User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 6:21:53 AM EDT
[#1]
Its the military, you obey an order even if you think its stupid or an illegal order and fight it afterwards. The only order I would have disobeyed was a plainly illegal order to commit an atrocity.
Anything else, and you obey your superior officer and deal with with through the chain of command afterwards. I was never given an illegal order and telling someone to take a personal decoration off a government computer isn't illegal imo. The military is also prone to finding those nails that stick out and pounding them back in. Once she disobeyed a lawful order to remove those signs, she was in the spotlight and they began the process of documentation. The other stuff is something a squared away Marine would never have been written up for, but is very useful for getting rid of a problem child. She was given every opportunity to comply and square herself away, but the idiot didn't do it. She got the big chicken dinner because she deserved it. Fuck her. She'll probably get it converted to other than honorable on appeal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 6:32:12 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
big chicken dinner fo dat, WTF  FPNI. Then again this is the same military that freaked out over the Trijicon marks. Not a lot surprises me anymore WRT the .mil. Glad I am out. ETA: Read more of the real story page 2. Fuck her |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 6:42:48 AM EDT
[#3]
I just don't get where the support for her is coming from
Quote HistoryQuoted:I wouldn't presume to decorate shared or public space in a civilian office without permission. Certainly not with religious items. I wouldn't expect a Marine office to be more permissive. I just don't get where the support for her is coming from.  people who read only the bullshit misleading thread title. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 6:48:23 AM EDT
[#4]
maybe I have been a civilian too long. But I take issue with this concept of follow all orders. And then question them later with the chain of command. In my example in my previous post. My entire chain of command was issuing me an unlawful order. Who was I supposed to go to? Don't get me wron, I am NOT suggesting that private snuffy he has the right to question every order he is given.but in my case the only thing I could do is refuse the unlawful order. I did it respectfully. Well for the most part, there was the 1 time after the first sergeant physically threaten me that it got really loud. But nothing ever came o bit of it because the first sergeant knew he was completely and totally in the wrong.
of course I was not a problem child either and that might have contributed to the fact that I didn't get in any trouble. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 6:52:12 AM EDT
[#5]
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  Not for a while now, Trijicon was forced to stop IIRC, I dont know if the ones already in the system had to be altered to remove the verse though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 6:57:08 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What those unfamiliar with the military might not understand is that LCpl Sterling is the one who pushed the issue. She isn't the victim here. Never served at all and i understand that..... THEIR Computer (Not hers) THEIR Office (Not Hers) THEIR RULES.... she decided to push back and got shoved onto her ass... Stupid games and all that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 7:01:26 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I guess it's Satan's military now. We fought for religious freedom and even the founding fathers have stated we are a Christian nation. So much for principles. Oh well. Too bad so sad. I don't recall any clause in the Constitution stating military personnel were to forfeit their rights. So what's next on the chopping block? I KNOW! let's outlaw home-schooling! State school, best school! Right? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 7:12:01 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
maybe I have been a civilian too long. But I take issue with this concept of follow all orders. And then question them later with the chain of command. In my example in my previous post. My entire chain of command was issuing me an unlawful order. Who was I supposed to go to? Don't get me wron, I am NOT suggesting that private snuffy he has the right to question every order he is given.but in my case the only thing I could do is refuse the unlawful order. I did it respectfully. Well for the most part, there was the 1 time after the first sergeant physically threaten me that it got really loud. But nothing ever came o bit of it because the first sergeant knew he was completely and totally in the wrong. of course I was not a problem child either and that might have contributed to the fact that I didn't get in any trouble. The concept is to follow all *lawful* orders. It's probably THE most important concept in the military. It's right there in the oath. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 7:22:41 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:False. You absolutely DO give up your rights. You become government property. How could you have a tank and not know that? What would happen if a GI were to publicly start badmouthing the president? That is a protected Constitutional right. Go tell your civilian boss to FO, you might get fired. Tell your CO to FO and you will probably go to jail. Even in a civilian job, you don't have any right to put up signs in the office. Show me that in the Constitution. Where do you people get this stuff? no you dont. stop being a parrot. What were to happen if I bad mouthed the president? nothing. I did it. publicly. on television. nothing happened. you know damn good and well. If you tell your CO to fuck off and get jailed for it, YOU chose the jail instead of NJP. you should know this, and i suspect you do, and are being intentionally obtuse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 7:29:53 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Its the military, you obey an order even if you think its stupid or an illegal order and fight it afterwards. The only order I would have disobeyed was a plainly illegal order to commit an atrocity. Anything else, and you obey your superior officer and deal with with through the chain of command afterwards. I was never given an illegal order and telling someone to take a personal decoration off a government computer isn't illegal imo. The military is also prone to finding those nails that stick out and pounding them back in. Once she disobeyed a lawful order to remove those signs, she was in the spotlight and they began the process of documentation. The other stuff is something a squared away Marine would never have been written up for, but is very useful for getting rid of a problem child. She was given every opportunity to comply and square herself away, but the idiot didn't do it. She got the big chicken dinner because she deserved it. Fuck her. She'll probably get it converted to other than honorable on appeal. if you read the appeal, SHE asked to seperated as fast as possible. If you read the appeal, the findings and sentence were upheld. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 7:38:30 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree. We sacrifice certain rights when we hold up our hand and swear in. We agree to a whole different set of laws than the normal populace, and this woman decided to break those laws. The least of which was ignoring the NCO's order to remove that verse. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's so retarded how the military is supposed to hold dear and fight for American ideals like Freedom of Speech, yet they cannot express them themselves. It's also ironic how they have been killing and dying to "uphold democracy" but are run like a socialist system. No offense, but that is a bizarre sentiment.
