PDA

View Full Version : Retired 4-star demoted after sexual assault investigation



Bos Mutus
02-02-2017, 03:29 PM
Retired Gen. Arthur Lichte, the former head of Air Mobility Command, has been reprimanded and stripped of two stars after an investigation found he engaged in sexual misconduct.

The Air Force said in a Wednesday statement that the Office of Special Investigations found Lichte, who retired from the Air Force in 2010, engaged in "inappropriate sexual acts with a subordinate" twice in 2007 while on active duty. At the time, he was assistant vice chief of staff and Air Staff director in the Pentagon. The investigation also found that Lichte had inappropriate sex with the same female officer — who AMC has previously identified as a colonel — in the first half of 2009, while he was running AMC.

USA Today first reported (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/01/air-force-busts-retired-four-star-general-down-two-ranks-coerced-sex/97356020/) the report's conclusions and Lichte's demotion Wednesday.

Former Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James issued Lichte a reprimand and ordered an Officer Grade Determination Board to decide which grade he should be reduced to. Acting Air Force Secretary Lisa Disbrow reviewed the information and on Tuesday concluded that Lichte last served satisfactorily as a major general. The first alleged sexual misconduct took place when he was a lieutenant general. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis withdrew Lichte's certification of satisfactory service on Monday.

In a statement, Lichte's attorney, Larry Youngner, of the law firm Tully Rinckey, called the Air Force's decision wrong and pledged to appeal it.

"My client did not commit a sexual assault and vehemently denies the unsworn allegations made against him regarding consensual events that happened over eight years ago," Youngner said. "Although my client is not proud of what transpired, he cooperated fully and provided statements, under oath, to defend against the allegations that went to an officer grade determination board."

In the Air Force statement, Disbrow said airmen at all levels will be held accountable for their actions.

"The Air Force takes all allegations of inappropriate conduct very seriously," Disbrow said. "We expect our leaders to uphold the highest standards of behavior. These standards and rules underpin good order and discipline."

The alleged victim filed a restricted report of sexual assault last July with a sexual assault response coordinator. OSI launched an investigation in August after she changed her report to unrestricted. The Air Force is not identifying the alleged victim.

USA Today said James' letter of reprimand was "stinging." In it, she said Lichte put the officer "in a position in which she could have believed that she had no choice but to engage in these sex acts given your far superior grade, position, and significant ability to affect her career."

"You are hereby reprimanded!" James wrote in the December letter, USA Today reported. "Your conduct is disgraceful and, but for the [five-year] statute of limitations bar to prosecution, would be more appropriately addressed through the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

The heavily-redacted investigation report, released by the Air Force, said that an unnamed person overheard a conversation between Lichte and the subordinate officer last August, the day after the investigation was launched. In that reported conversation, the investigation said Lichte apologized to her and said he "had no idea" she was not interested or willing.

"SUBJECT [Lichte] stated, 'This is a bit of a surprise to me because I never considered sexual assault or anything that you just said,'" the report said. "'If that's how it was to you, I'm very sorry, but I don't understand.' VICTIM told him when it happened, in her mind, she didn't think she had an option to say no due to his position. [Lichte] said if VICTIM really felt she was not a willing partner, then he was surprised because he thought she was. VICTIM said she was not and probably in a state of shock. Looking back, VICTIM wished she could have said no." [\quote]

Whoa........

sandsjames
02-02-2017, 03:35 PM
Where to start...

First, there's a question as to whether this was consensual which, as we know, is a he said-she said...and let's be honest, in this day and age a woman not thinking that saying "No" is an option seems pretty questionable.

Second, if it is deemed assault and there is reprimand then demoting the guy to a 2-Star seems ridiculous and does nothing more than contribute to the view from the enlisted force that officers don't face the same severe punishment as enlisted do.

So, IMO, this should be either no punishment OR it should be much harsher punishment...the slap on the hand is a joke.

Bos Mutus
02-02-2017, 03:41 PM
Where to start...

First, there's a question as to whether this was consensual which, as we know, is a he said-she said...and let's be honest, in this day and age a woman not thinking that saying "No" is an option seems pretty questionable.

