otsap

The way I read the chart posted on the previous page is that Tier 6 and 7 can sign the bonus for a "minimum" of 3 years, but up to 22 YAS. Tier 8 has one option; 5 years. So if you took the 1 year option last year, you wouldn't be "initial eligible" (Tiers 1-5), but Tiers 6-8 would apply to you instead, and you'd be able to sign for 3 more years at a minimum, not to exceed 22 YAS. And I've never been wrong before. The most confusing part of that chart to me is how it applies to an 11U that is not initial eligible. It looks like such a person would be in Tier 6, but also Tier 8. Tier 8 gives an 11U $35K a year for 5 years ($175k), specifically. But if an 11U wanted to sign up for 1 year more, or 6 years total, then according to Tier 6 they get $30k a year (180k). So signing up for one more year only adds $5k to your total. It shouldn't be so convoluted.

You and I were a class, maybe two, apart. That was a rough summer for airsickness hooks. For some reason tac form turned the T-6 into a flying barany chair.

And this is why no one should be forced to sell a product to another person. They should be able to make that decision and reap the possible consequences. The cake shop may well go out of business. But this logic applies to Dick's as well. It would be a mistake to think that the gun rights community is small or inactive. I would suggest that Dick's, despite its largess, put itself at greater risk for business losses than the cake shop, despite its small stature. Of course, had the cake shop's decision stayed a local matter, it wouldn't have been as big a risk as it is now that the media got a hold of it. The lawsuit against Dick's should follow the same path as the cake shop, meaning both should be found in favor of the business, imho. Revealing a tiny bit of the virute-signalling hypocrisy on the left would also be.........(standby).........the icing on the cake. Curious if you have a source for this as it would counter my knowledge of the subject. Under federal law, which I'm using since the discussion was about the Supreme Court and Constitutional rights, sexual orientation and age are equally protected. In other words, neither of them carry a suspect or quasi-suspect classification, meaning that they currently fall under rational basis review with regards to discrimination. There have been a few opinions by U.S. District Courts, and one Appellate Court, that indicated the possibility of quasi-suspect classification for sexual orientation, but nothing more. State law on this issue is nice and all, but discrimination cases tend to bring up constitutional issues. That, combined with the Supremacy Clause, put these cases square in the federal court's wheelhouse.

I'd hate to back you off from your 110%, but I would not do it again. I had an exciting job that paid fine, but I've always been a sucker for green grass. So I took the leap and flying has been awesome, the people are great, and there have been days that I couldn't believe I was getting paid. On the other hand, there are a lot of awesome things other than flying (skiing being at the top of my list as well), there are great people pretty much everywhere, and I enjoyed my prior job as much as I've enjoyed this one. Everyone is different, and only hindsight will tell you what the best choice would have been, and that kind of hindsight only occurs if you do both. Back then, I would have hated to be left wondering what might have been; but now that I know, I would rather be left wondering. It's funny you mentioned skiing, because I did that regularly in my previous life, and I have yet to get an assignment where it's an option, other than taking leave of course. Personally, I'd rather be skiing. I enjoy(ed) it much more than flying...ymmv.

Bingo! No one seems to realize this. I tried to argue this point in another thread about 3 years ago, but everyone lost their minds saying it was the effective rate, or that I didn't understand tax brackets, etc, so I didn't bother. Thanks for bringing this little nugget back into the discussion. No doubt our effective rates are super low, especially with tax free earnings from deployments. But if you contribute $5500 to a Traditional IRA, that $5500 is deducted from the top of your income for the year, and would have been taxed at the highest marginal rate.

So then do you see the root problem as more a matter of training, or is it more related to w/dependent BAH?

Looks like 2018 NDAA was signed 12 Dec, with sections 611-616 relevant to bonus, fly pay, etc. It appears Congress pushed the "standby" button for another year, though section 616 asks for a pilot retention report, fwiw. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2810/text#toc-HC7F1BB1E614941BFAC355EAF593EDEC7

Don't you go dying on me!

Ew.

It's probably been mentioned before, but it would be a significant (and maybe easier?) change if the bonus was tax-free. It would be a lot of money to the person receiving it, but since there aren't a lot of bonus takers in a given year, it wouldn't even cause the lowliest IRS agent's assistant secretary to look up from their calculator. If Congress is so reluctant to up the bonus on the front end, then without affecting their front end costs, they could improve it on the back end (sts).

You also keep using the word "hearsay" as if it means "false"; the two are not the same. Hearsay is a rule of evidence applicable to legal proceedings, not FEBs, and it actually doesn't imply falsehood/lies at all.

Yeah that's BS. It got worse for 11Us as well, from 25K for 9 years to 35K for 5 years. Seems odd that each "tier" goes down in yearly bonus amount (35k/30k/28k) while also reducing the longest contract term (13y/9y/5y), but then with the 11U/18X/RPA folks they bump the amount up to the max and limit the contract term to 5 years at the longest. My guess would be that the AF believes it can produce 18X'ers easy and fast enough to make up for losses, which it can. Therefore it doesn't need the long commitment, as opposed to those who are 11F/M/H/etc, who take years to make. Still, an 18X will have 7 years in when their 6 year ADSC is up and they are eligible for the bonus, earlier than anyone. And the longest contract is 5 years, putting them at 12 years when that bonus contract would be complete. Thats roughly around the time that 11Xs get their first shot at a bonus. Doesn't look like a plan for long term development of 18X'ers and creating organic leadership from that community.

I think people would consider this program, if their ADSC were REDUCED one year for each year they put into it. And if the Air Force could somehow guarantee an airline gig upon separation. With a major. And full retirement. Then it would be a "great opportunity".

