"One weekend a month My ASS!"

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: burnedout
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

..Hypocrites.

Now having said all that let me clarify something. I'm not whining about it, I'm answering a question. I volunteered, I reenlisted voluntarily, my wife knew what she was getting into when we got married, etc. I volunteered for it and I don't complain abut it too much. But for those of you who are suddenly feigning outrage at the treatment of the .mil because it is politically expedient for you to do so, save it. You're fooling no one.
The most insightful and truthful commentary yet offered regarding this topic. . . .

:beer:
Really.. It sounds like total partisan BS to me. Plenty of outrage at that site. Must be politically expediant to have your son die over there just to prove a point huh.Yep poor missguided parents holding thier sons up as political pawns, how dare they feign outrage.
How dare a liberal even comment on the .mil situation. In fact why should liberals care for the state of anyone that not a liberal. We sure as hell don't.
I wasn't referring to that site, I was referrring to the people on this board (and other places) that are suddenly outraged at the treatment of the .mil and their families. They've been noticeably quiet for years and many were probably complaining about how large the defense budget was but suddenly they're concerned about the welfare of the .mil and their families because it gives them a reason to rip on Bush.
So you have charts & graphs that shows the relative loudness and frequency of the complaining over the last few years? Are you taking notes or something?
Charts and graphs? No, but maybe somebody could put together a little flash video for you, something simple so you won't become too overwhelmed. Taking notes? Damn right I've been taking notes. For twenty years. How about you? Got anything pertinent to add or are going to ask some more stupid, little, obtuse questions?

 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: burnedout
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

..Hypocrites.

Now having said all that let me clarify something. I'm not whining about it, I'm answering a question. I volunteered, I reenlisted voluntarily, my wife knew what she was getting into when we got married, etc. I volunteered for it and I don't complain abut it too much. But for those of you who are suddenly feigning outrage at the treatment of the .mil because it is politically expedient for you to do so, save it. You're fooling no one.
The most insightful and truthful commentary yet offered regarding this topic. . . .

:beer:
Really.. It sounds like total partisan BS to me. Plenty of outrage at that site. Must be politically expediant to have your son die over there just to prove a point huh.Yep poor missguided parents holding thier sons up as political pawns, how dare they feign outrage.
How dare a liberal even comment on the .mil situation. In fact why should liberals care for the state of anyone that not a liberal. We sure as hell don't.
I wasn't referring to that site, I was referrring to the people on this board (and other places) that are suddenly outraged at the treatment of the .mil and their families. They've been noticeably quiet for years and many were probably complaining about how large the defense budget was but suddenly they're concerned about the welfare of the .mil and their families because it gives them a reason to rip on Bush.
So you have charts & graphs that shows the relative loudness and frequency of the complaining over the last few years? Are you taking notes or something?
Charts and graphs? No, but maybe somebody could put together a little flash video for you, something simple so you won't become too overwhelmed. Taking notes? Damn right I've been taking notes. For twenty years. How about you? Got anything pertinent to add or are going to ask some more stupid, little, obtuse questions?
Are you taking notes of who's outraged now? You know, so you can back up your statements years from now.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: burnedout
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

..Hypocrites.

Now having said all that let me clarify something. I'm not whining about it, I'm answering a question. I volunteered, I reenlisted voluntarily, my wife knew what she was getting into when we got married, etc. I volunteered for it and I don't complain abut it too much. But for those of you who are suddenly feigning outrage at the treatment of the .mil because it is politically expedient for you to do so, save it. You're fooling no one.
The most insightful and truthful commentary yet offered regarding this topic. . . .

:beer:
Really.. It sounds like total partisan BS to me. Plenty of outrage at that site. Must be politically expediant to have your son die over there just to prove a point huh.Yep poor missguided parents holding thier sons up as political pawns, how dare they feign outrage.
How dare a liberal even comment on the .mil situation. In fact why should liberals care for the state of anyone that not a liberal. We sure as hell don't.
I wasn't referring to that site, I was referrring to the people on this board (and other places) that are suddenly outraged at the treatment of the .mil and their families. They've been noticeably quiet for years and many were probably complaining about how large the defense budget was but suddenly they're concerned about the welfare of the .mil and their families because it gives them a reason to rip on Bush.
So you have charts & graphs that shows the relative loudness and frequency of the complaining over the last few years? Are you taking notes or something?
Charts and graphs? No, but maybe somebody could put together a little flash video for you, something simple so you won't become too overwhelmed. Taking notes? Damn right I've been taking notes. For twenty years. How about you? Got anything pertinent to add or are going to ask some more stupid, little, obtuse questions?
Are you taking notes of who's outraged now? You know, so you can back up your statements years from now.
So that would be a 'no' to the first part of my last question and a 'yes' to the second part.

