GearMonkey

Technically you can only combine AM/AAM points if the Commander doesn't expect a member to be able to earn enough AM points in the future to complete the 20 mission (a.k.a. 300 point) requirement. The way I've seen it work in the 17 community is if you are leaving the service, going to a non-flying job (school, etc.), or going to Altus you can combine your points otherwise you just have to wait. I have heard of at least one squadron that pulled some schenannigans and tried to put all their bubbas in for AAMs after a deployment. Based on the order of medal precedance this was clearly an exercise in rack building. Rather than counting all the combat landings/overflys this squadron built Form 1s with nothing but OTBH departures/arrivals. This scam was caught at the OG level and kicked back for correction. I'm too lazy to look it up right now but the USAFCENT guidance is pretty clear cut about counting combat activities towards combat decorations (AMs) and combat-support toward combat-support (AAMs).

I couldn't help but notice in the videos that none of the Fox NFL Sunday team members had RBs on at night at the BRA. Apparently standardization doesn't apply to visiting celebrities who give the boss a signed football. That and/or the 'Deid leadership has demonstrated blatant disregard for the safety of civilians visitng their command. Does that qualify for "loss of confidence" in their ability to lead?

I dig it. The garters are going in my Deid bag as soon as I get home. Between those and my hot-pink LED equipped reflective belt I'm all set to satisfy yet ridicule the rules. I should be easy to find; I'll be the one surrounded by the pack of DDs.

Herein lies the problem. If there aren't PT shirts or RBs to bitch about the Chief will surely find something else like haircuts or dorm cleanliness to waste everyone else's time with. This is what happens when you gather a bunch of senior Os and Es (shirts are much more of a problem than Chiefs from what I've seen) who have no real purpose in the AOR. This stuff doesn't seem to happen in the early days of a conflict; only after things cool off do we get to this level of ridiculousness. See the glorious Leadership at the Deid thread for further details.

I love the way leadership assumes a "new rotation" is to blame for the resistance they are encountering. It couldn't possibly be a result of their asinine rulings. When is there not a new rotation at OTBH? I guess this dillusion helps them sleep better at night (in their Taj Mahal DV quarters). After pondering this situation for the last several days I've decided that a little carrot-and-stick action is in order. I'll gladly wear a RB just as soon as the cadillacs are successfully replaced and transient aircrew are allocated non-tent quarters where they can get quality crew rest. Since neither of these vital issues with enormous health and safety impact are getting any attention I have to assume that leadership does not embracing a true safety culture and, therefore, doesn't give a shit if I wear my RB or not. I haven't thought of a fair trade for tucking in my PT shirt yet. Someone mentioned that Marines aren't allowed to wear RBs. Well, if we're bending over to standardize with one service which doesn't have nearly as many personnel at OTBH as we do (the Army) why don't we standardize instead with another service which doesn't have nearly as many personnel at OTBH as we do (the Marines). It would still be stupid, because we basically own that place and people should standardize to us, but at least on the issue of RBs everyone would be a lot happier.

Thanks Blue, as usual you've taken something decent and increased the suck factor dramatically. I think the problem here is that people think of it as a PT "uniform" rather than PT "gear". Since it is a "uniform" we have to look good and standardized in it. While it wasn't particularly comfortable or well designed as workout "gear" it served a purpose. The way I see it the only time the tuck should be required is during a formation roll-call at the start of unit PT. Before and after this, while assembling for the event and actually working out, it should be up to the user as to how he/she wears the PTs. If the idea really is physical fitness then let people wear the PTs in the way that best promotes their fitness. For most this would likely be shirt out. It would be nice if leadership could see that most of the time PTs are worn in the AOR because they are the most comfortable thing allowed and because they are the closest to civilian clothing. Perhaps as a reward for all our hard work in unpleasent places year after year after year they could find it in their hearts to cut us a little slack. Clearly allowing untucked shirts hasn't hurt the war effort for the last eight years and I doubt it will make the difference anytime soon. Congrats to the Shoes on this one. Now they can move on to standardizing ABU sleeve roll by calendar date and other worthy activities. Tuck you Big Blue.

