PDA

View Full Version : BMT First Sergeant removed for having different views on gay marriage than CC



Smeghead
08-16-2013, 07:18 PM
Seems like BMT just looks for ways to get back in the news.


http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20130816/NEWS05/308160021/AF-sgt-claims-he-fired-religious-views-gays

Pullinteeth
08-16-2013, 07:25 PM
already being discussed here;

http://forums.militarytimes.com/showthread.php?1590072-Chaplains-seek-protection-for-troops-to-share-views-on-homosexuality/page17

Class5Kayaker
08-16-2013, 08:24 PM
Did it bug anyone else that the AF Times article kept referring to his commander as his "company commander?"

Ummm....last time I checked the AF doesn't have companies. The times reportes should have a basic understanding of the differences between the services before they're allowed to write reports IMO. Or at least have an editor who knows his/her stuff.

tiredretiredE7
08-16-2013, 08:38 PM
Did it bug anyone else that the AF Times article kept referring to his commander as his "company commander?"

Ummm....last time I checked the AF doesn't have companies. The times reportes should have a basic understanding of the differences between the services before they're allowed to write reports IMO. Or at least have an editor who knows his/her stuff.

Maybe it is an inside joke since the AF seems to run itself like a company rather than a branch of the US military?

imported_AFKILO7
08-16-2013, 08:49 PM
Did it bug anyone else that the AF Times article kept referring to his commander as his "company commander?"

Ummm....last time I checked the AF doesn't have companies. The times reportes should have a basic understanding of the differences between the services before they're allowed to write reports IMO. Or at least have an editor who knows his/her stuff. I noticed the same thing..

Koa1121
08-16-2013, 09:38 PM
What stands out more to me.. The CC going full on to try and go after the MTI for something fairly petty, and the 1st Sgt apparently being treated like crap for sticking up for the instructor. I truly feel bad for anyone that gets non-vol'd to be an MTI these days.

rickmaze
08-16-2013, 10:40 PM
[QUOTE=Class5Kayaker;647357]Did it bug anyone else that the AF Times article kept referring to his commander as his "company commander?"

100 percent my fault, and we fixed the "company" instead of "squadron" reference as soon as it was pointed out to me. No offense intended, and I know better.

HAILEYSFOLKS
08-17-2013, 12:19 AM
Ok, this is really eating me up and I just gotta get this off my chest. This guy was my first sergeant in the past in this exact organization. I've been able to judge his abilities as a shirt and know first hand what kind of first sergeant he was. I'm only speaking for myself here, but he was one of the WORST first sergeants I've ever had (BMT or otherwise). From my own personal observations, he gave two poops about the MTI's. He was one of the biggest witch hunters of MTI's I have seen in BMT, and that says A LOT! I just don't have any sympathy for his story because I know directly how many careers he has helped train wreck. Ironically, the other "worst shirt" I've ever had was also a BMT SMSgt, go figure. I'm sure I'll get some negative replies because I know it's easy to sit here anonymously and rag on the guy but there is more to this story........I can promise that.

Silverback
08-17-2013, 01:22 AM
Haileyfolks,

You are right. I am sure this is more to this story. The guy is one year away from retirement, so if the worst case is he does not make Chief...Still I just am tired of reading articles that revolve around Lackland....I wouldn't mind seeing a positive Lackland story. I am probably asking for too much though.

tiredretiredE7
08-17-2013, 01:28 AM
Ok, this is really eating me up and I just gotta get this off my chest. This guy was my first sergeant in the past in this exact organization. I've been able to judge his abilities as a shirt and know first hand what kind of first sergeant he was. I'm only speaking for myself here, but he was one of the WORST first sergeants I've ever had (BMT or otherwise). From my own personal observations, he gave two poops about the MTI's. He was one of the biggest witch hunters of MTI's I have seen in BMT, and that says A LOT! I just don't have any sympathy for his story because I know directly how many careers he has helped train wreck. Ironically, the other "worst shirt" I've ever had was also a BMT SMSgt, go figure. I'm sure I'll get some negative replies because I know it's easy to sit here anonymously and rag on the guy but there is more to this story........I can promise that.

Watch this guy's interview. Complete absolute putz. His interview backups your perception of him. I know he must have his CCAF but must have done extremely poorly on his speech class:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2610160180001/airman-relieved-of-duties-over-beliefs/?playlist_id=2114913880001

imnohero
08-17-2013, 02:09 AM
What stands out more to me.. The CC going full on to try and go after the MTI for something fairly petty, and the 1st Sgt apparently being treated like crap for sticking up for the instructor. I truly feel bad for anyone that gets non-vol'd to be an MTI these days.

The article said something about the TI was instructing his troops and talking about the fall of the roman empire and said something about gay marriage?

The empire didn't fall because of homosexuality. This is not "fairly petty"...it's a theory (mostly discredited) from the 16th century, and a favorite among Christian circles because it supports their worldview. The empire declined over 4 centuries, and its treasury was more and more consumed by losing military battles and corrupt politicians, with the military conquest of the city of Rome in 410 and it's final overthrow in 460-ish. There are a host of military, political, and economic reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire. Not only is an in depth discussion of the fall of the Roman Empire inappropriate (and may be impossible) in BMT, explaining its fall as a result of homosexuality is clearly a biased interpretation of history.

So no, it's not petty, it's important. As to the 1st shirt, a self-proclaimed devout evangelical christian, he shouldn't be anywhere near BMT. Any more than you would think a devout Shiite Muslim should be. Send him to Creech or Sandestrom, where he can do any harm, and let him retire from there.

