PDA

View Full Version : Army demotes former defense secretary's 3-star aide after scathing IG investigation



Bos Mutus
02-10-2017, 05:08 PM
The former senior military aide to then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter will retire as a brigadier general, the Army announced Thursday.

The move against Maj. Gen. Ronald Lewis was directed by former Army Secretary Eric Fanning, Army spokeswoman Cynthia Smith said in a statement.

The Defense Department inspector general substantiated allegations that Lewis misused his government and travel charge card for personal expenses, made false official statements about that misuse, and engaged in conduct unbecoming an officer on multiple occasions, Smith said in the statement.

Lewis also has been reprimanded by Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Dan Allyn, she said.

According to the IG investigation, which was released in October, Lewis used his government credit card at strip clubs or gentlemen's clubs in Rome and Seoul, South Korea, drank in excess and had "improper interactions" with women during business travel with Carter. The 50-page report shows Lewis spent more than $1,000 on champagne and drinks and includes conflicting statements that Lewis made to investigators explaining the outings, and on several occasions quotes his acknowledgement that he was drunk or drank to "more than moderation," the Associated Press reported.


Lewis, whom Carter fired nearly a year before the investigation was released, submitted a written rebuttal slamming the investigation, saying the IG assembled an inaccurate and inflammatory case based on innuendo and had failed to "find the truth."

He did take responsibility for several inappropriate actions, including charging nearly $1,800 on his government credit card at what he called a "dance club" in Rome. In an embarrassing set of circumstances, Lewis said, he tried to use his personal debit card at the club, but it didn't work, so he had to walk back to his hotel with a female employee of the club, and wake up a Defense Department staff member to get his government card to pay the bill. He said he paid back the charges when he returned to the U.S.

The report goes on to say Carter was unaware of Lewis' conduct until he was told about it.

Under federal law, officers retire at the highest grade in which they served satisfactorily, Smith said, adding that the Army secretary makes retirement grade determinations for all brigadier generals and major generals.

The demotion will cost Lewis about $20,000 a year in retirement pay, giving him roughly $80,000 after taxes in his initial year, according to the Army.

Lewis is a West Point graduate who was the Army's chief of public affairs before he was tapped to serve as Carter's senior military assistant. Lewis had reached the three-star rank of lieutenant general while working for Carter, but was demoted to major general after he was fired in November 2015.

Demoting retired Generals seems to be the IN thing to do.

I still don't get the huge deal about using the govt. travel card inappropriately...since the member has to pay it anyway. It's not like spending govt. money.

If anything...the govt. makes money on the rebates and points....they really should encourage members to use their cards for everything...as long as they pay it off.

BTW...lots of European strip clubs are huge ripoffs...esp rip off tourists.

retiredAFcivvy
02-10-2017, 06:03 PM
Demoting retired Generals seems to be the IN thing to do.

I still don't get the huge deal about using the govt. travel card inappropriately...since the member has to pay it anyway. It's not like spending govt. money.

If anything...the govt. makes money on the rebates and points....they really should encourage members to use their cards for everything...as long as they pay it off.

BTW...lots of European strip clubs are huge ripoffs...esp rip off tourists.
So what happens when a young airman decides to go buy a big screen TV with the card and can't pay it off? You know that kind of thing would happen. I'm sure the general knew the rules about inappropriate use of the card.

Bos Mutus
02-10-2017, 06:11 PM
So what happens when a young airman decides to go buy a big screen TV with the card and can't pay it off? You know that kind of thing would happen.

Yeah, so? Financial irresponsibility like anything else...


I'm sure the general knew the rules about inappropriate use of the card.

I'm sure he did.

Just because someone "knows the rules" does not mean that any and all punishment is fair and just.

sandsjames
02-10-2017, 06:16 PM
Yeah, so? Financial irresponsibility like anything else...



I'm sure he did.

Just because someone "knows the rules" does not mean that any and all punishment is fair and just.

Agree 100%...as long as it's paid off why does it matter at all? What pisses me off is the limits they put on where you can use it...we go TDY and want to get dinner and a bar with the per diem we are allowed then who gives a damn where it was used...

All this leads to is people taking cash out of an ATM, then spending it at the same club. That's what most people do anyway, so what's the difference?

retiredAFcivvy
02-10-2017, 06:17 PM
Yeah, so? Financial irresponsibility like anything else...



I'm sure he did.

Just because someone "knows the rules" does not mean that any and all punishment is fair and just.
I guess he took the risk.

retiredAFcivvy
02-10-2017, 06:26 PM
Agree 100%...as long as it's paid off why does it matter at all? What pisses me off is the limits they put on where you can use it...we go TDY and want to get dinner and a bar with the per diem we are allowed then who gives a damn where it was used...

All this leads to is people taking cash out of an ATM, then spending it at the same club. That's what most people do anyway, so what's the difference?
I don't think you are required to use the GTC for meals. You get the same per diem if you eat a TV dinner of if you get a $100 meal.

sandsjames
02-10-2017, 06:40 PM
I don't think you are required to use the GTC for meals. You get the same per diem if you eat a TV dinner of if you get a $100 meal.Nope, not required, but it is authorized...One is also authorized to spend more than their per diem limit, as long as it's paid off...so the only question then becomes where was it used, which shouldn't matter. When I'm TDY, even now as a civilian, I use the GTC for ALL expenses...who knows, maybe this strip club he was at had really good food.

retiredAFcivvy
02-10-2017, 07:09 PM
Nope, not required, but it is authorized...One is also authorized to spend more than their per diem limit, as long as it's paid off...so the only question then becomes where was it used, which shouldn't matter. When I'm TDY, even now as a civilian, I use the GTC for ALL expenses...who knows, maybe this strip club he was at had really good food.
Obviously the rules are there for a reason to prevent misuse of the program (I know you don't think so)so you can rationalize all you want.

sandsjames
02-10-2017, 07:25 PM
Obviously the rules are there for a reason to prevent misuse of the program (I know you don't think so)so you can rationalize all you want.

The rules CREATE misuse of the program...when the only issue should be whether the bill gets paid off in full on time...

You can tell me what the rule is...I'm telling you why the rule is stupid. That's like saying "The speed limit in a residential area is 15 MPH in order to protect children playing". That is EXACTLY why the law is there and if you pointed that out you would be correct. That doesn't change the fact that kids shouldn't play in the street...and if parents kept an eye on them there would be no need for a 15MPH speed limit. You can call it rationalizing...I call it common sense. The rules are there to protect stupid people from themselves. That's why we have so many stupid people.

Bos Mutus
02-10-2017, 07:36 PM
Obviously the rules are there for a reason to prevent misuse of the program (I know you don't think so)so you can rationalize all you want.

We all know it's a rule...that's not the discussion. We're discussing whether it's a good rule and a necessary rule.

Your point now seems to be that "Since it's a rule, it's obviously a good rule."....I'd have to disagree with that line of reasoning

Rusty Jones
02-10-2017, 08:09 PM
Honestly, had he not engaged in behavior in Korea that drew negative attention to himself, I don't think anything would've happened to him.

