SGM Matthew Quick 88331 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>What MOSs (or jobs) in your service (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps or Coast Guard) should the military consider eliminating.<br><br>If not eliminate, which ones should be contracted out?  (Contracting jobs out saves money in the long run) 2014-03-29T17:14:20-04:00 SGM Matthew Quick 88331

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>What MOSs (or jobs) in your service (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps or Coast Guard) should the military consider eliminating.<br><br>If not eliminate, which ones should be contracted out?  (Contracting jobs out saves money in the long run)

2014-03-29T17:14:20-04:00 2014-03-29T17:14:20-04:00 1SG Private RallyPoint Member 88336

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>12C Bridge Crew member. I think this MOS should move to the Reserves only.&amp;nbsp;

2014-03-29T17:17:02-04:00 2014-03-29T17:17:02-04:00 WO1 Private RallyPoint Member 88383

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I haven't been to many posts but I have yet to see a cook do his/her job. Either let them do their job or go fully contractor.

2014-03-29T18:12:27-04:00 2014-03-29T18:12:27-04:00 SFC Private RallyPoint Member 88393

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Maybe not eliminate from the military, but remove the civilian contractors from a large chunk of the Logistics Corps such as Cooks, Fuelers, and maintenance just to same a few examples.

2014-03-29T18:19:16-04:00 2014-03-29T18:19:16-04:00 MSG Private RallyPoint Member 88403

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>If the DOD would get rid of the contractors and the civilians that they overpay to do a job that they trained a Soldier to do then there wouldnt be such a big need to downsize. Its a simple fact Contractors cost more. I have a contractor that I work with who makes six figures and barely does anything so why the need to pay him that salary when there is no stability because Contractors can jump ship for a better gig with no notice unlike a Soldier.

2014-03-29T18:30:13-04:00 2014-03-29T18:30:13-04:00 SFC James Baber 88408

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div><p>To be honest when was the last time anyone actually saw a cook, not talking about senior cooks (E7+) working a DFAC stateside or during deployments, correct me if I am wrong, but every deployment I was on during OEF/OIF all the 92Gs were either working towers guard duties, working on MTTs, being detainee camp guards, or other duties that had nothing related to their MOS, the only cooks I ever saw in the DFACs were the senior NCOs that were in charge of the facility, they even had a civilian counterpart that was in charge of the contract cooks who came from all over the world (Philippines, Russia, Central America, etc.), but rarely if ever did I see anyone below the rank of E6 working in a DFAC. Even before OIF, I rarely saw any 92Gs in the DFACs on Riley as they had contract workers as well, even on Fort Lee the home of QM which covers 92G, they go to school, yet none work in the DFACs, all contract workers, then they PCS to other duty stations for what and where do they work.</p><p><br></p><p>Can someone enlighten me on this and correct me if I am wrong as stated.</p><p><br></p><p>I also think many of the medical MOSs have been less utilized over the past decade as well, I know we have plenty of combat medics, but can't remember the last time I actually saw a medic being utilized in garrison, due we still have BN aid stations that are manned by medics. While I also remember when I was recruiting we couldn't enlist anyone into 82C (Field Artillery Surveyor), we still have them in the Army, do they still have a job.</p><p><br></p><p>Those just a few I can think of, I am sure there are many others than can either be consolidated into other closely related fields or even eliminated altogether, but can't think of any more off-hand.</p>

2014-03-29T18:35:39-04:00 2014-03-29T18:35:39-04:00 CSM Private RallyPoint Member 88557

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div><p>25U/25Q/25B need to be combined into a single MOS 25X Radio Systems LAN Manager</p><p><br></p><p>92A/92Y Same job just in different shops. Unit Supply &amp; Technical Supply.</p>

2014-03-29T21:41:10-04:00 2014-03-29T21:41:10-04:00 SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member 88738

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>As much as I hate to admit it, my very own MOS 88M, is a bit over-rated. Civilians drive most of our stuff now, leaving us with absolutely nothing to do. It seems the only ones driving are those NOT in this MOS. This is a job that most other Soldiers can and/or already do. That is why I tried to get out of it. There is no skill required and (almost) anyone can be trained to drive.

