Good day, everyone.

I keep hearing little peeps about High-Year Tenure making it's return to our service. Lately, the senior enlisted surrounding me have been telling the junior enlisted to be wary of this personnel reduction that's "coming back".

Anyone know if there is any truth to this?

The simple answer is : Needs of the service

The CG will do, what ever it wants, when ever it wants, to, whom ever it wants, based on personnel or financial needs of the service...

I don't think they ever "cancelled" the HYT instruction, but, I could be mistaken.... I believe it is just "selectively" enforced...

Wray...

Wray is correct, it's still on the books, just not enforced (much).

quote:

High-Year Tenure making it's return to our service. Lately, the senior enlisted surrounding me have been telling the junior enlisted to be wary of this personnel reduction that's "coming back

So, are they going to force retirements to senior members, and discharges to junior members that have not been advancing in a certain period of time? Kinda strange that its coming back after they have extended the TIS to 40 years w/ 100% pension. But then again, its for E-8 and above.

HYT is still in the CG. You don't see it as much because members are advancing accordingly. I do know of a person that is an E-4 that is at HYT and is being shown the way out.

HYT has always been enforced at the 30 year mark regardless of rank for enlisted unless you are in a designated CMC job at a major command or a RFMC. I hadn't heard of it being enforced prior to the 30 year mark lately regardless of rank but it is a tool the CG can use if it wants to shed some folks.

Moto hit it on the head. The HYT policy is still in effect. Enforcement of PGPs below the E-9 (with exception for CMCs and RFMC as noted) level is curently suspended, but can be turned back on at any time.
Contrary to Hector's statment, noone extended TIS to 40 years. What recently changed was only the percentage of base pay for those folks the services allowed to go past 30. This applies mostly to mustangs. For us, the highest PGP (professional growth point) is E-9 at 30. MCs serving in Gold Badge positions may enter those positions under 30 and complete their tour, then retire, even if they go past 30.
Last data I reviewed - maybe a year old, showed 1004 members past their PGP. Only 58 were E-8 or E-9. More than half are E-4s with more than 10 years. About a third are 22+ year E-6s or Chiefs with more than 26 years in. The smallest number is those folks that are retirement eligble E-5s (a couple dozen). So really the biggest impact of turning it back on would be on E-4s with more than ten years in. Any E-5 and above affected by it would only be required to start getting their retirement paycheck.

quote:

HYT has always been enforced at the 30 year mark regardless of rank for enlisted...

Not really. I can think of a few that weren't gold abdges or RFMC's... Needs of the service apply. The laws says mandatory retirement at age 60, with some exceptions.

62 actually, not 60.
Yes - exceptions to the policy have been made, but the policy has always been as stated
A good point was made by one of the several people who phoned me on this. When PGPs are being enforced, they simple take away the COs authority to say yes to a re-enlistment. The CO then and now still have the authority to say no for many reasons.

(OS1 - shoot me an email at work so I can remember your name! I got old guy syndrome today!)

quote:

HYT has always been enforced at the 30 year mark regardless of rank for enlisted unless you are in a designated CMC job at a major command or a RFMC.

Not even close...............

Wray....

I heard HYT was a huge failure in the aviation ranks as it forced out some of the most experienced flight mechs ,AD, AM,AE,AT,ASM,,and five years later the policy was cancelled HYT 1995-2000, CMC is still in effect at 30 from what I just heard today! I would love to see a freind of mine stay in for 40. He is presently a senior chief.
Peace,
Dick

Wray - I was trying to limit the remarks to policy - and recent policy like within the last decade. Of course, many times policy is not followed and you and I probably have identical opinions about that!

Dick;
Again - HYT was never cancelled and it still in effect. That is an important point I am trying to get across. The enforcement of PGPs is suspended as of now, but the policy is still in effect. Yes it did hurt the Aviation side more than most and if put beck in effect now the same would happen. The aviation ratings would have more of an effect that the others.