Koa1121
08-17-2013, 02:15 AM
Thanks for the history lesson hero. I'm sure you were in the dayroom and heard the entire lecture the MTI gave. Having been the one giving lectures in the dayroom as an MTI, I can tell you many, many sensitive subjects come up during talks with the flight. It is the instructor's job to professionaly deflect any sort of talk that could be considered inflamatory, but since I wasn't there in this situation, I won't speculate on the context of the conversation like the commander apparently did. I'm basing my opinion off of what I read, which was very little info about the actual incident with the MTI. The lesbian CC saw red as soon as she heard the MTI was critiqued by the trainees, and probably didn't even bother to ask the other 50 kids in the flight what happened, or the context of the conversation. It's typical behavior now at Lackland to villify MTI's before any due process. Also, to say that the 1st shirt needs to be shipped to Creech is immature at best.

imnohero
08-17-2013, 04:27 AM
no more immature than an E8 going to the press. If we are jumping to conclusions based on one person's version of an at least 4 sided story, then we can jump any direction.

SgtS
08-17-2013, 05:48 AM
I couldn't even finish the interview. That dude comes across as a total tool.

CJSmith
08-17-2013, 06:13 AM
Thanks for the history lesson hero. I'm sure you were in the dayroom and heard the entire lecture the MTI gave. Having been the one giving lectures in the dayroom as an MTI, I can tell you many, many sensitive subjects come up during talks with the flight. It is the instructor's job to professionaly deflect any sort of talk that could be considered inflamatory, but since I wasn't there in this situation, I won't speculate on the context of the conversation like the commander apparently did.

It's been awhile since I was in BMT, but I don't remember talking much. Lectures in the classroom were just that, lectures. We as a flight sat down and listened, no talking. Times change.

imnohero
08-17-2013, 02:51 PM
It's been awhile since I was in BMT, but I don't remember talking much. Lectures in the classroom were just that, lectures. We as a flight sat down and listened, no talking. Times change.

Well, as it so happens I know a person that is in BMT right now. I'll ask when they are done whether in depth discussion of the history of the roman empire was part of training.

imported_AFKILO7
08-17-2013, 03:15 PM
no more immature than an E8 going to the press. If we are jumping to conclusions based on one person's version of an at least 4 sided story, then we can jump any direction.

I have to say it seems pretty ballsy getting on television like that...

Absinthe Anecdote
08-17-2013, 03:29 PM
He almost started crying at one point and I couldn't tell if he was hamming it up or not.

Going on TV news while still on active duty isn't something I would do because I'm sure it could be used against you later; heck, I don't think I would ever go running to a news station in a situation like that.

imnohero
08-17-2013, 04:01 PM
Stripping away all the BS, after reading reading two articles, and seeing the interview...this is what appears to have happened:

1. TI says something about gay marriage while talking to his troops (accounts vary on why and what context). No one seems to dispute that he did.
2. 7 trainees filed complaints.
3. An investigation ensued and the TI got an LOC.
4. Some time AFTER than, the CC asked to talk to her 1st shirt about it. The conversation became heated or contentious. He volunteered to take leave. She said fine.
5. He was reassigned to a different unit, because his replacement was there and he was tour was over. His new assignment is commensurate with is rank and experience.

Doesn't sound to me like the guy was fired or punished at all. Sounds to me like he had a disagreement with is CC right before his reassignment date. Take away all the "religious liberty" press, attention grabbing stuff, and you end up with what seems like a routine military event. I mean, this isn't the first guy that didn't get along with his commander, you know?

Koa1121
08-17-2013, 04:16 PM
It's been awhile since I was in BMT, but I don't remember talking much. Lectures in the classroom were just that, lectures. We as a flight sat down and listened, no talking. Times change.

Things are way different now. There are actually scripted topics to be spoken about. While I doubt the Roman Empire is a topic, as it wasn't when I was there, I'm fairly positive DADT repeal is a topic that is covered. They are designed to be 2 way conversations with the trainees, and instructors. How he arrived at Roman Empire/gay marriage isn't something anyone outside of that day room knows. I just find it all too common that the commander's reaction was to go after the instructor's career. Although all he ended up with was an LOC, seems like the commander wanted blood.

OtisRNeedleman
08-17-2013, 04:40 PM
I have to say it seems pretty ballsy getting on television like that...


He has little to lose. He won't be a shirt again. Won't be getting promoted. Will be retiring at 20.

OtisRNeedleman
08-17-2013, 04:40 PM
Things are way different now. There are actually scripted topics to be spoken about. While I doubt the Roman Empire is a topic, as it wasn't when I was there, I'm fairly positive DADT repeal is a topic that is covered. They are designed to be 2 way conversations with the trainees, and instructors. How he arrived at Roman Empire/gay marriage isn't something anyone outside of that day room knows. I just find it all too common that the commander's reaction was to go after the instructor's career. Although all he ended up with was an LOC, seems like the commander wanted blood.

Nothing like an angry, insecure, unprofessional person...

imnohero
08-17-2013, 05:02 PM
Nothing like an angry, insecure, unprofessional [insert your bias here]...

There, fixed it for you.

AFcynic
08-17-2013, 05:11 PM
This whole situation speaks to a larger problem within the Air Force. Everyone involved got their feelings hurt, and no one had the courage to speak to the offending party about what was said. A trainee is well within his/her rights to inform their MTI that they were offended by XXX comment on XXX subject. Nine times out of ten, the MTI is going to have the sense to apologize to the trainee, smooth things over, and press on with training. This solves the problem at the lowest level, and it prevents the trainee from filing a critique to escalate the issue, causing the instructor to endure unnecessary a$$pain.

