Involuntary Mobilizations in the Guard/Reserves

[FUSEPLUG]

After the hornets nest was stirred in the Bonus thread, I thought it might be a good idea to start a thread where we can track this threat.  We've been hearing talk of non-vol 179/365's coming down to the ANG at my unit (C-17), but so far it's only been talk.  With the Active Duty ranks decimated over the last 5 years, it only makes sense they'd come after us next.  It's been discussed at length within the walls of my squadron, but if involuntary mobilizations start rolling out to Traditionals, there's going to be a mass exodus of guys who really don't feel like that monthly check from Uncle Sam in 25+ years is worth the QOL hit today.

 If you've seen this happen first-hand, please let us know the circumstances (AFSC, unit, or any other details you can safely share).  

[herkbum]

Good thread idea. Let’s get the info out as we hear about it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

 

[nunya]

1 hour ago, ROCK 10 said:

Go check out the AFRC C-130 UE units that had an Air Advisor bill to pay in the recent past if you want to see some real carnage in 11M losses.  Shit Happens...  

Yep.  Once units starting getting tagged for these things, guys became real comfortable with forfeiting their future retirement bennies to escape the WEZ.  

 

[gearhog]

Say you're tagged as an Afghan Air Advisor. You go. You make the best of it and give it your best effort. You even build friendships with good people. Then this is the result:

https://www.stripes.com/news/assassins-threaten-multibillion-dollar-us-efforts-to-keep-afghan-airmen-flying-1.552494

Worth it?

[Guardian]

Where does it say in the Guard and Reserves mission statement that we are here to plug the plethora of holes that active duty has? TFI is a joke and becomes an active duty over reliance on the guard/ reserves. And then the guard and reserves just start looking and smelling like active duty which is sad....

[hindsight2020]

3 hours ago, Guardian said:

Where does it say in the Guard and Reserves mission statement that we are here to plug the plethora of holes that active duty has? TFI is a joke and becomes an active duty over reliance on the guard/ reserves. And then the guard and reserves just start looking and smelling like active duty which is sad....

Buddy, the wheels came off this bus a long time ago. There's no turning this Titanic around. It gets even more ludicrous on our side of this mess.

So first of all, AFRC volunteers for these nonner IAs, which is the original sin, but that's what happens when you promote Active Duty sycophant blue falcons to AFRC leadership in Washington. At any rate, it then realizes it can't do so legally, so it cooks up a new partial presidential mobilization authority in order to do so. Meanwhile on active duty land, our "mirror NAF" executes a flank and takes its own bodies, those the ARC members are supposed to replace-in-place during a wartime tasking in the first place, and manages to fence them out of those very COCOM rent-seeking nonner IAs. So the TRs end up doing the Active bubbas invol IAs, and the Active folks are fenced out from them while getting active duty points on "nights and weekends" too. How u like them apples?

Nevermind that TR probably got out of Active Duty precisely to regain control of his life and away from those very dynamics. You literally cannot make this stuff up. 

And when you take the senior managers to task about the legality of our charter, and I quote the O-8: "you're dealing with outdated information, Major". Basically sit the F down, which I find myself doing a lot of these days....

To the ARC leadership, TFI (TFE is the actual name today BTW) was never the bug, it was the feature. This is a decade long decay and it has worked to morph the strategic reserves into the expeditionary reserve, and unsustainable abortion, that it is today. 

The Air Guard folks need to take some serious accounting of their situation. I know it's du jour to believe the Guard Bureau retains the kind of rebel without a cause atmosphere that shields people from the indignities of AFRC life, but those days are over. This IS coming to a Guard unit near you, as it has already to some, so plan accordingly.

