PDA

View Full Version : CPO sentenced for sexual assault



Stalwart
08-05-2013, 02:17 PM
I heard about a CPO from the USS Germantown in Yokosuka sentenced to 90 days in the brig, reduction to Seaman Recruit and a Bad Conduct Discharge after being convicted of sexual assault.

Chief had 23 years of service, admitted that sex took place but that it was consensual and that she came on to him. Both sides agree she was drunk ... she says that he forced her to strip and that she complied with sex for about 5 minutes.

Once convicted the defense argued that denying him retirement would be punishing his family (wife and 4 children).

I wasn't in the court, but even if his side is completely true he definitely put himself in a pretty awkward situation (taking her to medical by himself after hours and/or into the Chief's Mess alone -- the story is a bit unclear).

Rusty Jones
08-05-2013, 04:47 PM
Didn't this Chief know? You've gotta be an officer - O4 or above - to do all that, and still retire!

Stalwart
08-05-2013, 05:03 PM
I guess it is hard to say based on limited knowledge of the proceedings, but overall do you think it would be appropriate to let someone with 23 years of service retire if convicted of sexual assault, fraternization & adultery?

Gonzo432
08-05-2013, 05:27 PM
Don't have sex with suboridinates. If you're married, only have sex with your spouse.

In an unrelated story, former deputy commander of 101st Airborne found not guilty after all 15 accusers had their careers and lives destroyed by both prosecutors and defense attorneys.

Greg
08-05-2013, 05:39 PM
I heard about a CPO from the USS Germantown in Yokuska sentenced to 90 days in the brig, reduction to Seaman Recruit and a Bad Conduct Discharge after being convicted of sexual assault.

Chief had 23 years of service, admitted that sex took place but that it was consensual and that she came on to him. Both sides agree she was drunk ... she says that he forced her to strip and that she complied with sex for about 5 minutes.

Once convicted the defense argued that denying him retirement would be punishing his family (wife and 4 children).

I wasn't in the court, but even if his side is completely true he definitely put himself in a pretty awkward situation (taking her to medical by himself after hours and/or into the Chief's Mess alone -- the story is a bit unclear).

What is the Chief doing having sex with an intoxicated female? On board ship?

"Defense attorney Lt. Brandon Sargent disputed how much she drank, based on testimony from other sailors. Two medical experts testified they could not conclusively determine she was drunk that night.

Neither side disputed that she shouted loud obscenities when she returned to the barge. She then fell down a ladder, prompting medical attention.

When a doctor tended to her, she told him to back away and asked for Averell, who wasn’t on the ship at the time. She told the court she feared she was in trouble for what she did in her drunken state.

“[Averell] always had my back when other chiefs yelled at me,” she testified.

Averell came to her aid and found no major injuries. She got up, went for a cigarette, and promptly fell down another ladder. After another examination, she returned to her rack, where yet another incident prompted Averell to remove her and take her to the chief’s mess — a place normally off-limits to junior sailors."

http://www.stripes.com/news/uss-germantown-chief-petty-officer-sentenced-for-sexual-assault-1.232848

Rusty Jones
08-05-2013, 06:24 PM
I guess it is hard to say based on limited knowledge of the proceedings, but overall do you think it would be appropriate to let someone with 23 years of service retire if convicted of sexual assault, fraternization & adultery?

I'm actually more concerned with policies being enforced equally more than anything else.

Fraternization and adultery should never keep anyone from retiring, in my opinion. Sexual assault, short of rape... is a bit different. Whatever the punishment, it needs to be the same for both officer and enlisted.

We all know damned well that had a Commander done the same, he'd simply be forced to retire - and he MIGHT be busted to Lieutenant Commander before that.

Stalwart
08-05-2013, 06:59 PM
I'm actually more concerned with policies being enforced equally more than anything else.

Fraternization and adultery should never keep anyone from retiring, in my opinion. Sexual assault, short of rape... is a bit different. Whatever the punishment, it needs to be the same for both officer and enlisted.

I would agree that not consistently enforcing policy creates a bad climate.


We all know damned well that had a Commander done the same, he'd simply be forced to retire - and he MIGHT be busted to Lieutenant Commander before that.

My experience has really been different. I have not seen a CDR separated for sexual assault, but have seen:

-Commander separated (no retirement) for alcohol related issues.
-Lieutenant Commander separated for failing to qualify in new designator after redesignating.
-Lieutenant Commander separated for losing his security clearance (clearance required for designator) -- not allowed to redesignate to a different job.
-Lieutenant separated for failing to qualify in new designator after redesignating.
-Lieutenant Junior Grade (12 year prior CPO) separated after Captains Mast for sexual harassment.
-Ensign not promoted to Lieutenant Junior Grade and separated for alcohol related issues.

