Disco_Nav963
-
Posts
309 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
10
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by Disco_Nav963
-
-
16 hours ago, ClearedHot said:
I hear what you are saying but a couple of notes and some logic should apply.
1. Do you trust the DOJ and Comey? It is sad we have to say it out loud but actions over the past 8 years have completely destroyed my faith in the DOJ and much of the FBI. As you noted above they doctored FISA warrants to get to Trump. Additionally, they knew the dossier was fake, the helped suppress the Hunter Laptop story when they knew it was real because they had a copy of it, and as the Durham report identified political interference at multiple levels which the FBI admits saying they have already put fixes in place to remedy.
Blanket "it depends" to "Do I trust the DOJ?," but in this instance I'm not trusting Comey's FBI or Loretta Lynch's DOJ, I'm trusting the DOJ IG Horowitz who is the reason we know about the doctored e-mail and the deficient FISA applications in the first place, and I'm drawing a logical conclusion that if there were evidence that (despite what Comey said in 2016 and what the IG report said in 2018) the DOJ had in its possession that did show intent, willfulness, direction, etc., etc., there is no reason why Jeff Sessions, Matt Whitaker, or Bill Barr wouldn't have made it very public. (Especially Barr.)
Quote2. Please tell me you have a basic understanding of how these classified information systems work...I am obviously not going to lay out our nations classified information structure on an unclassified forum, but it should be basic knowledge that the systems that handle TS/SCI SAR/SAP do NOT touch other systems, personal servers in particular. It was a deliberate, purposeful and manual act to take that info and move it to Hillary's private server.
You're assuming facts not in evidence. You're jumping to the conclusion that if classified information got into an email on an unclassified network, it had to be because someone retyped it from an email or document on a classified network. I still (and I keep asking for it) have yet to see anything that alleges that that happened in this case. I'm sure you have a basic understanding of the fact that if you were a dirtbag, you could take any number of pieces of classified information from your brain into Hotmail and click Send without having to look at a SIPR or JWICS machine first. And I assume you realize that inadvertent spillage happens... not infrequently... when people f**k up and commit classification by compilation, or put things in unclassified channels prematurely (e.g. before I was a staff weenie I'd hear about once a year about someone putting an ATO callsign on "unclass" paperwork prior to 0000z on execution day, at which point the callsign was still Confidential). Or that talking about things that have leaked into open-source is still spillage.
That's exactly what the Politico article Lawman linked to says happened at least with some of the docs in this case:
QuoteThe official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said some or all of the emails deemed to implicate “special access programs” related to U.S. drone strikes. Those who sent the emails were not involved in directing or approving the strikes, but responded to the fallout from them, the official said.
The information in the emails “was not obtained through a classified product, but is considered ‘per se’ classified” because it pertains to drones, the official added. The U.S. treats drone operations conducted by the CIA as classified, even though in a 2012 internet chat Presidential Barack Obama acknowledged U.S.-directed drone strikes in Pakistan.
The source noted that the intelligence community considers information about classified operations to be classified even if it appears in news reports or is apparent to eyewitnesses on the ground. For example, U.S. officials with security clearances have been warned not to access classified information leaked to WikiLeaks and published in the New York Times.
“Even though things are in the public domain, they still retain their classification level,” the official said. “The ICIG maintains its position that it’s still ‘codeword’ classified.”
The State Department is likely to persist in its contention that some information the intelligence community claimed was “top secret” because it related to North Korean nuclear tests was actually the product of “parallel reporting” that did not rely on classified intelligence products and so should not be treated as highly classified, the official said.
However, State is set to acquiesce in the determinations regarding classified programs like drone strikes because there is a longstanding, government-wide consensus that such information must be treated as classified even if it leaks or becomes apparent from events on the ground, the official added.
The Washington Post likewise talked to congressional staffers that had reviewed the email chains and they said something similar:
Quote[I]t is not possible to “cut and paste” from the classified system into the unclassified system. Instead, one would have to extract the information from the classified system and then reenter it manually into the unclassified system. Thus far, no one has alleged that happened.