Since none of that happened, and critiques were filed, the matter has to be "investigated". The CC was obviously offended because someone she commands personally opposes her lifestyle. Since she is the commanding officer, and by law, required to be above reproach, she should have let the CCF and the SSgt speak their personal beliefs, and maintain a level of professionalism with them, so they come out looking like the bad guys. She was out for blood, and it tarnishes her command. The CCF should have kept his personal beliefs to himself when he knew full well that his boss is a lesbian. No one took a step back from the situation and tried to resolve it like grown-ups. Instead, we have a CCF making an A$$ of himself in print and visual media, a SSgt with a LOC, and a CC who will now be under the microscope. All of this because the seven trainees didn't have the courage to inform their instructor they took offense to a statement. These trainees feelings caused all of this irrational behavior, and now a new tolerance CBT is on its way to your ADLS main menu.

I'm 102% sure there are MTI's who hate blacks, Hispanics, Asians, white people, gays, Jews, Muslims, Christians, and people with unibrows. However, most of them are smart enough not to announce to their flight that they hold these views. They play the game, then go home and say whatever epithet they want to.

Smeghead
08-17-2013, 05:47 PM
... A trainee is well within his/her rights to inform their MTI that they were offended by XXX comment on XXX subject. Nine times out of ten, the MTI is going to have the sense to apologize to the trainee, smooth things over, and press on with training. This solves the problem at the lowest level, and it prevents the trainee from filing a critique to escalate the issue, causing the instructor to endure unnecessary a$$pain...

Why the hell would a trainee do that? They're instructed from day one that they can jump the Chain of Command anytime they feel like it. These are the "Airmen" that are coming to you guys in the field.

LogDog
08-17-2013, 06:01 PM
This whole situation speaks to a larger problem within the Air Force. Everyone involved got their feelings hurt, and no one had the courage to speak to the offending party about what was said. A trainee is well within his/her rights to inform their MTI that they were offended by XXX comment on XXX subject. Nine times out of ten, the MTI is going to have the sense to apologize to the trainee, smooth things over, and press on with training. This solves the problem at the lowest level, and it prevents the trainee from filing a critique to escalate the issue, causing the instructor to endure unnecessary a$$pain.
It's been over 30 years since I was in Basic but some things don't change like telling the TI you are offended by what they said. Most trainees are afraid to say anything to the TI.


Since none of that happened, and critiques were filed, the matter has to be "investigated". The CC was obviously offended because someone she commands personally opposes her lifestyle. Since she is the commanding officer, and by law, required to be above reproach, she should have let the CCF and the SSgt speak their personal beliefs, and maintain a level of professionalism with them, so they come out looking like the bad guys. She was out for blood, and it tarnishes her command. The CCF should have kept his personal beliefs to himself when he knew full well that his boss is a lesbian. No one took a step back from the situation and tried to resolve it like grown-ups. Instead, we have a CCF making an A$$ of himself in print and visual media, a SSgt with a LOC, and a CC who will now be under the microscope. All of this because the seven trainees didn't have the courage to inform their instructor they took offense to a statement. These trainees feelings caused all of this irrational behavior, and now a new tolerance CBT is on its way to your ADLS main menu.
I don't think the CC was upset because someone was offended by her lifestyle but rather she was upset by the behavior of the First Sergeant.


I'm 102% sure there are MTI's who hate blacks, Hispanics, Asians, white people, gays, Jews, Muslims, Christians, and people with unibrows. However, most of them are smart enough not to announce to their flight that they hold these views. They play the game, then go home and say whatever epithet they want to.
You don't have to approve of another person's beliefs, sex, creeds, or religions but as a military member you must not use your position to promote your beliefs. The SSgt the SMSgt was talking about did just that; he used his position to promote his personal belief.

loadsmith
08-18-2013, 12:44 AM
[QUOTE=tiredretiredE7;647390]Watch this guy's interview. Complete absolute putz. His interview backups your perception of him. I know he must have his CCAF but must have done extremely poorly on his speech class QUOTE]

Christ, after my second attempt I made it through that train wreck of an interview. Not too certain what him "fighting" in Balad, Iraq has anything to do with his current fight. Is that some "Christian street cred" by saying you prayed for all the wounded soldiers you treated?

I blame him for us having to redo Course 14 with the new Version 6.

OtisRNeedleman
08-18-2013, 04:37 AM
Nothing like an angry, insecure, unprofessional person...

I see political correctness strikes again....nothing disruptive about describing the commander in question...

technomage1
08-18-2013, 11:16 AM
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/airmen-punished-for-objecting-to-gay-marriage.html

This link has a better text story that isn't painful to watch as the interview. I'm not sure the original incident with the TI was much of anything, but this just smacks of the same old garbage of evangelicals complaining they can't do or say whatever they want at work then crying their religious liberties have been violated when they can't share their faith or bigotry. News flash: none of us can. If I disagree with Hispanics serving (and I don't care, this is just an example) I can certainly feel that way but I can't speak or act different to Hispanics at work.

technomage1
08-18-2013, 11:24 AM
It's been over 30 years since I was in Basic but some things don't change like telling the TI you are offended by what they said. Most trainees are afraid to say anything to the TI.


I don't think the CC was upset because someone was offended by her lifestyle but rather she was upset by the behavior of the First Sergeant.


You don't have to approve of another person's beliefs, sex, creeds, or religions but as a military member you must not use your position to promote your beliefs. The SSgt the SMSgt was talking about did just that; he used his position to promote his personal belief.

I agree with you. The TI has 100% control over your life at that point. It's very hard to complain to them given that. You're supposed to just snap to when they talk to you.

MACHINE666
08-18-2013, 12:28 PM
She was just angry that when she grabbed his junk, the SMSgt said he didn't like the 'other white meat', and so she fired him on the spot! Even lesbians have straight moments from time to time, and he can't claim 'sexual harassment' since he's a WASP!!!

