What's wrong with the Air Force?

[mudhen69]

The Meritorious Service Medal is not applicable within the deployed air wing.

Disagree...and so does Title 32 Section 578.18(a)(2). (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2008-title32-vol3/xml/CFR-2008-title32-vol3-sec578-18.xml)

After 9/11 MSM's can be given out for " for outstanding non-combat meritorious achievement or service in a non-combat or combat area."

Not every deployed "achievement" is a "combat achievement". Being deployed to Bagram does not, in and of itself, mean you were "in combat". Deployed...yes....in combat...maybe.

We have over awarded the Bronze Star to the point where it is meaningless. To put things in perspective, Bronze Stars were originally used as awards for D-Day (and later the entire Normandy invasion) participants who were not eligible for the CIB (engineers, medics etc). The intent of the Bronze Star as stated by Title 32 section 578.16(a) is to award achievement (heroic or meritorious) "in connection with military operations with an armed enemy" (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2008-title32-vol3/xml/CFR-2008-title32-vol3-sec578-16.xml)

Unfortunately, we have let every single person who deploys, no matter how far removed they are from actual combat, believe that they were participants in combat. Simply put, mere existence in a deployed location does not make you eligible for "combat achievement"

To further illustrate my point, the Air Force views the MSM and Bronze Star as equivalents for purposes of enlisted promotions (5 points each).

Edited March 15, 2014 by mudhen69

[Learjetter]

There's a HUGE difference between a BSM and a BSM with a V device.

[Champ Kind]

No kidding...

[Lawman]

There's a HUGE difference between a BSM and a BSM with a V device.

Yeah one is handed out to every First Sergeant who spends his deployment driving around the FOB in his own truck and doing no observed work....

He other is pretty much never approved or automatically downgraded....

[AFsock]

Well maybe it's not just the AF. Forget brightly colored gym shoes, let's start the war on sandwiches:

‘Chaps’, said: “Quite a few officers in the divisional mess seem to be under the impression that they can eat their food with their hands. The practice of serving rolls and sandwiches must stop”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10677230/Army-commander-bans-sandwiches-in-attack-on-barbaric-habits.html

[M2]

And as expected, a quick response from ARRSE...

https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/gen-cowans-edict-a-reply.211041/

Dear Sir,

3001TO39 LETTER OF THANKS - MAJOR-GENERAL JAMES MICHAEL COWAN CBE DSO

1. We, the junior officers of your mess, wish to thank you for your earlier 3-page memo. Given the challenges of operational drawdown, budgetary cuts and generational structural change, we are reassured that our leaders are not distracted by such trivia and are instead addressing the vital military issues of the day. Considering the effort and time you took from your busy schedule, we felt it only correct to show our appreciation of your thoughts. We note from an Army spokesman that your original missive was intended as a light-hearted dialogue, and not at all a serious attempt to impose proto-Victorian behaviors which make Senior Officers, who are never in the mess, feel more comfortable while alienating junior officers, who live here. So, given you lamented the lack of suitable conversation between senior and junior officers, we feel sure you will appreciate this free, funny and entertaining dialogue on suitable topics outside work such as our marriages, grammar and sandwiches.

2. You wrote that quite a few of us are under the impression that we can eat with our hands. Please let us assure you, we have confirmed it: we most definitely can eat with our hands. If you have not already been made aware, hands are most useful for a range of such manual tasks. We particularly like using them for eating for several reasons:

a. Common understanding has it that sandwiches were designed for manual manipulation.

b. Sandwiches take half the time to order and eat in the mess, so we have more time at our desks in your headquarters, in order to read more of your emails about eating sandwiches.

c. Sandwiches are enjoyable and reasonable value. When the improved quality and cost from PAYD actually improves quality and cost instead of producing overpriced belt-fed contractor fare at the table, we might come back. Until then, we are pretty sure the PAYD directives issued by the chain of command highlighted "choice" as an important aspect of the system. We have chosen to eat sandwiches. Actually, we chose the cake, but apparently that was a bit of a joke by Mary, the mess manager, and didn't actually exist!

d. We don't have to spend our lunchtime making faux-polite conversation at the table with Senior Officers while avoiding any honest and meaningful discussion that will torpedo our annual report.

e. It's really hard to eat a Brie, Bacon and Cranberry baguette melt with a knife and fork.

