol. 39, No. 8

KEESLER AFB, Miss. – Several Air Force aviators have expressed views regarding pilot separations from active duty and the surge in commercial airline hiring. It is true. Airline hirings have increased, but before you turn in that paperwork establishing a date of separation, examine the other side of the coin.

First, as the Air Force Times reported in the August 14 issue, two thirds of the new airline hires will be former military pilots. This equates to approximately 2400 pilots for 1978. Considering the vast number of Air Force pilots separating, coupled with Navy, Marine and Army flyers also looking for jobs, chances for stepping into an exotic airline position begins to diminish. In addition, many hirings are made solely to relatives or close personal friends in airline personnel offices. This further decreases job opportunity.

Secondly, health must be perfect. No on-the-spot USAF waivers are granted by airlines for anything less than 20/20 vision, perfect hearing and so on.

Finally, the numbers of hirings reported by the Air Force Times are only projections. Before you complain about job insecurity or job satisfaction, asked furloughed professionals about their careers in the “booming” airline industry. Or better yet, talk to someone who has gone through the hiring wringer and still is looking for employment.

710 – 18-Sep-78, Staff, “518 Tech Officers Asked to Stay On”, Page 4, Vol. 39, No. 8

WASHINGTON – To help fill critical shortages in some career fields in the Air Force, 518 Line officers have been offered a chance to stay on active duty past 20 years.

The Active Service for Career Reserve Officers Board met on August 2 two picked these technically trained officers. The board considered 678 lieutenant Colonels and below who had dates of separation in FY 1979 and FY 1980.

An officer selected by the board will be notified by letter and offered a two-year extension to his DOS, an official said. “But it’s a purely voluntary program,” he added.

• The majority of the officers selected were from the following career fields: computer technology, scientific and development engineering, intelligence, communications, logistics, personnel resource management, pilot/navigator, civil engineering, comptroller and operations.
• “This action is just one part of our continuing effort to deal with shortages in technical fields,” the official said.

712 – 25-Sep-78, LTE, Name Withheld by Request, “The Real Problem”, Page 17, Vol. 39, No. 9

 McClellan AFB, Calif. – The letter from Capt. McCracken on “Pilot Problems” in the August 28 issue is definitely in the ballpark. The Air Force is just kidding itself that airline hiring is at the heart of the pilot retention problems. The real problem is the intra-organizational competition caused by the OER system and the up-or-out system.

The Air Force says pilots would not be satisfied to remain in the cockpit, then moans when they go to the airlines where they will be in the cockpit until age 65. It is the pressure of the up-or-out system that forces many pilots to look for ways out of the cockpit.

Without correcting up-or-out and its tool, the 1, 2, 3 OER system, I doubt that the Air Force will be able to solve the junior officer retention problem.

714 – 25-Sep-78, LTE, Southwest Captain, “Up or Out”, Page 17, Vol. 39, No. 9

Wichita Falls, Tex. – An article in the August 28 issue quotes “a senior AF official” as saying he doesn’t think “non-promotable officers” would be content to stay in the same grade year after year. Which ones is he talking about? Most of the pilots I’ve talked to would jump at the chance to stay on as a captain and fly for 20 or 30 years, then retire. Does this “senior AF official” think General Motors or Texas Instruments, for example, fires all of their people for not being promoted or for not wanting to be president of the company? Not if the people are doing a good job they don’t!

Why does every officer have to try to be a general? This up-or-out promotion system is one of the reasons the military is so top heavy with a lot of O-5s, O-6s and O-7s with masters and PME degrees. These guys are interested in shoe shines, haircuts, etc., but do not evidence any leadership ability. If you disagree with that statement, just compare what SOS teaches as desirable traits for a leader to what we actually have running the AF today. Under the up-or-out system we would have started WW II without such people as Eisenhower, Bradley and Patton.

What is a non-promotable officer anyway? Is he the man I once worked with who was separated two years after completing AFIT? Or the one who was separated recently and now has a million-dollar contract with GM?

If the AF thinks the pilot exodus is due to airlines hiring, AF is blind. Most pilots I know are not in it for the money. If they were, they would have been gone long ago, getting more money as well as more respect from their employers and receiving less hassle.

How can AF stop the loss? For one thing, stop promoting managers and start promoting the latent leaders. Stop insisting on masters degrees. General Jones said a couple of years ago that a bachelor’s degree should be all that an officer needs to be chief of staff. If the up-or-out system were scrapped, then the OER system could be eliminated too. The OERs could be saved for the extremely good or extremely poor performers. The individual who just wants to do a good job could do the job and not try to be a general, while those who want to be generals could do that. More productive work would probably be accomplished this way.

