SECNAV to Implement Sweeping Changes

[Randy Daytona]

BCA is simply a force shaping tool - obviously not used when IA's were needed hot and heavy. Why does it even matter? A challenging PRT should be all that matters.

As for manpower, in the short term use the reserves. You may have the 10 year - 20 year pit pilot but you are not "stuck" with them due to the mantra of "junior most qualified". You need new blood.

The second part of the personnel structure is purely financial. As our nearest competitor grows an economy that is as large as ours and will eventually spend as much as the US on defense, we must spend wisely. For example, if country X is spending $700B on defense but only $40B on personnel while the the US is spending $700B on defense but $160B on personnel, then we are in trouble. The personnel system will eventually have to be restructured, in other words, the 20 year retirement will eventually have to end.

 

[jtmedli]

The personnel system will eventually have to be restructured, in other words, the 20 year retirement will eventually have to end.

20 year retirement seems to be everyone's favorite punching bag these days but what about those Aviators and SWOs and whatnot that we spend millions to train and just end up getting out because they have no choice? There's your retirement money right there. Stop getting rid of people who want to stay and use the money you save (i.e. don't waste on training some new guy) for something like retirement.

If we're talking about saving money then we may as well reduce the administrative bureacracy and ridiculous training that we force on ourselves. When it comes to the ACTUAL flying that needs to be done around the average squadron, 99% of the time we have more than enough pilots to handle it. What bites us in the ass is when "LT so-and-so" can't go fly because he/she has some useless training to give or do or whatnot.

 

[Spekkio]

Something tells me there a lot of people at Pt. Loma making that trade-off and there'd be plenty of terminal LTs at NAS Key West. I also have a feeling that Kingsville and Norfolk would somehow have a disproportionate number of career-oriented, golden-path strivers hanging around always looking to move up in life. Or just move in life. Hawaii will also be supremely well-defended, greatly benefiting from the corporate knowledge and technical expertise of an expansive 20-year-LT cadre.

You mean no one will ever want to live in an area with affordable housing in good school districts? I don't buy it.

 

[Spekkio]

20 year retirement seems to be everyone's favorite punching bag these days but what about those Aviators and SWOs and whatnot that we spend millions to train and just end up getting out because they have no choice? There's your retirement money right there. Stop getting rid of people who want to stay and use the money you save (i.e. don't waste on training some new guy) for something like retirement.

Plus the money spent to PCS people all over the world every 3 years or so because the golden path mandates getting experience in multiple theaters.

 

[Randy Daytona]

20 year retirement seems to be everyone's favorite punching bag these days but what about those Aviators and SWOs and whatnot that we spend millions to train and just end up getting out because they have no choice? There's your retirement money right there. Stop getting rid of people who want to stay and use the money you save (i.e. don't waste on training some new guy) for something like retirement.

If we're talking about saving money then we may as well reduce the administrative bureacracy and ridiculous training that we force on ourselves. When it comes to the ACTUAL flying that needs to be done around the average squadron, 99% of the time we have more than enough pilots to handle it. What bites us in the ass is when "LT so-and-so" can't go fly because he/she has some useless training to give or do or whatnot.

They don't get out - they go reserves (thus their training can be used for another 10 - 20 years) and draw their pension later. Besides, I would wager that the increase in training costs (especially as new simulators come online) are nowhere near as expensive as pensions and medical coverage.

Explain to John Q. Taxpayer why he should pay you to work 20 years and then draw a guaranteed pension and family medical for 50 years when he has a shrinking 401k or is going bankrupt due to medical bills. The difference in retirements and financial security between those who pay our salaries and what they themselves receive can be dramatic - and a future source of conflict.

A declining military budget, with more and more of it being taken up by personnel costs, means less money for weapons - and less jobs in congressional districts. Explain to the CJCS how less weapons and less personnel increases national security - especially when our competitors are spending more and more.

None of what I am saying is pleasant, but it is coming.

