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

[FUSEPLUG]

Words... careerist douchecopter... more words.

Nice. Douchenozzle was getting a bit tired.

[chim richalds]

Beerman, let the dude vent. This is an anonymous place where we can release our frustrations without worrying about getting court-mashalled. Nobody needs to take any of this stuff personally. Many of us want to leave, some want to stay. You're not a bad dude either way. I agree that those of us trying to leave shouldn't trash the joint on the way out. I will disagree with letters, it pays well, it just sucks that it pays the same no matter how hard you work. I remember when I made AC, my wife asked how much of a pay raise that was. I laughed, then reflected on what a communist organization it is that I work for.

[LettersVSandP]

Man I really don't know where you stand on this issue Letters V, S, & P. Everyone has different experiences, but I strongly disagree with you. The Air Force pays me very well to do something that I cannot do anywhere else. The best officers that I know are not leaving the Air Force. Some have gone to the Guard and the Reserve, but are still contributing there, and many are still on AD. Here we go again with this sad footnote of failure crap; "they'll continue their mediocrity with greater consequences," "who will they be able to recruit" Dude, thanks for your service, now move along quietly and go find the more money that you're looking for in your next career.

We've covered this about 10 times, that Fiver guy summed it up pretty well but it bears repeating. We're not ######ed. If you come to work and do nothing but read BO.net and check your VSP status every 15 minutes then you're just making more work for the rest of us. If you did that at Delta or United they would fire you.

I could make much more money at any of several other jobs and my guess is that you could too. The only way the Air Force has been able to recruit top talent is because it offered unique intangible compensation. When they treat their people poorly, they erase those intangibles. Reducing the retirement post hoc comes to mind; as does involuntarily separating people while denying volunteers. When they do these things, they devalue being an Airman.

I wasn't saying I'm not going to work hard because I'm a petulant child. I was saying I don't have any work to do. I fly just enough to stay current (not proficient) and my ground job work is proportionate to the number of hours my squadron flies, which isn't very many. They should reduce the number of airplanes and pilots if there isn't enough money to fly them. And they definitely shouldn't deploy pilots without missions to fly.

[FlyFastLiveSlow]

I think the old heads will agree, the AF is a different place to work when they are critically short of aviators. Now they are fat, and don't care to much on who they let go. They also aren't trying real hard to retain anyone. It shows. It will also change, but how long will it take and how much will it suck before the change happens? During the 'strategic delay' they figured out they are going to have to cut more people next year. Guess we're not there yet.

[Azimuth]

I think every enlisted TERA applicant in my MDG did so to duck scheduled deployments-or else it was just a bunch of coincidences.

Or the fact we're putting up with the same (or even more) amount of bullshit that you guys are for less pay. People are tired and burnt out.

[Mountain]

You're right. I'd even argue that if the Air Force could maintain that intangible compensation then there wouldn't be a need for a bonus or a VSP program.

Shackaroo. Had this exact conversation over too many beers last night after a Q&A session with our Wg King who clearly did not get this concept.

[lossofclocklossofdata]

I'm going to throw some speculation theory out here since we are in the middle of the "strategic delay." Not that A1/AFPC will employ sound logic when they finally make their decision, but would it make sense, if they are going to waive some ADSCs, to waive those with the lowest ADSCs in a specific AFSC vice a percentage spread across yr groups in that AFSC? For example, the matrices show '05-'08 yr group 11Ms as having specific overages. Assuming the '05s and 06's have less time remaining on their ADSC than the '07 and 08's, wouldn't make sense to approve, say 80% of the '05 applicants, 60% of the 06's, 20% of the 07's, etc, rather than those overage numbers per year group? In addition that might alleviate the congressionally mandated Major slot overages we are seeing that cause promotion boards to be pushed back. Obviously you have to consider that you don't want to empty a whole year group at once, but if you are just considering 11Ms (other '05 AFSCs intact), it would seem to make sense that you could approve only those with 3 years left on their ADSC if any, instead of split among the year groups resulting in 4, 5 and 6 years being waived. (He said hoping AFPC is trolling for good advice they can turn into policy for their program).

Edited March 16, 2014 by lossofclocklossofdata

[Fuzz]

EDIT: Discussion about APFC killing more morale and ending Rip-Its moved to own thread per FUSEPLUG's suggestion.

