I certainly would not have wanted to serve under this guy. He is saying the military forced him into retirement. More like they allowed a dip out. Two of his complaints are really simple to say, not military dumbass: he was a band leader and before a performance read a political statement by Rush Limbaugh; and he had bumper stickers, which many bases would have not allowed. Don't know if his promotion party, anti gay, was official or not - if official, definitely not allowed.
12
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
13 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Any of the above in connection with my workplace would be a work rule violation (Conduct Unbecoming). Sure, we can talk politics at work, but not in front of a captive audience, and we definitely can't send out announcements that are basically celebrating our views on discriminating against segments of the human race. We're technically even forbidden from posting racist or sexist comments, etc, on social media, since we're considered at all times to represent our Department and we are not to take any actions that might bring it into disrepute.
Paul4747
Level 8
Aug 8, 2020
1
Another of the 85% minority claiming to be a victim. And just for the record if the guy had any musical talent, he'd be making a lot more money now than he did on the army. If he really wanted to serve his country, he would have done something useful to the army.
JimG
Level 8
Aug 7, 2020
1
It was people like him that took the sting out of leaving the military.
I learned that Navy is short for "Never Again volunteer Yourself"
Willow_Wisp
Level 8
Aug 7, 2020
3
Oh yea, having been in the Navy I know that and the FTN which many wrote shorthand in notes.
The statement "In May of that year, he also got a poor enlisted performance review that stated, among other things, that he "demonstrated difficulty accepting correction from his leadership and taking responsibility for his own actions;" "demonstrated limited potential for positions of greater rank and responsibility;" and "did not treat people as they should be treated."" says a lot about his service record. I knew a Lieutenant Colonel in the Navy who was the Liaison officer in Heidelberg, Germany (think about the geography and his branch). He was a misfit and alcoholic and got a DUI. A friend of mine who knew him told me he was often seen leaving the officers club on all fours. Then he had an affair (with my then wife) and when I wrote to his commanding officer his rank was frozen, he was allowed to finish serving his enlistment but could not extend it and he was shipped out. A lot of military personnel are allowed to serve, despite their bad behavior, because they may be good at their jobs. But they are living on the edge and one false move gets them removed. This guy is a prime example. Also, it is not just the military but many corporations/companies are full of these people.
JackPedigo
Level 9
Aug 7, 2020
1
JimG:
Lieutenant colonel isn't a naval officer rank.
@JimG You are right and I had forgotten the true rank (this was in 1982) It was Lieutenant Commander. He was hoping for Commander rank but, too bad.
JimG:
@JackPedigo I spent 11 years in the army. My knowledge of naval rank insignia is good enough to distinguish between enlisted and officer ranks. Apparently, it's quite an affront to senior chief petty officer to be addresses as seaman. I even explained that I meant seaman with two "As."
This guy obviously had problems beyond just the overt symptoms of bumper stickers and reading one of Limbaugh's books. He was apparently counseled repeatedly and sometimes punished because of his conduct while in uniform, apparent mistreatment of others, and he had on-going conflicts with his chain of command. The army evidently got tired of the guy being a constant disruptive element and offered him retirement, discharge, or to appeal. He appealled and lost so he took retirement with full benefits.
The military's justification for not allowing gays to serve openly within their ranks was that their presence would be a disruptive element interferring with the cohesion of military units. This guy wasn't gay (as far as we can tell) but he was a distuprive element interferring with the cohesion of his unit. By the same basis the military used to discharge gay soldiers, they discharged this soldier. Based on the article posted, I don't see a problem with his dismissal. Like all narcissists, he zeros in on any potential controversy of his case - his religious and political beliefs - and ignores the larger picture and greater problems which is what led to his separation with the military.
RussRAB
Level 8
Aug 7, 2020
2
So this was the result of an appeal to a case filed over 6 years ago? Sounds like it was appropriately prioritized. Also sounds like this guy was aware of his value outside the military, so he clung hard to military service. Hope his case is determined to be frivolous and he's soaked with a massive bill.
chalupacabre
Level 8
Aug 7, 2020
2
Not sure about military but I am a teacher part of our code of conduct states we must support the government of the day
"7.1 Support to Government of the Day
Employees shall provide full support to the Government of the day regardless of which political party or parties are in office.
7.3 Implementation of Government Policy
Employees are also responsible for carrying out decisions and implementing programs promptly, conscientiously and with full regard to Government policy. In implementing programs, an employee’s own values should not supplant those explicit or implicit in Government policy. Obviously, it will be necessary both in providing advice and in implementing programs to exercise judgement as to which facts or courses of action are most relevant or important. Judgement must, however, always be exercised with due regard to legislative requirements, Government policy or a supervisor’s directions together with considerations of equity and efficiency."
"9.2 Public Comment on Government Matters
Except where required by law, or as authorised by the responsible Chief Executive Officer, an employee must not make public comment on Government matters in an official capacity.
9.3 Circumstances in which Public Comment is Inappropriate
While employees, as members of the community, have the right to make public comment and enter into public debate on political and social issues, there are some circumstances in which public comment is inappropriate.