One might even call it retarded. I agree. We sacrifice certain rights when we hold up our hand and swear in. We agree to a whole different set of laws than the normal populace, and this woman decided to break those laws. The least of which was ignoring the NCO's order to remove that verse. So it's par for the course, just like the navy chaplain who was ordered "Don't pray in the name of Jesus." I also don't think the military should be run like a democracy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 7:51:48 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: if you read the appeal, SHE asked to seperated as fast as possible. If you read the appeal, the findings and sentence were upheld. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Its the military, you obey an order even if you think its stupid or an illegal order and fight it afterwards. The only order I would have disobeyed was a plainly illegal order to commit an atrocity. Anything else, and you obey your superior officer and deal with with through the chain of command afterwards. I was never given an illegal order and telling someone to take a personal decoration off a government computer isn't illegal imo. The military is also prone to finding those nails that stick out and pounding them back in. Once she disobeyed a lawful order to remove those signs, she was in the spotlight and they began the process of documentation. The other stuff is something a squared away Marine would never have been written up for, but is very useful for getting rid of a problem child. She was given every opportunity to comply and square herself away, but the idiot didn't do it. She got the big chicken dinner because she deserved it. Fuck her. She'll probably get it converted to other than honorable on appeal. if you read the appeal, SHE asked to seperated as fast as possible. If you read the appeal, the findings and sentence were upheld. I'm not sure what the purpose of your comment was. Nothing I said contradicts that. I did read the courts decision on her appeal. I agree with the sentence. I spelled that out in my post. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 7:54:53 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
maybe I have been a civilian too long. But I take issue with this concept of follow all orders. And then question them later with the chain of command. In my example in my previous post. My entire chain of command was issuing me an unlawful order. Who was I supposed to go to? Don't get me wron, I am NOT suggesting that private snuffy he has the right to question every order he is given.but in my case the only thing I could do is refuse the unlawful order. I did it respectfully. Well for the most part, there was the 1 time after the first sergeant physically threaten me that it got really loud. But nothing ever came o bit of it because the first sergeant knew he was completely and totally in the wrong. of course I was not a problem child either and that might have contributed to the fact that I didn't get in any trouble. Orders are presumed lawful. You have a high burden to meet to show an order unlawful and refuse it. Don't like it? Find a civilian job. No fucks given. It's how the military works. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 8:02:41 AM EDT
[#14]
Marine Corp fail.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 8:52:16 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
no you dont. stop being a parrot. What were to happen if I bad mouthed the president? nothing. I did it. publicly. on television. nothing happened. you know damn good and well. If you tell your CO to fuck off and get jailed for it, YOU chose the jail instead of NJP. you should know this, and i suspect you do, and are being intentionally obtuse. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:False. You absolutely DO give up your rights. You become government property. How could you have a tank and not know that? What would happen if a GI were to publicly start badmouthing the president? That is a protected Constitutional right. Go tell your civilian boss to FO, you might get fired. Tell your CO to FO and you will probably go to jail. Even in a civilian job, you don't have any right to put up signs in the office. Show me that in the Constitution. Where do you people get this stuff? no you dont. stop being a parrot. What were to happen if I bad mouthed the president? nothing. I did it. publicly. on television. nothing happened. you know damn good and well. If you tell your CO to fuck off and get jailed for it, YOU chose the jail instead of NJP. you should know this, and i suspect you do, and are being intentionally obtuse. First of all, I was simply mistaken about bad mouthing the president. That only applies to officers. For them, it is an offense under Article 88 of the UCMJ, punishable by court martial. Enlisted members could actually get charged under article 135 for bringing discredit upon the service, but you would have to work for that. As for telling your CO to FO, That is punishable under article 89 BY COURT MARTIAL. You are wrong on two counts. First, you can be jailed under article 15. It doesn't depend on your requesting a court martial. Second, you can be tried by court martial without being offered NJP. NJP is a gift. YOU should know this. As for being intentionally obtuse, I got out of the service in 1992 and was only half wrong on one point. What's your excuse? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 8:53:25 AM EDT
[#16]
dbltap
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 9:19:26 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't think she's intelligent enough to have a plan. I think she's one of those people who doesn't realize that she's an idiot. They are much more dangerous than the idiots who are aware of their own stupidity. She probably thought, "they can't do nuthin to me. I'm black, so I'll just cry racism and/or religious persecution." We have all known the type. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I guess it's Satan's military now. We fought for religious freedom and even the founding fathers have stated we are a Christian nation. So much for principles. Oh well. Too bad so sad. I don't recall any clause in the Constitution stating military personnel were to forfeit their rights. So what's next on the chopping block? I KNOW! let's outlaw home-schooling! State school, best school! Right? Kid was pushing buttons in her unit. Disobeyed a lawful order from her Staff Sergeant. Staff got the Sgt Major involved she disobeyed Sgt Major, as stupid an idea as that was, then disobeyed a lawful order from a commissioned officer. The bible verse was a slap in the face of her NCO's and officers. If you are planning on yanking a tigers tail, have a plan as what to do about the teeth. I don't think she's intelligent enough to have a plan. I think she's one of those people who doesn't realize that she's an idiot. They are much more dangerous than the idiots who are aware of their own stupidity. She probably thought, "they can't do nuthin to me. I'm black, so I'll just cry racism and/or religious persecution." We have all known the type. This. Perhaps the Staff Sergeant (and perhaps the Sgt Major) was the same race as her, so she couldn't claim racism. Since the text sort of sounded like a Bible verse she claimed religious persecution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 9:26:02 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I guess it's Satan's military now. We fought for religious freedom and even the founding fathers have stated we are a Christian nation. So much for principles. Oh well. Too bad so sad. I don't recall any clause in the Constitution stating military personnel were to forfeit their rights. So what's next on the chopping block? I KNOW! let's outlaw home-schooling! State school, best school! Right? Reading must be tough for you, or you would know this has ZERO to do with a Bible verse and everything to do with disobeying multilple orders. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 9:28:21 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Reading must be tough for you, or you would know this has ZERO to do with a Bible verse and everything to do with disobeying multilple orders. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I guess it's Satan's military now. We fought for religious freedom and even the founding fathers have stated we are a Christian nation. So much for principles. Oh well. Too bad so sad. I don't recall any clause in the Constitution stating military personnel were to forfeit their rights. So what's next on the chopping block? I KNOW! let's outlaw home-schooling! State school, best school! Right? Reading must be tough for you, or you would know this has ZERO to do with a Bible verse and everything to do with disobeying multilple orders. Lots of folks read only the title, then pop in to post their response. I doubt they even read the rest of the thread.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 9:32:02 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: i do not blame her. i would not have removed it either. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: big chicken dinner fo dat, WTF That'll happen if you act like a cantankerous bitch to NCO's and officers while refusing direct orders. I'm 100% sure she was unrepentant to the end. I knew people wouldn't get it. It doesn't matter whether the verse was okay or not. You don't get to refuse a ***lawful 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. ***edit for those who have to have obvious things spelled out for them i do not blame her. i would not have removed it either. 1. If the unit's SOP was no papers/notes taped to the computer monitors, then you absolutely would take it down. 2. You do not own the workspace you work in, if an NCO or officer says take something down, you fucking do it. But this is just one of the many things this shitbag did to earn her BCD. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 9:40:08 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
First of all, I was simply mistaken about bad mouthing the president. That only applies to officers. For them, it is an offense under Article 88 of the UCMJ, punishable by court martial. Enlisted members could actually get charged under article 135 for bringing discredit upon the service, but you would have to work for that. As for telling your CO to FO, That is punishable under article 89 BY COURT MARTIAL. You are wrong on two counts. First, you can be jailed under article 15. It doesn't depend on your requesting a court martial. Second, you can be tried by court martial without being offered NJP. NJP is a gift. YOU should know this. As for being intentionally obtuse, I got out of the service in 1992 and was only half wrong on one point. What's your excuse?
