Air Force officials announce FY11 additional force management measures

News > Air Force officials announce FY11 additional force management measures

Photos


(U.S. Air Force graphic)
Download HiRes

Related Links
• Air Force officials announce formal officer cross-flow program • Air Force Reserve has opportunities for separating Airmen • Air National Guard looking for current, prior service Airmen • Voluntary separation, retirement programs extended

Air Force officials announce FY11 additional force management measures

Posted 2/2/2011

Email story Print story

2/2/2011 - WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- Air Force leaders announced involuntary force management programs Feb. 2 to reduce personnel as a supplement to the voluntary programs announced in December.

These measures are part of the Air Force's multi-year Force Management Program aimed at shaping and sizing the force. With more Airmen choosing to stay in the Air Force, retention is at the highest level in 16 years.

Air Force leaders implemented a tailored, multi-year program in 2010 to reduce the number of personnel to operate at the service's authorized end strength levels. According to Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz, even with those efforts, the Air Force ended fiscal 2010 approximately 2,300 officers over end strength.

"Retention projections for fiscal years 2011 and 2012 continue to be high," General Schwartz said. "Without additional measures, we could grow to 7,000 over our authorized end strength by the end of fiscal year 2012. Based on these projections, and our need to operate within our means, the secretary of the Air Force and I made the decision to intensify force management actions to meet our congressionally mandated ceiling by the end of fiscal year 2012."

The fiscal 2011 involuntary force management efforts predominantly affect officers.

"We were successful in managing enlisted end strength levels last year using a combination of voluntary programs, accession reductions, technical training eliminations and date of separation rollbacks," said Brig. Gen. Sharon Dunbar, the director of force management policy. "We plan to continue use of this strategy over the next year."

For all Airmen, there will be programs to reduce personnel at various phase points along a career.

"Reducing officer and enlisted accessions will help us minimize the impact on active duty personnel who are currently serving," General Dunbar said.

For junior officers, the plan includes force-shaping boards beginning this May. The FSB initially will consider year groups with excess officers in the judge advocate general, biomedical science corps and medical service corps competitive categories. The May FSB impacts officers in the 2006 through 2008 commissioned year groups. Officers not selected for retention by this FSB will be required to separate no later than Oct. 1, 2011.

Air Force officials also will conduct a reduction-in-force board in September for mid-grade officers. In lieu of meeting the board, eligible officers will have a one-month window in March to apply for voluntary separation pay, with separation by Oct. 1, 2011. The RIF board will consider all year groups with excess officers in the line-of-the-Air Force, chaplain, JAG, BSC and MSC competitive categories. This impacts officers in the 1999 through 2005 commissioned year groups. Officers not selected for retention by the RIF board will be required to separate no later than Feb. 1, 2012.

For both the RIF board and the FSB, Air Force leaders decided to apply a quality review of the entire competitive category, instead of the methodology used in past retention boards which focused only on certain Air Force specialties. The boards will retain the top 90 percent of officers within the affected competitive categories in eligible year groups. Following retention board results, Air Force officials will use the recently-announced officer crossflow process to rebalance between line specialties as needed.

Officer over-strength challenges will require Air Force officials to conduct selective early-retirement boards for lieutenant colonels who have been twice deferred for colonel and for colonels with four or more years time in grade who have not met a SERB in the last five years. These boards will occur in October 2011 and January 2012 and will consider officers in the LAF, chaplain and MSC competitive categories. Officers not selected for retention by the SERB will be required to separate no later than March 1, 2012, for lieutenant colonels and June 1, 2012, for colonels.

"Air Force leaders announced last year that promotion opportunities would be reduced to 95 percent to captain and 90 percent to major." General Dunbar said. "In addition to reduced promotion opportunities, our over-strength situation is such that offers of selective continuation may be limited."

"We fully understand how difficult these actions are on the Airmen affected by them," General Dunbar said. "This is why leaders at all levels will be engaged to assist Airmen with transition options."

General Dunbar said that Airmen are a trained and ready resource possessing the skills needed by the Air Force Reserve or Air National Guard and almost every Airman transitioning as a result of force management is eligible to continue serving in the total force.

"The years they've invested in the Air Force so far can pay off for them," said Chief Master Sgt. Larry Giles, the force requirements policy chief for the Air Force Reserve Command's Reserve Personnel Directorate. "The Air National Guard or the Air Force Reserve are great alternatives for Airmen who don't want to leave the Air Force all together."

Airmen also are uniquely qualified for many federal civilian positions and receive veterans preference when applying for federal service, General Dunbar said. Transition to the reserve component or an Air Force civilian position allows Airmen to remain a part of the Air Force family.

Airman and family readiness centers around the world host the Department of Labor Transition Assistance Program, offering Airmen information about the GI Bill and vital resources for a successful transition from the Air Force.

For more information on force management programs, call the Total Force Service Center at 800-525-0102 or visit the Air Force Personnel Center website.

Comments

3/14/2011 11:59:57 PM ET
They haven't gotten their money back out of training you. Once you are at the 4 year mark they will be more apt to let you go. The Air Force is trimming down but they want to keep the workers. The Air Force spent alot of cash training you and now they need to get those skills back in production. Don't be in too much of a hurry...getting out now means walking into unemployment.

