Disco_Nav963

I think the quote from General Dunlap in that AF Crimes article has the most bearing on the actions taken by Gen Franklin: "If you come to the conclusion the person is innocent, then it would be unconscionable not to try to restore an innocent man to where he was before the accusation was made." I wish all of our commanders had the courage of their convictions on that. The adultery issue is a separate thing, and I wasn't going to bring this up until you did, but I read the report of the 12 AF/CC-directed investigation of the "love child" that has now been posted to the AF FOIA Reading Room site. The report makes it clear that at the time of the "affair," the Wilkersons were not living together, were having marital problems, and were "physically" but not "legally" separated. As I understand it, "legally" is what counts as far as the UCMJ—but the report glosses over what exactly was meant by "physically." The statement Wilkerson gave to the investigator is not included, so from what is in the report it is impossible to tell if they were physically separated in anticipation of considering a legal separation in anticipation of a possible divorce, or if Mrs. Wilkerson had just gone to visit her parents for a month. And of course the third essential element of adultery under the UCMJ is whether it was "to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces." The author of the report, who is not identified, makes a post facto argument that the negative publicity resulting from the disclosure of the "affair" 8 or 9 years later constituted "discredit upon the armed forces," but ultimately relies on the fact that Wilkerson hooked up with the baby momma during a 4 ship RON to HIll that was scheduled after he met the woman—implying that Wilkerson wrongfully used government resources to advance the "affair," which would be "to the prejudice of good order and discipline." But the report's author never really proves that. IMO from the facts in the report, the author could have very easily found no wrongdoing, but perhaps felt compelled to nail Wilkerson on something due to the media focus. I'm just speculating, but I would hope Wilkerson told all of that to his lawyer, Frank Spinner, at some point, and had a pretty good idea that he was in the clear on that at least legally—and that formed the basis of what he told General Franklin's people. Which was really all he could do if he wanted to get his security clearance back. Anyway, none of that is anything I ever wanted to know about a guy who might have been my commander or IG had I taken some different paths in life... But it is all only tangentially related to the issue of whether Franklin was right to overturn the verdict. And at the end of the day, I still think with 99% certainty that the prosecution failed to meet their burden of proof, and with about 90% certainty that Wilkerson was truly innocent of the charge. Fathering a love child doesn't make you a rapist. If you think it makes it more likely he was simply a cad who was perhaps trying to hook up with the nut job from the Med Group, and got caught, again, it doesn't make him a rapist (and both the prosecution and the defense agreed that the accuser was not so intoxicated as to be incapable of consent). But there are enough problems with the accuser's story that I don't even believe that. From reading through the documents, I think the only real heroes in this case are Franklin, Breedlove for supporting Franklin, and the Captain ADC who was courageous enough in the appeal documents to call out the O-6 prosecutor for misconduct. Everybody else made fools of themselves, one way or the other (and certain members of Congress and the media are continuing to do so)... But in the American system we aren't supposed to scapegoat people because we're afraid of negative publicity. (See: Duke lacrosse case)

Congressman kicked a little ass at the hearing today--called out Ted Cruz for some of his overly simplistic remarks. I'm a Texan, was something of a Republican activist in college, and have always been skeptical of Cruz's "bull in a China shop" approach. It was nice to see a junior House member unafraid to challenge the so-called "rising star" in the Senate.

1990-91: Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm 1996: Operation Desert Strike 1998: Operation Desert Fox 1999: Operation Noble Anvil 2001-06: Operation Enduring Freedom 2003-06: Operation Iraqi Freedom After late 2007... Got a little busy cleaning up some messes at home. From a fiscal standpoint (cost of tanker bridge from FJDG compared to BONEs operating from closer in theater, plus carrying fewer 1760 weapons at present) and a training standpoint (we integrated the ATP in the ops squadrons later and we don't maintain CMR in our MR10C mission, Armed Overwatch; not to mention, the nuke inspections are pretty important) I can't argue the division of labor (BONES in AFCENT/BUFFs in PACAF) that emerged after 2006. The day will come when someone needs bombers in an established theater for more than a day or two, and we'll get a call (and by my count, we've gotten teased on that call three times since 2009). Until then I'm going to keep preparing myself and not b*tch... too much. Sorry for the thread derail.