These include:
• The implication that the public comment, although made in a private capacity, is in some way seen to be an official comment of the Government or of the employee’s agency.
• Where an employee is directly involved in advising on or directing the administration or implementation of Government policy and the public comment would compromise his or her ability to continue to do so in an efficient and professional manner.
•Where public comment, regardless of the connection (or lack of connection) with an employee’s normal duties, amounts to criticism sufficiently strong or persistent to give rise to the public perception that the employee is not prepared to implement or administer the policies of the Government of the day as they relate to his or her duties."
I would imagine there is something similar in the military code of ethics so what he did would be a violation of at least one of these. In my classroom if I talk about the government in a disparaging manner I can lose my job.
Budgie
Level 8
Aug 7, 2020
1
Sounds like a communist country to me.
@Jolanta Australia and no nothing communistic about it when you work for the government they make the terms of that when you are part of the military they would have similar things in place. This is the oath he swore twice and then broke.I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God.
This line in particular
I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations.
@Bobby9 I am an Australian and any organisation can restrict what you say all of the religious groups that forbid their employees from speaking about issues in any way other than their would be another example of that which would actually not contravene your first amendment as that talks only of the government So all of drumpf attacks on protestors was a breach of the first amendment. . As a public servant they dictate the rules of conduct you are free to not be employed by them if you will not support their terms of conduct. I am free to protest etc I can not speak out in my classroom, I write letters to politicians all of the time telling them what I think of what they are doing but I can not share that with my class. If a politician does a visit of my class I am expected to be professional even if I want to smack them upside of the head with a wet haddock.
@Budgie and never, ever, forget that important last line, "according to laws and regulations". Orders have to be lawful orders. To attack peaceful protesters, were not lawful orders. "I was just following orders" is not a lawful defense.
@Jolanta Given, as I said, I am Australian I can say what I like about drumpf.
However is Scomo came into my classroom I would be expected to be professional, polite, have the students understand they also need to be polite, as we are on social distancing rules I would not have to shake his hand thanfully. If he insisted I could remind him of the social distancing requirements, as could the students (politely) I would be expected to refer to him as Prime Minister not scumbucket or usless moron, as would the student, I would be expected to discuss the topic at hand not launch at him about being an incompetent imbecillic cultist. I would also be expected to have instructed the students about what is expected of them but they can say what they damn well please (I am not allowed to encourage that) I also have the right to tell the principal that I do not want them to come into my room nor meet with them. If they are touring the entire school then I would get warning they were about to come exit my room another teacher would be there to monitor the kids until I came back.
In the staffroom once another teacher who wanted to get in with the conservatives brought a local pollie in. I was discussing an educational matter with a colleague when she interrupted and tried to introduce him
Her "This is blah blah."
Me "So what I am in the middle of a conversation don't interrupt."
Allowed to as it was not a public place so could express my view privately.
Was at a quiz in a pub local pollie that I despise came in tried to go table to table to talk to people, came to mine.
Her "Hi I am blah blah who are you?"
Me " You are a waste of space leave me alone."
She looked shocked totally okay for me to do that as I was not being a teacher at the time and she approached me. I could not get up grab the mic and shout it across the room but I could make my feelings known. However if the minister for education said that is was compulsory for all student to do 5 push ups a day unless medically unable to then I would be required to make sure they do even if I thought it was batshit crazy.
I can through my Union fight against it, our union is allowed to speak against the government and does so regularly we approach the union and at the conference if a motion gets passed to say that the union needs to fight the government about something then they will.
@Jolanta The two politician in this case were horrid people who only cared about themselves and were damaging the economy, environment and people's job security they don't get politeness from me. I have taught politicians children and maintained a professional relationship with them. If I saw drumpf he would get a pointed comment from me as well I don't waste time on the ones that are dangerous and useless. I actually have one local politician who thinks I am awesome drops stuff off to my class she had stood up and fought for the locals and took on a local council when they overstepped the line she held meetings to let people know what their rights were and what the law was. We don't agree on everything but she fights and cares and is basically honest.
I need a shortcut for: WTF IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE???
CarolinaGirl60
Level 8
Aug 7, 2020
4
(I wasn't military) If the military wanted its' soldiers to have opinions, it would ISSUE opinions to the soldiers 
FearlessFly
Level 9
Aug 7, 2020
4
Pretty much. Although since I listed myself as no preference for religion I got sent to see a priest once. I was breaking up, by mail, with a girl and she got my parents involved, and long story short after a few minutes of being nice priest, he turned into full commander and ordered me to write a letter home (even though I had just telegramed from Hong Kong). I still want to call him a fucking prick to his face after 40 years.
@Yogisan Some bases restrict bumper stickers on the base. They just added confederate flags (no problems off base, but can't be on base).
@Beowulfsfriend I had "no preference" stamped on my Navy dog tags. Actually I think it was abbreviated "no pref" back then (early 60's). No one ever commented about it.
@dumasarok Mine say No Pref as well. I always thought my Japanese-American friend's Bud was cool.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.