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

[Mish_Hacker]

A little more in depth explanation for the ADSC waivers.

http://mobile.airforcetimes.com/article/20140317/CAREERS/303170022

So, does this mean no UPT waivers? If so, are no officers with a UPT ADSC going to be RIF eligible? How could you have 5,000 of 10,000 applications not eligible -- Answer: Unclear guidance. If you didn't know what you were doing when you started, don't try to blame it on those poor saps who applied...

[Bender]

I would love to know how many people A1 and AFPC have ever been relieved of their duties.

I have no idea how many have been relieved of their duties (if I were to guess, I would guess low), but I can tell you how many have been promoted right in the middle of it. The answer is notably not zero.

Bendy

[Bender]

LOL. Dude, I must misunderstand what it is that AFPC does for a living. I must have it all wrong.

Here is what I think they are supposed to do: Come up with manpower requirements/billets to meet NSS objectives. If there is an overage in some areas, target the cuts to manage those overages. If you have a shortage of say Intel Officers, you don't cut them. If you have an overage of Cops, you cut them. Seems simple right?!?

Here is what they actually do: Identify both critical and non-critical overage and shortage AFSCs, cut evenly across the board. Scratch head and wonder why we still have overages and even more shortages.

I can only imagine what goes on at those staff meetings. I almost feel like I'm watching an SNL skit.

Every year the line of the Air Force competes multiple AFSCs against one another to promote an overall specific number into the next grade as authorized. There is no consideration for manning within a specific AFSC (i.e. we need more captains in SF, or less Majors in Rated positions [also not individually accounted for a la 11M vs. 11F]). That said, it's "unfair" to begin doing it differently once an AFSC is overmanned, meaning no promotions within that AFSC that year. It needed to be done all along to maintain the correct experience levels within each AFSC.

I'd be curious to know the promotion percentages within each AFSC and overall if promotion boards considered records by AFSC. I wouldn't be surprised if overall, they were very similar to the percentages that are used by the Line of the Air Force promotion boards. A little lower here one year, a little higher there one year...

It's not ideally about how to "force reduce" correctly, it's more about how to "force produce" correctly. That takes preparation and use of Force Management processes that are permanent parts of the way of doing business.

Bendy

[MSCguy]

Bender, if you log into mypers and find the promotions section you can find all the stats you would ever want. It breaks down each board via promotion rec, pme status, and aad within each occupational area. Non-rated ops tends to do the best with navs usually the worst. There is also a spreadsheet that compares board percentages across time-not surprisingly the O6 board fluctuates the most.

[FLY6584]

Hey fellas, tomorrow I will be attending a town hall meeting held by the SECAF at my deployed location and I can assure you I will be the first to ask whether she is planning on granting approval to waive UPT ADSC's and why were we allowed to apply in the first place if they weren't even sure they would let anyone out.

[Bender]

Bender, if you log into mypers and find the promotions section you can find all the stats you would ever want. It breaks down each board via promotion rec, pme status, and aad within each occupational area. Non-rated ops tends to do the best with navs usually the worst. There is also a spreadsheet that compares board percentages across time-not surprisingly the O6 board fluctuates the most.

I'm not seeing it. There are some sets of data presented in PowerPoint presentations, but while important, I'm not interested in breakdowns of minorities, females, etc. Maybe I'm just missing this treasure trove of data you're describing.

Any statistics provided, should you help me find them, will be breakdowns generated by boards considering looking for the "best qualified" records from multiple AFSCs. This is only the comparison data I was referring to. The promotion rate within each individual AFSC, under this current construct, is less important than the overall board promotion percentage aimed to producing the total number in grade at any given time. That overall number still holds value, as it cannot be exceeded (as the line number increments roll through). The "Line of the Air Force" is a convenient grouping that prevents multiple promotion boards by individual AFSC or groupings of similar AFSCs (the order of which would also be contentious and a facet that would require significant critical thought).

Only by comparing records within a single AFSC can the promotion process both select the "best qualified" individuals, while maintaining a specific, calculated, capabilities based number of individuals (within that specific AFSC) to serve in the next grade. If the promotion rate within a specific AFSC is capped to prevent "overages", then there would be no "overages".

