Home » Air » AF backpedals on ANG cuts

AF backpedals on ANG cuts

By Michael Hoffman Thursday, July 19th, 2012 5:57 pm
Posted in Air

Gen. Mark Welsh, the Air Force chief of staff nominee, made a damning statement about the Air Force’s relationship with Congress at the end of Thursday’s Senate Armed Services Committee’s nomination hearing.

“I think there is a trust problem that the Air Force must address and improve,” Welsh said commenting on the reaction he received when meeting members of Congress and discussing the Air Force’s budget proposals ahead of his nomination hearing.

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a noted defense hawk, agreed with Welsh saying that shouldn’t reflect on Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz and Air Force Secretary Michael Donley.

“Your intel is good,” the senator told the Air Force four-star without explaining why that’s not the fault of those who lead the service.

The statement came at the end of Thursday’s hearing, and it captured the struggles the Air Force has had in this budget environment. It’s a problem Welsh knows he has to fix or his service will remain a constant target for an ever sharpening budget axe as sequestration looks more and more likely in this election year.

Welsh admitted to the committee that the service’s budget proposal has no chance of being executed in the face of fierce opposition to the unbalanced cuts levied at the Air National Guard. The plan was to cut 5,100 Guard, 900 Reserve, and 3,100 active duty personnel.

Schwartz and Donley had Air Force Reserve Chief Lt. Gen. Charles E. Stenner, Jr., and Air National Guard Director Lt. Gen. Harry M. Wyatt III sit behind them at each one of their 2013 budget hearings as a show of support from the total force. Welsh admitted to Congress that was as much of a farce as everyone in the room already knew.

The U.S. Air Forces in Europe commander told Congress the stalemate the Air Force finds itself in must end as the budget is “simply not executable.” He faulted service leaders for their lack of communication with the National Guard Bureau and the Council of Governors, two of the largest advocates for the Air National Guard.

Welsh is tired of the back and forth over studies about transferring fighter aircraft and cost benefit analysis reports. He wants to move forward.

“[The budget process] has to include better coordination and information sharing not just with the Air National Guard or the Air Force Reserve, but with the National Guard Bureau and clearly the link between the National Guard Bureau and Council of Governors has got to be energized in a more meaningful and productive way,” Welsh said.

He wants an open dialogue with the National Guard Bureau and the Council of Governors. The Air Force learned its lesson the hard way. Don’t take aim at the Guard unless you have an air tight case why it makes financial sense to levy cuts in the Guard’s direction. Also, know you have the votes to make those cuts a reality.

A consistent target of the House’s ire was the Air Force’s decision to retire the nine Global Hawk Block 30s flying over Central, European and Pacific commands at time when intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance mission needs remain high. Schwartz said the Global Hawks had less capable sensors than the U2 and cost more to fly. Welsh said the service has since reversed that decision.

“I think what matters the most today is how we move forward from here because we’re at a place we cannot stay. However we move forward it has to be together. Now, I believe there needs to be a more inclusive coordination process on the budget. Clearly, we’ve learned that this year,” Welsh said.

