pawnman Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 Was the TSgt's conviction upheld by the convening authority? Wikerson's was not. Therefore he is legally not guilty of a crime. So on what grounds do you think his retirement should be withheld? There is a system a laws at play and you can't just withhold benefits because you think a guy is a dirtbag. Same theory whether TSgt or Lt Col. No, I get that. This isn't just about Wilkerson, he's just the latest in a long line. By rights, with the convening authority setting aside his conviction, it should be as if it never happened. My point is that very often we see senior leaders engaging in this sort of thing and getting "forced" to retire as a punishment, when a lower ranking individual would be absolutely crushed for it. How about the lady Gen Patreus was fooling around with? She's a LtCol in the Guard...any repercussions on her career?
Azimuth Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 Was the TSgt's conviction upheld by the convening authority? Wikerson's was not. Therefore he is legally not guilty of a crime. So on what grounds do you think his retirement should be withheld? There is a system a laws at play and you can't just withhold benefits because you think a guy is a dirtbag. Same theory whether TSgt or Lt Col. I think he's talking about committing adultery by having a kid with someone who isn't his wife.
pawnman Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 (edited) I think he's talking about committing adultery by having a kid with someone who isn't his wife. That, or sexual assault. I get that his sexual assault was set aside by the convening authority, I really do. One does wonder what chance a TSgt or even a Capt has of that happening. But realistically, even if he were to remain guilty, what would his punishment have been? Does anyone honestly believe that the punishment for a LtCol would be the same as that for a TSgt? Edited July 8, 2013 by pawnman
Danny Noonin Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 I think he's talking about committing adultery by having a kid with someone who isn't his wife. Also a crime in the UCMJ if convicted. But in this case its past the statute of limitations. So again, he hasn't been convicted of a crime and you can't withhold benefits because you think he's a dirtbag. I get that his sexual assault was set aside by the convening authority, I really do. One does wonder what chance a TSgt or eve a Capt has of that happening. I would certainly hope so. I honestly believe Lt Gen Franklin looked at the evidence and believed there was reasonable doubt. I honestly believe that he felt he was doing the right thing. And I honestly believe it had nothing to do with the fact that the accused was a pilot or a Lt Col.
Smokin Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 If you haven't been involved in disciplinary actions, I think you would be surprised at how high and how quickly details are known to the chain of command for relatively minor offenses, let alone allegations of sexual assault. I would bet a large amount of money that Lt Gen Franklin would have done the same if it had been an A1C instead (if he had been the convening authority, not sure if that would be true for enlisted). Had it been an A1C, we probably never would have heard about it, which means Congress wouldn't be out for his nugget on a pike.
Hotdogs Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 (edited) Just ask, what would the Air Force do to a TSgt who made the same mistake? I'm pretty sure it isn't a retirement (which, correct me if I'm wrong, is automatically an honorable discharge). I don't really care what civilian companies do. Most of them aren't purging the ranks of all fun because a few guys screwed around. As long as our senior leaders keep telling us how important it is to prevent and punish sexual assault, while avoiding most of the consequences when they do it themselves, it will be hard to take them seriously. Rank has nothing to do with it. The TSgt would have the same investigation and trial that the LtCol would, and his punishment would be according to what the convening authority dictates. Officers are dismissed. Not discharged. If dismissed, the results are pretty much the same. Enlisted personnel can be reduced in rank and retire, and still be allowed to collect retirement pay. You can retire as a E-5 believe it or not. You can not reduce an officer's rank (to my knowledge) but you sure as hell can end his career with a UCMJ article. Looking to pick up 0-4 around the 12-14 year mark? Sorry, looks like your going to have to execute your EAS. Of which, you get nothing for...of course now we're playing games of what type of crime and the severity of the offense. The most egregious cases usually end up having the the offender doing time in Leavenworth. I have yet to see large samples of senior officers committing sexual assaults and not getting the hammered for it. Your comparison to officier/enlisted treatment wrt the UCMJ is naive and shortsighted. Sounds like the usual enlisted hate mongering towards officers. T Does anyone honestly believe that the punishment for a LtCol would be the same as that for a TSgt? In my service, Marine Officers would be raked over the coals twice as hard as any comparable enlisted personnel. Edited July 8, 2013 by Hotdogs
Azimuth Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 Rank has nothing to do with it. The TSgt would have the same investigation and trial that the LtCol would, and his punishment would be according to what the convening authority dictates. Officers are dismissed. Not discharged. If dismissed, the results are pretty much the same. Enlisted personnel can be reduced in rank and retire, and still be allowed to collect retirement pay. You can retire as a E-5 believe it or not. You can not reduce an officer's rank (to my knowledge) but you sure as hell can end his career with a UCMJ article. You can't retire as an E-5 anymore in the USAF. I believe the President is the only one who can demote an officer.
Hotdogs Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 You can't retire as an E-5 anymore in the USAF. I believe the President is the only one who can demote an officer. There you have it.
