FltDoc

So, effective at what? There may be a primary end point, such as "never get the virus". I'm more interested in secondary end points, such as "gets the virus but gets mild or moderate case", "doesn't need hospitalization", or survival. With a good immune response, your viral load will be lower and you're less likely to transmit. That's good. Modern HIV treatment doesn't cure, but it lowers viral load, reduces transmission, and extends lifespan. Not saying this is anything nearly as serious or incurable, just saying we already have experience with benefits in treatment that doesn't 100% prevent the illness. Flu vaccine is same. It's only so good at completely preventing flu, but effect on hospitalization and mortality still makes it more than worthwhile.

https://www.kwtx.com/content/news/Person-hit-killed-by-airplane-at-Austin-Bergstrom-International-Airport-570296081.html

The ones that make the news may only be the tip of the iceberg. Ever catch one that was kept quiet and just sort of happened?

https://taskandpurpose.com/navy-sub-affair

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2020/01/16/spangdahlem-group-commander-disciplined-for-inappropriately-touching-squadron-commanders-wife/

It was also in the CSAF brief to Wing Commanders.

In-res vs correspondence wasn't really the discussion. You might take a look at my screen name and wonder whether the direction on that was the same for my corps vs yours. Regardless of how you get it done, what I'm saying is that it's not useless, either from a learning standpoint or a career standpoint. New BPZ guidelines make it easier to choose to wait through all your chances at in-res before deciding to do it by distance learning, but it is good to do. I'm anonymous and have already made my choices. I would think someone who cares enough to look at this thread cares enough to maximize chances. If not, if you're just venting, that's cool. The data is out there (AFPC secure, RAW, demographic). Look at it, know what you want, and make choices that are good for you and your family.

You don't like the bargain, don't take it. If enough of "you" don't take it, the system will have to flex. I don't see a lot of flex, yet. If I'm in an echo chamber and there's only one right answer, that's ok, but it's still worth saying. I started poor and the pay/security of the military has been worth it to me. ACSC and AWC online were nothing compared to digging ditches. It might not be for others, but knowing the rules helps make decisions. As far as me being a repeat of a prior user, the moderators could probably look at IPs and tell you how right you are. I'm sure a cyber "operator" would know more about that than I do...

Waste of time? Reading and writing about our profession is a waste of time? I think that's extreme. As far as whether it's "Basing selection for promotion on that single item...", I gotta say it's not. With ACSC and crap performance in your primary duty, you probably won't make it. ACSC plus DUI = no promotion and maybe early separation. The truth is that good candidates for promotion probably have all of it. One difficult part of the conversation is that ACSC today isn't the same as ACSC 14 years ago, roughly when I did it. It was easy to knock out at that time, but they purposefully made it more cumbersome, which I disagree with. Anything that's fairly even among all candidates though isn't worthless. It teaches you more about your profession and you may question how much, but I doubt you can honestly say not at all, at least not if you try to complete it with that end in mine. Further, it filters those willing to do something that's a pain but is clearly helpful for career progression from those who won't. In my career there have been a lot of sacrifices. I'm not saying adding some as a discriminator is necessary, but I am saying if you're not willing to do something so relatively easy, then you're unlikely to be willing to do a lot of the later ones that are much more demanding.

I think once all the changes have normalized, socialized, or what have you, this will be mostly a non-issue. In the meantime, it's transition issues that will be the most interesting. Who will get opportunities, someone with a BTZ on the record or someone just a year behind but with an identical record otherwise without? School, jobs, and similar opportunities tend to snowball. With momentum comes more momentum and this will clearly change the record of those on either side of this line. Statistically, there are very few, but for high level jobs, it's most of those being selected. Will there be a few year gap with haves and have-nots?

So, I know there's a telecon coming up on 16th to discuss details, but you seem to know quite a bit. The idea that this somehow does away with the "anointed" seems silly to me. Are raters and boards going to lose the ability to count? Everyone can count to five. Edited, because I found what I think are answers here: https://www.airforcemag.com/app/uploads/2019/12/Talking-Points-BPZ-and-Merit-based-Reordering_ao-9-Dec-19.pdf

Given the way boards work, that seems far fetched. What percentage of board evaluating ops category of LAF will be in ops? If there are big differences in scoring, that drives split process. Don't mean to interrupt your rant, but seems like the issue is going to be more what percentages are applied to each category than identify of board members.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2019/10/02/wild-weasel-maintenance-squadron-commander-fired-at-misawa/ "Col. Rognald Christensen, commander of the 35th Maintenance Group, fired Moehle “due to a loss of confidence in his ability to command,” said Col. Kristopher Struve, commander of the 35th Fighter Wing, in a statement Wednesday." (Note, spelling of his first name is original to the article and seems to be correct.)

