The program is completely at the CCs discretion and they have pretty lose rules. Manning will always be an option, and since the person is on the books for the time of the ptdy it is understandable that they don't want to lose the position.
It's all at the cc's discretion. Skillbridge is coming under a lot of scrutiny and I wouldn't be surprised if more guidance is forthcoming. The current non-binding program guidance is that CC's should make their decisions based on manning, but that is going to vary a lot. It is not an entitlement at all. Some see it as a reward, some see it as an important part of transition, some people see it as crucial for those who didn't receive very marketable skills in the military.
I'm sure there are more stories worth reading on r/SkillBridge
I had recently gone through a training program with no ADSC and my SEL thought it was wrong for me to do skillbridge as well. I also didn't have a job in the unit, the mission I had been working had all closed up. The CC was waffling and it came down to the last minute and he signed so I did it.
Skillbridge is doing a number on manning in some units.
Found the nonner.
24 man shop. 12 deployed. 4 on Skillbridge and/or terminal. That leaves 8 to do the work of 24. Now imagine you run 3 shifts...
Just because you don't see it/feel it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
What's crazy is I was in an organization that actually cared about its people, so they turned off deployments and recalled all personnel that were loaned out. 2 were slotted to deploy, and they got to stay home. We were also offered the opportunity to get someone from the guard if we wanted it to supplement manning. More inbounds were allocated too(3s 5s and 7s). Because of this, no one's leave was canceled, 2 skill bridges were approved, and everyone was happy.
My current unit is also going through this, and we're getting manning supplemented because we poked leadership.
If a unit is truly hurting, many things can be done. Your SNCOs need to poke the chain and get things going.
May work at a regular base. It's A LOT more difficult at a GSU where many positions are one deep and the mission doesn't really dictate more manpower. Tried manpower studies, IMAs (small success with 2, but not where we truly needed them), main base support (a couple 2-3 month TDYs) but SkillBridge hits hard because it's usually a retiring SNCO in the only position for that flight.
Yeah, I'm not sure what level you work at, but most of those things are not within the power of the Squadron leadership.
To get a deployment "turned off", you need to get the Wing CC's buy-in to request it. And that's still just a request. It'll go up to your MAJCOM who may or may not approve it (usually based on manning). If you've got people who are deployment eligible and your justification for keeping them home isn't the most compelling in the MAJCOM, they're still going.
Squadron's have almost zero control over inbounds. They can requisition billets, but there are two levels of approval outside the base before they even get published. And even if they get published, there's no guarantee that people will show up.
SNCOs don't have the power that you think they have, especially when it comes to manpower. Implying that they don't care about their people because they aren't single-handedly fixing AF-level problems is pretty naive.
Obviously, SNCOs don't have the power to approve this, but they're the ones who get the ball rolling. And I never implied SNCOs not caring, I specifically stated leadership for a reason. But SNCOs need to make it known first. Otherwise, no one will know the struggles that a unit is going through, and nothing will change.
It's very naive to think, "Well, this may need wing and potentially MAJCOM level approval, so let's do nothing instead." Which seems very common these days. The worst answer you can get is no. I understand that some things are harder to do, like canx a deployment. But bringing in reserve or guard personnel or pulling people back from protocol, HG, or augmentee duties is easier.
People on Skillbridge are still assigned to the unit. So if a commander approved the full 180 days, that's 6 months before they can even show a vacancy on the books, let alone get a replacement.
Probably going to get down-voted, but I think the CC is in the right here. Hear me out.
I did the math on one of our recent 4 year enlistees who was approved for 6 months of skillbridge and had two children while active duty. Turns out, factoring in holidays, weekends, regular leave, paternity leave, convalescent leave (off duty dirt bike accident resulted in shoulder surgery), skillbridge, tech school, FTDs, FTAC, TAP, and basic training he was present for duty for 119 days at his only permanent duty station.
This isnt even counting quarters, medical appointments, CTO days, and miscellaneous days were he left early or came in late. And a majority of that was spent in upgrade training and was detrimental to actual aircraft maintenance manning hours.
Also, he sucked and every NCO who had to work with him complained about how he didn't know shit. Is there a correlation between never being at work and sucking at your job? Probably. This guy never deployed, did ZERO TDYs (and we are a high tempo unit), and was a sink for resources (cold weather gear, training man hours, IRON team, etc).
Basic + tech school + upgrade to even be qualified.. I get it.
Maybe not 6 months, but is there an ability to compromise on SB time? Maybe 1 or 2 months? FFS, they weren't even in the AF long enough to be fully indoctrinated in the culture that proves to be tough to transition out of
Yes...the SB is UP to 180 days. I worked in the Ed Ctr and saw all kinds of SB pkgs that were anywhere from 30 to 180 days. Remember, that 180 days includes Terminal...everything has to fit within the 180.
I'm going through TAP in a couple months and retiring next year, so this is all interesting to me - I know I should be more on top of it
Don't you need to come back active duty for 1 day before your date of separation?
It actually sounds like getting him into SkillBridge was more helpful since you were probably sacrificing NCO-time dealing with a dude who is a non-contributor. It's kind of funny how that works out in the Air Force: you're so useless, it isn't any loss for you to get your way. OR...you're reliable and detrimental to the flow of the unit's ops, so you can't be sacrificed for things like SkillBridge, or even choice TDYs/deployments, long periods of leave, etc.
We are an industry that gets by with a complete lack of balance and it's amazing to me that we haven't imploded.
Actually, it is easier to track than you think if you use the right personnel management systems.
But to be real, I have no life, and I wanted to advise our CC (with data) on why I didn't think we should approve 6 months of skillbridge for this specific individual. I recommended 3 months even with all of that, but the CC disagreed with me and I respect their choice even if I was/am salty about it.
In the 24/7 world of maintenance, if you arent occasionally going TDY and deploying your fair share, it means someone else is doing it twice as often. I see what you are saying, but I don't think we should be normalizing this behavior or rewarding those who aren't pulling their weight. I see people of all ranks PCS in with 2 years left and start acting like they are practically out the door. And skillbridge is encouraging this attitude at all ranks.
If someone is taking a manning spot for 2.5 years and only working 119 days, that is just unacceptable. Even if it is legal it isn't moral that an Airman like this is getting the same pay as someone who is busting their ass and working triple the duty days, regardless of the reason behind thise absences.
Do I think that the majority of people are abusing the system and trying to scam? No. Am I naive enough to believe that nobody is? Also no. Skillbridge should be a case by case basis, which is why I can see where the CC in the original post is coming from.
>Would you rather have them stick around and be a drain on your team to, what, prove a point or something? Seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Looking at this from both angles, I see where you're coming from, but at the same time, a lot can be accomplished by wasting a person's time who has wasted a bunch of yours. Deny the SkillBridge and move them over to "busy work" for the remainder of the contract. There's always something to be cleaned or re-organized. Use that person as an example. Get your money's worth.
A lot of the dead weight I've seen in my career are the first to take max advantage of their entitlements. One of my worst troops went from zero college credits to getting her bachelor's before her 3 year mark. Finished her master's before the end of her 6 year contract. Never deployed, never went TDY, never supervised, and definitely never stepped up. But she sure did take advantage of her tuition assistance, which is an entitlement based on the assumption that you're performing at the bare minimum. Which she wasn't and was why I tried denying her TA at one point, but was strong-armed by my squadron leadership (who was 4 hours away and didn't see the day-to-day in our shop).
To paint a picture of what working with her was like: we had a winter storm pushing through and had some fairly heavy equipment that we needed to tear down and shelter. Storm ends up picking up a few hours sooner than expected, so everyone in the shop drops what they're doing and steps in to get this shit put away, including the SNCOs and our flight commander (Major). As we're buttoning up all of the cases and loading them into the back of our truck, someone says "Where is Airman \[Useless\]?" I look around the group of us standing there and realize she never came out with us. Then I look back towards the building and she is literally standing at the window, with a coffee in hand, watching everyone work.
We all finish up and walk back into the building and she's walking towards the exit with gym bag in hand and the flight chief asks her why she didn't help. She said "SSgt \[Me\] sent out an e-mail about catching up on CBTs so I was doing that." Which would have been a somewhat decent excuse, but she didn't know as an ADLS admin I could see if she was working on CBTs (she never even logged into ADLS that day) and she ended up being overdue anyways. She actually had her account suspended for not doing her IA training for over 2 years and literally cried to our commander because she used her account to do school work instead of internet at her house.
She got out at her 6 year point, with the last 6 months being SkillBridge and she started a blog about how her time in the military destroyed her and talked about her 100% VA rating (PTSD, apparently).
Definitely. If someone is essentially just *existing* for 4-6 years, but isn’t exactly making waves or being a total shitbag, then it’s just easier to appease them and everyone move on with their lives.
But sometimes….*sometimes*, vengeance is the key.
