Herk Driver

The difference here is that the FEB only gets to make a recommendation to the convening authority and he gets to make the final decision. Different than a trial where you are found not guilty. No the safety board doesn't read you your rights...they try to get you to talk and answer their questions. Don't talk to them. Always ask for legal counsel. Three holer is correct about the privilege issue. Only specific people are authorized to grant privilege as well. Get it in writing. On a seperate note, in general, when you do get read your rights, whether you think you have done anything wrong or not, ask for a lawyer. You would not be getting read your rights unless the person doing so suspects you of something.

I have been told this before today.

Got it. Thought I had taken that out and replaced with CDI when I edited the post. My mistake. What I was trying to say (however ineffective it was), in different words, was that any information that is not priviledged (from whatever source, including the SIB or an AIB (if one is convened in any given scenario, not necessarily this one)) or a CDI can be used for adverse action. When you are the subject of an FEB, it is not fun. You are being looked at for whether people believe that you should continue to fly or not and in what capacity. Like it or not, the board makes a recommendation to the convening authority who ultimately makes the decision. He makes that decision based upon all the FEB information. Although an admin proceeding versus a legal proceeding, per se, the case gets reviewed similar to a Court-Martial conviction and sentence. The "convening authority" gets to review and either approve or take other action like overturning it. What I don't get here is the "accusation" that the only information the convening authority had was privileged information and that he made a decision based on only that priviledged information to take a guy's wings. The whole thread mixes apples and oranges when it comes to privilege and safety versus non-safety information. The restriction in 91-204 applies to information that is given under privilege to an SIB. Those statements cannot be used for the FEB or the other actions listed. However, any other non-privileged information can be used. It sounds like the CDI uncovered enough independent information to justify an FEB and then that FEB ran its course. What I am hearing is that the board made a recommendation that the convening authority disagreed with. That led to accusations that people believe that he used privileged info to make all of his decisions. I disagree. While I have not seen all the FEB information, I have seen these cases happen before and it is not that difficult to get to most of the information in an incident. There are no pieces of privilege that would be needed in these circumstances. It appears that the CDI was used as the basis for the FEB and for the referral OPR. As far as the immunity for the FEB testimony in each other's FEBs, that is a different story altogether. The exact details of the grant of immunity would have to be revealed here, but the immunity grant is not going to wipe out all of the facts of the case. Here is a question. Was the combat camera video part of the SIB and was it privileged? Based on this out of 91-204, and the absence of analysis (unless added later) I would guess that it is not privileged. 3.2.1. Privileged information includes: 3.2.1.1. Findings, conclusions, causes, recommendations, analysis, and the deliberative process of safety investigators. Diagrams and exhibits if they contain information which depicts the analysis of safety investigators. This includes draft versions of the above material. 3.2.1.2. Information given to safety investigators pursuant to a promise of confidentiality (paragraph 3.4.). 3.2.1.3. Computer generated animations, simulations, or simulator reenactments in which safety investigator analysis is incorporated. Animations made exclusively from recorder data (including Military Flight Operations Quality Assurance data) are not privileged. 3.2.1.4. Photographs, imagery, and animations that reveal the deliberative process of the board, including photographs with markings. 3.2.1.5. Life Sciences Material that contain analysis by a safety or life sciences investigator. NOTE: 72-hour histories, 14 day histories and interview narratives by Medical Officer are only privileged if privilege was granted. If it was not privileged, was it used in the FEB? As far as your question, I will tell you what I always told those I supervised...if ever read your rights, ask for a lawyer. Don't answer questions unless you have a lawyer present. As far as a SIB, unless granted immunity, I would keep my mouth shut as well.

Prior to posting the first time, I read every post in this thread...some several times, including Day Man. The AMC/CC was obviously briefed on the results of the SIB and also on the AIB and the FEB. Each one of these can have similar or the exact same information in them. Only the priviledged parts of the SIB are protected. What you failed to read of what I wrote was that if information is uncovered by the AIB or the FEB that happens to be the same as info in the SIB and FEB, then it is not priviledged as long as it was uncovered independently by those boards. The fact of the matter is that information independent of the SIB can be used to take admin or other adverse actions. The supposition that because the AMC/CC was briefed on the incident but had no other independent information or enough non-priviledged information is frankly something that you and I do not know and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I am thoroughly familiar with being second guessed about decisions when people did not have all the information and made assumptions that only supported their conclusions. And No, the AMC/CC was not the one that had people stand tall after taxi incidents. It was the 18 AF/CC.

There was an AIB. Have you read it? All of the information from the SIB and in the AFSAS report is not priviledged. Either way, info from the AIB can be used. Referrals, FEBs and separations can occur from the information obtained from the AIB. You do not know and were not in the room when the decisions were made. I am not naive enough to believe that anyone keeps all that info separated and doesn't let one effect the other. However, you are making assertions that you cannot substantiate.

