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

[Helo Kitty]

Might be a dumb question.. but if someone added all the 'overages' listed in the RIF and FSB matrices, would it come close to the 7-8K officers Big Blue wants to cut?

EDIT: I would add them up myself, but I'm not a nerd.

Edited January 25, 2014 by Helo Kitty

[General Chang]

So the PSDM says no Definitely Retains and that SRs will use the "In his AFSC he's X/X and year group he's X/X officers..." statement... But it doesn't say where that statement goes. Last time we used that it went in Section VII I think but the instructions say that section's not used. So does that statement become your bottom line of the RRF?

That's going to get ugly too. I remember in Force Shaping on the LTs in the early 00s there were several guys all from a heavily tasked, heavily deployed unit all stratted against each other. We had a guy PCS from there to my less-tasked unit but after the accounting date so they wrote his RRF. He was the #5/5 guys but had 3 AFCMs, deployments to Iraq & Afghanistan plus a sh-t ton of other stuff that would have ranked him WAY higher in any other unit. If he'd PCS'd to our unit a couple months earler and been stratted in our wing he'd have been GTG.

So that's a long way of saying I hope the board doesn't use only the SR strat this time...

zb

ZB, how else would you propose we strat people? Doesn't a senior rater know better who the bottom-rung officers are than a random board member?

[Skitzo]

My quick math of all overages for the FSB and RIF indicates 3946.

[Nasty2004]

RDTM code: found on your SURF (lower right corner)

RDTM code breaker: AFI 11-412 Table 6.2 (pg 53)

Year Gp: based on TAFSCD (also on SURF)

But where is the AFPC list of eligible RDTM codes for a given year group/AFSC?

[MSCguy]

The MSC matrix isn't out but someone told me that the overage for 0-4s is higher than the 100+ 0-4s that are eligible. The numbers are not that much better for the 0-3s. That should really help the wait times at the clinic.

The ESERB matrix is posted-something like an overage of 77 majors with 29 eligibles. That only refers to the majors with 20+. I think someone figured out that now that the flightpath is out the window and the providers are going to get more command slots back (sounds like what the line is doing with putting zipper suits in a bunch of non-rated FGO slots) they no longer have to promote enough MSCs to fill SGA slots and command the backwater MTFs, Since MSC is all of a sudden way over manned I wonder if they'll start approving compcat transfers out to undermanned fields elsewhere.

[danvgalhb]

I'm not sure if everyone has seen this but this was on the page that accompanied the matrices.

"We understand how anxious you are to get additional information on the Force Management programs that the Secretary and Chief announced in December. Due to changes in the projected overages and corresponding eligibility criteria, there has been a delay in publishing the information.

To give you an idea of your vulnerability, the updated Enlisted and Officer matrices posted on the myPers Force Management page identify the AFSCs and grade/year groups that are eligible for Involuntary Force Management Programs. Further, updated Voluntary tables are also posted. To be clear, if you are eligible for an involuntary program, then you are eligible for a voluntary program. However, you may be eligible for a voluntary program, but not eligible for an involuntary program. Please review the eligibility criteria contained in each PSDM and the tables thoroughly.

For Enlisted, the table identifies the Control AFSCs (CAFSCs) and grades that will meet the Fiscal Year (FY) 14 Enlisted Retention Boards (ERBs). Each CAFSC and grade identified includes two cells-- Overage and Eligible. A number in the Overage cell represents that year group's overages, regardless of program), we anticipate based on projected AF requirements. If there is no overage number in your respective grade/AFSC cell, you are not eligible and will not meet an FY14 ERB. However, you may still be eligible for a voluntary program.

A number in the Eligible cell represents the number of individuals eligible for the Enlisted Retention Board (ERB). In some instances, the Overage number is larger than the Eligible number. This does not mean that every Eligible member will be selected for non-retention during the ERB. It means that these overage losses are anticipated in that particular grade and CAFSC across all voluntary and involuntary programs.

For Officers, there are tables for each Involuntary Force Management Program (exception: Colonel ESERB, details are not yet finalized). These tables
identify, by program, which AFSCs and year groups are eligible. Like the Enlisted matrices, each AFSC and year group includes two cells-- Estimated Overage and Estimated Eligible. A number in the Estimated Overage cell represents that year group's overages, (regardless of program), we anticipate based on projected AF requirements. The AF will use a combination of involuntary and voluntary programs to reduce this overage.

Similar again to the Enlisted matrix, a number in the Estimated Eligible cell represents the number of individuals eligible for that particular Force Management Program. In a few instances, the overages exceed the eligible due to limitations the AF has purposely imposed to address specific circumstances requiring the officer to be retained (ex: sanctuary of an officer nearing regular retirement). This does not mean that every Eligible member will be selected for non-retention in that particular board. It means that these overage losses are anticipated in that particular year group and AFSC across all the voluntary and involuntary programs.

