Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 50 of 50

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

  1. #41
    Senior Member Rainmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    on a Marl Road
    Posts
    3,883
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post

    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.
    Last edited by Rainmaker; 02-12-2017 at 05:44 PM.

  2. #42
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,970
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    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!
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  3. #43
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    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.

  4. #44
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    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.

  5. #45
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,970
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    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.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  6. #46
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    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.

  7. #47
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,970
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    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.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  8. #48
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    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.

  9. #49
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,970
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    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.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  10. #50
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    I do get the point you are going after,
    I don't believe you do but you still win. Good game.

Posting Permissions

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