What's wrong with the Air Force?

[Azimuth]

9 hours ago, Holden said:

Hey, everyone. This is my latest troll account. And this is my photo:

For the record, I didn't buy the jacket. Also I have no idea who's account Holden is.

Edited June 24, 2017 by Azimuth

[GlassEmpty]

Man this place is getting weirder by the day.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Disco_Nav963]

On 6/22/2017 at 7:24 AM, dream big said:

At an unnamed overseas airlift base..there was a brand new copilot.  Fairly attractive.  Flirting with all the other LTs constantly.  No big deal right?  Well her boyfriend was an IP at another "desired" airlift base......Break break, out of left field she claims she is being "sexually harassed," and claimed two Lt NAVs specifically were sexually harassing her (they weren't.)  She even claimed sexual assault after one of them "touched her shoulder."  Despite 30+ witnesses in their favor, they weren't given an ounce of daylight to tell their side.  Reprimanded/Article 15 without question, grounded for several months and didn't make Captain.  Said female made her way over to the "desirable" airlift base to be with her boyfriend.  

Why in the name of all that is holy did they accept Article 15s? The reprimand is probably coming regardless of the outcome given lower standard of proof, why not go to court for your reputation?

[Hacker]

1 minute ago, Disco_Nav963 said:

Why in the name of all that is holy did they accept Article 15s? The reprimand is probably coming regardless of the outcome given lower standard of proof, why not go to court for your reputation?

It isn't that simple.  Going to a C-M, even if you are 100% certain of being totally innocent, is a very risky endeavor.

A C-M doesn't have the same standard of conduct that a civilian court does. In a C-M, charges can be added, changed, or modified at any time during the proceedings, so basically once you open the door up, anything and everything that is discovered during testimony is in play.  You can enter a C-M charged with one thing, and exit convicted of something else entirely depending on what came up during evidence and testimony.

Remember that the UCMJ does not include a presumption of innocence, and depending on the charges, has different standards of evidence and conviction than what we're used to in the civilian world.

Plus, a conviction at a C-M is a federal conviction, while an Art 15 isn't anything at all in the outside world.

Add all that up with the witch-hunt environment which we know exists in the USAF with respect to some topics (like sexual assault, particularly), and that is the makings of a potentially very bad situation for someone accused and being offered an Art 15.

During my career, I had the "opportunity" to pay a large chunk of money to two different, very well known and talented former SJAs (and now high profile civilian attorneys) and they both heavily, heavily suggested taking the Art 15 rather than risking a Court-Martial.

[Herk Driver]

It isn't that simple.  Going to a C-M, even if you are 100% certain of being totally innocent, is a very risky endeavor.
A C-M doesn't have the same standard of conduct that a civilian court does. In a C-M, charges can be added, changed, or modified at any time during the proceedings, so basically once you open the door up, anything and everything that is discovered during testimony is in play.  You can enter a C-M charged with one thing, and exit convicted of something else entirely depending on what came up during evidence and testimony.
Remember that the UCMJ does not include a presumption of innocence, and depending on the charges, has different standards of evidence and conviction than what we're used to in the civilian world.
Plus, a conviction at a C-M is a federal conviction, while an Art 15 isn't anything at all in the outside world.
Add all that up with the witch-hunt environment which we know exists in the USAF with respect to some topics (like sexual assault, particularly), and that is the makings of a potentially very bad situation for someone accused and being offered an Art 15.
During my career, I had the "opportunity" to pay a large chunk of money to two different, very well known and talented former SJAs (and now high profile civilian attorneys) and they both heavily, heavily suggested taking the Art 15 rather than risking a Court-Martial.

It may not be that simple as you say, but...

What you wrote as the pitfalls of the system is also not quite that simple.

There is absolutely still a presumption of innocence and the burden of proof is with the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused also get to choose judge only or jury. Charges can be amended etc but that can happen on the civil side as well.

No, I am not a lawyer, but I have sat as a "judge" on a summary court martial and I can absolutely was not influenced one way or the other when it came to the verdict or the sentence.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Azimuth]

8 hours ago, Hacker said:

It isn't that simple.  Going to a C-M, even if you are 100% certain of being totally innocent, is a very risky endeavor.