Second, if it is deemed assault and there is reprimand then demoting the guy to a 2-Star seems ridiculous and does nothing more than contribute to the view from the enlisted force that officers don't face the same severe punishment as enlisted do.

So, IMO, this should be either no punishment OR it should be much harsher punishment...the slap on the hand is a joke.

Losing two grades seems like more than a slap on the hand to me.

The Statute of Limitations has expired, so he can't be subject to UCMJ actions/court martial.

Seems like he was legitimately surprised that she felt assaulted...he just thought he was doing great with her.

Rainmaker
02-02-2017, 03:41 PM
Whoa........


VICTIM told him when it happened, in her mind, she didn't think she had an option to say no due to his position.

Right. Twice in 2007 and also in the first half of 2009.

VICTIM'S an 0-6. And was supposedly in a "state of shock" and didn't think she could say no for 3 years.

BULLSHIT!

sandsjames
02-02-2017, 03:50 PM
Losing two grades seems like more than a slap on the hand to me. A MSgt would have been knocked down to AB. This guy goes from 75% of $15,583 to 75% (minimum) of $14,639 per month. That's a difference of $600 a month. Yeah, I'm sure he's feeling the pain. Personally, I don't think he's guilty of anything other than, maybe, an inappropriate relationship but, come on...$600 a month when it's deemed he was wrong?



Seems like he was legitimately surprised that she felt assaulted...he just thought he was doing great with her.Agree

Bos Mutus
02-02-2017, 04:02 PM
A MSgt would have been knocked down to AB.

Doubt it.


This guy goes from 75% of $15,583 to 75% (minimum) of $14,639 per month. That's a difference of $600 a month. Yeah, I'm sure he's feeling the pain. Personally, I don't think he's guilty of anything other than, maybe, an inappropriate relationship but, come on...$600 a month when it's deemed he was wrong?

Agree

Yeah...unless she's like passed out, I think there has to be some indication of non-consent for it to be a criminal assault.

WILDJOKER5
02-02-2017, 04:08 PM
She thought she was going to get paid, or he was leaving his wife for her. Cant wait till she makes general next week. Sad, people will say women are equal to men, but they say SHE was just so helpless to say no.

Mjölnir
02-03-2017, 12:15 AM
A MSgt would have been knocked down to AB. This guy goes from 75% of $15,583 to 75% (minimum) of $14,639 per month. That's a difference of $600 a month. Yeah, I'm sure he's feeling the pain. Personally, I don't think he's guilty of anything other than, maybe, an inappropriate relationship but, come on...$600 a month when it's deemed he was wrong?

Agree

With the statute of limitations having passed, this is all that could be done.

Mjölnir
02-03-2017, 12:15 AM
A MSgt would have been knocked down to AB. This guy goes from 75% of $15,583 to 75% (minimum) of $14,639 per month. That's a difference of $600 a month. Yeah, I'm sure he's feeling the pain. Personally, I don't think he's guilty of anything other than, maybe, an inappropriate relationship but, come on...$600 a month when it's deemed he was wrong?

Agree

With the statute of limitations having passed, this is all that could be done.

garhkal
02-03-2017, 04:37 AM
How can the statute be over in just 10 years for sex assault?

Bos Mutus
02-03-2017, 05:10 AM
How can the statute be over in just 10 years for sex assault?

....cuz the SOL is 5 years.

sandsjames
02-03-2017, 11:34 AM
With the statute of limitations having passed, this is all that could be done.

Which is crazy, cuz in the Air Force there are longer, more severe consequences for failing a PT test. The statute of limitations never run out for that.

Mjölnir
02-03-2017, 12:00 PM
Which is crazy, cuz in the Air Force there are longer, more severe consequences for failing a PT test. The statute of limitations never run out for that.

Failing a PT test may sting you for years to come, impacting promotion boards, retention etc., each of the services can set policies that allow / don't allow for that; the UCMJ isn't up to the services.

