I missed this great idea.  can you  enlighten me on this one?    thanks
dhindmarsh@
aol.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Mike;

Great idea . I'll give it a try.

Ed

Hello,

This seems like a really wild idea, but frankly, it might yield fruit
for "members of the board" and those not members:

The Air Mobility Command has its regulations, as we are quite
familiar with.  Yet so too do the National Guards of each state of
the Union, Puerto Rico, etc.  AMC may model for them, but does not
dictate to them catagory priorities.

While the aircraft assets controlled by these Guard organizations do
not approach that of AMC, they do exist.  The Kentucky Air National
Guard (in example) flys weekly to the Carribean.

Others no doubt have such milk runs else where.

So?

Well, perhaps its time to add something else to our dance card.

Instead of just butting heads with AMC and the Department of Defense,
maybe we need to appeal to the commanders of the National Guards, the
governors of these states - via the Adjutant Generals in each.

They can establish priorities in accordance to their own preference
and concerns for Space-A flying.

Perhaps they can be influenced to include DAVs, widows of retirees
and DAVs, into their catagories of space-a PAX.

This in addition to also adding higher than the AMC priority for
their own Guard personnel and retirees under age 60, could open seats
that have been closed to these members of the military community.

In turn, their example might serve the purpose of showing DoD the
better way.

And DoD may not see it that way, in fact they may not see it at all.
It may remain an invisible concession of state Guards if made by any
of the governors.

But if any governors spring a few seats - and that's progress.  Think
Sen. Inouye might be able to influence the Hawaii Guard in that
direction given his desire to open seats to 100% DAVs?

Would you folks check into your local states, and I'll ask around the
Military Deparment of Oregon.  I'm familiar with that organization,
and assure you they have regs covering space-a travel on Oregon
National Guard aircraft.

Till later, and let us know your thoughts and results.

Mike

Hello,

One variant on the theme of the DoD April 2003 to March 2004 study on
CONUS accompanied dependants authorized space-a test:

Two military associations, the Naval Reserve Assoc. and the National
Guard Assoc. of the United States, will ask for a similar study of
Active, Reserve and Gray Area retirees for OCONUS, according to one
spokesman.

In other words, DoD's careful study of its own proposal points to the
practicality of checking out others' proposals in an identical manner.

This is a possible opening, but again Congressional pressure is the
only likely motivator for DoD to open true studies of DAV and
surviving spouses also flying.

But now, in asking for the "beef" on their claims about "resource
constrained", we mirror their own manner of evaluating expansion of
eligibility.

In either event, the figures their own study provides, may yet yield
gold for further expansions - one way or another.

Till later,
Mike
http://www.geocities.com/protek_2000

Hello,

While it may be that not all those with the privilege currently may
appreciate or care about the tumult that others who feel
unjustifiable exclusions to Space-A cause ...

But those current users may be experiencing a year-long boon due to
the efforts of such advocates.

So these comments from a leader in the Enlisted Association of the
National Guard of the United States (EANGUS)indicate.

He has testified before Congress and is the association's legislative
lobbyist, and a retired senior NCO:

=======begin reply comments:

Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 14:07:24 -0500
From: "EANGUS" <eangus@...>
Subject: Re: EANGUS Weekly Update 2-7-03
To: "Michael C. Mitchell" <protek_2000@...>

Thanks - we appreciate your input. This was a DoD initiative. We are
working through the legislative side to get something done. DoD's
initiative is a result of pressure to make changes, just too little.

Mike Cline

At 01:23 PM 2/7/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>Hello:
>
>Important exception that is not at ALL clear in the
>AMC release that forms the basis for the notice just
>sent:
>
>Gray Area retirees' dependants are NOT included in
>this test.  Far too many at DoD seem to think we
>*know* that gray area retirees are not "military
>retirees" in their estimation.
<snip>

Hi Folks,

Not to be negative, and just to clarify for those who may be
effected, we've posted an article at group site (Uniting the Military
Community via Space-A!), that lets it be known that Gray Area retiree
dependants are not included in the year long test to commence April
1st.

For many on the list, it seems no effect exists at all for them.  But
that can be a deceiving conclusion.

Anytime that DoD ventures to actually study the effects of an
expansion of eligibility - as they are in this case - we have
potential ammunition being stockpiled during this year of test.

