LockheedFix Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Last time I checked, a Sq/CC being fired as a result of the SIB would be "adverse administrative action" and thus illegal. But thanks for playing. I still am not sure being fired is what the AF considers adverse administrative action. Does it generate any paperwork (referral OPR, UIF, etc.) or are you just removed from command and taken off G-series orders? If there's no paperwork that goes in your file and could generate an other than honorable discharge, then it doesn't meet the UCMJ definition of administrative action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrufus Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 (edited) Does it generate any paperwork (referral OPR, UIF, etc.) or are you just removed from command and taken off G-series orders? Referral OPR Edit: ...happened to the CCs I know... Edited June 24, 2012 by jrufus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreeHoler Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Apparently my English isn't clear enough. You're making the assumption, not me. I'm not implying that America's finest AF Special Operations leadership is using privileged or protected info. The timeline was as I stated on the post-Wrath 11 sacking. They did a poor job of deconflicting the sacking from the SIB. But you were implying the two were related. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LockheedFix Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 (edited) Referral OPR Edit: ...happened to the CCs I know... Did they get fired because they did something that necessatated a referral OPR, or did getting fired generate the referral? My point is, if information comes to light in the analysis of the SIB that the SQ/CC's leadership abilities contributed in some way to a mishap, then that commander losing his job would be a necessary outcome of the SIB. It would be negligence on the part of the OG/CC to be presented with that evidence and leave the guy in charge. It would be basically the same thing as a commander directed downgrade, which is a legal result of a SIB. You just couldn't give the guy any legal paperwork that would be reflected in his personnel file. Edited June 24, 2012 by LockheedFix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnimalMother Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Didn't mean to imply that you air out dirty laundry. Just wondering if they were design issues with the airframe that everyone alludes to, or, other issues. I would quickly exceed my level of knowledge and expertise if I started to speculate. The impression I have is that a lot of the early design issues have since been corrected. But that's not to say it doesn't still require a significant amount of mechanical attention. Someone more smarter please correct me if I'm mistaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrufus Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Did they get fired because they did something that necessatated a referral OPR, or did getting fired generate the referral? Firing generated the referral...the final incidents that drove the two firings that have knowledge of were not resolved before the firings (i.e., investigations were not complete). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butters Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 I would quickly exceed my level of knowledge and expertise if I started to speculate. The impression I have is that a lot of the early design issues have since been corrected. But that's not to say it doesn't still require a significant amount of mechanical attention. Someone more smarter please correct me if I'm mistaken. Long story shot. The Bell 609, then the BA609, now the AW609 is a good aircraft and the V-22 was based on its design. Problem was DoD can never be happy with anything and they wanted it to be bigger. Let's just say it did not scale up very well. By the time they figured that out too much political capitol had been spent and they stuck with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fud Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Last time I checked, a Sq/CC being fired as a result of the SIB would be "adverse administrative action" and thus illegal. But thanks for playing. LOCs, LOAs, and LORs are seen as corrective actions according to the Military Commander & the Law, and can also generate a referral OPR for the individual issued any of the aforementioned letters. The only thing requiring a referral OPR is a court martial conviction, however, it is recommended that actions are recorded in performance reports since a UIF will go away after it's disposition period (usually 2 years, but there is some variance depending on the infraction). All this to say, there are many ways your career can go down the tubes without official "administrative" action. I still am not sure being fired is what the AF considers adverse administrative action. Does it generate any paperwork (referral OPR, UIF, etc.) or are you just removed from command and taken off G-series orders? If there's no paperwork that goes in your file and could generate an other than honorable discharge, then it doesn't meet the UCMJ definition of administrative action. A referral OPR would fit here, due to the fact that said individual did not "meet standards" according to the generic infractions listed on the back of the AF 707. I'll bet his/her OPR read that they did not meet standards for decisions or judgement. The individual could be taken to an administrative discharge board depending on multiple infractions, or if their infraction was big enough. This would be the only thing that could negatively affect discharge, since the guidelines for separation are relatively clear cut. Firing generated the referral...the final incidents that drove the two firings that [i?]have knowledge of were not resolved before the firings (i.e., investigations were not complete). FIFY? Agreed, and again, firings are made for all types of reasons, but the main one I have seen is so top level leadership will look like they are holding their leadership accountable. It's a shitty thing to see, but it happens everywhere, even the civilian side. At that point, hopefully the commander has near 20 years and can save their pension. Did you mean investigations into the SIB/AIB were not complete, or that there were open investigations into other areas? I'm not asking for specifics, but the mention of "investigation" made me wonder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrufus Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Did you mean investigations into the SIB/AIB were not complete, or that there were open investigations into other areas? I'm not asking for specifics, but the mention of "investigation" made me wonder. Thanks for the , hate when I do that...SIB/AIB/CDI were not complete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fud Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Thanks for the , hate when I do that...SIB/AIB/CDI were not complete. Copy, I guess the leadership was told they had to fire him, or else the SOW/CC would have gotten fired. Who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrufus Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Copy, I guess the leadership was told they had to fire him. This... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JarheadBoom Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 Long story shot. The Bell 609, then the BA609, now the AW609 is a good aircraft and the V-22 was based on its design. V-22 first flight - 1989. BA609 first flight - 2003. You may be thinking of the XV-15... [/threadjacking] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rancormac Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Aside from the discussion of firing leadership and SIBs/AIBs, any updates on the guys involved in the crash? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloudraptor Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Aside from the discussion of firing leadership and SIBs/AIBs, any updates on the guys involved in the crash? According to these articles, two Airmen have been released from the hospital. Three remain hospitalized, but should recover fully. http://www.wjhg.com/news/headlines/159033685.html http://goo.gl/91Frz 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnimalMother Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2012/08/air-force-cv22-crash-report-misjudged-wake-083012/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Man Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 standard big blue answer...we didn't provide them with the info, so they were wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swizzle Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) "While the two aircraft were too close under existing standards, the Air Force’s models for how far Ospreys need to stay from each other to avoid each other’s wake are “inadequate,” according to the report. Not a CV-22 person however.....tough to argue out-of-it if they were too close per published standards. But if they were farther away than published minimums and still have wake-turbulence problems that's a different matter and they'd have dog-in-the-fight. edit: more comment Edited August 31, 2012 by Swizzle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now