Fair enough. I do, however, think cadre recognize the difference in degree complexity and take that into account. As with everything, I'm sure some cadres do a better job of it than others. I was a DG as an engineer so I know it can be done. It didn't hurt that most of the non-engineer types were crosstowns and pretty much sucked at life. I can attest to the fact that being involved at the Det does wonders to make up for crappy grades and a mediocre PFT score. From your list I would absolutely do away with DGs from FTU (for the heavy world at least) and UPT. While UPT is a year long, which would normally make me lean towards a DG program, there is a huge difference in student skill at the outset. A 50 hour C-172 dude will never compete with a 1,000+ hour corporate King Air pilot. Sure everyone kind of normalizes in the end but the corporate dude's awesome scores on early rides are pretty hard to overcome. There is no way a heavy FTU student should ever get recognized as DG. With the limited number of flights and the incredible lack of consistency from one IP to the next there is just no legitimate way to compare students. Fighter guys can probably make a reasonable argument in favor of having DGs since they fly a lot more rides and invest much more time in the program. I’ll give you WIC. Those dudes have fairly equal experience levels when they start and the class takes enough time that you can compare the students adequately and fairly accurately.

The Gilligan is one of my favorites. I've even thought of getting rank sewn on the bottom of the brim so that I can wear it up and still have rank visible for the DDs. I think the sand is rotting my brain.

They just added it to the fleece jacket, PTs can't be too far behind.

Airdrop chances wouldn't be too bad. I've seen a lot of FAIP and C-21 guys in the airdrop community so there is no reason a former Nav couldn't end up there. SOLL II, on the other hand, would probably be a challenge. They like to hook you early so you can get all your upgrades done without having to worry about the typical BS related to the Major promotion (office job posturing mostly). You may be able to spin your Nav experience as a plus since those skills would be beneficial to the mission. Every once in a while people get fast tracked through the SOLL II upgrades (almost always former non-Charleston airdroppers) but it doesn't happen often.

The only time I've seen booze on the 17 was when the WWE was on board. They traveled with almost an entire pallet of beer and box-o-wine. Before they went downrange it all had to be taken off the jet so we helped them out by downloading a case or two for our hard work on the first two sorties.

You can try and get a copy without the fund cite in order to start getting your sh!t in order. They won't be legal/complete but the fund cite doesn't matter to your landlord and he/she probably won't even notice it is missing.

A fund cite is basically a bank account number that represents a particular pot of money set aside for a particular purpose. Normally it shouldn't take too long to get one (especially for something common like a PCS) but end of fiscal year issues and crappy finance offices and/or ROTC detachments can often slow things down.

It depends. Obviously good performance on any standardized evaluation criteria (PFT, whatever that marching around test was, etc.) goes a long way. Other than that, generic leadership demonstration through assigned positions, GLPs, and the like. Each FTO brings different experience to the table and will evaluate in their own unique way. As a former CTA I suggest the following: 1. Don't waste any time between TD-0 and TD-28 (is it longer/shorter now?) thinking about or trying to be a DG or SP 2. Don't be a douchebag 3. Help your bros/hoes whenever you can (it doesn't count if you only do this in order to get an award. . . we can tell) 4. Work hard 5. Do your best They sound cheesy but these five things will go a long way. I probably spent 70% of my time looking for stuff like this and 30% trying to identify the phonies. I did a rack-n-stack twice a week with the FTO I worked with and these ended up being pretty stable from start to finish. It doesn't take very long to figure out the top/bottom folks but nailing down the middle third can be a challenge. An added twist is that the flights can exchange their DG and SP allotments. In my case we traded one of our SPs for an extra DG because the sister-flight FTO felt our #3 was a stronger cadet than his #2. I'd like to say it always works out as it should but that is completely naive. ROTC DETs talk big about awards from FT but it isn't worth stressing over. I've seen some of the worst cadets get them and some of the best not. In the end it is a crap shoot. Bottom line, DG and SP from Field Training can be nice but are also pretty insignificant in the long run. None of the folks from my DET who got DG at Field Training the year I went got it when they graduated.

Why on Earth is a flyer filling a CE/CC position? I always thought that leaders in the CE community grew up there. With limited senior leadership possibilities to begin with why would they pass up the chance to fill this position from within? Plus. . . there are plenty of UAV slots (I know of at least one!) that he or she could be filling instead.

I don't have any specifics but I too have heard it's a pretty sweet assignment. Think small flying club with a G-V instead of a C-152. Plus, Belgium isn't too shabby a location. With a small cadre of pilots and none of the normal AFB bullsh!t how can you go wrong?

I'm glad to hear people have such high self esteem they need a leader to be dressed like them in order to feel accepted. Apparently they are too stupid to notice the giant wings on the ABUs? On the other hand, some senior leaders fly so little ABUs certainly seem appropriate.