Join the Conversation

	@E_L_P July 19th, 2012 at 6:58 pm Schwartz and Donley statements and predictions not appearing valid. Gee, I never saw that one coming.
	tee July 19th, 2012 at 7:37 pm Looks like the Air Force has to find an other way to pay for their JSF Program with all it’s tremendous cost increases, instead of just cutting the ANG to the bare bone. This should be interesting, can’t wait to see their New Proposals.
	Bob July 19th, 2012 at 8:12 pm Statements not valid? Nah…they just got out maneuvered by the Guard lobby and it’s allies on the Hill.
	Chaostician July 19th, 2012 at 8:39 pm give em some credit for fessing up. however it is a darn shame that “Integrity First” just doesn’t sink into USAF leadership’s psyche. also being politically tone deaf is not a very inspirng leadership quality.
	CharlesHouston July 19th, 2012 at 8:44 pm As a ten year veteran of the Texas Air National Guard (and an eight year veteran of the AF Reserve and more in the active duty) the ANG is an organization that needed to be eliminated years ago. It merely exists to cover more mahogany offices and staff officers. The “militia” as defined in the Constitution is NOT the National Guard of today. We could easily save millions by consolidating with the AF Reserve. The Reserve, by the way, is also a compromised organization but at least is more functional than the NG. Stay tuned for my book. The NG lobby compromises the needs of the US just to support their jobs. Sigh. Still, that lobby is powerful. Generals Schwartz and Welsh are not the first to feel the sting of the lobby.
	TRS 80 July 19th, 2012 at 9:28 pm I guess I’ll have to just disagree with you on that, after 10 years Active and now about 4 in the Guard I can say without a doubt the ANG has less bureaucracy, a better corporate culture and overall better bang for the buck… all branches and sections of the military need a haricut but a wholesale elimination of a valuable and efficient force is not the answer… Eliminate one airframe from the USAF — I suggest the B-52 Mothball 1 or 2 aircraft carriers from the USN Offer a transfer to the Border Patrol, DEA, FBI, local police, etc. for 75,000 Marines and Soldiers to save the DoD money and secure our nation Reduce our nuclear arsenal to 2000 warheads, 1000 deployed and 1000 in reserve — this is a reduction of 6000 warheads and does not reduce our strategic deterrence Think outside the box and be bold…
	@E_L_P July 19th, 2012 at 9:52 pm Too bad that the Guard (pound for pound…{how do you tell the difference between a Guard guy and Active duty? You weigh them} ) is more efficient at running a fly unit (all those years of doing the job count for something.) I say we need the Guard. It should have the total responsibility for home air defense and a portion of airlift assets. The problem is not the Guard. The problem is the top U.S. political leadership continuing to run Operation: USELESS DIRT (several ops) for years. These largess operations provide no valid national defense for America. Add to that, Congress has gotten off easy thinking you can run the military on endless useless peace ops starting with Operation: Deny Christmas in the 1990s after the downsizing. Do less with less. Not; more with less.
	Papi1960R July 19th, 2012 at 10:20 pm Your suggested cuts are a little light, but atleast someone out there is starting to accept that cuts will be made. Senior leaders need to adjust fire, to make smart cuts, not continue to fight any cut, period. I see a 8 carrier Navy, Just enough Marines to fill our Amphib boats to 150%. 3 Heavy Army Divisions, 12 Stryker Brigades, 1 Marine Division, Pulling land & sea based logistic out of the Guard & Reserves. 2 Expeditionary Air Wings, and 5 Fighter Wings for the defense of North America. Europe, Japan, Korea, Austrailia Good Luck.
	TRS 80 July 19th, 2012 at 10:49 pm Excellent suggestions… I would rather have a smaller force (by about 15%) but far more capable, credible and modern…
	Charlesincharge July 19th, 2012 at 11:51 pm Charles, Your are retired GO, or perhaps worked at the Pentagon for quite some time I am assuming? I mean, given your vast, and hopefully recent knowledge of NG and RES operations and affairs?
	CharlesHouston July 20th, 2012 at 12:00 am In classes in Air Command and Staff College, Air War College, etc we studied how to organize a military unit. A key principle is that a military unit has only one chain of command. The National Guard has two distinct chains of command — often conflicting. The Technicians in my unit sometimes disregarded lawful orders of their officers, and they got away with it. The Reserves have a similar handicap, there the ARTs can ignore their chain of command. At least they work for the Feds, unlike the National Guard technicians who work for the State.
	CharlesHouston July 20th, 2012 at 12:07 am I am now retired, yes. GO is General? No. I visited the Pentagon for working meetings but never was stationed there. But having been in the Texas ANG and having worked with most of the units in Texas, you didn’t have to be there long to know that something was wrong. For example Ellington ANGB had a well deserved reputation as a fertile field for investigative reporters. The Tx ANG Hq in Austin has been caught too many times charging too much leave as well. I still work with the Reserves and see what is still happening. As I say, wait for the book to come out.
