PDA

View Full Version : Things that irritate you since being in the military....about civilians



Shaken1976
06-27-2013, 12:59 PM
Ties being too short. I always see the chubby guy with his tie ending way above his belly....like he put on his six year olds clip on tie....

People who won't shut up during the National Anthem....it is a few minutes of your time....shut the hell up.

The guy who served 3 years back in the 90's, never deployed, and talks about how tough military life is...

Will add more....feel free to add more

Pullinteeth
06-27-2013, 01:09 PM
Most of the things that annoy me about (some ) civilians annoy me about (some) military members as well....

Rusty Jones
06-27-2013, 01:30 PM
That civilian who never served, and thinks he can critique someone else's military bearing.

That civilian who never served, and thinks he can tell the troops that he works with that they "have it easy;" despite the fact that they're constantly tasked with things that he'll never have to do because it's not in his PD.

The non-supervisory civilian who thinks he can boss the junior troops around, just because he's a civilian.

SENDBILLMONEY
06-27-2013, 01:47 PM
Civilian spouses who never served a day but:
1) say "we're military"
2) insist they aren't civilians ("I serve in the military too, my actions reflect on my husband" or some remark about how "civilians" in the community regard "us")
3) claim that their marriage to a military member is the toughest job in the sponsor's branch
4) use the hashtag #silentranks
5) act as if their sponsor's rank entitles them to respect beyond the mutual respect that mature adults pay each other as a matter of course
6) are self-appointed experts in any number of topics (UCMJ, TRICARE, the divorce laws of the 50 states, what each branch says a spouse is "entitled to" when separating from the sponsor, etc) even though they can't spell key terms and can't cite a source beyond "experience" or "my husband said..."
7) bash their sponsor's sister services (i.e., nonveteran Army spouse saying "chair force")
8) bash military personnel who haven't achieved something their spouse has (a particular military grade, decoration, qualification, MOS), an example would be calling a military member a POG.
9) pose for photos while wrapped in or lying atop the flag of the United States
10) throw a fit when they can't get a military discount
11) play the "my husband is defending your freedom of speech" card when no one will humor their particular delusions on an Internet forum

Rusty Jones
06-27-2013, 02:11 PM
8) bash military personnel who haven't achieved something their spouse has (a particular military grade, decoration, qualification, MOS), an example would be calling a military member a POG.


Oh, but if she's some housewife/stay-at-home-mom - where the only difference between her and a welfare mom is that she married well - you'd better NOT bash her "occupation."

That's the only occupation in America where it's taboo to say anything about it.

ttribe
06-27-2013, 02:20 PM
I think this might be more to the actual subject. On Mil bases, a crosswalk is a place where you can expect traffic to stop for you. Not so much when you go out the gate. They barely stop for school crossing guards around my neigborhood. Courstesy and respect is alot more lacking in civvie world.

Rusty Jones
06-27-2013, 02:40 PM
I think this might be more to the actual subject. On Mil bases, a crosswalk is a place where you can expect traffic to stop for you. Not so much when you go out the gate. They barely stop for school crossing guards around my neigborhood. Courstesy and respect is alot more lacking in civvie world.

Outside of my gripes with working with GS civilians while on active duty; to be honest, during my 11 years, I can't say that things in general about civilians really bothered me. But then again, I always the type to have one foot out of the door. I only reenlisted in two-year increments, and I was always looking forward to getting out - because I actually envied the civilians who exhibited such behavior simply because they could; and I wanted to be among them.

Of course... I'm a white collar professional, so I really can't go around behaving any type of why; but I do feel less constrained.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
06-27-2013, 03:10 PM
- While in base housing, Retreat was playing loud and clear while a woman continued to work in her front yard flower bed while two young teens were screwing around in her front yard.
- Dependapotomuses clogging up the commissary aisles while their children run rampant around the store.
- The expectation that you address GS-14/15s by Sir/Ma'am. They ARE NOT military!
- Any civilian who is allowed to supervise someone who has a higher education requirement than required for their own GS rating. An example is a GS-13 without a Bachelor's supervising a Capt who has the degree.

retiredAFcivvy
06-27-2013, 03:39 PM
Oh, but if she's some housewife/stay-at-home-mom - where the only difference between her and a welfare mom is that she married well - you'd better NOT bash her "occupation."

