Leaderboard

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.

Thanks for the insight. I really appreciate you jumping on here to show us a little peek of the bigger picture. For feedback, the budget deal did some damage to the relationship with troops who were planning to continue to retirement, but not as you might have expected. Sure, the loss of $100K or so over 20 years hurts a bit, but the real issue is with the betrayal of trust. Throughout the year, as recently as September, congressional leaders from both houses promised any military retirement reform would include a grandfather clause. This one didn't. If those holding the keys to our future are willing to make this small reversal, can we reasonably trust them with 20 years of our lives without fear of far greater losses?

Still waiting for CSAF decision on a proposed policy that prohibits completion of SOS in-correspondence prior to attending in-residence. Correspondence would be required if attending in-residence is not possible, but double tapping or requiring correspondence as a pre-requisite would be prohibited. Hopefully it will be official soon, lots of traction.

If SOS in-residence attendance is 100%. The SOS correspondence course is of no value and merely drains resources we cannot afford. For any PME courses when attendance cannot be 100%, I would offer the following: The correspondence versions of ACSC and AWC are almost as old as the independent Air Force itself (1948 and 1949, respectively). We have gone through this “practice bleeding” conversation before, at one point people even believed it was going to change. It didn’t. It may this time, but the best we should hope for is that the game of “whack-a-mole” doesn’t produce a more undesirable outcome. Despite Air Force policy stating (AFI 36-2301 did at some point, I have no idea if it still does), “ideally, all officers will attend PME in residence.”, yet only the “top 20 percent” of officers promoted to the rank of major are designated as “DE selects”. For the “candidates” left out, the opportunities to get an in-residence slot are dismal, meaning that for the vast majority of active FIELD GRADE officers, correspondence is the only PME they will ever see. While these “candidates” are not your “golden boys”, many of them are tomorrow’s leaders. Current events (i.e. RIF, VSP, and Pensions) will only drive this closer to the mathematically defined disparity...imagine we are talking about upwards of 80% of your “leaders” running around. I think it’s a mistake to tell a “candidate” FGO that completing PME via correspondence shouldn’t be done until later (when all hope of in-residence attendance is gone…news flash it already is). You see, the problem is you’re creating reactionary policy that does not address the real issue. If “we” choose not to change the system, then I believe we are providing the supposedly “enhanced” education to the wrong group. The “top 20 percent” are the ones that should strive via self paced study, where the group just below them requires the more hand-on approach to “fill in the gaps” in leadership competency. Speaking of competencies, Air Force doctrine would have you believe, “Competencies are attributes an individual possesses to successfully and consistently perform a given task, under specified conditions, or meeting a defined standard of performance.” Yet nowhere in the Air University’s guidance or CJCSI 1800.01 (Officer PME Policy) is there a concept of “proficiency advancement”, where officers that already possess the ability to meet the intended objectives can be moved along to make room for those that need developmental education in order to “enable [them] to perform their jobs and contribute to the overall success of the Air Force.” Admittedly, the current PME construct pre-dates these definitions within Air Force doctrine; however, I struggle to determine what senior leaders are for if not to adjust out of date practices to current and evolving doctrine. I am not a fan of “practice bleeding” and we should change it. However, the idea that you will eliminate this via a single policy is difficult to believe. When the Air Force unmasked possession of a master’s degree for the O-4 promotion board, all of a sudden ACSC popped up with the option to earn a master’s degree. When the AAD has been mask to the O-4 promotion board (despite being told not too), SR began using AAD completion to determine DR allocation for they’re quotas. A single policy is insufficient to produce institutional change. We must address the entire construct of PME to do anything productive here, not simply admit to EVERYONE (including the enlisted force) that the FGO doesn’t really need what we are offering them in order to do their jobs. The evidence of developmental educations efficacy remains with an officer performance after graduation. “Those officers who access education to fill their developmental needs would be expected to outperform similar officers who do not, in the same way that an MBA does not guarantee success, it is how the graduate applies the MBA that ultimately matters.” If there is no need for an FGO to complete PME as soon as possible, then there is no need for an FGO to complete PME at all. Bendy

As congressman can tell you, the people receiving entitlement spending are a much larger voting block than the military.

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.

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.

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

This.

Sorry, but as I've been reminded so many times in my military career...hope is not a plan.

What a bullshit response, why do we have to ask the dems, why didn't you and your colleagues make the change in the house? And also throw the bullshit flag on the tax increase but hey at least we know where you stand; hopefully that's only the case for another couple months till you get to join the rest of the unemployed.