 

[jtmedli]

They don't get out - they go reserves (thus their training can be used for another 10 - 20 years) and draw their pension later. Besides, I would wager that the increase in training costs (especially as new simulators come online) are nowhere near as expensive as pensions and medical coverage.

It costs millions to fully train a Naval Aviator. Sims be damned. Ain't nothing cheap about that.

Explain to John Q. Taxpayer why he should pay you to work 20 years and then draw a guaranteed pension and family medical for 50 years when he has a shrinking 401k or is going bankrupt due to medical bills. The difference in retirements and financial security between those who pay our salaries and what they themselves receive can be dramatic - and a future source of conflict.

I would gladly sit down with good ole "John Q" and explain to him why. And in the process I'll explain to him all about how his job doesn't require 9-10 month deployments, extremely hazardous work environments, bodily damage/disabilities that are pretty much guaranteed, being forced to move every 3 years (or less), getting shot at, potentially being killed, etc... Sorry about his 401k, but he had the chance to sign on the dotted line and be in any of our shoes and didn't.

 

[Randy Daytona]

It costs millions to fully train a Naval Aviator. Sims be damned. Ain't nothing cheap about that.



I would gladly sit down with good ole "John Q" and explain to him why. And in the process I'll explain to him all about how his job doesn't require 9-10 month deployments, extremely hazardous work environments, bodily damage/disabilities that are pretty much guaranteed, being forced to move every 3 years (or less), getting shot at, potentially being killed, etc... Sorry about his 401k, but he had the chance to sign on the dotted line and be in any of our shoes and didn't.

Training is certainly expensive - that is not debatable. Then again, so are retirement benefits - and the general structure has not changed in many a decade. A rethink of everything: training, personnel structure, benefits needs to be on the table. Again, we are facing a competitor that will soon have an economy as large as ours - but will not have the same personnel costs nor the costs for a worldwide military structure.

"Sorry about his 401k"? I would not recommend saying that on national television - again, John Q is not only the taxpayer, he is a voter. John Q giveth, John Q taketh away. As bad as the retirement savings and insane medical costs is for many in the nation, I would not rub his nose in the fact that you and your family get 50+ years of pension and medical and he gets nothing.

As for being gone, it sucks - for a lot of people - truck drivers, oil rig workers, airline pilots, etc - and most of these don't have a 3 year "shore rotation" where they are not gone - they are gone more than half the year, every year.

Bodily damage / disabilities pretty much guaranteed? Seriously? You are saying everyone who leaves the military is broken?

Again, I didn't say I like it, I said it was coming - as evidenced by multiple commissions on how to make DoD more cost effective.

Military Retirement


Although the military’s retirement program serves only a small minority of the force—about 17 percent of military personnel eventually qualify for retired pay—it provides an exceptionally generous benefit, often providing 40 years of pension payments in return for 20 years of service.[3] According to DOD’s Office of the Actuary, in FY 2012 there were 2.3 million military retirees and survivor-benefit recipients. They received approximately $52 billion in payments. Retirement outlays are expected to rise to about $55 billion by 2017 and to $59 billion by 2022 (all in 2012 dollars).[4] The costs to the total federal budget of military retirement benefits have been rising each year because of a predictably slow rise in the number of retirees and survivors and cost-of-living increases. Between FY 2002 and FY 2012, payments to military retirees from the Military Retirement Fund rose by 49 percent.[5]

Conclusion

Current levels of military compensation are incompatible with the overall demands on the defense budget. Analysts from think tanks as diverse as the American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institution, the Cato Institute, the Center for a New American Security, and the Center for Strategic and International Studies have all called for an overhaul to the military-compensation system.

http://budget.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=364048

 

[Spekkio]

How many industries force people out after about 20-30 years? Not too many. The ones that do generally offer some kind of pension, even in 2015. The military's pension system actually lags behind what many other civil service pensions give because special pays and allowances don't count.

