nsplayr

Working fine on my iPhone 5s CAO 1025 mountain time. Worked throughout the last few days other than about an hour-long outage on 30 Dec.

Why do you think that?

tac, you're speaking my language man, hell yea. C-27 would be sweet in AFSOC either as a mini gunship, a big U-28, a different flavor of MC or all of the above. Haven't they been talking about this since like 2008?

Is this not already the case where you are? In the 1st and 27th SOW it seems to be.

Haters gon hate. Really...it's not ok to give a dude shit who's talking about getting lipo rather than just working out more and/or learning how to just call it good? I'd gladly give that person shit in person if they were in my squadron. I get that we're a kinder, gentler Air Force and hell, I'm supposed to be the token pansy liberal, but come on, a story like this is absolutely begging for a callsign. Bah humbug, maybe I should just learn to be nicer? Like I said, merry Christmas and hopefully Santa brings the OP some common sense in his stocking this year.

Ok, honest question...are you a chick or something? Jebus, man up and act somewhat like the warriors of days gone by. If you have 17% bf and a great PT score but are still unhappy with yourself either apply a little more elbow grease and discipline or learn how to be happy with yourself. Plastic surgery not related to fixing horrific injuries or birth defects is incredibly dumb. If you want that minor gut gone to impress the ladies or whatever stop eating sugar 6 days a week and invest in a trainer or even a little mild internet research on fitness. Merry Christmas, hopefully Santa brings you some common sense.

Any thoughts on trying to palace chase with only 10 months left before I separate anyways? May have a guard/reserve opportunity in the future however from some of the timelines I've talked to guys about seem pretty long. My guess is that by time big blue processed my application and hypothetically approved I'd be out the door very shortly anyways...

All the stuff on myPers says to reference some kind of matrix, which as was pointed out, is not released yet. Thanks myPers, I'll get right on looking at that non-existent thing to potentially determine the future of my career! How hard could it be: edit to add: who am I kidding, no way 11S or 12S will be eligible...

I stand corrected

The buying power of your retirement dollars absolutely is reduced over time with this deal, no doubt. All I'm arguing is that there is a difference between a cut that takes place immediately and a decrease in projected future increases. The end result may be be the same in the long run i.e. you have less money, but that doesn't mean a policy saying "Bam, now you have less money in next month's check" is the same as what has been passed. Not that either is a good idea...I'm sure we can all think of better ways to raise revenue to offset the partial lifting of sequester cuts even if we may not agree in what that would look like. Feel free to gnash your teeth at the token "liberal fucktard" and etc. but realize more Republicans supported this measure than Democrats and it was not the Democrats demanding an offset to sequester changes.

This bill does absolutely nothing to affect those people. The changes to mil pensions are to decrease projected COLA increases for working age retires i.e. those 62 and younger. At age 62 you go back to getting standard COLA increases each year. Honestly this isn't a "loss" of money in the strictest sense, it's a decrease in projected increases that, for most currently serving are at least several years into the future. Frankly anyone truly banking on and budgeting based on the government's projections of future COLA increases was smoking crack or up a creek already. Yes it's a bad deal for current retirees and those retiring soon but personally I'm not planning my retirement or my life based on projected COLA increases...YMMV. As I pointed out, Fed civilians got screwed WAY more in that anyone with less than 5 years in service effectively takes an immediate 1.4% pay cut on 1 Feb 14. I certainly do plan my monthly budget and taking a pay cut right meow for the exact same retirement benefit is more of a problem to deal with. Standard disclaimer that I don't support either measure, just trying to argue the points accurately.

It's not that the person doesn't know ahead of time if they are a new hire, although it seems like some folks were not grandfathered into what they signed up for and we'll see how it's implemented on the civilian side. Here's how I think most employees would see it: Bill is a GS-13 program manager working for Agency X. His annual salary is $95K. He has worked at Agency X for 5 years and contributes 0.8% of that $95K into FERS every year, or $760 per year. If Bill works for the Feds for the next $25 years, he will have paid in $19,000. For argument's sake no promotions, step increases, etc. for simplicity's sake. Fred is a GS-13 program manager who shares an office with Bill at Agency X. His annual salary is $95K. He was hired on 6 Jan 2014 (hypothetically falling under the new rules if the budget deal passes). He will contribute 4.4% of that $95K into FERS every year, which is $4,180 per year. If Fred stays on with the Feds for 25 years, he will have contributed $104,500 for the exact same FERS annuity that Bill receives. Same assumptions as above. That is real money and OBTW unlike the changes for military retirements, these changes take effect day 1 in each employees paycheck. Bill's before-tax but after-FERS take home is $7,853 per month. Fred's is $7,568. Fred, congrats on your new job and all, I'm sure you're gonna work out great, but you get to do the exact same work as your office mate Bill and you will make $285 less per month every month for the entirety of your career. So as an O-3 who most likely makes IVO what Fred and Bill make, would you want to do the same job you're doing now for $285 less per month? It's not that the sky is falling, but when you want to raise revenues from a small group of people (Feds, military retirees, or even both groups combined), the pain for each individual person is significant. Anyone with half a brain making $95K annually can figure out how to make it work for $285 per month less, just like any mil retiree with half a brain can make it work with less growth in their expected COLA increases. Neither of those changes are good policy or things I support, don't get me wrong. My entire argument in the first place was just to demonstrate to clouseau that the Fed civilians were indeed getting the shaft right along side mil retirees, and I'd argue more so since the cuts are felt immediately and affect every federal civilian regardless of whether they ever end up drawing that FERS annuity at retirement. To the ~83% of military members who will never retire, the cuts being proposed will not affect them whatsoever and even those who plan on retiring, you likely have years to adjust your plans rather than seeing $285 extra dollars taken out of your Feb 1 2014 O-3 paycheck.

