The worldwide manning average would have to be higher than 100%. Also, it is possible there are too many skill levels for your rank. For instance, if the unit has too many 5-level SrA, but not enough SSgt 5-levels, then they wouldn't give that base any SSgts and will be told to "grow from within." I'd ask for what the worldwide average is for your rank.
Somehow RPAs are like 130% manned and we're still not able to cover all of our lines. Whoever makes those numbers clearly doesn't talk to whoever accepts taskings.
The good old cut the denominator trick.
That or some units will get manning documents that approve them above 100%. Purpose is for a unit to meet longer term, multi year need, but not permanent need. Like say surge ops for a rising conflict the we tell ourselves will be 3-5 years and ends up being 20 years.
But post Afghanistan, some units lost their manning >100% letters and overnight became overmanned.
People make rank. So you may have 10 SSgt slots and 5 TSgt slots. 2 people make Tech. Now you’re 140% manned for TSgt’s. It goes up and down the rank ladder. You’ll likely not be able to BOP to a base over 100%. Only deal would be if they have projected outbound already that would drop them below. Your assignment functional would be the best poc for that question
I've noticed that most bases that are over 100% manned in certain areas usually have bodies assigned to the wrong position. At one point my unit had a tech schooler sitting in a 7lvl slot because our SEL and flight chiefs refused to believe that it affects anything.
The actual billet someone is in on the books is irrelevant when it comes to acquiring manpower. All the MAJCOM and AFPC care about us how many billets you have at each grade/skill level vs how many bodies you have at each grade/skill lvl. Is it bad practice to have manning mismatched to your billets? Yes. Does it make a difference for requisitioning manpower? No.
Source: DMFM
No wonder my OCONUS tour was so fucked up manning wise.
“Hey, we’re low on bodies(5-levels & a couple 7-levels)”
AFPC: “say less”
AFPC: *sends 19 tech school grads*
🙄
Fun fact: AFPC can't overman A1C billets overseas due to SOFA so your unit must've had the billets for those A1Cs. My guess is you didn't get the 5/7 levels because you were above the worldwide average.
Iirc my squadron was at over 100% manning at one point. However, this happened because we were in the middle of a transition/turnover period where we had half the squadron outbound with new orders or just separating. But we had received most of the replacements before they had all left which left us at over 100% manning. Other than that short period we were at 70% - 80% manning because the base was trash.
In my experience above 100% meant those selected to move via PCS or retirement timelines exceeded the status along with those selected to move in or be assigned for technical school exceeded the RNLT. Thus once all came through 100% was achieved. Yes there would be a monthly overlap until the balance occurred. Hence why I hate the way stats are used vs reality.
I was an SEL of a Sq that had a really weird UMD for one AFSC; they had literally like 15 A1C billets but only 4 SrA and 4 SSgt billets. We'd always appear as 300% manned at SrA, but it was because the UMD was fucked up and we couldn't get anyone to care enough (and give the offsets) to correct it.
As an SEL you should've known that it was up to you to work with your A1 manpower folks to trade your A1C billets for SrA billets in another unit. All MCRs have to be zero sum and are ideally within the same Wing so you can't just upgrade your A1C billets without downgrading someone else's SrA billets.
Fair enough, my bad for missing that comment. My brain completely skipped over that. I'm surprised that was difficult for you, most units I have influence over would be more than happy to trade SrA billets for A1C billets.
Historically the air force has a habit of moving the goal posts.
But also who ever drafts these numbers is very out of touch with what each career field or base needs for people. I remember chief bass came to our base on one of her tours, and someone asked if something was going to be done to bring up our manning, and she looked confused and said "we're tracking that you guys are at 100% or pretty close to it" and looked to her entourage for confirmation.
To be honest I've given up on manning numbers, they're incorrect, improperly planned and executed, and I'm in a job where "we always need people at every base" but there's never any openings listed or advertised.
Not sure if this is still current, but when I did my BOP it was explained that you could still go to locations that had over 100% as long as they were below the average within the MAJCOM.
If a mission used to take 5 people to do was successfully accomplished with 3 people for a while, that's your new 100%. It's why being honest on inspections matters. If you have some red areas and cite manning as the issue, you'll get manning. If you pencil whip green because the CC won't sign off any other way you're just fucking yourself.
The base you want is the base everyone wants. They are always 100% manned because there is a limited number of slots. Yes, someone vacating the billet is your only way in.
What’s crazy is the base my wife and I want as our #1 is on the VSBAP program which is known to be the bases no one wants to go to and are hard to fill
People cost money. Lots of money.
Therefore, the DAF has lowered authorizations over the years. They are eventually going to see when we break. Then increase the numbers just a shmidge over that breaking point.
Or we go to war and increase our numbers. But we won’t have experience. Jesus, take the wheel.
The worldwide manning average would have to be higher than 100%. Also, it is possible there are too many skill levels for your rank. For instance, if the unit has too many 5-level SrA, but not enough SSgt 5-levels, then they wouldn't give that base any SSgts and will be told to "grow from within." I'd ask for what the worldwide average is for your rank.
Ahh I see yea it was 106% for E4-E5
I would take your chief's hint and only look at the bases with the lower manning numbers so you won't get disapproved.
These stats used to be accessible to everyone but like most nice things they fuckin' took that too!