 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Ultra QuietAre you taking notes of who's outraged now? You know, so you can back up your statements years from now.
So that would be a 'no' to the first part of my last question and a 'yes' to the second part.
I'm just trying to get your logic straight here. OK, so in order to be outraged now, one would have to have been outraged all along. Is that correct? How far back do you figure you'd have to go? 4-5 years? Longer? 10? 20?
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Ultra QuietAre you taking notes of who's outraged now? You know, so you can back up your statements years from now.
So that would be a 'no' to the first part of my last question and a 'yes' to the second part.
I'm just trying to get your logic straight here. OK, so in order to be outraged now, one would have to have been outraged all along. Is that correct? How far back do you figure you'd have to go? 4-5 years? Longer? 10? 20?


So that would be a 'no' to the first part of my last question and a 'yes' to the second part.
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: burnedout
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

..Hypocrites.

Now having said all that let me clarify something. I'm not whining about it, I'm answering a question. I volunteered, I reenlisted voluntarily, my wife knew what she was getting into when we got married, etc. I volunteered for it and I don't complain abut it too much. But for those of you who are suddenly feigning outrage at the treatment of the .mil because it is politically expedient for you to do so, save it. You're fooling no one.
The most insightful and truthful commentary yet offered regarding this topic. . . .

:beer:
Really.. It sounds like total partisan BS to me. Plenty of outrage at that site. Must be politically expediant to have your son die over there just to prove a point huh.Yep poor missguided parents holding thier sons up as political pawns, how dare they feign outrage.
How dare a liberal even comment on the .mil situation. In fact why should liberals care for the state of anyone that not a liberal. We sure as hell don't.
Ummm...... I wasn't even thinking of that site while commenting. My comment was actually directed at Chief's wise and truthful choice of words.

And his statement is very precise. All those with an agenda against the current administration come crawling and screaming out of the woodwork only if a convenient little issue arises. Nevermind if this particular issue relates to something in which the majority of these folks have never even dreamed, let alone heard of. Even then, much of the rhetoric is totally subjective. Throw cause and effect or background information out the damned window. Hypocrisy at its best.

I mean come on, full Concurrent Receipt for us military retirees? Please.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Ultra QuietAre you taking notes of who's outraged now? You know, so you can back up your statements years from now.
So that would be a 'no' to the first part of my last question and a 'yes' to the second part.
I'm just trying to get your logic straight here. OK, so in order to be outraged now, one would have to have been outraged all along. Is that correct? How far back do you figure you'd have to go? 4-5 years? Longer? 10? 20?
People's concern for the safety of troops naturally escalates with whether their engaged in armed conflict, the magnitude of the conflict, the number of troops involved, and the length of the conflict. I'm not really sure what UQ is trying to get at with his comment that "people are suddenly outraged at the treatment of the .mil and their families"?

The troops are in a hostile environment that we had no business sending them to, rations are short, their deployment keeps getting extended, and their pay might be cut.

Do you think UQ wants everyone to be just as outraged during peacetime when the troops are sitting stateside and none of this other stuff is going on? Weird.

 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
People's concern for the safety of troops naturally escalates with whether their engaged in armed conflict, the magnitude of the conflict, the number of troops involved, and the length of the conflict. I'm not really sure what UQ is trying to get at with his comment that "people are suddenly outraged at the treatment of the .mil and their families"?
So tell me where was all the outrage when troops were deployed to Bosnia, Somalia, etc.? We were making a lot less money then than we are now. Where was all the concern for the pay and the .mil families? I'll tell you where it was. Nowhere. This outrage is political, not for any new found concern for the health and well being of the .mil/

The troops are in a hostile environment that we had no business sending them to, rations are short, their deployment keeps getting extended, and their pay might be cut.
Sounds like business as usual to me. Where was all your concern when I was on patrol, got extended, ran out of everything but chicken and 3 bean salad and then got the NAVADMINS saying that both my housing allowance and my Special Duty Assignment Pay had been reduced. I'll tell you where it was. It didn't exist because you didn't know about and you didn't care about it because you couldn't use it to make a political statement.

Do you think UQ wants everyone to be just as outraged during peacetime when the troops are sitting stateside and none of this other stuff is going on? Weird.
I really don't care about you get outraged about but I will call a spade a spade and much of this feigned outrage currently being spewed about is hypocrisy at it's very worst.

