Jump to content


TigerTugsVOLO_VRHome200Helicopter AcademyFrasca VRForum468
Photo
- - - - -

The 12 year AFS waiver denial makes no sense.


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 Djbred18

Djbred18

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 18 January 2018 - 02:33

I applied for warrant officer and got denied my age plus afs waiver. Im pretty dissapointed to be honest. The Armys logic for not wanting someone with over 12 years of service is that they will not be able to retain them as long as a guy who has eight years in service.
The part they are not addressing is the reason they are losing warrant officers so fast. The civilian job market quite simply treats their pilots better. Better pay, more flight time, doing the job they are supposed to do. So regardless of how much time a warrant officer has, they are simply leaving even before they hit their 20 years because they were sick of all the crap and BS they are made to put up with. Imagine telling a Colonel he cant pursue career advancement because he has been in longer than the other guy. It makes no sense to dismiss someone with more experience in the Army.
The Army is making decisions based purely on hopes rather than logic. They are HOPING the guy the get will decide to do more than the six year obligation. There isnt anything stopping the guy with less AFS time from getting out after his six years. If guys with more years is an issue, make them sign a longer obligation. I would gladly do that.

WLC distinguished honor grad
PPL with 380 plus hours
Bachelors with 3.6 GPA
Plus the usual prerequisites
The shortage must not be that bad. Its your loss Army Aviation.

#2 mike0331

mike0331

    VR Veteran Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 448 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Massachusetts
  • Interests:Freedom & 'Merica
  • Company working for:USMC Infantry, Lawyer(ish)

Posted 18 January 2018 - 11:02

Any opportunity to keep fighting?

Mike

#3 honeybadger

honeybadger

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 18 January 2018 - 11:24

Im in the same boat. 13 years AFS waiver disapproved.

#4 Thedude

Thedude

    VR Veteran Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 175 posts

Posted 18 January 2018 - 12:15

If at the time of selection you are over 12 years you will hit 20 years prior to finishing your initial commitment after flight school. If the Army chooses to train you they’re gambling $1 million plus that you will stay in beyond your six year commitment and 20 year retirement date. A candidate with less TIS is more likely to provide a better return on investment by staying in beyond that initial commitment. The majority of warrants stay past their initial commitment, especially with the promotion (and ADSO) for W3 right around that same time.
  • ByteFlighter likes this

#5 honeybadger

honeybadger

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 18 January 2018 - 12:26

I was told by someone in USAREC g3 special programs & boards that the study was done, I'm assuming the one referenced here http://www.armyaviat...nt/1445-the-why the reason why AFS waivers are being denied is because they are moving to a 8 year TIS cutoff before you need a AFS waiver. But going by that logic, also referenced in that study, wouldn't they just tag on an 8 year ADSO after flight school? I can't find anything in the regs stating they can DQ you for proposed policy that hasn't been implemented yet. Also I can’t find any policy stating you can’t incur an ADSO passed your 20 year retirement. If I get accepted to flight school I will stay in as long as I can. I'm here for the Soldiers on the ground not to get the training and fly for a civilian company as soon as I can leave the Army. Also if the 8 year AFS cutoff is the current trend why continue to process an impossible 12 year AFS waiver?



#6 honeybadger

honeybadger

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 18 January 2018 - 17:35

If at the time of selection you are over 12 years you will hit 20 years prior to finishing your initial commitment after flight school. If the Army chooses to train you theyre gambling $1 million plus that you will stay in beyond your six year commitment and 20 year retirement date. A candidate with less TIS is more likely to provide a better return on investment by staying in beyond that initial commitment. The majority of warrants stay past their initial commitment, especially with the promotion (and ADSO) for W3 right around that same time.

I would say the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Who would you rather invest $1million? Someone straight of the street or someone who has proven experience in the job field, multiple combat deployments, no law or medical issues, held a secret security clearance for 13 years, family that understands the lifestyle and training requirements and long hours away?

#7 ByteFlighter

ByteFlighter

    VR Veteran Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 217 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Wiregrass
  • Company working for:The Big Green Weenie

Posted 18 January 2018 - 18:18

I would say the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Who would you rather invest $1million? Someone straight of the street or someone who has proven experience in the job field, multiple combat deployments, no law or medical issues, held a secret security clearance for 13 years, family that understands the lifestyle and training requirements and long hours away?

 

 

Thedude is absolutely correct. You were denied a waiver. Why are you trying to plead your case on here? Nothing on here is going to change Army policy.


  • honeybadger likes this

#8 honeybadger

honeybadger

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 18 January 2018 - 19:00

 

 

Thedude is absolutely correct. You were denied a waiver. Why are you trying to plead your case on here? Nothing on here is going to change Army policy.

I'm trying to understand why my waiver was denied. The reason I was given was AR 135-100 paragraph 1-6 a. (2) The Army goal is to access WO's with 8 or less years of service. Warrant officer applicants with concurrent call to active duty must not have exceeded 12 years of active Federal service as of the date the DA form 61 is signed by the applicant. Key word in that being a goal. Sounds like a cop out to me. For comparison the Army also has a goal of 60% of all enlistments being in the 50 or higher AFQT. A congressionally mandated goal. If we were at 59% do you think they would stop someone from enlisting with an AFQT of 49 or lower? If they told me my waiver was denied for reasons of career progression and actually pointed to a regulation that made sense I would be ok with that and you wouldn't hear from me anymore.  

 

What policy are you referring to?



