Follow the latest on RallyPoint. Get insights from the top online professional network for service members and veterans.

Trending Discussions

37
37
0
A54b542
Have you ever seen anyone wearing a Glider badge? How many Soldiers could you ask before receiving the correct answer without the help of a search engine?
170 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
36
36
0
2ca2cbd4
*RallyPoint Staff will be monitoring this discussion*

From RP Staff:
We are honored to welcome Art delaCruz here on RallyPoint for a live Q&A. Art is Chief Operating Officer for Team Rubicon, the only non-profit disaster response organization that utilizes the skills of military veterans to rapidly deploy emergency response teams. In giving veterans an opportunity to continue their service, Team Rubicon provides them with a sense of purpose, community and identity. Since the organization’s founding in 2010 following the massive Haiti earthquake, Team Rubicon has responded to over 200 disasters and grown from eight to 65,000 volunteer members. Team Rubicon has responded most recently to Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria.

A retired U.S. Naval Officer, Art served as Director of Strategic Planning at Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems prior to Team Rubicon. He was responsible for coordinating sector strategy development; developing and analyzing strategic growth initiatives; and overseeing the long-range strategic planning process. Art served in the U.S. Navy for 22 years with notable tours including serving as an instructor at the Navy Fighter Weapons School (Topgun) and as the Commanding Officer of Strike Fighter Squadron TWO TWO (VFA-22). During his career, he made six deployments as an F-14 and F/A-18 Naval Flight Officer. In 2010, he was one of 12 senior Department of Defense (DoD) officers selected as a Secretary of Defense Corporate Fellow, a program that places officers in leading companies to glean best practices that may be applicable in DoD. In this capacity, he was trained by and served with McKinsey & Co. In his final military assignment, Art served as the Deputy of Strategic Policy, and as Systems Innovation Lead at the U.S. Special Operations Command. Art earned his Bachelor’s degree in physics from the US Naval Academy and a Master’s degree in operations management from the University of Arkansas.
26 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
36
36
0
Osr_medal
I deployed to Afghanistan in 2012 with Temporary Change of Station (TCS) orders that said my tour would be no longer than 270 days (about 9 months). My tour ended up being 8 months and 1 day, as my unit redeployed a few weeks early. The unit I deployed with awarded me the Overseas Service Ribbon (OSR) for having completed a tour. I arrived at my current unit a few months ago, and prior to my recent appearance at the promotion board, S1 reviewed my records and removed the OSR from my ERB, stating that I didn't serve overseas long enough to qualify for the OSR. My Platoon Sergeant is the one who made me aware of S1's decision to remove my OSR, and he hasn't disagreed with S1's decision or made any moves to investigate the situation, so I did the research on my own.

AR 600-8-22 says that the OSR is awarded to Soldiers who are credited with a normal overseas tour completion according to AR 614-30. AR 614-30 says that a Soldier has completed a tour if he serves to within 60 days of the prescribed tour. I was deployed to within 21 days of my prescribed tour, and my early return wasn't under my control or by my request; my whole unit redeployed a few weeks early. According to my research, I should be able to keep my OSR.

I'm going to print my TCS deployment orders and take them to S1 to show that my prescribed tour was only 9 months, but beyond that, I haven't decided what to do. Has anyone else been in this situation, or can anyone explain where I went wrong in my evaluation? What would you do in my situation?
102 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
37
37
0
C2138464
7469a95e
15233a1c
A53b6dcc
Since many of us have the opportunity to travel the world and visit historic battlefields, which sites would you say have been the most memorable for you? For me, it has to be Belleau Wood with a good Marine buddy of mine, and the site where the 3rd Infantry Division adopted the nickname, ''Rock of the Marne'' in Mezy, France.
191 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
73
73
0
Ccmgtmazzone
Barksdale just got a new Command Chief for the Bomb Wing a few months ago.

I have to say, I have never see a rack this large on a non-AFSOC type guy and even then, I think he has them topped.

My first reaction was "holy ribbon rack batman!!"
Posted in these groups: Ribbons_logo RibbonsUsaf_logo Air Force
306 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
7
7
0
C7ed8486
For those out there who voted for President Trump, I am trying to give you a chance to show that you don't just blindly follow whatever the man says and adapt it as your own beliefs.

