Leaderboard

If you refused every other vaccine for similar reasons then I think your argument is valid. If this is the only vaccine you have had an issue with I think your argument is much weaker.

Which part? Doesn't matter for COVID, or doesn't matter for anything? Religious accommodations are not granted for many medical things, regardless of sincere beliefs. Your option is to not join. COVID is new, so there are new considerations. But if your sincere beliefs regarding COVID vaccination aren't logically consistent with other medical decisions you've made as a military member pre-COVID, then they aren't sincere beliefs, are they? Don't lose the moral high ground by being reflexively anti-everything.

Or... and follow with me here...seatbelts and airbags. It's like a pillow that's only there when you need it. Want to try a different analogy?

Yeah, I'm not sure "deliberately undo and hinder my God given natural cellular processes" jives with taking *any* medication. Definitely a bridge too far, and inconsistent with any COVID-only objections I tend to support.

Doesn’t pretty much all modern medicine do this? Perhaps the modern world, & especially aviation isn’t your bag. After all, god didn’t give you wings….surely he doesn’t expect you to fly.

I took a break from baseops for a number of months, so I'm pretty late into this conversation. It was a challenging few months spiritually, professionally, and personally when I first began grappling with the COVID-19 vaccine in terms of the conflict between my faith and career. I've seen a lot of comments acting like those of us seeking RA's are criminals violating lawful orders, politically driven selfish trouble-makers, willful granny killers, etc. I'd like to provide cliff notes with what a believe are a strong legal and policy justification for approving religious accommodations in the AF/DOD. The reality is the DOD and any employer could choose to approve medical or religious exemptions while still mitigating and complying with the mandates/law. I did the job for 1.5 years before there was a vaccine, and I'm deployed flying in AFCENT/USAFE right now with my temporary admin exemption while my RA processes. ----------------------------------- United States Constitution: The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This amendment clearly prohibits Congress (and the DoD as an arm of Congress) from using a specific test or requirement (religious dogma, denomination, doctrinal view, or opinion from a religious leader) to validate the sincerity or legitimacy of a sincerely held religious or faith-based belief. Further, it prohibits passage of any law (or lesser policy) that prohibits the free exercise of religion. Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA): Congress passed this law in 1993 which states “The Congress finds that- (1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution; (2) laws “neutral” toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise;”. It further states that “(b) EXCEPTION.-Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person-(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest.” Frazee v. Illinois (Supreme Court Ruling): On March 29, 1989, the US Supreme Court in Frazee versus Illinois, ruled that it is a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and illegal to fail to recognize a sincerely held religious belief based on the fact that it isn’t built on “tenets or dogma of an established religious sect”. In this ruling, the supreme court establishes that it is not the government’s role to question or discredit a sincere belief based on where the belief originates, rather the government should be asking 1) is this a sincerely held belief that places a substantial burden on a person…and 2) what is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling government interest? DoD Instruction 1300.17 (Religious Liberty In The Military Services): DoDI 1300.17 “Establishes DoD policy in furtherance of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, recognizing that Service members have the right to observe the tenets of their religion”. This instruction “Implements requirements in…“The Religious Freedom Restoration Act”, and other laws applicable to the accommodation of religious practices for DoD to provide, in accordance with the RFRA, that DoD Components will normally accommodate practices of a Service member based on a sincerely held religious belief.” Paragraph 1.2.e states “In accordance with RFRA, if such a military policy, practice or duty substantially burdens a Service member’s exercise of religion, accommodation can only be denied if: (1) The military policy, practice, or duty is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest. (2) It is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest. Paragraph 2.3.b.(2).(b).3 provides the Military Department (delegated to AF MAJCOM/CC) the specific authority to approve a religious accommodation request for immunization in particular. Air Force Policy & Governing Directives AFI 48-110 (Immunizations and Chemoprophylaxis for the Prevention of Infectious Diseases): Paragraph 2-6.b.(3).(a) addresses administrative immunization exemptions and states “Immunization exemptions for religious reasons may be granted according to Service-specific policies to accommodate religious beliefs of a service member.” It further states “For the Air Force, permanent exemptions for religious reasons are not granted; the MAJCOM commander is the designated approval and revocation authority for religious immunization exemptions.” This instruction establishes a process and precedent for approving this accommodation request for a vaccine exemption, and it also provides an option to revoke the accommodation approval if or when it is no longer the “least restrictive means” of preserving the compelling government interest of mission capability, readiness, health, and safety. AFPD 52-2 (Accommodation of Religious Practices in The Air Force): Paragraph 1.2 of AFPD 52-2 states “The Air Force has a compelling government interest in mission accomplishment and will take this into account when considering Air Force members’ requests for accommodation of religious practices. This interest includes military readiness, unit cohesion, good order and discipline, or public health and safety for both the individual and unit levels.” Paragraph 1.4 also states “The Air Force will approve an individual request for accommodation unless the request would have a real (not theoretical) adverse impact on military readiness, unit cohesion, good order, discipline, or public health and safety.” Further, paragraph 1.4 states “Airmen have a temporary exemption from compliance in the cases of medical practices or immunization while the request is pending.” DAFI 52-201 (Religious Freedom in The Department Of The Air Force): The DAFI 52-201 adequately addresses the government requirement to ensure the “least restrictive means” of meeting the compelling government interest. Paragraph 2.2 states the following: “As the right to request religious accommodation is based on the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes, it is critically important to fully consider and appropriately value an Airmen’s or Guardian’s request.” It directs reviewing and approving officials to ask two questions: · “The first question to answer is whether the request is based on expression of sincerely held beliefs (e.g. conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs). If it is based on a sincerely held belief, the relevant expression can include any religious practice…” · “The second question is whether the policy, practice, or duty from which the member is requesting accommodation substantially burdens the expression of that belief.” “A governmental act is a substantial burden to a Service member’s exercise of religious if it: o “Requires participation in an activity prohibited by a sincerely held religious belief; o “Prevents participation in conduct motivated by a sincerely held religious belief; or” o “Places substantial pressure on a Service member to engage in conduct contrary to a sincerely held religious belief.” Adverse Action & Punishment: Paragraph 1.3 states “A member’s expression of sincerely held beliefs may not be used as the basis for any adverse personnel action, discrimination, or denial of promotion; and may not be used as a basis for making schooling, training, or assignment decisions. Failure to Accommodate: Paragraph 2.7 states “If, after a thorough analysis of the above factors, the religious accommodation of Airmen or Guardians cannot be met, administrative actions that may be considered include reassignment, reclassification, or voluntary separation.”

