Interesting to me would be to know what % of those not re-enlisting end up in the NG SF.

I would think that the AC 18X program would prove beneficial to the NG throug individuals either coming off of Active Duty directly into the Guard or through those former 18X'ers showing up at a NG SF unit after a break in service as they would still be young enough to have many good years left to serve on detachments.

While I worked at branch we were using the 75ths model of roughly 50% for retaining first term Soldiers as acceptable. Regardless of Branch they are first term Soldiers and many will choose to go on and do other things after they've served their country and completed the initial enlistment.

Whether or not there are contracting jobs available to mid term Soldiers getting out is only a concern if the numbers choosing to ETS is larger than the retention/recruiting/production models can predict and personnel strength drops to a point where it becomes a problem. With current high personnel strengths the only thing we could use to justify continued SRB payments at the current high levels was the programmed growth of the 4th Battalions. From the G1s point of view there isn't a problem as long as SWCS an produce entry level operators, we continue to promote 100% of eligible SSG to SFC, and we don't have a mass loss of SFCs.

Once we near the end of our growth, if our strengths are balanced as predicted by SWCS Proponency then I think you'll see these large bonuses going away and regular SRB levels dropping to the 1/1.5 levels of the mid 1990s. Just my opinion, but we cant use the growth as justification forever.

mp

From what my sources are telling me, this Is Not a Problem..........I'm hearing that they wont let guys quit!!!!!
:mad::mad:

That rumor has been circulating (along with the dropping of standards) since I have been in SF.

It seems that everyone went through the last hard class, whenever it was.

TR

8 years in
 

Does the 3-5 years team time, multiple shooting schools, JCETs and multiple combat rotations that the mid-level NCOs have not make them worth more than someone that is just arriving from SWC?

Of course they are worth more if you compare one new Q course Graduate to one team guy with experience.

I don't think that that is the point however.

Unless there is a mass exodus, every time one mid-term guy leaves there is someone who is "almost as experienced" stepping up to fill his shoes, and one "new" guy arriving to fill the resulting vacancy. Therefore, no compelling reason throw additional $$ at keeping mid-termers in.

Now, if there was a mass exodus of mid-term guys and/or a problem with producing enough "new" guys then $$ would need to be applied to incentivise mid-termers to stay until more "new guys" could be produced and seasoned.

I think you're confusing the importance of maintaining quality guys in the Regiment and what Big Army is willing to pay for. Of course a guy with the quals and experience you mention has more to offer than an entry level SF guy. But to the DA G1 it doest make them worthy of higher bonuses. They don't really pay much attention to the stuff you're bringing up, only end strength by MOS. I would use special skill sets as a qualifier to show that our guys have marketable skills outside of the military and to contrast cost to train vs. cost to retain and that helps, but with high overall MOS strengths is was getting harder and harder to justify high SRBs. Thats why we threw in the programmed growth to boost our position.

Like I said before, the Army G1 uses money as a lever to correct a retention problem, not to reward guys for good performance, or for combat deployments. They have X amount of dollars to use each quarter when allocating SRB funds and honestly SF hasn't historically had a lot of guys leaving the force early.

mp

Yeah, I've been hearing that since before I went to Ranger School when I was a Pvt.

My point specifically is that I know guys in the instruction house, and they are telling me that the 18B course right now is the highest attrition course down there. And that doesn't sound right to me.

Pre SFAS and After
 

And the word around SF when they came out with SFAS was that pre SFAS you had to be smart to get through the Q course. After SFAS you were a Jedi Knight and you passed the course no matter what - so long as you had made it past SFAS.

As an attendie in 74, secondary in 77, instructor at O & I in 88 and 1SG in a Training company Jan 89 to Jul 90 I can say that it never was a snap for the snuffies - and never will be. That's why it is SF.

Just my 2 cents.

Pete

Speaking of trying to keep guys with 20yrs who are in a critical skill MOS...

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=..._IJAtCaNsppqBA

Apologies if this is already on the forum somewhere.