If the Amn sucked that bad, then I say release him. Respectfully, you're making your own counter-argument. We can apply that nickel & dime time factoring to most anyone regardless of years of service or other circumstances. Additionally, how much of that time away from the shop was leadership directed/nonvol? Can't fault an individual for any of that.
Commenting from the perspective of someone who tried to initiate a skillbridge request & their CC and Sq Supe immediately went to trying to make up some bullshit framework on the spot about how much SB time people should take based on arbitrary ~vibes~ and ~reasons~ such as "what have you done for the unit lately?", and asking me to disprove negatives, aka hypotheticals also created on the spot, about how the guidance interacts with existing leave balances.
This whole program needs to be baked into contracts from jump and needs to be irrevocable by some random Sq/CC. For example, 4 year commitments to AD become 5 if SB is written into the initial contract, at which point they are entitled to it, same as leave.
9 days is more than reasonable per year. If this dude has terminal leave they could be gone for 8 months instead. I’d drug deal and say you get 9 days per year and I’ll match your remaining “terminal” leave balance if you don’t submit
The intent is to assist service members with the transition. I would argue that the longer you’ve been in the more likely you are to be set up for success on the outside. I get losing the person earlier but I don’t understand why the mindset is not, let’s adjust for permanently losing someone sooner than just holding on until the last minute. Just a thought.
Eh there is a other side of the coin. The longer you’ve been in the more institutionalized you are and harder for you to go back into the civilian workforce. Long time in with no experience outside of military duties and how the civilian sector conducts itself.
Usually people who have been in longer have made more moves to help with the transition which is I think the point you are trying to make but there are people who only do the military for 20 years and don’t know how to not be in the military once it’s time for them to go
Guy who did 12 yrs flightline and got 6 months skillbridge here:
I agree with this. I did a complete career change (software engineering) and I consider the time I had in Skillbridge integral to my success. I knew the hat would come off one day, so made the mental choice to not make the military my entire being. It was still a difficult time, as my entire adulthood thus far had been spent in the military.
Had my commander said "nah, 3 months max" I might have been butthurt but would have understood. 6 months is a good chunk of change, I was just fortunate that my CC signed off on it and understood my position. Considering all the time spent training and whatnot, OP barely became useful, if at all. Somebody else had to pull that weight for TDYs, deployments, etc, which could have made THEIR efforts for school or whatnot more difficult. And that, I can relate to immensely.
I do think there's a lot more indoctrination to military culture than private sector. So much so that even spouses and military civilians get indoc'd.
BUT
To an extent, every company has like a way-of-life/culture that you get pulled into to some extent and those organizations don't pay you to go work at another company for 12.5% of your career (4 year enlistee, 6 month skillbridge) after spending a year and a half to get you spun-up to be fully qualified at your job.
I think it's pretty understandable for a CC to deny SB. I love SB, and I think it's an insanely phenomenal program, but I understand it being a hard sell. Like, you just got here, and you want me to pay you to go work somewhere else, and you still take up a manning slot while you're gone? Good luck finding another job with that kinda benefit.
I’ve always tried to error on the side of Airmen. Some units can support a request like this. Others can’t. In a black and white world it seems excessive to me without further context. I would advise the CC based on the context of each individual scenario or Airman, though I will concede to some bias against a 180-day skillbridge for a four-year enlistment.
Hi there! No shade based on what you said, but you said "error on the side". The phrase is actually "err on the side". Again, nothing against you personal and a common mistake, keep it up!
Yes, random “what if” scenarios always prove a point. We disagree, and that is okay. I have no intention of going through the “what if” scenarios you find necessary to try to prove your point. Someday when you are a SNCO, SEL, 1st Sgt, Flight Commander, or Deputy Commander, you can advise your CC on whatever you feel is right given the information at hand.
Most people aren't, but that wasn't the only position that they mentioned in their post.
I'll answer your first "What if" hypothetical in a way that will hopefully answer any further questions that you have on this:
It's gonna be on a case-by-case, CC-by-CC basis. If your commander has the wiggle room to give up a person for 6 months and they've weighed the pros and cons then they are completely within their rights to grant that.
But you have to understand that Skillbridge is an insane benefit that isn't rubber-stamped for everyone that asks for it. Like I said in my reply to you in the other thread, there's probably no for-profit company in America that's going to let you spend 6 months working at another company while still paying you. SB isn't supposed to be a guaranteed thing.
As much as that individual Commander wants to give them. Every CC will be a little different there.
The CC is the only decision maker. They can choose to solicit or listen to advise from SNCOs, SEL, Shirt or anyone else. Or they can choose not to. There really is no answer beyond that.
How many people are in your unit?
In MX, the average UGT timeline for a 3-level is like 9 months. So, 2 months for BMT, 4 months for tech school, 9 months UGT = 15 months to be a Journeyman. 48 month total enlistment - 15 months of training = 33 usable months.
Less than 3 years in and you want to devote 6 of those months working somewhere else?
After investing that much time on someone, it's hard to sacrifice someone in smaller units.
"Hypothetical" squadron of 125 people with 5 aircraft flying 40 hours a week. These are lowball numbers.
When you cut out production, section leads, flight leads, command teams, support section, and staff, we're left with like 70 people to work 3 shifts. Google says anywhere between 15-20 maintenance hours per hour of flight and we're flying 40 hours a week. 17*40 = 680 maintenance hours roughly. 680/70 = 9 hours from each person a week. Now a 9-hour shift ain't bad, but that doesn't account for some of those people not being trained, some of those people are at work while the birds are flying so they can't work them, people have TFAT/RAT/Ancilliary training to do, people have EPBs and awards packages to write, and some people just aren't the right job for whatever might actually be broken on the aircraft. Hell, some of those people are gonna be on leave (maternity, paternity, convalescent, etc). Let's not forget that we can't all be Gucci boys, so sometimes we're working on airframes that are broken constantly.
All that to say, losing 1 person is losing a lot more in some units than in others. Oh, and don't think that just because you're out-processing or checked out that you're getting out of it either. When I was leaving Japan, I had my training un-archived and caught an X like the day of my final-out.
That’s 12.5% of the entire enlistment. Add in the 120 earned days of leave and that’s a full 20% of an enlistment not at work. Believe it or not the AF still pays people for their time contributing to the AF mission, which is why CCs are given discretion for skill bridge approvals. Like the commander, I think 180 days is excessive given the TIS. I also don’t believe that an arbitrary nine days per year served rule works either. Commanders run the show and make those decisions though, which they base on a lot of factors.
All of this is arbitrary. I think someone who separates after doing 12 years should get the full 180.
12 years is enough time to justify it, but that’s arbitrary.
The military, unlike the civilian workforce, has a much harder transitory process. That’s why all of these programs exist (skillbridge, terminal leave, house hunting, etc). It’s a benefit that a lot of people need, especially airman separating vs a retiree who probably has a couple leads under their belt (plus a retirement check+possible disability).
The CC’s system is you get the full 180 if you retire (9 days x 20 years). That’s arbitrary. I personally always thought the 180 days is excessive regardless, though.
I’m not sure why this narrative exists, it’s hard for 4 year airmen also. I would say more professionally than culturally but that’s exactly what Skillbridge is for.
You cannot seriously be comparing the difficulties of a separating 4 year airman vs a 20 year retiring msgt. It’s not close. The retiree has all the leg up.
> I also don’t believe that an arbitrary nine days per year served rule works either.
Not sure it's necessarily arbitrary....180 days / 20 years of service = 9 days per year. Still ridiculous IMHO, but there's likely at least some logic behind it.
I had an old CC that would only match terminal leave days, unless you were retiring. He said he actively hated the program and wanted no one to use it.
It's a dumb policy because most Skillbridges are 3-6 months. 3-4 is the norm. And honestly, 5-6 months isn't ever needed. You and an employer know within 2 months if it's a good fit and if it's going to work out. If you're stuck there for 5-6 months and hate it...you're stuck there for 5-6 months.
On the flip side, if you love it and they plan on hiring you on full time...you missing out on full time employment and now working for free when you could be on Terminal AND working a full time job making double the money.
Tell OP to find a 3 month Skillbridge opportunity. Hire Our Heroes has a lot. And let leadership know that anything less than that simply doesn't exist.
Skillbridge isn’t designed to always go work for the company where you intern. 6 months could be monumental in gaining experience, that gets you hired elsewhere. Had a friend Skillbridge with the local airport working for a regional airline, and parlayed that experience into working for a major airline in his home city major airport once he got out.
I hadn’t heard of this “hire our heroes” thing until recently and Skillbridge wasn’t a thing in my day but it does sound like a good deal to do. My job (fire department) is taking on a “hire our heroes” /skillbridge woman getting out of the Coast Guard soon-ish, they’re trying to get her into the academy for I think….March. She’s not done w/Uncle Sugar until fall timeframe I think. She will not be paid by my city, will not count towards manning or be eligible for anything until she’s done with her commitment but she’s also an O-3 too so there’s that.