One stance you would like to see him more moderate on. That's all.

***update*** - Feel free to continue discussing. Asked this question for a research proposal in my masters program which ironically has nothing to do with politics, Trump, or anything in DC for that matter. I have the data I need. Thanks for the participation.
Posted in these groups: Imgres President (POTUS)
40 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
6
6
0
Ece691dd
In the beginning, your first (and possibly second) promotion may feel like it was earned because you had a pulse. It could have been earned meritoriously. In general, there is a natural progression whereas a civilian career can lead to a lot of lateral moves, career changes, etc. I want to know about your experience.
15 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
Rp-logo-flat-shadow
Command Post What is this?
21
21
0
Bc034231
A few years ago…OK, a few DECADES ago, I was a young E-3. I was stationed at U-Tapao AB, Thailand. The title of this article was uttered by my E-8 shop chief. Don’t let the title fool you. I hope to impart some good advice and hope you find it useful if not interesting. Now being a former G.I. I will admit to having a mouth and am known to cuss like the proverbial one-armed sailor – with no disrespect intended to one-armed sailors. I’ll do my best to keep it clean.

It’s no secret that today’s military is nothing like it was in my day 45 years ago. Oh, there are still a lot of things that will never change, however, getting up at Oh-dark hundred will always be one of them. In all seriousness, things are very different now.

Some of the things that need to be contended with then were often overlooked and left to “work themselves out” as opposed to today where much has been refined. In my day, if you were married and got orders the first thing you did was see if it was accompanied or not (if you were married). Was it a remote or isolated tour, how long, etc? When I was on active duty during the Vietnam War I had 7 PCS assignments in 7 years. Today’s military is faced with what seems to be endless deployments.

Today’s MILFORCE is tired. Pure and simple, it is worn to the bone. We have been engaged in Iraq / Afghanistan nearly as long as we were in Vietnam. One of the biggest things I see is the need for fresh blood (metaphorically, that is). We cannot continue to continually send our war fighters into harm’s way over and over and over again without repercussions. As a PTSD patient I know from where I speak.

During Vietnam a tour was a year to 13 months with a break around halfway for R&R. If you were lucky, you got home and did not get orders back. Some of us volunteered to go back and some like me got back to back tours in SEA. I went from working on B-52s in Thailand to working C-141 and C-5s in Vietnam the next year. I know how much of a toll it took on me and can only imagine the toll it is taking on today’s force. With many of our best having deployed three, four and even five times, it is unfathomable how long these brave warriors can continue before they become permanently broken.

As each day passes, I know we all hope the conflicts facing our nation will come to an end. When that time comes we need to be sure we are ready to readjust…readjust to CONUS duty, OCONUS duty, transfer to the Reserves or National Guard, Discharge, promotion to PFC (Permanent F*****g Civilian) or to retirement.

Readjustment is not easy. Forty-five years after Vietnam and I still haven’t totally readjusted. The time to get yourself ready is before you head out the gate. In a word, NOW is the time. The DoD has done a good job of helping refine the programs to help you make the change and I urge you to take advantage of those programs. If you take nothing else from this, I want you to know that many of you will suffer from PTSD. That is a fact of war. Even before you separate, retire or move on to another base, do something about your PTSD. To ask for help is not a sign of weakness. It IS a sign of strength…strength to stand up and do what others would not do. At this point we know there is no cure for PTSD but with treatment, counseling if you will, you can live a good life after the military. If you need help, get it. If you can’t find it, let me know and I will help you find it!
10 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
3
3
0
So, I would like the insight of my superiors on something.

TL;DR at the end for those of you who can't be bothered to read a wall of text.

