PDA

View Full Version : 2006 civilian conviction taking this E9 down?



tiredretiredE7
10-29-2014, 04:32 PM
http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20141027/NEWS/310270055/Tech-made-chief-7-years-despite-2006-conviction

This guy was convicted by a civilian court, spent time in jail as a TSgt in 2006 and is now a E9 (this guy is no Chief). Had a history of strange behaviors accused of rape but is now being looked at for his past crimes. The only thing they could get him on now is the Laughtenburg Act prevents anyone who has been found guilty of domestic violence at any level from carrying a firearm in an official capacity. This form is required to be filled out and signed by all SF when they inprocess a new unit and all SF are very aware of this act even if they somehow were not required to sign the form during inprocessing. I believe the AF will go all out and try to prosecute him for the sexual assault accusation from the story. He is an idiot if he did not already drop his retirement papers.

SomeRandomGuy
10-29-2014, 05:20 PM
How the hell did he not get a really shitty EPR when all of this was going on? I bet he has all 5s just like everyone else.

TJMAC77SP
10-29-2014, 05:39 PM
How the hell did he not get a really shitty EPR when all of this was going on? I bet he has all 5s just like everyone else.

The article was wrong about one thing, he was boarded for both E-8 and E-9 and I don't see how the hell he made either rank.

Mata Leao
10-29-2014, 05:56 PM
The guy is creepy for sure, but it seems like he was possibly a Golden Boy who "they" wanted to protect. Base officials knew about him but did little or nothing at all. The fact that he is now being drug through the mud for something that wasn't handled properly 10 years ago stinks. Those in charge at the time should be held accountable.

So what is the answer? take away rank? Money? What about those who did nothing? Should they get the same thing?

LogDog
10-29-2014, 05:59 PM
This whole story just doesn't make sense.

1. If he served 14 days in jail you'd think his duty section and commander would have known about it because he'd have been absent from duty. Did he take leave to serve his sentence without anyone there knowing where he really was?

2. The OSI conducted the investigation so didn't they tell his commander or First Sergeant they were investigating him? The article says a detective questioned a MSgt who knew him so that should have clued people something was happening.

3. He was stationed in Massachusetts so the local media would have been on the story and asking questions to the base commander about it. How could base/unit leadership not be aware of the case?

Somewhere, somehow, the system failed and answers are needed to be found as to who and why.

tiredretiredE7
10-29-2014, 06:00 PM
The article was wrong about one thing, he was boarded for both E-8 and E-9 and I don't see how the hell he made either rank.

No, he put Chief on in Dec.

tiredretiredE7
10-29-2014, 06:05 PM
This whole story just doesn't make sense.

1. If he served 14 days in jail you'd think his duty section and commander would have known about it because he'd have been absent from duty. Did he take leave to serve his sentence without anyone there knowing where he really was?

2. The OSI conducted the investigation so didn't they tell his commander or First Sergeant they were investigating him? The article says a detective questioned a MSgt who knew him so that should have clued people something was happening.

3. He was stationed in Massachusetts so the local media would have been on the story and asking questions to the base commander about it. How could base/unit leadership not be aware of the case?

Somewhere, somehow, the system failed and answers are needed to be found as to who and why.

It does make sense. I saw this happen 4 times over 20 years but it was the way SF handed these scenarios 10 to 15 years ago. He would have simply taken leave while he was in jail. The first sergeant at the time is probably retired by now but his CC could still be on AD but then the AF does not want to punish 05s and above. Hopefully Congress gets hold of this one and some other people besides this E9 will be held accountable.

SomeRandomGuy
10-29-2014, 06:14 PM
It does make sense. I saw this happen 4 times over 20 years but it was the way SF handed these scenarios 10 to 15 years ago. He would have simply taken leave while he was in jail. The first sergeant at the time is probably retired by now but his CC could still be on AD but then the AF does not want to punish 05s and above. Hopefully Congress gets hold of this one and some other people besides this E9 will be held accountable.

According to the article he was placed in "inmate status" while in jail and didn't get paid. He wouldn't have been able to take leave while in jail if he was in a no pay status. You can only be in one status at a time and leave is a status.

I can guarantee 100% that if he was placed in confinement status his entire chain of command knew. The process to do that actually routes through the chain and orderly room.

In my mind what appears to have happened here is that when the original charges happened he was well liked by his unit. They probably used the excuse that until the court case was settled they couldn't do anything. The case didn't go to trial for about two years. By then he was at a new assignment and they probably also liked him. When the jail time happened the new unit probably decided to do nothing because of double jeopardy.

Mcjohn1118
10-29-2014, 06:28 PM
The article was also misleading about the UIF not affecting his promotion to MSgt. While technically true, a UIF doesn't affect promotion, the CC can admin hold the line number. What I am baffled at is the mandatory reporting requirements to your Security Manager about any apprehension/conviction especially. The CC also dropped the balled on establishing a Special Information File to suspend his access because he is unreliable and/or untrustworthy.

TJMAC77SP
10-29-2014, 07:34 PM
No, he put Chief on in Dec.

What I was referring to was the quote in the original article that only promotion to E-9 requires a board. They have fixed the article.

"................(This story has been corrected. Promotion to E-8 requires a centralized evaluation board.)"