I'd also like to make a suggestion:

Consider how we might forward a legislative vehicle that Grays, DAVs,
widows - and importantly, active list *Reservists* - can employ to
forward expansion of Space-A eligibility to include them.

Some regard numbers as our enemy in this quest - fears of
overstuffing terminals and planes with eligibles.  But that is very
unlikely given the nature of each group and the nature of space-a
flying itself.

Rather, I regard uniting the various groups behind one piece of
legislation as politically potent.  Far more than the punch each
group has as an isolated segment of the military community.

Please give this thought.  We need at least one legislator that might
be interested in putting forth such a bill.  Then we need to get our
expanded brethren (Reservists, DAVs, widows, etc.) into pelting their
congressional delegations with letters asking for co-sponsorships.

The Reservists during this period of history will never have a better
time of political clout.  That thought may appear to be somewhat
cynical - but they need to exercise influence that matches and
assures reward for their risk and service rendered to this nation's
security.

If they do not for themselves and others, and we in concert with
them, they'll see their own future whenever they see us as we are
treated today.

And clearly, in my opinion, the service of DAVs, and the widows of
both retirees (grays too) and DAVs, deserve recognition of their
sacrifices for this nation.

Please think further regarding the above requests.  Please act
regarding this as resource and opportunity provide ability.

Till later,
Mike

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the militaryvillage
group.

   File        : /Space a test approval.pdf
   Uploaded by : protek_2000 <protek_2000@...>
   Description : Related to test of CONUS w/ dependants

You can access this file at the URL

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/militaryvillage/files/Space%20a%20test%20approval.\
pdf

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

protek_2000 <protek_2000@...>

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the militaryvillage
group.

   File        : /Space A Expansion Article.doc
   Uploaded by : protek_2000 <protek_2000@...>
   Description : Article on Expansion of CONUS to include dependants

You can access this file at the URL

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/militaryvillage/files/Space%20A%20Expansion%20Arti\
cle.doc

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

protek_2000 <protek_2000@...>

Hello,
The claim below has not been verified by me.  But hopefully it's
true.  National Guard, Reservists, and Gray Area retirees would be
effected (potentially).  It would be permitting dependants to fly
CONUS.

Hello Hawaii, Elmendorf, Guam, etc.?  I don't know.  But once there
are numbers of users to be crunched, hopefully their will be
justification provided for others not effect by THIS program:  DAVs
and surviving spouses.

Many of you have been to the "site" for noneligible excuses...
perhaps we can get ammo for that battle.

In any event, from Dirk Peppard's Space-A Board, we read the
following:

Space A Test Dependents CONUS

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Dirk Pepperd's Space-a WWWBoard ]
[ FAQ ]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Ken Roberts FWB, FL on January 30, 19103 at 11:25:32:

DOD Tests Space-Available Travel Privileges for Dependents within the
CONUS

The Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Transportation
Policy) has approved a one-year test to evaluate the expansion of
space-available privileges for dependents traveling within the
Continental United States (CONUS). The test will allow dependents of
active duty and retired Uniformed Services members to travel within
the CONUS when accompanied by their sponsors. The test is scheduled
to begin 1 April 2003 and will end 1 April 2004.

Dependents will assume the same category of travel as their sponsor.
Space-available sign up for this program will be effective 1 April
2003. Retired members may sign up 60 days in advance but no earlier
than 1 April 2003.

Active duty Uniformed Services members must be in a leave or pass
status to register for space-available travel, remain in a leave or
pass status while awaiting travel, and be in a leave or pass status
the entire period of travel

For additional information concerning space-available travel and sign-
up procedures please review the Air Mobility Command public web site
at http://amcpublic.scott.af.mil/Spacea/spacea.htm or contact the
servicing DOD air terminal of interest.

Hello,
The claim below has not been verified by me.  But hopefully it's
true.  National Guard, Reservists, and Gray Area retirees would be
effected (potentially).  It would be permitting dependants to fly
CONUS.

Hello Hawaii, Elmendorf, Guam, etc.?  I don't know.  But once there
are numbers of users to be crunched, hopefully their will be
justification provided for others not effect by THIS program:  DAVs
and surviving spouses.

Many of you have been to the "site" for noneligible excuses...
perhaps we can get ammo for that battle.

