DUI arrest but not charged

[exNavyOffRec]

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.

You should meet some of the people that I do, some have the attititude "I have a Bachelor's degree so I deserve to be an officer", some have actually come out and said it, one told another OR I worked with "I have a degree so I am too good to go enlisted" of course the OR was an LDO so that didn't sit to well.

so unfortunately the attitude is out there.

 

[Sapper!]

Down here the state of Louisiana is looking to increase first time DUI offense to mandatory 10 days in prison. That should shake people into thinking that just going to have a few drinks can have a larger consquence! I kind of like the idea especially where drinking and driving around here is such a way of life for people. It's like they exisit in their own little world. Down here 10 days is a big deal even to the most carefree people as a good portion of them work 7/7 or 14/14, a no show on the rig means you are gone, even if they don't really care if you have a DUI.

 

[Alpha_Echo_606]

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.

As my Dad told me when I was growing up, "many things in life aren't fair, you'd better get used to it!"

 

[Recovering LSO]

Nobody has a right to be an officer in any branch of the military

i would tend to disagree with this statement. a little word that starts with a "d" and rhymes with diversity.....

 

[magnetfreezer]

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.

The services do have a responsibility to uphold the Constitution which sets out that no one should be punished for an alleged offense without conviction by civil or military justice (due process).

 

[bert]

The services do have a responsibility to uphold the Constitution which sets out that no one should be punished for an alleged offense without conviction by civil or military justice (due process).

How does that equate to forcing the services to commission those people?

 

[bert]

i would tend to disagree with this statement. a little word that starts with a "d" and rhymes with diversity.....

"We" want minorities in the service, and thus bend over backwards to bring them in, retain them, and promote them. Our internal policies that I referenced (see promotion board precepts, for instance) are designed to help meet "our" goals. But they still don't have a right to get a commission any more than the OP does.

Here is the thing (warning, harsh truths follow): if our draconian zero tolerance policies were causing manning issues we would get rid of them. But they don't - at least not at t he level of anybody who can change them - and I guarantee that when they tossed the OP he was replaced with another one that, from our perspective, looked just like him. That doesn't lessen his pain any, but the point is the service never felt any pain at all. In the current environment we can afford to have those policies. When that changes, the policy will change, but not before.

 

[magnetfreezer]

How does that equate to forcing the services to commission those people?

WRT the diversity idea, the extent of our "diversity" should be not discriminating in the selection board <either way> based on gender, race, etc. instead of reverse discrimination through affirmative action. The board is not allowed to use it as a discriminating factor due to the equal protection clause for those categories. Similarly, the services are not forced to commission acquitted individuals but they should not be allowed to take a criminal act into account unless it was proven by due process.

 

[helolumpy]

The services do have a responsibility to uphold the Constitution which sets out that no one should be punished for an alleged offense without conviction by civil or military justice (due process).

Which means you can't go to jail for a crime without a trial.

Try this one: you walk into your bosses office and call him a fucking ass-hole and make diparaging comments about his wife.
He fires you. BUT, what about freedom of speech???

According to the point you are trying to make, your boss can't fire you because free speech is in the Constitution.

You serve at the pleasure of the Navy. If the Navy decides they don't want you, then they have the power to let you go.
Your argument is irrelavant to the discussion at hand.

 

[pilot_man]

Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.

It's obvious that some of your lobotomies have taken very nicely.

 

[jtmedli]

Which means you can't go to jail for a crime without a trial.

Try this one: you walk into your bosses office and call him a fucking ass-hole and make diparaging comments about his wife.
He fires you. BUT, what about freedom of speech???

According to the point you are trying to make, your boss can't fire you because free speech is in the Constitution.

You serve at the pleasure of the Navy. If the Navy decides they don't want you, then they have the power to let you go.
Your argument is irrelavant to the discussion at hand.

I would disagree with your analogy. It's a little more like the boss walking in YOUR office, calling you a fucking asshole, and firing you because he THINKS you may have a made a disparaging comment about his wife. And getting fired because someone THINKS you said/did something with no proof or justification, is BS.

That being said, I think the military in general should take a closer look at their "zero tolerance policies". I get the whole zero tolerance thing, but not all cops are rocket scientists and even rocket scientists make mistakes so refusing to hire or showing someone the door over someone else's mistake is just wrong. It's definitely something that should be taken on a case by case basis.

With that said, the military isn't exactly in the business of being 'fair' so staying clear of any potential career-ending BS is definitely the smart choice.

 

[Brett327]

Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.

It's obvious that some of your lobotomies have taken very nicely.

It's nice to see the usual suspects banding together. Dismissing our perspective based on rank can be a two way street. I know this is anathema to some of you, but have you considered the possibility (infinitesimal as it might be) that the reason the senior O4 and above crowd generally agree on this issue is because we've got the experience and perspective to see the logic in the policy? I know, I know, we've sold our souls and are just puppets for the Man. Nonsense. Thats a very convenient way to diminish our point without addressing it on the merits. It is you junior officers (many of you anyway) that refuse to accept that there's a whole lot more to making this Navy function then what you choose to believe. Some of you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. If some of you would put your soda straws down for five minutes, see the bigger picture and broaden your horizons beyond your comfortable squadron existence, you might learn a thing or two. I'm frankly baffled at how little some of you understand about the organizations you're members of. I'm sure you're all tactical experts in your respective fields. Good job, just like everyone else. Time to step up, boys. Thankfully, most of you will.

Resistance is futile - prepare to be assimilated (or destroyed).

Let the wanking begin.

 

[helolumpy]

Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.

It's obvious that some of your lobotomies have taken very nicely.

So, since my lobotomy, I obviously can't think for myself anymore. Please give me a reason then that the Navy is acting in this manner. Is Navy leadership just a bunch of hypocrites who out just looking to screw over subordinates only to advance their own career (as some have stated) or is there another reason?

I've given some of my reasons previously in this thread, please provide your thoughts to explain the behavior of Big Navy.

 

[Flash]

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.

I would hate to point out the blatantly obvious but one bad CO doesn't make all, most or even 'a lot' of Navy COs force-wide into holier-than-thou assholes. I have had quite a few COs and none, no matter how good or bad, ever made a decision like that and they had plenty of chances to do something along those lines. As Brett alluded to your career and experiences are a bit of an outlier, good and bad, and big Navy is not the sum of your experiences alone.

 

[insanebikerboy]

...see the logic in the policy...

The policy and the logic behind it is easily understood. That doesn't mean the policy is right.