I'm 19 and a second year college student. I'm a dual major, and dual minor. I'm studying information security intelligence with a cyber security focus, homeland security, criminal justice, and military leadership.
In order to graduate in a reasonable amount of time, I need to take excessive amounts of credits. I'm taking 19 now. That usually lands me spending 10-12 hours a day six days a week dedicated to school.
I'm in ten campus organizations, including university student government, and I'm a conductor in training/trombonist in four college bands, one of which has over 100 performances yearly.
My school's recreation center (gym) is under maintenance and has been only slightly accessible all year. It's always crowded, and I find myself spending more time waiting for space or equipment than actually using it. Plus, people I know are always staring me down. It's kind of natural when you're as involved on campus as I am. I don't want to say "I don't really care," because I do and I'm insecure, but I normally just ignore them. Uncomfortably.
Finally, the food courts are horrific. Our salads would be amber, everything else would be red-I absolutely guarantee it. Fried oreos as a side of volcanic chilidogs may sound great, but our food is horrifically unhealthy. People here blow up like blimps. I'm. Not. Kidding. Student Government did a survey and 60% of students gain 20 or more pounds in their first year here. Hence the "freshmen 15." I would link to the surveys, but that would give away my University and I kinda want to keep that off of the internet.
Ultimately, I am in a unit where no one really cares about PT. Everyone fails their PT tests. Someone got 11/11 raw score for their pushups and situps and came back double middle-fingering the NCOs (30 year old specialist) when he walked his 2-mile. But I do not want to be like them. I want to excel. I want that 300+ PT score. I've been an E-1 for six months now and I want to move up the chain. I'm willing to work. I've been buying fruits, vegetables, and melons from the local Meijers with my drill money. I've also been drinking lots of milk & eating at least one salad a day. I volunteered for a deployment in May (they wanted NCOs I think, but I saw another E-2, so I slipped my name in). Finally, once weekly I am a "physical trainer" for a couple of reeeaaallyy cute sorority girls and we go through all PRT drills that do not require equipment and finish with the run. I also am that guy that always complains at drill that we don't PT enough :P


Too Long; Didn't Read: How do you guys manage to keep a good PT score while overwhelmed with crazy and hectic college life? What are your workout routines? What are your habits? How do you eat? What kind of advice can you give me?
18 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
5
5
0
Hello RP community, I need your help. I am commissioning next year in May, and I am torn between branching MP or TC with the Army National Guard. My civilian career goal is to become a police officer. If my civilian career will be law enforcement, is it redundant to branch MP? Does that help me reinforce skills in my civilian side or is that redundant? Should I branch in a different field such as TC? Does it matter at all what I branch in terms of life/civilian and military career? Thank you!
15 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
12
12
0
Have you ever considered leveraging your military background to pursue a management/leadership career within the largest industry in the US (about 1/6th of the overall economy)? The business side of the health industry provides many opportunities (operational jobs, finance, logistics, IM/IT, human resources, strategic planning, marketing, etc.) in a variety of health-related settings (hospitals, physician practices, long-term care, insurance companies, biotech, medical devices, pharmaceutical, consulting firms, etc.). These settings include for-profit, not-for-profit, and governmental organizations all across the country. You do not necessarily need previous healthcare exposure to leverage your military background to transition into this industry, as long as you have a keen interest in understanding what makes this industry unique. With millions of baby boomers retiring each year, combined with longer life expectancies, opportunities will only grow. Plus, if you already have (or are close to completing) a bachelors degree, a graduate education can even set you on a quicker pathway to executive-level jobs within the health industry. If this career pathway interests you, what else would you like to know?
10 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
13
13
0
Posted in these groups: Jon JobsImages Military CareerMilitary-civilian-600x338 Transition
25 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
Rp-logo-flat-shadow
Command Post What is this?
45
45
0
41808d77
Disagree

Any idea to fold The U.S. Air Force, in its entirety, (back) into the U.S. Army is folly, akin to suggesting the same thing for the U.S. Navy. Since its first incarnation in 1907, The U.S. Air Force (USAF) has been nominally independent. In its early days, technically as part of the U.S. Army, this nominal independence stemmed more from apathy and hostility on the part of Army leadership, rather than a visionary appreciation of the unique capability of the fledgling Air Force. The nominal independence became actual independence in 1947, after World War II and the earliest days of the Cold War revealed the need for a separate air service, capable of conducting distinct missions from the other services. While in more recent years the USAF has taken on functions that would perhaps be better suited to the Army and USMC, its core mission “to fly, fight, and win in air, space, and cyberspace” encapsulates its separate, wide-ranging contributions. The USAF provides a range of strategic capabilities across multiple domains, that serve U.S. national interests at all times, and require it to be maintained as a separate branch of service.