Ultimately, the argument you are presenting boils down to the childish notion that it's not fair that person A gets a pension while person B doesn't. Well, life isn't fair. No one twisted John Q's public and asked him to work a desk job that he can physically do until he's 70. If he wanted a pension, he didn't even have to be in the military...could've been a firefighter, a cop, a teacher, or even one of those people who process social security payments. Everything comes with its own pluses and minuses. Maybe I should ask everyone to boycott Apple because it's not fair that their software engineers get to telework and flex hours and I don't.

 

[Recovering LSO]

A declining military budget, with more and more of it being taken up by personnel costs, means less money for weapons

I see you've bought in fully to the CNO and SECNAV's talking points. It's a false dichotomy. It's not personnel costs OR weapons. There's another option. Get defense spending, budgeting, and industry accountability under control; and stop blaming sequestration for all the ills of the uniformed world. Sequestration "hurt" because DoD had been living on pay day loans for more than a decade, the pay day lender was called OCO.

Folks need to ask themselves a few tough questions. Spekkio touches on one of them: is this about creating the illusion of "fairness" in a society that is increasingly interested in egalitarian constructs at the expense of actual task/mission accomplishment? That question applies to the mil-mil BAH debate as well. Is that as much to do with cost savings, or is it more because someone (or lots of someones) don't think it's "fair" that some people have larger household incomes than others? Two very different conversations.

Next, people need to decide if they want the military to be, in effect, a jobs program or a martial organization responsible for advancing US foreign policy interests through military means - that often means fighting people and killing them. Yes, good people are going to get left out and cut along the way - and that sucks... There's no two ways about it. It would be great if we could identify that LTJG who is going to go on to be the next great strategic thinker, but the reality is that we can't. And, for those of you who insist on comparing the Navy to private industry - they can't make those predictions either and they're much more willing (and able) to cashier someone who they're convinced isn't going to provide some ROI.

To the point about letting people go after spending millions to train them: let's use a 2 x FOS F-18 1310 as our example. Chances are pretty good that the Navy got it's pound flesh, or return on investment, depending on what side of the equation you're on. Our pilot probably leaves active duty with somewhere near 8 to 9 years of service. Let's assume two years of flight school and a year in the RAG - that means the navy got approximately six years of operational service out of him. Let's further assume that three of those were on sea duty where he probably deployed twice and the other three were probably instructing at the RAG or VTs - the Navy has wrung A LOT out of that guy. Read this next part carefully so when you respond, you respond to what I've written and not what you think I've written: Of course it sucks that he's shown the door - especially if he had the FITREPS that should have justified his continued movement (anyone want to have that conversation about reforming the FITREP system?) In this case NOBODY is going to argue that he shouldn't have been promoted - or that he wouldn't have been a good one to keep around, BUT the argument that the Navy lost money on him is specious.

 

[squorch2]

The "is the military a jobs program?" train left the station a loooong time ago.

 

[wink]

By and large, the military has gotten their payback for initial training at the MSR for that career track. It is designed that way. That is why they differ. SWO training costs less, shorter MSR. The aviation obligation is longer now then when I entered the Navy in 1979 because it cost more to train now. The MSR for the USNA and NROTC has gone up as well. There are some marketing considerations clearly. The obligation may flex a year or so if the Navy can't get enough folks to sign the contracts to man the fleet. But on balance, as RLSO said, the Navy is happy with their return on investment at the MSR point. Past that, I suppose you could consider bumps in salary and prospective retiree costs as bringing on diminishing returns on the total cost of employment past MSR. 12-20 year aviators drop just as many bombs and transfer just as cargo and track just as many submarines as a solid cruise experienced LT, but costs a lot more.

 

[hscs]

12-20 year aviators drop just as many bombs and transfer just as cargo and track just as many submarines as a solid cruise experienced LT, but costs a lot more.

But I haven't seen very many O3 aviators lead a strike or even be able to handle managing the contingencies that always pop up.....

 

[wink]

But I haven't seen very many O3 aviators lead a strike or even be able to handle managing the contingencies that always pop up.....