I've never heard of misuse of the GTC being enforced when it wasn't in conjunction with something else (mostly, not paying it off).

I agree that it's stupid. For example: I hear conflicting information on whether or not you can purchase uniform items with the GTC. I've been told "yes" by a few people in my chain of command, but there's an Army site that says you can't.

Granted, that's the Army... BUT, the GTC is a DoD level program, so it would stand to reason that the same rules apply DoD wide.

If you can't buy uniform items... it's fucking stupid. The vague language says that it's for travel needs. Great. But if you're on a two-day TDY and you packed for two days... something could happen to one of your uniform items.

If I have to eat Cup O' Noodles and Vienna sausages for a meal to cover the cost of ABU pants, why should anyone give a damn? Would they rather me show show up with ripped up ABU pants, but have the warm & fuzzy knowing that I had Applebee's last night?

Yeah, this is stupid.

sandsjames
02-10-2017, 08:30 PM
If even I am defending an officer then you can be pretty sure it must be pretty stupid reason for him to get in trouble.

Rusty Jones
02-10-2017, 08:41 PM
If even I am defending an officer then you can be pretty sure it must be pretty stupid reason for him to get in trouble.

I think that everyone, at some point, has misused the GTC. For example, you know, I just MIGHT have thrown in a razor and/or shaving cream after possibly realizing that I may have forgotten to pack them, along with authorized food items.

The military kind of frowns upon showing up with a stubble when you don't have a profile.

Mjölnir
02-11-2017, 11:53 AM
I think that everyone, at some point, has misused the GTC. For example, you know, I just MIGHT have thrown in a razor and/or shaving cream after possibly realizing that I may have forgotten to pack them, along with authorized food items.

The military kind of frowns upon showing up with a stubble when you don't have a profile.

I think many people do things that fall into a grey area vice outright misuse or abuse of the GTC.

A razor (toiletries) and a haircut is not an incidental ... uniforms are not ... Neither is a lapdance.

BT BT

Bigger picture, the rules on the GTC are a bit gooned up. Be that as it may, a 3-star violating them in a high profile manner is pretty stupid, especially in the last few years; too much scrutiny by the reviewers and approvers to not get flagged.

I imagine his removal had more to do with his activities while on official travel in a high profile position with SECDEF, false statements after the fact etc. and not the GTC.

Is it worth/does it warrant removing him as the adviser to SECDEF? That is really up to SECDEF. Does it warrant (after the automatic reversion to 2-star) reduction of his permanent grade to O7? By itself ... IMO not really ... As long as he performed satisfactorily as a 2-star the questionable conduct was as a 3-star. It makes me wonder if there was some activity, action or behavior as a 2-star that was later discovered that was not considered "satisfactory" that prompted the reduction to BG.

sandsjames
02-11-2017, 01:36 PM
I think many people do things that fall into a grey area vice outright misuse or abuse of the GTC.

A razor (toiletries) and a haircut is not an incidental ... uniforms are not ... Neither is a lapdance.

BT BT

Bigger picture, the rules on the GTC are a bit gooned up. Be that as it may, a 3-star violating them in a high profile manner is pretty stupid, especially in the last few years; too much scrutiny by the reviewers and approvers to not get flagged.

I imagine his removal had more to do with his activities while on official travel in a high profile position with SECDEF, false statements after the fact etc. and not the GTC.

Is it worth/does it warrant removing him as the adviser to SECDEF? That is really up to SECDEF. Does it warrant (after the automatic reversion to 2-star) reduction of his permanent grade to O7? By itself ... IMO not really ... As long as he performed satisfactorily as a 2-star the questionable conduct was as a 3-star. It makes me wonder if there was some activity, action or behavior as a 2-star that was later discovered that was not considered "satisfactory" that prompted the reduction to BG.

You realize that the punishment for misuse of the GTC is almost the same as the punishment for sexual assault, right?

Mjölnir
02-11-2017, 01:43 PM
You realize that the punishment for misuse of the GTC is almost the same as the punishment for sexual assault, right?

The maximum allowable punishment? Not even close.

If you are referring to the USAF 4 star reduced to 2-star for , that wasn't for sexual assault ... they didn't prove it. He was reduced for what they could prove: essentially adultery, fraternization, conduct unbecoming ... While an assault or coerced sex may have occurred, it wasn't cited as the cause for rank grade determination.

Now the level/degree of punishment for this case (GTC abuse) and the USAF now 2-star's case is similar ... but is limited by what could be proven and not excluded based on statutes of limitation.

sandsjames
02-11-2017, 02:13 PM
The maximum allowable punishment? Not even close.

If you are referring to the USAF 4 star reduced to 2-star for , that wasn't for sexual assault ... they didn't prove it. He was reduced for what they could prove: essentially adultery, fraternization, conduct unbecoming ... While an assault or coerced sex may have occurred, it wasn't cited as the cause for rank grade determination.

Now the level/degree of punishment for this case (GTC abuse) and the USAF now 2-star's case is similar ... but is limited by what could be proven and not excluded based on statutes of limitation.


I understand the facts...disagree with the results. Just as with the GTC rules, I realize they are there and am not disputing them...just stating that they really make no sense...the same way I find it ridiculous that a guy who has an unprofessional relationship and is suspected of sexual assault retires at the same rank as a guy, who was going to pay his GTC of, used in in a strip club. Do you not see the comedy in that? Or are you just strictly supporting the policies?

Do you have political aspirations? You've made it clear that you've hobnobbed with some VIPs in your day. Just curious if you try to avoid saying anything here that could come back and bite you in the ass when you run for office. Cuz that's the only way I can see the reasoning behind some of your points of view.

So, again, I realize that there are rules on demotion and that those rules are pretty much set in stone. That doesn't mean that I agree with them. ONLY losing two grades for sexual assault (yes, I know those weren't technically the charges) vs getting a star taken for misusing a GTC that he was most likely going to pay off on time. Why can't common sense come into it?

sandsjames
02-11-2017, 02:18 PM
As there seems to be confusion, here's how the discussions go on this forum, and why it's so frustrating for everyone.

AFI 36-2903 says you can't put your hands in your pocket, even the pockets of your jacket, even when it's 20 below zero outside. Some of you would defend the punishment of the person with the hands in the pocket. I would state that the reg is stupid. Me saying it's stupid does not mean that I wouldn't also support the punishment/admonishment/counseling of that person...however, me correcting the person does not mean that I'm not going to point out why the reg is stupid.

That's the difference between voicing an opinion on something vs simply regurgitating what the reg states.

Mjölnir
02-11-2017, 02:39 PM
I understand the facts...disagree with the results. Just as with the GTC rules, I realize they are there and am not disputing them...just stating that they really make no sense...the same way I find it ridiculous that a guy who has an unprofessional relationship and is suspected of sexual assault retires at the same rank as a guy, who was going to pay his GTC of, used in in a strip club. Do you not see the comedy in that? Or are you just strictly supporting the policies?

The unprofessional relationship was proven, the assault as you said was/is suspected.


Do you have political aspirations?

Other than the PTA ... nope.


