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

[billy pilgrim]

During the last round I had a coworker put in his VSP package with the absolute lowest level of vocubalary and grammar possible. I don't know if it was a factor, but he got it.

[HU&W]

During the last round I had a coworker put in his VSP package with the absolute lowest level of vocubalary and grammar possible. I don't know if it was a factor, but he got it.

[pcola]

I'm pretty much sold on this. Does anyone have a good template/format for this letter?

Sure:

"Dear Boardmembers,

Please do not retain me.

With all due respeck,

Capt bucky60k"

[NotADude]

We serve at the pleasure of our senior leaders, and when our usefulness expires, so do our careers. Just the facts, nothing personal.

I've been thinking about this statement a lot these past few days, as I'm sure others have, and the utter condescension packaged up into a tidy little sentence just irritates me. Then today, it hit me as I read this sentence from the current VSP/RIF guidance: "AFSCs may be removed from eligibility with little or no notice based upon the needs of the Air Force." Anybody who was around during the last round of VSP will remember the staggering amount of rated folks that applied for VSP and the very limited number that were actually approved. Something I predict will happen again this time around as the military seems doomed to repeat history. This holiday season when you're pissed about the late notice and terrible information released right before Christmas about force shaping, just remember this: the Air Force needs pilots right now a lot more than pilots need the Air Force.

[Bode]

AFS = Air Force Specialty

Rather be Flying but I'm using Tapatalk

[Skitzo]

So your AFS would be your 11S while the code is your prefixes and suffixes?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fifty-six & Two]

I figure I make $11,994.26 more (and pay taxes on $19,583.10 less) to get RIF'ed than to take VSP, assuming the example provided in PSDM 13-130 is correct.

However:

If I use the prose description of the formula, instead of the example...they owe me over a million dollars to VSP (probably shouldn't take any chances on not getting RIF'ed there).

Totally unclear whether the second variable should be literally 12 or the TAFMS, since the example uses a TAFMS of 12. One would logically assume it's TAFMS, but why do I need to assume again?

I thought this was important? So important people lives were going to change based on how these numbers turn out? I recommend using TAFMS instead of 12...if you are going to make any decisions based on this shit memo.

Here's another way to look at it. Convert TAFMS to a number, but only full months count. For example, 15 years 7 months would be 15.58333 (repeating of course).

Recommend using this:

Basic pay x 12 x TAFMS x 10% x 1.25 = final VSP

Monthly Basic Pay x 12 months = $W

$W x Airman’s TAFMS (yrs/mths of svc) = $X

$X x 10% (full separation pay) = $Y

$Y x 1.25 multiplier = $Z (final voluntary separation pay)

-or-

10% x 1.25 x 12 mths x basic pay x TAFMS = final VSP

10% (full separation pay) x 1.25 multiplier = W

W x 12 mths = X

X x monthly basic pay = $Y

$Y x TAFMS (yrs/mths of svc) = $Z (final voluntary separation pay)

[Liquid]

To meet budget reductions driven by the Budget Control Act, HQ AF decided to cut force structure over the FYDP, around 25k airmen. This was driven by the desire to protect F-35, KC-46 and long range strike, and the fact personnel are very expensive. Niche capes, weapons system sustainment, facilities and other modernization programs all took significant hits. We need BRAC and a real roles and missions assessment amongst services, but unfortunately those initiatives are not informing FY14, FY15 or FY16.

