Military Mischief

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: FEMA Camp PI Okanogan, WA 98840

Re: Military Mischief

Post by SueDB » Thu Sep 29, 2016 8:16 am

Maybenaut wrote:Here's an article from the Washington Post about a Navy Sailor who refused to salute during the National Anthem.

I have mixed feelings about this. I get where she's coming from, but you can't pick and choose which regulations you're going to follow.
I agree. Folks have a right to protest under the rules and the rules for military can be quite different.

There are many folks who end up being surprised when they find out that the UCMJ Uniform Code of Military Justice governing the military is in ways quite different from being a normal civilian.

I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't offer punishment under Article 15 (no civilian record/traces) - and hopefully the troop is smart enough to sign it. A court marshal record would not be helpful (Special/BCD Special as IIRR you can refuse the Article 15 and the lowest level CM - the Summary or judge only court marshal).
“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 13738
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Military Mischief

Post by Suranis » Thu Sep 29, 2016 8:24 am

Yeah, I'm sorry, but when you are wearing the Uniform you salute, no matter your private feelings. You are representing something and your other team members while in uniform.
"I think its pretty troubling when a backyard decoration comes out swinging harder against Nazis than the President of the United States." - Stephen Colbert

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: FEMA Camp PI Okanogan, WA 98840

Re: Military Mischief

Post by SueDB » Thu Sep 29, 2016 1:22 pm

Navy Has Punished at Least One Sailor So Far-This one is an NCO-PO2 - Could Go Hard...
The Navy's protocol handbook says sailors in uniform must salute during the anthem. They must also face the flag, or if a flag is not visible, sailors are required to face the direction of the music.

Troops who don’t stand for the National Anthem could face prosecution under the Navy’s Uniform Code of Military Justice for violating Article 92, which says that troops can be punished for failing to obey a lawful general order.
“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 3824
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: Military Mischief

Post by Maybenaut » Thu Sep 29, 2016 1:57 pm

SueDB wrote:Navy Has Punished at Least One Sailor So Far-This one is an NCO-PO2 - Could Go Hard...
The Navy's protocol handbook says sailors in uniform must salute during the anthem. They must also face the flag, or if a flag is not visible, sailors are required to face the direction of the music.

Troops who don’t stand for the National Anthem could face prosecution under the Navy’s Uniform Code of Military Justice for violating Article 92, which says that troops can be punished for failing to obey a lawful general order.
I have my doubts about that. To qualify as a "lawful general order or regulation" the regulation at issue has to include specific language that the Navy's protocol handbook doesn't include, notably, that the person has to be on notice that failure to obey the rehulation could result in punitive, as opposed to merely administrative, sanction. That doesn't necessarily mean it's not punishable under some other article (for example, Article 134, which prohibits conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline, and conduct of a nature to bring discredit on the armed forces). It might seem like a meaningless distinction, but a "simple disorder" under Article 134 carries a maximum punishment of 4 months and no punitive discharge, while the maximum punishment for violating a lawful general order or regulation is two years plus a dishonorable discharge.

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: FEMA Camp PI Okanogan, WA 98840

Re: Military Mischief

Post by SueDB » Thu Sep 29, 2016 2:38 pm

Maybenaut wrote:
SueDB wrote:Navy Has Punished at Least One Sailor So Far-This one is an NCO-PO2 - Could Go Hard...
The Navy's protocol handbook says sailors in uniform must salute during the anthem. They must also face the flag, or if a flag is not visible, sailors are required to face the direction of the music.

Troops who don’t stand for the National Anthem could face prosecution under the Navy’s Uniform Code of Military Justice for violating Article 92, which says that troops can be punished for failing to obey a lawful general order.
I have my doubts about that. To qualify as a "lawful general order or regulation" the regulation at issue has to include specific language that the Navy's protocol handbook doesn't include, notably, that the person has to be on notice that failure to obey the rehulation could result in punitive, as opposed to merely administrative, sanction. That doesn't necessarily mean it's not punishable under some other article (for example, Article 134, which prohibits conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline, and conduct of a nature to bring discredit on the armed forces). It might seem like a meaningless distinction, but a "simple disorder" under Article 134 carries a maximum punishment of 4 months and no punitive discharge, while the maximum punishment for violating a lawful general order or regulation is two years plus a dishonorable discharge.
It's someone's press release -
Edit: Ah, It's Faux News... So, take it with a big crystal of salt.
Conduct Unbecoming an NCO?
“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 3824
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: Military Mischief

Post by Maybenaut » Thu Sep 29, 2016 2:58 pm

There isn't any such offense as conduct unbecoming an NCO. There's conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, bit that only applies to officers. She could be charged with a simple disorder under 134, and maybe with dereliction of duty under Atricle 92 (a duty can arise from a "custom of the service").

