Are there certain offenses that should kill a career regardless of rank or mitigating circumstances?

2014-09-20T20:24:25-04:00

I have hard that DUIs for an officer or senior NCO is a career ender. Yet I have seen some who have not been tossed out of the military. I have heard SHARP incidents are a death sentence to your career, but in the news you see some "skate" and maintain in the military. There was the Abu Ghraib that some say some were let off the hook while others were left out to dry and had to suffer the consequences of their and their subordinates' actions.

Are there truly any offenses that are bad enough to kill a career regardless of rank or mitigating circumstances?

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 20 at 2014 8:28 PM

2014-09-20T20:28:45-04:00

Yes, I think there are certain offenses that should end a career. Obviously, crimes that result in incarceration, say, felonies, would be one example.

Where to draw the line below that is the question? SHARP incidents? DUI? I think they would have to be handled on a case-by-case basis.

Response by CPT Jacob Swartout made Sep 20 at 2014 8:30 PM

2014-09-20T20:30:59-04:00

What comes to mind is premeditating manslaughter that I would say is a career killer, regardless of rank or mitigating circumstances.

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Sep 20 at 2014 8:42 PM

2014-09-20T20:42:38-04:00

Any crime that can carry a jail sentence.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 20 at 2014 9:11 PM

2014-09-20T21:11:35-04:00

My hard and fast rule is that there should be no hard and fast rules. Zero Tolerance is always a bad thing as there are always shades of gray.

That said, I haven't had any of these issues so with promotion rates on the decline if anyone in my MOS and year group would like to get a DUI and be removed from the service that would be fine by me.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 20 at 2014 11:56 PM

2014-09-20T23:56:27-04:00

For Commanding Officers of a commissioned naval vessel there's a very real likelyhood of removal for cause and the end of your career if you "hazard a vessel" and collide with another vessel, run aground, or fail to "protect one's vessel at all costs". Rank, postion or years of service are no protection for any officer under those circumstances.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 21 at 2014 7:10 AM

2014-09-21T07:10:10-04:00

A no in the EO block of an NCOER, is the death nail for NCOs, however SHARP is a close second. I have never seen anyone recover from a founded EO offense.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 21 at 2014 7:09 AM

2014-09-21T07:09:50-04:00

Woops, double post.

Response by SSG Ed Mikus made Sep 21 at 2014 7:49 AM

2014-09-21T07:49:46-04:00

while i agree with LTC Private RallyPoint Member that there should be no hard and fast rules, I would like to feel with confidence that no matter ones rank there is a 99% chance they will no wear the uniform any longer if they commit a sex crime of any sort, beat their spouse, or get a DUI. now every person deserves a fair review and there are always mitigating circumstances that must be considered, but decisions that look bad on the rest of us or make it difficult others right to serve (rapist) should not go unpunished.

Unfortunately this is not the way i feel, too many people get off without much reprimand, luckily most of them will be seeing their way out very soon, but the prescience needs to change. If you do wrong, you go home, staying in or being discharged honorably should be the rumor of exception not the expectation for all people equally.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 21 at 2014 9:34 AM

2014-09-21T09:34:15-04:00

I feel that the Army makes decisions of how to handle offenses in ways that have nothing to do with the actual offense. If the decision is held to the local unit, the CDR makes a call, largely dependent on his/her overall view of the Soldier, whether to escalate things or not. If the decision is escalated, the call will come down to "needs of the Army." If the Soldier is in a critical MOS, or plays a critical role in the unit, more will be allowed to slide. That is the problem with the "case-by-case" system if it lacks any iron-clad guidance about who must review the case.

At the same time, I have seen the UCMJ abused by leaders who don't know how to work with deficient Soldiers (so rather than addressing the deficiency, they pursue a UCMJ action). I also have seen it used by bitter former spouses and jilted lovers to be vindictive (sometimes tying up the military justice system for years with endless petitions and appeals - a massive waste of resources).

In my opinion, the system is off the rails. The lack of consistency actually encourages military members to attempt to skirt the rules. If you took PSYCH 101, you should be familiar with the concept of Intermittent Reward schedules. Like a slot machine, intermittent rewards encourage repeat behavior. I am not advocating for Zero Tolerance crap because we are thinking, reasoning human beings and we should be looking very critically at these incidents and the drivers for these behaviors. Zero Tolerance puts punishment to the forefront and assumes that alone will serve as a deterrent. It's lazy and lacks common sense.

