USAF holds a bird Colonel to the standard...

[JoeTomasone]

Kinda refreshing to see, actually.   Even more refreshing to see the Colonel "man-up" and back the decision.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/25/air-force-colonel-waistline/2017841/

[Eclipse]

Good on him for setting the example, but let's not make too big a deal of this.

He's got his 25 in, and probably was planning on retiring anyway, so didn't care much about making the measure.

[PHall]

Good on him for setting the example, but let's not make too big a deal of this.

He's got his 25 in, and probably was planning on retiring anyway, so didn't care much about making the measure.

Uh, no. You just don't get it...

People who jump through all the hoops needed to be a Wing Commander in the Air Force are not the one's who retire at 25 years.
He was on the General Officer path and depending on how many stars he ended up wearing probably would have served for another 8 to 10 years.
The difference in retirement pay of an O-6 over 24 years vs an O-8 over 30 years is over a thousand dollars a month.

[Eclipse]

Then perhaps he needed to jump through a few more hoops, because if he intended to stay, he
clearly has some work to do.

The article notes he's been struggling with PT for several years.  You think it's a coincidence he's getting termed right at 25?

After he hurt his shoulder, he likely gained some weight, got past the point it would be easy for someone in his mid-forties to lose that much,
and decided just to ride out to 25.

[SarDragon]

That's a bad retirement point. There's a longevity bump at 26, and then at 30.

Retirement for O-6 at 24 is $6020/month. O-7 at 30 gets $9168/month. That's a huge difference for being a couple of inches over on the waist measurement. O-6 at 26 gets $6522/month.

[Eclipse]

It certainly shows how silly / important these arbitrary number are.  Also the law of unintended consequences.

In this period of draw-down and RIF, we need those who stay to be top-notch, and it appears we've lost an otherwise
excellent leader, and someone who is clearly healthy, over an arbitrary number.

[Private Investigator]

If a Colonel is not promoted or promotable to BG when is he termed out? I believe in the Army if you do not put a "star" on you can not go beyond 26 years.

I wonder if anything else is in the story?

[A.Member]

It certainly shows how silly / important these arbitrary number are.  Also the law of unintended consequences.

In this period of draw-down and RIF, we need those who stay to be top-notch, and it appears we've lost an otherwise
excellent leader, and someone who is clearly healthy, over an arbitrary number.

^ Uh, no.   

[Eclipse]

^ Uh, no.

?

[Private Investigator]

Hindi ko naiintindihan?

[MSG Mac]

If a Colonel is not promoted or promotable to BG when is he termed out? I believe in the Army if you do not put a "star" on you can not go beyond 26 years.

I wonder if anything else is in the story?

A colonel is mandatorily retired after 30 years of "Commissioned " service, or 5 years in grade,

[bosshawk]

In an attempt to set the record straight, here goes.  Depending on what law you were commissioned under(at least in the Army), an O-6 "terms out"(whatever that means) when he reaches either the age of 55 or has 30 years of commissioned service.  There is no "force out" or mandatory retirement at 26.  That years of service happens to apply to Lt Cols, who have not reached the age of 53.  That said, an O-6 reaches the upper limits of his/her pay at 26 years of service.  I believe that you have to reach flag rank(general officer) in order to receive pay for the 30 jump. 

I retired with 30 years and one month and receive my retired pay based on the over 26 level, although I had more years of service.  If the pay scale has changed to allow a Colonel to receive base pay for over 30, the Army owes me some money.

Still a nice retirement and I am not complaining.

MSG Mac: I had about 7 years in grade as a Colonel, so am not sure about the five you quoted.

[Flying Pig]

Holy Cow Paul!!!!  Your buyin' lunch next time!

[bosshawk]

Go spin your rotor blades, Rob!!!!!!

[coudano]

I recently saw a high ranking individual with a waist of i dont know, like 6 million inches.
I applaud the integrity and excellence here, but it has to be applied to everyone, all the time.

Personally, it is my opinion that every airman should be able to pass a PT test any time (no-notice).
Just like a P test (meh).

Knowing that your next test is a way off (6 months to a year) it's just too easy for most people to slack in the mid term, and then cram in an unhealthy fashion, or just fail.

