Zero-experience Ambassador Richard Grenell picked to run entire US intelligence system

This just can't be good, all politics aside. Ambassador Richard Grenell has been named Director National Intelligence.

That's an important job, full stop! That's a "keep the world from exploding today" kind of job. However, it is also apparently one where zero intelligence or military experience is considered useful. I disagree.

Why? Reporting to him and requiring masterful supervision are sixteen agencies with tens of thousands of staff all around the world that comprise the US National Intelligence Community. Ambassador Grenell hasn't even visited a quarter of them, much less mastered the intricacies of serving the President as the nation's spy chief.

There are many other loyal, as well as better qualified, leaders in the US government who could have stepped forward to serve. The Ambassador, although blessed with a solid advanced education plus 19 years in government service, has never managed any organization half the size of the smallest agency now reporting to him. I wish this gentleman the very best luck, because anything less is going to hurt America. A lot. 

Because he had Senate confirmation to his earlier post of ambassador to Germany, he won't face any challenge from senators of either party concerned with his lack of professional experience...and many have already expressed their worries. Republican congressional and media voices mainly praise his anticipated loyalty rather than his talents. Loyalty is cited as his chief job qualification.

Hello?? Loyalty isn't cited as the qualification needed to fly airplanes, repair
computers, paint houses, do taxes, pull teeth, teach students, drive trucks, direct orchestras, print newspapers, write poetry, fry eggs, clean bathrooms, weld steel, or anything other than, as with Mr. Grenell, keeping America, our allies and the world from exploding. All while losing as few lives as possible in a hostile international setting. Sorry for the run-on sentences.

This mistake is like assigning some hyper-loyal buddy with a farming background to be Surgeon General or Attorney General. These are obviously illogical selections because of the professional qualifications actually needed. In the very real case of Mr. Grenell as our spy chief responsible for preventing wars and more 9/11 disasters, his assignment to head the National Intelligence Community has much greater potential to harm the nation.

Wish our new spy chief all the luck...we'll need it.

Depending on Mr. Grenell's leadership and professionalism in guiding their operations are:

Sixteenth Air Force, United States Air Force

Intelligence and Security Command, US Army

Central Intelligence Agency

Coast Guard Intelligence

Defense Intelligence Agency

Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, Department of Energy

Office of Intelligence and Analysis, Department of Homeland Security

Bureau of Intelligence and Research, Department of State
Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, Department of Treasury

Office of National Security Intelligence, Drug Enforcement Administration

Intelligence Branch, Federal Bureau of Investigation

Marine Corps Intelligence Activity Corps

National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, DOD

National Reconnaissance Office, DOD

National Security Agency/Central Security Service, DOD

Office of Naval Intelligence, United States Navy

New legislation eliminates SBP-DIC annuity offset for eligible surviving spouses

     Congress included a phased elimination of the SBP-DIC offset in the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, titled "Phase-Out of Reduction of Survivor Benefit Plan Survivor Annuities by Amount of Dependency and Indemnity Compensation."
     Defense Finance and Accounting Service officials have a new webpage called “SBP-DIC News” where they will post information on the status of the implementation of this new law. Officials are working on analyzing the change and making plans for the implementation. They will not be able to answer questions about the full effect of this change in the law until they obtain legal interpretation of the changes and identify all of the impacts on policy and procedures.
     Based on the NDAA, spouse SBP annuitants will see the first change in the SBP annuity payment they receive Feb. 1, 2021. Spouses do not need to notify DFAS that their SBP payment is affected by this change in the law. DFAS officials advise that the most important action SBP annuitants can take at this time is to ensure their annuity account information is up-to-date and includes their correct mailing address so DFAS can contact them, if needed. Also, if annuitants are not using myPay online, they can set up a profile now and add their email address. To create an online myPay account, visit https://mypay.dfas.mil/ and click on “Start here” next to the Create your myPay Profile heading on the lower right-hand side of the page. DFAS officials are unable to provide individual estimates of the upcoming changes in spouse SBP annuity payments because of this change in the law.
     Officials ask SBP annuitants not to call the DFAS Customer Care Center to request an individual estimate. The webpage also states that spouse annuitants who previously received a refund of SBP premiums paid because of the SBP-DIC offset won’t need to pay back that refund because of this change in the law.
     The "Repeal of Authority for Optional Annuity for Dependent Children" and "Restoration of Eligibility for Previously Eligible Spouses" in the NDAA only affect those spouses and children of service members who died on active duty when the surviving spouse previously elected to transfer the SBP annuity to a child or children. It does not affect previous or future SBP elections by retirees or SBP annuities for a retiree's beneficiaries.
     SBP provides a monthly income to eligible survivors of Airmen upon their death while DIC is paid to survivors of Airmen who die from a service-related injury or illness.

VA Just Revised Publication "C-123 AIRCRAFT AGENT ORANGE EXPOSURE CLAIMS – AIR FORCE SPECIALITY CODES AND UNITS."

Reference:
 "C-123 AIRCRAFT AGENT ORANGE  EXPOSURE CLAIMS – AIR FORCE
SPECIALITY CODES AND UNITS."
VA corrected the dates for Westover's C-123 years, but more importantly 

has broadened the range of acceptable evidence they'll accept for all Reserve

C-123 units, and perhaps geographically separated units as well.

Our expectation, having pointed out the previous discrepancies to VA, is that our old

AFSCs will be acceptable rather than the contemporary ones VA mistakenly 

printed. Further, we identified several units not listed on their publication, and the

language on the fourth page of this publication has been very broadly expanded.

VA commits to accepting "any relevant evidence showing the required regular and

repeated contact." While not yet naming units that had C-123 duty, VA here agrees

that they'll accept most sources of official proof to support disability claims for AFSCs
and, hopefully units not yet specified.
=================================================================

US Air Force Specialty Codes (AFSCs) 1969-1986 

This is a listing of AFSCs that potentially identify former USAF Reservists and active duty personnel with regular and repeated contact as flight, medical, or ground maintenance personnel associated with post-Vietnam Operation Ranch Hand C-123 aircraft. Code numbers during the operational time frame generally consisted of four digits (with additional number/letter suffix) and many were officially changed during the time frame of operations. As a result, VA will accept any relevant evidence showing the required regular and repeated contact.

Another VA Publication Error: Wrong Dates on C-123 Eligibility

Will it ever stop? Another error has been spotted on VA web pages and publications that slams the hopes of C-123 veterans hoping to quality for Agent Orange exposure benefits.

This time the error is with dates: A VA web page titled "Agent Orange exposure" specifies the dates for C-123 exposure eligibility as "On C-123 airplanes: Between January 9, 1962, and May 7, 1975." Their error, of course, was using the dates for general Vietnam War eligibility and not our post-Vietnam C-123 service dates of 1972-1986.

The mistake has been pointed out to them but this morning I repeated myself by filing another VA Inspector General report...the fourth so far asking VA to clean up their publications.

Here's a clip of their error:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Rlco4Rptc-7SphAcQst8MB4Q1WMv54wG/view?usp=sharing