That's the only occupation in America where it's taboo to say anything about it.

So what is the problem with a stay at home mom?

BOSS302
06-27-2013, 03:58 PM
So what is the problem with a stay at home mom?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a stay-at-home mother or wife.

There is absolutely everything wrong with a stay-at-home mother or wife using the military affiliation they have through their spouse as an excuse to be "holier than thou."

SENDBILLMONEY
06-27-2013, 04:54 PM
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a stay-at-home mother or wife.

There is absolutely everything wrong with a stay-at-home mother or wife using the military affiliation they have through their spouse as an excuse to be "holier than thou."

Ah, venereally transmitted military status.

retiredAFcivvy
06-27-2013, 05:07 PM
- While in base housing, Retreat was playing loud and clear while a woman continued to work in her front yard flower bed while two young teens were screwing around in her front yard.
- Dependapotomuses clogging up the commissary aisles while their children run rampant around the store.
- The expectation that you address GS-14/15s by Sir/Ma'am. They ARE NOT military!
- Any civilian who is allowed to supervise someone who has a higher education requirement than required for their own GS rating. An example is a GS-13 without a Bachelor's supervising a Capt who has the degree.

I think adressing civilians GS-14 and above as "sir" is not necessarily about the grade but the position they fill.
I agree obtaining a Bachelor's degree may be important but experience/expertise does not hinge on the degree. In your scenario, a civilian without a degree should not supervise any commissioned officer, trainee or otherwise. I can't say I agree. Also, you may know of an exact instance but I believe it would be a rarity for a GS-13 to write an OER on a Major.
Thanks.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
06-27-2013, 05:20 PM
I think adressing civilians GS-14 and above as "sir" is not necessarily about the grade but the position they fill.
I agree obtaining a Bachelor's degree may be important but experience/expertise does not hinge on the degree. In your scenario, a civilian without a degree should not supervise any commissioned officer, trainee or otherwise. I can't say I agree. Also, you may know of an exact instance but I believe it would be a rarity for a GS-13 to write an OER on a Major.
Thanks.

We use sir/ma'am because of the military setting, but I don't hear sir/ma'am much throughout the non-gov civilian "Chain of command."

I agree about the experience factor over the degree, but it's the system I don't like. The mil/civ relationship doesn't meld well when it comes to requirements for supervision. I simply don't respect a system where, let's say a GS-13, who doesn't have a degree or even appropriate PME done, can be in a position of authority over someone who MUST have those blocks checked.

Rusty Jones
06-27-2013, 05:20 PM
Any civilian who is allowed to supervise someone who has a higher education requirement than required for their own GS rating. An example is a GS-13 without a Bachelor's supervising a Capt who has the degree.

There's a difference - among GS employees, experience can be substituted for education.

What this sounds like to me is a young officer who is pissed off at having to answer to someone that he deems to be beneath him. On paper, my job doesn't require a bachelor's degree; but in the actual practice of hiring, it does. I have a master's. My boss has nothing. And it doesn't bother me in the slightest, because she still has the knowledge and experience.


So what is the problem with a stay at home mom?

Among military spouses, they're the ones who are more likely to adopt their husband's status as their own; because they haven't created one for themselves.

Oh, and of course... the ones who talk about welfare moms, when the only difference between the two is the source of the money in their purse.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
06-27-2013, 05:25 PM
There's a difference - among GS employees, experience can be substituted for education.

What this sounds like to me is a young officer who is pissed off at having to answer to someone that he deems to be beneath him.