So, again, I realize that there are rules on demotion and that those rules are pretty much set in stone. That doesn't mean that I agree with them. ONLY losing two grades for sexual assault (yes, I know those weren't technically the charges) vs getting a star taken for misusing a GTC that he was most likely going to pay off on time. Why can't common sense come into it?

This is the second time you say the general lost two grades for sexual assault, he didn't ... it was the frat, adultery etc. If the assault could be proven ... as I said in the other thread ...


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.

If the assault could have been proven I wish they would have thrown the book at him. I don't know if the the max punishment (which for rape in the UCMJ is death) was appropriate since significant portions of the report were redacted so I don't have all the particulars, but I did read what was available.

So do I support the policy? Which one?

That an officer can be reduced and retire at the last grade satisfactorily held? Yes, absolutely.

That all personnel should be held accountable, regardless of rank? Yes, absolutely.

That we have laws for people, in the military the UCMJ? Yes, absolutely.

That we afford people accused of violating those laws due process? Yes, absolutely.

What I do not support is punishing someone based on rumor or suspicion vice proof (going back to that sexual assault ... it wasn't proven), because ... where do you stop? While NJP is a lower burden of proof, there still is a burden of proof beyond a simple accusation (a preponderance of the evidence), and the accused (unless on sea duty) has the option to refuse NJP and be tried by a court martial (where the burden is higher -- beyond a reasonable doubt). It isn't because I hope to run for office or to avoid getting bitten in the ass, I believe in due process for everyone ... an E1 Private and a 4-star General, you seem to be arguing that the system punish someone for a crime that wasn't proven, at least for someone more senior, which I don't believe in.

I don't think we make the burden of proof for a crime less for either a Private or General, but what can be done to the General (or 2dLt) is a charge under the loose requirements of Art. 133 (Conduct Unbecoming) which is unique to officers and sometimes (because of due process and protections for the accused) the only thing that we can pin to someone, but sufficient to remove them from service.

In the case of MGen Lichte, based on what could be proven ... they maxed him out ... which is the same max that was delivered to the LTG who had issues with the GTC, and also a false official statement and conduct unbecoming an officer issues.

Mjölnir
02-11-2017, 03:00 PM
As there seems to be confusion, here's how the discussions go on this forum, and why it's so frustrating for everyone.

AFI 36-2903 says you can't put your hands in your pocket, even the pockets of your jacket, even when it's 20 below zero outside. Some of you would defend the punishment of the person with the hands in the pocket. I would state that the reg is stupid. Me saying it's stupid does not mean that I wouldn't also support the punishment/admonishment/counseling of that person...however, me correcting the person does not mean that I'm not going to point out why the reg is stupid.

That's the difference between voicing an opinion on something vs simply regurgitating what the reg states.


Do you punish someone (verbal or otherwise) if you suspect they hand their hands in their pockets, or actually saw them with their hands in their pockets?

What is the max punishment for violating AFI 36-2903 -- probably in line with disobeying an order (Art. 92) I would imagine.

You could make the argument that punishing a 4-star proven to have committed adultery and fraternization (violations of Art. 134) results in a similar punishment as for someone putting their hands in their pockets. It isn't the same argument is to say that MGen Lichte raped someone and got the same punishment as someone who puts their hands in their pockets, because the rape wasn't proven ... unless you want him convicted / punished for a crime without proof.

sandsjames
02-11-2017, 03:04 PM
The unprofessional relationship was proven, the assault as you said was/is suspected.



Other than the PTA ... nope.



This is the second time you say the general lost two grades for sexual assault, he didn't ... it was the frat, adultery etc. If the assault could be proven ... as I said in the other thread ...



If the assault could have been proven I wish they would have thrown the book at him. I don't know if the the max punishment (which for rape in the UCMJ is death) was appropriate since significant portions of the report were redacted so I don't have all the particulars, but I did read what was available.

So do I support the policy? Which one?

That an officer can be reduced and retire at the last grade satisfactorily held? Yes, absolutely.

That all personnel should be held accountable, regardless of rank? Yes, absolutely.

That we have laws for people, in the military the UCMJ? Yes, absolutely.

That we afford people accused of violating those laws due process? Yes, absolutely.

What I do not support is punishing someone based on rumor or suspicion vice proof (going back to that sexual assault ... it wasn't proven), because ... where do you stop? While NJP is a lower burden of proof, there still is a burden of proof beyond a simple accusation (a preponderance of the evidence), and the accused (unless on sea duty) has the option to refuse NJP and be tried by a court martial (where the burden is higher -- beyond a reasonable doubt). It isn't because I hope to run for office or to avoid getting bitten in the ass, I believe in due process for everyone ... an E1 Private and a 4-star General, you seem to be arguing that the system punish someone for a crime that wasn't proven, at least for someone more senior, which I don't believe in.

I don't think we make the burden of proof for a crime less for either a Private or General, but what can be done to the General (or 2dLt) is a charge under the loose requirements of Art. 133 (Conduct Unbecoming) which is unique to officers and sometimes (because of due process and protections for the accused) the only thing that we can pin to someone, but sufficient to remove them from service.

In the case of MGen Lichte, based on what could be proven ... they maxed him out ... which is the same max that was delivered to the LTG who had issues with the GTC, and also a false official statement and conduct unbecoming an officer issues.

But still no opinion of the policy...just reaffirmation...

Let's be honest about the sexual assault that wasn't a sexual assault...there's no chance he loses rank if there's no accusation of sexual assault. Even though the official charges were the "unbecoming..." and "unprofessional..." charges there's no chance that if those are the ONLY accusations that it goes anywhere.

Same goes for the GTC case with false statements...that's simply an additional charge they can throw on. (If there is no dumb ass charge for misusing the card then there would be no false statement made. Now tell me "but there was a charge"...yes yes, I know...)...like the adultery charge (which is stupid as hell, also...if everyone was consenting then give it a rest).

sandsjames
02-11-2017, 03:10 PM
Do you punish someone (verbal or otherwise) if you suspect they hand their hands in their pockets, or actually saw them with their hands in their pockets?

What is the max punishment for violating AFI 36-2903 -- probably in line with disobeying an order (Art. 92) I would imagine. [/QUOTE]

You could make the argument that punishing a 4-star proven to have committed adultery and fraternization (violations of Art. 134) results in a similar punishment as for someone putting their hands in their pockets. It isn't the same argument is to say that MGen Lichte raped someone and got the same punishment as someone who puts their hands in their pockets, because the rape wasn't proven ... unless you want him convicted / punished for a crime without proof.[/QUOTE]

For cryin' out loud...the hands in the pocket was simply used to point out how you and I approach conversations...there is no equivalency with uniform violation and sexual assault so to talk about punishment for the two is ridiculous. However, first time with hands in pocket would be minimum correction (verbal). I'm pretty sure that we can both agree the same (verbal) should not be used for first time sexual assault?

Mjölnir
02-11-2017, 03:15 PM
But still no opinion of the policy...just reaffirmation...

