quote:

Originally posted by Nobodyaskedmebut:

quote:

Regardless of the punishment the CM awarded, his career is over. The fact that a Captain was taken to a CM makes a statement in itself.

Actually the statement made was done by the Court: $5,000 fine sends a very clear message.

The base pay for an O-6 over 26 is: $9716.70 - so he got fined a little more the 1/2 months pay for something that enlisted members get booted for on a regular basis. There is a double standard; the accountability and punishment should increase as the responsibility increases. How many members did this gentleman, in the course of his career, cause to be separated for the same thing? RHETORICAL QUESTION. None actually their own misconduct caused it....as should his.

I would disagree with the premise of increasing punishment. My take is illegal drug use is the #1 thing all Coast Guard folks up and down the totem pole should know will not be tolerated. It is the top of the pyramid of our organizational no-no's. No illegal dope use means no illegal dope use. There should be one rule in force and one standard of accountability for everyone on illegal dope use whether you're an E2 or O10.

John - I don't disagree with your assessment that all should be punished for this; the point I want to make is that if a PO1 can get reduced to SR, sent to the brig for 6 months, and then unceremoniously booted then a Captain should receive more punishment then the PO2 before he is booted as well...

I guess Zero tolerance means Zero tolerance... sometimes

Wray...

quote:

Originally posted by Wray:
I guess Zero tolerance means Zero tolerance... sometimes

Wray...

Gee Wray must be a DHS thing; senior management in my local organization can do no wrong either...but the workers? Guilty until proven guilty...

Stan,

The BAH report refers to an outside contractor's report on the COMDT's Office of Civil Rights and it's current Director.

Congress began hearings on that report and the continuing problems within the office and the Civil Rights program within the CG today.

From Coast Guard Report

Rep. Elijah Cummings: Hearing Number Two on Coast Guard Civil Rights

Posted by staff on June 19, 2009

Today’s hearing leaves everyone asking the same question that has been asked for months, why hasn’t Adm. Thad Allen taken any serious steps to correct serious Civil Rights issue at Coast Guard. One is left with but one answer, it’s not a priority for him or his service.

Congressman Elijah Cummings, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Coast Guard opened his second hearing on Allen’s failed Civil Rights Office and its programs by stating the obvious:

* The Booz Allen Hamilton report was simply scathing.
* After subsequent examination that virtually none of these findings was new. Almost all of these criticisms had been identified – sometimes repeatedly – in previous third-party assessments of the Coast Guard civil rights program and in the Coast Guard’s own self-assessments.
* It is frankly past time for the Coast Guard to move to define comprehensive, service-wide diversity objectives and to require each member and unit of the service – including the Academy – to contribute to the achievement of these objectives.

Congressman James Oberstar, Chairman of the full committee on Transportation had this to say today:

* I am profoundly disappointed with the lack of diversity of the incoming Academy class. With all the oversight this Subcommittee has committed to diversification of the student body at the Coast Guard academy, I am shocked that you only have five African Americans entering the class of 2013 and that you only offered two African American students appointments that were coming directly from high school that did not need additional preparation from a preparatory school.

Jack

quote:

Originally posted by Nobodyaskedmebut:
John - I don't disagree with your assessment that all should be punished for this; the point I want to make is that if a PO1 can get reduced to SR, sent to the brig for 6 months, and then unceremoniously booted then a Captain should receive more punishment then the PO2 before he is booted as well...

Tim,

I still think same crime, same punishment is the correct call. Having said that and after thinking about it for a bit...is their a policy/rule that says a commissioned officer can't be reduced in rank? If there is, that might explain a few things. I don't ever recall seeing that in the quarterly G.O. & D. summaries.

John

Well gowyo1, you lose the bet. Teh prosecutor asked for dismissal.

quote:

Originally posted by cgrdcs:
Stan,

The BAH report refers to an outside contractor's report on the COMDT's Office of Civil Rights and it's current Director.

Congress began hearings on that report and the continuing problems within the office and the Civil Rights program within the CG today.