:D :D :D :D :D

DWWSWWD
08-19-2013, 01:45 PM
A little nugget that I try hard to bear in mind.... When my personal opinion differs from my professional opinion, I keep my personal opinion to myself. Gays and same sex marriage with benefits is what we do now. For me to say I disagree the policy is no different than if I were to say I don't think there should be blacks in the Air Force. That ship has sailed. If you jack that up and then go on TV crying about it, you're a douche.

tiredretiredE7
08-19-2013, 02:03 PM
A little nugget that I try hard to bear in mind.... When my personal opinion differs from my professional opinion, I keep my personal opinion to myself. Gays and same sex marriage with benefits is what we do now. For me to say I disagree the policy is no different than if I were to say I don't think there should be blacks in the Air Force. That ship has sailed. If you jack that up and then go on TV crying about it, you're a douche.

Did you watch his interview in the link from my previous post? This guy is way worse than a douche and probably would/will be a Chief before he retires if gets a MSM from this assignment. He completely stumbled threw the interview and had rambling excuses for what happened.

sandsjames
08-19-2013, 02:53 PM
A little nugget that I try hard to bear in mind.... When my personal opinion differs from my professional opinion, I keep my personal opinion to myself. Gays and same sex marriage with benefits is what we do now. For me to say I disagree the policy is no different than if I were to say I don't think there should be blacks in the Air Force. That ship has sailed. If you jack that up and then go on TV crying about it, you're a douche.

I don't think your comparison works at all. Two completely different things. And it's sad to know you feel forced to keep your opinion to yourself. I find it hard to trust my leaders who are afraid to let us know how they really feel about something. It's almost like they are going through the motions. Stating your opinion about something and enforcing standards you disagree with are two different things. I'd rather have someone tell me they disagree with it but I need to STFU and deal with it because that's what we are expected to do. I'd rather have a human leader than a robot who just repeats what he's been told to say.

imnohero
08-19-2013, 03:03 PM
These last two posts by tired and sand, hit on a broader topic that is often a struggle for leadership...or even line NCOs. How do we balance our personal opinions against standards and policy we disagree with? When and where is it appropriate to express disagreement with policy? And at what point does our personal opinion differ enough from policy that we need to consider separation?

The answers are probably as varied as individuals. Though i would suggest that disagreement with policy goes UP the chain, never across or down. I struggled with these questions toward the end of my career, during my last enlistment. I decided to put in my papers rather than stay in, I thought at the time (and still do) that both the AF and I would be better off.

TJMAC77SP
08-19-2013, 03:20 PM
It's been awhile since I was in BMT, but I don't remember talking much. Lectures in the classroom were just that, lectures. We as a flight sat down and listened, no talking. Times change.

I was in BMT in 1977 and there were discussions in the dayroom. In fact as time went on it was the closest we saw to the TI actually being a human being.

DWWSWWD
08-19-2013, 03:44 PM
I don't think your comparison works at all. Two completely different things. And it's sad to know you feel forced to keep your opinion to yourself. I find it hard to trust my leaders who are afraid to let us know how they really feel about something. It's almost like they are going through the motions. Stating your opinion about something and enforcing standards you disagree with are two different things. I'd rather have someone tell me they disagree with it but I need to STFU and deal with it because that's what we are expected to do. I'd rather have a human leader than a robot who just repeats what he's been told to say. Good point, SJ. I'm glad you brought it up. What value would my disagreeing with gays in the military have to this discussion? Would it add to my effectiveness as a leader or detract from it? Folks that know me would tell you that I am the last person that would keep my opinion to myself if it is a policy issue affecting my teammates. Just last week I had to chat with a CCM over something that I thought was stupid and it affected on of my folks. I'd be happy to use it as an example but it was a very specific issue and this is a small pond. I speak to a lot of people pretty often. For me to say, "Personally, I can't stand gay people and think they have no place in the military but professionally, I think it's a great idea and I'll support it because I'm bound to by regulation." Not going to happen. It's divisive and hurtful and when I get to the point that I disagree with something so vehemently that I can no longer be professional, I'll retire.

CJSmith
08-19-2013, 04:07 PM
I was in BMT in 1977 and there were discussions in the dayroom. In fact as time went on it was the closest we saw to the TI actually being a human being.

Guess it varies. Or my TI was a major DB. Probably the latter.

sandsjames
08-19-2013, 04:18 PM
Good point, SJ. I'm glad you brought it up. What value would my disagreeing with gays in the military have to this discussion? Would it add to my effectiveness as a leader or detract from it? Folks that know me would tell you that I am the last person that would keep my opinion to myself if it is a policy issue affecting my teammates. Just last week I had to chat with a CCM over something that I thought was stupid and it affected on of my folks. I'd be happy to use it as an example but it was a very specific issue and this is a small pond. I speak to a lot of people pretty often. For me to say, "Personally, I can't stand gay people and think they have no place in the military but professionally, I think it's a great idea and I'll support it because I'm bound to by regulation." Not going to happen. It's divisive and hurtful and when I get to the point that I disagree with something so vehemently that I can no longer be professional, I'll retire.

It's also divisive and hurtful to blindly support everything. Not just on the gay marriage thing. I don't care whether you support it or not. It's every topic that gets blindly supported. I know it's our "job" (before I retired!!!!!!) to support the leadership. But it's just as divisive to one side when you blindly support as it is to the other side if you voice your opinion. What I'm saying is I'd rather work for someone who voices their opinion AND supports the regs. I thought it was stupid we had to walk 200 yards to a smoking area. I let people know this, but I also made sure everyone was in that area when smoking. You CAN have it both ways. I think it enhances the supervisor/subordinate relationship.

DWWSWWD
08-19-2013, 04:34 PM
It's every topic that gets blindly supported. Not from me. Here are a few things that I think are stupid that I have signed my name to and spoke to in very public forums.

