Leaderboard

It is very degrading. To everyone. How offensive is it to be part of a group that seemingly needs protection and can only succeed by toppling the "white male club?" I would like to think that my efforts and skills are what gets me to the place I want to be, not some outside force that feels the military is too homogeneous. Will I have to go through my career wondering if I got awarded or promoted because I'm an Asian female and there are few of us in the services? Or can I take pride in the fact that I dedicate myself 100% to my job?

I do. That's exactly what I said. We do demand this. Our leadership returns the favor by slapping us in the face. They call us rapists and racists and file paperwork for using foul language. They use us as sacrificial lambs to prove to their bosses how they're tackling the sexual assault problem. Our leaders demand we shoulder the work while also being shit on and blamed for their inept leadership shortfalls. We do. The only people accusing us of not showing all Airmen respect are hypocrites like you who have never spent one single operational day in a fighter squadron. I spent about an hour reading a summary of every sexual assault conviction the Air Force has experienced from 2009-2013. Guess how many fighter pilots were on that list. I assume you didn't read the same report so I'll give you the answer. It's zero. I asked the SARC at my last base how many sexual assaults were reported across each Group. Guess what Group was the only Group with zero reported. I'll give you the answer. The Ops Group. The Group with the absolute lowest amount of reported offenses is the same goddam Group being blamed for all of the problems. You go on and on about our stupid frat boy traditions and how we need to clean our acts up in order to keep the military in order. WE ARE LITERALLY THE ONLY GROUP WHO IS ACTING LIKE PROPER MILITARY MEN. YOU ARE CHASING DOWN THE WRONG GROUP OF PEOPLE. Look at reality. Look at the facts. Focus your efforts on a group of people that need your attention. We aren't doing this. Look at the facts. Put your biased personal opinions aside and look at the reports. Read the facts. The Ops Group is NOT where you need to focus your hunt. Maybe they did. Those dudes aren't us. Don't give yourself that much credit. You didn't grow us. You didn't allow us to grow. The same personality type has been flying and/or fighting in wars for centuries. It's you who will be the downfall our military. It's you who will send every warfighter to pasture in favor of a more docile force. You, by your own admission, had the same personality in your early military days. You now have no qualms about throwing others under the bus for your own politically driven gain. You didn't do shit to grow us. You're using us as scapegoats to further your own career. If you have ignored everything else I've said, please read this carefully. My point is this; If you were right.... if your assertions were correct... if your viewpoints were correct.... if your gamelan was correct... things would be improving. Perverts and rapists and racists and frat boys would be forced out of the military and good, hardy young men would be joining. If you were right... the rate of sexual assaults would be decreasing significantly with every bad pilot purged. If your opinions and actions were correct.... the ship would be righting itself. Why don't you go ahead and tell me what's happening with the pilot force as you continue to treat them like criminals. How's the retention rate and new recruitment working out? Why don't you go ahead and tell me how we're doing in terms of reducing sexual assault. How's that going? If you and your opinions were correct, we wouldn't still be having this conversation. Take a good, long look in the mirror and ask yourself what effects your actions are really having on our force.

These guys started acting like this immediately after poking his finger through the toilet paper.

A dozen Roombas are standing by to provide counseling to those who knew anyone involved.

Whenever I've seen an attempt to mentor an airman outside my own organization, I've seen that airman complain about it to their boss, which eventually results in a SQ/CC to SQ/CC phone call, ending in disaster for the "mentor".

Cue Butters in 5....4....3....2....1........

...well, the MAJCOM/CC can still make whatever decision he wants to, regardless of the facts in the case or the recommendations of the FEB. Documentation doesn't mean a damn thing when the leadership all ready believes something not supported by evidence or contrary to the recommendations of the FEB, and the system is set up so that it is ultimately the MAJCOM Commander's decision as to the final outcome. The respondent has absolutely zero -- ZERO -- recourse within the confines of the USAF (not including the BCMR process) to appeal or have a MAJCOM/CC's ruling on an FEB recommendation overturned. An FEB is essentially a kangaroo court; the appearance of having "due process" but without any of the protections that an actual due process system affords. The AF is perfectly happy to tell respondents that "you had your due process at the FEB, and then leadership decided to not go with that recommendation" and honestly believe that such a statement makes any sense whatsoever.

Will Ferrell's reply https://www.funnyordie.com/embed/55c51f0c23

Hey man, you're the one inbound for school. Help us fix it in a couple of years. Please.

For someone so new in the Air Force, you've experienced a disproportional amount of garbage. I won't lie, sometimes it sounds like you're just making crap up to sound cool. And by cool, I mean "look at me, I've BTDT already." Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

For what it's worth, all the crappy, yes-sir-no-sir-two-bags-full-sir leaders who didn't spend the time to listen to my problems and didn't provide me top-cover when I really needed it were WHCMs. The AF has a problem, and I don't think its anything related to this corporate EO spew.

You. Why would you suggest that a commander take administrative action against a man just found innocent in a civil court?

The FEB system needs an overhaul. There is an obvious lack of clarity in the reg (as noted by the ambiguity in the responses I got) for such an important event. My FEB seemed unorganized, and several parties were not clear on proceedings. The fact that the MAJCOM/CC is thoroughly briefed on what should be privileged information before making an FEB decision is a foul. AFI 11-402 allows the MAJCOM/CC to delegate that responsibility no lower than MAJCOM/A3, but doesn't require it. There needs to be someone appointed in the chain to refrain from hearing any privileged SIB info or testimony to make the call.

