User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 1:05:27 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
POGs gonna POG. Hell...if I was a POG, I'd have been tossed out early on for now wearing dog tags 
What's this have to do with being a pogue? (yeah, pogue not POG)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 1:17:48 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What's this have to do with being a pogue? (yeah, pogue not POG)Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: POGs gonna POG. Hell...if I was a POG, I'd have been tossed out early on for now wearing dog tags What's this have to do with being a pogue? (yeah, pogue not POG)Because they'll bitch about anything....like when I said "water fountain"... You best say "scuttlebutt" when your at IPAC, aka, pog central |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 1:20:45 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because they'll bitch about anything....like when I said "water fountain"... You best say "scuttlebutt" when your at IPAC, aka, pog central Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
POGs gonna POG. Hell...if I was a POG, I'd have been tossed out early on for now wearing dog tags
What's this have to do with being a pogue? (yeah, pogue not POG)Because they'll bitch about anything....like when I said "water fountain"... You best say "scuttlebutt" when your at IPAC, aka, pog central Lol, like the grunts are any better. At least when I was a grunt they bitched about everything and did anything they could to avoid things they didn't want to do. Pogues do to. People do in general . Gotta love the continual pissing match between pogues anf grunts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 3:16:35 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
She should have written the verse in Arabic or Spanish and no one would have cared. ...while wearing a Turbin. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 3:25:27 AM EDT
[#5]
Heard there was more to the story
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 3:38:16 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Heard there was more to the story Well no fucking shit.. Try reading the entire thread and the links to the appellate court findings and you will get more of the story. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 4:05:46 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Right, thanks. ETA: I recall that there is an avenue for getting a General upgraded to Honorable, also. True? I have to try hard not to believe that this was all part of her plan to get paid. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can you even get a BCD for an Article 15? I can't remember. Seems to me a General under other than honorable is as low as they can go. No, you can only get a BCD at a Special CM or a GCM. OTH can be awarded by an admin board following an Article-15, but the article-15 authority does not extend to any discharges by itself. Right, thanks. ETA: I recall that there is an avenue for getting a General upgraded to Honorable, also. True? I have to try hard not to believe that this was all part of her plan to get paid. There's a lot of myth surrounding upgrading of discharges. I haven't paid much attention to it, but I believe in most cases it involves proving that there was some error in awarding the less than honorable discharge category. BCD/DD cannot be upgraded, they can be overturned by an appellate court and that's about it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 4:31:14 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
 
Thanks, that made my night. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 4:40:09 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: big chicken dinner fo dat, WTF |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 4:41:04 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I wonder if they are going to send back all the ACOGs... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 5:00:32 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They used a dremel and ground off all of the verses on ours. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I wonder if they are going to send back all the ACOGs... I have to see this to believe it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 5:13:27 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They used a dremel and ground off all of the verses on ours. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I wonder if they are going to send back all the ACOGs... Thank God. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 5:47:01 AM EDT
[#13]
as the article is written it seems like a lot of questions still are not answered.
If the whole thing was started because she refused to obey the order of a superior in removing a piece of paper then it seems odd. I have a hard time understanding how that would be a lawful order, but I saw some strange things when I was in. if there is more to this story I would not be surprised, but at the same time if this is the basis of her BCD then it does seem very excessive to me. of course I was "ordered" to pay into CFC, 82nd association, AUSA, AER and any number of other voluntary things and was told it was a "lawful" order, by team leader, squad leader, platoon sergeant, first sergeant, and CO, threatened all the way up to the Battalion CSM. I was always respectful in my refusal, and after conferring with a JAG lawyer. the threats of NJP were removed and I just ended up with more CQ on the weekends. sometimes command does not even know what a lawful order is. of course according to this thread I should have payed the money then challenged it, of course I would not have received my money back, but I would have followed a "lawful" order |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 6:03:50 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
as the article is written it seems like a lot of questions still are not answered. If the whole thing was started because she refused to obey the order of a superior in removing a piece of paper then it seems odd. I have a hard time understanding how that would be a lawful order, but I saw some strange things when I was in. if there is more to this story I would not be surprised, but at the same time if this is the basis of her BCD then it does seem very excessive to me. of course I was "ordered" to pay into CFC, 82nd association, AUSA, AER and any number of other voluntary things and was told it was a "lawful" order, by team leader, squad leader, platoon sergeant, first sergeant, and CO, threatened all the way up to the Battalion CSM. I was always respectful in my refusal, and after conferring with a JAG lawyer. the threats of NJP were removed and I just ended up with more CQ on the weekends. sometimes command does not even know what a lawful order is. of course according to this thread I should have payed the money then challenged it, of course I would not have received my money back, but I would have followed a "lawful" order Surely you can see the difference between being ordered to give up your own money and being ordered to remove a slip of paper from a computer (repeatedly). The article is shit. Read the court doc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 6:05:39 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
