ROTC cadets, recent graduates offered release from service commitments

Update from DS just now, he said that all the Non Rated Cadets at his DET were offered the release because all fell in the AFSC categories listed. He said that the cadre advised that they are looking to reduce 300 slots. Cadre also advised that there would be less EA's offered this year.
 
FlyingWildcatDad said:
Update from DS just now, he said that all the Non Rated Cadets at his DET were offered the release because all fell in the AFSC categories listed. He said that the cadre advised that they are looking to reduce 300 slots. Cadre also advised that there would be less EA's offered this year.
Click to expand...

That is the number that I heard too. Roughly 500 slots to be reduced, ~200 from Inactive Ready Reserves and ~300 from ROTC. I did not hear about the EA slots being reduced but it had been asked about. EA reduction is just speculation for now but highly probable in my opinion. I also heard that the slots to be reduced are AFSC specific (Each AFSC on the list has a target number).
 
Yes 300 is what my Det CC said. I just received my AFSC on Monday, 21A Aircraft Maintenance it is on the list. I assume if AFPC doesn't get their numbers voluntarily they will start forcing people out. This is pretty disheartening news. I just hope these cuts are not arbitrary. I'm prior enlisted and getting close to that age limit.
 
If I am doing the math correctly. @500 go rated. That would leave about 1700 non-rated, so they need to cut @17% from this yrs group.

The way that I read it for 13 was they were going to cut the ones that had yet to report for AD. That % becomes trickier to figure out because you don't know the amount that has not gone AD yet. If this was done last May, than it would have been easy to say it is 8% that they were cutting, but now that number could be higher if the only ones being offered it have not reported yet.

I am sure this was not a holiday present any of these cadets wanted this yr! Than again maybe they didn't want to do the 4 in the 1st place so it is the best holiday present.

Good luck to all trying to determine whether to stay and risk being cut if they don't make the numbers or leave and start fresh.
 
Pima said:
If I am doing the math correctly. @500 go rated. That would leave about 1700 non-rated, so they need to cut @17% from this yrs group.

The way that I read it for 13 was they were going to cut the ones that had yet to report for AD. That % becomes trickier to figure out because you don't know the amount that has not gone AD yet. If this was done last May, than it would have been easy to say it is 8% that they were cutting, but now that number could be higher if the only ones being offered it have not reported yet.
.
Click to expand...

Cut or offer to release them from their obligation?
 
Pima, I don't know the numbers from Y13 but the numbers posted by nick from FY12 were 951 Non Rated line and 857 Rated line for a total of 1808 AFROTC AFSC slots for that year group. If the numbers for Non Rated for Y14 is similar to Y12, then the % will be alot higher!
 
FlyingWildcatDad said:
Pima, I don't know the numbers from Y13 but the numbers posted by nick from FY12 were 951 Non Rated line and 857 Rated line for a total of 1808 AFROTC AFSC slots for that year group. If the numbers for Non Rated for Y14 is similar to Y12, then the % will be alot higher!
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure there are closer to 2,300 in the class of 2014 based on Field Training numbers. Some of those might no longer be in ROTC or might intend to graduate in FY '15. Then again you need to keep in mind that several might be the 62 series or rated and not eligible "currently" for the reduction. And that gets into a lot of math.
 
Moose,

Clarification. When I say cut, I mean that 200 need to leave, now whether they leave voluntarily or the AF has to do a RIF remains in question, but the number is 200 for 13, and 300 for 14.
~~~ Typically, if they say 200, they mean 200. If 150 voluntarily leave, that still leaves 50 more they need to get rid of, but here comes the problem:

I have yet to see how many from each AFSC. For example they may need only 10 from Cyber, and 110 from Maintenance. Now, maybe 25 from Cyber volunteer to leave, and 95 from maintenance. totaling 125. This is where the approval process comes in. They can come back and tell 15 Cyber you will stay, and than go and pull 15 that didn't volunteer and separate them.
~~~ Caveat this is how they did it in previous RIFs. It is not just the total goal, but the AFSC breakdown and yr. group. There were people that applied to leave, and when it came down to it, they were told they were staying because of their career field and their yr group.

