Promotion Boards

[MedCadet]

Hello cadets and senior members,

        I have a quick question about the topics that are allowed to be discussed during promotion boards. According to CAPR 56-16 D section (2) Promotion boards will not re-test cadets on material they already passed through achievement tests. However, in my squadron my commander is infamous for asking questions based on leadership and aerospace tests. Is this an acceptable practice or does the regulation make these questions invalid. Does this also apply for milestone awards such as the Wright Brothers. As I recently took a promotion boards, and failed, due to questions such as "When an airport symbol has a star over it what does it mean?" If anyone has knowledge on the subject I would appreciate the help.

Thank you,
C/SrA

[Гугл переводчик]

I would respectfully talk to your chain of command about this, and show them the regulation.

[Spam]

The LTs advice is good. I'll share my perspective as a unit commander.

There's nothing inherently wrong in asking leadership and aerospace questions, if the goal is to ensure that you're learning, as long as a distinction is made that you've met the MINIMUM standards already. When I see a cadet before my board who I know to have failed the test twice, and to finally have passed with an 82, I'm going to spend some time asking what the difficulty was. Yes, I may ask some pointed questions about what they missed, and what the correct answer was. My perspective is that if the cadet is not learning to go back to LEARN from the test, as opposed to just bashing away at it failing repeatedly until he hits it, he's setting up for a huge failure when he goes for major Phase tests which are summative evaluations (example: the Mitchell AE exam, the Spaatz AE test). See my point?

Now, having said that... the regs are pretty clear. Boards can't "retest". If you've just actually passed such a summative evaluation like the Wright Brothers Test, it would be improper to then flunk your boards for drawing the one or two questions you don't happen to know. Boards should be using the Form 50 series of evaluation aids, actually.


Advice, print the right page of the reg (make sure you have the 1NOV15 revision to show you're sharp). Request and schedule an interview with your Commander and Testing Officer or CDC - be sure to not blind side them, but in your request for an interview be sure to tell them that you'd like to ask for clarification on how your unit meets the Section 5-2(d)2 requirement. Politely point out that you'd passed the exam with an XX% score, and ask them what the expectation is for this unit given the language of the regulations. (DO NOT start whining or complaining)!.

It should be obvious to them that they're not complying, once you politely but firmly draw their attention to it).  Your best bet is to leave them a face-saving way to adjust their process, and get you your promotion now and a rep for being a sharp, detail oriented cadet.


V/R
Spam

[lordmonar]

One of the reasons why I hate the idea of face to face promotion boards.

They are too apt for abuse.

The way I do boards is for the Deputy Commander, A Leadership Officer and the Cadet Commander or other senior Cadet, meet, look over the cadets records, discuss the cadets progression with regards to the objective and subjective criteria of 52-16, and then fill out the CAPF 50 with recommendation to promote, hold or demote as the case may be.

We then meet with the cadet to discuss their standing IAW 52-16.  If held in grade we explain what is lacking, what we expect to see to show improvement and the time frame we expect to see said improvement.  If promoted we discuss weaknesses and strengths and what is expected of them in their next achievement.

The whole trivia contest as a make or break for promotion is just BS.

I don't need to remember what the stupid star on the chart means.....I know where the legend is and how to read if I ever need to do it.

[MedCadet]

Thank you for all the advice. I didn't want to make it sound like I was complaining about fail which I am not, I will happily take another board. The problem however is that reg has been pointed out by many people in the past to the commander. Yet nothing has been done. Any advice?

[Spam]

First, has anyone tried bringing the actual printed reg to the current CO, as recommended, versus just mentioning it? Have the cadets done this as a group, vice single action?

Then, nothing may have been done "that you can see". How badly do you and your peers want to change the status quo? If you want to bring a mass complaint to the attention of your Group Commander, copying your Wing DCP, that might be enough to warrant at least some conversation, and hopefully action, but is it worth it, in your minds?

If not, are you ready to transfer?