17D_guy Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 Rank has nothing to do with it... In my service, Marine Officers would be raked over the coals twice as hard as any comparable enlisted personnel. I just want to be sure, you're saying the AF and the Marines are the same in the areas of discipline? And that enlisted Marines are treated less harshly than officers? Check the link I posted to the Gen. Fiscus affairs and see if that is similar to the Corps' manner of handling things. ---- Few months old, but came across this today, makes you wonder about current leadership. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-dawn/201211/not-all-military-adultery-results-in-scandal It seems that the original modern American swingers were crew-cut World War II air force pilots and their wives.
Hotdogs Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 (edited) I just want to be sure, you're saying the AF and the Marines are the same in the areas of discipline? And that enlisted Marines are treated less harshly than officers? Check the link I posted to the Gen. Fiscus affairs and see if that is similar to the Corps' manner of handling things. ---- Few months old, but came across this today, makes you wonder about current leadership. https://www.psycholog...ults-in-scandal I realize I contradicted myself there a little, but my feeling is that the Corps is tough on its officers rather than vice versa, and I probably should have worded those sentences differently. If it was found that the Maj Gen last served honorably as a 0-6, then he rates an 0-6 retirement. Nothing less. Same goes for enlisted personnel who are reduced in rank from a history of previous charges. If you want to complain about his retirement pension, then complain about the differences in officer vs enlisted pay, otherwise we're barking up the wrong tree. Edited July 8, 2013 by Hotdogs
Learjetter Posted July 9, 2013 Posted July 9, 2013 (edited) Few months old, but came across this today, makes you wonder about current leadership. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-dawn/201211/not-all-military-adultery-results-in-scandal Rubbish. ETA: Quote It seems that the original modern American swingers were crew-cut World War II air force pilots and their wives. Complete crap. Edited July 9, 2013 by Learjetter
pawnman Posted July 11, 2013 Posted July 11, 2013 Rank has nothing to do with it. The TSgt would have the same investigation and trial that the LtCol would, and his punishment would be according to what the convening authority dictates. Officers are dismissed. Not discharged. If dismissed, the results are pretty much the same. Enlisted personnel can be reduced in rank and retire, and still be allowed to collect retirement pay. You can retire as a E-5 believe it or not. You can not reduce an officer's rank (to my knowledge) but you sure as hell can end his career with a UCMJ article. Looking to pick up 0-4 around the 12-14 year mark? Sorry, looks like your going to have to execute your EAS. Of which, you get nothing for...of course now we're playing games of what type of crime and the severity of the offense. The most egregious cases usually end up having the the offender doing time in Leavenworth. I have yet to see large samples of senior officers committing sexual assaults and not getting the hammered for it. Your comparison to officier/enlisted treatment wrt the UCMJ is naive and shortsighted. Sounds like the usual enlisted hate mongering towards officers. In my service, Marine Officers would be raked over the coals twice as hard as any comparable enlisted personnel. I'm not enlisted. I'm just saying, we've seen high profile cases involving not only sexual shenanigans, but large dollar amounts of fraud, steering USAF business to buddies, and other misuses of authority. Maybe I'm just not privvy to how it impacts a guy's sense of self-worth to be forced to retire, but I do know that as a captain who has survived one RIF and had one promotion board cancelled, forcing a guy to retire doesn't seem like much of a punishment.
Goblin Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/07/14/rodman-marine-corps-sexual-assault-pentagon-military-congress-mccain-reid-speier/2513565/ An interesting "opposing" view to all of this, from an unexpected source 1
D_Vezencuando Posted July 15, 2013 Posted July 15, 2013 Capt Rodman is actually paraphrasing a conclusion stated in the 2012 Report. If you go to SAPR.mil and download the text -all 700+ pages of it- you'll find some interesting disconnects between this problem and civilian leadership's perception of it.
Tonka Posted July 15, 2013 Posted July 15, 2013 Rubbish. I'm not too sure... my first boss at my first squadron talked about the times when they would leave on trips and toss their house keys in a hat for anyone to take advantage of. Would have been late 80s most likely based on his rank/years. That same year I showed up the IG was busted for shagging with another pilot's wife in our squadron...
Hacker Posted July 19, 2013 Posted July 19, 2013 (edited) Dear SARC at my base: At your next presentation to the Wing, are you going to have a PowerPoint slide to retract the previous slide you showed during the SARC Stand-down in which you drug this officer's name through the mud as a sex offender? How are you planning on wording your apology for jumping to conclusions without all of the information, and slandering this officer to 100s of personnel, including enlisted Airmen? https://www.sfgate.co...cer-4671899.php Sexual battery charge dropped for military officer ARLINGTON, Va. (AP) — Virginia prosecutors on Thursday dropped a sexual battery charge against an Air Force officer who once led that branch's sexual assault response unit. Right before the misdemeanor trial was set to begin against Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski, 41, of Arlington, Commonwealth's Attorney Theo Stamos said the sexual battery charge will be dropped and substituted with a generic assault charge. That trial will go forward at a later date. Stamos said after the hearing that charging Krusinski with a sex offense was no longer appropriate now that her office has a more thorough understanding of the facts of what happened May 5, when Krusinski was accused of groping a woman in a Crystal City parking lot. Yet again, guilty until proven innocent... Edited July 19, 2013 by Hacker 4
discus Posted July 19, 2013 Posted July 19, 2013 I hope you actually wrote that to them. I don't know if this was presented the same way at my base. I took "Tactical leave" that day. I need to find out...