as the article is written it seems like a lot of questions still are not answered. If the whole thing was started because she refused to obey the order of a superior in removing a piece of paper then it seems odd. I have a hard time understanding how that would be a lawful order, but I saw some strange things when I was in. if there is more to this story I would not be surprised, but at the same time if this is the basis of her BCD then it does seem very excessive to me. of course I was "ordered" to pay into CFC, 82nd association, AUSA, AER and any number of other voluntary things and was told it was a "lawful" order, by team leader, squad leader, platoon sergeant, first sergeant, and CO, threatened all the way up to the Battalion CSM. I was always respectful in my refusal, and after conferring with a JAG lawyer. the threats of NJP were removed and I just ended up with more CQ on the weekends. sometimes command does not even know what a lawful order is. of course according to this thread I should have payed the money then challenged it, of course I would not have received my money back, but I would have followed a "lawful" order Your observations on the lack of knowledge on what constitutes a lawful order are correct and your leadership ordering you to contribute money is an example of an unlawful orders. However orders to remove posters, signs or anything else of that nature from a work space is totally lawful. Regardless of what a piece of paper says, you can be directed to take it down because your leadership doesn't like the esthetics of it, thinks it makes the office looks sloppy or cheap (actual had a CO who put out an order, nothing was to be hung on walls or put up in the office if it was not in a frame) or probably in this case follow several reprimands to SNM, the message was taken as an affront to the leadership itself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 6:11:18 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Surely you can see the difference between being ordered to give up your own money and being ordered to remove a slip of paper from a computer (repeatedly). The article is shit. Read the court doc. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
as the article is written it seems like a lot of questions still are not answered. If the whole thing was started because she refused to obey the order of a superior in removing a piece of paper then it seems odd. I have a hard time understanding how that would be a lawful order, but I saw some strange things when I was in. if there is more to this story I would not be surprised, but at the same time if this is the basis of her BCD then it does seem very excessive to me. of course I was "ordered" to pay into CFC, 82nd association, AUSA, AER and any number of other voluntary things and was told it was a "lawful" order, by team leader, squad leader, platoon sergeant, first sergeant, and CO, threatened all the way up to the Battalion CSM. I was always respectful in my refusal, and after conferring with a JAG lawyer. the threats of NJP were removed and I just ended up with more CQ on the weekends. sometimes command does not even know what a lawful order is. of course according to this thread I should have payed the money then challenged it, of course I would not have received my money back, but I would have followed a "lawful" order Surely you can see the difference between being ordered to give up your own money and being ordered to remove a slip of paper from a computer (repeatedly). The article is shit. Read the court doc. Yeah the order to give up my money was a strong armed theft attempt. the order to remove a piece of paper simply seems excessive to me. If that was an office wide policy then fine, still seems excessive, but fine. If and I will repeat if that was the basis for the whole BCD then it is odd. If the Lcpl was a problem child anyways then good riddance. that does not change my point that often those in command don't know what a lawful order is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 6:13:49 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your observations on the lack of knowledge on what constitutes a lawful order are correct and your leadership ordering you to contribute money is an example of an unlawful orders. However orders to remove posters, signs or anything else of that nature from a work space is totally lawful. Regardless of what a piece of paper says, you can be directed to take it down because your leadership doesn't like the esthetics of it, thinks it makes the office looks sloppy or cheap (actual had a CO who put out an order, nothing was to be hung on walls or put up in the office if it was not in a frame) or probably in this case follow several reprimands to SNM, the message was taken as an affront to the leadership itself. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
as the article is written it seems like a lot of questions still are not answered. If the whole thing was started because she refused to obey the order of a superior in removing a piece of paper then it seems odd. I have a hard time understanding how that would be a lawful order, but I saw some strange things when I was in. if there is more to this story I would not be surprised, but at the same time if this is the basis of her BCD then it does seem very excessive to me. of course I was "ordered" to pay into CFC, 82nd association, AUSA, AER and any number of other voluntary things and was told it was a "lawful" order, by team leader, squad leader, platoon sergeant, first sergeant, and CO, threatened all the way up to the Battalion CSM. I was always respectful in my refusal, and after conferring with a JAG lawyer. the threats of NJP were removed and I just ended up with more CQ on the weekends. sometimes command does not even know what a lawful order is. of course according to this thread I should have payed the money then challenged it, of course I would not have received my money back, but I would have followed a "lawful" order Your observations on the lack of knowledge on what constitutes a lawful order are correct and your leadership ordering you to contribute money is an example of an unlawful orders. However orders to remove posters, signs or anything else of that nature from a work space is totally lawful. Regardless of what a piece of paper says, you can be directed to take it down because your leadership doesn't like the esthetics of it, thinks it makes the office looks sloppy or cheap (actual had a CO who put out an order, nothing was to be hung on walls or put up in the office if it was not in a frame) or probably in this case follow several reprimands to SNM, the message was taken as an affront to the leadership itself. I don't necessarily disagree, if it was a office wide policy then fine, if she was the only one required to remove something then it still remains problematic in my opinion . it is not like leadership can change the narrative to cover their backsides. have seen it done to many times. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 6:14:10 AM EDT
