ViperMan

By who? The staff? That should be fun for me...

Confirm what we're talking about is doing T-6s, and then prof advancing to F-16s? No T-38s whatsoever?

The "reason" you get "retirement" benefits is precisely so they CAN place you back on active duty.

I would send one more (polite) message, and then take the assignment if I was you. 6 months of active duty can effectively be reduced to 3 months if you have 90 days of leave. Yeah, this. Dig into AFI 36-2110. There is some verbiage in there that explains when you can and cannot 7-day-opt an assignment. The basic rule is if any extra training (AFT in your case), PCS, or whatever would result in an ADSC that takes you beyond another (different) ADSC, you can decline that "thing" and then establish a DOS. The fact that it happens to be 3+ years in the future is immaterial. That said, in your case, 3+ years is a long time to "hang it out there". I'd be very wary of doing that if I was in a place that could then summarily give me screw job after screw job. You basically have to ask yourself if the cost of that is > than the cost of 6 more months in an assignment that you want.

7-day-opt. There's your solution.

Kill the nerd!!

Fixed wing opportunities > Helicopter opportunities RPA opportunities > Helicopter opportunities It simply boils down to economics/available choices. It's not at all complicated. Right now we're watching people bail who are being paid $100K+ to do a job (RPA): you can observe that fact. It's happening right now. Nor will "moral" fix it. The suggestion that paying someone ~$60K to do that same job because of "moral" ignores another fact that you can also observe right now: fighter pilots are bailing faster than they can be replaced. "Moral" will only keep you around so long. What I feel like people should be discussing, is why the AF insists upon placing a job that can literally be accomplished anywhere, in some of the worst real-estate the AF has. Want to keep people around? Let them live in Hawaii, Guam, Japan, England, Florida, California, Colorado - don't shovel them off to Creech, Holloman, Shaw, etc.

This solves nothing - as a "solution" it will only exacerbate the problem. For the reason identified below: Shack.

Yep. In my case, when I witnessed the forced separation of 160-some majors back in 2011 (ish) followed almost immediately by the activation of TERA authority, for a nearly identical group of people, I realized just how important the AF viewed its people, and also how arbitrary and fickle continued service could be. "Hmm. I just got the boot, but the other 15-yr major across the street gets to retire? Exsqueeze me? Baking powder?" AF leadership needs to realize that their decisions enacted through AFPC and other entities are watched very closely and create a certain lasting "tenor" within the force that have effects on retention for many years in the future. This latest decision may be in a similar vein.

Which of the four who doesn't know jack $hit about the F-16 wrote the article on the Thunderbird mishap?

That guy went to Harvard? Seriously? With some of the arguments I've seen from him, that's pretty surprising.

Good. But only because it's necessary to take away the AF's shiny toy in order to impose a refocusing on its core functions.

I agree in principle, and also would want to walk in informed. I just think it begs the question "why"? i.e. Why do you need to speak to guys flying the line to "get the ground truth", but put certain "truths" off limits? The only thing I can think of is it was just an information gathering session to support pre-conceived conclusions for a (unknown to us) course of action that has already been mapped out. Kind of like my technique for completing ACSC papers - which we all know are bull shit: here's what I think, now I just need to find a couple of quotes that will support that...and, box checked, on to what I really care about. Makes me think these pilots were used.

So I guess they must have talked with the congressional staffers beforehand?

I can think of no better way to get to valid lessons learned than to skip the shot val, quarter back a root cause, and then chalk it up to a couple of execution errors. Sounds like a winning formula. Too bad it sounds like the Senator wasted some valuable time with those flying the line by putting up the lane bumpers before hand. I just wonder who it was who "briefed" them as to what the man was open and/or not open to hearing. Was it congressional staffers or AF people? Fvck it. Dark visor down. Banzai. ETA: I'm convinced the strategy is to buckle down, attempt to weather the storm, avoid setting a (high) bonus precedent, and hope for the best.

Well I guess I just disagree. No one is forcing their hand to sign a NEW agreement, and in my reading/interpretation of the previous (FY16) ARP, it seems pretty clear to me that the USAF would let this group sign up for a new agreement IF they wanted to. If they don't want to, well then they don't have to accept the extra year, and can walk with the lesser money and separate one year earlier. In any case, no one who is signing up for and getting the latest (FY17) bonus amount is getting out any "earlier" than anyone else who signs up for the same flavor of this year's bonus agreement. From a philosophical standpoint, I'm on board with everyone who says they should be paid at the higher amount. Dudes have committed to further service; I agree that everyone in that bucket should be given the same money for the same commitment. That said, I don't think tackling it from the standpoint that the FY16 ARP message actually means what everyone's favorite interpretation seems to be is a fair argument to make.

In fairness, I have not seen an actual ARP contract. Only the message that JQ posted on his blog. IF that really is the case, then I've got tons of empathy for them because it is FULLY BS. That said, do they really though? I find it hard to believe that this group of guys signed up for a bonus and contract length that said $25K/yr for 5 years, and the AF just came back to all of them and ROLEXED their separation by 1 year without additional compensation...I find that very hard to believe. If that's the case - of course it's a crime and should be squawked about - I just don't believe that's what's going on.