3. Please be assured that we are not negligently eating sandwiches with our hands with complete disregard to the consequences. We carefully follow a range of metrics to calculate the impending End of Civilization As We Know It. Admittedly in the last few days several of the "World War" metrics are a bit worrying, but we are confident they are not caused by us eating sandwiches.

4. We note your observation that few junior officers stand when you - apologies, the Commanding Officer - enter the room. This is of course entirely wrong, and we will correct it immediately. Please excuse Capt George RLC and Capt MacDonald RE, however: the prosthetics make it a bit problematic. While on the subject, please be assured that Capt Fraser RLC is not, in fact, 'giving you the finger' when saluting - it's just that he only has the one remaining.

5. You note that it is considered better manners if our Wives And Reputable Girlfriends (WARGS) write letters of thanks for mess events we attend, and that the secret to a successful marriage is to generally avoid them unless at home where it proves impossible [DRAFT: check, is this right?]. Clearly this is a sensitive topic, but you see, Sir: we actually quite like our wives. That is rather why we married them. Unfortunately, some of them are a bit demanding these days. They will tend to go on about their own career - which, incidentally, tends to contribute a bit more to the family coffers than ours - their concerns, and so on. Many of them see it as a bit of an imposition to agree to go to a work function of ours so they can be plied with copious amounts of drink while being banned from visiting the ladies' room, encouraged to watch paunchy middle-aged men get smashed and make inappropriate comments before staggering off to piss in a sink, and then be made to write to thank you for the pleasure. Often they would rather just let us get on with it. When they do agree to come to mess functions, it is often considered a night out with us. Given that between HERRICK rotations, weekend duties and exercises, and spending up to 2000hrs on a weekday in your headquarters reading emails about sandwiches, we don't get to see each other that much, so they quite like sitting with us. It makes them, the guest, more at ease and happier. We were always taught was the aim of mess functions. Please let us know if this has changed.

6. We read your tips on grammar and clear English. We completely agree. We are encouraged to see support for our concerns from our commander. Since you will clearly be pushing this issue up the chain of command to get a revised and much shorter edition of JSP 101 issued forthwith, can we assume an implied task that all 3 (UK) Division paperwork should immediately sack off such wanton use of capitals and acronyms?

7. Finally, we hope you don't feel assaulted and exhausted after reading this. We realise, compared to many of the basic military tasks conducted daily by your soldiers, that this kind of stuff is pretty tough going. Your fortitude, consideration for our welfare, and focus on the important issues continues to inspire us.


We remain,
Sir,
Your mostly obedient Chaps,
etc.

[10percenttruth]

That's beautiful

[Jughead]

That's beautiful

Indeed. Not a first for the Brits, though:

Gentlemen,

Whilst marching from Portugal to a position which commands the approach to Madrid and the French forces, my officers have been diligently complying with your requests which have been sent by H.M. ship from London to Lisbon and thence by dispatch to our headquarters.

We have enumerated our saddles, bridles, tents and tent poles, and all manner of sundry items for which His Majesty's Government holds me accountable. I have dispatched reports on the character, wit, and spleen of every officer. Each item and every farthing has been accounted for, with two regrettable exceptions for which I beg your indulgence.

Unfortunately the sum of one shilling and ninepence remains unaccounted for in one infantry battalion's petty cash and there has been a hideous confusion as the the number of jars of raspberry jam issued to one cavalry regiment during a sandstorm in western Spain. This reprehensible carelessness may be related to the pressure of circumstance, since we are war with France, a fact which may come as a bit of a surprise to you gentlemen in Whitehall.

This brings me to my present purpose, which is to request elucidation of my instructions from His Majesty's Government so that I may better understand why I am dragging an army over these barren plains. I construe that perforce it must be one of two alternative duties, as given below. I shall pursue either one with the best of my ability, but I cannot do both:

1. To train an army of uniformed British clerks in Spain for the benefit of the accountants and copy-boys in London or perchance.

2. To see to it that the forces of Napoleon are driven out of Spain.

Your most obedient servant,

Wellington

[no idea of authenticity, but the underlying point remains]

[Bender]

Disagree...and so does Title 32 Section 578.18(a)(2). (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2008-title32-vol3/xml/CFR-2008-title32-vol3-sec578-18.xml)

After 9/11 MSM's can be given out for " for outstanding non-combat meritorious achievement or service in a non-combat or combat area."