AFMPC plans yrs out, so they maybe looking at the pipeline up to FY 19, not just for FY14/FY15.

Flying,

You are correct. I was just going off the numbers of SFT, which I thought recently was usually @2300, and since after that they all contract, I only removed @5%. Now, if it is 1800, and 1000 are non-rated, that is going to be painful because it is almost 1 out of every 3 cadet needing to sign on the Volunteer separation line, compared to my original thought of 1 in 5.

There is a sim. thread going on the AFA forums, the question was posed if they bust UPT will the AF boot them or offer them a new AFSC in the non-rated world.
~~~ Yrs. ago, the answer IMPO would have been yes. Our DS's classmate busted IFS Mar 13, and they had to wait 3 months before they found out if they would be offered a non-rated slot. However, as I stated over there, for the rated student that has yet to start, I would worry if that option will be there for them if they bust because the AF is not just cutting one or two AFSCs, that have few electing to go down this route. They are taking some of the most popular AFSCs, such as, Intel, Maintenance, SP, Cyber and Personnel.
~~~~ If you do the math, @25% between IFS and UPT/UNT bust. That is hundreds every yr. needing to switch their AFSC. Our DS started at UPT lost 2 in the first 3 weeks, and by the end of the T-6 phase they lost 20% in total. That does not add in the number that busted IFS and did not make it to UPT.

Just my 0.019754 cents, but I would think if non-rated is being cut to this level, than the weight of winging will now be more than just getting your dream airframe, it will be what it should always be about....getting the wings.

sorry for being Janie Raincloud.

Now one last question, was 14 the 1st class that had the 93% selection rate for SFT, or did 13 have that rate too? Nick and our DS had the 55% selection rate for SFT.

Power,

I agree with you there is too much math, and variables to know right now what the real stats are going to be. I.E. like I said earlier to Moose in my post.

JMPHO, if our child was in this scenario, my advise would be to ask to talk to the cadre to see how vulnerable their actual AFSC is from an AFMPC perspective. I would not get my panties wrapped in a wad by what anyone here is saying because nobody here is in the inner circle. I.E. Nobody gets the email from HQ AFROTC sent to us regarding what the target number is, and what the next step will be if they don't reach that number.
~~~~ All we are doing is reading tea leaves, and that is why it should be seen as not even 0.02 cents worth when it comes to making decisions for their lives.

If you want to truly place this into perspective, the amount they are releasing in total is equivalent to the number of non-rated graduating this yr from the AFA.
 
Last edited:
Pima, I am pretty sure that this year, class of 2014 was the first class after the large cuts in SFT selection to have the high selection rate.
 
Moosestache said:
Pima, I am pretty sure that this year, class of 2014 was the first class after the large cuts in SFT selection to have the high selection rate.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. On the other hand...the class of 2014 in many respects was the one who weeded itself out. I no longer have the selection stats but much fewer cadets applied for SFT than of the years of 55% selection (class of '12 and '13)
 
You know hindsight is 20/20.

There were many things that looking back now, people would say were the writings on the wall.

~~~ Wasn't 14 the 1st, and only yr group that had no ICSP offered? Or was that 15?
~~~ AFA started cutting appointments for 15.
~~~ Dis-enrollment for 12/13 if not selected was a given if not selected for SFT.
~~~ Waivers started to become harder and harder to come by.
~~~ Sequestration.

People think that sequestration was only 1 yr., when in fact it is going to be for many more yrs to come, a decade to be exact. We may see this again come next Dec. due to how the controls were placed on the DoD's ability to cut costs. If they can't touch personnel costs that are in the system, than they will have to cut before they ARE IN THE SYSTEM, i.e. ROTC and OCS.

They will have to do more with less, but worse yet, they will not know until Jan. 1 if they have to cut or rejoice in staying at the same rate.

Sequestration is going to have an impact more than just in meeting personnel needs. Morale will change. The trust that they believed the AF would hold up their side of the deal will be gone when they watch classmates left on the hook for 90 days during their sr. yr. It will impact those that are 100, 200, 300's.