Now, this has all been in my 10 years in the Navy (as an officer). In the 12 years I was in the Marine Corps I never knew of an officer separated for misconduct, but I was not privy to those circles.

RobotChicken
08-05-2013, 07:25 PM
I heard about a CPO from the USS Germantown in Yokuska sentenced to 90 days in the brig, reduction to Seaman Recruit and a Bad Conduct Discharge after being convicted of sexual assault.

Chief had 23 years of service, admitted that sex took place but that it was consensual and that she came on to him. Both sides agree she was drunk ... she says that he forced her to strip and that she complied with sex for about 5 minutes.

Once convicted the defense argued that denying him retirement would be punishing his family (wife and 4 children).

I wasn't in the court, but even if his side is completely true he definitely put himself in a pretty awkward situation (taking her to medical by himself after hours and/or into the Chief's Mess alone -- the story is a bit unclear).

"Talk about to cheap to get a room, unless they both had 'Cinderella liberty'; and then coming aboard smashed and with just a nod, forced to strip, and no one on board suspected anything afoul? On ship? The nosiest place at sea? 'Com'on man, don't add up!!"

Stalwart
08-05-2013, 07:33 PM
What I read was that she started drinking at 1PM, that made me think it was likely a weekend or holiday and not a normal duty day. If it was not a duty day, I could see it happening. My last ship was very, very quiet on the weekends if there wasn't scheduled training or drills.

BURAWSKI
08-06-2013, 01:49 AM
What I read was that she started drinking at 1PM, that made me think it was likely a weekend or holiday and not a normal duty day. If it was not a duty day, I could see it happening. My last ship was very, very quiet on the weekends if there wasn't scheduled training or drills.

Still don't have all of the facts on this case. I think we all can agree that there is a huge disparity between officer and enlisted when punishment is administered. And back in the day it was fairly common for officer folk to simply walk away from serious transgressions. They were taken care of and looked out for each other. I've seen it before. Enlisted on the other hand were punished most severely in comparison. But back to the issue at hand, we still don't have all the facts. I'd really be interested in hearing the details of the case. There is not enough information to make an informed determination of what really happened. I have to agree that this guy was stupid; I'd never put myself in such a compromising situation to begin with knowing no one had my back.

BURAWSKI
08-06-2013, 01:51 AM
Spoke too soon. More info follows: http://www.militarycorruption.com/averell.htm

Chief Bosun
08-06-2013, 01:59 PM
Still don't have all of the facts on this case. I think we all can agree that there is a huge disparity between officer and enlisted when punishment is administered. And back in the day it was fairly common for officer folk to simply walk away from serious transgressions. They were taken care of and looked out for each other. I've seen it before. Enlisted on the other hand were punished most severely in comparison. But back to the issue at hand, we still don't have all the facts. I'd really be interested in hearing the details of the case. There is not enough information to make an informed determination of what really happened. I have to agree that this guy was stupid; I'd never put myself in such a compromising situation to begin with knowing no one had my back.

Concur.

Without all the facts presented, none of us can say if the person was convicted and punished propertly or not.

Based on what was presented here, it sounds like the defendent was definitely guilty of a serious lapse in judgement. It sounds like the female was the junior in rate here. If so, then they possibly took her word over his as the presumption may have been that if he was the senior, he should have been in positive control of the situation and not engaged in sexual conduct with the other party.

Stalwart
08-06-2013, 02:08 PM
Good points, I have heard many people saying that his retirement should have been off the table since he had already gone over 20 years of service.

Let me rephrase my question:

When convicted at court martial, should a service member's retirement (who has already passed the minimum years of service for retirement) be automatically excluded from potential forfeitures?

efmbman
08-06-2013, 02:43 PM
Good points, I have heard many people saying that his retirement should have been off the table since he had already gone over 20 years of service.

Let me rephrase my question:

When convicted at court martial, should a service member's retirement (who has already passed the minimum years of service for retirement) be automatically excluded from potential forfeitures?

I say no. Serving honorably means exactly that. The responsibility to serve honorably is not measured with a calendar. Regardless of years of service or milestones reached, serve honorably until the end.

RobotChicken
08-06-2013, 04:48 PM
"In the 'Johnnie Walker' RED case, himself and his brother (Ret. LCDR) both were stripped of their retirement completely. Brother due out soon due to age; 82? John still has a few to go."

Chief Bosun
08-06-2013, 05:24 PM
Good points, I have heard many people saying that his retirement should have been off the table since he had already gone over 20 years of service.

