What are the best ways for force reduction and down sizing?

LTC David S. Chang, ChFC®, CLU® — Sun, 09 Feb 2014 16:03:57 -0500

During our guard drill we talked about the downsizing. historically the national guard was left alone because one of the best ways to downsize was move people from active to reserves or national guard so we can still utilize the expertise of trained service members. <div><br></div><div>The reserves and national guard are also on the chopping block. I don't know if this is the best idea since the guard has proven their use deployed. I have served more time in the active duty component and can see that cutting there is going to be difficult. Do we cut equipment? R&D? Training? People? Civilian Contractors?</div><div><br></div><div>I would want to say that the military may want to go to six ligma, or even look at outsourcing. I agree that we need some sort of made in america act to protect jobs and national security interests, but saving costs by outsourcing some work in order to maintain our military strength may be a good idea. I wouldn't be opposed to privatizing some components of the army that can be to cut costs. In the end, I truly believe we need to keep a viable, effective, and lethal force, not just for ourselves, but for the world...</div>

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 9 at 2014 4:24 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 09 Feb 2014 16:24:58 -0500

<p>I agree with a lot of what you are saying. In fact, I really like the idea of allowing some people to leave active duty and retain those skills in the NG and Reserve. Wow... I really like that idea.</p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p>I think the Armed Forces are moving in the right direction with the cuts by conducting the promotion boards and weeding some people out.</p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p>The one thing I hate is... how they have stopped allowing some MOS's to re-enlist. If someone really put some thought into it. It makes more sense to make the classes of new MOS's smaller instead of getting rid of proven assets for a gamble. </p>

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 9 at 2014 4:50 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 09 Feb 2014 16:50:31 -0500

The Army in all of its components are downsizing first by enforcing the regulations more strictly. Waivers for lapses in judgement are disappering. Secondly SSD and other schools are forcing NCO's to get their schools done or get out. Early retirement is another means to reduce the ranks. In the Officer Corps I have noticed that the necessary schools are cutting their class sizes so that not all CPT's and LT's will be able to get to thier schools in a timely manner

Response by Maj Chris Nelson made Feb 9 at 2014 5:36 PM

Maj Chris Nelson — Sun, 09 Feb 2014 17:36:34 -0500

The Air Force has/is implementing a number of different programs. First, it identified critical career fields that were at/under manned....those are going to be left alone. Next, they offered TERA (early retirement)...these early retirements are not guaranteed, as they are application. The powers that be can then manage who is leaving and in what kinds of numbers (so that there are no critical shortages). The are also drafting a RIFF....those that have disciplinary problems, ETOH issues, have a Flagged personnel file, low/unsat EPR/OPRs...these will be the first ones looked at....basically, there are very few people that do not fall into one/more categories. The goal is to "right size" the military. As long as DoD and the People of the United States understand that "right size" will mean not being able to fight wars on multiple fronts as we have been doing for the last 12 year or so... OR changing the way we go to war by going in, winning, and getting out; allowing others to rebuild the country. We are good at destruction, but not sure that the military is the right group of people to do the rebuilding of nations...

Response by SFC Stephen P. made Feb 9 at 2014 6:42 PM

SFC Stephen P. — Sun, 09 Feb 2014 18:42:47 -0500

The first thing we need to do is embrace the necessity of reducing cost. Our commands and agencies within the DOD have exhibited a great reluctance to streamline operations and increase efficiency. In order for the armed services to remain relevant, we must first admit that portions of it are currently irrelevant. Our purpose is to deter and fight wars, not to secure employment for our friends.

Instead of trimming the fat, our gut reaction is normally to justify our existence with scope creep or Washington Monument Syndrome.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 9 at 2014 7:11 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 09 Feb 2014 19:11:23 -0500

MAJ Chang. This may be an unworkable idea. But, could we offer to put some of our best and brightest officers on one year sabbatical (perhaps renewable) to continue their education on a full time basis at nationally or regionally accredited university or college with GI Bill (or other service member education benefit) while retaining the option to return now more educated officer to service when needed? Warmest Regards, Sandy

Response by SFC Joe Ping made Feb 9 at 2014 7:43 PM

SFC Joe Ping — Sun, 09 Feb 2014 19:43:01 -0500

The idea I put forth is automatic retirement at 20 years. The military has to many people sitting around padding their retirement instead of being productive.

Response by CMDCM Gene Treants made Feb 11 at 2014 11:06 PM

CMDCM Gene Treants — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 23:06:23 -0500

Navy has gone through this before and is probably going through it again. As for all services, #1 Cut Civilian Contractors - Period. From busing tables and cooking to providing Security both Stateside and Overseas and everything in between.Soldiers and Sailors can and will do these things at a lower cost providing savings (and not putting money into the pockets of Politicians). I should stop here.

#2. Cut the Active Services if you mist (and it will happen) but the National Guard still should belong to the States, not the Federal Government. Turn over all of the Equipment and other surplus gear available and do not give it to foreign military powers.

#3. Less people on ACDU, less training money needed, but keep the people trained to the same standards. Train like you fight.

Response by PO2 Tony Casler made Sep 3 at 2014 2:15 PM

PO2 Tony Casler — Wed, 03 Sep 2014 14:15:34 -0400

Maj. Chang,

Before cutting personnel I think we should take a hard look at failing projects like the F-35, Littoral Combat Ship and DD(X). It seems that we are just throwing good money after bad to save face and/or pad the pockets of political cronies in the defense contracting business.

Next on the block should be the never-ending parade of new uniforms. It is well past time to develop one set of suitable uniforms and stick with them instead of constantly dumping money into R&D and burdening service members with the expense of replacing perfectly good uniforms with new ones that one retired flag officer or another used his connections to sell back to the services.

For the third step I agree with Master Chief Treants, cut back on civilian contractors and let service members do their jobs. We have admin personnel, cooks, mechanics, electronic technicians, security forces, etc., why are we failing to develop their skills and instead bringing in civilians to do their jobs?

There would probably be no need to cut people if all of those steps were taken, but if a RIF is still needed then I say start with volunteers. We are a volunteer force and we do ourselves no favors by retaining people who no longer want to play. Officers have the option to resign their commission, I think it is time to develop a similar option for the enlisted side. I understand that we are contracted and should be bound by our word, but that sort of idealistic thinking can be devastating in the real world. I have seen my share of junior sailors (and sometimes Petty Officers) who no longer wanted to serve and they detract from the morale of their units. Why should our leaders waste time on someone who is absolutely determined to get out? No amount of counseling or disciplinary action will sway them, their attitudes only become worse over time as they become more angry and resentful. A toxic attitude can spread among the sailor's peers and no matter how determined we may be as leaders to straighten out such a subordinate the effect the have is far more damaging than we may like to admit. Better to just cut our losses and separate those who wish to quit with a discharge that reflects the choice they made.

There was a link in another thread regarding retention boards for senior enlisted, from what I read the Navy seems to have a good system going in which they evaluate senior enlisted members who are eligible to retire. I like that they are respectful of a person's service and only choose from those who will be able to leave with their benefits intact, this is a much better system in my eyes than the way the Army is cutting Captains and Majors without giving them the chance to earn the retirements that they already gave so many years for.

The lower enlisted ranks can continue to be thinned as needed by the use of involuntary separations for disciplinary issues, physical fitness failures and other quality control problems and the manipulation of reenlistment bonuses and advancement to encourage retention in undermanned ratings/MOS or discourage reenlistment in overmanned areas.