Air Force Community - Air Force Times

Letters

Weighing in on fitness

The article on the Air Force Mobility Command weight loss directive [“Cutting the fat,” April 28] was very interesting, but I have to admit I was perturbed. As a diet therapy technician and certified personal trainer assigned to the Health and Wellness Center at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, I work daily with airmen who are on the mandatory fitness program.

I believe the Air Force should adopt the AFMC directive but I am against carrots, perks or rewards for meeting standards that are outlined in an Air Force instruction or regulation.

The article states that AFMC may offer a three-day pass for the airman who has the biggest loss in his body mass index.

So what do we give the members who score above 75 annually on their physical training test and cover for co-workers who miss work because of a PT failure?

I believe in exhausting all avenues and chances as I am a product of a second chance, but enough is enough. How much longer will we have to hold airmen’s hands?

Staff Sgt. John Seay

Lackland Air Force Base, Texas

Since commanders usually allow their airmen three hours weekly for physical fitness, it is truly unacceptable that 55 percent of airmen are overweight and 11 percent are obese.

Senior leadership should contact trainers Bob Harper and Jillian Michaels from the television show “The Biggest Loser” to see what they do to get their troops in shape. What’s wrong with benchmarking processes from professionals who deal with this issue every day and are successful obtaining positive results?

Master Sgt. Rick Lasnier (ret.)

Goldsboro, N.C.

While I applaud the Air Force’s efforts to improve the fitness of the force, I am baffled as to why abdominal circumference is referred to as “body composition.” Even the body mass index is grossly inaccurate. Neither abdominal circumference nor BMI take into account body fat percentage.

For many of us who work out, the days of a 32.5-inch waist are long gone. My bone structure prevents me from having much smaller than a 34-inch waist.

I have my body fat percentage tested regularly at the Health and Wellness Center using its new Bod Pod. According to the BMI, I am obese at 5 feet 11 inches and 220 pounds, but I have low body fat and am considered to be lean.

Yet the Air Force refuses to embrace up-to-date fitness protocols such as body fat measurements and get rid of archaic standards such as the BMI and the waist measurement.

Staff Sgt. James Baylis

Travis Air Force Base, Calif.

It is inappropriate to use BMI to evaluate individual performance, especially in an athletic population. BMI is good only for general comparisons of groupings of people; it was not designed to accommodate athletic ability and significant gains in muscle mass.

My BMI is 25, yet my raw performance is better than 94 percent of the Air Force.

People who have the muscular ability to produce high repetitions of sit-ups, push-ups and pull-ups — the same people you want in the military — will score high on the BMI. These same people will be targeted for administrative punishment and career termination by Air Force Mobility Command as a result of their experimental program and Air Force Times’ ill-informed editorial lobbying.

BMI is not a quick fix. BMI can not replace a commander’s obligation to evaluate his people’s fitness. BMI is not an effective or even realistic assessment of the health of our Air Force. An athletic organization like the Air Force needs something better, and something much easier to implement: commanders and staff noncommissioned officers showing up to unit physical fitness and evaluating their own people with their eyeballs and a stopwatch.

Maj. Jon-Paul Mickle

Woodbridge, Va.

Reservists’ first defense

The article on the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act in the April 21 issue [“Even Wal-Mart not immune to USERRA rules”] was very informative.

However, part of the support process for Guard and reserve members was omitted. Guard and reserve members need to be familiar with the Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve agency and use its services prior to contacting the Labor Department.

ESGR is a Defense Department agency that gains and maintains employer support for Guard and reserve service by recognizing outstanding support, increasing awareness of the law and resolving conflicts through informal mediation. Every state has an ESGR committee that supports all seven reserve components. If a reservist has a concern, he simply needs to contact ESGR at (800) 336-4590 or http://www.esgr.mil.

The reservist’s concern will be reviewed and assigned to a trained local ombudsman. These ombudsmen rectified more than 95 percent of the 22,000 cases received last year. USERRA is enforced by the Labor Department; however, ESGR should be the first step for reservists when they have an employer concern.

Chief Master Sgt. Richard Green (ret.)

Hot Springs, Ariz.

Spouse law needs changes

I find it appalling that divorced spouses still receive half of a military member’s retired pay [“Lawmakers wary of changes proposed to ex-spouses act,” March 31]. This law came about because Vietnam-era veterans were divorcing their spouses and leaving them with no financial support. Those days are long gone — spouses today have careers and incomes of their own.

As lawmakers admitted, they are afraid of eliminating the law as it is a controversial issue. If it can’t be eliminated, then it needs to be modified to bring it up to the times we live in.

Stipulations should be added to this bill that former spouses who are guilty of adultery or any other marital or criminal misconduct forgo their rights to military retirement benefits. Since we serve to protect the rights and freedoms of others, our rights and freedoms should be reasonably protected as well.

Master Sgt. Brian O. Baker

McChord Air Force Base, Wash.

SSNs on your ID

While it is refreshing to see the Defense Department finally acknowledge a need to begin removing Social Security numbers from our IDs [“So long to SSNs on military IDs,” Fast Track, April 21], I find it laughable that Social Security numbers may still be included on the IDs of service members serving overseas in order to comply with Geneva Conventions requirements.

The requirement is for a service number, not a U.S. Social Security number. I doubt the multilateral convention dictates the format other than requiring that each number be unique and verifiable. It was not that long ago that every soldier had to memorize his service number. Replacing that service number with the Social Security number was probably done in another shortsighted attempt to save money.

Maj. Eric Choate

Ramstein Air Base, Germany