In any event, from Dirk Peppard's Space-A Board, we read the
following:

Space A Test Dependents CONUS

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Dirk Pepperd's Space-a WWWBoard ]
[ FAQ ]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Ken Roberts FWB, FL on January 30, 19103 at 11:25:32:

DOD Tests Space-Available Travel Privileges for Dependents within the
CONUS

The Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Transportation
Policy) has approved a one-year test to evaluate the expansion of
space-available privileges for dependents traveling within the
Continental United States (CONUS). The test will allow dependents of
active duty and retired Uniformed Services members to travel within
the CONUS when accompanied by their sponsors. The test is scheduled
to begin 1 April 2003 and will end 1 April 2004.

Dependents will assume the same category of travel as their sponsor.
Space-available sign up for this program will be effective 1 April
2003. Retired members may sign up 60 days in advance but no earlier
than 1 April 2003.

Active duty Uniformed Services members must be in a leave or pass
status to register for space-available travel, remain in a leave or
pass status while awaiting travel, and be in a leave or pass status
the entire period of travel

For additional information concerning space-available travel and sign-
up procedures please review the Air Mobility Command public web site
at http://amcpublic.scott.af.mil/Spacea/spacea.htm or contact the
servicing DOD air terminal of interest.

Mike,

Since I'm retiring in a few days (1/3/03) this e-mail address will be
cancelled. I don't want to leave entirely so if you can, please change my
e-mail address to robsplace@...

Thanks,
Bob


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Mitchell <michael.c.mitchell@...>
[mailto:michael.c.mitchell@...]

Folks,

Pardon my intrusion on this Christmas eve, as my thoughts turn to the
purposes and reasons for this list.

I also just wanted to wish members of the list a great New Year and
my best wishes for a meaningful Christmas.

The new year portends to many changes for our military.  Lot's of
dangers, lots of requirements.

I'd like to encourage each of you that as the military become more
appreciated - both reserve and active components - so too must those
who've gone before in past times.

Why?  Because they must.  It's become very clear to me that we have a
role to play, to give our current servicemen a future.  It can be of
great help to them, knowing they can focus on current missions... if
we'll do our part.

Each of us has been given insights to our part of the battlefield.
For those of you into the Bible, each of us have our section of the
wall, and know how to build it up.  But it's one wall!

Whether they are future DAV's, their spouses left too soon through
death, become retirees themselves, or Veterans in search of solutions
that the coming conflicts bring... we need to fight to give them a
future.

DoD and Congress can be very myopic in its focus, and it easily
looses sight of the importance each facet of our military community
is, and each's fair treatment.

The community is inter-related and bound together in its present,
past, future.

So, no, it's not just about you.  It's not just about me.

Where we've been, others are now; where we are now, others are
coming.

For them all, make this a great year!

Cordially,
Mike Mitchell

P.S.

I'm looking for articles beyond just "mine" for the web site at
http://www.geocities.com/protek_2000.  If you feel that you can make
a contribution of your experience and writing... PLEASE DO!  Thanks
to Ed for his.

Ed,

Thank you very much for this clarication.  I'll be looking further into
this and incorporating it to the positions outlined at
http://www.geocities.com/protek_2000

It is my hope that whatever the hidden exclusion reason(s) can possibly
be. they will be defeated by taking down their stated arguments against
expansion of eligibles.  Hopefully that can force them to state real
reasons, or abandon resistance.

We need numbers, credible numbers of current usage/eligible ratios, to
blow away the "resource constrained" clat-trap.  Projections from such
a ratio would likely show marginal increase in actual annual usage
levels despite an eligbles' increase of major proportions.

Unfortunately, they are gate keepers on both gathering and analyzing
any numbers.  We may just have to depend on some reasonable estimates
of users compared to the knowable number of eligibles (all retirees
eligible, Active Duty members and dependants, etc.).

Once gone, real reasons may surface - but I suspect they can't be real
good ones if they have to field a lie to defend their retention of the
status quo.

My basic premise is that space available has little to do with
excluding any military ID card holder.  I have yet to figure out what
it might be, if it is not simply inertia and preference not to "waste"
money and time on any group.

Have you any relationship with the Senator Inouye or the Representative
who forwarded the House bill?  The reason I ask is I would like to know
what if any efforts they may have mounted on getting a study, etc.?

Thanks for any help, Ed, and it is my hope that truth will out, and
mean something to Congress.

