FY 14 Force Management Program (RIF, VSP, TERA)

[Cap-10]

Anyone know if this will apply for AFRC?

I know a few AGR's and TR's that have >15 active years that are very interested in the TERA option.

Cap-10

[panchbarnes]

Anyone know if this will apply for AFRC?

I know a few AGR's and TR's that have >15 active years that are very interested in the TERA option.

Cap-10

Spoke with the in-service recruiter and some Guard folks about 2 weeks ago. Reserve/Guard components are not affected by the drawdown. Depending on the mission, certain units are actually expanding in this austere budget environment.

[Spartacus]

So, if this "budget deal" passes are we still going to see the same force management programs that were just announced? Also, who thinks that 11X's will be eligible? 11F's?

[tunes]

So, if this "budget deal" passes are we still going to see the same force management programs that were just announced? Also, who thinks that 11X's will be eligible? 11F's?

no love for the 11Ms?

[FUSEPLUG]

So, if this "budget deal" passes are we still going to see the same force management programs that were just announced? Also, who thinks that 11X's will be eligible? 11F's?

no love for the 11Ms?

Oh, we'll ALL be eligible... until the 11th hour when they decide to change the rules again.

[DUNBAR]

OK, I am clearly missing something in this latest force shaping extravaganza and would appreciate some wisdom and insights.

That is a pretty serious force shaping message. We are even going after Chiefs (Gadzooks! Is nothing sacred?) One might get the impression it's 1993 all over again and we just won the cold war.

But when you think about the numbers we're kicking around, it sounds like we MAY need to downsize 25K over FIVE years depending upon how the budget wars shake out.

So (math in public), isn't 25K approximately 8% of our active duty force? Couldn't we easily downsize 2% per year in real terms, which should be relatively painless, especially considering every pilot in the AF seems to be busy practicing his or her airline pilot intercom voice? (uhh....ladies and gentlemen...sit back and relax...)

So as usual I'm sure I'm missing something.

[Shut up 'n color]

Anyone know what the Tricare situation is for RIF and/or VSP? Does it just stop upon your DOS?

[Catbox]

So the way I'm reading this is if you're a Major between 15-18 years in non-critically manned career field the Air Force is willing to give you a golden ticket to get out the door early.

However if you have the same number of years and just so happen to be in a critically manned career field then you are subject to the RIF.

In essense:

We don't need you, here's a paycheck for life and a cadillac healthcare plan.

We need you but you came up a little short, f--- of and die.

[Dupe]

So (math in public), isn't 25K approximately 8% of our active duty force? Couldn't we easily downsize 2% per year in real terms, which should be relatively painless, especially considering every pilot in the AF seems to be busy practicing his or her airline pilot intercom voice? (uhh....ladies and gentlemen...sit back and relax...)

So as usual I'm sure I'm missing something.

I think it's a little more complex than this. Cutting 2% would be easy: just offer 15 year retirements to 11Xs and we'd meet end strength goals with thousands to spare. The problem is that we have to cut the folks we don't need. The folks we need are finding themselves marketable on the outside and think there is not much monetary difference between staying in and leaving (reference Hacker's math). As a result, they're making service vs quality of life decisions. The folks we need out are smart enough to recognize that their options on the outside aren't that great. Where does a MX officer with 10 years time in service and no A&P fit into the civilian world? What about a program manager in a world where defense budgets are shrinking? In much the same vein, we cannot keep the cyber officers beyond 4 years for anything... It turns out those with skills readily transferable into the outside world are the ones we have trouble keeping. Someone should look into that.

[Warrior]

 Someone should look into that.

Have no fear. Chang is on it.

[BADFNZ]

Anyone know what the Tricare situation is for RIF and/or VSP? Does it just stop upon your DOS?

I've had a few beers between now and the last round of cuts, but I want to say those that got RIF'd got to keep Tricare for 6-12 months after their DOS. Not sure if VSPers were in the same boat.

[MSCguy]

If you go to the reserves/guard there is a way to purchase reserve tricare for something like 50 bucks a month if you're single and I want to say it's still under 100 a month for a family and you go back on tricare prime for free 6 months before and after a contingency deployment.

[Cap-10]

Tricare Reserve Select (TRS)

Single pays $52/month

Family pays $205/month

Co pay vary between $50 and $300 depending on rank and single/married.

Max Catastrophic Cap is $1,000 per family per FY.

Anytime you go on orders for 31 days or greater (contingency or not), you can enroll you and the family in Tricare Prime.

Cap-10

[hindsight2020]

Someone should look into that.

Add navs with a criminal justice degree to that list...

[waveshaper]

I copied this from another site and have not fact checked the material. I am somewhat skeptical but if true then the first stop for cuts/reductions needs to be by eliminating some of these smoke blowing (O7-O10) force managers.