Let's be honest about the sexual assault that wasn't a sexual assault...there's no chance he loses rank if there's no accusation of sexual assault. Even though the official charges were the "unbecoming..." and "unprofessional..." charges there's no chance that if those are the ONLY accusations that it goes anywhere.

Same goes for the GTC case with false statements...that's simply an additional charge they can throw on. (If there is no dumb ass charge for misusing the card then there would be no false statement made. Now tell me "but there was a charge"...yes yes, I know...)...like the adultery charge (which is stupid as hell, also...if everyone was consenting then give it a rest).

I guess I don't understand what you are asking my opinion on then.

Mjölnir
02-11-2017, 03:21 PM
What is the max punishment for violating AFI 36-2903 -- probably in line with disobeying an order (Art. 92) I would imagine.

You could make the argument that punishing a 4-star proven to have committed adultery and fraternization (violations of Art. 134) results in a similar punishment as for someone putting their hands in their pockets. It isn't the same argument is to say that MGen Lichte raped someone and got the same punishment as someone who puts their hands in their pockets, because the rape wasn't proven ... unless you want him convicted / punished for a crime without proof.[/QUOTE]

For cryin' out loud...the hands in the pocket was simply used to point out how you and I approach conversations...there is no equivalency with uniform violation and sexual assault so to talk about punishment for the two is ridiculous. However, first time with hands in pocket would be minimum correction (verbal). I'm pretty sure that we can both agree the same (verbal) should not be used for first time sexual assault?[/QUOTE]

I get what you are saying about the uniform thing ... and my point is do you punish somebody based on proof or based on suspicion?

I said in the past and will say again (and you will likely ignore it), sexual assault is a serious crime; people who commit it should be punished ... harshly. I do think you should prove the crime.

Do you think we should convict people of crimes without meeting the burden of proof?

Mjölnir
02-11-2017, 03:21 PM
What is the max punishment for violating AFI 36-2903 -- probably in line with disobeying an order (Art. 92) I would imagine.

You could make the argument that punishing a 4-star proven to have committed adultery and fraternization (violations of Art. 134) results in a similar punishment as for someone putting their hands in their pockets. It isn't the same argument is to say that MGen Lichte raped someone and got the same punishment as someone who puts their hands in their pockets, because the rape wasn't proven ... unless you want him convicted / punished for a crime without proof.[/QUOTE]

For cryin' out loud...the hands in the pocket was simply used to point out how you and I approach conversations...there is no equivalency with uniform violation and sexual assault so to talk about punishment for the two is ridiculous. However, first time with hands in pocket would be minimum correction (verbal). I'm pretty sure that we can both agree the same (verbal) should not be used for first time sexual assault?[/QUOTE]

I get what you are saying about the uniform thing ... and my point is do you punish somebody based on proof or based on suspicion?

I said in the past and will say again (and you will likely ignore it), sexual assault is a serious crime; people who commit it should be punished ... harshly. I do think you should prove the crime.

Do you think we should convict people of crimes without meeting the burden of proof?

sandsjames
02-11-2017, 03:24 PM
Me: "It's the 11th of February and it's going to be 92 degrees in Wichita Falls...that's fucking stupid, why does anyone live here"

Mjolnir: It's because of the weather patterns changing drastically from the Canadian air to the air coming from the Gulf of Mexico. The air from the Gulf is much warmer than the air from Canada."

Me: "Yes, I understand that, but it's going to be 92 FREAKIN' degrees in February...it's annoying as hell. One day we have the heat on and the next day the AC."

Mjolnir: "If you lived 50 miles south or 50 miles north you wouldn't run into that problem because the changes wouldn't be so drastic. You live in an area that is subject to sharp changes in weather patterns. There's nothing you can do about it...that's the way it is there."

Me: "Yes, I GET IT...I understand the science...it's still retarded."

Mjolnir: "Blah blah blah El Nino..."

Me: "YES...I WATCH THE WEATHER REPORTS AND UNDERSTAND THE FACTS. I'M SIMPLY POINTING OUT THAT IT'S RIDICULOUS."

Mjolnir: "I...I don't understand what you're trying to say. People in other areas get similar types of weather patters. The upper air flow...."

Me: "FML."

Mjölnir
02-11-2017, 08:11 PM
Me: "It's the 11th of February and it's going to be 92 degrees in Wichita Falls...that's fucking stupid, why does anyone live here"

Mjolnir: It's because of the weather patterns changing drastically from the Canadian air to the air coming from the Gulf of Mexico. The air from the Gulf is much warmer than the air from Canada."

Me: "Yes, I understand that, but it's going to be 92 FREAKIN' degrees in February...it's annoying as hell. One day we have the heat on and the next day the AC."

Mjolnir: "If you lived 50 miles south or 50 miles north you wouldn't run into that problem because the changes wouldn't be so drastic. You live in an area that is subject to sharp changes in weather patterns. There's nothing you can do about it...that's the way it is there."

Me: "Yes, I GET IT...I understand the science...it's still retarded."

Mjolnir: "Blah blah blah El Nino..."

Me: "YES...I WATCH THE WEATHER REPORTS AND UNDERSTAND THE FACTS. I'M SIMPLY POINTING OUT THAT IT'S RIDICULOUS."

Mjolnir: "I...I don't understand what you're trying to say. People in other areas get similar types of weather patters. The upper air flow...."

Me: "FML."

I get it, I am saying the way it is ... which may be BS to you but the facts are:

-the former 4-star was not convicted of sexual assault, based on the statute of limitations for adultery, frat etc, the most that could be done was reduction of his retired grade. It isn't accurate to say that the punishment for the GTC issue is the same for a sexual assault, since there was not a substantiated allegation or conviction for assault, if there had been and the punishment as it is now, I would be saying it was BS ... which means you find a way to argue ... Barring not affording him legal due process, there isn't anything more that could be done.

Not sure what you would want though, and I ask again:

Do you think we should convict people of crimes without meeting the burden of proof?

Should we suspend legal due process for people for certain alleged crimes?

Would you lower the burden of proof to obtain a conviction for certain alleged crimes? If so, for everyone ... or just senior personnel?

It is not AT ALL that I think the punishment for sexual assault should be low or similar to violating the rules for a GTC (as I said in the other thread) ... but to punish someone I do think you have to prove your case first ... not just go off an allegation. In the case of MGen Lichte, the assault was not proven, what he admitted to had passed the statues of limitations on. I say again, it is a shame they couldn't punish him more severely, but I don't think we should suspend the law.

sandsjames
02-11-2017, 09:00 PM
I get it, I am saying the way it is ... which may be BS to you but the facts are:

-the former 4-star was not convicted of sexual assault, based on the statute of limitations for adultery, frat etc, the most that could be done was reduction of his retired grade. It isn't accurate to say that the punishment for the GTC issue is the same for a sexual assault, since there was not a substantiated allegation or conviction for assault, if there had been and the punishment as it is now, I would be saying it was BS ... which means you find a way to argue ... Barring not affording him legal due process, there isn't anything more that could be done. Right...so a rapist isn't a rapist once the SoL runs out...because that's what the law says...right?


