[QUOTE]Not all of us are raised with the exact same ideas of right, wrong, integrity, or honor.[/QUOTE]

You're speaking moral relativity here, a concept explicitly rejected by the USAF in many publications.

You missed the point of Shep's post.

People come from different backgrounds. An individual may have thought his actions acceptable before joining, but after the relevant training and indoctrination, realizes they were not (according to the AF core values). You propose punishing an individual for acting the way he has been trained to act.

What does the individual do at that moment of clarity: "Holy s***. I did something wrong, and only I know about it. I can do the right thing, come clean, and possibly be punished, or I can keep my mouth shut, compromise my integrity, and maybe not get anyone killed."

Because in the end, it's not about 2ndLt Shmuck's values, it's about as many people possible coming home alive. That's why those core values exist in the first place.

One last parting shot: How many more people do you think would choose option B above, simply because they knew their career would end right then and there?

P.S. This is a slippery slope argument. You need to do better to convince me.

Thanks Unit.

And Arc, when I said you were being ignorant, I was referring to this statement:

His strategy is quite obvious: he was thinking, "I'll lie on my contract and then do really, really well for the next few years, and then come clean. By this time they'll recognize my value and hopefully won't kick me out."

I mean, really? Are you omnipotent or something? You have absolutely no idea what this guy was thinking. And to state your speculation as fact is exactly the ignorance I was talking about. That said, I think we can both agree on the fact that, yes, some punishment should be laid down. But you should not remove a cadet from the program and end a life long dream for displaying the courage to demostrate learned integrity and admit a mistake.

So do you believe there should be any penalty at all for what he did?

Personally I think there should be a penalty....if he had been caught. Had he been caught I'd agree with him getting kicked out.

But when he turns himself in that merits, in my opinion, a lecture on integrity and then kudos for demonstrating it. That's my idea of a training environment for cadets. As an officer it's another story. Training is over once you wear the bars.

I spoke with a few senior NCOs about it today and most thought he should be kicked out, or at the very least lose his pilot slot. One was a former recruiter who told me that smoking pot once or twice matters little to the AF... what matters to the AF, he said, was whether he would lie on a signed contract. He had nothing to worry about originally, but he decided to lie instead. There has to be some penalty.

Like I said, enlisted guys get far worse penalties for far lesser offenses. And this guy wants to be an officer, and a pilot?

A new post was posted in a forum you were tracking. To post a response simply respond to this email--there is no need to go to the forum. Realize your entire email response will be in the post including anything your email provider appends to your email. Please ensure the token that looks something like (uetope3n-48n4-85uq-o267-j9k9wp7891) stays in the subject line else your response will be a new thread.

Arcane Posted:05 Aug 2008 12:42 AM

Subject: RE: Should a Cadet Be Kicked Out For Admitting Smoking Weed? I spoke with a few senior NCOs about it today and most thought he should be kicked out, or at the very least lose his pilot slot. One was a former recruiter who told me that smoking pot once or twice matters little to the AF... what matters to the AF, he said, was whether he would lie on a signed contract. He had nothing to worry about originally, but he decided to lie instead. There has to be some penalty. Like I said, enlisted guys get far worse penalties for far lesser offenses. And this guy wants to be an officer, and a pilot?

---

To view the complete thread and reply, please visit: http://www.wantscheck.org/fontcolor...fault.aspx

Thank you,
Team WantsCheck

So what about all the enlisted folks that are currently going through training and are assigned to AETC? Would you apply the same logic to them if they came clean and admitted they lied on their contract?

It really depends on what we are arguing. I mean, is there a rule? If this happened right now, whose decision would it be? Your commanding officer, or some rulebook?

No Arcane, there doesn't HAVE to be a punishment. People get so caught up in rules and fairness and say things like that--many times, a punishment is necessary, but not always. People don't learn only from being punished--in fact, in many ways that person, if they come clean, has already been punishing themselves for years. Sheppard may not have said this directly, but he made the point that if you were to bust everyone on the premises of "you lied, here's your punishment, get out", you would lose thousands of amazing officers. This officer had the integrity to put himself on the line, and fess up. That takes courage, and integrity. I'm not saying make a trend out of it, and everyone who comes clean is off the hook--but it should at least be decided by the commanding officer, and not some rulebook. It is as important to me, if not more, that the man would fess up as well as lie. Also, knowing that guy could fight that fear and do what he was trained to do and what he believed was right, makes me know that he will make the right decision in the future for a fact.



You just apply

So what do you say to the tens of thousands of officers and enlisted personnel who were kicked out for doing nothing more than being in an overmanned career field? They would be furious at this guy. Is this fair to them?

I'm still waiting for everybody's response to my question concerning enlisted personnel in training.

