Posted on Dec 7, 2013
Stripes Article: Promotion Rates and Pay Disparities (lifetime)
4.1K
23
7
4
4
0
http://www.stripes.com/news/promotion-rate-disparities-impact-total-career-pay-1.256050
Now, historically the AF has always been the slowest-promoting service for enlisted, since its separation from the Army in 1947. From my own observations I've thought the AF promoted too slow to E-6, but from my experiences serving alongside the Army in the AOR and in CONUS (also, my wife is an army officer so I've gotten her perspective), I think the ground branches promote too fast. I don't think the right answer is 14.7 years (AF), but I'm also not convinced 8.4 years is right either. Before anyone gets butt-hurt about this, this an observational perspective from experiences and a little bit of research, not policy advocacy.
Now, historically the AF has always been the slowest-promoting service for enlisted, since its separation from the Army in 1947. From my own observations I've thought the AF promoted too slow to E-6, but from my experiences serving alongside the Army in the AOR and in CONUS (also, my wife is an army officer so I've gotten her perspective), I think the ground branches promote too fast. I don't think the right answer is 14.7 years (AF), but I'm also not convinced 8.4 years is right either. Before anyone gets butt-hurt about this, this an observational perspective from experiences and a little bit of research, not policy advocacy.
Air Force enlisted members advance to pay grades E-5 through E-7 faster than they did before recent wars, but still slower than peers in every other branch of service. That dampens total earnings over...
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
4
4
0
It all has to do with retention. Their lives suck less so more people stay in longer.
This is how it should work.
This is how it should work.
(4)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
What AFPC (AF version of HRC) always briefed us was that career expectations for an average active duty 20 year career, was E-7 (MSgt) and Lt Col (O-5). Do they tell you guys the same?
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
They do but our retention rates in the last ten years has been MUCH lower than the Air Force in all ranks, giving us faster promotions. now that we are downsizing rates are going down and we are having retention boards and kicking out thousands of officers.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
Maj Dinote - Annnnnd roger on the 20-yr pay grade expectations. That is what we are generally telling our folks. That would be the "average", but as you stated, for some of our Manuever, Fires and Effects (MFE) Soldiers, it may be a little better.
And as MAJ Miller stated, honestly, it is all about retention - so, it's a math thing. Based on the number of allocations and how many folks we attrit along the way determines promotion rates and in MFE, it is usually a little better.
(3)
(0)
4
3
1
It's hard for me to sympathize when I know my Air Force counterpart will deal with far less deployments, less family separation, less field time, will have more free time, better living conditions, less stringent standards overall, and will generally just have a much higher quality of life than his sister service counterparts.
.
Consider it diminished benefits for diminished service I suppose.
(4)
(1)
Lt Col (Join to see)
I voted you down on this for a couple of reasons but mainly because you're making generalizations here.
1. You "know" your AF "counterpart" - by rank or career field?
2. "Far less deployments and family separation" - based on what? 4 or 5 x 6 month deployments in as many years is as much family separation as 2-3 full year deployments. AF also does the same short tour lengths in Korea, in Qatar and Kuwait as the Army. I know AF stressed career fields with 7, 8, or 9 deployments. Also, most deployments in the AF are tied to the _iron_ to the maintenance and rotation schedule of the _airplanes_ - this is something the army just flat out doesn't get. 3. AWACS, JSTARS, RJ etc have been deployed to the CENTCOM AOR continuously since Desert Storm ended - that's 20+ years and it's been non-stop. So have the fighters, tankers and airlifters. So, you're right, the deployments have been shorter.
4. Less field time - if you mean FOB sleeping in the suck field time, granted - I'll give you that one, for the most part - the JTACS, EOD and STS dudes have been right there with you
5. Better quality of life - won't argue that point. And I won't apologize for it either.
6. "Less stringent standards overall." - Compared to, what? Haircuts? Those win wars you know.
7. "Diminished service." Really? Is that necessary?
1. You "know" your AF "counterpart" - by rank or career field?
2. "Far less deployments and family separation" - based on what? 4 or 5 x 6 month deployments in as many years is as much family separation as 2-3 full year deployments. AF also does the same short tour lengths in Korea, in Qatar and Kuwait as the Army. I know AF stressed career fields with 7, 8, or 9 deployments. Also, most deployments in the AF are tied to the _iron_ to the maintenance and rotation schedule of the _airplanes_ - this is something the army just flat out doesn't get. 3. AWACS, JSTARS, RJ etc have been deployed to the CENTCOM AOR continuously since Desert Storm ended - that's 20+ years and it's been non-stop. So have the fighters, tankers and airlifters. So, you're right, the deployments have been shorter.
4. Less field time - if you mean FOB sleeping in the suck field time, granted - I'll give you that one, for the most part - the JTACS, EOD and STS dudes have been right there with you
5. Better quality of life - won't argue that point. And I won't apologize for it either.
6. "Less stringent standards overall." - Compared to, what? Haircuts? Those win wars you know.
7. "Diminished service." Really? Is that necessary?
(1)
(0)
SFC Michael Hasbun
I have to stand by my statement. Diminished may have been a harsh adjective, though I can't really think of a more appropriate one.
.
I understand your points concerning the aircraft limitations, but regardless of the rationale, less deployed time is still less time. You bring up knowing a few AF fields that have 7,8,9 deployments. That's not terribly rare in this decade, in any branch. Now how many of them experienced actual combat? Have you ever seen the statistics on Valor awards and Purple Hearts? AF personnel are barely in the fight. Before you say it, I know that is not their mission, but the end result is still a MUCH easier, less arduous, much safer "military" experience then will be experienced in the other branches.
.
When I said diminished, what I was trying to get across is that while a Marine or Soldier may get promoted faster, they will also experience more, longer deployments, will likely see actual combat, will experience a LOT more wear and tear on their body, and will live in a lot more austere environments.
.
It may take you more years to get promoted, but those years will be a lot easier than ours. Count your blessings. Most of us are too physically broken to make it to retirement. We may get promoted faster, but that counts for little when few go beyond a first enlistment due to high optempo, frequent deployments, frequent family strife, and low standard of living.
.
Rest assured, most of us are very jealous, and would trade places in a heart beat.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google