Former AWACker thread derail... That's two wing kings in a row that Tinker has sent on to bigger and better things at Offutt. I feel used. (Kind of like how we get B-2 guys in senior leadership in BUFF units to season them before they go back to the 509th.)

Touche.

Stories like this always provide great occasion for the news media to reflect on important defense issues... Like what the locals think about the Powder River training complex. And another dude: Having to remember to "see and avoid" when flying VFR in a MOA for aircraft that were built to penetrate low and fast (STS) and have been there for over two decades... Must be awful.

The two jets I've flown: B-52Hs have 3 CSOs... An EWO who defends the jet, a navigator who navigates, and a radar navigator who manages and delivers the weapons. Prior to ~2008/9, navigators would return to the schoolhouse for radar nav upgrade after (if I recall correctly) at least 400 hours. Since then, new navigators have graduated the schoolhouse qualified in both the nav and RN crew positions, but until you are signed off as "Experienced" (600 hours/90 sorties/complete a local workbook) you can only carry/employ weapons when supervised by an instructor or someone who is "Experienced." (In other words, what used to be a formal course has been replaced by a local upgrade with a lengthy radar nav "internship"... There are advantages and disadvantages to both ways of doing things--to my mind, more disadvantages to the new way--but it saves TDY funds so I doubt it will change soon.) E-3B/C/Gs have 1 CSO... A navigator who navigates. There is a glass cockpit upgrade called "DRAGON" coming (that's for Diminishing Manufacturing Sources Replacement of Avionics for Global Operations and Navigation) that will get rid of the nav on the jets that receive the upgrade. Problem is, the upgrade is so far behind that the Air Force may be retiring E-3s before all of them are upgraded. The upshot of this is that if you drop E-3s, you have a good chance of not losing your seat for at least the dozen years or so until you go to staff (at that point your career could continue like the KC-135 navs I've met that hit school/staff just before the Pacer CRAG upgrade came online), plus E-3 navs regularly crossflow to the E-8 Joint STARS and RC-135, and less regularly to AFSOC (gunship FCOs and U-28 CSOs), HC-130s, and EC-130Hs. Additionally, a small number of CSOs have performed the role of Electronic Combat Officer (ECO, usually an ABM position) on the jet over the years, and that could become a regular thing if the ACC nav mafia (is there one anymore?) throws their weight around.

I didn't attend ACSC between 1982 and 2069 or whatever the website says, but I'm tempted to write them and say I did just to see what their angle is.

At least in my corner of the bomber world they are getting initial qual'ed as A/Cs and a fast track to instructor. No one goes to staff after their first ops tour (unless it lasts 8-10 years)—I think you seem to be asking whether they are hot for ALFA tours, and the answer is no as they are already ALFA complete. I know of two guys that are voluntarily leaving for Beale to be permanent party MC-12 dudes, and I know of one dude that got voluntold to do an MC-12 deployment between the BUFF FTU and MQT, but I haven't seen anyone's FAIP status keep them from getting what they want. I know of at least one WIC grad who was a FAIP and I know for a fact my Wing supports grade/TAFCSD waivers for WIC for dudes that got behind their timeline FAIPing or ALOing.

I call bullshit. In my prior life as a 12R, I saw multiple panel navs crossflow to ACs, MCs, and U-28s. As a 12B, both of the other crossflow dudes I knew (one RC-135 EWO and 1 KC-135/slick C-130 nav) were Randolph grads. My initial qual class had a mix of Randolph studs and Pensacola "strike nav" studs—the very best and very worst brand new dudes were both PCola grads and the Randolph and PCola dudes were interspersed evenly in between. The most awkward, low-SA dude I've seen in my community was also a PCola "strike nav" guy. The true CSOs I've seen are a mixed bag. The only noticeable skill gaps I've seen is that some of them don't know how to use a Whiz Wheel. None of them stand out as an improvement over the Randolph product. Perhaps if we were trying to dual qual Navs and EWs the differences would shine through--maybe not. I would be very surprised if AFPC, where the functionals that happen to be "CSOs" are all grads of the tracked programs, were looking at CSOs and Randolph/PCola "strike nav" grads as truly different breeds for assignment purposes versus doing what they've always done, which is react to the latest manning trends with no long term planning. If manning in community A is low and in community B it is high, members of community B might get a chance to crossflow to community A. If manning in community C is low, they are probably not going to get a shot to crossflow to community A. It's that simple.