I believe (in others words the following is an opinion) that there are three primary reasons why folks end up past the PGP.
1. Incompetence or inability to do what is needed to advance.
2. Lack of desire to take the next step up in responsiblity. (comfort factor)
3. Inability to advance despite every effort and having every competence. (ie - no or minimal empty billets to advance too)

I have no problems giving the boot to folks in cat 1. Doesn't hurt my feeling - glad to see them go. The PGPs are very, very reasonable. Nobody is entitled to a 20 year retirement, much less a 30 or more year retirement.

As long as folks understand the process, I don't have much problem with the current PGPs for cat 2. This is a personal decision of the member. If someone has no interest in making E-6, then they have no interest in going beyond 20. Their choice.

As far a Cat 3 above - well you know - if we enforce Cat 1 and Cat 2, there will be damn few in Cat 3. The problem now is that very few folks understand that the system is still in place and very few understand the expectations and implications of being in Cat 2. In theory, as we are doing our mentoring with the first termers (and beyond) the leaders will be telling them "look mate, here are the PGPs. If you have no desire to be anything past an E-5, you can start planning your retirement ceremony for about 3 months BEFORE your 20 years mark, accouting for terminal leave, etc. We are not going to invest 18+ years training you for you not to be in a position to lead and pass on your knowledge."

Not one single rating has a average TIS for SWE competition that is any where near PGPs. We just need to have a system that is expected and enforced so people can plan. Gee - what a concept! Determine standards and enforce them and good people will live up to them!

A couple of things:
1. Why dosen't the personnel manual mention anything about 40 year retirements?
2. How can they bring back HYT when so many Coasties are getting out?
3. There was a reason why they suspended HYT.

1. Why would they need to? What do you want them to mention. I am sure an update to they Pay manual or some other are forthcoming. As I said above, there has been no change to any law or policy about allowing service past 30. The only change was the way retired pay gets calculated for those the service allows to go past 30. The Persman is fairly clear about service past 30. As far as the law goes, there is no limit on service past 40 years either! The only law in ref 40 years is that is when your % stops increasing. (and that is not too certain from what I have seen)
2. OK - you started off with one of the most wacked assumptions I have seen. The CG is in the middle of RECORD retention rates! The rates are higher than we have ever seen! One could argue that they are almost too high! (not that I am arguing that)
Nobody said thet ARE bringing it back. The discussion here is about what is the current policy, how is it being enforced and how that could change.
3. Partly true. There were several reasons. Most of them still apply today. Some to a stronger extent, some to a weaker extent. Doesn't mean any of them will apply next year, or even in a couple of months. Things change.

quote:

The CG is in the middle of RECORD retention rates!

High retention rates was a driving factor for HYT last time.

yes, it was indeed one of them.

High Year Tenure is a touchy subject. Yes we have a eval mark stating "motivation towards adv" , but what if the member is squared away and wants to stay where they are in the organization?
People in the civilian sector turn down promotions all the time because they are happy doing what they do and are often very proficient in their job.
Management is not appealing to everyone. Now, if a member has poor evals and is clearly a dirt bag then we all can agree that someone needs to show them the door. But HYT is soley based on time vs paygrade alone. Evals may play role in a one year waiver situation, but we all know the waivers were rarely approved.
HYT years ago, turned right around and bit the CG in the rear because many much needed highly skilled aviation technicians and others were let go.
HYT is another one of those policies that needs to be absolutely looked at.
We really do need to look outside of the box once in awhile before implementing policies that look good on the surface, just to satisfy an immediate need.

This frowzy way of management reminds me of the mobile, highly sophisticated, louisiana six legged fart ant. Blind, yet often mechanically walking one right behind the other directly into items like a container of gasoline. Why?
Because the pee residue left from the lead fart ant was just to darn tempting not to follow.

just my two cents.......

chapwood........