Has nothing to do with being pissed off or feeling some one is beneath me. I've worked under people who I highly respect that have less education. This has nothing to do with the person, but rather the system that requires so much more of the person who is being supervised. That's all...

Banned
06-27-2013, 05:37 PM
Believe it or not - I really don't have any gripes about civilians. Military members have it better than any civilian with equivalent education and job experience.

Juggs
06-27-2013, 06:05 PM
Flight line workers
Young grunts that dont know anything about actual war or combat
CIVILIANS that think tthey're actually part of my chain of command. There are some and theyre usually walking around DC.

LogDog
06-27-2013, 06:07 PM
My gripe with civilians, those who do not work for the military, are with the ones who never served in the military and who wrap themselves up in the flag pronouncing their patriotism then question your service or loyalty when you disagree with them on something.

Banned
06-27-2013, 06:08 PM
Flight line workers
Young grunts that dont know anything about actual war or combat
CIVILIANS that think tthey're actually part of my chain of command. There are some and theyre usually walking around DC.

Starting next month I'm going to be in the odd situation of wearing my uniform as a sergeant, but getting paid as a GS-9.

Banned
06-27-2013, 06:18 PM
Joe that is an odd spot. The difference is youre still in uniform. Im talking about the slick civiliand. The retired lt col thats still trying to order people around.

How are you liking the guard. How was the transition?

I don't know how I'm going to like it. I'm going to get furloughed (20% loss in pay) - but that shouldn't be too big of a deal because I'm planning to take those days off when I'll have to be training with my unit anyways. But honestly I think its going to be stupid working on an hourly basis. I like just working as required - work late hours or weekends as necessary, but if there's nothing to do go home early. I think being trapped by a 9-5 schedule in a military setting is going to piss me off real quick... especially when I'll have coworkers on different orders than me who are "real" military.

Juggs
06-27-2013, 06:28 PM
Starting next month I'm going to be in the odd situation of wearing my uniform as a sergeant, but getting paid as a GS-9.

Joe that is an odd spot. The difference is youre still in uniform. Im talking about the slick civiliand. The retired lt col thats still trying to order people around.

How are you liking the guard. How was the transition?

Banned
06-27-2013, 06:32 PM
Joe that is an odd spot. The difference is youre still in uniform. Im talking about the slick civiliand. The retired lt col thats still trying to order people around.

How are you liking the guard. How was the transition?

I don't know how I'm going to like it. I'm going to get furloughed (20% loss in pay) - but that shouldn't be too big of a deal because I'm planning to take those days off when I'll have to be training with my unit anyways. But honestly I think its going to be stupid working on an hourly basis. I like just working as required - work late hours or weekends as necessary, but if there's nothing to do go home early. I think being trapped by a 9-5 schedule in a military setting is going to piss me off real quick... especially when I'll have coworkers on different orders than me who are "real" military.

SENDBILLMONEY
06-27-2013, 07:12 PM
We use sir/ma'am because of the military setting, but I don't hear sir/ma'am much throughout the non-gov civilian "Chain of command."

I agree about the experience factor over the degree, but it's the system I don't like. The mil/civ relationship doesn't meld well when it comes to requirements for supervision. I simply don't respect a system where, let's say a GS-13, who doesn't have a degree or even appropriate PME done, can be in a position of authority over someone who MUST have those blocks checked.

I never understood the point of some organizations having a civilian "vice commander" whose status made him/her ineligible to succeed to command of the organization. Call them something else without "commander" in it.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
06-27-2013, 09:27 PM
I never understood the point of some organizations having a civilian "vice commander" whose status made him/her ineligible to succeed to command of the organization. Call them something else without "commander" in it.

How about civilians that refer to their supervisor as their commander? While a commander can be a supervisor to a civilian, civilians by virtue of their status cannot be "commanded," therefor making them in eligible to have a commander.

