2-star popped for DUI

[zmoney]

I've seen two UPT studs (off the top of my head) survive DUIs in my time at END. By survive I mean they were put through the CR process and ultimately reinstated.

The DUI program is a joke.

[tac airlifter]

You guys seriously want to take his retirement pay away?

WTFO?

Taking away his retirement pay is extreme, But I think people want some consistancy in how the AF handles DUIs. When good guys can have everything taken away but a general gets to retire at general pay it seems unfair. Maybe if there were some standardization in how these are punished we wouldn't see an outcry like this claiming for his balls in a shoebox.

[Guest Crew Report]

You guys seriously want to take his retirement pay away?

WTFO?

No, that's extreme. If a an A1C has to make a public apology, change the DUI board at the gate, lose a stripe or money, then someone who not only KNEW the rules but ENFORCED the rules as well as a prior Commander/Flag Officer should get someone harsher than being forced to retire.

[Spoo]

Jesus Christo, if you think a Two Star with 32 years under his belt deserves to be treated just like A1C Snuffy, you're fucking nuts. Quit fucking whining and grow up. He'll receive some sort of punishment from THE FUCKING CHIEF OF STAFF, probably lose a star, and be out by the end of May. God damn, how is this thread still going?

I need another beer.

[Kuma]

How about we let civil authorities enforce civil laws? Why does the military establishment think it should add more punishment? If A1C Snuffy, MajGen Bigguns, and Joe Blow wallstreet analyst get DUIs, they should all pay the required fines and work the required community service. But that is where the punishment should end. If the civil authorities say that Mr. Snuffy can drive his car to work, why do we in the military only allow him to drive to the edge of the installation and then walk/bike the rest of the way? Mr. Blow can drive back and forth to work at his discretion.

My frustration lies with the fact that I've had two individuals subordinate to me get DUI for partying on the weekend, driving and getting caught. They were both just barely over the limit. I do not think that fact exonerates them, but I want to demonstrate that they are not necessarily bad people and they don't have drinking problems. They made a bad choice and need to pay their debt to society. They did. In both cases, the civil court said that they could drive to and from work. We (the AF) however said not only could they not drive their cars on the base, but they could not drive military vehicles on the base. Both were pilots and both had to drive a car for their primary job. Yet, they could fly airplanes but not the car that follows the airplanes in line with their primary job.

Asinine-

Kuma

Edited April 25, 2010 by Kuma

[pawnman]

Jesus Christo, if you think a Two Star with 32 years under his belt deserves to be treated just like A1C Snuffy, you're fucking nuts. Quit fucking whining and grow up. He'll receive some sort of punishment from THE FUCKING CHIEF OF STAFF, probably lose a star, and be out by the end of May. God damn, how is this thread still going?

I need another beer.

Gotcha. Setting a strong example for the young kids in the crowd..."Work hard, and eventually the only way the USAF can punish you is force to to retire with full pay an benefits."

[Spoo]

Full pay? Actually, an O-8 who retires in 2010 at 32 years of service will receive 75% of base pay which is $86,851/year (after taxes). A similar O-7 would receive $76,906/year. Over 30 years that's a difference of $513,422 (after taxes of course).

BTW, why the quotation marks? Who said that?

[pawnman]

Full pay? Actually, an O-8 who retires in 2010 at 32 years of service will receive 75% of base pay which is $86,851/year (after taxes). A similar O-7 would receive $76,906/year. Over 30 years that's a difference of $513,422 (after taxes of course).

BTW, why the quotation marks? Who said that?

No one said that. That's the hypothetical example-setter talking to the younger guys.

