High year tenure changes for enlisted...

[Catbox]

This message just got sent out from the shirt and I'm curious from the enlisted perspective if this is really going to change that much? In 14 years I've only known one person to get affected by HYT and she dug her own grave when she lost a stripe and busted to SrA at 11 years which instantly put her over HYT.

With the new policies are these the people we should be getting rid of anyways?

Are your Airmen ready for HYT changes?

Posted 8/21/2012 Updated 8/21/2012

Commentary by Dr. Todd Fore

Executive Director, Air Force Personnel Center

8/21/2012 - JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas -- Most Airmen affected by high year of tenure changes announced in December will have one more opportunity to test for promotion before changes take effect in September 2013. If they don't make it, they'll be separated from the Air Force.

Are your Airmen ready? As commanders, first sergeants, supervisors, leaders and mentors, we all play a role in our fellow Airmen's success. Promotion testing is very strict - no group study or study support is allowed - so maybe you don't think you can do anything to help your people prepare. But, the fact is we have responsibilities, and with only one more shot at promotion, your Airmen need you now more than ever.

Educate and communicate. Those are your responsibilities.

Promotion tests are hard. They require serious, long-term study. To do well, Airmen must develop and stick with a study routine. Do your Airmen understand that? If they're approaching HYT, they may not, and they may not know where to start. You must educate them on how to develop, implement and follow through on their study plan.

Have you spoken personally with your Airmen about this issue? Do you know why they haven't been selected for promotion? Do you know if personal or professional barriers are inhibiting them? If the answer is no, you are failing to communicate. Sure, it's a two-way street, but as a leader, your job is to grow and develop Airmen. You can't do that if you don't communicate with them.

We cannot afford to lose valuable Airmen because they didn't know how to prepare or were unable to overcome barriers on their own. You can't study for (or with) your Airmen and you can't take the promotion test for them, but you can help them learn the formula for success if you take the time to communicate with them. Will you pass the leader/mentor test?

For HYT details, go to the myPers website at https://mypers.af.mil, select the "search all components" option and enter "Enlisted High Year Tenure" in the search window.

http://www.afpc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123314903

[pawnman]

Going out on a limb here...aren't enlisted tests all graded to a percentile, then they draw the line for the cuts? And if we can't afford to lose these airmen, why are we kicking them out? Clearly the part of AFPC responsible for managing the force has a different perspective than the executive director.

[Toro]

Even though this article just came out, the HYT notifications came out last year, so this shouldn't be news to anybody. To be clear, this doesn't change the requirements for making grade, and it doesn't cut the number of folks getting promoted, it simply gives the boot to those who have been in a grade for an extended period of time. The OP's article doesn't mention it, but here's what it does:

High year of tenure limits for senior airman will be reduced from 10 years to eight years; staff sergeant 20 years to 15 years; and technical sergeant 22 years to 20 years.

Not a bad call, IMO. This forces our enlisted folks to buckle down, get through their CDCs, and take their testing seriously (enlisted testing and promotion is completely different than officers). Should somebody be able to spend 20 years in the Air Force and only make it to the rank of SSgt?

[daays]

Even though this article just came out, the HYT notifications came out last year, so this shouldn't be news to anybody. To be clear, this doesn't change the requirements for making grade, and it doesn't cut the number of folks getting promoted, it simply gives the boot to those who have been in a grade for an extended period of time. The OP's article doesn't mention it, but here's what it does:

Not a bad call, IMO. This forces our enlisted folks to buckle down, get through their CDCs, and take their testing seriously (enlisted testing and promotion is completely different than officers). Should somebody be able to spend 20 years in the Air Force and only make it to the rank of SSgt?

No. I'll edit this post later when I have time.

Edited August 24, 2012 by daays

[Kenny Powers]

Should somebody be able to spend 20 years in the Air Force and only make it to the rank of SSgt?

Why not? It's their career, let them decide. Does it effect the way they perform their job? Granted, there should be some minimum standard obviously but I don't think there is anything wrong with letting someone decide whether or not they are ready to promote, within reason.

Some of the best Mx dudes I worked the flightline with back in the day were 20 year staff types. They liked working the jet and, typically, after making Tech you start getting pulled from the flightline, no longer turning wrenches but instead filing papers. They enjoyed what they were doing, didn't care about promotion and pay, and did a hell of a job doing it.

