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

[BitteEinBit]

I do not envy Gen Welsh one bit right now. He has all my respect having to deal with the shit sammich he's been given. They could offer to put 4 stars on my shoulders tomorrow with all the pay, benefits, and hot groupies that come along with it and there is no f*cking way I would want to do what he's doing right now. Not only that, I'd probably make headlines for banging two or three of the groupies.

CCs trying to lead out there have a tough job on their hands. This shit sammich isn't smelling any better the longer it sits on the counter....

[shweaty]

Anyone else having to have 1 on 1 records review with their CC. We were told it's CSAF mandated for 05-08 yr group?

[akele]

At a commander's call we were told to ensure we check our records for accuracy, but there wasn't anything about an actual one-on-one review.

[Learjetter]

I'm doing one-on-ones for any of my guys that ask (and one or two who didn't ask).

Mostly, folks are less concerned about themselves, and more concerned about our staff unit (nice attitude to display, BTW)...we're sending 14 of our assigned 23 (authorized 35!) aviators out the door to PCS, school, etc by summer...with ZERO inbounds on the books.

Gonna be a bumpy year...

[olevelo]

Whatever happened to Sanctuary?

If you get ESERB, you still get retirement, and 19.5 versus 20 isn't a massive difference. Obviously it adds up but it's not like being just shy of 18 and then RIFd.

[panchbarnes]

What's up with the supposed merger of a couple of the MAJCOMs & FOAs? Is that fight over yet? A reduction of the staff *should* alleviate the manning crunch at the lower units.

The manpower hoarding (or empire building) by the staff hurts the mission, but it's a very political fight and no one wants to touch it. Not sure if an "operational" staff is the way to go either.

Good on the CCs for being pro-active and mentoring their folks, that is a very rare occurrence in my experience. I just hope there is substance in the mentoring and not just telling their folks to check the usual boxes. Then again, that's probably all they know and how they made it to O-5/O-6.

[frog]

Still being waged. Support functions are going to no longer be owned by the MAJCOM functionals if this goes through. This could get interesting. If you think support is bad now, I think it could get much worse. But, based on what I have heard, they have to do something to cut dollars.

[Champ Kind]

Someone tell me why we have NAFs again?

[Homestar]

They take the specs from the customer and give them to the engineers. I think.

[Butters]

If you get ESERB, you still get retirement, and 19.5 versus 20 isn't a massive difference. Obviously it adds up but it's not like being just shy of 18 and then RIFd.

Yes, I rechecked my math and found that the only people this could happen to would be someone who was 2 below to Lt Col then was passed over for O-6... Not likely. Still seems messed up, but sanctuary keeps them from kicking you out without retirement benefits, not kicking you out with an early retirement. At least now the "E" in ESERB that stands for "Early" makes sense.

[tunes]

Our commander has been pretty awesome about this whole thing, just sent this email out to us

Officers,

I know that you all find this drill wildly amusing, so here is the latest.

AFPC will not accept any VSP application put in the system prior to the

start of the new eligibility window...which is undetermined at this time.

All existing applications will be closed without action. I have a soft-copy

of the applications that were already submitted to me and will send them

back individually via e-mail. That will allow you to cut and paste your

verbiage when you resubmit your package. It will also serve as a cherished

keepsake...

I apologize on behalf of the Air Force.

[MSCguy]

Still being waged. Support functions are going to no longer be owned by the MAJCOM functionals if this goes through. This could get interesting. If you think support is bad now, I think it could get much worse. But, based on what I have heard, they have to do something to cut dollars.

In the late 2000s timeframe much of the medical community was divorced from the MAJCOM level (with the major exception of the readiness mission) and given to a new FOA called AFMOA. It makes sense for support functions to be managed at a FOA level instead of MAJCOMs because medical is medical, finance is finance, etc-whether medical is at a tanker base or a space base the MTF still functions the same way.

[flyjetz]

Found the following info via the Google-machine. I post some follow-up questions for consideration. I bolded a few sections for emphasis:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/638a

10 U.S. CODE § 638A - MODIFICATION TO RULES FOR CONTINUATION ON ACTIVE DUTY; ENHANCED AUTHORITY FOR SELECTIVE EARLY RETIREMENT AND EARLY DISCHARGES

(a)

(1) The Secretary of Defense may authorize the Secretary of a military department to take any of the actions set forth in subsection (b) with respect to officers of an armed force under the jurisdiction of that Secretary.