You're kidding right? In addition to lengthy pay freezes and furloughs, all of which we've avoided on active duty, federal civilians have already been asked to contribute significantly more to their retirement in recent years and this new budget deal has piled on to that effort. Most current government employees pay 0.8% of their annual salary as the cost of the FERS annuity. Those who were hired after Dec 31, 2012 now contribute 3.1% for the exact same benefit, i.e. congrats new guy, you just took an annual pay cut of 2.3% for the exact same benefit each and every year of your employment. Now, not 1 year later, any employees hired recently (less than 5 years of service) will have to pay an additional 1.3% each and every working year for the exact same retirement. End result: dude hired 5 years ago is contributing 0.8%, dude hired 4.9 years ago is contributing 4.4%. On, say a $95K salary, that's an immediate $3,420 difference per year and those guys are getting the same benefit on the back end. So while military retirees are getting 1% less per year until age 62 (about 24 years at the most if an 18 year old enlistee retired at 20 years of service), recently hired federal civilians are paying 3.6% more every year they work, which on the civilian side is usually at least that long and possibly longer i.e. 30+ working career before reaching the minimum retirement age which is at most age 57. I'm not a fan whatsoever of either the military or federal civilians picking up the slack in the national budget, but the civilians are getting a much worse deal than the military retirees. And the negative effects hit immediately rather than the reductions in benefits being deferred until retirement.

Fixed for accuracy.

This is the MOAA-type attitude that makes me wanna puke.."Never give an inch!!!" Seriously? Equating a 2% contribution for an extremely generous pension to other huge changes is the kind of games most people hate when politicians play. Some things are a big deal and we should fight them, others while not ideal are not worth blowing your load over STS. Something about picking your battles... Changing the age when you can start getting paid from immediately to age 60...big fucking deal. I'm not a fan of that at all unless they radically overhaul the entire military pay/benefits/retirement system. A 2% contribution while you're on AD only paid by officers...not nearly as big. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to take a 2% pay cut more than anyone else, but then again I'm also not advocating for huge cuts in the federal budget. Cancel sequestration without requiring kabuki theater offsets that "raise revenue" without raising taxes or reforming social safety net programs and we can forget about all this nonsense. I for one vote that if AD starts contributing to their retirement you either A) partially vest much earlier than 20 years (i.e. 5 years ish seems right) or B) you get refunded your contributions if you punch before 20. Otherwise, unless you only make officers contribute, it's just basically stealing from mostly junior enlisted (and anyone else who doesn't make it to the full 20) to pay for a retirement benefit that goes to a small fraction of all those who ever served, who are also mostly officers.

College rankings are often in large part based on the quality of their incoming classes, i.e. average SAT scores, rank in their high school classes, etc. It seems like the questions people are asking are about outcomes, i.e. do students excel after going to the Academy and specifically did they succeed because of their experience going there? I'd say the answer to that second questions is hard to say and uniquely so for graduates of military academies since their graduates go on to serve as officers in the military for at least 5 years. So no, they're not likely doing ground-breaking research, founding fortune 500 companies, etc. right out of the academy because they're busy being CGOs. And we've all pretty much agreed that in terms of in-service performance academy grads are not materially better than officers from ROTC or OTS. So really I think you can have it both ways. The academy doesn't have to be a crappy school to say it's not worth having. You can argue that the academy is an excellent academic institution because they are very selective and only admit students with excellent high school academic backgrounds. You can also argue that they are set up well to provide above average instruction based on student to teacher rations. While all that can be true, the best question to ask is, "Is the taxpayer getting the best value for their money by sending a cadet to the USAFA?" I think because academy grads are not going to prestigious grad schools in huge numbers, are not doing ground-breaking research, are not founding innovative companies right off the bat, you have to justify the academies by saying the produce a better military officer, which I think they don't. BL: the academy is an academically excellent school mostly based on the quality of students it attracts, but its cost does not justify its existence since the taxpayer-funded impact of the academy's existence is not a measurably better officer corps.