-mike



----- Original Message -----
From: eprifogle@...
Date: Monday, November 18, 2002 12:37 pm
Subject: Re: [MilitaryHop] Updates and seeking feedback

> Good Afternoon Mike;
>
> Thank you for your efforts. Your point of view and arguments have
> merit.
> Some points to consider are that  prior to 1989, 100% disabled
> veterans who
> opted to receive their disability compensation from the VA rather
> than military
> retirement have been denied the military space available privilege
> for over 60
> years.
>
> Thirteen  years ago Congress passed a law stating that all 100%
> disabledveterans including those that are military
> retired will receive their disability compensation from the VA.
> All 100%
> military retired disabled veterans retained their space a
> privilege while
> those disabled veterans who opted for VA disability compensation
> prior to 1989
> were still denied the privilege.
>
> In effect, the financial criteria for differentiating between  VA
> comp disabled
> veterans and military retired disabled veterans disappeared in
> 1989 in that
> both groups now receive the same  compensation  rates from the VA.
> Prior to
> 1989, VA disability comp was greater than military retired disability
> compensation for most veterans.
>
> Military retired disabled veterans are issued a Form 2 Blue Card
> granting them
> the space a privilege while VA comp 100% disabled veterans are
> issued an Orange
> DD Form  2765 privilege card (PX, MWR, Commissary Privileges)
> without the space
> a privilege.
>
> In retrospect ,the military has gone to great lengths to exclude
> us from the
> space a privilege. It is intentional and is for reasons never
> stated and has
> nothing to do with overtaxing the space a program.
>
> Regards
>
> Ed Prifogle
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
> -~-->
> Share the magic of Harry Potter with Yahoo! Messenger
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/4Q_cgB/JmBFAA/46VHAA/JTSolB/TM
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> --~->
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> militaryvillage-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Good Afternoon Mike;

Thank you for your efforts. Your point of view and arguments have merit.

Some points to consider are that  prior to 1989, 100% disabled veterans who
opted to receive their disability compensation from the VA rather than military
retirement have been denied the military space available privilege for over 60
years.

  Thirteen  years ago Congress passed a law stating that all 100% disabled
veterans including those that are military
retired will receive their disability compensation from the VA. All 100%
military retired disabled veterans retained their space a  privilege while
those disabled veterans who opted for VA disability compensation prior to 1989
were still denied the privilege.

In effect, the financial criteria for differentiating between  VA comp disabled
veterans and military retired disabled veterans disappeared in 1989 in that
both groups now receive the same  compensation  rates from the VA. Prior to
1989, VA disability comp was greater than military retired disability
compensation for most veterans.

Military retired disabled veterans are issued a Form 2 Blue Card granting them
the space a privilege while VA comp 100% disabled veterans are issued an Orange
DD Form  2765 privilege card (PX, MWR, Commissary Privileges) without the space
a privilege.

In retrospect ,the military has gone to great lengths to exclude us from the
space a privilege. It is intentional and is for reasons never stated and has
nothing to do with overtaxing the space a program.

Regards

Ed Prifogle

Bob,

Thanks for the feedback and food for further thought.

I'll stay in touch and thanks for your help on this and other issues.

-mike

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mergle, Robert F." <robert.mergle@...>
Date: Monday, November 18, 2002 9:33 am
Subject: RE: [MilitaryHop] Updates and seeking feedback

> Good morning Mike,
>
> Your argument has merit as far as it goes in that there are deserving
> "categories" of people who are currently barred from the Space-A
> flightbenefit. But what I feel you have to take into consideration
> is the fact
> that not only is the Space-A flight availability a benefit, not a
> "right",it is also just that, "space available". It doesn't matter
> whether there are
> 3 or 300 people waiting to board an AMC flight, if there is no space
> available, all 3 (or 300) people wait until the next flight is
> announced.
>
> It is unlikely that the DOD will begin adding flights just to take
> up the
> cause of people who "would like" to travel. The entire concept of
> AMC, even
> back to when it was MATS is the movement of military materiel.
>
> Personally, I think as a minimum, ALL disabled veterans should be
> space-A
> eligible; and at a much higher category than dependents; but what I
> personally think has no relevance to the DOD. Like you, I do not
> feel that
> adding "classes" of people to the eligibility rolls will create
> havoc with
> the system. It may well delay some people's itineries; but that's
> the way
> life is. I am a bit "iffy" on the concept of adding widows and
> widowers; but
> I'll have to think about that one and give it more consideration.
>
> Well, that's my 2 cents worth. Keep me in mind if there's anything
> you feel
> I can assist with. My "useful career" is coming to an end in 46
> days and
> then I'm going to begin wandering the CONUS from Charleston AFB. I
> stillhave 2 years (actually 26 months) before I begin drawing a
> mil. Retirement
> annuity and can avail myself of the "whole world" of Space-A
> flying; but I
> intend to have a firm grounding in the location and facilities of
> lots of
> CONUS bases by then.
>
> Let me know if I can help.
>
> Bob
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> militaryvillage-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Good morning Mike,