Instead, congressional aides say, the concern centers on the fact that secret information was revealed as part of an email exchange. In at least one case, the discussion started with an aide forwarding a newspaper article; then in subsequent exchanges, aides revealed sensitive details as they discussed (for instance) the shortcomings of that public report. Ultimately the email chain ended up in Clinton’s email box. If the email chain was released, some intelligence officials believe, it would confirm aspects of a secret program.
And in the one instance where Confidential portion-marked data wound up in her inbox, it apparently was apparently unclassified at the time and incorrectly marked:QuoteThe emails concerned proposed talking points for Clinton when she called a foreign leader. The State Department later said the (C) markings should have been removed as a matter of course once Clinton decided to place the call but through “human error,” they had not been deleted.
Sen. Chuck Grassley released the State Department's Information Security office's (the people that did the spill analysis after the FBI criminal inquiry wrapped and assessed fault for individual security violations) final report in 2019, and they found:
Quote
They ultimately found 497 security violations, of which 91 were attributable to 38 specific individuals:Quote
... and of those, HRC herself was not deemed culpable for them:
Quote
Occam's Razor: If she had verbatim transcribed something from high side to low side, or directed someone to do so, it would be very clear evidence of intent and you wouldn't have the words "no evidence" all over the DOJ IG report. It might say "some evidence," or "insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt," or some such thing but it wouldn't say "no evidence." And again, even if you don't trust Comey or for some reason Horowitz on that, there's no reason Trump's AGs wouldn't have told the world. For that matter, the Statute of Limitations on 793 crimes is 10 years... If they'd had the evidence, they were remarkably lax about the "Lock her up!" thing. They didn't even reopen the investigation so far as we know. Likewise, if the State Department in its spill investigation had found she was culpable, Mike Pompeo would have had zero incentive to hide that from us.
QuoteI am a simple dude and the bottomline for me is the deliberate act of taking info off those separate servers. I can certainly see a scenario when Pence and Biden ended up with classified documents without malice and I believe punishment/prosecution should account for that. Were the Pence documents exposed to a foreign power, likely no. Were the Biden documents exposed to a foreign power, given they were in multiple locations including the Chinese funded Penn/Biden Center AND in the garage within reach of his crackhead son...I would raise that risk to medium. Were the Trump documents exposed to a foreign power, prior to the indictment I would have said no since the Secret Service guards his home, but if reports of him showing items like the Iran CONOP to uncleared persons...I would also raise that risk to medium.
Concur 100% with your threat analysis... Just not with the unsupported assumption that she caused data to be moved from classified systems to unclassified systems.
-
4 minutes ago, Lawman said:
Yeah and again….
Thats Reuters.
That's not from a Reuters news story; that's from an op-ed by a former State Department employee that Reuters syndicated in 2016 shortly after the Comey press conference.
The writer seems to have read "From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the State Department, 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received" and took a big leap on the jump to conclusions mat that 100 emails with classified information meant that classified documents were being verbatim transcribed (retyped) from one system to another.
From the DOJ report, the actual number of emails that contained verbatim transcriptions of classified documents was 8, on 3 e-mail chains, all Confidential, all of them sent by Clinton aides who CC'ed her. The report does not say one way or the other whether the paragraphs were copied from classified e-mails or from printed documents they had at their disposal. So again, the actual number of classified documents deliberately moved (whether by re-typing or someone using removable media the wrong way) from classified network to unclassified network that we know about... as far as I've been able to find... is zero.
Your op-ed seems to make much of the markings that were on the e-mails when they were sanitized/released to the general public by the State Department FOIA people, which if one were just reading the op-ed and didn't know better would make you think those markings were on a source document that the emails were quoting as opposed to applied retroactively. (Obviously neither a lack of marking nor a classified fact being in one's brain or communicated verbally before being written down--as opposed to copied from another written source--changes the obligation to appropriately protect that data. I'm simply pointing out that without them it's one less data point DOJ has to show willfulness/knowledge/intent.)