Edited March 16, 2014 by Fuzz

[FUSEPLUG]

^^^ Suggest this gets its own thread.

Because taking away our caffeine will help prevent things like landing at the wrong airport after a ball-buster 20 hour day. Here they go again deciding what's best for my health because obviously I am too immature to decide for myself.

UFB

[Guest ThatGuy]

You can go to any store and buy it with your own money. I like Red Bulls not Rip Its anyway. Now back to the real life drama called AFPC Gate and who will get approved next.

[chim richalds]

We can still buy stuff with our own money? Ain't America grand

[chizz]

Shackaroo. Had this exact conversation over too many beers last night after a Q&A session with our Wg King who clearly did not get this concept.

Who has beers with their wing/cc....on a weekend? Either at a UPT base or we have an insider folks!!! ;)

[Guest]

Calling you out Liquid and Gen Chang! Would love to hear your perspective or are your tails between your legs since force shaping was announced?

Edited March 16, 2014 by Guest

[FBomb]

I hear you, but transparency can be dangerous too (at times when rumor control is difficult). Trust Brig Gen Grosso- I promise you, she is a leader of great character who has the Air Force's best interest at heart, as should we all (core value #2).

Patience my friend, patience. Reference my post above.

Calling you out Liquid and Gen Chang! Would love to hear your perspective or are your tails between your legs since force shaping was announced?

Good luck getting Chang now. BG Grosso moved on from Director, Force Management Policy to head of the SAPR office on 31 Jan of this year (hmm wasn't that about a week before the bait and switch on 5 Feb....). My guess is some career SES is in charge now and "helping" all us poor blue suiters through these troubling times, and Chang doesn't want to add to his -20 reputation points.

http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/225/Article/108666/brigadier-general-gina-m-grosso.aspx

CORRECTION: Chang has -20 points, not -19

Edited March 17, 2014 by FBomb

[USAF Pilot]

Thought it was interesting from Fri's CMSAF Q&A that 80,000 robot emails went out notifying people they were eligiable for one or more of the voluntary programs and that about 11,000 had applied. So about 13% of the folks are looking to get out. Then he stated that of those 11,000 or so only about 6,000 we actually eligible. To which I yelled at my computer "THEN WHY DID YOU SEND THEM A ROBOT EMAIL TELLING THEM THEY WERE ELIGIBLE!?"

Argh...

[Mountain]

Who has beers with their wing/cc....on a weekend? Either at a UPT base or we have an insider folks!!! ;)

Fair. Bad phrasing on my part. Q&A was with the Wg/CC. Beers were not. My bad.

[Fuzz]

Thought it was interesting from Fri's CMSAF Q&A that 80,000 robot emails went out notifying people they were eligiable for one or more of the voluntary programs and that about 11,000 had applied. So about 13% of the folks are looking to get out. Then he stated that of those 11,000 or so only about 6,000 we actually eligible. To which I yelled at my computer "THEN WHY DID YOU SEND THEM A ROBOT EMAIL TELLING THEM THEY WERE ELIGIBLE!?"

Argh...

Could those other 5,000 be people who weren't "eligible" but threw a package in anways? I know a couple people that from what I understand of the latest eligibilty requirements are ineligible but put in packages hoping for the best. Edited March 17, 2014 by Fuzz

[Duck]

I don't buy any of this.

[Liquid]

Calling you out Liquid and Gen Chang! Would love to hear your perspective or are your tails between your legs since force shaping was announced?

Tail between my legs? Piss off. What is your question?

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.

[chizz]

How are the enlisted the most expensive? Just because we have more of them? Everyone knows the backbone of the AF is our enlisted force. Cut mostly officers...please.

[LettersVSandP]

What global threat are we facing and how are our efforts decreasing this threat? No five nations could pose a credible existential threat to our nation. Terrorism isn't going away either way and we should be taking steps to prevent it, but we've gone off the rails in proportionality. 100 times as many Americans have died in car accidents as terror attacks over the last 15 years. Spending $100B in Afghanistan over the next ten years might lead to a stable country, but Americans would be better off if that money were spent to make North America energy independent or to cure cancer. China might be rising, but they have a billion people poor people and rampant corruption. Russia clings to power as the old Soviet block is racing to join the Eurozone.

The 21st century demands a small agile military; not the big hollow one they're creating.

Chizzzz,

I hear they can't afford to lose any enlisted or tac airlift pilots.