This, of course, does not mean that "force reduction" would not happen...a draw down is a draw down. It would however mean actively managing the force, selecting the most qualified based on how many you need. This requires you to know how many you need...if we can say we have "overage" in a specific AFSC, then (assuming that statement, thus those matrices are valid) we already knew that. Well...we know that, we should have known that...it's an assumption that we knew that before these programs were initiated (only that the end strength was too high).

There are more moving parts to this, and it cannot be done correctly by only looking at one process. That said, the promotion process is a large and important component of force management.

Hey fellas, tomorrow I will be attending a town hall meeting held by the SECAF at my deployed location and I can assure you I will be the first to ask whether she is planning on granting approval to waive UPT ADSC's and why were we allowed to apply in the first place if they weren't even sure they would let anyone out.

Go get'em Tiger!

Bendy

[FlyFastLiveSlow]

I call bullshit on this article.

You say the delay was for waiver authority. What about all of the applicants that don't require any waiver? Mine sat for a month and a half with no movement. No ADSCs and eligible. Isn't that what the eligibility check was for?

You say you didn't know which waivers you'd need. The ADSCs you said you would consider waiving were listed in the PSDMs. How about get approval for those. You didn't know pilots had UPT ADSCs?

You say 5,000 people applied that weren't eligible. Maybe some, but I doubt 5,000 people couldn't read their PSDMs and figure out if they were eligible. Thousands couldn't figure out they didn't have 15 years service by 31 Jul?

Not sure what's going on here, but this is a line of crap. And why would you want to attempt this again next year?

[Duck]

I read:

"We just wanted to push the button to see what would happen. We didn't actually have a plan or anything."

[chizz]

I love how you all still have hope that pilots are going to get the VSP. Too much green beer

[LookieRookie]

I read:

"We just wanted to push the button to see what would happen. We didn't actually have a plan or anything."

That big red button is pretty irresitible.

A fellow I know at AFPC says that UPT ADSCs won't be waived, for what that's worth.

[North48]

On a positive note, my 1405 date was updated today on my CDB. First positive movement I've seen since 7 Mar.

Still wondering who the "500" newly ineligibles are?? Once again, speak up HAF/AFPC and give some specifics.

[Mountain]

Hey 48, Shaft had a 1405 date too. They put it in sometime last week apparently. Nothing for me yet, but fingers crossed.

For those unaware, the 1405 date is based on US Code section 1405 (hence the name). It's the date your retirement pay will be calculated based upon. It's automatically entered on your CDB (accessible on vMPF) when you hit 17 years as an E, 18 years as an O, or upon retirement. In other words, if you aren't one of the first two and have seen a date show up in that block (right above your DoS) recently, SOMEbody thinks you're retiring soon.

[Mish_Hacker]

Based on the initial RIF matrix, there were 2563 pilots (11X) eligible for the RIF in the 2005-2008 year groups. Of those eligible, there was an estimated overage of 415, all with UPT ADSC remaining. So, does AFPC now decide that 16% overage is no longer an overage? Or is VSP only available to those in the 2001-2003 year groups which has an overage of 135 (10%) of 1298 eligible (though some may still have ADSCs in those year groups).

For those without ADSCs, it seems a bit wasteful for the Air Force to pay these people to get out, when they already have the option to separate or face the RIF. The VSP is more useful to provide those who don't already have the option to separate with an opportunity to forgo the trouble of meeting the RIF board. Plus, UPT ADSCs were waived in '07; how is the rationale different this time?

So no new 13-130 which is supposed to cover RIF and VSP for RIF eligible officers. Can we safely assume that 14-08 supercedes 13-130 now for RIF eligible officers applying for VSP?

I'm still assuming a lot, though I doubt any of it is safe. It would seem that AFPC would identify overages for the RIF prior to processing VSP applications. However, it would also seem appropriate to know what your plan is before you start a program, but that obviously did not happen either.

[Guest]

A fellow I know at AFPC says that UPT ADSCs won't be waived, for what that's worth.

A guy I know at the medical group says your records are lost.

See? I also can post random, uninformed rumor based on a general distrust of an organization.

[Nasty2004]

My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw UPT ADSC waivers pass out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious.

