Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: This Is Absurd

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Highlands
    Posts
    795
    Likes (Received)
    513
    Thanks (Received)
    41

    Default This Is Absurd

    Maybe I'm letting "emotion" get in the way of logic & reason? Perhaps; this just pisses me off when there are many things that could do with a trimming of the fat...but not this.

    6/6/2013 - WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- Due to the impact sequestration has on resources, Air Force Services is adjusting requirements for military funeral honors of retirees.

    Air Force policy will revert to requiring a minimum of two personnel for retiree MFH details, consistent with statute and DoD policy.

    The Air Force historically went a step further by providing a seven-member detail for all retiree funerals.

    "We cherish the service and sacrifice of our retirees," said Brig. Gen. Eden Murrie, Director of Air Force Services. "While we had to adjust the Air Force requirement as a result of sequestration, commanders still have latitude to provide seven-member details if local resources permit."

    The two-person team will continue to fold and present the interment flag and play Taps. If a seven-person team is able to support, the detail will also act as pallbearers and the firing party. Additional support for retiree funeral honors remain available from authorized providers such as Veteran Service Organizations or Reserve Officer Training Corps units, as resources permit.

    "Unfortunately, this is a necessary decision," said Murrie. "However, we remain dedicated to honoring our current and former Airmen to the greatest extent possible."

    MFH details for veterans and active duty members will remain unchanged. Funeral honors for veterans consist of two-person teams while active duty funeral honors are performed by a 20-person detail.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Williamsburg VA
    Posts
    1,879
    Likes (Received)
    356
    Thanks (Received)
    218

    Default Re: This Is Absurd

    "Unbelievable"! Next they will do it the war-time navy way...put you in your fart sack with a 5" shell and feed ya to the fish!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Civilian World
    Posts
    1,343
    Likes (Received)
    213
    Thanks (Received)
    24

    Default Re: This Is Absurd

    This is ridiculous considering the money the government is throwing down the tubes as agencies come up with these bogus savings.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Posts
    1,512
    Likes (Received)
    179
    Thanks (Received)
    39

    Default Re: This Is Absurd

    Talk about wringing blood from a rock.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    DC
    Posts
    114
    Likes (Received)
    67
    Thanks (Received)
    5

    Default Re: This Is Absurd

    This screams out at me that vetrans are not important and we dont have time to honor those who came before us. We have the money but some O-6 to O-10 wasted it on something STUPID!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Dayon, Ohio
    Posts
    1,876
    Likes (Received)
    472
    Thanks (Received)
    31

    Default Re: This Is Absurd

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    Talk about wringing blood from a rock.
    Im trying to figure out how this saves money. When active duty are used for Honor Guard they do not cost anything. By using less people it allows you to have less slots for honor guard but that only returns them to their squadron it doesn't result in savings. Taking 2 people instead of 7 would mean that you could use a compact car instead of a van to travel but the savings there would not be an extreme amount. The only way this even saves one peeny is if the funeral causes the honor guard team to be on duty for over 12 hours in which case they are paid per diem for that day. Other then that the cost for using 7 people instead of 2 is essentially negible.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    God's Country
    Posts
    369
    Likes (Received)
    43
    Thanks (Received)
    5

    Default Re: This Is Absurd

    Quote Originally Posted by SomeRandomGuy View Post
    Im trying to figure out how this saves money. When active duty are used for Honor Guard they do not cost anything. By using less people it allows you to have less slots for honor guard but that only returns them to their squadron it doesn't result in savings. Taking 2 people instead of 7 would mean that you could use a compact car instead of a van to travel but the savings there would not be an extreme amount. The only way this even saves one peeny is if the funeral causes the honor guard team to be on duty for over 12 hours in which case they are paid per diem for that day. Other then that the cost for using 7 people instead of 2 is essentially negible.
    Exactly. Honor Guard members pay for their own meals when on a detail and are responsible for locations within a certain radius of their base. It doesn't matter if one person or 10 people go, the cost is the same. Way to go powers that be for giving our veterans a big middle finger, all in the name of saving a few bucks.
    Last edited by Renazance; 06-11-2013 at 10:15 AM.

  8. #8
    JD2780 Guest

    Default Re: This Is Absurd

    Travel costs, the Hickam HG was responsible for virtually the whole South Pacific, uniform costs, very different uniforms and needs of care.

    Those costs may only be a drop in the bucket though. Plus though lessened numbers for the HG will allow the units to use their troops instead being a troop down.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    here
    Posts
    1,193
    Likes (Received)
    237
    Thanks (Received)
    24

    Default Re: This Is Absurd

    Quote Originally Posted by SomeRandomGuy View Post
    When active duty are used for Honor Guard they do not cost anything.
    They cost quite a bit, actually. Hope I'm not talking down to you here. We earn manpower positions based on a manpower standard which is based on the amount of work we do. e.g. SRG's shop has 100 computers to maintain, which earns 5 positions (not an accurate number). That standard supposedly accounts for ancillary training and leaves and such. All that to say that you've earned what is required to do the mission. Now, we need an Airman to be the Command Chief's Assistant, one for piss duty, 2 to go to the HAWC for PT testing, one to plus up Wing XP, 4 LT's to be on the Commander's Action Group, one for an Group exec, 3 Airmen to be in the Group CSS and we need an Honor Guard. We've got some bake sales coming up, another bystander intervention training day, wingman day and we're cutting our civilian's hours by 20%. All of these are out of hide requirements or positions we have to fill that take from positions we're provided to do the mission. This example is pretty typical of numbers I had to provide from a group level. Obviously, it gets worse as you move higher.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Rapid City, SD
    Posts
    858
    Likes (Received)
    553
    Thanks (Received)
    58

    Default Re: This Is Absurd

    Congress levied an unfunded requirement on the services to provide honor guards at retirees and veterans funerals. Well intended, but again unfunded. For some reason the AF decided to take the DoD requirement of 2 HG for retirees and send a 7 member detail. Why? If the requirement was for 2, send 2. Why set yourself up for failure by making 7 the AF standard? What a huge manpower cost (tax) levied upon a base. I know some bases made HG a one year committment (full time) while others have some convulted 1 month on, 1 month standby, 1 month off rotation. And each sq is given their fair share quota of Amn required to be on HG.
    Remember it is Congress who determines the size of the military force, Congress determines the pay and benefits, Congress passes laws (almost always without funding) that the DoD and services scramble to meet (taking funds from elsewhere, taking manpower out of hide, etc.) How about a Constitutional amendment that no new requirement be levied upon any agency, state, or municipality without resources provided by the Congress...
    Is this cutback in HG grandstanding by the AF to show the affect of sequestration, yes...but as we all know (or should know) if this happens without any visable impact...guess what the future will be like.
    "Never force a fart in Djibouti"..."Always marry your second wife first"..."If anyone says that you're not a team player, maybe they're on the wrong team"..."You can gold plate a turd and it's still a turd"

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •