1,000 Retired Pilots Can Be Recalled to Active Duty

[HU&W]

2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

I could give a rats fucking ass what some douche in A1 says...take your intent and use it to choke yourself.  The only “fact” we know at this point is what is written in the order and that order delegates authority to SECSEF and SECAF to INVOLUNTARILY recall up to 1,000 pilots.  

Our intent...give me a fucking break...how many times have they lied already?

I completely agree about going to the source.  If note, the EO doesn't limit it to 1000.

[MooseAg03]

Going to the source, here is paragraph A of Title 10 USC 688:

(a)Authority.—

The Secretary of a military department may order to active duty a retired member who agrees to serve on active duty in an assignment intended to alleviate a high-demand, low-density military capability or in any other specialty designated by the Secretary as critical to meet wartime or peacetime requirements. Any such order may be made only with the consent of the member ordered to active duty and in accordance with an agreement between the Secretary and the member.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/688a

 

The important words here to me are "member who agrees to serve" and "Any such order may be made only with the consent of the member."  What am I missing here?  If they tried to recall me, I would quote the source law and just tell them I don't consent.

[BCan]

I'm a bit confused how you go straight to retired dudes when you can start to tag those who are at the end of UPT commitments and dudes who haven't applied to retire, and dudes who have retirement orders but haven't gotten out of the burning building yet.

 

 

[panchbarnes]

1 minute ago, BCan said:

I'm a bit confused how you go straight to retired dudes when you can start to tag those who are at the end of UPT commitments and dudes who haven't applied to retire, and dudes who have retirement orders but haven't gotten out of the burning building yet.

 

 

sssssshhhhhhhhhh......

[Clark Griswold]

2 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

Theoretically what’s the dollar amount you old crusty bastards would go back for?

-asking for a friend (A1)

3 year order, no loss of ARC affiliation, 50k per year bonus, no 365 remote / would accept one 179 in the 3 year period, duties / position specifically noted in contract - member may terminate at that point if the AF wants something different, one general right of termination by the member with loss of bonus for that FY (keep the cheese to be out of the trap) 

If they want pilots, right it up as a pilot for hire contract, not whatever pixel pusher in random staff gig they think is critical to fill

Edited October 21, 2017 by Clark Griswold
fine print edit

[HU&W]

27 minutes ago, MooseAg03 said:

Going to the source, here is paragraph A of Title 10 USC 688:

(a)Authority.—

The Secretary of a military department may order to active duty a retired member who agrees to serve on active duty in an assignment intended to alleviate a high-demand, low-density military capability or in any other specialty designated by the Secretary as critical to meet wartime or peacetime requirements. Any such order may be made only with the consent of the member ordered to active duty and in accordance with an agreement between the Secretary and the member.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/688a

 

The important words here to me are "member who agrees to serve" and "Any such order may be made only with the consent of the member."  What am I missing here?  If they tried to recall me, I would quote the source law and just tell them I don't consent.

Sub a expired in 2011.  He activated 688 and 690 which don't have the voluntary provision you listed.  Here's the link to 688.  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/688  Pay particular attention to the verbiage in (f) compared to the words in the EO.

[Bode]

I'm a bit confused how you go straight to retired dudes when you can start to tag those who are at the end of UPT commitments and dudes who haven't applied to retire, and dudes who have retirement orders but haven't gotten out of the burning building yet.
 
 

Personally believe this is a first step to stop loss. "Hey we tried to get volunteers and we couldn't do the only other option is...." that's what I see the leading to.

[MooseAg03]

Sub a expired in 2011.  He activated 688 and 690 which don't have the voluntary provision you listed.  Here's the link to 688.  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/688  Pay particular attention to the verbiage in (f) compared to the words in the EO.

That’s what I get for researching just after waking up Saturday morning. That seems pretty much like they have the right to order up to 1,000 guys back to active duty. I’m guessing this was easier than selling stop loss to Congress.