[#18]
lol, how does that lawful order thing work ...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 6:18:10 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah the order to give up my money was a strong armed theft attempt. the order to remove a piece of paper simply seems excessive to me. If that was an office wide policy then fine, still seems excessive, but fine. If and I will repeat if that was the basis for the whole BCD then it is odd. If the Lcpl was a problem child anyways then good riddance. that does not change my point that often those in command don't know what a lawful order is. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
as the article is written it seems like a lot of questions still are not answered. If the whole thing was started because she refused to obey the order of a superior in removing a piece of paper then it seems odd. I have a hard time understanding how that would be a lawful order, but I saw some strange things when I was in. if there is more to this story I would not be surprised, but at the same time if this is the basis of her BCD then it does seem very excessive to me. of course I was "ordered" to pay into CFC, 82nd association, AUSA, AER and any number of other voluntary things and was told it was a "lawful" order, by team leader, squad leader, platoon sergeant, first sergeant, and CO, threatened all the way up to the Battalion CSM. I was always respectful in my refusal, and after conferring with a JAG lawyer. the threats of NJP were removed and I just ended up with more CQ on the weekends. sometimes command does not even know what a lawful order is. of course according to this thread I should have payed the money then challenged it, of course I would not have received my money back, but I would have followed a "lawful" order Surely you can see the difference between being ordered to give up your own money and being ordered to remove a slip of paper from a computer (repeatedly). The article is shit. Read the court doc. Yeah the order to give up my money was a strong armed theft attempt. the order to remove a piece of paper simply seems excessive to me. If that was an office wide policy then fine, still seems excessive, but fine. If and I will repeat if that was the basis for the whole BCD then it is odd. If the Lcpl was a problem child anyways then good riddance. that does not change my point that often those in command don't know what a lawful order is. Generally all Commanders have lawyers assigned to them. A smart command team is always in contact with their SJA when it comes to the problem children because the worse thing that could happen, the problem child does something and you take action that won't get the support of the legal side of the house resulting in you having to back down and the loss of authority in the eyes of your troops. Over the years I have called my assigned SJA dozens of times to get legal advise on what I can do and what I should not do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 6:21:35 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't necessarily disagree, if it was a office wide policy then fine, if she was the only one required to remove something then it still remains problematic in my opinion . it is not like leadership can change the narrative to cover their backsides. have seen it done to many times. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
as the article is written it seems like a lot of questions still are not answered. If the whole thing was started because she refused to obey the order of a superior in removing a piece of paper then it seems odd. I have a hard time understanding how that would be a lawful order, but I saw some strange things when I was in. if there is more to this story I would not be surprised, but at the same time if this is the basis of her BCD then it does seem very excessive to me. of course I was "ordered" to pay into CFC, 82nd association, AUSA, AER and any number of other voluntary things and was told it was a "lawful" order, by team leader, squad leader, platoon sergeant, first sergeant, and CO, threatened all the way up to the Battalion CSM. I was always respectful in my refusal, and after conferring with a JAG lawyer. the threats of NJP were removed and I just ended up with more CQ on the weekends. sometimes command does not even know what a lawful order is. of course according to this thread I should have payed the money then challenged it, of course I would not have received my money back, but I would have followed a "lawful" order Your observations on the lack of knowledge on what constitutes a lawful order are correct and your leadership ordering you to contribute money is an example of an unlawful orders. However orders to remove posters, signs or anything else of that nature from a work space is totally lawful. Regardless of what a piece of paper says, you can be directed to take it down because your leadership doesn't like the esthetics of it, thinks it makes the office looks sloppy or cheap (actual had a CO who put out an order, nothing was to be hung on walls or put up in the office if it was not in a frame) or probably in this case follow several reprimands to SNM, the message was taken as an affront to the leadership itself. I don't necessarily disagree, if it was a office wide policy then fine, if she was the only one required to remove something then it still remains problematic in my opinion . it is not like leadership can change the narrative to cover their backsides. have seen it done to many times. Still in this case, taking down slips of paper regardless of what they say is a lawful order. What many seemed to get wrapped around the axle about is the paraphrasing of a bible verse, which is a red herring in the whole situation. The reality is she was issued a lawful order by someone in a position of authority over her, she refused repeating a pattern of misconduct, leading to conviction at a court martial. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 6:55:38 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:Generally all Commanders have lawyers assigned to them. A smart command team is always in contact with their SJA when it comes to the problem children because the worse thing that could happen, the problem child does something and you take action that won't get the support of the legal side of the house resulting in you having to back down and the loss of authority in the eyes of your troops.
