News Links
Photos
Friday, October 21, 2005
A few Stats
I find the count of page visits to the CHINFO/FHTNC/USAFNS.com postings pretty interesting, but, I have not even tried to determine what they might mean. Here are the top three pages visited in order of popularity:
23.7% - A Better Solution
I must admit that I am quite pleased that the "Better Solution" had almost twice as many visitors as the next closest installment. It gives me pleasure to note that visitors are more interested in solutions than they are nit picking email verbiage. This gives me reason to hope that maybe, maybe, maybe someone in a postition to do something about the situation has seen the matrices.
The lowest visitor count as of this writing is the last installment "Summary." It was only posted yesterday, and has accumulated less than 1% of the visitor count.
~G: More to come on the FOIA requests.
Thursday, October 20, 2005
CHINFO/FHTNC/USAFNS Debacle - #10 - Summary
This is my final posting in the CHINFO/FHTNC/USAFNS debacle series. I regret that the "whole story" is so long, but CHINFO has presented multiple reasons for withholding the releases from USAFNS.com. I suppose the theory being that "if one throws enough stuff against the wall, some of it will stick."
Point by point, each reason given for withholding FHTNC releases has been addressed, and not one of them hold up to the light of scrutiny by even a casual observer. In my opinion, they have made a decision, and are sticking with it - and have the attitude "I have the power, my mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts." It reminds me of a boot Third Class Petty Officer that doesn't know how to handle authority, and has to learn how to use it. Or, as is often said on active duty, they are "in over their heads."
One thing to be remembered is that they are not improving the security of our troops by withholding the releases from USAFNS.com. That is because the releases are being distributed to over 10,000 newspapers, most of which have websites, and publish the releases on the web. The internet is an aggregating medium, so, if the information is on the internet, it is available to the world. The net effect of withholding the releases from USAFNS.com is that U.S. Marines, Sailors and Coast Guardsmen are being deprived of the morale boost that comes with seeing their names in print. And, that is one of the primary missions of CHINFO, and the primary mission of FHTNC.
The mission of CHINFO & FHTNC is prescribed by laws that congress has passed, and continue to fund each year. In my opinion, CHINFO & FHTNC are scofflaws and are ignoring the law by withholding the their releases from anyone or any organization that is low abiding and is a U.S. Citizen, or a duly recognized and legitimate taxpaying U.S. business entity. Withholding FHTNC releases from one single website does not make the troops and their families any more secure.
Speaking of scofflaws, the first Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed on 11 September is now 9 working days overdue. Tomorrow will make two weeks overdue. I wonder if they will be a scoff law regarding my FOIA request. On the 25th of October, the second FOIA request that I made will become due. and then on 1 November, the third FOIA request that I made will be due. I think that the probability of them being answered is pretty remote. In my opinion, that will confirm the supposition that CHINFO/FHTNC are scofflaws.
One final opinion - I haven't had anyone come forward with sufficient information to verify the rumor that FHTNC's legacy software system will be cut off next month. I can't verify it, but I believe it to be true. That belief is based upon the NMCI "Reach Back" termination test being conducted this week. The test was announced last month to "validate the expected impact" of the permanent legacy system shutdown. I am 100% confident that the shutdown will occur, but I cannot get a definitive date of the shutdown. I haven't head anything from any of my contacts regarding the problems that are being encountered this week, or if the temporary shutdown has even occurred. I am waiting and watching, and will continue to do so.
~G: This is my final in the Debacle series, but I will make postings as the FOIA saga unravels.
Point by point, each reason given for withholding FHTNC releases has been addressed, and not one of them hold up to the light of scrutiny by even a casual observer. In my opinion, they have made a decision, and are sticking with it - and have the attitude "I have the power, my mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts." It reminds me of a boot Third Class Petty Officer that doesn't know how to handle authority, and has to learn how to use it. Or, as is often said on active duty, they are "in over their heads."
One thing to be remembered is that they are not improving the security of our troops by withholding the releases from USAFNS.com. That is because the releases are being distributed to over 10,000 newspapers, most of which have websites, and publish the releases on the web. The internet is an aggregating medium, so, if the information is on the internet, it is available to the world. The net effect of withholding the releases from USAFNS.com is that U.S. Marines, Sailors and Coast Guardsmen are being deprived of the morale boost that comes with seeing their names in print. And, that is one of the primary missions of CHINFO, and the primary mission of FHTNC.
The mission of CHINFO & FHTNC is prescribed by laws that congress has passed, and continue to fund each year. In my opinion, CHINFO & FHTNC are scofflaws and are ignoring the law by withholding the their releases from anyone or any organization that is low abiding and is a U.S. Citizen, or a duly recognized and legitimate taxpaying U.S. business entity. Withholding FHTNC releases from one single website does not make the troops and their families any more secure.
