PDA

View Full Version : Fair or Foul?



Capt Alfredo
11-27-2014, 05:15 AM
80

Remember that? Now, how about this:

A staff sergeant from the 92nd Security Forces Squadron received an Article 15 for taking a photo of herself licking a Prisoner of War and Missing in Action image which conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline and was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. This photo had surfaced on social media and national news. Punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of senior airman and a reprimand.

http://www.fairchild.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123420258

Fair or foul?

LogDog
11-27-2014, 05:31 AM
80

Remember that? Now, how about this:

A staff sergeant from the 92nd Security Forces Squadron received an Article 15 for taking a photo of herself licking a Prisoner of War and Missing in Action image which conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline and was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. This photo had surfaced on social media and national news. Punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of senior airman and a reprimand.

http://www.fairchild.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123420258

Fair or foul?
What's your opinion?

IMO, I see nothing wrong with her getting the punishment she earned. Her action was disrespectful towards those who are MIA and her being in uniform when the picture was taken brought discredit upon the AF.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-27-2014, 11:33 AM
I like this one better, let's talk about this one.


An airman first class from the 92nd Logistics Readiness Squadron received an Article 15 for dereliction of duty, a violation of Article 92, UCMJ. The airman's supervisors came to the dorms for a welfare check due to him being on quarters after surgery. Upon arrival, the supervisors noticed that the room was a mess and he was ordered to clean up. Later, when the supervisors came back to check on him, they noticed he had not cleaned up the room. Punishment consisted of suspended reduction to airman, 14 days extra duties, and a reprimand.

If they are inspecting the dorms on a regular basis, like they should, how bad could the room have been?

Don't get me wrong, I've seen some trashed rooms before, but what are we talking about here.

They wrote that description up so badly that the whole thing sounds absurd.

sandsjames
11-27-2014, 04:02 PM
I like this one better, let's talk about this one.



If they are inspecting the dorms on a regular basis, like they should, how bad could the room have been?

Don't get me wrong, I've seen some trashed rooms before, but what are we talking about here.

They wrote that description up so badly that the whole thing sounds absurd.

If they had to do a "wellness" check because he was on quarters after surgery then I'm guessing that he wasn't physically able to do his job. If he wasn't physically able to do his job, and is supposed to be resting, then how can he be expected to clean his room. If he's able to clean his room, shouldn't he be at work...at least on limited duty?

sandsjames
11-27-2014, 04:03 PM
80

Remember that? Now, how about this:

A staff sergeant from the 92nd Security Forces Squadron received an Article 15 for taking a photo of herself licking a Prisoner of War and Missing in Action image which conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline and was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. This photo had surfaced on social media and national news. Punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of senior airman and a reprimand.

http://www.fairchild.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123420258

Fair or foul?

People should get reprimands just for being stupid. I don't care about the actual incident itself, but putting it on social media where there has already been so many people getting in trouble? That's stupid, and she should get busted for her stupidity.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-27-2014, 04:20 PM
If they had to do a "wellness" check because he was on quarters after surgery then I'm guessing that he wasn't physically able to do his job. If he wasn't physically able to do his job, and is supposed to be resting, then how can he be expected to clean his room. If he's able to clean his room, shouldn't he be at work...at least on limited duty?

The way that description reads, I'm imagining something like this.

"Hi Airman Snuffy, We just stopped by to check on you. How are you feeling? Hey! What are those in the corner? Dirty socks! And look at all the soap scum in the sink! And that bath mat is flithly! Listen up, you rotten little bastard; you'd better have this room standing tall by 0900!"

But who knows what the hell really happened. The little bastard could have had a goat living in the room with him or was rebuilding an engine in his dorm room.

I have heard of that one before. This kid at Meade had an old motorcycle in his room and was trying to fix it up.

sandsjames
11-27-2014, 05:23 PM
The way that description reads, I'm imagining something like this.