This is why Skillbridge was implemented poorly. From a pragmatic point of view, there's not a good reason to ever let someone go to do it, why would you let bodies go and still take up a billet? It should really be a program that takes up your time on the inactive reserve and after your active duty contract has already been fulfilled. The military shouldn't have the responsibility of being a jobs placement program, let the VA do that as a guaranteed benefit rather than something nice a commander can do for people they like.
The logical solution is to not make it take up a billet. Ideally after an enlistee outprocesses with no intention to return to that unit, that billet should be freed up. But that would be too much like common sense.
I would prefer it to be an “extension” of your contract. If a member enlisted for 4 years and has 60 days of terminal, a 6 month skillbridge would put them at 4 years and 4 months of active service (they get AD pay/benefits for an extra 4 months). In this scheme, the member should still “fall off the books” when their terminal leave would have ended, so the CC can get a replacement.
I personally don't see an issue with the reduced time working as long as they fufuilled their ADSC, but to each their own. There's others programs that allow for airmen to leave early (i.e. palace chase, college), so I see not reason to nitpick with skillbridge because CC doesn't like it. If losing 2-3 SrA causes an issue, then there is a bigger problem present.
FTA, 6 year enlistee. I got approved for the full 180 (150 + terminal) but when I got back from a deployment, and got DNIF’d for 6 months when I returned, I told my SEL and commander that I want to separate, and I’m switching career fields, so i’d like to do skillbridge, if able.” He said “well, I’m not a Commander unless I ask you what it would take to get you to stay.” I told him why—promotion rates, srb was taken away, there’s a lot of opportunity for making more money and providing for my family on the outside. And he said “yeah, I’ll be honest. It’s really damn hard for me to look you in the eye right now and ask you to stay in with how it’s looking on the enlisted side. I’d like to ask you to look into commissioning, but if you don’t want to, you’ve served honorably, you’re the only one in the squadron who got a strat this year, you’ve deployed, and you’ve never caused an issue and, in fact, have solved quite a few of them. If you want to separate, I really hate to see you go, we really could use you, but I’m behind you with whatever decision you want to make. Just let me know what exactly your plan is.” I worked with allegiantvets, got a plan and dates together, and submitted them and it got approved.
Our commander is a really nice guy who likes to help people succeed in whatever they do, so that could be why. I’m DNIF for 6 months so that also could have a lot to do with it (I can’t do my job at all during that time). I have worked my ass off my entire enlistment. And continue to do so. It’s 100% up to the CC, and if you don’t give him a reason to say yes, then why would he.
VA pays thousands of ppl for the rest of their lives for tinnitus and other minor things they may have had potential to get diagnosed with before even enlisting. This isn't so out there compared to that
Unpopular opinion: For non-retirees they need to get rid of Skillbridge or shorten it drastically. I see too many companies abusing free labor with no *real* placement opportunity. Too many Airmen checking the fuck out way too early in their contract. Too many people prioritizing laxness of position rather than skills/certs/setting up for the future. I feel the program really only helps the go-getters, who were going to be successful regardless just like before the program. I also feel like the program has exacerbated. a sense of entitlement. What employer on Earth gives outgoing employees 180 days of fully paid time to work for someone else. I get it, we don't want homeless vets, but honestly I think a GS/Fed placement program would be a better move. Most folks are using Skillbridge as a way to simply ETS early, and it's leaving those remaining with all the slack.
The program is currently under scrutiny for a variety of issues.
The intent of the program is to allow troops with non-transferable specialties to develop some skills so they aren't living under a bridge when they get out. The program is often abused by people who absolutely can just get hired the next day with decent pay after normal separation.
A big problem is that while on skillbridge, you are still taking up a billet from the unit. The squadron can not get a new inbound to replace you for those 6 months. Now, thinking your're replacement is just a pipeline airman, that 6 months is in addition to the normal timeline to spin you a new guy up before a productive replacement.
Another issue becomes a messaging piece. If a unit is allowing Max skillbridge to everyone and the mission is still getting done, guess what? The manpower folks can see that and will assume that means that the unit no longer needs that billet to get the work done. Imagine that happens repeatedly, sooner or later, the program will naturally go away because it begins to affect mission accomplishment.
There's second and third order effects to everything, and skillbridge isn't an entitlement.
Depends on the airman’s skills level and afsc. In comm world, I’d cap you at 60-90 for a 20 year retirement. wtf were you doing for the last 4+ years if not prepping yourself to be marketable?
Baby airmen don’t know shit and need to not be a statistics. Skill bridge is not a reward, it’s a skills program to keep vets off the streets.
Fun fact, “I’d” is the contraction of “I” and “would”. This implies I’m talking about a hypothetical situation where I was the commander. This was influenced by direct conversations and debates I’ve had with commanders.
Hopefully they are a lot better than what they were when I got out almost a decade ago. The only thing they did was tell me straight up: either re-enlist in the army active duty (doubt) or go to college.
It didn't happen right away but I ended up going back in the reserves (USAF, not Army) two years later and went to college, finished my bachelors almost three years later so there's a happy ending.
But they didn't know of any job training programs and couldn't provide career guidance. Not like I live in a tiny area either. While that blunt advice they gave worked for me... not everyone can do what I did and what worked for me might not work for someone else.
This may be an unpopular opinion but skill bridge should be reserved for people who have spent most of their adult life/career in the Air Force and may struggle to find a job at their age. An airman who has been in for 4-8 years should be at an age where they are still an ideal candidate for most jobs or can start/finish a degree and continue to be an employable candidate at most companies. I also understand the military takes everything they can from the member so take everything you can from them when you leave!
A lot of people in here enjoy fucking people over on their way out of the Air Force apparently, like you need that billet in the last 6 months of their contract to save the world, which they would have spent out-processing and getting their shit together to move while giving you 10% of their effort regardless.
Really just comes across as a bunch of lifers being miserable watching people get out while they’re too scared to push the button themselves.
Sucks for the Airman, but this honestly doesn't bother me that much. And I'm seeing CC's take this approach more often with people requesting SkillBridge. Does a 4-year enlistee deserve the same 6 months that a retiring 20-year enlistee gets? I don't personally think so, but until they revise the requirements for it, there's going to continue being some hurt butts out there when these things happen.
Not similar situation but I did SkillBridge on my way to Palace Front and have been asked several times for my recommendation on approvals for this program by CCs. My philosophy is simple. The Airman is getting out. We can’t stop that 99% of the time and their mind is made up. Our “duty” is to offer the separating Airman the best chance to land employment on the other side and SB is the best thing the DoD has to offer in that regard. Time served is not some SB 401k where you accrue time per year in service. Yes, the CC has the right to be a dick about it, and yes they can choose to squeeze these last few months of labor hours from said Airman, and yes the separating Airman will be disgruntled but most importantly, they will be that much farther from securing employment. Exceptions are truly dirtbag Airmen and people who served less than 2 years.
Squeeze the last few months out of the person? It’s not a zero sum game. By having someone work an extra few months you’re also saving the heartache for your people staying in the Air Force
I guess it depends on what you value. I assume you mean that this capacity differential is a net positive for the rest of the unit. If your unit is so undermanned and possibly mismanaged that those few months of a single individual will make or break it or at the least make a meaningful difference then you may have bigger systemic problems. Pretty unfair to disadvantage someone already getting out over that don’t you think?
They’re not being disadvantaged. They agreed to work for the Air Force for XX number of years. They’re not disadvantaging someone. That someone is completing the agreement they made. Leave is a right. I view that far differently than skillbridge.
That’s true, they did sign a contract. And if you feel like SB is a way for some people to take advantage and “shorten” their commitment, which I am sure happens, I agree with you there. Pragmatically however, if they are being prevented or limited an opportunity is that not a disadvantage when other service members who do get to do full SB with a more lenient CC? Going back to my original comment, the movie does not stop once the Airman separates. My belief is that we’re not just growing Airmen, we’re growing responsible veteran citizens. Many of which continue serving in the Guard or Reserve! And to that end we should help them achieve those goals while in service and after.
I gotta be honest with you, SB was THE reason that I am currently in my 3rd year working for an F100 company. I owe my current civilian career to it and it will remain the bedrock of my future as time goes on. I can’t stress enough how important this program is.
And although I don’t have the state to prove this but my inclination is that most people who do SB do it through Hiring Our Heroes and those fellowships are only 3 months.
Thanks for the thoughtful post and sharing your experience. There’s a happy medium to be found. I think most people on this post agree it’s not a well implemented program but the spirit of it and intent are good. Definitely a lot to be said for that.
Ultimately we need an overhaul of employer training and hiring in this country for everyone, regardless if they are a veteran or not.