ConfusedAirman
06-27-2013, 10:22 PM
- The expectation that you address GS-14/15s by Sir/Ma'am. They ARE NOT military! With that logic civilians shouldn't have to address Generals as Sir/Ma'am.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
06-27-2013, 10:42 PM
With that logic civilians shouldn't have to address Generals as Sir/Ma'am.

That's right, they shouldn't be expected to. While sir/ma'am is appropriate for uniformed personnel, it is entirely appropriate for civilians to address any military person in a higher leadership position (includes Generals/SES) by their rank only, or Mr/Ms when addressing an SES. Again, civilians are not military, and are not bound by any UCMJ. Not saying it's wrong to use sir/ma'am, just not required or expected of civs.

Sperry1989
06-27-2013, 10:59 PM
I never understood the point of some organizations having a civilian "vice commander" whose status made him/her ineligible to succeed to command of the organization. Call them something else without "commander" in it.

Agreed. Civilians in this position should be deputy directors. Correct me if I am wrong, but even vice commanders are placed on G-series orders since they can impose non-judical punishment on military personnel? I have always viewed civilians as managers and military personnel as leaders (when they earn it). I have been a civilian for over 3 years and I still feel this way. Not saying this is right or wrong, just my point of view.

Max Power
06-28-2013, 01:34 AM
I just don't worry about trivial shit. To each their own, I guess.

SENDBILLMONEY
06-28-2013, 01:43 AM
Agreed. Civilians in this position should be deputy directors. Correct me if I am wrong, but even vice commanders are placed on G-series orders since they can impose non-judical punishment on military personnel? I have always viewed civilians as managers and military personnel as leaders (when they earn it). I have been a civilian for over 3 years and I still feel this way. Not saying this is right or wrong, just my point of view.

Vice and deputy commanders are staff officers, and are not appointed to those positions on AF Form 35 (an optional form, known to many as "G-series orders"). If they assume or are appointed to command on a temporary basis, the standard practice I have seen is to accomplish the Form 35 documenting that temporary assumption or appointment. I used to do first-pass reviews on Form 35s when they came to JA for legal review.

AFI 51-604, Appointment to and Assumption of Command, para 6.1: "Vice commanders and deputy commanders, while acting as such, are staff officers. Staffs have no command functions. They assist the commander through advising, planning, researching, and investigating."

Short version: You won't see a vice/deputy commander impose Article 15 as vice/deputy commander. They might do so as commander, having assumed or been appointed to that position in the temporary absence of the regularly assigned commander.

imported_Renazance
06-28-2013, 06:17 AM
That's right, they shouldn't be expected to. While sir/ma'am is appropriate for uniformed personnel, it is entirely appropriate for civilians to address any military person in a higher leadership position (includes Generals/SES) by their rank only, or Mr/Ms when addressing an SES. Again, civilians are not military, and are not bound by any UCMJ. Not saying it's wrong to use sir/ma'am, just not required or expected of civs.

Addressing someone as Sir/Ma'am is just common courtesy regardless if the person is military or not. People should use it out of respect to anyone older, anyone in a distinguished position, and pretty much anyone that you don't know on a personal basis.

Chief_KO
06-28-2013, 12:04 PM
Three days before 9/11 I was at Keesler (instructor duty). We had an exercise, FPCON D, 1630 hours. Civilian "attitude" at its peak: "Its 4:30, you can't make me stay". Apparently the enemy would only kill combatants prior to 9/11...
Post 9/11 when we were in extended FPCON checking IDs...after confirming with civ personnel office I assigned my civ instructors who were not in class to perform door guard duty (duties covered by "security" in their PD). None of them gave me any grief. Another schoolhouse's civ instructor filed a grievance against me. Both the union and civ personnel office supported me.
Maintenance contractors (all retired AF) called base safety & bio environmental on me for spray painting inside our building. It was raining outside so I had to paint indoors, I used an empty room at the end of the hallway, exterior doors open, I was wearing a mask. SSgt from bio showed up, shrugged her shoulders & roller her eyes at the contractors and wrote a negative report.
Like AD, ANG, Reserves...the vast majority of the civ component are dedicated professionals. There are just a-holes in every populace...sometimes the retired a-hole is magnified when he/she becomes a GS or contractor.

