BFM this

It's ok. They had radar SA.

First off, this is an ACSC paper. C'mon, how often do those get any traction? Second, agree with Brother Brabus-Johnson: you'll get your AR intro in the B-course (MQT often enough). You won't remember what the big deal was two weeks into your first deployment. Two months into said deployment, you'll stay on the boom while using a piddle-pack. In the last month of the deployment, you'll see which booms catch that you're giving the ops desk dsn every time they ask for your tail number.

If you need to reference an education office that is up and running with this, call Moody. They've got two schools approved. I didn't use them for my ATP due to scheduling complications, but they know the regs and certification requirements.

How long had he been gone? Was this a result of the "return to fly board"?

Word.

DUDE, I know exactly what you mean... Wait, what?

Sounds like they're just copying from ACC's RTM drafts for next year.

Valid. Whoever wrote the article throws around the word "operator" like everyone else uses warrior. I just would have been more incensed if the article had implied a full title or glossed over training and qualification differences.

oh I don't know, I think they were pretty up front about this being an augmentee thing, not the full up real deal. True, the headline was misleading though.

No joke; for a plane that size, that's prob the best off-field landing I've ever seen.

Standard @ Moody for the last 3 years. Retarded to say the least. I just don't go to the gym on days that I ride. The appearance of safety is all that matters.

Makes perfect sense. Wait, you don't think it will actually happen that way, do you?

I've got quite a bit into T. Rowe Price and am generally happy with thier management and returns. I've also looked at Vanguard and they look good as well. Here's a question for the masses: So I've got my portfolio split between an advisor and my own vehicles (like TRP). None of the stuff that I choose has any loads. I invest, let it grow, and every year move funds from regular to IRA accounts. Annually I see custodial fees drawn from my IRAs, and there is the expenses that is contained with the regular account perspectus' (typically btw .8 and 1.2%), but otherwise, not a load in sight. Contrast that with my advisor: Seems that with every event, a monthly automatic investment, moving funds, etc.; it's an auto 5 to 6%. Now my advisor tells me "you always have a load, no matter where you invest." Hmm. A little internet research tells me that her company is probably getting most of this load toward them in commissions. Am I being fleeced?

You don't really think the gov't side of the table has some higher altruistic motive at heart? It's the same motivator that keeps teachers in the classroom with sub-poverty level pay (although requiring some graduate education to qualify at even the entry level). A sense of Service will be the motivator for those who lead us through the next 10 years. The politicians are banking on it.

I'd be interested to see what our retirement costs the gov't per retiree and again per member. For the retiree, sure, you've got your flag officers, and you've got some retirees that live to be 100+. But for survivor benefits there is a signifigant contribution from the member; a sort of insurance premium. Per member, I think the gov't is doing quite well for itself given the percentage of those who get out before 20, and members that pass with only a few retirement years without survivor benefits. I for one would be happy to trade in our FERS system for the pension. Unfortunately when the math is done, I think we're going to get a significantly watered down result when the benefits are spread over all members, not just the 20+ crowd. Nearly every "adjustment" in benefits I've seen in my lifetime: Champus-->TRICARE, Final Pay-->High-3-->Choice/REDUX, (notable exception: MGIB-->P911GIB), has been [gov't savings driven]-->[member net benefit reduction]. Right thing to do? Maybe. We can all passionately argue why these are deserved benefits. But has the quality of our force survived previous reductions? I think so. It will again if this latest idea gains traction.

Yep--it's written in our vol 1, a year actually.. And ignored wholesale starting the day you finish mqt.

Yeah, the tricky part is if I'm in the position where I have to show the letter, then why is there one in the breech?... Dicey at best. OR Or, base/cc's could man up and start allowing ccw on base. Crazy I know. I'd even be game for some caveats: -a confidential program (don't talk about fight club) -SNCO's and above legally ccw certified by the state (cc nominated) -zero drinking wg/cc policy when carrying But at the end of the day, it would take a human wave of aq rushing the gate before a base/cc allows anyone other than sp's carry on base. Really sad. That's all I've got: I have to go get my pt test monitored by some fat civ. ETA: really I'm going to not take your advice lest the next reply quote the oath, constitution, core values, reflective belt AFI, club membership, etc...

I made it one minute. That's it.

No worries; NV is a shall issue state... oh, wait, gotta go thru the gate and on base...never mind Bitches better bring their 4WD if that's my only option.

Bring back the RB-Hula skirt!

Good to know. Are they still holding to this policy for new up's?

The check is in the mail

How so? MWS guys have always been getting non-vol'd. And it continues. So after the board is done looking at the last UPT dude, is it auto-recat thereafter?

So, if I'm following this saga correctly, the 477 recats will never have a chance to meet another parole board? 400 were voluntary recats from previous MWSs? (412 total vols - 12 UPT dudes) 544 seems like a big number for this board to meet. Is the board expected to keep meeting once a year, reviewing [x] # of dudes that are 3(?) years in the field? Why are they even reviewing voluntary recats? (I'm guessing the same reason that I have to submit RIF paperwork...)