True? Who the hell knows?

Given this ultra-secretive administration, notices like this always cause me to question what's really going on. The question is, is the correction correct? or was this info NOT to be released and somebody goofed. Next question: Who the hell knows? And how does one find out? So take a look and decide--legitimate or not?

Please disregard subject story, titled "DoD Proposes Policy to 'Thin Out'Overmanned Career Fields," by Sgt. 1st Class Doug Sample, datelined May 13,2005.'

The subject-matter expert quoted in the story said that the information uponwhich he based the information in the story during the interview process isno longer correct.The American Forces Press Service apologizes for any inconvenience.

-----Original Message-----From: Press Service [mailto:afisnews_sender@DTIC.MIL]Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 4:18 PM
To: DEFENSE-PRESS-SERVICE-L@DTIC.MIL
Subject: DoD Proposes Policy to 'Thin Out' Overmanned Career Fields
By Sgt. 1st Class Doug Sample, USAAmerican Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, May 13, 2005 - The Defense Department is drafting a proposal seeking congressional approval of separation incentives and forced-retirement authority to "thin out" overpopulated career fields, a top personnel official said here May 12.

Bill Carr, acting deputy undersecretary of defense for military personnel policy, said the legislative proposal, referred to as a "force reshaping initiative," would help DoD ensure the military has a "proper balance" and experience in certain military occupations, while at the same time targeting over-strength career fields that can slow down promotions. "Depending on how we recruited in a particular year, we could have a pretty sizable group moving along," he said, "and if it's sizable enough, it can retard promotions." The goal, he explained, is "to try and keep the experienced cohorts about where you expect them to be, and therefore you want to create some exit incentives when they get too large."

The proposal comes at a time when the Pentagon is also struggling to keep up recruiting and retention. But, Carr explained, the department is not contemplating a "large-scale exodus."

"Its entirely possible that recruiting can be having a tough time and yet you're still looking to make targeted separations," he said, "simply becauseo ccupational patterns don't line up." If Congress were to approve such authority, he said, the Air Force and Navy, which are decreasing in size, could each put the policy to work as soon as this fall. Carr pointed out that each service is already looking to reshape its force to keep promotion rates progressing and readiness up.

According to the policy that's being drafted, before involuntary separation takes place, or servicemembers are asked to leave, DoD's plan is to first try to shift personnel from overmanned skill areas to those that are undermanned through retention and lateral conversion. Another plan under the policy is to transfer active component personnel to the reserve components, or for members of one service to transfer to another. Air Force personnel, for example, are joining the Army through the"Blue to Green" program now in place.

If neither plans works, Carr said, the services would look at targeted voluntary separations as the next step by offering servicemembers incentive-based options to leave the service voluntarily. Those options could include offering servicemembers with at least six years, but fewerthan 15, of service a lump-sum buyout based on numbers of years and rank at separation. For example, payments could range from $20,000 to $100,000 for an E-6, and $50,000 to $300,000 for an O-4. Another option would offer servicemembers with at least 15 years of service but fewer than 20 either a lump sum or annual installments over a 10-year period, or a combination of both. Retirement-eligible servicemembers with more than 20 years of service who leave voluntarily would get six months of basic pay in a lump sum.
Carr said the policy also would offer some transition benefits, such as use of military exchange and medical care facilities for a limited period after separation.

If force-reshaping goals were not met through voluntary means, Carr said, as a last resort the department would look to involuntary separations to meet its goals.Included in the proposal, he said, is the authority to re-establish mandatory retirement dates to be used when the number of voluntary separations did not provide the balance needed by a particular service.

"Not unlike the 1980s, the spirit that guides us is the wish to allow it to be a voluntary choice so that people can seek their own comforts and their own career options," he said. "In the event we did not get enough takers, then we'd have to go through some other selection of those whom we would prefer take an incentive and depart."Though he said such action by the services would be "pretty rare," he noted that involuntary separation could become an issue if the services see a"definite problem" that's clogging up promotions or having a negative effect on readiness.

Looks to me as though there are too many Chiefs and not enough Indians, huh?
Wrap...