Do you think we should convict people of crimes without meeting the burden of proof? Nope


Should we suspend legal due process for people for certain alleged crimes? Nope


Would you lower the burden of proof to obtain a conviction for certain alleged crimes? If so, for everyone ... or just senior personnel? Nope...and the senior personnel comment is crap...the GTC incident was a "senior personnel" and I fully support him


It is not AT ALL that I think the punishment for sexual assault should be low or similar to violating the rules for a GTC (as I said in the other thread) ... but to punish someone I do think you have to prove your case first ... not just go off an allegation. In the case of MGen Lichte, the assault was not proven, what he admitted to had passed the statues of limitations on. I say again, it is a shame they couldn't punish him more severely, but I don't think we should suspend the law.He admitted to it..fuck the statute...I've said the before, the statute of limitations lasts longer for a failed PT test. He ADMITTED to it...the statute of limitations should NOT apply. I realize it does, but it shouldn't.

What I know is this...we've got two people...it could be ANY two people...make one an E5 and one an E6. The E5 went to a strip club with his GTC and lied about it, the E6 cheated on his wife and slept with his subordinate and, although the SoL had run out, admitted to certain things that are considered criminal. Now they are both E4s, equal to each other, getting paid the same. Sounds kinda fucked up to me.

Mjölnir
02-11-2017, 09:39 PM
Right...so a rapist isn't a rapist once the SoL runs out...because that's what the law says...right?

No, still a rapist ... see below.


Nope...and the senior personnel comment is crap...the GTC incident was a "senior personnel" and I fully support him

Wasn't sure. Didn't know if you were going the route that more senior people should be more accountable.


He admitted to it..fuck the statute...I've said the before, the statute of limitations lasts longer for a failed PT test. He ADMITTED to it...the statute of limitations should NOT apply. I realize it does, but it shouldn't.

Why shouldn't the statute of limitations apply? Because he admitted to it? Do you think he would have had the statute of limitations for adultery and fraternization not expired? He may not have. Who knows.

Have you read the report? He admitted to sleeping with her, stated it was consensual. She stated it was consensual but coerced ... there was no evidence it was assault. There were allusions that the sex was coerced, but not assault ... am going to assume you didn't read the report ... the coercion was considered as falling under Art. 134-6: Bribery ... but again ... the evidence of the coercion was interesting ... made me think he likely was pressuring her ... but the JAG also said it likely would not hold up in a trial (he said it wasn't coercion) and it had been over 5 years.

As far as the PT test and it biting you later, you have a point ... failing a PT test isn't a felony conviction either ... you are comparing administrative repercussions to felony conviction ... while I will agree that there should be a limit on repercussions for a PT test (which could force someone out) getting kicked out of the military over an old PT test may suck big time ... it isn't a felony conviction ... you are comparing apples and oranges.

So while you keep /kept saying that the punishment for sexual assault is the same as for misusing a GTC, you are ignoring that he wasn't convicted of an assault. Hell, he wasn't punished for assault at all.


What I know is this...we've got two people...it could be ANY two people...make one an E5 and one an E6. The E5 went to a strip club with his GTC and lied about it, the E6 cheated on his wife and slept with his subordinate and, although the SoL had run out, admitted to certain things that are considered criminal. Now they are both E4s, equal to each other, getting paid the same. Sounds kinda fucked up to me.

Not both equal, one retires as an O7 (the GTC) the other an O8 (the USAF one). I think it is fucked up that Lichte retires as a flag officer at all (for just the adultery and frat ... even without the assault) ... but I don't think we should throw out his due process and abandon or change the law, THEN go after people after we have changed it ... too Orwellian or Sword of Damocles for me. I think our system gets it right the majority of the time, but the same system that does well, sometimes protects / let's those who should get crushed through ... while imperfect ... it is better than changing the rules for every individual case to satisfy what turns out to not really be justice, but vengeance. I am not ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater on our justice system.

MGen Lichte committed the more serious offense (adultery & fraternization, no question there ... however ... the statute of limitations had expired. You don't think the statute should apply, so I will ask what crimes or under what circumstances would you throw that out?

sandsjames
02-11-2017, 09:52 PM
No, still a rapist ... see below.



Wasn't sure. Didn't know if you were going the route that more senior people should be more accountable.



Why shouldn't the statute of limitations apply? Because he admitted to it? Do you think he would have had the statute of limitations for adultery and fraternization not expired? He may not have. Who knows.

Have you read the report? He admitted to sleeping with her, stated it was consensual. She stated it was consensual but coerced ... there was no evidence it was assault. There were allusions that the sex was coerced, but not assault ... am going to assume you didn't read the report ... the coercion was considered as falling under Art. 134-6: Bribery ... but again ... the evidence of the coercion was interesting ... made me think he likely was pressuring her ... but the JAG also said it likely would not hold up in a trial (he said it wasn't coercion) and it had been over 5 years.

As far as the PT test and it biting you later, you have a point ... failing a PT test isn't a felony conviction either ... you are comparing administrative repercussions to felony conviction ... while I will agree that there should be a limit on repercussions for a PT test (which could force someone out) getting kicked out of the military over an old PT test may suck big time ... it isn't a felony conviction ... you are comparing apples and oranges.

So while you keep /kept saying that the punishment for sexual assault is the same as for misusing a GTC, you are ignoring that he wasn't convicted of an assault. Hell, he wasn't punished for assault at all.



Not both equal, one retires as an O7 (the GTC) the other an O8 (the USAF one). I think it is fucked up that Lichte retires as a flag officer at all (for just the adultery and frat ... even without the assault) ... but I don't think we should throw out his due process and abandon or change the law, THEN go after people after we have changed it ... too Orwellian for me. I think our system gets it right the majority of the time, but the same system that does well, sometimes protects / let's those who should get crushed through ... while imperfect ... it is better than changing the rules for every individual case to satisfy what turns out to not really be justice, but vengeance. I am not ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater on our justice system.

MGen Lichte committed the more serious offense (adultery & fraternization, no question there ... however ... the statute of limitations had expired. You don't think the statute should apply, so I will ask what crimes or under what circumstances would you throw that out?

I'm completely with you that, in this case, the General got screwed, literally and figuratively. I don't think either of these guys should have gotten in trouble. I stated so at the beginning of this argument. However, taking person A who fraternizes and has an unprofessional relationship and person B who uses his GTC at a strip club and lies about it, there is no doubt that the punishment for person A should be much stronger than person B...One offense (person A) can actually lead to something inappropriate happening and it could possibly impact the mission. Person B going to a strip club doesn't hurt anyone.

Mjölnir
02-11-2017, 10:45 PM
I'm completely with you that, in this case, the General got screwed, literally and figuratively. I don't think either of these guys should have gotten in trouble. I stated so at the beginning of this argument. However, taking person A who fraternizes and has an unprofessional relationship and person B who uses his GTC at a strip club and lies about it, there is no doubt that the punishment for person A should be much stronger than person B...One offense (person A) can actually lead to something inappropriate happening and it could possibly impact the mission. Person B going to a strip club doesn't hurt anyone.

Debate ... not argument.

I think both should have been held accountable.