I know this doesnt apply to everyone, but the guys I have personally seen in my time that were following this career path were usually not doing it just because they were slackers and didnt care about their job.

Edited August 24, 2012 by Kenny Powers

[guineapigfury]

Seriously, 10 year Senior Airmen? Someone ought to be competitive for TSgt by that time.

[Azimuth]

Seriously, 10 year Senior Airmen? Someone ought to be competitive for TSgt by that time.

People like that usually were demoted.

[MKopack]

Years ago we had an engine troop who was HYT'd as an E-4 Sgt at something like sixteen years - couldn't take a test to save his life (spoke Spanish as a first language, and his English was rough at very best) but he could tell you which main bearing on our old F100's was wearing, just by laying his hands on the side of the 16 at idle. Never saw anyone even half as "natural", and he had a list of job offers well before his last day.

Of course he was an exception, most HYT's were barely taking up space.

[itsokimapilot]

Years ago we had an engine troop who was HYT'd as an E-4 Sgt at something like sixteen years - couldn't take a test to save his life (spoke Spanish as a first language, and his English was rough at very best) but he could tell you which main bearing on our old F100's was wearing, just by laying his hands on the side of the 16 at idle. Never saw anyone even half as "natural", and he had a list of job offers well before his last day.

Of course he was an exception, most HYT's were barely taking up space.

I thought this was the reason for STEP promotions.

[guineapigfury]

I thought this was the reason for STEP promotions.

It is.

[brabus]

Some of the best Mx dudes I worked the flightline with back in the day were 20 year staff types. They liked working the jet and, typically, after making Tech you start getting pulled from the flightline, no longer turning wrenches but instead filing papers. They enjoyed what they were doing, didn't care about promotion and pay, and did a hell of a job doing it.

One of the best CC's I've ever met/worked with is a "long-time" SSgt. I really think the reason he is still a SSgt is at least partially due to this. Agree it doesn't apply to everyone, but I'm glad as hell everyday that this dude is on the line instead of rotting in some office.

[17D_guy]

It is.

In the rare, rare cases. Usually it's to reward some General's aide (Folgeso... I can't finish it) or to keep that fire-walled volunteer of the year moving up to MSgt so they can tell you how to wear a reflective belt correctly.

On a plus side I did have a Chief 1Sgt who was STEP'd to Master, rode a Harley, cursed, smoked and kicked ass. She was great.

[Jimmy.The.Engineer]

Of all the things that are legitimately complain worthy, the enlisted promotion system is one with which I take no issue. I thank God each day that I don't have to deal with the same promotion system as the ossifers. If I don't get promoted, it is my fault. If the O's don't, it is because a ladybug in Zambia didn't get eaten at 1314 hours by a spotted baboon in the correct tree. We are set to lose a lot of very good dudes, in my squadron, due this idiocy - very good dudes. The ones who will move up are the bake sales reps and PTA presidents. It makes me sad.

On the 20 year staff issue, If a dude doesn't want to move up, he isn't hurting me; he's actually helping me. We don't all have the same values.

[sweet I'm SOF]

Why not? It's their career, let them decide. Does it effect the way they perform their job? Granted, there should be some minimum standard obviously but I don't think there is anything wrong with letting someone decide whether or not they are ready to promote, within reason.

Some of the best Mx dudes I worked the flightline with back in the day were 20 year staff types. They liked working the jet and, typically, after making Tech you start getting pulled from the flightline, no longer turning wrenches but instead filing papers. They enjoyed what they were doing, didn't care about promotion and pay, and did a hell of a job doing it.

I know this doesnt apply to everyone, but the guys I have personally seen in my time that were following this career path were usually not doing it just because they were slackers and didnt care about their job.

Here is a reason: A large part of the institution's manning forecast and planning is based on average promotion rates. There is no piece of that formula that accounts for a 20 yr E5. The one-off is not going to skew the plan, but if a policy was instituted to thwart 20 yr E5s, there was probably a trend that was threatening the average. I think that in most AFSCs, someone exceeding even the recently adjusted high year tenure policy is probably not helping your unit. I hear the argument often that they bring a ton of technical experience to the table. They probably do. But someone who is making rank on time or faster than average would probably be about on par, and their talents often extend beyond technical expertise. To a squadron commander, that is important. To a MAJCOM commander, that is very significant. To the institution, that is worth basing force structure decisions upon.