2014-03-30T01:57:59-04:00 2014-03-30T01:57:59-04:00 CW3 Private RallyPoint Member 89460

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Maybe its just my ignorance but are 09L's really necessary?

2014-03-31T00:57:07-04:00 2014-03-31T00:57:07-04:00 MAJ Private RallyPoint Member 89482

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>This question should be easy!  Eliminate civilian contracted positions or GS positions that have been generated to bridge gaps or shortfalls in personnel at the unit level.  <div><br></div><div>Contracting jobs do not save the government money as Soldiers do not get paid the same nor are they drawing retirement at the same time (e.g. civilian supply techs are paid way more than a SSG or SFC)----take it a step further, we could really save more money if we used organic equipment to move organic assets in and out of theatre of operations---driving a true joint/interagency supported logistics network.  However, that point doesn't really drive home cost savings because it would require the US to continue to maintain a higher quantity of naval assets for surface mobility.  Now, take the contracting jobs or GS positions out of the equation and some of the MOSs that could potentially be named for elimination automatically would be retained and have adequate need instead.  Take a look at the nearest Dining Facility---which used to be operated and maintained by Food Service Specialists with minimal contracted worker staffing.  Now they are almost always 100% contracted.  92Gs are almost always the first example of an MOS that seems to be a dying skill set that has become under utilized except for training or combat environments.  The problem is that they are super important in a combat environment such as Afghanistan----more importantly for combat out posts.  I feel that we have gotten way too comfortable and reliant upon contracting. If we continue to place emphasis on contracting and allow  MOSs to be chopped, then we will not be prepared for future conflicts. </div><div><br></div><div>Reduction in Force doesn't mean or equate to find which portions to cut, however I see it as an opportunity to manage strengths and weaknesses pertaining to overall capacity.  Thus, eliminating an MOS would not be as effective as consolidating a few similar functional areas down to fewer with more training and responsibility----more modularity, less confusion, simplified MTOEs/TDAs, etc.  Build efficiency, eliminate redundancies, however not an attempt to target individual MOSs as they may possess a very important function.  All in all, some of these other issues that I have mentioned could be managed from the Brigadier General level for each of the respective Branch School Houses with input from the vast experience that are not only active, but from all of the retired CSMs, SGMs, and key leaders that work onsite. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div>

2014-03-31T02:12:09-04:00 2014-03-31T02:12:09-04:00 PO1 John Cady 89724

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Personnel Specialists (shore duty) could be transferred to civilian contractors, forcing many of the PS personnel to return to sea duty.  <br><br>Shore repair facility billets could also be transferred to contractors, provided they don't work overtime; overtimes costs money, as we found out once the tugs and harbor pilots were transferred to civilians.<br><br>Many dining hall and barracks jobs are run by civilians, and have been for well over a decade.<br><br>Even some of the medical and dental billets could be split to civilian assistants; this would free up HM's to fill vacancies at sea and in Fleet Marine Force units.  RP's are not necessary ashore.  The chaplains can work fine with a regular secretary.<br><br>I saw this coming as far back as the mid 1990s and the writing is on the wall: if you are in the Navy, expect to be at sea.  <br>

2014-03-31T11:53:07-04:00 2014-03-31T11:53:07-04:00 SSG Private RallyPoint Member 90002