In the case of person A, he admitted to fraternization and adultery ... as a 3 and 4-star.

In the case of person B, he was removed from a 3-star job, 3-star is temporary if not reassigned to a 3-star job in 90 days, so he reverted to 2-star. Why the reduction for retirement to 1-star? Don't know ... if for the action as a 3-star it seems to be piling on.

I do suspect that in the case of person B, it was the false official statements more than the strip errrrr "dance" club. A simple lie, from someone in a special position of trust who is expected to be beyond reproach is a big deal.

Mjölnir
02-11-2017, 10:46 PM
I'm completely with you that, in this case, the General got screwed, literally and figuratively. I don't think either of these guys should have gotten in trouble. I stated so at the beginning of this argument. However, taking person A who fraternizes and has an unprofessional relationship and person B who uses his GTC at a strip club and lies about it, there is no doubt that the punishment for person A should be much stronger than person B...One offense (person A) can actually lead to something inappropriate happening and it could possibly impact the mission. Person B going to a strip club doesn't hurt anyone.

Debate ... not argument.

I think both should have been held accountable.

In the case of person A, he admitted to fraternization and adultery ... as a 3 and 4-star.

In the case of person B, he was removed from a 3-star job, 3-star is temporary if not reassigned to a 3-star job in 90 days, so he reverted to 2-star. Why the reduction for retirement to 1-star? Don't know ... if for the action as a 3-star it seems to be piling on.

I do suspect that in the case of person B, it was the false official statements more than the strip errrrr "dance" club. A simple lie, from someone in a special position of trust who is expected to be beyond reproach is a big deal.

sandsjames
02-11-2017, 11:01 PM
Debate ... not argument.

I think both should have been held accountable.

In the case of person A, he admitted to fraternization and adultery ... as a 3 and 4-star.

In the case of person B, he was removed from a 3-star job, 3-star is temporary if not reassigned to a 3-star job in 90 days, so he reverted to 2-star. Why the reduction for retirement to 1-star? Don't know ... if for the action as a 3-star it seems to be piling on.

I do suspect that in the case of person B, it was the false official statements more than the strip errrrr "dance" club. A simple lie, from someone in a special position of trust who is expected to be beyond reproach is a big deal.

You're still speaking in specifics...take the stars out of it...take the positions out of it, because they don't matter...we have two people...one person lied about something that doesn't hurt anyone involved...the other cheated on his wife and misused his authority. Could have been a 3 star...could have been a high school teacher...could have been a baseball coach...could have been the night manager at McDonalds...it makes no difference. One is far worse than the other.

Mjölnir
02-12-2017, 11:44 AM
You're still speaking in specifics...take the stars out of it...take the positions out of it, because they don't matter...we have two people...one person lied about something that doesn't hurt anyone involved...the other cheated on his wife and misused his authority. Could have been a 3 star...could have been a high school teacher...could have been a baseball coach...could have been the night manager at McDonalds...it makes no difference. One is far worse than the other.

Agree ... one is far worse than the other (and if the unproven assault also true, it is a travesty). In the civilian world much of this isn't even in the preview of your employer.

Big picture, you are right ... take the specifics out and both are a much more benign issue than they are because in these specific situations both are in the military where our rules are different, our lives are different. It isn't just a job, if people want just a job without the extra benefits and (at times) drawbacks of the military ... that is fine ... they should go find a job.

sandsjames
02-12-2017, 02:27 PM
Agree ... one is far worse than the other (and if the unproven assault also true, it is a travesty). In the civilian world much of this isn't even in the preview of your employer.

Big picture, you are right ... take the specifics out and both are a much more benign issue than they are because in these specific situations both are in the military where our rules are different, our lives are different. It isn't just a job, if people want just a job without the extra benefits and (at times) drawbacks of the military ... that is fine ... they should go find a job.

I guess that's where we disagree most...IMO it's just a job. I'm not, nor was I, more important than anyone working any other job. My NCOIC was no more important than the manager at the water company. My Commander was no more important than the head doctor at the hospital. You put someone incompetent in either position and there are huge, very bad, consequences that put lives in danger.

And you're right...in most jobs that stuff doesn't fall under the purview of the employer. There's a very good reason for that. And, for the most part, it doesn't happen in the military, either. There's a reason, as you know, that the IG and that the defense counsel don't answer to the same chain of command. It's because the chain of command can't be expected to make objective decisions. Certain people will be given the benefit of the doubt...it's human nature.

Mjölnir
02-12-2017, 02:50 PM
I guess that's where we disagree most...IMO it's just a job. I'm not, nor was I, more important than anyone working any other job. My NCOIC was no more important than the manager at the water company. My Commander was no more important than the head doctor at the hospital. You put someone incompetent in either position and there are huge, very bad, consequences that put lives in danger.

We do disagree there. But it isn't about the NCOIC or Commander being more important than a manager or doctor ... it is just that the roles are different, the duties are different and the responsibilities are different. In your field in the Air Force & in my current assignment it may not be much different, in Combat Arms or at sea etc. the differences are much larger and IMO needed.


And you're right...in most jobs that stuff doesn't fall under the purview of the employer. There's a very good reason for that. And, for the most part, it doesn't happen in the military, either.

Probably depends on where you are in the military too.


There's a reason, as you know, that the IG and that the defense counsel don't answer to the same chain of command. It's because the chain of command can't be expected to make objective decisions. Certain people will be given the benefit of the doubt...it's human nature.

I think the commanders are expected to make objective decisions, and for the most part are good about that. At the same time, there are certain things that need a third party to look at ... some of the best views are from the outside looking in.

sandsjames
02-12-2017, 03:08 PM
I think the commanders are expected to make objective decisions, and for the most part are good about that. I've seen, and I'm sure you've seen, situations in a Squadron where two people get two completely different punishments for the same crime. DUI, for example...one guy gets stripe pulled and fined while the other guy only gets license suspended with zero fine, keeps stripe, etc. This is guys working in the same squadron at the same rank. How is that possible? It's possible because punishments are subjective. Maybe one guy is involved in all the BBQs, gets a 98% on his PT test, has that A-type personality and everyone likes him. The other guy does his job very well but isn't visible in the squadron...runs a little slower, etc. Two different guys, two different punishments, same crime. There can be no claim that there is objectivity. It's why I'm not a big fan of NJP with stuff like this. IMO, the only NJP type stuff should be for rules broken that are strictly UCMJ type rules...not for things that are also crimes in the civilian world. For instance, the cops aren't gonna arrest me downtown for telling my boss he's a douche bag...but that's definitely something that could require NJP.

Crimes, however, are crimes, and should be treated objectively, all the time. If the courts find mitigating circumstances then so be it, but equal crimes MUST garner equal punishment or the system doesn't work.

Mjölnir
02-12-2017, 03:51 PM
I've seen, and I'm sure you've seen, situations in a Squadron where two people get two completely different punishments for the same crime. DUI, for example...one guy gets stripe pulled and fined while the other guy only gets license suspended with zero fine, keeps stripe, etc. This is guys working in the same squadron at the same rank. How is that possible? It's possible because punishments are subjective.