Number4
06-28-2013, 12:28 PM
The recently confirmed SECAF has less education (BA in History) than most MSgts and Capts. An officer wont even be considered for Lt Col without a master's degree. What does this say to the Airmen of all ranks who are busting their humps to get advanced degrees and PME to make them suitable for continued service?

Ace Airspeed
06-28-2013, 12:41 PM
That's right, they shouldn't be expected to. While sir/ma'am is appropriate for uniformed personnel, it is entirely appropriate for civilians to address any military person in a higher leadership position (includes Generals/SES) by their rank only, or Mr/Ms when addressing an SES. Again, civilians are not military, and are not bound by any UCMJ. Not saying it's wrong to use sir/ma'am, just not required or expected of civs.

I agree.

I'm retired AF and working for a Navy O-6 as a GS-12. I address him as Captain. Any agency SES types I address as Mr. / Ms.

There is no disrespect intended.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
06-28-2013, 01:00 PM
Addressing someone as Sir/Ma'am is just common courtesy regardless if the person is military or not. People should use it out of respect to anyone older, anyone in a distinguished position, and pretty much anyone that you don't know on a personal basis.

I don't disagree with you. Did you read my last sentence? Just talking about expectations, that's all.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
06-28-2013, 01:10 PM
The recently confirmed SECAF has less education (BA in History) than most MSgts and Capts. An officer wont even be considered for Lt Col without a master's degree. What does this say to the Airmen of all ranks who are busting their humps to get advanced degrees and PME to make them suitable for continued service?

Different rules for elected officials or political appointees. When Congressman HS drop-out communist shows up to your base, guess where he "ranks" against your 1-Star Wing Commander with 30 yrs TIS?

imported_Renazance
06-28-2013, 01:21 PM
Different rules for elected officials or political appointees. When Congressman HS drop-out communist shows up to your base, guess where he "ranks" against your 1-Star Wing Commander with 30 yrs TIS?

Yeah, and they just have to serve the same amount of years as a first-termer and get better benefits than a 30-year retiree.

SgtS
06-28-2013, 01:53 PM
Civilians who equate their pay scale to rank. You are a CIVIL SERVANT, not an NCO or Officer. Your pay scale is not a rank. You do not have UCMJ authority over anyone, you cannot hold command, the list goes on.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
06-28-2013, 01:59 PM
Yeah, and they just have to serve the same amount of years as a first-termer and get better benefits than a 30-year retiree.

Not true, as they fall under FERS. Must serve at least 5 years to get vested, but also must wait to start drawing a pension, which is around 60. Look it up rather than believing those false Facebook rumors you see spreading around.

Number4
06-28-2013, 02:13 PM
Different rules for elected officials or political appointees. When Congressman HS drop-out communist shows up to your base, guess where he "ranks" against your 1-Star Wing Commander with 30 yrs TIS?

You're right FLAPS, but until now our SECAFs have had much "fuller" resume's than the current. Most Airmen understand the process by which congresspeople get elected and the LIMFACS that result, but they should (and do)expect that a service secretary will be someone with more experience and education than a Capt.

imported_Renazance
06-28-2013, 02:17 PM
Not true, as they fall under FERS. Must serve at least 5 years to get vested, but also must wait to start drawing a pension, which is around 60. Look it up rather than believing those false Facebook rumors you see spreading around.

So they have to serve at least 5 years to be eligible for a pension? Still a better deal than having to serve at least 20 years.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
06-28-2013, 02:19 PM
but they should (and do)expect that a service secretary will be someone with more experience and education than a Capt.

How about the GS-13 who writes that Capt's OPR? That's my beef...not the personality, but the system that allows it.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
06-28-2013, 02:24 PM
So they have to serve at least 5 years to be eligible for a pension? Still a better deal than having to serve at least 20 years.