JG, SD

3/14/2011 3:22:09 PM ET
MSgt Korea i agree. I have tried to palace chase and voluntarily separate and was denied both times. My career field is overmanned and i do not understand why they denied me both times. I obviously want out and the USAF wants to get people out so why not let me? I plan to apply again soon so hopefully the 3rd time is a charm.

A1C Drouillard, Beale AFB

3/7/2011 11:34:53 AM ET
I sure hope for all of your sakes that things work out. OTS has all but stopped taking any prior enlisted from what I understand unless you have an engineering degree and the decreasd numbers are more than being filled with Academy and ROTC manning. Kind of a shame in that it's nice to have a 2Lt. that actually knows what's going on. You knew you were taking a risk but this has got to be more than expected. Heck I have already been told I am too old. Anywhere outside of the US Military that would be illegal so at least you got the chance. Good enough to be an NCO not good enough to be an officer.....tell me that's not an insult and a slight at the NCO corps.

JG, SD

3/2/2011 9:32:11 AM ET
Has anyone heard any more about the rules for the RIF board? The article mentions that people have the month of March for voluntary separation but I haven't seen any announcements...

KF, D.C.

2/28/2011 2:51:38 PM ET
To JG - Capt H is correct. Remember a few years ago there was a big push to make ALL officers regular officers? Someone was really thinking. When they did that they took away our ability to revert to enlisted status. So if you get the boot - so be it. Capt H is correct. I have 23 years in -but only 8 as an officer-so I can retire today as a TSgt if I want. RUMINT says they are supposed to approve a two year TAFCSD waiver if they do I'll hit the button asap.

Capt C, Fl

2/25/2011 7:49:23 AM ET
They are not kicking us out. You stated you can retire in enlisted status if you have 20 years in TAFMS. That is not the case. You have to have approvals... They have denied the waivers up to this point. If you have crossed over and do not have 10 years TAFCS, you can't retire. Also they do not pay High 3 in that case. You get enlisted retirement pay at the grade you were when you left to become an officer. You then have to appeal later to see if you can ever get into your High 3 range. There is an AFI that covers it in detail and the experts at AFPC have even more details. I do not want people believing what you posted because it is not true. And don't worry, none of use are leaving without the retirement. We will simply watch our peers get kicked out and collect a paycheck for the next 12 to 24 months and then we will all retire. The Air Force will then have a small pool of people to promote. Everyone will make it and it will be 1995-1998 all over again...

Capt H, GA

2/24/2011 12:23:06 PM ET
Capt H.....not sure I understand...if you have 20 years of federal service how can they just kick you out? If so then that is something that guys need to consider before crossing over.

JG, SD

2/22/2011 12:26:58 PM ET
To JG...not so...they will only let you use that if it is in the best interest of the AF...tried and denied Yes we did know the drill when we took the commission...however, it is a voluntary measure that would save some officers because we are all starting to leave next year anyway. Until then we will enjoy the paycheck.

Capt H, GA

2/22/2011 11:05:22 AM ET
Aim High from Hawaii - The problem is that the high-performers learn they can make more doing the same job on the outside, take the volunteer separation deal and leave us with the underachievers.

CN, OCONUS

2/21/2011 10:49:46 AM ET
Upon hearing about the latest round of force management fun my still-active duty buddy quipped that I should be happy I'm now an IMA. True, I said, but the last time the Air Force was getting rid of LTs and CAPTs they got rid of too many in my AFSC and I was involuntarily recalled for an in lieu of tasking in AF. Way to go Big Blue...I'll be eagerly awaiting that next involuntary mobilization.

NoVa IMA, Northern Virginia

2/20/2011 7:11:10 AM ET
To those who believe we should cut contractors first I think we would see our savings lost to the massive training gaps we would be scrambling to fill. And to those who think that captains are paid better than contractors wake up and smell the mint. Maybe they are stingy in Boston but not where I work in the states.

Nobody, Afg

2/16/2011 11:00:54 AM ET
To any offcier that is a prior NCO, you already knew how the game was played when you took the commission....10 years commissioned time to retire as an officer. That said you can still retire at 20 and get paid on HIGH 3...only difference is your blue ID has your old E grade on it....never fret those outside the military really don't (care) what your rank was in the service. You get the pay and can retire you just don't get to be in the club anymore. Small potatoes.

JG, SD

2/10/2011 1:46:47 PM ET
Why not add a peer review sheet to the board? Basically an officer will get rated by their peers as well as their troops. So on top of the OPRs there is no kidding feedback on how this person is as an officer. There are quite a few inadequate leaders out there who have nice records.

David, Nellis

2/9/2011 8:22:52 PM ET
I am retired Air Force and now work Civil Service. I also have worked as a DoD Contractor. As one who has served all three occupations I say look first at cutting contractors then GS and then only then Active Duty.

H. Hogan, Alabama

2/9/2011 4:37:00 PM ET
This is to all SqCCs out there. We need fast action Be direct and honest with your CGOsFGOs. Got a pilot who's great with the stick but can'twon't lead Then tell him to be great with the stick at Delta. Every volunteer we have will save a deserving higher performer from being cut.

Aim High, Hawaii

2/8/2011 5:01:11 PM ET
I am disappointed in the way our people have been treated although I understand the bottom line. Not knowing if you will have a job creates many sleepless nights and stressors that cannot be described unless you have experienced a retention board. While our top heavy leadership continues to serve knowing they will never get promoted our jr folks must shoulder the burden. Cut the fat and let our sr leaders experience the pink slip. They should exceed standards like the rest of us knowing they may not have a job tomorrow.

