AMC Stop-Loss Waiver Msg

FL510GV

Junior Birdman
Joined
Dec 6, 2001
Posts
154
Total Time
7500+
Without comment...

UNCLAS
>
> THIS MESSAGE IS APPROVED FOR RELEASE BY LT GEN JOHN R. BAKER,
> DSN 779-3293
>
> SUBJECT: AMC STOP LOSS POLICY UPDATE
>
> TO:
>
> 15AF TRAVIS AFB CA//CC//
> 21AF MCGUIRE AFB NJ//CC//
> HQ AMWC MCGUIRE AFB NJ//CC//
> 22ARW MCCONNELL AFB KS//CC//
> 60AMW TRAVIS AFB CA//CC//
> 62AW MCCHORD AFB WA//CC//
> 319ARW GRAND FORKS AFB ND//CC//
> 375AW SCOTT AFB IL//CC//
> 92ARW FAIRCHILD AFB WA//CC//
> 317AG DYESS AFB TX//CC//
> 615AMOG TRAVIS AFB CA//CC//
> 6AMW MACDILL AFB FL//CC//
> 19ARG ROBINS AFB GA//CC//
> 43AW POPE AFB NC//CC//
> 89AW ANDREWS AFB MD//CC//
> 305AMW MCGUIRE AFB NJ//CC//
> 436AW DOVER AFB DE//CC//
> 437AW CHARLESTON AFB SC//CC//
> 463AW LITTLE ROCK AFB AR//CC//
> 621AMOG MCGUIRE AFB NJ//CC//
> 721AMOG RAMSTEIN AFB GE//CC//
> 715AMOG HICKAM AFB HI//CC//
> HQ AMC SCOTT AFB IL//CE/DO/DP/DS/FM/HC/HO/IG/LG/PA/SF/SC/
> SG/SV/TE/XP/IN//
> HQ AMC TACC SCOTT AFB IL//CC//
> USTRANSCOM SCOTT AFB IL//TCJA//
> HQ DCS FT MEADE MD//CC//
>
> We are all aware Stop Loss is a very difficult program for all involved.
> Our Air Force entered into this process fully cognizant of the
> encumbrances it will place on individuals, but also fully aware of the
> tremendous operational need for the program.
>
> A robust waiver process is running at full speed. Each waiver is fully
> evaluated on its own merits. Waiver requests showing significant hardship
> are generally approved. Likewise, waiver requests from individuals who
> have been hired by an arc unit are more likely to be approved (only
> applies to those requesting separation, not retirement since most retirees
> are not eligible for arc service). Waiver requests submitted by
> individuals still needed to meet mission requirements of Operations
> ENDURING FREEDOM and NOBLE EAGLE, are disapproved and the individuals
> retained in their assigned unit.
>
> We have noted an increase in the number of waiver requests coming from
> "operators" and a shift in the nature of those requests. The waivers most
> likely to gain approval are for retirements or separations clearly in the
> best interest of the AF (not used in war operations) and those where Stop
> Loss caused serious personal/professional/financial hardships. The
> increase we are seeing in SLW requests from operators is based more on
> "opportunity" to pursue civilian employment or "inconvenience" to stay in
> the AF after honorably serving their time, rather than for genuine
> hardship. We understand these airmen desire to leave the AF they have
> served so well; however, our Nation still needs many of them to continue
> serving in uniform. Field commanders are making excellent recommendations
> for approval/ disapproval of SLW requests based on their unit's needs.
> however, we now need to take a broader look at our operators due to the
> ongoing high rate of operational requirements.
>
> When SLW requests on operational personnel (to include: air traffic
> controllers, airfield managers, aviators, air transporters, command and
> control operators, etc.) are NOT hardships and are individuals considered
> excess to unit needs (field commanders/staff directors recommend waiver
> approval), these individuals MAY be used to fill other AMC operational
> requirements. This could mean a TDY tasking to wherever the mission
> requirement exists (gaining unit pays TDY costs).
>
> Let me explain why this is necessary. As examples, TACC needs ongoing
> rated officer augmentation to execute new homeland defense missions (HERC
> & TOAD cells), as well as continuing to meet demands of high tempo for
> OEF/ONE. We still have deployment requirements for rated officers in
> non-flying positions. Our aircrews can expect very close to 200 days TDY
> annually, and some continue to push the flying time limits, so anything we
> do to reduce the non-flying demands on them will help. Additionally, we
> still have a significant number of ARC forces activated in operational
> areas .
>
> To match operators considered excess at their units with our ongoing
> operational Requirements, we will implement a review process. The
> AMC/DO, in consultation with the TACC/CC and colonels from DO, TACC, XP
> and DP, will review operational (officer and enlisted) requirements and
> determine if individuals approved by their chain of command for separation
> could meet any of these requirements. THE AMC/do will then (as the
> operations functional) make a recommendation to the AMC/CV for approval of
> the waiver, disapproval with recommendation to remain in current unit, or
> disapproval with recommendation for TDY assignment. If disapproved for
> waiver and there is another position the individual can fill at the
> currently assigned base, he or she will be assigned to the requirement.
> (For example, a requirement in the HERC cell in TACC could be met by a
> pilot assigned to the 375 AW without TDY). Expect length of TDY to be
> approximately 90 to 120 days, or the timeframe demanded by the gaining
> CINC in the cases of deployment. Actual length of TDY will come with the
> tasking. Requirements, and how we fill them, are continually revalidated.
> The primary deciding factor will always be, "Do we have an operational
> mission need driven by OEF/ONE this individual can fulfill?"
>
> Members may reapply for Stop Loss waiver consideration while serving in
> the TDY position. If approved, a reasonable period following completion
> of the TDY will be provided for separation/retirement preparation and
> outprocessing. If members do not reapply for SLW while TDY, they will
> return to their unit at the completion of the TDY and their status will be
> reassessed based on mission needs and the individual's desires.
>
> Because we consider these resources to be critical to mobility operations,
> we will also request that other commands with mobility RDTM codes/AFSCs
> consider our policy/procedures before they finalize SLW approval for those
> mobility assets, recognizing that ultimate SLW authority resides within
> each command.
>
> finally, we would like to stress that the headquarters is concurring with
> the overwhelming majority of the recommendations made by unit and NAF
> commanders. Likewise, while we are looking at each case on its individual
> merits, we are in constant contact with other commands and our
> approval/disapproval rates are remarkably similar. No major command is
> standing out from the rest.
>
> We want to thank all commanders and their people for their continued,
> dedicated service, and for their patience with a difficult process. This
> action is necessary to continue meeting the operational demands of the war
> we are engaged in. We know the tremendous professionals in our AF will
> continue to serve proudly and with distinction.
>
> AMC POCs are: DO, COL STEVE JONES, AMC/ADO, DSN 779-3335,
> STEVE.JONES@SCOTT.AF.MIL <mailto:STEVE.JONES@SCOTT.AF.MIL>, DP, Col Rick
> Zink, Chief, Assignments Division, Richard.zink@scott.af.mil
> <mailto:Richard.zink@scott.af.mil> <<mailto:Richard.zink@scott.af.mil>> ,
> DSN 779-7964.
>
>
>
> //SIGNED//
> JOHN R. BAKER, LT GEN, USAF
> VICE COMMANDER
 