Agreed...my detachment was very high on the list of institutional disfunction but hey, it only affected 12 people per year so NBD. We did manage to operate without narcs though so we had that going for us!

Ah, reading comprehension fail on my part. Good luck, I'll be asking the same question in 6-9 months so if you hear a real answer definitely post what you get told.

The AFI is literally the first page that comes up when I google "AFI 36-3003." I'd link for ya but am on my phone. Try again if all you need is the AFI.

Good advice being offered here. My additions with some repeats for emphasis: A) Try powered flying and get to the point where you can solo. I'm definitely in the category of liking flying without loving it, however I had a blast flying -172s in a civilian capacity. There are few people who are inclined to try flying that can't be taught how to do it safely enough to take a Cessna up and have a good time. B) If you still don't love being at the controls but enjoy flying enough do wanna do it every day as a profession and you want to be involved in the big picture mission of the Air Force, becoming a CSO is a great way to do it. C) AFSOC is great for getting you "in the fight" so to speak and a great place to be a CSO. However it is pretty hard to escape and you will get ridden hard. There is absolutely no glass ceiling for CSOs in AFSOC; Gen. Fiel, the 3-star AFSOC/CC is an EWO by trade. A possible benefit of going CSO vs pilot is your commitment is noticeably shorter. As someone who's getting out at the end of my initial flying commitment my pilot buddies who are leaning the same way are jealous that I'm punching now and they have 4 years to go. On the other hand, if you even think you might wanna be a pilot, don't pass up the once in a lifetime opportunity to give it a shot from the start. Yea, you can always try to go to UPT later once you're a CSO, but if you can get a pilot slot out of the zoo and you think you might wanna do it, give it a shot. Either way bloom where you're planted and good luck.

Go to the CC or IG. Don't talk about it, do it. Document and substantiate everything.

This. Have seen tons of dudes asking about how to get picked up for the 6th SOS, AIS, Olmstead, white jets, green door, etc. etc. Should we not be having those discussions either? And if it's ok to talk about moving on into those kinds of things, it should also be perfectly ok to talk about getting picked up by the airlines or B-school or Home Depot or whatever else is out there in the civilian world. I agree that people shouldn't be spending an inordinate amount of time doing non-work related stuff while "on the clock" so to speak but to say it's totally inappropriate for people to discuss it at all (with the threat of a no-notice ground eval) is kind of a jack-booted response. Absolutely...not even specifically for liquid but for most senior leaders. Most come off as intelligent and well meaning, I agree with a lot of what they say and are trying to do, but then there's something said that's so far out of left field that I do a double-take and end up wondering WTF. Seen way more of this than plain bad apples, most senior leaders I think suffer from being out of touch more than being ill intentioned or bad at their jobs. I think, as it's been pointed out, that the Chief's message in saying this was to Congress, not to the Airmen. It's an easy story to tell Congress that his pilots are getting "bored" because Congress shit the bed and couldn't come up with a predictable enough flow of money to keep everyone flying at a reasonable rate. Don't think CSAF would, in a message to us, start to think we're bored after a decade plus of war. Amen...I'm still a fan of the military as a career choice and think I could have a good career if I choose to stay, but the grass looks greener on the other side at his point and I can't say I've been exactly incentivized to stay by any of the AF's terrible personnel management decisions. I'm just not buying the idea that I need to participate in a choose your own adventure novel where I'm a character rather than the reader nor do I buy into even an ounce of guilt for punching at the end of my commitment. +1 that I'd take a pay cut to get even an small degree of control over my career path, which ironically is exactly the situation I'm expecting to get as a civilian starting next year. I've got 100 pilots in my squadron Bob, 100. No shit..the whole building is the "pilot shop." Your techniques of trying to contain any pot-stirring talk of airline hiring don't really work under those circumstances. Just a thought to add to what I said above; unless someone crosses the line and isn't doing his or her job they should be free to talk about whatever they want in terms of their future career options. Totally disagree. I brought up, in private, a very specific issue that liquid has the ability to affect and he told me that he'd look into it and try to make things better. Exactly what I'd expect from a good leader and I hope he's able to make a positive difference. Don't knock someone specifically unless you've taken a problem to them personally and they've refused to act or even acknowledge the issue. I get that most of us here are fairly jaded with our leaders' ability to hear the concerns of the common man and act but generalizing about one person who actually had the balls to spend time mixing it up with us here seems like the shoe doesn't fit.