QuoteNo reasonable person could understand that pulling classified markings of geospatial intelligence wasn’t an illegal action or whatever reason.
I agree. Who did that, when, and how do we know it?
QuoteWe are saying the governmental agencies found a way to protect her and you’re quoting the same government agencies like it’s some sort of proof it was all on the up and up.
I'm quoting a report that cites its sources written under the auspices of a bunch of Republican DOJ appointees that hammers the previous FBI director, also a Republican, for his missteps investigating Hillary and leading the Bureau, and was written by the same IG that hammered Bureau leadership for playing dirty going after Trump aides. It has no discernible reason to pull its punches on HRC. You're quoting an op-ed from a guy who was long gone from the USG and had no connection to the investigation or insider knowledge of the details, who doesn't show his receipts, who seems to have done some good work in his career but also left USG service with his own classified disclosure issues. (Not saying he was doing a hatchet job in his op-ed, just that it was a hot take based on the limited information available at the time and he got out over his skis a little bit.)
QuoteAlso intent was never part of the US Code she violated and could be charged under.
793(d) and (e), 1924, and 2071(a) require an element of intent. 793(f)(1) and (2) don't explicitly require intent but haven't historically been charged without it:
QuoteWe further found that the statute that required the most complex analysis by the prosecutors was Section 793(f)(1), the “gross negligence” provision that has been the focus of much of the criticism of the declination decision. [T]he prosecutors analyzed the legislative history of Section 793(f)(1), relevant case law, and the Department’s prior interpretation of the statute. They concluded that Section 793(f)(1) likely required a state of mind that was “so gross as to almost suggest deliberate intention,” criminally reckless, or “something that falls just short of being willful,” as well as evidence that the individuals who sent emails containing classified information “knowingly” included or transferred such information onto unclassified systems. The Midyear team concluded that such proof was lacking. We found that this interpretation of Section 793(f)(1) was consistent with the Department’s historical approach in prior cases under different leadership, including in the 2008 decision not to prosecute former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for mishandling classified documents.
Note that the only charge considered in the Clinton case that overlaps with the MAL docs case is 793(e), and in this instance the SC has Trump dead to rights on knowledge and intent (via audio and video tapes, text messages, and his lawyers records) to willfully retain.
QuoteAgain, the level of “oh she couldn’t possibly have been charged,” you and others seem to want to find a way to is just astounding. At the very least all of her staff flunkies at the time should have had their clearances pulled, and if you’d gotten on JPAS at the time you’d have seen that didn’t happen. Meanwhile over at USSOAC…. We’re crushing some E 4 for plugging a purple cable into a green printer.
I definitely think she *could* have been charged on 793(f), but it would have been in an Alvin Bragg "You could make an argument that the statute works this way... It just hasn't been done before" kind of way... Not IAW DOJ charging guidelines that essentially require a guaranteed win. And I 100% agree with you that all of the staff flunkies should have lost their clearances and (like her) never sniffed the inside of a federal office building again.
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, Lawman said:
Again, you are either willfully or just ignorantly trying to give her a pass.
You assumingely (by being on this site) know personally of instances of persons being crucified, livelihoods lost, careers ended, because of stuff far more benign and innocent than anything Hillary did. We threw guys to the wolves in SOCOM for far less. Yet you spent god knows what time on Reddit or wherever digging up a wall of reasons why it’s ok she didn’t face any repercussions for intentionally setting up an illegal server in her house that classified material just happens to make it onto.
And then you excuse her actions quoting a guy saying “well if you charged her all these other people would have to be charged.”
Yeah bro, a whole lot of people would be fine with Trumps indictment had a whole lot of other people ever been charged. Instead this is absolutely standing as proof that if you are connected and protected or not, your actions carry different consequences.