Trim Da Fat, Stuttgart

2/8/2011 4:17:12 AM ET
This is crazy. I volunteered to retire DENIED. I applied on Dec 23 under the FY11 Force Management LADSC Program and have not heard anything. I see military members being non-vol'd to retireseperate why make them when you have volunteers.. LET ME RETIRE

MSgt, Korea

2/8/2011 1:33:52 AM ET
To believe that any organization can hire to an exact number is insane. As long as we continue to pursue an end strength maximum we will continue to have a problem as retention rates are not something you can control. The only absolute controls are force shaping and accessions. Force shaping is the hardest to endure because it affects people who have served. Lets face it, Air Force management doesn't communicate their needs efficiently across amongst themselves. That is why we are RIFing career fields and still sending people in the same fields to receive advanced degrees only to later subject these individuals to a RIF in the future. There are several areas for improvement. One is the poor management of our deployment process. I would bet there are people that would rather leave the Air Force before they would ever deploy. However they can effectively hide in the X-band through assignment PCS and X-band reassignment.

Maj D, Afghanistan

2/5/2011 10:09:22 PM ET
It is indeed frustrating to be a warrior facing a board composed of all too many senior officers who don't have a single campaign medal. I saw this at a recent AF symposium lots of BPZ former execs without wartime experience. Ways to reduce overhead eliminate the Exec officer position USAF-wide hire civilians instead. If you've been dodging deployments time to go. If you're a fatty you need to leave. Let the prior enlisted officers retire early. Let anyone who wants to and demonstrates skill fly RPAs A navigator can fly onebut others cannot There are those of us who are all in and some who are camping out. Reward the warriors let go of the malingerers. Service members unwilling to fight and possibly die in the service of their nation are charlatans. They draw pay wear the uniform and bask in the undeserved respect of the citizenry. They are a danger to their countrymen

CAG 16, Chesapeake VA

2/5/2011 7:06:44 AM ET
Just wanted to throw another chip on the pile of prior-E officers that would retire at 8yrs commission time. I'd be retiring Feb 2012 if that were the case.

Capt, Eglin

2/4/2011 8:29:53 PM ET
I wish I could Voluntarily Separate right now but they would rather Force senior officials and others to involuntarily separate. Get me out of here now

SrA , Bchel GM

2/4/2011 3:34:25 PM ET
The problem with converting mil to civilian jobs is that they are restricted to what they can work and the fact that they don't deploy. The ones that end up paying the deployment price are your 7-levels who have to deploy more due to the increase in civilian GS jobs. Contractors in the AOR make 6 figure salaries with approx. the first 90k tax free. Keep converting mil to GS jobs and soon you will be left with a very small pool to deploy from.

m owen, virginia

2/4/2011 2:16:32 PM ET
In response to Capt W's post, what you said is not entirely accurate it depends on what your military AFSC was and whether you were enlisted or officer. I am retired enlisted and I am now civil service. I make more than I did on active duty. An officer in my career field would make less than they did on active duty because the enlisted and officers qualify for the same GS positions most of the time. I work with contractor counter parts in this career field on a daily basis who have the same job and they make more than Enlisted Officer or GS; however, they don't have the job security. So it depends on what your job is and if you do the same job when you separate.

Recently Retired, Georgia

2/4/2011 1:13:36 PM ET
In response to Steve from Tampa, just so mil folks don't get misinformed... GS equivalents make less than their mil counterparts. It's also a common misconception that contrcators make more as well. The "2-3 times more" reference to pay is not accurate except for specific cases. As a Captain I make more than most of the GS and contractor peers that I work with and I also get more benefits, all with less experience in most cases. And I'm in one of the highest cost areas in the U.S. meaning that the non-mil types here get paid more than they would in most other locations. Just FYI.

Capt W, Hanscom AFB

2/4/2011 12:28:44 PM ET
This looks like a conspiracy. Otherwise how do you explain this? An officer friend of mine was kicked out last year. But he was a superb officer -- won numerous awards including CGO at the squadron, group, wing, and even MAJCOM and AF level awards with outstanding OPRs and was a distinguished graduate of Squadron Officer School. I used to call him superhero. But with no explanation his FSB recommendation was ranked last from 15 other officers. It seems that they are trying to kick out the talented and leave the mediocre ones so that they can have a chance at getting promotions. Othewise, if the talented stay, the mediocre will never get promoted. This whole thing doesn't make any sense.

Box, NA

2/4/2011 12:04:53 PM ET
So it is all about the end strength. Okay, got it....then align promotions command selection and school selection with retention selection boards and give me a number. Tell me I am 400 of 500 Majors in my year group in the AF and the line is 399. The OPRs with my number 1 this or that is meaningless. Having one board promote, another select for command and another determine retention is a waste. AFSO21 anyone? I was RIF'd 3 months after taking command of a Squadron. PCS costs were substantial. Bottom line is that AFPC has way too many processes that are working in isolation.

dw, Utah

2/4/2011 11:47:22 AM ET
Toni- I also agree with others who have commented about letting prior enlisted personnel with over 20 years TAFMS and 8 years TFCSD retire. They actually got authority to do this in Sec 506 of the 2011 NDAA which was signed last year. So why not do it? In good conscience they shouldn't push people out the door involuntarily when they have other congressionally authorized voluntary measures available.

