deaddebate
-
Posts
443 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by deaddebate
-
-
Yeah, that's uh... That's a pretty dumb question.My question about this is, my optometrist has already cleared me for Flight Status. If I receive my waiver to return to fly, could I then use that as a basis for my FC-IIU? I currently hold a FC-III.The answer is no. You need a new IFC physical with matching new waiver for the position. See AFI 48-123 Ch 3.
-
On 28 April 2014, Philippine Defense Secretary Gazmin and U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines Philip Goldberg signed the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA). This executive agreement provides the framework by which the Philippines and the U.S. can develop their individual and collective (defense) capabilities.
[...]Unfortunately, left-wing groups and ultra-nationalist personalities questioned EDCA’s constitutionality as an executive agreement requiring no concurrence from the Philippine Senate. EDCA is currently in a legal limbo as both sides wait for a decision from the Philippine Supreme Court before the agreement can be implemented. However, confronted by Chinese island building activities in the South China Sea, the Philippine government decided to push through with the development of Subic Bay as a training and forward launching facility for U.S. forces operated by the AFP. Secretary Gazmin admitted that U.S. military (rotational) presence in the AFP military facilities would help. However, if the court decides against EDCA, the Philippine government will still proceed to develop these facilities inside Subic Bay Freeport.The U.S. Navy has adopted the Philippine government’s pragmatic position of utilizing Subic Bay with or without EDCA. Since mid-2015, several U.S. Navy ships have docked in this former naval facility. In early May, the U.S. Navy’s newest littoral combat ship the U.S.S. Fort Worth (LCS-3) made a brief refueling and resupply stop at Subic Bay. Before the month ended, the Ticonderoga-class-guided-missile cruiser U.S.S. Shiloh (CG-67) arrived in Subic Bay for a port visit. In July, the Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer U.S.S. Lassen (DDG-82) dropped anchor at the former U.S. naval base for a routine port call. Early this month, the Los Angeles-class attack submarine U.S.S. Chicago (SSN-721) docked in Subic Bay for its first visit to the Philippines. With or without EDCA, both the AFP and the U.S. Navy are exerting their own respective efforts to make Subic Bay again a major staging base for U.S. power projection in the South China Sea. -
Well, no but technically yes. You don't need 20/20 to pass MEPS, and MEPS doesn't have the full Optometry capability to determine potential correctability to 20/20 with the correct lenses for your most current refractive error. To be scheduled at WPAFB for a FCI, you also technically don't need to have it, and the AF will give you the lenses as a normal benefit / coverage, but it may become a sticking point. Anyway, it'll all be much easier if you just have it from the beginning though. And you may want to accomplish a civilian exam yourself to demonstrate that you are correctable rather than putting up with some potential administrative hurdles and headaches.
Again, you don't need to actually have the glasses, but just documentations showing the manifest refraction prescription to get you to 20/20.
-
At this stage, it's probably better to ask forgiveness than permission and try to submit direct to AFMSA. However your FS and his boss, the SGP, may not be willing to take that risk of upsetting their MAJCOM buddies. If so, sending the waiver to AFRC may not be good because they similarly may not want to jump straight to AFMSA because AETC owns it. But, AETC was the one that shut you down, so you're hesitant to go back to them, but they are the waiver authority.
So, if they won't go straight to AFMSA, try to go to AETC because it'll probably end up there anyway and going to AFRC first will just delay processing by a few weeks.
The reason I can't give you a very good answer is because this doesn't happen often. Being a Reservist is the monkey wrench because it adds another middle man.
ETA: Funny to think of an O-6/O-5 at the MAJCOM as a middle man, but that's the truth in this situation. You have to go very high for approval once you get denied.
-
ESD To Stop Accepting Phone Calls
The Enterprise Service Desk (ESD) will no longer be accepting phone calls effective May 4, 2015. Please contact your Base Comm Focal Point (CFP) for IT issues or your Cybersecurity Liaison (CSL/IAO) for Account Management requests.
-
You need to be wearing glasses at least 30 days before the MFS evaluation. Contacts (whether hard or soft) change the curvature of the surface of your eye and it both effect the results of your test and that change will be evident to the optometrist reviewing the test results.