Sent from my iPad using TapatalkThe quotes are from the DOJ's IG Report. The link is in the post. Jesus.
Once again, ClearedHot said "she purposely took TS/SCI SAR/SAP off a classified server and transferred them to an open system." What is the evidence of that? (The Politico article you linked to does not say that.) I repeat myself, I am ready to admit my ignorance if there is something I wasn't previously tracking.
If as you say this case was an outlier and a double standard, please name the other people the DOJ has charged under the relevant statutes for the same fact pattern. (Civilian officials charged under the U.S. Code, not servicemembers charged under UCMJ or who got Article 15s.)
(If you're big mad that there is a double standard between mil and civilian or between federal criminal law and military law in this area, copy shot, I can agree. But I am under the impression you think there is a double standard between this case and the Mar-a-Lago docs case or earlier cases like Petraeus and Deutch.)
-
41 minutes ago, Lawman said:
If you want to know why a whole lot of people are calling out this action as dubious given the political protection granted to Clinton, it’s probably got something to do with this almost forceful way that people dismiss Clinton and her actions from discussion.
Sent from my iPad using TapatalkI'm well aware. I followed politics much more closely at the time than I do now. I ask my question because ClearedHot's statement assumes the truth of something I've occasionally heard people say (bros around the squadron and randos on Twitter), but have never actually seen alleged by any of the investigations into the server (DOJ, State IG, Congress, etc.)
E.g. From the DOJ IG's Trump-era review of DOJ's handling of the case (same DOJ IG that uncovered the email doctoring used to justify the Carter Page FISA):
Quote"Agent 2 told the OIG:
[F]rom like my level looking at it...you were hard-pressed to find the
intent of anyone to put classified information on that server. And
again, sloppy security practices, for sure. Right? But, and, and
preventable? Yes. But somebody intentionally putting classified on it,
we just never found clear-cut evidence of somebody intending to do
that." (p. 165)Quote"Baker told the OIG that he thought that the conduct of former Secretary
Clinton and her senior aides was “appalling with respect to how they handled the
classified information...[and] arrogant in terms of their knowledge and
understanding of these matters.” He stated that he was concerned about former
Secretary Clinton’s level of knowledge and intent, and thought that she should have
recognized the sensitivity of information in the emails sent to her. Baker said that
he “debated and argued” with Comey and the Midyear team about former Secretary
Clinton’s criminal liability, but ultimately came to the conclusion that declining
prosecution was the correct decision after reviewing a binder of her emails. Baker
said that he recognized there was a lack of evidence establishing knowledge or
criminal intent, and that based on “the volume of...communications coming at
[Clinton] at all times, day and night, given the heavy responsibilities that a
Secretary of State has, isn’t she entitled to rely on [the classification determinations
by] her folks?” Baker stated that he “did not like it.... I eventually agreed with it,
but I did not like it.” (p. 166)Quote"There was no evidence that the senders or former Secretary Clinton
believed or were aware at the time that the emails contained classified
information. In the absence of clear classification markings, the
prosecutors determined that it would be difficult to dispute the
sincerity of these witnesses’ stated beliefs that the material was not
classified." (p. 255)Quote"The emails in question were sent to other government officials in
furtherance of the senders’ official duties. There was no evidence that
the senders or former Secretary Clinton intended that classified
information be sent to unauthorized recipients, or that they
intentionally sought to store classified information on unauthorized
systems." (p. 255)Quote"Although some witnesses expressed concern or surprise when they
saw some of the classified content in unclassified emails, the
prosecutors concluded that the investigation did not reveal evidence
that any U.S. government employees involved in the SAP willfully
communicated the information to a person not entitled to receive it, or
willfully retained the same." (p. 255)Quote"The senders used unclassified emails because of “operational tempo,”
that is, the need to get information quickly to senior State Department
officials at times when the recipients lacked access to classified
systems. To accomplish this, senders often refrained from using
specific classified facts or terms in emails and worded emails carefully
in an attempt to avoid transmitting classified information." (p. 255)Quote"There was no evidence that Clinton set up her servers or private email
account with the intent of communicating or retaining classified
information, or that she had knowledge that classified information
would be communicated or retained on it." (p. 255)Quote"All of the prosecutors and agents we asked told
us that they could not prove that Clinton had actual knowledge that the emails in
question were classified or that Clinton used private servers and a private email
account with the purpose or intent of receiving classified information on them." (p. 261)One can rightly ask (as the DOJ IG did) whether the investigators used every tool at their disposal to look for evidence of intent or willful cross-pollenation of high side data to the unclass system. One can rightly be PO'ed at Hillary's arrogance. One can rightly think Jake Sullivan (who sent a lot of these emails) shouldn't have gotten to go on to lead the NSC.