I also think you shouldn't crash a career over a single failure.  Stuff happens.  Just having a bad day happens...

Fail it once, you're on notice.  Fail it again, ok now you're done.
That goes for the Colonel base commander, or Airman (or chief) Schmuckatelli in the maintenance shop.

[lordmonar]

Good on him for setting the example, but let's not make too big a deal of this.

He's got his 25 in, and probably was planning on retiring anyway, so didn't care much about making the measure.

+1 I will be more impressed when the USAF starts kicking out 10 year Pilots.

[lordmonar]

That's a bad retirement point. There's a longevity bump at 26, and then at 30.

Retirement for O-6 at 24 is $6020/month. O-7 at 30 gets $9168/month. That's a huge difference for being a couple of inches over on the waist measurement. O-6 at 26 gets $6522/month.

He may not be retiring......he is just being removed from command.  He may still have ADSC....so he may be flying a desk in a do nothing job until he gets his 26 years.

[Eclipse]

^ The article said he "requested" retirement, so it's at least possible they were going to let him do that, just not be in command.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Honestly almost sounds like an internal AF PR stunt to "scare" folks into shape.

[SarDragon]

Here's what I copild find:

By law, Regular Officers promoted to lieutenant colonel (O-5) may serve for 28 active commissioned years, while those promoted to colonel (O-6) may stay for 30 active commissioned years-unless earlier retired by other provisions of law.
The mandatory retirement age for all general officers is 62 (this can be deferred to age 64 in some cases). Under the law (10 USC, Sec 635), an officer who has been promoted to O-7, but is not on the recommended list to O-8, must retire five years after promotion to O-7, or 30 years of active duty service, whichever is later.
An O-8 must retire five years after being promoted to O-8, or 35 years of service, whichever is greater (10 USC, Sec 636). The Secretary of the Service Concerned (ie, Secretary of the Army, Secretary of the Navy, Secretary of the Air Force) or the President of the United States, can defer the above mandatory retirements, up until the time that the officer reaches the age of 62 (10 USC, Sec 637).

Longevity bumps:

O-6	20	22	24	26	30
O-7	20			26	30
O-8	20	22			30	34
O-9		22	24	26	30	34	38
O-10		22	24	26	30	34	38

[sarmed1]

Ironic:  We were told over the weekend quoting two differant sources (but no where in writting) that the girth measurement will be going away sometime in the near future....

mk

[Nuke52]

Good on him for setting the example, but let's not make too big a deal of this.

He's got his 25 in, and probably was planning on retiring anyway, so didn't care much about making the measure.

+1 I will be more impressed when the USAF starts kicking out 10 year Pilots.

-1
Kicking out 10-year pilots with all that expensive training and even-more-valuable experience (especially when even the bonus isn't stopping them from leaving in droves) doesn't sound like a very good return on our investment of tax dollars to me...  And all for an "arbitrary" number on a tape measure??  Maybe instead--if that number really is so important--we put the offenders on a mandatory big-boy-waist-reducing program.

Simply throwing these guys out and training new ones isn't so easy or cost effective. Know how long it takes to grow a 10-year replacement pilot (wrench turner, personnelist, med tech)?  Ten years--plus all that expense. And maybe you've heard:  money's a little tight right now...

It might help to look past your pilot bias and see the bigger picture.

[Nuke52]

^ The article said he "requested" retirement, so it's at least possible they were going to let him do that, just not be in command.

Agreed. I wasn't privy to the specifics of this case, but based on the cases I have seen, they'd have probably PCS'd him to Scott to serve out his time until he was ready to retire.

[Nuke52]

Honestly almost sounds like an internal AF PR stunt to "scare" folks into shape.

I suppose that's not entirely impossible, but I severely doubt it. This isn't just some AF Crimes story trying to push AF propaganda, this is a real person who's filled some (very) real-deal jobs and was absolutely on his way to bigger and better within DoD.

They save the contrived, "let this be a warning to you" stories for much lower-ranking/"less-important" people.