Without knowing the mitigating circumstances, I couldn't tell you. Most of what I have seen for DUI's has been pretty uniform maxing folks out. What I have seen for other offenses (theft etc.) has been looking at who was the ring leader vice a follower -- which resulted in different punishments.

[QUOTE=sandsjames;369891]Maybe one guy is involved in all the BBQs, gets a 98% on his PT test, has that A-type personality and everyone likes him. The other guy does his job very well but isn't visible in the squadron...runs a little slower, etc.

What you are describing is the 'whole person concept', which I know you have heard. Again, why the military isn't just a job is because how you are evaluated is not just how you do your job, it is also how good of a Soldier, Sailor, Marine or Airman you are.


Two different guys, two different punishments, same crime. There can be no claim that there is objectivity. It's why I'm not a big fan of NJP with stuff like this. IMO, the only NJP type stuff should be for rules broken that are strictly UCMJ type rules...not for things that are also crimes in the civilian world. For instance, the cops aren't gonna arrest me downtown for telling my boss he's a douche bag...but that's definitely something that could require NJP.

Crimes, however, are crimes, and should be treated objectively, all the time. If the courts find mitigating circumstances then so be it, but equal crimes MUST garner equal punishment or the system doesn't work.

I am not a fan and automatic "crime A gets punishment X", because in some cases it ties the hand of the adjudicator. We put commanders, or civilian judges etc. into their positions to exercise authority, make decisions, live with and in some cases be held accountable for those decisions. In part it is looking at extenuating circumstances, secondary effects and in part it based on the individual. I have seen some people reduced for an incident and others confined to the barracks and put on extra duty for 45 or 60 days ... the reasoning being that one didn't care if you reduced him ... he was getting out and DNGAF, but mess with his free time and he got the message and afterward at least went through the motions that were required. I saw someone not reduced, but fined and confined to the barracks to avoiding dinging his family too much ... maybe it isn't fair to the guy who does get reduced, but commanders & judges can be subjective in their adjudication ... I think they should be allowed to be.

NJP and more about maintaining good order & discipline than punishment(which is unique to the miltiary and again ... not a job), but yes, you can punish someone to enforce the required order and discipline. The same types of subjective judgement you will find in civilian courts ... unless you establish an equation (infraction A, punishment X) you won't get what you are saying you want; I don't like that mentality because it sets up someone to be Jean Valjean (character from Les Miserables, 19 years in prison for theft ... stole bread to feed his sister's family ... but still a thief). What about someone late to work because their car broke down, technically violated Art 86., so punish them as you would someone who was late because they were sleeping off a bender? Both not at their appointed place of duty at the required time but two very different scenarios.

Digging into any incident ... it is so rare to find two that are 'exactly' alike that to punish them the same may not be warranted.

sandsjames
02-12-2017, 04:05 PM
[QUOTE=sandsjames;369891]I've seen, and I'm sure you've seen, situations in a Squadron where two people get two completely different punishments for the same crime. DUI, for example...one guy gets stripe pulled and fined while the other guy only gets license suspended with zero fine, keeps stripe, etc. This is guys working in the same squadron at the same rank. How is that possible? It's possible because punishments are subjective.

Without knowing the mitigating circumstances, I couldn't tell you. Most of what I have seen for DUI's has been pretty uniform maxing folks out. What I have seen for other offenses (theft etc.) has been looking at who was the ring leader vice a follower -- which resulted in different punishments.



What you are describing is the 'whole person concept', which I know you have heard. Again, why the military isn't just a job is because how you are evaluated is not just how you do your job, it is also how good of a Soldier, Sailor, Marine or Airman you are.



I am not a fan and automatic "crime A gets punishment X", because in some cases it ties the hand of the adjudicator. We put commanders, or civilian judges etc. into their positions to exercise authority, make decisions, live with and in some cases be held accountable for those decisions. In part it is looking at extenuating circumstances, secondary effects and in part it based on the individual. I have seen some people reduced for an incident and others confined to the barracks and put on extra duty for 45 or 60 days ... the reasoning being that one didn't care if you reduced him ... he was getting out and DNGAF, but mess with his free time and he got the message and afterward at least went through the motions that were required. I saw someone not reduced, but fined and confined to the barracks to avoiding dinging his family too much ... maybe it isn't fair to the guy who does get reduced, but commanders & judges can be subjective in their adjudication ... I think they should be allowed to be.

NJP and more about maintaining good order & discipline than punishment(which is unique to the miltiary and again ... not a job), but yes, you can punish someone to enforce the required order and discipline. The same types of subjective judgement you will find in civilian courts ... unless you establish an equation (infraction A, punishment X) you won't get what you are saying you want; I don't like that mentality because it sets up someone to be Jean Valjean (character from Les Miserables, 19 years in prison for theft ... stole bread to feed his sister's family ... but still a thief). What about someone late to work because their car broke down, technically violated Art 86., so punish them as you would someone who was late because they were sleeping off a bender? Both not at their appointed place of duty at the required time but two very different scenarios.

Digging into any incident ... it is so rare to find two that are 'exactly' alike that to punish them the same may not be warranted.

I'll simply say this again, and leave it at that. NJP should have to do with UCMJ violations that aren't covered in the civilian world. Other crimes should be punished via a court.

This is a situation that, when instituted, made sense. The military wasn't as public as it is today. Units handled their problems internally. A Sgt used to be able to deal with the junior enlisted in a way that would ensure compliance. That's no longer possible because of visibility towards the public media. The UCJM is absolutely necessary for to handle issues the civilian world isn't equipped to deal with. However, the ability for the military to protect their people FROM repercussion for violating civilian laws has far passed it's time.

Mjölnir
02-12-2017, 04:13 PM
I'll simply say this again, and leave it at that. NJP should have to do with UCMJ violations that aren't covered in the civilian world. Other crimes should be punished via a court.

This is a situation that, when instituted, made sense. The military wasn't as public as it is today. Units handled their problems internally. A Sgt used to be able to deal with the junior enlisted in a way that would ensure compliance. That's no longer possible because of visibility towards the public media. The UCJM is absolutely necessary for to handle issues the civilian world isn't equipped to deal with. However, the ability for the military to protect their people FROM repercussion for violating civilian laws has far passed it's time.

Okay, my Art 86 example is purely military in nature.

Two individuals, neither at appointed place of duty at the required time but for two very different reasons (one due to a car break down, one who was too drunk to get up and come to work). Do you punish them both the same?

Punish both the same and I think you are likely being overly harsh on the one whose car broke down.

Don't punish them both the same (or don't punish one at all) and you are being subjective about an 'identical' infraction.

Rainmaker
02-12-2017, 05:38 PM
MGen Lichte committed the more serious offense (adultery & fraternization, no question there ...

Disagree. At least, Lichte told the truth. This guy wasn't busted for just misusing the GTC card. He also made false official statements to the CID.

Mjölnir
02-12-2017, 06:33 PM
Disagree. At least, Lichte told the truth. This guy wasn't busted for just misusing the GTC card. He also made false official statements to the CID.