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:False. You absolutely DO give up your rights. You become government property. How could you have a tank and not know that? What would happen if a GI were to publicly start badmouthing the president? That is a protected Constitutional right. Go tell your civilian boss to FO, you might get fired. Tell your CO to FO and you will probably go to jail. Even in a civilian job, you don't have any right to put up signs in the office. Show me that in the Constitution. Where do you people get this stuff? no you dont. stop being a parrot. What were to happen if I bad mouthed the president? nothing. I did it. publicly. on television. nothing happened. you know damn good and well. If you tell your CO to fuck off and get jailed for it, YOU chose the jail instead of NJP. you should know this, and i suspect you do, and are being intentionally obtuse. First of all, I was simply mistaken about bad mouthing the president. That only applies to officers. For them, it is an offense under Article 88 of the UCMJ, punishable by court martial. Enlisted members could actually get charged under article 135 for bringing discredit upon the service, but you would have to work for that. As for telling your CO to FO, That is punishable under article 89 BY COURT MARTIAL. You are wrong on two counts. First, you can be jailed under article 15. It doesn't depend on your requesting a court martial. Second, you can be tried by court martial without being offered NJP. NJP is a gift. YOU should know this. As for being intentionally obtuse, I got out of the service in 1992 and was only half wrong on one point. What's your excuse?
You cannot be jailed under art-15. That requires a court martial, unless you are e3 or below and then the max is 3 days as I recall. Also, he's saying a co isn't likely to court martial someone for art 89 unless it's part of a bigger problem or you refuse njp. That's how you get fucked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 9:47:45 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Its the military, you obey an order even if you think its stupid or an illegal order and fight it afterwards. The only order I would have disobeyed was a plainly illegal order to commit an atrocity. Anything else, and you obey your superior officer and deal with with through the chain of command afterwards. I was never given an illegal order and telling someone to take a personal decoration off a government computer isn't illegal imo. The military is also prone to finding those nails that stick out and pounding them back in. Once she disobeyed a lawful order to remove those signs, she was in the spotlight and they began the process of documentation. The other stuff is something a squared away Marine would never have been written up for, but is very useful for getting rid of a problem child. She was given every opportunity to comply and square herself away, but the idiot didn't do it. She got the big chicken dinner because she deserved it. Fuck her. She'll probably get it converted to other than honorable on appeal. This going to court marshal is just stupid on behalf of DOD. Speaking of nails that stick out, I had a guy in my flight that wore a beard b/c he was Muslim and the USAF catered to his religious needs. The bigotry that is being promoted is absurd and your hate for this woman is unfounded. I'd laugh at the mindless yes man like you that want's to change anything on my computer......choose your battles wisely lil dude. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 9:54:01 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This going to court marshal is just stupid on behalf of DOD. Speaking of nails that stick out, I had a guy in my flight that wore a beard b/c he was Muslim and the USAF catered to his religious needs. The bigotry that is being promoted is absurd and your hate for this woman is unfounded. I'd laugh at the mindless yes man like you that want's to change anything on my computer......choose your battles wisely lil dude. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Its the military, you obey an order even if you think its stupid or an illegal order and fight it afterwards. The only order I would have disobeyed was a plainly illegal order to commit an atrocity. Anything else, and you obey your superior officer and deal with with through the chain of command afterwards. I was never given an illegal order and telling someone to take a personal decoration off a government computer isn't illegal imo. The military is also prone to finding those nails that stick out and pounding them back in. Once she disobeyed a lawful order to remove those signs, she was in the spotlight and they began the process of documentation. The other stuff is something a squared away Marine would never have been written up for, but is very useful for getting rid of a problem child. She was given every opportunity to comply and square herself away, but the idiot didn't do it. She got the big chicken dinner because she deserved it. Fuck her. She'll probably get it converted to other than honorable on appeal. This going to court marshal is just stupid on behalf of DOD. Speaking of nails that stick out, I had a guy in my flight that wore a beard b/c he was Muslim and the USAF catered to his religious needs. The bigotry that is being promoted is absurd and your hate for this woman is unfounded. I'd laugh at the mindless yes man like you that want's to change anything on my computer......choose your battles wisely lil dude. So because you had week leadership, you assume other services will have the same feckless leadership? Bottom line is the people defending her on this issue have either not read the notes of the case because this in no way was about a crack down on religion or they are just easy manipulated because the title of the story |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 10:00:44 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So because you had week leadership, you assume other services will have the same feckless leadership? Bottom line is the people defending her on this issue have either not read the notes of the case because this in no way was about a crack down on religion or they are just easy manipulated because the title of the story Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Its the military, you obey an order even if you think its stupid or an illegal order and fight it afterwards. The only order I would have disobeyed was a plainly illegal order to commit an atrocity. Anything else, and you obey your superior officer and deal with with through the chain of command afterwards. I was never given an illegal order and telling someone to take a personal decoration off a government computer isn't illegal imo. The military is also prone to finding those nails that stick out and pounding them back in. Once she disobeyed a lawful order to remove those signs, she was in the spotlight and they began the process of documentation. The other stuff is something a squared away Marine would never have been written up for, but is very useful for getting rid of a problem child. She was given every opportunity to comply and square herself away, but the idiot didn't do it. She got the big chicken dinner because she deserved it. Fuck her. She'll probably get it converted to other than honorable on appeal. This going to court marshal is just stupid on behalf of DOD. Speaking of nails that stick out, I had a guy in my flight that wore a beard b/c he was Muslim and the USAF catered to his religious needs. The bigotry that is being promoted is absurd and your hate for this woman is unfounded. I'd laugh at the mindless yes man like you that want's to change anything on my computer......choose your battles wisely lil dude. So because you had week leadership, you assume other services will have the same feckless leadership? Bottom line is the people defending her on this issue have either not read the notes of the case because this in no way was about a crack down on religion or they are just easy manipulated because the title of the story One might also note the DOD has a well defined process to request a religious accommodation, which said beard-wearing Muslim may have followed and had approved. Guess what this Ex-Marine did not even attempt? There's always more to the story... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 10:12:25 AM EDT
[#25]
I just read the appeal linked on page one.
