Stoker

A little late, but if your degree is in engineering as your username implies, you should be able to make the argument that your 2.5 is easily an underwater basketweaving 3. And I say that as an underwater basketweaving major.

The value of a degree is like 80% signalling. It's letting prospective employers know that you were smart enough to get in, and dedicated enough to show up for (enough of the) classes for four years. The more selective / better brand name schools are obviously going to be better at that. In other words, Utah Valley U has a 100% acceptance rate. Maybe that should give you an indication of how others will perceive your attendance there.

You absolutely don't need to be enlisted, especially for Reserve squadrons. More job announcements will come. The hiring boom isn't ceasing anytime soon. Your scores are good enough to be more than competitive at any tanker or airlift squadron out there (even more so if the location is undesirable). Get flight hours, most units will want you to have a least a few to be seriously considered, and a PPL is variously required officially or unofficially.

Why not? We managed for the first hundred and fifty years or so of this country's history, at times when we were a lot smaller geographically. We managed to absorb roughly a million immigrants a year around 1900, at a time when that was about one percent of the population. A country isn't a pie, more people doesn't mean less pie for you. It means there's more people making pies.

For most people who wish to come to the United States, there is simply no option to come here legally. In my opinion, if someone wants to pursue to American dream so badly that they leave everything they've ever known, put their lives into the hands of untrustworthy smugglers, to come here and work in fast food, landscaping, and contracting, I say, let them. That's more American a thing to do than what most of the people in this country have ever done in their lives. More succinctly, "an unjust law is no law at all." Practically, you are never going to be able to "defeat" illegal immigration. The incentives are too great. Migrants are routinely murdered, sold into sex slavery, or left for dead in the desert trying to get here. If that doesn't deter them, what do you think the government can possibly do? People claim to only be against illegal immigrants, legal immigration, but I rarely hear them calling for increased legal immigration (which is the one surefire way to reduce legal immigration, without government spending billions on mostly ineffective border "security").

More specifically, you now do about 20 sims during academics, then go to the flightline. We've been told that Phase II is now scheduled for about three months. You actually track prior to finishing T-6s, with split tracks within T-6s from then on.

Don't know a ton about the unsponsored route, but at the AFRC board that selected me they picked up like 33/36 sponsored applicants and 3/6 unsponsored. So your odds are reduced a fair bit. And some boards just don't accept unsponsored candidates at all. I failed depth perception at MEPS as well. I was sent by my recruiter to the nearest base for a full eye workup with the med group, which I passed. I think that's a waiverable thing though, same for hearing at that level (if you're at 30 then I think you're only 5 away from passing). Ask in the medical questions forum (after searching, of course). You probably do need a PPL to go unsponsored. You probably don't need one to get sponsored by a heavy squadron. The Guard B-1 squadron is hiring people with ~20 hours, heavy squadrons are telling people with 0 hours to get a few and come back next board. If you have the money, get it, it'll save you six weeks at IFT and at least as many more waiting around to go and then waiting for UPT to start after you get back. I would only enlist if your long term life plans are fulfilled by you enlisting. Doing so as a stepping stone to becoming a pilot is a high-risk, low-reward gamble (as there's a good chance you're unhappy, and a small chance you improve your odds of going to UPT).

"Unsponsored boards" are a Reserve thing, every Active Duty board is unsponsored. The Reserve unsponsored board is not going to be helpful with a waiver, you need a squadron that likes/needs you in your corner pushing the paperwork forward (plus, the unsponsored boards come and go depending on needs of the Reserve). Fighters would seem unlikely for you. From what I've seen they are much less likely to do age waivers, and most require a PPL at minimum. Going enlisted ANG and hoping to get picked up for UPT isn't the worst idea ever, it's slightly better than invading Russia in the winter. Really, though, it's a big "risk" (depending on how negative you'd view spending your time enlisted) for not a huge increase in likelihood of being picked up for UPT (as you'd now definitely need a waiver, and one for being 32 or 33, not just 30). My advice is that you should apply for Reserve heavy squadrons. They're hiring tons of people right now and your scores are competitive for them. Given how the Reserves have streamlined the process post squadron hire (AFRC boards every six weeks instead of six months, surplus of dedicated Reserve spots at OTS/UPT), you would have a good chance of getting to UPT before your 30th birthday and thus not require a waiver. That's barring any screwups with your medical at MEPS/FC1, neither of which are guaranteed. For comparison, my time between hire and UPT was 14 months, and that was with four months of delays for medical shenanigans and three months of waiting on the AFRC board.

Not quite. If you're AD with dependents and come to UPT unaccompanied, you lose your BAH if you live in government quarters. So you have to find a house to split, and roommates, at your UPT base, and you only get BAH for the base you're assigned to, not where your family lives. This can be a pretty significant $$$ difference versus the Guard and Reserve folks living in the dorms for free and collecting BAH for their spouse living in Miami, say.

It's not uncommon here. Two people in my class are in that situation (no kids though). Guard you should get BAH for your wife's house, and be able to live in the dorms free. So there's that.

If you mean the shortened course, we're in Week 4 of academics.

You can apply, your chances are significantly reduced. Most fighter squadrons and some tanker/transport squadrons require a PPL to apply. Hours also factor significantly into your PCSM score, so it hurts you on both ends. That said, people with no / few hours have been hired, it just means you need to be likeable and your resume be good on everything else.

The whole "you can't apply for two services/components at the same time" thing has a grain of truth, your paperwork can't process through MEPS for two at the same time, so if you get that far along and are still working both ends you can get held up.

It's worth noting that the $18,500 limit is for your contributions, not overall contributions. So you can contribute $18,500 over the course of the year, and still get whatever match you're due from the gov't (provided you are contributing at least 5% per paycheck).

I failed it at MEPS as well, couldn't get past line B either. My Reserve recruiter had me drive to the nearest base for an appointment with the med group, where I did basically every eye test you'll end up doing at the FC1. Was able to pass depth perception there due to having more time with it, less stress, and an examiner who gave me some tips (wiggling your head and trusting your gut got me a long way through it). After passing there, I was back on track to my FC1. Don't sweat it, I stressed too much about it but you'll get through eventually.

Absolutely. Tons of people show up to FC1 (or even UPT) and are issued glasses for the first time, and continue no problem. The whole "you must have perfect natural vision to be an Air Force pilot" myth has led countless applicants to self-disqualify. Don't make the same mistake.

I think it means you'll need glasses.

Still? Lasik / PRK aren't really disqualifying provided you meet the pre-op limits, and the surgery is successful and without complications. The waiver process seems pretty much pro forma at this point.

Slightly off topic, but have any recent hires had issues with opting in to the BRS? I thought I'd be automatically opted in since my first paycheck came in January, but apparently I have to choose to opt in because I swore in in 2017. But there's no BRS opt-in button for me on MyPay. Base finance is no help because I'm Reserve, Reserve squadron just keeps telling me to call DFAS, DFAS says I have to call AFPC, and everyone I've managed to get on the phone at AFPC says it's not their problem.

Any speculation on the calculus of Assad actually using the weapons? Seems like he's contained the rebel groups quite well, and has the upper hand in the conflict. Why do something that risks inviting more direct US involvement? We've already made clear that we're more or less OK with him killing people, as long as it's with conventional weapons. So why use chemical weapons to achieve what appears to be a marginal military advantage?

Does it? 500,000 people have already been killed in the war. The suspected chemical weapon attack in Douma killed under 100. Yeah, chlorine isn't a good way to go, but neither are the myriad other horrible methods of killing people that Syrians face. It's extraordinarily clear there is zero positive endgame in Syria, so why get involved? Even if we were to do what it takes to kill Assad and drive his allies from power, you're still looking at an ongoing civil war with at least three direct participants and a dozen-odd sponsors. Sometimes the best (only) move is to not make any move at all. Maybe at some point in the future there will be a situation in Syria where US influence, brought to bear at the right time and in the right way, could have positive longterm effects. When and if that day comes, then we should consider if doing so aligns with our interests and act accordingly. But it's not going to happen if we bomb every side of the civil war just to flex our muscles.

If you don't plan on living in it, can you get homeowner's insurance on it? If not, what's the plan when the neighbor kids break in and start trashing using the place for weekend house parties? As for whether you're crazy, it depends on how common something that meets your criteria for "dream home" is. If this house is really one-of-a-kind, on a unique piece of land, or substantially below market value (and not for a bad reason!), then no, you're not crazy. If your dream home looks a lot like the other forty houses on the cul-de-sac, and builders in the area are laying out three new identical neighborhoods in the surrounding area... then I'd say wait, because like others have said, there's a lot that can change in 18 months.

I didn't go quite the same path as you, but I definitely had to swear in as enlisted before going to OTS. You'll probably be fine, the Air Force isn't so hard up for personnel that they're pulling the old switcheroo on officer applicants.

I guess it's just a matter of viewing how big the "problem" is. To me, people breaking the law to sell Americans something they want (cheap, dependable labor) isn't something worth spending billions of taxpayer dollars trying to fix. Especially when it's not clear that, even if we do spend that money, you'd be able to deter or eliminate illegal immigration. The incentives are just too strong to stop. People illegally crossing the Mexican border already stand a good chance of being raped, murdered, or left for dead in an inhospitable desert. I don't know what more of a deterrent the US can realistically put in place (unless you're talking minefields and machine guns ready to fire, which brings up uncomfortable questions like, "Are we the East Germans?"). It's nice of you to consider what you know is best for the illegal immigrants, in that you really don't want them exploited, but I think the individuals making those decisions are probably better equipped to make that decision for themselves, than you are. I get the appeal of the law and order argument, but the question is then, if our borders were open now (as they historically were for the first 300-ish years of our existence on this continent), would you be arguing for them to be closed/restricted? If yes, then it's not really a law and order argument you're making, it's an anti-market one. As for your points about this being different than 1907, the welfare state is not going to be harmed by young, productive people who have lots of kids coming in to the country. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the demographic challenges the current system faces. As for your other point... people should be excluded from the American dream because someone said mean things?