	majr0d July 20th, 2012 at 1:22 am No, when one says we’re cutting to save and then cut the cheapest and smallest portion of your service disproportionately you set yourself up for a “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot” from congress. Advice to the Guard, “Trust but Verify”
	Goatherder July 20th, 2012 at 7:13 am I thnk your second point is painfully on point, but throwing out the integrity card is not. What is the basis for implying AF leadership has not been truthful during this process? We’re talking about military professionals here, not Congress.
	Bob July 20th, 2012 at 7:25 am That’s sort of my point. The new strategy, which came down from the WH and DoD, was the main driver behind where the AF proposed the cuts, but the AF brass didn’t prep the battlefield very well. NGAUS and the Guard lobby in Congress, along with the Governors, jumped all over it, and by the time the AF decided to get into the debate it was late to need. In an election year in a down economy, the AF and DoD needed to be out in front of the issue, but they got schooled. Not to mention the WH didn’t provide much back-up. Now, they get to start over.
	fb111nav July 20th, 2012 at 10:47 am General Welsh seems to enjoy denigrating his profesional colleagues publicly in an effort to make himself appear as a savior for all of the ills his predecessors committed. Save this testimony and compare it to his replacement in a few years and see history repeated. In the military of old, these types of disagreements were handled out of the public eye between gentlemen who disagreed. It must be the new USAF, the one with the sex scandals, F-35 debacle and procurement disasters which has taught aspiring leaders to make themselves appear better by talking trash about their predecessors. That has a distinctly non-military, private industry and political ring to it. I am not sure General Welsh is fit to be an officer, much less the Chief of Staff. This guy couldn’t wash the sweat off of the butts of true leaders who served as USAF Chief of Staff (not including Granola McPeak). Respectfully offered.
	majr0d July 20th, 2012 at 1:17 pm Sort of your point? It’s anything but your point! So you’re saying the WH & DoD DICTATED the Air Force disproportionately cut the Guard and then illogically say it was to cut costs? How does the “AF brass” prep the battlefield to justify that? Think about it. The Guard didn’t outmanuever the USAF. The USAF was wrong.
	majr0d July 20th, 2012 at 1:25 pm No he’s sadly on target. Saving money in no way justifies disproportionately targeting of the Guard which was the reasoning. The reason and the solution never jived. That’s an integrity issue. Just like the recent wrist slap of the Army Col with a reprimand for bigamy, adultery and misappropriation of funds can’t be justified.
	Chaostician July 20th, 2012 at 4:22 pm I consider not giving adequate attention, communication, and sharing of information with affected stakeholders an integrity issue. Strategic analysis might very well show that a diproportionate cut to the Guard is in the Nation’s interest. However, moves this big require openness & transparency. It is so impossible to implement anything in DC (indeed in any human organization), I understand why people often resort to strategy making in tribes. Plus Congress doesn’t exactly set the gold standard when it comes to planning & implementing change in a legitimate way.
	Chaostician July 20th, 2012 at 4:30 pm btw I’m ex USAF officer. I was so proud to have been trained on USAF core values, and the culture change efforts following the 94 shootdown of the 2 blackhawk helicopters. after all the debacles over the years, it pains me to think of how much even greater the USAF could be if it had focused as much attention & resources into culture reform as much as technological superiority.
	Bob July 20th, 2012 at 4:51 pm So you are telling me what my own point is? Seriously? Besides, I never said the WH and/or DoD dicatated what and where the AF should cut. Those are your words. OK, I’ll explain it this way. The WH and suits in OSD decide the strategy and scenarios and business rules the services use to size thier forces. All the services use the same scenarios. The analysis of those scenarios, along with COCOM inputs and other considerations (such as response time), results in the force structure. How you use that force structure, ie, Phase III and go home, or stay for Phase IV & V, goes a long way towards dictating how much of it should be AD and how much should be ANG and AFR. The AF brass never told that story or explained that process to Congress until it was too late…the Guard’s friends in Congress were already on the hunt. Throw in the AF’s brass’ bad strategic decision to put a gag order on the process, a bad economy and an election year, and it was receipe for disaster. And when it came to messaging, the Guard lobby got thier furstest with the mostest. That sounds like outmaneurvering to me.
