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

[BB Stacker]

A few weeks ago I made a statement to a room full of senior AF leaders that we were making a big mistake paying contractors and civilians to fix and fly aircraft in combat while we keep active duty support personnel, including band members, comm, CE, firefighters, finance, etc. I said an Air Force that pays civilians to fix and fly aircraft will soon end up in the Army. I didn't get a slow clap, or any supporting fires, but it felt good to say it to a bunch of senior decision makers.

We should cut, contract and civilianize all support functions before we cut combat power and our core missions. Our support functions are vitally important, but they don't have to all be military. We should contract all housing, CDCs, fire departments, base security, FSS, DV airlift, protocol, CE, base comm, base logistics and most our health care. Contracts keep costs down, quality up, allow for competition, hold people accountable and leverage corporate experience, technologies and responsiveness. And you don't pay for full benefits and retirement for non-combat/non-critical Air Force capabilities, so it is cheaper in the long run.

Contractors or GS/WG AF civilians? Because there can be a pretty big difference between the two. I would agree that some of those functions could and should be contracted (many already are are many bases, like housing) but as someone who has spent the past year dealing with a contracted logistics organization (as well as contracted maintainers), you need to be careful what you wish for with contractors. I would agree though that the greater evil is having contractors fly and fix aircraft downrange.

As for the idea to just throw rated personnel into all support leadership positions....man, y'all don't have a clue. First off, there is a rather inflated view here of just how much large organization leadership ability your average rated mid level Captain is going to have. For every one good one that I've met there's another 5 who were absolute clowns when it came to that. In their defense, why would they need that skillset at that point in their careers? They've spent their first 6-9 years in the AF responsible for being tactically proficient at flying a plane and with whatever ancillary duties they got stuck with, not with rolling in the door on day one as a butter bar and being put in charge of a 150+ person flight. And before you say "leadership is leadership," it's not, not when you're talking about the difference between leading and managing 200 people versus a 20 person "flight" in an ops unit. Second, unless we cut out the insane amount of queep that exists within the support world, y'all are either going to be doing a lot less flying or your duties as Flt/CC are going to be significantly neglected, because there aren't enough hours in the day. Even if we cut out the queep, there's a lot more work in many of those career fields than I think many of you think to be the case.

I know the counter-argument will be "Well, those are our future senior leaders, when will they develop those skills?" I'm not sure what the answer to that is, but it sure as hell isn't to throw them into the MXG and MSG worlds at their 7 year point. I do think that the idea to throw non-school select Majors at the 12ish year point into support squadrons as DOs might have more merit, but even then you'll need to judicious with who you put where...the idea of some of the non-select ops Maj's I've met being thrown into an AMXS/MOO position is making me laugh pretty hard.

Problem is, you're forgetting that many of those support positions are combat power, in the sense that you have to be able to deploy them to the bases where our frontline forces are in order to provide the needed support. You can't contract all fire protection personnel (or all CE, Comm, Log, etc) as civilians, because you can't freely deploy the civilians in civilian status to combat or conbat zones; you need to have X percentage of military personnel in these fields for this reason. To make it easiest to deploy them, they also have to be active duty as opposed to Reserve. Even in the fire protection field right now, the vast majority of firefighters AF-wide are GS civilians, a little over 50% last I checked. And that balance seems to work well with having the rest available as military to be fully deployable, even at a moments notice. While it'd be nice to go civilan in many of these fields and there are many gains from it, there are also a number of legal limitations.

Fire was actually the one I was thinking of when I brought up AF civilians (AFETS would be another), since everything I've heard indicates that the civilian/bluesuiter mix seems to be working pretty well. The big thing with contractors and legal/contractual limitations is response time...sure, you can deploy them (I think that if there's one thing the past 12 years have demonstrated it's that we can deploy contractors), but you aren't necessarily going to have the quick response that you may need in certain situations and you may not have the flexibility you need at the deployed location, depending on how the contract is written. The obvious response to that is "make sure the contract is written the way we want it"...hoo boy, if it was only that easy.

