Actually, by using the term "AIS" I am dating myself. (I served during Vietnam.)

AIS stood for "Army Intelligence and Security" and combined both what was then called the Intelligence Corps (INTC) and the Army Security Agency (ASA).

AIS was considered a separate branch of the Army and its members wore brass showing a dagger superimposed on a rose, which in turn was superimposed on the sun.

AIS was the predecessor of today's Military Intelligence Branch -- formed in 1987.

Basically ASA became AIS/INSCOM (AIS= Army Intel & Security; INSCOM = Army Intelligence and Security Command) in the 1970s and then became MIB in 1987?

Deleted

I don't see where LEX-LGA Commuter ever said that a majority of TSA employees are bullies. (Maybe I missed that post?) What I did see is a perfectly true statement that TSA ranks include too many bullies. I don't see how Bart or anybody else can deny that with a straight face.

Every police department or quasi-police organization (in which category I put the TSA) has a few bullies in the ranks. It's just inevitable. That sort of bad guy is just drawn to such work, and all of us understand why. My big complaint about the TSA is that nobody seems to care or seems to do anything about it. I have never seen or even heard second-hand about a supervisor dressing down a screener for being hostile, overzealous, aggressive or any of the other descriptions we could use appropriately. Does it ever happen? Is there any management at TSA at all? Until there is evidence of some, I will continue to criticize the TSA.

Bruce

Precisely. Furthermore, the actual defining attribute for these bullies is who they in fact intimidate. At least with the stereotypical overzealous cop, the complaint is usually filed by the perpertrator. However the TSA's problem is just the reverse. Their bad apples are out there harassing their constituents - the victims if you will. These guys are not standing watch on the perimeter somewhere, they are not manning a track, etc. No, instead, they are bullying the American public, the elderly, the young, etc.

Yes, granted, these examples are the minority. I fully agree. But the fact that they continue to happen clearly demonstrates that either there is no pre-employment screening process, or if there is, it ain't working. There is simply no other explanation for how these people (a) continue to be hired; (b) continue to retain their jobs.

The legislation creating the TSA specifically prohibits its employees from unionizing. The government made the point repeatedly that it could not deal with the usual civil service rules in a front-line antiterrorist organization (or words to that effect). They had to be free to hire and fire without the usual procedural niceties. OK, but how has that "freedom" been reflected in actual practice?

Things would change for the better at TSA if they took a few of the obvious bad apples and made examples out of them. Fire them on the spot, in front of their coworkers. The underlying message would be heard loud and clear: If you abuse the traveling public, you will be gone. Things would change immediately.

Right now, TSA bullies can act with impunity -- and they know it. Very few of us will stand up to them. I do, but only because I know my legal rights very, very well and don't much care if I miss a flight occasionally.

Bruce

No, you are getting confused between a "branch" and a "command". It is easy to do, especially as there was a complete reorganization of the chain of command structure in the military since I served.

I can tell you what was but will have to leave it to Bart or LEX-LGA Commuter to tell you what is.

When I was in the service, AIS was a branch. It had absolutely no command authority -- any more than the Finance Corps or the Corps of Chaplains.

AIS trained people for intelligence jobs and then assigned them to various units throughout the world. Once they arrived there, and until they were transferred out, they remained under the command of local authorities.

Hence, if the head of AIS were to visit the 430th INTC Detachment in Verona, Italy, he would not have the authority to tell the lowliest private in the unit to get him a cup of coffee.

The private would obey his unit CO's orders. The CO, in turn, would obey the orders of the SETAF (Southern European Task Force) commander. He would get his orders from the commander of USAREUR (United States Army, Europe).

In 1977, INSCOM was formed. Presumably, as a command, it had authority over the units under it. I say "presumably" because we are now discussing what happened after I was out of service. AIS remained as a branch and would -- also presumably -- assign personnel to both INSCOM and other commands.

In 1987, the ASA was split off from AIS and AIS was renamed Military Intelligence Branch.

I agree, but mentioning that he'd been in the field 10 years before the other guy graduated is gratuitous and escalatory. And let's not forget that this discussion is where it is because of more than a few dismissive remarks in response to legitimate complaints. "How's the view from back there?", indeed. No, I have no sympathy.

Deleted

I'm sure you read my little story from a few months ago about the supervisor at EWR who refused to give me a BLANK complaint form because "it's SSI." I could complete the form in his presence and give it to him, but I could not take it with me and return it later by mail. Because I didn't want to give him the form, I decided not to file a complaint at all.

Pointing out that a BLANK complaint form could not possibly contain confidential information got me nowhere. He insisted that the EWR FSD had personally imposed this foolish rule. What an organization!

Bruce

Deleted

Most people outside of FT don't even know that it's possible to file a complaint (or compliment for that matter). I didn't before FT. I was just one of the sheeple who went along with the shoe carnivals, BP carnivals, etc.

Maybe if TSA had a sign saying something like "How was our service? Please fill out a survey" or something, it might educate people that they do have a whisper in how things are done, and that problems could be corrected. I also think that a lot of the bullies would shape up somewhat (or at least make it possible for them to be weeded out) if people knew that they could complain.

Of course, TSA actually has to have meaningful forms available that can be filled out on the spot and not use threat tactics like asking for ID simply for having the audacity to ask for a form.

Super

The salient question is whether the FSD or anyone is required to respond to the complainant. My sense from this forum is that there is never a follow-up (beyond the form-letter "I'm sure your next excounter... yadda yadda") detailing what remedial actions have been taken, or alternatively explaining (not brushing off) why the complaint was unjustified. Until that starts happening why should we believe that complaints go anywhere but the round file ?

I can think of a few reasons. 1) Because all indications are that the complaints are routinely ignored. 2) Because some screeners seem to play all sorts of games to try to prevent you from filing complaints ("oh, we're out"; "oh, I need to see your ID before I can let you have a complaint form"; etc.).

TSA management has to want to improve its customer service before filling out complaint forms will be truly useful.

Deleted