DeHavilland

Desert Storm time frame. One of our pilots is sitting in Saudi Arabia at King Fahd airport with his HF equipment. He thinks of the future and decides to marry his girlfriend in Germany. He gets a power of attorney to a guy in Frankfurt. He gets his girl friend, a chaplain and the POA guy together at the MARS station. My friend is on the other end in SA. There followed a unique conversation of "do you take this man/woman.......over" At the end the POA guy signed the marriage license and the two newlyweds, despite being 1000's of miles apart were legally married. We asked if the POA covered covered consummation too. lol They are still married 31 years later.

Twenty-five years ago today, I found myself in the Saudi Arabian desert near the Iraqi border with NVG's on watching a steady stream of traffic headed northbound and downtown. It was a very impressive sight. I mentioned this in the office today and guys were amazed that it was 25 years ago. Of course some said they were in grade school then so I gave them a quick history lesson.

He needs to serve time. And not time served in Afg. He walked, so his time there was self-induced. Put him in the same cell with Chelsea Manning,

No surprise some former Kw Drivers are not happy as FW guys on one year deployments to the fun box. Doing circles for hours is no fun compared to TIC and the smell of cordite in the cockpit. Still, it beats flying a desk or teaching the CCC at Rucker. If they wanted to stay in the cockpit and be allowed to grow a mustache when not deployed, they should have gone the Warrant path. Some guys want to be in charge and fly for the 5 - 7 years an RLO can realistically expect to be near a cockpit. Others are happy letting someone else being in charge and staying in a cockpit for an entire career. Tp each his own.

Getting ready to call it a day after many, many++ years of service. Wanting to stay overseas (long story) and had been previously been told by Transportation that I could do a local move within 50 miles of my current gov't occupied quarters paid for by the gov't. Also, said move would not count as my retirement move to location of choice and then within 5 years, walk in as a retiree and ask to use my retirement orders for the final move to CONUS paid for again by the gov't. Went to Transportation last week and now they nor I can find it in the new JTR that says I am authorized such a thing. Anyone else run into such an issue or know where this was in the past JFTR? Wife is getting nervous. If we have to, we will do the local move ourselves and save the orders for the $$$$ move to CONUS in 5 years.

Years ago, kid is out drinking with buds and gets in a small accident on a bridge with another car. Along comes another car and now 3 cars are involved. In the confusion with drunks, nobody notices where Johnny went to. Johnny is declared AWOL with everyone figuring he ran off to avoid charges. Mother finally calls commander and say that if Johnny had run off, he would have called Mom. Commander goes back to accident scene, looks over railing and there below is Little Johnny. Right where he was knocked to. Body was not pretty after 30 days of being wild animal food.

I know way too many folks there doing that Army mission. Prayers to all.

Asking the OSD if folks should lose the CZTE is a question maybe better off not asked.

DoD pays for the IDP, while it is the IRS the gets shorted by the CZTE. DoD can Change the IDP, but Congress, the same folks that just cut your retiree COLA, would have to change the tax code to effect the CZTE.

Sickening to watch. The flight deck crew had way too long to think about what was about to happen to them. Godspeed.

Ex-Crew chief gets an A for effort to find the original owner. All of mine have "custom made for XXXX" on the inside. Maybe I will get as lucky if mine comes up missing.

Was there last week and bought off the rack. Had some modifications done while I walked down the street avoiding all the shop owners for lunch. Got to see their back room where the workers are making cow hides into leather products. "Fuzzy pockets" are the bomb for keeping hands warm. Third jacket from Pop's.

Agree that you can take proof of your eval to the FSDO for the renewal. I have never wanted to take the chance that I got some FSDO dude with an attitude on the last day for renewal and have him say, my proof is not good enough for him, the FAA representative. My last trip to the FSDO was not pleasant. After getting zero consideration for an appointment despite saying that I was TDY from overseas and limited by civilian sim recurrent schedule, being treated like a convict being booked for inprocessing once I got to the counter, having the inspector fling by paperwork past me on to the floor and then he tells me I would make a great prospective FAA employee with my Rotorcraft CFI-I, ASEL-I, MEI, CFII and 10K hours. Go figure. At least for me, I do the American Flyers thing every 2 years.

I've used American Flyers for 7 + years. One time fee and I can renew for life. Every 2 years, I just plan on some hours waiting on the course to time out so I can take the test. Small PIA to have CFII. Highly recommend AM Flyers.

I had 4X4 diesel Ford Excursion in Germany for 3 years. No, you can't go into a small town or a parking garage and think you are going to park it anywhere. On the road it was fine. With the size, it commanded respect from the little guys. It was good for road trips in Germany, where I could use my diesel ration. I never had a problem running out of my fuel ration amount in a month. I cruised the autobahn at 80mph. Crazy wife was doing 105 till I told her that this was not her sports car and it will not stop or turn on a dime. When I shipped it over, they said it was too big. I signed some papers to have the amount ($200??) deducted. Funny, that never happened. Yes, all the neighbors would ask me to pick up things at the PX for them. There is no hiding that you are a typical American in the K-town area. What you drive will ID you. I sold my Excursion to a Major that was pcs'ing to the states with 3 kids and they wanted a diesel to pull a trailer. Perfect vehicle for them.

