Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: Meet the Admiral Who Leads from a Wheelchair

  1. #11
    Senior Member LogDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Somewhere, Ca
    Posts
    773
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by FLAPS View Post
    Lots of debate over whether or not this is a double standard. I think it comes down to perception. Remember the saying, "perception is reality"? The vast majority of those serving are probably already convinced that the Admiral is still serving due to his rank, while thousands of other service members continue to get their 'pink slips' for much less debilitating conditions. The Navy (or Admiral) should address this issue, or do the right thing by sending the Admiral out the door.
    When I was in the AF, we had a saying "One rule for the enlisted and one rule for the officers." This seems to uphold that saying and it might just be my perception but having seen people separated for being overweight or not meeting body fat standards (even thought they could ace PT tests) but this does seem to be an exception because of his rank.

    I remember enlisted being counseled because of their appearance in uniform because they were, to put it not too politely, fat and put on the Fat Boy Program and mandatory PT program. However, the officers who were busting the seams of their uniforms had nothing done to them. I dated a TSgt, back in the 80s, who was in admin and she got fed up withthe double standard. Her squadron commander was put people on the Fat Boy Program because they were overweight but he wasn't on it although he exceeded the weight standards. She managed the Fat Boy Program for the squadron and finally got fed up and went to the Group Commander and showed him who was on the program and asked why the squadron commander wasn't. It took awhile but the squadron commander was put on the program but that would never have happened if she hadn't mad a fuss about it. Until she forced the issue, it was one rule for the enlisted and one rule for the officers.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,310
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by LogDog View Post
    When I was in the AF, we had a saying "One rule for the enlisted and one rule for the officers." This seems to uphold that saying and it might just be my perception but having seen people separated for being overweight or not meeting body fat standards (even thought they could ace PT tests) but this does seem to be an exception because of his rank.

    I remember enlisted being counseled because of their appearance in uniform because they were, to put it not too politely, fat and put on the Fat Boy Program and mandatory PT program. However, the officers who were busting the seams of their uniforms had nothing done to them. I dated a TSgt, back in the 80s, who was in admin and she got fed up withthe double standard. Her squadron commander was put people on the Fat Boy Program because they were overweight but he wasn't on it although he exceeded the weight standards. She managed the Fat Boy Program for the squadron and finally got fed up and went to the Group Commander and showed him who was on the program and asked why the squadron commander wasn't. It took awhile but the squadron commander was put on the program but that would never have happened if she hadn't mad a fuss about it. Until she forced the issue, it was one rule for the enlisted and one rule for the officers.
    In the navy, it was one rule for E1-6, one for the chief community, and one for the officers...

  3. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    71
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by LogDog View Post
    When I was in the AF, we had a saying "One rule for the enlisted and one rule for the officers." This seems to uphold that saying and it might just be my perception but having seen people separated for being overweight or not meeting body fat standards (even thought they could ace PT tests) but this does seem to be an exception because of his rank.

    I remember enlisted being counseled because of their appearance in uniform because they were, to put it not too politely, fat and put on the Fat Boy Program and mandatory PT program. However, the officers who were busting the seams of their uniforms had nothing done to them. I dated a TSgt, back in the 80s, who was in admin and she got fed up withthe double standard. Her squadron commander was put people on the Fat Boy Program because they were overweight but he wasn't on it although he exceeded the weight standards. She managed the Fat Boy Program for the squadron and finally got fed up and went to the Group Commander and showed him who was on the program and asked why the squadron commander wasn't. It took awhile but the squadron commander was put on the program but that would never have happened if she hadn't mad a fuss about it. Until she forced the issue, it was one rule for the enlisted and one rule for the officers.
    Well, at least from my experience (10 enlisted/13 officer), things weren't as unfair as assumed by most. I worked with a fat LT who was kicked out for failing three PT tests, a friend who was passed over to Lt Col because he 'looked' overweight to his wing commander, but never failed a PT test in his life, and I know of at least one wing commander who was fired for failing ONE PT test. Outside of fitness, an officer who fails to promote within his normal window has about a 1% chance of being promoted at the next (and final) opportunity. Failure to promote in the officer world means you get the boot. Anyway, these are just a few examples of how officers don't always get away with breaking the rules.

  4. #14
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    Posts
    2,920
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    The reason I say this isn't as much of a double standard as it sounds like is being made here, there are service members of all ranks who have this same waiver. The article even contains a picture of an E5 (not sure the service). If the RADM was the only one, I would agree, that isn't the case.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

Posting Permissions

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