TJMAC77SP
10-29-2014, 07:39 PM
It does make sense. I saw this happen 4 times over 20 years but it was the way SF handed these scenarios 10 to 15 years ago. He would have simply taken leave while he was in jail. The first sergeant at the time is probably retired by now but his CC could still be on AD but then the AF does not want to punish 05s and above. Hopefully Congress gets hold of this one and some other people besides this E9 will be held accountable.

I am not sure this is an SF issue. My first thought was that he put in for leave to serve the jail time but I have a hard time believing this was a systemic problem There are still a lot of unanswered questions of how he got away with this. As a cop he would have had a clearance and more than likely gone through a Periodic Reinvestigation. I suppose if he received his latest update just before the event and only held a Secret clearance it would have worked.

A lot of 'Holy Shit' moments in this situation.

TJMAC77SP
10-29-2014, 07:44 PM
According to the article he was placed in "inmate status" while in jail and didn't get paid. He wouldn't have been able to take leave while in jail if he was in a no pay status. You can only be in one status at a time and leave is a status.

I can guarantee 100% that if he was placed in confinement status his entire chain of command knew. The process to do that actually routes through the chain and orderly room.

In my mind what appears to have happened here is that when the original charges happened he was well liked by his unit. They probably used the excuse that until the court case was settled they couldn't do anything. The case didn't go to trial for about two years. By then he was at a new assignment and they probably also liked him. When the jail time happened the new unit probably decided to do nothing because of double jeopardy.


If he was indeed on inmate status then his command would have known. I noticed that when I first read it to but the reference to inmate status was in HIS affidavit to the court.

If he did tell the truth in that statement then I am back to the question "how the Hell did he even make Senior"? Given the razor's edge of those board scores a TSgt with jail time would have surely caught the board's attention.

TJMAC77SP
10-29-2014, 07:45 PM
The article was also misleading about the UIF not affecting his promotion to MSgt. While technically true, a UIF doesn't affect promotion, the CC can admin hold the line number. What I am baffled at is the mandatory reporting requirements to your Security Manager about any apprehension/conviction especially. The CC also dropped the balled on establishing a Special Information File to suspend his access because he is unreliable and/or untrustworthy.

Right, in addition to the PR issue he was supposed to report it anyway. Embarrassed as a former ISPM that I didn't catch that.

Mata Leao
10-29-2014, 07:58 PM
If he was indeed on inmate status then his command would have known. I noticed that when I first read it to but the reference to inmate status was in HIS affidavit to the court.

If he did tell the truth in that statement then I am back to the question "how the Hell did he even make Senior"? Given the razor's edge of those board scores a TSgt with jail time would have surely caught the board's attention.


I noticed and wondered about that too.

raider8169
10-29-2014, 08:54 PM
I had a troop here that took leave for this prision sentence. It was only for a few days but he still did it. The leadership did not take action on the case so he did not get any paperwork for it or any further punishment..

Looking over all of the documentation and evidance I did not think what he did was a proplem. In this case the troop (male) assulted a female. The video showed the prior to him hitting her she was assulting him. We saw him push her away but she kept coming back. Than he hit her and she dropped. Excessive force could be concidered but he did not wind up for it.

The E9 seemed to stake by and no one took action. There appears to be a lot of people who dropped the ball. Still if the military is serious about what they say, this will set the standard for everything to come.

OtisRNeedleman
10-30-2014, 10:46 PM
Read the Times story. This guy must have walked over the water, not on the water, to get the protection he has gotten. The man's personal life reads like one hell of a mess. If I were him I would have already dropped my papers.

SomeRandomGuy
10-31-2014, 12:39 PM
I had a troop here that took leave for this prision sentence. It was only for a few days but he still did it. The leadership did not take action on the case so he did not get any paperwork for it or any further punishment..

Looking over all of the documentation and evidance I did not think what he did was a proplem. In this case the troop (male) assulted a female. The video showed the prior to him hitting her she was assulting him. We saw him push her away but she kept coming back. Than he hit her and she dropped. Excessive force could be concidered but he did not wind up for it.

The E9 seemed to stake by and no one took action. There appears to be a lot of people who dropped the ball. Still if the military is serious about what they say, this will set the standard for everything to come.


So your leadership just ignores the regulation and does whatever they want? Sounds about like the Air Force these days.

AFI36-3003 4.1.5.18

4.1.5.18. Do not grant leave for the purpose of serving sentences in civil confinement
because civil confinement, including probated sentences thereto, is inconsistent with
military status. Comment: Members confined by civil authorities while on approved
leave may continue on leave until the original leave termination date, unless recalled
from leave status to duty. If unit commander recalls member to duty, terminate leave
status as of the recall date and change the member‟s status to “absent in the hands of
civil authorities.”

BRUWIN
12-02-2014, 01:23 PM
he was a recruiter at the time....if any part of the AF is good a maneuvering past regulations and directives it is the recruiting service. I believe this guy is only taking what the leadership gave him and wasn't hiding anything. The people most likely responsible for the mess was his leaders at the time...not him. That said...he should be forced to drop papers now. He came out of it too good and considering the circumstances he should be retired with the current rank being that leadership at the time enabled the situation and he actually performed well as a Chief by all accounts.