👍 I'm glad for you. Hated seeing the bad stuff you went through. Good luck with the rest of the process.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/09/23/fe-warren-security-forces-commander-relieved-following-investigation.html No details, just saw the article.

Does quality of cadet exactly correlate with success in UPT? No, of course not. As others have said, drive, discipline, and willingness to learn tends to lead to success and it's unusual to completely lack it as a cadet and discover it as a student pilot. As a prior UPT primary phase IP, I'd say that's the way to bet. Even overall...now, about twenty years after commissioning, my class and the few around mine, about 30-45 people total, if you ranked them as cadets and then saw how their careers went, there's few big surprises. Far from scientific, but that's what I see looking back.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title8-section1401&num=0&edition=prelim Current 2018 Main Ed. (1/14/2019); Titles 1 to 18a 2012 Ed. and Supplement V (1/12/2018) 2012 Ed. and Supplement IV (1/6/2017) 2012 Ed. and Supplement III (1/3/2016) 2012 Ed. and Supplement II (1/5/2015) 2012 Ed. and Supplement I (1/16/2014) 2012 Main Ed. (1/15/2013) 2006 Ed. and Supplement V (1/3/2012) 2006 Ed. and Supplement IV (1/7/2011) 2006 Ed. and Supplement III (2/1/2010) 2006 Ed. and Supplement II (1/5/2009) 2006 Ed. and Supplement I (1/8/2008) 2006 Main Ed. (1/3/2007) 2000 Ed. and Supplement V (1/2/2006) 2000 Ed. and Supplement IV (1/3/2005) 2000 Ed. and Supplement III (1/19/2004) 2000 Ed. and Supplement II (1/6/2003) 2000 Ed. and Supplement I (1/22/2002) 2000 Main Ed. (1/2/2001) 1994 Ed. and Supplement V (1/23/2000) 1994 Ed. and Supplement IV (1/5/1999) 1994 Ed. and Supplement III (1/26/1998) 1994 Ed. and Supplement II (1/6/1997) 1994 Ed. and Supplement I (1/16/1996) 1994 Main Ed. (1/4/1995) << Previous TITLE 8 / CHAPTER 12 / SUBCHAPTER III / Part I / § 1401 Next >> [Print] [Print selection] [OLRC Home]Help 8 USC 1401: Nationals and citizens of United States at birthText contains those laws in effect on August 29, 2019 From Title 8-ALIENS AND NATIONALITYCHAPTER 12-IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITYSUBCHAPTER III-NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATIONPart I-Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization Jump To:Source CreditAmendmentsEffective DateMiscellaneous "§1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property; (c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person; (d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States; (e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person; (f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States; (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and (h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States." One parent needs to be a citizen who's spent a whole five years in the US and military service does count for this per US Code. Why does the media want tip deceive us? Did the media coverage correlate to a policy that would affect 25 children, roughly equivalent to the billion recitals that happened last week and did not receive national media coverage?

Wait, what? I have SEI reflecting AIS. Other quals are shown multiple places, like K prefix on AFSC and duty title.

I believe it's with commanders. Public release 19th in PSDM.

Really? For DUI? What's the thought on likelihood of innocence? Police officers pull over a driver, come to the conclusion he's impaired, test to confirm and to have enough data to achieve a conviction, and they're wrong? Because going to all that work and creating paperwork for yourself is fun? I've never heard of a DUI case that later turned out the accused was innocent. Am I missing a bunch?

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/455605-senate-panel-advances-nomination-of-general-accused-of-sexual-assault

I'm a prior LAF guy, now flt doc, that's been lurking here. The amount of good gouge is appreciated. MC0618A "as met" has posted on PRDA. Our releases have ranged from late Nov to early Jan, so no telling when results actually come out, but I follow this site to learn and be entertained. Cheers.