Not saying it is 'right' but it is the law. Had the MGen been convicted the consequences could have been significant ... but the law defines how long from the act someone has to be brought to account. Had this been a MSgt there would have been no repercussions, there is no rank/grade determinations for them (promotions from E2-O8 are permanent ... O9-10 are temporary). The only real option was to reduce his retirement grade.

Mjölnir
02-03-2017, 12:00 PM
Which is crazy, cuz in the Air Force there are longer, more severe consequences for failing a PT test. The statute of limitations never run out for that.

Failing a PT test may sting you for years to come, impacting promotion boards, retention etc., each of the services can set policies that allow / don't allow for that; the UCMJ isn't up to the services.

Not saying it is 'right' but it is the law. Had the MGen been convicted the consequences could have been significant ... but the law defines how long from the act someone has to be brought to account. Had this been a MSgt there would have been no repercussions, there is no rank/grade determinations for them (promotions from E2-O8 are permanent ... O9-10 are temporary). The only real option was to reduce his retirement grade.

garhkal
02-03-2017, 07:25 PM
....cuz the SOL is 5 years.

Is it shorter in the mil then?

Bos Mutus
02-03-2017, 08:12 PM
Is it shorter in the mil then?

Is what shorter than what?

The UCMJ statute of limitations is generally 5 years...exceptions, of course, rape, murder, child abuse, AWOL during war, any offense punishable by death, etc.

See UCMJ Article 43.

garhkal
02-04-2017, 06:32 AM
Well its 15 in the civilian sector for rape,

Mjölnir
02-04-2017, 07:56 AM
Per art 43, the UCMJ has no statute of limitation for:

-absence without leave or missing movement in time of war
-murder
-rape
-rape of a child (specifically separate from rape due to inability to consent)
-any other capital offense

I am not sure (familiar with the case) but from the articles about it it seems the sex was not forced but coerced ... Which would not meet the criteria for art 120 (rape &/or carnal knowledge) and asking our JAG, the USAF could not pursue art 120 but more likely had him on fraternization, adultery, disobeying orders, conduct unbecoming ... all which have a 5 year statute of limitations which had passed. The only real option left is a rank / grade determination ... Which is what happened.

The outcome is far from perfect, but seems to have been the best that could be done based on the legal rights of the (now) MGen, again ... If this had been an E9, nothing could have been done ... Saying an E9 would have been busted to E1 is not accurate since the criteria of offense for rape was not there and for the other (probably provable) offenses the statute of limitations had passed and rank/grade determination at retirement is an officer-only thing.

Rainmaker
02-04-2017, 12:24 PM
Per art 43, the UCMJ has no statute of limitation for:

-absence without leave or missing movement in time of war
-murder
-rape
-rape of a child (specifically separate from rape due to inability to consent)
-any other capital offense

I am not sure (familiar with the case) but from the articles about it it seems the sex was not forced but coerced ... Which would not meet the criteria for art 120 (rape &/or carnal knowledge) and asking our JAG, the USAF could not pursue art 120 but more likely had him on fraternization, adultery, disobeying orders, conduct unbecoming ... all which have a 5 year statute of limitations which had passed. The only real option left is a rank / grade determination ... Which is what happened.

The outcome is far from perfect, but seems to have been the best that could be done based on the legal rights of the (now) MGen, again ... If this had been an E9, nothing could have been done ... Saying an E9 would have been busted to E1 is not accurate since the criteria of offense for rape was not there and for the other (probably provable) offenses the statute of limitations had passed and rank/grade determination at retirement is an officer-only thing.

Unless there's more to the story, then the punishment seems pretty severe.

Going after the man years after the fact, publicly dragging his name through the mud and then busting him down in retirement, for what appears (on the surface anyway) to just be a consensual relationship.......sounds like a witch hunt.

Of course he's an officer, so the Sandsjames' of the world wouldn't be satisfied, unless he was bankrupted & sentenced to hard labor at Leavenworth, for the rest of his life.

Mjölnir
02-04-2017, 12:51 PM
Unless there's more to the story, then the punishment seems pretty severe.

Going after the man years after the fact, publicly dragging his name through the mud and then busting him down in retirement, for what appears (on the surface anyway) to just be a consensual relationship.......sounds like a witch hunt.