[Cliff_Chambliss]

Did not happen to me (I was 5'9 & 150lb at retirement) but my ex Son-in-law (ken).  Ken was USAF and had a weight problem but had lots of guidance and help.  The Air Force (at least his units) did almost everything they could to help him.  Counselling by the Chain of Command & the medical folks, extra PT Training, time off for individual PT on his own.  His 1SG and Commander even arranged for my duaghter to receive help in meal planning and ways to help him shed the excess poundage at home.  However at the end of the day he was still just outside the allowable range and was denied reenlistment.  Still I can't help but be impressed at the efforts his command went thru to try and 'save' him.
(but maybe it was 'all in the stars'.  Two ARMY Brats marry, he joins the AIR FORCE, and ends up being a Boat Engineer on a NAVY base).

[The Infamous Meerkat]

It simply has to be a publicity stunt, "Hey, we'll either make you look like a gracious and upstanding leader that retires with honor, or we'll kick you out unceremoniously with the minimum benefits we can give you... your choice."   

Which one would you pick?

And sorry Eclipse, but 'arbitrary' has no meaning in the military, they have the numbers on a towering pedestal it would seem... They kick out enlisted guys like it's cool, and while those enlisted guys are still in they're considered to be the biggest scheissbirds of all. They would rather have tiny, frail-looking guys than the giant ripped bodybuilders who could literally tear a man in half, no matter how much better the big guy can do his job. It's actually sort of sad...

I knew plenty of really good techs that got booted for that... and they kept some of the biggest idiots on the planet simply because they could make tape and pass the bare minimum on their PFT.

[lordmonar]

Good on him for setting the example, but let's not make too big a deal of this.

He's got his 25 in, and probably was planning on retiring anyway, so didn't care much about making the measure.

+1 I will be more impressed when the USAF starts kicking out 10 year Pilots.

-1
Kicking out 10-year pilots with all that expensive training and even-more-valuable experience (especially when even the bonus isn't stopping them from leaving in droves) doesn't sound like a very good return on our investment of tax dollars to me...

That is my point.    If the USAF was really sending a message.....kicking out and hold accountable people they really need, have really invested a lot of money would have impressed me more then kicking out a 25 year retirement eleigible Col.   

And all for an "arbitrary" number on a tape measure??  Maybe instead--if that number really is so important--we put the offenders on a mandatory big-boy-waist-reducing program.

Simply throwing these guys out and training new ones isn't so easy or cost effective. Know how long it takes to grow a 10-year replacement pilot (wrench turner, personnelist, med tech)?  Ten years--plus all that expense. And maybe you've heard:  money's a little tight right now...

It might help to look past your pilot bias and see the bigger picture.

Right to the pilot bias  .....I see the bigger picture.....like I said.....If the USAF was really interested in making a "we are really serious about this" they would hold those who "they have invested a lot in" to the same standard they are holding the airman.  YMMV.

[Pylon]

Or perhaps it more of an indication that the Air Force should review their standard.  The Colonel specifically stated that he passed every portion of his physical fitness test except the waist measurement.   

What does a waist measurement tell us about an individual?  Nothing useful, in my opinion.  It puts too much of an emphasis on being physically skinny rather than any measurement of physical fitness, ability, strength, endurance, or any other characteristic which ought to matter far, far more.  A servicemember with a smaller waist than another does not imply the skinnier one is better at or more capable of doing anything whatsoever.

[abdsp51]

It is all in the scoring if you fail any componet in the test you fail the test irregardless of your score. 

[Nuke52]

Good on him for setting the example, but let's not make too big a deal of this.

He's got his 25 in, and probably was planning on retiring anyway, so didn't care much about making the measure.

+1 I will be more impressed when the USAF starts kicking out 10 year Pilots.

-1
Kicking out 10-year pilots with all that expensive training and even-more-valuable experience (especially when even the bonus isn't stopping them from leaving in droves) doesn't sound like a very good return on our investment of tax dollars to me...

That is my point.    If the USAF was really sending a message.....kicking out and hold accountable people they really need, have really invested a lot of money would have impressed me more then kicking out a 25 year retirement eleigible Col.

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you're saying, but why would you possibly be impressed by such a stupid and short-sighted decision as kicking out people they really need and have invested so much money into?  It just doesn't compute to me--unless you're being sarcastic and I'm just not picking up on it, to be "impressed" by stupidity just doesn't make sense.  I am astounded by the number of Americans who waste their time watching reality TV, but I'm not the least bit impressed by it...