Further, boo-hoo. Most of us will never see even O-7 retirement pay. But it's still pretty standard, it seems. Once you hit O-6, the USAF's response to any wrongdoing is forced retirement...probably to get it out of the news as fast as possible. I'm just saying, with the emphasis the USAF puts on DUIs, maybe he deserves a little more. Whether you believe DUIs should be such a large focus is another matter. Personally, I'm all for outright crucifying anyone got with a DUI...we go out of our way to prevent them with SAFE RIDE, wingmen, taxis, etc...there's really no excuse at all for doing something with the potential to end a life, especially one other than your own. Especially since, not too long ago, we had the story on here about the pilot killed by a drunk driver.

[Guest]

Further, boo-hoo. Most of us will never see even O-7 retirement pay.

Not relevant. That's like all the people saying they'll never see a salary of $250k/yr so we don't give a shit about taxing the hell out of anyone that makes that much money. Not the right reason to tax someone or take their retirement pay.

Personally, I'm all for outright crucifying anyone got with a DUI...there's really no excuse at all for doing something with the potential to end a life, especially one other than your own.

2

[Guest Crew Report]

Jesus Christo, if you think a Two Star with 32 years under his belt deserves to be treated just like A1C Snuffy, you're ######ing nuts. Quit ######ing whining and grow up. He'll receive some sort of punishment from THE ######ING CHIEF OF STAFF, probably lose a star, and be out by the end of May. God damn, how is this thread still going?

I need another beer.

Yeah I do, I lost a sister to a drunk driver. So I really don't give a shit if you public humiliate them and crush their career. If you're going to crush an Enlisted guy over a DUI then ###### the high rank Officer that commits the same crime.

[busdriver]

I'm gonna side with Kuma on this. Unless it happens on base let the civil side of things decide the punishment.

[Spoo]

Since my F-bomb laden post was a little much and inconsistent with my original point, I'll try again.

Yeah I do, I lost a sister to a drunk driver. So I really don't give a shit if you public humiliate them and crush their career. If you're going to crush an Enlisted guy over a DUI then ###### the high rank Officer that commits the same crime.

Sorry to hear about your sister. That’s horrible. Hope the offender was dealt with harshly.

We don’t “crush” just the enlisted folks when it comes to DUIs. If you get a DUI as a Lt Col, MSgt, or Maj Gen your career is pretty much over. In most cases, you’re going to get an article 15 or an LOC and you’re not going to get promoted again. If you’re beyond 20 years, you might be talking about a severe long-term financial penalty. And, as Kuma noted, this is all on top of the punishment levied by civil authorities. Look, I’m not defending drunk driving. I just don’t think there’s this awful double standard, and I don’t agree with taking away somebody's pension after an otherwise successful and long AF career, regardless of rank achieved.

[pawnman]

Since my F-bomb laden post was a little much and inconsistent with my original point, I'll try again.

Sorry to hear about your sister. That’s horrible. Hope the offender was dealt with harshly.

We don’t “crush” just the enlisted folks when it comes to DUIs. If you get a DUI as a Lt Col, MSgt, or Maj Gen your career is pretty much over. In most cases, you’re going to get an article 15 or an LOC and you’re not going to get promoted again. If you’re beyond 20 years, you might be talking about a severe long-term financial penalty. And, as Kuma noted, this is all on top of the punishment levied by civil authorities. Look, I’m not defending drunk driving. I just don’t think there’s this awful double standard, and I don’t agree with taking away somebody's pension after an otherwise successful and long AF career, regardless of rank achieved.

I'm curious. Hypothetically, at what point WOULD you be OK with something stronger than forced retirement? If he had actually killed someone while DUI? Theft? Violating DADT? Insubordination? I'm just trying to establish a baseline here.

[Spoo]

I'm curious. Hypothetically, at what point WOULD you be OK with something stronger than forced retirement? If he had actually killed someone while DUI? Theft? Violating DADT? Insubordination? I'm just trying to establish a baseline here.

Look buddy, I just said I'm against taking away somebody's pension for a DUI. Since you're all up in arms over it, why don't you tell me what you'd like to see.