The appellate judge decided that her display of biblical verses wasn't a legit exercise of her religion, and therefore protectable under the religious freedom reform act (or whatever it's called) but it was religious enough to potentially offend junior troops. That's fucked up right there, other elements of her deal notwithstanding. More details: She hung THREE of these things up in a triangle configuration around her workspace to represent the Trinity, and said she did it because she felt command staff was picking on her. When she refused to remove them, and replaced them when her supervisors snatched them off, she lost her cushy job fixing cac's, and got sent to the gate to issue passes. She refused to report one day because she self medicated to attend a church service (migraines), but the stuff made her loopy. I didn't read anywhere about getting poor ncoers or bad performance of her initial job. If she were a turd I would expect to have seen evidence of her being a bad employee... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 10:16:04 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I just read the appeal linked on page one. The appellate judge decided that her display of biblical verses wasn't a legit exercise of her religion, and therefore protectable under the religious freedom reform act (or whatever it's called) but it was religious enough to potentially offend junior troops. That's fucked up right there, other elements of her deal notwithstanding. More details: She hung THREE of these things up in a triangle configuration around her workspace to represent the Trinity, and said she did it because she felt command staff was picking on her. When she refused to remove them, and replaced them when her supervisors snatched them off, she lost her cushy job fixing cac's, and got sent to the gate to issue passes. She refused to report one day because she self medicated to attend a church service (migraines), but the stuff made her loopy. I didn't read anywhere about getting poor ncoers or bad performance of her initial job. If she were a turd I would expect to have seen evidence of her being a bad employee... Evidence is in this thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 10:26:11 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I just read the appeal linked on page one. The appellate judge decided that her display of biblical verses wasn't a legit exercise of her religion, and therefore protectable under the religious freedom reform act (or whatever it's called) but it was religious enough to potentially offend junior troops. That's fucked up right there, other elements of her deal notwithstanding. More details: She hung THREE of these things up in a triangle configuration around her workspace to represent the Trinity, and said she did it because she felt command staff was picking on her. When she refused to remove them, and replaced them when her supervisors snatched them off, she lost her cushy job fixing cac's, and got sent to the gate to issue passes. She refused to report one day because she self medicated to attend a church service (migraines), but the stuff made her loopy. I didn't read anywhere about getting poor ncoers or bad performance of her initial job. If she were a turd I would expect to have seen evidence of her being a bad employee... You haven't paid attention, and you didn't pay attention to the apellate decision. Issuing passes was part of her job, she had done it before. It was not assigned as a punishment for being a shit bag, it was part of her job. She *CHOSE* to take her medication in a way that was not prescribed by her doctor specifically in order to not be available to do her job, in spite of an order from her CO to do the job. She never asked for a religious exemption, she never talked to the various entities that exist to adjudicate disputes like the bible verse thing, she just told her NCO to fuck off. You don't get to do that in the military, period, end of story. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 10:30:23 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: <snip> She refused to report one day because she self medicated to attend a church service (migraines), but the stuff made her loopy. Ignoring everything else that you said (which has been handled in posts above mine) Self-medication is no excuse to miss duty, especially when you were told about duty prior. Hell even with taking perscription drugs you are expected to do your job. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 10:44:56 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure what the purpose of your comment was. Nothing I said contradicts that. I did read the courts decision on her appeal. I agree with the sentence. I spelled that out in my post. What appeal do you think she will have that will change her type of discharge? You said it will be changed on appeal. It wasnt. What appeal will change it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 10:45:25 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You cannot be jailed under art-15. That requires a court martial, unless you are e3 or below and then the max is 3 days as I recall. Also, he's saying a co isn't likely to court martial someone for art 89 unless it's part of a bigger problem or you refuse njp. That's how you get fucked. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:False. You absolutely DO give up your rights. You become government property. How could you have a tank and not know that? What would happen if a GI were to publicly start badmouthing the president? That is a protected Constitutional right. Go tell your civilian boss to FO, you might get fired. Tell your CO to FO and you will probably go to jail. Even in a civilian job, you don't have any right to put up signs in the office. Show me that in the Constitution. Where do you people get this stuff? no you dont. stop being a parrot. What were to happen if I bad mouthed the president? nothing. I did it. publicly. on television. nothing happened. you know damn good and well. If you tell your CO to fuck off and get jailed for it, YOU chose the jail instead of NJP. you should know this, and i suspect you do, and are being intentionally obtuse. First of all, I was simply mistaken about bad mouthing the president. That only applies to officers. For them, it is an offense under Article 88 of the UCMJ, punishable by court martial. Enlisted members could actually get charged under article 135 for bringing discredit upon the service, but you would have to work for that. As for telling your CO to FO, That is punishable under article 89 BY COURT MARTIAL. You are wrong on two counts. First, you can be jailed under article 15. It doesn't depend on your requesting a court martial. Second, you can be tried by court martial without being offered NJP. NJP is a gift. YOU should know this. As for being intentionally obtuse, I got out of the service in 1992 and was only half wrong on one point. What's your excuse?