Stop worrying so much about this. Most tests are done with correction worn, some do not. The standards are well known and they will not spring something unorthodox on you in the spur of the moment. You are heavily over-thinking this.
-
Before you push for an ETP, you do have one final appeal to AFMSA. AFI 48-123 para 6.4.1. states that if a MAJCOM dq's you, only AFMSA/SG3PF can overturn it through a new waiver request. This new waiver is usually still routed through the same MAJCOM's on it's way up. Conceivably, your medical unit could submit directly to AFMSA but this is considered very poor form, and AFMSA may just push it back to the MAJCOM's first before they review it. However know that you are almost starting the waiver processing all over, so at the fastest this will still take 45+ days, but probably closer to 90 days for most cases.
For an ETP, the updated AFI 36-2101 para 3.7., Table 3.1. Rule 5, and Notes 1, 3, 4, and 5 are the applicable references. Paraphrasing these rules and notes:
"If the requirement is "other" mandatory requirements in the Officer Classification Directory specialty description and the officer has provided justification then approval authority is HQ AFPC/ DPSIC.
The MPS will ensure the individual requesting the waiver provides rationale and justification why the waiver is warranted and include appropriate supporting documentation (i.e., transcripts, training records, performance reports, test results, letters of recommendation, medical evaluations, or other documents justifying the request). If a waiver is requested for physical reasons, forward only those recommended for approval by base medical authority. A copy of the waiver decision is forwarded to the AFCFM. The AFCFM is the approval authority. ANG and AFR officers requesting waiver under this rule will complete waiver requests IAW the respective Classification Waiver Guide and send to NGB/AFR CFM for review and coordination. Waiver packages will be forwarded to HQ AFPC/DPSIC for coordination with the AFCFM."
Could someone who has actually successfully routed an ETP confirm the routing? I believe it needs to route through your full Chain of Command (Sq/CC, Gp/CC, Wg/CC, MAJCOM/CC) and then to AFPC/DP (the AFCFM, aka the career field manager), and it should be supported the whole way. Even then, the AFCFM may just as likely DQ it without any justification.
-
First, your question is too vague. Could you answer a question like, "My car is making a funny noise, but I really need to drive from New York to Pennsylvania and I don't have money for a mechanic. Will my car break down or will it make it?"
The MRI / Ortho notes will dictate how everything progresses.
I've never heard of MRS before, but the capability does exist in the MSD (Medical Standards Directory) and DODI 6130.03, which essentially allows the doc to temp DQ you for any condition until it resolves. How it specifically is applied to your situation would be better answered by a recruiter.
Lastly, searching "knee" won't help you because so much is determined by your functional capability, the MRI, and the specialists recommendation. The knee a complicated and finicky thing. Creating a waiver guide entry for ever possible knee condition /derangement and stage of recovery would be impossible.
I could post more but it's late. Get your MRI results, the most important sections are usually titled "Impressions" and "Findings." Transcribe them here if you want and some folks here could probably help interpret and educate you on your likelihood of approval/waiver.
-
2 things and I'll check this in greater detail tomorrow.
1. MRS? I don't know that acronym. Medically Restricted Status? Do you mean DNIF/Mobility Restricted? Or Missus/Mistress?
2. Get the results of the MRI. Everything will hinge on that.
-
I figured this was the closest thread to the topic.
"The National Museum of Nuclear Science & History" near Kirtland AFB is an affiliate of the Smithsonian Institute. They are seeking funding to restore a B-29 display.
-
OK, I super apoligize for anybody because I'm very drunk right now so heres my question.
Is robert bates (the guy who shot eric harris) guilty or not guilty because he mistook his gun for a taser?
again, sorry, but Im really drunk and I need to post this.
-
1
-
-
Go to the source!
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS25/20150414/103032/HHRG-114-AS25-Wstate-BogdanC-20150414.pdf
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS25/20150414/103032/HHRG-114-AS25-Wstate-SullivanM-20150414.pdf
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS25/20150414/103032/HHRG-114-AS25-Wstate-GilmoreM-20150414.pdf
I haven't read or watched this stuff (and I probably won't) because I'm hip deep in the other NDAA hearings, but I encourage anybody interested in this topic to access what was actually written and said.
-
Enlightening--thanks.http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/04/13/gao-report-kc46-demonstration/25712589/
The GAO doesn't have any faith in Boeing's claims either.
