Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: Fair or Foul?

  1. #1
    Senior Member Capt Alfredo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Echo Chamber
    Posts
    584
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)

    Fair or Foul?

    bilde.jpg

    Remember that? Now, how about this:

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

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

    Fair or foul?
    Last edited by Capt Alfredo; 11-27-2014 at 06:20 AM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member LogDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Somewhere, Ca
    Posts
    772
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Capt Alfredo View Post
    bilde.jpg

    Remember that? Now, how about this:

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

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

    Fair or foul?
    What's your opinion?

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

  3. #3
    Senior Member Absinthe Anecdote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Baltimore
    Posts
    3,669
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    I like this one better, let's talk about this one.

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

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

    They wrote that description up so badly that the whole thing sounds absurd.
    Last edited by Absinthe Anecdote; 11-27-2014 at 12:38 PM.
    All behold that fancy strutting peacock, the bake sale diva...

  4. #4
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Absinthe Anecdote View Post
    I like this one better, let's talk about this one.



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

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

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

  5. #5
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Capt Alfredo View Post
    bilde.jpg

    Remember that? Now, how about this:

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

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

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

  6. #6
    Senior Member Absinthe Anecdote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Baltimore
    Posts
    3,669
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    If they had to do a "wellness" check because he was on quarters after surgery then I'm guessing that he wasn't physically able to do his job. If he wasn't physically able to do his job, and is supposed to be resting, then how can he be expected to clean his room. If he's able to clean his room, shouldn't he be at work...at least on limited duty?
    The way that description reads, I'm imagining something like this.

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

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

    I have heard of that one before. This kid at Meade had an old motorcycle in his room and was trying to fix it up.
    Last edited by Absinthe Anecdote; 11-27-2014 at 05:24 PM.
    All behold that fancy strutting peacock, the bake sale diva...

  7. #7
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Absinthe Anecdote View Post
    The way that description reads, I'm imagining something like this.

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

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

    I have heard of that one before. This kid at Meade had an old motorcycle in his room and was trying to fix it up.
    I saw some pretty bad rooms, too. I'm just betting that there has to be more to it than the story talks about.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Absinthe Anecdote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Baltimore
    Posts
    3,669
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    I saw some pretty bad rooms, too. I'm just betting that there has to be more to it than the story talks about.
    Probably so.

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

    The guy could have been on thin ice already for something unrelated.
    All behold that fancy strutting peacock, the bake sale diva...

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sooner Nation
    Posts
    300
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Capt Alfredo View Post
    Rules for the sake of rules makes for mindless policy and engenders a lack of respect for those who enact and enforce them.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    618
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by fufu View Post

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

Posting Permissions

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