HeloDude

Is an 11T a tanker pilot? Don't they also have the core AFSC of an 11M? Sorry to hear about the non continuation. Good luck in your retirement!

You get continued/not continued after you are passed over twice, ie 1ABZ (not 2ABZ)...so say this guy was prior-E with 3 years TAS, got commissioned, and was passed over twice for O-5, he would be roughly at the 18 year mark, putting him in sanctuary for the standard 20 year retirement. So unless he was only enlisted for 2 years or so, or he is within a couple months of the 18 year mark after being passed over twice, your post isn't making sense. Perhaps I misunderstood or am missing something in the regs?

For Major (with high promotion rates), the PRF accounting date isn't 'as important' (why I focused on O-5 board). As a Major, if you're not in the top 25% then you weren't a school select in your O-4 board (and these days getting picked up for IDE without being a select is very difficult) means that there's not always much of a difference necessarily between a guy in the top 1/3 or a guy in the middle, and that can mean the difference in getting a DP/strong push or not. Most likely the guy signing your PRF, and more importantly the O-5's and O-6's in your chain, are most likely to push harder for a person they know and have seen work hard for the last 2-3 years vs a guy who just PCS'd a few months before they rack and stack the guys meeting their IPZ board. As for AFPC screwing people over on PCS'ing people right before their PRF accounting date, my personal experience (and anecdotal evidence from my buds) is that they try and not do this, especially when you or your CC reminds them of the fact and that delaying the PCS for a few months could mean the difference in your career. YMMV, but if you don't understand the process and aren't at least trying to fight for yourself then you only have yourself to blame for not taking ownership of the process as best you could. Now for those who don't want to make/don't care about making O-5 then sure, do what you want. Unfortunately, these days some really good people are being shown the door early for not getting promoted, which totally sucks, but is the reality. So why not at least try and help yourself as much as you can by just speaking up? Just my $.02

Concur. The last 3-4 years it has always been the first couple of weeks in October. So for you non-top 25% Captains/Majors out there who want a decent shot at making O-5, become familiar with what the PRF accounting date is and work with your leadership (and AFPC) to plan accordingly. PCS'ing to your new job less than a few months before the IPZ PRF accounting date is (in most cases) not recommended...so try not to get lost (and screwed) in the shuffle.

Were you IPZ? If so, damn, that sucks. Any negative indicators (if you don't mind sharing)--failed PT test in the past, LOR, etc? Quick math shows me that 58% of those IPZ got DP's...without doing the math for the previous years, I wonder how this compares to the recent past?

Eventually it will be coming to an Air Force near you!

Won't happen...not anytime soon at least, if even in our lifetime. Besides, even if they can call a convention (2/3 of States), they'll never be able to get 3/4 of the States to ratify anything that takes more power from the progressives/elites in DC and give back more power to the individual States. Off the top of my head, here are the 11 States that will never do so for the reasons the listed above: CA, OR, WA, MD, NY, RI, VT, CT, MA, NJ, and HI...with IL, DE, MN, MI, NM easily being able to fill that 12th spot. Basically look at Obamacare...that should tell you all you need to know. Sorry, for the thread derailment, but this is foundational: The States will continue to lose more control of their Guard units.

They did it to themselves. They ratified the 16th and 17th Amendments which ceded even more power to federal government (16th) and less power to the State Legislatures (17th). And with the power of judicial review, 5 people wearing black robes basically have all the power in the country.

Nearly everything has been heading this way. The progressives and the elites love centralized power as it gives them more power and more control. The States began ceding this power many years ago and (usually) it just continues to get worse and worse, so why would the Guard be any different? If you're going to cut the AD but continue to have the same obligations, of course the Reserve and Guard are going to be affected. The Republic has been deteriorating for quite some time...

