Leaderboard

Methinks getting rid of "up or out" would be easier if someone bothered to tell decision makers why it was originally instituted. It's not Friday, but here's the history lesson: - WW II created a huge number of officers from a very small number of year groups (basically six: mid-1939 to mid-1945), much like WW I did before it - The situation was especially bad in the Air Force, because the interwar Army had so screwed over the Air Service/Air Corps for manning before '39. The AAF had to grow way faster than the ground Army did during the war, which led to even bigger year-group imbalances within the air arm -- At its wartime peak of 2.4M in March 1944, all but maybe 1% of the AAF had less than 5 years of mil service. This created a huge "pig in a python" personnel-wise, since it would be decades before those folks were forced to retire due to age restrictions. -- The net result was that the Air Force would essentially have been filled by same five or six year groups' worth of folks, which would have left no room for new blood--with the fresh ideas and energy that young officers bring to the fight - Up or out policies sought to address this concern by forcing attrition at the senior ranks and those with higher time in service, in order to make more room for younger year groups that were the future of the Air Force In short, the Up or Out system was built because too many people wanted to stay in, which led to imbalance within the service. What we have now is the exact opposite problem--too few want to stay in, especially those in high-demand career fields. The overall problem is no longer getting rid of dead weight and making room for new talent as it is retaining quality so there can be some level of experience and stability. The problem set today is 180 degrees out from the circumstances that drove up-or-out. The solutions should be significantly different, as well. The problem is that fixing military personnel policies won't fix our civilian leaders' cluelessness wrt appropriate use of military force, inability to comprehend military culture, or incapacity to get along and overcome budget impasses in congress. Civilian-driven missteps are a major factor in discouraging quality individuals from remaining on active duty. I am an optimist at heart, and I take this discussion as a positive sign that our senior civ & mil leaders are least acknowledging there is a problem. I have little hope that we will fix our hemorrhaging of talent, though, until we quit with the social engineering efforts and attacks on military culture which discourage voluntary service. TT

This is one of the first examples that popped up with a quick google search...there are many more like it. I'm sorry it does not support your lame progressive ideology. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/27/cincinnati-man-shoots-at-1-year-old-boy-is-shot-by-man-with-concealed-carry/ Progrssives hate to admit that armed citizens can actually protect themselves against dangerous criminals. This is about control, nothing else, as progressives would rather us be weak and unarmed then possibly challenge their ideology.

Folks, this is one place where the ANG and the Reserves are very different. Since I've been in both, I'll comment on both quickly: ANG: typically faster promotions to O4 (and to a lesser extent to O5) because a PV (position vacancy) is a local thing as opposed to the Reserves. In other words, since all aircrew slots in the ANG are O4 or higher, once you are eligible (4 years TIG) your own unit can promote you if they like. (Some like to wait a while so you don't run into TIG issues as you approach O5....but that's beyond the scope of this discussion.) If your unit doesn't PV you, will eventually meet a ROPMA board and pin on after that. AFRC: If your unit wants to promote you to O4 before 7 years TIG, they have to submit you to a PV board; this is rare and even if they send it up, it may not get approved. Don't quote me on this, but I think is was about a 55% selection rate for PV's last couple years. If you are AFRC, plan on slower promotions through O5. Last comment is anecdotal but worthy of mention: I believe that in aggregate, guys make O4/O5 slightly faster in the ANG BUT.....if you want to make O6 or above, you have a better shot in AFRC. If you are willing to play their game of being managed (a personnel management system where they can and will PCS you...and one I wouldn't touch personally) you will almost surely make O6.