Of course he's an officer, so the Sandsjames' of the world wouldn't be satisfied, unless he was bankrupted & sentenced to hard labor at Leavenworth, for the rest of his life.

The relationship was consensual ... but if coerced that lends a bit more to me thinking the reduction was appropriate. Combine that with the (supposed) "special trust and confidence" we place in leaders, if he as a flag officer was coercing a (at the time) Major or Lieutenant Colonel into sexual relations ... it would be more than appropriate to reduce him.

I imagine there is sufficient evidence that if the statue of limitations had not expired, he would have face judicial punishment ... otherwise the SECAF would be too open for him to appeal to the Board of Corrections of Military Records and be reinstated.

Mjölnir
02-04-2017, 12:51 PM
Unless there's more to the story, then the punishment seems pretty severe.

Going after the man years after the fact, publicly dragging his name through the mud and then busting him down in retirement, for what appears (on the surface anyway) to just be a consensual relationship.......sounds like a witch hunt.

Of course he's an officer, so the Sandsjames' of the world wouldn't be satisfied, unless he was bankrupted & sentenced to hard labor at Leavenworth, for the rest of his life.

The relationship was consensual ... but if coerced that lends a bit more to me thinking the reduction was appropriate. Combine that with the (supposed) "special trust and confidence" we place in leaders, if he as a flag officer was coercing a (at the time) Major or Lieutenant Colonel into sexual relations ... it would be more than appropriate to reduce him.

I imagine there is sufficient evidence that if the statue of limitations had not expired, he would have face judicial punishment ... otherwise the SECAF would be too open for him to appeal to the Board of Corrections of Military Records and be reinstated.

Rainmaker
02-04-2017, 01:10 PM
The relationship was consensual ... but if coerced that lends a bit more to me thinking the reduction was appropriate. Combine that with the (supposed) "special trust and confidence" we place in leaders, if he as a flag officer was coercing a (at the time) Major or Lieutenant Colonel into sexual relations ... it would be more than appropriate to reduce him.

It's hard to believe that in the climate of the last decade, a 40 year old woman was "coerced" multiple times ,over a period of years and assignments, into knocking boots with a guy who looks like Elmer Fudd.

There has to be more to this story. The General must've pissed in Deb James' cheerios or something.


otherwise the SECAF would be too open for him to appeal to the Board of Corrections of Military Records and be reinstated.

Unless he screwed himself by being too "cooperative" with the witch hunt.

Mjölnir
02-04-2017, 01:52 PM
It's hard to believe that in the climate of the last decade, a 40 year old woman was "coerced" multiple times ,over a period of years and assignments, into knocking boots with a guy who looks like Elmer Fudd.

Maybe, I would also like to think that a Major or Lieutenant Colonel would have the nerve to tell him to go fuck himself ... literally I guess. At the same time, when I hear people resigning themselves that as an E6, 7, 8 or 9 etc. that there is nothing they can do to stop an abusive boss at the Company or Field Grades ... I would imagine that a Field Grade Officer could feel equally pressured by a 2-star ... assume that he is guilty, should she have had the backbone to stand up to him? Absolutely ... is it possible that she didn't ... absolutely.

Unless he screwed himself by being too "cooperative" with the witch hunt.

If he ever sent an email to her that compromised himself and she still had it, he could be as uncooperative as he wanted ... he would be screwed.

Again, assuming he is / was guilty, 40 years ago, this likely would have gone nowhere, guilty or not ... because the mass public would have never heard about it; the FOGO's would have circled the wagons, there wouldn't be an electronic trail to follow and even if everything was true and he was guilty he just would have quietly headed out ... as it is now, the more people hear about it the more that the civilian leadership can't ignore it.

Case in point, the Navy's "Fat Leonard scandal", we (the Navy) have been getting fleeced by overseas husbanding agents in foreign ports for decades (centuries?) ... and we have had people on the 'take' ... it is harder to hide and ignore now ... and when public outcry overrides the sentiment to just put someone to pasture ... they will go down.

Bos Mutus
02-04-2017, 01:57 PM
Well its 15 in the civilian sector for rape,

Actually, it varies by state...from as little as 3 years up to no SOL.

