Herk Driver

PM sent

We weren't winning hearts and minds in the ME prior to 9-11...

I wish I lived in your world where everything was so black and white and there were never shades of gray.

I added to the previous post before I saw your response, but I would argue that you would be surprised with what and who will provide info on issues like this. With the advent of those pesky cell phones and cell phone cameras/ videos it is much easier to get corroboration that breaks the he said/ she said problem down. People tend to do really stupid things when told they can't do something. Telling the fat kid to not eat candy is easily violated in private; motorcycles are driven on roadways that are very public.

Why do you keep falling back to 100% unenforceable? What is unenforceable about it? I disagree that anything above is interpolated. The scope of the "restriction" isn't spelled out so CC's have some discretion, IMHO. In your SSgt example, I get that he can physically still take out the bike but you know as well as I do that at some point, he will be observed, get a ticket or otherwise do something to get caught violating the restriction. Difficult? Yes. Unenforceable? No. Of course, admin action of some type could be taken as well to document and show escalating actions.

Nah, I think you are ignoring more basic information in the AFI. 1.1.2. Applicability: 1.1.2.1. All AF military personnel any time, on or off a Department of Defense (DoD) installation. 1.3 Responsibilities: 1.3.4. Commanders and functional managers below wing level will: 1.3.4.2. Take actions as needed to intervene when unsafe behaviors are identified. Direct problem drivers and at-risk personnel to attend driver improvement training. (T-0) 1.3.4.7. Ensure personnel complete training as required by this AFI. Take appropriate administrative or disciplinary actions for personnel who fail to attend scheduled training including restricting operation of the motorcycle for military personnel. (T-2) Read that however you like, but I don't think I am interpreting the rules wrong at all. It is fairly straight forward. I won't get hung up on the "approval" piece as you are right that a commander has little leeway to keep you from riding as long as you have met the rules and are operating safely and IAW the AFI...but you can be restricted from riding by your commander and your original post that it only applies on base or that a commander cannot effect your motorcycle riding off base is still not correct.

At most bases I have been at you would be denied entry to the installation without the sticker or the card. At my last squadron, failing to comply with any of the requirements in 91-207 resulted in a warning the first time and not riding a bike for 3 months the second time. After that it was losing the privilege for the remainder of your time in the squadron. The policy was never needed because no one tested it. Actually it requires you to get your commanders approval to ride a bike, period. Without it, you can't ride a bike and your commander can withdraw that approval if you fail to comply with program requirements. It is 100% enforceable. It is not only AF policy...it is DOD policy. Failing to obey an order from your commander is a UCMJ offense and enforceable 24/7, 365, on or off base. Look up case law if you don't think so.

91-207 applies to AF personnel on or off duty and on or off a military installation

Which arbitrary rules are you referring to?

Have found that my answers raised eyebrows the first time and then never again...1-2 drinks everyday. Ethanol intake helps boost HDL levels...haven't been asked about it since

AF has a separate sport bike course...at least in my corner of it the sport bike course was mandatory

The trend is for less DPs and more promotion board input

Maybe. I understand that it is at AETC for approval. Not an AFPC issue.

Expect next week

Free thinking and being in the military are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Not being able to channel your thinking into appropriate venues for change and utilize the chain of command or not knowing when to stop stomping on yourself or your boss can be mutually exclusive from continued military service. None of that is meant to reflect on the validity or non-validity of his CONOPS since I haven't seen it. And I did search for about .5 secs for it.

Directly off the Remarks section of my LES: "Eff 30 Sep 15 Leave balances over 60 days will be forfeited unless special leave accrual applies" Of course I guess that all depends on what the NDAA eventually says

Source? Last I read from DFAS was 60 days by Sep 2015. Current LES calculations are wrong...they are working on the fix to the use/lose balance

Just got an email about this. PSDM 13-65 and 13-64 were both amended on 20 Nov 14. It says the window closed on 30 Nov but apparently you have until midnight 1 Dec to apply if interested. Looks like LADSC waiver, TIG waiver and PC are affected.

I thought I read in the last GAO report that the cockpit was based on the 787. Was that wrong or did it change?

I don't anymore about this case than you do...but typically people assigned as the special assistance to the deputy chief of staff or are on the staff of the vice chief of naval operations are awaiting some type of admin decision. Since most information related to this case would fall under protection of the Privacy Act, no one in power is going to come out and say what they are doing. I would speculate that he is under investigation and may face federal charges before this is over. These move at a glacial pace.

Great example of a false dilemma.

Early Oct, IIRC

No, this was all the reserve side of the house

Just the latest excuse to smoke weed...nothing more.

Exactly...the SECAF made a decision to do the right thing after getting GC guidance that she was authorized to do so. Nothing sinister here.