-
Statement by Mr. Christopher A. Miller / Program Executive Officer, Defense Healthcare Management Systems / Before the Senate Appropriations Committee / Subcommittee on DefenseMarch 25, 2015From 2010 to 2013, DoD and VA executed a joint program called the integrated Electronic Health Record (iEHR) in an attempt to create a single next-generation EHR system, led by the DoD/VA Interagency Program Office (IPO). [...] DoD is on track to award a contract by the end of FY2015. [...] Initial Operational Capability is planned for the end of 2016 at eight sites, representing all three Services, in the Puget Sound area of Washington State. Full Operational Capability, currently estimated for FY2022, will include deployment to medical and dental services of fixed facilities worldwide, including 55 hospitals, 352 clinics, and 282 dental clinics. Deployment will occur by region (three in the continental U.S. and two overseas) through a total of 24 waves. Each wave will include an average of three hospitals and 15 physical locations, and last approximately one year.
-
I know in the waiver guide, an astigmatism waiver apparently needs ACS review and evaluation. Therefore, does that elongate and/or hurt the chances of it getting approved (even if I tested somewhere in the waiver able range, i.e. 2.00)?
Also, what's the ACS Excessive Astigmatism Management Group?
I can't say for certain, but I'm fairly confident is this will extend your waiver processing time a bit as it is reviewed at another office for recommendations, and the management group is most likely merely a tracking mechanism for studies. You'll get measured before UPT, then after, at your local MTF. A few extra steps, a little more time, but no concern over actual approval. Hopefully time is not a scarcity for you.
-
That's well within the waive-able range. There's no worry here. If you're already getting the excessive refractive error, this will just be tacked on.
-
New PSDM on myPers.
9 April 2015 / PSDM: 15-31 / SUBJECT: 20 - 24 July 2015 USAF Test Pilot School Selection Board Announcement / (APPLICATION SUSPENSE: 5 June 2015)
-
1
-
-
http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/download/15-34_-3-25-15
Senate Committee on Armed Services / Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support / Hearing to Receive Testimony / The Current State of Readiness of U.S. Forces / Review of the Defense Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 2016 and the Future Years Defense Program / Wednesday, March 25, 2015
Senator Ayotte: Just wanted to check in on the KC-46As delivery to Pease in 2018. I know there were a couple of testing delays, but are things looking pretty good, on track?
General Spencer: [...] We had some slack built in. Some of -- a lot of that slack's been taken up now. But, as we stand today, we're still on track. We still feel good about the schedule.
-
http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=5610 / Remarks on the Next Phase of the U.S. Rebalance to the Asia-Pacific / SECDEF Carter / April 06, 2015
Some people would have you believe that China will displace America in the Asia-Pacific or that its economic growth will somehow squeeze out opportunities for young people like you. But I reject the zero-sum thinking that China's gain is our loss because there is another scenario in which everyone wins and it is a continuation of the decades of peace and stability anchored by a strong American role, in which all Asia-Pacific countries continue to rise and prosper, including China. This is the scenario we seek in the ongoing rebalance.
That said, we and many other countries are deeply concerned about some of the activities China is undertaking. Its opaque defense budget, its actions in cyberspace, and its behavior in places like the South and East China Seas raise a number of serious questions. These are concerns we raise with our Chinese counterparts on a regular basis.
The U.S. and China are not allies, but we don't have to be adversaries. A strong, constructive U.S.-China relationship is essential for global security and prosperity. Our relationship will be complex as we continue to both compete and cooperate. But we also believe there are opportunities to improve understanding and to reduce risk with China, which is why President Obama and President Xi announced two historic confidence-building agreements this past fall. We're working to complete another measure this year that aims to prevent dangerous air-to-air encounters, and there are a wide range of other possible confidence-building measures that I will be strongly working on.
