deaddebate

Heard about these changes as well from some senior enlisted at the water cooler: Mandatory minimum of 5% of all EPR's to be rated at 1 or 2 to identify personnel for possible Force Management programs. Feedback forms will include ratee's opinion of rater's effectiveness/quality of feedback (AKA feedback feedback). Unit attendance of others' Force Management discharge ceremonies is voluntary, but highly encouraged. Free throwing tomatoes for the first 50 attendees at the MPF. All personnel separating under VSP are automatically permanently demoted one grade due to failing to enhance unit cohesion. Though the demotion is official, it will not affect VSP pay calculation. I expect the Duffel Blog will write an article on these developments soon. Sent from my HTC One X+ using Tapatalk

video.foxnews.com/v/2978559571001/veterans-angered-by-new-bill-to-cut-pensions/?playlist_id=928378949001 Sent from my HTC One X+ using Tapatalk

see attached pic. As an NCO, I can't fully express how frustrated I become, as I am forced to inform and correct E-5+/O-3+ personnel on their own regs, and interpret those regs for them. Much of this is indirectly due to all the other bullshit that SNCO's and CGO's are forced to resolve rather than actually leading and performing, which they could do, if enabled. This isn't happening at my installation. Average time on station is 4+ years for nearly all Enlisted. The problem is low(ish) manpower (~80%)--it isn't a large crop of FNG's. Addressing the idea that contracting support positions would be more efficient/cost-effective, the contractors within the Med Group GENERALLY are only checking the box and meeting bare minimums, while the GS & AD folks ensure the mission gets done. Obviously, there are many exceptions. My experience has been that the average contractor in the med group doesn't understand how their job fits into the larger mission, even beyond their own squadron, and they don't devote much effort to learn it, especially as most don't keep their job longer than 2 years, again leading to a significant experience gap, as hiring its very slow, and training is equally lengthy. For this reason, they are moderately effective in medical support/clerical positions, but frequently less capable in patient care settings. NOT because they lack the formal training (the actual knowledge base of medicine is strong), but because of a major hurdle in transitioning to the AF's HUGE administrative processes, and very extensive interconnected manpower network. E.g. every person put on quarters/DLC (profile) becomes time they are not doing the job, whereas when they were off-base civilian docs, they just presumptively give out restriction notes like Halloween candy as the default CYA from malpractice claims. Sent from my HTC One X+ using Tapatalk

Some free advice: I'm starting to see PALACE CHASE applications increase, but not to very high levels. If you are planning to do this, speak to the recruiter and submit your request now. Slots will fill quickly, and the MTF is not renown for lightning quick clearances. Schedule your Sep Physical (DD Form 2697) and contact the MSME. Sent from my HTC One X+ using Tapatalk

The cone contrast test (CCT, the computer) replaced the ishihara (PIP books) about a year ago. All Air Force clinics are using it for initial and annual exams. Waivers still exist, but the standard is higher (budget impacting acquisitions). I can't really comment on your rumor mill story, but the validity and quality discussion of the CCT has already been beaten to death. I thought there was already a thread about it, but I'm on my phone. Sent from my HTC One X+ using Tapatalk

Well ... fuck. Sent from my HTC One X+ using Tapatalk

Total AD cut is 1860, so 1200 flyers is more than a little uneven. At a guess, I imagine all flyers cut will be only a third of total AD force that is cut, whether vol or non-vol. Sent from my HTC One X+ using Tapatalk

Anybody got the link or name of the report? I'm having trouble finding it on the AF FOIA page.

Reminder https://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=16437 https://www.tsa.gov/tsa-precheck/airlines-airports https://www.defensetravel.dod.mil/Docs/How_to_Enter_Your_DoD_ID.pdf Here's all the currently participating airports: ABQ ALB ANC ATL AUS BDL BHM BNA BOI BOS BUF BUR BWI CAK CHS CLE CLT CMH COS CVG DAL DAY DCA DEN DFW DSM DTW ELP EWR FAT FLL GEG GRR GSO GSP GUM HNL HOU HPN IAD IAH ICT IND JAX JFK LAS LAX LGA LGB LIH LIT MCI MCO MDW MEM MHT MIA MKE MSN MSP MSY MYR OAK OKC OMA ONT ORD ORF PBI PDX PHL PHX PIT PNS PVD PWM RDU RIC RNO ROC RSW SAN SAT SAV SDF SEA SFO SJC SJU SLC SMF SNA STL SYR TPA TUL TUS TYS