He is talking about an optional LOE. Otherwise, it would be in the record and not being used as source info for an OPR. I stand corrected...what I should have said is that it is a long shot. YMMV. IMHO, short answer is still No. The real question is why would you want to? I am sure that there is plenty in your record to put in a PRF and have watched people put some pretty mediocre info from OPRs in PRFs that was easily overshadowed by other documented info in the record.

So without running the checklists from Step 1 to Step last in regards to the number 1 and 4 engine, were you getting thrust out of those engines? If so, how much did it help? If not, what was the end result with regards to the engines? Were the indications in the cockpit sufficient to tell you that they were either producing or not producing thrust? Was there any damage to number 1 or 4? If you had run the checklist from Step 1 to last, do you think you would still have gotten the same treatment?

No

IIRC, you have to fly by the middle of the fourth month in this case. AO normally gets cut when you have a chamber date and a valid physical so normally the first day of UPT/UNT.

A toast...

Not getting involved or not knowing only lead to many more problems while trying to unscrew the system. Less work to get involved up front than to let it fester or just not know and get blindsided.

D@mn...that was tough to read.

You still have towels?

Thanks for the info. I was unaware...although been using HHonors for years now without it.

HHonors is a loyalty program...not a credit card per se, although they may have one, I don't know.

Bitte, I will say that I rolled into a squadron that had some of the same issues that you describe above. Some of that was CC driven but some of that was individual driven. Dudes pushing to be a Flt/CC so that it was on their SURF and then on to greener pastures. Box checking (sts) at its finest. But, I believe that much of that was driven by the Capts that were doing it as much as any external influences. People get the itch if they have been in a job for more than 6 months for some reason. It takes a concerted effort to stop this from happening and also a deliberate approach to development. There are AF-level decisions that factor into this (e.g, no masking of AAD for the O-4 board, etc), but many of these things are in your control. Not directed at you, but stop blaming everyone else and fix the problems that you can control when you have the chance to fix them. Don't let others drive the decisions that you make and make the best decision for the AF, the unit and the individual...while that does not always make everyone happy, it tends to work in the long run.

Good. That is what I have seen as well. I agree wholeheartedly with what you said above. I think many dudes in the senior roles don't realize that it is their jobs to do much of the mentoring, etc. Lots of folks just want to wait for the Sq/CC or DO to do it instead. Does the Sq/CC have that responsibility, yes. But can he do it alone with the myriad of other trivial tasks, no. Why not? There is a place for much of that in the official feedback form.

There you go thinking again.

Do ADOs and Flt/CCs in your squadrons have input into the CC rack and stack?

JS or HAF is good.

If there is a RIF or after they get passed over twice...got it. One a separate note, I disagree that a MAJCOM staff push is a nail in the coffin. A senior Capt or Maj having no staff push or a HAF or Wing Staff push is a nail in the coffin. MAJCOM isn't the best push out there but it is not a career killer as some have alluded to. Back on topic, I thought you had figured out some easy way to show an officer the door when their performance was below standards. Brief them up on their shitty performance, document in an OPR and then a 'good game' as they head out the door to greener pastures when they don't improve. BTW, it is not easy to get an officer out of the service before their ADSC is up unless through VSP, RIF or other approved programs (i.e. Palace Chase) even when they have serious misconduct. It takes SECAF decision/approval and their is due process involved to make that happen. Just trying to clarify what you meant.

Can you explain what you mean by "let them go?"

Interesting twist to the privatized housing thing, which I am not very familiar with. However, I see this as no different than staying in an apartment downtown. I do not have a JFTR reference but your logic is correct, IMHO. If Finance Guy cannot help, I would suggest working with your CC and if that fails then go talk with the IG.

Disclaimer: I have not read the PSDMs that carefully... You need to read them carefully...typically you are entitled to separation pay when you are involuntarily separated from the AF. The exception has been the VSP of recent years which offered incentives for people to leave. I did not see any incentives in the PSDMs and with the AF looking to cut numbers to meet end strength goals, I doubt you are going to get cash to get out early. In addition, there are SERBs for both O-5s and O-6s in some circumstances so the AF has gotten somewhat serious about getting the manpower house in order. The LADSC waiver is your big benefit in this case. A more thorough and careful reading of any associated PSDMs may prove me wrong. My advice: If you have an FAA job lined up then take the opportunity to jump on it now regardless of any sep pay. Don't forget that for the time being that some FAA employees are affected by the sequester but it does not appear that FY14 is going to be much different. Don't worry there are others on this forum that know more about the A1 stuff. If history is any indicator, I feel certain he will not miss the chance to correct any mistakes and point out that I should stick to my piloting stuff.

In the past, the eligibility date was back dated due to the late release of the message...happened to me many years ago. My anniversary date was in Jan/Feb and the message released in Mar, IIRC. They gave us a grace period to apply and then back-dated to the anniversary date. I did just re-read the PSDM though and noticed that there is no such caveat in the PSDM this time. If your anniversary date was prior to the release of the ARP message then you were losing money because of HAF. So, yes, it looks like you got screwd by the AF machine and every day you waited past the message being posted you screwed yourself, knowingly or not.