• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

DH Opportunity

Griz882

Well-Known Member
pilot
It almost worked well enough to get CAPT Dorsey promoted to Flag.



For those unfamiliar with this, truly an embarrassment. The RF-4 pilot went through T-38 PIT when I was an IP at Randlolph AFB in the mid-90s, and one afternoon he played Dorsey's gun camera video for us, and narrated the experience. Just unbelievable. I hear that he is really having some significant medical issues now that he is older as a result of the injuries he sustained.

When any of the Services make these kind of errors... whether the general public knows or cares about it... it points to shit that needs to be fixed. By "leadership". The status quo doesn't cut it.
If it makes us feel any better, he also targeted troops with credit issues.

 

Jim123

DD-214 in hand and I'm gonna party like it's 1998
pilot
If it makes us feel any better, he also targeted troops with credit issues.
Yeah, when that dirt came out it made me a bit mad but it also made me feel good in a strange way, like it vindicated my opinion that the guy is an a-hole.

Where do we get such men?
 

Hair Warrior

New Member
I spent the last four days drinking with a retired 2 star
Thanks for the invite...
Where do we get such men?
I’ll throw this out there: The FITREP form is broken.

One, it’s too much veiled-language and code words. It could be clearer.

Two, there’s too little courage to give an officer something lower than a “Promotable”/3.0.

Ex.: If you shoot down a friendly on purpose and the FNAEB finds serious lapses in judgment, your reporting senior needs to give you a “Progressing” or “Significant problems” instead of “Promotable.” Even if it prevents a promotion from LTJG to LT. Which gets back to point #1, “Progressing” does not mean what we think it means. The word implies some optimistic upward trajectory. Really, it needs to mean “Not promotable.” It could even be combined with 1.0/“Significant problems” into one big category of Not letting this officer move up in the Navy.

Half joking: If we wanted to mirror the P, MP, EP language and be blunt about it, we could have Releasable, Must Release, and Early Release from naval service. But then millennials would get hurt feelings.
 
Last edited:

Angry

NFO in Jax
None
Thanks for the invite...

I’ll throw this out there: The FITREP form is broken.

One, it’s too much veiled-language and code words. It could be clearer.

Two, there’s too little courage to give an officer something lower than a “Promotable”/3.0.

Ex.: If you shoot down a friendly on purpose and the FNAEB finds serious lapses in judgment, your reporting senior needs to give you a “Progressing” or “Significant problems” instead of “Promotable.” Even if it prevents a promotion from LTJG to LT. Which gets back to point #1, “Progressing” does not mean what we think it means. The word implies some optimistic upward trajectory. Really, it needs to mean “Not promotable.” It could even be combined with 1.0/“Significant problems” into one big category of Not letting this officer move up in the Navy.

Half joking: If we wanted to mirror the P, MP, EP language and be blunt about it, we could have Releasable, Must Release, and Early Release from naval service. But then millennials would get hurt feelings.
Just change it to Release, Retain at Present Paygrade, Promote. I fail to see how that isn't a better system if we insist on using descriptive language.
 
Top