I was a Freshman in college and followed this closely in the spring of 82. Amazing what the Brits managed to pull together in such a short time and fight over such long distances. Good job to them.

I put this on an Army site and thought it would fit here too. The Apache pilot is guilty or not guilty of performing a maneuver that certainly destroyed his aircraft. Before I get flamed for passing judgement on the crew, my post is was to promote discussion from a guilty perspective and maybe stop somebody else. The Army is not immune from pilots doing dumb things that lead to destroyed aircraft and lives. Just thought I would help to keep the discussion lively. ....Just for a minute for this brief thread, let's say the pilot is guilty of showboating . How many times have we heard someone say they want to be treated like an adult? Then some ass-clown goes off and does something like this. How many millions are wasted? How many of us know guys that like to push things further than others? This sort of stuff sickens me. In a 20++ year career, I have seen the twisted wreckage and burnt bodies of those that wanted to go just a bit further. It just is not worth it. I am now an old pilot. I got lucky and stopped being bold a long, long time ago before I damaged anything. I recently read something in a sister service safety article. It said something like, there are no new accidents, just new pilots waiting to relearn the same experiences the hard way. Ass clown behavior can be stopped if we man up and speak to our fellow pilots before something happens. Unfortunately, since we do not fly single pilot anymore, when someone goes ass-clown, there is some guy(s) along for the ride that get caught up in the carnage to follow. True story - CDR has to tell the parents of a young female passenger that their daughter died a most tragic death (survived the impact, only to die in the ensuing fire ball) and that the pilot was a known hotdog, but nobody every reined him in. I have probably hurt some feelings here. However, hopefully just one pilot will remember this and stop their PC from taking them along to their early death. Man up and kill the bad guys, not ourselves.....

A A S2 type told me in the past that he has had prospective SM's just sign a memorandum stating they hereby give up allegience and citizenship in said country. That seemed to work. Did you have to provide something more or something on a official form etc?

All, I am married to a German citizen who only hold German citizenship and I won't ask her to change that. Our daughter holds dual US/German citizenship. She would like to apply for an ROTC scholarship or an academy appointment. As a prospective officer, does she have to give up her German citizenship to make these things possible?

I will go on limb and ask this question. The IRS website says - 2012 Combined Traditional and Roth IRA Contribution Limits If you are under 50 years of age at the end of 2012: The maximum contribution that you can make to a traditional or Roth IRA is the smaller of $5,000 or the amount of your taxable compensation for 2012. I am deployed and will be for all of 2012. My W2 will therefore list ZERO in block 1 - Wages, tips, other compensation. It seems to me that I cannot make any contributions to my Roth IRA. As such, it is to my advantage to use my TSP to put in the 17K or the total maximum of 50K allowed for tax-exempt combat zone contributions. Right, wrong, comments or suggestions?

I am not a lawyer, but this is what a quick google search turned up from the state.gov website. The lawyer types here can argue over the interpretation. The Aussie site does say you can maintain your security clearance. It also said I think the max age was 44 with exceptions. Just another possible option for guys looking for something after the corporate downsizing takes full effect. G'day mate. Advice about Possible Loss of U.S. Citizenship and Dual Nationality The Department of State is responsible for determining the citizenship status of a person located outside the United States or in connection with the application for a U.S. passport while in the United States. POTENTIALLY EXPATRIATING ACTS Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include: obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA); taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA); entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA); accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA); formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA); formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only under strict, narrow statutory conditions) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA); conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA). ADMINISTRATIVE STANDARD OF EVIDENCE As already noted, the actions listed above can cause loss of U.S. citizenship only if performed voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship. The Department has a uniform administrative standard of evidence based on the premise that U.S. citizens intend to retain United States citizenship when they obtain naturalization in a foreign state, subscribe to a declaration of allegiance to a foreign state, serve in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States, or accept non-policy level employment with a foreign government. DISPOSITION OF CASES WHEN ADMINISTRATIVE PREMISE IS APPLICABLE In light of the administrative premise discussed above, a person who: is naturalized in a foreign country; takes a routine oath of allegiance to a foreign state; serves in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States, or accepts non-policy level employment with a foreign government, and in so doing wishes to retain U.S. citizenship need not submit prior to the commission of a potentially expatriating act a statement or evidence of his or her intent to retain U.S. citizenship since such an intent will be presumed. When, as the result of an individual's inquiry or an individual's application for registration or a passport it comes to the attention of a U.S. consular officer that a U.S. citizen has performed an act made potentially expatriating by Sections 349(a)(1), 349(a)(2), 349(a)(3) or 349(a)(4) as described above, the consular officer will simply ask the applicant if there was intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship when performing the act. If the answer is no, the consular officer will certify that it was not the person's intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship and, consequently, find that the person has retained U.S. citizenship. PERSONS WHO WISH TO RELINQUISH U.S. CITIZENSHIP If the answer to the question regarding intent to relinquish citizenship is yes , the person concerned will be asked to complete a questionnaire to ascertain his or her intent toward U.S. citizenship. When the questionnaire is completed and the voluntary relinquishment statement is signed by the expatriate, the consular officer will proceed to prepare a certificate of loss of nationality. The certificate will be forwarded to the Department of State for consideration and, if appropriate, approval. An individual who has performed any of the acts made potentially expatriating by statute who wishes to lose U.S. citizenship may do so by affirming in writing to a U.S. consular officer that the act was performed with an intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Of course, a person always has the option of seeking to formally renounce U.S. citizenship abroad in accordance with Section 349 (a) (5) INA.

