HeloDude

I was told that it started well before UPT. That their commissioning sources knew that they would all be this awesome and worked with AFPC and AETC early on to ensure they would all be in this same incredible class. Some said it would be too crazy to work...but it did.

Me and a lot of my buds all started within 3+ months of our EAD. So if the AF needs me to serve an extra 3 months past 20 to get an extra $75-100K for something I was going to do anyway, then why not? As someone who has little to no desire to fly after the AF (whether rotary or fixed wing), I appreciate the guys who are getting out and the AF having to throw more money at the rest of us to try and solve their problem. This also should make it a 'little' bit easier when competing for O-5...but who knows. As for all the guys serving their commitment and wanting to punch for the airlines, I wish them the best of luck and thank them for their courage and service. If my goal was to fly for the airlines then there's no way in hell I would stay in past the 11-12 years.

No problem man.

Negative. It starts when you went on AO's...first day you started UPT. Ask your HARM.

You mean it's not as realistic or good as this scene with drones?

Then why the difference in standards? Specifically with the Army? Though I'm sure the USMC will eventually cave and have different standards as well.

Since I'm a nice guy, I'm going to help you out with the emotional hurt you're obviously experiencing. Here you go: Just another example of progressives holding up a hashtag sign...how did that work out? Perhaps the hashtag signs is now strong part of using diplomacy as an instrument of power? But hey, it felt awesome to hold up that sign as Crimea was being taken by Putin... We are a superpower, so it makes me laugh when our leaders say things and hold up signs but in fact don't actually do much of anything. Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy the President decided to not engage militarily...but holding up a sign essentially saying we want to help Ukraine is laughable, especially when you look at the results. Just like having a base function where men walk in women shoes.

What paranoia? And yes, it is progressive ideology--make it look like you care and that you're doing something without actually having to sacrifice anything and/or produce results. But hey, as long as it 'felt right' then it's all good. Oh and you might try to understand the difference between ideological differences (philosophy) and partisanship. As for the conservative ideology, I have no clue, you'll have to ask them. Though I have yet to hear prominent conservatives holding up signs that say '#RapeThemKillThemAndDumpTheBodies'.

With progressive ideology, it doesn't matter if it works.' It's all about the feelings behind the intent...that's all that matters. Remember this flavor of the week a while back? How's that situation going?

So they (at least the owner) used to be for Ron Paul, and now they're for Hillary--what a difference 4 years can make! So if Hillary would welcome welcome their support does this mean she, if elected President, would push for legislation/issue executive orders to effectively end the 'federal ban' on consensual adult prostitution? What's also funny is that in my latest SAPR training I was taught that anything that contributes to the objectification of women essentially allows for a more easier environment for which sexual assaults can occur. Personally I support the legality of prostitution amongst consenting adults...but then again, I don't buy into the 'war on women' bs. I do have a feeling ol' Bill is happy about this! https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/18/hookers-for-hillary-bunny-ranch-employees-endorse-hillary-clinton/

Plenty of legitimate charities that do the same thing...and that weed out most of the bums wanting to use the money for drugs/alcohol, or who are just too lazy to work. I went to a very large urban university and saw the same bums for 4 years. There are plenty of ways to help people who need it without getting scammed. But hey, it's your money, you do what you want with it!

Bums on the street do it everyday and people across the US give them millions...stupid Americans.

He must have been referring to BQZip's mom...

I think we have emotionally upset the 'everyone should get a trophy' crowd...

If you're in the Army, you better check that white privilege of yours... https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/04/03/army-diversity-training/25250733/ Slide is here: https://www.facebook.com/usawtfm/photos/a.391474713605.169598.242181938605/10153243786443606/?type=1

The 'one earbud in, one out' policy will still apply. Though for some reason they won't have to wear reflective belts. Weird.

Unfortunately no. Just those that signed in FY14.

I'll be honest...this one surprised me, big time. And it's rare these days when the AF surprises me in a good way. The manning must be even worse than the AF originally let on. Sucks that a lot of prior E's and late rated guys don't get the extra sweet moola from Uncle Rico.

This guy is truly badass...

This can't be...the President's administration said he 'served honorably' (and I don't think they have retraced the statement either). So this all just must be a misunderstanding.

I've looked at the specs, and it doesn't seem better than the Shield. Don't get me wrong, I like Glocks and they have an awesome reputation, but I think they were a little late to the game on this one. I'm sure they'll sell a shit load, but not as many if they came out with it a few years ago.

It's good if Senior Leaders are now being surprised by realizing (and now hopefully understanding) that not every shiny penny wants to go to school/stay in. If they're not surprised then I would question if these same Senior Leaders understand the thoughts/concerns of their younger/mid-level officers. IIRC, wasn't the SECAF surprised to find out during the 2010/2011 VSP that so many of his young rated officers wanted out? Lear, you have shown yourself to be one of the better leaders...unfortunately not all leaders are like you. And if they are, they're not all doing the best at communicating their philosophy with their younger/mid-level officers. I've had good ones, and I've had not so good ones. Just my $.02

Valid...but they till technically 'requested' to go to school with the 3849. They just turned down an assignment (just so happened to be school) and that is what drove the separation. They could have just as easily not applied for school and dropped normal seperation papers if they didn't like the result/next assignment. Either way, the result is the same: A guy wanted out when his time was up, so he got out. If this surprises senior leaders...then good.

I'm pretty sure selects have to fill out a 3849 and still 'request' school. That being the case, I imagine they can select that they do not wish to compete for any specific chool and accept the prejudice associated with it...this way they're not turning down an assignment per se.