Navy Job Cuts
- Thread starter Packer
- Start date
Just_A_Mom
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2006
- Messages
- 4,774
translation???
VSP=voluntary separation pay
RIF=Reduction in force
SERB=Selective early retirement boards
Not sure if the Navy uses these same acronyms/programs or whether they would apply to the "low-ranking petty officers" that are targeted for separation.
Pima
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 13,900
VSP = Voluntary Separation Pay
~~ Translation: They offer VSP to the targeted yr groups/career fields to leave. The VSP is typically larger than if they are RIF'd. In some cases thousands and thousands of dollars. I remember back in 93, an O4 took VSP and he got 6 figures. The ones that decided to go to the RIF board got @50% less.
RIF = Reduction in Force
~~ Translation: Board convenes and separates the targeted group because they did not meet the quota using VSP
SERB = Selective Early Retirement Board
~~ Translation: Board convenes and forces Retirement for targeted group. Once you make a certain rank you are eligible to stay until X yrs. For example, make O-5 you can stay until 25, but if they do a SERB they can cut you before the 25 yr point.
If you read between the lines for the AF, they are using the 4th prong. Speeding up boards. If you are a 2x passed over O4 for O5, you will be forced to retire at 20. This means no VSP, RIF or SERB. They are allowed to force the O4 up for O5 to retire at 20. Doesn't seem like it would save a heck of a lot of money, but if you take the 400 that retire at 20 as an O4, you are talking about 10K per member per yr for the rest of their life. 20 yr AD would place them at 42/43, avg life expectancy is 77+, or @ 35 yrs of retirement pay...do the math. It saves them in the long run. OBTW, if they are saying 400, O4s and if you do the math of 95% make 02, 95% make 03, 80% make O4, and now they bring it down to 60-65% for O5, From the original 100%, you are looking at @40-45%.
It is always important to understand branches have a ratio between ranks and officer to enlisted. Since not one of us here works for manpower with the Navy, we cannot and should not speculate if this is the only cut they are making or the first of many. For example, when they cut 9K enlisted, will it impact the ratio of officer to enlisted? If it does, is there a yr/grade group that is off kilter for officer ratio.
If you use the AF as an example, back in 09/10 it was company grade, specifically under the 5 and dive range that was too big. Hence, this is why they gave walking papers to AD Lts., who busted UPT. It also illustrates why they canceled OCS, cut AFROTC scholarships, reduced SFT, etc. They did it because they were "slowing the pipeline". They now have the company grade under control, and it is the field grade, specifically Majors that need to be cut to maintain the ratio.
The military does a 5 yr manpower need every yr., and as even stated in the article the economy impacts them regarding retention.
Additionally, this is when the type of commissioning comes into play, especially for the AF. AFA and AFROTC receive different types. Regs., at least back in 93 for AF were AFROTC and OCS must be cut prior to cutting an AFA grad. in that yr group.
As bad as these times appear, I remember 93 for the AF. Commission yr groups of 85/86 had a 95% RIF rate for AFROTC grads, including rated officers. One of our friends received a Silver Star (Gulf 1), sent to FWIC (now known as WIC), and at FWIC was cut. The day the RIF results were released, the base was silent. A few months later the Navy announced they were doing the same thing. @ a yr later the Army was doing it. The economy, including housing was iidentical to today. In this article, it also stated the same thing, AF and Navy are going through it now because of operational needs, but they suspect/expect the Army will follow suit shortly when their operational needs diminish as they leave Iraq/Afghanistan. Think about it the military installations will have too many personnel members with too few of jobs.
Can we all say 1992-1994?
Xposted with AG
~~ Translation: They offer VSP to the targeted yr groups/career fields to leave. The VSP is typically larger than if they are RIF'd. In some cases thousands and thousands of dollars. I remember back in 93, an O4 took VSP and he got 6 figures. The ones that decided to go to the RIF board got @50% less.
RIF = Reduction in Force
~~ Translation: Board convenes and separates the targeted group because they did not meet the quota using VSP
SERB = Selective Early Retirement Board
~~ Translation: Board convenes and forces Retirement for targeted group. Once you make a certain rank you are eligible to stay until X yrs. For example, make O-5 you can stay until 25, but if they do a SERB they can cut you before the 25 yr point.
If you read between the lines for the AF, they are using the 4th prong. Speeding up boards. If you are a 2x passed over O4 for O5, you will be forced to retire at 20. This means no VSP, RIF or SERB. They are allowed to force the O4 up for O5 to retire at 20. Doesn't seem like it would save a heck of a lot of money, but if you take the 400 that retire at 20 as an O4, you are talking about 10K per member per yr for the rest of their life. 20 yr AD would place them at 42/43, avg life expectancy is 77+, or @ 35 yrs of retirement pay...do the math. It saves them in the long run. OBTW, if they are saying 400, O4s and if you do the math of 95% make 02, 95% make 03, 80% make O4, and now they bring it down to 60-65% for O5, From the original 100%, you are looking at @40-45%.
It is always important to understand branches have a ratio between ranks and officer to enlisted. Since not one of us here works for manpower with the Navy, we cannot and should not speculate if this is the only cut they are making or the first of many. For example, when they cut 9K enlisted, will it impact the ratio of officer to enlisted? If it does, is there a yr/grade group that is off kilter for officer ratio.
If you use the AF as an example, back in 09/10 it was company grade, specifically under the 5 and dive range that was too big. Hence, this is why they gave walking papers to AD Lts., who busted UPT. It also illustrates why they canceled OCS, cut AFROTC scholarships, reduced SFT, etc. They did it because they were "slowing the pipeline". They now have the company grade under control, and it is the field grade, specifically Majors that need to be cut to maintain the ratio.
The military does a 5 yr manpower need every yr., and as even stated in the article the economy impacts them regarding retention.
Additionally, this is when the type of commissioning comes into play, especially for the AF. AFA and AFROTC receive different types. Regs., at least back in 93 for AF were AFROTC and OCS must be cut prior to cutting an AFA grad. in that yr group.
As bad as these times appear, I remember 93 for the AF. Commission yr groups of 85/86 had a 95% RIF rate for AFROTC grads, including rated officers. One of our friends received a Silver Star (Gulf 1), sent to FWIC (now known as WIC), and at FWIC was cut. The day the RIF results were released, the base was silent. A few months later the Navy announced they were doing the same thing. @ a yr later the Army was doing it. The economy, including housing was iidentical to today. In this article, it also stated the same thing, AF and Navy are going through it now because of operational needs, but they suspect/expect the Army will follow suit shortly when their operational needs diminish as they leave Iraq/Afghanistan. Think about it the military installations will have too many personnel members with too few of jobs.
Can we all say 1992-1994?
Xposted with AG
Last edited:
Just_A_Mom
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2006
- Messages
- 4,774
Thanks for the simplified answer!
The answer to PIMA's question is - yes, the Navy is offering VSP.
Keep in mind that this particular RIF applies to ENLISTED sailors - E4-E7; where their jobs are now over manned and will be eliminated.
Here is a recent Navy Times article -
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/07/navy-erb-extension-petty-officer-070511w/
The Fox article was simply focusing on the contrast in recent years between not being able to meet recruiting goals to becoming overmanned with the draw down in the war.
It's important to realize that this draw down is not solely because of the economy. There was a massive building up back in the mid-2000's when the wars escalated and it only makes sense to send some personnel back to civilian life.
Also, contrary to what was asserted in the Fox News article - they will get severance pay.