This is part of mine, but I’ll post the full thing if people want—
During offboarding, I saw that my same role, with the same responsibilities, reposted but a level down.
At the same time, teammates who had long been performing portfolio work but under the title of “Program” were also let go. Those roles were reposted with only that title change. Which is strange because it finally matched the portfolio work they had been doing. While these were presented as restructured positions, the fact that they were reposted in nearly identical form, just under new titles or levels, raises questions about transparency, consistency, and intent. The work clearly still needed to be done, and has been labeled as “critical” in their notes for hiring, but I guess just not by the people who had been doing it. For those affected, the pattern is hard to overlook.
This isn’t isolated to our team. Across the company, teams who have helped USAA meet regulatory obligations or complete consent order work were let go shortly after those efforts concluded — even when their expertise could have continued to add long-term value. The very people who helped protect the organization’s integrity and bring it into compliance were released once the immediate pressure had passed. That doesn’t reflect a commitment to talent retention or ethical leadership — it sends a message that people are valued only when fines are accruing, and expendable once they aren’t.
Further underscoring this pattern, USAA also changed its severance policy — reducing it from one year to six months — immediately after the expiration in December. That timing is very difficult to ignore. It gives the impression that the company was willing to honor its commitments to employees only while obligated, and once that scrutiny lifted, cost-saving measures took priority over people. These decisions may serve short-term optics, but they chip away at long-term trust and loyalty.
After my role was eliminated, no one in my management chain followed up — no check-in, no thank you, no inquiry about transition support or continuity planning. Even more concerning, there were no questions about how the work would be handed off. That silence spoke volumes. It reinforced the growing perception that employees are not being thoughtfully transitioned — they are being quietly discarded. The absence of follow-up doesn’t reflect a culture of care or trust; it reflects disengagement and avoidance, and beg the question, “where the line is between business decisions and personal bias?”
This isn’t just one case. It’s a microcosm of what regulators and external reports have already pointed to: a pattern of misalignment between what USAA says and what it does (https://www.americanbanker.com/news/fundamental-breakdown-how-usaa-landed-in-regulators-hot-seat). I’m not sharing this to retaliate — I’m sharing it because I care. And because I believe culture only changes when someone finally stops nodding and starts listening.
This has become a military and corporate PR|HR performance. And we need to stop accepting that it’s okay. The corporate greed is ruining the reputation, culture and members.