Chris, Maxwell

2/4/2011 10:41:40 AM ET
All the below posts make valid points but none of them address the civilian/contract sector. Over the past decade the government has gotten into a nasty habit of converting many GI positions into GS/Contracting slots for retiring members. Uniform one day, civilian the next DOING THE EXACT SAME JOB AND GETTING PAID 2 -3 TIMES AS MUCH. The government thought by doing so would save them money, but I think that was short sightedness on their part. I support civilians and contractors bolstering our force at home station, but theyre overtaking the military. If I were the CSAF I would continue cutting GS/Contracting positions further and stop subbing out work to private parties. Put jobs and money back in military hands where it needs to be.

Steve, Tampa

2/4/2011 10:21:53 AM ET
If numbers need to be dropped all they need to do is bring back early retirement. There are plenty of 15 years NCOs ready to hit the door running at 40 percent base pay.

JG, SD

2/4/2011 9:36:10 AM ET
Does anyone know what the time-in-service eligibility requirment is for the RIF board?

Kennard Laviers, Orlando FL

2/4/2011 9:30:55 AM ET
We've done this to ourselves so many times in my 29 years I've lost count. Look at the ratio of GO's to troops in WWII and look at it today. The AF needs to start at the top -- eliminate about 75-100 GOs, their associated staffs and the redundant organizations they lead. Then you'll see some real progress... But what do I know.

Crusty Old Prior, Osan

2/4/2011 8:14:43 AM ET
Agree with Capt Hanscom and Capt Wanna Retire. Why not allow us priors to retire first before forcing out officers who have been through cuts twice. We will be leaving after all the cuts anyway. The Air Force HAS NOT exhausted all voluntary means as it was stated in the original e-mail article. Put the legislation into action and let us retire first...then cut what you need.

Capt J, GA

2/4/2011 7:37:04 AM ET
I definitely agree with others that have commented about letting prior enlisted personnel with 8 years TFCSD to retire. I know plently who would submit their papers if it was offered and I am one of them. You would think involuntary actions would be the last resort.

Toni, SC

2/4/2011 1:31:02 AM ET
I happen to agree with the comments made by RaginCajun Europe They keep cutting deep and expecting us to deploy more often and longer. We waste billions on contractors that for the most part we can do without. I happen to run a yard in Iraq with a total of 8 AF personnel and 32 contractors making at least 150K a year for jobs that an A1C could and should do. We have reports managers that makes 180K a year and their whole job is to update two reports everyday that take about 5 minutes each and then they are done for the rest of the day. I have several data clerks that just input numbers for about an hour or two a day and then spend the rest of the day playing cards or watching movies making 3 times what I make. You want to save some money Then look at these contracts that we have and cut down the 1000s of jobs that we really don't need in the AOR and let our current force do the job for a fraction of what a contractor will costMSgt Deployed once again

Jordi Sancho, Iraq

2/3/2011 10:55:36 PM ET
my question is with all this kicking people why is it so hard for me to separate from the USAF.between assignments office and AFPC ive been given incorrect information the run-around and completely forgotten on some occasions. is it possible that all the people that couldve made our systems flow smoothly and in a timely manor were all booted

Cooler, somewherecold

2/3/2011 9:00:23 PM ET
I tried to retire using the DOS rollback last year but AFPC would not let me because I have a pending assignment. Also, I can't even deploy at my next base because I'm coded. What sense does that make? I'm sure my new commander will love me. lol

Trying to retire, Texas

2/3/2011 7:35:28 PM ET
@SW I was one of the quotas as you call it selected by the Officer RIF last year. I was a sitting SQCC and I'm sure the board saw something either not in or in my records that made me become part of the numbers game. As far as your statement for an involuntary recall if by a long shot I was chosen to come back I would make it my personal mission to educate all the young AirmanNCOsOfficer on why not to stay...not a good future if an employer decides you are no longer wanted and then turns around and recall you back. Two-faced system that I do not support and wastes alot of our tax payer money. Bonus to leave bonuses to rejoin pay while your in etc...lots of money spent. I have been on the outside and lived the laid-off life things are never the same between employer and employee afterwards when you show back up at that job. Trust is gone. Trust me.

J, US

2/3/2011 5:56:35 PM ET
SW is right. The RIF process doesn't definitely cut the weakest links. The last RIF cycle I thankfully survived. I know one captain pilot who got "do not retain" on her Retention Recommendation Form because she didn't do the Company Grade Officer Council, and one who was way ahead of his peers but because he had recently cross-trained, they cut him. Good or bad officers, we're all at risk with this round. gulp!

J, CA

2/3/2011 5:48:15 PM ET
For the most part there is an outstanding debate going on throughout this comment stream. Below, I have drafted a few responses to some of the questions raised through this dynamic forum. These answers only reflect my perspective and opinion as someone who met last years RIF1. Why don't we try and reduce the number of people coming in the force rather than cutting people who are already in the Air Force? The Air Force has already reduced accessions to the bear minimums. Even at the levels we are bringing people in right now we may find ourselves in a world of hurt a few years down the road where we simply do not have enough folks in these year groups. While there may be a small amount of fat left to trim in accessions it is likely a very thin slice. Also, rather than RIF skills we spent lots of money on we should look to crossflow -- much easier to train a tech guy to be a shoe clerk than vice versa. Cross-flow without a Force Reduction will not solve the ...