When comparing stats from SEP2001 (War on Terror starts) to SEP2013 (most recent available), I found only one category that showed growth:

General Officers (O7-O10): +33
Field Grade Officers (O4-O6): -1030
Company Grade Officers (O1-O3): -3067
Sr NCO (E7-E9): -3146
NCO (E4-E6): -833
AMN (E1-E3): -14,656
Source: Defense Manpower Data Center

I wonder what the future holds for the stars.

[olevelo]

I have a hard time believing those numbers, considering the amount of plus-ups done between 01-04. I don't think the subsequent rif's/force shaping got rid of as many extra as were brought in, plus the supposed record retention we've had. I could be completely wrong but that doesn't really match what I've seen.

[pawnman]

[deaddebate]

Long but worth the read.

https://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=5344

December 13, 2013 

ACTING SECRETARY ERIC FANNING: Congress is resisting another round of BRAC so we carry an increasingly oversized infrastructure on our books. And it costs money and takes time to reduce your personnel force, so that's an investment up front.  The only accounts then that can be quickly assessed are operations and maintenance, and then investment. [...] We're encouraged by the budget compromise that is being debated on the Hill right now, and hope for its passage. […] It's important to remember that we can't view these cuts individually and ad hoc and in isolation. We need to remember, even with the relief this budget compromise offers in the next two years, we are building a budget that includes steep cuts. If something is restored to the budget we present to the Hill, something else will need to go.  So while we wait to see what level of funding the Air Force will ultimately be given for this year and next, we need to be prepared for real change.

[…]

GEN. MARK WELSH: I just came off of two days with our vice chief of staff, with all the wing commanders in our Air Force. We brought them all to D.C. […] We talked about the best ways to balance capability, capacity and modernization and readiness over time, because that's what the problem is going to be for us. We tried to explain clearly to them that the reality of sequestration is that the bill will be paid primarily from force structure, modernization and readiness. That's where the money is. And that's what will be affected as we look into how we adjust for the next 10 years. We talked about the proposed budget deal and what it will mitigate; and what it will mitigate for us near term is readiness. It's at the top of our payback list. And so if we get any more funding here in the first couple of years of sequestration, clearly it doesn't change the long-term picture of sequestration, but it allows us to put money back into near-term readiness. Which is a really good thing because what sequestration does essentially for the Air Force is it gives us a dilemma: Do we keep near-term readiness or do we fund long-term modernization and capability in the future? That's the balance we're trying to walk. […] I don't think the budget agreement will change the fact that we'll put these force management guidelines out. Our intent by doing this was, again, as the secretary mentioned, our planning window is 10 years, through the end of sequestration. What can our Air Force look like in 2023 after 10 years of sequestered top lines? Adjusted, if this budget deal goes through, for the first couple of years, but eventually going to the same bottom line. […] So we will have to eliminate force structure. We will have to draw down people, which are part of the -- both the tooth and the tail that comes with that force structure. And as a result, we need to have tools in place that allow us to do that. And if we're going to even consider impacting people that way, our belief is we need to put the guidance out as early as possible so they have a chance to think through the impact on them or the potential impact on them if they're eligible for any of these particular force-shaping measures. We'd love to get all this done with voluntary force-shaping measures over a period of time. And if we have the leeway based on budget decisions to do that, we'll go that route. If we don't and we have to take involuntary measures, I would like everyone to have at least six months of time […] I hope that something changes in the budget environment and three months from now -- we put out a note saying, "Never mind, don't do any of that." […]

SEC. FANNING: [...] [We] institute[d] every voluntary measure that we could, that we had authority to use. […] we'll try to use them in a proactive way to shape, but the tools don't always allow that capability. But as the chief said, the most important part is, you know, the Airmen know what's coming. They see what's happening with the budget. They wanted this information, and we wanted to give them as much time as possible. We don't yet know what our budget's going to be, even for '14, certainly for '15, but we needed to get this information out there in order to have those tools available, give the Airmen as much time as possible to contemplate their futures, but also have the tools available when we know what we need to do in terms of force-sizing. […] It takes time to get money out of force structure. There is a cost upfront when you do it in a voluntary -- where you use voluntary measures. We're working with Congress. We're trying to encourage them to allow another round of BRAC. The Air Force went into the last round with an estimated 24 percent excess capacity -- that was 2005 -- and we're smaller now than we were then without having closed many bases in that round. So that's a big chunk that we're carrying. But these efficiencies that you try to bake into the budget, into your organization take time to realize. It takes time to harvest those savings. So hopefully the relief gets us through those first couple three years when readiness is hit the hardest, but it's gonna take us a while to dig out of the readiness bathtub that we're in. So we won't face the same problems in '16 that we would without this relief, but we won't have our readiness problem fixed then by any means. […]

GEN. WELSH: […] The Air Force has to recapitalize in certain mission areas. The question for us in what order to we recapitalize as the budgets come down. If there's not enough money to do it all, what priority order to we put these things in? The top three for us are clearly the F-35, the KC-46, and the long-range strike bomber. And below that we will use our investment dollars the best we can. Combat rescue helicopter is something we want. We'll see where the budgets end up.

