quote:

Originally posted by ulsterman:

quote:

Originally posted by bcereuss:

quote:

Originally posted by ulsterman:
Interesting sentence. Wonder if there is the possibility of reinstatement.

I didn't see anything in the sentence where this would even be a necessity. Seems like 89 days from now, he's back to work.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong...

Reinstatement of rank.

I would doubt it, he'll probably have to do 3 years TIR (Time In Rank) before he can try for Chief again though.
At least that's what it was when I was in, unless it has been changed. Also, he'll never wear gold stripes...

Well that is very, very fair. He was lucky to get a competent judge who was not pushing a political agenda.

quote:

Originally posted by ulsterman:

quote:

Originally posted by bcereuss:

quote:

Originally posted by ulsterman:
Interesting sentence. Wonder if there is the possibility of reinstatement.

I didn't see anything in the sentence where this would even be a necessity. Seems like 89 days from now, he's back to work.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong...

Reinstatement of rank.

Aaahh...I misunderstood you.

I'm not sure how this will play out, but you do have to have 3 years time in rate as an E-6 to be eligible for Chief again. I've only known one person to ever make it twice, and that was my best friend who fucked up and got a DUI. Took him 10 years to make it again, but he did it. He pinned my anchors on me when I made it, after he retired.

Anyway, the special warfare community is small, they promote fast, and are typically undermanned. It will be interesting to see what happens. I know that reductions in rate that are awarded at Captain's Mast (NJP or Article 15) can be set aside, meaning the Sailor can have his or her rank reinstated. Court Martial, not sure.

That being said, the Navy has been brutally "Zero tolerance" for a long time. The days of going to see the old man and shrugging it off are gone. One mistake and they keep you from reenlisting.

If he was court martialed, convicted, sentenced to 89 days and reduced in rank his career is over. Eventually he'll go before a show cause board and get booted out of the service. I've seen officers and NCO's get booted for less. If he's lucky he might get out with an honorable discharge but could get a general or worse. Lots of guys let their little head get their big head in lots of trouble.

So...89 days in the slammer, no longer a chief. Much better than I feared.

This is my second wedding that asshole missed. His wife told me that he was yelling to her to tell me he's sorry as the MPs were walking him down the hall. Once her foot gets tired, I'll kick him in the nuts a few times myself.

Obviously I can't talk to him right now. Does this mean that in 90 days, he's back to work? What effect would this have on his TS clearance? Any clue how the fallout will work?

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:
So...89 days in the slammer, no longer a chief. Much better than I feared.

This is my second wedding that asshole missed. His wife told me that he was yelling to her to tell me he's sorry as the MPs were walking him down the hall. Once her foot gets tired, I'll kick him in the nuts a few times myself.

Obviously I can't talk to him right now. Does this mean that in 90 days, he's back to work? What effect would this have on his TS clearance? Any clue how the fallout will work?

The clearance is a big deal and will likely be yanked. Convictions for offenses involving sexual misconduct are particularly damaging. It's up to the security officer at his command (under orders from the CO) to administratively withdraw his clearance. If that happens, it will surely prevent him from staying in his current career field. If he's allowed to keep the clearance, the next periodic reinvestigation (within 5 years for TS/SCI) will be difficult to get through and have a favorable outcome.

Hang in there Chongo. This has got to be weighing heavy on you.

I can't see how that doesn't end his military career.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
If I had to guess, I'd say he's fucked. His career is over, he'll likely serve some time, but if his lawyers are worth a crap, he won't do life.

It all hinges on the judge who...is a woman. Good luck with that.

As I've said to many women for many years, keep your knees together and this kind of shit won't happen. As I've said to many men for many years, keep it in your pants and this kind of shit won't happen.

He made his bed...

Who are you, Elmer Gantry??

Well this incident is another reminder of how the media gets stuff fouled up in reporting.

I checked a few of the stories reporting on this. One said he was immediately sentenced and taken into custody, and in the very same story said he was not in custody, and had not been sentenced.

I've seen reports he was convicted on the agg assault (equivalent of a felony), and others that it was just battery (equivalent of a misdemeanor). There are also reports of an Article 92 conviction, and the nebulous claims of a "sexual harassment" conviction.

From the media it's impossible to tell what really happened.

chongo, if your friend got the equivalent of misdemeanors it's quite possible he can keep his clearance in stay in the Navy for the long haul. If any of the convictions are the equivalent of a felony, it's still possible he can keep his security clearance, and re-enlist at end the of the current enlistment, but much less likely.

Regardless, by all accounts he was acquitted of the most serious charges, so salvaging his future should be a bit easier, regardless of what happens with his Navy career.

I am positive it is just the misdemeanor charges. Assault and something of the harassment variety? Even his wife wasn't clear with what she told me.

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:
I am positive it is just the misdemeanor charges. Assault and something of the harassment variety? Even his wife wasn't clear with what she told me.

It's not just the charges themselves that determine if a conviction carries felony weight. The level of court-martial and the possible prison time factor into this as well. If your friend was tried by a general court-martial and any of the charges carried more than a year in prison the conviction is a felony as it compared to civilian law.

quote:

Originally posted by SgtGold:

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:
I am positive it is just the misdemeanor charges. Assault and something of the harassment variety? Even his wife wasn't clear with what she told me.

It's not just the charges themselves that determine if a conviction carries felony weight. The level of court-martial and the possible prison time factor into this as well. If your friend was tried by a general court-martial and any of the charges carried more than a year in prison the conviction is a felony as it compared to civilian law.