Are you that surprised that AF IG's would protect the system and their boss at all costs? If you really want to make some impacts, get a civilian lawyer and go to the New York Times or 60 Minutes. If there's anything that terrifies management the most, it's negative publicity.

Are you ######ing kidding? How many black, homosexual, atheist woman want to fly fighters? Why are those at the Pentagon (and liberals leaders) so damn interested in quotas? Filling quotas is bad business if you're truly interested in hiring the highest quality individuals for an extremely demanding job. Sometimes it sounds like you've forgotten any lesson you may have learned as a CGO (for instance, like how spectacularly unfair of an advantage minorities have getting into and staying in UPT). It appears that you and your cronies have totally succumbed to the liberal/corporate mentality that pervades the upper echelon. The ideal of completely perfect quotas is not an enlightened viewpoint which the lower ranks are either not privy to, or too barbaric to understand. It's just a short-sighted appeasement which weakens our fighting force.

How would it work for the other half of the air force helo force? The army could probably take over the AFDW mission considering they are part out the same OPLANS but the icbm mission would be an exercise in bureaucracy. Army helos flying air force cops from an air force base securing air force missiles. Good luck getting anything done.

This is exactly why I can't take you seriously. This wasn't some 'study', this was an actual product produced by the Pentagon to be used to train EO's in how to reduce/deal with workplace discrimination. But yet, you don't see that this is discriminatory! You're either a person who assumes that 100% of what comes out of the Pentagon is perfect...or you're a huge liberal who truly buys into the fact that 'white, Christian, heterosexual males' truly do receive many 'unearned advantages'. Do you know my background good sir? Do you know if I have received 'unearned advantages'...or do you just assume this because the Pentagon said so, and because of what my skin color is, what gender I like to bang, and what I do on my Sundays? If the Pentagon came out and said 'black women, who also happen to be homosexual and atheist' have unearned advantages and largely get to where they are because of affirmative action policies'...would this be ok to you? That's essentially what this article says about whites, just the reverse. I do believe racism exists and there are issues that EO handles everyday...I never said anything to the contrary. But it seems that you don't have a problem with one group being singled out unfairly.

Finkle is Einhorn!

You're right. He should have compared himself to a KC-10 pilot.

Except for that year they tried it with KC-135s and the C-17s didn't make it to Australia because they had to divert for gas.

Definitely a red cunt...wait, I've said too much, guess MEO will be at my door momentarily.

Good info to share, especially since you're living with it, thanks. My view isn't that we should reduce overall benefits since, like you said, it's healthcare (and to a lesser extent pay), not pensions that are hurting the DOD financially. My biggest point is that our current retirement system does absolutely zero for 80% of those who serve; it only ends up benefiting the 20% who stay to the full 20+. While we do need to incentivize career officers and enlisted troops to stay until 20 and beyond, a retirement system with a huge delayed vesting time isn't nearly the best way to do it. Give people targeted bonuses, more choice and input in their career path, and the ability to exit and re-enter service throughout their career and you'll do a much better job keeping the right people. Right now the 20 year military retirement is the best retirement plan in the country, hands down, no debate there. It requires a lot of sacrifice and those who do earn it earn every penny. But what it's not is the best system for the vast majority of those who honorably serve. I'm arguing you can have a system that not only serves career troops better by providing a better QOL throughout rather than just one big carrot at the end and numerous kicks in the balls until then, but one that provides something other than a firm handshake to those who decide to leave before 20. Maybe the fed LEO plan isn't perfect in its particulars, maybe it's not generous enough to keep the talent the military needs, it's just a starting point an an opening argument for a system that's fully fleshed out and is judged as a good deal for those serving honorably in a fed LEO role. Do we need the vesting period to be longer than 5 years? When do you start collecting? How do you prevent perverse incentives to stay until 25 but being useless (i.e. ROAD)? IDK, open for debate. Honestly I'm not even on the bandwagon of wanting to save money by redesigning the mil retirement, I really just want a better program that gives a good benefit to many more veterans rather than an amazing benefit to few. Why can't we even just add TSP matching? Shouldn't we be encouraging young officers and enlisted troops to save for their retirement rather than just promise them Uncle Sam will cut them a check if they stick around long enough? Put the vest period for matching funds at 5 years to capture more time and a second look from your support officers and first term Airmen with relatively short enlistments. Our system isn't fundamentally broken and I don't expect it to change, especially since it would take an act of Congress, but it's worth talking about at least.

I don't either. I haven't read the manual or been exposed to any of the concepts talked about in the article. Falls into the "who cares what this study says" category. When the findings and recommendations impact training or policy, I might care.

I either assume 100% is true or I'm a liberal? Wrong. What exactly is unfair or discriminatory about this report/training again? Do you know what discrimination is? You don't like the author's assertion that WCHMs have unfair advantages or should be singled out as privileged? Ok, me either. Quit being so dramatic about this. Do the math. What percentage of the US population is military age MCHM? What percentage of serves in the military, all the way down to what percentage of those who fly AF aircraft are MCHM? I just guessing, but I bet the percentages go up and you get to your unit. How do you explain that? These authors probably (again, I haven't read the report) think it has to do with institutional and cultural advantages. Not saying I agree or disagree because as I have said, I haven't read the report, but I don't see what is pissing you off so much about this.

Sure you can. Be aggressive and creative. When you are right, you are right. I think you are reading too much into it. It is not degrading or discriminatory. Yes, diversity and the protections EO enable make us a stronger and more professional force. You are naive to think there are not legitimate complaints and resolutions handled by EO every day across our AF. The quotes you reference from this document do not call for reverse discrimination.