Some of y'all act as if y'all are legal experts on this matter, which I find hilarious. Unless y'all were there when this all went down or y'all are privy to the legal documents, you are just spewing theory and just enjoy living on this web board. Y'all gotta get out more and get a life.

On a different note, I agree......24 years of service is 24 years of service regardless of ANG, AFRes, and/or active combined. I've done both AD and reserves, and from my experience, the reserve/ANG crew members were just as proficient if not more than those of any active duty squadrons I've been assigned to. The biggest reason being, in the reserves/ANG one can choose to just fly and not deal with all the bs additional duties, not to mention that a good majority of reserves/ANG pilots are prior AD bubbas. Every pilot on AD spend far more time behind the desk than in the cockpit. Some of y'all need to shut your pie holes until y'all get the facts straight. Y'all know who you are.

Sounds like they both violated company rules on alcohol.

Probably too late to can them both on those grounds, and let Him/Her/AS duke it out outside the company.

Apparently you are a little late to the party. What he has already admitted to, taking a drunk female subordinate to his room, would have gotten him disciplinary action in every active duty unit I was in.

Inferior in quality? Maybe yes, maybe no. Depends on the unit. Inferior in actual hours put in in the course of a year? Most definitely, for all but a few career Reservists.

Well clearly YOU don't have a clue, since I was a reservist (albeit briefly) before going on full time active duty. And if you have been in EITHER active duty or Reserve (don't know ANG, but I suspect it is the same) you know damn well that no senior officer's career would have survived something like this.

And you can have the beak at me all you want, but you ALSO know damn well the lady lawyer was flag waving the way she presented his military time.

The main issue I had with your post was calling the "24-year veteran" statement a lie. You know that's not the case. No one who served in the ANG or USAFR goes around putting an asterisk after their years of service. If you want to hold their service in contempt because it doesn't meet your standards, I guess that's your option. The guy served and did so for 24 years. Getting drunk and stepping out with a co-worker doesn't change that.

Ok. Didn't know that. But, still, such a strange way of coming at this on your part. First, he's not in the military. So what may or may not have gotten him disciplined in the military is irrelevant. That also has nothing to do with the value of his military service. Doing something stupid with a co-worker after you're retired from the military doesn't somehow negate your service.

Second, she's not his subordinate. He's not her boss or her supervisor. Not to mention they're both civilians and none of the old fraternization stuff applies.

Mmmkay. Well, you're entitled to your opinion. So, that makes it a lie to say an ANG or USAFR member is a "24-year veteran"?

Again, who gives a giant, flying sh!t what some imaginary senior officer's career would or wouldn't survive. The actual pilot in question is retired. He's a civilian. What exactly is your point here. He can no longer mention his 24-years of military service because of this event, the complete specifics of which still remain in question?

Assume for a moment that these were two consenting adults and the only thing this guy is guilty of is really bad judgement.

He's being accused and already convicted in the public's eyes of some pretty serious stuff. You don't think it's valid to point out his long history of good things and accomplishments over his career, including his military service? He's not a career criminal. He doesn't have anything like this in his history. Those are valid points being made by his advocate in an attempt to balance what has clearly been a very one-sided attack up to now. I guarantee you would be in the minority if you polled a group of veterans about whether it's a lie or someone is deliberately misrepresenting this individuals service by calling him a 24-year veteran.

That's exactly what he is and that really was my only point in responding to you. The rest of this has just become a bit of a twilight zone episode, IMO.

He would have been well advized to follow "Badflap's Rules For A Successful Doatage." Rule #2: Over fifty, you are invisible to women under forty. Proceed accordingly.

What’s Rule 1? I don’t want to violate it and ignorance is no excuse.

GF

[QUOTE=Excargodog;2572160]FWIW PE is 50, according to ALPA records. While I have never worked with him or know him personally I do know a few around his seniority who returned to AD post 911 to earn 20 active and return to line flying years later, so it's possible what she said is accurate.

Also, PE has $5M+ in future potential earnings (W2 and DB) should he fly another 15 which would make a financial settlement interesting. Whether guilty or not, I can't imagine he will return to flying status. I find it interesting that she has been awarded a May schedule and not also on paid administrative leave.

Rule#1: You are invisible to the general public, feel free to do things you would never do as a young person. IE: Wear clothing years out of style, sample food in the market, ask stupid questions and foremost, function noises are expected and tolerated. Feel free to carry on long conversations with pets and infants. See rule #2 for other human contact.

Credible?! Bahahahaha. About as credible as the “What do you do to fight off boredom at cruise?” thread on here where he tried to back pedal and was caught in a lie. Lugar, you’re full of $hi7.....

The good news: Lugar has been banned.
The bad news: He'll probably be back under some new screen name.

But for now,at least, we shouldn't be hearing much from him,