Each program's table should be examined individually, to assess an individual's eligibility. For each program, if a cell does not include
overage or eligible numbers, officers in that particular AFSC and Year Group are ineligible for that respective involuntary program, but may still be eligible for a voluntary program if they meet those criteria.

Thank you for your patience. This message accompanies the data associated with all the programs, with the exception of the Colonel ESERB. For all FM programs, please check back frequently for updates. One of our objectives is to be as transparent as possible, so you can make informed decisions about your careers. So, as we start to execute the volunteer programs, the overage and eligible involuntary program numbers will reduce accordingly. As a result, we anticipate AFSCs and grades or year groups to drop out of consideration for involuntary programs, as Airmen elect to leave our Air Force voluntarily."

The way I see it, there is a jedi mind trick with looking at just one matrix. The "estimated overage" numbers for the RIF matrix are combined with the ESERB folks for the 01-03 year groups. Therefore, you need to look at both matrices to get the actual total number of AFSC eligibles for a given year group.

By the way, I saved the RIF PDF as an excel spreadsheet and put formulas at the bottom to add up the "Estimated Overages" (aka, potential total losses) for the RIF & ESERB combined. However, the total number of ESERB eligibles was not included in the "Total Estimated Eligibles" as that total is only for the RIF PDF. Assuming I did my formulas correctly, they may boot out 3121 officers between the RIF and ESERBs (I didn't include the JAG numbers either).

Officer Reduction in Force Eligibility Matrix - as of 23 Jan 14(1) - Copy.xls

[MSCguy]

So in a yeargroup that has ESERB-able and RIFF-able guys, are they all read together and then retired or separated as appropriate, or are they read completely separately?

[TarHeelPilot]

ZB, how else would you propose we strat people? Doesn't a senior rater know better who the bottom-rung officers are than a random board member?

I'd say, "no." For the majority of officers, the senior rater has about as much understanding as a random board member. Thus, they have to use discriminators like SOS in-res, AAD, Wing Holiday party planner, etc etc etc. From my experience, even the Group CC doesn't have a clear picture of all the officers in their group, depending on the size. I know for certain in my Ops Group, one of the SQ/CCs was pushing for CGO Group strats for officers that would be in the bottom third to bottom quarter in my current squadron. Yes--Group Strats for officers who wouldn't sniff a top 50% squadron strat in another squadron in the same Ops Group. The system is broken, which is what Zach Braff was hinting. IMO, strats should stop at the SQ level, because at the Group level and higher, you are simply comparing apples and oranges.

[danvgalhb]

By read, I presume you mean boarded? If so, then no. They will be boarded separately so in theory, if there are enough people that get approved for VSP for a certain AFSC within say, the 01-03 year groups, that should remove that AFSC within that year group from both boards. On the other hand, if noone gets out, because ESERBS limit forced retirements to only 30% of the total ESERB eligibles, the remaining 70% of "estimated overage" bodies will have to come from the RIF boards. Of course, this is assuming that the number of total "estimated overages" needs to be 100% gone, which none of the matrices nor PSDMs say they must. The message above only says "reduced" so noone really knows unless they actually come out with new guidance that says all overages in the matrices must be zeroed out.

Clear as mud?

[moosepileit]

GC, if you know any history,

Consider the Misty pilots of Vietnam.

You chop up that group that numbered 157 in total, just like any other overage du jour. Feels fair, if feelings matter.

This method gives you more mcpeaks and less of what you really want in the long run.

But, the tradition of looking fair is more important than actually serving the taxpayers best.

Great job, again.

[danvgalhb]

So, with ot without DRs (I know that RIF eligibles won't have DRs), how does a board judge someone who has a "1/1" in both their AFSC and year group strats from a three star senior rater? I know a few folks who are stuck in that strange boat so I'm kind of curious to hear if anyone is in a similar situation (hint: those people are in HQ staffs).

[General Chang]

Most staff officers will likely be safe. The denominator on these published numbers is deceiving because of this. Wing-level guys with zero staff experience are likely more vulnerable to a RIF.

[zach braff]

ZB, how else would you propose we strat people? Doesn't a senior rater know better who the bottom-rung officers are than a random board member?

Absolutely. The SR is in the best position to strat. But I would suggest in the instructions to the board to use that as a tool, but not the end all be all for the decisions.