Edited December 29, 2013 by BB Stacker

[MD]

Fire was actually the one I was thinking of when I brought up AF civilians (AFETS would be another), since everything I've heard indicates that the civilian/bluesuiter mix seems to be working pretty well. The big thing with contractors and legal/contractual limitations is response time...sure, you can deploy them (I think that if there's one thing the past 12 years have demonstrated it's that we can deploy contractors), but you aren't necessarily going to have the quick response that you may need in certain situations and you may not have the flexibility you need at the deployed location, depending on how the contract is written. The obvious response to that is "make sure the contract is written the way we want it"...hoo boy, if it was only that easy.

Agree. Contractors you can indeed deploy, depending on the contract write-up; and yes, response time will be questionable. GS civil service, thats another story; and thats what all the fire protection jobs that are civilian right now are; good luck to anyone wanting to get that changed to contractor. Because the civilians are GS, there has to be military peeps there for the deployment aspect; and you're right, the current mix seems to work well. Been a good number of years since I was in the field, and times were different back then, but nowdays with more GS, it appears to be a good mix, but it needs to remain a mix.

[Liquid]

The minute you think you are "needed" by the AF, is the minute you open yourself up for disappointment.

The AF doesn't even know what it needs at any given time.

Problem is, you're forgetting that many of those support positions are combat power, in the sense that you have to be able to deploy them to the bases where our frontline forces are in order to provide the needed support. You can't contract all fire protection personnel (or all CE, Comm, Log, etc) as civilians, because you can't freely deploy the civilians in civilian status to combat or conbat zones; you need to have X percentage of military personnel in these fields for this reason. To make it easiest to deploy them, they also have to be active duty as opposed to Reserve. Even in the fire protection field right now, the vast majority of firefighters AF-wide are GS civilians, a little over 50% last I checked. And that balance seems to work well with having the rest available as military to be fully deployable, even at a moments notice. While it'd be nice to go civilan in many of these fields and there are many gains from it, there are also a number of legal limitations.

We deployed plenty of contractors to Iraq and currently have thousands deployed to Afghanistan. State Department deploys contract civilian security all around the world. Sure, we should keep military support capability for contingencies, maybe in CRGs, but we don't need military support at all installations.

[MD]

We deployed plenty of contractors to Iraq and currently have thousands deployed to Afghanistan. State Department deploys contract civilian security all around the world. Sure, we should keep military support capability for contingencies, maybe in CRGs, but we don't need military support at all installations.

Contractor, yes, depending on the contract. I was more referring to the GS civil service, which many of the positions in some support functions such as fire protection already are. There's where the problem will lie from the personnel/labor law aspect. Be a tough change to make.

Edited December 29, 2013 by MD

[StoleIt]

As for the idea to just throw rated personnel into all support leadership positions....man, y'all don't have a clue. First off, there is a rather inflated view here of just how much large organization leadership ability your average rated mid level Captain is going to have. For every one good one that I've met there's another 5 who were absolute clowns when it came to that. In their defense, why would they need that skillset at that point in their careers? They've spent their first 6-9 years in the AF responsible for being tactically proficient at flying a plane and with whatever ancillary duties they got stuck with, not with rolling in the door on day one as a butter bar and being put in charge of a 150+ person flight. And before you say "leadership is leadership," it's not, not when you're talking about the difference between leading and managing 200 people versus a 20 person "flight" in an ops unit. Second, unless we cut out the insane amount of queep that exists within the support world, y'all are either going to be doing a lot less flying or your duties as Flt/CC are going to be significantly neglected, because there aren't enough hours in the day. Even if we cut out the queep, there's a lot more work in many of those career fields than I think many of you think to be the case.

I know the counter-argument will be "Well, those are our future senior leaders, when will they develop those skills?" I'm not sure what the answer to that is, but it sure as hell isn't to throw them into the MXG and MSG worlds at their 7 year point. I do think that the idea to throw non-school select Majors at the 12ish year point into support squadrons as DOs might have more merit, but even then you'll need to judicious with who you put where...the idea of some of the non-select ops Maj's I've met being thrown into an AMXS/MOO position is making me laugh pretty hard.