Let me rephrase my question:

When convicted at court martial, should a service member's retirement (who has already passed the minimum years of service for retirement) be automatically excluded from potential forfeitures?

I've seen this question posed several times over the past few years, both here and on military.com.

In my opinion, no. The member is the one that did the service and qualified for the retirement pay and benefits, and if they engage in misconduct, it should be on the table for forfieture. Now, if the members marriage was dissolved then I can see where a provision should be made to allow the former spouse to collect the retirement as many times they put their lives on hold to follow the person from station to station, and as a result may not be able to compete in the current job market.

If this needs to be addressed anywhere, it needs to be addressed by the service secretaries first, and if they cannot take action then by Congress if that body can get over it's collective case of Cranial-Rectal Syndrome.

Stalwart
08-06-2013, 06:31 PM
The member is the one that did the service and qualified for the retirement pay and benefits, and if they engage in misconduct, it should be on the table for forfieture. Now, if the members marriage was dissolved then I can see where a provision should be made to allow the former spouse to collect the retirement as many times they put their lives on hold to follow the person from station to station, and as a result may not be able to compete in the current job market.

That is actually one of the better arguments I have heard on that.

Rusty Jones
08-06-2013, 08:28 PM
That is actually one of the better arguments I have heard on that.

I'll go with the other side - I don't believe that it should be on the table for forfeiture.

The US military is the only employer that I know of, where one cannot become "vested" into its retirement system. I think that needs to change. I suppose that the military can get away with doing this, since members don't pay into their retirement system.

I imagine that there's going to be a time where having a retirement system that military members do not have to pay into will no longer be economically viable. If this is the case, then actual vesting will become a reality and forfeiture of retirement will be out of the question.

Chief Bosun
08-07-2013, 12:41 PM
That is actually one of the better arguments I have heard on that.

Thank you.

Rusty Jones
08-07-2013, 01:40 PM
I've seen this question posed several times over the past few years, both here and on military.com.

In my opinion, no. The member is the one that did the service and qualified for the retirement pay and benefits, and if they engage in misconduct, it should be on the table for forfieture. Now, if the members marriage was dissolved then I can see where a provision should be made to allow the former spouse to collect the retirement as many times they put their lives on hold to follow the person from station to station, and as a result may not be able to compete in the current job market.

If this needs to be addressed anywhere, it needs to be addressed by the service secretaries first, and if they cannot take action then by Congress if that body can get over it's collective case of Cranial-Rectal Syndrome.

I'll go the opposite way on this: I don't think that the retirement should be on the table for foreiture.

If the military's benefits are supposed to be so great; so much better than what civilians get - both in the public sector and private - then it makes no sense that military retirement is not protected by vesting.

Generally, one is vested in their employer's retirement plan after five years. After that, it can't be touched. Even if the employee is fired for cause.

I suppose that the reason why the military can get away with yanking your retirement like this, is because military members do not pay into their retirement. Paying into your retirement establishes your "right" to your annuity; something that doesn't happen in the military.

I do question, however, how long the military is going to be able to keep up a retirement system that military members do not pay into. I imagine that, in the not too distant future, they're not going to be able to afford to do this... and that military members will be paying into it... which will mean that the military will no longer be able to take someone's retirement away after they're vested.

Chief Bosun
08-07-2013, 02:46 PM
I'll go the opposite way on this: I don't think that the retirement should be on the table for foreiture.

If the military's benefits are supposed to be so great; so much better than what civilians get - both in the public sector and private - then it makes no sense that military retirement is not protected by vesting.

Generally, one is vested in their employer's retirement plan after five years. After that, it can't be touched. Even if the employee is fired for cause.

I suppose that the reason why the military can get away with yanking your retirement like this, is because military members do not pay into their retirement. Paying into your retirement establishes your "right" to your annuity; something that doesn't happen in the military.

I do question, however, how long the military is going to be able to keep up a retirement system that military members do not pay into. I imagine that, in the not too distant future, they're not going to be able to afford to do this... and that military members will be paying into it... which will mean that the military will no longer be able to take someone's retirement away after they're vested.

Your question is a good one.

Right now the military (and for that matter the government) is the only place that I know of where you do not qualify for any retirement until you complete X number of years of service, and in the case of the civilian side, also reach a minimum age that is tied to your years of service. For example, in my case I can retire after 10 years of federal civilian service (including my military time) at the age of 57, and then at age 60 with 20 years service. Before then, well, I am no HR guru, but I expect I would get nothing if I moved from there to a private sector job if I didn't have the years and the age.

Yes, you have your Thrift Savings Plan and suchfor both, but they do not replace your pension, simply supplement it.