[HGjunkie]

The whole message I'm getting from this thread is that Wing Commanders are easily replaceable, while Pilots aren't. Hm... and I want to be a pilot.

[Nuke52]

Or perhaps it more of an indication that the Air Force should review their standard.  The Colonel specifically stated that he passed every portion of his physical fitness test except the waist measurement.   

What does a waist measurement tell us about an individual?  Nothing useful, in my opinion.  It puts too much of an emphasis on being physically skinny rather than any measurement of physical fitness, ability, strength, endurance, or any other characteristic which ought to matter far, far more.  A servicemember with a smaller waist than another does not imply the skinnier one is better at or more capable of doing anything whatsoever.

Shack. 

(Although, 41 inches is pretty gross for an AD military member.  Forty-one inches means he's a pretty big boy, and he didn't exactly look like Joe Weider, either...)

But for the more important issue, the waist measurement is a crock--especially since the grading scale makes absolutely no accomodation for height or musculature.  A 6'6" bodybuilder is held to the same waist-measurement standard as a 4'9" mini-airman.  Whom would you rather have trying to pull you into the back of the Jolly Green?

So why'd they do it?  AF bean counters (and I do intend that perjoritively; the only people worse in my book are the AF shoe clerks) figured out that in the population as a whole, abdominal circumference and long-term healthcare costs vary directly (i.e., bigger waists = more money spent on health problems, especially later in life), soooo, they figured they can cut the AF's costs over time by incentivizing being thin and throwing out--before they retire--people who are not.  (Oh, and I think a GO looking for a post-retirement job steered some money into the pockets of our friends at RAND for their concurrence, too.)

Genius!  Right?  Not so much.  Leave it to the AF to "force shape" (pun intended) by way of the force's shape...

[Nuke52]

The whole message I'm getting from this thread is that Wing Commanders are easily replaceable, while Pilots aren't. Hm... and I want to be a pilot.

"Dad, when I grow up, I want to be a pilot."
"I'm sorry, son, but you can't do both."   

Don't be discouraged by nonsense--fly, fight, win!   

[ol'fido]

I'm not saying anything about the merits of either case and I don't know the back story on either case, but it's an interesting juxtaposition of the story of two officers within a couple of weeks of each other. Heard a lot about this in the St. Louis Post...

http://www.stripes.com/news/air-force-pilot-s-sex-assault-dismissal-sparks-cries-for-reform-1.210371

[Private Investigator]

I'm not saying anything about the merits of either case and I don't know the back story on either case, but it's an interesting juxtaposition of the story of two officers within a couple of weeks of each other. Heard a lot about this in the St. Louis Post...

http://www.stripes.com/news/air-force-pilot-s-sex-assault-dismissal-sparks-cries-for-reform-1.210371

Now there is a Lt Col & pilot dirtbag who should be kicked out. JMHO, YMMV 

[Private Investigator]

Here's what I copild find:

By law, Regular Officers promoted to lieutenant colonel (O-5) may serve for 28 active commissioned years

A HS classmate of mine had to retire at the 20 year mark as a USMC Lt Col since he was not going to make Col. Just like the Captains & Lieutenants (O-3) that have to leave at the 10 year mark if they are not promotable.

I thought the commissioned officers had something similar to the enlisted HYT.

[SarDragon]

Here's what I could find:

By law, Regular Officers promoted to lieutenant colonel (O-5) may serve for 28 active commissioned years.

A HS classmate of mine had to retire at the 20 year mark as a USMC Lt Col since he was not going to make Col. Just like the Captains & Lieutenants (O-3) that have to leave at the 10 year mark if they are not promotable.

I thought the commissioned officers had something similar to the enlisted HYT.

The rules have changed over the years. If your friend was a Reserve Officer, then he may have been under the 20 year rule.

In the olde system had only the ring knockers getting Regular Officer commissions, and all other acquisitions (ROTC and OCS/OTS) coming in as Reserve Officers. The new rule is to make all new commissions as Reserve Officers, who then "compete" later during their careers for appointments as Regular Officers.

