albertschu

You separated because you were burnt out from deployments and tired of the queep, so you took a job that you are saying is entirely queep and still has a chance to deploy. Congratulations.

I'm not blaming you for working the system to your advantage--kudos! But this is a big driver in what is wrong with the system. We hire contractors because the are "cheaper" and more "efficient", we don't give them the queep or have them deploy. This means fewer AD guys to do the queep and deployments. That make the contractors look even more efficient because they aren't doing the queep. If a squadron were 50% contractors and 50% AD, the AD would get 100% of the queep and << 50% of the flying. The response from the Pentagon is more contractors AND more queep. The result is an AD force that is burnt out from deployments and feed up with queep. Not contracting out these positions would give the opportunity to catch their breath between deployments and would spread the queep thinner. Also they need to send less queep.

I guess EU didn't implement it well. I've never heard anyone from Rhode Island complain of an influx of Michiganian cheap labor and the spikes in crime the new immigrants bring. People in Florida complain of all the New Yorkers and people in Oregon complain about all the Californians, but no one is suggesting restricting immigration between states.

Thanks. No. Well, I would start by making those stated objectives. Instead, SECDEF has tasked the services to "improve safety and reduce the risk posed by alcohol" and to prepare an "implementation plan." The focus is on alcohol and on the plan--not on sexual assault. The wording you used would be much more effective guidance. Your words put much more focus on the actual problems and don't micromanage the solution. Regarding how to "create a service culture that abhors sexual assault", I would start by looking patterns. Do we know what sexual assault abhorrence looks like? Would we know it if we saw it? Do we have some communities that already abhor sexual assault? What things are those communities doing differently? Do some leaders appear to have a history of tolerating sexual assault? Can they be eliminated? Can we predict which units will have more sexual assaults? Can we identify other conditions that can predict sexual assault? [side note: I don't think that alcohol consumption by itself is an effective predictor of sexual assault because, by far, the majority of times alcohol is consumed no sexual assault occurs.] Unfortunately, the service won't come up their own, they'll do what SECDEF told them to do. 100% agree that that we have a responsibility to provide a safe working environment, which includes crime prevention. For clarification my comment was directed at the alcohol risk reduction implementation plan, which I don't think will accomplish anything towards reducing sexual assault. I don't think that legitimate efforts to prevent crime is a distraction.

That's why I use a clipboard. I think that extra touch (sts) of professionalism goes along way towards establishing credibility. FWIW, so far I'm been getting impressive results, 8.27 mean rating w/ a standard deviation of 1.27 among all female-nursing-students. However, among female-nursing-students-who-have-consumed-at-least-3-drinks-in-the-last-hour, my average rating jumps to 9.87 with a standard deviation of .07. I think this could be a major break through, but much more research is needed. Speaking of alcohol, that Hagel article is one of the most ridiculous things I've seen in a long time. But also in 99.997% of alcohol events, no sexual assault occurs. Which will push alcohol off base and to communities further away, where there will less ability for us to police our own. Further taking focus away from the mission Is there any evidence that people who buy 5 bottles of bourbon at 0200 are more likely to assault someone? Restricting the hours the Class Six is open only forces people to plan ahead further or to go off base. Is this belief based on facts? If so, do we understand the linkage? Will a 10.7% reduction in binge drinking result in a 10.7% reduction in sexual assault? Do we know that happy-hour drink specials lead to binge drinking? If so, are the sexual assaults that are inexorably linked to binge drinking linked to the binge drinking that results from going to O-Club at 1600 or the binge drinking that occurs at Lt Col Wilkerson's house parties? More simply, do we know of any cases where an on-base drink special played a significant role in a sexual assault? Ok, so now rapists will have to buy their victims dinner first. Not really addressing the problem.

If it didn't work in the EU, that is because of they way they implemented it, not because it doesn't work. In North America there is an economic and political union of sovereign states where you can cross sovereign borders with any border control at all. This union even has a common currency, that has been considered by many to be very successful.

