Disco_Nav963

Didn't see this posted anywhere else... Aired last night but you can watch online or order the DVD. I've only seen the first 5 minutes but I like what I've seen so far.

There is an article in the AUAB "Weekly" magazine using the same phrase.

I can confirm what BBB said, or at least that I've overheard the CV say that it was as BBB said.

So... Anyone hear that aircrews pulling sandbag duty for CE is back?

In an interesting take on the Honor Code and the Core Values, Carlos Mencia will be performing here this week. This follows last month's Services-sponsored Home Run Derby which was promoted with flyers featuring Barry Bonds.

Test post.

Time is a circle.

Anyone see all the signs at the cadillac nearest the Independence "DFAC" (that's the CC Chow Hall) threatening removal of the stalls if the "tagging" doesn't stop? Or the ones on the inside of the Cadillac doors that warn "To leave you must be wearing PTs with the shirt tucked in or ABUs with the blouse on."

Postponed until Saturday. Stay tuned.

Anyone hear about the Marine O-6 that commissioned a legal revue that found AUAB is in the wrong in denying people food over disco belt wear? Supposedly an e-mail went out to everyone at the CAOC and general officers got involved.

Heaney and Reid are apparently from the same unit/shop. Must be coordinated trolling.

I snagged a pic for my gunship friend Discus last night; I'll put it up later if JS doesn't get to it first.

But... 2.3.10.2 "Because of the reflective nature of the AFPTU, COMUSAFCENT considers the AFPTU uniform as the equivalent of a 'reflective belt' in joint and combined domains." So AFPTU should = reflective belt under AUABI 91-1001. Who is the apellate authority for stuff like this? AFCENT/A1 who issued the contradictory guidance? AFCENT IG? JAG? Update: Here is the e-mail I sent to the DO, the e-mail I drafted to the EFSS/CC, and the response from the DO. --- Maj ----, For your comment before I hit “Send,” here is the text of an e-mail I’ve drafted to Maj Kopecki (the EFSS/CC) in response to an incident that happened last night at the CC Chow Hall. Knowing the ongoing friction between people in the EFSS and people in Ops, transient personnel, etc. I’ve tried to make it as diplomatic as possible. Please advise if you think there is a better way of wording this or simply a better COA altogether. Sorry to bring something so queepy to your attention. Very respectfully, 1Lt ---- ---- Sir, Last night I was kicked out of the Independence DFAC by a MSgt --- who told me you were his supervisor. He initially refused to serve me the T-Bone steak I requested due to my not having a reflective belt with me “during hours of darkness.” He remained obstinate even after I explained to him that the new USAFCENTI 36-2903 superseded the previous local policy (para. 2.3.10.2, “Wear of the reflective belt is not required in the AFPTU. Because of the reflective nature of the AFPTU, COMUSAFCENT considers the AFPTU uniform as the equivalent of a “reflective belt” in joint and combined domains.”*) and showed him the regulation. I then proceeded to serve myself from the salad bar and he physically grabbed my tray and told me to leave. Not wanting to create a scene, I asked him who his supervisor was and left. I was forced to buy my own dinner from Burger King. I’m sure MSgt ---- was well intentioned and simply trying to enforce the policies he was familiar with; I would appreciate it if you would make sure he understands the new reflective belt policy and that the individual in PTs whose tray he decides to grab (raising all kinds of issues) just might be an officer. Very respectfully, <signature block snip> * Also see AFI 33-360, para. 2.3 “Conflicting Publications. When guidance in a publication issued by a field unit conflicts with the guidance issued by a higher-level unit, the higher-level publication takes precedence.” ---------- And response ------------- ---, I understand the frustration....it's a hard line when you don't let our Airmen eat and enforcement muddles the lines of respect. Unfortunately the wing has the authority to make our instruction or supplement more restrictive than the USAFCENT Instruction. So your statement is incorrect in that sense. I/the Shirt are also concerned that they have not properly warned/prepared the AUAB populace of the impending rule enforcement as well as the resultant denial of service. I will talk with the EFSS leadership, convey these concerns and suggest that another form of violation tracking/enforcement be implemented. My thought was to write down names and infractions and make commanders address it with their personnel. Not sure if it will be accepted but will try. If acceptable to you I and the Shirt will take this incident to the EFSS staff in hopes of changing the enforcement process. I'll follow up with you afterwards. R/Maj ---. -------------and my response------------- Sir, I'll let you and the Shirt deal with the EFSS — this is definitely not the issue I want to be known for around camp, and I do appreciate it. Speaking only for myself, I think the wing is mistaken in this case. AFI 33-360 para. 2.9 says verbatim, “Supplementary guidance cannot be less restrictive than the basic publication, but it can be more restrictive. Supplementary guidance must not contradict the basic publication.” (Page 41) The second sentence is as valid as the first and given that the contradictory guidance was issued by an organization HQed here and the lengths to which they emphasize its applicability in “joint and combined domains” (their wording), I think they almost certainly had AUAB in mind. That said, I’m going to shut up and color. Very respectfully, <signature block snip>

