WASHINGTON, DC - static.e-publishing.af.mil

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

WASHINGTON, DC

MEMORANDUM FOR DISTRIBUTION C MAJCOMs/FOAs/DRUs

AFI36-2406_AFGM2019-01 10 May 2019

Corrective Action(s) applied on: 4 June 2019

FROM: SAF/MR

SUBJECT: Air Force Guidance Memorandum (AFGM) to AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems

By Order of the Secretary of the Air Force, this Air Force Guidance Memorandum immediately changes AFI 36-2406. Compliance with this Memorandum is mandatory with an effective date of this AFGM. To the extent its directions are inconsistent with other Air Force publications, the information herein prevails, in accordance with AFI 33-360, Publications and Forms Management.

The AF Guidance Memorandum updates evaluations and feedback process guidance.

Refer recommended changes and questions about this publication to the Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR) using the AF Form 847, Recommendation for Change of Publication; route AF Forms 847 from the field through appropriate functional chain of command. The OPR for this publication is the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC)/DP3SP, 550 C Street West Suite 10, Randolph AFB, TX 78140-4712 (email to: afpc.dp3sp.workflow@us.af.mil). Ensure all records created as a result of processes prescribed in this publication are maintained in accordance with Air Force Manual 33-363, Management of Records, and disposed of in accordance with the Air Force Records Disposition Schedule located in the Air Force Records Information Management System.

This memorandum becomes void after one-year has elapsed from the date of this memorandum, or upon publication of an Interim Change or rewrite of the affected publication, whichever is earlier.

Attachment: Guidance Changes

SHON J. MANASCO Assistant Secretary (Manpower and Reserve Affairs)

AFGM2019-01 10 MAY 2019

GUIDANCE CHANGES

(Replace) 1.12.3.1. Duty History or Performance Outside the Current Reporting Period. Do not comment on duty history or performance outside the current reporting period, except as permitted by paragraphs 1.12.3.4. and 1.12.4.1.

(Replace) 3.16.2.5.5.4. Stratification in optional Deployed LOEs: Stratification, assignment, command, and DE push statements in deployed letters of evaluation are authorized. Deployed stratifications and push statements may be quoted in future OPRs as long as stratification is not previously documented in the permanent record.

(Replaced) 3.16.2.6. When stratifying officers on OPRs, evaluators will not consider completion/non-completion of non-resident DE if the officer is on the school select list (because they will attend in-residence), or Select/Candidate status. Relative ranking among officers rated by the rating chain should be based on overall performance. This paragraph does not preclude raters from making appropriate assignment and developmental education recommendations on OPRs and RRFs, see paragraph 3.17.4.

(Replace) 3.17.4.3. In addition to assignment recommendations, evaluators may also make recommendations for the appropriate level of in-residence DE on OPRs and LOEs (DE pushes are not authorized on TRs).

(Replace) 3.17.4.6.1. Comments on OPRs or PRFs regarding completion of, or enrollment in DE and AAD are prohibited. Performance and special recognition comments on officers attending in-residence education and/or training will be documented appropriately on the AF Form 475, Training Report (see Chapter 6). For OPRs only: Evaluators may comment on an officer's competitive assignment selection to programs that fall outside of the Developmental Education Designation Board (DEDB), to include but not limited to Olmstead, Fulbright, Rhodes, School of Advance Air and Space Studies (SAASS), School of Advanced Warfighting Studies (SAWS). Additionally, evaluators will not comment on an officer's status on the schools list, selection for DE, and/or specific schools (i.e. ACSC, AWC, Joint, etc.) but will limit their remarks to "PDE, IDE, or SDE" only. NOTE: An assignment recommendation for AFIT MS/Masters or PhD program is authorized.