I still haven't actually seen anyone make a fact claim that, if accepted at face value, shows she intentionally transferred or caused the transfer of classified data to an unclass network.
To me the Occam's Razor explanation is she set up a private server to circumvent record-keeping requirements and a bunch of arrogant 20-something political appointees and aides tried more or less hard and more or less successfully to talk around a range of sensitive topics including a bunch of classified, probably a lot of which was already widely known via open source which is something we understand is a thing but retards with Ivy League international studies degrees at their first USG job may not. The private server didn't cause that to happen. They were sending stuff from both their state.gov NIPR emails and in some cases their personal accounts (Sullivan was one), and they would have CC'ed hillary@state.gov instead of hillary@gmail.com had that been the account she used.
Or as the IG Report says:
Quote"According to Prosecutor 4, '[T]he problem was the State Department was so
screwed up in the way they treated classified information that if you wanted to
prosecute Hillary Clinton, you would have had to prosecute 150 State Department
people.'"None of that is defensible, none of that means I'd want to vote for those people (especially if they sell dumbass hats celebrating how arrogant and unrepentant they are) or invite them my birthday party, but it does mean they're not chargeable under the statutes Trump is charged under.
But to my original question, because I'm open to correction, if there's an incident that shows the Witch of Chappaqua intentionally/knowingly committed or directed a CMI, I'd love to know about it.
-
1
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, ClearedHot said:
when she purposely took TS/SCI SAR/SAP off a classified server and transferred them to an open system.
Source?
-
26 minutes ago, brabus said:
Don’t paint with a broad brush - I’m willing to bet the number of people actually wanting a civil war are in the hundreds, e.g. not even a blip on the radar.
-
4
-
-
On 7/22/2022 at 5:58 AM, dream big said:
-
20 hours ago, torqued said:
Galaxy brain level genius here if he thinks this makes him look good and Kinzinger look bad... These people have worms in their brains.
-
4
-
-
You guys are all going to be shocked, but I have another rave review for Jon and the folks at Trident. My wife found the perfect place for her to live her dream of rehabbing a historic home in the historic district of our medium-sized military town (the other ATX), and when we put an offer in we found out why it had been on the market (in this market) for 6 months: the sellers had rejected three previous offers by buyers who were planning on using VA loans. Either they or their listing agent were sure that dealing with VA buyers was a nightmare and that the appraisal would come in 30% below comps and kill any deal. Jon spent a half hour on the phone sweet talking the listing agent—busting myths, explaining the process for getting a second opinion from VA staff appraisers, etc etc.
Jon did more to make the deal happen than my buyer's agent did. They accepted our second offer and we closed yesterday... Interest rate 1.6% below current market rates (and about 0.5% below the market rate at the time we locked). Zero bureaucratic hassle with Jon's staff. Could not have gone smoother. (Unrelated: Appraised just fine.)
With both the contract price and our interest rate, in this market, it feels like we made it onto the last chopper out of 'Nam. We can't thank Jon enough.-
1
-
-
Probably you should post a photo or two of her so everyone can decide for themselves.
