Jughead

There might actually be a good reason for this. Many (most?) police cars are 28V electrical systems, incompatible with your 14V car. Now, I don't know the specifics of Laughlin's SF motor pool, but this has been the case for other police (AF & civilian) units I've been familiar with.

In general, yes, of course. In the vast majority of cases, the claim is settled w/in a week or so and the issue doesn't even arise. It's the potential for it to do so which remains, and I'd say that potential is real. If I'm approaching the 9-month point of a $200 bill that everyone (incl the gov't) agrees is a legit claim but the system is still bolloxed up, and I recently deployed (or have some other priority issue to deal with), that could easily slip to the back burner. So long as the member is proactively trying to get the claim paid, I don't think he should be liable. Now that I didn't know. That, too, would fall in the "be proactive" side of the equation. I think you & I are mostly on the same page here....

No argument on the process, how it works, etc.--good info, I hadn't seen that before. On the "deserve," though, I disagree. We're not talking about (I don't believe the previous posters were talking about) someone just blowing off a credit card bill. The issue is that I'm *required* to use my GTC for certain expenses when TDY. The expenses for which GTC use is mandated are reimbursible. So, I am *ordered* to travel, *ordered* to use my GTC for certain expenses incurred thereby, and *ordered* to file my claim within X duty days (5?) of my return. So far, no problem. However, sometimes the system breaks down--for whatever reason, my claim doesn't get paid in a timely fashion. The fact that this debt that I am *ordered* to incur on official gov't business can negatively impact my *personal* credit rating is a huge foul. I could be doing everything within my power to get a legitimate claim paid, but if it doesn't happen (for whatever reason), I am forced to choose between paying a government debt with personal funds or taking a ding on my credit rating. Since they changed the GTC to include credit reporting (ca 1999, if memory serves?), I've toyed with the idea off and on of refusing to sign the card agreement on exactly that basis. I think that would ultimately be a winnable fight, but doing so would burn a lot of bridges (and I haven't been anywhere where I could deal w/ the headache)....

Good point, thanks--as you say, I wasn't looking any further than the example presented, didn't want to mislead Karl Hungus (or anyone else).... Good info on the taxable status, never knew that! Thanks....

CONUS COLA is based on your duty station. Period. Your state of legal residence doesn't enter into the equation, nor is it impacted based on receipt/non-receipt of COLA (or any other allowance), nor is there any stipulation about living in the same state as your duty station. EDIT: Since we're talking about CONUS COLA, here's one: it's the only allowance (that I know of) that's taxable. Not really an allowance, then, is it? It's really a pay?

I think we're talking about the same place--upstairs, to the front/far right (if you were curbside facing the building). It's NOT a USO lounge, it's run by some local non-profit vets group (and undoubtedly has support from the local VFW, American Legion, etc.). Upshot is that they have much nicer stuff than any USO airport lounge I've ever seen, free food/drinks, even a bunch of bunks & showers in the back for a really long layover. All of it gratis (they won't even accept donations--I tried). As you say, going through security (again) is a hassle--but, well worth it if you'll be there much more than an hour....

"Because they can." It's a way to bleed more money out of the paying customer. It's the flip side to the coin of "buy a round-trip, only use the first half" part of the game, but the airline controls this one. One way to beat it, if you're willing to gamble: "miss" your connection at MSP [easier to be convincing if it's a fairly tight connection or if customs is busy], then plead your case w/ the ticket agent at the airport, say you need to get going right away, you have family locally who can loan you a car, but that you'll need to return the car before your return trip, so pretty-please can they change your return ticket from MSP...? May not hurt to work in that your time is short due to your limited military leave.... This will probably work if missing your flight is at ALL plausible *and* if there's not another flight on that airline leaving within the next couple of hours; otherwise, probably not. BTW, if you need to kill time at MSP, there's a great non-USO military lounge there at the main terminal.... Good luck!