-
Uh, my point wasn't that Officers/Flyers/AFSC X earn more or less than Enlisted/Nonners/AFSC Y. I was saying Gen Welsh's claim of an "increase" of 40% over 12 years is wrong (it's over 15 years), fails to consider the paradigm-shifts of 9/11, and merely matches inflation. This repeated falsehood should be identified and ridiculed whenever presented. I just pulled data for TSgt and Major because it seemed like a good sampling and easily relatable to folks. If everybody is leaping to the "Flyers deserve X" and "DOD benefits are socialist-based," then I guess my post wasn't well-written to explain my opinion.Fuck it, I'll say what everyone here thinks but can't acknowledge in real life. All jobs are not created equal. A 13-year O-4 FSS officer with a perfect record is not worth as much as the 13-year O-4 instructor/evaluator aircrew, period dot, full stop. But we pay them the same. We promote them at the same rates for O-4 (not sure about O-5). Only at the higher echelons does the split happen, but not before. That FSS officer could be the most incredible leader in the history of leadership, school grad, volunteers for every little brown nosing event, does all the big blue crap, and they STILL won't be as valuable as the #15/20 fighter pilot with similar time in service who has none of those credentials. I can't take a rock star FSS officer and drop him in a CAOC to run a fucking air war, now can I? It's not just pilots, I'm talking anyone involved who has specialized experience that is essential to running or maintaining wartime capability.
But we pay these two people the same. And pilots are starting to realize that they are grossly undervalued by the government, so they GTFO. Yes, the bonus and flight pay are a factor, but the combination of QoL+compensation simply doesn't measure up to the alternative. TOTAL compensation of the entire military is killing our budget, but we have a shortfall of people we need to maintain proper combat capability. That tells me that the problem isn't that we're paying our guys too much. It's that we're paying the wrong people too damn much, and the right people not enough. Yes the job is fun, and we all want to be true blue patriot heroes, but you can only look outside and see how much better everyone else has it until you understand that you are completely fucked in the name of fairness.
I know none of this will ever actually happen in real life, but in my eyes, we need to figure out who the hell we absolutely need in a war, and work our way backwards, and then whoever needs to get the boot will be very apparent that point.
-
Gen Welsh spoke to the AFA at a monthly event. Here's the AF news link: propaganda
And the actual speech if you want to listen (it's about 80 minutes long):
http://secure.afa.org/events/Breakfasts/Breakfast-4-2-15-GenWelsh.mp3
He begins with typical speech material, meaning recent successes and changes, including: review of PME material with re-focus on core values, total force inclusion in training and readiness vs the tiered readiness mind-set of other services, increasing importance of job performance in EPR, resetting Air Force priorities due to limited future resources in an unpredictable world, Capstone week at BMT, new Profession of Arms Center of Excellence (PACE) at Lackland, Total Force Commission Program at Maxwell, and landing a 4-Star slot for the AF Global Strike Command for re-emphasis and leadership in the nuclear enterprise. He also states the intention of setting written expectations/milestones for Officer's advanced/master’s degree or other course completions for promotion vice the current word-of-mouth guesswork and unit-level standards. Also that job performance should be the top deciding factor for retention/promotion of Officers.
At 21:00, he talks about something like the end of "live virtual constructive training" and transitioning to "virtual constructive" training first with live training supplementing it. I don't really understand what he's talking about. I assume it's all pilot training. Could somebody tell me what the hell this is?
Next there's the need for inter-industry communication with DOD and acquisition and development reform. Then he speaks about the 2020 deadline for the Budget Control Act/sequestration--nothing really new there. He re-emphasizes the end of Force Management Programs (re-sizing) measures for AF, saying Airmen shouldn't be distracted by these now peripheral concerns.
Here's my key quote of his whole speech, discussing the major problems of internal communication with Airmen:
This is exactly why I read the speeches, publications, and hearings about the Air Force, communicate with my local leadership, track myPers releases, and follow what my Career Field Manager says. It's all there, and you can be leagues ahead of your peers if you stay connected. AF Times is as worthwhile as used toilet paper. Get your information from the source, filter it through your bullshit detector, piece it together with previous information, and you're greatly empowered.Somewhere in the middle, supervisors, commanders, leaders, all the way up to me, have got to be more aggressive about getting information to their people. And those people can't sit back and wait for it to appear on their phone. They've got to take accountability for finding information because it's out there and it's not that hard to find. So we're trying to fix this problem.
This leads splendidly to his next point: pay and compensation concerns. He says that military compensation over last 12 years has increased about 40 percent, and the AF can't continue on that same cost-growth curve. He says we need a manageable growth rate. Let's compare that old line from the previous NDAA discussions that compensation is devouring our budget by comparing the Base Pay of an E-6 at 8 years and an O-4 at 10 years from 2000 (pre-9/11), 2003 (his "last 12 years" citation) and 2015.