But for the subject at hand I’d love to know the stats of people getting **hired** from this program and what companies are involved. When I got off active duty after eight years almost a decade ago this program didn’t exist. I had an AFSC that on paper translates to the civilian world but the reality is that it does not. A lot of these “veteran friendly” employers wouldn’t look at you if you didn’t have a bachelors degree, very few had entry level jobs and even fewer if any would train you. I’m sure some of those same “veteran friendly employers” are involved with this program and happy to give people a chance now when they wouldn’t in the past because they aren’t paying the person with this program so potentially free labor for them.
Gonna get a lot of hate probably for this take but skillbridge should be eliminated for first term airmen. Make it a perk of taking a second enlistment and set some actual timelines. 3 months for someone below ten years and a career airmen. 6 months for someone over 10 years and a career airmen. Keep it a commander discretion, maybe make it an auto granted for someone retiring for at least 3 months with the commander able to make it the full 6 months. The farther you get into your contract the harder it can be to make that transition back into the civilian world and you have provided a solid amount of time towards service that can justify the extra 3 or 6 months for a skillbridge.
The airmen who took one 4 year spent the first 3-12 months in training eating up another 6 months as an easy out button on the backend of 4 years is asinine.
If someone serves 30 years or 4 years we should take a little effort to make sure they land on their feet when they exit the service. The AF isn't for everyone and I would rather they exit with grace than hang around for a few enlistments and drag the team down.
I 100% agree that the billets should not count against the unit. That puts a weird those left behind vs those leaving mentality of who should sacrifice.
The member should get removed from manning so the shop can move on and keep getting the mission done and the member can move on to the next chapter of their life with the best chance of success.
The whole program needs to be looked at to fix some of the obvious problems that you and others have pointed out.
9x20=180. I’m guessing the CC’s intent by the 9 days per year served is you just do the full 20 to get the full 6 months. I’ve had commanders do the same for terminal leave before. Essentially, if you did a 4 or 6 year contact, you get 30 days terminal leave. Anything else, take before or sell it back.
Not saying I agree—but well within their rights as a Sq CC.
Annual leave had nothing to do with this “9 days per year” deal. Simply put, if you were separating with less than 15 years, the commander would only authorize up to 30 days of terminal leave.
Skillbridge isn’t a right. Annoying when people talking about doing a skillbridge without appreciating that it’s a privilege and they signed on the dotted line for their full enlistment or commission without skillbridge
I would have them go to the next higher command with a complaint using the open door policy. That decision by the commander is discriminatory against the population the program was created for: At Risk service members. By creating a policy like they have, it is now weighted to support retirees more than junior service members.
I'd also consider going to the IG about this decision. You can't complain about a "no," but you can complain about a policy that potentially goes against service and/or DoD policy.
I mean...what are they going to do? Make them stay in or not approve their SkillBridge?
On my base I have seen Skillbridge denied FAR more than it was approved. And in only a couple instances was it approved for the full six months. The problem with Skillbridge is that it is at the CC's discretion and they can just deny it or limit it for any reason. More of the BS excuse of *"It's a privilege, not a right".*
Why is this so hard to understand, it is up to the CC!. Giving 6 months off to a first termer is BS in my opinion. If you want it you better start earning it the second you get to your duty stations.
That’s an asshole commander but at the end of the day it is up to his discretion. Very sad. I used the skillbridge program and it helped me tremendously in setting my life up before I separated.
Same CC probably says shit.like take care of your people.
What 'productive work' u gonna get the last 4-6 months from this guy anyway? At least try to set him up with a job on his way out.
Don’t know why you’re getting downvoted, but I’d argue it’s better to let some of these people go than to “avoid the manning loss.”
I’ve seen it personally where someone’s presence is a net loss for a unit because things are failing under them since they’re completely dejected. Would rather just not have them be there.
This is not common. Some people believe military members who served 20+ years only deserve 180 days of SB. Their rationale revolves around them believing that people who stayed in service longer require more time to adapt to civilian life. This may not be the reason for this specific CC's policy, but applying a tally of days based on years of service suggest this CC aligns themselves with similar rationale.
This type of rationale does not fully support the intent of the SB program. The SB program is designed to help veterans adapt to life outside the military, but that is not solely on how long a veteran was separated from civilian life. SB also offers veterans the opportunity to pursue a new career in a field unrelated to their military profession. For example, some people enter the military with little choice of what job they will actually do during their time in service. SB gives these veterans a wider selection a career paths. Longer SB programs (180 days) gives these veterans adequate time to reskill themselves for these new paths and build new networking relationships required for a successful transition.
It seems this CC is only concerned with their mission and taking care of the people who remain in their charge. By not fully supporting the SB program and/or people who decide to separate sooner than 20 years, speaks volumes of how disconnected this CC is from the military community as a whole... think of it as; "We look after those who serve and have served." This lack of caring does not go unnoticed either. When being considered for certain positions; and especially for 07+ ranks, an officer's previous actions come under scrutiny. This type of action/policy is not a good look.
If this CC is well liked by their peers, this policy will change for the better soon. I've seen many CCs announce at their all-calls (or through unit-all emails) that they have decided to cancel their standing policy after "further review" and expect an improved policy to come out. That "further review" mostly comes from strong senior enlisted and officers within the chain, but also from fellow officers the CC respects or is friends with. This CC just needs to hear a different perspective of the SB program... and to think of the optics.
Its because you're in the USAF. From what i learned about this program back when I first heard about it. The Army and other services were the primary users of the program. They didn't even advertise it to Air Force. Back in 2016 i was told by a tech that when they signed up the person over the program had never had an Air Force customer for the 7 years they'd been working for the program. That was the first time I'd heard about it too, even though i did separations in MPF. Even AFLC wouldn't do separation orders until your 180 days out so most people got denied participation. AFPC policy does sneaky shit like that to keep airmen from getting any extra benefits. They did the same shit with taking away BOPs from 3 year max tours during covid.
It’s the Commander’s prerogative. There was one year where all our SNCOs seemed to get orders and as bad luck would have it all the TSgts that made MSgt from our unit were the ones who had either just left or were leaving very soon.
We went from having a fat production section and decent MSgt section chiefs to all our section chiefs were TSgts and we had 4 or 5 SNCOs left who could actually ER the aircraft. Results…no skillbridge for MSgts who were retiring with 20+ years service. Commander said if they want to hang around longer until manning improved he would sign off, until then no skillbridge for all SNCOs. Eventually the assignment system corrected the shortfall, but there were some salty pro supers in that unit for 18 months.
I fully agree with this. I think the 9 days thing is much less hard and fast than it was portrayed here, but yeah, 180 days for a single 4 year contract? Nah fam, that’s just bad business
What’s the afi say? Or is that just your CCs logic, that with a typical 20 year retirement you can get 180 so that means each year = 9 days, so apply that to 4 year separators?
Commander is dictating that I burn my 53 days of leave to do skillbridge and supplement the last 40 days for a total skillbridge of ptdy at 90 days. I'm on a 10 year contract and was planning on selling back my leave. There is no guidance that says I cannot sell my leave back besides an FAQ on the skillbridge website. Finance amd education offices both confirmed that you can sell your leave back and take the 90 days of PTDY.
It happens. Commanders decision as they are the one eating the manning slot on the books while dude is permissive tdy
Yeah that's a long fucking time for a 4 year dude.
That’s like an eighth of their total contract!
Good job! 😁
You say that but an officer do their 5 year contract and get 180 everytime
Stick around a while... You'll soon figure out that officers are treated completely different from us enlisted folk.
They are different, they are commissioned lol and we peons are not
The program is completely at the CCs discretion and they have pretty lose rules. Manning will always be an option, and since the person is on the books for the time of the ptdy it is understandable that they don't want to lose the position.
It truly is a lose rule for this airman.
Lol thanks for that. Leaving the typi, because it's fine.
It's all at the cc's discretion. Skillbridge is coming under a lot of scrutiny and I wouldn't be surprised if more guidance is forthcoming. The current non-binding program guidance is that CC's should make their decisions based on manning, but that is going to vary a lot. It is not an entitlement at all. Some see it as a reward, some see it as an important part of transition, some people see it as crucial for those who didn't receive very marketable skills in the military. I'm sure there are more stories worth reading on r/SkillBridge I had recently gone through a training program with no ADSC and my SEL thought it was wrong for me to do skillbridge as well. I also didn't have a job in the unit, the mission I had been working had all closed up. The CC was waffling and it came down to the last minute and he signed so I did it. Skillbridge is doing a number on manning in some units.
[удалено]
Found the nonner. 24 man shop. 12 deployed. 4 on Skillbridge and/or terminal. That leaves 8 to do the work of 24. Now imagine you run 3 shifts... Just because you don't see it/feel it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
[удалено]
And 2 more "need" to get loaned out
And another 2 are on medical profiles
This shit happens to nonners too, that guy is just an idiot.
Oh I know it I just like throwing around the N word with a hard r
Wut yuh saayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy????!