"Bachelors+" = "I don't have a Masters"; I don't know how heavily that's weighted on the O-4 board these days, but to the extent it's used as a discriminator, you're leaving yourself behind. [My opinion.] Webster's MBA program can be done in under a year, particularly if you already have some classes under your belt (and, Webster will take just about anything toward elective credit). [My experience.] Finishing the *degree* isn't truly the important date, it's *how quickly can you get it into your records*. Your Officer Selection Brief (correct term?) is pulled the day prior to the board meeting, so if it's in your record by then, the board will see it. How quickly you can get it into your records depends on both your school (most are reasonably fast, but they may have their own built-in delays for "review," etc., before the degree is actually awarded) and AFIT (who owns the process for recording academic degrees; they're usually pretty quick, since it's just data entry at that point). [My experience & my understanding of the process.] Advice? If getting promoted is your goal, play the game. We can argue the sensibility of the rules all day, but the rules clearly are that "officers must get a masters degree to advance." Get your degree done before the board--even if it's a "check the square" degree--then get the degree you really want at your leisure. It will never hurt you to have an "extra" degree, but not having the first one can/will hurt you on promotion boards.

Disagreed. As I quoted, "All Air Force personnel in uniform are required to salute when they encounter any person or situation entitled to the salute" (para 8.1.1), and "Salute When: When recognized by the junior member" (para 8.1.3). The sources you cite are undoubtedly good ones, but they are not official guidance--putting them squarely in the "good advice"/"rule of thumb" category. [This is exactly rotorhead's point, IIUC.] Personally, I don't understand why this is difficult...??? Everything we've discussed so far falls squarely within everything I've been taught and have seen since Day 1, all the way back to my ROTC days. I can't recall having seen this reg since that time, but nothing in it caught me by surprise.... I saw a reference in one of your linked sources to AFMAN 36-2203, so, what the hell, I took a look at that as well. Nothing in there to change anything that's been said here. Most applicable passage is para 3.6.1, in relevant part: "To prescribe an exact distance for all circumstances is not practical, but good judgment indicates when salutes should be exchanged."

What do you suppose the odds are that that exact situation is covered in the "salute" reg that has already been cited twice in this thread alone? https://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/medi.../AFI34-1201.pdf

Short answer is NO. Longer answer is that the salute IS the greeting--not the "nod and wave." You may be thinking of the verbal part of the greeting, wherein you obviously need to be within audible greeting distance. Relevant AFI passages below. Bottom line, the junior greets the senior by way of salute. Your "across the parking lot" example is perfect--if you're across the parking lot & not interacting, then no, the salute doesn't make sense. However, if you've recognized each other (and you clearly have, both in your example and in Mutt's), the junior is obligated to salute the senior. Your "6 paces" is a reasonable rule of thumb for when to initiate when approaching a senior officer, but it can't cover all situations. AFI 34-1201, "Protocol," 4 Oct 06 (already cited earlier in this thread, if you look back), in relevant part: 8.1. Hand Salutes. 8.1.1. The hand salute is the form of greeting and recognition exchanged between persons in the armed services. All Air Force personnel in uniform are required to salute when they encounter any person or situation entitled to the salute. 8.1.1.1. When the salute is rendered to another person, the junior member initiates the salute accompanied with an appropriate verbal greeting, e.g., Good Morning, Sir/Ma’am.” Salute and extend the verbal greeting at a distance at which recognition is easy and audible. Offer your salute early enough to allow the senior time to return it and extend a verbal greeting before you pass. All salutes received when in uniform shall be returned; at other times, salutes received shall be appropriately acknowledged. 8.1.3. A member not in formation but in uniform, salutes as follows: NOTE: Rendering/returning salutes is not required if either or both are in civilian attire or have their hands full; however, a greeting such as good morning sir/ma’am” is appropriate. Who United States Air Force Officers Senior in Rank Where Outdoors Salute When When recognized by the junior member

Umm... so, you were passing an O-6 in such a manner that both of you were able to establish eye-contact, and you chose not to salute? While I can't agree w/ the approach the colonel took in correcting you, you WERE wrong....

