deaddebate

You can be submitted for "MEB" for any medical condition if it meets criteria. Yours certainly sounds like it would. Recommend you familiarize yourself with the process and various terms by contacting the local Physical Evaluation Board Liaison Officer (PEBLO, usually an E-4 or E-5). It's doubtful you will receive an AAC 37 for another month, so it's far too early to speculate on your outcome.

that's an old argument and worth discussion, but a separate argument in another thread somewhere I can't find on my phone. Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

Can also look at MyIMR/ASIMS. To play devil's advocate for half a moment, a small minority of EFMP managers and doctors do care about the program and block assignments not from a fear of the dependent "dying," but because the level of care the gaining clinic will inherit will very possible overwhelm the system. Doctors frequently under perform because they are over burdened with administrivia and demanding work schedules. Every high utilizer literally worsens the already mediocre, red-tape-laden care care for everybody else. The capabilities of most overseas locals just can't support the same empanelment as a stateside clinic. But for the great majority, yeah, it's a pointless career hurdle that does way more harm than good. I can't advocate outright lying, so perhaps exercise "big picture" logic whenever interacting with this program, it's questionnaires, or personnel. Of you are ever Q coded, be proactive to get it removed ASAP. Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

Dental is one of the most difficult areas to predict, as the regulation is somewhat vague. Here's what I found: So interpret that however you want. Take the advice of whoever your civilian dentist is.

Didn't see this posted anywhere, so FYI for anybody interested, take a read: AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER INSTRUCTION 36-110, 11 JULY 2014, FORCE SHAPING BOARDS https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/afpc/publication/afpci36-110/afpci36-110.pdf

Subjective is a little unfair, but there is no specific laboratory testing to identify the condition. A Dermatologist/Doc can objectively determine you have eczema/Atopic Dermatitis via physical examination. The waiver guide for Dermatitis was updated just this month (Jul 2014). Though the guide states that the condition is not waiverable for IFC I, it appears that more than half of teh IFC I applicants were approved (48/67 = 72%). Push the FSO to submit a waiver, even if they intend to write it as a "DQ" waiver (meaning a waiver with the intent to get you permanently DQ'd). You've got a good chance to surprise them and get a waiver regardless. The most important thing to remember about the Waiver Guide is that it is a GUIDE. Sometimes it'll say a patient should be approved but they get DQ'd. Sometimes it'll direct a few specialty consults but then the member will go TDY to WPAFB for further eval. Sometimes it looks like an applicant will have no chance in hell but the package is written well and the member has command support so they're approved. The real proof is looking at historical cases and seeing the rate that waivers are approved, but again this is just an indicator, not a guarantee.