True enough. But it only takes about 6-8 of those guys per squadron to include co and xo. That is about how many of those guys you currently have in a squadron. In my day we called them Dept Heads. Imagine that.

 

[Recovering LSO]

Keeping with the SECNAV, CNO, and CNP to-do list, here is the message concerning new BCA standards. That sound you here is a massive rush of 30-39 year olds running to McDonalds, Rice King, Rubios, and Taco Bell.

UNCLASSIFIED
ROUTINE
R 031159Z AUG 15
FM CNO WASHINGTON DC
TO NAVADMIN
INFO CNO WASHINGTON DC
BT
UNCLAS
NAVADMIN 178/15
MSGID/GENADMIN CNO WASHINGTON DC/N1/AUG//
SUBJ/PHYSICAL READINESS PROGRAM POLICY CHANGES//
REF/A/MSG/SECNAV WASHINGTON DC/121505ZJUN15//
REF/B/DOC/OPNAV/11JUL11//
REF/C/DOC/DODI/5NOV02//
NARR/REF A IS ALNAV 050/15, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY TALENT MANAGEMENT
INITIATIVES. REF B IS OPNAVINST 6110.1J, PHYSICAL READINESS PROGRAM.
REF C IS DODINST 1308.3, DOD PHYSICAL FITNESS AND BODY FAT PROGRAMS
PROCEDURES.
RMKS/1. This NAVADMIN enumerates changes to the Physical Readiness Program
(PRP) as announced in reference (a). Physical Fitness Assessments (PFAs)
should be designed and implemented to assess an individual Sailors health and
mission readiness. The current PFA model enforces maximum body fat
percentages and minimum physical readiness scores, but falls short on
evaluating a Sailors overall health, and does not adequately reflect the
challenges unique to sea duty and the increasingly technical nature of our
jobs. The intent of these changes is to strike a better balance between
health and physical readiness.
2. Amplifying instructions for Cycle 2 2015 (1 July 2015 to 31 December
2015): Cycle 2 2015 will continue to be administered in accordance with
reference (b) with the following changes:
a. Physical Activity Risk Factor Questionnaire (PARFQ): The PARFQ
process is unchanged. All Sailors will complete a PARFQ as outlined in
reference (b).
b. Body Composition Assessment (BCA): Changes to the BCA are as
follows:
(1) BCA measurements taken in Cycle 2 2015 will be recorded for
monitoring purposes only using the current methodology and BCA standards
outlined in reference (b).
(2) All BCA data will continue to be recorded in the Physical
Readiness Information Management System (PRIMS), regardless of outcome.
(3) BCA measurements exceeding current standards, as outlined in
reference (b), during Cycle 2 2015 ONLY will not count as a Physical Fitness
Assessment (PFA) failure. Sailors who exceed current standards shall be
enrolled in the Fitness Enhancement Program (FEP) and in nutritional
counseling.
c. Physical Readiness Test (PRT): The PRT will continue to be
administered in accordance with reference (b). PRT failures incurred during
Cycle 2 2015 will be documented in PRIMS and count as PFA failures. PRT
changes are as follows:
(1) All medically cleared Sailors shall participate in the PRT
regardless of BCA outcome.
(2) If a Sailor is not medically cleared to participate in the PRT,
this shall be annotated on Medical Waiver Form 6110/4. A Medical Evaluation
Board shall be initiated if required in accordance with reference (b).
d. Spot Checks: Commanding officers will conduct PFA spot checks. BCA
and PRT failures incurred during a spot check will not count toward
administrative separation, but may result in FEP enrollment to ensure success
during the next official PFA.
e. Fitness Enhancement Program (FEP): The FEP will continue to be
administered in accordance with reference (b) or when commanding officers
deem it necessary.
3. Effective 1 January 2016 (Cycle 1 2016), the following changes to
reference (b) will go into effect:
a. Physical Activity Risk Factor Questionnaire: An updated PARFQ form
will better assist medical providers in assessing a Sailors overall health.
Details will be provided via SEPCOR.
b. Body Composition Assessment (BCA) Methodology: The new method for
measuring BCA will consist of a three-step process. A Sailor who is
medically cleared to participate in the PRT shall do so regardless of his or
