See https://www.cbsnews.com/news/a...ing-manner-officials. Apparently, this is turning out to be involuntary manslaughter, not an "accidental discharge" without any human involvement. The airmen involved tried to cover up how the incident occurred.

^^ Not to beat a dead horse, but the ABC News article at the link in the OP mentioned the Airman charged w/ Involuntary Manslaughter. The Guilty Pleas by the two Airman and sentence(s) imposed are just the conclusion of this case. The arrest/charge of Involuntary Manslaughter was actually announced back on August 8th.

https://taskandpurpose.com/news/air-force-m18-arrest/

https://www.airforcetimes.com/...nvolving-m18-pistol/

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
I can't find the link, but it has been posted previously that it is Air Force doctrine for their Security Forces to carry holstered M18 Pistols with a round chambered in the FIRE condition (Safety OFF), so the Safety function could not have mitigated the Air Force incident with the M18 anyway.

I’m not disputing at all that this might be an accurate description of the doctrine, but that seems like an odd doctrine to me. If you’re going to have people holster a pistol with the safety off, why not select a variant without a safety. Seems like if one is going to carry a pistol with a safety then taking the safety off should be trained to a level of “muscle memory” as part of the presentation. If folks are not automatically taking the safety off when they present, then if it somehow gets put on, things might get really awkward if they need the pistol.

It's not every circumstance that the safety will be off, just Security Forces on duty. Safeties may be required to be on at other times. That's why the military spec'd a safety on the M17/M18.

^^ Well, THAT actually makes sense. Thanks for that.

The 2 liar should not have been demoted, they should have been kicked out of the AF and prohibited from joining any other branch.

^^^
Absolutely.

A Few Good Men

The making false official statements related to involuntary manslaughter, especially to cover the crime is heinous and should be charged with full weight.

Dishonorable discharge, reduction to E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and remanded to custody with confinement at maximum sentence.

Being in "nukes", as Security Forces Specialist carries additional responsibility and standards, including Personnel Reliability Program (PRP).

Some things you do not get a pass on. This is such a thing.

"For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."
Luke 12:48

Since we really don’t know what questions the two airmen were asked or how they responded, what circumstances would allow the punishments they received to be appropriate in this case?

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
Since we really don’t know what questions the two airmen were asked or how they responded, what circumstances would allow the punishments they received to be appropriate in this case?

Knowing actual facts before drawing conclusions and offering opinions? What fun is that?

My guess [just a guess] is these two airmen will be out of the PRP and assigned to regular duties within their MOS (front gate/walk a beat) on base AND have a bar to reenlistment.

Their punishments appear to be consistent with a field grade Article 15 and not a courts martial.

I am curious about the difference in punishment given what appears to be the same accusation (making a false official statement). Maybe Rodriguez 'fessed up first?

Update:

Link

Appears they were convicted in separate summary courts martial:

"The 90th Missile Wing concluded two separate summary courts-martial on October 30-31, 2025. Airman 1st Class Sarbjot Badesha and A1C Matthew Rodriguez each pleaded guilty to making false official statements related to the July 20, 2025, death of Airman Brayden Lovan, which resulted from a gunshot wound caused by A1C Marcus White-Allen’s duty-issued M18 handgun."

quote:

Originally posted by Paten:
It's not every circumstance that the safety will be off, just Security Forces on duty. Safeties may be required to be on at other times. That's why the military spec'd a safety on the M17/M18.

I get that, but it seems like if you’re going to carry a gun with a safety you should train so that taking the safety off is an automatic part of your presentation (draw if you prefer that term).

If you train that way, what is the benefit of leaving the safety off in the holster?

If you don’t train that, but instead depend on the safety being off when you draw, how screwed are you going to be when you draw and for whatever reason the safety is on?

I may offend some AF vets here but in my experience with dealing with AF Security Forces which is sort of a weird mashup of MP but also security guard and base defense infantry types, it doesn't seem like the AF is really attracting the best and brightest into that AFSC (MOS to Marines and Army).

I suspect they give this to a lot of people that score low on the ASVAB.

The whole story never smelled right to me from the start.

I was in the AF '75 - '79. Our running joke was if you fucked up or were not very bright, you ended up a Cop (SP) or a Cook.

I was kind of surprised at the punishments, as well, for the guys that lied. How anyone thinks keeping a secret like this for long and it not getting out, has to be an idiot.

quote:

Originally posted by 229DAK:
...AND have a bar to reenlistment.

This has always cracked me up. Does the military still think that this is a "punishment"? Most of these thugs/punks wouldn't re-enlist if they could and just want out anyway.

Why would we believe that the men who were given reenlistment bars were “thugs”? It’s not as if we’re referring to draftees working in a shit job at a shit station. They had reasons for enlisting in the first place and ended up in a very sensitive assignment, so it’s quite possible they would have liked to have finished out their careers. Plus a bar to reenlistment is just as much for the protection of the military. In one case I investigated the subject was discharged but managed to reenlist and, bizarrely enough, ended up back at the same duty station a year or so later.