Your argument has merit as far as it goes in that there are deserving
"categories" of people who are currently barred from the Space-A flight
benefit. But what I feel you have to take into consideration is the fact
that not only is the Space-A flight availability a benefit, not a "right",
it is also just that, "space available". It doesn't matter whether there are
3 or 300 people waiting to board an AMC flight, if there is no space
available, all 3 (or 300) people wait until the next flight is announced.

It is unlikely that the DOD will begin adding flights just to take up the
cause of people who "would like" to travel. The entire concept of AMC, even
back to when it was MATS is the movement of military materiel.

Personally, I think as a minimum, ALL disabled veterans should be space-A
eligible; and at a much higher category than dependents; but what I
personally think has no relevance to the DOD. Like you, I do not feel that
adding "classes" of people to the eligibility rolls will create havoc with
the system. It may well delay some people's itineries; but that's the way
life is. I am a bit "iffy" on the concept of adding widows and widowers; but
I'll have to think about that one and give it more consideration.

Well, that's my 2 cents worth. Keep me in mind if there's anything you feel
I can assist with. My "useful career" is coming to an end in 46 days and
then I'm going to begin wandering the CONUS from Charleston AFB. I still
have 2 years (actually 26 months) before I begin drawing a mil. Retirement
annuity and can avail myself of the "whole world" of Space-A flying; but I
intend to have a firm grounding in the location and facilities of lots of
CONUS bases by then.

Let me know if I can help.

Bob

Hello,

I'm trying to updates and changes to the web site.

I know some of you are quite accomplished web masters, and would
appreciate your feedback.  Primarily, I've added more regarding widow
(er) information and additionally regarding Selected Reservists.

That later comment may be worth discussing further just as a concept
and question on tactics.

I am absolutely convinced that numbers matter.  The numbers of folks
interested in obtaining access to space-a is better when higher.

Now defensive thoughts may come to mind, that is, "If we let hundreds
of thousands in, they'll overwhelm the system, they'll never go for
it.  But my smaller group deserves it the most.  It might make it if
we limit the number were after."

In short, the DoD argument is successful in killing any union of
seekers by inflaming a misunderstood self-interest.

There are millions of eligible now.  Millions!  The vast majority
will never use the privilege.

Pressure must be brought to bear on the DoD and Congress to study the
actual impacts of admission of more to the privilege.  Such pressure
can only come from numbers.  Numbers come from broad union.

Again, the system manages quite well with MILLIONS eligible.  In a
sense, a few more million will hardly matter!  A small growth of
actual travelers will result.  No group has numbers in it that can
afford taking off from work, etc., but all groups have folks that
want the option!

But if we divide for one particular group (ours) DoD wins.  Only by
combining cause (and numbers) is it possible to gain enough letters
to Congress to get action.

Some may take comfort in the possibility that Gray Area Reserve
retirees may (far from certain, a real battle looms) soon join the
privileged ones.

But I assure you there are many other Gray Area retirees under 55 and
always will be until immediate annuities are won.

That possible change also doesn't alleviate the unjust treatment of
DAV's, nor does it keep any of our widows on board flights, and so
on.

That is why the addition of Select Reserves' membership as necessary
participants in the quest for space-a expansion is in my opinion
necessary.

Some may regard any effort as unrealistic, period.  Doomed to fail.
But that defeatism will serve DoD only, and really our own interest
is I believe indicative that others exist out there too.

The quest is to find them and enlist them to take action.  It's
easier if their numbers a great, rather than small.  That's why we
need to define them as wide as possible:  Adult Military ID card
holders.

Thanks for your patience on this email, I'll let it go at that and
hope you can offer some feedback on any point that strikes you as one
you want to comment on.