You cannot be jailed under art-15. That requires a court martial, unless you are e3 or below and then the max is 3 days as I recall. Also, he's saying a co isn't likely to court martial someone for art 89 unless it's part of a bigger problem or you refuse njp. That's how you get fucked. http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm#SUBCHAPTER%20III.%20NON-JUDICIAL%20PUNISHMENT (b) Subject to subsection (a) any commanding officer may, in addition to or in lieu of admonition or reprimand, impose one or more of the following disciplinary punishments for minor offenses without the intervention of a court-martial-- (1) upon officers of his command-- (A) restriction to certain specified limits, with or without suspension from duty, for not more that 30 consecutive days; (B) if imposed by an officer exercising general court-martial jurisdictions or an officer of general flag rank in command-- (i) arrest in quarters for not more than 30 consecutive days; (ii) forfeiture of not more than one-half of one month's pay per month for two months; (iii) restriction to certain specified limits, with or without suspension from duty, for not more than 60 consecutive days; (iv) detention of not more than one-half of one month's pay per month for three months; (2) upon other personnel of his command-- (A) if imposed upon a person attached to or embarked in a vessel, confinement on bread and water or diminished rations for not more than three consecutive days; (B) correctional custody for not more than seven consecutive days; (C) forfeiture of not more than seven days' pay; (D) reduction to the next inferior pay grade, if the grade from which demoted is within the promotion authority of the officer imposing the reduction or any officer subordinate to the one who imposes the reduction; (E) extra duties, including fatigue or other duties, for not more than 14 consecutive days; (F) restriction to certain specified limits, with or without suspension from duty, for not more than 14 consecutive days; (G) detention of not more than 14 days' pay; (H) if imposed by an officer of the grade of major or lieutenant commander, or above-- (i) the punishment authorized under clause (A); (ii) correctional custody for not more than 30 consecutive days; (iii) forfeiture of not more than one-half of one month's pay per month for two months; (iv) reduction to the lowest or any intermediate pay grade, if the grade from which demoted is within the promotion authority of the officer imposing the reduction or any officer subordinate to the one who imposes the reduction, by an enlisted member in a pay grade above E-4 may not be reduced more than two pay grades; |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 10:47:04 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm#SUBCHAPTER%20III.%20NON-JUDICIAL%20PUNISHMENT (b) Subject to subsection (a) any commanding officer may, in addition to or in lieu of admonition or reprimand, impose one or more of the following disciplinary punishments for minor offenses without the intervention of a court-martial-- (1) upon officers of his command-- (A) restriction to certain specified limits, with or without suspension from duty, for not more that 30 consecutive days; (B) if imposed by an officer exercising general court-martial jurisdictions or an officer of general flag rank in command-- (i) arrest in quarters for not more than 30 consecutive days; (ii) forfeiture of not more than one-half of one month's pay per month for two months; (iii) restriction to certain specified limits, with or without suspension from duty, for not more than 60 consecutive days; (iv) detention of not more than one-half of one month's pay per month for three months; (2) upon other personnel of his command-- (A) if imposed upon a person attached to or embarked in a vessel, confinement on bread and water or diminished rations for not more than three consecutive days; (B) correctional custody for not more than seven consecutive days; (C) forfeiture of not more than seven days' pay; (D) reduction to the next inferior pay grade, if the grade from which demoted is within the promotion authority of the officer imposing the reduction or any officer subordinate to the one who imposes the reduction; (E) extra duties, including fatigue or other duties, for not more than 14 consecutive days; (F) restriction to certain specified limits, with or without suspension from duty, for not more than 14 consecutive days; (G) detention of not more than 14 days' pay; (H) if imposed by an officer of the grade of major or lieutenant commander, or above-- (i) the punishment authorized under clause (A); (ii) correctional custody for not more than 30 consecutive days; (iii) forfeiture of not more than one-half of one month's pay per month for two months; (iv) reduction to the lowest or any intermediate pay grade, if the grade from which demoted is within the promotion authority of the officer imposing the reduction or any officer subordinate to the one who imposes the reduction, by an enlisted member in a pay grade above E-4 may not be reduced more than two pay grades; Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:False. You absolutely DO give up your rights. You become government property. How could you have a tank and not know that? What would happen if a GI were to publicly start badmouthing the president? That is a protected Constitutional right. Go tell your civilian boss to FO, you might get fired. Tell your CO to FO and you will probably go to jail. Even in a civilian job, you don't have any right to put up signs in the office. Show me that in the Constitution. Where do you people get this stuff? no you dont. stop being a parrot. What were to happen if I bad mouthed the president? nothing. I did it. publicly. on television. nothing happened. you know damn good and well. If you tell your CO to fuck off and get jailed for it, YOU chose the jail instead of NJP. you should know this, and i suspect you do, and are being intentionally obtuse. First of all, I was simply mistaken about bad mouthing the president. That only applies to officers. For them, it is an offense under Article 88 of the UCMJ, punishable by court martial. Enlisted members could actually get charged under article 135 for bringing discredit upon the service, but you would have to work for that. As for telling your CO to FO, That is punishable under article 89 BY COURT MARTIAL. You are wrong on two counts. First, you can be jailed under article 15. It doesn't depend on your requesting a court martial. Second, you can be tried by court martial without being offered NJP. NJP is a gift. YOU should know this. As for being intentionally obtuse, I got out of the service in 1992 and was only half wrong on one point. What's your excuse?
