Weezer
-
Posts
149 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by Weezer
-
-
16 hours ago, HU&W said:
So, if functions are pulled to A-staff if they support multiple sqs across the wing, why is there still a comm sq instead of straight A6? Barring cyber, doesn't that (and most of the other MSG functions) belong under that umbrella?
See "not operationally focused within squadron." Examples of A-staff functions are the antiterrorism office from SFS and real property officer from CES. They may functionally fit under that Squadron's umbrella, but don't work day-to-day with the rest of that squadron as much (obviously up for debate). CS has troops who go and do "comm stuff," like CE has plumbers, and SFS has gate guards. An A-staff doesn't "do" things, they staff stuff, advise, etc. So, some part of comm may move under the A-staff, but the day to day dudes who defend the network or whatever won't.
-
1
-
-
On 2/15/2018 at 10:57 PM, dream big said:
From what I understood, NAFs deal strictly with command and control of Wing Kings while the MAJCOM focuses on the strategic issues and programs related to the MAJCOM? Much the same way there is a group commander between the squadron and wing?
NAFs are supposed to be operational...like when 9 AF was the Air Component of CENTCOM. MAJCOMs are “organize, train, equip” orgs, but with adcon over NAFs...changed a lot recently, though.
-
5 minutes ago, Champ Kind said:
Correct me if I’m wrong but is not generally how the Army organizes at the battalion and above level?
Yup...looks a lot like a BCT, although with a lot more "battalion equivalents" under the O-6/7.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out. BCTs are organized to fight as BCTs. Every CS/CSS battalion under a BCT supports combat and maneuver. Home station Air Force Wings don't deploy as wings and are, in practice, Organize/Train/Equip organizations. I think the span of control issue for the Wg/CC will need to be addressed. The volume and variety of directly subordinate organizations will be a challenge.
Also, what will we do with all the redundant O-6s?
-
Interesting things going on at MHAB...
-
15 hours ago, Cooter said:
reg would be helpful too!
The "campaign" or "bush" hat is authorized for Special Operations Units by AFI 36-2903, paragraph 9.11.1.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Duck said:
It’s been over 2 full work weeks since the 100% to O-4 board met. Mypers “status of promotion boards” was just updated today and it’s still not showing that board as having been concluded. I find that hard to believe since they essentially could just rubber stamp the whole board. Wonder what the holdup is? You don’t think they are actually looking at the records of the people we are putting up for promotion? Cuz that would just be silly.
I haven’t found that page to be updated in a timely manner.
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, Herkman said:
Now holds a leadership position. Does this hold any weight?
When I revealed buffoonery in my past, the main question was whether or not someone could use it against me to, say, influence me to reveal secrets or whatever. In my case, I had been pretty open about it to folks, so it wasn't a deep dark secret I was trying to hide; my answer was "No," and that seemed to be satisfactory.
-
Problem solved on the pilot shortage.
-
1 hour ago, Buddy Spike said:
I think he was responding to a post I made in another forum following up on the F-16 crash in DC back in April. Somehow ended up in the wrong forum.
-
8 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:
..I recommend elevating this past the front office to an actual commander...
Per the reg (AFI 36-2905), paragraphs 2.25.8 and 9, which have to do with being current when PCSing and also having a 42 day acclimation period following extended (>30 days) TDY, fall under the responsibility of your unit/squadron commander. This person shouldn't get a say in it if your commander is good with it. There's also nothing in AFI 36-2905 (Assignments) saying that you have to do this...in fact paragraph 2.40.3.9 says being out of standards does not affect your assignment, in and of itself.
-
1
-
-
Follow up article to the initial thread topic.
-
20 minutes ago, di1630 said:
Bag wearers need to stop rolling over at the whim of admin shoe clerks. If the reg is on your side, don't let it slide. If not, smile and take your test. Don't let feelings get in the way of doing what's right because this shit will just continue if nobody stands up to it.
Not sure why this should be limited to bag wearers...shoe clerks shouldn't have to be at the whim of...other shoe clerks either.
-
3
-
2
-
-
17 hours ago, HU&W said:
...the B52 alert...
This article is interesting in regards to the B-52 alert. If STRATCOM's not ordering it, then why is the AF implementing it? Kind of leads you to think it's some sort of posturing.
-
5 hours ago, Azimuth said:
Reopen Manas.
Not really an option.
-
7 hours ago, ClearedHot said:
If I were king for a day I would move CSAR to AFSOC (that comes with some doctrinal changes and direction to SOCOM).
My understanding of the force management world tells me that moving something to AFSOC does not automatically and immediately place it under SOCOM's authority (e.g., B-1s are in AFGSC, but aren't directly owned by STRATCOM). I could be mistaken or have old info, though.
It seems like that would introduce a little bit of complexity that AFSOC would have to deal with.
-
6 hours ago, Brock Putnam said:
I don't know if NK is familiar with the concept of "mutually assured destruction" but that it what they will get if they try to start something.
I don't know how mutual it would really be.
-
On 7/20/2017 at 6:41 PM, Standby said:
Looking for some advice here. Short version of the story: wife and I attending PIT at the end of the month. Lodging booked us into separate rooms which is a foul. I called today to fix it and their solution was to just consolidate us into one room. I told them that jamming us into one dorm isn't the solution. I also told them we have a pet and they said no pet-TLFs were available. I subsequently asked if they had ANY TLFs available and they neg-responded to that.