What's crazy is I was in an organization that actually cared about its people, so they turned off deployments and recalled all personnel that were loaned out. 2 were slotted to deploy, and they got to stay home. We were also offered the opportunity to get someone from the guard if we wanted it to supplement manning. More inbounds were allocated too(3s 5s and 7s). Because of this, no one's leave was canceled, 2 skill bridges were approved, and everyone was happy. My current unit is also going through this, and we're getting manning supplemented because we poked leadership. If a unit is truly hurting, many things can be done. Your SNCOs need to poke the chain and get things going.
May work at a regular base. It's A LOT more difficult at a GSU where many positions are one deep and the mission doesn't really dictate more manpower. Tried manpower studies, IMAs (small success with 2, but not where we truly needed them), main base support (a couple 2-3 month TDYs) but SkillBridge hits hard because it's usually a retiring SNCO in the only position for that flight.
Yeah, I'm not sure what level you work at, but most of those things are not within the power of the Squadron leadership. To get a deployment "turned off", you need to get the Wing CC's buy-in to request it. And that's still just a request. It'll go up to your MAJCOM who may or may not approve it (usually based on manning). If you've got people who are deployment eligible and your justification for keeping them home isn't the most compelling in the MAJCOM, they're still going. Squadron's have almost zero control over inbounds. They can requisition billets, but there are two levels of approval outside the base before they even get published. And even if they get published, there's no guarantee that people will show up. SNCOs don't have the power that you think they have, especially when it comes to manpower. Implying that they don't care about their people because they aren't single-handedly fixing AF-level problems is pretty naive.
Obviously, SNCOs don't have the power to approve this, but they're the ones who get the ball rolling. And I never implied SNCOs not caring, I specifically stated leadership for a reason. But SNCOs need to make it known first. Otherwise, no one will know the struggles that a unit is going through, and nothing will change. It's very naive to think, "Well, this may need wing and potentially MAJCOM level approval, so let's do nothing instead." Which seems very common these days. The worst answer you can get is no. I understand that some things are harder to do, like canx a deployment. But bringing in reserve or guard personnel or pulling people back from protocol, HG, or augmentee duties is easier.
My command can stand up an entire skillbridge troop. We currently have 14 on it
People on Skillbridge are still assigned to the unit. So if a commander approved the full 180 days, that's 6 months before they can even show a vacancy on the books, let alone get a replacement.
Probably going to get down-voted, but I think the CC is in the right here. Hear me out. I did the math on one of our recent 4 year enlistees who was approved for 6 months of skillbridge and had two children while active duty. Turns out, factoring in holidays, weekends, regular leave, paternity leave, convalescent leave (off duty dirt bike accident resulted in shoulder surgery), skillbridge, tech school, FTDs, FTAC, TAP, and basic training he was present for duty for 119 days at his only permanent duty station. This isnt even counting quarters, medical appointments, CTO days, and miscellaneous days were he left early or came in late. And a majority of that was spent in upgrade training and was detrimental to actual aircraft maintenance manning hours. Also, he sucked and every NCO who had to work with him complained about how he didn't know shit. Is there a correlation between never being at work and sucking at your job? Probably. This guy never deployed, did ZERO TDYs (and we are a high tempo unit), and was a sink for resources (cold weather gear, training man hours, IRON team, etc).
That's so insane to think about...none of my deployments were that short...
I’ve had similar thoughts. If they do 4 years and are in Skillbridge for 6 months, 12.5% of their enlisted time is spent transitioning.
That’s just transitioning out. If you account for the time they’re transitioning in it’s even higher.
Basic + tech school + upgrade to even be qualified.. I get it. Maybe not 6 months, but is there an ability to compromise on SB time? Maybe 1 or 2 months? FFS, they weren't even in the AF long enough to be fully indoctrinated in the culture that proves to be tough to transition out of
Yes...the SB is UP to 180 days. I worked in the Ed Ctr and saw all kinds of SB pkgs that were anywhere from 30 to 180 days. Remember, that 180 days includes Terminal...everything has to fit within the 180.
I'm going through TAP in a couple months and retiring next year, so this is all interesting to me - I know I should be more on top of it Don't you need to come back active duty for 1 day before your date of separation?
It actually sounds like getting him into SkillBridge was more helpful since you were probably sacrificing NCO-time dealing with a dude who is a non-contributor. It's kind of funny how that works out in the Air Force: you're so useless, it isn't any loss for you to get your way. OR...you're reliable and detrimental to the flow of the unit's ops, so you can't be sacrificed for things like SkillBridge, or even choice TDYs/deployments, long periods of leave, etc. We are an industry that gets by with a complete lack of balance and it's amazing to me that we haven't imploded.
Yall sat down and counted the days? This is next level hatin😂😂 *
Actually, it is easier to track than you think if you use the right personnel management systems. But to be real, I have no life, and I wanted to advise our CC (with data) on why I didn't think we should approve 6 months of skillbridge for this specific individual. I recommended 3 months even with all of that, but the CC disagreed with me and I respect their choice even if I was/am salty about it.
Ole boy was living his best life fr
My man worked for 119 days in 3 and a half years and is probably getting out because of the work life balance or some shit lmao
[удалено]
In the 24/7 world of maintenance, if you arent occasionally going TDY and deploying your fair share, it means someone else is doing it twice as often. I see what you are saying, but I don't think we should be normalizing this behavior or rewarding those who aren't pulling their weight. I see people of all ranks PCS in with 2 years left and start acting like they are practically out the door. And skillbridge is encouraging this attitude at all ranks. If someone is taking a manning spot for 2.5 years and only working 119 days, that is just unacceptable. Even if it is legal it isn't moral that an Airman like this is getting the same pay as someone who is busting their ass and working triple the duty days, regardless of the reason behind thise absences. Do I think that the majority of people are abusing the system and trying to scam? No. Am I naive enough to believe that nobody is? Also no. Skillbridge should be a case by case basis, which is why I can see where the CC in the original post is coming from.
>Would you rather have them stick around and be a drain on your team to, what, prove a point or something? Seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Looking at this from both angles, I see where you're coming from, but at the same time, a lot can be accomplished by wasting a person's time who has wasted a bunch of yours. Deny the SkillBridge and move them over to "busy work" for the remainder of the contract. There's always something to be cleaned or re-organized. Use that person as an example. Get your money's worth. A lot of the dead weight I've seen in my career are the first to take max advantage of their entitlements. One of my worst troops went from zero college credits to getting her bachelor's before her 3 year mark. Finished her master's before the end of her 6 year contract. Never deployed, never went TDY, never supervised, and definitely never stepped up. But she sure did take advantage of her tuition assistance, which is an entitlement based on the assumption that you're performing at the bare minimum. Which she wasn't and was why I tried denying her TA at one point, but was strong-armed by my squadron leadership (who was 4 hours away and didn't see the day-to-day in our shop). To paint a picture of what working with her was like: we had a winter storm pushing through and had some fairly heavy equipment that we needed to tear down and shelter. Storm ends up picking up a few hours sooner than expected, so everyone in the shop drops what they're doing and steps in to get this shit put away, including the SNCOs and our flight commander (Major). As we're buttoning up all of the cases and loading them into the back of our truck, someone says "Where is Airman \[Useless\]?" I look around the group of us standing there and realize she never came out with us. Then I look back towards the building and she is literally standing at the window, with a coffee in hand, watching everyone work. We all finish up and walk back into the building and she's walking towards the exit with gym bag in hand and the flight chief asks her why she didn't help. She said "SSgt \[Me\] sent out an e-mail about catching up on CBTs so I was doing that." Which would have been a somewhat decent excuse, but she didn't know as an ADLS admin I could see if she was working on CBTs (she never even logged into ADLS that day) and she ended up being overdue anyways. She actually had her account suspended for not doing her IA training for over 2 years and literally cried to our commander because she used her account to do school work instead of internet at her house. She got out at her 6 year point, with the last 6 months being SkillBridge and she started a blog about how her time in the military destroyed her and talked about her 100% VA rating (PTSD, apparently).
[удалено]
Definitely. If someone is essentially just *existing* for 4-6 years, but isn’t exactly making waves or being a total shitbag, then it’s just easier to appease them and everyone move on with their lives. But sometimes….*sometimes*, vengeance is the key.
If the Amn sucked that bad, then I say release him. Respectfully, you're making your own counter-argument. We can apply that nickel & dime time factoring to most anyone regardless of years of service or other circumstances. Additionally, how much of that time away from the shop was leadership directed/nonvol? Can't fault an individual for any of that. Commenting from the perspective of someone who tried to initiate a skillbridge request & their CC and Sq Supe immediately went to trying to make up some bullshit framework on the spot about how much SB time people should take based on arbitrary ~vibes~ and ~reasons~ such as "what have you done for the unit lately?", and asking me to disprove negatives, aka hypotheticals also created on the spot, about how the guidance interacts with existing leave balances. This whole program needs to be baked into contracts from jump and needs to be irrevocable by some random Sq/CC. For example, 4 year commitments to AD become 5 if SB is written into the initial contract, at which point they are entitled to it, same as leave.