-Referral EPRs and redlined promotions for some people but not others, for a first time PT failure
-No hats with PT gear (stupid wing rule that I finally got changed)
-Wrong color running shoes - the right shoe for an Airman is the one that fits him best
-Saluting a staff car in PT gear -never heard of this until today but if it comes here, I'd let the CCM know that he's being stupid
-Mandatory Airmans' Creed at a high profile event - I'm running the event, we're not saying it (longer story there)
-Prayer at another one of my events (no)
-Artificial strat or SR requirements

Other things aren't for public consumption but happen every day behind the boss' door. Things I don't offer an opinion on are such as gay marriage, religion, politics, same sex benefits etc. I have friends for that.

TJMAC77SP
08-19-2013, 06:08 PM
Guess it varies. Or my TI was a major DB. Probably the latter.

We had one of each....thankfully the team leader was somewhat human. Funny point considering this thread she was one of the gayest women I have ever met in the military. She was pretty cool. Being a TI was her job and she didn't sleep with the hat on. The junior member................total douchbag.

tiredretiredE7
08-19-2013, 08:03 PM
Not from me. Here are a few things that I think are stupid that I have signed my name to and spoke to in very public forums.

-Referral EPRs and redlined promotions for some people but not others, for a first time PT failure
-No hats with PT gear (stupid wing rule that I finally got changed)
-Wrong color running shoes - the right shoe for an Airman is the one that fits him best
-Saluting a staff car in PT gear -never heard of this until today but if it comes here, I'd let the CCM know that he's being stupid
-Mandatory Airmans' Creed at a high profile event - I'm running the event, we're not saying it (longer story there)
-Prayer at another one of my events (no)
-Artificial strat or SR requirements

Other things aren't for public consumption but happen every day behind the boss' door. Things I don't offer an opinion on are such as gay marriage, religion, politics, same sex benefits etc. I have friends for that.

I attempted to make the best use of the repeal of DADT. In SF we always have issues with having enough women available to conduct searches of female suspects. There were a lot of times when due to leave, injury or pregnancy on a SF flight that we would be short of women when we needed them most. The repeal of DADT allowed for a golden opportunity to negate the shortage of women by allowing gay men to search female suspects. Civilian male officers can conduct a more thorough "frisk" of a female suspect than AD SF so why not make the logical leap and change AF policy to allow gay men to search female suspects? We had and currently have lesbians searching women suspects but they are in short supply. There simply in no difference of a gay man searching a female suspect as opposed to a lesbian searching a female suspect. I raised this issue to our visiting SF Chief from HQ and he simply said the topic has already been brought up and is being discussed. I retired shortly after the visit and never got an answer.

sandsjames
08-19-2013, 09:46 PM
Not from me. Here are a few things that I think are stupid that I have signed my name to and spoke to in very public forums.

-Referral EPRs and redlined promotions for some people but not others, for a first time PT failure
-No hats with PT gear (stupid wing rule that I finally got changed)
-Wrong color running shoes - the right shoe for an Airman is the one that fits him best
-Saluting a staff car in PT gear -never heard of this until today but if it comes here, I'd let the CCM know that he's being stupid
-Mandatory Airmans' Creed at a high profile event - I'm running the event, we're not saying it (longer story there)
-Prayer at another one of my events (no)
-Artificial strat or SR requirements

Other things aren't for public consumption but happen every day behind the boss' door. Things I don't offer an opinion on are such as gay marriage, religion, politics, same sex benefits etc. I have friends for that.

Differing views, I guess. My guys were very well of my beliefs on the things you brought up, and I was aware of theirs. They were also aware that discussion/debate on the topics was not to take place at work. It's easier for me, as a leader (before I retired!!!!!) to know how to talk to someone in a counseling session if I know where they are coming from and they know where I'm coming from. As long as those beliefs don't sway my decisions then it's not a problem. I like to humanize people. I don't like to look at them as just another GI who has to do what I tell them.

Smeghead
08-20-2013, 12:00 AM
Guess it varies. Or my TI was a major DB. Probably the latter.

It was probably me.

ConfusedAirman
08-20-2013, 01:20 AM
I don't think your comparison works at all. Two completely different things. And it's sad to know you feel forced to keep your opinion to yourself. I find it hard to trust my leaders who are afraid to let us know how they really feel about something. It's almost like they are going through the motions. Stating your opinion about something and enforcing standards you disagree with are two different things. I'd rather have someone tell me they disagree with it but I need to STFU and deal with it because that's what we are expected to do. I'd rather have a human leader than a robot who just repeats what he's been told to say. This particular situation of shared opinions may have crossed a legal boundary into creation of a hostile work environment. If so, that is the line that can't be crossed when sharing opinions. If you want to share your opinion about your boss' stupid order to paint rocks, go for it. If you want to share opinions about an issue where your opinion is contrary to EEO laws, then you may find yourself accused of creating a hostile work environment - especially if you are in authority. But with that said, I'm not so sure that sexual orientation has been added to the federal list of prohibited discrimination (sex, age, disability, race/color, national origin, and some others).

sandsjames
08-20-2013, 01:24 AM
This particular situation of shared opinions may have crossed a legal boundary into creation of a hostile work environment. If so, that is the line that can't be crossed when sharing opinions. If you want to share your opinion about your boss' stupid order to paint rocks, go for it. If you want to share opinions about an issue where your opinion is contrary to EEO laws, then you may find yourself accused of creating a hostile work environment - especially if you are in authority. But with that said, I'm not so sure that sexual orientation has been added to the federal list of prohibited discrimination (sex, age, disability, race/color, national origin, and some others).

Sexual preference will not be added to the list. It will get it's own category, like it has with everything else. It's outside all known rules.

imnohero
08-20-2013, 01:40 AM
But with that said, I'm not so sure that sexual orientation has been added to the federal list of prohibited discrimination (sex, age, disability, race/color, national origin, and some others).