This is a pretty big question with many regulations that usually devolves to a lengthy administrative headache. Note that UCMJ charges can trump an MEB or normal administrative separation. JAG rulings will dictate what happens to the member and the MDG will not be much of a shield. First understand that PTSD is a potentially "unsuiting" condition rather than "unfitting," meaning the Commander first has the option to administratively separate the member. For Enlisted, the standard is AFI 36-3208, para. 5.11.10., which has very specific procedures for any ENLISTED member with PTSD that is negatively impacting or precluding their ability to serve in the Air Force. OFFICERS with PTSD instead fall under AFI 36-3206, para. 2.2.6. and 2.3.7. Essentially, OFFICERS COULD be discharged much faster than ENLISTED, however they SHOULD receive the same level of care and treatment while still within the Military Healthcare System (MHS). In my experience, OFFICER and ENLISTED PTSD cases both undergo substantial scrutiny and personnel are given significant access to treatment and other resoources--noone to my knowledge has been rushed out of the service for PTSD. However it could conceivably happen to an OFFICER if an especially callous Commander and the local Chief of the Medical Staff (MDG/SGH) made it so. Once separated/retired, all Airmen certainly do receive the same level of care through the VA (presuming you consider the VA capable of actually providing any semblance of care amid their intense incompetence). Note that administrative separation does not prohibit a servicemembers benefits within the Disability Evaluation System (DES), but that it only circumvents the normal Medical Evaluation Board processing. An administrative separation does not cheat the member of further medical care or disability claims, assuming the separation is not for UCMJ charges or some other form of dishonorable discharge. See DoDI 1332.38 for more info--Enclosure 4 is most applicable, but observe that Enclosure 5 does NOT list PTSD. If a Commander chooses not to pursue administrative separation because in their opinion the member's PTSD is not substantially "unsuiting" for duty, the MDG can still pursue an MEB for an "unfitting" condition at the discretion of the Flight Doc/PCM, Chief of Aerospace Medicine (MDG/SGP), and the MDG/SGH per AFI 48-123 and the Medical Standards Directory (MSD). Applicable standards include MSD, para. Q7, which states: "Mental Health conditions associated with recurrent duty impairment." There are other applicable standards within Section Q of the MSD, but you get the gist. If the MEB doesn't medically retire the member (usually by retention on ALC) or the MDG doesn't pursue MEB because the condition isn't significant enough to prevent ground duties, the Flight Doc and MDG/SGP would still likely begin medical disqualification for Flight Duty through MSD Q17 & Q18, which state: "PTSD/ASD/Adjustment Disorder/other Specified Trauma and Stressor-Related Disorder that interferes with safety of flight/controlling/alert or if member is unable to return to full duty within 60 days of diagnosis (minor residual symptoms are acceptable)." & "PTSD/Adjustment Disorder/other Specified Trauma and Stressor-Related Disorder if greater than 60 days, or if member experiences a recurrence of debilitating symptoms upon return to the operational environment." The first step is applying for a flight waiver. For flight waiver approval, ALL personnel MUST be evaluated by the Aeromedical Consultation Service (ACS), which usually requires a TDY at WPAFB in addition to any previous treatment/consultation. A review of AIMWTS shows that only about a third of all cases are granted a waiver. If a member is retained but permanently DQ'd from flight duty (waiver denied), they would undergo personnel force shaping programs for possible AFSC re-assignment, becoming an AFPC function. For PTSD waiver consideration, the member must stable and symptom for AT LEAST 6 months, but it is frequently 12 months. The most common reason for flight waiver denial are persistent symptoms, required medications not approved for aircrew, or other conditions that also require a waiver. Even if the individual conditions are considered waiverable, but the member has multiple conditions requiring waiver, the chances of waiver approval drop greatly. All conditions are weighed together, and not independently assessed. Finally, no waivers are granted without documented Command support in the waiver package.

Bumping for any recent info, specifically, any opinions about living on base (excluding Huntington). I've already reviewed all the information on the website. I like the idea of avoiding most/all the traffic, having quick access to the base facilities (Commissary/BX, parks, school/youth center), and hopefully a more safe environment for my wife and son. Here's my questions: How is the elementary school on base? Is there a strong community environment in the housing? Is the installation deserted on the weekends or is it moderately populated with events? Are the parks and swimming pools well maintained? Are there significant crime problems? How responsive is housing maintenance for repairs? Is the club any good or is it as terrible as the rest of the CONUS clubs? Is there a good bowling alley, movie theater, and library and are they in good condition or worn down? Will my kid start saying things like "fiddy," "darlin,'" or "y'all"? Do I need to take anti-malarials? Will I need to buy common bartering goods like live chickens, dry beans, or clay jugs of "XXX Corn Whiskey" to exchange for things in the local community? How quickly will my dehumidifier need to be replaced due to overuse? Will Jesus Christ be in my chain of command? Does the weatherman base his forecast from his knee pain? Are subtitles required to understand local news broadcasts? Is evolution banned in school curriculum? Will I see events in person that are later in a "COPS" show? If it snows again, will half the population die?

The PUBLIC waiver guide was compiled in May 2013 and the Headache entry is dated Nov 2010. The OFFICIAL waiver guide maintained behind the AFMS network has a newer Headache entry dated Jan 2014. There aren't many changes, but know that yours isn't the most current. As you know, headaches with aura are considered "Classical Migraines (ICD-9 346.0)." A quick review of historical waiver cases in AIMWTS shows no approval for Pilot initial applicants (IFC I). There are two Navigator/WSO initial applicants (IFC 1A) that I saw who were approved for history of migraines, but more were DQ’d. Other categories have a higher waiver potential (IFC III/MOD/RPA/etc.) though none are especially promising. I'd recommend you try for a Nav slot (if you want that job) but have a good back-up plan because chances are you'll be DQ'd, then go for one of the other positions with a lesser FC. Pilot is nigh impossible.

