Jughead
Supreme User
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Jughead
-
Um.... 105485 - 105099 = 386; 386 > 200 105485 + 105099 = 210584; 210584 x .1% = 211; 386 > 211 Unless there are an update to the numbers, the info you posted seems to say there is NOT cause for a recount.... -
-
Two different questions: - The storage will* be reimbursed in addition to the DITY payment, subject to the ever-present limitations of (a) what it would have cost the government and (b) time limits (90 days?); the question of the "taxable portion" doesn't come up, since you're not spending money on moving expenses out of your DITY payment, you're spending money from another part of the entitlement. - The shrink wrapping will* come off the taxable portion of the DITY payment. Frankly, I don't think they look at this part too closely, since it doesn't change the size of the check they write you (but of course is valuable to you come tax time). *based on my experience doing similar (but not identical) things on DITY moves & my understanding of the regs; as you note, YMMV w/ whoever is behind the desk at JPPSO when you turn in your claim. If they deny it, make them cite the paragraph they're using, then look it up yourself--I've fought & won claims with them.... EDIT: Format
-
What the others have said. Also: if you consider the area in question--and take only those areas officially declared disasters--you're talking about roughly 1/4 the country's total population. Even if the storm isn't the worst on record in absolute terms, the sheer number of people directly affected by it make it newsworthy. That said, blowing things out of proportion is hardly a new tactic by the news media.... ETA: Also, w/ damage projections up to $20B (again, because of where it's landing), going just by the wind speed is the wrong yardstick....
-
Plenty of other times PRFs can be blank (eg, for BPZ or APZ boards). To the point, some of the early guidance on these O-3 boards was to send up the DPs blank (since to an even greater degree than other boards, these were "auto-promotes") and provide the bullets for the Ps; that may have changed, but I know that's how my squadron was doing it initially. DQHB includes dates of performance reports--so, a missing report (whether missing in error or "missing" due to pipeline training) would show to the board. EDIT: format problem
-
Cool pics/good find. Seems like this one's mislabeled, though (sure looks like TF-33s on that KC-135"R"...).
-
The point is not that these lieutenants were missing training reports (though some undoubtedly were; different topic). The point is that, due to the realities of the training pipeline and the way training reports in lieu of OPRs work, many newly-minted aviators simply don't have an OPR by the time they meet their O-3 board*. The board evidently treated a lack of an OPR as a "missing" OPR, without looking at all for a reason. Huge foul. Huge waste, as Rainman said--and inexcusable. *the existence of such a board is ridiculous; again, different topic EDIT: Clarity
-
I have the Best. Friends. Ever. Presented to me this past weekend at our annual guys' trip in celebration (commiseration?) of my upcoming wedding... and there was much rejoicing!!
-
Interesting. What's their Form 8 look like? Does it show basic qualification as a pilot in the T-1? Does the AF (or Navy, once at P'cola) treat it as such (i.e., will they ever land the airplane again), or is it simply a safety valve for the training environment at SUNT? Disclaimer: I know diddly-squat about SUNT or P'cola flying or the T-1....
-
Nope. Get passed over a second time, get out in 6 months. Begs the question, when these passed-over LTs (how silly is that, btw?) meet their 1APZ board, will the board have any kind of instructions to deal with them in a common sense way, or are we really going to show that many guys the door (along w/ their rather expensive training)...?
-
-
True--which sucks if you've already maxed the contribution for the (calendar) year, now that the Roth option is just starting late in the (calendar) year (start of the fiscal year). Even if they don't want to allow conversions, I think there ought at least to be a recharacterization option for YTD 2012 contributions....
-
-
Heard both long before that movie....
-
Here's a RPA I think those on this board would support...: https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=69f_1304308604 <iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.liveleak....?f=9e11942f0f50" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> EDIT: Can someone tell me how to embed on here...??
-
-
O'Hare is a "P" field (P = "permit")--their operating authority includes permitting use by transient military (and other government agencies) aircraft. Landing fees do not apply. Ramp fees may or may not apply--but, sounds like you've already verified that Signature will waive those for military. Unless this is an exercise "just to do it," I'm with the rest of the group who say it's probably not worth the hassle--but I don't believe landing fees are an issue.
-
-
-
I've found that watch whiz wheels are good for setting up currency conversions... end of list. YMMV.
-
No argument that OCONUS rates are typically higher than the true cost of a "normal" meal, but not always*--and, many OCONUS areas see seasonal fluctuations even greater than that reflected in a variable per diem rate (which typically adjust for lodging costs, but less so for M&IE, if at all). Isn't this the same case of "hence why there is a flat rate" (i.e., it's easier--hence a money-saver overall--to pay a flat rate that may be "too high" some of the time than to try to track accurate costs for any specific time)? *Indeed, I (and presumably many others) have seen the reverse--hitting anywhere in the Med around Aug can be challenging to get a room at any price, and good luck eating even one dinner for less than your daily M&IE per diem. And isn't filing for actual expenses fun...? That's where I found out, as a young captain, just how much my signature as an officer was worth.... [/sarcasm] Of course, lest this be taken for whining, being anywhere in the Med around Aug carries its own, non-monetary compensations.... EDIT: spelling
-
Hmmm...?
-
-
Good to hear x2. May it turn out to be the case!!
-
Partially. "Playing the game" can be a result of Kool-Aid, or of picking one's battles/notching. Got it. FWIW, for a simple example, I have a useless master's and complete PME of questionable utility; I prefer to think of these in the latter category rather than the former. As an O-5 who's seen his last promotion, though, I'm not in a position to change anything above the squadron level (and while I enjoy a certain amount of immunity, the inertia is often overwhelming even there). O-6s, and certainly GOs, have correspondingly higher levels of influence, particularly those who are still upwardly mobile. I guess the larger point of my question was, what sort of response (what's the tone of the response), if any, do those folks have to the "crust retired guy / WTFO" email? I take it on faith that they genuinely care--no argument/question there. But, do they hold out hope to make a difference??