Counter argument: Unless things have drastically changed, the people in my ROTC class that got pilot slots were rated the highest for leadership. I think the vast majority of pilots are just as (if not more) capable of walking into a large shop and leading just like any other new LT is.

[BB Stacker]

We deployed plenty of contractors to Iraq and currently have thousands deployed to Afghanistan. State Department deploys contract civilian security all around the world. Sure, we should keep military support capability for contingencies, maybe in CRGs, but we don't need military support at all installations.

But when you go the contract vs AF civilian route at home station, you open yourself up to a whole 'nother can of worms relating to the contractors. Do that and the phrase "that's not in the contract" will quickly become the new "closed for training." As for the deployed GS civil service aspect, you can deploy them depending on the circumstance (we deploy AFETS personnel on a regular basis), but yes, there are a lot of personnel/labor law considerations that would be problematic if that was the only force we had downrange in a given specialty.

Again, like I said above, I agree that the greater evil is the fact that a significant portion of our currently deployed combat capability is flown and/or maintained by contractors, but we need to be very careful with what we do and don't contract out vs what we do and don't make AF civilians vs what we leave blue suiter. Unless we want to significantly reevaluate the way we write contracts/manage contractors, we're going to need blue suiters outside of a lot more units than just the CRGs in order to be able to effectively respond to contingencies.

Counter argument: Unless things have drastically changed, the people in my ROTC class that got pilot slots were rated the highest for leadership. I think the vast majority of pilots are just as (if not more) capable of walking into a large shop and leading just like any other new LT is.

We're talking about two different things. You're talking about comparing at the brand new Lt level, I'm talking about comparing at the 6-9 year Capt level. Yes, as butter bars they're equal in that neither of them knows a damn thing about anything. But during the next 6-9 years that support Lt will get practical experience leading those shops and experience in the career field while the rated Lt will go through their training pipeline and then focus on being tactically proficient at flying. So by the 6-9 year mark they have diverged considerably in experience level.

Obviously there are differing degrees here depending on the size of the organization and what it is they do...a rated Capt would probably do just fine running the PA or finance shop, but I see throwing them into an AMU or Aerial Port or SFS as being more problematic.

Edited December 29, 2013 by BB Stacker

[MD]

but we don't need military support at all installations.

Forgot to address this part...

And this is correct. Going back to fire protection, at AFMC bases and the like (non ACC/AMC/AETC bases), the fire departments are 100% civil service GS, with no bluesuiters. So yes, in those cases, full civilian manning does indeed work.

[Seriously]

Do that and the phrase "that's not in the contract" will quickly become the new "closed for training."

Spot on. The problem with contractors is the rigidity with which the AF creates their contracts. Sometimes I have a hard time believing contractors save us money. The massive problems created in the UPT world with the constant switches between Dyncorp and L3 should be enough evidence for anyone that contractors cause just as many problems as they solve.

[BB Stacker]

Spot on. The problem with contractors is the rigidity with which the AF creates their contracts.

Comes back to cost. You want to write a PWS/SOW that is extremely open ended, allowing maximum flexibility with what and how quickly a given contractor has to do something? Knock yourself out, but don't be surprised when the only way you can get the contractor to sign agreeing to that PWS/SOW is to pay them out the ass.

Here is the Air Force's opportunity to say "what do you do for America" and get rid of the people that aren't hacking the mission.

Which just happens to be every officer not wearing a flight suit...noted.

[Skitzo]

The plane I fly is maintained both in garrison and in combat by contract. Coming from the B1 they are far more responsive.

They also don't play politics and argue about MX Cnx vs Ops Cnx and after and air abort they could care less about a 2407 for adding a sortie.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MD]

Sure, but we're not the Army. Compare how long it takes to build a "Combat Arms" captain and how long it takes to build an F-15/16/22/35, K/C-10/17/130/135, etc pilot. There is a significant difference in time and money to not only get a Lt, but keep that Lt trained and proficient for the next 10+ years. Operators are "highly skilled" workers. That is one of the reasons the Air Force is scared (and should be) of losing a lot of us to the airlines. It ain't cheap to build us. After your FSS job (for example) you are going to go back into the mix to be a DO/CC somewhere else, or you'll move on elsewhere.