V/R
Spam

PS, My home unit (which I am on a second term commanding, once having entered as a cadet here in the early 80s) has used face to face boards for decades (long before any NHQ/CP guidance on boards existed). This unit not only re-asked questions on the passed material, the officers were in the habit of requiring mandatory ES tasks such as tying any two knots (bowline on a bight, square, sheeps head, etc), reciting all the ELT frequencies, spitting out the 12 general orders, etc. etc. None of this used to be covered at all by the regs, until recent revisions, and once was only indicative of higher than normal standards in my unit. It has only been since my last term that I broke the unit habit of doing this as pass/fail criteria, and several of my officers are unhappy with what they probably feel is laxity in our standards.  Understanding that your commander/officers may feel the same way, it may take a complete cultural change to stamp this out, and would require either an intervention from outside (the nuclear option) or, gradual revolution from inside (which is what happened with us).

[Ned]

Concerning the actual mechanics of the boards themselves, the 52-16 refers folks to the excellent guidance contained in para 2.7 of CAPP 52-15 (Cadet Staff Handbook.)

Some more "senior" CP officers may not have been exposed to the Cadet Staff Handbook.  But it is actually one of our best pubs, IMHO.  (And no, I didn't write it.)

When done correctly, I am a huge fan of promotion and selection boards.  Every job application in my adult life has been accompanied by panel interview.  I firmly believe that CAP helps prepare our cadets for success in life with our use of boards in ways that our schools do not.

But I think we can all agree that when boards are done badly - extreme stress, "gotcha questions," or worse.  -- do not help, and can actually do some damage.

Thanks to all of you for helping in our cadet program.


Ned Lee
Col, CAP
National Cadet Program Manager

[arajca]

As a sqdn commander, I do not sit on the PRB's. When I did, as CDC, most of my questions were on comprehension, rather than recitation. My most infamous question that always confused cadet for the first few boards was: "How do you personally define leadership?" Most would start into the definition, word for word from the text. I stopped them, and asked for THEIR personal definition of leadership. It made them think. I kept track of the results and it is interesting to see how their definition evolves as they learn more about leadership.

[Fubar]

As a sqdn commander, I do not sit on the PRB's. When I did, as CDC, most of my questions were on comprehension, rather than recitation. My most infamous question that always confused cadet for the first few boards was: "How do you personally define leadership?" Most would start into the definition, word for word from the text. I stopped them, and asked for THEIR personal definition of leadership. It made them think. I kept track of the results and it is interesting to see how their definition evolves as they learn more about leadership.

This is pretty neat. It's not something the cadet can "fail" but requires them to think on their feet just like a job interview. And I bet tracking their answers over time and sharing their answers with them in their later years as a cadet is really interesting.

[Garibaldi]

As a sqdn commander, I do not sit on the PRB's. When I did, as CDC, most of my questions were on comprehension, rather than recitation. My most infamous question that always confused cadet for the first few boards was: "How do you personally define leadership?" Most would start into the definition, word for word from the text. I stopped them, and asked for THEIR personal definition of leadership. It made them think. I kept track of the results and it is interesting to see how their definition evolves as they learn more about leadership.

This is pretty neat. It's not something the cadet can "fail" but requires them to think on their feet just like a job interview. And I bet tracking their answers over time and sharing their answers with them in their later years as a cadet is really interesting.

That's how I approach it, like a job interview. Basically, asking them what they think their strengths are, how much they have learned from their previous position, if applicable, and how they plan to use their knowledge for the future. Sometimes I'm fairly impressed, but more often than not I'm depressed. The farther along they go in the process, the better their answers, but I have had cadets nearly faint at their first board. I'm pretty sure someone is telling them horrible things about me.

[A.Member]

Concerning the actual mechanics of the boards themselves, the 52-16 refers folks to the excellent guidance contained in para 2.7 of CAPP 52-15 (Cadet Staff Handbook.)

Some more "senior" CP officers may not have been exposed to the Cadet Staff Handbook.  But it is actually one of our best pubs, IMHO.  (And no, I didn't write it.)

When done correctly, I am a huge fan of promotion and selection boards.  Every job application in my adult life has been accompanied by panel interview.  I firmly believe that CAP helps prepare our cadets for success in life with our use of boards in ways that our schools do not.

