All Activity

That’s 100% valid! Could be. Sucks for them if true.

Yeah, you're not gonna live that down..

I sooo want to share a story but that statue of limitations will likely never expire.

Just Reserves, not Guard.

Combine that mentality with a political agenda. In addition to the errors (that appear purposeful), they counted illegals.

I own a house in another state. The collection agency tenacity those people have to count you and their "you're breaking the law if you don't answer our questions" mentality was insane. I didn't need to be counted twice.

This is incredible if it really happens this fast and if it’s really possible to do without doing a BRAC.

He also fired the head of statistics at Labor...Not sure if that person was confirmed or not. Reading how the stats have been "revised" ...criminy there is nonsense at every level of the government. Watched special on the last census, the mistakes are unreal and shockingly gave the DNC more seats in 12 out of 14 cases.

I guess we figured out where Rainman went.

"...but SECDEF found out and made us take it back so we changed the policy after the fact and will now be punitive towards the member." Possible, if not probable. Though I don't know if it's punitive - bullshit, a raw deal, etc - absofinglutely. Anyone know if any of the folks being separated were over 20 and had normal retirement approved? These folks (if between 15-18 years of service) likely didn't transition to BRS either when the window was open. Did I read they were still being offered 2x the normal separation pay? I'd assume honorable discharge? Still eligible for VA benefits?

@brabus Ahhh now I see, you think USAF is telling the truth...you must be right, because they never lie and it always low-level management that screwed up. Got it. For every action I've ever seen from PCS, training...all the way to my retirement orders....being notified was the very last step after it went through all the wickets, but you seem to think some mid-level person decided to both approve and notify these 15 people without getting approval form senior folks or the system....sorry, I don't buy it. In reality the comments "prematurely approved." and “prematurely notified” actually mean the TERA was approved and the member was notified but SECDEF found out and made us take it back so we changed the policy after the fact and will now be punitive towards the member.

It'd be Class A, Ground Safety mishap and investigated. Safety privilege isn't offered for them. "Promises of confidentiality are authorized in investigations of DAF nuclear surety, space, aviation, guided missile, directed energy, and friendly fire mishaps. Promises of confidentiality are not authorized for explosives, small arms, chemical agents, afloat, ground, motor vehicle, off-duty military mishaps, incidents, and hazards, with some exceptions." https://www.safety.af.mil/Home/Mishap-Investigation-Process/

Safety is safety. Ground safety investigation was started I imagine. Could be wrong.

Well there goes that bit of hope there was a shred of self awareness and honesty in AETC leadership… Reminds me of the Army general in The Pentagon Wars, before he was in charge of the Bradley, he was in charge of an IR missile so shitty he covered the target in electric frying pans to get a hit during testing. Is there any insurgent pushback against this?

Do cops have safety privilege? Even if they do, my understanding is no. At school we were told that at any point (as the person doing the interviewing) you suspect that a crime was committed, you immediately stop the interview. I don't think they addressed any information that was divulged prior to that point, but I'm betting the answer is no.

That’s not what he’s implying. He also lead the charge to get rid of the instrument approach (waiver) out of the T-6 fundamental checkride because SPs already learned to fly instruments at IPT. He’s removing items that provide data that doesn’t support his “SGTO”

@ClearedHot Copy, but so far you’ve referenced an article (which specifically stated SAF disapproved the applications) and a Facebook post. Scouring the internet so far has revealed: ”In the Aug. 4 memo, Brian Scarlett, performing the duties of the assistant secretary of the Air Force for manpower and reserve affairs, wrote that, “after careful consideration of the individual applications,” he was “disapproving” TERA requests” “An earlier memo, sent in May by Gwendolyn R. Defilippi, acting assistant secretary of the Air Force for manpower and reserve affairs, said transgender service members with 15 to 18 years of service could request Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA)” ”roughly a dozen transgender troops with between 15 and 18 years of military service were “prematurely notified” that their TERA applications were approved” “An Air Force spokesperson said a subset of applications were "prematurely approved." Last two communicate to me lower level leadership fucked up and notified before the answer was final. To the Facebook post accuracy - maybe the guy did have Sep orders (final, not draft), but without producing evidence, I’m not taking that individual at their word on a SM post. Will happily acknowledge bonafide evidence if it surfaces. That all said above, I do think it sucks for them and letting it go may have been a better option for the admin (just like releasing the Epstein files and let the chips fall where they may). In the end though, nobody in the AF forced significant mental health issues on these people, nor is there any logical argument that their specific mental issues are service related. So logically, it doesn’t make much sense to approve TERA (take the emotions out of it).