Oddly enough, up to the mid-1980s prior to their being an Aviation branch within the Army; commissioned officer aviators (RLOs now, as Warrants are commissioned these days too) belonged to a combat arms branch such as Armor, Infantry, Artillery, etc. These guys would go to flight school, go to follow on training, serve in an aviation unit for a tour or two, and head back to their "owning" branch to work their career broadening stuff that had nothing to do with aviation. Hence why so many officers had such little total flight time.

But yes, the AF isn't the Army in the sense that we don't have our primary flying functions being performed by WO's whose sole job it is to do.. Just an interesting relation to what you wrote, in that the Army once did the same thing with its aviators. Now that there's an Aviation branch, that changed.

I'm not special. When they decide they don't need me anymore I'll go find something else to do. But in the meantime, I'll keep telling the Air Force what it needs because that's part of my job.

Agree; none of us are. It's not a hit on you, it's a hit on the AF that seems to never listen to those "in the know" who are making good suggestions. Look at the hit in pilots that was created in the early to mid '90s when the AF slashed pilot production starting in '89/'90 when they took away pilot slots from ROTC cadets who already had them, ran min-sized UPT classes, even allowing people to leave the AF directly from those upon graduation with no ADSC, and then the RIF. Took a good while to recover from that. Big Blue is just that train that moves at 10mph and will always move at 10 mph, whether you pull from in front, push from behind, or just ride along as a pax. And that's unfortunate.

Edited December 29, 2013 by MD

[BB Stacker]

The plane I fly is maintained both in garrison and in combat by contract. Coming from the B1 they are far more responsive.

They also don't play politics and argue about MX Cnx vs Ops Cnx and after and air abort they could care less about a 2407 for adding a sortie.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're just looking at the ops/mx relationship. if you look at it from a programmatic perspective, or even from the perspective of a blue suit mx/logistics organization working with those contractors, you would have a vastly different take on things. Contractors are far from a cure-all, and just because they are nice when dealing with ops does not mean they take the same approach to all the other entities they work with. FWIW, the reason they don't care about mx cnx vs ops cnx is more than likely because per their contract they aren't graded on abort rate...if they were, I guarantee you they would absolutely care about that. As for why they don't care about adding a sortie, if I had to guess I'd say it's because aircraft availability isn't an issue with your MDS...it is with the Bone. Comparing a low mx MDS to something like the Bone isn't like comparing apples to oranges, it's like comparing apples to a moon rock.

I am saying that you can take a rated officer, put him in a non-rated job and he will figure it out in less than 6 months.

And I'm saying that is a gross oversimplification...which goes to the root of the discussion. If we're cutting 25K people, cut the shitbags (of which there are still plenty, in every community), not just assume that because someone wears a flight suit they will be able to figure out a different job in 6 months without any detriment to the mission or the enlisted folks who work in that job.

Edited December 29, 2013 by BB Stacker

[deaddebate]

the ability to read and interpret the AFI's that governed your job, and most especially good NCO's.

see attached pic. As an NCO, I can't fully express how frustrated I become, as I am forced to inform and correct E-5+/O-3+ personnel on their own regs, and interpret those regs for them. Much of this is indirectly due to all the other bullshit that SNCO's and CGO's are forced to resolve rather than actually leading and performing, which they could do, if enabled.

Not to mention the continuity by not switching out a seasoned Airman for a new Airman every 2-4 years. Seems like personnel and finance functions are always operating at the "new Airman in training" capacity and we never really get to the "competent Airman" capacity because as soon as SSgt Schmukatelli gets to that level, we PCS him and bring in A1C Effengee.