What I am advocating for is the concept that certain offenses (or offenses with specific conditions present) require review outside the chain of command. With today's technology (actually, with 1990's technology) it would be possible to have readers evaluate cases and give decisions digitally without revealing the names of the individuals and units involved. People would have more confidence in the handling of these cases if they knew that the resolution did not just come down to "commander's discretion." Additionally, there are places in the UCMJ that specifically say the issue should be resolved at the lowest level possible. That should be unalterable. There should be no such thing as an angry former spouse complaining to the brigade CDR to get a company level action escalated (or any level, this is just an example).

This is a near no cost solution - I'd argue it would be a cost savings. We need uniformity.

Response by CMC Robert Young made Sep 21 at 2014 10:24 AM

2014-09-21T10:24:29-04:00

There are some offenses (a limited number) which render a memebr's continued service impossible. Any felony conviction, any breach of command trust or authority (i.e., mistreatment or exploitation of subordinates), or any event or series of events which indicate that the member has significant character defects which are not in keeping with the military's core values.

That said, the vast majority of issues which arise in our organizations should not be resolved by a hard fast rule or regulation which requires somebody's head regardless of provocation. Each event is the result of an individual's choices, and the resulting consequence to those choices. As such, each situation in all but the rarest cases should be subjected by a structured review at the lowest appropriate level, and the final resolution then based on the totality of circumstances for that particular incident and that particular service member.

We need to exercise a more thoughtful approach into how we evaluate problems (and the people who cause them) and couple that process with a heathy dose of common sense. Think about the people we lose prematurely because of one bad choice. We spend, in some cases, millions to train and equip them for jobs that 99.5% of the American public can't or won't do; and then because of a minor lapse in judgment, we expel them from the military based on some short sighted Zero Tolerance policy which should be reserved for the worst offenders.

Are there cases with hard fast "You have to go now" solutions? Yes, but they should be the exception; not the rule.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 21 at 2014 1:26 PM

2014-09-21T13:26:33-04:00

Yes, one of my chiefs got relieved because he tried to cover up an accident in the plant and lied on a formal interview with the ships MA's

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Sep 21 at 2014 6:01 PM

2014-09-21T18:01:01-04:00

I can give you the name of MY neurosurgeon in the Army who pulled out a little old man out of his own car and almost beat him to death with a thermos. It was all over the paper and local news at Fort Lewis. He claimed he was suffering from non-combat related PTSD and snapped because he was cut off in traffic. He was a Major. Other than that, I won't say his name. Oh what the hell, Major Dennis Geyer (2009)...it is a matter of public record. I'm sure if the situation was reversed, they would have allowed me to PCS and keep my rank and entitlements as well. Cause the Army doesn't discriminate, right?

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 21 at 2014 6:52 PM

2014-09-21T18:52:34-04:00

I think it should equitable to the overall character to the individual. In most cases I don't mind DUI being a career killer. However, I suppose it depends on the circumstances and the past character of the individual. I worked with a pilot who was going through a nasty divorce. He was an O4 select and was going places. He was probably the most respected pilot on the base. he was the guy who loved the work spent hours in the office after work getting things done, helping out other shops in duties that he was not responsible for. He just enjoyed the work but also very personable and did not throw the politics around.

He usually was not the guy to go downtown and drink it up with the rest of the squadron. However people convinced him to go and have a night on the town to get his mind off of his wife who also in the Air Force who basically kicked him out of the house while returning from deployment.

Well long story short he got popped coming through the gate. Instant A15, promotion rescinded and loss of flight duty for a year. Instead of woe is me my career is over, he went out of his way to volunteer for any special duty possible. Was put on a joint staff at the CAOC earning a JMSM, and was being real proactive. He never maid excuses for his actions briefed the entire wing on what he did was wrong. He managed to get his flight status back up. Got picked up for promotion again and has had a real chance to get his career on track.

It is hard to say in this environment if he will be able to make O5 or if his career is at the terminal point. He would be the one of the few I would like to see succeed. If it were not for the blemish, I believe he would be GO material. I think as smart people we can make judgments based off of mitigating factors and assess how people move forward. There are blatant criminal acts and those who disregard standards all the time. Than there is the one time someone slips up once in a while.

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Sep 21 at 2014 7:47 PM

2014-09-21T19:47:23-04:00

With everything that is/has been preached concerning "no drink and drive", "do not use drugs", etc. if a Soldier of ANY RANK is convicted of an offense of these or other egregious actions it should be the end of ones career. I know of far too many Senior NCOs/Officers that had crap swept under the rug that would have resulted in someone of lesser rank being smacked down with a quickness and drummed out of the service.

Response by Sgt Erle Mutz made Sep 21 at 2014 8:06 PM

2014-09-21T20:06:59-04:00

Sexual Assault is NEVER acceptable NOR allowed!
Power trips are for the weak and cowardly!