There is no current federal law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual preference. Several states, and some localities have laws that include it.

Mastercone
08-20-2013, 04:45 PM
I attempted to make the best use of the repeal of DADT. In SF we always have issues with having enough women available to conduct searches of female suspects. There were a lot of times when due to leave, injury or pregnancy on a SF flight that we would be short of women when we needed them most. The repeal of DADT allowed for a golden opportunity to negate the shortage of women by allowing gay men to search female suspects. Civilian male officers can conduct a more thorough "frisk" of a female suspect than AD SF so why not make the logical leap and change AF policy to allow gay men to search female suspects? We had and currently have lesbians searching women suspects but they are in short supply. There simply in no difference of a gay man searching a female suspect as opposed to a lesbian searching a female suspect. I raised this issue to our visiting SF Chief from HQ and he simply said the topic has already been brought up and is being discussed. I retired shortly after the visit and never got an answer.

I read your post with some amusement. In applying your thinking, would gay male SPs(or SFs for the politically correct) still be allowed to search males? Moreover, how many heterosexual males might volunteer as being homosexual for no other reason than an opportunity to search female suspects? Please note that female suspects that require a search is rare because there are far fewer female suspects as compared to males. Further, strip searches or cavity searches, with emphasis on the cavity searches, can more effectively be accomplished by the doctor(s) at the base ER.

When you referred to civilian male officers, I presume you are referring to DoD contract guards. I am curious as to why they would be allowed to search female suspects in contrast to existing policy whereas they cannot even issue citations(DD Form 1408--DD Form 1805) for traffic infractions?

Lastly, if we are going this far, then why not just eliminate the need for male and female restrooms and create a unisex environment where sex no longer matters?

SomeRandomGuy
08-20-2013, 05:09 PM
I attempted to make the best use of the repeal of DADT. In SF we always have issues with having enough women available to conduct searches of female suspects. There were a lot of times when due to leave, injury or pregnancy on a SF flight that we would be short of women when we needed them most. The repeal of DADT allowed for a golden opportunity to negate the shortage of women by allowing gay men to search female suspects. Civilian male officers can conduct a more thorough "frisk" of a female suspect than AD SF so why not make the logical leap and change AF policy to allow gay men to search female suspects? We had and currently have lesbians searching women suspects but they are in short supply. There simply in no difference of a gay man searching a female suspect as opposed to a lesbian searching a female suspect. I raised this issue to our visiting SF Chief from HQ and he simply said the topic has already been brought up and is being discussed. I retired shortly after the visit and never got an answer.

I can't tell if you are serious or not here. I fully believe that you may have suggested this idea but I think you realize it would be impossible to implement. Do you really think a female is going to be ok with a male frisking her as long as he says he is gay? This would be sort of like re-labeling all restrooms by sexual orientation. One would say if you like dudes use this restroom and the other would say if you like women use this restroom. That would mean Straight men and gay women use the same restroom and gay men and straight women use the same. Bi-sexuals could obviously use either one based on whichever line is shorter.

imnohero
08-20-2013, 05:31 PM
Bi-sexuals could obviously use either one based on whichever line is shorter.

I don't know if you intended that to be funny, but it is.

20+Years
08-20-2013, 06:22 PM
I can't tell if you are serious or not here. I fully believe that you may have suggested this idea but I think you realize it would be impossible to implement. Do you really think a female is going to be ok with a male frisking her as long as he says he is gay? This would be sort of like re-labeling all restrooms by sexual orientation. One would say if you like dudes use this restroom and the other would say if you like women use this restroom. That would mean Straight men and gay women use the same restroom and gay men and straight women use the same. Bi-sexuals could obviously use either one based on whichever line is shorter.

The female would be much more ok with it if the gay male would compliment her shoes and blouse while doing the search.

imported_AFKILO7
08-20-2013, 06:37 PM
I read your post with some amusement. In applying your thinking, would gay male SPs(or SFs for the politically correct) still be allowed to search males? Moreover, how many heterosexual males might volunteer as being homosexual for no other reason than an opportunity to search female suspects? Please note that female suspects that require a search is rare because there are far fewer female suspects as compared to males. Further, strip searches or cavity searches, with emphasis on the cavity searches, can more effectively be accomplished by the doctor(s) at the base ER.

When you referred to civilian male officers, I presume you are referring to DoD contract guards. I am curious as to why they would be allowed to search female suspects in contrast to existing policy whereas they cannot even issue citations(DD Form 1408--DD Form 1805) for traffic infractions?

Lastly, if we are going this far, then why not just eliminate the need for male and female restrooms and create a unisex environment where sex no longer matters?

How many people have you apprehended? I can say with utmost certainty that I have come close to a 50/50 ratio of male/female so your assumption doesn't hold up. Your statement concerning strip searches of cavity searches is mute as well (this statement itself led me to believe you do not have experience as a SFS member) Security Forces does not do cavity or strip searches on males or females. Now as a male I have only had to do a pat down of a female suspect twice during an apprehension. There are specific rules concerning the procedure (back side of hand) with an additional patrolman present. The reason it is conducted is to ensure the suspect does not have a weapon before transporting the suspect in your vehicle...officer safety.

Finally the last thing I will touch upon is your comment regarding cilivian officers. The civilian officers I've met can issue 1408's and 1805's...

Class5Kayaker
08-20-2013, 08:28 PM
Did it bug anyone else that the AF Times article kept referring to his commander as his "company commander?"

100 percent my fault, and we fixed the "company" instead of "squadron" reference as soon as it was pointed out to me. No offense intended, and I know better.

