WTF? Not even gonna touch this....

Sues who? The Government? The Navy?

She won't get far if that is what you are talking about. This kind of thing happens often. Usually a command may get a congressional inquiry or if it's a slow news day, she may get some minor media attention (doubtful, but it has happened). She might also go to your command's superiors. Basically, it will be a paperwork drill for you. What you knew, when you knew it and what you did about it.

If it is a known fact at this point, depending on the exact circumstances, the command at the very least has hopefully or will hopefully in the near future, do a written counseling and order him to cease and desist.

OPNAVINST 5370 .2C

OPNAVINST 5354 .1E

SECNAVINST 5300.26D

U.S. Navy Regulations, 1990

How much more clear does the Navy have to make it?

Reduction in rank, Forfeiture of pay, restriction to quarters, reassignment.

Sounds like a reasonable consequence to me for two knowledgeable, seasoned members of the United States Navy.

It all falls under the UCMJ.

Regards,
Carl M. PLoense III

what a dirtbag, insert divorce here.

quote:

Originally posted by DESTROY:
what a dirtbag, insert divorce here.

Such language even though all opinions are welcomed.

quote:

Originally posted by SeptemberSapphire:
I'm not sure where to start this, so I'll try to keep it short. The story involves a newly minted chief....

You answered your own question in the very 1st sentence. It's a Story... Nothing more.

My own views is that you are getting involved in an area that you don't need to be. The Chief and his wife will need to get help, either marriage, legal, or whatever... But it's their problem, not yours.

I truly hope the Chief wasn't doing this, however, you are spreading doubt that is like a cancer effect on everyone. Let them work the issues, if this lady needs help, then provide her shelter. Bottomline, you're in an area that you shouldn't be.

Sorry to be so hardlined, but I've had people who use to work for me that were in this same very thing. However, most, not all, were very true & honest to their spouse. Then someone comes along and plants a seed in their heads. My own feeling is the one spreading the garbage is probably having marriage problems, and just wants to spread the wealth (Misery love company).

Nice hammer and nail 93Corvette.

My apologies to those who got upset, offended or otherwise, made to feel uncomfortable, it wasn't my intention.

For the record? This isn't a story, it was confirmed through eyewitnesses, emails, phone records and so on. He was seen by a group of us with the E5 in question, during drill weekend, they stayed together in the same berthing space (hotel.)

It's still in court now, we were just trying our best to stay neutral, that's all. The outcome of it, they are now divorced, she got him in the wallet hard, it's kind of being handled internally, but the E5 who was hoping to transfer to the same drill site as the Chief, wasn't let in and Chief will retire sometime this year.

I was asking for opinions, thank you everyone.

quote:

Originally posted by comm:
OPNAVINST 5370 .2C

OPNAVINST 5354 .1E

SECNAVINST 5300.26D

U.S. Navy Regulations, 1990

How much more clear does the Navy have to make it?

Reduction in rank, Forfeiture of pay, restriction to quarters, reassignment.

Sounds like a reasonable consequence to me for two knowledgeable, seasoned members of the United States Navy.

It all falls under the UCMJ.

Regards,
Carl M. PLoense III

Thank you for all YOUR help and opinions, Carl, I agree that "seasoned" members should know all of this, but it was their impulsive choice. Again, thank you.

I thought it a year ago when I first read it, now I'll say it out loud seeing it has come up again. This is a case for Jerry Springer, Judge Judy, or GeeRaaaaaldo, NOT a topic for the "Goat Locker."

With all due respect Senior Chief as one of the offenders is a Chief it does belong here.

It is a shame when a member of a leadership community behaves in such a way as to bring dishonor on himself. It makes it harder for those who do follow the rules and lead by example. Because of the failings of the few all become suspect.

Fraternization policies should be more vigorously enforced. Their lax application only leads to problems that are counter to the good order and discipline of any military unit.

It is the "Jerry Springer" behavior on the part of otherwise responsible adults that degrades the service.

regards,
Carl M. Ploense III

How about the OP minding their own business.
The chief's actions are his own doing.
The chief's problems are his own also.

Shockey

Petty Officer,

Could you use that logic regarding striking a superior officer? What about ilicit drug use?

When in uniform everything you do is no longer just "your own doing", When your problems involve another in uniform they are no longer just "his own problems".

In a prior post I spelled out the Navy's stand on fraternization.

That is really all that needs to be said on the subject. Let the JAG corps handle the rest. IMHO Reduction by one pay grade each, forfeiture pay x 6 months.

That should send a serious message throughout that unit.

Otherwise there will be a breakdown in discipline. If you use the "personal business" approach what is to stop a SR from showing up late every day? After all he was just doing some personal business. Nobody has a right to ask.

I am pretty sure that the divorce will create enough personal problems that will spill over into the military realm so as to disrupt good order and discipline.

regards,
Carl M. Ploense III

THe trouble with this issue is that for the most part the Navy has chose to ignore it or at least look the other way.