 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
People's concern for the safety of troops naturally escalates with whether their engaged in armed conflict, the magnitude of the conflict, the number of troops involved, and the length of the conflict. I'm not really sure what UQ is trying to get at with his comment that "people are suddenly outraged at the treatment of the .mil and their families"?
So tell me where was all the outrage when troops were deployed to Bosnia, Somalia, etc.? We were making a lot less money then than we are now. Where was all the concern for the pay and the .mil families? I'll tell you where it was. Nowhere. This outrage is political, not for any new found concern for the health and well being of the .mil/
[/quote]

There was plenty of concern during Bosnia. But your making my point for me....how many were deployed to Bosnia and how many to Iraq? Big difference right? -> My Point.

Bosnia was also a UN sponsored operation which lent much more credibility.

The troops are in a hostile environment that we had no business sending them to, rations are short, their deployment keeps getting extended, and their pay might be cut.
Sounds like business as usual to me. Where was all your concern when I was on patrol, got extended, ran out of everything but chicken and 3 bean salad and then got the NAVADMINS saying that both my housing allowance and my Special Duty Assignment Pay had been reduced. I'll tell you where it was. It didn't exist because you didn't know about and you didn't care about it because you couldn't use it to make a political statement.
I don't know what operation you were in but I am always concerned about our troops when they are sent into armed conflict.

Do you think UQ wants everyone to be just as outraged during peacetime when the troops are sitting stateside and none of this other stuff is going on? Weird.
I really don't care about you get outraged about but I will call a spade a spade and much of this feigned outrage currently being spewed about is hypocrisy at it's very worst.
Nope. This outrage is very real.

 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
There was plenty of concern during Bosnia. But your making my point for me....how many were deployed to Bosnia and how many to Iraq? Big difference right? -> My Point.
Bosnia was also a UN sponsored operation which lent much more credibility.
Your making my point. Why should it matter how many people are deployed or if one operation is more "credible" than another? When an area is designated as an area where iminent danger pay is authorized, what difference does it make? How long were we in Afghanistan before those pays were raised? Where was all the outrage before then about pay and allowances?
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: burnedout
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

..Hypocrites.

Now having said all that let me clarify something. I'm not whining about it, I'm answering a question. I volunteered, I reenlisted voluntarily, my wife knew what she was getting into when we got married, etc. I volunteered for it and I don't complain abut it too much. But for those of you who are suddenly feigning outrage at the treatment of the .mil because it is politically expedient for you to do so, save it. You're fooling no one.
The most insightful and truthful commentary yet offered regarding this topic. . . .

:beer:
Really.. It sounds like total partisan BS to me. Plenty of outrage at that site. Must be politically expediant to have your son die over there just to prove a point huh.Yep poor missguided parents holding thier sons up as political pawns, how dare they feign outrage.
How dare a liberal even comment on the .mil situation. In fact why should liberals care for the state of anyone that not a liberal. We sure as hell don't.
I wasn't referring to that site, I was referrring to the people on this board (and other places) that are suddenly outraged at the treatment of the .mil and their families. They've been noticeably quiet for years and many were probably complaining about how large the defense budget was but suddenly they're concerned about the welfare of the .mil and their families because it gives them a reason to rip on Bush.

I see ..I assume you mean those (actually that) calling the military dummies and on the dole in one thread then showing grave concern in another... I tend to agree. One point I think (with everyone else) is now the .mil is front and center people tend to see it and comment a lot more on it. People still have a right to thier opinoin without being thought of as "feigning" right off the bat just because they are liberal or thier views are anti-war which may or may not agree with yours. They still have the ability to care about individual soldiers and thier outcomes as well as hating the situation Bush put them in.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Ultra QuietAre you taking notes of who's outraged now? You know, so you can back up your statements years from now.
So that would be a 'no' to the first part of my last question and a 'yes' to the second part.
I'm just trying to get your logic straight here. OK, so in order to be outraged now, one would have to have been outraged all along. Is that correct? How far back do you figure you'd have to go? 4-5 years? Longer? 10? 20?
So that would be a 'no' to the first part of my last question and a 'yes' to the second part.
Is there an echo in here? If you'd get off your high horse for a second, you'd realize you really have no idea whether people are genuinely concerned or not. Do you? So put away your indignation, you're attacking people without any basis. Unless you can point to a thread where I (or whomever the hell you're talking about) "didn't care" about the soldiers, you've got nothing. Just a whole lot of bluster, as usual.
 

keird

Diamond Member
Jan 18, 2002
3,714
9
81
That's a funny pic, here's a Doonesbury that says it, too.