(2) Any authority provided to the Secretary of a military department under paragraph (1) shall expire on the date specified by the Secretary of Defense, but such expiration date may not be later than December 31, 2018.

(b) Actions which the Secretary of a military department may take with respect to officers of an armed force when authorized to do so under subsection (a) are the following:

(1) Shortening the period of the continuation on active duty established under section 637 of this title for a regular officer who is serving on active duty pursuant to a selection under that section for continuation on active duty.

(2) Providing that regular officers on the active-duty list may be considered for early retirement by a selection board convened under section 611 (b) of this title in the case of officers described in any of subparagraphs (A) through © as follows:

(A) Officers in the regular grade of lieutenant colonel or commander who would be subject to consideration for selection for early retirement under section 638 (a)(1)(A) of this title except that they have failed of selection for promotion only one time (rather than two or more times).

(B) Officers in the regular grade of colonel or, in the case of the Navy, captain who would be subject to consideration for selection for early retirement under section 638 (a)(1)(B) of this title except that they have served on active duty in that grade less than four years (but not less than two years).

© Officers, other than those described in subparagraphs (A) and (B), holding a regular grade below the grade of colonel, or in the case of the Navy, captain, who are eligible for retirement under section 3911, 6323, or 8911 of this title, or who after two additional years or less of active service would be eligible for retirement under one of those sections and whose names are not on a list of officers recommended for promotion.

(3) Convening selection boards under section 611 (b) of this title to consider for discharge regular officers on the active-duty list in a grade below lieutenant colonel or commander—

(A) who have served at least one year of active duty in the grade currently held;

(B) whose names are not on a list of officers recommended for promotion; and

© who are not eligible to be retired under any provision of law (other than by reason of eligibility pursuant to section 4403 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993) and are not within two years of becoming so eligible.

©

(1) In the case of an action under subsection (b)(2), the Secretary of the military department concerned shall specify the number of officers described in that subsection which a selection board convened under section 611 (b) of this title pursuant to the authority of that subsection may recommend for early retirement. Such number may not be more than 30 percent of the number of officers considered in each grade in each competitive category.

(2) In the case of an action authorized under subsection (b)(2), the Secretary of Defense may also authorize the Secretary of the military department concerned when convening a selection board under section 611 (b) of this title to consider regular officers on the active-duty list for early retirement to include within the officers to be considered by the board reserve officers on the active-duty list on the same basis as regular officers.

(3) In the case of an action under subsection (b)(2), the Secretary of the military department concerned may submit to a selection board convened pursuant to that subsection—

(A) the names of all eligible officers described in that subsection in a particular grade and competitive category; or

(B) the names of all eligible officers described in that subsection in a particular grade and competitive category who are also in particular year groups, specialties, or retirement categories, or any combination thereof, within that competitive category.

(4) In the case of an action under subsection (b)(2), the Secretary of Defense may also authorize the Secretary of the military department concerned to waive the five-year period specified in section 638 © of this title if the Secretary of Defense determines that it is necessary for the Secretary of that military department to have such authority in order to meet mission needs.

(d)

(1) In the case of an action under subsection (b)(3), the Secretary of the military department concerned may submit to a selection board convened pursuant to that subsection—

(A) the names of all officers described in that subsection in a particular grade and competitive category; or

(B) the names of all officers described in that subsection in a particular grade and competitive category who also are in particular year groups or specialties, or both, within that competitive category.

(2) The Secretary concerned shall specify the total number of officers to be recommended for discharge by a selection board convened pursuant to subsection (b)(3). That number may not be more than 30 percent of the number of officers considered—

(A) in each grade in each competitive category, except that through December 31, 2018, such number may be more than 30 percent of the officers considered in each competitive category, but may not be more than 30 percent of the number of officers considered in each grade; or

(B) in each grade, year group, or specialty (or combination thereof) in each competitive category, except that through December 31, 2018, such number may be more than 30 percent of the officers considered in each competitive category, but may not be more than 30 percent of the number of officers considered in each grade.