I messaged 81L BLR. The recent batch of questions on this site have been surprisingly complex.

Cockpits are overrated--Cameras and MS Flight Sim are all we need https://consumerist.com/2014/07/03/airbus-pilots-dont-need-windows-in-cockpit -or-even-a-cockpit https://www.seattlepi.com/business/boeing/article/Airbus-Pilots-don-t-really- need-windows-5596374.php https://flightclub.jalopnik.com/airbus-wants-to-take-the-cockpit-out-of-the-c ockpit-of-1598171449

Tao Te Ching: To learn, you must first unlearn everything. To teach a student the way, you must annihilate their attachment to what they believe to be the way.

Found a related report about exposure to natural cosmic radiation. Though it isn't particularly relavant to military exposure, the tables explaining methods and measurements of exposure could be easily extrapolated if one knew the levels of radiation from a given system/source. -- https://www.faa.gov/data_research/research/med_humanfacs/oamtechreports/2000s/media/0316.pdf -- -- What Aircrews Should Know About Their Occupational Exposure to Ionizing Radiation -- Highlights: Aircrews are occupationally exposed to ionizing radiation, principally from galactic cosmic radiation. A main source of galactic cosmic radiation is believed to be supernovae. On infrequent occasions, the sun contributes to the ionizing radiation received during air travel. Conversion table | 1 sievert = 100 rem | 1 sievert = 1000 millisieverts | 1 rem = 10 millisieverts | 1 millisievert = 1000 microsieverts The FAA recommended limit for an aircrew member is a 5-year average effective dose of 20 millisieverts per year, with no more than 50 millisieverts in a single year. [...] crewmembers receiving 68 millisieverts will, on average, incur an increased lifetime risk of fatal cancer of about 1 in 360 (0.3%). Although one cannot exclude the possibility of harm from occupational exposure to radiation at the doses likely to be received during a career of fl ying, it would be impossible to establish that an abnormality or disease in a particular individual resulted from such exposure.

Here's the reg's you're working against. Get seen again and try to get diagnosed with MILD seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), then provide that documentation to your Recruiter/commissioning POC. You'll need to be controlled with a single, approved med. Doctors will frequently change a patient's diagnosis. As long as there is some justification or explanation in the record, this is fine and totally understandable. Stress to the Doc that you only use medications infrequently and as needed in conjunction with periods of heavy environmental irritants (smoke, pollen, debris from a fire). Avoid inhaled steroids like Singulair or Flonase if possible, as that is a flag to a doc to suspect Asthma/RAD/EIB or chronic Bronchitis/Pneumonia/Coccidioidomycosis. Though these meds are usually fine for "as needed" use with Flying Status, the underlying condition sometimes requires an MEB (possible medical separation from service or permanent deployment limitations). Even if at present you don't have a more serious pulmonary condition, chronic prescriptions of inhaled steroids can mask the symptoms that might develop later. Additionally, these meds are more commonly used to treat Moderate and Severe Rhinitis (in addition to the other diagnoses) rather than simple mild SAR. You could use an OTC nasal spray of saline solution ONLY without any concerns, but if there is a medication in the spray, like Afrin, then it gets a bit tougher. Allegra or Claritin are your best bet. If you need something to control any symptoms. Maybe try an OTC trial and see how you feel. Crolom/Cromolyn is OK, but not ideal, again as it is often used for Asthma, but it is better than a steroid if Allegra/Claritin aren't good enough. In all, I think your situation isn't DQ'ing and you won't even need to be considered for waiver. Hopefully @JCJ can answer your cardio question. That's out of my league.

I think you're a bit confused. FCI is only for Initial Pilot Applicants. Once approved, you'll only need an FCII. Are you currently an Officer in the Air Force? Have you previously been a Pilot or Nav/WSO? What is your current AFSC? Do you have a prospective AFSC?

looks like this is actually rumor. Read the full thread--somebody claims this was proposed policy that wasn't actually picked up but is spreading regardless.

Not official yet, but here's some strong RUMINT of extended assignments - give this a look: https://afforums.com/index.php?threads/changes-to-assignments-including-bop.47653 MOST Officers (O-5 and below) extended to 4 years | MOST Enlisted extended to 5 years | MOST command tours extended to 3 years | Controlled tours excluded

I'm gonna need a news article or a name to believe that one. If true, I'll submit an FOIA for the record of trial just to post it here. If untrue, oh well.