I taught A school in the early 80's we had student marrying each other ever other week it seemed. The "attitude" was that despite the fact they were most definetley in the same command that it was ok because they were students and the same paygrade. Some would say that because that because of all the "incentives" involved the Navy encoraged this to happen. Two students got married and overnight they are out of the barracks both getting BAQ living a more "normal" life no one could argue that the "quality of life" was far better. When it came time for orders due to "spouse colocation" it often translated into both having overseas shore duty that at least the male involved would have never gotten otherwise.

There were also a handful of cases of instructors (all male) marrying students. A definite no but in every case when it happened "they" always found a way to say it was "OK" Typically what would happen is the female involved would graduate in Friday and then get married to the instructor involved the next day on Saturday. Once they graduated they were "technically" not students anymore so it was then viewed as being "OK". "they" all chose to stick there heads in the sand and believe that nothing had been going on prior.

I am quite sure that had "they" chose to do so it would have been easy to prove there was.

I mean really unless you were born on the midwatch you are not going to believe that you meet your future wife ON YOUR WEDDING DAY.

So rather than hammer the first one or two that did it they swept it under the rug and we then had more.

Probably some of that going in this situation or around this situation.

make that early 90's

I recall some of this as well.

What was happening in a lot of cases during the 1980's as well was two Sailors would get married in order to collect BAQ and VHA as well as any benefits for being geo-bachelors/bachelorettes and then after they both got out quietly meeting up, getting a divorce, and moving on. That was part of the reason the Navy decided to only allow the senior person in the marriage to get VHA after a certain point.

Going back to the comment Shockey made, yes it is true the Chief's problems are his own doing, but his actions have a direct impact on good order and discipline in the command. His actions affected everyone in the command, especially anyone with first-hand knowledge of the situation and a) did not say something for whatever reason and b) were called to testify in the civil proceedings that led up to the dissolution of the marriage. In theory it is very easy to "rat someone out" but in fact it is hard to do so, especially when you know them.

Given the date of the OP in this thread, and the fact the Chief in question was an FY07 selectee, it is entirely possible he is not going to retire as a Chief. After all, according to the MILPERSMAN and the BUPERSINST 1001.39 series when I retired, you have to serve two years time in rate from the date of advancement to keep that rate for retirement. If his date of rate was 16SEPT06, no problem. If his date of rate was 16MAR07, then there is a problem.

Boats

The geo batchelor "scam" that I remember from the 90's that they did eventually fix was the one whereby a guy who had a kid, maybe from before he joined the Navy with his HS sweetheart back in home town USA or some GF he had in San Diego or Norfolk, the guy lived in the barracks or onboard a ship but because he "theoretically" payed child support to who ever he got BAQ and VHA at the with dependants rate. Depending on where you were at that amount could be well over 1000 dollars a month but depending on the deal the guy had he might be paying something like 500 dollars a month, maybe less depending on where the kid lived and how good or bad the two lawyers involved were.


He got to keep the rest. The eventual fix was that someone like this only got the amount of the child support.

As far as the TIR issue, it all depends on how bad the Navy wants to get rid of the guy from a downsizing angle, something we are doing still depending on the rates involved.

At the small SIMA I was at in to late 90's I remember that it seemed like every other month we would have some guy, more often than not E-7 and above show up and pretty much as soon as he was done checking in he would be putting in for retirement, normally about 12 months later.

Despite the fact that the guy had enough time on the books or had OBLISERVED enough time to complete at least 2 if not three years of this shore tour. In every case the BUPERS always said yes.

To add insult to injury then these guys, especially if they were TARS, which we had a lot of would then typically put in for and have approved to go TAD for 6 months to some reserve center close to where the were going to retire at. Everybody knew these guys were going to do little more than check in there and then call in about once a month or whatever, when you followed that with, depending on the time of year 60-90 days of terminal leave you ended up with a situation where a guy showed up at the command,put in for retirement and then was gone for pretty much the rest of the time he had in the Navy.

quote:

Petty Officer,

Could you use that logic regarding striking a superior officer? What about ilicit drug use?
Dont change the subject
When in uniform everything you do is no longer just "your own doing", When your problems involve another in uniform they are no longer just "his own problems".
True but that don't make it your business

In a prior post I spelled out the Navy's stand on fraternization.

That is really all that needs to be said on the subject. Let the JAG corps handle the rest. IMHO Reduction by one pay grade each, forfeiture pay x 6 months.
That is between the Navy and the people involved. Not your business
That should send a serious message throughout that unit.
Again, sending messages thruout the command, Not your business
Otherwise there will be a breakdown in discipline. If you use the "personal business" approach what is to stop a SR from showing up late every day? After all he was just doing some personal business. Nobody has a right to ask.
Late everyday is between the SR and the command. The reasons for it are not your business
I am pretty sure that the divorce will create enough personal problems that will spill over into the military realm so as to disrupt good order and discipline.

Not in your little world, unless you decide to stick your nose into the others business

Shockey