What's wrong with the Air Force?

[dream big]

8 hours ago, epsilon said:

Since this deals with PT tests (which we all hate)I figured it could fall under "what's wrong with the Air Force" category.

I'm PCS'ing next week with an approx 4.5 month enroute Conus TDY.  My MPF is telling me I have to retake my PT test prior to leaving even though I am current through Jan.  My interpretation of the reg was that I fell into an extended TDY exemption.  They were citing a newish policy that says you have to be current at gaining PCS location plus 42 days.  However, unless I get excellent there is no way the math would work out anyway based on the length of my TDY.  I would still not have the 42 days after RNLTD even if I took one day prior to my class start (assuming only a SAT score).

I really don't want to quibble but I don't want to unnecessarily take it because of a WOM.  Any thoughts or experiences on this?

Thanks

I had a similar situation at an oversees location trying to PCS in a few days while MPF was refusing to do my final out (I would have been current through a 4 month TDY enroute plus ~20 days after RNLTD.) I pleaded and convinced them I would do my PT test at my TDY location.  They agreed to sign the paperwork and I was on my way.  When I got to the TDY location I conveniently forgot about the PT test and just took it at my new base.  No questions asked.

 

[MooseAg03]

https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=3491

Anyone have any insight on this? This was the first I’ve heard of this case. Apparently the Col had an issue with signing a spouse appreciation certificate for a gay member at their retirement. A Maj Gen signed it while the Col submitted a religious accommodation request, but apparently that wasn’t enough for the retiring NCO who took offense and filed an EO complaint.

[Jaded]

It was on JQP. Basically, you can't treat people you command differently because of your religious beliefs.

[xaarman]

I had a commander that didn't want to sign a certificate for a gay spouse citing religious beliefs. The OG said sign it or you're fired. Then he signed it. Over in about an afternoon.

[Fud]

1 hour ago, xaarman said:

I had a commander that didn't want to sign a certificate for a gay spouse citing religious beliefs. The OG said sign it or you're fired. Then he signed it. Over in about an afternoon.

I don't understand why people feel like taking a stand on something as simple as signing a certificate.  I'm not a fan of someone shoving their religious beliefs, sexual orientation, or political views in my face though. 

[DirtyFlightSuit]

old STUS/CC at Vance AFB was offered a similar option when faced with graduation and wouldn't let a student provide a rose to her partner.  He also caved.    Woulda rather him get fired then would have saved us all from having to deal with him the year or two after...

[LJDRVR]

I have found a lot of believers have a real problem understanding where their religious freedom ends and where the rights of others begin. Given teh amount of lies they're fed from those seeking to control them, it's not much of a surprise.

Here's the Cliff Notes version:

We're a secular democracy, not a theocracy. The Constitution does not have the word God in it. The men that founded this country wrote extensively about the separation. Jefferson went so far as discuss building up a wall between the church and state.

Your beliefs are for you. Our laws and our public institutions are for everybody. Christians, Jews, Atheists, Muslims, Cargo cults, etc.

You may not hold up your belief system as an excuse to not abide by the law or deprive others of their due process or equal access. If you could, then these "church of no taxes" would be the most wildly successful new religion ever, and their members wouldn't be in jail or on the losing end of a huge tax bill and lien form the IRS.

[xaarman]

2 hours ago, DirtyFlightSuit said:

 

That's exactly what I was posting about, I was trying to be a bit more anonymous for the accused, lol.

 

It was my student, so I suspect we worked together in the same office...

[DirtyFlightSuit]

I didn't say WHICH commander =D.... my bad.   

[pawnman]

On 10/27/2017 at 6:00 AM, epsilon said:

Since this deals with PT tests (which we all hate)I figured it could fall under "what's wrong with the Air Force" category.

I'm PCS'ing next week with an approx 4.5 month enroute Conus TDY.  My MPF is telling me I have to retake my PT test prior to leaving even though I am current through Jan.  My interpretation of the reg was that I fell into an extended TDY exemption.  They were citing a newish policy that says you have to be current at gaining PCS location plus 42 days.  However, unless I get excellent there is no way the math would work out anyway based on the length of my TDY.  I would still not have the 42 days after RNLTD even if I took one day prior to my class start (assuming only a SAT score).

I really don't want to quibble but I don't want to unnecessarily take it because of a WOM.  Any thoughts or experiences on this?

Thanks

I'm curious what their reaction will be when you take the test, and you still won't be current 42 days after your arrive at your gaining location.

[juacey]

Sad.

