Promotion Boards

[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.