her BCA results under any of the three steps discussed below.
(1) Step 1: Apply the current height/weight tables per reference (b)
to a Sailor. If the Sailor is within height/weight standards, he or she will
pass the BCA, steps 2 and 3 will not apply, and he or she will not be
required to enroll in FEP. If the Sailor does not meet the height/weight
standard, proceed to step 2.
(2) Step 2: Apply a single-site abdominal circumference measurement.
Scientific evidence indicates that individuals are at increased risk for
health problems such as diabetes, heart disease, and cancer if their abdomen
exceeds a certain circumference. Thus, a single-site abdominal circumference
measurement will assist in identifying Sailors who are at risk for health
problems. A Sailor will pass the BCA if abdominal circumference is less than
or equal to 39.0 inches for males and less than or equal to 35.5 inches for
females. If the Sailor exceeds the abdominal circumference measurement,
proceed to step 3.
(3) Step 3: If the Sailor exceeds the height/weight screen of step 1
and the abdominal circumference measurement screen of step 2, a body
circumference measurement shall be conducted. Apply the body circumference
measurement technique to determine body fat percentage per reference (b).
The Sailor will pass the BCA by meeting the Department of Defense (DoD)
maximum allowable body fat limit of less than or equal to 26 percent for
males or DoD maximum body fat limit of less than or equal to 36 percent for
females outlined in reference (c). The Sailor will fail the BCA only if the
Sailor does not meet any of the standards employed in steps 1, 2, or 3 and
shall be evaluated by a medical provider, enrolled in FEP, and provided
nutritional counseling. All Sailors who are medically cleared, regardless of
BCA results, shall take the PRT. A BCA failure will constitute an overall
PFA failure for the cycle regardless of PRT results.
c. The Body Circumference Technique currently employed under reference
(b) will continue to be used to determine body fat percentage. The new Body
Fat Standards will be graduated by age, reflecting a more realistic approach
in accordance with DoD guidance, which is consistent with the American
Medical Association and American Council on Exercise Standards. This
approach will allow more Sailors to participate in the PRT portion of the
PFA. New Navy Body Fat Percentage Standards based on a graduated scale that
increases with a Sailors age:
(1) Males: 18-21 = 22 percent, 22-29 = 23 percent,
30-39 = 24 percent, 40+ = 26 percent.
(2) Females: 18-21 = 33 percent, 22-29 = 34 percent,
30-39 = 35 percent, 40+ = 36 percent.
Any Sailor who exceeds the Navy�s updated graduated body fat standards set
forth above shall be enrolled in FEP.
(3) The Physical Readiness Program Operating Guides will be updated
and Command Fitness Leaders will be trained on how to accurately conduct the
single site abdominal circumference measurement.
(4) In summary, effective 1 January 2016, a Sailor will have three
options regarding BCA measurement: height/weight screening, single-site
abdominal circumference measurement, and the body circumference measurement.
d. Physical Readiness Test (PRT): The PRT will continue to be
administered in accordance with reference (b). All Sailors cleared by their
medical providers through the Physical Health Assessment (PHA) and PARFQ
processes shall take the PRT, regardless of BCA outcome.
e. Fitness Enhancement Program (FEP): Sailors shall be enrolled in FEP
for any of the following reasons:
(1) Exceeding the updated graduated Navy Body Fat Standards; or
(2) Failing any portion of the PRT. Sailors enrolled in FEP due to
BCA failure shall also be enrolled in nutritional counseling. All Sailors
enrolled in FEP will be required to participate in a mock PFA every 30 days.
Failures incurred during a mock PFA will not count as official failures. A
Sailor will be disenrolled from FEP when he or she passes the PRT and is
within the new Navy BCA standards.