But I think we can all agree that when boards are done badly - extreme stress, "gotcha questions," or worse.  -- do not help, and can actually do some damage.

Thanks to all of you for helping in our cadet program.


Ned Lee
Col, CAP
National Cadet Program Manager

Concur 100%!   

Our promotion boards would typically consist of 4 or 5 members.  At least one (but usually two) SM's sit in on a promotion board; as cadet rank increased, so did the number of SM sitting on the board.

This serves a few purposes:
1.  Ensures the board questions were pertinent; no gotchas, etc.
2.  Allows senior members and cadets to become familiar with each other
3.  Cadets gain coaching/insights through SM questioning and debrief allows SMs to provide additional leadership coaching based on their "real world" interview experiences

The promotion board process provides a great real world leadership experience to our cadets.

[TheSkyHornet]

Our squadron had a historically bad habit of holding in-person boards at every promotion for every single achievement. It became extremely difficult to look at progress between grades since the expectations don't necessarily change when you're going from C/AB to C/A1C in that short time period. They become somewhat automatic promotions, especially for those cadets who really struggle to come out of their shell. Interviews typically consisted of a uniform inspection, recital of the Cadet Oath, and being asked about their experiences in the program and their goals, which really isn't very detailed early on because they're still extremely new to the whole ordeal. I never witnessed any trivia questions aside from "do you know the definition of integrity" and that kind of stuff. I found questions to often be immature, "how do you like CAP," "can you tell me what activities you participated in so far?" The system really held up promotions because we had to schedule time to actually hold the board with the cadet. Plus, the squadron had a very poor standard on how to dress for a board.

Since becoming CDC, I haven't held an in-person board yet, and promotions are moving along much faster. We've set up a process for requesting a board, tracking your own progress, and we now have a sheet that cadets can use to set their goals and look back on their advancement. We should be holding our first in-person board since the change in January or February if the cadets due for promotion can get their stuff in on time. The overall feedback is relatively good, despite some confusion now that we've changed to a set of written SOPs rather than just winging it as it was done in the past. But I expected that.

A board shouldn't just be time for a cadet to demonstrate what they know. It should be used to demonstrate what they have accomplished and where they want to end up. What motivates them? Where is there for improvement? This is an opportunity not just to provide our feedback from our stance of watching them progress (or not progress in some cases), but for them to have the opportunity to share with us their perspectives. It's a small squadron; we know who did what. I want to hear more about what they learned from it, and how they can use these experiences to not only advance their own career but to mentor others and take on that leadership role.

I'm making it another policy of mine to provide Form 50s for cadets who don't promote at the proper rate, so we can at least provide a tool for them to sit down and discuss their slower progression. I also have a few cadets who I know outright that I wouldn't put my name next to theirs as a recommendation for promotion, but I withhold judgment until an actual board, and I'll even give them the benefit of doubt until we have a face-to-face discussion on-record. I've seen a remarkable transition for most of our cadets, going from shy and in-the-corner all the time to outgoing and really stepping up to perform beyond my expectations. Sure, there are some stragglers, but it's progress.

I feel that CP seniors, need to use boards as a learning tool for both the cadet and those reviewing the cadet. This is about being constructive and building leadership, not tearing apart anyone.

Concerning the actual mechanics of the boards themselves, the 52-16 refers folks to the excellent guidance contained in para 2.7 of CAPP 52-15 (Cadet Staff Handbook.)

Some more "senior" CP officers may not have been exposed to the Cadet Staff Handbook.  But it is actually one of our best pubs, IMHO.  (And no, I didn't write it.)

When done correctly, I am a huge fan of promotion and selection boards.  Every job application in my adult life has been accompanied by panel interview.  I firmly believe that CAP helps prepare our cadets for success in life with our use of boards in ways that our schools do not.

But I think we can all agree that when boards are done badly - extreme stress, "gotcha questions," or worse.  -- do not help, and can actually do some damage.

Thanks to all of you for helping in our cadet program.


Ned Lee
Col, CAP
National Cadet Program Manager

Concur 100%!   

