Bill Overview
Title: Air Force Rated Officer Retention Program Act
Description: This bill requires the Department of Defense to establish and carry out a demonstration program within the Department of the Air Force to assess and improve retention on active duty in the Air Force of rated officers, excluding those officers with a reserve appointment in the Air National Guard or Air Force Reserve whose continued service on active duty would be in the best interest of the Department of the Air Force and who have not more than three years and not less than one year remaining on a specified active duty service obligation.
Sponsors: Rep. Bacon, Don [R-NE-2]
Target Audience
Population: Air Force Rated Officers with 1-3 Years of Active Duty Obligation
Estimated Size: 10500
- The target population includes 'rated officers' in the Air Force. A 'rated officer' typically refers to officers who are pilots, navigators, or air battle managers.
- Officers in the Air Force with an active duty service obligation between one and three more years are specifically targeted.
- The program does not include those with a reserve appointment in the Air National Guard or Air Force Reserve, so this does not apply to all Air Force personnel.
- There are currently about 317,000 active duty personnel in the United States Air Force according to recent data.
- The percentage of active-duty Air Force personnel who are rated officers is likely significant, potentially around 15% to 20%.
- Based on these percentages, there could reasonably be an estimated range of 47,550 to 63,400 total rated officers in the Air Force.
- The specifics of the program narrow the pool to only those with 1-3 years left in active duty obligation, possibly around 30% of total rated officers.
- 70% of Air Force personnel are citizens of the US.
Reasoning
- The policy targets a specific subset of Air Force personnel: rated officers with 1 to 3 years of active duty service remaining. This focus is crucial since retention at this critical stage can ensure experienced personnel remain in service longer.
- The total target population is estimated to be around 10,500 American citizens, fitting well within the budget constraints for a population size where meaningful financial incentives or career development opportunities might be offered.
- Training new rated officers is a costly endeavor, and thus retaining existing ones who are experienced is often economically beneficial and efficient.
- The perspectives gathered here include both those directly impacted by the policy and those indirectly associated, to understand wider social impacts and perception.
- Given the high-stress nature of jobs like pilots and air battle managers, policies aiming at retention may significantly influence their wellbeing scores over time.
Simulated Interviews
Air Force Pilot (California)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The retention program could provide me better career progression options.
- Having a stable job is crucial given my family obligations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Air Battle Manager (Texas)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Retention bonuses could help significantly with my mortgage.
- I'm thinking about my long-term career options and this needs to be beneficial financially.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Air Force Navigator (Florida)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm nearing retirement; benefits affecting my post-military life are crucial.
- Policy impact is limited for me due to my short remaining service period.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Pilot (Virginia)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Additional training opportunities or funding would be a big incentive for me to stay longer.
- I appreciate the stability, but want options to grow.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Air Force Pilot (Nevada)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This program needs to address work-life balance, not just financial incentives.
- I'm more likely to stay if there are clear pathways for career advancement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Air Battle Manager (Colorado)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Career stability is essential for my family's needs.
- Financially, this program might give us the flexibility we need.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Pilot (Hawaii)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Given my hobbies, I value job flexibility and location more than financial gains.
- I'm less likely to be affected by this program as I'm content with my current situation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Navigator (North Carolina)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This program might give me the financial means to assist my parents better.
- The job stability is important given my family obligations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
Air Force Pilot (Alaska)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is less relevant given my retirement timeline.
- I would prefer a policy that considers retirement benefits more actively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Pilot (Ohio)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Opportunities for leadership roles or specialized skills training would be attractive.
- I'm ambitious and want policies to match my career goals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $210000000 (Low: $157500000, High: $262500000)
Year 2: $210000000 (Low: $157500000, High: $262500000)
Year 3: $210000000 (Low: $157500000, High: $262500000)
Year 5: $210000000 (Low: $157500000, High: $262500000)
Year 10: $210000000 (Low: $157500000, High: $262500000)
Year 100: $210000000 (Low: $157500000, High: $262500000)
Key Considerations
- The retention of experienced officers might lead to improved operational effectiveness in the Air Force.
- There could be long-term cost efficiencies related to training and recruiting fewer new officers if retention improves significantly.