Well, Wing Safety wasn't the OPR for the AUAB Supp to 36-2903... Nor do they out-authority AFCENTIs or AFIs... So, meh. Has everyone seen the new "No Reflective Belt, No Service -- By Order Of 379 EFSS/CC" signs on the doors of the CC chow hall?

Okay... Drafted an e-mail to the EFSS/CC and sent it to my DO for pre-screening/top cover. I'll let you know how it goes.

So what's my COA? Do I go to Maj Clerk, outline what happened, and say, "Please straighten your MSgt out" like I'm telling the Major what to do? Or do I outline what happened and pose a question like, "Please clarify—was your MSgt simply mistaken or is it EFSS policy that people have to wear a safety item inside a well-lit building that isn't required outside after dark in order to get served?" Or do I pull the ultimate reverse-REMFing and report the incident to my chain?

Present and accounted for; I'll be adding a copy of the page in AFI 33-360 that references not contradicting the parent pub as soon as I get to a printer tomorrow.

The words MSgt Shoe E. Clerk quoted to me by rote were "My commander's policy does not allow me to serve you if you don't have your reflective belt during hours of darkness." Clearly this policy exists to enforce the now-overturned one about having to wear the damn belt, but theoretically I can't think of a reason the EFSS/CC couldn't say, "You have to be in DFDUs/ABUs to get served at the chow hall, no PTs period." In other words, the one policy going away doesn't mean the chow hall can't continue to discriminate by belt. Why they'd want to, you've got me (seemed like a well lit place). The MSgt reminded me of the CAP cadet someone mentioned who was directing parking at an air show and kept saying "My commander says I can't let you park there!" over and over until he was red in the face. After he refused to serve me their version of T-Bone steak I said, "Fine, I'll serve myself," and grabbed a styrofoam plate which I started piling salad and baked potatoes onto. He then comes over to me and says, "Sir, I'm going to have to ask you to leave." I say something like, "Well, you're going to have to kick me out then" and keep piling stuff on the plate. (I was a little pissed.) He physically grabbed the tray, at which point I asked him who his supervisor was and left. Since I smarted off to MSgt Clerk and questioned his authority to enforce said policy, I don't know how innocent I come off. If I had done the MLK/Gandhi thing and went VFR direct to "Who's your supervisor" and leaving without making him grab my plate first I'd feel better about raising the issue /w Major Clerk. How about I get the Comptroller SQ involved by claiming a missed meal on my split disbursement at the end of the month? Since they won't process the Family Sep Allowance I'm entitled to, I don't see that going anywhere either. ("You'll have to send that to your home station." "They're just going to re-send it to Ellsworth, why can't you do that for me?" "I'm sorry, you'll have to send it to your home station and they'll send it to Ellsworth.") Finance Guy?

Well, on one hand I just got kicked out of the Indy DFAC for lack of disco belt. On the other hand I'm sitting at the Coffee Beanery where my Sq First Shirt is sitting with no belt in sight. Question: Do I report the chow hall incident to the MSgt's commander (a Major) knowing I'm a 1Lt and not only will I not carry the day, it will probably wind up getting passed in a distorted version to the OG/CC who has high vis on my job? I'm inclined to go with "No" --> I think the senior Captains and Majors need to fight those battles. I have no problem putting overzealous NCOs in their place -- if for no other reason than CGOs and Lt's in particular need to sack up and do it -- but why make this the issue I'm known for around town?

Going out sans belt to "press to test" the new AFCENTI. Wish me luck. On a side note, I get frustrated to no end with people that maintain "you can be more restrictive but not less restrictive than the parent pub" means you can contradict it as long as it creates more ass pain and not less. (Ask a JAG to buy that logic.) You can speak where the parent pub is silent — you can't talk over it — or where it overtly gives you leeway. For instance, para. 3.3.10.4 says Commanders will determine "Additional requirements to incorporate joint and coalition policies" but this doesn't mean the installation pub can contradict 2.3.10.2 which says "the AFPTU uniform [is] the equivalent of a 'reflective belt' in joint and combined domains." (Emphasis mine.)

Damn, I'm here right now... Don't have to play in this little simulation though. Don't know about the other airframes here.