WOW....speaks volumes of your professional work ethic to not only correct it but create an MTF account and post that you made a mistake and corrected it. :thumb

We need more people like you in all professions these days.

Mastercone
08-20-2013, 10:45 PM
How many people have you apprehended? I can say with utmost certainty that I have come close to a 50/50 ratio of male/female so your assumption doesn't hold up. Your statement concerning strip searches of cavity searches is mute as well (this statement itself led me to believe you do not have experience as a SFS member) Security Forces does not do cavity or strip searches on males or females. Now as a male I have only had to do a pat down of a female suspect twice during an apprehension. There are specific rules concerning the procedure (back side of hand) with an additional patrolman present. The reason it is conducted is to ensure the suspect does not have a weapon before transporting the suspect in your vehicle...officer safety.

Finally the last thing I will touch upon is your comment regarding cilivian officers. The civilian officers I've met can issue 1408's and 1805's...


Many thanks for your reply. It's shocking to think that 50% of your apprehensions have occurred with female suspects when the female population in the Air Force is less than 20%. This statistic cannot be that much different for the other service branches.

In my 1st hitch, I spent 4 years in Law Enforcement from '77-'81 when the AFSC was separate(811X2). I'm sure it was a far different Air Force then from what I have read lately. Nonetheless, I made many apprehensions during those four years and some of the best resulted from Random Vehicle Inspections (RVIs). In fact, I made military case law based on an appeal concerning probable cause to detain and search under US v. BRAY, 1981.

While the female population was likely smaller then than what it is today, I perhaps apprehended only one female suspect in that four years. Back then, every SP flight had at least one female member assigned but not solely for the purposes of searching female suspects.

As for your assertion concerning strip search and body cavity searches, they are always performed when drugs are suspected or the case is drug related. Of course, rank and file patrolmen practically never perform these strip searches as these are done by members assigned to the unit's investigation branch as they have more experience. During the strip search, a determination can be made to proceed to the base hospital for a doctor to remove any suspected objects or potential evidence extruding from a body cavity. This is exactly what was done in the case cited above where a baggie containing 35 Quaaludes was removed from the suspect's anus. And, yes, I am glad it wasn't me doing that search. For what it's worth, the term you should have used is 'moot' and not 'mute'.

As for your point concerning DoD civilian police, I fully agree. But the operative phrase in my post was "I presume you are referring to DoD contract guards." As far as I know, contract guards merely man the installation entry points(gates) and do not issue citations.

The bottom line is that under exigent circumstances, involving firearms or some other violent activity, searches of male or female suspects by either sex won't matter and it's highly doubtful there would by any repercussions due to the circumstances.

Air Force Military Demographics
http://www.afpc.af.mil/library/airforcepersonneldemographics.asp

imported_AFKILO7
08-21-2013, 03:02 AM
Many thanks for your reply. It's shocking to think that 50% of your apprehensions have occurred with female suspects when the female population in the Air Force is less than 20%. This statistic cannot be that much different for the other service branches.

In my 1st hitch, I spent 4 years in Law Enforcement from '77-'81 when the AFSC was separate(811X2). I'm sure it was a far different Air Force then from what I have read lately. Nonetheless, I made many apprehensions during those four years and some of the best resulted from Random Vehicle Inspections (RVIs). In fact, I made military case law based on an appeal concerning probable cause to detain and search under US v. BRAY, 1981.

While the female population was likely smaller then than what it is today, I perhaps apprehended only one female suspect in that four years. Back then, every SP flight had at least one female member assigned but not solely for the purposes of searching female suspects.

As for your assertion concerning strip search and body cavity searches, they are always performed when drugs are suspected or the case is drug related. Of course, rank and file patrolmen practically never perform these strip searches as these are done by members assigned to the unit's investigation branch as they have more experience. During the strip search, a determination can be made to proceed to the base hospital for a doctor to remove any suspected objects or potential evidence extruding from a body cavity. This is exactly what was done in the case cited above where a baggie containing 35 Quaaludes was removed from the suspect's anus. And, yes, I am glad it wasn't me doing that search. For what it's worth, the term you should have used is 'moot' and not 'mute'.

As for your point concerning DoD civilian police, I fully agree. But the operative phrase in my post was "I presume you are referring to DoD contract guards." As far as I know, contract guards merely man the installation entry points(gates) and do not issue citations.

The bottom line is that under exigent circumstances, involving firearms or some other violent activity, searches of male or female suspects by either sex won't matter and it's highly doubtful there would by any repercussions due to the circumstances.

Air Force Military Demographics
http://www.afpc.af.mil/library/airforcepersonneldemographics.asp

Nowadays cavity searches are NOT done by anyone in Security Forces...period. Most of my apprehensions have been the result of DUI's with the remainder coming from domestics, warrants, and a few drug finds by way of MWD. Sorry about the grammatical error of mute and moot. Sometimes I get going on my iPad and then my high school grammar teacher (reincarnate) strikes out...


EDIT: It just occurred to me that SFS members involved with corrections may perform the cavity search. May key word here, never done corrections.

And thank you for your service.

Class5Kayaker
08-21-2013, 01:54 PM
As for your point concerning DoD civilian police, I fully agree. But the operative phrase in my post was "I presume you are referring to DoD contract guards." As far as I know, contract guards merely man the installation entry points(gates) and do not issue citations.

I doubt there's any CONUS installations out there where the gate guards are contracted instead of sworn DOD these days because of Title 10 United States Code Section 2465:


Statutory Restrictions on Contracting for Firefighting or Security Guard Functions
(Title 10 United States Code Section 2465)

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), funds appropriated to Department of Defense may not be obligated or expended for the purpose of entering into a contract for the performance of fire-fighting or security-guard functions at any military installation or facility.