Thanks,
Mike Mitchell

Hey Mike,

I apologize for taking so long to get back to you. I've been out of the
office (ill) for most of the last 3 weeks and before that, I was up in NYC
for almost 2 weeks as a part of an office review team.

Anyway, to answer your questions, I got mixed responses regarding the
"immediate retirement pay upon completion of 20 years" issue from the few
ROA chapters that bothered to get back in touch with me. Most seemed to want
to take a "hands off" stance prefering to let the Association handle these
weighty matters.

I haven't heard anything at all about expanding Space-A availability to any
additional groups.

Again, sorry for the delay in responding.

Bob Mergle




-----Original Message-----
From: protek_2000 [mailto:michael.c.mitchell@...]
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 12:32 PM
To: militaryvillage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MilitaryHop] Checking in


Hello folks,

Just checking in to find out if any of you may have heard any
developments for any of the groups we're seeking Space-A previleges
for?

About the closest I've seen is the movement to earlier pay for
Reservists with 20-year retirement letters.  That has the potential
of brining in 90,000 eligibles at once.

The significance that has for others is that it should show the DOD
argument regarding numbers as rather hollow.

Please advise us if you have noted any changes in your view that
might help on this matter of space-a for DAV's, widows, and others
that could be mentioned!

-mike mitchell





To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
militaryvillage-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Hello folks,

Just checking in to find out if any of you may have heard any
developments for any of the groups we're seeking Space-A previleges
for?

About the closest I've seen is the movement to earlier pay for
Reservists with 20-year retirement letters.  That has the potential
of brining in 90,000 eligibles at once.

The significance that has for others is that it should show the DOD
argument regarding numbers as rather hollow.

Please advise us if you have noted any changes in your view that
might help on this matter of space-a for DAV's, widows, and others
that could be mentioned!

-mike mitchell

Gray-area types on the list might find this of
interest (Originally posted at Dirk Peppards Space-A
Board).  Also at http://fly.to/militaryhops you'll
find a quote that I hope will be useful in seeing how
we are fought as a group (grays, 100% disabled,
advocates for widows and widows) - not as individuals.
  Let's respond in kind!

POSTING:

"On Mar 4, 2002 Congressman Jim Saxton of NJ (and 7
co-sponsors introduced a bill into the House of Reps
(HR 3831) to amend Title 10 USC to reduce the age of
receipt of military retired pay for "non-regular"
service from 60 to 55. The bill has been referred to
the House Armed Services Committee. If, like me you
are a Grey area retiree, it might be a good time to
contact your local Congressional rep and your Senator
and ask them to support passage of this bill;
presuming of course that you are all not independently
wealthy."  Posted by "Bob."  Thanks Bob!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage
http://sports.yahoo.com/

In a message dated 2/25/2002 7:14:55 PM Pacific Standard Time,
michael.c.mitchell@... writes:


> As far as I can tell by reading the Coast Guard's reg on this, it is
> virtually identical with the DOD's catagories.  No 100% disabled vet
> provision that I can find.
>

I think space- A benefits are close to identical for all uniformed services.
what I never think is fair is that 100% disabled should be authorized ALL
military privilages.  If a person gets hurt on active duty and cannot pass a
retention physical they are usually medically retired.  In the case of a
disabled vet, if the disibilility ocurred or was caused by something that
happend in the military, what is the real diffierece?
Steve Dolgin


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello,
As far as I can tell by reading the Coast Guard's reg on this, it is
virtually identical with the DOD's catagories.  No 100% disabled vet
provision that I can find.

But the reg is at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-w/g-wk/g-
wkw/Comdt/M3710_1D.pdf


It's a big file, 1 hour at 56k.  Chapter 6 is the germaine one here.

Cordially,
Mike Mitchell

Good morning.

I'm not sure of the answer to your question, especially as it concerns the
U.S. Coast Guard which falls under the rules and regs of the Dept of
Transportation instead of the Dept of Defense.

I believe that you would need to be "retired" in order to have Space-A
flight authorization. If you were "disability retired" and have a DD Form 2
as an ID card, that would authorize you to fly Space-A.

My "best guess" is that you contact the nearest USCG base that has an air
mission and talk to the flight Opns Chief. He or she should be able to
answer most if not all of your questions. I'm sorry that I can't be more
specific; but I'd rather point you in a direction to get answers than give
you wrong ones.