JMJ, Kandahar

2/3/2011 5:45:30 PM ET
Let's start with getting rid of all the useless weight. We are at war so why are we building up and having full staff from the wing on down? Besides, the people normally filling these positions are doing it for self-serving reasons. When are we finally going to fill support positions with contractors and get the GIs back into the fight?

SMSgt Surly, moody

2/3/2011 5:29:37 PM ET
Fold the USAF into the Army and do away with all the fat. Keep only the specialists needed to maintain and pilots to fly aircraft. Support functions, bands, Captain America fitness freaks, GS do-nothings and officers who get paid quite nicely to go to the gym, smile, shake hands, and create chaos to justify their existence in relevancy competitions with other officers... Most of the Air Force just exists to maintain it's own existence, doing nothing or pretending to do something.

Retired Nobody, Texas

2/3/2011 5:24:44 PM ET
@ SW: I agree. A lot of good officers were unexplicably RIF'ed while scumbags were allowed to continue in the service. Being a prior-E O who will face this board all I can do is make sure my PME is complete as well as my Master's. That's all that is within my control. @ E: We all know the non-rated ranks will take the greatest hit during this process. There is no way they are going to cut anyone they have spent millions to train and pay bonuses to. I have a feeling there will be more guidance shortly on who will actually meet this board. @ Malmstrom: This means more board cancellations. USAFA will remain full but ROTC and OTS will have to cut back. This will make it incredibly harder to break into the officer corps. At least for the next few years.

David, Nellis

2/3/2011 5:04:58 PM ET
When are we going to cut actual missions to match the cut in manpower? So far they have cut customer service and time with families.

Sgt Whoever, conus

2/3/2011 3:47:03 PM ET
Thanks everyone for your feedback. To clarify, we are in fact limiting accessions of both officer and enlisted. Even with those actions we're still over our end strength, resulting in the need for the current force management measures.

Capt. Chris Sukach AF Public Affairs, Washington DC

2/3/2011 3:42:01 PM ET
What nobody here is talking about is the toll this process really takes on an Airman and his/her family. I went through it in 2005 and survived but you face around one year of not knowing if you'll have a job or not. You work hard and perform at the highest level yet essentially face being fired for nothing and that's not why most of us entered the service. A person being fired with no bonus and nothing more than a slap on the back on the way out is not how any one of us want to be treated. After a lot of hard work and several deployments the AF should owe you more than a 'good luck.'

Capt, Barksdale AFB

2/3/2011 3:29:10 PM ET
Let us pray there is one Leader in the Pack with a Clue. They need to do a Rack and Stack and send the SUBSTANDARD Performers Packing first. Secondly they need to send the Code C Losers that cannot be used for Deployments, Remotes and much aside from here in the Promised Land. Thirdly they need to send those on Prescription Drugs and can only be used in limited duty. Most of these people were not authorized to carry a weapon, PRP duty and many other critical duty assignments. I had them reporting to me as a First Sgt and Chief and say Chief I'm on Prozac and cannot be trusted.Houston we have a problem. CMSgt Buddy McFaddin Retired with Character and Honor and Never Sold Out.

CMSgt Buddy McFaddin, TN

2/3/2011 3:00:34 PM ET
Add the article about the pilot bonuses of $25,000 per year to this one and it makes it seem like there are two different Air Forces. We have fewer planes so we need fewer maintainers, fewer comm troops, fewer CE Airmen, and all this means fewer personnelists, but we need more pilots with a bonus of $25,000 per year?

Jerry, Oklahoma

2/3/2011 2:12:20 PM ET
We need to retire those who are over 20 that aren't eligible to deploy. They have met their retirement eligibility...hold the line on all in or quit talking about it.Also if we are 2300 officers over our limit stop offering continuation to those who aren't promoted. I know it costs money to separate them but when just can't keep everyone when we are overmanned.

Chief Y, Alabama

2/3/2011 2:00:08 PM ET
Trim excess first. Stop justifying and filling superfluous billets. Cut entire strata of all numbered Air Forces force wide a bit of brass fat entrenched layer of subsidiary HQ desk flying guidance pushers and policy polishers blatantly redundant to bottom line mission requirements. All NAFs must go not some. Align subordinate operational units under a MAJCOM for rapid virtual policy and virtual planning and electronic staffing in our concise contemporary e leadership age.

Harry, USAFE

2/3/2011 1:47:21 PM ET
Fighting on 2 fronts and plenty of other missions to do and we are talking about cutting jobs. Scale back on some weapons systems and save the troops. Hard to operate equipment without the manpower. Unless they are going to hire more contractors again.

Just a old retired know it all, Sioux Falls

2/3/2011 1:21:22 PM ET
The Defense Act passed in December which had an allowance for officers with 8 yrs commissioned service to be allowed to retire. Studies show that about 200 of these prior-enlisted officers per year would accept this if implemented by the AF. The AF needs to implement this and save a few of the younger officers from being separated. Many of us who are within two years of retirement would gladly retire. We're going to next year anyway.

Capt Wanna Retire, Maxwell

2/3/2011 1:20:39 PM ET
The Defense Act passed in December had an allowance for officers with 8 yrs commissioned service to be allowed to retire. Studies show that about 200 of these prior-enlisted officers per year would accept this if implemented by the AF. The AF needs to implement this a save a few of the younger officers from being separated. Many of us who are within two years of retirement would gladly retire. We're going to next year anyway.

