nsplayr

The bonus PSDM was corrected again today (change 3) and now includes bonus options for non-contracted and contract-expired aviators. Maybe someone out there is listening finally... Not sure on the ROE of posing the actual doc here but it's out there on the portal...PSDM 17-39 corrected 4 Aug 17. New Details Tier 1 (11Fs) who never entered into a bonus contract and UPT ADSC is expired: 5, 9 or up to 24 YAS payments of $35,000 per year Tier 1 previously signed a bonus contract that is expired: contract at min up to 22 YAS and max 24 YAS @ $35K Tier 2 (11B/11S/11M) who never entered and UPT ADSC expired: 5 or 9 years @ $30K Tier 2 previously signed but expired: same as Tier 1 but @ $30K Tier 3 (11R/11H) who never entered and UPT ADSC expired: 5 years @ $28K Tier 3 previously signed but expired: same as Tier 1 but @ $28K Tier 4 (11U/12U/13U/18X): 5 years @ $35K if UPT/URT ADSC expires in FY17

Here's something I heard from very few on the right when President Obama was in the seat...credit where credit is due. Things I think President Trump has gotten right so far: Mattis at DoD McMaster as NSA (second time's the charm right?) Shulkin at the VA The economy is so far continuing to add jobs and the stock market continues to go up despite already being at record highs when he took office Signing the new VA reform bill Signing the recent Russia sanctions bill You're right to say that the DJIA number is not something any President has any control over, but if you want to keep score that way I'm good with it. DJIA closing 23 Jan 2009 (before Obama takes office): 8,077 DJIA closing 31 Jul 2009 (6 month performance): 9,171 (+13.54%) Overall Obama two-term DJIA performance: 8,077 to 20,094 (+148.78%) DJIA closing 27 Jan 2017 (before Trump takes office): 20,094 DJIA closing 28 Jul 2017 (6 month performance): 21,830 (+8.64%) [-4.9% lower than comparable performance under Obama] Overall Trump term(s) DJIA performance: TBD. A comparable increase to Obama would see a DJIA close on 20 Jan 2024 of 49,989...let's all hope that is possible.

To be fair, this was during the Korean war and those overnight patrols were necessary to keep the base secure from a possible sneak-attack Chinese invasion

U-28s keeps you in AFSOC but gives you a 2/3 shot at HRT vs CVS (with 2 out of 3 ops squadrons being in FL). I would like to think that coming off of several years at Cannon already they would slot you for a HRT squadron but then again that's obviously not guaranteed. Other options you should probably consider are U & J model gunships which are HRT-only. Since you mentioned C-146s, the pilots I've known that flew them have only said great things, other than being based at Cannon. I loved my time flying in the U-28 community and the mission set is probably as close to the MQ-9 as you're gonna get. As long as you're not a douche your experience in the Reaper would be greatly valued. I'm actually in the middle of going the opposite direction as you, former U-28 CSO now future MQ-9 pilot in the guard, and I think the more cross-pollination we can get between those two communities (and the gunships), the better.

Humm, yes, it does appear that way, my bad. As I'm now browsing the more esoteric things Tricare covers, an "external vacuum appliance" to treat erectile dysfunction is covered. Gentlemen, line up for your artificial BJs, courtesy of Uncle Sugar! https://tricare.mil/CoveredServices/IsItCovered/ErectileDysfunctionTreatment

I get what you're saying, but you picked a bad example. Reduction mammoplasty is covered by Tricare. https://tricare.mil/CoveredServices/IsItCovered/ReductionMammoplasty.aspx

Same

I'm getting notifications that I've been quoted in a thread, but the last activity I can see in the thread is my own post. I can also see additional users posting in that thread in the activity stream, but am unable to view those posts. This is on Chrome for IOS and Chrome for macOS. The effect is centered on the More SARC briefings thread if that helps, other threads appear to be working correctly. Also when commenting it doesn't appear to take the new comment on first-press of the reply button, but if you press again and then reload the page you get double-posts.