As for "up or out", it is a little different for officers. They can basically promote, no matter how slowly, and stick around until they are passed over twice, forcing retirement, or retire at will when the billet quality declines, or hit a HYT point. Most officers seem to leave under the first two sets of circumstances.

Here's the article.

[Private Investigator]

Thanks that was good reading.   :clap:

[J2H]

I was discharged early (DOS Rollback) due to multiple PT failures (4 in 24 mos)... the AF would rather kick out the experienced NCOs who may have run issues than retain them over hiring new blood... but that's above my paygrade.... did my 10 and got my honorable discharge and 12,000 dollar separation paycheck ;-)

[Devil Doc]

No Seperation Check when i got out, What a Crock. lol

[Flying Pig]

Failed PFTs and got $12,000 and a discharge?  Wow.......  Guys in the Marines who got separated for failing PFTs barely got even a ride to the main gate!

[Pylon]

Failed PFTs and got $12,000 and a discharge?  Wow.......  Guys in the Marines who got separated for failing PFTs barely got even a ride to the main gate!

Guys in my unit who are failing to meet height/weight/body fat % standards will receive an Other Than Honorable discharge (for "failure to comply") and will lose their (combat) veteran status and all of their veteran benefits. There's no free cookie or pat on the back on the way out.

[Nuke52]

I was discharged early (DOS Rollback) due to multiple PT failures (4 in 24 mos)... the AF would rather kick out the experienced NCOs who may have run issues than retain them over hiring new blood... but that's above my paygrade.... did my 10 and got my honorable discharge and 12,000 dollar separation paycheck ;-)

Disclaimer:  I'm not trying to call you out or anything, but this piqued my interest a little.  One of those "things that make you go 'hmmmm'"...  (hmm, hmm) (© C&C Music Factory, 1990)

You say you did your "10" and got out, but in your signature it says you were USAF from 2004-2012...  I fully admit I was NOT a math major in college, but in none of the many ways in which I attempted to calculate that did it come out to 10 years.  What gives?

[RogueLeader]

I was discharged early (DOS Rollback) due to multiple PT failures (4 in 24 mos)... the AF would rather kick out the experienced NCOs who may have run issues than retain them over hiring new blood... but that's above my paygrade.... did my 10 and got my honorable discharge and 12,000 dollar separation paycheck ;-)

Disclaimer:  I'm not trying to call you out or anything, but this piqued my interest a little.  One of those "things that make you go 'hmmmm'"...  (hmm, hmm) (© C&C Music Factory, 1990)

You say you did your "10" and got out, but in your signature it says you were USAF from 2004-2012...  I fully admit I was NOT a math major in college, but in none of the many ways in which I attempted to calculate that did it come out to 10 years.  What gives?

If he enlisted 1Jan04 and discharged 31Dec12, that would be 9 years.  Reserve/Guard time not in signature?  Not sure.

[PHall]

I was discharged early (DOS Rollback) due to multiple PT failures (4 in 24 mos)... the AF would rather kick out the experienced NCOs who may have run issues than retain them over hiring new blood... but that's above my paygrade.... did my 10 and got my honorable discharge and 12,000 dollar separation paycheck ;-)

Disclaimer:  I'm not trying to call you out or anything, but this piqued my interest a little.  One of those "things that make you go 'hmmmm'"...  (hmm, hmm) (© C&C Music Factory, 1990)

You say you did your "10" and got out, but in your signature it says you were USAF from 2004-2012...  I fully admit I was NOT a math major in college, but in none of the many ways in which I attempted to calculate that did it come out to 10 years.  What gives?

If he enlisted 1Jan04 and discharged 31Dec12, that would be 9 years.  Reserve/Guard time not in signature?  Not sure.

That's still not the 10 years he claims.

[Flying Pig]

Id be more interested in the $12,000 pay out for failing multiple PFTs.

[coudano]

Maybe counting to the end of the total inactive ready reserve commitment.

[huey]

I was discharged early (DOS Rollback) due to multiple PT failures (4 in 24 mos)... the AF would rather kick out the experienced NCOs who may have run issues than retain them over hiring new blood... but that's above my paygrade.... did my 10 and got my honorable discharge and 12,000 dollar separation paycheck ;-)

Where are u Jeff 10?