Methinks that's a bit too optimistic. I keep hearing the board is coming, but I doubt it will hit that soon. The ERB packages are pretty fucked up, but thankfully the total number of non-vol cuts will be substantially smaller than originally thought, thanks primarily to the number of voluntary sep.s/ret.s. But the act of writing the packages and the hamfisted conversations/feedback with leadership about where folks land in the stack is going to burn plenty of bridges.

This is one of the greater points of rumor and opinion, especially among folks who've never had any involvement in a CM. I certainly understand an O wanting all O's. But what if an E is on trial. Is all O's still the best way to go?

You're fretting over nothing. If it isn't in your vision, you won't need a waiver. Don't say anything about it, and if asked, say that your don't notice anything in your daily life. Read the waiver guide for cataracts if you want to further obsess about it.

SECDEF Statement on the transfer of GITMO detainees for SSgt Bergdahls' release https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=102314 He's more apologetic and conciliatory in the rest of his statement. These were just the highlights.

Care to explain how awesome our pay is to another Enlisted member who doesn't get flight pay or a sweet SRB? Let's compare the base pay for an E-5 at 6+ years ($2.7K) to an O-1 at <2 years ($2.9K). I may not have Fair point, but not that extremely awesome. It comes with the obligation for service and possible/likely deployment. I've known numerous people my age who questioned my sanity for selling my soul to the AF. Working 50-60 hours a week, plus the "highly recommended volunteer opportunities/morale events," plus the mandatory "on-call" status, plus limitations on certain social activities, plus the normal administrivia/queep is a fair trade in my opinion. This. I'm not a Green Beret, ball-turret gunner, PJ, or Pilot, but the pencil-pushers in the civilian world don't have half the shit a given nonner in the MPF does Also this. .

AFI 48-123 does include that tiny potential for waiver appeal if AFMSA had previously disqualified the member. AFMSA is the waiver authority for all IFC I (pilot) cases, so your "appeal" still goes to that same high level, as IFC I's are above MAJCOM/AFRC/ANG. If you were disqualified by AFMSA, you would need to prove to your local flight doc that your condition had changed/improved significantly enough to warrant review and reconsideration by AFMSA. In this case, a waiver would be re-submitted via AIMWTS to AFMSA, who may require additional eval at ACS/MFS. If this is all applicable, waiver likelihood is decent. If there has been no substantial change in condition and you request review solely for reconsideration of waiver or that your usefulness to the Air Force outweighs the potential risk, chances of approval are slim to none. Your FSO clinic would almost certainly take no action at all, but you could conceivably submit your waiver request directly to AFMSA. Without the support of the local FS, it would be dead-on-arrival. Realistically, if you were already denied and there is no new medical development since the last waiver, you ought to just jump to an ETP (if you want to pursue one). ETP's should be written to highlight your value to the Air Force and attempt to nullify the perceived risk of whatever your medical condition is. You cannot change the minds of the Medical Authority--they review the facts (including flight experience) and make a determination. You can change the mind of AFPC/CFM--they review the facts AND the circumstances (needs of the Air Force, personal testimony, letters of commendation/recommendation, etc.), and that is why the ETP process exists.

After looking again, there is no mention of it in this bill. Some recent news articles indicate the contract might be awarded in the next 3 months but funding won't actually come as part of the NDAA. At a guess, I wouldn't expect anything until Feb 2015 after the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Comission (MCRM) is published. Too much is happening right now as Congress and the White House digest the National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force (NCSAF), and much more will happen with the MCRM leading into a benefit/retirement reform and simultaneous BRAC discussions. You can bet the FY16 NDAA will be chock full of various bitter pills that somebody is going to swallow. How is the CRH going to be shoe-horned into that? Let's play a game of pretend and assume that the F-35 will get some serious development completed in 2014-2015 so the acquisition folks are hopeful for major deliveries in 2016-2017. Could that push retirement of the A-10, U-2, and AWACS in 2016? Would that would free up enough money for the Long Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) and Combat Rescue Helicopter (CRH) contract completion? Would that then initiate the retirement of the HH-60G's? How much money will a BRAC generate in the long term, and how much will it cost in the short-term? It's hard to make predictions, especially about the future. What are you talking about?