Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: 2006 civilian conviction taking this E9 down?

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    retired usa
    Posts
    347
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    2006 civilian conviction taking this E9 down?

    http://www.airforcetimes.com/article...006-conviction

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

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Dayon, Ohio
    Posts
    1,244
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    How the hell did he not get a really shitty EPR when all of this was going on? I bet he has all 5s just like everyone else.

  3. #3
    Senior Member TJMAC77SP's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    3,156
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SomeRandomGuy View Post
    How the hell did he not get a really shitty EPR when all of this was going on? I bet he has all 5s just like everyone else.
    The article was wrong about one thing, he was boarded for both E-8 and E-9 and I don't see how the hell he made either rank.
    ___________________
    Read carefully, think, then write thoughtfully……………………………..

    I don’t have any quotes……you can pick one for yourself

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    52
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    The guy is creepy for sure, but it seems like he was possibly a Golden Boy who "they" wanted to protect. Base officials knew about him but did little or nothing at all. The fact that he is now being drug through the mud for something that wasn't handled properly 10 years ago stinks. Those in charge at the time should be held accountable.

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

  5. #5
    Senior Member LogDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Somewhere, Ca
    Posts
    804
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    This whole story just doesn't make sense.

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

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

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

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

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    retired usa
    Posts
    347
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by TJMAC77SP View Post
    The article was wrong about one thing, he was boarded for both E-8 and E-9 and I don't see how the hell he made either rank.
    No, he put Chief on in Dec.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    retired usa
    Posts
    347
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by LogDog View Post
    This whole story just doesn't make sense.

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

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

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

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

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Dayon, Ohio
    Posts
    1,244
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by tiredretiredE7 View Post
    It does make sense. I saw this happen 4 times over 20 years but it was the way SF handed these scenarios 10 to 15 years ago. He would have simply taken leave while he was in jail. The first sergeant at the time is probably retired by now but his CC could still be on AD but then the AF does not want to punish 05s and above. Hopefully Congress gets hold of this one and some other people besides this E9 will be held accountable.
    According to the article he was placed in "inmate status" while in jail and didn't get paid. He wouldn't have been able to take leave while in jail if he was in a no pay status. You can only be in one status at a time and leave is a status.

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

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

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Dayton, OH
    Posts
    131
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    The article was also misleading about the UIF not affecting his promotion to MSgt. While technically true, a UIF doesn't affect promotion, the CC can admin hold the line number. What I am baffled at is the mandatory reporting requirements to your Security Manager about any apprehension/conviction especially. The CC also dropped the balled on establishing a Special Information File to suspend his access because he is unreliable and/or untrustworthy.

  10. #10
    Senior Member TJMAC77SP's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    3,156
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by tiredretiredE7 View Post
    No, he put Chief on in Dec.
    What I was referring to was the quote in the original article that only promotion to E-9 requires a board. They have fixed the article.

    "................(This story has been corrected. Promotion to E-8 requires a centralized evaluation board.)"
    ___________________
    Read carefully, think, then write thoughtfully……………………………..

    I don’t have any quotes……you can pick one for yourself

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •