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

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

WASHINGTON DC

AFI36-2406_AFGM2021-02

19 March 2021

MEMORANDUM FOR DISTRIBUTION C MAJCOMs/FOAs/DRUs

FROM: SAF/MR

SUBJECT: Air Force Guidance Memorandum to AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluations Systems

By order of the Secretary of the Air Force, this Air Force Guidance Memorandum changes AFI 362406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluations Systems Chapter 3, effective 01 Apr 2021. Compliance with this memorandum is mandatory. To the extent its directions are inconsistent with other Air Force publications, the information herein prevails, in accordance with DAFI 33-360, Publications and Forms Management.

In collaboration with the Chief of Air Force Reserve (HQ USAF/RE) and the Director of the Air National Guard (NGB/CF), the Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower, Personnel and Services (HQ USAF/A1) develops personnel policy for officer promotions and selective continuation. This Air Force publication may be supplemented at any level; MAJCOM-level supplements must be approved by the Human Resource Management Strategic Board (HSB) prior to certification and approval.

The attachment to this Memorandum reissues previously approved guidance from AFGM2021-01. The directions of this memorandum become void after one-year has elapsed from the date of this memorandum, or upon incorporation of an interim change to, or rewrite of AFI 36-2406, whichever is earlier.

Attachment: Guidance Changes

JOHN A. FEDRIGO, SES Acting Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Manpower and Reserve Affairs)

ATTACHMENT Guidance Changes

The below changes to AFI 36-2406, dated 14 November 2019, are effective immediately with the exception of changes to Chapter 3 which are effective 1 Apr 2021.

*(Add New) 2.7.4. For officers in the grade of second lieutenants through colonel, raters have the option to use the AF Form 724A as an informal guiding document to supplement performance feedback.

*(Add New) 2.7.4.1. The AF Form 724A is designed to guide raters and facilitate discussion when providing constructive feedback to their ratees. The addendum should be used in conjunction with the primary Airman Comprehensive Assessment (AF 724), not in lieu of it.

*(Add New) 2.7.4.2. This addendum highlights four Major Performance Areas, each with certain Airman Leadership Qualities for Airmen to focus on.

*(Add New) 2.7.4.3. A rater should use their best judgement when determining the proficiency level of their ratee, bearing in mind that each definition should be relative to the ratee's specific rank, AFSC, and assigned duties.

*(Add New) 2.7.4.4. See Table 2.5 for additional instructions.

*(Add New) Table 2.5 Preparing AF Form 724A Airman Comprehensive Assessment Addendum.

SECTION I: EXECUTING THE MISSION

I A

B

T

E Heading

Instructions

M

1 Job Proficiency 2 Initiative 3 Adaptability

Using the rubric, determine how well the Airman demonstrates knowledge and professional skill in assigned duties, achieving positive results and impact in support of the mission. Using the rubric, determine how well the Airman assesses and takes independent or directed action to complete a task or mission that influences the mission or organization. Using the rubric, determine how well the Airman adjusts to changing conditions, to include plans, information, processes, requirements, and obstacles in accomplishing the mission.

SECTION II: LEADING PEOPLE

I A

B

T

E Heading M

Instructions

1 Inclusion &

Using the rubric, determine how well the Airman collaborates

Teamwork

effectively with others to achieve an inclusive climate in pursuit of

a common goal or to complete a task or mission.

2 Emotional

Using the rubric, determine how well the Airman exercises self-

Intelligence

awareness, manages their own emotions effectively; demonstrates

an understanding of others' emotions, and appropriately manages

relationships.

3 Communication

Using the rubric, determine how well the Airman articulates

information in a clear and timely manner, both verbally and non-

verbally, through active listening and messaging tailored to the

appropriate audience.

SECTION III: MANAGING RESOURCES

I A

B

T

E Heading M

Instructions

1 Stewardship

Using the rubric, determine how well the Airman demonstrates

responsible management of assigned resources, which may include

time, equipment, people, funds, and/or facilities.

2 Accountability

Using the rubric, determine how well the Airman takes

responsibility for the actions and behaviors of self and/or team;

demonstrates reliability and transparency.

SECTION IV: IMPROVING THE UNIT

I A

B

T

E Heading M

Instructions

1 Decision Making

Using the rubric, determine how well the Airman makes well-

informed, effective, and timely decisions under one's control that

weigh constraints, risks, and benefits.

2 Innovation

Using the rubric, determine how well the Airman thinks creatively

about different ways to solve problems, implements improvements,

and demonstrates calculated risk-taking.

The below changes to Chapter 3 are effective 1 Apr 2021.

*(Replace) 3.15.1.2. Company Grade Officers (CGOs) and/or Field Grade Officers (FGOs) are not authorized peer groups for stratification purposes.

*(Add New) 3.15.1.3.Officers may not be stratified based on additional duty positions and may not be stratified against enlisted personnel.

*(Add New) 3.15.1.4. Awards are recognition based on a given set of criteria. Accordingly, stratification statements based on awards are not authorized (i.e. #1/50 as Sq CGO of the Quarter).

*(Add New) 3.15.1.5. Stratification statements for Second Lieutenants (O-1s) are prohibited. While this quantitative comparison against a peer group is prohibited, evaluators should provide these officers with clear feedback regarding their performance in relation to Air Force standards and major performance areas (e.g. executing the mission, leading people, managing resources, improving the unit).