Color vision deficiency (aka color blindness) is much more common in men (single x chromosome). Waivers exist, but are becoming less frequently approved. Sent from my HTC One X+ using Tapatalk

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/12/20/statement-president-eliminating-sexual-assault-armed-forces A unified message is important. Highly suspect this message was voluntold by the boss. Look at the sex assault standards in the newest NDAA/budget. This is the PR story for the next few weeks. Sent from my HTC One X+ using Tapatalk

Read AFI 41-210, para. 2.52. Sent from my HTC One X+ using Tapatalk

Again, more info. https://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=5345

Looks like it pays to be old friends with the bosses. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/12/17/president-obama-announces-more-key-administration-posts

+1 to Militarycac.com Also try https://militarycac.com/files/Air_Force_Webmail_Addresses.pdf Sent from my HTC One X+ using Tapatalk

Good info.

Long but worth the read.

you're first assessment is correct--you must maintain fc1 standards (specifically vision) for a few more years. No way to know of you'll need a waiver or qualify for waiver until that time. Recommend you not stress it. Second question, no clue. Ask your recruiter. Sent from my HTC One X+ using Tapatalk

https://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=16417 December 12, 2013 Statement by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel on Budget Agreement Last night, I spoke with House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray to thank them for their work to achieve a bipartisan budget agreement. The deal they reached reduces the impact of sequestration cuts and provides the Department of Defense with greater budget certainty, which is important for us to be able to plan effectively. While this agreement doesn't solve every budget problem facing DoD, it will help address our military readiness challenge by restoring funding for training and procurement - especially in fiscal year 2014. The Department of Defense has been warning about the impact of sequestration's steep, deep, and abrupt cuts for months, and I'm pleased that Congress has been willing to work in a bipartisan manner to limit its worst impacts. I urge Congress to promptly act on a balanced agreement. Tough decisions will still be necessary going forward in order to achieve the right balance in military capacity, capabilities, and readiness. The Department of Defense will need more flexibility, and we will continue to look to Congress as a vital partner in our efforts to realign priorities and address needed reforms in areas like military compensation in order to maximize our military's fighting strength. Sent from my HTC One X+ using Tapatalk

Try not to quote superseded regulation that is over a decade old. New 48-123 is linked in my signature as standards for continued duty. Read para 3.1.3. You don't need to reaccomplish the whole thing but you will likely complete the shorter, annual physical and required waiver exams (read the details of your waiver). Also, if you haven't accomplished MFS yet, ask your OTS POC.

Yeah, if an enlisted member was caught playing drunken, partially-consensual grab-ass while serving in the Pentagon sexual assault prevention office, the investigation and prosecution would be much more forgiving. I suppose Krusinski was very fortunate to get Barry Coburn as his free public defender. Enlisted personnel would be able to hire somebody like that, no problem. Even with an acquittal, I imagine an enlisted member's commander wouldn't consider not approving re-enlistment or pursuing independent administrative separation for something that high profile.

Completely agree. The most recent criteria was updated in 2003, but the majority has been the same since the 80's. A bitter pill must be swallowed, by the legislators to re-structure the law, and the doctors to enforce the standards.

I've reviewed the new standards and asked some questions to leadership. Still pending answers, so the below are just my first thoughts. It appears that specialty care (Orthopedics, Endocrinology, Pulmonology, etc.) will be much more heavily scrutinized. Also, more generic standards and individual interpretation will be extended to the average doctor and MTF to pursue I-RILO/MEB for patients that were often hard to stick with the old standards which were sometimes overly-specific or too narrowly defined. Also, the waiver guide has been updated somewhat extensively, however the link in my signature block is to the old compilation. A number of standards are only available on the AFMS Kx, and I don't know if the average Airman can access that, but you can certainly try.

Recommend anybody with access to the AFMS Kx read the new Medical Standards Directory (MSD). The Air Force is bringing down the hammer. Expect many more RILO's/MEB's. ETP's by extension will be more difficult.

The weather must be pretty nice up there on your high horse with your rose-colored glasses. I suppose being an informed voter, a good parent, a regular volunteer, and a tax payer doesn't qualify me to have an opinion about where and how I want to live my life after I give 20+ years of service to a branch of the armed forces. Sent from my HTC One X+ using Tapatalk