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Oct 30 at 2014 6:53 PM

2014-10-30T18:53:10-04:00

Yes, but the problem is punishment is not metered out "uniformly" as in UCMJ. Like other situation rank seems to have its privileges - bigger carpets to sweep things under.

Response by CMSgt James Nolan made Oct 30 at 2014 7:53 PM

2014-10-30T19:53:51-04:00

Yes, and it falls into the category of "on purposes" vs "mistakes", however repeated mistakes, tend to move toward "on purposes".

For example:
Conviction for distribution of narcotics-goodbye;
1st offense DUI-that is a mistake that may have severe penalties (i.e. DUI Injury Accident), but a mistake, get another DUI-hello, we have a problem.
Rape-that is an "on Purpose", goodbye;
sexual harassment-could be an "on purpose" but could be just from being stupid and needing to be trained/educated about the ways of the world, continued pattern of behavior-probably goodbye...

Discipline has to be consistent or it is useless. NCOs need to have and to embrace the ability to correct poor behavior. At some point (often quickly) it moves outside of the NCO realm and into Command realm. When it does, Commanders (who I know from having gone through this for a great many years) must exercise great caution when disciplining, because that message gets sent out through the units. I have met a few (and I mean only a few) Commanders who enjoyed that role. No decent leader should ever enjoy administering an Article 15. It should pain them that it got to that point. And they must differentiate the On Purpose vs the Mistake.

What would happen if every time that you did something wrong (mistakes), you got the shit kicked out of you? You would become gun-shy. Too much punitive discipline is demoralizing.

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 30 at 2014 8:58 PM

2014-10-30T20:58:05-04:00

Yes, crimes of violence especially against children and spouses.

I don't believe a first DUI should end a career. It wouldn't in the private sector and even though in the military you are expected to exhibit a higher degree of integrity I don't think you should take someone's career for one mistake.

Response by CPO Tim Dickey made Oct 30 at 2014 10:17 PM

2014-10-30T22:17:45-04:00

Anything drug related.

Response by SSG Maurice P. made Oct 31 at 2014 10:01 PM

2014-10-31T22:01:06-04:00

ASK THE SSG AND THE SPECIALIST IF THEY WERE LET OFF THE HOOK YOUNG CAPT....
WHAT ABOUT THE C.I.A. THE GENERAL DOWN TO THE COMPANY COMMANDERS THEY WERE LET OFF THE HOOK.......

Response by SSG Rob Cline made Feb 27 at 2015 6:37 AM

2015-02-27T06:37:51-05:00

Rape, murder, and sexual assault, just to name a few. Heck, allegations of sexual assault have gotten senior Pentagon officials a one way ticket to 'forced retirement'.

Response by BG David Fleming III made Feb 27 at 2015 9:08 AM

2015-02-27T09:08:52-05:00

I suspect any crime that would cause you to lose your security clearance, would probably be a career ender for a commissioned or non- commissioned officer!

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2015 7:32 PM

2015-04-03T19:32:07-04:00

I believe if some training requirement was generated for the whole service then it is likely an offense that qualifies.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Apr 3 at 2015 8:42 PM

2015-04-03T20:42:25-04:00

I have seen many Commanders withhold jurisdiction on various infractions, crimes, behaviors, and handle them the same (You mentioned the common ones).

I never withheld as a Battalion or Brigade Commander, or GCMA. I believe all cases need to be handled on their own merits, and that matters of extenuation and mitigation matter. It is not about what you are accused of (even though many times in the military you are guilty until you prove your innocence), but what you are convicted of.

But, if I had to make a list is would be: sexual assaults of any kind, drug or alcohol offenses, and anything that brings into question your ability to live Army Values.

Remember, we are the ones who hold young Soldiers to standard, so I believe we absolutely must live by a higher standard. You can't be a leader if you are not above reproach.

That said, I do not believe in standard punishments. Discretion is always necessary.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2015 9:25 PM

2015-04-03T21:25:01-04:00

No there are not. But there should be and I know what you say about some make there way by major violations. It is sad and part of the problem of having such a large system.

Response by SGT John Beardsley made Apr 7 at 2015 2:18 AM

2015-04-07T02:18:53-04:00

Your question, sir, has a flaw if you don't mind me pointing out.

The problem is the qualifying "regardless of rank or mitigating circumstances" phrase.

There are too many offenses to list that should kill a career of any service member. Period. The problems are not rank or mitigating circumstances, rather they are politics and the "good o' boy" networks that exist in all of the services. It is not a myth the West Pointers will try to "protect their own", and there are other, for lack of a better term, "societies" in both the commissioned and non-commissioned ranks.