	Goatherder July 20th, 2012 at 5:08 pm No maj, you can disagree with the reasoning, the logic, the analysis, the justification, question the rationale or decisison-making,whatever…but a lack of “integrity” means AF leadership actively lied or deceived. BTW, take the “disporportionate” cuts to the ANG look back over the last 20–30 years. I think you’d be surprised at the which component has shrunk and which has grown. We can, however, agree about the Army O6 (I won’t call him a Colonel). That nut job shoulda been hammered.
	Goatherder July 20th, 2012 at 5:28 pm Well…we can agree to disagree. To me, everything you cited above is questionable decision-making, not an integrity issue. To my knowledge, no one in Congress was provided any false information, nor was any pertinent information withheld. Being less than smart doesn’t make you a liar.
	majr0d July 20th, 2012 at 7:48 pm The AF never told that story and isn’t telling that story. You’re ASSUMING a thoughtful analysis happened. Nothing even implies it happened. The Air Force Guard is one of the smallest if not smallest components numbers and percentage wise yet suffered well over 70% of the cuts. The Army and the Marines didn’t even come close to a $35% cut in their Guard and reserve components. No there is doubtfully any scenario that justifies the lopsided Air Force cut. On the bright side they are realizing they can’t stick it to the Guard.
	TRS 80 July 20th, 2012 at 10:35 pm A valid critique but my observation of the complete careerism that has infected the USAF and I suspect DoD in general is not invalidated by one less than ideal flaw in the structure of the ARC… The unity of command principle is the ideal in active operational missions but for long term sustainable operations, plans and considerations it is beneficial to have other sources of leadership be a check or at least brake on the designs or obsessions of one man or group of men… i.e. the preoccupation with the accquistion of the F-22 at the expense of pressing and immediate needs, the focus on the F-35 despite the mounting evidence that it is a white elephant, etc… The military needs two forms of leadership, unified and decisive in combat ops and inclusive and consensus when planning…
	Tally July 20th, 2012 at 11:43 pm The behind the scene topic for the General was the USAF plan to cut flying squadrons rather than excess airbases overseas. For example, Spangdalhem in Germany will have just one flying squadron left, and closing that base would save more than cutting all those Guard A-10 squadrons. A detailed summary of this can be found at the g2mil.com website. Most the Senators have read that and the General agreed that cuts must be made to USAFE first.
	Chaostician July 21st, 2012 at 8:04 am i disagree. the designs or obsessions of one man can be just as devastating in an operational mission as in long term planning. Look at Lee at Gettysburg, Burnside at Fredericksburg, the decision to invade Iraq, and the various attempts to invade Russia in the 20th century.
	Bob July 21st, 2012 at 9:13 am The analysis was done and there are classified scenarios behind the process, and this is not something I assume. But you are proving my point–the AF brass didn’t tell the story, you read what the ANG lobby put in the press, and now you “think” there’s a huge “wrong” being done to the ANG. The ANG has increased over the last several decades while the active duty AF has steadily decreased. The ANG does a great job, and there are missions in the AF that could not be done without them. But make no mistake; the Governors and Congress are using the ANG as a jobs program, plain and simple. If you honestly believe that a group of professional politician Governors and a professional lobby outfit like the NGAUS know more about planning for this nation’s future defense than people who have spent their entire lives studying it and doing it, then that’s your call.
	majr0d July 21st, 2012 at 1:17 pm Nope, with all respect, not buying it. The Guard/Reserve have grown but they are still less than a third & 15% respectively of the active component yet over 65% of the cuts came out of the Guard and reserve hide. Very familiar with force generation and the decisions that go into determining what the structure is along with the discussions that happen with sister branches. Classified mission scenarios are not part of the reasoning behind the lopsided cuts. C’mon, we’re talking a cut of less than 2% of the WHOLE force! Classified scenarios are the reason the cuts were lopsided? That defies common sense. Nor am I of the mind that the Air Guard is a bunch of country yokels though it’s quite common for the Air Force to portray those that don’t agree with it incapable of understanding flying machines. It’s a weak condescending argument. Your focus is on the professional lobbying organizations, fine. That has no bearing on the Air Force’s justification for the lopsided cuts. It’s like blaming a talented prosecutor for the murder the defendant perpatrated.
	BajaWarrior July 21st, 2012 at 1:48 pm How about calling a spade a spade and admitting to the service making errors? I’d rather have some lead by saying things are messed up and we need to fix it than kissing the ass of a predecessor. This is not the military of old, so get over it.