Over the years I have called my assigned SJA dozens of times to get legal advise on what I can do and what I should not do. and you'll be posting those stories shortly, right ? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 7:09:35 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Indeed. This has been a topic on a Marine forum for a couple of days now. A gunny who worked in her area and who was a witness in the court martial explained on that forum that there is a WHOLE lot more to the story than the Bible verse. Also, I've read enough of her appeal to confirm that the gunny is correct. In a nutshell, this woman was essentially on permanent limited duty and attempted to use medical chits to shirk duty at every turn. It finally caught up with her, and the Bible verse thing is just one of many things she did to earn her Big Chicken Dinner. Other charges on which she was convicted include failure to be at her appointed place of duty and disrespect of a superior commissioned officer, among other things. Essentially, she simply refused orders time and again after being given chance after chance to correct her own behavior. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I knew people wouldn't get it. It doesn't matter whether the verse was okay or not. You don't get to refuse an order in the military.. She should have taken it down, and then gone through chain of command if she didn't like it. She was stupid, and got what she deserved. Quoted:
Here is my read. LCpl Sterling was a problem child and a pain in the ass to her command and SNCOIC. This was what stuck. She chose to die on this hill. And her nails in both color and length are out of regs. Indeed. This has been a topic on a Marine forum for a couple of days now. A gunny who worked in her area and who was a witness in the court martial explained on that forum that there is a WHOLE lot more to the story than the Bible verse. Also, I've read enough of her appeal to confirm that the gunny is correct. In a nutshell, this woman was essentially on permanent limited duty and attempted to use medical chits to shirk duty at every turn. It finally caught up with her, and the Bible verse thing is just one of many things she did to earn her Big Chicken Dinner. Other charges on which she was convicted include failure to be at her appointed place of duty and disrespect of a superior commissioned officer, among other things. Essentially, she simply refused orders time and again after being given chance after chance to correct her own behavior. But but but JESUS and FREEDOM. Obammy is just purging senior Christians from the military to make a nwo Muslim army. Wish the army was willing to go ham for little easy things when dealing with shit bags. I had a black female PFC with a packet thicker than my forearm I couldn't get the boot because she went to bible study with the BC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 7:18:20 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah the order to give up my money was a strong armed theft attempt. the order to remove a piece of paper simply seems excessive to me. If that was an office wide policy then fine, still seems excessive, but fine. If and I will repeat if that was the basis for the whole BCD then it is odd. If the Lcpl was a problem child anyways then good riddance. that does not change my point that often those in command don't know what a lawful order is. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
as the article is written it seems like a lot of questions still are not answered. If the whole thing was started because she refused to obey the order of a superior in removing a piece of paper then it seems odd. I have a hard time understanding how that would be a lawful order, but I saw some strange things when I was in. if there is more to this story I would not be surprised, but at the same time if this is the basis of her BCD then it does seem very excessive to me. of course I was "ordered" to pay into CFC, 82nd association, AUSA, AER and any number of other voluntary things and was told it was a "lawful" order, by team leader, squad leader, platoon sergeant, first sergeant, and CO, threatened all the way up to the Battalion CSM. I was always respectful in my refusal, and after conferring with a JAG lawyer. the threats of NJP were removed and I just ended up with more CQ on the weekends. sometimes command does not even know what a lawful order is. of course according to this thread I should have payed the money then challenged it, of course I would not have received my money back, but I would have followed a "lawful" order Surely you can see the difference between being ordered to give up your own money and being ordered to remove a slip of paper from a computer (repeatedly). The article is shit. Read the court doc. Yeah the order to give up my money was a strong armed theft attempt. the order to remove a piece of paper simply seems excessive to me. If that was an office wide policy then fine, still seems excessive, but fine. If and I will repeat if that was the basis for the whole BCD then it is odd. If the Lcpl was a problem child anyways then good riddance. that does not change my point that often those in command don't know what a lawful order is. I added a link to the court opinion at the bottom of the OP. Please take a look. As for the order, it doesn't matter if it was excessive or not. There are not varying degrees. It doesn't matter whether you're ordered to guard the post, or button your pocket. If you're ordered to do something that won't cause any harm, you don't get to say no. You do it, and sort it out later. In any case, you served, so you should know that there is much more to the story. She refused that order several times, along with several others, including a direct order from her CO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 7:30:02 AM EDT
[#24]
I bet money if she had complied then talked to her NCO about why it was important to her the NCO would probably have had worked to accommodate her. She doesn't seem like the type of Marine to do something that smart. She probably viewed being told what to do as some sort of personal insult.