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: FEMA Camp PI Okanogan, WA 98840

Re: Military Mischief

Post by SueDB » Thu Sep 29, 2016 3:22 pm

Maybenaut wrote:There isn't any such offense as conduct unbecoming an NCO. There's conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, bit that only applies to officers. She could be charged with a simple disorder under 134, and maybe with dereliction of duty under Atricle 92 (a duty can arise from a "custom of the service").
Thank you :-D
“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
optimusprime
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:06 pm

Re: Military Mischief

Post by optimusprime » Thu Sep 29, 2016 7:17 pm

She is also a reservist.

What are they going to do - lock her up on drill weekends once a month and for two weeks in the summer?

To make this "go away" nicely, she will get a commander's reprimand and/or a bar to re-enlistment. With the reprimand in her file, she can then receive a negative block on the loyalty, respect and other check blocks on her efficiency report (I am Army, so there are different yearly reports, so forgive if I have stated something different for the US Navy) and her write up will suck. That will mean no more promotions, the bar to re-enlistment will boot her out, and she can then wait for her characterization of service stamp to be "less than honorable." Of course, she can spend the next 15 years battling service review boards and other actions to return her good name, but she is just about to get screwed royally.

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 12686
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: Military Mischief

Post by RTH10260 » Wed Mar 15, 2017 9:22 am

Case last mentioned further up in 2015
Admiral and 8 Other Navy Officers Indicted on Bribery Charges
By ERIC LICHTBLAU MARCH 14, 2017

WASHINGTON — A retired United States Navy admiral and eight other high-ranking officers were indicted on Tuesday in a widening bribery scandal in which prosecutors say a foreign contractor traded luxury travel, lavish gifts and prostitutes for inside intelligence.

A total of 25 military officers and private-sector executives have now been prosecuted in one of the worst corruption scandals to hit the military in years.

Prosecutors, laying out in unsparing detail a plot that stretched from Singapore to Washington, accused the officers — all with the Seventh Fleet in the Pacific, the Navy’s largest — of betraying the public trust for bribes from a well-connected military contractor in Singapore, Leonard Glenn Francis, known as Fat Leonard. The scheme cost the Navy “tens of millions of dollars” in overbillings to Mr. Francis’ firm, as he relied on sensitive and sometimes classified information the officers had given them to game the system, according to the indictment.

The yearslong bribery scheme “amounts to a staggering degree of corruption by the most prominent leaders of the Seventh Fleet,” said Alana W. Robinson, the acting United States attorney in San Diego, where the charges were brought.

The officers “actively worked together as a team to trade secrets for sex, serving the interests of a greedy foreign defense contractor, and not those of their own country,” Ms. Robinson said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/us/a ... arges.html

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 5759
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Military Mischief

Post by RoadScholar » Wed Mar 15, 2017 9:49 am

Trump has probably done everything they did and more.

Just sayin'.
The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 3824
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: Military Mischief

Post by Maybenaut » Wed Apr 12, 2017 4:49 pm

Looks like Marine Major Mark Thompson is set to plead guilty tomorrow.

As you'll recall, he was an instructor at the Naval Academy accused of having sex with a midshipman (or two -- can't remember the details). He was aquitted of some stuff but convicted of other stuff. He wasn't sentenced to a dismissal, but he was sent to an Administrative Separation Board, which recommended he be retained in the service. Not one to (a) look a gift horse in the mouth or (b) let sleeping dogs lie (choose your metaphor), he went to an investigative reporter at the Washington Post to complain about how shabbily he was treated. The investigative reporter did what investigative reporters do -- he investigated. And lo and behold, turned out the midshipman still had her phone with all the texts that oroved the guy lied in his court-martial or adsep board (maybe both -- can't recall). The Post ran the story, and Thompson was charged with more crimes. We'll know tomorrow whether he gets to keep his retirement. I'm betting not.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/pu ... 0#comments

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 8319
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Military Mischief

Post by Notorial Dissent » Wed Apr 12, 2017 5:23 pm

Some people just don't get the whole STFU thing and end up shooting themselves in the foot, repeatedly.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 3824
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: Military Mischief

Post by Maybenaut » Thu Apr 13, 2017 9:17 pm

According to the Washington Post, Marine Major Mark Thompson got sentenced to 90 days confinement and a dismissal. So he loses his retirement.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/pu ... 4530387efb

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 10941
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Here
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Re: Military Mischief

Post by Whatever4 » Thu Apr 13, 2017 11:08 pm

Maybenaut wrote:According to the Washington Post, Marine Major Mark Thompson got sentenced to 90 days confinement and a dismissal. So he loses his retirement.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/pu ... 4530387efb
:like:
"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (R-ME)

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 3824
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: Military Mischief

Post by Maybenaut » Fri Apr 14, 2017 12:23 am

Ugh. Spoke too soon... plea deal says the dismissal will be suspended, but SECNAV could reduce him in rank upon retirement.
As part of his plea deal, Thompson’s punitive discharge will be suspended, allowing him to collect retirement benefits if he meets the terms of the agreement. But his retirement will be reviewed by the Navy Secretary, who could decide to demote Thompson and dramatically reduce his pension.

