FL510GV
Junior Birdman
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2001
- Posts
- 154
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,
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>, DP, Col Rick
> Zink, Chief, Assignments Division, [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]> <<mailto:[email protected]>> ,
> DSN 779-7964.
>
>
>
> //SIGNED//
> JOHN R. BAKER, LT GEN, USAF
> VICE COMMANDER
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,
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>, DP, Col Rick
> Zink, Chief, Assignments Division, [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]> <<mailto:[email protected]>> ,
> DSN 779-7964.
>
>
>
> //SIGNED//
> JOHN R. BAKER, LT GEN, USAF
> VICE COMMANDER