	J.S. July 21st, 2012 at 2:00 pm Totally agree! They have been acting just like the Army!!
	Bob July 21st, 2012 at 2:51 pm I don’t care if you buy it, that’s what happened, and does happen. There is more to determining force structure than cost, and if you claim to be very familiar with “it”, then I’m assuming you know that.. If we wanted the cheapest military, we’d put everything in the Guard and Reserves. Now ask yourself…why don’t we do that?
	majr0d July 21st, 2012 at 4:49 pm Bob – Don’t be confused. I’m not trying to convince you. It’s clearly obvious you’re grasping for excuses and no reasoned response is going to change your mind. My comments are for the readers out there trying to sift through the BS. Entertaining that now you acknowledge the Guard is cheaper yet ignored it before when the USAF brass were using “cost savings” as the driving reason for cutting the guard more than the active component. I guess you’re realizing the “classified scenarios” we can’t talk about approach isn’t flying.
	majr0d July 21st, 2012 at 4:53 pm J.S. – Hardly. While the total Army is pretty evenly split between the Guard and Active, the Army is cutting 80,000 troops from the ACTIVE side. ZERO from the Guard and Reserve. It’s clear you don’t know what you’re talking about.
	majr0d July 21st, 2012 at 5:08 pm fb111 — There’s something to be said about professional courtesy between officers but at this point Gen Welsh seems to have been professional. He acknowledged a trust issue between Congress and the Air Force which was apparent from his discussions with congressmen. At no time were his predecessors mentioned. How is he denigrating collegues publicly? Is he supposed to ignore the ovbious? THAT would be politics/business as usual.
	Bob July 21st, 2012 at 6:47 pm Well, since I’m an excuse grasper, why you explain to me how the services really come up with their force structures? I just told you exactly how part of it works, but that doesn’t seem to fit your argument. Since you are “Very familiar with force generation and the decisions that go into determining what the structure is”, how you go ahead and let the readers know how it really works. I’ll check back later to see what you come up with.
	majr0d July 21st, 2012 at 7:12 pm No doubt there’s a process to determine force structure. The question is was it followed. Justifying the reserve and guard troops take 65% of the cut to “save money” when active troops are clearly more expensive is a strong indicator that the process wasn’t followed. Much better than “classified missions” dictated the guard and reserve take rthe brunt of the cuts as you have proposed. It’s pretty funny that you need this explained and are blaming everyone BUT the Air Force for their decision. That’s why I tell the Guardsman “Trust but Verify”. The more you argue, dance and “repackage” the more you make my case.
	Bob July 22nd, 2012 at 12:45 am Nice dodge. So, are you not “Very familiar with force generation and the decisions that go into determining what the structure is along with the discussions that happen with sister branches.”?
	majr0d July 22nd, 2012 at 2:05 am Not dodging it’s just not germaine to the subject. Of course you want to discuss “process”. It obfuscates the fact that you haven’t an iota of evidence it was done beyond checking the block since the reasons cited by the Air Force (BUDGET) don’t jive with the decision. You’d love getting in the weeds to diiscuss the four year integrated defense planning cycle and its three levels (Pres, OSD & The CJCS). If you want to focus on the CJCS we’ll talk about the CJA, CPA, CPR, JSR process and how the JSCP and the NMS come into play every two years. (nugget, wherever there’s a “J” the branches are talking to each other Sparky) Here’s a link to a short 91 page guide from JCIDS on the CBA. Feel free to read. 91 pages of how the military does force structure isn’t helpful unless you’re trying to hide something and want to get wrapped around process. Be my guest… http://www.dtic.mil/futurejointwarfare/strategic/… Bob, we don’t have to talk at echelons above reality to figure out the USAF screwed the pooch unless you just want to keep dodging the matter.
	SallyB July 22nd, 2012 at 10:17 am Did it ever dawn on you that General Welsh WAS misquoted– listen to his testimony! Anyone that can write what you did above doesn’t know the man! I hope you have better judgment in other areas of your life and someday realize that not all that random reporters write is gospel!
	Bob July 22nd, 2012 at 1:24 pm I see you know how to use Google. The bottom line is you just don’t know the inner workings of the AF POM development process. I tried to explain part of it to you, and how that impacted the AF’s decision to cut more ANG than AD in this year’s submission. I also said up front that the AF brass made a strategic mistake by not having transparent, open channels of communication with Congress; in other words, yes, they “screwed the pooch”. But since my facts don’t support your theory that everyone above the rank of Maj in the AF is either a shyster, an idiot, or both, you can’t accept facts. The Army learned its lesson in 05–06 about relying on it’s reserve components to fill long-term rotational requirements. They finally fixed it by adding 80K active duty soldiers. The AF was trying not to get its self into the same position. I’ve got ribs to smoke–keep Googling.