I've been in 3 combat zones and am now taking it very easy on a Homeland Security mission. I'd prefer to be in Afghanistan or the Balkans, truth be told. I have witnessed combat and I have witnessed peacetime. In both, there are politics. Not the kind that many on this site refer to, but the politics of humans relating to eachother. It's the same no matter if you're in a combat zone or working at McDonalds, Enron, or whatever. There's always friction. The pic that's been refered to in the original post is pretty frickin' funny. I have seen studs and duds in every uniformed service. It's a constant. Until you get to those cool Spec Ops guys, there's always going to be that someone screwing the pooch, so to speak. This pic doesn't reveal much but humor. There has been in my experience, though, reservists or guardsman (whatever component you want to refer, too) that simply had no place in the military, yet joined anyways... you know what? I've had way to much do drink to finish a coherent post. Perhaps another time.
 

Pepsei

Lifer
Dec 14, 2001
12,895
1
0
It is really misleading thou, about the GI Bill.... it's not the same thing it once was.

The old GI Bill was designed with one purpose: to send veterans to school. Participants were paid in two installments, one for their tuition and the other to cover living expenses. The tuition payment was scaled to the cost of tuition and the subsistence payment went up if a veteran was married or had children. This payment system, and the amount of the payments, allowed veterans to attend 90% of all public and private schools without paying a cent of their own money for tuition. Despite the effectiveness of the old GI Bill, the system has been changed dramatically. The present Montgomery GI Bill is designed to recruit young people and not to send them to school.

We've all seen the advertisements, "Join the Army and earn up to $40,000 for college." The ads seem to say that if you join the military, college is all but paid for. But only 1/3 of recruits receive any education benefits from the military. Most that do get money receive far less than $40,000.
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,626
3
81
Originally posted by: Pepsei
It is really misleading thou, about the GI Bill.... it's not the same thing it once was.

The old GI Bill was designed with one purpose: to send veterans to school. Participants were paid in two installments, one for their tuition and the other to cover living expenses. The tuition payment was scaled to the cost of tuition and the subsistence payment went up if a veteran was married or had children. This payment system, and the amount of the payments, allowed veterans to attend 90% of all public and private schools without paying a cent of their own money for tuition. Despite the effectiveness of the old GI Bill, the system has been changed dramatically. The present Montgomery GI Bill is designed to recruit young people and not to send them to school.

We've all seen the advertisements, "Join the Army and earn up to $40,000 for college." The ads seem to say that if you join the military, college is all but paid for. But only 1/3 of recruits receive any education benefits from the military. Most that do get money receive far less than $40,000.
How much does the average recruit receive?
 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
Originally posted by: Orsorum

How much does the average recruit receive?


There were two different programs for new recruits when I joined--the 'College Fund' and the 'G.I. Bill'

Some people receive both when they join, I, however, only received the G.I. Bill. Your total dollar benefit used to depend on the number of years you initially sign-up for...I signed up for five years, and I received around $26K total. It has gone up considerably since I used mine.

People who joined when I joined and received both the Army College Fund and the G.I. Bill received about 10-15K more than I did...not a bad return on investment, given you contribute $100 a month for your first year of service.

 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,626
3
81
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: Orsorum

How much does the average recruit receive?


There were two different programs for new recruits when I joined--the 'College Fund' and the 'G.I. Bill'

Some people receive both when they join, I, however, only received the G.I. Bill. Your total dollar benefit used to depend on the number of years you initially sign-up for...I signed up for five years, and I received around $26K total. It has gone up considerably since I used mine.

People who joined when I joined and received both the Army College Fund and the G.I. Bill received about 10-15K more than I did...not a bad return on investment, given you contribute $100 a month for your first year of service.
Any idea how much they would contribute for grad school? Or is that a completely different arena?
 

tm37

Lifer
Jan 24, 2001
12,436
1
0
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Originally posted by: Pepsei
It is really misleading thou, about the GI Bill.... it's not the same thing it once was.

The old GI Bill was designed with one purpose: to send veterans to school. Participants were paid in two installments, one for their tuition and the other to cover living expenses. The tuition payment was scaled to the cost of tuition and the subsistence payment went up if a veteran was married or had children. This payment system, and the amount of the payments, allowed veterans to attend 90% of all public and private schools without paying a cent of their own money for tuition. Despite the effectiveness of the old GI Bill, the system has been changed dramatically. The present Montgomery GI Bill is designed to recruit young people and not to send them to school.

We've all seen the advertisements, "Join the Army and earn up to $40,000 for college." The ads seem to say that if you join the military, college is all but paid for. But only 1/3 of recruits receive any education benefits from the military. Most that do get money receive far less than $40,000.
How much does the average recruit receive?