Yr: 2000 / E-6 @ 8: 1932.60 / O-4 @ 10: 4040.40 | Yr: 2003 / E-6 @ 8: 2400.90 / O-4 @ 10: 4954.50 | Yr: 2015 / E-6 @ 8: 3261.00 / O-4 @ 10: 6659.10
Pay increase for an E-6 between 2000 and 2003 was 19.5%. Pay increase for an E-6 between 2003 and 2015 was 26.3%. Pay increase for an E-6 between 2000 and 2015 was 40.7%.
Pay increase for an O-4 between 2000 and 2003 was 18.4%. Pay increase for an O-4 between 2003 and 2015 was 25.6%. Pay increase for an O-4 between 2000 and 2015 was 39.3%.
That seems pretty reasonable right? 40% is not chump change. Well compare that to the USD inflation and you tell me.
Between 2000 and 2003, inflation was 6.9%. Between 2003 and 2015, inflation was 27.6%. Between 2000 and 2015, inflation was 36.3%.
Here are some pretty charts to visualize my point.
What happened between 2000 and 2003? 9/11 drove an enormous increase in funding and recruiting. We had major overhauls and increases of benefits due to the huge demands on the military and sweeping nationalism. Afterwards, pay crept back to a comparable level with inflation. When Gen Welsh says compensation increased 40% over 12 years, he's just repeating the false statistics spun in the FY14 and FY15 NDAA shenanigans. In truth, we must look back 15 years for that 40% increase and all that was just to keep pace with inflation. The last 12 years pay increases have been slightly BELOW the inflation average.
And the DOD must maintain these benefit increases if they want to continue to compete with a now rapidly growing economy and an aggressive airline industry, as discussed in congressional testimony I previously quoted.
Finally, at 1:12:00 through 1:18:00 is Gen Welsh's rebuttal to JQP about Creech and the "suck it up" misquote. JQP has since mad a small correction to his blog to correct any confusion. Gen Welsh was certainly fired-up about it.
-
8
-
-
Studies that surveyed personnel found "major misconceptions" within special operations about whether women should be brought into the male-only jobs. They also revealed concerns that department leaders would "capitulate to political pressure, allowing erosion of training standards," according to one document. [...] The main survey went to about 18,000 people who are in positions closed to women, and the response was about 50 percent. The high response rate, officials said, reflects the wide interest in the subject. [...] One survey, by RAND Corp., reflected doubts that women could meet the overall job demands, found concerns that sexual harassment or assault could increase, and cited worries about "unequal treatment" of special operations candidates and personnel. Some worried that if women were let in to some jobs, they might be treated more harshly. Survey details have not been released. This was the first time that officials from Special Operations Command publicly discussed the results. [...] "They're concerned that this might result in the lowering of the standards in what are currently our male-only occupations, and that would then reflect on either them or on the women who come into those occupations," said Hamilton. [...] In an email last month to members of the special operations forces across the services, Gen. Joseph Votel, head of U.S. Special Operations Command, said leaders had done initial analysis on training, facilities, education and other policies. Now, officials are examining "the social and cultural challenges of integrating females" into male-only jobs. Next, Votel said, officials will analyze requirements for the jobs to make sure standards are accurate and gender neutral. "We will continue in our commitment to provide the best manned, trained, and equipped special operations personnel to execute our nation's most difficult and sensitive missions," Votel said. "With that in mind, we can assure you that our high standards will not be lowered."
-
Chelsea/Bradley Manning tweeting through a PR firm, calling and dictating tweets to submit.
-
For those that hate that how slow FaceBook is on the AF networks or otherwise can't access it:
"The luxury of obliviousness"
- Awareness requires effort and commitment
- Being able to command the attention of lower-status individuals without having to giving it in return is a key aspect of privilege.
- Race privilege gives whites little reason to pay attention to African Americans or to how white privilege affects them. "To be white in America means not having to think about it"
-
1
DQ from Taking FC1 after passing MEPS
in Aviation Medicine
Posted
That's another good point.
You'd be taking these other auxiliary exams with less than perfect vision. It's just a better idea to have current, good vision when you show up at MEPS.