hindsight2020

That's the part that incenses me about that whole ordeal. The backstory is this female O-5 was fine with the whole TDY fun, while estranged from the husband anyways, husband of the female O found out, and someone now wanted to save face. Hell hath no fury like a female O scorned. Honestly should have punched the real ticket if you're gonna go through the legal trouble, but I'm gonna plead the 1 2 3 fo fif at this juncture and digress. Upon getting pinched by the hubby, she tried to cook the flag-O with a fraud SA allegation. That alone should land HER with a CM. But they lined her up good to testify against him and make an example of his imprudence. Latter which in this day and age honestly, at this level of female military membership, is long overdue for overhaul anyways. Bunch of anachronistic hem and haw of little operational import. I am indeed biased, I hold a false allegation of SA in much lower regard than the regular occurrence of military fraternization (and/or by-proxy adultery) that we're all aware of or privately guilty of, that nobody cares about on the daily, and that civilians don't even consider a crime. People can spare me the pearl clutching about "sexual temperance" in work life; go sell that warrior monk shit to someone else. I have seen it in my own squadron, what false allegations of domestic violence or SA can yield. Absolute waste of govt resources just because some Basic housewife and their like-clockwork mid life crisis didn't get her way on the divorce proceeding she initiated in the first place. Once acquited, zero effective recourse for these members for the pre-judicial harm done onto their lives and careers, as the military punishes you adminstratively while navigating hell through an eventual acquital. Given flag-O is gonna be restricted to RND for the next 60 days, remind me to shake his hand next time I see him getting gas at the Valero while I wait for the BK parolees to bag my nuggets on my next out n back 😄. I'd still take this guy over 'ol instagram scouring, artice 15 handing sourpuss Willie boy any day of the week and twice on sunday. And I digress again.

special rate table supersedes locality pay (to wit, it's inclusive of it). As to the second question, don't know since I stopped looking at ARTs decades ago, but gonna go with probably with 'no'. Congrats on the active retirement, looking forward to locking in that eligibility myself here in 33.5 months (not that I'm counting 😄).

Apropos of nothing, the gays, grannies and grandes fiasco was a windfall for the offender because of doxxing. Based on the online environment so far, it seems possible this FO could end up laughing all the way to the bank with a similar outcome.

not to mention the scores of UIFs created on aircrews over kerfuffles with leadership over social media posting of aircraft/cockpit et al in the past. The reality on the ground is that outcomes are hardly consistent in this space. Then there's the witch hunts over political lampooning of senior leadership on social media, the doxxing that ensues. The whole thing is a mess.

...the Operation Warp Speed guy? 😁

Has there been any discussion on legislation to make sub 50%ers offset-exempt for active retirees? That's about the only way I'd even bother with it tbh, given my generally favorable *knock on wood* state of health and unwillingness to malign range of motion potato.

From where I sit, the implication appears to be that a guard baby is presumed to have a higher opportunity cost against airline work income access and progression vis a vis his regAF year group mirror, due to not being saddled with an ADSC while otherwise eligible for 121 shangri-la. That's a reductionist view of guard babies of course, though it is true the statistical majority of them do become airline pilots. I am an AFRC baby, I'm not an airline pilot. At any rate, if I was an 11F, the reasons for not pursuing it would be the schedules. My motivation for being a baby were always homesteading/control/schedules related. I only speak for n=1, but that's one answer from one baby. ymmv teto et al.

Hold on, I need back of the room running start for this one....

Weird, certain locales are even running CGOs doing the DO job, the lack of FGO bodies is that deep. You're either being too picky, or someone who is a somebody, doesn't like you. 😄 /s AETC will get ya mad air under ass, if you're willing. Sure, these well-to-do 121ers will make fun of ya, but pay them no mind. Come join us "scutwork flyers" down here in the salt mines. I got zero staff, zero ragrets for all my troubles in this life.... hell they're even promoting me! Unironically running in tandem with the best of what's left crowd, gets me 5k TT and 3k Talon patch (now that the T-7 is DOA before 2030 anyways) pretty much guaranteed at current book, before I even hit 20 TAFMS. IOW... So my fvcko roomates nicknamed me 'catfish' in undergrad, bfd..... sure as hell wasn't "Picky". More cushin' for the pushin' served me well. Rent was paid and I ate a hearty meal every other month. I'm a self-made man, so sue me. 🤣

Numerically the egalitarian thing (especially for the much larger age 60 to 65 jump kerfuffle) would have been for the age extension to be enforceable on DOHs AFTER the govts' ratification date aka grandfathering. Alternatively, the other fair alternative, if they were arguing in good faith, would have been to implement without fencing, but support the extension of immediate recall rights (with full seniority restoration of course) to those previously mando-retired who were still younger than 65 (minus reasonable training footprint) by the govt's implementation date [December 13 2007]. ...And maddafacking crickets is what you hear when you proffer the latter. Tells me all I need to know about people's so called "sincerely held beliefs" on the age discrimination crusade front. In the end I don't think it's a generationally unique reflex, which is why I prefer a more all-inclusive terminology. I call them Twixers: Because no matter what you ask them, the answer is always Two for me None for you... 😄

Fantastic shot. Reminds me of that [de]motivational poster lol.