-
2
-
5
-
-
On 9/14/2021 at 7:14 PM, dogfish78 said:
@Disco_Nav963 I see you downvoted my sentencing recommendation. What sentence would you prefer for treason instead? A guilty plea down to a low level misdemeanor offense and 2 months un-supervised probation?
I would prefer you to get off this board and take a short walk off of a tall building.
-
2
-
-
Knew not one but two dudes in the BUFF who would share videos on Facebook about how it was a mistake for South Africa to end apartheid. And at Dyess we have someone working at the sim building with QAnon decals on his or her car (also a Texas A&M car ornament, naturally). The crazies are out there.
Edit: I swore I posted this in the Extremism in the Military thread... Must have gone full stupid or weird computer things are happening.
-
2
-
1
-
-
Another two thumbs up to Jon, Elena, and the team at Trident... Got me from 3.75% to 2.25% on a rental property (bought with a VA loan, but haven't lived in it for a few years) with a lender credit and only a couple hundred bucks due at close, most of which was title company fees. Saving me about $250 a month on the mortgage payment, and minimal to no flail involved. 12/10, would go back to them again!
-
45 minutes ago, busdriver said:
He was kneeling on the side of his neck not the windpipe, so half of a carotid choke. I would guess the other side artery was likely restricted to some degree, but not fully since he knelt there for a long fucking time before he became unresponsive.
Watch the Tony Timpa video. Died the same way, no knee on neck. The knee is a red herring, the confounding factors (for both cases, in my estimation) is a prone restraint and drug related physiology. So not being able to breath is true, but it had nothing to do with the knee.
Qualified immunity is a problem. I'm not convinced just erasing it is a good idea, but it's something to look at that could allow better accountability of department policy within the current system.
Having higher standards for police officers in general is warranted. With that comes a need for more money not less however. More training time requires more officers on the pay-role to cover the additional requirement. Want higher caliber people? Be prepared to pay them more. Etc. etc.
Matt Yglesias (liberal writer who can do math and isn't into bumper sticker solutions) wrote a lengthy column on exactly this point (more funding, not less): Fixing the police will take more funding, not less
-
7 minutes ago, Swamp Yankee said:
That said, I am by no means an enthusiastic Biden supporter. This election was a reset to politics as usual. Given the dumpster fire / shit show / shenangians / tomfoolery / fiasco / calamity / goat rope over the last four years, that is a good thing for now. We will get some relative stability. I'm confident that Biden supporters, even the extreme factions, will not attempt to stop government by force after being incited by lies. So there's that.
2. Biden was an opportunity to get from dumpster fire to "Bad within normal parameters," to paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke. We now have a guy who isn't the center of a personality cult. We can build on that.
-
2
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:
100% agree that many 2016 votes were against Hillary and not for Trump. I voted for Trump this time and it absolutely pained me. I did it because I could not vote for the DNC polices which are now being thrust upon us (draconian gun control, "free" everything, seven-fold increase in immigration and enabling the Squad agenda).
I disagree with your assessment that the GOP sold it's soul nominating Trump...what were they supposed to do...rig the nomination like the DNC (sucked to be Bernie in 2016 with Super-Delegates). If Trump had the votes, he had the votes. I can however support the soul selling argument when it comes to protesting the election and other issues.
Super delegates didn't thwart Bernie in 2016. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/jul/25/donald-trump/no-donald-trump-bernie-sanders-wouldnt-have-won-ev/
That's a claim Trump made to try to encourage division within the Democratic base, but like most things he says it wasn't true.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, pawnman said:
Because they want to be "cool" and "tactical" and not have to teach the new kids how to fly the jet. They're basically part of the 9th Bomb Squadron (the active combat unit at Dyess). Share a building, fly rainbowed with the 9th, share tails, share maintenance. The really ironic part is when it was pitched to us at Dyess, they were supposedly going to fly with the FTU. They actually took billets from the FTU to create billets in the reserve unit, something the current FTU commander is looking to fix (either getting them to fly with the FTU, or taking the billets from the combat unit since that's who the reserves are augmenting).