It’s obviously only speculation, but it’s easy to imagine a scenario like this:

At the scene.
Witnesses: “Oh, you shot him, you shot him!”
Shooter: “I didn’t mean it; I didn’t mean it. Tell them the gun went off by itself.”
First responder: “What happened here?”
Witnesses: “Uh, uh, the gun just went off.”
Frantic rushing around and more questions all of which are answered by, “The gun just went off.”
Next day.
One (or both) witness: “Uh, Captain, the gun didn’t just go off. [The shooter] was pointing it at [the victim] and then it fired.”
Or at some later time:
Investigator: “Tell me the truth: Did the gun just go off in the holster?”
Witness: “No. …”

As what most of us have seen ourselves, sometimes ordinary people do stupid things, including telling stupid lies under the stress of a situation. If something similar had happened in a civilian situation, what would have happened to the witnesses who initially lied after the truth finally came out? Yeah, probably nothing. And no, I’m not excusing what they did. I saw a lot of military people get jammed up for official lies that were much less important than the ones in this case, and I never had sympathy for the liars (not much, anyway). The armed forces have more stringent rules than what govern civilians, and rightfully so, but motives and unwise reactions can be the same.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
I may offend some AF vets here but in my experience with dealing with AF Security Forces which is sort of a weird mashup of MP but also security guard and base defense infantry types, it doesn't seem like the AF is really attracting the best and brightest into that AFSC (MOS to Marines and Army).

I suspect they give this to a lot of people that score low on the ASVAB.

The whole story never smelled right to me from the start.

I believe the only occupation fields that sit below Security Forces are General Services. You're selecting that field because you liked the photo of the guy in beret all kitted-up looking hard in front of a B-2, you wanted a relatively easy job or, it was all you qualified for.

Has it been established what was the dispute that resulted in guy getting killed and a story getting cooked-up?

quote:

Originally posted by patw:
I was kind of surprised at the punishments, as well, for the guys that lied. How anyone thinks keeping a secret like this for long and it not getting out, has to be an idiot.

Was a deal offered to these guys once prosecutors smelled inconsistencies and a possible cover-up and some lienancy was offered in exchange for coming clean? Military prosecutors aren't exactly the most savy or, skilled...just look at NCIS and the JAGs they work with

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Why would we believe that the men who were given reenlistment bars were “thugs”?

I knew a number of them. Not everyone in uniform is an angel with a free pass for anything and everything.

That said, I could have used a better term.

So someone fucked up handling a Sig P320, killed a man, then conspired to use the existing stories on SM blaming the Sig firearm because there exists influencers promoting it as true as a cover for his pulling a trigger.

Say it isn't so, someone making false statements about a Sig P320 firing by itself....

The full press release from F.E. Warren AFB:

Court Martial Summary: On-Base Shooting Witnesses Guilty of Falsifying Official Statements

F.E. WARREN AIR FORCE BASE, Wyo. --
The 90th Missile Wing concluded two separate summary courts-martial on Oct. 30-31, 2025. Airman 1st Class Sarbjot Badesha and A1C Matthew Rodriguez each pleaded guilty to making false official statements related to the July 20, 2025, death of Airman Brayden Lovan, which resulted from a gunshot wound caused by A1C Marcus White-Allen’s duty-issued M18 handgun.

During their guilty pleas, both Airmen admitted they saw White-Allen pull his duty weapon from his holster and point it at Lovan’s chest in a joking manner. Each stated they then heard the firearm go off and saw Lovan fallen on the ground. According to their pleas, in the immediate aftermath of the incident, White-Allen told Badesha, “Here’s the story. Tell them that I slammed my duty belt on the desk, and it went off.” Additionally, White-Allen told Rodriguez to tell the responding emergency personnel, White-Allen’s “holster went off.” Neither Airman reported that information to investigators during their initial witness interviews on Jul. 20, 2025. The false statements from both Airmen hindered law enforcement efforts, leading investigators to initially believe Lovan’s death was a result of an accidental discharge from White-Allen’s M18.

Badesha was sentenced to 30 days in confinement, reduction to E-1, and forfeiture of $1,545, and Rodriguez was sentenced to 10 days confinement, 15 days restriction to base, reduction to E-2, and forfeiture of $500.

The Air Force Office of Special Investigations had been investigating White-Allen for his involvement in the July 20 incident. Evidence determined White-Allen had his finger on the trigger as he placed the firearm on Lovan’s chest. Laboratory tests determined there were no defects in White-Allen’s duty-issued weapon. White-Allen was discovered deceased in his dormitory room on Oct. 8, 2025, and Air Force legal proceedings were suspended. The investigation into White-Allen’s death remains open.

“We are fully dedicated to supporting the families and individuals affected by these tragic events,” said Col. Terry Holmes, 90th Missile Wing commander. “Our focus is on ensuring that justice is served and that every aspect of this case is thoroughly examined.”

For media inquiries, please contact the 90th Missile Wing Public Affairs office at (307) 773-3381 or email 90mw.pa@us.af.mil.