Hacker

Except back in the day the vouchers didn't get f'd up -- you turned them in at containers that were located at convenient places around base, and the pros whose job it was to process them did...and they didn't get kicked back to fix the tiniest nitnoid crap like they seem to do more recently. I can say that for about 7 or 8 years in the mid-late 90s, I never had to go to finance and have a voucher unscrewed.

>THE< vital question that very few in Big Blue seem to even know is something they should care about.

I just wanted to quote this gem for future generations of AF officers to behold.

Agreed on both counts. I think the mistake is when folks think that being a good combat airman stops at the non-tactical regulatory stuff when you are operating in a direct air support tactical capacity. There are a good number of military aviators who, unfortunately, don't believe that. Can't believe disappointed that the MC-12 3-1 is still shite this far down the road.

I couldn't even begin to try and explain the actions of the people or situations you are talking about, so I have no earthly idea. I do, however, have pretty extensive knowledge of a half dozen or so FEBs that went down the way I explained it above, as well as the rules that allowed them to transpire that way.

Unfortunately, such an outlook doesn't seem to be shared by a good number of GO-level leadership. Perhaps your perspective can be shared with them, in an effort to help them lose their reactionary, knee jerk reactions to sensational stories that are later proved to be incorrect or false once the actual facts come out. Unfortunately, there are also other aspects to this that figure in to someone accepting an Art 15 vs going to a CM, not the least of which is that many times for officers they are charged with wonderful murky things like "dereliction" or "conduct unbecoming" which have very different standards of proof than the very specific charges made in a civilian criminal court. Also remember that the risk of losing in a CM is a federal conviction that someone will carry with them long after they leave the military, whereas an Art 15 does not. It is NOT a clear case that someone actually did what they were charged with when they choose to accept an Art 15 rather than take it to a CM. There is a much larger risk management decision to make. Every Wing Commander who has let their SARC or SJA use his mug shot and story at every sexual assault training for the last year without having them also give a follow-up comment that he was not found guilty of any of the charges initially laid against him.

Yeah, all of that stuff critical to mission accomplishment. I loved the guys who were self-professed experienced military pilots, and could quote 11-217 chapter and verse, yet had never even laid eyes on the JFIRE or 3-09.3 or had any idea what a 3-1 was or why it might be important to their mission in the MC-12.

...well, the MAJCOM/CC can still make whatever decision he wants to, regardless of the facts in the case or the recommendations of the FEB. Documentation doesn't mean a damn thing when the leadership all ready believes something not supported by evidence or contrary to the recommendations of the FEB, and the system is set up so that it is ultimately the MAJCOM Commander's decision as to the final outcome. The respondent has absolutely zero -- ZERO -- recourse within the confines of the USAF (not including the BCMR process) to appeal or have a MAJCOM/CC's ruling on an FEB recommendation overturned. An FEB is essentially a kangaroo court; the appearance of having "due process" but without any of the protections that an actual due process system affords. The AF is perfectly happy to tell respondents that "you had your due process at the FEB, and then leadership decided to not go with that recommendation" and honestly believe that such a statement makes any sense whatsoever.

The USAF, on the other hand, has a ratings system in which everyone, in every rating period, single-handedly won the GWOT.

http://www.stripes.com/news/air-force/more-than-350-airmen-take-early-retirement-route-1.239779

"Half naked"? Glorifying sexuality? Seriously? What's next -- PT shorts and short-sleeve shirts banned on base because they're too revealing? So, his story used as an example in his Commander's Call about the airman at Transpo who stopped filling out the Form 1800s isn't what he really meant? Or, more correctly, this is how mid-level AF leadership interpreted what he said?

The irony that a senior leader would even need to care, much less be worried in some way, about it being publicly known that he was having straight talk with the rank-and-file is staggering.

It was from a 2006 ACSC paper on the effectiveness of pre-UPT screening programs. http://testrakeaviation.editme.com/files/Backupfiles/Baker-5472.pdf

Her response was to the suggestion that Strawberry Bitch and Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby, actual combat veterans in the NMUSAF, be covered or painted over.

Of note, "Camera Shy" was a 25th Photo-Recon Sq F-5 (a recce P-38, more specifically an F-5B-1-LO Serial # 42-67561), which is now the T-38 Squadron at Vance (25th FTS). The Wing/CC at Vance during the 2012 "purge" is the same one who is there now. What is your Wing's connection to that aircraft, Liquid? Regarding it now being "not appropriate", reference the July memo from CSAF in which he directed that noseart with verifiable provenance could be displayed if verified by the MAJCOM Historian.

Looks like a Mini 14 in the one photo of it I saw. Maybe they can re-ban them all, just so they can "do something about gun violence".

By what objective standard is that true? Who is drawing that line and by what authority?

Here are the historical UPT washout rates per year -- the T-1's IOC was in '92 or '93.

The more I see what SEA posts, the more I am convinced that he actually is senior level military leadership.

Nope, also totally wrong. Just because the loadmaster doesn't know the corrective action doesn't mean I tell him to STFU when he reports that he sees smoke coming out of the engine. There are a lot of folks in the service who aren't in positions where they can impact the solution, yet have no difficulty identifying there is something wrong. It is leadership's job to un-fuck that goat; that's sorta, y'know, why they got put in that position in the first place.

Get bent, assclown. Guys who leave the service have done their time and deserve to have their hand shaken for their service on the way out, not your finger wagged at them for not staying in.

The AF is stamping out fighter culture everywhere it possibly can, and vilifying it where it can't.

That was one gun that, like you, I quickly sped past as I was trying to find the right pistol caliber carbine. Just wasn't that fun of a gun to shoot. Also could not deal with the Hi Point or the Beretta CX4 because of various things that just didn't ultimately work for me. I was almost happy with a 9mm AR, but ultimately didn't find what I like until I shot an MP5 clone.

It is important to note, here, that no "justification" is required as there is no legal minimum standard that must be met for the Convening Authority to make a ruling. Flying service is not a UCMJ-protected activity.

False dichotomy. Nobody at Vance wrote the letter posted earlier, nor has espoused as a matter of policy that use of 69 in regular speech is a form of harassment...yet, that is the chain of command that allowed that class to choose to wear the pink class patch.