(Add) 8.1.3.1.1. For officers being considered for O-6 and below, promotion recommendation comments are limited to a maximum of two lines in bullet format. In these comments, the senior rater should provide a performance-based differentiation and/or characterization of the eligible officer's potential to serve in the next higher grade. Endorsements for promotion are based upon an officer's demonstrated character and competence as detailed in the Secretary of the Air Force's Memorandum of Instruction for promotion boards. This is an opportunity for the senior rater to tell the Central Selection Board why they should (or should not) promote this officer. This should not be a summary of information already contained in the record of performance. Comments or pushes for items that are decided through other processes or means (e.g. developmental education, jobs, assignments) are not authorized.

AFGM2019-01 10 MAY 2019

(Replace) 8.1.3.2. Promotion Recommendation Form Stratification Guidance. Officer stratification is defined as a quantitative comparison of an individual's standing within an authorized peer group and within a specific evaluator's scope of rating authority. On the Promotion Recommendation Form, officer stratification statements provide a current performance-based differentiation of officers against their peers to assist Central Selection Boards. Senior raters may provide up to two stratifications as part of their promotion recommendation comments. If used, the primary stratification must be among promotion eligible officers by zone and the optional secondary stratification must be among an authorized peer group. If a senior rater does not stratify an officer among eligible officers by promotion zone, they may not provide any other stratification. (Exception: For Narrative-Only PRFs, senior raters will not stratify among eligible officers by promotion zone, but may provide one peer group stratification statement)

(Add) 8.1.3.2.1. Stratification Types.

(Add) 8.1.3.2.1.1. Primary - Eligible by Zone. Senior raters may stratify among eligible officers by promotion zone (e.g. I/APZ and BPZ) from the Master Eligibility List (MEL) for a specific promotion board (Example: #3/10 I/APZ eligible, #1/17 BPZ eligible).

(Add) 8.1.3.2.1.2. Secondary ? Peer Group Stratification. If a senior rater stratifies an officer among eligible officers by promotion zone, they may also provide a second stratification in accordance with the following guiding principles.

(Add) 8.1.3.2.2. Authorized Peer Groups. For the purposes of stratification, authorized peer groups are limited to the following categories:

(Add) 8.1.3.2.2.1. Grade. Air Force officers in the same grade (e.g. Captains, Majors, Lieutenant Colonels, Colonels). EXCEPTION: If the officer is permanently assigned to a position on a Joint Manning Document, that officer may be stratified against officers of the same grade, regardless of service affiliation, within the senior rater's scope of rating authority as described below.

(Add) 8.1.3.2.2.2. Command Position. This refers officers filling command positions (e.g. detachment, squadron, group, or wing commanders and materiel leaders). This does not include section commanders or flight commanders. Command position stratification statements for individuals below the grade of Colonel (O-6) may also include their grade with the stratification statement (i.e. #2/6 Maj Sq/CCs).

(Add) 8.1.3.2.2.3. Duty Position. This refers to the officer's duty position type, level and scope of responsibility (e.g. section chiefs, flight commanders, operations officers, branch chiefs, action officers, analysts, instructors, combat systems officers, pilots, etc.). Officers may be stratified against civilian personnel in equivalent duty positions.

(Add) 8.1.3.2.3. Exception. For Narrative-Only PRFs, senior raters will not stratify among eligible officers by promotion zone, but may provide one peer group stratification statement.

AFGM2019-01 10 MAY 2019

(Add) 8.1.3.2.4. Scope of Rating Authority. Senior raters can only stratify officers within the confines of their direct rating chain and knowledge. Senior rater stratification statements may not extend beyond the confines of their respective senior rater ID (SRID) or overall purview. (Add) 8.1.3.2.5. Authorized Usage.

(Add) 8.1.3.2.5.1. When used, all stratification statements must stay within an authorized peer group and the evaluator's scope of rating authority.

