Leaderboard

-----Original Message----- From: DFAS Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 11:24 AM Subject: Policy and Procedures Update - Extension of Temporary Increase in Leave Carryover TOPIC: Extension of Temporary Increase in Leave Carryover 1. Section 504 of the FY 2010 NDAA included a provision to extend the maximum leave carryover of 75 days through 30 September 2013. DFAS General Counsel has determined that members can carry forward up to 75 days from FY 13 to FY 14, but that leave in excess of 60 days will be lost at 1 Oct 2014 unless the law is extended or made permanent. 2. Based on this opinion, and barring any additional changes to the law or policy on this subject, DJMS-AC will allow leave of up to 75 days to be carried forward from 30 Sep 2013 to 1 Oct 2013. 3. This message was coordinated with AFAFO. 4. FSO questions should be directed to their MAJCOMs. MAJCOMs may contact AFAFO. 5. Please ensure the widest dissemination. DFAS-JFLM/IN Military Pay Operations - Indianapolis (Air Force) Chief, System Liaison & Procedures Division

I would not let my life depend on a Kel-Tec! Anyhow, in better news, guess what arrived today? And just for shits and giggles, here's a 7.62x39 AK round next to the 8mm Mauser the above M76 uses... Cheers! M2

Funny shit. bin Laden's Burial at Sea

FWIW, this is part of the PM exchange I ended up having with Mouse regarding "the point" of IFF and his criticisms of the current program:

This same topic came up recently in the box and this was given to us. If you were deployed for 120 continuous days, then you are pretty much golden to bank the time. Imagine, 120 days of leave on 30 SEP, don't take leave for the next year. Start terminal leave with 150 days on the books plus any PTDY. Too good to be true. I personally have 100+ days of leave with no intention of reducing much until it is time to retire. Military Pay E-Message 10-035 Subject: Leave carryover extension REF: E-Message 08-052 This message expires September 30, 2013 The purpose of this message is to provide the Defense Military Pay Offices (DMPOs), Financial Management Companies (FMCOs), U.S. Property and Fiscal Offices (USPFOs), and USAR Pay Centers (UPCs) with additional information regarding Leave Carryover. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 2008 changed the maximum leave carryover (except for special leave accrual and members in a missing status) from 60 days to 75 days from October 1, 2008 through December 31, 2010. The NDAA 2010 extends the 75 day carryover until September 30, 2013. The NDAA 2010 also extends to September 30, 2013 the longer retention period for the 120 days of leave as special leave accrual (SLA) for members who serve on active duty for a continuous period of at least 120 days in an area where they are entitled to HF/IDP, are assigned to a deployable ship or mobile unit or other duty designated under uniform regulations, or qualifying duty designated by the Secretary of Defense. The 120 days of SLA can be kept until the end of the fourth fiscal year (instead of third fiscal year) after the fiscal year in which the Service members qualified to accumulate up to 120 days leave at the end of the fiscal year. The NDAA 2008 increase to 120 days the leave carryover for members who serve in support of a contingency until the end of the second fiscal year after the fiscal year in which such service on active duty is terminated. This provision did not have a termination date so it has not changed. Point of Contact for this message is DFAS-IN.SYSTEMS@DFAS.Mil SS

Time for my annual post to this forum. Far too much thinking is going into this topic. IFF is not trying to replicate any fighter. It is also not a G-tolerance course, although physiological adaptation is a big part of it for the WSO students who don't have any experience in a fighter-type aircraft yet. IFF is not there to build BFM monsters. The goal of IFF--as stated directly by the syllabus--is to ensure it graduates only students "who show the potential to succeed in follow-on training." The FTUs out there fill their classes based upon zero attrition from students. IFF serves as the link between SUPT and the FTUs by analyzing a student's ability to adapt to more dynamic training. For example, when a student is taught BFM, it is not the BFM the instructors are focusing upon. Rather, the BFM is a subset of the higher level goal which is a student who has his priorities as a fighter wingman correct and demonstrates the ability to adapt to a much more complex cross-check than flying ILSs at an out base. While SUPT does a pretty good job of analyzing which students belong in fighters, their syllabus does not allow for the same level of scrutiny as the IFF syllabus does. It is certainly not uncommon for a student to finish number one or two in his class based upon intense study, chair-flying for each sortie, and having a high class commander rating. But these skills don't necessarily a good fighter pilot make, if the level of necessary skill is lacking. Secondly, the money factor. As stated before, FTUs anticipate zero attrition. That being said, every student who washes out of an FTU leaves a hole (sts) for that community until the next fiscal years comes around. On the other hand, if a student washes out of IFF on his way to F-16s, another F-16 will be dropped in a SUPT class later on. If a student washes out of IFF on the final sortie, it cost way, way less to find out than it would have been if he washed out halfway through any FTU. Finally, there is the SNAP factor. SUPT is a very different learning environment than the FTUs, as any fighter pilot can attest to. It is a more stressful, grown-up program than SUPT. One of the goals of IFF is introduce these new stressors to a student before he gets to the FTU and finds himself struggling for reasons unrelated to flying. The arguments of "what fighter are they trying to replicate?" and "BFM isn't flown like that anymore" are moot points. We get it. The T-38 isn't a Raptor and the bomb triangle gets more ancient everyday. But the ability to adapt to a new level of learning, in a short time period, under increased stress, for a much lower price tag, is just as important as it's ever been. There it is. Standing by for spears.

I am going to take an educated guess and say that the "stealth helicopter" used in the Bin Laden raid was a highly modified Sikorsky S-92. I am going to speculate further and venture it might be one of the prototypes of the "Marine One" helicopters used in the test program that JSOC quietly acquired and modified at some obscure location like Waco (E-Systems). Question, are all the S-92 test aircraft for the cancelled "Marine One" accounted for? I will also speculate it is NOT an RAH-66, H-60 or H-53. I hope I am not breaking OPSEC by speculating...Was told that was a "No-No" in my AD days.