Yes and no. DOPMA does supersede, but the AFI governing Officer Promotions has a sneaky little caveat in the section titled Declining Promotion. If you are put on the promotion list, and subsequently decline the promotion (which sounds like a damn headache, by the way), then you will not be promoted. However, your name REMAINS on the promotion list. So practically speaking, you will not pin on the next rank, but you will also not be considered a "twice passed over" officer. It's a weird area, but in effect, you can't get out of your ADSC if you go this route. Duck, I mentioned this before I think, and it's only anecdotal, but in our squadron on both of the last two Major boards, we had someone with a DP and no letter (common), DP and a DNP me letter, a P with no letter, and a P with a letter. On both boards, the proverbial "line in the sand" between who got promoted and who did not, was the DP v. P. In other words, the DPs with no letter and DP with a DNP me letter were all promoted, and the P with no letter and the P with a DNP me letter were not promoted. I don't think this means that the letter carries no weight. I think it confirms what Learjetter was saying about the priority being on the AF's needs via the DP/P, which is seen as your CC's recommendation. It can only help though, in my opinion, if your CC's recommendation (P), and your own wishes (letter), are aligned.

Yes, they were passed over as well.

Duck, In the past two years, our squadron has had 3 people attempt early separation by the same means you're asking about, twice passed over. One of them wrote his Do Not Promote letter to the board after his PRF was filled out, signed, and he had gotten a DP. He was not passed over, unsurprisingly. The other two made their intentions known to their leadership. One of them, after telling the Sq/CC about their plan to write a letter, met with the Wg/CC as well to argue for a P, and got it. That person's argument was somewhat compelling, much like yours sounds to be. They then wrote their own PRF and followed up with the exec to ensure it wasn't fixed "too strongly." The only push back here was that the Sq/CC argued that sending off a PRF that was "too weak" would reflect poorly on the squadron. So the PRF ended up being neither really weak nor the best it could be, but with the coveted P. The other person rolled the dice and only told the Sq/CC about the letter and hoped for the best regarding a P or DP. They also got a P, and were passed over. That person's PRF was weak to begin with though, due to making their intentions and motivations (or lack thereof) known years earlier, so the P followed from that. Not sure if this helps, but it's three more data points.

Ragged, One data point contrary to the doom and gloom some have suggested. I failed a PT test while TDY en route to a PCS. TDY commander was never notified about it and, frankly, I'm pretty sure he would have looked the other way. Gaining commander told me to get another one done ASAP (before OPR closeout), so I did. Got an excellent on it as well as the six tests since the failure. I've been asked once about it, mostly because the sq/cc thought it was a typo or error of some sort. I told him the story and he just rolled his eyes and said not to worry about it. Hasn't made a bit of difference...so far.

The school is called Mitchell/Hamline School of Law. Apparently it used to be William Mitchell College of Law but they just merged with another law school and changed the name. So, not Harvard. It's four years, part-time, and it's done online except for the last week of each semester, which is on campus (St. Paul, Minnesota). If you check out their website it's called the "Hybrid Program". But, ABA approved.

On a related note, there is a (mostly) online law degree now, ABA accredited. You spend one week a semester at the school (so 2 weeks a year). I've heard folks ask about it before so thought I'd mention it.

Chida, You may be right, especially since your source is Title 10, which should trump the AFI. What I'm looking at is AFI 36-2501. Specifically paragraph 4.1.3 that says "Officers who decline a promotion remain on the promotion list for which they were selected." Then, under Chapter 5 "Promotion Proprietary Actions", paragraph 5.5 talks about how to remove an officer from the promotion list, and to do so even if the officer declines promotion "since his or her name remains on the list." Hell, I may be in the wrong AFI, and my SA isn't big enough to search U.S. Code, so good on ya. If your info is correct, and I assume it is, it's odd that the AF would write a pub contradicting a higher authority and I'd be curious to hear from anyone who can rectify the discrepancy. Duck, Best of luck. The conscience is a great thing. It not only keeps you out of trouble, but allows you to use the AFI's to your advantage, if able, without guilt.

An addendum to Chida's great and thorough post... 2. If you get promoted, you may decline promotion. However, per AFI, you remain on the promotion list. The only way off the list is by submitting (some AF Form that's listed in AFI 36-3207 I think, under the "Declining Promotion" section), which must be signed by your Sq and Wg commanders. This is the gray area, because I have no idea the (dis)incentives for your chain of command to sign or not sign. My understanding from the AFI is that this process is meant to stop the promotion of someone who beat their spouse (for example) subsequent to being notified of promotion but before pin-on, or maybe if that happened during the time between selection and notification. If the form is signed by all parties, then you are removed from the promotion list and it is the same as being a non-select. The only resistance I can think of off the top of my head would be your Sq and Wg commanders not wanting to take you off a promotion list that five O-6s put you on; but who knows. BL: Declining promotion is not the equivalent of being a non-select. You are still on the promotion list, you just won't get promoted. And yes, that's dumb.

I agree with your prediction. This year is the Maj board for the 2005 year group. Is there data available on the number of Do Not Promote letters written to the promotion board? That would be quite tell-tale. Forgoing a promotion to get out a year earlier sounds like a good option if getting out is the decision you've already made.

Disapproved '06 11M (C-17)

Timing is everything, so it stands to reason that AFPC would have no clue about theirs. Has anyone heard what kind of numbers they are looking at this time around? The FY14 VSP supposedly cut 1000 officers, so is the FY15 supposed to be similar, maybe half of that, or just 10 lucky people? Anyone?

First duty day after the arrest/failed breathalyzer, or same day if it occurs in the morning. That's how it was stated anyway.