Not every deployed "achievement" is a "combat achievement". Being deployed to Bagram does not, in and of itself, mean you were "in combat". Deployed...yes....in combat...maybe.

We have over awarded the Bronze Star to the point where it is meaningless. To put things in perspective, Bronze Stars were originally used as awards for D-Day (and later the entire Normandy invasion) participants who were not eligible for the

The section of Title 32 you are quoting pertains to the United States Army. While the Army may choose to award the MSM for meritorious achievement in a “combat area” that does not automatically apply to the United States Air Force. There is no such regulation governing the Air Force; if there is show it to me, otherwise agree to disagree on point #1.

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=de55914787128b8ec27c324988488b3f&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title32/32cfrv6_02.tpl#800

AFI 36-2803 does not have the 9/11 caveat, therefore the MSM is not applicable to the deployed USAF air wing:

https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a1/publication/afi36-2803/afi36-2803_.pdf

Agree wholeheartedly on point #2, that not every deployed "achievement" is a "combat achievement". However, aircrews operating out of Bagram Airfield fly into combat every day, thus the ridiculous Air Medal debacle. I will concede that it is against an enemy already subject to our air superiority and ill-equipped to launch effective, consistent attack against our airborne assets. Be that as it may, they are in contact with the enemy’s small arms fire on every departure and approach, effective or plentiful or not.

On point #3, I like where you are coming from, I do, but this is not WWII and to continue trying to compare ourselves to that generation, while fruitful in some respects and dreadfully painful in others, I do not believe is appropriate in this situation (but we must still have respect for it). The Bronze Star may not mean what it meant in WWII, but it should mean what AFI 36-2803 fucking says it means, one of them being “meritorious achievement or service during armed conflict that are of a lesser degree than that required for the award of the LOM”. The LOM does not even require contact with the enemy, but it requires such an above and beyond performance of service that it is rarely ever appropriate, and is rightfully rarely awarded. The correct downgrade is to the Bronze Star, then the Air Force Commendation Medal. Again, you quote Army CFR to make your point, which unless you are in the Army is not applicable.

The Bronze Star should not be confused with the Silver Star, even during WWII. You may be able to find examples that make your point, but I didn’t get past just trying to find a citation for both (I’ll go with your Army example, as they are easier to find quickly). The Silver Star in WWII:

"For gallantry in action against the enemy in Germany on 17 November 1944. Although his platoon sergeant and squad leaders had become casualties during the early stages of the attack, First Lieutenant Abate (then Second Lieutenant) courageously continued to lead his men forward, fully aware that he was the only officer left with the assault elements. Moving freely through the veritable hail of fire, he gave his men renewed confidence. When they were halted by a well fortified machine gun position, he directed his men to cover him while he boldly charged and annihilated the emplacement. Finally, the objective was secured, but First Lieutenant Abate declined to seek cover until he had assured himself that his men were properly protected. His courage and gallant leadership reflect great credit upon himself and the military service."

Bronze Star in WWII:

“Mark J. Alexander, O-411615, Lieutenant Colonel, Infantry, United States Army. For meritorious service in connection with military activities against the enemy for the period 20 September 1944 to 2 January 1945. Lieutenant Colonel Alexander, Base Commander, France, established now camps in France for the 82d Airborne Division while it was in combat in Holland. He administered and organized the camps and accomplished the reception of troops in a highly efficient manner. Faced with numerous and complex problems and a meager staff from the United Kingdom Bases of the Division, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander executed the tremendous assignment with outstanding skill and initiative. When the 82d Airborne Division was unexpectedly committed in Belgium his invaluable assistance helped expedite that unprecedented displacement of a reinforced Division into combat in less than twenty four hours. After its departure, he operated the two Airborne camps for the successive tenancy of two Divisions, and an Army Headquarters. His intelligent and determined efforts in a period of critical troop movements were material factors in the successes of the 82d Airborne Division and other major organizations which stopped the German surprise offensive in Belgium. Entered military service from Kansas.”

Not the same thing…and they still aren’t.

Point #4 I agree with, but it is an oversimplification. “Mere existence in a deployed location does not make you eligible for "combat achievement"." One cannot have a “combat achievement” if they do not exist in a combat zone (define it how you wish)…that is part of the beauty of the United State Military (there may be exceptions).