So the current rules allow for transgendered people to serve and there are thousands of people serving today. Drops in the bucket compared to the master DoD personnel spreadsheet, but real people leading real lives not fundamentally different than the rest of us. What do they do now? Can they deploy/promote/cross-train? What SQ/CC can explain this new "policy" to Amn. Snuffy? The CINC has made it clear, at least from his perspective, that a certain group of currently serving armed forces members suddenly aren't welcome anymore. As a fellow service member, why is this acceptable? I can understand the arguments that trans people shouldn't be allowed to join in the first place (although I disagree in most cases), but they're already in...what is the rationale for kicking them out now? What changed between last week and today? What new data or analysis is driving this decision? Or are we kicking them out? No one knows and it's exactly the kind of fire-ready-aim shit leadership we all regularly decry. The policy of yes/no to trans people serving aside, can anyone even begin to defend this process? Mostly rhetorical questions...y'all know as well as I do there was no logical process or reason for this sweeping new policy via twitter. I guess we'll all wait and see.

The 2016 RAND study had between 1,320 and 6,630 on AD and 830 and 4,160 in the reserves. 2,150 - 10,790. A previous study by a think tank at UCLA Law School estimated 15,500. The exact number is unknowable because people (apparently smartly) don't always want to be out. Either way it's a small number percentage wise, but it's still thousands of real human beings and fellow service members who put on the uniform and now don't know what tomorrow looks like career-wise. Ok, just as long as we're clear that Commanders are in a tough spot right now. Not being able to tell someone whether or not they can keep serving due to a new policy announced from POTUS via twitter...I'm not sure what they're supposed to do. Does that person go on a deployment next month or will they be kicked out before then? Should I push them for promotion/crosstraining/etc. or will they be kicked out soon? Are they still motivated to work at a high level with this new lightning bolt of career uncertainty straight from the top? Like I said, any Commander who has a transgendered troop working for them just inherited more headaches, not fewer. If as a nation we want to say that the military can't accommodate trans people and still get the mission done, that's a discussion to be had and in fact one that was being had in a methodical way. But now...???? No one knows WTF is going on; not anyone's idea of good policymaking regardless of if you happen to agree or disagree with the eventual outcome.

My point is this: what is the new policy? Can anyone at DoD explain it at this point? Doesn't it make more sense to roll something like this out in a coordinated fashion with applicable service-specific policies and procedures laid out ahead of time? It's estimated that ~13,000 transgendered people are currently serving in the US armed forces, where do those people stand as of today? Can they continue to serve? Pack their shit in a cardboard box and get out by Friday? How do you answer these questions as a Commander when your troop shows up at your door?

Y'all realize that in the short-term at least this will cause a lot more bureaucracy and red tape around this issue, right? Because this was a tweet and not a fleshed-out policy released through the normal channels, no one knows what's going on. DoD was working on rules governing if they would accept transgendered recruits and had recently asked for more time to decide that, but I guess that part is decided now at least. However reading POTUS' new "policy," what do you do with people who are transgendered who are currently serving? Do we kick them out immediately? Do we just pass them over and up-or-out them eventually? Can they keep serving? Yes it's an extremely small % of the current mil population, but these are real people who woke up today and now have no idea what's going on or if they can continue serving or not. No matter who you are as a leader, that's not a good way to treat your people. So if you're just against transgendered people serving in the military for whatever reason, great, this is moving policy in your preferred direction. But if you're more agnostic to the actually issue and you're just against queep and red tape and consternation around the issue generally, I'm sorry to report that this abrupt, vague change will immediately make things worse rather than better. If you're a Commander and happen to have a transgendered troop working for you, how do you even begin to explain this new "policy" when they knock on your door?

You may need to go back to acronym school brother...

^exactly The bigger the pay delta between AD and the equilavelent civilian job, the harder it is to keep folks. There's certainly a gap between a senior Captian and a civilian RPA gig, but the gap is > 2x bigger if that RPA pilot is a Staff instead. Just look at enlisted TSOs on AD...I don't know how we retain a single one beyond their initial commitment. The pay they can command as a contractor is orders of magnitude higher, and perversely some end up deploying less as a contractor than they did on AD.