My heart goes out to them. Can you imagine what it is like now for them? Even if they sign papers to leave, it doesn't mean they will be approved. They are basically in limbo until March.

Not trying to make this into a political thread, but come next Nov. think twice before you hit the button for your MOC.
~~~ I always laugh at political polls. The MOC's have @10% approval rating, but somehow, they always get re-elected! Is it only me that sees we are to blame as voters because we are too entrenched in being a D or an R, instead of telling them we don't care what party you are, get the flipping job done!

Sequestration is probably here to stay for the next few yrs. Get ready for more and more cuts, or more succinctly 10% every yr.

In a few yrs from now, the military will be hollowed out like during the Carter yrs., or Bush 41/Clinton 1st term, and they will come back with rising budgets. Pay raises for certain yr groups will be double digits akin to 98/99 to retain personnel.

Here are some articles that were on www.military.com It is not just AF officer related, but it shows how sequestration is impacting everything in the DoD world when it comes to reducing their budget.

1. http://www.military.com/daily-news/...ion-assistance.html?comp=1198882887570&rank=8
Beginning next year, the U.S. Army will place new restrictions on its Tuition Assistance program to ensure officers and enlisted personnel are focusing more on soldiering than higher education.
Soldiers will have to wait one year after completing initial-entry training before they can participate in the TA program.
Also, soldiers who use TA money to complete a four-year baccalaureate degree will have to wait 10 years before using TA again to pursue a post-graduate degree.
Click to expand...

Can you imagine how many are going to wait 10 yrs. to get their Grad with TA?

However, it will ave them a lot of money.

Same with if they have to wait one yr., because the way the system works they have to add on commitment time owed.

2. http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/12/05/hagel-to-eliminate-200-jobs-within-osd/?comp=1198882887570&rank=4

This story was disturbing to me from a Fraud, Waste and Abuse perspective.
The number of positions in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff and the combatant commands increased 24 percent, to 21,952 in 2012 from 17,765 in 2010, according to a graphic accompanying an analysis earlier this year by Marcus Weisgerber, a reporter for Defense News.

More than half of the overall increase came from the Joint Staff, which simply absorbed positions from Joint Forces Command after Gates ordered the latter to be shuttered in 2010, according to the analysis.

In perhaps a harbinger of the difficulty in ordering actual layoffs, Hagel spared the position of Andrew Marshall, the 92-year-old who directs the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment, an internal think tank, though Marshall will now report to Undersecretary of Defense for Policy James Miller.
Click to expand...

~~~ Seriously? A 92 yo is being spared? Yet, let's cut TA or 1 more AD military member so we can keep Mr. Marshall, who is a Director. Maybe he only makes 150K a yr., but every penny counts.
~ I absolutely adore my FIL (81), but we wonder if his car keys should be taken away, yet our SoD believes that a 92 yo should be spared? C'Mon we all knew he is making a very nice 6 figure salary (not including his SS, and if he is retired military), I am betting we could save money to get someone technologically literate; knows how to use power point without assistance. (I.E. an intern, extern or someone on the OSD payroll).

Want to see the waste and abuse. Here is another link.
http://www.stripes.com/hagel-announces-cuts-to-his-own-office-hopes-to-save-1b-over-5-years-1.255914
Hagel said the staff cuts are designed to occur primarily through workforce attrition rather than layoffs, but a DOD fact sheet distributed to reporters indicated that more abrupt cuts might be necessary if the Congress’ sequestration budget framework remains in place.

The final details of the planned cutbacks will not be available until the President’s budget request is submitted next year, but Hagel plans the following changes:

Restructuring the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy by eliminating some Senior Executive Service (SES) positions,including a Deputy Under Secretary position and four Deputy Assistant Secretary positions along with their support structure through consolidation.
Realigning the Office of the Director of Administration and Management (DA&M) and its components under the Deputy Chief Management Officer (DCMO) structure.
Transferring responsibility for business IT systems from DCMO to DOD’s Chief Information Officer.
Combining the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Oversight and the Defense Privacy and Civil Liberties Offices into a single entity.
Directing the Office of Net Assessment (ONA) to report to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
Rebalancing resources within the Office of Personnel and Readiness to focus more on force management, readiness, and compensation and benefits reform.
Directing the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to plan how the organization should evolve after the post-9/11 drawdown.
Eliminating the five remaining non-Presidentially Appointed, Senate-confirmed (non-PAS) Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense.
Click to expand...