[…]

Q: [...] going back to the budget agreement […] I'm asking about flying hours, upcoming Red Flags, and weapons school classes.

GEN. WELSH: […] It's not just size, it's also capability. A lot of air forces have airplanes. They all have weapons. They all train to use them. But the difference in the United States Air Force is the way we train, the level of sophistication in our training, the difficulty of our training, which is what makes our force so good when real contingencies and conflict arise. Red Flag is integral to that. It's what creates Ph.D. levels warfighters for the Air Force. The weapons school creates our actual Ph.D.s, who then trains the rest of the force. Last year, we had to cancel Red Flag exercises. We canceled weapons school classes. That cannot continue. And this near term mitigation that we can do with this relief, which will help us make sure that doesn't happen.

[...]

Q: […] [You meet] thousands of Airmen  […] are they worried about a hollow force happening? And what are their concerns, specifically, to you when you speak to them?

SEC. FANNING: Yes. They're very smart. They know what's happening to the Air Force, what's happening to the military. And they see better than any of us the impact that readiness is having, because they're not training, they're not flying, they're not able to maintain some things to the level that they'd like to. So they do worry about that. And they worry about what their future is going to be in the Air Force. What I see from this summer, from everything we've done to Airmen in and out of uniform, is a concern that the budget situation is keeping them from contributing to the mission the way they want to. Even during the furloughs some civilians certainly complained about the impact that it had on their pocketbook, but far more than that, civilians were telling me, "I can't do what I need to do, what I want to do for the Air Force in 32 hours a week." So I think they worry about their inability to contribute to the mission the way they want to as individual Airmen, and they do worry about the impact that's having on the Air Force.

GEN. WELSH: If you're a pilot or an aircrew member, and you're sitting inside your squadron building and you're looking out the window at the airplanes that you're not flying at all, I think you probably believe we're pretty hollow right now. Now, Air Force wide, that's probably not true yet, but in that squadron, it certainly feels that way. And so I think we have to be concerned about that […] It's a huge concern.

[…]

GEN. WELSH: My number one concern is when I go out and talk to airmen, I don't get questions about how do we get a better weapon, how do we get a better airplane, how do we get a better this. I get questions about the retirement plan, sequestration. You know, it's all the details of money. I don't want them worried about that. We'll do everything we can to take care of them in that regard. The nation is not going let them down in those ways. But we'll come to agreements that make sense over time. They just need to keep focused on the job, because they're incredibly good at that.

[ucf_motorcycle]

This all so confusing. I am thinking of applying for VSP but don't want to get denied and then be labeled as the "non-team player". What have you guys seen about this in the past? I'm an 11S by the way with <3 years on my commitment. I wouldn't get out if they weren't offering to pay but that extra bump kinda pushes me over the edge.

[Fuzz]

GEN. WELSH: I get questions about the retirement plan, sequestration. You know, it's all the details of money. I don't want them worried about that. We'll do everything we can to take care of them in that regard. The nation is not going let them down in those ways. But we'll come to agreements that make sense over time. They just need to keep focused on the job, because they're incredibly good at that.

It seems the good General hasn't read the current budget proposal.

[Catbox]

This all so confusing. I am thinking of applying for VSP but don't want to get denied and then be labeled as the "non-team player". What have you guys seen about this in the past? I'm an 11S by the way with <3 years on my commitment. I wouldn't get out if they weren't offering to pay but that extra bump kinda pushes me over the edge.

Everyone I've talked to is confused by this announcement bro, hopefully some clarity will be coming soon when they announce who is eligible for what programs.

The bottom line is you have to do what's best for you. If you were on the fence about getting out and you see this as your opportunity, take the money and run as far as you can.

[ThreeHoler]

First shoe drops: https://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20131217/NEWS07/312170022/Air-Force-announces-rollbacks-speed-separations

The commanders of the airmen who are tapped to separate or retire early under the rollback should receive the list Thursday, according to a memo from the Air Force Personnel Center. By Friday, AFPC said, affected airmen must be notified that their separation date will be rolled back.

Merry fucking Christmas.

[LoneStar]

^^^

Do you think we can apply that to the officer side as well in the short term?

[waveshaper]

Never seen this type action before. Legal or not?

"Airmen eligible to retire may also be vulnerable to DOS rollback separation, Garcia said."

"Retirement is not automatic. If you are eligible to retire and identified for DOS rollback, you must submit a retirement application by Jan. 31, 2014, for the May 1 or earlier retirement. If you do not, you will be separated instead, and will not receive retirement benefits," he explained.

https://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/467760/dos-rollback-included-in-fy14-force-management.aspx

[lj35driver]

SEC. FANNING: [...] [We] institute[d] every voluntary measure that we could, that we had authority to use. […] we'll try to use them in a proactive way to shape, but the tools don't always allow that capability.

NOT true. Early retirement has been authorized by the DoD as a force shaping tool for the past two years. Only the Navy has utilized it thus far. We've chose to shaft people and force them out between 14-18 years of service instead or RIF them after denying VSP.