Piss off Rusty. That was an uninformed cheap shot. You don't know how I lead or what impact I have had. I read Tony's blog and agree with most of what he says. He is intelligent, articulate and has recent AF leadership experiences that make his insights valuable. I disagree with his assertion (15 Dec blog post) that generals have let down their force by not speaking out against this bill. Senior leaders and all officers should refrain from participating in the political process and they should refrain from disparaging congress. Specifically, active duty officers must not "Allow or cause to be published in partisan political articles, letters, or endorsements signed or written by the member that solicits votes for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause." Article 88 of the UCMJ prohibits officers from using contemptuous words against congress, POTUS, SECDEF or SECAF. When asked by congress, senior leaders should give their best military advice. According to Tony, and what I have also heard, congress did not ask CJCS or service chiefs for their advice before they proposed cutting retirement benefits. Retired Lt Cols like Tony are much more effective veteran advocates in the political process than generals can be. Hopefully Tony's efforts will result in this disturbing reduction in retirement benefits being removed from the current budget law. He makes very good arguments for why our civilian leadership should not break faith with the brave and selfless military members who serve this nation so well. My guess is that congress will reinstate the COLA increases early next year, long before the cuts impact retirees. edit: Corrected leaving out "not" before "speaking out".

Yeah, yeah, that's fine and all, but they're not priced high enough to be in the AFE shop. Everyone knows it has to cost at least $200 for each item. That's where my plan will really get the attention of our contracting warriors. But I'll sell them on the idea that it'll be cheaper if we work with the USN and USMC to design a joint glove. At first I'll say it'll be cheaper, but I'll have a few cost and timeline overruns and actually they won't really work right and look kinda fat and stupid. I'll think call it Joint Safety Fabric or "JSF."

Merry Christmas, Merry Christmas, Merry Christmas, Merry Christmas, kiss my ass, kiss his ass, kiss your ass, happy Hanukkah.

how about take the discussion over to Baseops SIPR? It exists for this very reason...

Add this to your list of cons: Less dwell time, increased deployment-to-dwell ratio, and/or higher chance to TDY/PCS for a 365 to Numbnutzistan. For every person in your year group that gets out, and who has an earlier STRD, you just got bumped up closer to deploying in their place. For example, lets say you are a Maj and your STRD is 2003 and you were #100 on the pecking order to deploy for another 180 or 365. If 75 Majors with an STRD later than 2003 separate, retire, get RIF'd, VSP, TERA, etc, then that moves you 25 spots closer to packing your bags again to the CAOC, air advisory group, convoy duty, etc. "Doing more, with less"...an adage so true in this instance.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2978559571001/veterans-angered-by-new-bill-to-cut-pensions/?playlist_id=928378949001 TC on Fox

Shack. I was already suspicious of the "grandfathered" claim in the recent past, but this move just proved any military benefit, program, etc. is or can be on the chopping block with little to no challenge in Congress. The safe assumption that any rational military member will make is the 20 yr retirement will either be non-existent or a complete shell of what it was when all of us currently serving signed away years of our life. So now, what in God's name is my incentive to stay in for 20? Where will the AF find it's strong leaders to be SQ/CCs, OG/CCs and WG/CCs? The AF needs good leaders to stay in, but we've already seen large numbers of that group continuously get out ASAP; now the above precedent is set...what does upper management and Congress expect to happen next? Here's what I get if I stay in for 20: Pros: 1. Get to serve my country 2. I get to do the job I love to do (mostly...for now) 3. I work with great Americans, and I thoroughly enjoy the commraderie 4. The pay's not that bad 5. A retirement (but see Cons below) Cons: 1. A retirement that is less than what I was promised when I signed up to give at minimum 11.5 yrs of my life (and my family's) to the AF. 2. Several more moves (maybe to places my family doesn't want to live...but we'll sacrifice and go anyways) 3. YEARS more away from my family spent in the shittiest places this world has to offer 4. Being continuously treated like a child by shitty management instead of an officer and an adult 5. Every year facing more and more roadblocks to doing the job/completing the mission To sum it up, I can achieve all the pros listed above outside AD; I can certainly get at least 4/5. All while seeing the same pros on the outside, I can avoid most, if not all, of the cons listed. At least for me personally, I REALLY care about the extra 5ish moves and years away from my family. So I can suck up a couple of those other cons if need be. There are certainly smaller items that could be added to each list, but these are the big ones. Don't get me wrong, I love my job as it stands RIGHT NOW, and I have and will continue to enjoy serving my country. But, as things continue to go in the wrong direction, I see less and less reason for a person to stay for 20+ years. Sure this is my opinion, but it's an opinion shared by A LOT of fellow officers. It's also an opinion that's backed by facts and precedence; difficult to argue against. How about A1 reads the above, maybe 6-9 times for clarity, so they start getting a clue as to what is really happening outside the basement they work in. You all can blame the three glasses of Lagavulin for the long post.

