Sex Offenders Double Standard: Officers vs Enlisted?

SGM Matthew Quick — Wed, 20 Nov 2013 20:28:28 -0500

This was a odd read...apparently, not all sex-offenders are the same; according to rank. For enlisted Soldiers, separation proceedings will start even if after their conviction they were evaluated for retention and allowed to stay. Commissioned and warrant officers will not face separation proceedings if they were already evaluated for retention after their conviction and retained, according to the directive.

Response by SFC James Baber made Dec 13 at 2013 9:38 AM

SFC James Baber — Fri, 13 Dec 2013 09:38:33 -0500

You have been in long enough to know there has always been a double standard for everything derogatory against enlisted vs officer, it has always been like that and will never change within our lifetimes. Look at all the Gen officers that have been allowed to just slowly disappear out the door from their infraction while the enlisted side gets reduced in rank, forfeits benefits, and sometimes end up in prison, never hear about that on the officer side though do we.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 13 at 2013 11:37 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 13 Dec 2013 11:37:23 -0500

This is a problem in both enlisted and officer ranks as we've seen in recent months. I think the policy should be the same for ALL service members. I don't want this type of person in my military. I want them all out and out now. Statistically (from one of my classes in Criminal Justice) sex offenders have the HIGHEST rate of repeat offenses than any other criminal category. ANYONE who is convicted of a sex offense should be sent packing in an expedited manner.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2014 11:55 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Jan 2014 11:55:44 -0500

I wholeheartedly agree that there is a double standard and it needs to stop. Almost every issue of the Army Times you see an article about someone in a senior position who abuses their rank/position and the most you hear about it is that they'll be forced to retire with all benefits. Officers are supposed to be held to higher standard than the enlisted because they are supposed to be the smarter and more mature ones. You hear about any enlisted (CSM who doesn't serve as DIV CSM or below) get immediately chaptered, jailed, and/or lose all benefits. Yet we read about Generals who use tax payers dollars to fund family vacations or get convicted of sexual assault and the worst is they retire with full benefits. I say give them the harshest punishment like you would a PVT and some of these senior guys may stop and think about not doing the wrong thing.

It's almost like they have the mindframe that if I get caught, I'll just be forced to retire. No big harm done. It's as if they don't want to punish them severely because they are Generals and worked hard to get where they are and then what will happen to them. 20 something plus years down the drain. I say big whoop. You are convicted of sexual assault so you should lose everything. Enlisted or Officer. You shouldn't have jeopardized everything you have worked so hard for.

*Note: sorry if this might be incoherent. I have one hour left on Staff Duty and trying to find stuff to do to stay awake.

Response by CW2 Joseph Evans made Jan 18 at 2014 1:10 PM

CW2 Joseph Evans — Sat, 18 Jan 2014 13:10:08 -0500

Always has been that way. Back when the first Manual of Court Martials was written. Privilege of a good birth that sees you given the advantage of political or military position.
Affluenza has been around for a long time and it is a disease tho which the military is no stranger.

Response by SSG Ronald Rollins made Mar 3 at 2015 3:20 PM

SSG Ronald Rollins — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 15:20:33 -0500

I see the double standard a lot. I see where they publish results of art 15's and court martials. You see the names of all E6 and below. But E7 and above and not named. And officer punishments were not even on the list. I dont know if that has changed. It is just a way of hiding the truth that no one is perfect. But the sex offender thing is big. They seem to want to cover for an officer because it will make the officer corps look bad and they cant have that. No officer would do such a thing is the general thought and if they do no one must know. All punishments for this must be the same for all.

Response by PFC Lisa McDonald made Sep 14 at 2017 5:22 AM

PFC Lisa McDonald — Thu, 14 Sep 2017 05:22:20 -0400

It works the same in the civilian world.