I refer to "contract quarters" in the sense that the rooms (typically a whole hotel) are rented/reserved by base Lodging (via Contracting). In such cases, you often won't even be paying the bill yourself (your lodging cost for that location is 0), rather it's paid for via the USAF contract. In either case, the hotel effectively "becomes" Billeting (just like your rental car is a GOV). In that sense, quarters ARE available--they just happen to be off-base. In the cases where I've been in contract quarters (of the sort I describe here), YES, it is a different form, and it's an "assignment of quarters" rather a "quarters not available" form. If there's another flavor of "contract quarters" out there wherein you get issued a non-A slip, that may be a finer point I'm unaware of. I suspect the language on any form you're given when you don't get a room on base should make it clear whether you're being *assigned* a lodging location, versus *denied* base lodging (even if there's a downtown location written on the form). I've had several non-A's over the years where they "helpfully" made reservations at one of the hotels they work w/ downtown. Those are only suggestions and may save some effort/time on your part. Of course, the closest hotel may be a fleabag in which you have no intention of staying. Sometimes I've used the one they've made, others I haven't--and I've never had a problem w/ off base lodging that's at or below the local lodging rate, so long as I have the non-A form (regardless of whether the hotel on the form matches the hotel on my receipt). Someone shake Finance Guy's cage--this is far more up his alley than mine....

I've been told B-52s do NOT have TCAS (or anything else resembling modern avionics).... DISCLAIMER: I'm not a BUFF guy, I just work with a lot of them....

Since when has that been an impediment to our acquisition process...?

Overgeneralizing to include all "flight hours" in the same group (vice considering "pilot hours") is why your analogy doesn't work. How about "... as military vehicle qualification is to civilian vehicle qualification"--cool, so a Navy sub driver can get a 747 type rating! Fail #1. Why? The Air Force has a term for the person who does that: "pilot." Fail #2. Getting snotty for no particular reason...? Fail #3.

You can't see why there's a difference between military jumping counting toward civilian jumping qual, vs military navigating counting toward civilian piloting qual? Really?

Negative. I'm AF, not Navy. As you quoted from my post, I said "very broad terms" (and emphasized the "very"). I salute in the circumstances you cite as well, without a hat on (and, as for the gate example, one always returns a salute, IMHO). As for indoors, one certainly does wear cover sometimes, such as in a formation or in a "designated outdoor ceremony".... I can't possibly list all the exceptions (hell, I surely don't know all of the exceptions!), and made no attempt to do so.

Kayla: That's the short answer. In very broad terms, you only salute when wearing cover (hat); in equally broad terms, you only wear cover when not otherwise covered (indoors, or, in this case, under a roof). All kinds of exceptions, and all kinds of interpretations and local rules come into play (say, perhaps your location has the whole park as a "no hat, no salute" area; or on the other hand, perhaps there's a local rule that says the park pavillions are not cover for purposes of hat wearing).... Were the folks in question (a) in uniform and (b) not wearing hats? They should stand at attention, but not salute. BTW--that's pretty cool that the 2yos were showing respect to the nat'l anthem. I know any number of adults who could learn from them.... EDIT: Actually, Nova answered this question in post #3 of this thread--in other words, the folks in question are "indoors" for purposes of this discussion.

I hope you'll post the follow-up to this; I'd like to hear how this plays out.... 2!!!

Didn't yours...?

Negative. Not the same subject (though closely related, true). I'm specifically asking under what circumstances the warning on my LES about exceeding the election "exceeding the net amount due" kicks in. Anything substantially less than 100% on all categories will obviously render this moot--and, the last time I was in a CZTE, the limit on base pay was 10%. This is new to me. I get that. The possibility I'm concerned with is if FITW, FICA, SGLI, other allotments (say, USSDP contributions) must be paid from taxable income--goes back to what I said about not being sure what "net amount due" means. I "think" that, so long as those other decutions add up to less than the amount that can't go into the TSP in any case (BAH & BAS), I'm safe--i.e., what you just said about "net pay," a familiar term. Your answer & Toro's both seem to support that--thank you. FTR, you appear to have taken personal offense to our disagreement ref the TSP & CZTE in the other thread (I hadn't read this one at the time). Please don't. While I did (and do) disagree with your point [pretty thoroughly beat to death over there], I did not intend to offend or insult--and, if I did so, I apologize.