(3) The total number of officers described in subsection (b)(3) from any of the armed forces (or from any of the armed forces in a particular grade) who may be recommended during a fiscal year for discharge by a selection board convened pursuant to the authority of that subsection may not exceed 70 percent of the decrease, as compared to the preceding fiscal year, in the number of officers of that armed force (or the number of officers of that armed force in that grade) authorized to be serving on active duty as of the end of that fiscal year.

(4) An officer who is recommended for discharge by a selection board convened pursuant to the authority of subsection (b)(3) and whose discharge is approved by the Secretary concerned shall be discharged on a date specified by the Secretary concerned.

(5) Selection of officers for discharge under this subsection shall be based on the needs of the service.

(e) The discharge or retirement of an officer pursuant to this section shall be considered to be involuntary for purposes of any other provision of law.

BREAK BREAK

I take away the following from this:

1) If you have been selectively continued, that means squat. The SECAF can still decide to force shape you.

2) The 18 year sanctuary is in effect, however, it does not mean that you are guaranteed a 20 year retirement. They can force you into an early retirement at 18-20 years.

Are you folks reading this the same way? I had been pretty much ignoring everything related to SERB and ESERB because I thought I was in the sanctuary (18.5 year Major). That may not be the case.

Edited January 19, 2014 by flyjetz

[BamaC-21]

Our commander has been pretty awesome about this whole thing, just sent this email out to us

What verbiage are you going to cut and paste? I didn't see anything in the PSDM other than to include “I am requesting to separate under the Voluntary Separation Pay (VSP) Program” in the remarks section.

[Butters]

What verbiage are you going to cut and paste? I didn't see anything in the PSDM other than to include “I am requesting to separate under the Voluntary Separation Pay (VSP) Program” in the remarks section.

Because they wrote more than that to help their chances....

"I am requesting to separate under the Voluntary Separation Pay (VSP) Program. Please.”

[BamaC-21]

Because they wrote more than that to help their chances....

"I am requesting to separate under the Voluntary Separation Pay (VSP) Program. Please.”

Has anyone gotten a credible suggestion to add more to the justification than what's required per the PSDM?

[Chida]

It wouldn't hurt to confess your sins. Examples:

- I failed to do PME before I pinned-on

- I neglected to do my Master's until I was a Captain

- Sometimes I show up for work late and leave early

- I tend to pencil-whip queep

- On occasion I log an event which I didn't really do

You get the idea. Think of it as a reverse OPR.

[Champ Kind]

It wouldn't hurt to confess your sins. Examples:

- I failed to do PME before I pinned-on

- I neglected to do my Master's until I was a Captain

- Sometimes I show up for work late and leave early

- I tend to pencil-whip queep

- On occasion I log an event which I didn't really do

You get the idea. Think of it as a reverse OPR.

That is great!

May I propose a separate thread with other "confessionals"?

[tunes]

i just put my reasons

[Jaded]

This thread has 169,171 views. Missed it by two.

Pretty amazing how many people are interested in these force management programs :P

[SuperWSO]

It wouldn't hurt to confess your sins. Examples:

- I failed to do PME before I pinned-on

- I neglected to do my Master's until I was a Captain

- Sometimes I show up for work late and leave early

- I tend to pencil-whip queep

- On occasion I log an event which I didn't really do

You get the idea. Think of it as a reverse OPR.

- I once had a shot (of J. Weed) at 0830 to commemorate the Dolittle raid.

- I don't have the same gusto I used to when singing the AF song.

- Every year, I wear a bright green t-shirt, in uniform, on St Patricks day.

Wait, never mind, I'm in the Guard now.

[Butters]

Has anyone gotten a credible suggestion to add more to the justification than what's required per the PSDM?

Apparently not.

[ElLoco]

- I once had a shot (of J. Weed) at 0830 to commemorate the Dolittle raid.

This.

[chim richalds]

just a reminder to those of you who didn't play last time, everyone I know that wrote a letter saying "RIF Me" got riff'd, after they got denied VSP.

[MSCguy]

Don't you lose a voluntary sep payment if you draw a guard/reserve pension later but can keep it if you get RIFFed? If that's the case no one who wants to keep playing in the ARC should be interested in VSP and draft up a "RIF me" letter instead.