[BitteEinBit]

Liquid, this is not an attack on you brother, I'm just trying to make sense out of what you're saying...

Now, I don't claim to be a rocket surgeon or brain scientist...nor do I claim to know anything about the Air Force personnel system...but seriously, don't you think we should have done this: "This next year will be challenging, as we assess and announce those AFSCs and year groups that we will cut" before we announced to do this: "HQ AF decided to cut force structure over the FYDP, around 25k airmen" especially since we don't know this: '"A1/AFPC does not know where we can take cuts yet." and the reality is this: "The reality is that we can't cut 25k Airmen without significantly impacting our missions and those who want to continue to serve."

We've been talking budget and personnel cuts since 2007. Hard for me to believe no one saw this coming. How can you know you want to cut 25,000 airmen (nice round number by the way) and not know which ones you want to cut? If someone came up with a 25,000 figure (about 8.5% of the active force) they had to at least thought about how to cut it before making an announcement and opening a volunteer window for it. I understand a lot of this is budget driven by decision makers well above CSAF, but it is very difficult to believe that we are anything more than just beans counted on a spreadsheet who's decisions to cut/keep are being made by people so far disconnected from the realities of these cuts. All the manpower calculations formulas can't fix the mess that has been caused by this fiasco and the amount of distrust that now exists because of it. We have a budget issue because we mismanage our force because we have been trying to manage it as if we have unlimited funds and that our experience we are forcing out the door can just be easily replaced without some cost...that mixed in with a little bit of off-target focus. Remember, there is a human element to personnel management that has to be considered when making decisions at this level of impact.

I try pretty hard to understand the logic...and I'm certain there is a bigger picture out there, but how off am I when I just have an expectation that the people in charge of managing personnel could just manage personnel. Am I asking too much?!? To put it into caveman tac airlift pilot speak, I guarantee you if I tried to do this: "Green light!" before doing this: "Verify drop clearance, DZ coordinates, run-in, winds, ballistics, chutes, CARP" I would get a big fat one of these: Q3.

All those Masters degrees out there and we are having this difficult of a time figuring this shit out? Money well fucking spent for sure. Do I sound a little disgruntled?!? Ok, I'll get back to planning an airdrop mission...I don't know enough to talk A1 shit...

BT

Edited March 17, 2014 by BitteEinBit

[Guest]

Tail between my legs? Piss off. What is your question?

Okay. Who's behind the train wreck that is FY14 force shaping, AFPC, A1, the CSAF or Congress? What happens when Airmen denied VSP are subsequently RIFed other than leadership's loss of what little credibility they still have? Why the hell is AF leadership preaching about mustaches, dignity, respect, and integrity and refusing to address issues that actually matter? Will a Finance troop or Personnelist win this year's Deid's Got Talent while we're off doing the mission?

[Liquid]

How can you know you want to cut 25,000 airmen (nice round number by the way) and not know which ones you want to cut?

All the manpower calculations formulas can't fix the mess that has been caused by this fiasco and the amount of distrust that now exists because of it. We have a budget issue because we mismanage our force because we have been trying to manage it as if we have unlimited funds and that our experience we are forcing out the door can just be easily replaced without some cost...that mixed in with a little bit of off-target focus. Remember, there is a human element to personnel management that has to be considered when making decisions at this level of impact.

Am I asking too much?!?

I don't know enough to talk A1 shit...

BT

BT,

I don't know. CSAF decided to protect LRS-B by cutting force structure. 500 aircraft and a bunch of people. You would think personnel cuts would be related to aircraft cuts but they didn't look at that early on. They only looked at "overmanning" in AFSCs and year groups. This FMP has been an absolute fiasco and people should be fired. They won't be fired because we are too nice to each. We tolerate incompetence and mission failure. We only fire people if they embarrass us, which is wrong. I would love to know how many people A1 and AFPC have ever been relieved of their duties. Not many I guess. You are not asking too much. Our senior leadership has let down many people and this loss of trust will be difficult to regain. Keep nailing the PI and TOT and try to not get too frustrated by the uncertainty.

[Guest]

I love that the myPers page for "Officer and Enlisted Voluntary and Involuntary Program Eligibility Matrices" says:

For all FM programs, please check back frequently for updates.

But the last time any of it was updated was 23 Jan for most AFSC's and 29 Jan for medical officers.