f. PFA Failure Determination for Administrative Separation Processing:
Effective 1 January 2016, all PFA (BCA or PRT) failures in the most recent 3-
year period will be reset to one failure. A Sailors most recent failure will
carry over to Cycle 1 2016. Note: A Cycle 2 2015 BCA failure will not count
as a carry-over failure, but a PRT failure incurred in Cycle 2 2015 will
count as a carry-over failure.
g. Administrative Separation Policy Guidance:
(1) Effective 1 January 2016, a Sailor who fails two PFA cycles in
the most recent 3-year period shall be processed for administrative
separation. Failing either the BCA or the PRT will constitute a PFA failure
for the cycle in which it is incurred.
(2) Effective immediately, a Sailor subject to an approved or pending
administrative separation due to multiple PFA (BCA or PRT) failures, who has
not yet been separated, shall be offered the opportunity to be retained. A
Sailor who desires to separate from the Navy will continue processing for
administrative separation. A Sailor who desires to be retained must notify
his or her commanding officer, be medically cleared to participate in the
PRT, and pass either a mock or the official PRT before 1 December 2015. All
mock PFA data shall be recorded in PRIMS under the FEP tab in each Sailors
profile. A Sailor who does not meet present Navy BCA requirements as
outlined in reference (b) must be cleared by his or her medical provider to
participate in the Cycle 2 2015 PRT.
(a) If the Sailor is not medically cleared to participate in the
PRT, this shall be annotated on Medical Waiver Form 6110/4. A Medical
Evaluation Board shall be initiated if required in accordance with reference
(b). If a Sailor failed the Cycle 1 2015 BCA, the Sailor shall be
automatically enrolled in FEP.
(b) During FEP, the Sailor shall participate in a mock PFA
every 30 days. The deadline to pass either a mock or the official
PRT is 1 December 2015.
(c) If a Sailor does not pass either a mock or the official PRT
by 1 December 2015, the failure will be recorded in PRIMS. If a Sailor who
was pending administrative separation as of 1 July 2015 does not pass either
a mock or the official PRT by 1 December 2015, he or she will continue to be
processed for administrative separation. A Sailor who fails any portion of
the PRT during Cycle 2 2015 will incur a failure for the PFA, and the failure
will count toward administrative separation. The current Navy administrative
separation standard of three failures in the most recent four-year period
will continue in effect through 31 December 2015.
(d) Effective 1 January 2016, all PFA failures in the most
recent 3-year period will be reset to one failure.
4. Future Planned Changes:
a. Developing a Navy-wide Registered Dietician (RD) utilization plan;
b. Enhancing SHIPSHAPE and encouraging approved civilian diet programs;
c. Establishing Go for Green healthy-eating ashore and at sea;
d. Providing more support for post-partum Sailors to re-attain or exceed
previous fitness goals;
e. Wearable-fitness device studies to monitor physical output and rest;
f. Enhance Physical Readiness Test; and
g. Fitness awards for Sailors who score outstanding.
5. In the long-term, the Navy strives to move away from PFA testing as a
calculation of BCA maximums and PRT minimums, to a more realistic measure of
health, fitness, and mission readiness. To do this, the Navy will
incorporate methods of assessing sleep patterns, activity, nutrition, and
genetic risk factors.
6. For questions, please contact the Physical Readiness Program Help Desk at
(901) 874-2210/DSN 882 or via e-mail at navyprt(at)navy.mil. Physical
Readiness Program polices, operating guides and FAQs can be found on the NPC
21st Century Sailor web page http://www.npc.navy.mil/bupers-
npc/support/21st_Century_Sailor/physical/Pages/default2.aspx.
7. Released by Vice Admiral W. F. Moran, N1.//
BT
#0001
NNNN
UNCLASSIFIED//

 

[llnick2001]

I wonder how the spot checks are going to work for guys that swim it. I also wonder how much sexier I'm going to look in my speedo at 24% body fat.