It is a pod-mounted gun and it's a requirement for the LAE to demo a gun. The one I've seen is a .50 cal; haven't seen the 20mm personally. I fully agree that if I'm giving up a hardpoint or 2 for small caliber guns on a fast moving fixed wing, I'd much rather not and have more gas/laser-guided rockets/bombs/hellfire/etc. Edit to add: LAE = light attack expirament, the new acrynom du jour rather than OA-X.

So looking at the data for CY 2017A LAF Major compared to 2016 for pilots specifically (since we have a pilot crisis don't ya know!)... Summary 2017: 93.1% selection IPZ, 21.8% APZ 2016: 94.4% selection, 10.6% APZ Details PDE complete and DP = 100% both years PDE complete and P 2017: 76% selection IPZ (182/239), 10% APZ (8/84) PDE complete and P 2016: 83% selection IPZ (199/241), 20% APZ (17/87) BL: Pilots in the rank of Captain were less competitive for promotion to Major this board than last board For all other categories (CSO, ABM, Non-Rated Ops, & Mission Support) across the board all categories were more promotable in 2017 than in 2016 save for a 1-man-less erosion for APZ CSOs. Super Double BL: the AF in as clear of terms as possible is demonstrating to pilots that they are not any more specifically wanted/needed at the rank of Major now during this "crisis" even compared to last year and 2015. Take action appropriately when considering outside opportunities. Edit to add: to not sound too alarmist, the movements were relatively small. 24 pilots passed over who would have been promoted at last year's rate. And 19 of them can possibly be explained away by a 2% higher DP allocation rate, meaning DP is more important than ever in order to be promoted. Factor in the handful of Ducks that were clearly promotable but took themselves out of the running and maybe there ya have it. Interpret the data how you will...my takeaway is that the AF is treating things like business as usual where the rubber meets the road, yet is talking like we're in some kind of pilot retention crisis. It's almost as if management's words don't match their actions...weird.

For accuracy, Texas has the 6th highest property taxes in the country. NJ is indeed #1, but Texas is higher than NY. (Results from light googling.) And honestly I wouldn't look at property tax rates exclusively when figuring out where to live $$ wise...Hawaii has the lowest property tax rate in the country but it's expensive as hell to live there. Then again Hawaii > Wichita Falls for probably 98.69% of people so to each his own...

Fact, 185th SOS, Will Rogers ANGB. Good dudes out there and hiring pilots & CSOs. PM if you might be interested.

Yep ^^ I deployed, returned home, and started terminal 7 working days later with CTO before that, so don't let them tell ya it can't be done . I ended up running both the Wing outprocessing/separation checklist and the deployment outprocessing checklists in parallel which got some funny reactions in the shops around base. Becasue my DOS was well in the future (~75 days of terminal), the deployment was a go and desired terminal start date didn't matter. Not sure what steps are available to you if you're trying not to go on the deployment. That wasn't the case for me, so I just tried to cram everything in as close as possible so I didn't lose leave over the FY changeover.

e3racing sends his thanks from 35,000 feet on the Newark to Atlanta leg!

That's the sad thing, to me decoupling school selection from the O-4 board could be a good development. The problem is that the AF has done a shitty job of explaining any potential change, selling their folks on why the new policy is better, and communicating a timeline for change which they intend to live by. In other words, big surprise... /sarcasm

Is it correct to assume that the ROPMA board that convened from 24-28 Apr 17 would release its results on the same day as the AD boards? Last year's ROPMA board met with very similar dates and released 6 Jul 16. The dates in vPC for SAF and SECDEF approval are still blank so not sure what's going on... BL: anyone heard any specific gouge for that board on the ARC side?

This is brilliant and so very true.

Randolph nav school class 09-02 did it this way. Our flt/cc even told us the final class rankings (and all the numbers behind it) and the drop list earlier in the day before the actual drop night so people knew exactly where they stood, why, and what was likely based on knowing the other studs in the class. Everyone was also still afforded the right to change his/her mind until the moment of deciding on stage. It worked great because folks adjusted their desires appropriate to their class rank somewhat vs getting blindsided, and it was a very good drop anyways. Win-win. I never understood the secrecy and having leadership picking for the stud in the vast majority of cases. The planes are what they are, the studs rank as they do, let freedom take its course on drop night.

Released at 9 on the 11th humm? 9/11? Inside job? Aliens?