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. Aren't you out yet?

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.

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.

No shit? That is great news. And as you (later) said, long overdue. Evolution, not revolution, fellas.

Why not start cutting with entitlements? SS/Medicare is such a large portion of the budget you could cut defense to zero and still be running a deficit. Start with keying the age for benefits to average life expectancy. When my grandfather started paying into SS in the 30s, having the "safety net" age set in the 60s made sense - from http://demog.berkeley.edu/~andrew/1918/figure2.html, the life expectancy was just under 60, leaving SS for those passing that age who could no longer work. Now with improvements in medicine/living conditions (not a bad thing), most live into their 70s and beyond, straining the system. Then, move toward privatizing it so it becomes less of a Ponzi scheme.

No doubt it was a "hard" vote and the current retirement system needs to be reevaluated. Those currently serving should have been grandfathered in as promised and you sure as shit should not have changed it for those who are already retired. Nice way to thank those who served than by stealing from them to pay for the wars you (congress) sent us to fight.

Hair's frizzy on left side of her head. Right shoulder isn't round enough. Crease in bottom lip. 2/10, Would not bang.

The better question is who still shops a Kmart?

Gettin that half-pallet of gatorade on target, anytime, anywhere

I know lots of you guys have read Tony Carr's open letter to Rep. Ryan on his John Q. Public blog… it has since been published on businessinsider.com. It looks like he is now getting a bigger stage… Tony is scheduled to appear on FoxNews tomorrow morning (Friday, 27 Dec) on Fox and Friends to discuss the retirement cuts for military members. He doesn't have a time yet, but I'll update this when I hear for those interested in watching. For those who don't know Tony, I can't think of a better guy to represent us in a forum like this. Update: Already posted by Chuck, but it looks like 6:15 EST. They will most definitely replay it again a few more times during the 3 hr block of Fox and Friends, but if you are interested in seeing it live it will be at 6:15. Good luck, Tony… thanks for fighting for us!

If you're putting a gun on it, it won't be an MC anything for long. Recall the metamorphasis of MC-130W to AC-130W. I'd postulate the need for strike exceeds the niche need for infil; and the idea of crews exceling at both mission sets simultaneously is a fallicy. As for why would a 'gunship' not need all that extra gear.... maybe it shouldn't be a gunship. There's a current and future role for robust F3 platforms with a small footprint. That's a different animal than a gunship entirely.

That fvcking ELF! Here's his before and after pics at my house. He's been to one too many 1st Fridays....

Judging by the profile of those I've known get rif'd the last time, any kind of uif in your record, or current personality clash with your current cc, and you're prob right fucked. On the plus side, getting RIF'd could be the best thing to happen for your personal life, as I've seen a RIF guy going from getting the pink slip to turning around and scoring an AGR gig and receive the pilot bonus three years ahead of his normal eligibility year, which also means he gets to keep his invol sep pay in retirement. Talk about #winning #FuckBlue. For those with the motivation, provided they're good dudes and they're getting the boot for wrong place wrong time type actions by unfavorable cc's, the ARC is waiting to absorb them so they can end up where they probably were going to be much more vocationally happy in the first place. Same goes for those looking for airline jobs, the ARC network is better than active duty IMO. Merry Christmas and remember, if you do everything with the honest internalization that everything ends, life is a hell of a lot more liberating.

What is this magical time of which you speak?

"All the politicians are awful, just awful lying crooks" "Except mine, he's wonderful and has done so much for my district" Rinse, repeat x 500 million.

Yeah, it was never meant to happen but the GOP was also retarded in agreeing to military cuts when the democrats gave up nothing of value. Admit it you are over a barrel since the democrats don't care about sequestration because it doesn't really hurt their sacred cows. I'm really tired of seeing GOP members of Congress on TV crying about the sequester when they made such a shitty deal and the democrats called your bluff. My god, you make $174K a year and you want COLA? I know D.C. is pretty expensive area to live (grew up there) but that is 20-30K above the median income for the counties in that area. If my entire family can do it making way less than you and will be making less since you decided to take money out of my parents retirement, I'm sure you can too. You betrayed your fellow service members when you take their earned income away ahead of the billions of dollars of waste and welfare programs (maybe you should pick up your esteemed colleague Sen. Coburn's book of government waste he just published). I get it cuts need to be made but the promise that is made to veterans should not be the first broken because you and your colleagues (GOP and Dems) can't get your act together.

As a side note, I would love to see a comparison of 20+ year military retirement compensation and "one term" Congressional benefits. (in a stoplight chart because apparently people above the rank of Captain can't digest facts or details).

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