Leaderboard

Well, here's your Sunday night WTF offering! 😲 p.s. These guys have some decent vids on their U-Tube page! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMu5gPmKp5av0QCAajKTMhw

I would have watched just to see the outcome. Poor Hamilton, wah...wah...

Absolutely. It's called self-deprecating humor. 😄 One man's trash brahdah! 🤙

Found this in the leave reg: 6.10.2.4. Members transferring to the AFR cannot carryover leave from the RegAF, (except for members transferring into the AGR program with no break in service to include PALACE CHASE/PALACE FRONT), ANG or other services. Members must settle all leave accounts prior to transferring. (T-1) I will say, though, that when I transferred from ANG to IRR I had 0.5 days that they did carry-over. Getting paid for that 0.5 days after transferring took about 1 year bc ARPC (SELRES pay guys) acted like they had never encountered an ANG ADOS order before. Then DFAS acted like they had never seen such a thing before. If I had known I would have been sure to cash it out before leaving ANG.

Still...'Merica!!

Man, wait until you learn SECDEF, SECAF, and many other Air Force civilian leadership are are also political appointees...

Here's the catch though. You volunteered to be in the military and signed on the dotted line agreeing to be subject to a different set of rules above and beyond your average civilian. You can be sent to jail for all sorts of things that aren't illegal for regular people like desertion, adultery, insubordination, fraternization, and conduct unbecoming just to name a few. And the UCMJ does have specific limits on speech for military members already. You are correct that the implementation of this policy is going to be messy and difficult. And as always the devil is going to be in the details. But acting like this is some gross overreach that is new and different from the restrictions you've already agreed to is a bit alarmist in my opinion.

Generally agree with you, at least fair the general public. The difference here is that as a member of the military, we are in a position of trust (some positions now than others). It's why we have a security clearances with recurring investigations, and why we can handle classified materials and information not released to the general public. So there becomes a balancing point between your individual right to free speech, and whether the opinions you express indicate you shouldn't be in a position of trust within the government. However, trust works both ways. If the monitoring is overly aggressive or overly broad, it'll hurt morale (or degrade performance) in the military, and become a deterrent for people to join or stay in the military. Then again, SERE beat out most of my desire to use most forms of social media (well, just reinforced my decision to stop using many forms of social media).

Yeah, that's problematic. This seems like a solution in need of a problem. I think the mechanism for addressing bad judgement in that regard already exists. Case in point, I had an airman make a blatantly racist comment regarding a former POTUS on a public and widely viewed Facebook page. CMSAF personally found it, it went at the speed of light through the wing leadership and to my desk to handle. I was on the fence about taking a stripe, settled on LOR with control roster though. Probably didn't warrant Art 15 and I wasn't convinced it was winnable if he declined the Art 15. Guy came close to ruining his career because he thought it was a good idea to blow hard on Facebook, it was unbelievable.

I mean, your security clearance paperwork already asks if you're associated with terrorist organizations or associated with groups intent on overthrowing the USG, then someone investigates and verifies that info. That verification used to be a lot harder, but now that so much info is available online, it can provide more insight into the reliability of a person. So nothing really new, but maybe they are saying the quiet part (anything you post online is visible during investigations) out loud now.

I mean...he recorded and published the evidence. I'd say he proved exactly what he was accused of. I suspect he couldn't define "Marxism" or provide an example without Googling it. But he felt the need to take a shot at the SECDEF.