User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 13664
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

Re: Military Mischief

Post by ZekeB » Fri Apr 14, 2017 6:26 am

Does a reduction in rank automatically result in a reduction in retirement? Even if he held his present rank for at least three years?
Vím o prasatech hodně zajímavých věcí.

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 3824
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: Military Mischief

Post by Maybenaut » Fri Apr 14, 2017 6:54 am

ZekeB wrote:Does a reduction in rank automatically result in a reduction in retirement? Even if he held his present rank for at least three years?
Yes. It has to be approved by the Secretary, but reduction resulting from a grade determination board is an exception to high-three.

ETA: The grade determination board determines the highest grade "satisfactorily held." They look at the officers record to see what grade he was in the last time he served a complete grade without committing any misconduct while in that grade. For some, it can be huge (in one of the big travel claim fraud cases an army 2-star general was reduced to O-6).

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 8319
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Military Mischief

Post by Notorial Dissent » Fri Apr 14, 2017 9:27 am

That had to have hurt.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 13664
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

Re: Military Mischief

Post by ZekeB » Fri Apr 14, 2017 11:37 am

I don't know how much TIS he has, but it's possible he may need to serve six more years as an O-3 before hitting the magic twenty and qualifying for retirement.
Vím o prasatech hodně zajímavých věcí.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 7857
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Military Mischief

Post by Mikedunford » Fri Apr 14, 2017 1:11 pm

ZekeB wrote:I don't know how much TIS he has, but it's possible he may need to serve six more years as an O-3 before hitting the magic twenty and qualifying for retirement.
I think I remember reading that he was prior enlisted and near the 20 mark when he fucked up.
1 Cranch 137, 177

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 3824
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: Military Mischief

Post by Maybenaut » Fri Apr 14, 2017 2:21 pm

ZekeB wrote:I don't know how much TIS he has, but it's possible he may need to serve six more years as an O-3 before hitting the magic twenty and qualifying for retirement.
He qualifies for retirement now. From what I recall, he's served over 20 years. Once you hit 20, you're going to get your retirement and the only way they can take it away from you is through a dismissal at court-martial, or being dropped from the rolls (which is rare, and usually only happens in cases of people who have been incarcerated by the civilians for a long period of time while they're still on active duty).

User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 13664
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

Re: Military Mischief

Post by ZekeB » Fri Apr 14, 2017 6:02 pm

Reminds me of a guy named Ted Parsons. He's an ex-AF Major who killed a dear friend of mine. His carcass is presently rotting in the Nebraska State Pennitentary.
Vím o prasatech hodně zajímavých věcí.

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 3824
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: Military Mischief

Post by Maybenaut » Sun Aug 27, 2017 12:12 pm

Well, now, here's something you don't see every day.
The Washington Post wrote: In rare spectacle, Army court-martials a retired general

The U.S. Army will do something this weekend it has done only four other times since the Truman administration — drag a general into a military courtroom to face criminal charges.

James J. Grazioplene, 68, a retired major general from Gainesville, Va., is being court-martialed on charges that he raped a child over a six-year period while he was on active duty in the 1980s, according to Army officials and court documents.
I do have a slight nit to pick with the article, though. It says he "is being court-martialed." But the hearing that he faces is to determine whether he should be court-martialed. It is yet to be decided whether he will be.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... 07ccb198a2

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 5759
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Military Mischief

Post by RoadScholar » Sun Aug 27, 2017 12:18 pm

Is "court-martialed" equivalent to "indicted" in civilian law, or does it differ in any major regard?
The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 3824
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: Military Mischief

Post by Maybenaut » Sun Aug 27, 2017 12:28 pm

RoadScholar wrote:Is "court-martialed" equivalent to "indicted" in civilian law, or does it differ in any major regard?
No. The court-martial is the actual trial itself. It has not yet been determined whether he will go to trial. The nearest equivalent to an "indictment" in the military is a "referral of charges." After this hearing, the hearing officer will make a recommendation as to whether the charges should be "referred" to court-martial. It's only a recommendation, it's not binding. Even if he says there's no probable cause, the convening authority can still refer the charges.

Post Reply

Return to “Military”