Capt Wanna Retire, Maxwell

2/3/2011 12:51:10 PM ET
Sorry Jason, as a seasoned SNCO I must agree with the A1C from Yokota...too many chiefs not enough indians. The AF has too many individuals sticking around simply because the economy is scary and they've gotten too comfortable giving out orders.

MSgt Arizona, Davis Monthan

2/3/2011 12:43:35 PM ET
It would be nice if they would allow officers to retire as an officer that have over 20 years to retire without meeting the 10 year committment.

Capt, Hanscom

2/3/2011 12:31:50 PM ET
Perhaps it's time to rethink the Warrant Officer concept I'm not saying we have to imitate our sister services but they have all seen fit to keep their warrants around. Perhaps that will be a means to allow for advancement for deserving enlisted while balancing the commissioned ranks. Whether WOs would fly is another question altogether...just saying this is a concept we may reconsider.

MSgt F V - retired, Ireland

2/3/2011 12:18:13 PM ET
Smith at Gunter, if you haven't seen what happened in the past at the officer force shaping boards it is an arbitrary process. You don't necessarily have to have something on your record that identifies that you should not be retained. They have RIFd some good officers that included PME selects annual award winners CCs and CC selects and those that ranked well above their peers during the local review process...I saw it first hand everyone involved was baffled at who recieved their notices. Yet some of those recommended by their leaders for non-retention are somehow still in the AF. The last three RIF boards were cross-functional boards based on quotas only didn't have much to do with quality. It was run similar to a promotion board with each reviewer getting about 90 seconds to review your package and determine your ranking among 1000 other eligibles. You will be seeing all these people back in the AF in a couple of years when there is an involuntary recall to active duty

SW, OK

2/3/2011 12:07:28 PM ET
I think it is kind of funny that the congress is so quick to continue downsizing when President Obama's primary concern is the economy and job stimulas. Just to let you know people that are forced out of th AF will need jobs and in this economy looks like this country's leaders are working backwards. I just wonder with all the unemployment calaims out there are a direct result of the past years of downsizing.

tony , langley

2/3/2011 11:54:36 AM ET
Agree with most concerning new officer accessions. Leadership should look into this more closely, especially since these officers are useless for their first two years of service. Additionally they should look more closely at the Civilian Workless-Force. The civilian fat-cats that are seating around and pretent to work but in reality don't do anything. Come on look around you you know who they are These are the fat-cats that think they don't have to work just becuase they already have 20 years of civil service. Getting rid of these people will save the AF bigillions of dollars in salaries compensation and their bonuses.

BOX, NAFB

2/3/2011 11:49:34 AM ET
E Oliver from Idaho The Air Force has an annual cross flow board for officers from Non-Rated careerfields to go a rated AFSC.

JB, Robins

2/3/2011 11:49:12 AM ET
Douglas I'm with you. The AF is not the same animal anymore. These days many non-rated officers get more leadership experience than rated officers brass has no idea. Before I was Force-Managed out I commanded Army MI units in Afghanistan as a chemist.

J, FL

2/3/2011 11:47:12 AM ET
Its so great to see yet another great Air Force leadership decision making it great for management and shafting everyone else. I thought leaders are suppose to do whats best for the whole force not a certain group of people upper brass. I think the old people past 20 years of service should be retired and let some new ideas come in with young people. This is the reason why the moral is so low and people only see serving our country as a job but this is what happens when every one wants to get a political vote and make rank buy shafting everyone elselower ranking. Its the great Air Force way.

SSgt G, SJAFB

2/3/2011 11:43:43 AM ET
Lets start by cutting things that don't contibute to our mission. We should cut Tops in Blue go to just 1 AF Band and each MAJCOM gets one honor guard. I understand history and troop moral but we are involved in too many operations throughout the world to lose someone who is critical to the mission.

Same job less people, AMC

2/3/2011 11:36:05 AM ET
Perhaps we can save these jobs if we can just get our 285 billion backSee Billions paid to firms that defrauded

Maj, airfor016@hotmail.com

2/3/2011 11:35:30 AM ET
@It is simple... You might get some but you wouldn't get 2300 officers. There are no simple answers as we continue to pay for the problems generated from the early '90s. I don't know of a single career field that feels overmanned although there are several which technically are. Until we can truly get to the point of managing people correctly and dropping the tasks and missions that aren't value added there won't ever be an end to the continuous roller coaster of personnel management.

It isn't that simple, Europe

2/3/2011 11:31:49 AM ET
Pilots getting RIF'd. You're joking, right?

John, VA

2/3/2011 11:28:41 AM ET
I thought fit-to-fight was doing a fine job of weeding out the ranks Give it a chance that'll get rid of a lot of people real quick

steve, Washington DC

2/3/2011 11:24:16 AM ET
At the very least don't axe a new officer and then hand them a bill for the education they recieved from their comissioning source.

Lt, AMC

2/3/2011 11:14:28 AM ET
I am not tracking with this article, CSAF statements and his HR team. The "All In" claim for mid-grade officers does not reconcile with a recent announcement that 10-year aviation vets can net 125K bonus. So is it going to be a quality review of the entire group category or not? Look, it is simple: slow promotions -- more time in grade equals more experience and helps identify those you want to promote, reduce officer promotion selection rates to minimums, review and eliminate as appropriate rated staff positions -- which is most of them -- eliminate rated and reduce officer grade requirement for UAV and UAV-like positions, reduce the grade creep, and longer times in grade will give a pool of qualified and experienced company grade officers. From the outside looking in, this has become an AF self-licking ice cream cone that protects both rated and senior officer identified positions. That said, there are officer things and NCO things -- do not mix them.