From Coast Guard Report

Rep. Elijah Cummings: Hearing Number Two on Coast Guard Civil Rights

Posted by staff on June 19, 2009

Today’s hearing leaves everyone asking the same question that has been asked for months, why hasn’t Adm. Thad Allen taken any serious steps to correct serious Civil Rights issue at Coast Guard. One is left with but one answer, it’s not a priority for him or his service.

Congressman Elijah Cummings, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Coast Guard opened his second hearing on Allen’s failed Civil Rights Office and its programs by stating the obvious:

* The Booz Allen Hamilton report was simply scathing.
* After subsequent examination that virtually none of these findings was new. Almost all of these criticisms had been identified – sometimes repeatedly – in previous third-party assessments of the Coast Guard civil rights program and in the Coast Guard’s own self-assessments.
* It is frankly past time for the Coast Guard to move to define comprehensive, service-wide diversity objectives and to require each member and unit of the service – including the Academy – to contribute to the achievement of these objectives.

Congressman James Oberstar, Chairman of the full committee on Transportation had this to say today:

* I am profoundly disappointed with the lack of diversity of the incoming Academy class. With all the oversight this Subcommittee has committed to diversification of the student body at the Coast Guard academy, I am shocked that you only have five African Americans entering the class of 2013 and that you only offered two African American students appointments that were coming directly from high school that did not need additional preparation from a preparatory school.

Jack

Jack,

Funny you mention the Coast Guard Report website.....I would be a little careful when referring to it.

After reading your post above, I went and located the BAH Program Review online a little bit ago. I looked at alot of that review and there is alot of info in there. Of note....it specifically identifies the Coast Guard Report website and some of the info/allegations people post on there. From para 2.4 of that review:

quote:

.......the Booz Allen team confirmed that some of the content posted to
the Coast Guard Report blog was false and inaccurate

Unfortunately (IAW the BAH report) some of that bad info/allegations triggered actions and caused some problems for others.

quote:

.....The assertions and allegations contained on the blog site have prompted myriad inquiries and requests for clarification—both internal and external

quote:

Of note is that the Coast Guard Investigative Service conducted an investigation of allegations of wrongdoing against the Director that were contained on the Coast Guard Report blog. Upon completion of the investigation, the Coast Guard Investigative Service cleared the Director of any wrongdoing.

If you haven't done it yet, read that BAH report. It puts everything in perspective. It also makes me wonder if the Congressman's staffers read the whole report.

Lesson for all....be careful what you post (and read) about others on a public forum.....

I don't know if anyone has seen it, but the MCPOCG has put a blog out regarding this very case after reading some of the forums regarding dissatisfaction with the results of the court martial. I certainly sent in my comments regarding the perception that exists and the disparity between officer and enlisted punishments. He does put out some interesting facts, which may help you take a step back to analyze both sides of the issue. However, I certainly feel, based on my experience and observations, that there does exist two standards to some degree. I encourage each of you to read the blog and comment if compelled to do so. Very interesting reading, to say the least.

Hammer48

'Bottom line: a senior officer has been tried and convicted by a general court-martial of drug use. The consequences of conviction, if approved, are severe. The sentence did not include a dismissal, but in that respect the result is consistent with other cases throughout the Coast Guard. The fact that the Coast Guard charged an officer of his seniority and brought him to trial by general court-martial in the public eye shows the seriousness with which his chain of command considered the allegations.

MCPOCG Bowen"

As I read this hastily prepared press release on behalf of the senior leadership of the CG, I was struck by the thought, "when did the MCPOCG become the press officer vice elevator of enlisted concerns?"

Unless we are expected to believe that from the conclusion of the CM (17 June) to the date of posting, the MCPOCG personally conducted a data review of all previous drug cases on his own initiative? The release itself has a quality of talking points, with a neat and tidy 'Bottom Line' list of bullet points I suspect senior leaders and Chiefs in the CG will be expected to repeat like a mantra to ensure continuity of Good Order, vice relying on the appearances.