Also, here's a couple of the better places to go to get current, accurate
Space-A info:

www.glue.umd.edu/~oard/spacea

www.pepup.hypermart.net/wwwboard.html

The 1st website is a compilation of Space-A info and regs. It's run by a
faculty member at the Univ of Maryland, Doug Oard who is also a retired (?)
Navy Captain. The 2d site is a chatboard (also linkable through Doug Oard's
website) run by an active Army SFC (E7). It has a large group of mostly
retired folks that contribute info to it and respond to queries from people
trying to get info. Good luck.

Bob
USMC '63 - '69
RVN '66 & '67
2047694


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I'm new here and have a question. I'm 100% disabled, service
connected vet. Marine in Nam. I've been told that the Coast Guard
will allow 100%ers to fly Space A. Is this true? I know CG C130s fly
out of Hawaii to Guam and other Pacifics islands supporting their
outposts. Plus they fly to Kodiac in Alaska. I've always wanted to
hop around and maybe now I can. Thanks in advance.

I agree with the commenta given so far.  I still would like to
mention that some 100% disabled do giet privilages if they are
granted a "retired" ID cards.  Some have it and some dont.  I dont
know what the reason is because if disability is granted it has to be
service connected.  Someone who is injured in the service can
get "Medical retirement" even if s/he has not completed 20 year.  I
dont know if a minimum no of years is required or not.

As for drilling, IRR and gray area, they shuold get world wide for
reasons mentioned before.  This population works, would not be
jaunting around the world all the time and already has partial
privilages anyway.  I dont believe they would tie up the system. MNy
overseas flights are piloted by reserve crews anyway. I also agree,
space A is a privilage that we earn; it is not a right.  I enjoy it
not only because its free but its more fun flying with fellow
military people than flying on a crowded commerical jet with
strangers after waiting 3 hrs. in line!
Steve Dolgin

Hey Mike,

thanks for the note. I'll be happy to send letters off to both my Senators
and to my Congressman as well. I have the feeling that your site will draw a
lot of activity and opinion sharing.

Bob



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Bob,

Thanks for the comments.  I really don't think you'll
find too many here that will argue with you on your
points.  Again, Space A can be a uniter.  Your points
on having the respect of AD members is well taken.

It might be added that most who fly the very
transports in question, are Reservist crews!

Thanks!  I'd like to suggest that we all make use of
any points made here, in a letter to any associations
or congressional reps we may have.

Mike Mitchell
--- robert_mergle <robert.mergle@...> wrote:


Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 17:21:07 +0000

From: "robert_mergle" <robert.mergle@...>
Subject: [MilitaryHop] Newcomer Saying Hello
To: militaryvillage@yahoogroups.com
Reply-to: militaryvillage@yahoogroups.com




Good morning. I'm new to this board so I thought I'd
introduce myself. I am a "grey area" retiree after
having spent 6 years in the USMC and after a 5 year
"break", 22 years in the USAR. Currently I
live and work in Columbia, SC.

I feel the same as another board member when it comes
to space-A travel; that is, since it is in fact space
available, it goes without saying that the mission
comes first and if there is any space left,
then whoever is eligible gets to utilize it. It is a
wonderful privelege and I am grateful that I have
earned the right to it; but it IS a privelege, not a
right or a benefit. To segregate the availability of
OCONUS travel without REAL justification is
inherently unfair. To rely on the "there'll be too
many travelers and it'll overburden the system"
excuse, is ludricous. If a C-130 has 15 available
seats left on it, it doesn't matter whether those
seats are filled by men, women, children, or visiting
martians. There are still only the same 15 seats. To
say that "opening the OCONUS routes to grey area
retirees will mean having too many passengers" is to
assume that all of us "G.A.R.'s" are either unemployed
or so full of available vacation time that we will
suddenly stampede the PAX terminals in vast hordes
thereby overwhelming the system. Well, there's that
same C 130 with the same 15 available seats. Not only
that, in my 22 years in the Army Reserve, very few of
my compatriots were either unemployed or had the
luxury of "spur of the moment" vacation availability.

True, I'm looking at this through the eyes of a "GAR";
but I'm still employed full time, I still have only so
much vacation time to use, and I'm only 2+ years from
being 60 anyway so I don't have that much
to gain. It has taken the Reserve forces many years to
earn the respect of their active duty counterparts;
and many years to be accepted as military
professionals. To be divided by something like
extending the availability of a benefit is a step
backward.