Point #5 is the heart of the matter. The Bronze Star is the deployed MSM, so it makes sense they are weighted the same (I think we give out too many MSMs too by the way). The Air Force does not have an MSM in combat…it has the Bronze Star. My point here is that it is the Air Medal that is given out inappropriately that causes the muck…not the Bronze Star; If the Air Medals were not awarded, those achievements would be used in a Legion of Merit, eclipsing a Bronze Star, for service beyond that capable of by the “shoe clerk”. The Bronze Star has been given out too freely (I agree with you there), for things that are the “performance of duties normal to the grade, branch, specialty, assignment, or experience of an individual” which is not in line with its successor, the Legion of Merit. Process more travel vouchers than anyone has ever processed before and that is “distinctive”, but it is “not unique”…which is the definition of the Air Force Commendation Medal, certainly NOT the definition of the Bronze Star.

Bendy

Edited March 15, 2014 by Bender

[Warrior]

WTF happened to this thread? Did we get through all the low hanging fruit about what's wrong with the AF so now we have to quote sections of US code to compare to AFIs? I mean good god, I know the medals stuff is broke, but who cares? Another air medal just means I have to update my service dress before the next time I wear it.

Although it is fun to laugh at the finance dude getting a bronze star.

Ain't nothing wrong with the AF that a real no shit shootin war won't fix quick fast and in a hurry.

Back to my whiskey.

[Jaded]

I'm more of the mindset that a real shooting war would actually just reveal how broken the air force actually is.

[Bender]

WTF happened to this thread? Did we get through all the low hanging fruit about what's wrong with the AF so now we have to quote sections of US code to compare to AFIs? I mean good god, I know the medals stuff is broke, but who cares? Another air medal just means I have to update my service dress before the next time I wear it.

Although it is fun to laugh at the finance dude getting a bronze star.

Ain't nothing wrong with the AF that a real no shit shootin war won't fix quick fast and in a hurry.

Back to my whiskey.

You know what you do when you aren't interested, aren't involved and/or aren't asked to participate in the conversation going on? You STFU...and drink your whiskey.

Bendy

[Warrior]

You know what you do when you aren't interested, aren't involved and/or aren't asked to participate in the conversation going on? You STFU...and drink your whiskey.

Bendy

I'll drink one for you. You're due home from the sandy place soon aren't you?

[Bender]

I'll drink one for you. You're due home from the sandy place soon aren't you?

Thank you and very. At least I better be before that kid pops out, otherwise I might as well stay.

Bendy

[Warrior]

Been there. So have lots of other guys. Hope the timing works for you.

Cheers

[Skitzo]

And somehow this thread has demonstrated what's right in the Air Force. At least among the rated.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Toro]

I'm more of the mindset that a real shooting war would actually just reveal how broken the air force actually is.

Bullshit.

A real shooting war would actually highlight our capabilities as an all around killing machine. We would shitcan queep and focus only on tactics. History has proven this decades ago as well as recent times.

When bullets are flying, nobody gives two shits about reflective belts. Ops tested.

[Jaded]

It's not about a focus on reflective belts or the silly PM system. It's about outdated weapons, worn out equipment, a broken command and control concept in the AOC , and inadequate training and manning. Are we a better or worse air force than the one that went to war in Gulf war 1 almost 25 years ago?

[Bender]

...Gulf war 1 almost 25 years ago?

Now I feel old; Thanks asshole.

Bendy

[C-21.Pilot]

I'm more of the mindset that a real shooting war would actually just reveal how broken the air force actually is.

First deployment?

[Jaded]

No, but I would say that it was my during my first deployment where I started to lose faith in the USAF as a service. "Combat" did not miraculously fix our problems.

Edited March 16, 2014 by Jaded

[BB Stacker]

Bullshit.

A real shooting war would actually highlight our capabilities as an all around killing machine. We would shitcan queep and focus only on tactics. History has proven this decades ago as well as recent times.

When bullets are flying, nobody gives two shits about reflective belts. Ops tested.

And how many people would unnecessarily die before we highlighted those capabilities as an all around killing machine?

Look at that history you speak of...how many people died unnecessarily in 1942 or the last six months of 1950 because we weren't as prepared as we should've been when a real shooting war broke out? How many people died unnecessarily flying Rolling Thunder missions because we didn't fully shitcan stupid shit and focus only on tactics once we were in a real shooting war?