[Catbox]

Sorry for the ignorance but what's the CBD?

[Fozzy Bear]

BWAHAHAAAA AHAHAHAHAAA. Damn, my wife did NOT find that as funny and awesome as I did.

[chim richalds]

Those of you who come on here to pour cold water on our hopes and have little info to add can go yourselves

[tunes]

so the new 14-08 refers you to 13-65 which still says UPT ADSC not waived....wtf

and those of us that already got denials for UPT ADSC will have to reapply? Seems like the early adopters lose out since I would imagine IF they start approving pilots the guys that applied earlier would get it first (yeah yeah i know its not first come first serve, but let's be real) and those of us that applied in hour 1 that were denied will have new application dates of nowish.

[HoHum]

From the article...

"The Air Force could not make these waiver delegation determinations earlier because the service needed to have a better idea of who was going to apply, he said.

'You don't know who's applying,' Cox said. 'Before you can go get a delegation of authority, you need to understand what it is that you need to waive, if it's required.'"

[discus]

Sorry for the ignorance but what's the CBD?

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_OJVl0LE4CQ

Edit: whoops I read CDB. Smart ass attempt; fail.

Edited March 18, 2014 by discus

[LettersVSandP]

so the new 14-08 refers you to 13-65 which still says UPT ADSC not waived....wtf

and those of us that already got denials for UPT ADSC will have to reapply? Seems like the early adopters lose out since I would imagine IF they start approving pilots the guys that applied earlier would get it first (yeah yeah i know its not first come first serve, but let's be real) and those of us that applied in hour 1 that were denied will have new application dates of nowish.

I heard from my chain of command today that people denied due to ADSC will be able to resubmit their original application; much like adding a new document to an existing application without having to route it through Sq and Wg Commanders. You'd think it would also have the original time stamp on it. Of course, this is assuming AFPC has been granted the waiver authority and I don't have an email chain originating from AFPC, so I'm just passing along the rumor at this point. In the absence of actual guidance, it's the best we can do. (That should be our new third core value.)

Edited March 18, 2014 by LettersVSandP

[Mish_Hacker]

Still wondering who the "500" newly ineligibles are?? Once again, speak up HAF/AFPC and give some specifics.

It would be nice for AFPC to notify these individuals and THEN make a press release. It seems that this process is: Protect Manufacture the appearance of competence at AFPC, then clean up the details later.

Speaking of notification of eligibles, weren't we all supposed to receive an email in December notifying us of the programs for which we were eligible?

[Liquid]

I agree that people definitely need to be fired, but are you saying that it should be limited to A1/AFPC types? I'm not saying that there should be some sort of witch hunt, but I think the CSAF could very quickly gain a lot of that thrust back that has been lost by replacing a few managers with Leaders... and he could start at the Wing Commander level. I have a few old bosses that are O-6/O-7s now who are true leaders that I would follow anywhere. They see the mess and know what they can do to fix it, but they are holding back because if they rock the boat too much they know they will be done, so they just fix what little they think they can. I don't know you, Liquid... but from the majority of your posts on here you sound like you might be one of these types of guys. If the CSAF empowered these Leaders and backed them up with the common sense changes we need... you'd get not only that thrust back, but some of that trust back.

I agree Rusty. We need more action, less talk. More leaders, fewer managers. We have toxic, self serving and underperforming commanders at many levels and they should be removed. Many old bosses, me included, are no longer commanders and can only influence decision makers from the staff. It is not so much about fear of rocking the boat as no authority to make change. Commanders need to be held accountable for their unit's climate, morale and performance. Commanders must also hold staffs accountable for how well they support. Senior commanders must be held responsible for their subordinate commander performance. I don't know the details, but it looks like USAFE just did this. CSAF has the ultimate authority and responsibility to make the common sense changes we need.

The best way to notify CSAF and MAJCOM commanders of bad leaders, those who are abusive, self-serving and immoral is through the IG process. It is not perfect but it is more effective than complaining on a message board.

[OregonHerc]

The problem with that is that things can and do get covered up by the IG process or leadership that can never be proven as retaliation. Just my opinion.

Edited March 18, 2014 by OregonHerc