I keep trying to tell you, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. Not only did they have their TERA rescinded, they had their RETIREMENT ORDERS rescinded. See below. Indeed. You are making a YUGE jump here. 1. I believe Roe V Wade ruling cost the GOP the mid-terms. I think most others would agree. Trump was able to overcome that in the last election. 2. I said the left would turn this into a dog whistle issue, I don't think it will be a deal breaker, just another chip at foundation like the Epstein Files. Things the GOP doesn't need to waste energy on right now. 3. My entire point of posting actually had nothing to do with politics, more about how we are treating some service members. Whatever you and everyone else's think about transgender, these folks did step forward to serve, were told one thing by the last administration and are now being punished by this administration. As a human it sucks. Big disclaimer here - my wife is a mental health professional. In the late 90's she did a fellowship as part of her follow on residency and certification. She picked a particular facility because it had a renowned drug dependency training program. By chance it also had a division that treated people before they transitioned. Six months go by and she tells me we are going to their Christmas party. I being the typical juvenile asshole made a joke and said "I am not going." After some harsh words I relented and I went to the party. We were at a table and they were all men dressed as women...I was dying inside. The "lady" sitting next to me was a bit older and we struck up a conversation. Turns out she was retired a USAF Colonel who flew F-4s in Vietnam. She even knew my pops. She was humble unassuming and other than the dress and make up, a regular person. When I got home I looked her up, she did indeed fly in Vietnam and earned a Silver Star and 4 DFCs. It really changed my perception. Like I said previously, I think transgenders in the military are a giant distraction and asking the government to pay for the surgery was out of bounds. But to screw around and take their retirement as part of a political witch hunt is complete bullshit, we are not supposed to treat servicemen and women like that.

My understanding of the article and some further reading on their website is that they used the most recent primary to come up with that number. Which is bizarre because over twice as many people voted in the 2024 Republican primary (2.3 million) than the Democratic one (982 thousand). Meanwhile, the Republicans haven't lost a statewide race in Texas since 1994 for the simple reason that there are more Republicans than Democrats in Texas. L2 needs to go back to the drawing board with this one.

I can't remember, can info given under safety privilege be used in criminal proceedings?

Turns out, when they say, "under Article 32 of the UCMJ, you have the right to remain silent.." it helps keep you from making a false official statement.

"Did you kill him?" "... yes." "Thank you for your honesty. I think that's about everything we had, you may go."

"the unidentified arrested person is accused of making a false official statement, obstruction of justice and involuntary manslaughter" As with most things, it is not answering the questions truthfully that is usually the problem.

I think this sentence out of the PDSM answers the question “The applicant’s Senior Rater is the nominating official (i.e., a wing commander or equivalent in a Senior Rater position)”. for example, you want to potentially get cgo of the quarter….just because you did some cool stuff in the quarter doesn’t mean you’re competitive to win that quarter. Your supervisor is going to use their discretion to determine if they’re going to submit a package for you. Same concept, if your sq/gp/wg doesn’t believe you’re competitive they don’t HAVE to submit or “nominate” you. I’m not saying it’s right but it’s how it works. Last year my WG/CC didn’t endorse my package because in his mind I didn’t have enough time in the career field or wasn’t close to the 2.5 year rated service commitment even though I was ranked 1/9 at my sq and then #2 at the group. My old Sq/CC tried to advocate for me the GP/CC tried and my new SQ/CC tried to advocate but nope. Did it suck? Yes but here I am a year later applying. #1 out the sq #1 out the gp…and no one knows where they ranked at the wg. So no there’s no reg that states they don’t have to push packages to the board if they don’t want to, but it’s common practice with any type of board.