Our promotion boards would typically consist of 4 or 5 members.  At least one (but usually two) SM's sit in on a promotion board; as cadet rank increased, so did the number of SM sitting on the board.

This serves a few purposes:
1.  Ensures the board questions were pertinent; no gotchas, etc.
2.  Allows senior members and cadets to become familiar with each other
3.  Cadets gain coaching/insights through SM questioning and debrief allows SMs to provide additional leadership coaching based on their "real world" interview experiences

The promotion board process provides a great real world leadership experience to our cadets.

Also concur highly.

[MacGruff]

Good guidance and descriptions here, and I have a question for you all:

Pub 52-15 in Para 2.7 tells the Officer running the board to tell the candidate if they will be promoted or not as one of the first things said. Yet, when I read some of the comments on this board, I see that many use the promotion board as an interview, or "final exam" kind of thing. That implies that you do not decide on whether to promote a candidate or not, until AFTER the board meeting has concluded.

So, which way do you go? and why?

[Spam]

Hi, MacGruff, good to see you still around here.

I have them await in a group in the hall, with senior cadets helping juniors check uniforms, etc. Then we bring them in junior most first (nothing worse than being the last man, so we leave that for the old sweats).

Each must bang twice on the bulkhead, await an "ENTER" call, and enter/report at attention, whereupon we do a quick visual inspection of his/her uniform and ID, and ask him/her to recite the Cadet Oath, thus satisfying the mandatory check box for the Oath. Then we place them at ease, offer a seat, and in a far more relaxed manner begin asking questions using a holistic approach, with a Form 50 as the guide per the regs, focused on mentoring/counseling/goal setting for his next few months.

The board should know within that first two minutes or so if the cadet is a go or a recycle.  A well prepared board will have a laptop ready and will have already called up the information in the system for the cadet before they even step into the room and the chair will not waste the time with someone who isn't ready to review. The default value is "promote", then, unless they really have slipped in terms of uniforms, grooming, or that mandatory cadet oath, and those are evident up front.

I have on occasion denied on this basis, to good effect; I had a C/CMSGT who presented in Class As but with a shaggy haircut, and I denied the promotion up front, telling him within 15 seconds that I was surprised that he dared to report with hair over his ears. We carried on with his board and some mentoring. The next week, he formed up at opening with a high and tight cut, and his ENTIRE Flight had high and tights. We grinned at each other, I pointed at him and mimed pulling a trigger, and we promoted him on the spot - highly motivational in a public sense, that denial was! That guy graduated three tracks at NESA, earned MO wings and a GTL rating, and is an AFROTC scholarship winning engineer at Auburn now, on his way to a USAF career. A little judicious raising of the bar can be a great thing.

V/R
Spam

[lordmonar]

The board should know within that first two minutes or so if the cadet is a go or a recycle.

Then you are doing it wrong.  The board should know well in advanced of the promotion board if the cadet is ready to advance.

Any FUBARS on the cadets part should not make or break his/her chances for promotion.

A well prepared board will have a laptop ready and will have already called up the information in the system for the cadet before they even step into the room and the chair will not waste the time with someone who isn't ready to review. The default value is "promote", then, unless they really have slipped in terms of uniforms, grooming, or that mandatory cadet oath, and those are evident up front.

A well prepared board will have the form 50 filled out and the promotion decision made at least a week before the board date.

[Fubar]

The board should know within that first two minutes or so if the cadet is a go or a recycle.

Sorry Spam, as much as I suspect you're an awesome cadet programs officer, you're operating your promotion boards contrary to what's written by NHQ.

Your method may be better than what's required, but it's still against regulations.

[Spam]

(MODIFIED TO ADD REFS)

Enlighten me!

FUBAR and lordmonar, both of you, let me know specifically what I'm doing wrong, citing the specific words in CAPR 52-16 and CAPP 52-15. I'm not seeing it in 5-2(d), or Section 2.7 of the respective pubs, but I'm open to your guidance if you can back up your claims.