Will that change? I don't know.

Can it be changed and current military personnel not be grandfathered in? Yes. That was established during the Regan Administration when a serious plan was set up that would have changed the military retirement pay calculation, and it was going to apply to anyone serving, not just those that joined after a specific date. Obviously it didn't go into effect, but it showed the government believe it had the authority to make the change and make it retroactive. Whether or not it would have survived a legal challenge after it took effect is another question.

Pullinteeth
08-14-2013, 06:20 PM
I heard about a CPO from the USS Germantown in Yokosuka sentenced to 90 days in the brig, reduction to Seaman Recruit and a Bad Conduct Discharge after being convicted of sexual assault.

Chief had 23 years of service, admitted that sex took place but that it was consensual and that she came on to him. Both sides agree she was drunk ... she says that he forced her to strip and that she complied with sex for about 5 minutes.

Once convicted the defense argued that denying him retirement would be punishing his family (wife and 4 children).

I wasn't in the court, but even if his side is completely true he definitely put himself in a pretty awkward situation (taking her to medical by himself after hours and/or into the Chief's Mess alone -- the story is a bit unclear).

So according to this, he FORCED her to strip then she willingly had sex for 5 minutes THEN said no? How exactly does that work?


I say no. Serving honorably means exactly that. The responsibility to serve honorably is not measured with a calendar. Regardless of years of service or milestones reached, serve honorably until the end.

What proof or even conjecture do you have that he didn't serve honorably for 23 years? If you recall, this is exactly how the AF (actually DFAS) got the JAG that was disbarred (twice) and practicing law for several decades without a license even after they were unable to bust him after his conviction by courts martial. DFAS established that the last time he served honorably was at his inital commissioning rank and while he wasn't actually busted, his retirement was based on that rank (I believe O-3) instead of his rank at retirement (O-6)...

efmbman
08-14-2013, 09:55 PM
What proof or even conjecture do you have that he didn't serve honorably for 23 years? If you recall, this is exactly how the AF (actually DFAS) got the JAG that was disbarred (twice) and practicing law for several decades without a license even after they were unable to bust him after his conviction by courts martial. DFAS established that the last time he served honorably was at his inital commissioning rank and while he wasn't actually busted, his retirement was based on that rank (I believe O-3) instead of his rank at retirement (O-6)...

Was this person retired, and then recalled to active duty for the purposes of the court-martial? If the crime for which he was court-martialed occurred while on active duty then I stand by my belief that he did not serve honorably. Maybe I am missing something, but that's how I see it.

Stalwart
08-15-2013, 12:47 PM
So according to this, he FORCED her to strip then she willingly had sex for 5 minutes THEN said no? How exactly does that work?

I would guess intimidation by rank &/or position.

Stalwart
08-15-2013, 12:48 PM
Was this person retired, and then recalled to active duty for the purposes of the court-martial? If the crime for which he was court-martialed occurred while on active duty then I stand by my belief that he did not serve honorably. Maybe I am missing something, but that's how I see it.

He was on active duty at the time.

Pullinteeth
08-15-2013, 01:48 PM
I would guess intimidation by rank &/or position.

I think you missed my point... He FORCED her to strip, she then WILLINGLY had sex for 5 minutes before deciding she just wasn't that into it? That doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

Chief Bosun
08-15-2013, 02:41 PM
I think you missed my point... He FORCED her to strip, she then WILLINGLY had sex for 5 minutes before deciding she just wasn't that into it? That doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

I agree, the two statements conflict. My take:

First, you have to remember that alcohol was involved, with the resulting impairment of judgement. For whatever reason (and it is not really important here) she felt compelled by him to disrobe. The important thing is she felt compelled to do this. Don't know what was said that may have led her to believe she was being compelled to do so.

Second, she may have felt at that point that the only way to get him to cease and desist was to give him what she believed he wanted from her. Yes, she could have said "no", raised a ruckus, and so forth, but with impaired judgement due to alcohol consumption she may have felt that was the path of least resistance until something happened that caused her to finally come to some of her senses and say "NO". Does not minimize the fact that she was not in control of the situation, the Chief was, and it would have been incumbent upon him to exercise restraint and not allowed the situation to develop as it did.

Stalwart
08-15-2013, 02:45 PM
I think you missed my point... He FORCED her to strip, she then WILLINGLY had sex for 5 minutes before deciding she just wasn't that into it? That doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

I understand your point, but do you think the only way to force someone to do something is by physically overpowering them?

Pullinteeth
08-15-2013, 04:05 PM
I agree, the two statements conflict. My take:

First, you have to remember that alcohol was involved, with the resulting impairment of judgement. For whatever reason (and it is not really important here) she felt compelled by him to disrobe. The important thing is she felt compelled to do this. Don't know what was said that may have led her to believe she was being compelled to do so.