Edited November 17, 2017 by juacey

[matmacwc]

7 hours ago, LJDRVR said:

I have found a lot of believers have a real problem understanding where their religious freedom ends and where the rights of others begin. Given teh amount of lies they're fed from those seeking to control them, it's not much of a surprise.

Here's the Cliff Notes version:

We're a secular democracy, not a theocracy. The Constitution does not have the word God in it. The men that founded this country wrote extensively about the separation. Jefferson went so far as discuss building up a wall between the church and state.

Your beliefs are for you. Our laws and our public institutions are for everybody. Christians, Jews, Atheists, Muslims, Cargo cults, etc.

You may not hold up your belief system as an excuse to not abide by the law or deprive others of their due process or equal access. If you could, then these "church of no taxes" would be the most wildly successful new religion ever, and their members wouldn't be in jail or on the losing end of a huge tax bill and lien form the IRS.

In general I agree with you but.....

   We are not a secular democracy, we are a constitutional republic, God and Creator are all over the Declaration of Independence, and if the writers wanted the separation in there I believe they would have put it there, at least 6 people signed both.  The ones that wrote about it in letters wrote about separation of religion, not from religion.  I would also argue that a one persons rights are not more important than another persons.  All that being said the military is a different animal, those higher ranking than another can tell you to shut up and color.

[Jaded]

So, if say, there was a signed treaty from that time period that said, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion," would that be enough to convince you of the founder's intent? 

[matmacwc]

I wasn't clear I guess, I totally agree with that statement.

 

Sort of, the founders were Christian but didn’t want what happened in England to happen here.

Edited November 17, 2017 by matmacwc
I was high and drunk

[sputnik]

11 hours ago, Fud said:

I don't understand why people feel like taking a stand on something as simple as signing a certificate.  

Yeah, I'm with you.  He was a great f'ing dude when I knew him.  Sad to see him end his career over something like that.

[HuggyU2]

12 hours ago, Fud said:

I don't understand why people feel like taking a stand on something as simple as signing a certificate. 

I'm sure there are things you will stand for on principle... and that others may not understand.  

[Guest]

He is a Catholic right? Wondering, if he stood for his beliefs and sign any certificates for catholic folks who divorced and remarried? 

Or were his principles not activated over time that sacrament? Or multitude of laws Catholics are supposed to uphold?

Big Blue messes a lot shit up and granted this Col may be a good dude, it is good and the right thing, the AF got him to end his career

[HeloDude]

6 hours ago, Jaded said:

So, if say, there was a signed treaty from that time period that said, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion," would that be enough to convince you of the founder's intent? 

Nah, that's wouldn't work--see the Second Amendment for an example of how people don't care what is in the Constitution or what the founding fathers said about a certain issues.

[Day Man]

Some of you guys would lose your goddamn minds if it was a Muslim commander implementing his beliefs instead...

[Guardian]

You’re right. Because it’s Islam and the cc can’t impliment his beliefs on me. Just himself. Your statement isn’t what happened in this case. He just bowed out of a signature and got someone higher to sign. Perfectly acceptable to most. Others just want to cause a ruckus just to cause one and watch people squirm.

[Jaded]

23 minutes ago, Guardian said:

You’re right. Because it’s Islam and the cc can’t impliment his beliefs on me. Just himself. Your statement isn’t what happened in this case. He just bowed out of a signature and got someone higher to sign. Perfectly acceptable to most. Others just want to cause a ruckus just to cause one and watch people squirm.

You're right. It's fine for commanders to treat people differently because of their personal religious beliefs. Thanks for putting this all to rest. 

[Lord Ratner]

Being a commander is not a requirement. If you're not interested in performing all of the usual duties for all of your subordinates who are serving in lawful capacities, then just don't be a commander.

It would be pandemonium amongst the ranks if the first gay commander only signed certs for gay spouses, and they would be rightly upset.

[Guardian]

You're right. It's fine for commanders to treat people differently because of their personal religious beliefs. Thanks for putting this all to rest. 

You’re Welcome

[HeloDude]

Yeah...I mean the senior leaders would never allow exceptions to policy based off of someone's religion, right?

https://time.com/4625313/us-army-uniform-sikh-turbans-hijab/

Full disclosure:  I wouldn't have any problems signing the letter/certificate.  

[Azimuth]

21 hours ago, DirtyFlightSuit said:

old STUS/CC at Vance AFB was offered a similar option when faced with graduation and wouldn't let a student provide a rose to her partner.  He also caved.    Woulda rather him get fired then would have saved us all from having to deal with him the year or two after...

The old STUS/CC at Vance drew dicks on my checklist one flight in the KC-135 when I left my checklist on the Nav table.  So I find this 10% truth hard (sts) to believe.