[brabus]

This seems to be mostly an issue at true TFI units (i.e. ARC unit doesn't own any iron, AD at said base does), and mostly at AFR (not ANG); is that a mostly accurate observation based on your guys' experiences/knowledge?  Are there any "regular" ANG units (own their own iron/completely separate from AD) that forced deployments have occurred at?  And to add fuel on the fire, I don't think you can legitimately say a deployment is forced if leadership gave you the, "if you don't go, you can't fly here anymore"...you do have a choice in this situation, albeit a bullshit situation created from dickless leadership if said deployment is not your primary job.

Edited December 30, 2018 by brabus

[EvilEagle]

So far in the Eagle world we have shielded pilots from this but we have sent out AFE, Intel and Mx troops.  So far we've had volunteers for it, but make no mistake, it was an in-vol tasking that someone just took for personal reasons.  This is happening to ANG units.  How bad it gets is up to leadership to decide where the line is - we'll have to go to the mattresses on this one I fear. 

[matmacwc]

2 hours ago, brabus said:

Are there any "regular" ANG units (own their own iron/completely separate from AD) that forced deployments have occurred at?  

Bama

[brabus]

Evil - You think its an NGB leadership problem or more local leadership (i.e. WG/CC can push back enough to stop this shit...assuming they're good leaders and not willing to do bullshit things to make a star).

To be fully transparent, nobody at Bama was forced to go - they may have been told you're done flying here if you don't go, but nobody was forced against their will; they all made the decision to go, even if only to continue flying in the unit, but that was still a choice (not that I'm saying it's an easy choice, it was still a shitty position to be put in by leadership).

[Cork]

Please excuse my ignorance, but are certain airframes (commands?) more susceptible to this than others? 

[brabus]

Still haven't heard of a true, forced deployment for any ANG or AFRC fighter guy (in a fighter squadron; not in AETC, on staff, etc.)  That's not a 100% statement it hasn't happened, but we're a small community and I find it nearly impossible to believe such a thing would not make its way through the entire community in a matter of days if that happened.  I certainly have heard rumors, but then every single one turns out to be either completely false or worst case, the dude was given an ultimatum of deploy or stop flying for that unit (so still not forced to go, just forced to make a difficult choice).

[hindsight2020]

4 hours ago, brabus said:

This seems to be mostly an issue at true TFI units (i.e. ARC unit doesn't own any iron, AD at said base does), and mostly at AFR (not ANG); is that a mostly accurate observation based on your guys' experiences/knowledge?  Are there any "regular" ANG units (own their own iron/completely separate from AD) that forced deployments have occurred at?  And to add fuel on the fire, I don't think you can legitimately say a deployment is forced if leadership gave you the, "if you don't go, you can't fly here anymore"...you do have a choice in this situation, albeit a bullshit situation created from dickless leadership if said deployment is not your primary job.

 

5 minutes ago, brabus said:

Still haven't heard of a true, forced deployment for any ANG or AFRC fighter guy (in a fighter squadron; not in AETC, on staff, etc.)  That's not a 100% statement it hasn't happened, but we're a small community and I find it nearly impossible to believe such a thing would not make its way through the entire community in a matter of days if that happened.  I certainly have heard rumors, but then every single one turns out to be either completely false or worst case, the dude was given an ultimatum of deploy or stop flying for that unit (so still not forced to go, just forced to make a difficult choice).

Yeah I can't speak for Guard 11F units. I don't doubt you may be correct on the scorecard for Guard 11Fs currently flying and invol IAs. I thought @EvilEagle had already provided examples of his own unit (non-TFI?) where they send the backshop people to them, instead of the flyers. So by that metric alone you already have data that non-TFI fighter ANG has already bought into the bad deal. 

 

I think we're mixing apples and cantaloupes here though, at least on the AFRC side, which is what I can speak for. The Bama situation as you state, wasn't an invol IA from my understanding. We're talking about invol mob IAs here.