The original vision for the association was mixed support to FTU and ops, and we had half the squadron aligned with and actively flying the FTU mission. But RegAF asked us to support the combat squadron exclusively, and at that time most of our FTU augments pulled chocks because they weren't looking to deploy at that stage of their lives. The billets that came from the 9th/28th were vacant UMD billets that hadn't actually been filled by AFPC in some time. It cost the 28th zero actual personnel, the requirement for the 28th to maintain some people CMR to support 9th deployments went away, and seeing as the B-Course classes are 1/3rd smaller now and the FTU is out of the TX and FIC flying business, the demand signal on the FTU is demonstrably down.
When we were told to support the combat squadron we naturally adjusted our hiring strategy and brought in more off the street and crossflow guys, so naturally we need our instructors to instruct our non-instructors... Not to mention supporting MQT, upgrade, FIC etc. at the 9th [who we associate with, not are "part of"]. And we are required by our MAJCOM to fly our own Flying Hour Program, so while we did the rainbow crew thing as we were standing up [we're still "standing up," we've only gotten to 2/3rds of our planned footprint so far], now sometimes we just need our instructors butts in seats, flying the line, making RAP, and getting CT. Instructor CT is a good thing... Especially when we rainbow up in the deployed arena as we should.
When we've gotten a specific request from the FTU that we could actually support (i.e. not three months ago, when we were deployed) we've sent people... Case in point, two of our IWSOs flew with them this month. And two of our new hires (1x IP/1x IWSO) are going to live/work primarily in the FTU (with the caveat that they have to stay CMR and will have to deploy). But our force structure can't change on a dime just because one year RegAF wants us all-in on ops and two years later new local leadership wants us back in the schoolhouse in a big way... Especially because while RegAF's near rock may be FTU production, AFRC's long game is B-21 involvement and at Dyess that means Ops/Test/WIC, not FTU. There are two parties to this association, and AFRC is not going to let the other party unilaterally dictate our priorities. RegAF needs our Ops/Mx manpower and we need RegAF's iron, so we each hold some of the cards, and we (ARC) know we aren't going to get everything we want, but when y'all don't get everything you want it isn't because we have bad attitudes. It's because we're pursuing our organizational interests (from Sq to NAF to MAJCOM) like any rational group of people.-
2
-
3
-
-
There's been RegAF interest in an ARC presence at KRCA for years... There is Reserve B-1 crewdog interest in an ARC presence at KRCA for the obvious reasons (Ellsworth is awesome). When I directly asked the previous 307 BW/CC about it 3-ish years ago, he made it sound like it was stuck in HQ AFRC feasibility study purgatory. Concerns over whether the ARC pilot lifestyle was sustainable with folks having to commute somewhere that isn't a hub and has few direct flights a lot of the year. (Also true of KABI, but Dyess is a 2 hour drive from DFW.) Seemed to me like they were underestimating the amount of interest pilots would have.
More recently, in the context of B-1 divestiture planning, I've heard someone that goes to those meetings say "We're closer than ever to a Reserve presence at Ellsworth." But all the conversations I've heard make it sounds like it would initially be a detached flight from the Dyess organization.
-
1
-
-
If the Foundation goes under... Odds someone else keeps their F-4 flying? Because if I ever found myself with $15K to blow I was definitely going to treat myself to a ride someday.
-
On 10/26/2020 at 6:37 PM, Smokin said:
McCain was not well liked. As mentioned, the fact that his fellow POWs would not talk to him should tell you everything you need to know.
Says a bunch of "POWs Were Left Behind" conspiracy theorists who weren't there. Could you find a few people out of the 500+ that were prisoners who didn't like him? Sure. Bud Day campaigned for him. That's all you need to know.
-
3
-
-
3 hours ago, pawnman said:
Lord forbid we just use blue lettering. What asshat has stock in the company that makes spice brown thread?