This isn't happening at my installation. Average time on station is 4+ years for nearly all Enlisted. The problem is low(ish) manpower (~80%)--it isn't a large crop of FNG's. Addressing the idea that contracting support positions would be more efficient/cost-effective, the contractors within the Med Group GENERALLY are only checking the box and meeting bare minimums, while the GS & AD folks ensure the mission gets done. Obviously, there are many exceptions. My experience has been that the average contractor in the med group doesn't understand how their job fits into the larger mission, even beyond their own squadron, and they don't devote much effort to learn it, especially as most don't keep their job longer than 2 years, again leading to a significant experience gap, as hiring its very slow, and training is equally lengthy. For this reason, they are moderately effective in medical support/clerical positions, but frequently less capable in patient care settings. NOT because they lack the formal training (the actual knowledge base of medicine is strong), but because of a major hurdle in transitioning to the AF's HUGE administrative processes, and very extensive interconnected manpower network. E.g. every person put on quarters/DLC (profile) becomes time they are not doing the job, whereas when they were off-base civilian docs, they just presumptively give out restriction notes like Halloween candy as the default CYA from malpractice claims. Sent from my HTC One X+ using Tapatalk

Edited December 29, 2013 by deaddebate

[Fuzz]

Sure, but we're not the Army. Compare how long it takes to build a "Combat Arms" captain and how long it takes to build an F-15/16/22/35, K/C-10/17/130/135, etc pilot. There is a significant difference in time and money to not only get a Lt, but keep that Lt trained and proficient for the next 10+ years. Operators are "highly skilled" workers. That is one of the reasons the Air Force is scared (and should be) of losing a lot of us to the airlines. It ain't cheap to build us. After your FSS job (for example) you are going to go back into the mix to be a DO/CC somewhere else, or you'll move on elsewhere.

If we're cutting people because we're broke and we want to maintain combat capability and not be a hollow force (insert your favorite buz word here) then let's do this based upon capability. Look, I don't want to be the FSS/CC or the LRS/DO but if the option is keep flying CMR/BMC and be the LRS/DO or go to a tiered readiness state where you only fly 6 months out of the year I'll take option one. They're probably going to send me on a 179 for that 6 months where I'm not flying anyway. Here is the Air Force's opportunity to say "what do you do for America" and get rid of the people that aren't hacking the mission.

I'm not special. When they decide they don't need me anymore I'll go find something else to do. But in the meantime, I'll keep telling the Air Force what it needs because that's part of my job.

Beerman, I agree with what you said, and my case wasn't for us to model their program exactly, just that there was a similar program to what was being discussed out there already and it works for the army. I do think for it to work for rated guys it would have to be majors and up due to the training pipeline for rated folks.

[Shut up 'n color]

Anyone know what the pay package is going to be for VSP vs. RIF? I haven't seen anything official yet.

[BitteEinBit]

This isn't happening at my installation. Average time on station is 4+ years for nearly all Enlisted. The problem is low(ish) manpower (~80%)--it isn't a large crop of FNG's.

My experience has been that the average contractor Airman in the med group Air Force doesn't understand how their job fits into the larger mission, even beyond their own squadron, and they don't devote much effort to learn it,

FIFY. I'd say that is true about the average Airman E5 and below. Probably not entirely their fault since we as an organization push so much other shit on them, they barely have enough time to learn their primary job. But, then again, that is the "do more with less" model we've been dealing with for the past 10 years...I don't see it getting better with the new "Do more with 25K less than the less you had before" model. I guess it did "work" post Gulf War I. We'll soon find out. I think OPSTEMPO will decrease just like they promised....

If people are staying 4+ years, that is a good thing in my opinion. I haven't seen that much continuity at the past 3 bases to which I've been assigned. But they've all been either shitty locations in SWA (Southwest America) or an overseas base with a controlled tour where it is difficult to get extensions.

Maybe this is my limited experience working with dirty contractors, but if a contractor is lazy or wants to just do the bare minimum, then just cancel the contract and find a new contractor. Sure, that doesn't solve our continuity problem, but if there is competition out there, the lazy contractor gets no contracts. But maybe that's just the way I see it in my perfect world....reality is different.

Edited December 29, 2013 by BitteEinBit

[Bender]

Anyone know what the pay package is going to be for VSP vs. RIF? I haven't seen anything official yet.

The formula is in post #333...colorfully explained as well.

I can't wait for my LRS or FSS gig...going to be sweet!

Bendy

[BitteEinBit]

The formula is in post #333...colorfully explained as well.