The AF likes to call itself the biggest business in the world, but it is one of the most poorly managed. It should take some lessons from industry.

715 – 25-Sep-78, Staff, “More Flight Pay: Would It Work? & Retention”, Page 4, Vol. 39, No. 9

WASHINGTON – The services or talking about new flight pay incentives to help stem the flow of military pilots to the airlines.

Would a general increase in flight pay rates do the trick, or would some kind of rated bonus, aimed specifically at the problem group, the more effective?

A general increase in flight they would be expensive and would provide increases not only for younger pilots but for senior flyers who have no intention of leaving. Would it waste money?

A bonus is more in line with Defense’s philosophy of putting the oil were the wheel squeaks loudest, and it would cost less than an across-the-board raise. But would Congress buy it, and would it create new morale problems among the fliers with too much service to qualify?

• The services will be asking each other in a flight pay working group scheduled to meet later this month.
• Army, AF, Navy and the Marine Corps are all having some pilot retention problems.

720 – 02-Oct-78, LTE, “OER Objectivity”, Page 11, Vol. 39, No. 10

FALLS CHURCH, Va. – In the past few years, I have observed a number of letters criticizing the present OER system and the up-or-out concept. However, praise or comment expressing satisfaction with the system seems to come only from official sources.

To avoid the appearance of a slanted viewpoint, I think Air Force Times should publish more letters from it readers which favor the concept.

[Ed.] – We agree, but we seldom receive letters supporting the OER system or up-or-out.

722 – 02-Oct-78, LTE, Name Withheld by Request, “Up or Out”, Page 11, Vol. 39, No. 10

CONUS – I would like to respond to the articles that have appeared in the last few issues concerning the up-or-out proposal changes and how the AF foresaw no savings on the now defunct (temporarily) moratorium on forcing out past-over officers. For once, the AF is basically correct in saying no money would be saved by delaying the exit of passed-over officers. However, from that point on, Defense cannot see the forest for the trees.

All of the indications I have from reading various articles suggest that Congress is not merely looking for a one-year moratorium, but for a continuation clause to allow passed-over officers to remain on active duty until retirement. Congress and Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) are not asking the DoD but telling them to include continuation in DOPMA for submission next year. Nunn’s request for only a one-year extension of the grade relief act should be plain enough to anybody. Congress believes, and rightly so, that the savings will show up in reduced manpower required, training, retraining, PCS and all associated expenditures incurred during an officers first 11 or 12 years of service.

I will use the following numbers and percentages to illustrate just where the savings will come from. If 100 officers are brought on active duty, about 25 of them will exit the service after completing the initial obligation. If the remaining 75 officers stay on active duty until they reached the majors board, only 45 of them can be promoted using the current 60% figures. Congress is asking why the other 30 officers should be forced out if they are performing at a satisfactory level. This is where the savings will be realized.

Of the roughly 2475 passed-over captains, I would venture to guess that at least 2000 are doing an excellent job and would stay on active duty. If you keep more people on active duty, then you need to bring fewer new officers on active duty as future replacements (who also may exit or be passed over), thus saving money at all points during an officer’s career.

724 – 10-Oct-78, OSAF, AFR 36-10 – Msg 10/2115Z Oct 78, OSAF to All MAJCOM [OER – Top Block Rating Discontinued] (Link Required)

725 – 10-Oct-78, OSAF, AFR 36-10 – To ALMAJCOM, Msg 10/2115Z Oct 78 [OER System – Revisions]” (Link Required)

726 – 14-Oct-78, AFMPC, IMC 78-2 to AFR 36-10 – Msg 14/1800Z Oct 78 [Complete OER – Decontrol]

730 – 16-Oct-78, LTE, CAPTAIN, “Pilot Flight”, Page 15, Vol. 39, No. 12

COLUMBUS, Miss. – Many fine young officers have spent the past months writing letters to publications detailing the problems and reasons for the high rate of pilot loss among the services in general, and AF in particular.

It is apparent that pilots appreciate the relative security that an airline job offers. The traditional arguments that such security and increase financial reward only can be attained after several years of apprenticeship are easily offset by the insecurity stemming from a military whose management practices are left to the whim of an uncertain Congress.

I presume our military leaders are as capable as the pilot force of perceiving the dissatisfaction which besets those under their command. If they aren’t, they need only ask as they seem disposed recently to do. But they too are hamstrung by a government which, for example, cannot even vote on a much-needed officer personnel management act. Indeed, Air Force Times reporters found that most congressmen, [when] asked their opinion on a bill that has been before them since 1974, said: “DOPMA, what’s that?”