Ok. That's confusing, but I think I'm following you. I'll be learning more soon.

SgtGold explained it. It’s just like when filling out an ATF form 4473. If the maximum possible punishment for the crime that someone was convicted of, then it’s a felony by definition, regardless of what the actual sentence was. In this case, and without trying to research the matter, I strongly suspect that the offenses he was convicted of don’t carry more than a year’s confinement as maximum punishments.

Assault under the UCMJ, for example, covers a wide variety of offenses, from merely attempting to hit someone by swinging one’s fist at him to inflicting serious harm. “Battery” is committed if there is any contact or touching in the incident; if I grabbed someone’s arm or pushed them onto a bed, that would be a battery, but so would hitting them with a baseball bat.

I’ve mostly forgotten how maximum punishments are described by the UCMJ, but I suspect that what he was convicted of carries a maximum punishment of less than a year’s confinement. When I was a CID agent long ago, only aggravated assault was within our investigative responsibility because it was in essence a felony, and that required the infliction of serious injury or the use of a deadly weapon like a knife or gun.

The sexual harassment part I’m not familiar with because it did not exist as a distinct offense when I was on active duty. At that time the defendant’s acts would probably have been classified as “indecent assault,” and that was a CID felony case only if the victim was a child. I therefore suspect its max punishment would be less than a year in jail—again, though, without making any attempt to research the matter.

He's toast. He'll lose and not regain his clearance and will likely never wear anchors again.

He should be happy and humble with the results.

A long time ago, I was a JAG. Your friend got very lucky, given the severity of the charges. The court clearly took it as a he said / she said case, and gave him serious credit for his service record and rapid promotion. On the other hand, the court recognized that the charges were serious, and the conduct, even if consensual, was a problem.

So here's my breaking of the code of the sentence: Acquittal for rape, means he said, she said and it takes two to dance. Level of physicality followed by consensual sex isn't rape under the UCMJ.

Reduction in rank to E6 is an acknowledgement that you fucked up big time, but the court doesn't want to destroy him, recognizes his contribution to the service, and that he was an unusual character to make E7 so quickly. I'm only speculating, but E6 may have been his rank before this happened, and they reduced him to the last rank where they feel he served honorably. I have no evidence for this, but it happens.

Confinement for 89 days is the "get out of my navy" part of the sentence. He could conceivably overcome the reduction in rank for a fuck-up by being the sailor he apparently was in the past, or he could serve through his commitment as an E6. This piece is likely there to ensure that he won't be re-enlisted or promoted and thus will be forced out at the end of the current hitch. 89 days is probably a magic number under the UCMJ "confinement for less than 90 days" would be the allowed punishment for a non-felony, but I simply don't remember.

As noted above, all of this probably also means the end of his security clearance.

All of these items may also mean that his separation could be done as a General Discharge, rather than an Honorable Discharge.

This is a sentence designed to allow him to salvage his life, while ensuring that he is out of the Navy. This sentence will be seen by command and peers as a military hammer; i.e., he doesn't get to be a seal any more, g'bye, but is designed to not foreclose his opportunities for a productive live in the civilian world.

All in and given the severity of the charges, not a bad outcome for him. Unless the prosecutors thought they had a bad case (and they might, sometimes the command makes you charge stuff that is pretty tough to prove, and this was a politically charged case) they will likely be kind of pissed with the sentence. His defense counsel will feel pretty good about this.

Good discussion, ArtieS. All that was pretty much my belief, including why he was charged with rape in the first place. Despite what many people assume, being a golden boy (high rank, super trooper, etc.) doesn’t guarantee being given a pass on something like this; just the opposite in many cases. Even if it’s a weak case, the decision-makers don’t want to be accused of charging a lesser offense because of someone’s status. If, as in this case, there’s an acquittal on the serious charge, they can say, “Hey; that was the court’s finding based on an objective look at the facts, not a political decision.”

As I’ve said, though, I’ve been out of the system a long time so I don’t recall everything, plus some things change.

quote:

This is a sentence designed to allow him to salvage his life, while ensuring that he is out of the Navy. This sentence will be seen by command and peers as a military hammer; i.e., he doesn't get to be a seal any more, g'bye, but is designed to not foreclose his opportunities for a productive live in the civilian world.

This. He will not be allowed to re-enlist.much like when an officer is passed over twice for promotion. He will go away quietly and the Navy can say that justice was served. Yet the sailor can go on with his new life in the civilian sector.

I didn't read the stuff on the internet but if he can't keep the one oath he made to his wife- he is not to be trusted in my book. And he has brought shame upon the service. And a disservice upon the other Chiefs who wear the anchor.

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:
So...89 days in the slammer, no longer a chief. Much better than I feared.

This is my second wedding that asshole missed. His wife told me that he was yelling to her to tell me he's sorry as the MPs were walking him down the hall. Once her foot gets tired, I'll kick him in the nuts a few times myself.

Obviously I can't talk to him right now. Does this mean that in 90 days, he's back to work? What effect would this have on his TS clearance? Any clue how the fallout will work?

Wait, what?

The wife is still with him?

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:
What effect would this have on his TS clearance?

He has a definite period (48 hours?) in which to report his conviction to the security officer of his command and to say bye-bye to his clearance. At a minimum, he's lost it while in the brig. Odds are it's gone forever.