I can't wait for my LRS or FSS gig...going to be sweet!

Bendy

You know 333...if you add all the digits it equals 9...and upside down that is a 6. Just wanted to point out the connection between your reference of 333 and the numbers 6 and 9 and I think that is sexist....that is all.

[BamaC-21]

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)

I'm ridiculously bad at math, but I get some pretty different numbers using these formulas vs the ones in the VSP memo. Your formula gives $96k, but plugging my numbers into the memo, I only get 80k. I think it has to do with the multiple 12's, TAFMS being 12 years, and me being an idiot. There's also a random division by 12 at the end of the example, but not in the text. WTF. The example 12 year Major gets $120k, so it seems like your number might be correct for me at 9.5 years TAFMS.

Whatever. I'd get out for free, so this is just gravy.

I SHOULD be surprised that something as simple as the payout formula would be convoluted, expecially considering this is a financially-motivated program. Either way, here's the text from the memo. Somebody smarter than me, please take a look.

2. The FY14 VSP program entitles FY14 RIF-eligible officers 1.25 the rate of full separation pay. Those officers non-selected for retention by the RIF board will be entitled to full separation pay at the standard rate. The formula for calculating full separation pay is as follows: member’s monthly base pay multiplied by 12, then multiplied by the years of total federal military service (TAFMS) and all whole months served over the total years, then multiplied by 10%. When computing total years of TAFMS, only use whole months. Whole months are calculated as fractions of 12 months. For instance, 12 years and three months equates to 12 and ¼ years. Multiply 12 and ¼ times 12 to produce the total whole months served, which equates to 147.

Example (showing as DFAS calculates): A Major w/ 12 yrs and 3 months and 13 days of total active federal military service [($6540.60 monthly base pay) x 12 years x 147 ( total whole months served) x (10%)] divided by 12= $96,146.82 (RIF). For VSP, multiply by 1.25 = $120,183.52.

Edited December 29, 2013 by BamaC-21

[Dupe]

I agree, all except DV airlift. Do we really want the lowest bidder to fly around our senior leaders (except maybe CODELs)? Not to mention losing the flexibility you would have from an AF crew. I could see a Netjet type operation not moving the mission because something wasn't in their contract.

Quite a few corporations have shed their flight departments in favor of a flexible outsource option. For the AF, our personnel costs are so dramatically high that I think the decision point is a much higher $ figure.

[BB Stacker]

Maybe this is my limited experience working with dirty contractors, but if a contractor is lazy or wants to just do the bare minimum, then just cancel the contract and find a new contractor. Sure, that doesn't solve our continuity problem, but if there is competition out there, the lazy contractor gets no contracts. But maybe that's just the way I see it in my perfect world....reality is different.

If they are doing the bare minimum (i.e., meeting the terms of the contract), what is your justification for terminating the contract?

Any company worth their salt is going to ensure that the contract is written in such a way that it is almost impossible to abruptly terminate the contract if they are meeting the requirements of the PWS, at least not without having the government pay a hefty termination fee. And like I alluded to before, if you want to write the contract in such a way that it can be terminated at the government's convenience, knock yourself out, but don't be surprised when the only business you can get to sign a contract written in such a way demands a considerable amount more money than if they were signing a more typically written contract. Furthermore, if they were doing beyond the bare minimum (i.e., going above and beyond the terms of the contract), whoever directed them to perform that additional work may have just obligated the government to pay money to the contractor to cover the cost of performing that work that they otherwise wouldn't have been getting paid to perform (since it wasn't in the terms of the contract). That person may even be held personally responsible for reimbursing the government for that money.

Dealing with contractors is messy.

[BitteEinBit]

Yeah, I have limited experience working with contractors. What I should have said was "don't renew the contract." Like I said, when there is competition out there, I wouldn't think contractors are stupid enough to do the bare minimum. I know dirty contractors now in Afghanistan and the companies they work for are sure as hell kissing the Army's ass because they are at the point where the renewals are 6 months at a time and there is plenty of competition out there for the ISR contract. The Army couldn't give two shits who owns the contract as long as their mission is getting done effectively for the price they're willing to pay. I'm no contracting officer but I'm pretty sure companies like Lockheed, L3, DynCorp, Dynamic, SAIC are going to do a little more than the bare minimums as they try to impress the Army for those limited ISR flying contracts. Sure, when you don't have much competition you can expect lazy contractors because they know there is no one else...put a little competition out there and it changes the game. That is what I've seen in my little world. Again, I don't have the experience to speak intelligently on the topic...it is just how it seems to work with what I've seen.