What can we who want to continue a career in the AF do about all this? Write letters to our congressmen and senators and make our views known while the high pilot attrition rate has generated increased interest. A government seeking solutions to the pilot force problem is much more likely to hear and do something about the situation in present circumstances. But not if people confine their comments to each other in the squadron.

If you care about your military career, NOW is the time to tell those in power what it will take to keep you in the service. They may take you seriously.

733 – 23-Oct-78, Craver, “OER Quotas Ended & Effective Immediately”, Page 3, Vol. 39, No. 13

WASHINGTON – All quotas on Officer Effectiveness Reports will be removed, effective immediately, AF Headquarters has announced.

In a message to the feel, Chief of Staff Gen. Lew Allen Jr. said the decision to remove percentage limitations on top block ratings resulted from an extensive top-to-bottom review of the system by senior AF leadership.

Because the change is effective immediately, Headquarters has directed that OERs being held for final review in the Capt. and major cycles will be returned to rating officials.

• The return to decontrol should not resurrect the inflation problem, nor does it mean that the new system didn’t work, officials said.
• “The current OER system has accomplished many of the goals it was designed to meet. The inflation in the previous OER system was checked, commanders were provided a very direct means of identifying high-quality performance, and the OER has provided direct feedback to ratees,” Headquarters said.

• In announcing the change, Headquarters did mention the unpopularity of the system among the officer corps, and the concern expressed because of that unpopularity among supervisors and commanders.

734 – 23-Oct-78, Staff, “2048 Selected for Temporary LC (1st Time PZ)”, Page 18, Vol. 39, No. 13

WASHINGTON – The board which met August 21 selected 2048 for promotion to temporary lieutenant colonel. The overall selection for new eligibles was 55%, and for total eligibles the overall rate was 29%.

The selection rates by promotion category are as follows: Line 30%, Judge Advocate 48%, Chaplain 15%, Nurse 12%, Medical Service 31%, Veterinary 20%, and Biomedical Sciences 24%.

Of the officers considered for the first time (Line only), 1519 of 2758 were selected. Officers considered for the second time and selected total 208 (out of 1148).

• Pilots had the best selection rate, in both primary (66%) and secondary zone.
• Navigators up for selection the first time in the primary zone were selected at a rate of 51%.
• Selection statistics are shown in an article on 18 December 1978.

735 – 30-Oct-78, Craver, “A Look at the Details & OER Changes”, Page 1, Vol. 39, No. 14

WASHINGTON – Details of the new officer effectiveness report system have been released by Headquarters. The changes will mean:

• An end of quotas for top block ratings.
• And end to OER review cycles. Now, an officer will receive an OER whenever a year has elapsed and he has been under 120 days of supervision. However, lieutenants will be related ever six months.
• An individual no longer will be rated relative to a specific review group.
• And endorser rather than a reviewer will be the third officer listed on the OER.
• Officers were awaiting insignia changes no longer will be exempt from OERs.

These changes to the OER system are effective at different times for different grades. The reason for the variance, an official said, is because when the change was decided on “we were already in the OER cycles for captains and majors.”

So, for colonels, lieutenant colonels and lieutenants, the change will be effective with OERs closing on or after October 10, 1978. For majors, the change will be effective with OERs closing on or after September 1, 1978, and for captains, on or after July 1, 1978. (Both of these dates represent the beginning of the review cycles for O-3s and O-4s).

• Given the change in the reporting system, Headquarters will make every effort to adjust the new cycles to “… ensure that officers compete equitably,” an official said.
• Concerning selection board schedules for later in 1978, Headquarters has said that, “OERs will be managed to ensure all eligibles compete on a fair and equitable basis.”

740 – 06-Nov-78, LTE, Name Withheld, “Promotion Problems”, Page 19, Vol. 39, No. 15

CONUS – The new promotion list for LC was just released and a lot of very unhappy and disillusioned officers are around. How my heart aches for them!

For years, they have been told that to stay competitive they have to fill in the squares: master’s degree, PME, etc. That has been part of the “whole man” concept AF has advocated for so many years to justify its selection of officers to higher grades. Now the last promotion board has shown a blatant disregard for the same things. The only assurance for promotion was a “1” OER at the top. There was no need for an education, PME, or outstanding OERs prior to the last one.

As evident by the statistics of the last board, 24 officers were selected without college degrees, and 56 had no PME, this after approximately 15 years of service. Apparently, their interest in advancement and furthering their careers was not great or they would have found time to pursue this matter.

Why should my husband and hundreds of men like him spend their precious off-duty time getting a master’s degree and acquiring the oh-so important PME when it doesn’t make any difference anyway? I’m sure they would much rather play golf or tennis. In today’s highly competitive and sophisticated AF there is absolutely no excuse for not getting a college degree.

