Recut

Good point. Add: I have been stop lossed and through a RIF in my career.......the one with the VSP debacle nonetheless.

The young guys need to be aware of what the ADSC means. For the aspiring pilots: It is not an agreement that the AF will let you fly for 10 years. Nowadays, it prevents people from punching when faced with a 365 non-flying job, UAV, etc. Who knows how the AF's "creative" force management techniques will utilize that ADSC in the years ahead. I will finish my ADSC in 2 years and it will take me to 16.5 years of service. I already know that I will not take a bonus even though I will be so close to retirement because I have seen the ugly reality of having an ADSC. I would have to have a written guarantee that I would be flying household goods around the Pacific/Carribean or I could punch in order to sign another ADSC at this point.

Anyone logged short tour and long tour credit at the same time? I ask because IPR @ CHS is saying that even if you do 300 days TDY in 18 months, if you've also logged 365 in the last 3 years you only get a long tour. I really hope they're wrong.....wouldn't that be the same as telling someone returning from a 365 that they don't get a short tour?

That's good info. Thanks!

I had a hunch it was the milpds "upgrade" causing problems. Did they give you any idea if there is any hope for that to be fixed in the near future? Sucks because they will continue to dish out 365s regardless of the status of the dreaded "system"

Wow. anyway, 300 days in 18 months, is what I meant as everyone else seemed to understand. Yes, if you PCS you are safe for a year so if I had finished a 365 w/PCS, I wouldn't be asking about the 45 days it apparently takes to get this short tour in the system. On a completely different note, a lot of people might not realize that dwell time only protects you from centcom. You could get sent to a 365 somewhere else during dwell. Thus, the urgency for logging short tour credit and my frustration with waiting 45 days..... Other than butter's post, thanks for the replies.

Has anyone recently finished a short tour? I am about to finish and have heard that it's taking 45 days for the short tour to reflect on people's records. Any insight or advice on speeding that up? Would suck to finish a short tour only to get picked off for a 365 because the shoes hadn't finished updating my records.

DQHB was what I meant with preselection brief. You get to see, update, and ensure the DQHB is correct before the board.

Yes, they will see it as long as you complete the AFIT update. I finished my masters Oct 12 last year and our major's board was at the beginning of Dec. You will get to review a copy of the preselection brief (another form) that will reflect your academic status. I did the AFIT update the second my transcript reflected the masters and my preselection brief did show the MAS. You can also try to attach a memo to your PRF that states you are pretty much done. That's what I did - my CC was willing to sign a memo attached to the PRF stating I was on my last class (that way the WG CC sees that while issuing DP/P). Worked for me, anyway. I did get a DP but I will never know if my last-minute work on the masters influenced it. Just ensure it's on the preselection brief form.

I used to post on baseops before I got my pilot slot in 04, then I got busy flying/doing the dreaded masters, and now I have more time, especially as I'm on my 8th deployment (4X enlisted, 4X pilot). I only mention this to provide background/anti-troll info about myself. As far as civies in the AOR goes, it's not new. I wore civies when I was deployed to PSAB in the late 90s (yes as active duty); PT gear didn't exist then. That said, I see what you're saying that the transition to civilian clothes might imply a more permanent stance at certain locations. On the other side of the coin, it's nothing new. I think it could be a (belated) tactic by the new CSAF to alleviate some of the BS everyone's put up with for 10+ years at certain places. Hell, maybe he is projecting that "illegal" morale thing, I don't know. Whatever the case, I'm just saying IMHO that the policy shift might actually be a morale issue. Don't know for sure, just my guess. We weren't ever leaving that part of the world anyway.....again I was deployed to the Middle East in the late 90s and I'm still doing that.....

The socks comment reminded me of a shoe-encounter 5 years ago at okas. The shoe posted at the door turned us away because one of the crewmembers didn't have socks on (he did have his shoes on though.....ha). He explained that they were in the washing machine- he'd ran out of clean socks (we were deployed to the deid where you couldn't wash clothes yourself so he was washing his damn socks). What really got me is when we turned around to leave, we were instructed, "sirs that is an emergency exit only - you must go out the other door) WTF?! I told the shoe that we just entered the door and no alarms sounded.......it was the middle of the night and nobody was behind us either....where's the safety issue?! I completely understand the poor kid was briefed these "laws" and was doing his job. It was funny as hell, though.

It seems the main gist (on this thread) defending a 4-star gen with limited or no deployment/combat experience points back to promoting an expert in a specific career field. So, why does the AF insist that we operators get "breadth and depth" by leaving our flying jobs? Oh yeah, make sure you get those flying bullets off of your OPR as you progress, too. I would argue the literal meaning of General = has experience across the board and has done things that subordinate-ranking people look up to. For aircrew, I think that's where some of the WTF factor stems.

Ha, so true. Those meetings are where I also heard a term I couldn't believe I was hearing......."slidesmanship"

Agree my rant was slightly off target from your post - I just get sick of the argument about who's important, who's supporting who etc. Ask any aircrew why he is doing his mission and he'd tell you it's in support of (army, marines, on the ground or to deliver food to refugees....or whatever). Outside of aircrew, it gets delusional.

Easy, killer. I think the AF is simply too PC nowadays. I was a maintainer when I started out as a 17 year old kid. Then, I was taught that an airbase's sole purpose was to launch airplanes and get shit done. Every damn thing/person on that base existed to get those aircraft airborne and back. Now, everyone is special and important - we even have Air Base Wings.....WTF...where feelings are important and the sole mission is to support the buildings! "I'm sure there are a few true warriors on this board, but most of you guys who make the warrior argument are pretty lost. I'm no warrior, but I'm proud to have supported those that are." Then who the F are you supporting? Having started as a kid supporting the warriors, (aka pilots...the guy who taught me this stuff was an ex combat controller who was injured and turned maintainer by the way), and now I'm a pilot - I have to say you are the lost one. Hell, you said, "I'm no warrior....but" WTF are they teaching at BMT these days....Everyone is special and we all have feelings class? Damn, I'm getting old and crusty and I'm not that old yet

I was there during that awesomeness. Word on the street was a BG from Dix was approached about the "new policy" when he was working out but not wearing PTs in the gym Next day, said policy was no longer. I remember said WG/CC's staff meetings, too (was before joint base took effect) and ops was -69 seconds of the meeting.

Notice that the conditions were horrible for him: " In the summer, temperatures routinely passed 100 degrees and our AC units would crash. It took several minutes to get hot water in the shower, if it came. Food consisted of two warm trays of heated . . . stuff, if we didn’t eat MREs. A snowstorm could knock out the satellite television feed and the Internet, as one did on Super Bowl Sunday. In short, conditions were spartan." Spartan, really? I track the argument of outside the wire vs REMF. However, this dude invalidated his credibility.