[PHall]

Id be more interested in the $12,000 pay out for failing multiple PFTs.

He got the $12,000 for getting out early "for the convience of the government".
The AF needed to reduce numbers to meet their cap for the end of the year.
So they gave "severence pay" to those who got out up to an year early.
He was going to be denied reenlistment due to the PFT fails, so he qualified for the DOS Rollback program.

[cap235629]

Failed PFTs and got $12,000 and a discharge?  Wow.......  Guys in the Marines who got separated for failing PFTs barely got even a ride to the main gate!

Guys in my unit who are failing to meet height/weight/body fat % standards will receive an Other Than Honorable discharge (for "failure to comply") and will lose their (combat) veteran status and all of their veteran benefits. There's no free cookie or pat on the back on the way out.

What branch of service??  Army Regs say otherwise....

[lordmonar]

AFI 36-3208 says

5.28.2. The service of airmen discharged for unsatisfactory performance will be characterized as honorable or general (instructions for service characterization in Chapter 1, Section 1B, apply). However, if the sole reason for separation is for failure to meet physical fitness standards, then only an honorable characterization may be given.

Failure to comply would have to be wilful disregard to the PT program...i.e. they were on the fat boy program and either failed to go to manditory PT sessions, or gained weight while on the PT program....and not soly for failing to meet standards.

[SarDragon]

Uncle Sam's Misguided Children, Reserve

[spaatzmom]

Failed PFTs and got $12,000 and a discharge?  Wow.......  Guys in the Marines who got separated for failing PFTs barely got even a ride to the main gate!

Guys in my unit who are failing to meet height/weight/body fat % standards will receive an Other Than Honorable discharge (for "failure to comply") and will lose their (combat) veteran status and all of their veteran benefits. There's no free cookie or pat on the back on the way out.

What branch of service??  Army Regs say otherwise....

As in his sig    Jeffrey Hughes
SSGT USAF 2004-2012

[Майор Хаткевич]

I think question was directed at Pylon, in which case USMC.

[sarmed1]

I was discharged early (DOS Rollback) due to multiple PT failures (4 in 24 mos)... the AF would rather kick out the experienced NCOs who may have run issues than retain them over hiring new blood... but that's above my paygrade.... did my 10 and got my honorable discharge and 12,000 dollar separation paycheck ;-)

It'll depend on actuall reason on the discharge; I have not heard of USAF actually booting anyone out for PT failure; it may be a contributing factor, ie poor OPR/EPR due to PT failure, not promoted due to PT failure etc etc.  People that are on medical PT waivers if not resolved in 1 year may be being "booted" as well, cant PT, but its a medical issue vs fat/flabby reason.  Other reason may be reduction in force/unit manning changes, mandatory re-education type stuff where your are given the choice move/change AFSC's or get out (they usually ask the people that they dont want around anymore)

So some of those reasons may still result in Honroable discharges and seperation payments

mk

[bflynn]

I would have been more impressed if they had held a full bird colonel to the standard related to low level acrobatic maneuvers in a B-52.

This doesn't impress me, it makes me wonder what they consider important.

[LGM30GMCC]

I was discharged early (DOS Rollback) due to multiple PT failures (4 in 24 mos)... the AF would rather kick out the experienced NCOs who may have run issues than retain them over hiring new blood... but that's above my paygrade.... did my 10 and got my honorable discharge and 12,000 dollar separation paycheck ;-)

It'll depend on actuall reason on the discharge; I have not heard of USAF actually booting anyone out for PT failure; it may be a contributing factor, ie poor OPR/EPR due to PT failure, not promoted due to PT failure etc etc.  People that are on medical PT waivers if not resolved in 1 year may be being "booted" as well, cant PT, but its a medical issue vs fat/flabby reason.  Other reason may be reduction in force/unit manning changes, mandatory re-education type stuff where your are given the choice move/change AFSC's or get out (they usually ask the people that they dont want around anymore)

So some of those reasons may still result in Honroable discharges and seperation payments

mk

During my time at Malmstrom probably 15-30 Airman (at least) were kicked out specifically for failure to meet PT standards. 4 failed tests in 2 years and it is mandatory you face a retention board. A number of the folks getting kicked out have gotten precisely $0 in separation pay. They are simply let go and told 'thanks for serving.' It's decided by a board of I believe 6-8 officers equal or higher in rank to anyone being considered for removal.