A C-M doesn't have the same standard of conduct that a civilian court does. In a C-M, charges can be added, changed, or modified at any time during the proceedings, so basically once you open the door up, anything and everything that is discovered during testimony is in play.  You can enter a C-M charged with one thing, and exit convicted of something else entirely depending on what came up during evidence and testimony.

Remember that the UCMJ does not include a presumption of innocence, and depending on the charges, has different standards of evidence and conviction than what we're used to in the civilian world.

Plus, a conviction at a C-M is a federal conviction, while an Art 15 isn't anything at all in the outside world.

Add all that up with the witch-hunt environment which we know exists in the USAF with respect to some topics (like sexual assault, particularly), and that is the makings of a potentially very bad situation for someone accused and being offered an Art 15.

During my career, I had the "opportunity" to pay a large chunk of money to two different, very well known and talented former SJAs (and now high profile civilian attorneys) and they both heavily, heavily suggested taking the Art 15 rather than risking a Court-Martial.

You forgot one major thing, a court martial requires the "beyond reasonable doubt" for standard of proof, not the "preponderance of evidence" for Art 15's, Admin Sep/BOI's, etc.

And sure the government can add (and less likely remove) charges, however it's completely up to the Convening Authority if he/she want to do that. For example my case started with four specifications of Art 92, however the Preliminary Hearing Officer for my Article 32 hearing (if you go to a General Court Martial, you're having a Art 32 hearing unless you waive it) said to throw out one of the specifications because it was bullshit.  Also right before my trial one of the government witnesses was going to plead the 5th if she took the stand, so the CA dismissed the charge with her. So your mileage may vary.

Also Officers ONLY go to a General Court Martial. Summary's and Special Court Martials are for Enlisted. As for the federal conviction thing, no one really cares depending what you're found guilty of. And if it's even found, they ask what it's for. Being found guilty of Military Only Related Offenses, like I was, it either wasn't found, nor listed because it wasn't considered a felony or misdemeanor. I was hired by two major airlines and a computer company.

No Commander, especially in the Air Force, will offer an Art 120 charged offense an Art 15 with the current witchunt with regard to the sexual assault allegations.

Edited June 24, 2017 by Azimuth

[Hacker]

4 hours ago, Herk Driver said:

It may not be that simple as you say, but...

What you wrote as the pitfalls of the system is also not quite that simple.

There is absolutely still a presumption of innocence and the burden of proof is with the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused also get to choose judge only or jury. Charges can be amended etc but that can happen on the civil side as well.

No, I am not a lawyer, but I have sat as a "judge" on a summary court martial and I can absolutely was not influenced one way or the other when it came to the verdict or the sentence.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Yes, you are totally correct, and I should have been substantially clearer about what I meant in that sentence.

Because Art 15s are Administrative punishment, they do not have the presumption of innocence or the same standards of administration or burden of proof as a civilian court.

A GCM does as you say.

[dream big]

11 hours ago, Disco_Nav963 said:

Why in the name of all that is holy did they accept Article 15s? The reprimand is probably coming regardless of the outcome given lower standard of proof, why not go to court for your reputation?

They tried man, they tried their hardest to fight this to include the IG, zero help from anyone despite multiple witnesses and character statements.  They were also relatively young and despite this tried to use the system to their advantage.  To be fair, one of the guys got his reduced to LOR and is doing okay.  

[Herk Driver]

They tried man, they tried their hardest to fight this to include the IG, zero help from anyone despite multiple witnesses and character statements.  They were also relatively young and despite this tried to use the system to their advantage.  To be fair, one of the guys got his reduced to LOR and is doing okay.  

I think he is saying why didn't they turn down the Art 15 and opt for a C-M. Others have posted about the pitfalls of a C-M vs Art 15, but there is no try to turn down a 15. It is a simple initial on the face of the Art 15 paperwork. You have an absolute right to refuse to accept Art 15 punishment and go to court instead. Maybe I am misreading what you are saying.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Guest]

It's the same guy who made the "hatedont" account and others. He's still making new accounts to talk trash.

Maybe there should be a waiting period before you can post...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Azimuth]

14 hours ago, ihtfp06 said:

Maybe there should be a waiting period before you can post...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's probably the dude involved in my court martial. If I were him, I'd probably retain some counsel since the AETC/CC and his Sq/CC just downloaded loaded my evidence file.