My rose colored glasses version of "I am not going to break faith with what has been promised to them", is a 100% grandfathering to all currenty serving. That means if you have 10 years in now, you can do another 10 and have an immediate high 3 monthly check coming your way for life. Or if so desire, you have a one time opportunity to convert to the "new" system. I already know guys that have moved their approved retirement dates up hoping to lock in a retirement under the "old" high 3 system.

I can continue to serve without reading of that.

All, Here is the actual briefing by the Defense Business Board. The word "unfair" is used alot. Lots to digest. Page 22 states that all AC personnel start to accrue new benefit for the balance of their service payable under new terms. I read that as not a 100% grandfathering. Much has been said here, but I will add my opinion. When I joined the military in 1983, yeah that was 28 years ago, I did it fully hoping to make it to 20 years and fully expecting a pension at that time. Well, I hit 20 and the money was good and most importantly, I was still enjoying coming to work everyday. So, I have stayed in. At 30 years, I am out with 75% waiting on me. During all this time, I have moved 10 times, the kids have gone to schools all over the world and my well educated wife has not worked a steady job since 1994. I have bought and sold and made and lost money on houses all over the country. I have saved when I could and contributed to my TSP and other investmenst on a regular basis. So, now the verbal contract I had with the military is possibly about to be broken. Why? Because it is unfair. BS. Every person who joins up knows they have to stay to 20 to get a pension. There was no vagueness in that. So, they get out at 8-12 years and feel they got ripped. Sorry, but the gov't was just living up to its end of the bargain. Stay to 20 and get a pension, get out early and get nothing. There was no surprise in that. They knew that all along. So, now to be "fair" they want to take from me and the 100,000+ others retirement ready or near there and give to guy who gets out after 8 years. BS. The slides say only 17% stay till retirement. That is those that are willing to put up with all the BS for 20 years. They deserve something. If you serve less than 20, you still have a TSP. While not as nice as most private sector, it is something. Ask me about my years pre-TSP. I never complained. I just did my own saving and investing. So, the contract is aobut to be changed and only those that benefit are happy. They are those that get out prior to 20. I have nothing against those that get out. Less than one-half of one percent of Americans serve. Just don't get out and expect to be paid for it out of my retirement check. DBB Military Retirement Final Presentation.pdf

All, Here is a list of the 12 Senators and Representatives that are sitting on the Super Congress that will determine where to find all the budget cuts needed to fix the fiscal mess this country is in. I encourage you to contact each of them and tell them your opinion of the proposal to change military retirements. Also listed is the link to the full Congress. Use that to contact your individual congressman or senator to tell them also what you think. You can be a sheep and let the wolves rule and take what comes or you can be a sheep dog and stand up and at least be part of the democratic process and tell them what you think. Sorry for the lousy copy, but it list the persons name, party, state, office phone, website and Wash DC address for snail mail NAME PARTY STATE PHONE WEBSITE ADDRESS James E. Clyburn D SC 202 225-3315 https://clyburn.house.gov/ 2135 Rayburn House Office BLDG, Wash. DC 20515 Chris Van Hollen D MD 202-225-5341 https://vanhollen.house.gov/ 1707 Longworth House Office BLDG, Wash. DC 20515 Xavier Becerra D CA 202-225-6235 https://becerra.house.gov/ Max Baucus D MT 202-224-2651 https://baucus.senate.gov/ 511 Hart Senate Office BLDG, Wash. DC 20510 John Kerry D MA 202-224-2742 https://kerry.senate.gov/ 218 Russell Senate Office BLDG, Wash. DC 20510 Patty Murray D WA 202-224-2621 https://murray.senate.gov/public/ 448 Russell Senate Office BLDG, Wash. DC 20510 Fred Upton R MI 202-225-3761 https://upton.house.gov/ 2183 Rayburn House Office BLDG, Wash. DC 20515 Dave Camp R MI 202-225-3561 https://camp.house.gov/ 341 Cannon House Office BLDG, Wash. DC 20515 Jeb Hensarling R TX 202-225-3484 https://hensarling.house.gov/ 129 Cannon House Office BLDG, Wash. DC 20515 Jon Kyl R AZ 202-224-4521 https://kyl.senate.gov/ 730 Hart Senate Office BLDG, Wash. DC 20510 Rob Portman R OH 202-224-3353 https://portman.senate.gov/public/ 338 Russell Senate Office BLDG, Wash. DC 20510 Pat Toomey R PA 202-224-4254 https://toomey.senate.gov/ 502 Hart Senate Office BLDG, Wash. DC 20510 YOUR CONGRESSMAN https://www.house.gov/ YOUR SENATOR https://www.senate.gov/