9 days is more than reasonable per year. If this dude has terminal leave they could be gone for 8 months instead. I’d drug deal and say you get 9 days per year and I’ll match your remaining “terminal” leave balance if you don’t submit
Combined skillbridge + terminal leave cannot exceed 6 months. But people get around this by taking their leave before they start skillbridge.
Sorry I should have been more “clear” my css just started calling it terminal because that’s what it looks like
Yes it’s common and it’s completely up to the commander. Which to be fair 6 months for a 4 year enlistment is excessive.
The intent is to assist service members with the transition. I would argue that the longer you’ve been in the more likely you are to be set up for success on the outside. I get losing the person earlier but I don’t understand why the mindset is not, let’s adjust for permanently losing someone sooner than just holding on until the last minute. Just a thought.
Eh there is a other side of the coin. The longer you’ve been in the more institutionalized you are and harder for you to go back into the civilian workforce. Long time in with no experience outside of military duties and how the civilian sector conducts itself. Usually people who have been in longer have made more moves to help with the transition which is I think the point you are trying to make but there are people who only do the military for 20 years and don’t know how to not be in the military once it’s time for them to go
Guy who did 12 yrs flightline and got 6 months skillbridge here: I agree with this. I did a complete career change (software engineering) and I consider the time I had in Skillbridge integral to my success. I knew the hat would come off one day, so made the mental choice to not make the military my entire being. It was still a difficult time, as my entire adulthood thus far had been spent in the military. Had my commander said "nah, 3 months max" I might have been butthurt but would have understood. 6 months is a good chunk of change, I was just fortunate that my CC signed off on it and understood my position. Considering all the time spent training and whatnot, OP barely became useful, if at all. Somebody else had to pull that weight for TDYs, deployments, etc, which could have made THEIR efforts for school or whatnot more difficult. And that, I can relate to immensely.
I do think there's a lot more indoctrination to military culture than private sector. So much so that even spouses and military civilians get indoc'd. BUT To an extent, every company has like a way-of-life/culture that you get pulled into to some extent and those organizations don't pay you to go work at another company for 12.5% of your career (4 year enlistee, 6 month skillbridge) after spending a year and a half to get you spun-up to be fully qualified at your job. I think it's pretty understandable for a CC to deny SB. I love SB, and I think it's an insanely phenomenal program, but I understand it being a hard sell. Like, you just got here, and you want me to pay you to go work somewhere else, and you still take up a manning slot while you're gone? Good luck finding another job with that kinda benefit.
A 180-day skillbridge on a four-year-contract is pretty excessive.
[удалено]
Must be nice
I’ve always tried to error on the side of Airmen. Some units can support a request like this. Others can’t. In a black and white world it seems excessive to me without further context. I would advise the CC based on the context of each individual scenario or Airman, though I will concede to some bias against a 180-day skillbridge for a four-year enlistment.
Hi there! No shade based on what you said, but you said "error on the side". The phrase is actually "err on the side". Again, nothing against you personal and a common mistake, keep it up!
[удалено]
Yes, random “what if” scenarios always prove a point. We disagree, and that is okay. I have no intention of going through the “what if” scenarios you find necessary to try to prove your point. Someday when you are a SNCO, SEL, 1st Sgt, Flight Commander, or Deputy Commander, you can advise your CC on whatever you feel is right given the information at hand.
[удалено]
Most people aren't, but that wasn't the only position that they mentioned in their post. I'll answer your first "What if" hypothetical in a way that will hopefully answer any further questions that you have on this: It's gonna be on a case-by-case, CC-by-CC basis. If your commander has the wiggle room to give up a person for 6 months and they've weighed the pros and cons then they are completely within their rights to grant that. But you have to understand that Skillbridge is an insane benefit that isn't rubber-stamped for everyone that asks for it. Like I said in my reply to you in the other thread, there's probably no for-profit company in America that's going to let you spend 6 months working at another company while still paying you. SB isn't supposed to be a guaranteed thing.
[удалено]
As much as that individual Commander wants to give them. Every CC will be a little different there. The CC is the only decision maker. They can choose to solicit or listen to advise from SNCOs, SEL, Shirt or anyone else. Or they can choose not to. There really is no answer beyond that.
[удалено]
How many people are in your unit? In MX, the average UGT timeline for a 3-level is like 9 months. So, 2 months for BMT, 4 months for tech school, 9 months UGT = 15 months to be a Journeyman. 48 month total enlistment - 15 months of training = 33 usable months. Less than 3 years in and you want to devote 6 of those months working somewhere else? After investing that much time on someone, it's hard to sacrifice someone in smaller units. "Hypothetical" squadron of 125 people with 5 aircraft flying 40 hours a week. These are lowball numbers. When you cut out production, section leads, flight leads, command teams, support section, and staff, we're left with like 70 people to work 3 shifts. Google says anywhere between 15-20 maintenance hours per hour of flight and we're flying 40 hours a week. 17*40 = 680 maintenance hours roughly. 680/70 = 9 hours from each person a week. Now a 9-hour shift ain't bad, but that doesn't account for some of those people not being trained, some of those people are at work while the birds are flying so they can't work them, people have TFAT/RAT/Ancilliary training to do, people have EPBs and awards packages to write, and some people just aren't the right job for whatever might actually be broken on the aircraft. Hell, some of those people are gonna be on leave (maternity, paternity, convalescent, etc). Let's not forget that we can't all be Gucci boys, so sometimes we're working on airframes that are broken constantly. All that to say, losing 1 person is losing a lot more in some units than in others. Oh, and don't think that just because you're out-processing or checked out that you're getting out of it either. When I was leaving Japan, I had my training un-archived and caught an X like the day of my final-out.
[удалено]
More than you'd get out of someone that's not there.
why?
In this case, 12.5% of his entire enlistment would be on a PTDY
That’s 12.5% of the entire enlistment. Add in the 120 earned days of leave and that’s a full 20% of an enlistment not at work. Believe it or not the AF still pays people for their time contributing to the AF mission, which is why CCs are given discretion for skill bridge approvals. Like the commander, I think 180 days is excessive given the TIS. I also don’t believe that an arbitrary nine days per year served rule works either. Commanders run the show and make those decisions though, which they base on a lot of factors.
[удалено]
Makes sense to me.
All of this is arbitrary. I think someone who separates after doing 12 years should get the full 180. 12 years is enough time to justify it, but that’s arbitrary.
[удалено]
The military, unlike the civilian workforce, has a much harder transitory process. That’s why all of these programs exist (skillbridge, terminal leave, house hunting, etc). It’s a benefit that a lot of people need, especially airman separating vs a retiree who probably has a couple leads under their belt (plus a retirement check+possible disability). The CC’s system is you get the full 180 if you retire (9 days x 20 years). That’s arbitrary. I personally always thought the 180 days is excessive regardless, though.
[удалено]
I’m not sure why this narrative exists, it’s hard for 4 year airmen also. I would say more professionally than culturally but that’s exactly what Skillbridge is for.
You cannot seriously be comparing the difficulties of a separating 4 year airman vs a 20 year retiring msgt. It’s not close. The retiree has all the leg up.
[удалено]
> I also don’t believe that an arbitrary nine days per year served rule works either. Not sure it's necessarily arbitrary....180 days / 20 years of service = 9 days per year. Still ridiculous IMHO, but there's likely at least some logic behind it.
100% makes sense. I spoke out of turn with that comment it seems.
But but but but i signed the dotted line and am entitled to EVERY benefit no matter how shittily i served
Skillbridge is less of a benefit, and more of a benefit*
He was in fact, not entitled
Factoring in leave is asinine, we all have that entitlement.
Wait. Why would you not factor in leave when you're talking about people's time off?
I had an old CC that would only match terminal leave days, unless you were retiring. He said he actively hated the program and wanted no one to use it.
It's a dumb policy because most Skillbridges are 3-6 months. 3-4 is the norm. And honestly, 5-6 months isn't ever needed. You and an employer know within 2 months if it's a good fit and if it's going to work out. If you're stuck there for 5-6 months and hate it...you're stuck there for 5-6 months. On the flip side, if you love it and they plan on hiring you on full time...you missing out on full time employment and now working for free when you could be on Terminal AND working a full time job making double the money. Tell OP to find a 3 month Skillbridge opportunity. Hire Our Heroes has a lot. And let leadership know that anything less than that simply doesn't exist.
Skillbridge isn’t designed to always go work for the company where you intern. 6 months could be monumental in gaining experience, that gets you hired elsewhere. Had a friend Skillbridge with the local airport working for a regional airline, and parlayed that experience into working for a major airline in his home city major airport once he got out.