Edited June 25, 2017 by Azimuth

[Champ Kind]

Starting to get a little personal, here. I think this segment of the thread has run its course...


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[BashiChuni]

I agree

[Lord Ratner]

I don't pay an annual subscription to BO.net to have the drama shut down just when it's getting good...

Sent from my Vitamix 450x Professional using Tapatalk

[FourFans]

8 hours ago, Champ Kind said:

Starting to get a little personal, here. I think this segment of the thread has run its course...


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

$2 for mis-use of the Walken Comma.

Edited June 26, 2017 by FourFans130
spelling...dammit GlassEmpty

[GlassEmpty]

3 minutes ago, FourFans130 said:

$2 for mis-use of the Walken Coma.

$4 for misspelling comma. 

[Azimuth]

Received this message via social media.  I guess it's big news?

"I had originally talked myself out of writing you altogether but after thinking about how quickly Big Blue turned on you... I've obviously rethought that. I work at AFLOA and you are the talk nearly daily. CSAF has been briefed. I can't help but sit on the sidelines and laugh at this shitshow. Thank you for sharing your story publicly. I hope you press full steam ahead with making as much noise about this as you can on the outside."

The AFLOA is the Air Force Legal Operations Agency.

[matmacwc]

Stomp loudly.

[GlassEmpty]

Kinda more like a waffle stomp at this point isn't it?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[FourFans]

4 hours ago, Azimuth said:

Received this message via social media.  I guess it's big news?

"I had originally talked myself out of writing you altogether but after thinking about how quickly Big Blue turned on you... I've obviously rethought that. I work at AFLOA and you are the talk nearly daily. CSAF has been briefed. I can't help but sit on the sidelines and laugh at this shitshow. Thank you for sharing your story publicly. I hope you press full steam ahead with making as much noise about this as you can on the outside."

The AFLOA is the Air Force Legal Operations Agency.

Fire for effect and don't quit.  Good luck man.

[Weezer]

On 5/12/2017 at 7:51 PM, Justonethought said:

What exactly are the airlines investing in for the next 10-20 years?  In 10 years if they can replace an FO with an algorithm they will.  The plane itself is the investment in capital, not the control of the plane.  Do you use uber?  If you do, would you use it just as much when it shows up to your door without a person and ferries you off to your destination without a driver and at 1/4 the cost?  This is a sincerely honest series of questions.  Technology is shifting the landscape awfully quickly.

Back to this discussion:

Boeing Invests in AI startup

Edited June 29, 2017 by Weezer
Spelling

[dream big]

14 hours ago, Weezer said:

Back to this discussion:

Boening Invests in AI startup

If you're a pilot I wouldn't necessarily freak out.  Tech companies invest in ideas all the time - in this case, as the article states, if not necessarily to replace manned commercial airliners but to find "innovative solutions and ideas."

It's akin to a C-130 engineer or navigator freaking out in the 1980s when the first J model concept was researched.  30+ years later most of the total force 130 fleet  is still flying Hs.   Airliners are still flying 1960s airplanes.  I don't know many people alive that would get on an automated aircraft, maybe a generation or so from now 

I especially wouldn't freak out if you are an Air Force pilot.  Some of our mission sets are too dynamic to be automated (DACT/OCA/airdrop/low levels/etc.)

[Sprkt69]

59 minutes ago, UltWarrior said:

So people are willing to buy a self driving car, but aren't willing to get on an airplane without a pilot? I raise the BS flag. If it makes tickets cheaper, people will fly on a plane with AI running the show because I would. Most of the time you don't even see the pilot when you board the aircraft anyway.

This argument again?

[GlassEmpty]

I especially wouldn't freak out if you are an Air Force pilot.  Some of our mission sets are too dynamic to be automated (DACT/OCA/airdrop/low levels/etc.)

I don't think the guys with most concern over this are Air Force guys. That phase has already happened and we live with it daily.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dream big]

2 hours ago, GlassEmpty said:

 

I don't think the guys with most concern over this are Air Force guys. That phase has already happened and we live with it daily.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Or has it? Where do a good majority of Air Force pilots want to be in a few years? ;)

Edited June 29, 2017 by dream big