Second, she may have felt at that point that the only way to get him to cease and desist was to give him what she believed he wanted from her. Yes, she could have said "no", raised a ruckus, and so forth, but with impaired judgement due to alcohol consumption she may have felt that was the path of least resistance until something happened that caused her to finally come to some of her senses and say "NO". Does not minimize the fact that she was not in control of the situation, the Chief was, and it would have been incumbent upon him to exercise restraint and not allowed the situation to develop as it did.

Still missing the point.... She didn't say she just had sex (after being FORCED to strip) to appease him, according to the OP she said she WILLINGLY had sex for the first five minutes....

Drunk or not, if someone FORCED me to say get behind the wheel of a car, I wouldn't WILLINGLY drive them somewhere for five minutes before deciding I didn't want to drive anymore. If I didn't want to get behind the wheel in the first place and had to be FORCED to do so, why would I suddenly be willing to drive?


I understand your point, but do you think the only way to force someone to do something is by physically overpowering them?

I am not sure you do...it isn't whether or not he forced her to do anything or whether there was any physical intimidation. My point was simply that it seems odd that AFTER he alllegedly FORCED her to strip, she claims to have had consentual sex for FIVE minutes before deciding she didn't want to bump uglies anymore....

Stalwart
08-15-2013, 04:38 PM
I was the original poster, what I said was:


... she says that he forced her to strip and that she complied with sex for about 5 minutes.

The disagreement / confusion may be over my use of the word "complied", which when I use it I relate to using a compliance technique on an attacker. They are not really willing to do what I want (move in a certain direction, release their grip etc.) but they comply because of the pain I am inflicting on them via the compliance technique.

I think Chief Bosun worded it best:


I agree, the two statements conflict. My take:

... For whatever reason (and it is not really important here) she felt compelled by him to disrobe. The important thing is she felt compelled to do this. Don't know what was said that may have led her to believe she was being compelled to do so.

Sorry for any confusion.

Pullinteeth
08-15-2013, 05:13 PM
Here we go...this provides some more info...still isn't all that clear but...

http://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/uss-germantown-chief-petty-officer-sentenced-for-sexual-assault-1.232848

imnohero
08-15-2013, 05:22 PM
So let's see:
90 days in jail, bad conduct discharge, sex offender, loses ability to practice medicine ever again. Sounds about right to me.

Wish I could see all the evidence instead of just reading the two sides to the story. There must have been something more than is in the article to find him guilty.

Pullinteeth
08-15-2013, 05:39 PM
So let's see:
90 days in jail, bad conduct discharge, sex offender, loses ability to practice medicine ever again. Sounds about right to me.

Wish I could see all the evidence instead of just reading the two sides to the story. There must have been something more than is in the article to find him guilty.

Since when is a CPO able to practice medicine in the first place? I didn't see that in the article anywhere...

imnohero
08-15-2013, 05:44 PM
I assumed "practice" in the sense of not-a-doctor.

From the article:

Just before jury deliberation for sentencing, defense attorney Lt. Mishonda Moseley argued that any punishment against Averell was unnecessary, since his three felony convictions would always follow him and prevent him ever practicing medicine.

Stalwart
08-15-2013, 07:15 PM
The Chief in question was a Corpsman (Navy enlisted medical personnel).

ExChief
08-24-2013, 06:35 AM
Navy “justice” is all about who you know, and where you fit in politically. Actually, it is a lot more political than the civilian court system. Let us take a look….

Lisa Nowak…Captain USN…a/k/a “Astro-nut”…stalks and tries to kidnap a fellow astronaut ( and romantic rival) who is an Air Force Officer and Junior in rank. Less than one week spent in jail…No court martial or NCIS involvement… dropped one rank and allowed to retire. Also, no brig time.

I wonder how much time in the brig the submarine commander in Groton received for his extramarital affair and trying to fake his own death?

The list goes on and on.

ExChief
08-24-2013, 06:36 AM
Navy “justice” is all about who you know, and where you fit in politically. Actually, it is a lot more political than the civilian court system. Let us take a look….

Lisa Nowak…Captain USN…a/k/a “Astro-nut”…stalks and tries to kidnap a fellow astronaut ( and romantic rival) who is an Air Force Officer and Junior in rank. Less than one week spent in jail…No court martial or NCIS involvement… dropped one rank and allowed to retire. Also, no brig time.

I wonder how much time in the brig the submarine commander in Groton received for his extramarital affair and trying to fake his own death?

The list goes on and on.