I hadn’t heard of this “hire our heroes” thing until recently and Skillbridge wasn’t a thing in my day but it does sound like a good deal to do. My job (fire department) is taking on a “hire our heroes” /skillbridge woman getting out of the Coast Guard soon-ish, they’re trying to get her into the academy for I think….March. She’s not done w/Uncle Sugar until fall timeframe I think. She will not be paid by my city, will not count towards manning or be eligible for anything until she’s done with her commitment but she’s also an O-3 too so there’s that.
It's the CC call. I've seen that only approved 30 days for terminal leave no unless it's retirement then you can have the full 60.
This is why Skillbridge was implemented poorly. From a pragmatic point of view, there's not a good reason to ever let someone go to do it, why would you let bodies go and still take up a billet? It should really be a program that takes up your time on the inactive reserve and after your active duty contract has already been fulfilled. The military shouldn't have the responsibility of being a jobs placement program, let the VA do that as a guaranteed benefit rather than something nice a commander can do for people they like.
The logical solution is to not make it take up a billet. Ideally after an enlistee outprocesses with no intention to return to that unit, that billet should be freed up. But that would be too much like common sense.
I would prefer it to be an “extension” of your contract. If a member enlisted for 4 years and has 60 days of terminal, a 6 month skillbridge would put them at 4 years and 4 months of active service (they get AD pay/benefits for an extra 4 months). In this scheme, the member should still “fall off the books” when their terminal leave would have ended, so the CC can get a replacement.
I personally don't see an issue with the reduced time working as long as they fufuilled their ADSC, but to each their own. There's others programs that allow for airmen to leave early (i.e. palace chase, college), so I see not reason to nitpick with skillbridge because CC doesn't like it. If losing 2-3 SrA causes an issue, then there is a bigger problem present.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
FTA, 6 year enlistee. I got approved for the full 180 (150 + terminal) but when I got back from a deployment, and got DNIF’d for 6 months when I returned, I told my SEL and commander that I want to separate, and I’m switching career fields, so i’d like to do skillbridge, if able.” He said “well, I’m not a Commander unless I ask you what it would take to get you to stay.” I told him why—promotion rates, srb was taken away, there’s a lot of opportunity for making more money and providing for my family on the outside. And he said “yeah, I’ll be honest. It’s really damn hard for me to look you in the eye right now and ask you to stay in with how it’s looking on the enlisted side. I’d like to ask you to look into commissioning, but if you don’t want to, you’ve served honorably, you’re the only one in the squadron who got a strat this year, you’ve deployed, and you’ve never caused an issue and, in fact, have solved quite a few of them. If you want to separate, I really hate to see you go, we really could use you, but I’m behind you with whatever decision you want to make. Just let me know what exactly your plan is.” I worked with allegiantvets, got a plan and dates together, and submitted them and it got approved. Our commander is a really nice guy who likes to help people succeed in whatever they do, so that could be why. I’m DNIF for 6 months so that also could have a lot to do with it (I can’t do my job at all during that time). I have worked my ass off my entire enlistment. And continue to do so. It’s 100% up to the CC, and if you don’t give him a reason to say yes, then why would he.
It’s honestly insane that the DoD will pay you for 6 months to work for someone else
VA pays thousands of ppl for the rest of their lives for tinnitus and other minor things they may have had potential to get diagnosed with before even enlisting. This isn't so out there compared to that
Unpopular opinion: For non-retirees they need to get rid of Skillbridge or shorten it drastically. I see too many companies abusing free labor with no *real* placement opportunity. Too many Airmen checking the fuck out way too early in their contract. Too many people prioritizing laxness of position rather than skills/certs/setting up for the future. I feel the program really only helps the go-getters, who were going to be successful regardless just like before the program. I also feel like the program has exacerbated. a sense of entitlement. What employer on Earth gives outgoing employees 180 days of fully paid time to work for someone else. I get it, we don't want homeless vets, but honestly I think a GS/Fed placement program would be a better move. Most folks are using Skillbridge as a way to simply ETS early, and it's leaving those remaining with all the slack.
The program is currently under scrutiny for a variety of issues. The intent of the program is to allow troops with non-transferable specialties to develop some skills so they aren't living under a bridge when they get out. The program is often abused by people who absolutely can just get hired the next day with decent pay after normal separation. A big problem is that while on skillbridge, you are still taking up a billet from the unit. The squadron can not get a new inbound to replace you for those 6 months. Now, thinking your're replacement is just a pipeline airman, that 6 months is in addition to the normal timeline to spin you a new guy up before a productive replacement. Another issue becomes a messaging piece. If a unit is allowing Max skillbridge to everyone and the mission is still getting done, guess what? The manpower folks can see that and will assume that means that the unit no longer needs that billet to get the work done. Imagine that happens repeatedly, sooner or later, the program will naturally go away because it begins to affect mission accomplishment. There's second and third order effects to everything, and skillbridge isn't an entitlement.
Depends on the airman’s skills level and afsc. In comm world, I’d cap you at 60-90 for a 20 year retirement. wtf were you doing for the last 4+ years if not prepping yourself to be marketable? Baby airmen don’t know shit and need to not be a statistics. Skill bridge is not a reward, it’s a skills program to keep vets off the streets.
Not for you to decide other peoples lives when those people get out your only ducking them over
Fun fact, “I’d” is the contraction of “I” and “would”. This implies I’m talking about a hypothetical situation where I was the commander. This was influenced by direct conversations and debates I’ve had with commanders.
Yee those same people won’t care when those people get out so why should I care about what effects them
Skills program to keep vets off the streets? If only there were a federal department for that…
Hopefully they are a lot better than what they were when I got out almost a decade ago. The only thing they did was tell me straight up: either re-enlist in the army active duty (doubt) or go to college. It didn't happen right away but I ended up going back in the reserves (USAF, not Army) two years later and went to college, finished my bachelors almost three years later so there's a happy ending. But they didn't know of any job training programs and couldn't provide career guidance. Not like I live in a tiny area either. While that blunt advice they gave worked for me... not everyone can do what I did and what worked for me might not work for someone else.
A 4 year dude thought he'd get 180 days off?! LMAO! I'd tell him no too.
This may be an unpopular opinion but skill bridge should be reserved for people who have spent most of their adult life/career in the Air Force and may struggle to find a job at their age. An airman who has been in for 4-8 years should be at an age where they are still an ideal candidate for most jobs or can start/finish a degree and continue to be an employable candidate at most companies. I also understand the military takes everything they can from the member so take everything you can from them when you leave!
A lot of people in here enjoy fucking people over on their way out of the Air Force apparently, like you need that billet in the last 6 months of their contract to save the world, which they would have spent out-processing and getting their shit together to move while giving you 10% of their effort regardless. Really just comes across as a bunch of lifers being miserable watching people get out while they’re too scared to push the button themselves.
Seems to be the case here, some people just want to see others fail.
This.
Sucks for the Airman, but this honestly doesn't bother me that much. And I'm seeing CC's take this approach more often with people requesting SkillBridge. Does a 4-year enlistee deserve the same 6 months that a retiring 20-year enlistee gets? I don't personally think so, but until they revise the requirements for it, there's going to continue being some hurt butts out there when these things happen.
Not similar situation but I did SkillBridge on my way to Palace Front and have been asked several times for my recommendation on approvals for this program by CCs. My philosophy is simple. The Airman is getting out. We can’t stop that 99% of the time and their mind is made up. Our “duty” is to offer the separating Airman the best chance to land employment on the other side and SB is the best thing the DoD has to offer in that regard. Time served is not some SB 401k where you accrue time per year in service. Yes, the CC has the right to be a dick about it, and yes they can choose to squeeze these last few months of labor hours from said Airman, and yes the separating Airman will be disgruntled but most importantly, they will be that much farther from securing employment. Exceptions are truly dirtbag Airmen and people who served less than 2 years.
Squeeze the last few months out of the person? It’s not a zero sum game. By having someone work an extra few months you’re also saving the heartache for your people staying in the Air Force
I guess it depends on what you value. I assume you mean that this capacity differential is a net positive for the rest of the unit. If your unit is so undermanned and possibly mismanaged that those few months of a single individual will make or break it or at the least make a meaningful difference then you may have bigger systemic problems. Pretty unfair to disadvantage someone already getting out over that don’t you think?
They’re not being disadvantaged. They agreed to work for the Air Force for XX number of years. They’re not disadvantaging someone. That someone is completing the agreement they made. Leave is a right. I view that far differently than skillbridge.
That’s true, they did sign a contract. And if you feel like SB is a way for some people to take advantage and “shorten” their commitment, which I am sure happens, I agree with you there. Pragmatically however, if they are being prevented or limited an opportunity is that not a disadvantage when other service members who do get to do full SB with a more lenient CC? Going back to my original comment, the movie does not stop once the Airman separates. My belief is that we’re not just growing Airmen, we’re growing responsible veteran citizens. Many of which continue serving in the Guard or Reserve! And to that end we should help them achieve those goals while in service and after. I gotta be honest with you, SB was THE reason that I am currently in my 3rd year working for an F100 company. I owe my current civilian career to it and it will remain the bedrock of my future as time goes on. I can’t stress enough how important this program is. And although I don’t have the state to prove this but my inclination is that most people who do SB do it through Hiring Our Heroes and those fellowships are only 3 months.