Aplus9

Long Enough Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2002
Posts
110
Total Time
>1
Is this for real?! What a great morale booster. I wonder why everyone wants to get out?

"When SLW requests on operational personnel (to include: air traffic
> controllers, airfield managers, aviators, air transporters, command and
> control operators, etc.) are NOT hardships and are individuals considered
> excess to unit needs (field commanders/staff directors recommend waiver
> approval), these individuals MAY be used to fill other AMC operational
> requirements. This could mean a TDY tasking to wherever the mission
> requirement exists (gaining unit pays TDY costs)."

So much for greatful leadership.
 

Bluesuiter

Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2002
Posts
7
Total Time
3000
Go Air Force!

The beatings will continue until morale improves! This sounds like a great way we can fill Sh!tty tdy's and teach a lesson to anyone considering a waiver. Maybe we could institute a feet on the ramp policy for anyone with a waiver, they will go noncurrent and then be unmarketable!
 

zman300

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2002
Posts
95
Total Time
?
AETC Perspective

Gen Sandstrom (19th AF CC) was here last week. When asked about how he thought stop-loss was affecting morale and retention, he gave us a quick lesson about why stop-loss is in place (Reserves activation), and the great impact it's had on the Reserves and their civilian employers. He ended by saying that "although stop-loss is a concern, the primary concern is for the Reserves." This, in front of an active duty crowd.

He said stop-loss will be slow and painful; threw "a year" out as to how long it may go.
 

Draginass

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2001
Posts
1,852
Total Time
5000+
Wait to see if Iraq heats up in the foreseeable future. Yet another reason to keep extending stop loss.
 

DHPope93

I do all my own stunts
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Posts
84
Total Time
3000+
Does anybody have the Date/Time group for this message? Our Wing King had a Stop Loss briefing, but this never came up as far as I know. As another AETC member, I'm more than a little interested to see how it plays out in this command.

DP
 

zman300

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2002
Posts
95
Total Time
?
Mil-BushPilot said:
What is the hardsip definition? Is this the item on the separation paperwork, and if so, can you check hardship AND ask for a reserve commission? I thought the two were mutually exclusive. Thanks for any info.

Mil-Bushpilot
The definition of "significant hardship" is at the discretion of each MAJCOM CC. My future career, my wife's career, and our desire to start a family outside of the military may not be hardships in the General's mind, but there's no firm guidance on what constitutes a hardship.
 

Aplus9

Long Enough Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2002
Posts
110
Total Time
>1
Date / Time group

No date and time group, but I did contact the the POC a the end of message. They had to get back to me later, but they said,
" Sir, will let you know for sure. It does look like the msg Gen Baker approved for release. Will confirm." Vr, Chief Jarmon, Asst Exec

Sounds like it is for real. It's amazing that even after "feet on the ramp", there is leadership who will still think this way.

As far as the definition of "hardship", there is no official definition, It appears the definition is based on what the OG/CC and Wing/CC feel is a hardship.

"Let my people go"
 
Top