I hear what you're saying...but 'better' is pretty lame when you have the GOP running that state year after year and also pledging to be pro-2nd Admenent. The Dems in more left wing States have done a better job enacting stricter gun-control laws compared to how successful the GOP has been in Texas in enacting pro-2A laws. As for the 'civil lawsuits', great, more time wasting time in the courts with useless lawsuits. All they would have had to do is make it a crime for LE to stop people for OC if that is their only reason. Sorry man, but months and months of work on this bill and this is they come up...If I were the Gov I would veto the bill and make the legislators get it right. Yet another reason why I refuse to retire in Texas.

This is a horrible bill...all that work to pass crap legislation. https://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/05/29/its-official-texas-legislature-passes-open-carry/ So you need a license to execercise your Rights and since they removed the part of the bill specifically stating that police wouldn't be able to stop you just because you're open carrying, police officers (like the ones in Austin) will be able to stop people and harass them 'just because' you have a firearm. If court rulings already prevent this then the legislators should have just left this in a bill. What this means is you're going to have LE stopping people and asking to see their CHL's since one is require to open carry. This crappy leglislation is one of the many reasons I keep telling people that Texas isn't as 'gun friendly' as people think. What a waste.

Not everyone wants to live on the coast...

I'd also like to hear the details. And if it's true, then perhaps he was only trying to follow in the footsteps of these two...

Dale Mathews We miss you man!

If someone is trying to preach/convert you, and you don't want anything to do with it, then I totally get your annoyance and for wanting to be left alone in that arena. If you don't want politicians making laws/policy based on their religion, then I totally get it as well (I don't want that either). Outside of those two points, why do you care so much? I've already proven to you that religion by itself doesn't make someone less successful, doesn't by itself cause more crime, doesnt by itself make a country more weak or less prosperous, etc. Likewise I have never said that religion is necessary to be successful, have less crime, etc. So once again, why do you care so much? I might think it's silly for someone to spend hundreds of dollars an hour to talk to someone about their feelings, but hey, that's their time and money.

Are you suggesting that the US was not a 'religious' country in the late 1800's and early/mid 1900's? My point being that I can remember learning that the US experienced quite a bit of prosperity during that time...if religion is so bad, then how did this happen? The problem with you and Mark1 isn't that you make the argument that religion isn't needed for success, prosperity, etc (I never said that it was), however, you continue to make arguments that, by itself, religion hinders this properity and success...and history does not agree with you. Again, you guys are anti-religion and think people adhering to religious guidelines are stupid. No problem, that's your opinion. But you discount the facts of what has actually been done by people, who happen to adhere to a certain faith, which makes your entire irrelevant in my opinion.

Again, that's just you opinion. And of course it's perfectly your right to have it, but it doesn't change that it is still an opinion. Regardless of your opinion, are you suggesting that good has never come out of people because they were trying to follow the guidelines of their religion? Are you also suggesting that people can not see past their own religious views, say in the field of science? Many scientists, including Father George Lemaitre would have disagreed with you (just one example). I think you are just so against religion that your bias overwhelms you from seeing what positives have come from people trying to follow a certain set of guidelines adhering to their faith. And just in case you want to point all the horrible things that people have also done in the name of religion (which are valid points), I would point to Stalin, and Mao Tse-tung as examples of atheists not doing the best things in their life (Timothy McVeigh being a very recent example). As for progressive vs non-progressive...when you stop defending progressive ideology/actions (the religion issue is not one of them by the way), then I'll stop calling you a progressive.

Personally I'm more concerned about violent crime, but there is nothing invalid with your point. Or with the point that I'm more likely to be murdered in Massachusetts than in Utah. I'm also more likely to be murdered in California than I am in Texas. But seriously, explain to me again how more religious equates to more crime? I've never understood why non-religious people had a problem with religious people. If they don't care, then, wait for it...why care?