The loss management policy (the euphemism that AFRC uses for what essentially is a de facto STOP LOSS policy) was pretty clear on the COAs. Nobody has the ability to 1288 out of an invol IA who didn't have it approved BEFORE the IA tasker got assigned. So the "deploy or 1288" conversation wouldn't be an option here. Again, generally those ultimatums are done in the context of a primary duty, combat coded in-AFSC deployment, or even yearly participation requirement discussions (we lost 4 this month alone to that btw; I think closer to 7 for the year).

IOW, you have to have a separation date or retirement date approved in the system BEFORE they drop the IA tasker on the unit, otherwise they will not honor it. If you're tagged, you will be given whatever amount of days the regs state past the return date of the IA in order to separate/retire. So even if you drop paper as a result of the tag, you're still going. That's what absolutely spooked the herd here 2 years ago, and leadership had to start the Baghdad Bob routine ever since on the topic... 

 

fwiw, we're currently sending an O-5 active flyer IP to fill a AFE flt/cc job normally filled by an AD O-3. Nevermind a duty position effectively run by an E-6. Nobody in that IA to date has ever had AFE background, or even secondary AFSC from a prior-E life or the sort. The continued O-4 leaving the position LOL'd when they did the initial handshake phone convo. Even he couldn't believe they would be so brazen as to put an ARC O-5 flyer in an CGO nonner job. To quote the propaganda arm though: "It's not science fiction.....it's what we do every day."

To be fair to the system, this was an 11th hour volunteer, who at the end of the tour will have an AD retirement in the bag as a TR. Getting it a good two years ahead of schedule, and can go back to his topped out WB FO gig.

To finish the fairy tale there is to miss the real point. That being that, those guys are gone. There's no more, otherwise we wouldn't be running around with revolving "open until filled" AGR vacancies. When, not if, they get to the first true invol, this place will collapse overnight. Leadership is playing a dangerous game of chicken with its human property, when what they should have been doing two years ago is telling AFRC leadership to sack up, push back on the COCOM and turn this AD pork barrel graft off before our own squadrons start popping red in those god damned slides as manning combat ineffective. Everybody acts like that's an idle threat and merely the sport kvetching of supposed perennial malcontents (ask me how I know). But the second this hits the pavement it's "all hands on deck" again and "more with less" rah rah speeches at the beginning of the year.

Meanwhile the support functions are still shit and riddled with OCP-wearing apathy, people are preemptively getting out, SG keeps pickling guys off and acting like they're doing the Country a favor, and ENRON mark-to-market accounting run amok still shows manning green on the slides at the Wing. There's zero integrity in this entire dynamic. BWTHDIK, they're probably right... 

[brabus]

49 minutes ago, hindsight2020 said:

I thought @EvilEagle had already provided examples of his own unit (non-TFI?) where they send the backshop people to them, instead of the flyers. So by that metric alone you already have data that non-TFI fighter ANG has already bought into the bad deal. 

Yeah you may be right.  I was referring to only 11Fs and didn't account for individual support AFSCs deploying (which I know our unit has done).  I am curious if our guys were forced; haven't heard that, but less likely I would compared to an 11F bro.

So have there be any AFRC 11F dudes (in a flying squadron) get non-vol'd to a mob IA?  Understand all the 1288 discussion and 11th hour volunteer examples,  but still wondering if no shit this has happened in an AFRC fighter squadron or on the MAF side for that matter.  I think its important to clarify for guys reading this thread who may be considering guard and/or reserve about 100% non-vol deployments (especially non-AFSC mob IAs) vs. guys forced to make a decision between deployment or leave.  I think the latter is a very different animal, because there are guys who will say they were put in that position and it was total bullshit, but then you find out they were told they had to deploy the full 60 days (flying) and not 30 days like they wanted.  Yeah, I'm not really feeling bad for that guy...you did volunteer to fly in support of real world operations, right?

That all said, good points made on the sinking AFRC; if they don't back down after "running the pool dry" like you talked about, they are fucked for years.  At least the ANG isn't there yet, but like everyone has said, it could change for the worse at any point.  If that day comes, like you have alluded to, myself and 90% of my friends will have no problem walking out the door immediately.  