[Toro]

It's not about a focus on reflective belts or the silly PM system. It's about outdated weapons, worn out equipment, a broken command and control concept in the AOC , and inadequate training and manning. Are we a better or worse air force than the one that went to war in Gulf war 1 almost 25 years ago?

The only point I would say is valid is training. The AOC in its current form didn't exist in Gulf War - having worked there for three years (to include Odyssey Dawn) I can say we are light years beyond where we were 25 years ago. Manning might suck on a daily basis, but when the shit hits the fan we pull resources from wherever we can.

And how many people would unnecessarily die before we highlighted those capabilities as an all around killing machine?

Look at that history you speak of...how many people died unnecessarily in 1942 or the last six months of 1950 because we weren't as prepared as we should've been when a real shooting war broke out? How many people died unnecessarily flying Rolling Thunder missions because we didn't fully shitcan stupid shit and focus only on tactics once we were in a real shooting war?

Sorry - when I said "decades" I didn't mean a half century ago, I'm talking about the Air Force in its mostly current state. Look at how quickly and efficiently we spun up for the Gulf War, ODF, OIF. It was rapid and efficient and we didn't give two shits about queep until things started to settle down.

[Flaco]

No, but I would say that it was my during my first deployment where I started to lose faith in the USAF as a service. "Combat" did not miraculously fix our problems.

We are not in combat. Not to take anything away from the good work we have done over the last 10+ years, but it ain't combat.

When there's a real question of whether you or your wingman will come back from a sortie - that's combat. The reason for all the queep and lack of focus is because there are very few individuals left in the Air Force who have experienced that.

[Bender]

This is the exact reason that ADOs should not be allowed to do shit without the DO's oversight. S/He is, after all, the A-DO. The problem starts to emerge when you have "assholedouchebagfuckstains" that the DO doesn't mentor because he's too busy doing "important stuff" like flying and teaching academics no one NEEDS. There is the possibility that he is merely overwhelmed with his own responsibilities, doesn't realize that being a good DO takes a lot of energy and A LOT of time, simply has no fucking clue what he's doing, or is literally incapable of mentoring anyone because he literally has O-5's that are ADOs (some of which are definitely "assholedouchebagfuckstains").

And before you think that an O-5 ADO has any motivation to "mentor" other O-4 ADOs or an O-4 DO, I'm not sure I can agree with the way you think. There are exceptions to everything.

Did I mention that I think having O-3 DO's isn't a bright idea?

This reminds me of the conversation on flyers being CC's of other units on base. I don't remember if I liked it or not, but I'm starting to think not.

Bendy

Recieved via PM:

Bendy/Bender.

My goal next week is to expose whom you are. Should not be to difficult as on Monday I will send a mass e-mail to the 427th/489th at Beale. Your lack of discipline and professionalism is disgraceful. Bendy...thanks for the personal attack "he literally has O-5's that are ADOs (some of which are definitely "assholedouchebag######stains").

Although you posted this on a civilian webpage, its absolutely unprofessional. As I am to you an "assholedouchebag######stain"... I will do everything I can to assure you never continue to serve/fly with professional Airman at your deployed location.

LtCol xxxxxx xxxxxxx, xxxRS/ADO

Response PM:

LtCol xxxxxx,

I am sorry that you felt that comment was directed at you. It certainly was not, as we have never met. If you feel the need to seek me out for what you feel is a personal attack, I do not pretend to this I can disuade you.

The post was a follow on to having a Major as a DO and his difficult situation he placed in with having O-5 ADOs. I will not pretend that I believe that all O-5 ADOs are good people, although I will say that I know a large number of them that are very good people and an asset to the squadron.

I was not directly referring to Shadey, the sister squadron has Doesn't anyways, so it's not possible to know who I was reffering to if I was indeed referring to someone specific...which I was not. You are connecting dots (i.e. O-5, ADOs, "some of which") and translating that into "thanks for the personal attack". I humbly submit that you are stretching too far, again I have never met you...not even by reputation.

I'm sorry you feel the need to go out of your way like this, I will try to not let it influence my first impression when we do have the opportunity to meet.

Sorry for the confusion. I could definitly have decided to make it clear that the post does not represent my personal thoughts on any specific O-5 ADO.

Bendy

I guess the witch hunt is on. There are a handful of you who know me, not that it's ever been a secret. Please share with the good LtCol if you see fit.

Bendy