[NotADude]

I'm ridiculously bad at math, but I get some pretty different numbers using these formulas vs the ones in the VSP memo. Your formula gives $96k, but plugging my numbers into the memo, I only get 80k. I think it has to do with the multiple 12's, TAFMS being 12 years, and me being an idiot. There's also a random division by 12 at the end of the example, but not in the text. WTF. The example 12 year Major gets $120k, so it seems like your number might be correct for me at 9.5 years TAFMS.

Whatever. I'd get out for free, so this is just gravy.

I SHOULD be surprised that something as simple as the payout formula would be convoluted, expecially considering this is a financially-motivated program. Either way, here's the text from the memo. Somebody smarter than me, please take a look.

2. The FY14 VSP program entitles FY14 RIF-eligible officers 1.25 the rate of full separation pay. Those officers non-selected for retention by the RIF board will be entitled to full separation pay at the standard rate. The formula for calculating full separation pay is as follows: member’s monthly base pay multiplied by 12, then multiplied by the years of total federal military service (TAFMS) and all whole months served over the total years, then multiplied by 10%. When computing total years of TAFMS, only use whole months. Whole months are calculated as fractions of 12 months. For instance, 12 years and three months equates to 12 and ¼ years. Multiply 12 and ¼ times 12 to produce the total whole months served, which equates to 147.

Example (showing as DFAS calculates): A Major w/ 12 yrs and 3 months and 13 days of total active federal military service [($6540.60 monthly base pay) x 12 years x 147 ( total whole months served) x (10%)] divided by 12= $96,146.82 (RIF). For VSP, multiply by 1.25 = $120,183.52.

It seems to me they added an extra 12 in there. In the formula, the 147 is your years.months of service (12.25 in this case) multiplied by 12 (months/year) to get time served in months. In the example formula, they don't really need the first 12 in there, which is why they decide to divide by 12 again at the end, to negate it. Basically, figure out years.months of service, multiply by 12 to get months, then multiply that by your base pay, multiply by 10%, then multiply by 1.25 for VSP. (or you could just multiply total years of service by 12 to get months (12 years*12 months/year = 144 months), then add your extra months to that and you'll end up with the same number to plug in, 147 in this case)

clear as mud?

[BamaC-21]

It seems to me they added an extra 12 in there. In the formula, the 147 is your years.months of service (12.25 in this case) multiplied by 12 (months/year) to get time served in months. In the example formula, they don't really need the first 12 in there, which is why they decide to divide by 12 again at the end, to negate it. Basically, figure out years.months of service, multiply by 12 to get months, then multiply that by your base pay, multiply by 10%, then multiply by 1.25 for VSP. (or you could just multiply total years of service by 12 to get months (12 years*12 months/year = 144 months), then add your extra months to that and you'll end up with the same number to plug in, 147 in this case)

clear as mud?

Your formula gives the same 80k as the memo. Oh well, either way pays off the minivan.....

Edited December 29, 2013 by BamaC-21

[Fifty-six & Two]

Your formula gives the same 80k as the memo. Oh well, either way pays off the minivan.....

You said 9.5 years for your TAFMS. What base pay are you using?

Also, completely ignore the fact that the example says base pay x 12 years. It should only say x 12. That part of the equation is NOT dependent upon how much time you have served. That may be where some of the confusion lies.

Example (showing as DFAS calculates): A Major w/ 12 yrs and 3 months and 13 days of total active federal military service [($6540.60 monthly base pay) x 12 years x 147 ( total whole months served) x (10%)] divided by 12= $96,146.82 (RIF). For VSP, multiply by 1.25 = $120,183.52.

Edited December 29, 2013 by Fifty-six & Two