Edited December 30, 2018 by brabus

[SocialD]

On 12/30/2018 at 12:00 AM, hindsight2020 said:

Buddy, the wheels came off this bus a long time ago. There's no turning this Titanic around. It gets even more ludicrous on our side of this mess.

LOL, so true.  I remember and old C-130 guy talking about when he bailed from the ARC after Desert Storm.  His view was they the ARC was meant as a "break glass in case of the bear coming over the poles," type scenario.  He thought that his squadron getting called up for a "bullshit skirmish in the desert," was crap and figured the paradigm was about to take a major shift...he was right.   

 

On 12/30/2018 at 12:00 AM, hindsight2020 said:

And when you take the senior managers to task about the legality of our charter, and I quote the O-8: "you're dealing with outdated information, Major". 

Well they've figured out dual status Title 10/Title 32 so anything is possible.  

 

On 12/30/2018 at 9:56 AM, EvilEagle said:

So far in the Eagle world we have shielded pilots from this but we have sent out AFE, Intel and Mx troops.  So far we've had volunteers for it, but make no mistake, it was an in-vol tasking that someone just took for personal reasons.  This is happening to ANG units.  

Yup, we tend to live in our own little world in OPS in the ANG.  We're constantly sending various folks out on 179/365s in both our RCP and other RCPs when units can't cough up guys.  For the most part we're still filling them with volunteers but that will only last so long.  Now that title-5 is ramping up, the pool to pick from is getting smaller and I expect that volunteers will dry up.    

On 12/30/2018 at 10:57 AM, matmacwc said:

Bama

Welllll....take a look at what was going on with Bama around that time, and who was the leading of the ANG at the time.  I think there was more to the story than just a 6 month mob.  Also, those guys had the option, although likely not a good option.  Talking with a Bama bro, they lost a few guys prior to and after that trip.  

[Eli]

I suppose I was the one who stabbed the hornets nest.  I did not mean to do a thread derail of  the aviation bonus. It was a response to Brabus.  I wanted to provide a first hand account of a guard member who had a choice of UCMJ (due to a reserve commitment) or deploy. It sucked for them.  They have  a high paying civilian job and does not need the BS of the guard/reserve tasking. However, in order to avoid UCMJ action, they chose to accept the action. Again you always have a choice.

I have read this forum since 200? It has provided great insight. Member's views allowed me to make an informed decision to join the guard.

  I just wanted to provide an example of first hand knowledge of a guard guy being told you will go or UCMJ action.  hindsight2020 provided the correct term of why he had to go in the Bonus thread.  Their situation might be unique with timing and it may never happen again. 

The point is it is a tool that leadership will use, and it is an acceptable tool.  That might be hard for us in the guard to accept but the reality is we can task a guard guy because of his incurred commitment he is going. 

The other reality I tried to highlight is that when a tasking comes down leadership can either "shortfall" (don't know if that is still the term as my UDM days are very far behind me) the position or make a list. 

In my unit they made a list.  They made it very clear to us that if you say "no you got to go" they also made it clear to us that they will help us transition to another unit/IMA/points no pay/whatever gig we could find. But if we said no we could not come back if the guy behind us on the list took the job.  Our leadership knew everyone was in a sh!t position and they were prepared to help us out.

The precedent is set.  This board is great and it helped me leave AD.  However the Guard is becoming AD-lite.  I have my opinions as to why but no solid information. 

 

 

[Catman]

On 12/30/2018 at 8:56 AM, EvilEagle said:

So far in the Eagle world we have shielded pilots from this but we have sent out AFE, Intel and Mx troops.  So far we've had volunteers for it, but make no mistake, it was an in-vol tasking that someone just took for personal reasons.  This is happening to ANG units.  How bad it gets is up to leadership to decide where the line is - we'll have to go to the mattresses on this one I fear. 