Cheers
Spam


CAPR 52-16 1 NOVEMBER 2015
d. Promotion Boards. Effective 1 September 2014, units will hold promotion boards to help the commander decide if cadets are ready to accept the increased responsibilities that come with their promotions. At a minimum, the board meets without the cadet present and reviews the cadet's personnel file to ensure he or she is qualified for promotion. At least once per phase, commanders will have the cadet meet with the board in person for a mentoring discussion. When in-person boards are conducted, they will operate according to CAPP 52-15, Cadet Staff Handbook, 2.7, and must meet the following criteria:
(1) A completed CAPF 50 must serve as the board's basis for their discussion.
(2) Promotion boards will not re-test cadets on material they already passed through achievement tests.
(3) Commanders must apply local promotion policies consistently, with all cadets subject to the same process.

CAPP 52-15 February 2012
2.7 LEADERSHIP FEEDBACK MEETINGS & PROMOTION BOARDS
If you are a cadet officer, you'll be asked to evaluate cadets' leadership
performance. This is an opportunity for you to help a junior cadet
develop their leadership skills. At the same time, preparing the CAPF
50 Leadership Feedback tool and meeting with the cadet will test your
own skills as a leader. Here are some things to keep in mind when evaluating
cadets:
Introductory Guidelines
q Evaluate cadets at least once per phase using the CAPF 50 that
corresponds with their phase. See the back side of the CAPF 50
for instructions on how to complete the form.
q Many squadrons find it useful to evaluate cadets as they become
eligible for promotion.
q The categories and performance goals listed on the CAPF 50 are
derived from the "Leadership Expectations" outlined in CAPR
52-16. The form and the chart work hand-in-hand.
q If desired, file the completed form in the cadet's personnel record
after providing them with a copy.

Suggested Procedure for Feedback Meetings (Promotion Boards)
1. Meet in a location that offers some privacy, but avoid situations
that place a senior and cadet alone together.
2. Have the cadet formally report to the officer(s) who will be providing
the feedback.
3. Put the cadet at ease so they may focus on the officers' guidance.
If using the CAPF 50 in conjunction with a promotion board, state
whether the cadet will be promoted or not. Getting that question out
of the way allows the cadet to focus on the feedback.
4. Ask the cadet to describe some recent successes they have had
in the Cadet Program. Why do they exemplify good leadership?
Challenge the cadet to think about their leadership performance.
5. Ask the cadet to describe some leadership skills they are trying to
improve. What steps are they taking to improve in these areas?
Again, challenge the cadet to think critically and be specific.
6. Review the ratings in the top portion of the CAPF 50. For each
item, provide constructive and positive feedback.
7. Identify some of the cadet's recent successes. Let the cadet know
what they are doing well.
8. Identify 2 or 3 leadership skills that the cadet should focus on.
Give specific suggestions on what they should do to improve in
those areas, but do not overwhelm them with feedback.
9. Congratulate the cadet for their efforts and encourage them to
remain active in CAP. If retaining the cadet in grade, set a date for
a subsequent review. Be sure to re-enforce the positive.
10. Dismiss the cadet and return their salute.
Remember, the CAPF 50 is a tool for helping cadets improve their
leadership skills. Have a positive and optimistic attitude when offering
cadets feedback.

[Cadetter]

Suggested Procedure for Feedback Meetings (Promotion Boards)
3. Put the cadet at ease so they may focus on the officers' guidance.
If using the CAPF 50 in conjunction with a promotion board, state whether the cadet will be promoted or not. Getting that question out of the way allows the cadet to focus on the feedback.

The 'suggested procedure' says you are supposed to inform the cadet prior to covering the F50

[kwe1009]

If you have already decided the fate of the cadet before the board then the board is meaningless.  CAPR 52-16 para 5-2d state, "units will hold promotion boards to help the commander decide if cadets are ready to accept the increased responsibilities that come with their promotions."  This means no decision should be made prior to the board meeting.   

[Fubar]

So CAP unfortunately uses the term "Promotion Board" to mean two different things. One of them really should be renamed.

SQ/CCs are now required to have a promotion board made up of folks who will provide a recommendation to the commander if a cadet should or should not be promoted. This is separate from the meeting held with the cadet after the promotion board has made their recommendation to the commander and the commander having made a decision to promote or not.