Rainmaker
02-04-2017, 02:16 PM
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2uozjd

sandsjames
02-04-2017, 03:26 PM
It's hard to believe that in the climate of the last decade, a 40 year old woman was "coerced" multiple times ,over a period of years and assignments, into knocking boots with a guy who looks like Elmer Fudd.

Especially from someone in the rank of Colonel. This is someone who is supposed to be commanding troops, someone with the confidence to lead, etc. If she can't even say no when she's the one probably pushing the SARC/SAPR/Green Dot programs to those who work for her. This shows she's not trustworthy in her position...what it does it show that women, in general, aren't cut out to be making command decisions if they are this easily "coerced". This isn't some young ignorant girl trying to impress. This is a 40 year old with college degrees and experience being in charge.

Rainmaker
02-04-2017, 04:05 PM
Especially from someone in the rank of Colonel. This is someone who is supposed to be commanding troops, someone with the confidence to lead, etc. If she can't even say no when she's the one probably pushing the SARC/SAPR/Green Dot programs to those who work for her. This shows she's not trustworthy in her position...what it does it show that women, in general, aren't cut out to be making command decisions if they are this easily "coerced". This isn't some young ignorant girl trying to impress. This is a 40 year old with college degrees and experience being in charge.

SMH @ 'Green Dot' programs? WTF... Didn't the kids have enough already?

https://i.redd.it/wbpct0dsyncy.png

Mjölnir
02-04-2017, 04:31 PM
Especially from someone in the rank of Colonel. This is someone who is supposed to be commanding troops, someone with the confidence to lead, etc. If she can't even say no when she's the one probably pushing the SARC/SAPR/Green Dot programs to those who work for her. This shows she's not trustworthy in her position...what it does it show that women, in general, aren't cut out to be making command decisions if they are this easily "coerced". This isn't some young ignorant girl trying to impress. This is a 40 year old with college degrees and experience being in charge.

Because 40 year old men are never coerced into doing something that is wrong? Maybe not sex, but pencil whipping maintenance records, inventories etc. She wasn't a Colonel at the time, she currently is a Colonel, likely a Major or LtCol when it happened ... I am not arguing she should have had more backbone ... but don't think this is an indictment of women and their ability to lead.

Rainmaker
02-04-2017, 04:48 PM
Because 40 year old men are never coerced into doing something that is wrong? Maybe not sex, but pencil whipping maintenance records, inventories etc. She wasn't a Colonel at the time, she currently is a Colonel, likely a Major or LtCol when it happened ... I am not arguing she should have had more backbone ... but don't think this is an indictment of women and their ability to lead.

It's unclear from the OP if he was ever even charged with sexual harassment. Debbie can write him an LOR for virtual anything she wants. But, That don't make it true.

Mrs. Rainmaker just retired out of the Reserves as an 0-4 (protocol officer). & Rainmaker can guarandamntee that lame "honey I felt coerced" excuse, sure as hell wouldn't be flyin' round these parts.

Huh. Funny. Now that I'm thinking about it...... she never mentioned this 'green dot' thing, either.....

Mjölnir
02-04-2017, 06:05 PM
It's unclear from the OP if he was ever even charged with sexual harassment. Debbie can write him an LOR for virtual anything she wants. But, That don't make it true.

Mrs. Rainmaker just retired out of the Reserves as an 0-4 (protocol officer). & Rainmaker can guarandamntee that lame "honey I felt coerced" excuse, sure as hell wouldn't be flyin' round these parts.

Huh. Funny. Now that I'm thinking about it...... she never mentioned this 'green dot' thing, either.....

Am pretty sure me nor Mrs. Mjölnir could use that excuse around our house either.

I don't think he was formally charged with anything based on the statute of limitations. Why this stayed a secret for 10 years is suspect but I would guess the field grade officer was likely ashamed, embarrassed and fearful of making an enemy of an influential flag officer. She should have stood up for herself, I can also understand she may have been concerned about her career.