However, I'm still open to the opinion(s) of those
opposed. In any event, it's nice to meet y'all. Bob

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

Good morning. I'm new to this board so I thought I'd introduce
myself. I am a "grey area" retiree after having spent 6 years in the
USMC and after a 5 year "break", 22 years in the USAR. Currently I
live and work in Columbia, SC.

I feel the same as another board member when it comes to space-A
travel; that is, since it is in fact space available, it goes without
saying that the mission comes first and if there is any space left,
then whoever is eligible gets to utilize it. It is a wonderful
privelege and I am grateful that I have earned the right to it; but
it IS a privelege, not a right or a benefit. To segregate the
availability of OCONUS travel without REAL justification is
inherently unfair. To rely on the "there'll be too many travelers and
it'll overburden the system" excuse, is ludricous. If a C-130 has 15
available seats left on it, it doesn't matter whether those seats are
filled by men, women, children, or visiting martians. There are still
only the same 15 seats. To say that "opening the OCONUS routes to
grey area retirees will mean having too many passengers" is to assume
that all of us "G.A.R.'s" are either unemployed or so full of
available vacation time that we will suddenly stampede the PAX
terminals in vast hordes thereby overwhelming the system. Well,
there's that same C 130 with the same 15 available seats. Not only
that, in my 22 years in the Army Reserve, very few of my compatriots
were either unemployed or had the luxury of "spur of the moment"
vacation availability.

True, I'm looking at this through the eyes of a "GAR"; but I'm still
employed full time, I still have only so much vacation time to use,
and I'm only 2+ years from being 60 anyway so I don't have that much
to gain. It has taken the Reserve forces many years to earn the
respect of their active duty counterparts; and many years to be
accepted as military professionals. To be divided by something like
extending the availability of a benefit is a step backward.

However, I'm still open to the opinion(s) of those opposed. In any
event, it's nice to meet y'all. Bob

Hello,

I wanted to just encourage us all (me too!) to try and
involve others in this issue.

I was told by a military association rep that one
reason this is only an occassional issue for push by
them - is that the very folks who would benefit are
almost impossible to contact or enlist in an
association.

Gray areas have expectations focused on 60, widows
have no expectations, and 100% disableds see
themselves against the world (for good reasons, they
are often forgotten members of the military
community).

So if you know anyone connected to these groups, point
them this way!  If you're a member of an association,
let them know you care about these issues.

Perhaps once our numbers start increasing, we can get
a little better response than the standard DOD
refraim.

-Mike Mitchell
  SFC (Gray Area Retiree)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
http://auctions.yahoo.com

Hello!

I grant you that it just may be me... but I really
doubt it.

Do you realize that the military community is being
sliced and diced to the benefit of someone - but not
it!

The divider, instead of the uniter, is Space Available
travel.

This benefit I was able to use with my family during
an Active Guard/Reservist tour (13 year tour).  It was
great!  We saw Korea, Japan, Wake Island, and Hawaii -
and a brief stop-over in Alaska at Elmendorf AFB.
That was two trips I just cited.

During those trips, I never felt closer to the
military as a community.  There were retirees, (I was
active duty on leave), reservists, and other active
duty types.

But there wasn't gray area reservists (which I am
now), nor spouses of deceased retirees, nor disabled
veterans who gave their great sacrifices during 0-3
years of service during war time.

And there were generally always empty seats.

Call it the "Missing Man" formation, space available
style!

Reasons for the exclusion?  It has nothing to do with
DOD explanations.  In fact, I hate to say it, but it
may be the almighty dollar of airlines pushing this on
our collective military brows.

Can't say it for sure, but when weak as branch water
explanations are all that's offered for reasons -
something is wrong.

In any event, the solution is:  Throw light on it via
your Congressional representatives - let them ask why.
  And don't permit that they simply tell you:  "DOD
says it's so, 'cause its got to be so."

Unacceptable.  What study says expanding space
available will cripple the military and destroy the
benefit?  They have none.  Space available means
"space available."  If operational need preclude
having empty seats, then let operations not be
disrupted!

Write your congressional delegation!

Cordially,
Michael Mitchell

Unite the Military Community
with Space Available!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/