Spam, I would have referred you to the same text Cadetter highlighted for you. Granted, it's yet another uncoordinated language problem where the regulation says you will follow the pamphlet and the pamphlet says it is providing suggestions.

Edited to note the regulation and pamphlet use language that don't gel together well.

[lordmonar]

The board meets....not with the cadet......to decide if the cadet is ready for promotion.

The board meets later with the cadet to provide that cadet with leadership feedback.

It should not a game of trivia pursuit and/or gotcha!  If you want to use it a a teaching aid on how to do a job interview....then ask some of those fu-fu job interview questions....but they should not have any bearing on his/her promotion as that decision should already have been made.

[Walkman]

We only hold PRBs for the main milestones (Curry, Wright Bros, Mitchell, etc). Our squadron is still small enough that we know ahead of time if the cadet needs more time to work on things before the PRB. We use the Form 50 as the exclusive template for the discussion with the cadet.

[Spam]

OK, thanks for the clarification.

Pat says that we're "doing it wrong" for treating a promotion review board as... a review board, rather than solely as a mentoring and counseling opportunity, when both roles are important. I hear and STRONGLY agree with your comments, sir, about "trivial pursuit" questions, and made an effort five years ago (as I've stated) to stamp out that sort of noncompliance, with some success (e.g. no more refusal to promote if the cadet cant tie a bight on a bowline, or cite 121.5, 243, and 406 MHz plus practice ELT freqs.). Yet, an in person board however you may despise it is still part of the program of record, if only once per Phase, and the prerogative of the Commander is still there to deny if the cadet meets the academic/training criteria yet does not in the subjective evaluation of the Board, meet the performance and maturity requirements of the next position (whether they step on it during the interview or not).  Some people interview poorly, yet are fantastic Airmen/Soldiers/Sailors/Marines, and we should accommodate that. I think I'd totally agree with you, if that's a main consideration of yours.

FUBAR, (and Cadetter) thanks for the intellectual honesty in your observations that really, we do have two roles in this session as defined with loose suggested guidelines. I'd like to point out that the "suggested" process recommends informing the cadet DURING THE BOARD, of a decision that the seated Board may not be empowered to make (i.e. they may recommend to the Commander based on their Form 50, but the decision is ultimately up to him/her). I'd like to think that in our unit at least, we try to meet the intent of both the reg and the pamphlet in providing both a review/recommendation for the Commanders function, and a counseling/feedback function. So, especially given the conditional language of the CAPP, and the overriding duty of the Commander to make the decision based on the informed recommendations of his board members, I see zero conflict with how my unit performs boards and the current NHQ program of record. Thanks for your replies and opinions, though - you never know when you might have overlooked something, with convoluted military style regs, right?


FYI, this topic was discussed, somewhat, recently, and with relevant insights by such good folks as LTC Day at: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=20236.20


COL Lee/Teammates: recommend consideration of resolution of the inconsistency via a change to the Pamphlet to do away with references to the Board informing the cadet during the board of a promotion decision that they may not be empowered to make (absent Commander membership on the board).


Happy new years
Spam

[Tim Day]

OK, thanks for the clarification.

Pat says that we're "doing it wrong" for treating a promotion review board as... a review board, rather than solely as a mentoring and counseling opportunity, when both roles are important. I hear and STRONGLY agree with your comments, sir, about "trivial pursuit" questions, and made an effort five years ago (as I've stated) to stamp out that sort of noncompliance, with some success (e.g. no more refusal to promote if the cadet cant tie a bight on a bowline, or cite 121.5, 243, and 406 MHz plus practice ELT freqs.). Yet, an in person board however you may despise it is still part of the program of record, if only once per Phase, and the prerogative of the Commander is still there to deny if the cadet meets the academic/training criteria yet does not in the subjective evaluation of the Board, meet the performance and maturity requirements of the next position (whether they step on it during the interview or not).  Some people interview poorly, yet are fantastic Airmen/Soldiers/Sailors/Marines, and we should accommodate that. I think I'd totally agree with you, if that's a main consideration of yours.

