DUI arrest but not charged

[Brett327]

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

Define what you mean by right. Do you mean morally right? Is fairness now on the same plane as morality? Maybe not from the perspective of an individual, but I would argue that the Navy has a higher moral responsibility to serve the interests of the people in the most efficient and expedient way. It's certainly right for the Navy and it's interests. There's no legal, ethical or moral transgressions being perpetrated upon anyone. Since when is the military in the habbit of considering the needs of each individual before making policy? That's absurd.

What do you mean when you say it's not right?

 

[Jim123]

the Navy has a higher moral responsibility to serve the interests of the people in the most efficient and expedient way.

We could've saved a few pages of discussion if you could have articulated this sooner. (Not intended as a slight on you, Brett.)

It's unfair and impersonal but it's legal and it makes good business sense.

 

[JIMC5499]

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

Well put. We are going to have to agree to disagree. Two things though, one it was the Air Force who removed the man from an officer' slot and two, I have to wonder if his arrest was for anything other than DUI, would he have lost that slot?
Enjoyed the debate as always.

 

[JIMC5499]

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.....

I don't know about other states, but, a few years ago we had a few District Justices in Pennsylvania who would lower the charges to reckless driving or something like it, because the State got the fine money for DUI instead of the municipality. It pissed MADD off to no end. Nobody else seemed to have a problem with it untill the media got involved.

 

[Brett327]

We could've saved a few pages of discussion if you could have articulated this sooner. (Not intended as a slight on you, Brett.)

It's unfair and impersonal but it's legal and it makes good business sense.

That's a good summation and it's appreciated. That said, I've been suggesting that throughout this thread. People just have a hard time accepting reality.

 

[xmid]

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

How about the statistics on what races are more likely to become criminals? Could we decide not to select African American males based on the statistical fact that they are far more likely to be incarcerated then (insert another race)? BUPERs would be shot on site.

From the Navy's perspective they can afford to be picky right?

 

[helolumpy]

How about the statistics on what races are more likely to become criminals? Could we decide not to select African American males based on the statistical fact that they are far more likely to be incarcerated then (insert another race)? BUPERs would be shot on site.

From the Navy's perspective they can afford to be picky right?

That would be illegal, therefore the Navy could not do it.

 

[xmid]

That would be illegal, therefore the Navy could not do it.

So we can't do that because it would violate a persons right not to be discriminated against because of their race, but we can violate a persons right to be innocent until proven guilty? I understand the other sides argument and I can see why the Navy (and Air Force) does it, but I still don't think it's right (or completely legal).

If the guy got arrested on DUI charges that were subsequently dropped and the state declined to allow him to renew his license based solely on the arrest the lawyers would have a field day. Driving is not a right, but there's no way that shit would fly.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

Here is a general piece of info concerning a person supposed to be going to OCS or boot camp, a person can not have any outstanding civil or criminal issues, so while this person was arrested for a DUI if he was cited for any law violation that he couldn't just walk in and pay they can drop him and given it was a week before he was supposed to leave they may have felt they had no option, even if the recruiter wanted to keep him.

 

[jtmedli]

I understand the other sides argument and I can see why the Navy (and Air Force) does it, but I still don't think it's right (or completely legal).

Sadly, "not completely legal" doesn't exactly = NOT legal. So therefore, until someone passes a piece of legislature that explicitly says they can't do it or someone higher up decides it's a BS policy, they will do it.

I don't really think anyone here would say that putting the scarlett letter on a guy because of a bullshit DUI arrest (that got dropped 2 hours later or whatever) is right and, if they do say that, then they should stop drinking the kool-aid that's being fed to them by the higher-ups.

 

[xmid]

Here is a general piece of info concerning a person supposed to be going to OCS or boot camp, a person can not have any outstanding civil or criminal issues, so while this person was arrested for a DUI if he was cited for any law violation that he couldn't just walk in and pay they can drop him and given it was a week before he was supposed to leave they may have felt they had no option, even if the recruiter wanted to keep him.

This I can understand if that's what actually went down.

"Sadly, "not completely legal" doesn't exactly = NOT legal. So therefore, until someone passes a piece of legislature that explicitly says they can't do it or someone higher up decides it's a BS policy, they will do it."

I meant by "not completely legal" that if everything is as he says, then he probably has grounds for a law suit. These types of cases usually have "Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" or "innocent until proven guilty", etc. in them. No charges= Not guilty.

 

[HAL Pilot]

the Navy has a higher moral responsibility to serve the interests of the people in the most efficient and expedient way.

We could've saved a few pages of discussion if you could have articulated this sooner. (Not intended as a slight on you, Brett.)