Good to know as well. I don't want to derail this thread anymore, but it would be interesting to know why SWOs are backstabbers (i've worked more closely w/ flyers, so all my anecdotes were related to flyers, but I felt it was more of a SWO characteristic). Also would be interesting to know why you say P-3 pilots are SWOs w/ wings. It correlates with my experience, but is not a dynamic I would have expected.

Good to know others haven't had the same experience. I've worked with just as many Army officers and more AF officers and haven't seen the same level of douchary. The dude that went home without a decoration was definitely an outlier: I thought he was a jackass the first time I talked to him and every one agreed. The other 2 were great dudes, right up to the second that they weren't.

Don't be ridiculous. In order to be closed for training from 1100-1600, the standard hours would have to be open until 1600.

I've worked mainly flyers (mostly P-3 pilots and EA-6 NFOs) and SWOs. The two most memorable examples were committed by flyers (see "availability bias"). I signed comsec gear over to an EA-6 NFO, he secured it in his office. When it came time to take inventory, rather than look for it, he tried to make it look like I lost it. Fortunately, I had the paperwork. After a deployment, when my joint decoration got lost, my helicopter-pilot boss didn't return my phone calls or reply to my email requesting assistance. He had a chip on his shoulder, because he thought I was too casual with him. Fortunately, an army officer to whom I reported via dashed line had a copy of the paperwork and resubmitted. While I was working as an LNO from a joint task force HQ to an OGA, I saw a lot of selfish behavior. Again, best example comes from a flyer (P-3 pilot). Since he'd been there longer than I, he thought he knew everyone in the OGA. Whenever he didn't like the products I provided, he would directly contact people in the OGA and attempt to discredit me, both with the TF staff and the OGA leadership. Eventually, the OGA refused to continue working with the TF. He went home without a decoration. (I came home w/ 2) The majority of the Navy officers on this staff were SWOs, but I didn't work with them as closely. In general, most of them appeared out to make themselves look like they were winning the campaign by themselves by singlehandedly creating enormous piles of worthless staffwork. Hope this doesn't sound bitter. I'm not. Everything has worked out fine for me. Recently, I started working with a few supply corps officers and have not observed anything.

2 joint deployments Year long school w/ Navy officers Currently commanding joint unit

Perhaps the root of all problems in the Nuke world is the failure to apply "conventional" wisdom.

Not sure if the root cause is the FITREP system or something else, but in my experience Navy officers tend to be backstabbers. Chiefs, however, tend to be solid dudes.

1) Print your document 2) Staple a PII coversheet over it 3) Place the document with coversheet in scanner 4) Email the scanned coversheet. You should be good.

I'm assigned to a GSU in one of those less-than-free states. I received an email from the nearest base saying I need to fill out some form to certify that I've had my vehicle inspected. It sounded like a load of crap to me, so I looked it. Turns out it is required by Section 118 of the Clean Air Act.

This happened to me. On a Tuesday. Afternoon. I said, "Great, what time does the truck usually come, maybe I'll just wait". Answer, "Uhhh,.... or it could be on the truck that is coming Thursday."

No new RIF Board Matrix?

Input: a few telephone calls / emails with staffer to explain the situation. Outcome: non-answer answer in the form of a memo signed by O-6 at LL. Was it worth it? Absolutely. While the situation was not fixed nor adequately explained, it did force someone at AFPC to try to justify their buffoonery to LL and exposed the said buffoonery to staffers. If Air Force leadership can't put enough pressure on AFPC to fix their stuff, maybe a little Congressional interest will help. I recommend making the phone call. Enough inquiries could very well make a difference. If not, at least you'll get a cool souvenir.

FYI. We got a response back from an inquiry started in our squadron. Zero bureaucracy. Zero time waste. (For us).

Or draft, coordinate, and publish a PSDM correctly?

Oh yeah, well I know a guy at Finance that said the f'd up your pay. Just because it's a rumor doesn't mean it isn't true.

Your Congressman can probably get it. And a Congressional inquiry would probably have more impact than an email from you.

Using that logic, we should also abolish the Marine Corps because of Beirut.

Do you really expect AFPC to do something on a certain date just because their website said they would?

That's Ok. Whatever they lack in integrity and excellence, you can make up for in service.