Motive-wise... Don't believe this was ever suggested by any of the material in the clemency package, but suppose she was pissed that the MDG female captain was bedding Col Ostovich that night instead of her (as the testimony indicated): perhaps she wanted to dime Ostovich out for a UPR but didn't want to endanger the renewal of her contract by bringing attention to the fact that she had been kicked out of the IG's house for being drunk and erratic—so she reports a made up story about being groped to immunize herself, knowing it will bring all kinds of attention to the rated officers' activities (including Ostovich). Only thing that makes me uncertain is that she initially filed a restricted report. I never thought she needed a motive per-se... Being a 49 year old civilian divorcee female MDG employee at an overseas base makes one a prime suspect to be batshit crazy IMO. All I know is that two of her friends from that night thought she was lying, she lied about being asleep from 0030 to 0400, she said the perp was a SNCO without a moustache, and claimed to have been digitally penetrated while her belt was on and her pants were buttoned and zipped.

Sounds like you two know each other.

Is there actually an AD crossflow plan being worked for the masses of H-model navs or is this speculation?

The AF FOIA office has posted much of the evidential record online. Many of the letters in the clemency package are very moving, and one I thought were particularly noteworthy were written by the Aviano ADC, a Capt Jeffrey Martin, essentially accusing the lead prosecutor of misconduct—not an insignificant thing, considering that the lead prosecutor is an O-6 and the HAF's lead litigator (he detailed himself to the case). Martin also wrote a follow-up letter a couple of months ago, despite having separated from the service. That's my kind of lawyer... And having read through much of this material and watched the video of Lt Col Wilkerson's initial OSI video, I plan on never talking to OSI without a good lawyer! This whole thing reeks of the Duke Lacrosse case.

They're not just bulletproof anymore.

General Franklin's explanation of his decision to overturn the verdict has been posted online. I hope my bosses have this much integrity. Edit: Dude's name.

Story here. To me this reads like politicians trying to intimidate the appellate process... I remember reading about this case in the Stars and Stripes when the trial was happening and thinking the evidence sounded weak. I have a hard time imagining in the current environment that the NAF would overturn the conviction without good reason.

No joke. I know a late-rated captain that voluntarily got a second Masters degree because he thought it would help make up for his not being an instructor by the time his board met.

Concur... I heard a 49 TES roadshow the other day (and the same info elsewhere) to the effect that the Strat Radar Replacement program is dead... But SNIPER, 1760 in the bay (which is apparently funded alongside our GBU-54 and JASSM-ER integration), anti-skid system replacement, and two more OAS software updates are coming, with a full rate production decision on CONECT coming later this year. Likewise, I think their being the initial platform for JASSM-ER is a strong sign the BONE isn't going away any time soon either. FWIW.

Absolutely true. According to a Flight Engineer I knew who had been around for a while, OSI busted the prostitution ring after the AAFES shopette reported an unusually high number of female enlisted aircrew cashing an unusually high number of personal checks.

I think I saw on the ACC PA facebook page that the band uniform worn here is only for general officers. Thank God.

For that matter you might look into whether the B-2 board considers MAF guys (they hire dudes from ACC heavies... so why not?) and if AMC is releasing guys to compete.

By a Texas Tech grad. Excellent.

Color me skeptical. If it's illegal under the JFTR, it's illegal now — not only July 1st and after. Seems way too convenient that all of a sudden they find this provision of the JFTR that we save money by suddenly being uber-compliant with, when the system has proved time and time again equally willing to screw us in contravention of the same document (or that could just be me inferring that after seeing so many errors to the governments benefit, they probably aren't errors but rather a strategy of screwing those without the patience or JFTR lawyering skills to fight for what they're entitled to).

That's My Boy. Go see it. It's like the 1990s Adam Sandler came back.