The last promotion board made it clear – only one thing that mattered then was an OER rating of 1. This would be understandable if only the most qualified and deserving officers got the 1s, but this often is not the case, unfortunately. With the former 22 percent ceiling, many good and deserving officers were shortchanged, while the most popular ones got the breaks.

Now AF, realizing the OER system did not work, has lifted the controls on the 1s. Too bad our husbands were used as guinea pigs; the system was just around long enough to hurt them. But why should we worry? After all, they get another chance next year. There is one slight difference, however. By then they are considered “deferred officers” and the chances for promotion drop from approximately 55 percent to 18 percent or lower.”

741 – 13-Nov-78, LTE, Name Withheld By Request, “Decontrolling OERs – #1”, Page 13, Vol. 39, No. 16

HOLLOMAN AFB, N.M. – Congratulations to Air Force leadership for having the guts – and hindsight – to take the lid off the OER system. I cannot believe as some do that the whole idea of 1s, 2s, and 3s was conceived as a five-year, stop-gap measure to halt OER inflation. I don’t feel that any proponent of the new system had that level of foresight.

And speaking of foresight, let’s all hope that AF’s present and future senior leaders never forget what a generally stupid and shortsighted idea it all was in the first place. Nor should they forget the thousands of fine officers unnecessarily rated “second class” and the junior officers who, among other things, got out when they refused to let the OER system peg them lower than their performance and capabilities reflected.

742 – 13-Nov-78, LTE, Name Withheld by Request, “Decontrolling OERs – #2”, Page 13, Vol. 39, No. 16

CONUS – I just finished reading the article concerning the deletion of quotas for the OERs, and it is obvious to me now that headquarters does not know what is happening in the field. I am a rating official in a flying squadron and OERs are the biggest pain I have. With the controls lifted, they are an even bigger problem.

You see, most commanders are concerned about their people and do not like to see them passed over. However, that is exactly what will happen to many if they are rated according to the standards published in regulations. Therefore, commanders put some pressure on the raters to inflate OERs to ensure that these people are competitive at promotion time.

The controls on the 1s and the 2s were the only way really to indicate how people ranked in the squadron and wings. When the controls were lifted on 2s the norm went from 3s to 2s. The 3s became the kiss of death for promotions. Last week when 1s were decontrolled, I had a long talk with the squadron commander. He left the decision – whether to inflate or not – up to me, but he and everyone else predicted that 75-90% of all OERs probably would end up as 1s.

Therefore, I should consider giving everyone a 1 unless I don’t want him to be promoted. No one wants to be responsible for ending someone’s career. If I can be assured that other raters will rate their people by published standards, then I will also.

Concerning the supposed aims of OER, Hq. said all goals were met. But I say “Not anymore.” Inflation of ratings will prevail again, there will be no way to identify high-quality performance and there will be no feedback to ratees as to their standing. We are essentially back to the old system. The present system was a good one that needed some minor changes, but decontrolling it was the worst thing to do.

I believe the best way to rate people is to control the 1s to identify top people, and to control the 3s and lower to identify the bottom people. This information coupled with levels of responsibility would indicate accurately to boards who to promote and to kick out. After all, we want only the best people to defend our country, don’t we?

745 – 20-Nov-78, LTE, Bitter Wife, “OER I”, Page 17, Vol. 39, No. 17

FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS, Ill. – What supreme irony. The Friday the 13^th LC list coupled with the pious announcement that there no longer will be controlled OERs. The OER system “has accomplished many of the goals it was designed to meet …”

What goals? Does AF mean ruined careers for those who were passed over because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time? Can anyone honestly defend the hypocritical OER reviewers who barely knew the officers involved when they gave them deadly 3s? And how can one describe the sheer frustration of someone who has done an outstanding job with total dedication to the AF, and now finds that he or she undoubtedly will retire as a major because the rules were changed in mid-stream?

There are no satisfactory answers. But I watched my husband get trapped in this OER debacle and, believe me, never again will I say the AF is a wonderful way of life. My best advice to young officers would be to get out now before you have too many years invested. There is no telling what AF might pull out of the hat when it comes time for your next promotion cycle.

746 – 20-Nov-78, LTE, Ron Andrea, “OER II”, Page 17, Vol. 39, No. 17

PANAMA CITY, Fla. – In an Oct. 30 articled entitled “OER Changes”, you quoted an unnamed “senior official” as saying “We would be blind and deaf if we didn’t realize that the OER system was causing morale problems.”

And he expects us to believe the latest change will improve morale? Who’s he kidding? The worst aspect of the “new OER system” has been the constant flux. Now General Allen et al have abdicated control of the system and expect our morale to improve. Mine sure hasn’t. I continue to be most upset. They’re playing games with my career.

