HeloDude

You have always had to apply for separation...this is nothing new. Hence why you will be AWOL if you're no longer under an ADSC and stopped coming to work. To play devil's advocate--if you wanted out so badly then why didn't you apply for separation at your earliest chance? There are very few things I'll defend Big Blue on when it comes to new regs/policies, and I'm definitely not a supporter of more deployments (I think the US should be less involved in the world, not more)...but all that being said, I'm not a fan of people staying in past their commitment and then also complaining of having to deploy when they're called up. Just because you're eligible for separation or retirement doesn't mean you don't have to do your job. Now if you believe you were unfairly targeted for the deployment (i.e. not given dwell time, handed the deployment when someone else was due for it, etc) then I'm definitely all ears...but that has nothing to do with being given deployment orders while you're still AD. Knowledge is power--know the regs and make sure they work for you.

Sure hope so. Either way, for all those guys sitting close to 16 years (who plan on retiring) and who haven't yet transferred the benefits--better get on it!

Looks like this won't be enacted until next year. But here's the question:. If someone at the 15 year point last year already transferred a portion of their GI Bill and started to incur their 4 year ADSC...if they have another child in 2 years from now can they transfer benefits to that new dependent since they already "hacked the clock" before this new rule went into affect?

No...you're still incorrect. Pawnman was correct--if you don't have an APPROVED retirement date then AFPC can still send you on a 365 even after you hit 20...unless you want to seperate and not retire. I personally know someone who was affected by this and this is why a bunch of line pilots I know now. are planning on applying for retirement as soon as they're eligible...and a couple of them aren't even planning on going to the airlines. Not saying I'm a fan of the rule change but I'm just wanting others to know what's going on.

You bonus is tied to you not being able to get out when you're vulnerable for a 365...and last I heard, there isn't a "Nav crisis" lol. As for your assertion that a 45 day deployment gets you to the bottom of the list of a 365...I have a bridge I would love to sell you.

I know that the AF changed their policy of 3-day opt out of a 365 for those eligible to retire. Before a few years ago you could turn down 365 orders and retire if you were past 20 or the deployment would take you past 20...however they changed the regs and now if you do not have a set retirement date the AF can force you to go on your 365 if you want to retire (I personally know someone who had this happen). As far as your shorter deployment, I think they can make you go since you don't have an established separation date. Concur with Brabus: Put in for separation ASAP and hope it gets approved to keep you from going. Best of luck and please keep us in the loop of how it turns out.

Sounds to me that I know who is going to be hit with all these "Any LAF O-5 365 volunteer request emails" we keep on seeing lol.

Negative. There's a reason AFPC recently sent out an email telling O-5s with a STRD of 2003 or earlier (i.e. does not have a short tour, for the most part) that they are vulnerable. AFPC is not going to send an 18 year O-5 on a 365 who just got back on a 365 two years ago vs sending an 18 year O-5 who just got back from a 2 month deployment a year ago but has never done a short. tour.

I know you mentioned this was for a 220 day deployment...but I know 365 day deployments are handled by AFPC/HAF, which means all your local leadership can do is make phone calls and put in for a reclama.

Well, I asked RSD. But to your point, then why make military members go through a metal detector, check their bags, etc?

What was your response?

Says the Nav who supports even more stricter gun control laws--welcome to that big government that you love so much!

But yet infringe on those same people's right to obtain a firearm. Funny, you're cool with making someone have an ID to purchase a gun in the name of "safety" but you're not for requiring that same ID to ensure we have fair elections.

Yet progressives are all for making it harder for citizens to exercise their 2A Rights (which I would argue is the most important protected right) because they would requires the same ID to buy/carry a firearm which would be required to vote...

My prediction: All things being equal (i.e. the economy, no new flare ups around the world, etc)...the Dems will lose on this issue in 2020, especially as they go further into not wanting illegal immigrants deported.

And here is one of the foundational pieces of the argument. Progressives do not agree with your philosophy.

The old "left" of Carter and Bill Clinton are no longer driving the agenda of the Dems today...the progressives are. Bill Clinton said he was very much against illegal immigration in the mid-90s. The progressive left desires much bigger government control, more social programs (which require higher taxes), etc. And when studies show that immigrants, specifically those from Mexico and Latin America, are much more likely to support an increase in government funded social programs...well, there you go. And the tradional GOP doesn't want to stop illegal immigrantion outright because that goes against cheaper labor. So here we are. And who loses: The middle class taxpayer, lower income Americans who work in construction, Americans who live in areas that have seen an increased amount of gang activity made up of illegal immigrants, etc. It's sad...but when you hate what America has mostly been over the last few decades and believe it needs fixing (ACA, public option, higher taxes, etc), then this is how you see the "change".

How about you respond to his question regarding income taxes?...you're intelligent enough to know the difference between income tax vs FICA taxes.

So if I believe our tax code is broke then I can intentionally not adhere to it (i.e. not pay my taxes) and progressives will support me in doing so? Haha--fat chance... Progressives want illegal immigration for future votes because they know that historical data clearly shows that immigrants (once they are given amnesty/apply for citizenship) and their children are much more likely to vote for politicians that support an increase of social programs. Plenty of research which discusses this in detail--let me know if you need the links. Businesses obviously support illegal immigration because of the cheap labor...something the traditional GOP always supported until the issue was made to the lower/middle class Americans.

Kind of defeats the purpose of the ACP ADSC, so (assuming no other larger circumstances), I don't see why the AF would allow it. As to your specific question, I know someone who tried doing this in 2012, and instead of being allowed to retire, he was given a 365.

No...you dont support deporting all illegal aliens, because this would include not supporting DACA, not allowing illegal aliens to attend public school, etc. And as for not "dehumanizing" them, what in the hell does that mean? You get caught be here illegally, then you get detained and deported--it's that simple (they need much stricter penalties for repeat offenders). The left does not support deporting everyone illegally here, hell, they can't even stomach using the term "illegal" when discussing these people; rather they had to invent a BS "undocumented" term.

Probably as much as you support not deporting illegal aliens.

I just don't believe you when you say that you want to help those people...because if you did, then you would it voluntarily. Most progressives I know are you like you: Tell people they're heartless if they don't want their taxes raised to help people but then refuse to voluntarily help those same people.

Hard to then take you seriously when you say you care about people less fortunate than yourself. But I appreciate your honesty!

"Irrelevant"? That's BS--according to US Code: "(3) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), an officer discharged under any provision of chapter 36 of this title for twice failing of selection for promotion to the next higher grade is not entitled to separation pay under this section if either (or both) of those failures of selection for promotion was by the action of a selection board to which the officer submitted a request in writing not to be selected for promotion or who otherwise directly caused his nonselection through written communication to the Board under section 614(b) of this title." So it's up to the AF to make that decision, but what leads to the separation is definitely not "irrelevant". I am pretty ignorant as to how the end process works, so I'll default to your knowledge on the process and if you read my earlier post, I agreed that it is up to the AF to figure out their own process. But when making a purchase and the cashier gives me back more money than I think is warranted, I at least ask the question as to whether or not the amount is correct...if the cashier responds yes, then I say ok and take the additional money.