A few months a go my Company did a release run eventually it started raining a few of my Soldiers had no run profiles and when it started raining they made a B line to their POVs instead of walking like they were supposed to. When everyone made it back to the assembly area for cool down one of the three of the junior NCOs who were supposed to be walking had to yelled at to get out of their POVs. So while were cooling down and stretching out in the rain they refused to lay on their back and finish the stretching exercises the Commander told them and I told them and they just stood their not doing anything. So a week later all of them get notice that they are receiving punishment under article 15 of the UCMJ and a week after that none of them were NCO's anymore and all of them ended with 45 and 45. If they had complied none of that shit would have happened but when you willfully disobey a lawful order bad things happen to you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 7:35:04 AM EDT
[#25]
Why the fuck did the military leadership think that was a bad verse?
I read their reason and still don't understand it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 7:41:38 AM EDT
[#26]
Yeah... People need to read that link. The appellate court absolutely eviscerates her. I've read a bunch of appellate court decisions, and never seen one quite like that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 7:42:39 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why the fuck did the military leadership think that was a bad verse? I read their reason and still don't understand it. Read the link above. It's clearly articulated in the appellate court decision why the actions she took wrt those signs were contrary to good order and discipline. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 7:43:47 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why the fuck did the military leadership think that was a bad verse? I read their reason and still don't understand it. Perhaps because it wasn't actually a verse from the Bible. If the Marines are going to allow people to post any Bible verses they want, how about this one? "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 8:07:07 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I had a black female PFC with a packet thicker than my forearm I couldn't get the boot because she went to bible study with the BC. Christian Mafia  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 8:07:41 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is it really against the military code of conduct to have a bible verse on your computer? I thought all military issue acogs came with a bible verse? I am not religious but also not anti-religion and it just seems to boggle my mind that actually would rate a courts Marshall level offense  im not quite getting what she was displaying.... if it was a screensaver on a gov computer..... then thats a no go... and they can easily tell you to remove it. if it was a sign or a plaque or something.... then yeah, i guess they can ask you / order you to remove it. im not seeing it as disrespectful, or disruptive, etc...... possibly she was a shitbag.... and fell under the shitbag clause.... in case your wondering.... if someone is a shitbag, who has lots of peoblems / causes all kinds of fuckups and issues....etc.... they will receive attention for things that other soldiers would just be ignored for...... but if your a shitbag,, its a instant fuck no.. remove that shit ! example.... we had a guy on deployment who decided to bring his big monster feet slippers on deployment. we were off duty...... but they got pissy and ordered him to take that shit off, and dont wear it again......... basically because he was such a fucking annoying shitbag........ while i could easily see other guys wear the same thing and get a chuckle. and guessing they ruled its not religious activity.. displaying the phrase..... vs ordering her to stop praying before eating her lunch, etc. and it sounds like her shitty attitude got her a shitty discharge. if she would have said " yes sergent, " and removed the shit they ordered her to remove...... vs.... hey, you cant tall me to remove my blah, blah...... there would have been no issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 8:19:26 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
im not quite getting what she was displaying.... if it was a screensaver on a gov computer..... then thats a no go... and they can easily tell you to remove it. if it was a sign or a plaque or something.... then yeah, i guess they can ask you / order you to remove it. im not seeing it as disrespectful, or disruptive, etc...... possibly she was a shitbag.... and fell under the shitbag clause.... in case your wondering.... if someone is a shitbag, who has lots of peoblems / causes all kinds of fuckups and issues....etc.... they will receive attention for things that other soldiers would just be ignored for...... but if your a shitbag,, its a instant fuck no.. remove that shit ! example.... we had a guy on deployment who decided to bring his big monster feet slippers on deployment. we were off duty...... but they got pissy and ordered him to take that shit off, and dont wear it again......... basically because he was such a fucking annoying shitbag........ while i could easily see other guys wear the same thing and get a chuckle. and guessing they ruled its not religious activity.. displaying the phrase..... vs ordering her to stop praying before eating her lunch, etc. and it sounds like her shitty attitude got her a shitty discharge. if she would have said " yes sergent, " and removed the shit they ordered her to remove...... vs.... hey, you cant tall me to remove my blah, blah...... there would have been no issue. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Is it really against the military code of conduct to have a bible verse on your computer? I thought all military issue acogs came with a bible verse? I am not religious but also not anti-religion and it just seems to boggle my mind that actually would rate a courts Marshall level offense im not quite getting what she was displaying.... if it was a screensaver on a gov computer..... then thats a no go... and they can easily tell you to remove it. if it was a sign or a plaque or something.... then yeah, i guess they can ask you / order you to remove it. im not seeing it as disrespectful, or disruptive, etc...... possibly she was a shitbag.... and fell under the shitbag clause.... in case your wondering.... if someone is a shitbag, who has lots of peoblems / causes all kinds of fuckups and issues....etc.... they will receive attention for things that other soldiers would just be ignored for...... but if your a shitbag,, its a instant fuck no.. remove that shit ! example.... we had a guy on deployment who decided to bring his big monster feet slippers on deployment. we were off duty...... but they got pissy and ordered him to take that shit off, and dont wear it again......... basically because he was such a fucking annoying shitbag........ while i could easily see other guys wear the same thing and get a chuckle. and guessing they ruled its not religious activity.. displaying the phrase..... vs ordering her to stop praying before eating her lunch, etc. and it sounds like her shitty attitude got her a shitty discharge. if she would have said " yes sergent, " and removed the shit they ordered her to remove...... vs.... hey, you cant tall me to remove my blah, blah...... there would have been no issue. From the link you didn't read: " In May of 2013, the appellant’s duties included sitting at a desk and utilizing a computer to assist Marines experiencing issues with their Common Access Cards. The appellant printed three copies of the biblical quote “no weapon formed against me shall prosper” on paper in 28 point font or smaller. The appellant then cut the quotes to size and taped one along the top of the computer tower, one above the computer monitor on the desk, and one above the in-box. The appellant testified that she is a Christian and that she posted the quotation in three places to represent the Christian trinity. At trial, the parties referred to these pieces of paper as “signs.” The signs were large enough for those walking by her desk to read them." Refusing to remove the signs was the lesser of her offenses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 8:22:13 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Perhaps because it wasn't actually a verse from the Bible. If the Marines are going to allow people to post any Bible verses they want, how about this one? "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why the fuck did the military leadership think that was a bad verse? I read their reason and still don't understand it. Perhaps because it wasn't actually a verse from the Bible. If the Marines are going to allow people to post any Bible verses they want, how about this one? "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." I guess I am asking why it was viewed as bad from the leadership.........I gotta read the link above though that Josh suggested I read. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 8:26:57 AM EDT
[#33]
I thought Wookie Monsters could get away with murder! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 8:27:11 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I guess I am asking why it was viewed as bad from the leadership.........I gotta read the link above though that Josh suggested I read. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why the fuck did the military leadership think that was a bad verse? I read their reason and still don't understand it. Perhaps because it wasn't actually a verse from the Bible. If the Marines are going to allow people to post any Bible verses they want, how about this one? "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." I guess I am asking why it was viewed as bad from the leadership.........I gotta read the link above though that Josh suggested I read. When you're continually causing problems, not doing what you're supposed to, using medical to get out of work, and you start posting signs that say "no weapon formed against me will prosper", it has a tone that suggests your bad behaviour is sanctioned by your religion and God will protect you from the consequences of your bad actions. The appellate decision lays it out fairly well in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 8:29:29 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is it really against the military code of conduct to have a bible verse on your computer? I thought all military issue acogs came with a bible verse? I am not religious but also not anti-religion and it just seems to boggle my mind that actually would rate a courts Marshall level offense The reason why I like you is that you are a very reasonable person. The Bible verse thing is over the top, IMHO. However, it was not her computer, but the government's so there really should have been no "personalization" of the machine, regardless the form it took and, it seems, that there are a lot more discipline issues that led her to the courts martial than just the verse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 8:31:50 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
............... When you're continually causing problems, not doing what you're supposed to, using medical to get out of work, and you start posting signs that say "no weapon formed against me will prosper", it has a tone that suggests your bad behaviour is sanctioned by your religion and God will protect you from the consequences of your bad actions. The appellate decision lays it out fairly well in my opinion. Appears to be the case...........quote: "Second, examination of this record indicates the existence of a contentious relationship between the appellant and her command, even prior to the charged misconduct. In fact, the appellant testified that her purpose for placing the signs was to encourage her during those difficult times and that her SSgt ordered her to remove the signs because the SSgt didn’t “like their tone.” 20 While locked in an antagonistic relationship with her superiors--a relationship surely visible to other Marines in the unit--placing visual reminders at her shared workspace that “no weapon formed against me shall prosper” could certainly undercut good order and discipline. When considered in context, we find that the verbiage in these signs could be interpreted as combative and agree with the military judge that the signs placement in the shared workspace could therefore “easily be seen as contrary to good order and discipline.” 21 For this reason as well, the orders to remove the signs were lawful." Yup, there is more to this story. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 8:49:57 AM EDT
[#37]
I cannot believe people are still focused on the stupid little signs she made.
