It’s not extra, it’s just paid up front with reduced payments each following year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Assuming finance and/or DFAS don't mess it up...

I took the 100k upfront (AD 11M) and none of my 3 bonus payments so far have been right.

32 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

Assuming finance and/or DFAS don't mess it up...

I took the 100k upfront (AD 11M) and none of my 3 bonus payments so far have been right.

Huh. I took the 9-year 12X bonus in 2018 and everything has paid out like clockwork.  $112,500 up front and $12500 every year since (more like $10k after taxes, but I'm not complaining).

I guess we aren't in a shortage after all? I wonder what the FY22 take rates are if the original formula was still being applied. 

https://starsdemog.a1vdc.us.af.mil/Avb/avb.html

 

Edited August 1, 20223 yr by Newb

Would be horrid but for those of you who didn’t know, they don’t count a non-taker as:

-Anyone who separated in ‘22
-Anyone who set a separation date

So basically it no longer accounts for a bunch of people who might have otherwise stayed meaning these stats are complete sh-t.

10 hours ago, di1630 said:

Would be horrid but for those of you who didn’t know, they don’t count a non-taker as:

-Anyone who separated in ‘22
-Anyone who set a separation date

So basically it no longer accounts for a bunch of people who might have otherwise stayed meaning these stats are complete sh-t.

 

"It's about who gets to count the vote and whether your vote counts at all." - Joe Biden

"It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes." - Some other guy

Edited August 2, 20223 yr by BrightNeptune

12 hours ago, di1630 said:

Would be horrid but for those of you who didn’t know, they don’t count a non-taker as:

-Anyone who separated in ‘22
-Anyone who set a separation date

So basically it no longer accounts for a bunch of people who might have otherwise stayed meaning these stats are complete sh-t.

 

I mean, why wouldn't we change the way we count? We did just redefine "recession" too.

"Lies, damn lies, statistics."

Welcome to my latest installment of DON'T TAKE THE BONUS

NDAA Draft

SEC. 617. AIR FORCE RATED OFFICER RETENTION DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

    (a) Program Requirement.--The Secretary shall establish and carry 
out within the Department of the Air Force a demonstration program to 
assess and improve retention on active duty in the Air Force of rated 
officers described in subsection (b).
    (b) Rated Officers Described.--Rated officers described in this 
subsection are rated officers serving on active duty in the Air Force, 
excluding rated officers with a reserve appointment in the Air National 
Guard or Air Force Reserve--
            (1) whose continued service on active duty would be in the 
        best interest of the Department of the Air Force, as determined 
        by the Secretary; and
            (2) who have not more than three years and not less than 
        one year remaining on an active duty service obligation under 
        section 653 of title 10, United States Code.
    (c) Written Agreement.--
            (1) In general.--Under the demonstration program required 
        under subsection (a), the Secretary shall offer retention 
        incentives under subsection (d) to a rated officer described in 
        subsection (b) who executes a written agreement to remain on 
        active duty in a regular component of the Air Force for not 
        less than four years after the completion of the active duty 
        service obligation of the officer under section 653 of title 
        10, United States Code.
            (2) Exception.--If the Secretary of the Air Force 
        determines that an assignment previously guaranteed under 
        subsection (d)(1) to a rated officer described in subsection 
        (b) cannot be fulfilled, the agreement of the officer under 
        paragraph (1) to remain on active duty shall expire not later 
        than one year after that determination.
    (d) Retention Incentives.--
            (1) Guarantee of future assignment location.--Under the 
        demonstration program required under subsection (a), the 
        Secretary may offer to a rated officer described in subsection 
        (b) a guarantee of future assignment locations based on the 
        preference of the officer.
            (2) Aviation bonus.--Under the demonstration program 
        required under subsection (a), notwithstanding section 334(c) 
        of title 37, United States Code, the Secretary may pay to a 
        rated officer described in subsection (b) an aviation bonus not 
        to exceed an average annual amount of $50,000 (subject to 
        paragraph (3)(B)).
            (3) Combination of incentives.--The Secretary may offer to 
        a rated officer described in subsection (b) a combination of 
        incentives under paragraphs (1) and (2).
            (4) Variations; limitations.--The Secretary may vary or 
        limit the total number of available contracts and the 
        combination of incentives within such contracts to target 
        certain Air Force specialty codes, ensure required assignments 
        locations are filled, and readiness is not negatively affected. 
        The Secretary shall determine the criteria for such variations 
        or limitations and include such criteria in the annual briefing 
        under subsection (e).
    (e) Annual Briefing.--Not later than December 31, 2023, and 
annually thereafter until the termination of the demonstration program 
required under subsection (a), the Secretary shall provide to the 
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives a briefing describing the use of such demonstration 
program and its effects on the retention on active duty in the Air 
Force of rated officers described in subsection (b).
    (f) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Rated officer.--The term ``rated officer'' means an 
        officer specified in section 9253 of title 10, United States 
        Code.
            (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
        of the Air Force.
    (g) Termination.--This section shall terminate on December 31, 
2028.

39 minutes ago, FLEA said:

NDAA Draft

SEC. 617. AIR FORCE RATED OFFICER RETENTION DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

    (a) ...a demonstration program to 
assess and improve retention
(1) whose continued service on active duty (not less than 4 yrs)
(2) Exception.--If the Secretary of the Air Force determines (BoP) // cannot be fulfilled, the agreement of the officer under shall expire not later than one year after that determination.
    (d) Retention Incentives.--
            (1) Guarantee of future assignment location
            (2) Aviation bonus.--may pay, not to exceed an avg annual $50,000
            (3) Combination of incentives

FTFY...