Edited April 28, 2010 by Spoo

[sputnik]

I'm curious. Hypothetically, at what point WOULD you be OK with something stronger than forced retirement? If he had actually killed someone while DUI? Theft? Violating DADT? Insubordination? I'm just trying to establish a baseline here.

How did you get to DADT on a DUI subject? That isn't a crime, it gets you discharged, in his case, he'd get retired.

As for the rest, those are seprate offenses, so he'd get punished for them as appropriate.

I have never seen a guy get kicked out for a first time DUI (or even a second for that matter). I'm sure it's happened, but never seen or heard of it first hand. If they were somehow to strip this guys pension, THAT would be different spanks.

[Bergman]

Jesus Christo, if you think a Two Star with 32 years under his belt deserves to be treated just like A1C Snuffy, you're fucking nuts. Quit fucking whining and grow up. He'll receive some sort of punishment from THE FUCKING CHIEF OF STAFF, probably lose a star, and be out by the end of May. God damn, how is this thread still going?

THANK YOU for saving me the time it would have taken to say/type that.

[Guest]

Yeah I do, I lost a sister to a drunk driver. So I really don't give a shit if you public humiliate them and crush their career. If you're going to crush an Enlisted guy over a DUI then ###### the high rank Officer that commits the same crime.

The nuclear options should be reserved for nuclear offenses, like killing someone's sister.

I think the punishment for a DUI should be more severe than it is. However, I do not think anyone should be forced to lose their retirement for a DUI. Retire, sure. Pay a fine, you bet. Lose their right to drive, yep. Lose their retirement and benefits, no.

He didn't kill anyone; he drove drunk. If he killed someone then he should go to jail and lose everything. But he didn't. Punishment should fit the crime, regardless of rank.

[Gravedigger]

The nuclear options should be reserved for nuclear offenses, like killing someone's sister.

I think the punishment for a DUI should be more severe than it is. However, I do not think anyone should be forced to lose their retirement for a DUI. Retire, sure. Pay a fine, you bet. Lose their right to drive, yep. Lose their retirement and benefits, no.

He didn't kill anyone; he drove drunk. If he killed someone then he should go to jail and lose everything. But he didn't. Punishment should fit the crime, regardless of rank.

I absolutely agree with you here, in this case. Just thinking to the future though, the system we have in place is clearly not a strong enough deterrent. The goal shouldn't be to say, ok as long as nobody dies, your DUI is not that bad. It should not be left up to luck in that you get to skate if you don't kill or hurt anyone. Maybe we need to have stated consequences in place that are much harsher than the "punishment" we have now.

Honestly, how often do people get busted their very first time they drove drunk...not very often. Our weak ass stance on this issue fosters an attitude that you can survive a DUI. Fuck that, too many innocent people are killed every year because of drunk drivers. I say we make it very blunt, a DUI results in immediate separation and loss of all pay and benefits; in addition to the normal course of civilian law that will be carried out.

I have friends that have gotten DUIs, and a lot of them don't really give a shit because the outcome really wasn't all that bad. Well...let's make the outcome that bad, and see if people actually start caring.

[Guest Snow]

I absolutely agree with you here, in this case. Just thinking to the future though, the system we have in place is clearly not a strong enough deterrent. The goal shouldn't be to say, ok as long as nobody dies, your DUI is not that bad. It should not be left up to luck in that you get to skate if you don't kill or hurt anyone. Maybe we need to have stated consequences in place that are much harsher than the "punishment" we have now.

Honestly, how often do people get busted their very first time they drove drunk...not very often. Our weak ass stance on this issue fosters an attitude that you can survive a DUI. ###### that, too many innocent people are killed every year because of drunk drivers. I say we make it very blunt, a DUI results in immediate separation and loss of all pay and benefits; in addition to the normal course of civilian law that will be carried out.

I have friends that have gotten DUIs, and a lot of them don't really give a shit because the outcome really wasn't all that bad. Well...let's make the outcome that bad, and see if people actually start caring.