747 – 20-Nov-78, LTE, Captain’s Wife, “OER Offshoot”, Page 17, Vol. 39, No. 17

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. – We’ve recently arrived in our new base. The area is beautiful, the people are friendly and my husband enjoys his new job. Our problem is an AF-wide one that deserves attention.

On arrival my husband was told unofficially and in official briefings that the place to make important contacts is the officers’ club bar. He is not anti-drinking, but prefers to spend his off-duty hours with his family. Should being a family man adversely affect an officer’s OERs? Unfortunately, promotion statistics seem to bear out the fact that the “good ole bar buddy” group fares better.

It seems as if raters should be able to give accurate OERs by observing and communicating in professional surroundings, If they rely, even in part, on information gathered at the bar, that worries me. It should worry you.

748 – 20-Nov-78, LTE, Name Withheld by Request, “Pilot Perceptions”, Page 17, Vol. 39, No. 17

CHARLESTON AFB, S.C. – One of the reasons cited by pilots and other outstanding young officers for leaving AF to seek employment in the private sector is a “perceived uncertain future.” These officers develop their opinions from the daily activities taking place around them. What they see is an interesting number of field graders returning to flying duties after extensive staff or rated supplement duty.

Personnel officials refer to this action as an opportunity for the individual to update his rated credentials and for the organization to benefit from a mix of rated experience. The field graders graciously must accept this as graphic proof that years of hard work, PME, advanced degrees and staff/management experience qualify them for nothing better than aircrew duties beside the lieutenants just out of flight training school. One’s career goes “full circle” indeed.

The aircrew majors and lieutenant colonels who don’t have friends in the right places face a certain but discouraging future. A Sept. 1977 letter from the AF Chief of Staff to commanders recognized that more than 3000 LCs not selected for promotion are a valuable AF resource, and emphasized that they may be given challenging assignments commensurate with their grades. Unfortunately, this policy seems to have been ignored.

It took four years for top officials to discover that the controlled OER was a demoralizing failure for 50 to 78% of the officer corps. However, relatively few powerful personnel promotion boards and assignment officers called it a success because it was a convenient tool for their purposes.

Let’s hope it doesn’t take another four years for the personnel policy makers and policy enforcers choose to recognize and act to correct the root causes of today’s “perceived uncertain future.” Our precious tax dollars are being wasted.”

749 – 20-Nov-78, Staff, “Reserve Recall: 310 Out of 700”, Page 4, Vol. 39, No. 17

WASHINGTON – More than 700 Reserve and Air National Guard officers have applied to return to active duty under the AF voluntary Reserve officer recall program.

Of the 700, 310 will be selected to return during FY 1979. The board is scheduled to meet November 27 at the Air Reserve Personnel Center to make the selections.

When the program was announced, AF said it was interested in former pilots, navigators and scientific officers. However many applications were received from Guard and Reserve officers and other career fields, so AF decided that they to will be considered for reentry.

• Officers seeking to return to active duty include more than 300 former pilots, 80 navigators and about 200 scientific and technical officers, as well as over 100 officers from other support fields.

750 – 20-Nov-78, Craver, “Up-or-Out Irritant Up and Out? & News Analysis”, Page 3, Vol. 39, No. 17

WASHINGTON – Now that the OER system no longer is controlled, AF is hoping that it will disappear as one of the top “career irritants” among officers. Tied to the change is the hope that the up-or-out system also will fade as a top irritant.

Up-or-out, like the OER system, has been one of the major reasons listed by officers who voluntarily leave the AF. This is particularly true of exiting pilots, whom AF is hard at work now trying to retain.

Officials say that although AF has been committed to the up-or-out system for the past 30 years, it has only become a hot issue in the last four years.

• “We believe the dissatisfaction is tied to the controlled OER system. When it appeared, so did the discontent with up-or-out,” one official said.
• Indeed, the two were joined in their effect on an officer’s career. A 2 or 3 rating, helping to bring about non-selection the second time, often meant that an officer had to leave the AF.
• Many officers were affected. In addition to a declining force, AF had 50% of its officers with what many called the “kiss of death” 3 rating, and 28% with 2s.
• Now with the force relatively stable and the OER decontrolled, AF hopes that the heat is off up-or-out.
• Headquarters still is convinced that the competition the up-or-out fosters is healthy and produces a quality force. Besides convincing the officer corps, AF must convince the Congress that this is so.
• Whether or not the controversy over up-or-out has ended among the officer corps, discussion on that subject is far from over.