It's unfair and impersonal but it's legal and it makes good business sense.

I would argue that as one of the premier and trusted organizations in government, the Navy (or military in general) has the responsibility to do what is right regardless of the difficulty, effieciency or expedience. Innocent until proven guilty is supposed to be a fundamental concept of our legal system and therefore government. The Navy has the responsibility and obligation to uphold these fundamental concepts or else it is not truly defending the nation, its constitution and its people.

a person can not have any outstanding civil or criminal issues, so while this person was arrested for a DUI if he was cited for any law violation that he couldn't just walk in and pay they can drop him and given it was a week before he was supposed to leave they may have felt they had no option, even if the recruiter wanted to keep him.

This is the first valid justification for what happened to the OP I've read. However I would argue that they could have just delayed his report date until the case was resolved.

 

[helolumpy]

So we can't do that because it would violate a persons right not to be discriminated against because of their race, but we can violate a persons right to be innocent until proven guilty? I understand the other sides argument and I can see why the Navy (and Air Force) does it, but I still don't think it's right (or completely legal).

If the guy got arrested on DUI charges that were subsequently dropped and the state declined to allow him to renew his license based solely on the arrest the lawyers would have a field day. Driving is not a right, but there's no way that shit would fly.

So suppose a person in a wheelchair rolls into NavyOffRec office and says he wants to be a pilot... telling him we can't hire him would violate the American's with Disability Act, wouldn't it???

Let's look at the facts of the story the OP wrote. He was pulled over, arrested and charged with a DUI. The DUI portion was dropped BUT IT WAS STILL AN ALCOHOL RELATED INCIDENT in the eyes of the military. (NOTE: The OP never stated what BAC he had or whether it was a just a field sobriety test he failed, so I am going with the assumption that he had at least 1 drink prior to this event.)
What part of that ALCOHOL RELATED INCIDENT is not clear???
He was applying for and was selected for Air Force flight school and the Air Force decided to drop him due to having an alcohol related incident.

If the DA decides he wants to drop the DUI that is in the eyes of the law, therefore in the eyes of the law, he is innocent of DUI. But, in the eyes of the military, the individual was drinking (doesn't matter the amount, the OP consumed alcohol) and was pulled over and arrested by the police.

Supposed you and some buddies are playing flag football and during half-time you have a couple of beers. You go out to play the second half and you sprain and ankle or tear something in your knee. If you get to the hospital and they do a BAC, if your BAC is above 0.0, then you just had an alcohol related incident.

Did you commit a crime here? No. Does that matter to the Navy??? No!
It doesn't matter what the civil law says, the military will say ALCOHOL RELATED INCIDENT and you can expect there to be some repercussions.

That is the entire argument you are missing here. The military sees an alcohol related incident and decided to pass on the OP and move on to another candidate probably did not have an alcohol related incident.

 

[HAL Pilot]

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

So, since my lobotomy, I obviously can't think for myself anymore. ... 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?

While pilot_man is obviously over generalizing and over simplifying things, as one who was "lobotomized" I will say that the higher in rank one gets, the more one agrees with Big Navy and much of that is based self-protection. Those that are climbing the food chain want to keep climbing and not fall off. It is easier to overlook the small things in the interest of advancement that would have affronted your morals earlier in your career . Whether we want to accept it or not, the opinion of your senior officers is as important as you actual performance when it comes to fitreps, promotion and selection. While I don't doubt that 95% of the senior leadership in the Navy will do the right thing when handling the big issues, most will not rock the boat on the minor ones with which they disagree out of fear of career stagnation.

 

[Brett327]

So we can't do that because it would violate a persons right not to be discriminated against because of their race, but we can violate a persons right to be innocent until proven guilty? I understand the other sides argument and I can see why the Navy (and Air Force) does it, but I still don't think it's right (or completely legal).

If the guy got arrested on DUI charges that were subsequently dropped and the state declined to allow him to renew his license based solely on the arrest the lawyers would have a field day. Driving is not a right, but there's no way that shit would fly.

You're conflating the criminal justice system (guilt vs innocence) with the military's ability to determine elligibility requirements. When the military says they won't accept those with an arrest record, that doesn't make that person guilty of a crime, just inelligible for the military position. Apples and oranges, and completely legal.

Let me pose this scenario to the non-believers: Let's say we have a military member who's a US citizen, but he spent his formative years in China. His father is also a currently serving officer in the PLAN. He has no history whatsoever that would indicate a propensity to engage in espionage and no criminal record. Is it in the Navy's interests (or fair) to deny him a TS/SCI clearance? Discuss.