You cannot be jailed under art-15. That requires a court martial, unless you are e3 or below and then the max is 3 days as I recall. Also, he's saying a co isn't likely to court martial someone for art 89 unless it's part of a bigger problem or you refuse njp. That's how you get fucked. http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm#SUBCHAPTER%20III.%20NON-JUDICIAL%20PUNISHMENT (b) Subject to subsection (a) any commanding officer may, in addition to or in lieu of admonition or reprimand, impose one or more of the following disciplinary punishments for minor offenses without the intervention of a court-martial-- (1) upon officers of his command-- (A) restriction to certain specified limits, with or without suspension from duty, for not more that 30 consecutive days; (B) if imposed by an officer exercising general court-martial jurisdictions or an officer of general flag rank in command-- (i) arrest in quarters for not more than 30 consecutive days; (ii) forfeiture of not more than one-half of one month's pay per month for two months; (iii) restriction to certain specified limits, with or without suspension from duty, for not more than 60 consecutive days; (iv) detention of not more than one-half of one month's pay per month for three months; (2) upon other personnel of his command-- (A) if imposed upon a person attached to or embarked in a vessel, confinement on bread and water or diminished rations for not more than three consecutive days; (B) correctional custody for not more than seven consecutive days; (C) forfeiture of not more than seven days' pay; (D) reduction to the next inferior pay grade, if the grade from which demoted is within the promotion authority of the officer imposing the reduction or any officer subordinate to the one who imposes the reduction; (E) extra duties, including fatigue or other duties, for not more than 14 consecutive days; (F) restriction to certain specified limits, with or without suspension from duty, for not more than 14 consecutive days; (G) detention of not more than 14 days' pay; (H) if imposed by an officer of the grade of major or lieutenant commander, or above-- (i) the punishment authorized under clause (A); (ii) correctional custody for not more than 30 consecutive days; (iii) forfeiture of not more than one-half of one month's pay per month for two months; (iv) reduction to the lowest or any intermediate pay grade, if the grade from which demoted is within the promotion authority of the officer imposing the reduction or any officer subordinate to the one who imposes the reduction, by an enlisted member in a pay grade above E-4 may not be reduced more than two pay grades; Correctional Custody is not "jail". It's like basic training with more bullshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 11:02:49 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Correctional Custody is not "jail". It's like basic training with more bullshit. When I was in, you stayed in a building with bars on the windows and locks on the doors. You could not leave. There were guards that marched you wherever you went. It looked like jail to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 11:04:35 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When I was in, you stayed in a building with bars on the windows and locks on the doors. You could not leave. There were guards that marched you wherever you went. It looked like jail to me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Correctional Custody is not "jail". It's like basic training with more bullshit. When I was in, you stayed in a building with bars on the windows and locks on the doors. You could not leave. There were guards that marched you wherever you went. It looked like jail to me. Looked like, but it isnt. And wasnt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 11:06:06 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When I was in, you stayed in a building with bars on the windows and locks on the doors. You could not leave. There were guards that marched you wherever you went. It looked like jail to me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Correctional Custody is not "jail". It's like basic training with more bullshit. When I was in, you stayed in a building with bars on the windows and locks on the doors. You could not leave. There were guards that marched you wherever you went. It looked like jail to me. Yeah, we used to have it to. It was not fun, you were marched around like a prisoner. You were not in a brig though, and the guys working there were not prison guards (wrong career field, and none of the same training). It was meant to be miserable as fuck, but it was usually the last stop on the way out the door. You didn't have a sentence, and didn't have a federal conviction like actual prisoners do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 11:11:44 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What appeal do you think she will have that will change her type of discharge? You said it will be changed on appeal. It wasnt. What appeal will change it? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm not sure what the purpose of your comment was. Nothing I said contradicts that. I did read the courts decision on her appeal. I agree with the sentence. I spelled that out in my post. What appeal do you think she will have that will change her type of discharge? You said it will be changed on appeal. It wasnt. What appeal will change it? She still has an appeal to CAAF. NMCCA is a rubber stamp, they never overturn. Even if they find error, they simply say that it didn't prejudice the case and they let the sentence stand. CAAF is far more rigorous in their review, *IF* they grant review, which they may not. NMCCA in this case absolutely beat the shit out of her appeal and her case and her personally -- I doubt CAAF will review, as there does not appear to me to be anything to review. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 11:12:33 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: When I was in, you stayed in a building with bars on the windows and locks on the doors. You could not leave. There were guards that marched you wherever you went. It looked like jail to me. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Correctional Custody is not "jail". It's like basic training with more bullshit. When I was in, you stayed in a building with bars on the windows and locks on the doors. You could not leave. There were guards that marched you wherever you went. It looked like jail to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 11:13:00 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm#SUBCHAPTER%20III.%20NON-JUDICIAL%20PUNISHMENT (b) Subject to subsection (a) any commanding officer may, in addition to or in lieu of admonition or reprimand, impose one or more of the following disciplinary punishments for minor offenses without the intervention of a court-martial-- (1) upon officers of his command-- (A) restriction to certain specified limits, with or without suspension from duty, for not more that 30 consecutive days; (B) if imposed by an officer exercising general court-martial jurisdictions or an officer of general flag rank in command-- (i) arrest in quarters for not more than 30 consecutive days; (ii) forfeiture of not more than one-half of one month's pay per month for two months; (iii) restriction to certain specified limits, with or without suspension from duty, for not more than 60 consecutive days; (iv) detention of not more than one-half of one month's pay per month for three months; (2) upon other personnel of his command-- (A) if imposed upon a person attached to or embarked in a vessel, confinement on bread and water or diminished rations for not more than three consecutive days; (B) correctional custody for not more than seven consecutive days; (C) forfeiture of not more than seven days' pay; (D) reduction to the next inferior pay grade, if the grade from which demoted is within the promotion authority of the officer imposing the reduction or any officer subordinate to the one who imposes the reduction; (E) extra duties, including fatigue or other duties, for not more than 14 consecutive days; (F) restriction to certain specified limits, with or without suspension from duty, for not more than 14 consecutive days; (G) detention of not more than 14 days' pay; (H) if imposed by an officer of the grade of major or lieutenant commander, or above-- (i) the punishment authorized under clause (A); (ii) correctional custody for not more than 30 consecutive days; (iii) forfeiture of not more than one-half of one month's pay per month for two months; (iv) reduction to the lowest or any intermediate pay grade, if the grade from which demoted is within the promotion authority of the officer imposing the reduction or any officer subordinate to the one who imposes the reduction, by an enlisted member in a pay grade above E-4 may not be reduced more than two pay grades; Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:False. You absolutely DO give up your rights. You become government property. How could you have a tank and not know that? What would happen if a GI were to publicly start badmouthing the president? That is a protected Constitutional right. Go tell your civilian boss to FO, you might get fired. Tell your CO to FO and you will probably go to jail. Even in a civilian job, you don't have any right to put up signs in the office. Show me that in the Constitution. Where do you people get this stuff? no you dont. stop being a parrot. What were to happen if I bad mouthed the president? nothing. I did it. publicly. on television. nothing happened. you know damn good and well. If you tell your CO to fuck off and get jailed for it, YOU chose the jail instead of NJP. you should know this, and i suspect you do, and are being intentionally obtuse. First of all, I was simply mistaken about bad mouthing the president. That only applies to officers. For them, it is an offense under Article 88 of the UCMJ, punishable by court martial. Enlisted members could actually get charged under article 135 for bringing discredit upon the service, but you would have to work for that. As for telling your CO to FO, That is punishable under article 89 BY COURT MARTIAL. You are wrong on two counts. First, you can be jailed under article 15. It doesn't depend on your requesting a court martial. Second, you can be tried by court martial without being offered NJP. NJP is a gift. YOU should know this. As for being intentionally obtuse, I got out of the service in 1992 and was only half wrong on one point. What's your excuse?