Waldo, I've used it in the past. Doesn't quite work the way you've described. As FG said earlier in the thread, your deposits are "disposable income"--in other words, comes from your pay. If memory serves [it's been a long time], it's "unallotted base pay" that defines the limit. You can "write a check," but only for up to that amount. That comes into play in your first month of depositing--once day 30 hits, your monthly limit applies for the current calendar month. So, if you've already received your MM pay (i.e., you arrived in theater in the second half of the previous month, so 30 days later you're in the second half of the current month), you need to supply the funds (up to the limit) from another source. After that, paying into the USSDP via allotment is easiest. The "access" question is an "it depends" situation--you can't get the money out (except interest that puts the balance above $10K) until *after* you redeploy. If that works for your timing, great, but that's no different from getting a CD that matures in the timeframe you need. I agree, though--where else are you gonna got 10% these days?? The account will keep earning interest (@ 10%) up to three months after you leave the CZTE. No money comes out until you ask for it--in other words, it will sit there, dormant, until you withdraw it. Second disclaimer: this is from memory, it's been a while. FG can probably fill in any gaps.

THREAD REVIVAL Sorry if this has been answered elsewhere, but this thread is the closest my search found. I'm headed off to the desert in a few months. It's my intention to max out the TSP (or come as close as possible). It's been so long since I deployed that there were still limits on percent of base pay that could be contributed. Nowadays, making all categories 100% would seem to be the way to achieve the max.... HOWEVER, I see the following statement on all my LES's: "IF TSP ELECTION AMT EXCEEDS NET AMT DUE, TSP WILL NOT BE DEDUCTED." I'm not really sure what that means. I *think* what it's telling me is that if the TSP contribution (calculated based on the percentages I set) would result in a negative number after all my other deductions, then the whole contribution is cancelled. Yes/no? If that's true, my thinking is that so long as my non-TSP eligible pay (BAH, BAS) exceeds all my deductions (FITW, FICA, SGLI, any allotments I may have), that I don't need to worry about this. Yes/no? If not, then I want to get my arms around how it works, so I don't end up missing a month or more opportunity to contribute.... Thanks!

CZTE in Nov/Dec has no impact on your taxable income earned in June for purposes of TSP contributions. In any case, you can't deposit the whole bonus--currently you're limited to $16,500 tax-deferred TSP contribution annually & $7,368.30 tax-exempt (whether deposited into TSP or not) in any single month. These are 2009 numbers, and I'm assuming you're an officer & under age 50 by nature of your question. Add those up, and $23,868.30 is the max you can contribute in any one month. No, not possible (same answer as above). Yes, you have to be in the CZTE zone during the month you get the bonus for it to have any impact on your tax exempt amount (whether or not you put it in the TSP). If your taxable income already exceeds the CZTE limit (typically, O-4 w/ 12 years on flight pay, if memory serves), then being in a CZTE zone during your bonus month won't affect your taxes at all (i.e., the entire bonus will be taxable, just as if you were at home). None of these work, either, for much the same reasons. The $49K annual limit doesn't give you license to deposit income you don't have into the TSP. What that means is, your $16,500 deferred contribution limit applies whether or not you're in the CZTE. Let's say you max that out before you get to the desert. You've got $32,500 "left" before you hit that limit--but, the only flavor of money you get as a military member that you can put in the TSP but not count against the $16.5K limit is tax-exempt pay. The $7,368.30 monthly limit kicks in, so you can only add toward that $32.5K month-by-month at $7.3K each--in other words, you have to be in a CZTE zone at least 5 months to reach the $49K limit, AND that assumes that you've maxed out your deferred contribution limit of $16.5. My approach is to make sure my "normal" monthly contributions are set to ensure I'll reach the annual limit ($16,500 this year) whether or not I'll be in the desert. If I find myself going to the desert, I bump everything to the max and live off of savings as you suggest (I don't need much--as a single guy, my expenses drop to virtually nothing when I deploy). This runs the risk of "missing" the first month's max TSP contribution, since you have to make the change in the month prior (not sure exactly when the cut-off date is) for the contribution to change. But, if you have a predictable deployment schedule, this will work. BTW, if you're looking to max your desert $$$, make sure to max out the USSDP, too--up to $10K at 10%, where ya gonna beat that these days??