Muscle2002

We have a similar setup on the JS. It's decent for staying aware of events via email while teleworking but otherwise terrible for doing any real work. We cannot even access our remote drives or desktops.

Two same. I felt worse from the JJ vaccine (worst chills and shaking I have experienced with any illness) than from having COVID a few months before. Hard pass on booster.

Your last two sentences capture the issue at heart I think. Leaders should not equate a lack of desire to command with something less than selfless service. After all, as you note, there are plenty of non-command jobs to fill. Some of these jobs demand a significant amount of sacrifice and are just as thankless as command (see ClearedHot's description of Pentagon assignments). It's not an easy problem of trying to balance AF needs with individual desires, but inconsistent messaging does not help solve it.

It is interesting that you mention the difficulty some senior leaders have in understanding a desire to serve but not command. How many times have you heard senior leaders tell a group or an individual that one's service can be meaningful absent command and that not everyone will command even though there are more highly qualified people than there are positions? In effect, the message they convey is that to not command is acceptable, so long as the system makes the choice. Turn the tables, and it is anathema to suggest that someone can serve faithfully while turning down command. In short, I have sensed from some leaders a willingness to use "service before self" as a cudgel to bludgeon people whose desire to serve somehow does not comport with the other's ideal. Certainly, we need people who are willing to bear the burden of command, but I do not think forcing someone who does not want to is good for the service, the person, or the people being led.

The above is not exactly tinfoil hat material. One well respected political scientist wrote about this idea. Francis Fukuyama on identity politics .

MCO mentioned towards the end of the linked post a desire to steer conservations back toward AF-type stuff. As such, and on the topic of command, last year's O6 command board had ~40% of eligibles opt out from competing for command. Rumor is that the policy of "all in" will return. So for the crowd, which is worse for the AF: Selecting your group/wing commanders from a much smaller pool (nearly half as small) that results from letting people opt out from competing Or, forcing Colonels to compete and, if selected, take command unless they retire under the policy of "all in"? I think there can be a middle ground. If I were CSAF, I would want as big a pool of candidates as possible, but knowing that there is an O6 shortage, especially among rated officers, I would institute a policy to allow commander-selects to decline as long as there was a mutually beneficial assignment besides command to keep from bleeding talent. Thoughts?

I agree with your sentiment, but we must acknowledge that making changes for the greater good works both ways. I loathe the idea of legislating health, but many of those espousing taking one for the team will not concede the point that personal choices to be unhealthy have already hurt our society far more than COVID has. Perchance we should create exercise and eating vegetable mandates. Admittedly, the libertarian in me (sts) likes the Ron Swanson approach. Ron Swanson on freedom to eat what you want

Don’t get me wrong. I do not approve of how the system has basically removed any reason or logic in order to display fealty to the current agenda. Just sharing an article indicating where things stood.

You raise a good point. It seems that "tradition" and status quo preclude making allowances if the reason for deviating is based solely on personal preference. Perhaps the only accommodations should be for valid medical reasons.

As of last week, zero religious accommodations have been granted.

In some ways, it seems the AF pulled a sleight-of-hand by pulling BPZ while stating they were moving to a five-year window. In effect, you now have one look much like the other services, notwithstanding the single digit odds APZ.

I flew the A-10 as a TPS student and employed the gun and dropped BDUs (I know, cool story, right?). Am I not supposed to say I flew it? Or in another instance, I flew just 10 hours in a prototype but never had a Form 8. Does that count?

Yes

She’s a TPS graduate, which explains the difference. She may not have been Form 8 qualified, but test pilots periodically fly front or left seat in aircraft where they are doing all of the flying, to include ground ops. These flights are called qualitative evaluations. The IP, if there is even space for one, is only a safety observer, nothing more. Moreover, test pilots are allowed to log primary time on qualitative evaluations as they are performing the role of pilot-in-command and experimental test pilot, gathering data on handling, flying qualities, systems performance, etc. for later tests and evaluations. I do not take umbrage with her doing so as much as seeing a "run-of-the-mill" pilot turned general stating they flew aircraft in which they were really a passenger while in their commander role. Take, for instance many of the Nellis Wg/CCs. I doubt any of them have actually flown all of the aircraft listed or were qualified given their typical CAF background. Is it okay to state you flew the T-37, T-38, T-1, etc. while in UPT even though you lacked a Form 8 or had an IP onboard? Edited to add: The fighter-type aircraft she listed were syllabus aircraft at the TPS.

Why worry about retention when PA can just write a chintzy article about retention and how the Total Force hopes it can preserve talent that “The nation has invested millions of dollars in training these great Americans to protect and defend our way of life." Pilots Leaving Active Duty Have Safe Landing Place in Reserve/Guard

For clarity, DepSecDef Hicks’ memo stated that unvaccinated personnel “should” follow CDC guidance on masks.

I’ve been fortunate enough to work with one, and having such a Chief makes all the difference in getting the unit to work as one (large mix of officers, enlisted, civilian, and contractors).

Unknown about the specific ask, but they will use the card to update MyIMRS which already contains your vaccination record.

They were…just high negative AoA. Apparently, they scoff at “no negative g gun jinks.”

Knowingly coming to work while positive is different than not donning a mask when one has natural immunity. Folks like to assert that vaccines are a known quantity, which is true, but when they cite 94% effectiveness, they fail to understand that the effectiveness is at the population level, not individual level. Vaccine effectiveness is derived stochastically. It cannot be translated to a deterministic chance for the individual. Context matters. I agree with your readiness argument, but again, that is different than the issue over someone who recovered and does not wear a mask. At best, one can make the good order and discipline argument, as you did, and perhaps that is the only rationale needed. However, how does that line of logic square with CSAF guidance to stop doing dumb things that are inherently regulation and instruction based? Who becomes the arbiter? But to point to public health concerns for those who recovered and do not wear a mask ignores the scientific data extant.

What would be your course of action for those who contracted the disease—verifiable via medical records—and deduced that natural immunity (which a significant body of science supports) is more than sufficient to prevent further spread, yet they did not wear a mask? If you punish them, are you truly “following the science” which purportedly undergirds the mask/no mask guidelines?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/04/27/cdc-guidance-masks-outdoors/?utm_campaign=wp_evening_edition&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_evening&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F3212fb6%2F60887b6b9d2fdae3023a859f%2F60801fdc9bbc0f65272828be%2F9%2F52%2F60887b6b9d2fdae3023a859f What exactly changed here? I love how they roll this out as an incentive when it does not differ from previous CDC guidance. Moreover, they like to modify the phrase “return to normal” with “more” suggesting they may keep moving the goal posts.

I'm not defending the AF, but Congress had the biggest hand to play in the bonus. After all, Congress has had its eyes on the bonus for a while, and according to some discussion with A1 folks, the AF had to fight to even keep the paltry numbers programmed this year.

I know one fighter pilot who retracted their retirement paperwork last spring because of the pandemic. I do not recall what their plan was had they retired, though. However, I think you're right. The pandemic may have delayed exits ever-so-slightly but not enough to fix the problem.