20 hours ago, Tulsa said:

Why does this always happen at Laughlin?  It seems every 6-9 months there is a failure of leadership or some sort of scandal from Del Rio.  Is it the proximity to Randolph and the big blue flame of AETC ineptitude or the lack of shit to do in BFE Texas?  We did a flight naming in T-38s when I went through UPT in '99, which was incredibly tame but taught us the ropes before RTU.  If the above is true, it seems like a complete loss of SA for the FLT/CC who would let the naming board be posted in public, let alone push that name in front of the MAJCOM commander (if true).  In my experience, we kept this in the vault to avoid such a possible "misunderstandings".  If this is all it takes for a WG/CC and OG/CC to be sacked these days, there had to be more going on than is being broadcast to the outside.  If not, then pull chocks and launch for survival my friends.

My favorite part is we spend all our time on here complaining about piss-poor leadership.  Then whenever leadership is removed for cause, there's always a brigade of people calling the guy who got removed "the best commander I ever worked for" and saying "it wasn't the commander, it was his subordinates". 

I wonder which leadership the board actually thinks deserves to be removed.  Because if this is the kind of environment guys are cheering for...holy hell, what's left to remove someone that the salty aviators of BODN would actually agree with?

49 minutes ago, pawnman said:

My favorite part is we spend all our time on here complaining about piss-poor leadership.  Then whenever leadership is removed for cause, there's always a brigade of people calling the guy who got removed "the best commander I ever worked for" and saying "it wasn't the commander, it was his subordinates". 

I wonder which leadership the board actually thinks deserves to be removed.  Because if this is the kind of environment guys are cheering for...holy hell, what's left to remove someone that the salty aviators of BODN would actually agree with?

The problem is the AF is firing commanders for the wrong reasons.  Something written on a flight room white board gets 4 guys fired.  That is a huge overreaction, unless there’s more to the story.

Meanwhile, the AF is riddled with “leaders” who screw their people over time and time again in an effort to push their own careers forward.  Commanders aren’t fired for making their people miserable and for contributing to the AF’s retention problem. They are fired for not stopping some random dumbass from writing something stupid in some flight room.

Why would I bet my career on the AF when it can be ruined for something like that?

The callsign issue was a smaller part of something bigger. No one was fired over that one thing, if you read my previous posts there is more to the story which will be release after the UCMJ actions take place and the CDI results are released.

I’m saying this because a lot of people keep focusing on the one issue thinking that way they were fired. It’s not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

21 hours ago, Bode said:

Almost like there was..... Met a couple Cols from PACAF walking around for a while doing on investigation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was being sarcastic. Of course there was an investigation. And I trust that they did a complete investigation that put all the pieces together as good as they could. And this resulted in four firings. 

1 hour ago, flyusaf83 said:

That is a huge overreaction, unless there’s more to the story  

I ran a CDI in a group in my current wing. Small potatoes compared to what went down at Laughlin. My report dismissed most allegations and substantiated just one. My report, including evidence, testimony, and such was over 200 pages long. 

Theres always more to the story. It’s contained in the CDI and my guess is that this report is pretty massive and detailed. And we’ll never know because we’re not entitled to the report. 

4 hours ago, Homestar said:

I ran a CDI in a group in my current wing. Small potatoes compared to what went down at Laughlin. My report dismissed most allegations and substantiated just one. My report, including evidence, testimony, and such was over 200 pages long. 

Theres always more to the story. It’s contained in the CDI and my guess is that this report is pretty massive and detailed. And we’ll never know because we’re not entitled to the report. 

Did you get training to do all that?  I wonder about the dude who gets tagged to do these reports how they're prepared for it.

On 11/3/2018 at 12:33 PM, Sprkt69 said:

Does everyone get a trophy too for soloing a T-38?

Yes because you have to get your own ATIS, which is super hard.

1 hour ago, 17D_guy said:

Did you get training to do all that?  I wonder about the dude who gets tagged to do these reports how they're prepared for it.

Worked with someone who had to do a CDI.  Basically, a 20-30 minute brief with the legal office, then they turn you loose to collect evidence.  

1 hour ago, 17D_guy said:

Did you get training to do all that?  I wonder about the dude who gets tagged to do these reports how they're prepared for it.

Sure! My Legal Advisor emailed me a copy of the CDI Guide and showed me the Manual for courts Martial (available online by the way). He was there to answer any questions I had and to give guidance but for the rest I had to “self-learn myself”. 

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

Worked with someone who had to do a CDI.  Basically, a 20-30 minute brief with the legal office, then they turn you loose to collect evidence.  

Shack. I had to do a CDI and my report was 30 pages. My unit was a tenant to the Wing. I told my CC that the JAG office and GP/CC didn't account for people who have mental health problems. They shouldn't be interviewed unless a trained psychologist is present. The AF doesn't know what they are doing when dealing with people. I annotated this in my final report. "Personnel who have to see mental health or are currently on medications as a result should not be interviewed."