You cannot be jailed under art-15. That requires a court martial, unless you are e3 or below and then the max is 3 days as I recall. Also, he's saying a co isn't likely to court martial someone for art 89 unless it's part of a bigger problem or you refuse njp. That's how you get fucked. http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm#SUBCHAPTER%20III.%20NON-JUDICIAL%20PUNISHMENT (b) Subject to subsection (a) any commanding officer may, in addition to or in lieu of admonition or reprimand, impose one or more of the following disciplinary punishments for minor offenses without the intervention of a court-martial-- (1) upon officers of his command-- (A) restriction to certain specified limits, with or without suspension from duty, for not more that 30 consecutive days; (B) if imposed by an officer exercising general court-martial jurisdictions or an officer of general flag rank in command-- (i) arrest in quarters for not more than 30 consecutive days; (ii) forfeiture of not more than one-half of one month's pay per month for two months; (iii) restriction to certain specified limits, with or without suspension from duty, for not more than 60 consecutive days; (iv) detention of not more than one-half of one month's pay per month for three months; (2) upon other personnel of his command-- (A) if imposed upon a person attached to or embarked in a vessel, confinement on bread and water or diminished rations for not more than three consecutive days; (B) correctional custody for not more than seven consecutive days; (C) forfeiture of not more than seven days' pay; (D) reduction to the next inferior pay grade, if the grade from which demoted is within the promotion authority of the officer imposing the reduction or any officer subordinate to the one who imposes the reduction; (E) extra duties, including fatigue or other duties, for not more than 14 consecutive days; (F) restriction to certain specified limits, with or without suspension from duty, for not more than 14 consecutive days; (G) detention of not more than 14 days' pay; (H) if imposed by an officer of the grade of major or lieutenant commander, or above-- (i) the punishment authorized under clause (A); (ii) correctional custody for not more than 30 consecutive days; (iii) forfeiture of not more than one-half of one month's pay per month for two months; (iv) reduction to the lowest or any intermediate pay grade, if the grade from which demoted is within the promotion authority of the officer imposing the reduction or any officer subordinate to the one who imposes the reduction, by an enlisted member in a pay grade above E-4 may not be reduced more than two pay grades; That only applies to E3 and below. E4 and above cannot be assigned to CCU by anyone. Clause A is simply restriction. And as posted, CCU is not the brig anyway. It's completely different -- CCU is designed to fix a bad Sailor, the brig is designed to punish a convicted criminal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 11:14:48 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Looked like, but it isnt. And wasnt. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Correctional Custody is not "jail". It's like basic training with more bullshit. When I was in, you stayed in a building with bars on the windows and locks on the doors. You could not leave. There were guards that marched you wherever you went. It looked like jail to me. Looked like, but it isnt. And wasnt. Semantics. http://navyadvancement.tpub.com/14325/css/14325_74.htm CORRECTIONAL CUSTODY.—Correctional custody is the physical restraint (confinement) of a person during duty or nonduty hours, or both. The person may be required to perform extra duties or hard labor. A typical example is an individual who is free to carry out regular duties during the day but is confined in a confinement facility at night. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 11:18:47 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Semantics. http://navyadvancement.tpub.com/14325/css/14325_74.htm CORRECTIONAL CUSTODY.—Correctional custody is the physical restraint (confinement) of a person during duty or nonduty hours, or both. The person may be required to perform extra duties or hard labor. A typical example is an individual who is free to carry out regular duties during the day but is confined in a confinement facility at night. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Correctional Custody is not "jail". It's like basic training with more bullshit. When I was in, you stayed in a building with bars on the windows and locks on the doors. You could not leave. There were guards that marched you wherever you went. It looked like jail to me. Looked like, but it isnt. And wasnt. Semantics. http://navyadvancement.tpub.com/14325/css/14325_74.htm CORRECTIONAL CUSTODY.—Correctional custody is the physical restraint (confinement) of a person during duty or nonduty hours, or both. The person may be required to perform extra duties or hard labor. A typical example is an individual who is free to carry out regular duties during the day but is confined in a confinement facility at night. It's not semantics. There's a HUGE difference between being a prisoner pursuant to a court martial conviction, and being a junior Sailor undergoing remedial corrective training. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 11:21:06 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Semantics. http://navyadvancement.tpub.com/14325/css/14325_74.htm CORRECTIONAL CUSTODY.—Correctional custody is the physical restraint (confinement) of a person during duty or nonduty hours, or both. The person may be required to perform extra duties or hard labor. A typical example is an individual who is free to carry out regular duties during the day but is confined in a confinement facility at night. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Correctional Custody is not "jail". It's like basic training with more bullshit. When I was in, you stayed in a building with bars on the windows and locks on the doors. You could not leave. There were guards that marched you wherever you went. It looked like jail to me. Looked like, but it isnt. And wasnt. Semantics. http://navyadvancement.tpub.com/14325/css/14325_74.htm CORRECTIONAL CUSTODY.—Correctional custody is the physical restraint (confinement) of a person during duty or nonduty hours, or both. The person may be required to perform extra duties or hard labor. A typical example is an individual who is free to carry out regular duties during the day but is confined in a confinement facility at night. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 11:24:43 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That only applies to E3 and below. E4 and above cannot be assigned to CCU by anyone. Clause A is simply restriction. And as posted, CCU is not the brig anyway. It's completely different -- CCU is designed to fix a bad Sailor, the brig is designed to punish a convicted criminal. Obviously, you know a lot more about it than I do, (which is only how to google it). There is a chart on the page I linked about CC that says any rank can get up to 7 days, but I'll take your word for it. No, CC is not the brig, but I was using the term "jail" loosely. As far as I'm concerned, if you're locked in a place as punishment, you're in jail. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 11:37:34 AM EDT