Me saying that I think coercion could have happened does not mean that I am absolving her of bad decision making, but I don't know her or the specifics of her situation. I have only been put in anything remotely like this once -- not sex, but told that SOP for the section was doing things that violated the security and ethics regs, I balked and at first was told my wanting to push the issue could go poorly for me. It was a bit choppy between me (O4) and the O6 for a while. It is easy to say that I would have made the same decision regardless of mitigating factors (at the time I was a new O4 and at 22 years of service) ... but I know that if I was an O4 at 13 or 14 years and really needing a good eval from that Col to promote it may have been more difficult. I have seen too many after actions of good people making bad decisions because they lose sight of the forest for the trees ... maybe that was the case; maybe whatever field this Col is in is one that selection to O6 isn't that "selective" and she is no superstar in the top 10% but neither in the bottom 10% ... mediocre folks promote at the bottom of the select list but they still promote too ... who knows.

She should have made a better decision, but I don't think the SECAF reduces a General over something that is just suspect. I will be interested if he appeals ... if not I will assume that he knows he got off lucky since the statute of limitations had run out.

sandsjames
02-04-2017, 06:48 PM
Huh. Funny. Now that I'm thinking about it...... she never mentioned this 'green dot' thing, either.....

It's fairly new. It's another one of those programs the AF has paid a fortune for. What's funny is that they've done the usual "This isn't the same as SAPR, this is something completely different" the same way they did with the AFSO 21 and other programs that transitioned from TQM and all that bullshit. It's all repackaged crap with a different name.

sandsjames
02-04-2017, 06:50 PM
Because 40 year old men are never coerced into doing something that is wrong? Maybe not sex, but pencil whipping maintenance records, inventories etc. She wasn't a Colonel at the time, she currently is a Colonel, likely a Major or LtCol when it happened ... I am not arguing she should have had more backbone ... but don't think this is an indictment of women and their ability to lead.

Yeah, cuz pencil whipping and letting your commander bang you are exactly the same thing.

My point is, this scenario is why I'm pretty sure everything was consensual. I believe that women are capable of being great leaders...I believe that this woman could have been a good leader...someone who is in the position and couldn't say "no", however, isn't capable. They are expected to make life and death situations on a daily basis...who would trust someone this weak?

Rainmaker
02-04-2017, 06:50 PM
Yeah, cuz pencil whipping and letting your commander bang you are exactly the same thing.

It could happen.

Major (Ret) Rainmaker coerced Rainmaker into knocking her up 4 times......in her 20's, 30's and yes even 40 (fraternal twins)....... proving that God doth have a sense of humor!

In each case, Rainmaker felt powerless to resist the "powers", that she held over him




It's fairly new. It's another one of those programs the AF has paid a fortune for. What's funny is that they've done the usual "This isn't the same as SAPR, this is something completely different"

Who comes up with this stuff? Now, It's true Rainmaker's dyslexic. But, doesn't "green" mean "go"?

sandsjames
02-04-2017, 07:19 PM
Who comes up with this stuff? Now, It's true Rainmaker's dyslexic. But, doesn't "green" mean "go"?

It does to me, yes. Apparently what they want is to take a map of the base and eliminate all the "red" zones (for which they place a red dot) with "green" zones, for which they place a green dot. The red zones represent areas where assaults have taken place, etc. It's pretty bad...

Mjölnir
02-04-2017, 10:53 PM
Yeah, cuz pencil whipping and letting your commander bang you are exactly the same thing.

No, they aren't, the point being that some people are willing to compromise themselves to do something that (they think) will help themselves.


My point is, this scenario is why I'm pretty sure everything was consensual. I believe that women are capable of being great leaders...I believe that this woman could have been a good leader...someone who is in the position and couldn't say "no", however, isn't capable. They are expected to make life and death situations on a daily basis...who would trust someone this weak?

I would agree that it was 'consensual', I think what got the MGen in trouble was that somebody convinced the SECAF and (new) SECDEF that it was coerced; I haven't seen whatever evidence did that. I really doubt it was just on the female's word alone.