Can confirm there’s a Viper pilot at a Reserve unit that rides one of those hoverboards to the jets and around the squadron. Even better because it’s got the light up wheels so you’d see him coming down the dark hallways like a traveling circus.

Some of us know a now retired LtCol who was at one time on a no kidding Air Force recruiter skateboarding group in his young enlisted days… Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That’s some Gen Z shit right there. Signed, Millennial

Wasn't an issue for Hillary...

Careful with stats. Every year 4% of that demographic dies. And it's a mathematical certainty that there is significant overlap of the 4% and the 1%.

Don't overthink it. The airlines aren't worried that a 12+ year military pilot is lying about their hours. Get the best product you can get and make it look as professional as you can. If the first line in your logbook is a summary of years 6-9 instead of a line by line, nobody is going to care.

Sure. How about something that 99% effective (natural immunity or a vaccine). Against a threat that only effects the military demographic at less than 1%?? why do we need two 99% effective solutions,? we are trying to solve a 1% risk by throwing an unknown, but likely greater risk (long term and short term side effects) on top of it.

I wonder how many of those decrying vaccinations developed with the benefit of fetal cell lines would even hesitate to have their kid administered a rabies vaccine if they were bitten. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What people often miss is that accommodation may well be separating from the service.

Do you want me to move this to the WTF thread?!?

Beats a reflective belt!

Geez that's harsh. Pretty sure if you can't get Comirnaty you can't comply with the previous order..... not a lawyer though.