751 – 27-Nov-78, LTE, Name Withheld by Request, “OER: Control Good”, Page 17, Vol. 39, No. 18

RICKENBACKER AFB, Ohio – Your October 23 edition carried two related OER articles. One said the results of the most recent LC board had been released and that 66% of pilots (first-time eligibles) were selected. Meanwhile, the selection rate for non-rated personnel was only 51%. Another article noted that controls now are off OERs and that “the current OER system has accomplished many of the goals it was designed to meet.”

I have been in two separate wings since the inception of controlled OERs and not one 1 or 2 has been given any non-rated LC. I’m sure many other non-rated personnel have experienced the same depressing statistics. Now that I think about it, maybe the system’s goals really were attained!

756 – 04-Dec-78, LTE, Cynical, “Charades”, Page 17, Vol. 39, No. 19

Medford, Mass. – It’s saddening to hear that our top AF leaders believe the controlled OER system was healthy, reduced inflation, fostered constructive competition, etc. The system was so good it’s being dumped as fast as possible. But no one seems able to admit that controlled OER was: ill-conceived to begin with; intensified cut-throat competition; the antithesis of the teamwork concept; and gave new life to the “visibility game,” whereby people created excuses to sparkle before distant reviewing officials. In my mind, the systems did exactly what it was intended to do – “legitimately” force people to leave the service without having to resort to a RIF. And it did it very well.

The latest charade is that the “up-or-out” system is really healthy and produces a quality force. Charles Darwin would have loved the guy who thought of that. What other military systems in the world uses this magnificent management tool? What the system produces is officers who protect their careers before all other considerations. It’s a sad state of affairs.

757 – 04-Dec-78, Craver, “Commands Talk About Retaining Pilots & Randolph Hosts 5-Day Workshop”, Page 3, Vol. 39, No. 19

WASHINGTON – AF’s recent workshop on pilot retention did not result in a solution to the problem of keeping flyers, but officials said that they progress.

We didn’t expect to solve the pilot retention problem in a three-day conference. The purpose was to get officials from the major commands together to discuss what actions are being taken in each command,” said one AF official.

The workshop was held November 15-17 at the Manpower and Personnel Center at Randolph AFB, Tex.

• “Back when we had a surplus of pilots, the objective was to pare the force, and a certain callous-ness set in. If one pilot decided to leave, it was no big deal. That’s changed now,” said the official.
• The revision of the OER system is another move which AF hopes will stem the loss of pilots. The control system was one of the top reasons listed by pilots who decided to leave the AF.
• Apart from all the AF efforts, an economic recession next year may ease the problem. Some economists are predicting a recession, and if this occurs, pilots probably will be much more hesitant to leave, suggest one official.

758 – 04-Dec-78, Staff, “Many MAC Pilots Quitting for Airline Jobs”, Page 3, Vol. 39, No. 19

WASHINGTON – Three-fourths of Military Airlift Command’s strategic airlift pilots with 6 to 11 years experience are leaving the AF, MAC personnel figures show. In addition, half of MAC’s tactical airlift pilots with the same level of experience are getting out.

MAC pilots and officials attribute the exodus to increased airline hiring and a general dissatisfaction with the AF way of life.

MAC appears to be particularly hard hit by the commercial airlines’ increasing demand. Historically, officials said, losses to the airlines have been higher among transport pilots then among other AF pilots. This still is true, they said.

•  Since the losses are occurring in the six-to-11 year group, and replacements for them are lieutenants (most of whom are new graduates of pilot training) … the trend toward a force of pilots with limited experience is most unfavorable, MAC officials said.

• AF figures show that 77.7% of the strategic airlift pilots with 6-to-11 years experience left the AF from March 1977 to March 1978 – a 12% increase in losses from the previous year.
• In surveys conducted by MAC, pilots mentioned the following factors as contributing to disenchantment with AF life: the OER system; erratic work schedules; non-rated duties; civilian dislike of the military; loss of benefits; over supervision; and lack of concern for the individual.
• Pilots criticized the controlled OER system because, together with the up-or-out system, it promoted job insecurity. Also, pilots suggested the OER form be changed to emphasize pilot duties. Some blocks on the form – such as writing and speaking ability – are not related to pilot duties, said the pilots.

759 – 11-Dec-78, Craver, “The Specter of Rating Inflation”, Page 16, Vol. 39, No. 20

The controlled OER system is a part of the past, but if rating inflation crops up again, controlled OERs still may play a significant role in an officer’s promotion chances.

Here’s how:

The recent decontrol of top-block ratings returns the OER to about where it was before controls. Popularly called the “9-4 System,” it was plagued with rating inflation that was one of the major reasons the control system replaced the 9-4.

