DUI arrest but not charged

[KBayDog]

After having been at work 18 hours he failed it stone cold sober.

THIS!!

We are very good at applying ORM when the time comes to strap on our birds and break the surly bonds, but I'd argue that we pay lip service to it on the ground. More than a handful of times in CONUS I'd have to show up at work at 1200 to finalize the plans for a 1300 brief, fly until midnight, and then post-flight/debrief until 0300 or later. Even after, say, a 6+ hour LLL division desert CAL flight, the single most dangerous thing I did during that day was drive home after the debrief. (It was even more humorous when I'd have to be in at 0800 for a safety standdown...)

Instead of simply printing out a MarineNet/KNO certificate every year saying that we're ORM ninjas, maybe we need to continue to study the "Limits" section in the Human NATOPS.

 

[Sonog]

If he's toking, that's not tea.

I'm an idiot. Teetotaler.

 

[pilot_man]

DUI is too easy to focus on. Let's say that the OP had his few beers, met a chick that he thought was hot (obviously the beers talking), then took her home to complete the home run. She isn't wasted and falling all over herself so he thinks nothing of it. She wakes up and cries fowl. He of course is arrested. If the DA finds that there is no evidence of wrongdoing and drops the charges, then why should the Navy hold that against him? I get that there are lots of applicants. If you are found not guilty (or charges dropped), you are not guilty.

 

[MasterBates]

Because the Navy's command structure is full of a lot of Holier-Than-Thou's that figure you must have done something wrong to be arrested, even if you beat the conviction.

I was arrested, and led out of my squadron in cuffs and shackles on aggrivated assault and battery charges. Turns out, the ex had beaten herself with a pan in the face to make it look like I hit her, but the age of the bruises didn't jive with when she said I did it, and I was flying/otherwise seen at work without the hour and a half needed to go home, hit her, and drive back when it could have happened. DA dropped the charges.

My CO continued to hammer me for something I was arrested for, even though she admitted to faking it under oath. Because "you must have done SOMETHING" and then gave her everything she wanted under the MILPERSMAN that directed temporary spousal support, giving me NEGATIVE $300 a month to live on (was taking home $4200/mo, he gave her $3500, my student loans and truck payment was $1200 combined, nevermind eating, or a place to live)

So yeah. There are a bunch of holier than thou, arrest = conviction fucktards in charge. CO in question is (or recently was) HSMWINGLANT Commodore.

 

[Swanee]

Because the Navy's command structure is full of a lot of Holier-Than-Thou's that figure you must have done something wrong to be arrested, even if you beat the conviction.

There was a 2nd Lt at MATSG in Pcola who was the subject of a wrongful arrest. ("Hey, grab the guy in the black jacket by the door!" says the bartender to the cop. He was the other guy in the black jacket) Police admitted fault, bartender admitted wrong guy. Police actually submit a public apology to said 2nd Lt AND the command. CO of MATSG says something similar to above and tries to ADSEP the guy because he wouldn't have gotten arrested if he didn't do anything wrong. 2nd Lt requests mast (against the guidance of the command) and gets it overturned. However they still moved him out of the flight program because it would look bad to every other Marine in this COs command to see his decision overturned. So he got his choice of infantry, arty or tanks. He chose arty.

 

[JIMC5499]

It's got nothing to do with being PC, it's about risk. If you were hiring an employee and had 20 equally qualified applicants, except one of them had been arrested, you probably wouldn't choose that guy for the job. The details or extenuating circumstances really wouldn't matter to you at that point. That's not PC, that's just basic human nature. Now, if you had 20 positions to fill and 10 applicants, then it would matter less and you probably hire the guy. This is not rocket science.

Brett

Brett,
I wouldn't know about it. Every job application I have ever filled out asks for convictions, not arrests. As a matter of fact, there is a push to make it illegal for me to even ask about convictions before hiring someone. I understand the point that you are making, I just don't agree with it.

 

[das]

Brett,
I wouldn't know about it. Every job application I have ever filled out asks for convictions, not arrests.

...except for military and government employment and other applications, which routinely ask if you have EVER been arrested, detained, etc., by any law enforcement entity, even if not convicted or even charged.

 

[Brett327]

Brett,
I wouldn't know about it. Every job application I have ever filled out asks for convictions, not arrests. As a matter of fact, there is a push to make it illegal for me to even ask about convictions before hiring someone. I understand the point that you are making, I just don't agree with it.