Probably some NCO getting evidence of the rules being broken on the flight line! 🤣

C-17 background? Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app

Why is it that aliens can figure out how to travel across many millions of miles, over how many thousands of years, through an extremely dangerous and complicated environment...and they always fuck up the landing?

I'd say there's a strong chance of it. If I do, most likely static display of a rare airplane.

Honorable = Normal General Under Honorable Conditions = You had honorable service, but you fucked up in a severe way (e.g., guilty at a courts martial with no punitive discharge given). Other Than Honorable Discharge = Normally only given at a administrative discharge board where discharge is given, which for officers is known as a Board of Inquiry. Dismissal (officer version of a dishonorable) = Only given at a General Court Martial Note: Officers don’t receive Bad Conduct Discharges. For VA benefit purposes, the entire period of service is determined by the VA. For example, I got court martialed in 2017. My enlistment during that court martial started in 2013. I joined in 2001 and had multiple enlistments before then of “honorable” service before 2013. The VA gave me all benefits because of my multiple honorable enlistments due to my General Under Honorable discharge. I don’t know how they would do that with officers with periods of ADSCs? The only show stopper with VA benefits is getting a dismissal, which would prevent you from getting any VA benefits. The VA does their own determination of character of service if you were to get a General Under Honorable or in some extreme cases, an Other Than Honorable discharge. Two boom operator Chief friends of mine are retiring in the next few months and they got Art 15s as TSgts. My brother has one as well and he made TSgt pretty early. As an officer if they don’t kick you out after one, you’re probably not going to go anywhere, career wise, and they’re just waiting for you to separate on your own.

Short answer to your question is yes. An officer could have some period of acceptable service, have a "lapse in judgment", receive an offer of & accept an Article 15, and then potentially continue & leave with an honorable. I'd caveat and say if the officer had done something sufficiently egregious that an Article 15 is being considered, you might not "expect" an honorable as the JAGs can (in my experience) get pretty zealous & will pursue a CM if they think they can prove all the required elements to a CM panel. Any Art. 15 discussion suggests potential CM-level issues. That said, (as you probably already know) Art 15 is administrative & the only two discharges for officers as a result of that 'punishment' would be honorable or general (under honorable conditions). Bad conduct/dishonorable come from the punitive articles of the UCMJ. Lastly, if I've erred anywhere above, I'll happily stand corrected. I'm not a lawyer, but I played one on TV. Good general info

Wearing a seatbelt and having a pillow taped to your stomach is also safer than wearing a seatbelt or taping a pillow alone. that doesn’t mean we need both... in this case, the pillow is getting the vaccine.

But not for anyone on this forum so far.