I think you are right, she shouldn't be an O6, she definitely shouldn't hold command ... she did make it through, was it the system that either didn't ID that she has incredibly poor judgement, was it that she may not have been in the top 10% of LtCol's but was in the top 50 or 60% and the selection rate allowed her to squeak in? Don't really know.

From the MGen's laywer:


An attorney for Lichte, Larry Younger, said in a statement that Lichte "did not commit a sexual assault and vehemently denies the unsworn allegations made against him." The general is not proud of what transpired but cooperated fully and provided statements under oath to defend against the allegations against him, Younger said.

"General (Ret.) Arthur Lichte has continually asserted that he is deeply sorry for the pain he has caused his family, especially his strong and loving wife," the statement said. "He is regretful of the decisions he made that allowed him to find himself in this predicament. My client and his family ask for privacy to work through this difficult time.

I would guess he defended himself against rape charges, but could not deny that some type of sexual relationship took place. The incidents took place in 2007 and 2009 when he was a 3 and 4-star and she was a Maj and LtCol, he was married, not sure if she is/was. So if there is any evidence something happened ... he was done. Interesting is that the investigation has apparently been going on for some time, and just this week Secretary Mattis (a no-BS kind of man) was the one who reviewed it and withdrew the certification that Lichte served honorably as a 4-star ... so this wasn't the Obama administration that finalized it, it was the current administration. If it was BS, I would expect that Mattis would not have withdrew the certification that Lichte served as a 3 & 4-star honorably.

Regardless of how weak of a person she is, it doesn't negate that a board of fellow general officers, the SECAF and SECDEF Mattis found something sufficient enough to reduce a retired 4-star to a 2-star ... the maximum that could be done under the circumstances, that isn't something done lightly; if there is nothing there to warrant it I would expect the now MGen (ret) to appeal ... if not, that would tell me he knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on. I can only guess that there is some sort of evidence of the incident and the coercion that the Col held on to (emails, letters, voicemails or something) that pushed the preponderance of evidence against the MGen. Take away the coercion and a 3-star / 4-star engaging in adultery, fraternization etc. with a Maj & LtCol would be sufficient to reduce him.

I have read a few articles on this, this is most informative I have found:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-air-force-general-arthur-lichte-demoted-20170201-story.html

As it is right now, I can't argue that the Col displayed moral weakness (either by allowing herself to be coerced or just carrying on with a married man -- was she married? don't know.) So he (the MGen -- a senior, SENIOR leader) preyed on the weakness of a subordinate and it is too bad he can't be hammered harder.

garhkal
02-05-2017, 03:08 AM
Sounds more like he was done for the pressuring and bullying, than the actual sexual assault part..

Rainmaker
02-05-2017, 01:57 PM
it is too bad he can't be hammered harder.

Remind me not to get on your bad side commander. Odin shows no mercy.

Mjölnir
02-06-2017, 10:42 AM
Remind me not to get on your bad side commander. Odin shows no mercy.

Abusing one's authority is one of the most egregious things someone can do. People who do so betray a special trust and one of the unique things about the military that makes the profession of arms more than a job.

And no, Odin don't play that.

sandsjames
02-06-2017, 01:19 PM
Abusing one's authority is one of the most egregious things someone can do. Agree completely...whether a commander or a simple internet forum moderator, the ability to slam someone based on feeling personally slighted while allowing far worse to go on between others is a perfect example. :)


And no, Odin don't play that.That's cuz Odin doesn't carry Mjolnir.

Mjölnir
02-06-2017, 01:56 PM
Agree completely...whether a commander or a simple internet forum moderator, the ability to slam someone based on feeling personally slighted while allowing far worse to go on between others is a perfect example. :)

Things have gotten heated but only once was it personal, when you brought my daughter into a conversation about sexual assault and I told you stop and you initially failed to do so. Like it or not Steve, that is personal ... if you don't like it, go find somewhere else to bitch about mods at. If you feel other people are getting away with worse, file a report ... when mods first came around they interfered in conversations too much, I try not to do that ... but yeah ... bring my kid into a conversation and I will tell you to stop, if you don't ... I will put you in time out like the child you are acting like.


That's cuz Odin doesn't carry Mjolnir.

Not normally, he has taken it back a few times though.