The spice must flow...
-
1
-
4
-
-
9 minutes ago, nsplayr said:
Does anyone else still get jacked up flight pay? I recently-ish entered the $1K-a-month tier and yet without fail every month I now get 4x LESs. 1st of the month, normal pay with $325 flight pay, then about a week later another $175 in flight pay. Rinse and repeat for mid-month. I don't understand how this is not something easily rectified but then again it appears that every USAF finance system still runs on MS-DOS so who knows.
Reportedly the backstory on this is that the services were authorized to go up to X for flight pay by Congress, the Air Force chose to go up to less than X, and the other services chose to not go up at all. DFAS was incapable of processing one ACIP table for the Air Force and one for the other branches, hence the "fix" was to keep paying us what the other services get and then issue top-off payments a week later.
-
Pictured below: me, an AFRC CSO, reading this thread.
But seriously, no shame in only putting down what you want. The AF is a giant machine that will use you as another cog in the wheel... You don't owe it X number of years doing something you don't want to do like it's your wife or something. The process of joining is where you have max leverage over your own fate.
2 on everything jice said, and 2 on going Reserve or Guard...
-
2
-
1
-
-
What status is the dude on? IMA? I've never heard of someone in AFRC flying an MDS that didn't have an AFRC unit before.
Reserve Retirement Rules and Misinformation
in Air National Guard / Air Force Reserves
Posted
4 year thread bump... and two questions
I'm 3 years out from having 20 good years, and a non-BRS High-36 IMA doing not much more than the minimum (~30 days of MPA on top of 24 IDTs and AT, just because I like the change of pace)... Will pin on O-5 next month at 7 YTIG, so to retire as an O-5 I gather I need to 3 (possibly good) more years on the RASL as an O-5? Is that years during which I'm on the RASL (i.e. my R/R years ending May 2024, 2025, and 2026) or I need to be an O-5 on the RASL for the 36 months after I pin on (so through September of 2026)? If the latter, do I just need to get my 50 points between May and September of '26 and put in the retirement paperwork, or would I need to be on the books (albeit being done participating) through May '27?
Also, from your explanation it sounds like any good year counts as a full year for purposes of which part of the pay chart my High-36 is computed? So while at 20 years I'll have around 6100 points (/360 = 16.9 x 2.5) = ~42% for multiplier purposes, I'd be entering the gray zone as a 20-year O-5 and accumulate additional "years of service" the whole time I'm in the gray zone, yes? (You said that in plain language, but the OSD Military Pay website's language is so confusing I wanted to double check.)
Now here's the rub: with reduced retirement pay age I can collect at 50 rather than 60, so theoretically I could min run in a participating status for another 8 years (until MSD for an O-5) and bypass the gray zone entirely. If I understand you right, that does not impact the part of the pay chart my high 36 is computed against, it just means I accumulate a few more points along the way... Doing my annual requirement only, it looks like that would get me to a ~45% multiplier against the same part of the pay chart? (Btw, I'm a WSO turned contractor, non-airline pilot, so I lose a little money when I participate but not nearly as much as many folks on this forum.) For me my Reserve experience doesn't totally suck and Tricare Reserve Select is the best bargain I can find on health insurance, so this seems potentially a good plan--am I missing anything?
In other words, if I never make O-6, staying in another 8 years past retirement eligibility gets me an extra $3,900 per year in gross retirement pay based entirely on the difference between a 45% and a 42% multiplier against the same part of the pay chart.
(And if I was the best of the available and made O-6—although I'm guessing O-6 jobs where you can min run participation are few and far between?—it looks like an additional $13K in gross annual retirement pay based on retiring at 28 years with the same 45% multiplier?)
Trying to weigh the pros and cons of financial safety blanket + higher retirement pay + TRS availability vs. being a free American with the ability to get a really dumb haircut and smoke weed at the 69th Grateful Dead farewell tour.