My benifit is/was around 450 a month when I got out. I believe it is now in the 6-7 range. This is for full time school mind you, so it doesn't cover my house payment.

Now I got out on a disablity in which the VA would train me to do another job. I was informed they would send me to a class that would insure I was able to make 8.50 an hour which at the time was about 25% less than I was making. Oh yeah and to qualify for vocational rehab I would need to QUIT MY JOB. Well at least I could possibly see a specialist regarding my knee if a want to wait 3 1/2 years. I tell you my benifits when I got out were the bomb. I do get over $200 a month though It almost makes up for me not being able to run around the yard with my son without excrutiating pain.

You know that really bad part. I would join again in a second. I would gladly be transfered straight to bagdad.
 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Any idea how much they would contribute for grad school? Or is that a completely different arena?



Graduate school, technical school, undergrad et. al...if you are part-time, you get reduced rates, but full-time will get a check each month (I think it's over $1000/month now...$1080 perhaps?). I used mine for graduate school and the checks rolled in like clockwork :)

 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: Orsorum

How much does the average recruit receive?


There were two different programs for new recruits when I joined--the 'College Fund' and the 'G.I. Bill'

Some people receive both when they join, I, however, only received the G.I. Bill. Your total dollar benefit used to depend on the number of years you initially sign-up for...I signed up for five years, and I received around $26K total. It has gone up considerably since I used mine.

People who joined when I joined and received both the Army College Fund and the G.I. Bill received about 10-15K more than I did...not a bad return on investment, given you contribute $100 a month for your first year of service.
Any idea how much they would contribute for grad school? Or is that a completely different arena?
Yes, they pay for grad school. In fact, almost any school as long as it is approved - which most schools are. I've been retired since Dec. 2000 and have not elected to use the entitlement yet because my employer gives me an allowance for books/tuition. I still have about 7 more years eligibility remaining and will use it for grad school starting next year.

Here are the rates for having served an AD enlistment

Currently, about $985 per month if you go full-time.

Hey Galt: Yeah, you guys were lucky. I paid in $2700 under the old VEAP program. BUT was able to convert to MGIB.
 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
I started off getting like $530/month...caught one check for $900 or so before the well ran dry :)

Yea, my CSM was telling me about the VEAP program; the good thing for you guys, though, is that you are not under the 'redux' system for retirement :) ...40% now, I believe, for 20 years, right?

I think family members can also use the service members' entitlements too under the new G.I. Bill, right?

Though I wouldn't stay in as long as I did (10 years), I would do it all over again...will never get the chance to see the things that I did again. I was stateside about 2 years (Hood, Fort Monroe...best kept secret in the military) and the rest of the time was overseas...loved it.
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
I started off getting like $530/month...caught one check for $900 or so before the well ran dry :)

Yea, my CSM was telling me about the VEAP program; the good thing for you guys, though, is that you are not under the 'redux' system for retirement :) ...40% now, I believe, for 20 years, right?

I think family members can also use the service members' entitlements too under the new G.I. Bill, right?

Though I wouldn't stay in as long as I did (10 years), I would do it all over again...will never get the chance to see the things that I did again. I was stateside about 2 years (Hood, Fort Monroe...best kept secret in the military) and the rest of the time was overseas...loved it.
Yeah, I just barely made the full 50% retirement because I DEP'd in 50 days before 1 Oct 80. The group immediately after mine is 50% of their last three highest years. Then comes Redux - Ugh...

Anyway, glad to hear that you took full advantage of everything old Uncle Sam provided, to include the GI Bill. Sounds like you put it to wise use.

*EDIT*: Yes, family members can use a SM's GI Bill. Dayum, just looked at my watch - gotta head off to work. See ya.

2nd EDIT: On the above, it's called chapter 35 for Dead, Totally Disabled or Missing service members.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
I started off getting like $530/month...caught one check for $900 or so before the well ran dry :)

Yea, my CSM was telling me about the VEAP program; the good thing for you guys, though, is that you are not under the 'redux' system for retirement :) ...40% now, I believe, for 20 years, right?
You can opt. in or out at the 15 year point. If you opt in, they give you $35K check. If you opt. out you go on the old retirement. The new way is only worth it if you are going to stay 30.
I think family members can also use the service members' entitlements too under the new G.I. Bill, right?
No
Though I wouldn't stay in as long as I did (10 years), I would do it all over again...will never get the chance to see the things that I did again. I was stateside about 2 years (Hood, Fort Monroe...best kept secret in the military) and the rest of the time was overseas...loved it.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY