FLWG Unit Citation?

Started by DC, April 17, 2011, 05:40:11 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 ... 3 4 5 All
User actions

starshippe

#80
April 24, 2011, 05:38:28 PM

. . did u ever wonder what a shaved bunny would look like?

bill

HGjunkie

#81
April 24, 2011, 06:20:46 PM
Quote from: starshippe on April 24, 2011, 05:38:28 PM

. . did u ever wonder what a shaved bunny would look like?

bill

••• retired
2d Lt USAF

Fooz

#82
February 17, 2012, 07:06:30 PM
So, not to beat a dead horse here, but...

Florida Wing just received a missive that we will be receiving a national commander's unit citation for members in Florida Wing during the period of 1 May 2010 and 30 October 2010. I have not seen the actual message from National Headquarters...all I have is the PA from Florida Wing.

In the email that had this PA attached to it, it is stated that "This PA will supersede Personnel Authorization 11-014, dated 22 April 2011".

My thinking of this is that it can't really do that, since the two awards cover different periods of time:

PA 11-014 covers 1 FEB 08 to 9 APR 11 (Unit Citation)
PA 12-002 covers 1 MAY 10 to 30 OCT 10 (National Commander Unit Citation)

If you were to have joined on, say 31 OCT 10, a superseding of PA 11-014 would essentially take away that ribbon and leave you with nothing, despite you having been around to have earned it. (We'll leave the concept of "earned" to a different discussion)

So, to my thinking, those in Florida wing who were around for both should be authorized to wear both, and superseding is not applicable.

Any thoughts?

Eclipse

#83
February 17, 2012, 07:24:20 PM
You only "earn" what is approved.  If the original PA is disavowed, then the decs are respectively voided.

"That Others May Zoom"

RiverAux

#84
February 17, 2012, 08:46:04 PM
What in the world would be the justification for voiding a unit award covering one time period in favor of a new award covering an entirely different time period? 

If this is being accurately reported I just can't believe it was intentional. 

Eclipse

#85
February 18, 2012, 12:00:37 AM
The first period was wrong?

"That Others May Zoom"

Duke Dillio

#86
February 18, 2012, 12:42:24 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on February 17, 2012, 08:46:04 PM
What in the world would be the justification for voiding a unit award covering one time period in favor of a new award covering an entirely different time period? 

If this is being accurately reported I just can't believe it was intentional.
Perhaps they just wanted to award the Nat'l Comm. Unit Citation versus the green weenie....

Good on you FLWG...  Hopefully I can get some of my people some awards for the hard work that they've done...  In this wing though.... doubtful....
Print
Go Up Pages 1 ... 3 4 5 All
User actions