So now we're comparing city by city? His entire argument was to compare states to states. Massachusetts' violent crime rate is just over 400/100K people while Utah is just over 200/100K people (per FBI crime stats in 2013 listed below). So using his arguement style, statistically the non-religious of MA are 2x more than likely to commit a violence crime against me if I visit compared to the religious (mostly Mormon) folks in UT. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/4tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_4_crime_in_the_united_states_by_region_geographic_division_and_state_2012-2013.xls And according Gallup, Utah has the most frequent church attendance: https://www.gallup.com/poll/181601/frequent-church-attendance-highest-utah-lowest-vermont.aspx As for our progressive friend, Mark1, I agree that all of these arguments are silly as I'm not aware that 'religious affiliation' is reported when someone commits a crime. However, racial status is, and it's overwhelmingly that a black or hispanic person is more likley to commit a crime than a white person is...and Asians are less likely than whites (all that Asian privilege I suppose). So yes, I'm no fan of the south in that it sucks for many reasons--petsonally I never want to live there again outside the AF, mainly due to the summer weather. But the main reason the south has a higher crime rate is because of the south's percentage of population that is made up of minorities and which demographics have higher percentages of being more likely to commit a crime. Religion has nothing to do with it. I have a feeling that North Dakota is more religious than California, yet which one has a higher crime rate? Then don't follow religion, problem solved. And if you don't like politicians making laws/policy based on religion (I know I don't), then vote Libertarian. Progressives also love to use religion to gain support for their progressives policies, more government welfare is one example. I can't stand statists, regardless of which ideology they support. Just like those on the right who want to ban gay marriage, prostitution, etc all because of 'religion'. I could care what religion a person does or does not subscribe to, just stay out of my life.

Yeah...Utah just sucks for business and jobs these days. Definitely not a healthy state either. Oh and their crime?--through the roof!

I would imagine that unless you had extenuating circumstances (ie your wife was dying of cancer), then I don't see the AF letting you out of a commitment, especially if it's to fill a 'must fill' deployment. It's funny you ask this because I personally know a good dude (prior WO) who had taken the old long term bonus that took him past 20 YAS and when he tried to drop retirement paperwork at 20 and pay back/not collect his unearned portion of the bonus, the AF said no and instead...he got hit with a 365 to the CAOC. Grant it, this is anecdotal, but I think this recent example can give you an idea of where the AF stands on this issue. I can't believe I'm quoting Chang right now, but he was correct when he said that the $25K/yr bonus (even the large bonus now) is a "drop in the bucket" and worth it to the AF to not have to worry about someone dropping papers at some random time. For the younger guys on here, take heed: If you're not fairly confident that you want to stay in for a bonus commitment, then don't take the bonus. Sorry man. Good luck with the deployment if it happens.

If people/groups want to pay him $15K to speak, who can blame him for charging/taking it?--he's no longer in the military. Now if he would turn down speaking to let's say, a civil air patrol function because they couldn't pay him, then I agree that's showing some poor class. In the end, it's his story, and as long as he's not divulging classified info or straight up lying/hurting people, then who cares? I wouldn't pay to hear him speak but that's just me. People in the know are aware of his story and his mistakes/buffoonery...in the end, the guy still did what over 90% of the country never has done or will do. In today's society/culture, there are a lot more things fvcking up this country than Scott O'Grady.

Google is your friend...literally took me less than a minute to find. Page 48 of the AFI (page 64 in the PDF). Good luck! https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a1/publication/afi36-3003/afi36-3003.pdf

What do you expect when you have a federal government that spends over $3.6 TRILLION in just one year? With that kind of money you're going to have many different groups trying to influence how that money is collected and spent. The problem ultimately isn't the lobbyists, PAC's, etc...it's the legislsting/spending done by our politicians, and their desire to pick winners and losers. And to go even further, the problem stems from the American people for putting these politicians in office. Hell, Hillary is trying to tell future voters that there's too much money in politics, yet she is a key part of that group that loves involving money with politics. In the end, the only legitimate solution will stem from the eventual result of all the spending: Complete economic collapse and then perhaps we can start over.

But don't worry...the federal government would never use its great military power to turn on its own citizens... https://www.pbs.org/childofcamp/history/