Your argument seems to be based on the individual's choice, vice the institution's requirements. Since we have resource constraints, I do not believe it is valid as far as the uniform is concerned. I think an answer to your argument is civilian technicians.

You stated that "I don't think there is anything wrong with letting someone decide whether or not they are ready to promote, within reason." The "within reason," as it turns out, is the high year tenure rule.

[Kenny Powers]

Here is a reason: A large part of the institution's manning forecast and planning is based on average promotion rates. There is no piece of that formula that accounts for a 20 yr E5. The one-off is not going to skew the plan, but if a policy was instituted to thwart 20 yr E5s, there was probably a trend that was threatening the average.

You really believe this? You really believe there are too many enlisted people trying not to make rank?

I think that in most AFSCs, someone exceeding even the recently adjusted high year tenure policy is probably not helping your unit. I hear the argument often that they bring a ton of technical experience to the table. They probably do. But someone who is making rank on time or faster than average would probably be about on par, and their talents often extend beyond technical expertise.

You say MOST AFSC's, yet I would venture to guess you have zero experience in MOST AFSC's. Thats ok, I do to. I have been in two AFSC's and in both your statement couldn't be further from the truth. Hell, one of the best MX dudes I have ever met (both on and off the flightline) had to get a waiver because he failed to pass his 5 level test 2 or 3 times. The waiver came from the SQ/CC. The "other talents" come with experience, not rank.

You also probably dont realize that, in MX, most are qualified to work multiple planes. Funny thing is, for your skill level and promotions, you test on information regarding aircraft you usually have never worked on in your life. Top that with 12-16 hour days busting your ass on the flightline to get jets fixed, people easily lose motivation to study.

Your argument seems to be based on the individual's choice, vice the institution's requirements. Since we have resource constraints, I do not believe it is valid as far as the uniform is concerned. I think an answer to your argument is civilian technicians.

Guess what? Its still the individuals decision, regardless of the requirement. Resource constraints because what probably turns out to be 1% of the entire USAF is not getting promoted? Come on...you do realize that the guys who work these jobs as civilian contractors make waaaaayyyyyyyyy more money than your average E-5, right? For example, my old Guard unit pays somewhere around $35/hr for an Avionics guy.

You stated that "I don't think there is anything wrong with letting someone decide whether or not they are ready to promote, within reason." The "within reason," as it turns out, is the high year tenure rule.

Within reason was fine the way it was with the old high year tenure. Not that this new one is all that different and honestly will not have any kind of impact on the USAF, literally, I bet nothing statistically changes. Why, because we are talking about such a small percentage of the whole.

Your claim is that this is data driven, so show me the data.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Kenny Powers

[HossHarris]

For example, my old Guard unit pays somewhere around $35/hr for an avionics guy

Yup, but they don't pay him 24/7/365.

They don't pay bah, bas, fsp, hdp, idp, tricare, sgli, retirement, disability, death gratuity, per diem, etc.

Contractors can make sense and can save money when they don't have to be 'expeditionary'

(edited for GD autocorrect)

Edited September 6, 2012 by HossHarris

[guineapigfury]

Honestly, how hard is it to make E-6 by the 15 year mark? Shouldn't your average E-5 at that point have a bunch of firewall 5 EPRS, have 14 years TIS and 8-9 years TIG? They should be rolling in to the test with at least 210* points of the approximately 320 pts normally needed for promotion. They need to average a 55 on the 2 tests to get promoted. Even those who are "bad test takers" should be able to pull off that strenuous feat of adequacy.

*( 2 points per year Time in Service = 28, Medals = 5, 0.5 pts per month of Time in Grade x 8 years = 48, EPRs = 130+).

[Kenny Powers]

Yup, but they don't pay him 24/7/365.

They don't pay bah, bas, fsp, hdp, idp, tricare, sgli, retirement, disability, death gratuity, per diem, etc.