I understand that you and others don't agree with it - that's fine. Lets stand that perspective on its head. Would the Navy reap any advantages by not using arrests in its selection process? Would the public ultimately be better served? We've heard some anecdotal stories of people getting screwed one way or another for arrests that didn't result in convictions. I contend that those are statistical outliers. I don't have data in front of me to demonstrate this, but I'll be someone at BUPERS does, which is exactly why this is the policy. From a risk management perspective, eliminating applicants with an elevated risk of future trouble saves the Navy time and money. Neither the Navy nor the American people are served by potentially spending time and money on applicants who are statistically more likely to cause trouble. Definitely not fair, but why do we expect fairness to be a standard of selection in this process. Is the ASTB a perfect predictor for performance as an aviator? Of course not. There are, no doubt, plenty of guys who would score poorly and go on to excel as aviators. It's a method to cull the herd and put forward those applicants most likely to excel.

I'm sure we could go around and around on this issue. You can understand the issue and you can certainly think it's unfair, but you really can't argue that it's not in the Navy's best interests. So, if we agree on that, why are we surprised, shocked and outraged by something that is clearly the logical, rational choice for the American people?

God bless America.

Brett

 

[Recovering LSO]

Do you really think Navy leadership just woke up one day and said, screw it, we're going to punish folks who did stuff that we no longer approve of even though we used to do it?
Or could it have been a change in the social acceptability of a DUI (society as a whole changed, not just the Navy).

Bullshit. If society has changed and is less accepting of DUIs then explain to me why the DUI laws in most states are as absurdly lenient as they are. Why are there people out there racking up four, five, and six DUIs? If our country really had a hard on about fixing the problem, people would be doing jail time - paying HUGE fines, and losing the privilege of driving for years. That is not going to happen though.

for example.....

 

[das]

Bullshit. If society has changed and is less accepting of DUIs then explain to me why the DUI laws in most states are as absurdly lenient as they are. Why are there people out there racking up four, five, and six DUIs?

Six? That's nothing...

Seven
Eight
Nine
Ten
Eleven
Twelve
Thirteen
Fourteen
Fifteen

Gotta love Wisconsin!

 

[magnetfreezer]

I understand that you and others don't agree with it - that's fine. Lets stand that perspective on its head. Would the Navy reap any advantages by not using arrests in its selection process? Would the public ultimately be better served? We've heard some anecdotal stories of people getting screwed one way or another for arrests that didn't result in convictions. I contend that those are statistical outliers. I don't have data in front of me to demonstrate this, but I'll be someone at BUPERS does, which is exactly why this is the policy. From a risk management perspective, eliminating applicants with an elevated risk of future trouble saves the Navy time and money. Neither the Navy nor the American people are served by potentially spending time and money on applicants who are statistically more likely to cause trouble. Definitely not fair, but why do we expect fairness to be a standard of selection in this process. Is the ASTB a perfect predictor for performance as an aviator? Of course not. There are, no doubt, plenty of guys who would score poorly and go on to excel as aviators. It's a method to cull the herd and put forward those applicants most likely to excel.

I'm sure we could go around and around on this issue. You can understand the issue and you can certainly think it's unfair, but you really can't argue that it's not in the Navy's best interests. So, if we agree on that, why are we surprised, shocked and outraged by something that is clearly the logical, rational choice for the American people?

God bless America.

Brett

What if BUPERS had data showing that people from <insert town/zipcode here> were statistically more likely to become criminals?

 

[pilot_man]

What if BUPERS had data showing that people from <insert town/zipcode here> were statistically more likely to become criminals?

This is mostly what I'm getting at. There are a lot of rabbit holes we could go down by saying statistically (insert generalization here) people are a higher risk for us to accept. If the DA can't put it on you, then the Navy shouldn't either.

You think 15 is a lot, how about this:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ts-sentenced-7-years-prison-article-1.1036553

 

[exNavyOffRec]

I can say right now the navy is looking for reasons to push application to the side and if there is a single blip it may not be a selection board killer but I would advise one of my applicants to get supporting documentation such as if he was arrested and not charged a letter why not, did a person arrested for DUI actual blow .00 then a letter from the prosecutors office may negate any negative view, but if a person wasn't charged because policy is not to charge someone below .08 then a letter showing they were .06 is still not good.

I can also tell you the selection for SNA is currently very lenient, the last board selected one person with 3 ARI's and quite a bit of MJ use, another I just found out about had 2 DUI's but one was reduced to reckless, these are just ones I have first hand knowledge of.

 

[Brett327]

What if BUPERS had data showing that people from <insert town/zipcode here> were statistically more likely to become criminals?

If they found it to be significant, then I imagine they might use that as a discriminator. We can play hypotheticals/rabbit holes and slippery slopes all day to no useful conclusion. You guys keep coming up with ways to show it's not fair - that is not in dispute. I haven't heard an argument that it's not in the Navy's best interest to do it.

 

[bert]

Nobody has a right to be an officer in any branch of the military. Any service can use any discriminator not barred by federal law or its own internal processes. Brett is correct, fair has nothing to do with it.