(b) The prohibition in subsection (a) does not apply to the following contracts:


(1) A contract to be carried out at a location outside the United States (including its commonwealths, territories, and possessions) at which members of the armed forces would have to be used for the performance of a function described in subsection (a) at the expense of unit readiness.
(2) A contract to be carried out on a Government-owned but privately operated installation.
(3) A contract (or the renewal of a contract) for the performance of a function under contract on September 24, 1983.
(4) A contract for the performance of firefighting functions if the contract is-


(A) for a period of one year or less; and
(B) covers only the performance of firefighting functions that, in the absence of the contract, would have to be performed by members of the armed forces who are not readily available to perform such functions by reason of a deployment.

Juggs
08-21-2013, 11:45 PM
Haileyfolks,

You are right. I am sure this is more to this story. The guy is one year away from retirement, so if the worst case is he does not make Chief...Still I just am tired of reading articles that revolve around Lackland....I wouldn't mind seeing a positive Lackland story. I am probably asking for too much though.

Here is the headline

"Hundreds of trainees and MTIs do absolutely nothing illegal".

Mastercone
08-21-2013, 11:46 PM
Nowadays cavity searches are NOT done by anyone in Security Forces...period.....

EDIT: It just occurred to me that SFS members involved with corrections may perform the cavity search. May key word here, never done corrections.

I took the time to look back at my original post and I now see the ambiguity I created that has led to this exchange. I apologize. To be clear, strip searches were done, at least back then, in every instance involving drugs, drug possession, etc. If during the strip search, it was believed or observed that an orifice needed to be searched, the suspect(s) were ALWAYS transported to the base hospital so that the attending doctor (ER physician that is usually available 24/7) could use the proper techniques for removal of suspected contraband/evidence/etc.

In corrections, the prisoners were always searched, typically with a pat down, upon return from appointments, chow, etc. I suppose the same rules applied if something further was suspected.

Mastercone
08-22-2013, 12:02 AM
I doubt there's any CONUS installations out there where the gate guards are contracted instead of sworn DOD these days because of Title 10 United States Code Section 2465:


Statutory Restrictions on Contracting for Firefighting or Security Guard Functions
(Title 10 United States Code Section 2465)

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), funds appropriated to Department of Defense may not be obligated or expended for the purpose of entering into a contract for the performance of fire-fighting or security-guard functions at any military installation or facility......

[/INDENT][/INDENT]

Thanks for pointing this out as I stand corrected. It's obvious that my knowledge on this particular topic is a bit outdated by a few years since I am out of the loop and no longer on active duty. In fact, my father-in-law and I drove out to Lackland today hoping to see a contract guard, or at least what I believed would be a contract guard, in an effort to check the shoulder patch on the uniform. Incredibly, it's as if they all had the day off because there were nothing but active duty on the gates. I asked one guard if they were DoD or contract guards and he affirmed that they were DoD. Well, needless to say, part of the confusion is the fact that the contractor guard uniforms are remarkably similar and, to be honest, I stopped paying attention years ago and have never since recognized the difference.

Early on, in the aftermath of 9-11, there were contract guards at Lackland and Fort Sam Houston and I know they were unable to issue citations. DoD Police, Air Force Police, Army Police, and civilians from other services are very similar to the DoD Civilian Police of years past who were all DoD civilians.

See, you can learn something new everyday.

Here is a recent auction of several thousand DoD Police badges that sold via a government surplus contractor auction which tells me that there must be new style badges being issued:

5944 ea (apprx), Civilian Police Badge, Silver Mid Lux Polish, Mid Detail Finish, Unembossed, For Use By Approved Civilian Officers Of Civil, Federal, State, Or Local Authority
http://www.govliquidation.com/auction/view?auctionId=6335076

tiredretiredE7
08-25-2013, 03:29 AM
I can't tell if you are serious or not here. I fully believe that you may have suggested this idea but I think you realize it would be impossible to implement. Do you really think a female is going to be ok with a male frisking her as long as he says he is gay? This would be sort of like re-labeling all restrooms by sexual orientation. One would say if you like dudes use this restroom and the other would say if you like women use this restroom. That would mean Straight men and gay women use the same restroom and gay men and straight women use the same. Bi-sexuals could obviously use either one based on whichever line is shorter.

I knew some SF female who were Ok with being searched by men but we obviously skipped the groin/breast area. I was searched quite frequently in my career by SF females. The first was a close friend who was had to certify for her job and needed a body to search so she asked if she could search me. Of course I didn't say no but again we skipped my groin area. I did have the unfortunate experience of being "dead body" searched when I was an instructor but some uncaring SF females. It was part of the job and we did not have any female instructors. These women did not skip my groin area. The even bigger problem was they were just instructed not to search the "groin" area during a "dead body: search but they did it anyway and crushed my family jewels. I pcsed and they finally got a female instructor. I heard she was felt up during a "dead body" search by a man and ofcourse she filed a complaint against the male instructors. So SRG you are correct some women will complain if a man searches them.

I was at an assignment in USAFE where both HN men and women used the same showers in the HN dorm. Single men in our unit were also assigned to the dorm and I did shower with HN women. I also sat in our sauna with nude HN women during the duty day. American women were not allowed in the dorm because of the possibility of HN men using the shower designated for women. Female janitors would clean the urinals while men were utilizing the bathroom. The HN have since built their own sauna and the US sauna now has clothing requirements. The dorm issue still exists but no US men have complained about showering with HN women in 20 years. Several commanders have been relieved of duty for doing stupid things at work such as strippers in the club (late 80's) and being overly touchy with women at work (early 90s). I have some other unbelievable stories from this assignment but I have a feeling they would get me banned. I will not tell anyone the name of this base but it is still open. However an even better assignment is now available in Poland, I wish I was still AD :(.