Seriously, it is no shock that by cutting these 10 positions, they will save millions annually; think 10 at 200K a yr= 2 MN annually, not including their staff. Just those 10 people. I get MNs could be seen as just a few pennies in the bucket, but aren't we at the point that every penny in the bucket from an operational DoD perspective matters?

Heck, if someone can explain to me why Mr. Marshall is needed/spared at the age of 92 in the current DoD budget environment, over keeping at least 3 O1s, than I am willing to eat crow. That is what his salary at the least costs the DoD yrly for Mr. Marshall. I would think that it equals at least 20 TAs. Yet, he is safe, and our troops pay the cost for him being spared.
~~~ How many of us have family members that are 92? Would you want them a Director of an internal think tank for the DoD? Honestly, Mr. Marshall was 71 for Gulf I, he was 79 for 9/11.

Off my soapbox regarding how the AD world is getting the shaft.
 
Last edited:
Pima, I echo your thoughts, my heart also goes out to those cadets affected by the reduction. They lived up through their end of the deal spending 3+ years working toward their goal of officership and now some will be shafted just before finishing their journey. I also believe this will affect the 100, 200, and 300's currently in the system going forward, my DS being one of them. I believe our political leaders have let these honorable young women and men down!
 
Good luck to you all. I can't imagine how disruptive it would be to commission and get RIF'd before you even leave the IRR. There's certainly a reason it's called the service.

Call me curious, Pima, but is your opinion with respect to Marshall's position rooted entirely in ageism? From everything I've read about the man is that he's a fantastic statesman. Just interested in seeing if I missed something.
 
It is not ageism.

It is fiscal. That is the system for govt. pay. Can his job be done at the same level with a 50 yr old?
~ my guess is YES.

We are facing a new world from a budget aspect, are you saying that you support a 92 YO working in a think tank as a director?

Have you thought about the fact think tanks take away from ops?

Have you realized the big schocker on Hagel's announcement is how bloated the military is? Think about it...200 jobs will save 1 BN, yet Mr. Marshall at the age of 92 is saved at whatever his SES salary is.

You know what I always told Bullet during his ADAF career?
~ The AF wouldn't be crying over his grave, his family will! Hate to say it Mr. Marshall at 92 did not get that memo.
 
I expect Mr. Marshall knows where all the bodies are.
 
Pima said:
It is not ageism.

It is fiscal. That is the system for govt. pay. Can his job be done at the same level with a 50 yr old?
~ my guess is YES.

We are facing a new world from a budget aspect, are you saying that you support a 92 YO working in a think tank as a director?

Have you thought about the fact think tanks take away from ops?

Have you realized the big schocker on Hagel's announcement is how bloated the military is? Think about it...200 jobs will save 1 BN, yet Mr. Marshall at the age of 92 is saved at whatever his SES salary is.

You know what I always told Bullet during his ADAF career?
~ The AF wouldn't be crying over his grave, his family will! Hate to say it Mr. Marshall at 92 did not get that memo.
Click to expand...

So to condense all of that just a little bit; "yes."

E: comparing the value of a respected statesman who has experienced foreign policy firsthand in the service of every Presidency since Nixon to a couple of O1s based solely on salary is an amusing proposal. I'd say that Uncle Sam is getting a bargain.
 
mbitr said:
So to condense all of that just a little bit; "yes."

E: comparing the value of a respected statesman who has experienced foreign policy firsthand in the service of every Presidency since Nixon to a couple of O1s based solely on salary is an amusing proposal. I'd say that Uncle Sam is getting a bargain.
Click to expand...


What happened to Nixon, and did Marshall use him as character reference for his next job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top