So 4+ yr contract in exchange for <$50k/yr and/or Base of Pref...with a contract rider that of +1yr even IF THEY CANNOT DELIVER BoP...which AF for enlisted assignments said was less than 50% chance of fill. Now, I know that's enlisted assignments, but it's still AFPC we're talking about. And, the functionals will hate having their hands-tied on PCS flexibility, but they might get manpower in exchange. 

...and the biggest kicker...does the money stack!?!?!? Seems NO (didn't read section 334(c) of title 37, United States Code)

Edited August 5, 20223 yr by Swizzle

So what’s it all mean?

2 minutes ago, Guardian said:

So what’s it all mean?

It means none of it will come to fruition and you’ll continued to be under paid and under appreciated.  Make the jump. Grass is much greener. 

also in the H.R 7900:

 

(c) SPECIAL AVIATION INCENTIVE PAY AND BONUS 10 AUTHORITIES FOR OFFICERS.—Section 334(c)(1) of title 37, United States Code, is amended— 

    (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘$1,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$1,500’’; and 

    (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘$35,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$75,000’’. 

 

4 hours ago, Seriously said:

also in the H.R 7900:

 

(c) SPECIAL AVIATION INCENTIVE PAY AND BONUS 10 AUTHORITIES FOR OFFICERS.—Section 334(c)(1) of title 37, United States Code, is amended— 

    (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘$1,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$1,500’’; and 

    (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘$35,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$75,000’’. 

 

Very interesting.

12 hours ago, Seriously said:

also in the H.R 7900:

 

(c) SPECIAL AVIATION INCENTIVE PAY AND BONUS 10 AUTHORITIES FOR OFFICERS.—Section 334(c)(1) of title 37, United States Code, is amended— 

    (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘$1,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$1,500’’; and 

    (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘$35,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$75,000’’. 

 

Odds that they are going to grandfather us faithful servants into the new $ amount…0.00.

Edit: instead of just sport bitching, I emailed my congressman. I’d encourage other suckers like myself to lobby for a heavier wallet. 

Edited August 14, 20223 yr by Standby

13 hours ago, Standby said:

Odds that they are going to grandfather us faithful servants into the new $ amount…0.00.

Edit: instead of just sport bitching, I emailed my congressman. I’d encourage other suckers like myself to lobby for a heavier wallet. 

Well, they didn’t do this in the past ($25K to $35K), so yeah, I doubt they would do it this time.

Your greatest voice is hitting the separate/retirement button…everything else is as effective as “hope and change”.

Edited August 15, 20223 yr by HeloDude

I'm not interested in signing any more ADSCs, no matter how much money they offer...but am I reading that first line correctly thar the top end monthly flight pay is increasing to $1500?

As an O-5 with 22 years, $1,500/month in flight pay and $75,000/yr bonus (highly doubt it happens), that is getting close to what might entice me to consider going on a year of orders...close lol.  Problem is, the ANG clings to the ridiculous notion of a smaller bonus for 1 year orders.  I don't mind taking a pay hit to help out, but not for a measly 25k bonus.  

Edited August 14, 20223 yr by SocialD

32 minutes ago, SocialD said:

As an O-5 with 22 years, $1,500/month in flight pay and $75,000/yr bonus (highly doubt it happens), that is getting close to what might entice me to consider going on a year of orders...close lol.  Problem is, the ANG clings to the ridiculous notion of a smaller bonus for 1 year orders.  I don't mind taking a pay hit to help out, but not for a measly 25k bonus.  

They are trying to reward commitment, I get that, but the structure is jacked. It pushes people on the fence off because they don't want to risk getting committed to something they want out of later and simultaneously there is a notion that I don't want to feel like I'm doing the same job but for less pay simply because I took longer to decide.  

1 hour ago, SocialD said:

As an O-5 with 22 years, $1,500/month in flight pay and $75,000/yr bonus (highly doubt it happens), that is getting close to what might entice me to consider going on a year of orders...close lol.  Problem is, the ANG clings to the ridiculous notion of a smaller bonus for 1 year orders.  I don't mind taking a pay hit to help out, but not for a measly 25k bonus.  

The fact that the AGR bonus is higher than the DSG bonus for a year of orders is whack. Your AGRs are usually in it to win it and already committed, where your DSGs are usually a bit more open to what comes down the pipe. If they wanted to move aviators from the fence line to being committed, it’d be exactly the reverse. 

If this new pay rate/bonus gets passed, does that mean it’ll be available in the ANG/Reserves as well? Or is it just an AD thing?

They are separate bonuses, but typically are close to each other (at least the 3+ year AGR vs. AD…apples to apples). 

I saw a thing a while back that said flights pay for TRs/DSGs won’t be prorated anymore; work one day, get the whole month of pay. I think it was supposed to take effect FY23, am I remembering correctly? Is that real?

That sounds like too good of a deal, but it would be awesome.  

15 hours ago, nsplayr said:

The fact that the AGR bonus is higher than the DSG bonus for a year of orders is whack. Your AGRs are usually in it to win it and already committed, where your DSGs are usually a bit more open to what comes down the pipe. If they wanted to move aviators from the fence line to being committed, it’d be exactly the reverse. 

 

 

This!  All they're doing is ensuring that only the guys who have >15 years TAFMS are the ones who will come back on orders.  

 

 

4 hours ago, herkbier said:

I saw a thing a while back that said flights pay for TRs/DSGs won’t be prorated anymore; work one day, get the whole month of pay. I think it was supposed to take effect FY23, am I remembering correctly? Is that real?

 

 

Like the "new pay system" I was told (circa Mid 2018) would be rolled out Jan 2020 and would fix all the DSG flight pay issues...I'll believe it when I see.  BTW, anyone have an update ETIC on that 2020 rollout?  

@Seriously I’m impressed by your ability to navigate all that legalese. I got lost/tired/scared trying to find the paragraphs you cited.