Speaking of scofflaws, the first Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed on 11 September is now 9 working days overdue. Tomorrow will make two weeks overdue. I wonder if they will be a scoff law regarding my FOIA request. On the 25th of October, the second FOIA request that I made will become due. and then on 1 November, the third FOIA request that I made will be due. I think that the probability of them being answered is pretty remote. In my opinion, that will confirm the supposition that CHINFO/FHTNC are scofflaws.
One final opinion - I haven't had anyone come forward with sufficient information to verify the rumor that FHTNC's legacy software system will be cut off next month. I can't verify it, but I believe it to be true. That belief is based upon the NMCI "Reach Back" termination test being conducted this week. The test was announced last month to "validate the expected impact" of the permanent legacy system shutdown. I am 100% confident that the shutdown will occur, but I cannot get a definitive date of the shutdown. I haven't head anything from any of my contacts regarding the problems that are being encountered this week, or if the temporary shutdown has even occurred. I am waiting and watching, and will continue to do so.
~G: This is my final in the Debacle series, but I will make postings as the FOIA saga unravels.
Friday, October 07, 2005
CHINFO/FHTNC/USAFNS Debacle - #9 A Better Solution
A better solution are simple matrices keyed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Threat Level. Naturally, our military probably has another means of identifying the threat level, but it certainly should be a step in the right direction. The military utilizes a system called Defense Condition or DEFCON to identify Nuclear Threat Conditions. Here is a Summary:
DEFCON 5 Normal peacetime readiness
DEFCON 4 Normal, increased intelligence and strengthened security measures
DEFCON 3 Increase in force readiness above normal readiness
DEFCON 2 Further Increase in force readiness, but less than maximum readiness
DEFCON 1 Maximum force readiness.
DEFCON 4 Normal, increased intelligence and strengthened security measures
DEFCON 3 Increase in force readiness above normal readiness
DEFCON 2 Further Increase in force readiness, but less than maximum readiness
DEFCON 1 Maximum force readiness.
DHS Threat Levels are not necessarily directly related to the DEFCON, but, the similarity in the systems is undeniable. Here are the DHS Threat Levels:
LOW (GREEN) - Low Risk of Terrorist AttacksGUARDED (BLUE) - General Risk of Terrorist AttacksELEVATED (YELLOW) - Significant Risk of Terrorist AttacksSEVERE (RED) - Severe Risk of Terrorist AttacksHIGH (ORANGE) - High Risk of Terrorist Attacks
I developed Navy and Marine Corps matrices to help FHTNC produce releases for newspapers and internet websites alike. It would use the DHS Threat Level to determine the information that would be included in releases and protect our military operations, men & women in uniform and their families. In its most simple terms, the greater the threat, the less information would be made public. The logic should be relatively easy to incorporate into FHTNC's software, and even easier to administer. Here are the suggested matrices:
Here are links to different formats of the Suggested Release Matrices that contains both Navy & Marine Corps matrices, a description and examples of each by DHS Threat Level:
The upgrade of FHTNC software to include some method of easily administering a changing threat level is needed. Possibly, it could be included with the next round of modifications to make FHTNC software compatible with NMCI standards and requirements. Does anyone know for sure whether or not the FHTNC software suite is/will be updated to NMCI standards?
~G: Stay Tuned - This installment brings you up to date with almost everything that has happened. Next and last installment will conclude the series with a summary and an editoral. After the next installment, there will be editorials regarding the situation as things happen. Specifically, I am looking forward to the FOIA reports, and the information that they contain, as well as the information that they don't contain. The reports should be very revealing.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
CHINFO/FHTNC/USAFNS Debacle - #8 The Easiest & Simplest Solution
My first reaction to the ill informed decision that emanated from CHINFO was you "gotta be kiddin." I was promptly shown that they were very serious, when without further ado, they promptly cut of the distribution of press releases to USAFNS.com. So, over the intervening time, I have worked out a couple of solutions. One simple, and one fairly complex. I will cover the simple one this installment, and the more complicated one next installment. I tried unsuccessfully to get these solutions before eyes of the powers that be in CHINFO's office for two years. I can only assume that my contacts were afraid that they might anger their bosses. Or, they did reach them, and were ignored. I certainly did not act as if my solutions were secrets. With that having been said, here is a very simple solution.
__________________________________________________________________
Gunner's Simple Solution:
Add a block to the FHTNC Release Form - NAVSO 5724/1 (Rev. APR 2004) - the block should ask the question "Release to Internet Websites?" Accompanied by a check box indicating "Yes" if checked.