So...is lodging considered adequate and available in this situation? The lodging reservation lady refused to cut a non-a because I mentioned "pet" even though they have no TLFs available anyway. New JTR has 3 situations to verify non-availability and I am fairly certain separating us to fit into one room or condensing us into a room meant for 1 doesn't qualify as adequate.
Per AF lodging policy, not having pet-friendly TLFs doesn't make them inadequate...AFI 34-135, paragraph 1.19.6.
As far as space being "adequate," paragraph 3.3.3 says, "Lodging assigns families to [Civilian Lodging] on a voluntary basis when TLFs are fully occupied or adequate space is not available (lodging manager will determine if VQ space is suitable..."
So, that's the AFI for what it's worth. I'm not a fan that the lodging manager has the authority to determine the adequacy of their own space since their operation is funded by your per diem dollars...seems shady. However, convincing the lodging manager (or his/her boss, or boss's boss, or IG, etc) that the space is not adequate is up to you and your leadership.
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, uhhello said:
I don't know why this is an issue every time I attempt it. I get told 18 different things by 16 different people. Attempting to go from LHR>JFK>ORF. Langley is my TDY location. Then am going to book my own (miles) to Tucson for a couple days leave. Optimum would be to fly home (LHR) from Tucson. Attempted to do that and CTO said the following FLIGHT COMMENTS: CANNOT FLY ON GOV RATES FROM A LEAVE LOCATION DELTA WILL ALLOW A STOP IN JFK
Amended my tickets to pickup the Heathrow return from JFK. Then they kicked back for this.
** CANNOT FLY OUT OF JFK YOU MUST HAVE A ROUND TRIP FROM ORF THE AIRLINE WILL ALLOW A FREE STOP IN JFK BUT YOU MUST FLY ORF JFK
So basically they are telling me I have to fly out of ORF which is stupid and probably costs more money. Can someone crack the code for me?Do a constructed travel worksheet to show that it saves the government money. Perhaps the underlying issue is appearing to use the city pair discounts to do leave travel.
-
3 hours ago, pawnman said:
Part of the problem is commanders conditioned to take the word of GS-6s just because they work at the MAJCOM. 8th AF/CC and AFGSC/CC were very clear last time they were here trying to sort out the rated officer retention problem: the only person who can tell a commander no is a higher level commander. Not a GS-6, not a functional at the MAJCOM. The only person who can tell your WG/CC that they can't give you a DNP is the NAF or MAJCOM commander.
Absolutely. But the GS-6 didn't tell the commander no...he/she told some random person on the phone the current interpretation of current policy as they had been directed.
-
10 hours ago, Duck said:
That’s exactly what I was thinking. It seems to me to be just another rogue GS-6 at AETC HQ.
I wouldn't call the person a rogue...this is a new policy that old procedures haven't caught up with. GS-6s follow the procedures they're given. I wouldn't expect one to just look at a policy memo (even from the CSAF) and then selectively interpret how to implement it. Someone owes that person better guidance and instruction. In any case, your SR and MLR will have a more authoritative take on implementation.
-
1
-
-
That SrA is just trying to do his/her job...blame the leadership who won't/can't streamline this process. This should be as simple as scanning orders and your ID card when you show up on-base. Any further details can be provided by your unit during their daily personnel report. Your orders have enough info that they can determine your gaining unit, your accountability/vRED info. It's a travesty, and I bet some of those young Airmen would love to figure out how to improve the system (maybe I'm optimistic). However, the SNCOs/officers who came of age in the MPF/Finance dumpster fires are so entrenched in the system that they quash any innovation.
-
4
-
-
On 9/15/2017 at 11:54 PM, KWings06j said:
I've never had DTS orders that didn't have variations authorized. Even when I didn't build the orders myself it was always there.
The "callout" was over me asserting that I didn't have to approve a change of end date...apparently that didn't fall under the variations that were authorized.
-
15 hours ago, the g-man said:
And always build authorizations with variations authorized checked. You never know when stuff gonna change.
I got called on overuse of the "variations authorized" a few times. Here's a very patronizing link on the subject. If you actually click through to the JTR, it doesn't give much more info, only, that you can go to destinations not named in the order, change the specified time spent at a named destination, change the sequence of the named destinations, and omit travel to named destinations. Finance, in my experience, still makes you get amendments to extend the overall length of the trip, as well as change allowances such as staying off/on base.
-
14 hours ago, brabus said:
Make Ontario a TDY location in DTS. Example:
Home Base = Depart 13 sep
TDY Location 1 = Edwards (assuming you fly into Ontario, but go to Edwards that day), arrive 13 sep, depart 19 sep
TDY Location 2 = Ontario, arrive 19 Sep, depart 20 Sep (early flight out the 20th).
Home Base = Arrive 20 Sep
Problem solved since per diem is tied to TDY location. Never had a problem once using this method.
For sure-fire success, make sure it's in your orders/authorization that way, vice adjusting your per diem locations on your voucher.
-
1
-
Wing Re-Org Test
in General Discussion
Posted · Edited by Weezer
Additional info
Here are the proposed functions going on the A-staff. Looks like FSS is now just MPF and Services.