I'm involved to the extent that I'm in the AF. But anyway, you're right, either way it's irrelevant. I guess I don't sympathize with someone who was going to sign away years of their life to "just get the paperwork done" or "do the AF a favor." I read the FY16 bonus when it came out and I couldn't discern one benefit it would bestow on me to sign it early - so I didn't. I suppose the only benefit you get is a few more payments of X-thousand a month that you otherwise wouldn't? I think that's the benefit early-takers get? I don't know because I didn't consider it that closely since I was leaning towards getting out anyway. I almost stopped reading after you said it "didn't matter what the contract said," but I think your statement highlights the thesis of the Facebook group pretty nicely: "we don't care what the contract said - give us more money with no extra year." I did feel that it was solid logic. Thanks. As far as that goes, however, I've yet to see an interpretation that allows for the position that the Facebook group is running with.

I don't, because I passed on it. Nor do I have anything to do with its implementation/creation. Fine if I don't make sense. It was a post slightly out of context because it was a point-by-point response to claims that JQ threw out there to serve what I think is a convenient narrative (and allows him to bitch). So WTF do you think "and/or" means? IMO it means that the AF, when they figure out what the fvcking bonus terms will be during the next FY, will let those takers "sign a new contract" (just like they wrote in black and white). I mean if the USAF was just going to up the money for previous-year bonus takers they could have just written down such a simple concept, right? Something to the effect of "if you sign this early-take bonus agreement (FY16) and the monetary value increases on future-year ARP offers (FY17, 18, 19, ...) during the duration of your incurred ADSC, your payment will increase to the new, higher limit, with no additional incurred ADSC. We want to thank you for your service.", would have done the trick - the thing is, they didn't write it like that. But now there's a fvcking Facebook campaign to somehow posture as if it did. My malfunction is with the invalid narrative that I see routinely pumped from JQP. I DGAF about 80% of what he pushes out there, but every now and then there is a topic that I know something about, and also happens to be completely off base. He runs with BS and plenty of folks scarf it up because it feeds their anger. There are plenty of reasons to bitch about $hit the AF does - I just don't see this as one of them.

Not really, as I am on my way out. I like to bitch as much as the next guy, I just think there are plenty of valid complaints to grab a hold of. I agree with everything you said except the attempt to "spin." I'm trying to be as fair as possible here, but every now and then I see something that comes across that blog and I don't know what to think. Does anyone really read that release and think that the statement "shall be allowed to sign a NEW contract worth the HIGHER bonus amount and/or LONGER contract length" means the AF was going to UP the bonus (without increased commitment length) for those who signed a DIFFERENT agreement? That seems to me what JQ and others on the Facebook group are suggesting. I'm fully on board with shedding some much-needed light on AF personnel policies.