She willfully disobeyed direct orders from her NCOs, staff NCOs, and Officers appointed over her. She refused to wear the correct uniform when ordered to. She refused to report to her appointed duty station when ordered to. She did this even after her chain of command verified that her light duty status did not interfere with her ability to wear the correct uniform or perform her duties. But go on and think that this is about putting up some scraps of paper with a contorted bible verse on them. Or that her Staff Sergeant is a big meanie. The bottom line is that her command was sick of dealing with her bullshit. She is a self entitled, malingering, POS and deserved every bit of her BCD. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 9:17:38 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why the fuck did the military leadership think that was a bad verse? I read their reason and still don't understand it. OK, let's try this: A Marine was ordered to remove unauthorized graffiti from a workspace. Doesn't matter what was on the strips of paper: Strips of paper not authorized. What was on the paper wasn't the issue. Non-authorized decoration was the issue. It wasn't "her" office to "decorate". The office was a military workspace that needed to conform to military standards. Are some commands more lax with this kind of thing? Absolutely. I have 10 years on Air Force bases, I've seen it in person. When/if the climate changes, though, you respond "Yes, Staff Sergeant!" and promptly restore the workspace. You do NOT get to refuse that order--or put more graffiti in place after your senior removed it. This is regardless of all the other shit she pulled. People are reacting to this in exactly the way she was hoping, and it pisses me off. There isn't a story here. A shitbag malingering sickbay commando made it easy for the Corps to put her ass out. Period. I dealt with her type for 20 years, and this story makes me feel all warm inside. Normally, the shitbag malingering sickbay commando shit-stirrer isn't stupid/arrogant enough to request CM, and this shit gets handled at Mast (NJP). She played stupid games, won a big chicken dinner. I'm happy as hell about it. Pardon my enlisted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 11:14:16 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OK, let's try this: A Marine was ordered to remove unauthorized graffiti from a workspace. Doesn't matter what was on the strips of paper: Strips of paper not authorized. What was on the paper wasn't the issue. Non-authorized decoration was the issue. It wasn't "her" office to "decorate". The office was a military workspace that needed to conform to military standards. Are some commands more lax with this kind of thing? Absolutely. I have 10 years on Air Force bases, I've seen it in person. When/if the climate changes, though, you respond "Yes, Staff Sergeant!" and promptly restore the workspace. You do NOT get to refuse that order--or put more graffiti in place after your senior removed it. This is regardless of all the other shit she pulled. People are reacting to this in exactly the way she was hoping, and it pisses me off. There isn't a story here. A shitbag malingering sickbay commando made it easy for the Corps to put her ass out. Period. I dealt with her type for 20 years, and this story makes me feel all warm inside. Normally, the shitbag malingering sickbay commando shit-stirrer isn't stupid/arrogant enough to request CM, and this shit gets handled at Mast (NJP). She played stupid games, won a big chicken dinner. I'm happy as hell about it. Pardon my enlisted. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why the fuck did the military leadership think that was a bad verse? I read their reason and still don't understand it. OK, let's try this: A Marine was ordered to remove unauthorized graffiti from a workspace. Doesn't matter what was on the strips of paper: Strips of paper not authorized. What was on the paper wasn't the issue. Non-authorized decoration was the issue. It wasn't "her" office to "decorate". The office was a military workspace that needed to conform to military standards. Are some commands more lax with this kind of thing? Absolutely. I have 10 years on Air Force bases, I've seen it in person. When/if the climate changes, though, you respond "Yes, Staff Sergeant!" and promptly restore the workspace. You do NOT get to refuse that order--or put more graffiti in place after your senior removed it. This is regardless of all the other shit she pulled. People are reacting to this in exactly the way she was hoping, and it pisses me off. There isn't a story here. A shitbag malingering sickbay commando made it easy for the Corps to put her ass out. Period. I dealt with her type for 20 years, and this story makes me feel all warm inside. Normally, the shitbag malingering sickbay commando shit-stirrer isn't stupid/arrogant enough to request CM, and this shit gets handled at Mast (NJP). She played stupid games, won a big chicken dinner. I'm happy as hell about it. Pardon my enlisted. And even with this simple and detailed explanation, there will be people in here saying "but I don't get it" or "but, religion" which is NOT what this is about. Oh well, some people just fail at comprehension. ETA: not you RDak, I mean others. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 11:20:33 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ... There isn't a story here. ... The real story: so many people got sucked into thinking this was related to religion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 12:21:23 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Appears to be the case...........quote: While locked in an antagonistic relationship with her superiors--a relationship surely visible to other Marines in the unit--placing visual reminders at her shared workspace that "no weapon formed against me shall prosper” could certainly undercut good order and discipline. There's that faggy context thing we talked about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 1:34:13 PM EDT