Douglas, Leavenworth

2/3/2011 11:05:02 AM ET
To A1C from Yokota: You obviously have not a clue what you're talking about... I understand you've been out of tech school probably around 6 months so you're an expert on how the Air Force operates from the top down. Just send an e-mail to the CSAF and let him know your solution.

Jason, Nevada

2/3/2011 9:56:03 AM ET
I think if you have already been through this twice, like most people in those year groups have, then you should be exempt this year. Between increased deployment tempos, PCS and long hours due to low manning, when you are at home station this is too much of an emotional roller coaster for members and families to go through year after year. Also still don't understand why we're giving out retention bonuses and ACP if retention is at its highest in 16 years.

SW, OK

2/3/2011 9:45:18 AM ET
It is a shame but not the end. These are hard times we are in and with hard times comes hard decisions. I'm sure our leaders have contemplated their decisions and yes they decreased our recuiting numbers along with cross training opportunities as well. We can either get on board or complain, and by being on board, knowing these moves are necessary, make the right choices. We are blessed that our leaders have offered us other choices: reserve, guard, govt service, and contracting. The cup is half full, not half empty.

Rick, Lackland

2/3/2011 9:28:51 AM ET
@SSgtIt pains me as an officer in one of the year groups being looked at to say this but it's simply not possible to balance the force by only reducing the number of accessions. When you do that you create what demographers call a 'bath tub' effect. The result a few years from now would be an overabundance of majors and lieutenant colonels but a drastic shortage of captains and lieutenants.The Air Force isn't making these cuts because they want to, they're making the cuts because they have to.

John, Texas

2/3/2011 9:20:24 AM ET
I agree with SSgt I know we have to keep young folks coming in but lets limit it. Lets face it experience is needed in all career fields. As an involuntary switchovercross train whatever you want to call it. I rely on experience to learn my job and folks coming straight from tech school don't have that. If you want to manage the force, then kick the bad people out. By this I mean people with disciplinary actions pending, people who like to drink and drive, people who show up to work just to collect a pay check and don't care about the mentoring of our young airmen to be the next leaders. Thats who we should force out. And as for veterans preference somebody needs to go out and find a job that will hire them. Especially with a disability. I got a buddy of mine that was medically retired and he still can't find a job. We need a good balance of experience and youth. Right now we have to much youth and not enough experience.

TSgt Select, Michigan

2/3/2011 8:51:27 AM ET
Its ok. Just wait until the economy bounds back and people jump off the bus faster than Big Blue can generate the separation paperwork. Then all those quality folk that were turned away or asked not so politely to leave will be sorely missed.

Senior T, Del Rio

2/3/2011 8:21:24 AM ET
SSgt I agree that it's always hard to cut people especially when the quality of the force is so high. Cutting personnel during wartime is also unprecedented. However slimming down accessions is only part of the solution it can't be the only answer. If it were 5 or 10 years from now we'd be wondering where all the Capts and NCOs were. I've been in almost 20 years and this is a Groundhog Day moment. We need people so we recruit hard and push retention programs. Then we get too big and need to cut. Then we do it all again. Unfortunately we can't control things like the economy or how long it'll take to fight a war so we can't seem to find a good long-term balance. It's a hard reality but it's what we've got.

KM, Deployed

2/3/2011 7:42:20 AM ET
They make adjustments to recruiting goals however new Airmen are cheaper and that makes more financial sense. I also don't think we are arcitrarily gutting the force. Those on the hook have something in their records to discriminate them from others. I agree that some may may be great...now. I also think we all make mistakes but that is why it's vitally important to offer our folks the tutelage so they know that actions have consequences that none of us amy be aware of. Being young doesn't give carte blanche to make mistakes without repurcusions.

Smith, Gunter

2/3/2011 7:34:29 AM ET
SSgtTo answer your question the reason we don't cut back on bring in new Airmen and Officers to manage force levels is because that action has a negative effect on the Force as a whole. As a Force we have an expectation that along the career path every year Airmen and Officers will make choices to leave Active Duty to pursue other paths. We know that not every Airman has a 20-year career goal and at the end of their first enlistment will choose to move on go to college or do whatever they choose to reach their goals in life. Officers do the same. Many make it to Captain and choose to separate for similar reasons.The system works by understanding that the numbers will fluctuate and Airmen and Officers will choose to leave at points in their career. However the problem is that recently no doubt to economic instabilities around the world those would have normally chosen to leave have instead decided to stay.

Terrell, Joint Base Andrews

2/3/2011 7:12:52 AM ET
I agree with the first comment posted by the SSgt. Less civilians should be brought into the Air Force. Stricter rules could include absolutely no criminal record stricter physical standards to start out etc.However since the AF is over its manning limit some officers must be let go. This is indeed unfortunate but necessary.To make sure this problem doesn't continue to grow people coming into the Air Force need to be decreased in number. The Air Force should only accept new individuals for occupations that are in desperate need for personell.So I say get rid of what officers have to go then reduce recruiting considerably.