Hey everyone, I recently became aware of an "issue" that has been making the rounds on Facebook and which is also the subject of a recent JQP post. My response to his article was "detected as spam." So I'm re-posting this here with a desire to see what the BO rank and file thinks of this latest spear from JQ. As follows: JQP, much like the previous article on the Thunderbird mishap, you are way off base. "But things have gotten sideways. The question now on the table is what happens to those who lock in early only to find that the bonus increases in value significantly following year. This year’s ARP package is offering pilots in some career families $35,000/year — 40% more than last year." This is only a question to one of three people: 1. Those who didn't read the offer. 2. Those who read but didn't understand the offer. 3. Those who have an ax to grind and are now choosing to intentionally misread the statement to forward an agenda. 'The guys signing up early took this as a good faith “opt-in” clause indemnifying them against the risk of lost opportunity due to early action. They thought the USAF was saying “don’t worry … if we offer more next year, we’ll let you opt in at the higher amount.”' I'm sorry, but if anyone thought that, then they didn't read (or understand) the offer. It is CRYSTAL clear in the message that the offer would extended to those contracted pilots 'to sign a NEW CONTRACT worth the higher bonus amount AND/OR longer contract length, in the event...' This statement can mean one of three things: 1. (AND) The AF will let you sign up for a higher bonus AND a longer contract term. 2. (OR) The AF will let you sign up for a higher bonus amount OR a longer contract term, but not both. 3. (AND/OR) The AF will let you sign up for whatever terms they come up with for the next years' bonus; higher amounts, different contract lengths, etc, because they don't know what they will be (i.e $25K for 7 years; $40K for 8 years; $50K for 13 years, etc.). 4. (NEITHER) Keep the bonus you already signed and STFU. Of course, it's advantageous for the complainants to go with option 2a, just take more money and run, but unfortunately, not even a 3rd grade reading is admissible for those who are disinterested. Notice also, that the message specifically references LONGER contract lengths - not SHORTER ones. Hmm. "They were, it now appears, wrong to place that much faith in the service. What those officers are being told when they try to opt in is that if they want the higher bonus payouts, they must commit to an additional year of service commitment. They’ll get five bonus payments but be expected to serve six additional years." Just like everyone else in the Air Force would have to. Jeez, why not back-date the $35K bonus to those who signed up 4 years ago? 6? 9? As you go down that argument trail, hopefully you can begin to see the absurdity of the position which holds that the ones who signed up last year should get something for nothing. That said, philosophically, I agree that if the "bonus" goes up, everyone one who's on it should be given the increased amount - unfortunately, that's not what the agreement says or how it reads. "Finally, and most interestingly, this instruction did not exist when the FY16 early takers made their decisions. It was published months later, in October. The rules governing their opt-in decisions should not spring from this DO DI, but whatever rule was in effect at the time they signed. If no rule existed addressing this situation, they’re entitled to the plain language in their agreements, which would allow them to opt-in without any additional service commitment." Ummm, no, the plain-language interpretation decidedly DOES NOT allow them to pick and choose the terms of the new contract. "They can’t claim a lack of bargaining power constrained them from a fair deal in FY16 ARP negotiations. Nor can they claim the USAF engaged in fraud. There is a clause containing sufficient vagary to portend the mess that has ensued, and they knew or should have known that opting in would come with additional requirements of some sort." Finally, an accurate statement. Seriously, no, seriously - what is vague about the FY16 offer? It is perfectly clear to me and I'm no lawyer. "And just to be clear, this cohort has pretty much no legal leverage. There’s nothing that will invalidate their old contracts and there’s nothing making them enter new ones. They are all bound by their original agreements unless they’re willing to be coerced into new ones." Except for the same leverage I had, which was to not sign the bonus; they made choices. What is the problem? "This is a moral issue. Playing shell games will forfeit the goodwill Gen. Golden and his team have worked to rebuild over the past year. That would be truly unfortunate." No. Just, no. This barely rises to the level of ethics. And if it did, it's not unethical on part of the AF. The only unethical thing I see going on is intentional misinterpretation of the offer and an attempt to exploit an AF that's in a bad situation. "It would be a shame if this turned into yet another social media campaign to interest legislators in an issue that commanders and senior staff should be able to handle tomorrow morning with a 5-minute meeting and some clear direction." Nice veiled threat. Good thing is that most legislators are lawyers by trade and will instantly recognize that this is a baseless complaint. I like to point out problems the AF has as well, and I appreciate some of the work you do, but this is a non-issue, and detracts from actual issues that the AF is suffering from. I hope these folks do take this to the legislature and come away with egg on their faces. ViperMan Anyway, I'd like to know what you all think.

I'm not sure about anyone else but I, for one, am fvcking sick and tired of this latest trend of people (trolls) derailing/hijacking threads to whine or have a personal back-and-forth with an individual about their personal bull shit/dirty laundry. KITFO and take it off the thread. Have your slap fight via PMs.

To jump in to the exercise, yes, I would say that the goal of a promotion board should be to promote those with demonstrated leadership ability, so long as they have achieved a standard of technical excellence earlier in their careers - yes, this rules out large groups of people from "go" (though I do think I have the solution to this problem as well). Too often, we promote those we "like" (or who we must be "fair" to) without their fulfilling of the opposite end of the contract (that being technical excellence) - which is problematic. While your 'fairness' argument speaks to a central value many of us hold deep in our sub-concious, what is important to remember is the mission of the Air Force, and not to improperly subordinate that to what we feel is 'fair.' Some people won't like it. Some people weren't selected to be pilots our of their commissioning programs. Life isn't fair. Implementing a program of "fairness" in an organization that is deemed necessary for the survival and defence of our nation is wholly inappropriate, and if I was a simple taxpayer, with no insight into the functioning of a modern Air Force, I would be 'upset' (to say the least) about the use of my tax money and time being utilized to implement an affirmative action program in the military. I don't think accountants require leadership - at least not in the sense that we consider in the military. In fact, that entire function could be executed by GS workers. Yes, that's how you fix it. The AF selected you for higher potential out of your respective commissioning programs. I mean we choose Generals when they're Captains...why not choose Lt Cols when they're cadets, right? Sarcasm aside, I think the fix is to go the opposite direction from a Warrant Officer (or the like) program. What needs to happen (someone said it elsewhere) is a SIGNIFICANT reduction in the number of officer AFSCs that are in flying wings. Yes, there are many that are needed and which have valid functions. Many, however, do not. Want tactical/technical leaders to gain experience "leading" a finance shop? Fine, throw a Capt/Maj in as the head of that office with some E-8/E-9 "expert" help. I bet you'd see similar results, if not better. As far as there being "Rhatigans" (whom I know nothing of personally), that's a different type of failure in the promotion system - according to what I've read on this board over the years. What we currently have is a systemic malfunction in our promotion system that is degrading our AF.

Cool, thanks guys.

Hey everyone, I'm getting out and am considering going to one of the SACCs (https://www.sacc-jobfair.com/). Wondering if it's worth it or if anyone has insight into what these things are all about. Words? Thanks, ViperMan