It should go without saying that the USAF primarily operates in a separate and unique domain, i.e. the air. The earliest pioneers to take to the skies at the beginning of the 20th century recognized the importance of flight, even if they did not immediately grasp its far-reaching implications. As technology progressed and wars expanded in scope and scale, the applicability of the air power became evident at all levels of warfare, and a new school of military theory emerged to govern it. While the airplane has never been guaranteed to reach its target, despite what its most ardent supporters may think, its contribution at the tactical, operational, and strategic levels of war are difficult to overstate. Aircraft could increasingly deliver effects, troops, and supplies to places previously unreachable, even as they vied for control of the skies. World War II provided numerous instances to test the various theories of air power, and provided justification for the USAF to be inaugurated as a separate branch.

The years after World War II then provided numerous watershed moments for the USAF, not the least of which were the advent of nuclear weapons, development of missile technology, spaceflight, budgetary contractions, and the emergence of bipolar, great power competition. During the early years of the Cold War, the USAF had a global monopoly on strategic strike when the bomber was the sole delivery system for nuclear weapons through the monolithic Strategic Air Command. The USAF found a natural extension to the strategic strike mission in ICBM technology. The new capabilities, with their potential to wreak destruction on a global scale, along with budget cuts, called into question the efficacy of land forces on the modern battlefield. While thankfully, the shifting characters of subsequent wars made such a question academic (i.e. land forces will be needed so long as people live on land), and actually dispelled notion that air power can unilaterally achieve victory, they did not lessen the true strategic significance of the USAF. Today it bears the burden of two legs of the U.S. nuclear triad (ICBMs and strategic bombers), and maintains superiority in both air and space, even as it provides support for ground operations, and operates in cyberspace.

The two most important missions, nuclear deterrence and air/space superiority, are difficult to articulate, and even more difficult to appreciate, especially in a security environment that has been supposedly free of correlating threats in recent years. The missions involving support to ground operations, and operations in cyberspace have received an exaggerated emphasis, relative to their importance as critical USAF missions, as a result of the last 15 years of low intensity conflict. It can be, and has been argued that the close air support (CAS) mission, its primary platforms, and its operators should be under the purview of the Army and the USMC. This makes a great deal of sense. CAS is a tactical mission, and its pilots and Joint Terminal Attack Controllers (JTACs) already work very closely with ground forces. Ground forces, responsible for fighting at the tactical level, would benefit from having the CAS capability under their direct control in training, administration, and combat. Cyberspace is an emerging domain, and the theory and practice for operating within it are still in development. The cyber domain, however, is greater than any one branch, and operations within it should be strictly of a joint nature, if not governed by its own separate service. Regardless of whether the CAS and cyber missions remain in the USAF repertoire, its strategic strike capability, and air/space superiority are what truly make the branch separate and distinct.

The relevance of a branch of the U.S. military is found in its ability to safeguard the interests of the United States in its respective domain. To re-combine the whole USAF and U.S. Army would decrement the effectiveness of both services. The USAF is the guarantor of U.S. national interests in air and space, and in the nuclear strike realm. While some of its ancillary functions may be more suited to being folded into another branch, no other branch is suited to the core missions of the USAF. The USAF must remain independent by virtue of the strategic capabilities it provides. The notion that it should be folded into another branch is uninformed at best, and strategically reckless at worst.

----------
Nathan Wike is an officer in the U.S. Army and a member of the Military Writer’s Guild. The opinions expressed are his alone, and do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

----------
This topic was taken from the list “Fifty-One Strategic Debates Worth Having”, from the U.S. Military Academy’s Modern War Institute (http://mwi.usma.edu/).

----------
COVER IMAGE
World War II USAAF Recruitment Poster
118 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
76
76
0
57533011
What say you? Make it clear and unambiguous. One possible text:

"The right of the people to defend themselves, their property and their Nation being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
258 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
60
28
32
Bea59a0
The latest tragedy of gun violence against the LGBTQ community is just a continuance of the attack in the SC church, the campus shootings, Navy Yard assault, Theater attack, and assaults upon our children at schools. Assault weapons are the issue, not "guns." How do we fix this?
1147 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small

Are you sure you wish to convert this post?

Seg?add=7750261&t=2