FUBAR, (and Cadetter) thanks for the intellectual honesty in your observations that really, we do have two roles in this session as defined with loose suggested guidelines. I'd like to point out that the "suggested" process recommends informing the cadet DURING THE BOARD, of a decision that the seated Board may not be empowered to make (i.e. they may recommend to the Commander based on their Form 50, but the decision is ultimately up to him/her). I'd like to think that in our unit at least, we try to meet the intent of both the reg and the pamphlet in providing both a review/recommendation for the Commanders function, and a counseling/feedback function. So, especially given the conditional language of the CAPP, and the overriding duty of the Commander to make the decision based on the informed recommendations of his board members, I see zero conflict with how my unit performs boards and the current NHQ program of record. Thanks for your replies and opinions, though - you never know when you might have overlooked something, with convoluted military style regs, right?


FYI, this topic was discussed, somewhat, recently, and with relevant insights by such good folks as LTC Day at: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=20236.20


COL Lee/Teammates: recommend consideration of resolution of the inconsistency via a change to the Pamphlet to do away with references to the Board informing the cadet during the board of a promotion decision that they may not be empowered to make (absent Commander membership on the board).


Happy new years
Spam

As someone stated earlier, there are two different activities currently spelled out in CAPR 52-16. One is a "Leadership Feedback Session", the other is a "Promotion Board". The promotion board determines if the cadet is ready for the increased responsibility that comes with the promotion. The feedback session provides information to the cadet about what behaviors should continue, start, or stop.

Using what Lordmonar stated, and adding some detail to illustrate how I think this should work:

1. Promotion board meets (even by email...), decides cadet isn't ready for the increased responsibility. Board members point out that he's been coming to meetings with hair that is not within regulations, and as a new C/NCO the cadet will be responsible for setting a good example. They find he is not ready for the increased responsibility of promotion to C/SSgt.
2. Board makes recommendation to Squadron CC. CC agrees and sustains the cadet in grade.
3. CDC convenes leadership feedback session (not a board, even if the same members participate). IAW step 3 of the instructions on the back of CAPF 50, the board initiates the conversation by informing the cadet that he will not be promoted until his haircut meets regulations for 4 meetings in a row. Discussion may ensue around the cadet understanding the role of NCOs in example-setting, how to schedule a haircut appointment, etc. The CDC schedules a follow-up within 60 days.

The promotion board doesn't have a responsibility to inform the cadet as to whether he is being promoted (they report to the CC). The feedback session does (they provide feedback to the cadet).

Cadets should have a leadership feedback session once per phase anyway. This is too long of an interval for anything at the session to be a surprise to the cadet. In my opinion, these sessions are great opportunities to talk about expectations for the next phase: "On occasion your hair is not quite within regulations. Now that you're moving on to phase II, we expect you to be even more conscientious about complying with uniform regulations because other cadets will be looking to you as the standard." 
   

[TheSkyHornet]

As said multiple times before me, PRBs are the gathering of individuals to discuss a cadet's promotion, not the actual session sitting in on the cadet. That's the feedback portion with the CAPF 50-#. The in-person board should consist of a discussion by those running the board to discuss the cadet, address concerns with the cadet, hear the cadet's responses, and discuss the key elements listed on the Form 50.

When a cadet of mine becomes eligible to promote, I already know the ins and outs of that cadet's progression since my tenure. I know their grade, current duty position, past duty positions, what activities they've attended, their disciplinary problems, their strengths and weaknesses in leadership--just about everything there is to know about this cadet's career in the program--immediately upon being asked. I know straight away whether or note I think they should promote. And if I have any reservations about it, I would issue a Form 50 for feedback with a recommendation for denial for promotion. I have yet to come across that since becoming CDC, but I have a couple that are upcoming and I already know I don't really want to put my name down next to someone who I know isn't ready to advance.

Use the in-person part of the process to provide that feedback and have an on-record dialogue with the cadet to address these weaknesses and help establish measurable solutions. I'm personally very open to giving the benefit of doubt (although I can see clearly through a line of "horse hockey" when it comes my way), and I'll always welcome the chance for a cadet to make his/her case.