CSAF and SECAF wanted to give six months notice to Airmen impacted by the reductions, mostly enlisted. The December announcements, without the appropriate details, were intended to inform the masses about the possibilities of involuntary separation as soon as possible. I think CSAF and SECAF are genuinely concerned about the Airmen that will be impacted by these force structure reductions and they want to provide direct, timely and relevant information to their force. Unfortunately, the analysis is not complete and A1/AFPC does not know where we can take cuts yet. So we probably told too many people that they may be eligible for voluntary separation or involuntary separation, causing angst and uncertainty in our force. The reality is that we can't cut 25k Airmen without significantly impacting our missions and those who want to continue to serve. This next year will be challenging, as we assess and announce those AFSCs and year groups that we will cut. There will certainly be those who wish to separate, but unfortunately are in undermanned, critical positions where we can't afford to release people from the commitment/contract agreed upon with the taxpayer investment in training and experience. There will also be talented Airmen who wish to continue serving, but are in overmanned, less critical career fields we must accept risk in to meet end strength targets. This uncertainty in military service is unusual and somewhat unfair, but is driven by recent fiscal realities and political decisions much more than senior leader desires. These next few years will be very challenging for all services. Hopefully we will continue to have talented and dedicated men and women willing to tolerate the uncertainty, danger, inadequate pay/benefits and many days away from home to defend this great nation from those who wish us all catastrophic harm. The funding may be reduced and the change may be hard to bear, but the global threat to our nation is not diminishing. Many serve to serve, in whatever capacity is required, for as long as required. Others do what is best for them. Many are somewhere in between. This balance has worked well for years. Hopefully this will work out too.

[WABoom]

It's crazy to me that instead of informing only the eligible personnel, we instead make over 300K personnel wonder if it's their time over Christmas and New Years. I have a skeleton deep in the closet and it sure as shit made me worry. Too many questions left unanswered.

This rollout was ALMOST as bad as online Obamacare.

[pcola]

Hopefully this will work out too.

I'm starting to see a theme around here...

[BADFNZ]

It's crazy to me that instead of informing only the eligible personnel, we instead make over 300K personnel wonder if it's their time over Christmas and New Years. I have a skeleton deep in the closet and it sure as shit made me worry. Too many questions left unanswered.

This rollout was ALMOST as bad as online Obamacare.

Just look at it as a reminder to always keep your resume up to date and that Big Blue could give two fucks about any of us.

[Vetter]

Great leadership there. They need to force shape the clowns in charge of this. And Liquid while they're at it.

[pcola]

...Big Blue could give two fucks about any of us.

Whaaa??? I thought we were all a big AF family?

[Liquid]

Just look at it as a reminder to always keep your resume up to date and that Big Blue could give two ######s about any of us.

I am fascinated by this criticism that the AF doesn't care about people. Organizations and policies don't care about anything. Caring is a very human emotion, and senior leaders, civilian and military, absolutely care about Airmen. We spend a staggering amount of money on our Airmen and their dependents. We resource billions of dollars to taking care of Airmen and their families. Commanders and shirts spend endless hours dealing with Airmen issues. CSAF is genuinely concerned with Airman issues and convinces virtually everyone who has met him that he really does care. Find another company, or government agency who cares about their employees more than the AF. Congress cuts defense spending, HQ AF cuts personnel to meet fiscal constraints and meet mission demands, and you think Big Blue doesn't care about you or any of "us"? Pretty please, with sugar on top, clean the ing car. We care, stop your whining, you ing baby.

Great leadership there. They need to force shape the clowns in charge of this. And Liquid while they're at it.

Aren't you out yet?

[olevelo]

Liquid, are you saying that the matrix posted on the afpc website is not necessarily the folks who will actually be eligible for the various programs?

[Vetter]

Yes sir. You will be too.

[Liquid]

Liquid, are you saying that the matrix posted on the afpc website is not necessarily the folks who will actually be eligible for the various programs?

I think the targets will change a lot this year and the uncertainty will justifiably piss a lot of people off. I do think they will exhaust all possible voluntary measures before they hit the involuntary actions.

Yes sir. You will be too.

I'll continue to serve until they tell me it is time to retire. Until then, I will do everything I can to defend this country, take care of Airmen and make our Air Force better. I think I've got a few more years to go. Hope you are enjoying life on the outside.

[Fifty-six & Two]

I think the targets will change a lot this year and the uncertainty will justifiably piss a lot of people off. I do think they will exhaust all possible voluntary measures before they hit the involuntary actions.