And it is appearances which I would like to discuss. Appearances and the word 'consistent'. This case should not be statistically normative. This case should be quite exceptional. It should stand well out from any of the previous due to the party involved, the role, and the expectation of the officer's performance and responsibility.

We can't know the details of the obstruction case, but let's look plainly at the issue. Personal Use was shown. Which means one other issue has come into play---did the officer not know he was using? I think it's safe to say he did. Which means we have a Core Values problem, but more than that--we have a dereliction issue. And I would submit we do have an obstruction issue. A CG officer charged with responsibilities directly relating to prosecution of the counter-narc mission had knowledge of drug-use by an officer (himself), and did not come forward, and almost certainly by his omissions engaged in obstruction of justice in doing everything but reporting himself. Which all suggests a pattern of subtle deceit, and, at the very least--Failure to Report.

This is a terrible message. And the anger many enlisted, and officers hold on the results of seeing the member keep his rank, his retirement, losing a mere half month's pay.... when compared against all the things many enlisted & officers have seen, drug related, or not, weight related, alcohol related, 8-H related... There is an involuntarily moral equivalence calculus going on in the minds of all our members, and this release of MCPOCG Bowen's does not quiet it.

TVCJohn

Master Chief,

I posted what the CG Report stated were the remarks of the the Congressmen at Friday's Hearing.
I have not said that I support Coast Guard Report and it's stances on anything. I have seen nothing posted anywhere else on these hearings, but I may not have the sources that you have.
I posted only an answer to EX-GM in response to his question. He is free to make his own investigation and determinations on the information.

However, The US Congress is holding hearing about the Civil Rights Program(s) within the Service that we both have served and in your case continue to serve. WHY.

Jack

SteamShipIS, Well Said!

I'd only substitute the words Core Values with Violation of the UCMJ.

Not the first time the punishment has not fit the standards established for certain types of violations, particularly drugs.

And why do some still think a fine and retirement benefits, are going to garner sympathy or support from the rank and file for doing drugs and violating the UCMJ?

I retired Honorably in lieu of orders, not as part of a "harsh" CM sentence for doing drugs after my 20 yr mark. It belittles retirement, in my humble opinion. What happened to the old mantra "Not In My Coast Guard!"?

quote:

Originally posted by cgrdcs:
TVCJohn

Master Chief,

I posted what the CG Report stated were the remarks of the the Congressmen at Friday's Hearing.
I have not said that I support Coast Guard Report and it's stances on anything. I have seen nothing posted anywhere else on these hearings, but I may not have the sources that you have.
I posted only an answer to EX-GM in response to his question. He is free to make his own investigation and determinations on the information.

However, The US Congress is holding hearing about the Civil Rights Program(s) within the Service that we both have served and in your case continue to serve. WHY.

Jack

Jack,

I was just relaying what the BAH program review uncovered about that site, not so much anything directed towards you. I found on it Google.

John

MC

ON ME.

JACK

what's the latest here?

I've read this thread along with the various blogs on the issue of double standards. What blows me away is how one blog in particular mentioned that the Captain now has a felony conviction. Great I'm sure we all agree he deserves that. Now the question is will this individual be getting retirement benefits despite the fact he committed a felony while on active duty?

What really gets me is the amount of good people who get kicked out for other issues not necessarly a felony crime and I'm sure they felt like they lost everything because they don't have a pension. Like one post had stated How many people did this Captain processed out?

And to think he was convicted of using coke and all he got was a $5000 fine and a letter? Woopdee Do!

If this isn't a double standard or good ol boy network then what do you call it? enquiring minds would like to know.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: retired112008,

For what its worth, a court martial conviction doesnt automatically make anything a felony. Would the Captain have served over a year in prison for use had this been a civilian conviction? If not, then it probably isnt a felony conviction.

Kind of like the chief recently convicted and placed on the sex offender list. Its only for 15 years folks, not the rest of his life. Its a tier I conviction but probably a felony non the less.

T