(Add) 8.1.3.2.5.2. Stratification statements must be written in quantitative terms. Examples:

(Add) 8.1.3.2.5.2.1. By AF Grade. "#3/30 Capts"; "#1/1 Majs"; "#2/12 Lt Cols"

(Add) 8.1.3.2.5.2.2. By Command Position. "#1/9 Grp/CCs", "#1/7 Maj Sq/CCs"; "#3/20 Lt Col Det/CCs"

(Add) 8.1.3.2.5.2.3. By Duty Position. "#1/6 Flt/CCs"; "#1/40 Analysts"; "#2/12 Branch Chiefs"

(Add) 8.1.3.2.6. Prohibited Usage.

(Add) 8.1.3.2.6.1. Company Grade Officers (CGOs) and/or Field Grade Officers (FGOs) are not an authorized peer group for stratification purposes.

(Add) 8.1.3.2.6.2. Officers may not be stratified based on additional duty positions and may not be stratified against enlisted personnel.

(Add) 8.1.3.2.6.3. Awards are recognition based on a given set of criteria. Accordingly, stratification statements based on awards are not authorized (e.g. #1/50 as Sq CGO of the Quarter).

(Add) 8.1.3.2.6.4. The use of stratification statements from anyone other than the senior rater are prohibited. A senior rater may not quote stratification from another evaluator or source.

(Replace) 8.1.3.3. If promotion opportunity is 100%, regular PRFs are not required. This includes individuals competing for I/APZ; any officers competing for BPZ will still require a completed PRF. EXCEPTIONS: Senior raters will prepare PRFs on all officers who receive "DNP" recommendations and on all officers who receive a "P" recommendation but have derogatory information (Article 15, courts-martial, referral evaluation, LOR, etc.) filed in their OSR.

(Replace) 8.1.3.4. For LAF Capt PRFs: MLRs are prohibited (except for AF Level Students); "Definitely Promote" recommendation PRFs are not authorized any comments; "Promote/Do Not Promote" recommendations are limited to a maximum of two lines or as directed by HAF. Each SR with one eligible officer (regardless of zone) will receive one allocated "DP". Any additional "DPs" will be awarded based on the allocation rate which is announced approximately 60 days prior to the CSB.

AFGM2019-01 10 MAY 2019

(Delete) 8.1.3.4.1

(Delete) 8.1.3.4.2

(Replace) 8.1.3.5. Statements that refer or imply to the stratification of an officer's standing at an MLR, such as: "#1 of 22 DPs awarded at the MLR," or "If the MLR had one more DP, he/she would get it," are prohibited. This means the head of the ML or MLR President may not use the denominator of the MLs eligibles when stratifying their respective officers, who may have or have not competed at the MLR.

(Delete) 8.1.3.5.1

(Delete) 8.1.3.5.2

(Delete) 8.1.3.5.2.1

(Delete) 8.1.3.5.2.2

(Delete) 8.1.3.5.2.3

(Delete) 8.1.3.5.2.4

(Delete) 8.1.3.5.2.5

(Add) 8.1.3.6. Promotion statements, reserved for the senior rater, will only be made on the PRF.

(Add) 8.1.3.6.1. As a general rule, prohibited promotion statements are any comments, direct or implied, that refer to a higher grade. For example, any comments that state the individual is performing above his/her grade, occupying a position requiring a more senior grade, comparing an individual to officers of higher grade, or alluding to a higher ranking position are all prohibited.

(Add) 8.1.3.6.2. While it is impossible to provide an all-inclusive list of prohibited statements; some examples are:

(Add) 8.1.3.6.2.1. "Maj Burgess is senior officer material." (The term "Senior" is a euphemism for colonel and above, therefore not authorized).

(Add) 8.1.3.6.2.2. "Capt DeSantis has excelled in a major's billet." (Refers to a grade higher than the one the individual currently holds).

(Add) 8.1.3.6.2.3. "Major Moody should be a group commander now." (Recommends the individual for a position two grades higher than the ratee--not normal progression).

(Add) 8.1.3.6.2.4. "Capt Korte is ready for our toughest field grade jobs." (Compares a company

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download