Not in my opinion. If I got out at 5 years I'd still have to wait another 15 to get my meager pension. Just retired last month and I'm ready to enjoy my $47K per year immediate pension for sitting on the couch playing Xbox.

Oh yeah, changing our ret system to match FERS (almost) is what might happen. Sound like a much "better deal" to active duty folks?

Ace Airspeed
06-28-2013, 02:49 PM
Yeah, and they just have to serve the same amount of years as a first-termer and get better benefits than a 30-year retiree.

Definitely not true!

You need to do some research. Your statement is a complete fallacy.

imported_chipotleboy
06-28-2013, 03:31 PM
Vice and deputy commanders are staff officers, and are not appointed to those positions on AF Form 35 (an optional form, known to many as "G-series orders"). If they assume or are appointed to command on a temporary basis, the standard practice I have seen is to accomplish the Form 35 documenting that temporary assumption or appointment. I used to do first-pass reviews on Form 35s when they came to JA for legal review.

AFI 51-604, Appointment to and Assumption of Command, para 6.1: "Vice commanders and deputy commanders, while acting as such, are staff officers. Staffs have no command functions. They assist the commander through advising, planning, researching, and investigating."

Short version: You won't see a vice/deputy commander impose Article 15 as vice/deputy commander. They might do so as commander, having assumed or been appointed to that position in the temporary absence of the regularly assigned commander.

All true. I've also seen a case, with a newly promoted Brigadier General, where the wing king was perpetually TDY for Capstone and other courses, which left the Vice Commander as acting commander on G-series orders for over 50% of the time. It was probably for the best, because the Vice Commander was an old hand who actually knew what he was doing. I couldn't say that about his much younger boss.

Rusty Jones
06-28-2013, 03:53 PM
Yeah, and they just have to serve the same amount of years as a first-termer and get better benefits than a 30-year retiree.


So they have to serve at least 5 years to be eligible for a pension? Still a better deal than having to serve at least 20 years.

First off, most companies in the private sector that still have a defined benefit plan have five-year vesting. That's pretty much standard.

Secondly, how much do you think a five-year retirement check is going to be? You have to be 62 years old in order to draw a pension for less than 20 years of service. At age 62, it's 1.1% of your High 3. By the way, unlike the military, we actually have to pay for our health insurance. A five year retirement won't even cover that premium.

I will say that I do like FERS more than the military retirement system, but definitely for more informed reasons.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
06-28-2013, 04:41 PM
First off, most companies in the private sector that still have a defined benefit plan have five-year vesting. That's pretty much standard.

Secondly, how much do you think a five-year retirement check is going to be? You have to be 62 years old in order to draw a pension for less than 20 years of service. At age 62, it's 1.1% of your High 3. By the way, unlike the military, we actually have to pay for our health insurance. A five year retirement won't even cover that premium.

I will say that I do like FERS more than the military retirement system, but definitely for more informed reasons.

If you were an active duty retiree or soon to be then you wouldn't be such a fan of FERS over our current pension. This is just my "informed" opinion.

retiredAFcivvy
06-28-2013, 05:09 PM
Civilians who equate their pay scale to rank. You are a CIVIL SERVANT, not an NCO or Officer. Your pay scale is not a rank. You do not have UCMJ authority over anyone, you cannot hold command, the list goes on.

This issue was a subject of this forum a while back--not sure of all the discussion. I'm not sure if there was anything official on this but I do know at one time when the clubs were separate a civilian GS-9 (I believe) (this would be the assumption that grade would be equaivalent to officer status)or above could join the officer's club. Also, I know that at a certain level a civilian was authorized to stay in the VOQ when TDY.

Rusty Jones
06-28-2013, 05:59 PM
If you were an active duty retiree or soon to be then you wouldn't be such a fan of FERS over our current pension. This is just my "informed" opinion.

I did 11 years active duty, and I have plenty of time to go into the reserves.