Don't be too hard on Gen Z, they may save this country: ‘Right’ thinking Gen Z will save America: Devine (nypost.com) Remember when Jane Fonda, the octogenarian actress, triumphantly declared last year that ­COVID-19 is “God’s gift to the left,” because it would help Joe Biden beat Donald Trump and transform America into a socialist paradise? Well, be careful what you wish for, lefties. There are generational consequences for the repressive lockdowns, the vaccine and mask mandates, the disruption of school and college and the savage curtailing of the social lives of young people for a virus that basically doesn’t affect them. When old people in power scold children and young people for “selfishness” if they don’t get triple-vaxxed, or if they let their mask slip below their nose occasionally, or try to have some fun in the sun, it’s obvious who actually is being selfish. It’s not the generation that has pretty uncomplainingly borne the brunt of the pandemic emergency measures in order to keep older and obese people safe. Generation Z, aged 9 to 25, have a minuscule risk of death or hospitalization from COVID-19 but they have missed out on school and sports, and lost jobs and opportunities. At an age when socializing with their peers is crucial, they have suffered the isolation of curfews and closures that have taken a savage toll on their mental health. “We have been locked down for the best years of our life, and high school and college has been ­ruined,” says 16-year-old Tim Korshunov. Now they are rebelling against the liberal establishment that ­betrayed them. In what will be a great shock to the Boomers, Gen Z’ers are becoming conservative — or at least rejecting the woke cultural soup into which they were born. You can see the trends on their preferred social-media platform, TikTok. It was TikTokers who helped make the anti-establishment, anti-Biden “Let’s Go Brandon” chant at college games go ­viral. “It’s the slogan of our generation,” says Korshunov. “Let’s Go Brandon” has become a rallying cry for young conservatives calling out President Joe Biden’s socialist state. Getty Images The first generation not to know life before cellphones, last year they became the largest generation on Earth. And by 2024, Gen Z and millennials will be the largest voting bloc. But unlike millennials, many of whom have gullibly accepted the leftist indoctrination of their elders, Gen Z is skeptical and less trusting of authority. They verify reality with their own research, and they trust their peers on social media more than established sources of information. The top influencers on TikTok — youngsters who produce 10-to-15 second videos — are refreshingly scathing about the dishonest meta-narratives pumped out by establishment media, whether it is the lionizing of Marxist organization BLM or the false branding of 18-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse as a white supremacist. Tapping into the TikTok-influencer market is the future for the right, and so far, so good. The largest conservative network for young people on the platform is “Today is America,” which caters to 55 million users under the age of 33, with a network of 260 young “content creators” from all over the US, who make short videos on their phones with pro-America, pro-conservative, pro-capitalist themes, often delivered with wry humor. “We don’t care if you’re libertarian or conservative . . . or all forms of the ideological spectrum . . . as long as we are on the right side and we’re all promoting America,” says TIA co-founder Cam Rafizadeh, a 25-year-old entrepreneur. One of TIA’s TikTok videos, titled “Liberals after watching the mainstream media and blindly believing it,” features a CNBC freeze frame claiming double masking has “Efficiency: 75%” and “Triple Mask. Efficiency: 90%.” A young man stands in front of the screen and silently puts on multiple masks over his face and eyes. Another video begins with a young woman sipping a cup of coffee when the words “Since when did girls star preferring . . .” flashes onto the screen over images of boys in drag. The words “. . . to this” then appear, over images of Leo DiCaprio, Prince William, Tom Brady and assorted masculine types. Popular Manhattan influencer “thedebralea” promotes traditional family values. “Motherhood is the biggest blessing in life,” she says in one of her posts. Cam and younger brother Liam, 21, got into the ideas business by accident. The North Carolinians found themselves with time on their hands in the pandemic and launched an online store to sell Trump gear and patriotic merchandise. They used social-media influencers to market their T-shirts but, says Cam, “these people were brutally attacked, harassed and threatened.” One of their young TikTokers was sent a bloody box of animal guts to his family home. Others were doxxed, their families threatened, and they were bullied at school, including from teachers who didn’t approve of their conservative output. A lot of their creators decided to quit TikTok. “My brother and I thought it’s terrifying this is going on in our country,” says Cam. So they quit their jobs and turned from a merchandising company into a nonprofit pro-America community of Gen Z influencers, protecting them, helping them expand their brands and providing them with cameras to make more professional videos for YouTube or Rumble. “I felt a serious calling,” says Cam. “I felt this is it. If we don’t, we will lose our country.” The brothers recruited smart Gen Zers into the organization. Korshunov, for instance, has quit school and become TIA’s head of development. Their director of strategy, 25-year-old Ben Geller, was just elected a legislator in Dutchess County District 4. He points to the untapped electoral power of Gen Z, of whom the 70 percent who were eligible to vote last year stayed home. Geller says a lot of younger conservatives are “cautious or apprehensive about being judged or losing their jobs. They don’t talk on social media for fear of retribution from their employer or being lashed at by family members so they stayed home or stayed silent because of fear something would happen.” That’s where TIA comes in, helping make conservatism cool. Of course, their creators come in for the usual social-media censorship. Every day, someone is deleted or deplatformed. As many as three quarters are on their third or fourth accounts, but TikTok’s algorithms allow them to regain their audience within a week or two, says Cam. And he says the more suppression they face, the more Gen Z seeks out forbidden ideas. “I always tell people Gen Z will save America.” It will be up the Gen Z to rebuild the institutions and replenish the moral capital squandered by their forbears. Eat your heart out, Hanoi Jane!