Air Force updates 'deploy or get out' policy; 1,000 airmen could face separation

Stars and Stripes ^ | 2/19/19 | Corey Dickstein

[jeannineinsd]

All U.S. Air Force airmen who have had non-deployable status for more than a year will soon face a disability board or be considered for administrative separation as part of the service’s implementation of the Pentagon’s so-called “deploy or get out” policy.

A directive signed Tuesday by Air Force senior leaders states the service seeks to achieve a 95 percent or higher deployable rate within its units. The directive follows the October order by then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis for the Pentagon’s military services to create guidelines meant to motivate servicemembers to retain their ability to deploy into combat after troops in non-deployable status ballooned to more than 11 percent in recent years.

“We expect all airmen to exercise personal accountability for their deployable status and to take the necessary steps to maintain their readiness,” stated the memo, which was signed by Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson, Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein and Chief Master Sgt. of the Air Force Kaleth Wright. “…The defense of our nation requires airmen and the Air Force be ready to deploy at all times.”

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"The military was once a fighting force with great pay and benefits. Obama turned it into a federal jobs program with great pay and benefits. Many service members learned how to game the system and they got away with it.

The attitude all too often was, "I'm going to work a 40 hour week, keep my kids in the same school and stay on Tricare. You go fight the bad guys!"

Actually, it's been going on for a long time. It was around when I was in. There used to be a saying in the Marine Corps, if the Corps wanted you to have a wife, they would have issued you one. Those are some pretty true words. Before my time, I understand that you had to get permission from your commanding officer to get married. No one under a sergeant could think about it. You could never implement that policy today but I think it's a pretty good one. There's no reason for a PFC to be married.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"In reality, our military is far larger than it really needs to be"

I've felt for a long time that we could achieve all of our national interests with a smaller active duty force and a larger reserve force. We could save a lot of money that way. It's the model that the United Kingdom used for a couple hundred years to maintain their empire.

[NorthMountain]

I thought our military were heroes.

Some of them are. I daresay most of them are.

But some are malingerers, poltroons, scammers, liars, cheats, thieves, faggots, cowards ...

Those must be discharged (dishonorably?) for the good of ALL Americans.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"AAHH! The highly decorated desk commander!"

In my day we called them Remington raiders or Chair force commandos. I guess for the younger crowd they wouldn't get the Remington raider sobriquet as they don't know what a typewriter is.

[antidisestablishment]

That’s far from the current reality. The vast majority of Airmen deploy, and even more if Reserve or Guard. It depends on your AFSC, and needs. The USAF doesn’t deploy en-masse, and uses individual squadrons or wings to provide resources to combatant commands.

Many USAF specialties have a higher rate of deployments than other services, because of limited resources and assets. Like all Services, there are some who just miss out due to scheduling and a small number who actively avoid their commitments.

Two years ago, I was medically disqualified from my last deployment, and should have been medically discharged. I have 22 years in, and have deployed twice, but have rheumatoid arthritis. I’d be happy if big Air Force kicks me out. Since I can’t deploy, someone qualified should take my place.

[kearnyirish2]

I don’t know if it qualifies, but reservists I knew in Gulf War I signed up for some school or other (within the military) so they wouldn’t be deployed - and it worked.

[kearnyirish2]

I agree; a large reserve (with proper incentives) and a smaller standing military would be much more affordable, and as a younger group could be much more effective (though you’d need a number of old pros to teach & lead them).

I’ve often felt that police forces in the US should function in a similar manner; too many cops get to a point where they are really useless. Effective policing requires young, fit men (again, with some old pros to teach & lead them); if necessary, offer incentives similar to the military (GI Bill-type college money, for example).

[trebb]

Not a new concept to either maintain world-wide deployability or be denied options to re-enlist...glad to see it because it gets some of the slugs out....the more that have “doctor’s excuses”, the higher the load for those who have to take up their slack.