And the great thing is; if I'm retiring from the reserves, I can double-dip from my active duty time.

The problem with the military retirement system is that there's no vesting. If you get out at 19 years, or get kicked out at any time - even after 20 - you've got nothing to show for it. I can actually get FIRED from my job, and as long as I'm vested, I'll get a pension when I reach the minimum retirement age (MRA) for the amount time I did. You can't do that in the military.

Also, my retirement is based on all of my pay. Military retirement is only based on base pay. And then you have your HYT. The max you can do is 30 years, and that's only IF you made make the highest paygrade in your class of service (officer or enlisted). Me? I can keep working until I'm damned well ready to retire, and keep building up more time in service. Plus, I have matching TSP - if I contribute 5%, and they match and I have a total of 10% being added to my TSP account; and I can actually retire at 62 (because even if you retire from the military, you're likely going to be working to or past that age anyway) and actually live the same or even better than I was while I was working.

Add to that, the fact that I used my active service toward reserve retirement as well; and will draw that at age 60... and I'm all set. I get my GS-11 in September. I'm 33 years old; and if almost 30 years from now, I never make GS-12, I'll still be content.


This issue was a subject of this forum a while back--not sure of all the discussion. I'm not sure if there was anything official on this but I do know at one time when the clubs were separate a civilian GS-9 (I believe) (this would be the assumption that grade would be equaivalent to officer status)or above could join the officer's club. Also, I know that at a certain level a civilian was authorized to stay in the VOQ when TDY.

GS-7 is equal to an O-1.

Mr. Squid
06-28-2013, 07:29 PM
Speaking of civilian employees who think that their civilian status entitles them to shit all over their military counterparts, I get a specially huge kick out of those who think that enlisted people need to be treated 100 times worse than officers. As if being enlisted means we're a herd of direction-less, clueless, childish miscreants who don't know what to do with ourselves, don't know how to take charge of anything, and constantly need to be chewed out.

Capt Alfredo
06-28-2013, 07:29 PM
The recently confirmed SECAF has less education (BA in History) than most MSgts and Capts. An officer wont even be considered for Lt Col without a master's degree. What does this say to the Airmen of all ranks who are busting their humps to get advanced degrees and PME to make them suitable for continued service?

What does it say? It says you, too, can get out and advance by your own merits and not wait for the machine to push you up and out of the chute. Also, "most MSgts" do not have a bachelor's degree.

Rusty Jones
06-28-2013, 07:58 PM
Speaking of civilian employees who think that their civilian status entitles them to shit all over their military counterparts, I get a specially huge kick out of those who think that enlisted people need to be treated 100 times worse than officers. As if being enlisted means we're a herd of direction-less, clueless, childish miscreants who don't know what to do with ourselves, don't know how to take charge of anything, and constantly need to be chewed out.

This actually reminds me of comments that I was reading on a news channel's facebook update on a news article. I forget what the article was exactly about; but some civilian who had never been around military their whole life made a comment about how when someone goes into the military, they should go officer, because they heard that the enlisted are basically the way the way you just described in your post.

She got slammed for it; but... I think this shows that you could be more right about this than you think you are. Like, they might literally believe this about enlisted.

Capt Alfredo
06-28-2013, 08:02 PM
How about the GS-13 who writes that Capt's OPR? That's my beef...not the personality, but the system that allows it.

Come on Flaps, when's the last time anyone didn't write his own OPR?

Number4
06-28-2013, 08:07 PM
What does it say? It says you, too, can get out and advance by your own merits and not wait for the machine to push you up and out of the chute. Also, "most MSgts" do not have a bachelor's degree.

Actually, it says someone is willing to throw the AF under the political bus vs provide it highly qualified civilian leadership.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
06-28-2013, 08:17 PM
Come on Flaps, when's the last time anyone didn't write his own OPR?

Ok, rater

LC-45
06-29-2013, 11:08 AM
The folks that just wont let it go...

Back at Base-X in my day..blah blah blah