In July 2019, I submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to gain clarity on the career fields most affected by the ongoing suicide epidemic in the Air Force. The response I received was underwhelming, prompting further investigation into the matter.

This inquiry led me to scrutinize statements made by AF/A1 Lt. Gen. Brian Kelly in 2015. General Kelly had suggested that critical career fields were protected from the Force Reduction measures, colloquially known as "The Air Force Hunger Games." However, a closer examination reveals a more complex reality behind the determination and execution of these cuts.

Back in 2011, the Air Force faced a structural imbalance after transferring many SSgts and TSgts from fighter maintenance to heavy aircraft. This left a void in the middle-tier experience levels. My time as a Flightline Expediter at the 308th AMU at Luke Air Force Base in 2012 offered me a firsthand view of the challenges resulting from these decisions, particularly in terms of personnel and resource allocation.

An encounter with A1C Boushon Arnold, a new addition to the unit, exemplified the resilience and dedication of our Airmen despite these challenges. Arnold's commitment and work ethic, especially during demanding shifts, were exemplary. However, this devotion came at a cost. Arnold failed a PT test due to a minor shortfall in one exercise, despite overall satisfactory performance.

The repercussions of this failure were magnified by the ongoing Force Reduction measures in 2014. Despite his commendable service and strong endorsements from his chain of command, Arnold was not selected for retention. This decision highlighted a concerning trend in the force reduction process, where quantitative metrics like PT test scores were prioritized over qualitative assessments of an Airman's overall contribution and potential.

The loss of Airmen like Arnold raises critical questions about the criteria used in force reduction decisions. It appears that Quality Force Indicators (QFIs) such as Article 15s, EPR markdowns, UIFs, control rosters, and PT failures were heavily weighed. These metrics, however, do not fully capture an individual's value to the mission or their potential for growth and leadership.

In discussions with a squadron commander from another base, it became evident that the input from commanding officers often seemed overlooked in these decisions. This raises concerns about how many talented and dedicated Airmen, akin to Arnold, were lost during this process.

As we reflect on these decisions and their impacts, it's crucial to consider the long-term implications of force reduction strategies on the morale and effectiveness of our personnel. The story of Boushon Arnold serves as a reminder of the potential loss when quantitative measures overshadow the qualitative aspects of service and dedication.