__________________________________________________________________
The latest revision of the form - April 2004 - is dated 10 months after the order to cease distribution of FHTNC's press releases to USAFNS.com. So, if CHINFO and/or his staff knew, they elected to ignore this solution. Below is the contents of the top section of the FHTNC Release form NAVSO 5724/1.
__________________________________________________________________
FLEET HOMETOWN NEWS RELEASE
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT -- AUTHORITY: 5 U.S.C. 301, and 14 U.S.C. 93f and 10 U.S.C. 8012 and 8034, and EO 9397. PRINCIPAL PURPOSE: To prepare news stories and news releases for distribution and publication by civilian news media to recognize the achievements of sea service members. SSN is used for casualty identification and will not be released. ROUTINE USES: Information may be disclosed to civilian news media representatives. Once published, information is considered "Public Domain." DISCLOSURE IS VOLUNTARY: Failure to provide the information may mean little or no public news release material can be produced, thus denying the individual public recognition for personal achievement.
___________________________________________________________________
1. I certify this information is correct. I have no objection to its publication. Forms not signed will not be processed. Print your First Name, MI, Last Name, and SSN. You must sign and date your form.
First Name:____..., MI:____, Last Name: ____..., SSN:____...
Signature:____..., Date Signed:____...,
Note Field Lengths Shorted for Clarity
______________________________________________________________
In fact, it is the "small print" and if I had scanned a copy of the document, you would not have been able to read it. However, you can see the complete form on CHINFO's website at:
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/chinfo/fhtnc/57241.pdf
I have little hope that CHINFO would incorporate this simple solution into the release form, because that would require CHINFO to require newspapers to limit their publishing to hardcopy if the block wasn't checked. My local newspaper, the "New Bern Sun Journal" doesn't publish any of the releases on the internet. Because of the large military community, I don't think that they publish very many in their hardcopy newspaper either. See:http://www.newbernsunjournal.com/
A Short Editorial
With the above factual information having been covered, I will now editorialize a little. I can understand the frustration of a PR person when something like 9-11 occurs. They don't really fight in a war, they produce propaganda to bolster the morale of the troops and to demoralize the enemy. So, I am sure that they looked around for something to do to support the effort in Iraq. Unfortunately their "inside the beltway" attitudes of "I know what's best for you" and "don't do as I do, but do as I say" is at the root of this problem. I have three questions of the public:
__________________________________________________________________
Gunner's Simple Solution:
Add a block to the FHTNC Release Form - NAVSO 5724/1 (Rev. APR 2004) - the block should ask the question "Release to Internet Websites?" Accompanied by a check box indicating "Yes" if checked.
__________________________________________________________________
The latest revision of the form - April 2004 - is dated 10 months after the order to cease distribution of FHTNC's press releases to USAFNS.com. So, if CHINFO and/or his staff knew, they elected to ignore this solution. Below is the contents of the top section of the FHTNC Release form NAVSO 5724/1.
__________________________________________________________________
FLEET HOMETOWN NEWS RELEASE
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT -- AUTHORITY: 5 U.S.C. 301, and 14 U.S.C. 93f and 10 U.S.C. 8012 and 8034, and EO 9397. PRINCIPAL PURPOSE: To prepare news stories and news releases for distribution and publication by civilian news media to recognize the achievements of sea service members. SSN is used for casualty identification and will not be released. ROUTINE USES: Information may be disclosed to civilian news media representatives. Once published, information is considered "Public Domain." DISCLOSURE IS VOLUNTARY: Failure to provide the information may mean little or no public news release material can be produced, thus denying the individual public recognition for personal achievement.
___________________________________________________________________
1. I certify this information is correct. I have no objection to its publication. Forms not signed will not be processed. Print your First Name, MI, Last Name, and SSN. You must sign and date your form.
First Name:____..., MI:____, Last Name: ____..., SSN:____...
Signature:____..., Date Signed:____...,
Note Field Lengths Shorted for Clarity
______________________________________________________________
In fact, it is the "small print" and if I had scanned a copy of the document, you would not have been able to read it. However, you can see the complete form on CHINFO's website at:
I have little hope that CHINFO would incorporate this simple solution into the release form, because that would require CHINFO to require newspapers to limit their publishing to hardcopy if the block wasn't checked. My local newspaper, the "New Bern Sun Journal" doesn't publish any of the releases on the internet. Because of the large military community, I don't think that they publish very many in their hardcopy newspaper either. See:
A Short Editorial
With the above factual information having been covered, I will now editorialize a little. I can understand the frustration of a PR person when something like 9-11 occurs. They don't really fight in a war, they produce propaganda to bolster the morale of the troops and to demoralize the enemy. So, I am sure that they looked around for something to do to support the effort in Iraq. Unfortunately their "inside the beltway" attitudes of "I know what's best for you" and "don't do as I do, but do as I say" is at the root of this problem. I have three questions of the public:
- When our young men and women in uniform sign a document releasing information into the "Public Domain," shouldn't it be honored?