[PHall]

I was discharged early (DOS Rollback) due to multiple PT failures (4 in 24 mos)... the AF would rather kick out the experienced NCOs who may have run issues than retain them over hiring new blood... but that's above my paygrade.... did my 10 and got my honorable discharge and 12,000 dollar separation paycheck ;-)

It'll depend on actuall reason on the discharge; I have not heard of USAF actually booting anyone out for PT failure; it may be a contributing factor, ie poor OPR/EPR due to PT failure, not promoted due to PT failure etc etc.  People that are on medical PT waivers if not resolved in 1 year may be being "booted" as well, cant PT, but its a medical issue vs fat/flabby reason.  Other reason may be reduction in force/unit manning changes, mandatory re-education type stuff where your are given the choice move/change AFSC's or get out (they usually ask the people that they dont want around anymore)

So some of those reasons may still result in Honroable discharges and seperation payments

mk

During my time at Malmstrom probably 15-30 Airman (at least) were kicked out specifically for failure to meet PT standards. 4 failed tests in 2 years and it is mandatory you face a retention board. A number of the folks getting kicked out have gotten precisely $0 in separation pay. They are simply let go and told 'thanks for serving.' It's decided by a board of I believe 6-8 officers equal or higher in rank to anyone being considered for removal.

The folks who got the money just happened to time it right and were able to take advantage of the DOS Rollback program.
They weren't going to be able to reenlist due to their PFT fails which made them prime targets for the DOS Rollback program.

[Private Investigator]

Also doesn't the enlisted men/women who HYT out get a severance package?

[Nuke52]

Also doesn't the enlisted men/women who HYT out get a severance package?

I'm not certain--I'd bet PHall knows--but I don't believe so. For the retirement-eligible they just retire at the appropriate time, no extra cash or fanfare. For those who aren't retirement-eligible, they just separate, and that's it.

[lordmonar]

Also doesn't the enlisted men/women who HYT out get a severance package?

I'm not certain--I'd bet PHall knows--but I don't believe so. For the retirement-eligible they just retire at the appropriate time, no extra cash or fanfare. For those who aren't retirement-eligible, they just separate, and that's it.

Yes....if your reenlistment code is coded as HYT then you get a severance package.

I remember back in my TSgt days a SrA having to study really hard for his WAPS test because he was trying to HYT and if he scored more then a 30 on each test he would get promoted.   He took the test to fail!

[SarDragon]

The rules may have changed in recent years, but AFAIK, when USN folks get into a HYT situation, it's sayonara, here's your discharge and DD-214, and "have a nice life in the civilian world".

[PHall]

Also doesn't the enlisted men/women who HYT out get a severance package?

I'm not certain--I'd bet PHall knows--but I don't believe so. For the retirement-eligible they just retire at the appropriate time, no extra cash or fanfare. For those who aren't retirement-eligible, they just separate, and that's it.

Yes....if your reenlistment code is coded as HYT then you get a severance package.

I remember back in my TSgt days a SrA having to study really hard for his WAPS test because he was trying to HYT and if he scored more then a 30 on each test he would get promoted.   He took the test to fail!

The question is are you retirement elegible or not? If you're not eligible for retirement, you get a severance package.
This is mostly an Active Duty thing. The only HYT for Enlisted in the Air Guard is age 60 and in the AF Reserve it's age 60 or 33 years of service, whichever happens first.

If you are eligible for retirement then you retire when you hit your HYT date.
If you're Active Duty, they checks start coming next month. If you're Guard or Reserve, the checks start coming when you turn 60.

[J2H]

It was 9  not 10  my bad.  I was on the slow train out anyway because they revoked my clearance.  My first  shirt told me to look at DOS  rollback because I was non deployable and couldn't pcs  due to my clearance,  than I was on a control roster which meant the same thing.   They paid me because they  didn't keep me the last 4  years ( as  finance put it)