The tease ... use a subject line, never use complete sentences (or thoughts) and see if someone will wander in if for no other reason, to see what you're smoking.
I know, I know ... where in the world have you been, Toad? Lost. Let's just leave it at that for now (or another post).
I have had a wonderful opportunity to be invited to listen in to a conference of senior officer and senior NCO spouses. During the Military Family Housing briefing, you could tell that many of the spouses had an issue to broach, or a bone to pick ... or just wanted some hide. Preferably the briefers. At one point in the discussion, the famous "waterfall" chart showed how occupancy went from active duty members, to guardsmen and reservist, to civil service employees to ... the bottom category, the general public. Then, quietly from the back of thegroup a hand went up and a voice asked ...
Why can't we create a priority within the MFH waterfall chart for wounded warriors and their families? Or better, why not for the widows of war casualties?
The briefer stated "no" they are not considered and have no priority. At that point, my head exploded.
How could it be that this could possibly not have been discussed before? How could you possibly say "no" to a wounded warrior living in a military family community, near a military treatment facility? This could be or should bea Service Secretary "wave of the hand" order.
So -- am I disconnected from reality? AmI simply late to the show and yall have answers? What Do You Think? And why not?
Why can't we revise the Military Family Housing waterfall charts to reflect priority for: Active Duty military families, then Guard and Reserve members on extended active duty, then Wounded Warriors and their families, Widows, and then John Q. Public.
... and yes, it's feels good to be back -- lost ain't for me. O&O, Maintenance Toad One