#9 mike0331

mike0331

    VR Veteran Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 448 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Massachusetts
  • Interests:Freedom & 'Merica
  • Company working for:USMC Infantry, Lawyer(ish)

Posted 18 January 2018 - 19:26

As I asked before, is this where it ends? Can you plead you case again, call a congressman, etc?

 

Mike



#10 ByteFlighter

ByteFlighter

    VR Veteran Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 217 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Wiregrass
  • Company working for:The Big Green Weenie

Posted 18 January 2018 - 19:27

I'm trying to understand why my waiver was denied. The reason I was given was AR 135-100 paragraph 1-6 a. (2) The Army goal is to access WO's with 8 or less years of service. Warrant officer applicants with concurrent call to active duty must not have exceeded 12 years of active Federal service as of the date the DA form 61 is signed by the applicant. Key word in that being a goal. Sounds like a cop out to me. For comparison the Army also has a goal of 60% of all enlistments being in the 50 or higher AFQT. A congressionally mandated goal. If we were at 59% do you think they would stop someone from enlisting with an AFQT of 49 or lower? If they told me my waiver was denied for reasons of career progression and actually pointed to a regulation that made sense I would be ok with that and you wouldn't hear from me anymore.  

 

What policy are you referring to?

 

 

My point is this: Are you looking for a friend to argue with on here?

 

Again, you were denied a waiver and asked the community why. One of our members gave you a pretty concise answer as to why.You didn't like that answer and continue to argue with someone that has no insight into your specific case and no ability to magically approve your waiver.

 

I understand how frustrating it may be for you, but you should reach out to your Congressman if you want results as opposed to arguing with members on an internet forum.



#11 honeybadger

honeybadger

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 18 January 2018 - 19:42

 

 

My point is this: Are you looking for a friend to argue with on here?

 

Again, you were denied a waiver and asked the community why. One of our members gave you a pretty concise answer as to why.You didn't like that answer and continue to argue with someone that has no insight into your specific case and no ability to magically approve your waiver.

 

I understand how frustrating it may be for you, but you should reach out to your Congressman if you want results as opposed to arguing with members on this forum.

I see what you did there. It is pretty frustrating I deal with these policy issues on almost a daily basis. My intent wasn't to argue with anyone here. If it came off that way I apologize. I am in contact with some people that may be able to help.



#12 Thedude

Thedude

    VR Veteran Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 175 posts

Posted 18 January 2018 - 20:47

I would say the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Who would you rather invest $1million? Someone straight of the street or someone who has proven experience in the job field, multiple combat deployments, no law or medical issues, held a secret security clearance for 13 years, family that understands the lifestyle and training requirements and long hours away?


That may be true, but what about the guy who can say all the same stuff and has only been in six years? There’s a limited number of training slots available to fill and the Army apparently feels lower time guys are a better investment.

You might not like it but the TIS limit has been at 12 years for quite some time. If you wanted a better chance at being a warrant officer you should’ve put in a packet prior to reaching the limit.

#13 honeybadger

honeybadger

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 18 January 2018 - 21:23

True. I shouldve put a packet in earlier but my point still stands. How does AR 135-100 paragraph 1-6 disqualify me? Its a goal not a standard.

#14 ByteFlighter

ByteFlighter

    VR Veteran Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 217 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Wiregrass
  • Company working for:The Big Green Weenie

Posted 18 January 2018 - 21:32

Regardless of regulation, the service proponent that rules on those waivers has a very very wide berth in decision making. In other words : The waiver-approving service proponent's rule is absolute.

 

Trying to adjudicate their rule on something is quite harder than just shoving the same rule book in their faces that they used to deny you a waiver in the first place . Again, Congressman, Chain of Command, bum rushing SECDEF; just not on this forum.


  • mike.dendy likes this

#15 Thedude

Thedude

    VR Veteran Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 175 posts

Posted 18 January 2018 - 21:38

True. I shouldve put a packet in earlier but my point still stands. How does AR 135-100 paragraph 1-6 disqualify me? Its a goal not a standard.


It says the goal is for applicants with less than 8 years and they will not accept applicants with over 12 years. Eight years is a goal, twelves years is a standard and regulatory.
  • Creep0321, METT-TC and ByteFlighter like this

#16 kona4breakfast

kona4breakfast

    VR Veteran Poster

  • VR Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:AK

Posted 19 January 2018 - 03:36

When you get in bed with an 800 pound gorilla, sometimes you get f*cked


  • Dnr032, Creep0321, mike0331 and 1 other like this
I told my mom I wanted to be a pilot when I grew up.  She told me I couldn't do both.

#17 mudkow60

mudkow60

    VR Veteran Poster

  • VR Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 177 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 January 2018 - 15:37

The reason is, they will have to pay for your retirement if you do 20, but you have only given them 8 years of service.  Transferring into the Coast Guard was the same way.  



#18 Luofynerd

Luofynerd

    VR Veteran Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 686 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Undisclosed
  • Company working for:U.S. ARMY- AH-64D/E Technical Inspector

Posted 21 January 2018 - 03:20

What is your rank, if you dont mind me asking? You listed WLC, have you been to ALC, or SLC?

#19 NRC

NRC

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 31 July 2018 - 18:04

Where you able to do anything in this matter?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users



LORD_VRHome200Spectrum_VRHome200BE_VRHome200PrecisionVRForumHome200HeliHelmets-VR HomeGenesys VR Forum 200NFCVRForum200HomeMaunaLoaVRHome200