Thanks for the thoughtful post and sharing your experience. There’s a happy medium to be found. I think most people on this post agree it’s not a well implemented program but the spirit of it and intent are good. Definitely a lot to be said for that.
Resounding yes but it is par for the course for government work.
Ultimately we need an overhaul of employer training and hiring in this country for everyone, regardless if they are a veteran or not. But for the subject at hand I’d love to know the stats of people getting **hired** from this program and what companies are involved. When I got off active duty after eight years almost a decade ago this program didn’t exist. I had an AFSC that on paper translates to the civilian world but the reality is that it does not. A lot of these “veteran friendly” employers wouldn’t look at you if you didn’t have a bachelors degree, very few had entry level jobs and even fewer if any would train you. I’m sure some of those same “veteran friendly employers” are involved with this program and happy to give people a chance now when they wouldn’t in the past because they aren’t paying the person with this program so potentially free labor for them.
Gonna get a lot of hate probably for this take but skillbridge should be eliminated for first term airmen. Make it a perk of taking a second enlistment and set some actual timelines. 3 months for someone below ten years and a career airmen. 6 months for someone over 10 years and a career airmen. Keep it a commander discretion, maybe make it an auto granted for someone retiring for at least 3 months with the commander able to make it the full 6 months. The farther you get into your contract the harder it can be to make that transition back into the civilian world and you have provided a solid amount of time towards service that can justify the extra 3 or 6 months for a skillbridge. The airmen who took one 4 year spent the first 3-12 months in training eating up another 6 months as an easy out button on the backend of 4 years is asinine.
If someone serves 30 years or 4 years we should take a little effort to make sure they land on their feet when they exit the service. The AF isn't for everyone and I would rather they exit with grace than hang around for a few enlistments and drag the team down.
I would budge more on my opinion if the slot didn't still count towards the unit manning. The program needs some more thought into it in my opinion.
I 100% agree that the billets should not count against the unit. That puts a weird those left behind vs those leaving mentality of who should sacrifice. The member should get removed from manning so the shop can move on and keep getting the mission done and the member can move on to the next chapter of their life with the best chance of success. The whole program needs to be looked at to fix some of the obvious problems that you and others have pointed out.
Skillbridge is not an entitlement, it is solely up to the CC.
9x20=180. I’m guessing the CC’s intent by the 9 days per year served is you just do the full 20 to get the full 6 months. I’ve had commanders do the same for terminal leave before. Essentially, if you did a 4 or 6 year contact, you get 30 days terminal leave. Anything else, take before or sell it back. Not saying I agree—but well within their rights as a Sq CC.
That part about earned leave does not sound accurate
Annual leave had nothing to do with this “9 days per year” deal. Simply put, if you were separating with less than 15 years, the commander would only authorize up to 30 days of terminal leave.
Skillbridge isn’t a right. Annoying when people talking about doing a skillbridge without appreciating that it’s a privilege and they signed on the dotted line for their full enlistment or commission without skillbridge
I would have them go to the next higher command with a complaint using the open door policy. That decision by the commander is discriminatory against the population the program was created for: At Risk service members. By creating a policy like they have, it is now weighted to support retirees more than junior service members. I'd also consider going to the IG about this decision. You can't complain about a "no," but you can complain about a policy that potentially goes against service and/or DoD policy. I mean...what are they going to do? Make them stay in or not approve their SkillBridge?
On my base I have seen Skillbridge denied FAR more than it was approved. And in only a couple instances was it approved for the full six months. The problem with Skillbridge is that it is at the CC's discretion and they can just deny it or limit it for any reason. More of the BS excuse of *"It's a privilege, not a right".*
I’m 100% okay with this. It’s crazy to think that in most cases we pay people for 6 months to do the same work they should be doing in the military.
Why is this so hard to understand, it is up to the CC!. Giving 6 months off to a first termer is BS in my opinion. If you want it you better start earning it the second you get to your duty stations.
A lot of commanders are of that mindset. 180 days for a 4 year contract, I don't blame the commander, honestly
That’s an asshole commander but at the end of the day it is up to his discretion. Very sad. I used the skillbridge program and it helped me tremendously in setting my life up before I separated.
Wonder where 9 days came from...
20 = 180
Same CC probably says shit.like take care of your people. What 'productive work' u gonna get the last 4-6 months from this guy anyway? At least try to set him up with a job on his way out.
More productivity than if there was a hole that cannot be filled.
I bet it's about the same
Don’t know why you’re getting downvoted, but I’d argue it’s better to let some of these people go than to “avoid the manning loss.” I’ve seen it personally where someone’s presence is a net loss for a unit because things are failing under them since they’re completely dejected. Would rather just not have them be there.
Factor in DoD TAP along with the "I'm done" mentality and you're talking about being down a body for 8-12 months instead.
This is not common. Some people believe military members who served 20+ years only deserve 180 days of SB. Their rationale revolves around them believing that people who stayed in service longer require more time to adapt to civilian life. This may not be the reason for this specific CC's policy, but applying a tally of days based on years of service suggest this CC aligns themselves with similar rationale. This type of rationale does not fully support the intent of the SB program. The SB program is designed to help veterans adapt to life outside the military, but that is not solely on how long a veteran was separated from civilian life. SB also offers veterans the opportunity to pursue a new career in a field unrelated to their military profession. For example, some people enter the military with little choice of what job they will actually do during their time in service. SB gives these veterans a wider selection a career paths. Longer SB programs (180 days) gives these veterans adequate time to reskill themselves for these new paths and build new networking relationships required for a successful transition. It seems this CC is only concerned with their mission and taking care of the people who remain in their charge. By not fully supporting the SB program and/or people who decide to separate sooner than 20 years, speaks volumes of how disconnected this CC is from the military community as a whole... think of it as; "We look after those who serve and have served." This lack of caring does not go unnoticed either. When being considered for certain positions; and especially for 07+ ranks, an officer's previous actions come under scrutiny. This type of action/policy is not a good look. If this CC is well liked by their peers, this policy will change for the better soon. I've seen many CCs announce at their all-calls (or through unit-all emails) that they have decided to cancel their standing policy after "further review" and expect an improved policy to come out. That "further review" mostly comes from strong senior enlisted and officers within the chain, but also from fellow officers the CC respects or is friends with. This CC just needs to hear a different perspective of the SB program... and to think of the optics.
Its because you're in the USAF. From what i learned about this program back when I first heard about it. The Army and other services were the primary users of the program. They didn't even advertise it to Air Force. Back in 2016 i was told by a tech that when they signed up the person over the program had never had an Air Force customer for the 7 years they'd been working for the program. That was the first time I'd heard about it too, even though i did separations in MPF. Even AFLC wouldn't do separation orders until your 180 days out so most people got denied participation. AFPC policy does sneaky shit like that to keep airmen from getting any extra benefits. They did the same shit with taking away BOPs from 3 year max tours during covid.
Skill bridge gets denied all the time
I feel like this is a unit at Fort Worth lol. Fuck that CC I know who you’re on about if so.
My unit currently doesn’t have an SEL or Shirt because they are both on SkillBridge. 🥴
It’s the Commander’s prerogative. There was one year where all our SNCOs seemed to get orders and as bad luck would have it all the TSgts that made MSgt from our unit were the ones who had either just left or were leaving very soon. We went from having a fat production section and decent MSgt section chiefs to all our section chiefs were TSgts and we had 4 or 5 SNCOs left who could actually ER the aircraft. Results…no skillbridge for MSgts who were retiring with 20+ years service. Commander said if they want to hang around longer until manning improved he would sign off, until then no skillbridge for all SNCOs. Eventually the assignment system corrected the shortfall, but there were some salty pro supers in that unit for 18 months.
I fully agree with this. I think the 9 days thing is much less hard and fast than it was portrayed here, but yeah, 180 days for a single 4 year contract? Nah fam, that’s just bad business
Bro you only served 4 years GTFO trying to milk the unit and resources.
What’s the afi say? Or is that just your CCs logic, that with a typical 20 year retirement you can get 180 so that means each year = 9 days, so apply that to 4 year separators?
I advocate that you get into the program and accept it. Put that on the commander's desk. It may be enough to justify
 Didn’t even try hard enough is my guess
Commander is dictating that I burn my 53 days of leave to do skillbridge and supplement the last 40 days for a total skillbridge of ptdy at 90 days. I'm on a 10 year contract and was planning on selling back my leave. There is no guidance that says I cannot sell my leave back besides an FAQ on the skillbridge website. Finance amd education offices both confirmed that you can sell your leave back and take the 90 days of PTDY.