I think you are totally wrong here if anything our DUI laws as a nation have gotten out of hand. When you are giving people DUI's for sleeping booze off in their car or getting shit out their trunk things have gone too far. I know quite a few people who got DUI's without ever starting and driving their vehicles. What we need to do is stop wasting time and resources on DUI Checkpoints infringing on citizens rights because MADD screamed at congress long and hard enough. If those same resources were used to patrol the roads and catch wreckless drivers we would be better off. When you commit a crime and alcohol is involved hammer them to the wall. If you are behind the wheel drunk and have yet to actually committ a crime or be observed committing one I dont feel it is just to charge someone. When you are driving wreckless, or breaking other laws I am all for it. IMO DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional harassment of citizens due to law makers willing to infringe on civil liberties to appease reactionalist constituents.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Snow

[Guest]

I think you are totally wrong here if anything our DUI laws as a naion have gotten out of hand. When you are giving people DUI's for sleeping booze off in their car or getting shit out their trunk things have gone too far. I know quite a few people who got DUI's without ever starting and driving their vehicles. What we need to do is stop wasting time and resources on DUI Checkpoints infringing on citizens rights because MADD screamed at congress long and hard enough. If those same resources were used to patrol the roads and catch wreckless drivers we would be better off. When you commit a crime and alcohol is involved hammer them to the wall. If you are behind the wheel drunk and have yet to actually committ a crime or be observed committing one I dont feel it is just to charge someone. When you are driving wreckless, or breaking other laws I am all for it. IMO DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional harassment of citizens due to law makers willing to infringe on civil liberties to appease reactionalist constituents.

Uh, what?

Are you drunk right now by any chance?

[bfargin]

I think you are totally wrong here if anything our DUI laws as a naion have gotten out of hand.....

+2 on that one.

[Guest Snow]

Uh, what?

Are you drunk right now by any chance?

No quite sober at the moment just a big believer in civil liberties and the constitution you know the small things in life some take for granted.

[pawnman]

No quite sober at the moment just a big believer in civil liberties and the constitution you know the small things in life some take for granted.

I'm a big believer in people not infringing on my right to, you know, live. Don't drive drunk, you won't get a DUI. Maybe instead of sleeping it off in your car, you can plan ahead and have a ride home.

[Gravedigger]

No quite sober at the moment just a big believer in civil liberties and the constitution you know the small things in life some take for granted.

I agree with you that many states have laws that are way over the top. You should not be able to be charged with "Driving" Under the Influence unless you are actually engaged in driving a vehicle. I too have heard stories of folks getting DUIs for sleeping in their car while drunk, and I disagree with that.

That said, if you do get in the car drunk and start driving, you no longer have civil liberties, because now you are infringing on my and my family's safety and well being, and at that point you have failed as a human being.

So I guess I have two recommendations. One, stop giving DUIs for stupid crap, and two the Air Force should have very clear and very harsh punishments for folks caught DRIVING under the influence. One standard, for all Airmen, that is clear and absolute.

I personally believe that the harsher the consequence is, the better deterrent it will be.

[Guest Snow]

I'm a big believer in people not infringing on my right to, you know, live. Don't drive drunk, you won't get a DUI. Maybe instead of sleeping it off in your car, you can plan ahead and have a ride home.

I am gonna caveat all of what I am about to type by making it clear that one I dont drive drunk and have never received a DUI.....

Bold + Bold above does not compute to me. Driving drunk and sleeping it off in your car are not equal to one another. Even then I dont think Drinking and Driving in and of itself really should be a crime. Drunk is subjective and the BAC minimums are not a very accurate measure of impairment. If you want to be just adopt a response time based test that measures one ability to react and is field administrable. Not only would this be able to catch drunk, high, and other wise impaired drivers it may also get some of the bat shit crazy old people off the road.

To me until you do something that breaks the law demonstrating impairment your BAC should not be a factor.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Snow