Weezer

It’s not a cut drill...they’re not losing manpower (except for group leadership...which is just morphing into the deputies/A-staff). If the functions were pulled up to the staff, you actually would lose bodies. The “improvement” is supposed to be process related, not shedding work or gaining manpower.

I guess my post wasn’t clear...this is the wing-level A-staff, not the NAF or MAJCOM.

Here are the proposed functions going on the A-staff. Looks like FSS is now just MPF and Services.

See "not operationally focused within squadron." Examples of A-staff functions are the antiterrorism office from SFS and real property officer from CES. They may functionally fit under that Squadron's umbrella, but don't work day-to-day with the rest of that squadron as much (obviously up for debate). CS has troops who go and do "comm stuff," like CE has plumbers, and SFS has gate guards. An A-staff doesn't "do" things, they staff stuff, advise, etc. So, some part of comm may move under the A-staff, but the day to day dudes who defend the network or whatever won't.

NAFs are supposed to be operational...like when 9 AF was the Air Component of CENTCOM. MAJCOMs are “organize, train, equip” orgs, but with adcon over NAFs...changed a lot recently, though.

Yup...looks a lot like a BCT, although with a lot more "battalion equivalents" under the O-6/7. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. BCTs are organized to fight as BCTs. Every CS/CSS battalion under a BCT supports combat and maneuver. Home station Air Force Wings don't deploy as wings and are, in practice, Organize/Train/Equip organizations. I think the span of control issue for the Wg/CC will need to be addressed. The volume and variety of directly subordinate organizations will be a challenge. Also, what will we do with all the redundant O-6s?

Interesting things going on at MHAB...

The "campaign" or "bush" hat is authorized for Special Operations Units by AFI 36-2903, paragraph 9.11.1.

I haven’t found that page to be updated in a timely manner.

When I revealed buffoonery in my past, the main question was whether or not someone could use it against me to, say, influence me to reveal secrets or whatever. In my case, I had been pretty open about it to folks, so it wasn't a deep dark secret I was trying to hide; my answer was "No," and that seemed to be satisfactory.

Problem solved on the pilot shortage.

I think he was responding to a post I made in another forum following up on the F-16 crash in DC back in April. Somehow ended up in the wrong forum.

Per the reg (AFI 36-2905), paragraphs 2.25.8 and 9, which have to do with being current when PCSing and also having a 42 day acclimation period following extended (>30 days) TDY, fall under the responsibility of your unit/squadron commander. This person shouldn't get a say in it if your commander is good with it. There's also nothing in AFI 36-2905 (Assignments) saying that you have to do this...in fact paragraph 2.40.3.9 says being out of standards does not affect your assignment, in and of itself.

Follow up article to the initial thread topic. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/air-force-loses-dollar22m-f-16-due-to-engine-assembly-error/ar-AAu6jQE?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

Not sure why this should be limited to bag wearers...shoe clerks shouldn't have to be at the whim of...other shoe clerks either.

This article is interesting in regards to the B-52 alert. If STRATCOM's not ordering it, then why is the AF implementing it? Kind of leads you to think it's some sort of posturing.

Not really an option. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-kyrgyzstan-usa-manas/u-s-vacates-base-in-central-asia-as-russias-clout-rises-idUSKBN0EE1LH20140603

My understanding of the force management world tells me that moving something to AFSOC does not automatically and immediately place it under SOCOM's authority (e.g., B-1s are in AFGSC, but aren't directly owned by STRATCOM). I could be mistaken or have old info, though. It seems like that would introduce a little bit of complexity that AFSOC would have to deal with.

I don't know how mutual it would really be.

Per AF lodging policy, not having pet-friendly TLFs doesn't make them inadequate...AFI 34-135, paragraph 1.19.6. As far as space being "adequate," paragraph 3.3.3 says, "Lodging assigns families to [Civilian Lodging] on a voluntary basis when TLFs are fully occupied or adequate space is not available (lodging manager will determine if VQ space is suitable..." So, that's the AFI for what it's worth. I'm not a fan that the lodging manager has the authority to determine the adequacy of their own space since their operation is funded by your per diem dollars...seems shady. However, convincing the lodging manager (or his/her boss, or boss's boss, or IG, etc) that the space is not adequate is up to you and your leadership.

Do a constructed travel worksheet to show that it saves the government money. Perhaps the underlying issue is appearing to use the city pair discounts to do leave travel.

Absolutely. But the GS-6 didn't tell the commander no...he/she told some random person on the phone the current interpretation of current policy as they had been directed.

I wouldn't call the person a rogue...this is a new policy that old procedures haven't caught up with. GS-6s follow the procedures they're given. I wouldn't expect one to just look at a policy memo (even from the CSAF) and then selectively interpret how to implement it. Someone owes that person better guidance and instruction. In any case, your SR and MLR will have a more authoritative take on implementation.

That SrA is just trying to do his/her job...blame the leadership who won't/can't streamline this process. This should be as simple as scanning orders and your ID card when you show up on-base. Any further details can be provided by your unit during their daily personnel report. Your orders have enough info that they can determine your gaining unit, your accountability/vRED info. It's a travesty, and I bet some of those young Airmen would love to figure out how to improve the system (maybe I'm optimistic). However, the SNCOs/officers who came of age in the MPF/Finance dumpster fires are so entrenched in the system that they quash any innovation.

The "callout" was over me asserting that I didn't have to approve a change of end date...apparently that didn't fall under the variations that were authorized.