More timeless advice posted by HiFlyer on 27 Mar 15 on the airforceots forum.  I can’t find the original post otherwise I would link it.

Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 10:50 pm    Post subject:
________________________________________
Found it: Here’s a post-board summary of the scoring process and some comments by one senior officer (from several years ago but still valid):

  1. Board Score.  A candidate’s board score, based on the Whole Person Concept, was composed of three factors:
    1. Education/Aptitude:  Degree area of study, GPA, advanced degrees, technical training, AFOQT score.
    2. Experience:  Employment, level of responsibility, letters of reference, community and volunteer involvement, and athletics.
    3. Potential/Adaptability:  Evaluation of interviewing officer, personal experiences, communication skills, and law violations/involvement.
  2. Resume.  Candidates need to ensure that all of their “goodness” is captured in their resume.  Board members scored around a hundred records per day; a member might have 5-7 minutes to consider a record.  For Active Duty Airmen , include BTZ promotions, BMT Honor Graduate, technical training honors, and ALS and NCOA honors.
  3. AF Form 56, Page 6, Section III, Interview.
    1. Treat the Interview as if it is a promotion recommendation .  As with the resume, the interviewer should capture all key nuggets from LORs, record , etc.
    2. Some white space in Block K is OK, but a lot is a negative indicator; it is especially inconsistent if the candidate’s Evaluation Factors are”firewalled .”  For a quality applicant, Block K should have a minimum amount of white space.
    3. Board members found stratification, even “negative” stratification, VERY helpful (#3/13, #3 of 3 EE, middle third, top 25%, bottom 50%, etc.), as are comments such as “do not recommend selection .”  Stratification is OK for CGO interviewers (it is assumed that they are speaking for the RCS commander), but is better if documented in Section IV by the commander (removes any doubt).
    4. If candidate is interviewed by other than RCS commander, recommend that Section IV contain comments, even if interviewer is an FGO, especially if interviewed by other than RCS personnel.  Again, for a candidate interviewed by someone outside of a recruiting squadron, adding stratification comments in Section IV is very helpful to the board.
  4. Letters of Reference.
    1. Variety:  A package is stronger if LORs are from a variety of sources (e.g. school, employer, coach, former military member).  If all are from college professors/high school teachers, they generally fail to provide an adequate view of the applicant’s capabilities.
    2. Quantity:  Civilian packages with the minimum three LORs, unless they are strong, paints a picture that the applicant didn’t try hard enough.
    3. Active/Retired Veteran:  One or more LORs from current or former service members tend to be helpful.
    4. Highlighting Accomplishments/Attributes:  Letters where the author bolded key words/phrases help paint a better picture for the board.
    5. Active Duty Applicants:  The one LOR allowed for an active duty applicant is generally more compelling if from an O-6 or FO/GO/SES.  Also, there is little value added if interviewer is also the LOR author.
    6. Poor LORs:  LORs are of little value if they do not cite any accomplishments or virtues or if they give a weak recommendation to select the applicant.  LORs where it is clear that the author does NOT know the applicant (e .g. U.S. Senator for one of his/her constituents) are likewise not helpful.
  5. Inconsistencies.
    1. Applicant firewalled in Evaluation Factors, but Block K comments are lackluster, and/or there is no stratification.  Example of seemingly lackluster comments:  “great potential” … “solid candidate” … “select”.
    2. Strange: Block K comments with pen and ink changes (e.g. “Outstanding” struck out, “Excellent” written over it); provides a negative image (perhaps
      intended).

Hope this helps. This is the text from the feedback memo from the board.