I'm down with CID ... yeah you know me!

sandsjames
02-12-2017, 06:42 PM
Okay, my Art 86 example is purely military in nature.

Two individuals, neither at appointed place of duty at the required time but for two very different reasons (one due to a car break down, one who was too drunk to get up and come to work). Do you punish them both the same?

Punish both the same and I think you are likely being overly harsh on the one whose car broke down.

Don't punish them both the same (or don't punish one at all) and you are being subjective about an 'identical' infraction.They aren't identical infractions. There are rules about drinking within a certain number of hours. Drinking on duty is against the UCMJ...a car breaking down is not. Now, if both are drinking then they need equal punishment and if both have a car break down and are late then both deserve equal punishment. To call those two things "identical" is a joke, right? That's like saying that any infractions under Article 92 are "identical". Nice try though...

That's a pretty weak analogy and, trust me, I know a lot about weak analogies.

Also, neither of those infractions are illegal in the civilian world.

sandsjames
02-12-2017, 06:43 PM
Disagree. At least, Lichte told the truth. This guy wasn't busted for just misusing the GTC card. He also made false official statements to the CID.

And if there's one thing I know you don't like, it's a leader (hail) who lies, that's for sure.

Mjölnir
02-12-2017, 07:04 PM
They aren't identical infractions. There are rules about drinking within a certain number of hours. Drinking on duty is against the UCMJ...a car breaking down is not. Now, if both are drinking then they need equal punishment and if both have a car break down and are late then both deserve equal punishment. To call those two things "identical" is a joke, right? That's like saying that any infractions under Article 92 are "identical". Nice try though...

That's a pretty weak analogy and, trust me, I know a lot about weak analogies.

Also, neither of those infractions are illegal in the civilian world.

Seeing how this one of the discussions in the legal phase of Pre CO/XO School, probably not a bad analogy.

If the individual was still drink on or unfit for duty that is Art. 112.

Let's stick to Art. 86, say the guy who got drunk stopped drinking outside those limits ... just the hangover was so bad that he didn't get up. And while a car breaking down is not a violation of the UCMJ, per Art 86:

Any member of the armed forces who, without authority:

(1) fails to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed;

(2) goes from that place; or

(3) absents himself or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty at which he is required to be at the time prescribed; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Why someone isn't at their appointed place is irrelevant to the article, we just excuse the one with a good reason vice the one with a hangover. Neither showed up to work at the appointed hour, you are being subjective on why they didn't.

Dismiss it all you want, say "nice try though" all you want ... despite what you said, you want subjectiveness ... you just want it in a way that you approve of.

sandsjames
02-12-2017, 08:00 PM
Seeing how this one of the discussions in the legal phase of Pre CO/XO School, probably not a bad analogy.

If the individual was still drink on or unfit for duty that is Art. 112.

Let's stick to Art. 86, say the guy who got drunk stopped drinking outside those limits ... just the hangover was so bad that he didn't get up. And while a car breaking down is not a violation of the UCMJ, per Art 86:

Any member of the armed forces who, without authority:

(1) fails to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed;

(2) goes from that place; or

(3) absents himself or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty at which he is required to be at the time prescribed; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Why someone isn't at their appointed place is irrelevant to the article, we just excuse the one with a good reason vice the one with a hangover. Neither showed up to work at the appointed hour, you are being subjective on why they didn't.

Dismiss it all you want, say "nice try though" all you want ... despite what you said, you want subjectiveness ... you just want it in a way that you approve of.

No, now you've changed the scenario. They both show up late and neither has broken any rules, other than being late (and showing up late is not a trend), they get counselled about being late (which is what we are taught to do as part of progressive discipline). Missed alarm, car broke down, kids were a pain in the ass, it doesn't matter...they weren't there they get talked to. If it continues then the discipline gets more severe.

Now, hung over is different...if they show signs of being hung over then the punishment is more severe. Of course as NCOs were taught not to ask that question because rights have not been read and any answer given is inadmissible.

It's simple. Two people show up late they get equal discipline. Two people get DUIs they get equal discipline. Two people commit sexual assault they get equal punishment. These infractions get handled by the lowest level/rank/court possible based on what's allowed per the UCMJ. Showing up late is handled by the military, drunk on duty is handled by the military, because civilian courts don't give a shit about any of that stuff. Sexual assault, DUI, etc, get handled off base by the civilian courts because those are civilian infractions. I don't see what the complication is here.

Mjölnir
02-12-2017, 08:06 PM
No, now you've changed the scenario. They both show up late and neither has broken any rules, other than being late (and showing up late is not a trend), they get counselled about being late (which is what we are taught to do as part of progressive discipline). Missed alarm, car broke down, kids were a pain in the ass, it doesn't matter...they weren't there they get talked to. If it continues then the discipline gets more severe.

Now, hung over is different...if they show signs of being hung over then the punishment is more severe. Of course as NCOs were taught not to ask that question because rights have not been read and any answer given is inadmissible.

It's simple. Two people show up late they get equal discipline. Two people get DUIs they get equal discipline. Two people commit sexual assault they get equal punishment. These infractions get handled by the lowest level/rank/court possible based on what's allowed per the UCMJ. Showing up late is handled by the military, drunk on duty is handled by the military, because civilian courts don't give a shit about any of that stuff. Sexual assault, DUI, etc, get handled off base by the civilian courts because those are civilian infractions. I don't see what the complication is here.

Being late, you mean not being at their appointed place of duty at the appointed time, a violation of Art 86. No where in the the Art. Does it say a first offense is handled by counseling.

You are subjectively deciding to handle it with counseling vice an NJP or court martial.

sandsjames
02-12-2017, 08:13 PM
Being late, you mean not being at their appointed place of duty at the appointed time, a violation of Art 86. No where in the the Art. Does it say a first offense is handled by counseling.

You are subjectively deciding to handle it with counseling vice an NJP or court martial.

Wrong...the Commander has decided that it's not worth his time and has delegated the authority to supervisory level. If a supervisor were to push for an article 86 violation he'd get laughed at and probably removed from the position.

Either way, I give up...you win.

Mjölnir
02-12-2017, 08:32 PM
Wrong...the Commander has decided that it's not worth his time and has delegated the authority to supervisory level. If a supervisor were to push for an article 86 violation he'd get laughed at and probably removed from the position.

Either way, I give up...you win.

So the commander in this case was subjective about adjudicating the offense. Depending on the circumstances, a first offense may warrant referral to NJP; again since we are talking different services, types of units etc. the necessity for stricter discipline probably varies. We pay NCOs, SNCOs and Officers to think, exercise judgement, and LEAD ... not have every decision relegated to an equation so they are just cogs in a machine. Sometimes people don't live up to that, in my 25 years most have; I get the impression you have served with some poor leaders which likely influences how you see it.

I do get the point you are going after, but it is pretty clear you do want the ability to be subjective when it suits your desire, which sounds like when the decision is within your responsibility to adjudicate; but do not want others to be able to be subjective.

sandsjames
02-12-2017, 09:28 PM
I do get the point you are going after, I don't believe you do but you still win. Good game.