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>36B Finance. Unfortunately leaders in the Finance Corps would argue differently. The army moved to using DFAS in the early 90's. The amount of people that have been serving in finance in the military has been dwindling ever since. From a pride point of view, Finance is one of the oldest parts of the military, and it would be a sad day to retire the grey guidons forever. However, from an efficiency point of view, it would be much more beneficial. DFAS currently has about 13k employees... The entire finance corp is roughly 3k. For the most part, because the Finance Corps is the smallest in army, those soldiers do not get the experience that they need because of taskings. DFAS Civilians only have to worry about showing up to work, processing their workload, and going home. With FM Soldiers integrated into the Pay Offices, the ratio is about 1 Soldier to every 2 DMPO employees. Now, currently the Finance Corp leadership would love to fully integrate Soldiers and take over the Military Pay Offices, but in order to maintain eilitary equipment, all the annual training, sweeping the motorpool and so on, the Army would have to hire 6-8K more Soldiers.... Not going to happen in the near future with the downsizing. Hang on... I cant code any more transactions and paperwork or finish what I was going to say here because I need to get vehicles dispatched....

2014-03-31T17:21:06-04:00 2014-03-31T17:21:06-04:00 1SG Private RallyPoint Member 91356

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Military should consider Downsizing the CIVILIAN force.

2014-04-02T06:39:08-04:00 2014-04-02T06:39:08-04:00 SSG Private RallyPoint Member 118098

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I think ALL MOS's are important. But if you have excessive CMF's, such as 42(?) series, couldnt we find a way to combine some of these MOS's?

2014-05-03T21:44:58-04:00 2014-05-03T21:44:58-04:00 LTC Private RallyPoint Member 354482

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I would argue that most contractors and civilian jobs should be eliminated. I understand there are just some areas where civilians help out (doctors come to mind), but the military has MOSs for most, if not all of what we need to do to be successful (finance, cooks, mechanics, ect). I have found that more time than often, a SM is more willing to help another SM than a Civilian / Contractor who is tied to the clock and a scope of work. This is not always the case, but there have been several times where I needed a five minute fix (DOIM comes to mind), but because I called at 1630, I had to wait to the next morning. A SM would fix it on the spot!

2014-12-04T06:38:47-05:00 2014-12-04T06:38:47-05:00 LTC Private RallyPoint Member 1317666

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>If the army reserve and the army national guard were merged, which it won't ever, we could get rid of 49 TAGs and hundreds of staff LOL. Actually, we should not rely on contractors so much and train soldiers in logistics again.

2016-02-20T17:39:53-05:00 2016-02-20T17:39:53-05:00 CPT Private RallyPoint Member 1869485

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>In 2009, the President signed legislation to cut back contractors. It seems lately with the sequestration there has been a lot of GS downgrades.

2016-09-06T23:51:54-04:00 2016-09-06T23:51:54-04:00 SFC Jerry Scripter 1950332

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>airborne

2016-10-05T20:05:16-04:00 2016-10-05T20:05:16-04:00 SFC Jerry Scripter 1950334

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>airborne obsolete

2016-10-05T20:06:31-04:00 2016-10-05T20:06:31-04:00 SGT Thomas Zoblisien 1970140

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Any mos that has a woman in it. Boo hoo, I hurt your feelings. Do the PT test and all the requirements that males have to do then it will be fair. Equal pay, equal PT, equal treatment. And make it mandatory for woman to sign for the draft.

2016-10-12T20:30:03-04:00 2016-10-12T20:30:03-04:00 SPC Maurice Tillman 1974613

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Honestly, I believe that most service MOS&#39;s will be outsourced, as contracting is on the rise. Most service MOS&#39;s do not perform their jobs, even in Garrison. Contractors are much cheaper and tend to be more efficient because they focus only on their jobs.<br /><br />Soldiers are so busy training for deployment that they don&#39;t always have time to become experts, especially in wartime. This has always been my biggest gripe. They rushed us through AIT. AIT teaches soldiers just enough for them to be able to ask questions.

2016-10-14T00:15:02-04:00 2016-10-14T00:15:02-04:00 PFC Private RallyPoint Member 1981739

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Definitely agree about DoD, well over paid.

2016-10-16T01:43:15-04:00 2016-10-16T01:43:15-04:00 2014-03-29T17:14:20-04:00