Seriously? So four or six weeks of drinking the blue kool-aid is a better measure of performance than 2-5 years of ROTC. I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. I think that DG out of ROTC or USAFA are some of the only ones worth recognizing. Each indicates exceptional performance over a lengthy period of time. Plus, pretty much everyone is on a level playing field from the start. These two factors give a better look at an individual and take a lot of the guess-work out of the equation. This is why an ROTC DG will follow you but one from Field Training will not. I can do without other DGs. Either the program is too short for a quality evaluation or there aren't enough people contributing to said evaluation.

First things first. Check out AFI48-123 and the waiver guide (Google should get you there) to learn all there is to know about tubes and ear drums. It won't take you long to know more, from an administrative perspective, than most of the medical techs, some of the docs, and virtually anyone in your chain of command. If you find out that a waiver is not an option you can get started on an ETP. A good rule of thumb is that if a condition is waiverable for folks who are already pilots/navs you have a decent case for an ETP. There is limitied guidance available for ETPs but everything I've seen is geared towards being too old for UPT. You'll follow the same basics. The ETP goes up your chain of command and eventually gets routed to the Vice Chief of Staff. I'm basing all this off my personal experience in 2004 so things may be slightly different now. My ETP package included: A Staff Summary Sheet (any exec can help you with this part) A memo explaining the situation and requesting an ETP Letters of support Medical documentation Etc. I can't remember for sure but a copy of my UPT application may also have been required. I was on active duty in AFMC when I worked through all of this and I think that was a big help. Doing it through AETC is probably an order of magnitude more difficult. What is your status?

I can't get to the documentation because I'm not at OTBH right now but I believe the local uniform reg allows glasses around the neck as long as they are secured by a glasses strap.

You're right about the beer. . . especially if it is a #9 at Manas! My expertise in the OHT/Glaucoma arena is mostly confined to flight physical & flying waiver requirements. Because of this I'm not 100% sure of the limits on the commissioning physical. I would imagine that if your pressures are stabilized below 30 mmHG, with or without eye drops, you should be on the right track. The flying world has a limit that is something like "no visual field defects within 30 degrees of center". If that is good enough for aviators it is almost certainly good enough for the rest of the Air Force. I'm sure there are regs out there which spell out the limits but I'm not sure which ones to look for. You can check AFI48-123 for flying standards and the USAF Waiver Guide for comparison purposes. In general the commissioning limits will be equal to or looser than the limits spelled out in either of those references. Ask your cadre and/or flight doc for commissioning physical specifics. They should be able to point you in the right direction. There has to be an AFI or AFROTCI out there with details. Your situation hits close to home. Good luck. GM.

I seem to have a sixth sense about when to check this thread. . . 1. I can't remember what the OTV is. Get contact measurements to verify the pressure levels if all you got was the puff test. 2. High pressure without optic nerve damage is called OHT (ocular hypertension). This is just one of many risk factors for glaucoma. A small percentage (10%ish) of people with OHT eventually develop glaucoma but a small percentage of people with normal pressure do as well. There are a number of additional tests (visual field, contrast sensitivity, laser scans, etc.) that the doc can give you to check for optic nerve damage. 3. OHT will not DQ you from commissioning. Glaucoma may. 4. Capital letters and punctuation are awesome, you should try them sometime (Sorry, it has been a long day and this is a pet peeve of mine). Cheers. GM.

Sweet. Sounds like your chances are pretty decent then. Basically your flight doc will write up the waiver request and submit it to AETC through the computerized waiver system. They'll look at it and make a decision within a few weeks. If they deny the waiver you'll need to submit an ETP request to the Vice Chief of Staff. That'll have to go up through your chain of command and will probably take several months. If you're casual at your UPT base they'll stick you in an office somewhere until the whole process is completed.

It all depends on what your condition is. The docs are usually sticklers about unwaiverable stuff. They have a ton of people willing to take your place so it is easiest/safest for them not to bother with you. If your condition is waverable for a FCII then your chances are a lot better. You may need an exception to policy but those aren't uncommon.

Thanks for the feedback everyone. I'm glad to see that I'm not smoking crack on this issue. Looks like we'll try processing one at a time with a cooling-off period in between so the Wing forgets about the previous one. I hate that we have to do stupid stuff like this because people don't understand how the world works. I wish they'd make the whole A&D process a lot easier. The way I see it qualification should be a yes/no proposition. Where you ever in the country? If "yes" you get the campaign medal, if "no" you don't. My Air Medal plan is even better. Everyone gets a punchcard with 20 missions on it. Each time you land the SARMS punch a hole. You get 20 punches they give you a medal and that is the end of it. If it works for Subway, Starbucks, and Qdoba it should be good enough for us. AFSO21 baby!