Whether or not inflation returns will depend on whether raters follow a sort of honor system, some officials believe. If all raters diligently try to avoid giving every officer a 1, inflation should not occur. However, if raters insist on protecting their people, rather than rating them objectively, other raters will respond in kind and inflation will return, explained one official. That is when the controlled OERs in an officer’s folder will become important.

• When the selection board members are stumped in trying to choose among all officers with 1s, they will take a look at which officers got 1s under the controlled system.
• Officers who really will be hurt will be those who received 2s on their last controlled OERs, plus promises from their commanders that next time, when they were up for promotion, they would get 1s, one official said.
• Now, three signatures still are the rule, but aside from the rater, who is designated, the other signatures can come from any officers in the chain of command.
• Endorsements and controlled OERs probably will be two of the most important factors in determining promotion selection if inflation occurs.
• Other factors listed as part of the “total man” concept also will increase in importance – PME, post-college degrees, community activities, etc.

760 – 11-Dec-78, LTE, Major Cornelius Consentino (USAF, Ret.), “OER Double-Think”, Page 17, Vol. 39, No. 20

NEW YORK, N.Y. – I was pleased to read that the OER system has been rescinded. And I believe that Air Force Times helped in this effort. Well done!

What I object to is the Air Force rationale that “the system served its purpose.” This is “double-think.” I now am convinced that all new programs should be identified with the champion’s name so that recognition for success or failure can be recorded properly by history. Naming programs after the authors would introduce accountability, a refreshing prospect to improve AF management.

It should have been obvious to the seniors that the upward inflation curve was directly proportional to the number of years in Southeast Asia. It was unrealistic to expect a squadron to fly north every day and give eight [9-4] OERs at the end of the tour. It was also unrealistic to watch other commands not react to the curve accordingly.

Now we are all told that the OER system served its purpose. Let’s start admitting failures and press on, or at least refrain from double-thinking our way out. I suggest that the OER system may have mended a roof that did not need repair, only to weaken the foundation.

761 – 11-Dec-78, LTE, “OER Rites”, Page 17, Vol. 39, No. 20

SATELLITE BEACH, Fla. – The real tragedy of the controlled rating OER system is yet to come if future promotion boards go back and use those OERs as guides to an officer’s supposed “real worth.” The person who had to eat the “new guy 3” or was not close to the primary zone and rated lower because of it suffers the worst fate. This is particularly true for the man who, perhaps, has only a single controlled rating on file, such as yours truly.

With adequate time, a prudent board member might spot such common inequities while examining a selection folder. The best solution is not to prolong the bitterness left by the three-year experiment; let the controlled OER receive its proper burial with no future reference to the “dark days” of the 1-2-3.

763 – 11-Dec-78, Callander, “Pilot Exodus: An Analysis”, Page 1, Vol. 39, No. 20

WASHINGTON – “The airlines are hiring. The airlines are hiring.”

The word apparently began to circulate about a year ago when United Airlines let it be known that it was taking on new pilots. From January through September of this year, United filled 332 jobs, a spokesman for the airline said. It drew more than 13,000 applications.

During the same year, membership in the Future Airline Pilots Association (FAPA) swelled to more than 7000. A Las Vegas-based group, FAPA was formed by an ex-MAC pilot, Lewis Smith, to keep track of employment opportunities in the airline industry and to help pilots pursue them. About 64% of the group’s members are military.

• Of the new pilots brought aboard during the next five years, FAPA says 5865 (slightly more than half replaced pilots leaving for retirement, disability or other reasons. The other 5100 or so new spaces are expected to be created as the lines add new aircraft. Industry sources estimate a net gain of about 300 planes during the period. FAPA figures crew requirements at 17 pilots per plane.

767 – 18-Dec-78, Staff, “1 on OER Made Difference”, Page 7, Vol. 39, No. 21

WASHINGTON – The selection rates for officers picked for promotion to temporary lieutenant colonel show that a 1 on the last OER really made a difference.

Among first-time eligibles, all officers who received 1s on their last reports had selection rates in the 90th percentile (except the group who had received 3s on the two previous cycles).

Officers who had 1s on the last two OERs had selection rates between 98.5% and 100%. Officers who receive 1s on the most recent OER, but 2s on the previous OER, also had high selection rates – between 95.5% and 100%.

• Even some previous non-selectees with 3s as their second-most recent OERs were picked if there last OER was a 1.