"Hi Airman Snuffy, We just stopped by to check on you. How are you feeling? Hey! What are those in the corner? Dirty socks! And look at all the soap scum in the sink! And that bath mat is flithly! Listen up, you rotten little bastard; you'd better have this room standing tall by 0900!"

But who knows what the hell really happened. The little bastard could have had a goat living in the room with him or was rebuilding an engine in his dorm room.

I have heard of that one before. This kid at Meade had an old motorcycle in his room and was trying to fix it up.

I saw some pretty bad rooms, too. I'm just betting that there has to be more to it than the story talks about.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-27-2014, 05:49 PM
I saw some pretty bad rooms, too. I'm just betting that there has to be more to it than the story talks about.

Probably so.

When an airman establishes a reputation as a fuck-up, it isn't uncommon for them to be put under a microscope. If they keep fucking up, they start accumulating more and more paper work in their file.

The guy could have been on thin ice already for something unrelated.

fufu
11-28-2014, 07:45 PM
Another gem:

http://www.fairchild.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123432329

OtisRNeedleman
11-28-2014, 10:26 PM
Another gem:

http://www.fairchild.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123432329


Why in the hell would this fool have done such a thing? Just astounding.

SENDBILLMONEY
11-28-2014, 11:12 PM
80

Remember that? Now, how about this:

A staff sergeant from the 92nd Security Forces Squadron received an Article 15 for taking a photo of herself licking a Prisoner of War and Missing in Action image which conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline and was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. This photo had surfaced on social media and national news. Punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of senior airman and a reprimand.

http://www.fairchild.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123420258

Fair or foul?

Foul, if it's the same person. If as one 15 Feb 2014 report says the photo was taken "almost three years ago," a staff sergeant has been reduced in grade via Article 15 between three and four years of the offense.

The statute of limitations on nonjudicial punishment is two years. "A person charged with an offense is not liable to be punished under section 815 of this title (article 15) if the offense was committed more than two years before the imposition of punishment." 10 U.S.C. § 843(b)(3).

The statute of limitations on court-martial trial for this offense would be five years, however. 10 U.S.C. § 843(b)(1). Perhaps there was some "I won't argue statute of limitations if you give me an Article 15 instead of a court" dealing behind the scenes.

Since this is the same command that showed "zero tolerance" to a MSgt with a reprimand and being "forced to separate via retirement" for wrongful use of codeine, I think our former SSgt got a raw deal. He pissed hot, she kissed wall, she loses stripe? Please.

fufu
11-29-2014, 03:32 AM
Why in the hell would this fool have done such a thing? Just astounding.

Well, "word" on the street is the individual was separating and applied for terminal leave. The leave, partially I believe, was denied b/c of "wing wide events". Simple as that. Just the "rumors" I heard.

Supposedly we had an Airman on terminal leave that was involved in a drive by shooting. That was the latest gem I heard on the grapevine.

Stalwart
11-29-2014, 01:19 PM
80

Remember that? Now, how about this:

A staff sergeant from the 92nd Security Forces Squadron received an Article 15 for taking a photo of herself licking a Prisoner of War and Missing in Action image which conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline and was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. This photo had surfaced on social media and national news. Punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of senior airman and a reprimand.

http://www.fairchild.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123420258

Fair or foul?

At the point it became public she discredited her service and that was that.

This isn't to say that there are not hardcopy photos from 20+ years ago of LCpl Stalwart doing stupid shit in uniform that exist; I have just been smart enough to not post them on social media.

AFKILO7
11-30-2014, 11:40 AM
Aside from the information presented regarding the statue of limitations, if this is indeed true then I would say it could be foul. If not then she got what she deserved. As for the arsonist...I'm not surprised. He most certainly got what he deserved. I have a year left on my Code 50 and I am excited and nervous about reentering the "operational" careerfield, especially with knuckleheads like the ones mentioned in this thread.

BRUWIN
12-02-2014, 12:07 PM
It was a really stupid thing to do. An Article 15 was appropriate. However, I hope she learned something from it and I hope she isn't forever chastised for a moment of stupidity. People make mistakes and she made a big one...she was young. It happens.