Edited November 4, 20187 yr by HarleyQuinn

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

Worked with someone who had to do a CDI.  Basically, a 20-30 minute brief with the legal office, then they turn you loose to collect evidence.  

And then careers are ruined by these investigations?

Sounds like a great system.

Depends. CDIs report facts and investigators publish their conclusions. Commanders make career decisions if appropriate. In my CDI I spent a month investigating alleged UCMJ violations and the WG/CC decided on a punishment based on the facts in the report. The investigator usually doesn’t make recommendations unless requested by the commander. 

1 hour ago, flyusaf83 said:

And then careers are ruined by these investigations?

Sounds like a great system.

Works like a champ!

4 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

Did you get training to do all that?  I wonder about the dude who gets tagged to do these reports how they're prepared for it.

I've been tagged to do one.  I got a 10 minute powerpoint presentation and then a 15 minute discussion with the JAG.  I did get some support and advice during the investigation, so that helped.

Edited November 5, 20187 yr by guineapigfury

2 hours ago, Homestar said:

Depends. CDIs report facts and investigators publish their conclusions. Commanders make career decisions if appropriate. In my CDI I spent a month investigating alleged UCMJ violations and the WG/CC decided on a punishment based on the facts in the report. The investigator usually doesn’t make recommendations unless requested by the commander. 

^checks

They give you the guide and you sit down with legal, EO, whoever else that’s applicable. You work close with those folks to make sure you’re staying in your lane and using the governing AFIs specific to what you’re dealing with. They review your report before you ever present it to the cc. The cc then decides what to do or not to do. End of the day you’re gathering facts and presenting it. It’s not that cosmic and it’s not something done recklessly. 

On 11/4/2018 at 4:20 PM, Homestar said:

Sure! My Legal Advisor emailed me a copy of the CDI Guide and showed me the Manual for courts Martial (available online by the way). He was there to answer any questions I had and to give guidance but for the rest I had to “self-learn myself”. 

I had to meet with the cops on mine, you get to learn alot about what you never want to learn.  Oh, and most people aren't completely dishonest, just a little bit.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/11/07/female-airman-given-offensive-call-sign-during-drinking-event.html?fbclid=IwAR0gjtV6IRWZd5q6xzall7j1NBWbYSjIY39hP-VTse_ze3hJgWf5lOSW4eo

synopsis: the investigation involved more than just the instance of a naming ceremony gone wrong. 

Should've went with "Clown Penis"

Edited November 8, 20187 yr by AZwildcat

I wonder how much of these supposed allegations were millennials butt hurt over things that didn't even come close to matching a Kunsan Tuesday night.  "I didn't feel safe" translates to, "some guys had a couple shots AND a beer, and the CC didn't send them straight to ADAP - leadership failure!" This whole thing still smells like a witch hunt driven by PC leadership.

I wonder how much of these supposed allegations were millennials butt hurt over things that didn't even come close to matching a Kunsan Tuesday night.  "I didn't feel safe" translates to, "some guys had a couple shots AND a beer, and the CC didn't send them straight to ADAP - leadership failure!" This whole thing still smells like a witch hunt driven by PC leadership.

Not even close. It’s not a witch hunt, there were some legit issues which leadership believed they were handling properly. The whole concept of making sure your boss is aware of things going on comes into play as well. It’s never a good thing when a General calls a Col about something going on in his organization and he doesn’t know anything about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would be the first to call it a witch hunt if it was. I have a ton of respect for Col Velino and hated to see it happened.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Notice the person of whose callsign was in question didn’t care? It was the general who assumed she really did care. It’s in black and white in that article. Then he made decisions based off that assumption. What a DB.

 

Edit: I don’t know anything about said general except this incident. Anyone have outside opinions on him?

Just now, Guardian said:

Notice the person of whose callsign was in question didn’t care? It was the general who assumed she really did care. It’s in black and white in that article. Then he made decisions based off that assumption. What a DB.

I would care if someone said that to a woman in my squadron.  And others would certainly care when you called her that at the step desk or back in the student longue.  

I would care if someone said that to a woman in my squadron.  And others would certainly care when you called her that at the step desk or back in the student longue.  

I agree and understand. And if something like that happens you would think it could be handled at the lowest levels. However I’m just talking about the person who got named and the general as according to the article.

2 hours ago, pawnman said:

I would care if someone said that to a woman in my squadron.  And others would certainly care when you called her that at the step desk or back in the student longue.  

I imagine they would have changed it to CUT to achieve the same name purpose, as they did to the last dude they named the same thing. Taxiing is hard sometimes. I believe the board was potential names, not actual. 

Edited November 8, 20187 yr by Inertia17