Great! So what we can expect is another debacle like the 2011 VSP where 900 something people applied (over half of them rated) only to be told no. I know you said A1 doesn't exactly know where the cuts can come from yet, but wouldn't it have made more sense to figure that out prior to releasing any sort of info? People take a huge leap of faith that leadership won't hold it against them if they attempt to take VSP or TERA. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work out that way as I've seen several who no longer get pushed because they aren't "team players".

Edited December 27, 2013 by Fifty-six & Two

[Liquid]

Great! So what we can expect is another debacle like the 2011 VSP where 900 something people applied (over half of them rated) only to be told no. I know you said A1 doesn't exactly know where the cuts can come from yet, but wouldn't it have made more sense to figure that out prior to releasing any sort of info? People take a huge leap of faith that leadership won't hold it against them if they attempt to take VSP or TERA. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work out that way as I've seen several who no longer get pushed because they aren't "team players".

It does make more sense to do it that way. I suspect the cuts will be too large to allow for holding it against those who aren't team players. Cutting 25k people in a few years is something we haven't seen before. This will be ugly no matter how much sense goes into it.

[Fifty-six & Two]

Liquid,

The PSDM says they are going to do the VSP applications in monthly batches. Ideally, they will use the same critieria for all the months and not change it midway through the process. Do you know off hand if they are more inclined to let people go if they have less than X (the last VSP was 6) months left on an ADSC and those individuals who have X or more may not want to even bother?

[NotADude]

Don't kid yourself that anyone's thought that far ahead yet...

[Helo Kitty]

We need BRAC and a real roles and missions assessment amongst services, but unfortunately those initiatives are not informing FY14, FY15 or FY16.

Why is BRAC and reducing excess infrastructure not a possibility over the next three years? It seems that the top brass refuses to challenge Congress on the BRAC issue and instead goes after people and jets because its a lot 'easier'.

The Air Force is getting smaller; I get that. But if we're cutting a shit load of good people and aircraft, can't top brass ease/balance/reduce those personnel/aircraft looses by eliminating a couple bases out there? I'll nominate one right now: Cannon.

[Jaded]

Any progress on the "skeleton crew" mothball basing concept to get around BRAC impossibilities?

It disappoints me that Congress will sacrifice personnel and overall readiness to keep bases in their districts open. It doe not surprise me though.

[tunes]

wow. so basically a list of eligibility was pushed out, and again after people apply, big blue is going to say just kidding, you aren't eligible......awesome

[BB Stacker]

Why is BRAC and reducing excess infrastructure not a possibility over the next three years? It seems that the top brass refuses to challenge Congress on the BRAC issue and instead goes after people and jets because its a lot 'easier'.

The Air Force is getting smaller; I get that. But if we're cutting a shit load of good people and aircraft, can't top brass ease/balance/reduce those personnel/aircraft looses by eliminating a couple bases out there? I'll nominate one right now: Cannon.

That's not how the relationship with Congress works; when it comes to stuff as significant/large impact as closing bases, DoD is at the complete mercy of Congress. The Joint Chiefs and top DoD civilian leadership have repeatedly told Congress that we need to consider a BRAC, both in formal hearings as well as less formally in discussions, interviews, etc., and the Executive specifically requested funding for another round of BRAC in the most recent budget that was submitted to Congress (albeit a BRAC that would be executed a couple FYs down the road, but still better than nothing). Congress responded by including explicit language in the last several NDAAs (including the most recent FY14) forbidding DoD from allocating any funds to even consider another round of BRAC. It's not a possibility because Congress isn't going to consider it. Period. They have made that abundantly clear. It sucks and it is incredibly stupid, but it is a fact of life.

I'm not up to speed on what the "skeleton crew" mothball basing concept is, but given what it sounds like I will be shocked if Congress lets anything resembling that go through...the AK Congressional delegation about had Welsh's head on a pike over the Eielson debacle, and that wasn't even a mothball/warm storage thing, that was just removing the Aggressors.

Edited December 27, 2013 by BB Stacker