	majr0d July 22nd, 2012 at 2:42 pm Actually most is from my General Staff College texts. ;) Never said everyone above the rank of Major in the USAF is a shyster/idiot. Feeling guilty? :) You can’t help shoot yourself in the foot can you? The oncoming army cuts are ALL active. The Army isn’t screwing the guard eventhough HALF of the total Army is in the Guard/Reserve. Do you REALLY want to compare? Considering it’s carried the lion’s share of deployments/combat a large increase in any Army component was justified (no three month deployments here and Guard units deployed just as long). Oh, and the Army added a lot more than 80,000 troops to the rolls (yeah, you know what you’re talking about). BTW, you didn’t ask about the USAF POM process. You asked about discussions between branches. Do I need to teach you how the Air Force is supposed to do business also? (FACEPALM) Enjoy the ribs. I hear comfort food is good to soothe a good butt whipping.
	JT3 July 22nd, 2012 at 4:36 pm National Guard Techs are Federal Empolyees as well.
	CharlesHouston July 22nd, 2012 at 9:03 pm Here JT3 shows that he is NOT a Technician. The National Guard has (in the ANG) AGRs (Active Guard Reserve, approximately — technicians that have an Active Duty ID card but never PCS) but the vast majority of Technicians are State employees that can do AT (Active Duty for Training) days. But they are on State status almost all of the time. This brings up a point — when they (or any Guard) person goes OUT of their state they should be on AT orders — and be federalized. Though I saw Texas ANG technicians doing duty outside of their state, in uniform, but under State status somehow.
	ghostwhowalksnz July 23rd, 2012 at 1:19 am Is it the only ‘fighter’ base left in Germany ? . Then it stays for that reason. I understand Ramstein is an airlift base so as far as the fighter airforce is concerned may as well be run by the French. They are only just finished closing up parts of Bitburg that were left over when that was closed in 94. Even they couldnt get it right as they went back to Bitburg for a short period when repairs were done on the runways at Spangdahlem.
	SP and SF July 24th, 2012 at 7:36 pm Its ironic because I think the opposite is true. The active duty component is so beuracratic and political nothing ever gets done. During my time in the ANG, The ANG component of ecurity Forces were responsible for over 70% of the overseas deployments including active combat missions. The ANG operates more efficiently and with less issues than Active duty. I know because I have served in both. As for AFR, to tell you the truth I never ran into AFR overseas.I cant comment on them.
	rick July 25th, 2012 at 3:40 pm What DOD should do is roll the ANG under the AF Reserves and the Army Reserves under the Army Guard. Each governor would get greater benefits from having a larger more responsive ArNG and, as an aside, each governor does not need his/her own AF!! Under AF Reserves the AF would have better control and make better use of those assets. This alone would save hundreds of millions of dollars! The real question is: does anybody in DOD or on the hill have the balls to make this recommendation and then follow through with it. Everyone whines about too much spending — well this will save hundreds of millions! Do something right for America for a change and not what lines your pockets.…
	bydand July 25th, 2012 at 5:11 pm So when Obama gets us into another war, we won’t have those trained “Weekend Warriors” to call on, and we won’t have time to train replacements for the regulars. “You go with what you have!” Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc. All the instructor pilots in my Guard unit also flew the Ho Chi Minh trail before they joined the guard.
	Chief P July 25th, 2012 at 5:17 pm Is there no age limit on guard pilots. Are you telling meall the instructor pilots in your guard unit are inteir seventies? Great. The young pilots can’t even breathe in the new airframes like the Raptor for heaven’s sake.
	Guest July 25th, 2012 at 5:33 pm I’ll support your position when the pilots do NOT have the right to opt out of combat duty as Shrub Bush and Hard Hair Perry did during Vietnam. I was not impressed at Tempelhof in 1962 when all of the Reserve Majors and LTCs were flying milk runs into Berlin. They sat around the snack bar bitchin’ and moanin’ about how many thousands of dollars they were losing at their regular jobs because they got called up. One of my PFC’s stood up and told them to quit playing military pilot and get the f—- out of Europe if their lives were so bad. I jumped in and hustled him out of the room before some assh—e could prefer charges against him.