[#42]
I just read the appelate court's decision. The only reason this is an issue, is because Pvt Snowflake is making it one. She wanted out, and defense counsel at trial told the members to seperate her as fast as possible.
She was being a pain in the ass on purpose. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 1:38:41 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think there's more to the story than simply a Bible verse not being permitted. Which is obvious to anyone that read the summary, let alone the link, in the OP. GD doesn't have time for reading though, so they come up with the usual pithy tripe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 2:04:03 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bunch of dimwits saying "We know what really happened. We know her type." Yeah, well, we know your type. You mean the type that actually read the full story before jumping to conclusions? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 2:08:06 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I just read the appelate court's decision. The only reason this is an issue, is because Pvt Snowflake is making it one. She wanted out, and defense counsel at trial told the members to seperate her as fast as possible. She was being a pain in the ass on purpose. She was her own defense council at trial. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 2:20:54 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you know that everyone who jumped on the bandwagon had read the opinion.... Is that what you are saying? You know that for a fact, eh? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Bunch of dimwits saying "We know what really happened. We know her type." Yeah, well, we know your type. What's our type? The type that I refer to are those who jump to conclusions and offer their opinions as gospel - rushing to judgement - without benefit of the actual facts. You have jumped to the conclusion that we don't know the facts. You have rushed to judgement. The truth is, we DO know the facts. Read this, and you'll know them, too. https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2784127/united-states-v-sterling/ So you know that everyone who jumped on the bandwagon had read the opinion.... Is that what you are saying? You know that for a fact, eh? Most of us that jumped on the bandwagon, as you said, were mil members. Most of us know the mil justice syztem enough to know that there has to be some serious misconduct to justify a BCD. Most of us are active on other websites where this has been discussed. And most of us don't read only arfcom and only the first paragraph of the first post before forming an opinion. You should try it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 2:29:07 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
She was her own defense council at trial. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I just read the appelate court's decision. The only reason this is an issue, is because Pvt Snowflake is making it one. She wanted out, and defense counsel at trial told the members to seperate her as fast as possible. She was being a pain in the ass on purpose. She was her own defense council at trial. Exactly! She was a shitbird who wanted out. Now she wants attention. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 2:47:11 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Read the actual ruling here. https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2784127/united-states-v-sterling/ Wow. She pushed all the buttons.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 3:11:27 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Exactly! She was a shitbird who wanted out. Now she wants attention. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I just read the appelate court's decision. The only reason this is an issue, is because Pvt Snowflake is making it one. She wanted out, and defense counsel at trial told the members to seperate her as fast as possible. She was being a pain in the ass on purpose. She was her own defense council at trial. Exactly! She was a shitbird who wanted out. Now she wants attention. The consequences came home to roost, now she's trying to avoid responsibility for her actions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 3:20:23 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wow. She pushed all the buttons. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Read the actual ruling here. https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2784127/united-states-v-sterling/ Wow. She pushed all the buttons. I really love these parts: She testified that the three signs represented the trinity and were a “personal . . . mental reminder to me when I come to work, okay. You don’t know why these people are picking on you.” the appellant never told her SSgt that the signs had a religious connotation and never requested any religious accommodation to enable her to display the signs. Instead, the record supports the conclusion that the appellant was simply placing what she believed to be personal reminders that those she considered adversaries could not harm her. Such action does not trigger the RFRA. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