[HeloDude]

How many retirees would be willing to to give up their retired benefits to refuse to come back on AD?  Not saying this 'could' happen, but I wouldn't be surprised based off all the caveats written in our laws.

Regardless, I'm expecting lawsuits galore if/when guys get non-vol'd back to AD if met with the risk of losing something (retirement benefits, etc).  Take a look at each of Trump's EO to limit/ban certain types of immigration:. All have been met with a federal judge finding the EOs unconstitutional--why would this be any different?  

[ViperMan]

17 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

How many retirees would be willing to to give up their retired benefits to refuse to come back on AD?  Not saying this 'could' happen, but I wouldn't be surprised based off all the caveats written in our laws.

Regardless, I'm expecting lawsuits galore if/when guys get non-vol'd back to AD if met with the risk of losing something (retirement benefits, etc).  Take a look at each of Trump's EO to limit/ban certain types of immigration:. All have been met with a federal judge finding the EOs unconstitutional--why would this be any different?  

The "reason" you get "retirement" benefits is precisely so they CAN place you back on active duty.

[sqwatch]

The "reason" you get "retirement" benefits is precisely so they CAN place you back on active duty.

Damn the fine print!

[Pork Barrel]

Before we do any of this, we need to divest 25% of the no value added staff jobs, that aren't being filled anyway. Somehow we need to separate identifying worthless jobs and self worth and separate actual requirements from leadership's empire building. If leaders can't honestly assess their requirements, we should ask their subordinates what positions are dead weight and we can start by asking these "100% promote to Major" Captains, no retribution, which of their jobs were worthless.

[Termy]

If they are serious about this (I actually haven't seen any indication that they are), the first thing you do is allow guys to keep getting their retirement when then come back.  Now you are talking close to $200k a year and you might get some takers.  But to ask (or whatever we are calling this) guys to give up a $50k pension to make $130K?  No way in the world.  I know a lot of recently retired people and I literally can't think of a scenario where someone would do that.

The first step that would actually help this and be easy to implement would be a massive increase in TFI initiatives along with being able to be a part timer (TR/DSG depending on the language you speak) to be able to get their retirement except for the days the are in status.  

Regarding the question asked of me earlier about the 16 TAFMS restriction.  You can read the details about all the bonuses under mypers, officer, then compensation.  Active duty, ANG and AFRC all have their own program.  Currently AFRC is the only one with a federal active service restriction.  While I assume the figure that the 16-20 year guys aren't leaving (which is a dangerous assumption in itself) they seemed to forget that the guys with over 20 have less and less incentive to stay in.  

 

[Jaded]

I don't think you guys understand. There is no negotiation required when you can just order people back. You'll get your AD paycheck, and you'll give up any retirement you'd been drawing. Why would they possibly give you anything else?

It's just a backdoor draft, and anybody who gets recalled is going to get the shittiest job for the least pay possible. 

[HU&W]

A quick reminder from 2014.  I know what I'd like the subject of the next congressional hearing to be.

*********************************************

"We're going to be a smaller Air Force, we project over the next five years, and we have a plan on what's going to happen when," James said. "It's heavily in FY15, a little bit in FY16. That was a conscious choice. We're going to do it as quickly as possible and get it behind us."

James, who was previously an executive at SAIC, said that her experience conducting downsizings in the private sector has convinced her it is best to get them over with quickly.

"I've done them slow, and we convince ourselves sometimes that if you drag it out over five years, that that's actually better for people, because it'll be a more gentle slope, and you can manage it better," James said. "But you know what? If you take five years, people will worry about it for five years. If you take one year, people will worry about it for one year. So during the period of uncertainty, people are going to worry. There's no way around it. The best you can do is tell them what you know, tell them what you don't know — but get back to them — and tell them when certain things are going to happen as best as you know it, and keep updating it because things change."