In my force shaping example - my buddy and I compared RRFs after the board. His narrative and records were clearly stronger than mine. But I had been in a 'meh' wing and had ranked quite well (good records but not absolutely superior...). He was in a shit hot unit but where everyone had loads of decs and deployments and accomplishment, so his record while stronger than mine hadn't ranked as high with his SR.

That's all I'm saying - I hope the strat is a tool, but not the easy decision maker for the board.

Zb

[NKAWTG]

I'd say, "no." For the majority of officers, the senior rater has about as much understanding as a random board member. Thus, they have to use discriminators like SOS in-res, AAD, Wing Holiday party planner, etc etc etc. From my experience, even the Group CC doesn't have a clear picture of all the officers in their group, depending on the size. I know for certain in my Ops Group, one of the SQ/CCs was pushing for CGO Group strats for officers that would be in the bottom third to bottom quarter in my current squadron. Yes--Group Strats for officers who wouldn't sniff a top 50% squadron strat in another squadron in the same Ops Group. The system is broken, which is what Zach Braff was hinting. IMO, strats should stop at the SQ level, because at the Group level and higher, you are simply comparing apples and oranges.

One of the flaws of our evaluation system is that we stratify people into two groups; top 20% and bottom 80%. All records without a strat look essentially the same. With exception of the Art 15s, DUIs and fitness test failures, figuring out a pecking order among that bottom 80% is rather difficult. All of our performance writing is geared toward identifying that top percentage for school, and all the great prose in the world is meaningless without that x/xx number on the push line.

So to now turn around use the same system for identifying top performers to weed out the bottom 10% does not work well. I think the Air Force will be content with eliminating any of the bottom 80% by voluntary or other means, but may run into problems for people with the top records looking for a way out.

Edited January 25, 2014 by NKAWTG

[MSCguy]

By read, I presume you mean boarded? If so, then no. They will be boarded separately so in theory, if there are enough people that get approved for VSP for a certain AFSC within say, the 01-03 year groups, that should remove that AFSC within that year group from both boards. On the other hand, if noone gets out, because ESERBS limit forced retirements to only 30% of the total ESERB eligibles, the remaining 70% of "estimated overage" bodies will have to come from the RIF boards. Of course, this is assuming that the number of total "estimated overages" needs to be 100% gone, which none of the matrices nor PSDMs say they must. The message above only says "reduced" so noone really knows unless they actually come out with new guidance that says all overages in the matrices must be zeroed out.

Clear as mud?

Yes, I meant boarded. I was curious about that because I'm in a career field with a boatload of prior Es, some of which have the "I can retire as a captain or junior major so I'm just going to take up space until I hit 20 years" attitude. I'm just saying that the quality of the guys with 20+ that get retained from the ESERB might not equate to the quality of the non-priors retained from the RIF of the same career field and year group. It would be a fairer process to board the entire year group together, and hand out retirements and RIF payments as appropriate.

[Rusty Pipes]

ZB, how else would you propose we strat people? Doesn't a senior rater know better who the bottom-rung officers are than a random board member?

You're right… I'll bet the T-Bird ranked #7 of 7 should get working on that ATP right away! You should ask the SOLL II Commander in Charleston back in 2006 about when none of his 6 Left Seat, Evaluator pilots got school slots that year and they all took VSP because a barrage new "co-pilots" in the C-17 from KC-135 cross flows and AF Intern suddenly made them "average" on the Wing and OG Strat list. That was my first real eye opening experience where I saw that the AF had no real focus on actual pilot retention when the Wing lost what you could argue were 6 of its top pilots.

If the AF is looking to keep the best party planners and queep managers then by all means just use Strats… if we want to keep our best pilots in these specific fields then we need to use a different method (of course starts will still be part of the mix). I honestly just think it depends on what the actual goal of the AF is as to who they want to keep. Then again… I'll go out on a limb here and say that most of your best pilots (if eligible) will be more concerned with their VSP paperwork being filled out correctly than their strat on an RRF.

Edited January 25, 2014 by Rusty Pipes

[Danny Noonin]

What method do you guys propose for determining "the best" within year groups and AFSCs if you think strats are a poor method?

[spaw2001]

Havent had the chance to read PSDM yet. Any talk on pilot ADSC waivers? Are they really going to waive 5 years of someone's UPT commitment i.e for an 2006 11M? Seems fishy to me as they pulled the "only 6 months of ADSC waived" card last VSP despite insisting everyone was eligible!

Edited January 25, 2014 by spaw2001

[NKAWTG]

 

What method do you guys propose for determining "the best" within year groups and AFSCs if you think strats are a poor method?

 

The issue is not who is the "best" within a year group. The strats do a fine job of identifying the best records. The Air Force is trying to trim the bottom, and their methods don't lend themselves to figuring that out beyond the squadron level.