	RobB. July 25th, 2012 at 5:53 pm I’m sorry sir, but you are confused. NG technicians are federal employees when they are working in technician status. They are considered traditional guardsmen just like the part-time force and would only be in a state status if they were performing inactive duty training or annual training. State duty can only be performed during technician non-duty hours or while the member is in a leave status from his/her technician job. Technicians are not in a state status “most of the time”. I am a technician, and I am also the resource advisor for my squadron, so I understand the rules. Hope this helps.
	Nibor July 25th, 2012 at 7:07 pm It cost Active Duty too much to cut their slots, but to the fact that they hire contractors to replace their cuts. You normally will not find very many contractors on a Guard base.
	Coozbee July 25th, 2012 at 7:42 pm Yes, I would have to agree. I was both Guard and Reserve and the latter does FAR MORE than the Guard. Sorry guys, but the guard only recently has been deployed during these wars, and STILL does not have the ability to perform with their fellow active duty and reservists. I’m not sure where the problem is at, but I saw many guardsmen that showed up in locations, and could not wait to get back home after their 45 day tour. Too many have had pencil whipping on their performance evals and were promoted based on who they rubbed elbows with in their civilian life, or (and I hate to say this) but what church they belonged to. I know I’m going to take a lot of retaliation on this one, but the truth does hurt. Sorry, just saw too much of it, to keep it from being said.
	Coozbee July 25th, 2012 at 7:52 pm If your going to make a statement like this, please take in all the factors first. Most active duty folks, transfer out to do another job, so lack of experience is always at the forefront, and it is mostly young airmen doing the job, that their supervisor should be overseeing more closely. It’s all about positioning and realigning and putting dibs on jobs in other areas. It’s a med dash for getting 5 ratings and promotion quickly. Not whether you know your job or you exceed your peers at the job. Its all about getting the pay raise and less work to do as a supervisor (not more). Supervisors used to have to do more, thus the promotion and the pay increase. Just the opposite now. That’s where senior leadership Officers and enlisted have lost touch.
	Ron July 25th, 2012 at 10:06 pm Really you guys act like your in a union and yea i will get around to it later and for the record since the new fitness program has taken place the Air Force is in alot better shape. Plus we all know who will do the Fighting and it aint the Air Guard its to dangerous.
	j 1 July 25th, 2012 at 11:47 pm I retired as an AGR, and volunteered to deploy twice to OEF, as an AGR, i would alway ask for volunteers to fill our bucket, and i was lucky to get 5 the first deployment and 3 on my second deployment. So when it came to doing deployment, the Guardmen I had in my unit would never volunteer to deploy… or excuses came in to play cause of their civilian employer.. Hello…
	CharlesHouston July 25th, 2012 at 11:54 pm RobB — are you saying that they are ALL Title 10 (AGR??) why then are the vacancies advertised at the State level? Why do they have one “skill” when they are technicians (a lot of my motor pool people were sheet metal workers as technicians but dispatchers as military) and a different AFSC when in AT status?? Maybe we are using different terminology — you say that they are in state status if they are doing Annual Training (AT)? Under what Title do most Technicians work? I think it is Title 32, so they are not “Federalized” and cannot transfer from one State to another without reapplying. Unlike ARTs, who can transfer from one State to another.
	Orlando Llenza July 26th, 2012 at 9:04 am I served in the ANG after a tour on active duty, yes, there was a difference, first thing one notices is that the active Air Force used the ANG as a dumping ground for obsolete aircraft. In the 50’s and during the Vietnam War, it was apparent that the ANG could not be mobilized as a fighting unit with the obsolete Korean War relics. The only interest of the active Air Force was to mobilize the experienced airmen, which were far superior to the active forces, they were not interested in mobilizing complete squadrons. This is evident today by creating joint USAF-ANG units. The only benefit is acquiring the trained airmen and NCO’s in the ANG. Another factor that has not been discussed is the advent of USAF Academy graduates into the Air Force which created a class warfare between non academy USAF officers and those of the USAF Reserve/ANG. This is evident by the actions of the USAF Chief of Staff in trying to control the Reserve/ANG units as associate units with the active force. I consider that a major blunder and gross abuse of power like taking the Chief of Air Force Reserve and the Director of the ANG to congressional hearings as stooges of the Chief of Staff. Congress should divest the joint ANG/USAF Reserve and active USAF unit concept. The ANG has shown the active Air Force units their superiority due to a stable and proud organization which has served our country well in all wars.