[LookieRookie]

2 hours ago, HU&W said:

A quick reminder from 2014.  I know what I'd like the subject of the next congressional hearing to be.

*********************************************

"We're going to be a smaller Air Force, we project over the next five years, and we have a plan on what's going to happen when," James said. "It's heavily in FY15, a little bit in FY16. That was a conscious choice. We're going to do it as quickly as possible and get it behind us."

James, who was previously an executive at SAIC, said that her experience conducting downsizings in the private sector has convinced her it is best to get them over with quickly.

"I've done them slow, and we convince ourselves sometimes that if you drag it out over five years, that that's actually better for people, because it'll be a more gentle slope, and you can manage it better," James said. "But you know what? If you take five years, people will worry about it for five years. If you take one year, people will worry about it for one year. So during the period of uncertainty, people are going to worry. There's no way around it. The best you can do is tell them what you know, tell them what you don't know — but get back to them — and tell them when certain things are going to happen as best as you know it, and keep updating it because things change."

Ah yes, the selfie-queen herself.

[precontact]

11 hours ago, SocialD said:

Just had this very discussion with the other FO yesterday, coming back from a particularly awesome European layover.  Former 11F (O-4/WIC type), now a 4 year WB FO, soon to be NB CA.  Here were his demands for a staff gig.

- 130k/yr bonus (difference in his expected NB CA pay and O-4 pay) that increases 5k for every year he's back on AD.

- Choice of his assignment/location

- No deployments or involuntary TDYs

- 8 hour work days

- Auto approval of all leave submissions (up to the yearly limit)

- No OPRs

- No work at home (email and blackberry stay in the office)

- No SARC training/CBTs/ORIs/MICT/PT test (although passing one clearly isn't a problem for this guy)

- Reimbursement for a property management company to take care of his house while he is gone

- A clause that states anytime finance denies any of his moving expenses/damaged goods, he can void the contract 

- DLA to and from his assignment, even the PCS to the PLEAD when he separates again 

- If he falls short of his 20, then ALL time counts toward early retirement credit for his part timer retirement

He was willing to knock off a FEW of these items if you let him just be a line IP with no additional duties.

That's pretty funny there. What does he think he's got ALPA USAF backing him up?

Edited October 22, 2017 by precontact

[dream big]

21 hours ago, HeloDude said:

How many retirees would be willing to to give up their retired benefits to refuse to come back on AD?  Not saying this 'could' happen, but I wouldn't be surprised based off all the caveats written in our laws.

Regardless, I'm expecting lawsuits galore if/when guys get non-vol'd back to AD if met with the risk of losing something (retirement benefits, etc).  Take a look at each of Trump's EO to limit/ban certain types of immigration:. All have been met with a federal judge finding the EOs unconstitutional--why would this be any different?  

Because most politicians and interest groups don’t give a rats a$$ about us.  We don’t bring them that many votes. 

[herkbum]

 

[HeloDude]

8 minutes ago, dream big said:

Because most politicians and interest groups don’t give a rats a$$ about us.  We don’t bring them that many votes. 

I'll even go a step further--more Americans each year are less interested/concerned with the well being of servicemen and women.  If you ask the typical Bernie Sanders supporter whether they would trade reduced military retiree benefits for increases to social programs (single payer healthcare, government funded community college, etc) I think it's pretty obvious where their support would most likley be.  But to be fair, most GOP politicians only care enough about military benefits to satisfy their base.

I don't believe the same retirement benefits given today will be given to me over the next 30-40 years of my life.

[Jaded]

Ok internet lawyers, what are the loopholes for this? In what situations can you not be recalled?

Edited October 22, 2017 by Jaded

[sputnik]

Not be an 11F

[HossHarris]

Explore psychedelics

[ClearedHot]

USAF in full damage control mode...CSAF twitter has a link to a statement released earlier today saying they don't "intend" to recall retired pilots. 

[Jaded]

You are way too old to be that good with memes.