A1C Steven M Lauzon, RAF Mildenhall

2/3/2011 6:32:36 AM ET
What is a shame about this is that people will take the money and run. For some in career fields in E Band SFS LROs Contracting and Intel I could see them separating. Divorce rates are skyrocketing in those career fields but noone wants to share the dirty little secret about how six months at home and six months away each year if affecting us. Just a few days ago the AF announced a new uniform is in production for our enablers going to Afghanistan because we once again have to be distinctive and God forbid be seen in Multi Cam. I wonder how much that costs How many people do we axe for a uniform we don't need? Why not concentrate on the billions being mismanaged in Iraq and Afghanistan instead Every year the GAO cites billions in contractor fraud and mismanagement. Sure cut 2300 more once again we'll be asked to do more work with less people while deploying half the year.

RaginCajun, Europe

2/3/2011 3:52:46 AM ET
Why should we keep what we have when some of the people we have cannot keep up with this deployment rate? We need new blood. It's the cycle of the military. New blood breeds new ideas whether they're great or not. How about you use the EPR system properly so these force reduction measures wouldn't kick these so-called great people out.

SrA HP, SWA

2/3/2011 2:27:04 AM ET
Ask a rated guy what he thinks about force shaping. The likely response will be what's force shaping The AF makes it clear in each of these boards who they care about most. We've already cut some great comm PA and SF officers. But the folks that demonstrate the ability to sit an airplane are golden whether they are bottom 10 percent of the AF or not.My career field is currently stressed but I'm nervous that after these cross-flows we'll be just as vulnerable to the whims of our senior leadership and AFPC.

LAF Capt, Deployed

2/3/2011 1:59:54 AM ET
Right now we have to many mangers i.e. NCO, SNCO, and field grade officers. If we let them stey and keep new airmen from comming in, who is going to do all the labor? If we do that, we'll have Full Birds (colonels) doing the job of lieutenants, and Master Sgts taking out the trash. And I can't see how that would work.

A1C, Yokota

2/3/2011 12:01:04 AM ET
Agree completely with the first post. The Air Force continues to whipsaw those who serve their country with honor. Officers are being discharged instead of retrained into needed specialties and we continue to still bring in accessions. How does that make sense? We do a great job managing the enlisted. Why can't the same be done for the officer corps? My son wants to be an officer when he graduates from college. I don't see a promising future for him if this continues.

MB, Edwards

2/2/2011 11:29:59 PM ET
Offer those prior enlisted officers with over 20 years of service and with at least 8 years TFCSD an opportunity to retire. I believe you will get a fair number of personnel willing to accept this offer. I am afraid the service will find itself in quite a situation over the next 5 years when a large number of prior officers hang up their hats. I think we call that the bathtub. Just a thought...

It is simple, OCONUS

2/2/2011 8:53:08 PM ET
Here we go again. Sucks to be a first timer meeting the SERBs since those who survived last year are in a five-year sanctuary per Title 10 law. So the 30 percent of takes will likely come from youngest eligible year groups which is not what the intent is. So will personnelists be hotter for FSB, RIF, or SERB now since everything in personnel is done virtually by the member anyway? Likely not. Rather than RIF skills we spent lots of money on, we should look to crossflow -- much easier to train a tech guy to be a shoeclerk than vice versa.

CP, Colo Spgs

2/2/2011 8:35:22 PM ET
I agree with the comment below. Why not get rid of Airmen who have received punishment before pushing someone out who is an outstanding performer and loves his or her job? Too many trouble makers and "just do the minimum" Airmen fly under the radar during these reductions.

SSgt CP, MHAFB

2/2/2011 5:31:53 PM ET
So what does this mean for Comissioning Board, for the enlisted who want to get comissioned, and those who are wanting to join as officers? Last year almost all boards were canceled.

SSgt , Malmstrom AFB

2/2/2011 5:03:33 PM ET
What an absolute joke. I don't know what the solution to this problem is but I do know this... We are losing too many great Airmen and Officers through these force management measures. Too many great people want to serve our country but so many great people are getting the axe. Why don't we try and reduce the number of people coming in the force rather than cutting people who are already in the Air Force? What a shame.

SSgt ,

2/2/2011 4:57:02 PM ET
Interesting. It will be quite interesting to see the final distribution of reductions across the different AFSCs. Even more interesting will be seeing if rated officers are actually cut in this RIF. Perhaps most interesting of all will be seeing if the AF will actually allow non-rated officers to cross-flow into rated positions.

E Oliver, Idaho

Add a comment

Inside AF.mil

GeneralImagesVideo

View All RSS

Subscribe AF.MIL

More Headlines

Top U.S. officials honor Americans who died in Libya  2  |  VIDEO

DOD recognizes Hispanic-American achievements  2

'Today's Air Force' goes from New Mexico to near space

Air Force announces OTS selection board results  1

Wounded warriors discuss transitions to new lives

Air Force begins testing newest AEHF satellite

Atlas V lifts off from Vandenberg AFB

Air Force, NASA leaders review F-22 findings, fixes with congressional subcommittee  1

Air Force Week in Photos  1

AFPC officials automate ADSC process

Wind energy at Cape Cod to save $1 million a year  1

Alaska Reserve F-22 unit becomes fully operational  1

Through Airmen's Eyes: NCO finds restorative hobby

Vandenberg launch unit 'small squadron with big responsibilities'

Commentary

Losing Your Future to Sexual Assault 23

Attacking Symptoms 7