 

O-5 Board				PRIMARY ZONE						SECONDARY ZONE
		1st time Eligibles				Previous Nonselect
OER		Sel.	Con.	Pct.		Sel.	Con.	Pct.		Sel.	Elig.	Pct.
1xx		40	41	97.6%		7	8	87.5%		18	189	9.5%
11x		126	127	99.2%		4	6	66.7%		71	231	30.7%
111		130	130	100.0%		1	1	100.0%		48	110	43.6%
112		166	167	99.4%		14	15	93.3%		3	60	5.0%
113		67	68	98.5%		16	16	100.0%		1	31	3.2%
12x		127	133	95.5%		29	37	78.4%		2	204	1.0%
121		42	42	100.0%		4	4	100.0%		1	60	1.7%
122		140	142	98.6%		25	29	86.2%		0	0	0.0%
123		101	104	97.1%		60	76	78.9%		0	0	0.0%
13x		78	84	92.9%		26	43	60.5%		1	93	1.1%
131		9	9	100.0%		10	10	100.0%
132		34	36	94.4%		21	27	77.8%
133		54	70	77.1%		23	42	54.8%
2xx		19	50	38.0%		1	25	4.0%
21x		41	51	80.4%		0	16	0.0%
211		33	34	97.1%		0	2	0.0%
212		40	44	90.9%		1	17	5.9%
213		18	31	58.1%		4	44	9.1%
22x		78	180	43.3%		3	142	2.1%
221		33	47	70.2%		1	17	5.9%
222		74	139	53.2%		2	111	1.8%
223		18	150	12.0%		6	257	2.3%
23x		10	199	5.0%		4	375	1.1%
231		11	21	52.4%		0	23	0.0%
232		13	125	10.4%		1	198	0.5%
233		7	372	1.9%		3	922	0.3%
3xx		2	17	11.8%		0	38	0.0%
31x		1	5	20.0%		1	6	16.7%
ncr		7	9	77.8%		0	2	0.0%
TOT		1519	2627	57.8%		267	2509	10.6%		145	978	14.8%
AFT 12-18-78. Board Date 8-21-78.  2 or 3 Controlled OERs, most recent may have been uncontrolled.
Stats are for Line Officers.

 

Table 9 – Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board #5-3.

 

768 – 18-Dec-78, Craver, “Pilot Exodus Still Growing”, Page 2, Vol. 39, No. 21

WASHINGTON – AF’s latest officer-loss figures show that the service’s pilot exodus continues to grow.

The loss rate for the period beginning July 1 and ending September 30 was 60.4% for pilots in the 6-to-11 year groups.

What this means is that for every 100 pilots entering their six year of active commission service, 60 will have separated by the end of the 11th year.

• End of September 1976 loss rate was 49.4%. By September 1977 it had increased to 52.1%, and by June 78 it was 56.2%. Now it is at an all-time high of 60.4%.
• Strategic airlift pilots had the highest projected loss rate at 81.8%.
• The 6-to-11 year group contains the mid-level supervisors needed in the rated force, about 40% of all pilots.
• At the six-year point a pilot ends his initial obligation and makes his first decision on whether or not to stay in the Air Force.
• MAC, TAC, SAC and ATC have completed surveys to discover what the problems are. A conference was held at the Manpower and Personnel Center at Randolph AFB, Texas in November to share ideas.
• Survey showed that the top five career irritants are: 1) uncertainty about the future (pay, benefits, promotions, retirement, etc.), 2) the OER system, 3) the perceived inability of leadership to affect change, 4) lack of individual influence in the assignment system, and 5) family disruptions.
• Some initiatives at the Headquarters level include: 1) the very unpopular OER system has been changed, 2) revamped the Active Duty Service Commitments (ADSCs) for advanced flying training, 3) give pilots more influence on their future assignments, 4) eliminate additional duties for pilots whenever possible, and 5) possible increase in flight pay.
• Plans are underway to bring more pilots onto active duty by increasing Undergraduate Pilot Training and through an officer recall program.

769 – 18-Dec-78, LTE, Lt Col C.R. Krieger, “Up-or-Out Irritant”, Page 15, Vol. 39, No. 21

EIELSON AFB, Alaska – In a recent news analysis, Ms. M. L. Craver gave us Air Force’s hope now that 1s are decontrolled on OERs. A major hope is that the up-or-out promotion system will stop being a career irritant. In the days of the 9-4 OER, inflation was a symptom of the up-or-out problem. The symptom was treated and we became aware of the fundamental problem. That awareness will not go away when the symptoms return.

AF will continue to discharge or retire officers who still have good years of quality work ahead. The promotion boards will make these decisions while operating under the largest area of the normal curve. That is where discrimination is most difficult. As a result, that central area will slowly move right, masking the 22% who used to stand out. But we will now be aware of up-or-out driving that movement and cutting good careers short.

774 – 26-Dec-78, AFMPC, IMC 78-3 to AFR 36-10