My old DO is working for SW and loving life. Did his training while on terminal leave late last year. Great dude BTW, deserves every minute of it.

This concept of "shoes" or more fully "shoe clerks" gets misconstrued around here a lot. A shoe is not one by virtue of their position, being rated or not, being an officer or enlisted, etc. A shoe is someone who is more concerned with logic-defying compliance with obscure BS, a commitment to poor customer service, and generally a lackluster attitude characterized by "not my problem," whining to their boss when corrected, and not being a team player. I've met some shoe clerk support and medical guys who give me the run around whenever I'm trying to get something done, and I've met plenty of shoe clerk pilots and CSOs who are a huge PITA to deal with in the ops squadron. This isn't just another an ops vs support battle, in fact many leaders who are shoe clerks also happen to be pilots simply because most senior leaders in the AF are pilots. Hope that clarifies what people are talking about when they use that term. As a counter point, have you seen the IG at the 1 SOW? It's an island of misfit toys if I ever saw one. Some are there deservedly after squadron commanders flicked some boogers elsewhere, some are just kinda stuck. But it's not the kind of organization I want to side with vs a squadron, group or wing commander. What I've seen is that some CGO/FGO types have the courage to call BS and some Commanders listen. Others don't and at the lower level go along to get along and at the leadership level they continue implementing policies that are completely asinine. Subordinates have to have the courage to "PID BS" as my sq/cc put it, but leaders also have to have the courage to ask for candid feedback and take it on the chin once in a while when they're leading their troops down the wrong path. The biggest problem I see is that as a CGO you can highlight something to your DO or CC, he may fully agree and advocate for the right policy to his chain, but somewhere between the squadron level and the 3-star, good advice dies a slow and quiet death. I don't think it's malicious, I know good friends on the HQ staff that are working hard to make things work better, but the level of bureaucracy is just astounding even in an "agile, SOF organization" and it insulates senior leaders from the working man in a way that fosters bad decision making. Technology has made it worse since even when we're spread out across the globe senior leaders can demand "micro information" at a moment's notice and expect to be able to control the battlefield Minority Report style rather than giving their intent and allowing front-line leaders to execute to the best of their ability. Maybe that's something that can be solved with more dialogue like you see here. I was disappointed that the AFOSC/CC's online "crossfire" or whatever it's called isn't a two-way street, but more a 1-way street where leadership can ask things and subordinates jump through their ass to answer first. It's a good and encouraging start, but more senior leaders need to take the plunge and elicit specific feedback from the Captain flying the line or the SSgt turning the wrench. Two-way communication I think is way undervalued and we have to do something to break the disconnect that CGO and below-level folks feel from their leaders.

Good info to share, especially since you're living with it, thanks. My view isn't that we should reduce overall benefits since, like you said, it's healthcare (and to a lesser extent pay), not pensions that are hurting the DOD financially. My biggest point is that our current retirement system does absolutely zero for 80% of those who serve; it only ends up benefiting the 20% who stay to the full 20+. While we do need to incentivize career officers and enlisted troops to stay until 20 and beyond, a retirement system with a huge delayed vesting time isn't nearly the best way to do it. Give people targeted bonuses, more choice and input in their career path, and the ability to exit and re-enter service throughout their career and you'll do a much better job keeping the right people. Right now the 20 year military retirement is the best retirement plan in the country, hands down, no debate there. It requires a lot of sacrifice and those who do earn it earn every penny. But what it's not is the best system for the vast majority of those who honorably serve. I'm arguing you can have a system that not only serves career troops better by providing a better QOL throughout rather than just one big carrot at the end and numerous kicks in the balls until then, but one that provides something other than a firm handshake to those who decide to leave before 20. Maybe the fed LEO plan isn't perfect in its particulars, maybe it's not generous enough to keep the talent the military needs, it's just a starting point an an opening argument for a system that's fully fleshed out and is judged as a good deal for those serving honorably in a fed LEO role. Do we need the vesting period to be longer than 5 years? When do you start collecting? How do you prevent perverse incentives to stay until 25 but being useless (i.e. ROAD)? IDK, open for debate. Honestly I'm not even on the bandwagon of wanting to save money by redesigning the mil retirement, I really just want a better program that gives a good benefit to many more veterans rather than an amazing benefit to few. Why can't we even just add TSP matching? Shouldn't we be encouraging young officers and enlisted troops to save for their retirement rather than just promise them Uncle Sam will cut them a check if they stick around long enough? Put the vest period for matching funds at 5 years to capture more time and a second look from your support officers and first term Airmen with relatively short enlistments. Our system isn't fundamentally broken and I don't expect it to change, especially since it would take an act of Congress, but it's worth talking about at least.