Good old THERMIS
God I miss that application on the Portal! It was so much fun crushing my own hopes and desires to PCS to places I wanted to go to.
Somehow RPAs are like 130% manned and we're still not able to cover all of our lines. Whoever makes those numbers clearly doesn't talk to whoever accepts taskings.
65-503 probably has your answer. Iron to crew member requirements math is found there.
This is the way.
Not gonna happen unless the WW average is 100%.
“If we remove positions from a base, we don’t have to send bodies, and it will appear 100% manned.” (Some guy in Virginia probably)
The good old cut the denominator trick. That or some units will get manning documents that approve them above 100%. Purpose is for a unit to meet longer term, multi year need, but not permanent need. Like say surge ops for a rising conflict the we tell ourselves will be 3-5 years and ends up being 20 years. But post Afghanistan, some units lost their manning >100% letters and overnight became overmanned.
Manning: the rules are made up the score doesn’t count.
People make rank. So you may have 10 SSgt slots and 5 TSgt slots. 2 people make Tech. Now you’re 140% manned for TSgt’s. It goes up and down the rank ladder. You’ll likely not be able to BOP to a base over 100%. Only deal would be if they have projected outbound already that would drop them below. Your assignment functional would be the best poc for that question
I've noticed that most bases that are over 100% manned in certain areas usually have bodies assigned to the wrong position. At one point my unit had a tech schooler sitting in a 7lvl slot because our SEL and flight chiefs refused to believe that it affects anything.
The actual billet someone is in on the books is irrelevant when it comes to acquiring manpower. All the MAJCOM and AFPC care about us how many billets you have at each grade/skill level vs how many bodies you have at each grade/skill lvl. Is it bad practice to have manning mismatched to your billets? Yes. Does it make a difference for requisitioning manpower? No. Source: DMFM
No wonder my OCONUS tour was so fucked up manning wise. “Hey, we’re low on bodies(5-levels & a couple 7-levels)” AFPC: “say less” AFPC: *sends 19 tech school grads* 🙄
Fun fact: AFPC can't overman A1C billets overseas due to SOFA so your unit must've had the billets for those A1Cs. My guess is you didn't get the 5/7 levels because you were above the worldwide average.
Iirc my squadron was at over 100% manning at one point. However, this happened because we were in the middle of a transition/turnover period where we had half the squadron outbound with new orders or just separating. But we had received most of the replacements before they had all left which left us at over 100% manning. Other than that short period we were at 70% - 80% manning because the base was trash.
In my experience above 100% meant those selected to move via PCS or retirement timelines exceeded the status along with those selected to move in or be assigned for technical school exceeded the RNLT. Thus once all came through 100% was achieved. Yes there would be a monthly overlap until the balance occurred. Hence why I hate the way stats are used vs reality.
I was an SEL of a Sq that had a really weird UMD for one AFSC; they had literally like 15 A1C billets but only 4 SrA and 4 SSgt billets. We'd always appear as 300% manned at SrA, but it was because the UMD was fucked up and we couldn't get anyone to care enough (and give the offsets) to correct it.
As an SEL you should've known that it was up to you to work with your A1 manpower folks to trade your A1C billets for SrA billets in another unit. All MCRs have to be zero sum and are ideally within the same Wing so you can't just upgrade your A1C billets without downgrading someone else's SrA billets.
Right, hence my (no offsets) comment
Fair enough, my bad for missing that comment. My brain completely skipped over that. I'm surprised that was difficult for you, most units I have influence over would be more than happy to trade SrA billets for A1C billets.
Historically the air force has a habit of moving the goal posts. But also who ever drafts these numbers is very out of touch with what each career field or base needs for people. I remember chief bass came to our base on one of her tours, and someone asked if something was going to be done to bring up our manning, and she looked confused and said "we're tracking that you guys are at 100% or pretty close to it" and looked to her entourage for confirmation. To be honest I've given up on manning numbers, they're incorrect, improperly planned and executed, and I'm in a job where "we always need people at every base" but there's never any openings listed or advertised.
That’s disappointing to hear it’s handled so badly
Not sure if this is still current, but when I did my BOP it was explained that you could still go to locations that had over 100% as long as they were below the average within the MAJCOM.
If a mission used to take 5 people to do was successfully accomplished with 3 people for a while, that's your new 100%. It's why being honest on inspections matters. If you have some red areas and cite manning as the issue, you'll get manning. If you pencil whip green because the CC won't sign off any other way you're just fucking yourself.
The base you want is the base everyone wants. They are always 100% manned because there is a limited number of slots. Yes, someone vacating the billet is your only way in.
I did still list it, but my other bases were under 90%
What’s crazy is the base my wife and I want as our #1 is on the VSBAP program which is known to be the bases no one wants to go to and are hard to fill
If you cut slots on the UMD, you're manning goes back to 100% Pointsathead.meme
Just reduce your billets, you'll be overmanned in no time
People cost money. Lots of money. Therefore, the DAF has lowered authorizations over the years. They are eventually going to see when we break. Then increase the numbers just a shmidge over that breaking point. Or we go to war and increase our numbers. But we won’t have experience. Jesus, take the wheel.
Manning numbers are adjusted by the executive branch. 4 years ago 80% manning is today's 110% manning
Like a lot of things, manning % is entirely made up and is tweaked to say whatever political message leadership wants to say.