Contractors can make sense and can save money when they don't have to be 'expeditionary'

(edited for GD autocorrect)

I agree that in some circumstances, i.e. less skilled labor, contracting makes sense, just not all. The 365/24/7 arguement doesn't hold water, because the E-5 is salaried. If you break down an E-5's salary to hourly, you are probably talking around $5/hr.

The E-5 also doesn't get FSP, HDP, IDP, etc. unless they meet the criteria (which is usually only a few months out of the year) and, if you want to pay a civilian to do that, hourly wages will go out the roof.

Honestly, how hard is it to make E-6 by the 15 year mark? Shouldn't your average E-5 at that point have a bunch of firewall 5 EPRS, have 14 years TIS and 8-9 years TIG? They should be rolling in to the test with at least 210* points of the approximately 320 pts normally needed for promotion. They need to average a 55 on the 2 tests to get promoted. Even those who are "bad test takers" should be able to pull off that strenuous feat of adequacy.

*( 2 points per year Time in Service = 28, Medals = 5, 0.5 pts per month of Time in Grade x 8 years = 48, EPRs = 130+).

Again, I agree 100% on this. Believe it or not, there are some people out there who make E-5, are really happy with what they have going, don't want the B.S. that comes with E-6 (not that its a whole lot) and don't care to make rank. However this is not the norm, the norm is more along the lines of what you said. I would be interested in seeing the numbers though, of people who get booted for HYT. I personally only have met one and it was because the guy couldnt pass his PT test to promote (wasn't even close).

Edited September 6, 2012 by Kenny Powers

[sweet I'm SOF]

You really believe this? You really believe there are too many enlisted people trying not to make rank?

No, I do not belive there were too many people trying to not make rank. I believe there were too many people not making rank that the institution was allowing to continue on in service.

You say MOST AFSC's, yet I would venture to guess you have zero experience in MOST AFSC's. Thats ok, I do to. I have been in two AFSC's and in both your statement couldn't be further from the truth. Hell, one of the best MX dudes I have ever met (both on and off the flightline) had to get a waiver because he failed to pass his 5 level test 2 or 3 times. The waiver came from the SQ/CC. The "other talents" come with experience, not rank.

I do not have to actually be in an AFSC to understand how progression in rank is qualified. As it turns out though, I do have experience in mx. Again, the institution is not looking for someone to demonstrate that after 20 years they are an expert at accomplishing one task extremely well. The model is not set up that way. In plain english, the model is constructed that after about 4 years in mx, an individual is competent at accomplishing their duties. At about 8-10 years, that same competency level is expected, and the individual is also expected to be able to manage processes that are larger than the initial expected duties. The maturation in expertise, management, and leadership is expected all the way to chief. Someone who stalls at step one is taking up space for the folks who will come after them and meet expectations. It works at all levels, not just in the mx world. Colin Powell described this concept in detail in his autobiography.

You also probably dont realize that, in MX, most are qualified to work multiple planes. Funny thing is, for your skill level and promotions, you test on information regarding aircraft you usually have never worked on in your life. Top that with 12-16 hour days busting your ass on the flightline to get jets fixed, people easily lose motivation to study.

How do you explain that to those that make rank the first time they test all the way to SMSgt?

Guess what? Its still the individuals decision, regardless of the requirement. Resource constraints because what probably turns out to be 1% of the entire USAF is not getting promoted? Come on...you do realize that the guys who work these jobs as civilian contractors make waaaaayyyyyyyyy more money than your average E-5, right? For example, my old Guard unit pays somewhere around $35/hr for an Avionics guy.

If the individual is making the decision to not make rank, and the institution shows that individual the door, what is your argument? Contractors in mx do not make more than an E-5 as an aggregate, they make much less. Your statement is incorrect.

Within reason was fine the way it was with the old high year tenure. Not that this new one is all that different and honestly will not have any kind of impact on the USAF, literally, I bet nothing statistically changes. Why, because we are talking about such a small percentage of the whole.

Your claim is that this is data driven, so show me the data.

All of the data is on the AFPC website. If you would like me to walk you through the numbers, let me know. That's not me being a smartass, that's me offering to show you the logic of why we cannot afford to let people stay in for 20 years as an E-5.