*(Add New) 3.15.1.6. Stratification Quotes. The use of stratification statements from anyone other than the evaluator are prohibited. (T-1). Exceptions: (1) Senior rater/senior leader stratification may be quoted if they are a signatory on the officer evaluation and do not have the opportunity to provide comments (i.e., a rater or additional rater could say "Wg/CC's #1/50 Majs" if the Wg/CC is the Reviewer), (2) an evaluator (must be a signatory) may stratify at a level below, as long as it is within his/her scope of responsibility, (3) stratification from a deployed wing commander/equivalent or higher level evaluator who is not a signatory on the evaluation and the evaluation is signed by the deployed rater, additional rater, and home station senior rater is authorized, and (4), optional deployed LOE stratifications may be quoted in future evaluations as long as stratification meets the criteria described in this guidance and is not previously documented in the officer's permanent record.

*(Replace) 3.15.2.4.2. "Group/CC says #2 of 72 Capts" (quotes are prohibited).

*(Replace) 3.15.2.5.4. Stratification for promotion selectees (RegAF Only) and temporarily promoted or frocked officers. For the purposes of stratification, once a RegAF officer is selected for promotion, they can only be stratified against others selected for promotion to the same grade (i.e., a Major select can only be stratified against other Major selects). Frocked or temporarily promoted officers will be stratified amongst the officers in the grade they have been frocked or temporarily promoted to (i.e., a Major that has been temporarily promoted to Lt Colonel can only be stratified amongst other Lt Colonels; a Lt Colonel frocked to Colonel can only be stratified against other Colonels). (T-1).

*(Replace) 3.15.2.5.5. Authorized Stratifications. When used, stratification statements must be written in quantitative terms (numerator over denominator) based on authorized peer groups and remain within the evaluator's scope of authority. Use of percentages in the numerator are prohibited (e.g., cannot use "top 5%/121 Capts").

*(Replace) 3.15.2.5.5.1. For the purposes of stratification, authorized peer groups are limited to the following categories:

*(Add New) 3.15.2.5.5.1.1. DAF Grade. Includes only Department of the Air Force officers in the same grade (e.g., First Lieutenants, Captains, Majors, Lieutenant Colonels, and Colonels). Exceptions: An officer assigned or attached to a joint position may be stratified against officers of the same grade, regardless of service affiliation, within an evaluator's scope of rating authority as described below. (AFR Only) Senior raters may stratify officers within Reserve participation category (e.g., IMA, VLPAD, LEAD, or EAD) within the senior rater's scope of authority. (e.g., "#1/6 IMA O-6s"; "#2/4 VLPAD Majs"). Senior raters are prohibited from stratifying using the

participation category of ART, as these officers are considered TRs when evaluating their officer performance.

*(Add New) 3.15.2.5.5.1.2. DAF Grade stratifications can be further broken down by developmental category. This refers to the officer's developmental category for promotion (e.g., "#1/12 LAF-C Capts", "#1/8 NC Majs").

*(Add New) 3.15.2.5.5.1.3. Command Position. This refers to officers filling command positions (e.g., detachment, squadron, group, or wing commanders and materiel leaders). Command position stratification statements for individuals below the grade of colonel (O-6) may also include their grade with the stratification statement (e.g., "#2/6 Maj Sq/CCs").

*(Add New) ) 3.15.2.5.5.1.4. 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. Note: In order to use the duty position stratification category, the officer must first be stratified within their DAF Grade or Developmental Category to ground the statement and communicate the clearest depiction of where an officer stands (e.g., "#1/1 Capts, #1/40 Analysts"; "#2/4 Majs, #1/5 Ops Os").

*(Replace) 3.15.2.5.5.2. Scope of Rating Authority.

*(Add New) 3.15.2.5.5.2.1. Evaluators (raters, additional raters, and reviewers) 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 (e.g., "#1/65 AMC HQ Majs"; "#2/36 AF/A3 Lt Cols").

*(Add New) 3.15.2.5.5.2.2. Stratification statements are limited to the scope of the rating period (start date to end date). Accordingly, evaluators may not review or reference past evaluations to determine stratification statements for the current rating period.

*(Delete) 3.15.2.5.5.3.

*(Add New) 3.15.2.5.5.5. Stratification Accountability. It is the responsibility of evaluators at all levels to maintain integrity and keep the intent of officer stratification intact. Evaluators should only use stratification numerators approximately once per 12-month period, but no less than 6 months (i.e., should not have multiple #1 Majors in a 6-12 month period). Stratification denominators will fluctuate with manning changes. Evaluators using the same stratification statements (e.g. numerator, authorized peer group) for different officers within a 6-12-month period should be rare and only done under exceptional circumstances.

*(Replace) 8.1.4.1.5. Is solely responsible for evaluating each Officer's Command Selection Records Group, Career Brief and Duty Qualification History Brief in order to either award PRF recommendations among eligible officers, or submit officers to compete for aggregation or carryover definitely promote recommendations. The senior rater submits the PRF with Section IX unmarked when submitting an officer for competition in aggregation or carry-over categories at a Management Level Review and/or HAF Management Level Review.

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download