[moosepileit]

Gen Sam Cox had moved on just before this.

GC should be able to ask him easily enough. Perfect example, I was one of the non special leads that punched in VSP1 at 12 years to the day.

sounded like a bit of a hertz donut.

"You should ask the SOLL II Commander in Charleston back in 2006 about when none of his 6 Left Seat, Evaluator pilots got school slots that year and they all took VSP because a barrage new "co-pilots" in the C-17 from KC-135 cross flows and AF Intern suddenly made them "average" on the Wing and OG Strat list. That was my first real eye opening experience where I saw that the AF had no real focus on actual pilot retention when the Wing lost what you could argue were 6 of its top pilots."

[PointBreak]

"15. Crossflow Training: All officers’ Core AFSCs will be locked down on (RRF Acct Date). However, officers selected to crossflow to non-targeted AFSCs will be re-cored upon selection for training, therefore becoming ineligible to meet the RIF board. If an officer is already in training and subsequently eliminated from the training he/she will be returned to his/her previous Core AFSC. If eliminated prior to (RRF Allocation Date), he/she will be eligible to meet the RIF board and will have an RRF completed if otherwise eligible. If eliminated from training

after (RRF Allocation Date), the officer will not be made eligible for the RIF board.

For officers selected to crossflow to targeted AFSCs, their Core AFSC will not be

changed from those locked in system on (RRF Acct Date). This process allows the officers to

meet the board in their previous Core AFSCs where they have a record of performance. Even if

an officer graduates from training prior to the start of the board, he/she will not be re-cored until

after the RIF board adjourns."

Does anyone know what a 'core' AFSC is as opposed to Duty and Primary AFSC and in what scenario the above statement applies?

[FLY6584]

Why do people keep saying that VSP payments are taxed at 40%? Is that true? Why is it so high?

I will be a seven year Capt when I take the VSP and the formula says $60k. I can't imagine only walking away with $36k...

[Cell Dweller]

"15. Crossflow Training: All officers’ Core AFSCs will be locked down on (RRF Acct Date). However, officers selected to crossflow to non-targeted AFSCs will be re-cored upon selection for training, therefore becoming ineligible to meet the RIF board. If an officer is already in training and subsequently eliminated from the training he/she will be returned to his/her previous Core AFSC. If eliminated prior to (RRF Allocation Date), he/she will be eligible to meet the RIF board and will have an RRF completed if otherwise eligible. If eliminated from training

after (RRF Allocation Date), the officer will not be made eligible for the RIF board.

For officers selected to crossflow to targeted AFSCs, their Core AFSC will not be

changed from those locked in system on (RRF Acct Date). This process allows the officers to

meet the board in their previous Core AFSCs where they have a record of performance. Even if

an officer graduates from training prior to the start of the board, he/she will not be re-cored until

after the RIF board adjourns."

Does anyone know what a 'core' AFSC is as opposed to Duty and Primary AFSC and in what scenario the above statement applies?

Core vs. duty AFSC is all determined by you personnel record, available through AMS and vMPF. Core AFSC is listed as CAFSC; duty is DAFSC, and Primary is PAFSC. If a young LT does not know how to get to AMS or vMPF, or otherwise not know how to access their own personnel record, then they better figure it out rapidly.

Would a Nav or non-rated officer selected on an active duty UPT board be re-cored as a student during training? If so, then the above stipulation would come into effect if they washed out and were returned to their original AFSC. I'm sure there are several such scenarios where officers permanently retraining to new AFSC, such as the missileers re-assigned to intel, cyber, or something else, would be affected by the clause mentioned by PointBreak. Best advice is don't washout from re-training, especially if it is non-rated training.

[GMaster13]

I'm seeing two different VSP application start dates in the updated PSDM 13-130. Page 1 and attachment 10 indicate 6 Feb. Attachments 1 & 6 show 7 Feb. So which one is it? I know AFPC is saying the VSP is not "first come/first served". But my gut tells me when the flood gates open I want be one of the first to click 'Submit'.

[BamaC-21]

I'm seeing two different VSP application start dates in the updated PSDM 13-130. Page 1 and attachment 10 indicate 6 Feb. Attachments 1 & 6 show 7 Feb. So which one is it? I know AFPC is saying the VSP is not "first come/first served". But my gut tells me when the flood gates open I want be one of the first to click 'Submit'.

PSDM 14-08 (VSP) says 6 Feb in a couple of places. Also, what time do they start accepting applications on the 6th/7th? They took the time to define 2359 CST as the cut-off for letters to the board, but nothing for the application window.