Posted on Feb 15, 2016
Army Cuts Hit Officers Hard, Especially Ones Up From Ranks
8.75K
77
42
13
13
0
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 18
Sgt Kelli Mays I was struck by the following statement in the middle of the article "For the first time since the end of the Cold War in the 1990s, the Army is shrinking.' I was one of the officers forced out in October 1992 following the drawdown after Desert Storm which ended a couple years after the conclusion of the Cold War. There were reductions in force (RIF) during the Cold War most notably after the Vietnam war ended
By far the most dramatic RIF was following WWI when over 12 million active duty forces were culled down to approximately 1.5 million by 1947.
RIFs tend to be non-personal since they come from the highest level. the personal aspect which tends to influence the RIF includes OER/NCOER ratings and language; military specialties which have little room for promotion, and time in grade.
COL Mikel J. Burroughs SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT LTC Stephen C. SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" SGT Forrest Stewart SGT Robert Hawks SrA Christopher Wright SN Greg Wright SGT John " Mac " McConnell PO3 Steven Sherrill
By far the most dramatic RIF was following WWI when over 12 million active duty forces were culled down to approximately 1.5 million by 1947.
RIFs tend to be non-personal since they come from the highest level. the personal aspect which tends to influence the RIF includes OER/NCOER ratings and language; military specialties which have little room for promotion, and time in grade.
COL Mikel J. Burroughs SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT LTC Stephen C. SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" SGT Forrest Stewart SGT Robert Hawks SrA Christopher Wright SN Greg Wright SGT John " Mac " McConnell PO3 Steven Sherrill
(9)
(0)
SGT Robert Hawks
During the Gulf War there were 703,000 soldiers on active duty by March of 1997 there were 438,000 soldiers on active duty draw down started by President Bush and finished by President Clinton that was a loss 265,000 soldiers in six years that's where this is going to low levels history repeats
(5)
(0)
Sgt Kelli Mays
LTC Stephen F. SGT Robert Hawks SrA Christopher Wright When I was in, a bill was passed called the Graham Rudman bill....it was essentially a reduction in force...no matter where anyone was in their time, everyone was told re-enlist now or get out...So I said adios....and took 120 days terminal leave and sold back 30 days...and got out...and went to school full time using my VEAP.
(3)
(0)
SSgt Jamie Ritter LeBlanc
SGT Robert Hawks - wow those are some numbers. I joined in 96 and didn't realize the numbers were so small compared to these days.
(2)
(0)
"The Army knew we had more years and they could save money by cutting us,” said Capt. Tina Patton, 43, a combat medic who became an officer in 2007".... I SO agree with her, and I DAMN SURE feel for them. So 1in 3 CPT's sent packing are prior enlisted with nothing in their records to support mandatory retirement or not allowing them to finish their commitments, WHAT is the Army telling the future? "I don't care if you're fat, tatted up, convicted of anything, or the exact opposite hard worker, determined, team player and leader, I WANT YOU"......with the caveat in very small print, until I've used you up, beat you down, cost you your family, your mental and physical stability, THEN I want you gone. The Army forgets that MANY of us are parents to kids who know the military as a family tradition, something to look forward to. The Army will wind up assed out of good recruits because the parents are going to tell the truth to their kids, and it might be hard to swallow, but they pass on going into the service. Who does that hurt? ALL OF US. Our future is being robbed by our present (congress and POTUS combined). There are going to be more wars, there will be more trying times for us. This will NOT resonate well, or build trust in a system that really gives you the highest of highs and when you get to the top, bring you to new lows you've never seen before.
All that said.....I'd STILL do it all again.
All that said.....I'd STILL do it all again.
(8)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
How do you get seven years as a captain without being passed over? Even the reserves promotes faster than that. If you have to send some packing due to political decision better to send the one packing that doesn't take such a hit. There are benefits for those with more than 15 years in service, none for those with 9. Cuts hurt politicians are to blame not the Army's implementation of those poor decisions.
(1)
(0)
SPC George Adkins
MAJ (Join to see) - I think you misunderstand. The way I read the article, she wasn't a Cpt. for 7 years. When transitioning from enlisted to the officer corps, in order to become eligible for a pension at your rank, you must serve eight years as an officer. She likely had 13 years under her belt enlisted. She then became an officer and started as an O-1. Now, 7 years later she is a Captain and is being forced out just prior to hitting the magic 8 year mark. She has enough years to retire (20) but not enough to retain a pension for being a CPT, so instead will collect as a Sergeant.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Ah thanks for the clarification, Still better for her to receive an E-5 retirement then kick someone else out with 10. Sucks to be her for sure. Still this is a problem created by politicians. (hopefully she can petition to stay for one more year or get a waiver and retire as an O-3)
(0)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
MAJ (Join to see) - I wasn't sure if it was a straight seven years as a CPT or a total of seven years as an officer. Isn't it if you get passed over twice you're out? Not familiar with the regs on that side of the house, but I did have a commander who was passed over twice, and was retiring, but got picked up at the last second and made it to retirement as a LTC.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Kelli Mays There are a lot of valuable human resources being lost because of these cuts. This has been a common practice when the government is lloking to cut costs, but I think it's a bad idea. It leaves a gap inour military experience and we lose valuable human resources. I think we should cut government employees in our government before we cut experience in the military - just an opinion - mine!
(4)
(0)
Read This Next