- Isn't it a shame that some of our servicemembers will die in service to our country and the only thing ever published about them in their lifetime is their obituary and not one word of their accomplishments?
- Does anyone really care except for me?
When you ask yourself these questions, please remember that FHTNC produces the releases for the Navy, Marine Corps and the Coast Guard. The answer to question number two really bothers me way down where I really live.
~G: Stay Tuned - The other more complicated solution in the next installment.
COLA ADJUSTMENT BILL: H.R.2290 - the Family Budget Protection Act of 2005- A BUMMER FOR RETIREES
COLA ADJUSTMENT BILL: H.R.2290 the Family Budget Protection Act of 2005 has been introduced in congress by Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX). The bill currently has 90 sponsors all of which are Republicans. At present it has been referred to the Committee on the Budget, and to the Committees on Rules, Ways and Means, Appropriations, and Government Reform to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. On the surface HR 2290 looks good with the purpose to reform Federal budget procedures, to impose spending safeguards, to combat waste, fraud, and abuse, to account for accurate Government agency costs, and for other purposes. However, HR 2290 would impose spending caps on the growth of entitlements and mandatory budget outlays. Specifically, this bill would:
- Exempt from spending limitations Social Security, Medicare Part A, Tier 1 Railway Retirement and the Federal Employee Retirement System and Civil Service Retirement System both of which are available to those elected to Congress and their staffs, and
- Would NOT exempt from spending limitations military retirement income, military survivors benefits, veterans benefits, Tricare for Life and Medicare Part B.
Retaining Congressional retirement COLAs and capping Military Retirement COLAs does not seem very equitable for veterans. Those concerned have the option of letting their representative know what they think of this discrimination or keeping quiet and watching their monetary benefits slowly erode if the bill is ultimately passed. At www.visi.com/juan/congress/ can be found all congressional members contact info. Listed by state is each congressional member's name, party affiliation, committee membership, DC phone & fax number, email addee, DC & District mailing address, web site, political profile, personal Bio, names of primary office staff members, and MapsOnUs directions to travel to their office locations from your home address. Without your input you only have yourself to blame when legislation is passed that does not favor the veteran community. [Source: USDR Action alert 22 SEP
05 & Contacting the Congress web site www.visi.com/juan/congress/ FEB 05]
05 & Contacting the Congress web site www.visi.com/juan/congress/ FEB 05]
I have verified this information on the MOAA (TROA) website. MOAA opposes this legislation. They have the following to say about it. Last year, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) introduced legislation aimed at imposing automatic and arbitrary cuts in so-called entitlements spending programs when their cost rose above certain relatively modest levels. Under government accounting definitions, military retirement, survivor benefits, veterans' benefits and TRICARE For Life fall in this category, along with programs ranging from student loans to Medicare.
MOAA and many others, from the Disabled American Veterans to AARP, opposed an effort by Rep. Hensarling and Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) to include such a mechanism in a budget bill last year, and the House of Representatives rejected the proposal.
Now, Hill sources tell us, House Majority Leader Tom Delay is consulting with a group of colleagues (including Reps. Hensarling and Kirk) about considering some kind of budget enforcement bill this fall.
Hensarling's proposed legislation (introduced this year as H.R. 2290) would require automatic cuts in selected programs if total entitlements spending growth over the previous year exceeds that due to increases in inflation and population - about 2.4% per year.
But its cutback formula would impose disproportional cuts on selected programs. Social Security would be exempt, as would Medicare Part A (hospitalization) -- but not Part B (doctor bills). Federal civilian retirement would be exempt from automatic cuts, but military retirement and survivor benefits, veterans' benefits, and TRICARE For Life would not.
Additional Information can be found at:
If you want to take some action I suggest you go to :
This MOAA site will assist you in emailing your representatives in Congress :
~G: Received the above via email from an old shipmate. It has many FWD:'s. I cannot determine the original author, but believe it to be H.G. If you wrote this, please let me know, and I will give credit. If you read it carefully, you find that this is a bummer for both military retirees and the civilian variety also.
Who links to me?
Prev | List | Random | Next
Join - Powered by RingSurf!
![[USAFNS.com atom.xml link]](http://www.usafns.com/weblog/images/atomfeed.gif "Click to view Gunner's Blog Atom feed - atom.xml"){kind=small}