Yup. That's the standard for when ANG deploys folks individually. I volunteered for a deployment a while back and received my orders only to find out that I had been "involuntarily mobilized". 

[EvilEagle]

On ‎1‎/‎3‎/‎2019 at 9:41 AM, Catman said:

Yup. That's the standard for when ANG deploys folks individually. I volunteered for a deployment a while back and received my orders only to find out that I had been "involuntarily mobilized". 

Which could actually hose your ANG unit if they get a non-vol.  When you go in-voluntary you have down time on the backside before they can deploy you again.  If you really were a volunteer they should've put you in vol status (unless this was in the 13204B debacle and you wanted some basic benny's).

[SocialD]

1 hour ago, EvilEagle said:

Which could actually hose your ANG unit if they get a non-vol.  When you go in-voluntary you have down time on the backside before they can deploy you again.  If you really were a volunteer they should've put you in vol status (unless this was in the 13204B debacle and you wanted some basic benny's).

This!  Another issue that may slowly creep up is the issue of the 5-year USERRA limit.  Case and point...we have guys that are at or near the 5 year limit.  Now anything orders they wish to do has to be in involuntary status (or less than 30 days), which thanks to the 12301d vs 12304b bullshit, might be less than ideal.   Oh well, bring back the part time SQ/CC and OG, that's how it should be anyway!

Edited January 7, 2019 by SocialD

[Catman]

On 1/7/2019 at 11:35 AM, EvilEagle said:

Which could actually hose your ANG unit if they get a non-vol.  When you go in-voluntary you have down time on the backside before they can deploy you again.  If you really were a volunteer they should've put you in vol status (unless this was in the 13204B debacle and you wanted some basic benny's).

It was sort of voluntary, sort of non-voluntary. I did not see a tasking and volunteer for it, but rather, my unit was given X involuntary taskings and they sent out a survey gauging interest in the taskings. So in essence, by expressing great interest in deploying (read: your life and family would not be in shambles if you deployed) they knew who they could give these already-involuntary taskings to.

I signed up, regretted it immediately afterwards, then un-regretted it when I got my assignment, then regretted it when I found out what the job entailed, then un-regretted it after I got used to it. Fun times. But, yeah, it was a difference of formally volunteering for a Voluntary versus "pretty much volunteering" for an Involuntary.

[isuguy1234]

Ha, yikes!  All the surveys suck anyway, but a survey to see who's willing to jump on the grenade?!?!  Good on ya Catman!

[Kenny Powers]

So I've read this thread but I am not at all familiar with the process of how invol IA stuff works (if that's even the correct wording).  I am all for going downrange to rain hate with the bros in my SQ.  However, I'm not so sure I'd be cool with getting tasked to deploy individually and do some non-flying related job.  Again, I am pretty ignorant on what kind of jobs people are getting tasked for.

My main question is, does it differ from AFRC/AD/ANG.  I thought this wasn't a thing in the ANG but, after reading this thread, it sounds like that is not 100% true.

Edited January 24, 2019 by Kenny Powers

[EvilEagle]

It wasn't a thing in the ANG till last year.  They are doing it on "a limited basis" (which I don't believe for a hot minute).  It's new enough that I'm not sure there is a "standard" job guys are getting tasked for.  As I said earlier, my unit hasn't gotten any for pilots, just enlisted folks that are going for their primary AFSC - so far it's been shop chiefs, mx shift leads, etc. 

[Gazmo]

Picture how even more F'd the ARC would be right now if if all of our people had some coin in their Blended Retirement and knew they'd still collect a check at 60 if they left at 10, 12, 15 years of service. There is a reason I am still here with 17 yrs of service and it ain't because it's loads of fun anymore.

[Kenny Powers]

So if a Guard guy went Reserves, is he increasing his ALR with respect to getting tasked with an involuntary mobilization?