HeloDude Posted July 19, 2013 Posted July 19, 2013 Dear SARC at my base: At your next presentation to the Wing, are you going to have a PowerPoint slide to retract the previous slide you showed during the SARC Stand-down in which you drug this officer's name through the mud as a sex offender? How are you planning on wording your apology for jumping to conclusions without all of the information, and slandering this officer to 100s of personnel, including enlisted Airmen? https://www.sfgate.co...cer-4671899.php Yet again, guilty until proven innocent... I seriously doubt it...the slide shown to the leadership for the brief that I attended had a picture of Lt Col Wilkerson, and that of course after his case was thrown out. Just like in the GZ case, presenting facts does not always help push the agenda. Stirring up fear and emotions, rather, do. 1
ATIS Posted July 19, 2013 Posted July 19, 2013 (edited) I hope you actually wrote that to them. I don't know if this was presented the same way at my base. I took "Tactical leave" that day. I need to find out... Dear SARC at my base: At your next presentation to the Wing, are you going to have a PowerPoint slide to retract the previous slide you showed during the SARC Stand-down in which you drug this officer's name through the mud as a sex offender? How are you planning on wording your apology for jumping to conclusions without all of the information, and slandering this officer to 100s of personnel, including enlisted Airmen? https://www.sfgate.co...cer-4671899.php Yet again, guilty until proven innocent... During my Pentagon 2 hour briefing....myself and a LtCol (USMC) both rolled in hot on the Master Chief giving the brief when words to the effect that "this person... guilty of sexual misconduct is an example....". I was in the back sitting next to the 2/3 star and looked straight at him when we both said that he hasn't been convicted of anything (yet)...so why the premature "guilty" verdict now? The LtCol said that "if" he is proven guilty via whichever legal system is used, then you might have a leg to stand on (still in bad taste IMO). I looked at the Admiral and said they just "softly" convicted him without any due process. He just looked at me and shrugged. The whole briefing was misguided in my opinion....all talk about how to handle things after an incident. We know what to do there...there is a process. Get the facts and let the truth tell the story, keep the politics and crap out of it. What really wasn't being talked about was the other side of the kill chain...prevention and defusing situations before they potentially lead to a sexual assault situation. I told the Admiral to take the message back to the larger fish above him that "we will get this taken care of", but there is no easy fix and it's not like flipping a light switch (he actually agreed with that). Time for that second cup of coffee. edit: spelling/grammer. Edited July 19, 2013 by ATIS
17D_guy Posted July 19, 2013 Posted July 19, 2013 (edited) So this happened and appears to be getting a lil traction - https://www.guardian....ntenced-assault Questions were raised about the prosecution by senators, advocates groups and the special victims counsel the air force employed to help him when he reported an allegation of sexual assault. During the investigation into that allegation, the air force says, new information emerged which led to Cohen himself being prosecuted. Major John Bellflower, Cohen's special victims counsel, said on Wednesday: "None of this would have happened had not Lt Cohen come forward with an allegation of sexual assault. It is because of this we are where we are today and because of that he is behind bars." ... Bellflower said as far as he was aware, there is still an active army investigation into the alleged rape of Cohen by an army major four years ago. It was passed to the army from the air force, as it has jurisdiction over the alleged perpetrator. The major is now immune from prosecution because the statute of limitations has expired. Edited July 19, 2013 by 17D_guy
Fuzz Posted July 19, 2013 Posted July 19, 2013 So this happened and appears to be getting a lil traction - https://www.guardian....ntenced-assault This dude is batshit crazy, KC-135 Nav (go figure). I know a guy he went after as part of this story, dude didnt even know the major, cost him all sorts of money in a civil suit.
jango220 Posted July 19, 2013 Posted July 19, 2013 I'm just going to leave this here.... https://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/opinion/community-voices/x722101500/Our-freedom-demands-service-total-commitment-to-just-cause
StoleIt Posted July 20, 2013 Posted July 20, 2013 So this happened and appears to be getting a lil traction - https://www.guardian....ntenced-assault This guy is infamous around the -135 community. He is batshit insane.
TreeA10 Posted July 20, 2013 Posted July 20, 2013 A) What the hell is special operations air refueling in regards to a -135? and B) Someone might want to inform the guys at Ft. Campbell that the definition of SOAR has been changed.
BFM this Posted July 20, 2013 Posted July 20, 2013 A) What the hell is special operations air refueling in regards to a -135? Who? Never heard of her.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now