[#42]
ETA- NVM already covered
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 11:40:10 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ever hear of confinement to a ship after NJP? Aint no one keeping you there but yourself. Same for CCU Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Correctional Custody is not "jail". It's like basic training with more bullshit. When I was in, you stayed in a building with bars on the windows and locks on the doors. You could not leave. There were guards that marched you wherever you went. It looked like jail to me. Looked like, but it isnt. And wasnt. Semantics. http://navyadvancement.tpub.com/14325/css/14325_74.htm CORRECTIONAL CUSTODY.—Correctional custody is the physical restraint (confinement) of a person during duty or nonduty hours, or both. The person may be required to perform extra duties or hard labor. A typical example is an individual who is free to carry out regular duties during the day but is confined in a confinement facility at night. Like I said, we had buildings with bars and locks. You weren't leaving. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 12:19:24 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I guess it's Satan's military now. We fought for religious freedom and even the founding fathers have stated we are a Christian nation. So much for principles. Oh well. Too bad so sad. I don't recall any clause in the Constitution stating military personnel were to forfeit their rights. So what's next on the chopping block? I KNOW! let's outlaw home-schooling! State school, best school! Right? lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 1:46:09 PM EDT
[#45]
I had to live in the CCU barracks during A school.
Looked more like bootcamp than brig. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 1:50:22 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You haven't paid attention, and you didn't pay attention to the apellate decision. Issuing passes was part of her job, she had done it before. It was not assigned as a punishment for being a shit bag, it was part of her job. She *CHOSE* to take her medication in a way that was not prescribed by her doctor specifically in order to not be available to do her job, in spite of an order from her CO to do the job. She never asked for a religious exemption, she never talked to the various entities that exist to adjudicate disputes like the bible verse thing, she just told her NCO to fuck off. You don't get to do that in the military, period, end of story. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I just read the appeal linked on page one. The appellate judge decided that her display of biblical verses wasn't a legit exercise of her religion, and therefore protectable under the religious freedom reform act (or whatever it's called) but it was religious enough to potentially offend junior troops. That's fucked up right there, other elements of her deal notwithstanding. More details: She hung THREE of these things up in a triangle configuration around her workspace to represent the Trinity, and said she did it because she felt command staff was picking on her. When she refused to remove them, and replaced them when her supervisors snatched them off, she lost her cushy job fixing cac's, and got sent to the gate to issue passes. She refused to report one day because she self medicated to attend a church service (migraines), but the stuff made her loopy. I didn't read anywhere about getting poor ncoers or bad performance of her initial job. If she were a turd I would expect to have seen evidence of her being a bad employee... You haven't paid attention, and you didn't pay attention to the apellate decision. Issuing passes was part of her job, she had done it before. It was not assigned as a punishment for being a shit bag, it was part of her job. She *CHOSE* to take her medication in a way that was not prescribed by her doctor specifically in order to not be available to do her job, in spite of an order from her CO to do the job. She never asked for a religious exemption, she never talked to the various entities that exist to adjudicate disputes like the bible verse thing, she just told her NCO to fuck off. You don't get to do that in the military, period, end of story. That, and good troops aren't running the CAC PIN reset stations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 1:53:11 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I had to live in the CCU barracks during A school. Looked more like bootcamp than brig. Never inside the place myself. I'll take everyone's word for it, and stand corrected. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 1:57:26 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Never inside the place myself. I'll take everyone's word for it, and stand corrected. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I had to live in the CCU barracks during A school. Looked more like bootcamp than brig. Never inside the place myself. I'll take everyone's word for it, and stand corrected. Too late, report to CCU. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 2:02:20 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Too late, report to CCU. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I had to live in the CCU barracks during A school. Looked more like bootcamp than brig. Never inside the place myself. I'll take everyone's word for it, and stand corrected. Too late, report to CCU. I know my rights! I demand trial by Court Martial! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 2:05:21 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I know my rights! I demand trial by Court Martial! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I had to live in the CCU barracks during A school. Looked more like bootcamp than brig. Never inside the place myself. I'll take everyone's word for it, and stand corrected. Too late, report to CCU. I know my rights! I demand trial by Court Martial! I have some bad news for you. You were found guilty at your summary court martial and are sentenced to 30 days in CCU. Sorry. ETA- funny story, one time I was checking out of my unit and didn't really have a job so they sent me to base legal with pretty much no explanation of why or what needed to happen. Well, I get there and the legal clerk explains to me that I'll be sitting on a summary court martial and will look at the evidence, interview, judge, then sentence some LCpl for stealing government property. At the end of that day I went to my legal officer and thanked him for giving me a heads up about what was going to happen 
|
|
|
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.