This message has been edited. Last edited by: chapwood,

Chap;
My detailed explinations above were only possible becuase we have been looking at it. As I said above, that squared away person is fine doing what they want to as long as they understand the consequences. We owe them the explination of the consiequences from an early point and everyone looking at the policy believes that. I don't believe it was really HYT alone that bit us, it was the fact that we didn't keep our folks up to speed on the fact that it COULD be enforced at any time. It is poor practice to leave it off, not talk about it and all of a sudden switch it on. That is not good for anyone, the service or the members.

If someone likes where they are at paygrade wise, that is their choice. That doesn't mean we are obligated to keep them employeed until they are 62! If they are truely a great performer, then they owe it to us to use that talent in a leadership role if they want to continue on AD (or in some cases even to get to retirement). Rememeber the current policy allows people to reach retirement as an E-5. It's not like we are taking away their ablity to retire, unless they are an E-4. I don't see how anyone could suggest that a person who has done nothing past E-4 should be able to get a paycheck from the CG for the rest of their life!

If you don't mind expounding more on your management comment, I would like to hear what you are thinking. It may be only symantics, but I don't know of any enlisted person who is a manager and that is what we are talking about here. Even as a Gold Badge MC, I am not a manager, I am a leader and a supervisor. There is a pretty huge distinction between managing and leading. The latter requires experience and subject matter expertise. The former does not require either.

Mighty,

Your right, some management in the military does not require experience. That was my whole point. Why is that? I can tell you why. Because we play by the same set of outdated rules and colonial style guidelines set forth over 200 years ago. It's that simple.

Back in the early days the enlisted were uneducated illiterates. Today you have enlisted walking around with four year degrees or higher. Look at one our former MCPCG's, I think he had his PHd if I'm not mistaken.

I attended the Air Force Senior NCO Academy and in my class I was the only idiot that did not have a Bachelors Degree, half had their Masters. Granted the AF is really education focused, but you get my point.

Would you agree that top corporations operate in the same manner of effiency as the military? Do you think the their managers did not climb the ladder and are unexperienced? I would say not.

My next door neighbor is a upper level manager for a large well known oil company, he has several supervisors worldwide under him. Did he just walk just walk out of school to get there? No, he has over 20 plus years of experience plus school.

Granted, I used the word management rather loosely, but I would have to disagree with your comment that the senior enlisted doesnt play a significant role in management. What about a MC that is a CO of a PB? If that is not a form of management, then I need to take a management 101 course. What about a rating force manager? I could list many examples but it's a mute point.

Anyway, I agree one should try to get to E5 to at least lock in their job. What I observed a long time ago in the aviation rates especially, you would have a hundred E4's competing with the cut being 2 or something ridiculous like that. And it would be like that, year after year, after year. Obviously the rates were saturated and you would have really good top people at the E4 level with 10 years in. It was not uncommon at all, really. Naturally I observed most of this as a prior service non-rate on my 32 month wait to go to "A" school just to get back to one over par, LOL. But thats a different topic/subject best reserved for another post. Yep, those were the days.

chapwood........

This message has been edited. Last edited by: chapwood,

Sounds like we are thinking along the same lines, just choosing different terms. One small correction, there is no such thing as a Rating Force Manager. There are Rating Force Master Chiefs, but not Rating Force Managers. (I know you will trust me regarding any specifics about being a RFMC! ) One of the reasons that title changed after SENA is the implications of the term 'manager.' The differences in my mind (for what that is worth) would be well explained in another one of your examples. There is a significant difference in how that BMCM 'leads' his crew and how the LTJG tieing up just abaft of him 'leads' her crew. Supervisors are much more educated/experienced in the jobs/duties of their charges than managers and thus lead in a different way.

Excellent point about education comparisons!

I think if we looked back at the last time we got hit hard by the PGPs, the E-4s were not really the issue. What caused the block at E-4? Obvioulsy it was becuase no E-5s were leaving. What caused the block there? Limited E-6s leaving. If we would have kept the enforcement rolling, we wouldn't have had the big issue at E-4 and would have allowed folks to retire at E-5.