Posted on Apr 3, 2019
Muslim soldier demoted, planning to sue the Army after hijab controversy
19K
100
31
13
13
0
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 18
She got demoted for an inappropriate relationship downrange prior to all of the hoopla. THAT is what she got demoted for. I read the article prepared to be on her side (at least regarding the demotion) because of whistleblower protection / retribution rules. I was sure this was a result of her filing an EO complaint, even though the complaint was (appropriately, IMHO) unsubstantiated. Nope. She was acting inappropriately as an NCO (relationships) which put her on the radar. After she was already on the radar, she was deciding not to comply with regs and hiding behind her religion to try and get away with it. She got called out, so she cried "EO!" EO office laughed. So now, of course, it is lawsuit time.
SPC Valdovinos, be happy you are still a SPC. Based on what little I have read through the two stories on you, I would have pushed for admin reduction due to not being able to perform the duties of an NCO, THEN a field grade to take it ALL away.
FTA: "That was supposed to be ― at worst ― a letter of reprimand." Ummm... no. According to the article, the Article 15 was preceded by an investigation. Generally speaking, the Army doesn't do investigations for LoRs. Additionally, I have rarely seen LoRs for "inappropriate relationships." Usually it is either swept under the rug or field grade. Very little in between in my experience.
Good luck with your lawsuit. Also, good luck with your Army career. Both are going nowhere. And they are going there at an INCREDIBLE rate of speed. Also, good luck on your rapidly approaching civilian life. Your refusal to follow rules and sense of entitlement will not play well with civilian employers.
MSG (Join to see) Thanks for posting the update
SPC Valdovinos, be happy you are still a SPC. Based on what little I have read through the two stories on you, I would have pushed for admin reduction due to not being able to perform the duties of an NCO, THEN a field grade to take it ALL away.
FTA: "That was supposed to be ― at worst ― a letter of reprimand." Ummm... no. According to the article, the Article 15 was preceded by an investigation. Generally speaking, the Army doesn't do investigations for LoRs. Additionally, I have rarely seen LoRs for "inappropriate relationships." Usually it is either swept under the rug or field grade. Very little in between in my experience.
Good luck with your lawsuit. Also, good luck with your Army career. Both are going nowhere. And they are going there at an INCREDIBLE rate of speed. Also, good luck on your rapidly approaching civilian life. Your refusal to follow rules and sense of entitlement will not play well with civilian employers.
MSG (Join to see) Thanks for posting the update
(15)
(0)
She can't comply with Military uniform regulations then She needs to get out of the Army. There are no special exceptions for any religion nor should there be on dress codes for military units. She deserved to be demoted for not following the same regulation everyone else does. In civilian clothing, fine wear it but not in uniform ever ! Also when She enlisted and took an oath She as We all did among other things swore to obey the orders of the officers appointed over Me. She did NOT obey those orders.
(13)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SSG Brian G. - yes, I’m aware of that. And per every story, her hair was out of regs. I didnt indicate otherwise. In fact, I wrote, “(*not defending her. She seems like a lousy soldier)”.
(0)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
SMSgt Lawrence McCarter - I have seen many a kippah worn in uniform. Reg allows those, too.
(1)
(0)
CW2 (Join to see)
SMSgt, this demotion had nothing to do with the headwear as that is authorized. That was for a completely unrelated offense. As for the headwear, I believe a Brigade Commander can authorize it for the Army and a Group Commander can do the same for the Air Force. AR 670-1 even has pictures of proper wear in the dress and utility uniform variants.
(1)
(0)
SMSgt Lawrence McCarter
CW2 (Join to see) - After what You said I did check that and You are correct , it an accommodation that a Commander can authorize. This change is IAW, AR670-01, 3-15 26 Jun 2017 Shown below is that section of the Army regulation. Also shown is a picture, 3-5 of the proper wear of the hjab also from AR670-01. (click on the Regulation section or the picture for a better view)
I did learn something here and on the prior version of AR670-1 that wasn't authorized at all now it is under the conditions described in the new changes. Thank You for the information MSgt Lyons.
I will withhold any further comments I haven't already made on My opinion of this change.
I did learn something here and on the prior version of AR670-1 that wasn't authorized at all now it is under the conditions described in the new changes. Thank You for the information MSgt Lyons.
I will withhold any further comments I haven't already made on My opinion of this change.
(0)
(0)
The article title leads you to believe it was about the hijab...it isn't. Wait..the Army Times does belong to the Army right...WRONG...it is a private media outlet serving primarily the US Armed Forces audience which means it will publish stuff like this from time to time to get readers to buy the magazine. The demotion is over a inappropriate relationship...not the Hijab. Now the suit she is filing mat be over the way the NCO handled the HIJAB incident but from what I have read in other articles, he handled it appropriately. Good luck with that.
(10)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
Spot on.
(Minor correction, though, Sir. The NCO handling the 'hijab incident' was female, which was a large part of why the incident was handled properly.)
(Minor correction, though, Sir. The NCO handling the 'hijab incident' was female, which was a large part of why the incident was handled properly.)
(3)
(0)
Read This Next