	RobB July 26th, 2012 at 10:21 am AGRs are Title 32, not Title 10; at least where I work. Even though Technicians may be performing the same duty and wearing the same the same uniform as they would in their military job, they are not in a military status. Technically, you are a federal civilian employee while performing Technician duty. Our members work under the same AFSC in both statuses. Normally, the Technician position is tied to a particular AFSC, and the member has to already be a Reserve/Guard member holding that AFSC. There are some exceptions, but this is usually the case. Here’s a small excerpt from USC Title 10: §10216. Military technicians (dual status) (a) In General.—(1) For purposes of this section and any other provision of law, a military technician (dual status) is a Federal civilian employee who— (A) is employed under section 3101 of title 5 or section 709(b) of title 32 ; (B) is required as a condition of that employment to maintain membership in the Selected Reserve; and © is assigned to a civilian position as a technician in the organizing, administering, instructing, or training of the Selected Reserve or in the maintenance and repair of supplies or equipment issued to the Selected Reserve or the armed forces. As for why the jobs are advertised at the state level, that authority is delegated down to the TAG and state HRO. They, along with the unit doing the hiring, decide how to announce the position. They may stipulate that the position is only open to members already in the unit, or they may open it statewide or nationwide, depending on the situation.
	Gary Parker July 26th, 2012 at 10:48 am Wow! Charles, can’t wait for that book. Probably another nail biter about “Dubya’s” career. Where have you been these last ten years. I will retire from the guard after 25 years service (including over 7 years active duty) and I can tell you from first-hand experience; we ran rings around our active duty counterparts in combat. Col Dekker cited a statistic in his address to the incoming replacements for the 455 AEW, Bagram, Afghanistan– March 2012. “49% of active duty personnel have NEVER deployed overseas.” In a war that has lasted over ten years, how can that possibly be? I have deployed 5 times; I have only been home two months since the last one! Ask me about a conversion between an Atlantic City F-16 pilot flying CAS over an FOB near Pakistan. It will definitely open your eyes as to how we do our jobs under pressure. As far as saving millions by consolidation, I have heard that before. The guard still has a state mission to fulfill. Who picks up the job as alert force at the borders? Who responds to emergencies like Katrina? The fires in San Diego? Tornado devastation in the Midwest? Etc. It will always be citizen soldiers.
	CharlesHouston July 26th, 2012 at 4:46 pm Gary — when the book comes out I’ll send ya a free copy. As the OIC of Electronics Installation in an Engineering Installation squadron, I looked at the list of things that they had to do to get qualified in their AFSC. There were many of them that were crossed out — for Radar Maintenance as an example. I asked why they were crossed out and yet people upgraded to 7 and 9 level, and I was told that we did not have the equipment handy for them to train on! Yet we were very close to Ellington ANG and not too far from Lackland/Kelly AFB. We could have gone TDY to San Antonio to get the training, an EI squadron was there at one time (1827th EIS). So I uncrossed them out and arranged for some folks to go see the hardware — it was not difficult. The NCO ICs had just decided to qualify people on stuff that we had in our unit! And we got dinged in this every time on inspections by Active folks. This was an example of how my ANG unit was not as well trained as the Active squadrons we worked with, there are others. Certainly many flying units are as well trained as Active units, but it is too easy to get away with stuff when you are a GSU!
	Stanky AD Guy July 26th, 2012 at 8:45 pm Well gosh…I never realized how bad off us active duty bubbas really are…I’m ashamed we can’t measure up to the Guard standard. And to think…you’ve been deployed for 30+ months while us AD jokers sit on our cans.…
	B.Jackson July 27th, 2012 at 3:51 pm You stay off of my e-mail, where you were not invited in the first place, and I will put my 26 year record in the service of my country to yours any day of the week. Willie Jackson
	CharlesHouston August 9th, 2012 at 1:11 pm The problem as I saw it — in the Active Duty, Tx ANG, and AF Reserve — is that geographically separated units (especially when they are mostly supervised by the State) get away with a lot. The military chain of command (as we see in this story) cannot really hold them to the level of performance as units that are on a base and can be directly compared. The Guard in multiple states that I worked with trained to a lower standard and when this was pointed out — they got the State HQ to protect them. The smaller, GSU, unit can get away with a lot.

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AF backpedals on ANG cuts

Join the Conversation

Military.com Daily News

Recent Comments

AF backpedals on ANG cuts

Join the Conversation

Military​.com Daily News

Most Read

Recent Comments

Military.com Daily News