I've been in the AETC-flavored side of the TFI unholy alliance for 13 of my 18 years in this so-called career, and I can't say I've ever heard of an unqualified AFRC accessions incurring a UFT ADSC via RegAF switcharoo. I'm not aware of any accessions vehicle that would cover that request. Technically, he'd be stealing an OTS pilot slot in the current fiscal year in doing so, but that's also a hypothetical. What I do know is he has a a 10 year UFT RSC upon completion of wings to AFRC, and AFRC paid for him to go to UPT, not regAF. VLPADs do exist however, as does IMAs who can get activated for years (know of one who rode it for like 5). Both are, definitionally, temporary programs/statuses. They also generally deal with experienced folks in current and qualified status in whatever air force mission there is a shortage of full time manning. So that generally wouldn't help your buddy right now, as a 92T0 cannon fodder.

apropos of nothing, CTP is prob going the way of the neanderthal with the B-21. Be that as it may, all bombers could drop from AMF-potato and the J85 hampered production wouldn't substantively improve.

He meant his buddy was at the 'fuge and needed to complete the viper profile since that's what he got out of enjjpt. Not all assignable airframes have the same centrifuge profile requirement. Yes, A-10s are going away. A portion of Re-cats will naturally flow to 35s, but you'd be surprised the amount of people who don't want anything to do with 5gen potato (will digress on expanding on that for brevity). I know several here who do not want fat amy as a re-cat, but they were getting out anyways so the drawdown is merely a convenient segway.

Correct, there is no threat of being involuntarily assigned to the RPA track for performance issues as a Guard/Reserve 92T0. You can CR out of UPT as a Guard/Reserve guy, and go home wingless, that has always been a possible outcome.

That is incorrect. Guard Reserve students have a MASS score calculated, but it is never used against AD peers for eligibility to track -38s. I think what you may be confusing for policy, was that it was colloquially understood that sponsoring units wanted to see upper-50% relative performance. But none of that is neither written, nor procedural in the tracking of the trainee to phase III. What does exist, is the discretion for the sq/cc to provide feedback to the sponsoring unit of either (i) non-T38 (frankly very rare) or (ii) non-IFF recommendation (much more common). AD does not pay for the billet, AFRC does (yes, even Guard bureau slots are centrally managed by AFRC now), so it's their [gaining unit] call. In fairness, the sponsoring unit can and usually does concur with the retread recommendation to heavies or bombers. Seen it happen many times, with (ii) being more common in my experience, through 13 years in the AETC TFI AFRC (that's a lot of letters lol) business. If you performance meets the CTS for T-6s, you will track 38s are a 11f bound Guard/Res guy, regardless of your relative ranking in your class, unless your gaining sq/cc concurs with a non-recommendation from the upt sq/cc. He is incorrect. AFRC buys the billet, the kid owns the T-38 slot, not AD. When he was sent to UPT, he went in with a centrally funded class allocation for T-38 from the jump. AFRC footprint does not change the AD calculus. I know the whole "different color of money" stumps some people, but AD cats nervous about tracking 38 need not look at their ARCF/ANG classmates as anything but guys who for all competing purposes, are there just "auditing the course". They're not your problem, nor your competition, just like internationals.

meh, AA did the same thing to an app I had in there, when they went into the new portal last year or whatever. IT buffoonery appears an equal opportunity employer.

Well, that puts a new spin on sticking it on "brick 1". Probably where they left the gear, which is why you see the charred molten metal streak starting one ship length past the lip of the underrun. That "motherhood" boi.... bigger Pk than the pointy-end stuff in this business anymore. *whistles past the graveyard*

yeah, it's one of two biggest lessons in Leadership I've learned the hard way early in my USAF career, at the hands of one of these toxic communities and their approach to Q3s. It really shaped and informed my future evaluation philosophy when I left for greener pastures and into the SEFE role in later life. I take great personal investment in being as objective as I can, and bring that holistic training opportunity into every evaluation debrief that doesn't warrant a chat with the commander. I can't fix the past, but I can influence the future of the young guys in a productive way. I'm willing to say we do a better job at that than my predecessors in said community. As such, my experience as a SEFE tracks closer to the experience of the 11Fs on here. It's a shame that punitive/quota-driven nonsense persists in the heavy world.

Indeed. My exwife's boss (landscaping and installation company in KBAD area) resembles that remark to a T. Rank hypocrites.

I'm not israeli either for the record, while we're on this virtue signaling tour.

The North American Blue Falcon (Falco Douchebargensis) is a species pathologically incapable of answering any question in the introspective. You have to be a sapiens to begin to do that. Like giving a book to a chicken, it means nothing to them but it's hilarious to watch.

As you shouldn't. Because the question is moot. The implication behind the wording is he thinks they're going to give him a "sabbatical" from having to man up and schlep his Burger King ass (oops, I misspelled airline pilot 😄 ) to the unit and meet status quo participation/IMR requirements, just because he declared an intention to transfer. Straight out of the Michael Scott playbook. The answer should go without saying, but I guess I'm old now and it needs spelled out: That's not how it works, that's not how any of this works. @brabusalready covered the flybys. The manner in which individual units deal with a member wishing to 1288, ranges all the colors of the spectrum. The usual one, if the "commute" is the hardship, is to do the mark-to-market accounting shtick, and look at quarterly or semi-annual participation, instead of monthly. Make an ETP to allow the member in question cover the equivalent pro-rata participation on a front-loaded basis, as opposed to straight-even throughout the fiscal. Other versions, such as trip bundling (common in my AETC-TFI corner of the ARC world) is also a common way to minimize the travel for the commuting TR. Too many variables to give a unit-specific answer. Kids these fvcking days.... 😄

I'd kill for that kind of lack of traffic. 😄

It's all innovation, son. The powers that be decreed flight time is dinosaur talk and getting in the way of "progress", so VR goggles and CRAFT meditation exercises for you. Those contractors aren't gonna pay themselves after all. You'll be fine, in sha Allah, for the sake of your future crew. I mean, the airlines successfu---oh wait.... 😄