Oh, and one more thing. The AF would ask how much pot did he smoke... Was it once, twice, a dozen times, two dozen? And when was the last time he smoked it... back in high school or while in college? And when did he have this burst of integrity... was it while filling out an SF 86, or was it like a week before he was due to commission?

The answers to those questions tells you a lot and makes it a lot easier to decide whether the guy should stay in or keep his slot.

Since the UCMJ was brought up, I decided to pick up a copy of my MCM from my desk and see what it had to say about this. Under punitive articles, Article 83 is specifically for a case such as this and is a mandatory court martial. The maximum allowable punishment is as follows: "Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years."

The guy should consider himself lucky if getting kicked out of ROTC is the worst that happens to him. Very lucky.

What do you say to the officers and enlisted personnel who were kicked out for overmanning? Nothing. Two different issues. Fairness isn't an issue.

Enlisted personnel in training should have similiar leeway when in training assuming their mission is to teach morality/ethics.

You mention the UCMJ as though that may be a feather in your argument. What does your MCM say is the penalty for having a chick go down on you (for example, your wife)? Apparently that's illegal according to the UCMJ. Doesn't mean that rule is right or just does it? Or as the morally black & white person that you seem to represent yourself as...I assume you won't allow the wife to give you a little post-deployment skull? Since you point out that many Air Force publications explicitly reject "moral relativism" I assume you are of this mindset. I remember having a field training commander Bomber pilot Lt Col Heck that used to bring that up at field training. "There is no moral relativism...it's all black and white." He was a moron. Not just because he was wrong about moral relatavism but for other reasons too. The very nature of morality is relative. It's completely relative. Regardless of one's view on moral relativism, however, man makes rules and sometimes those rules are just wrong. The UCMJ isn't infallible.

I do think this is about fairness to an extent, because it's demeaning to all of those who have done nothing wrong and can't get a slot because of circumstances beyond their control. This individual did wrong and still wants to get away with the cookies. It is true that morality is something that is taught, to an extent, but it says right there on the contract that he swears that he's telling the truth. He lied about his drug use, which I don't understand because that's something that doesn't even require a waiver if the person only smoked pot once or twice.

You certainly do bring up an interesting argument concerning article 125. In this case, like all cases, we are informed by judicial precedent. This article is used primarily in cases involving sex with a minor, fraternization, homosexuality, and rape. It is sometimes used in conjunction with other articles and is becoming more and more rarely applied. In fact, there is a possibility in light of a recent Supreme Court decision that this article will be eliminated entirely due to the discriminatory nature in which it is applied... ie, applied only to homosexuals or in conjunction with other charges like disobeying a standing order of no sex in a military barracks or violating General Order No. One in the AOR.

With this, fraudulent enlistment, these is practically no controversy about what it entails. I don't think that these two are comparable.

Your argument is valid, though, and I do not reject it. This is certainly one aspect that is questionable about the UCMJ and one that is very controversial.

On a personal level I do see the world in shades of gray, not black and white, but I am duty bound to follow all kinds of regulations that I disagree with. Neither you or I have the power to make the determination as to which regulations to follow and which to ignore. There are very few people with that power in the military and rightfully so.

Tell me, as aircrew, how would you feel about maintainers who work on your airplane seeing their tech data in shades of gray, picking and choosing which work steps, Warning and Caution notes to obey and not obey? In maintenance it is necessary to look at the world in shades of black and white. I would hope the same would apply for your organization and its regulations, as well.

A new post was posted in a forum you were tracking. To post a response simply respond to this email--there is no need to go to the forum. Realize your entire email response will be in the post including anything your email provider appends to your email. Please ensure the token that looks something like (uetope3n-48n4-85uq-o267-j9k9wp7891) stays in the subject line else your response will be a new thread.

Arcane Posted:07 Aug 2008 4:41 AM

Subject: RE: Should a Cadet Be Kicked Out For Admitting Smoking Weed? I do think this is about fairness to an extent, because it's demeaning to all of those who have done nothing wrong and can't get a slot because of circumstances beyond their control. This individual did wrong and still wants to get away with the cookies. It is true that morality is something that is taught, to an extent, but it says right there on the contract that he swears that he's telling the truth. He lied about his drug use, which I don't understand because that's something that doesn't even require a waiver if the person only smoked pot once or twice. You certainly do bring up an interesting argument concerning article 125. In this case, like all cases, we are informed by judicial precedent. This article is used primarily in cases involving sex with a minor, fraternization, homosexuality, and rape. It is sometimes used in conjunction with other articles and is becoming more and more rarely applied. In fact, there is a possibility in light of a recent Supreme Court decision that this article will be eliminated entirely due to the discriminatory nature in which it is applied... ie, applied only to homosexuals or in conjunction with other charges like disobeying a standing order of no sex in a military barracks or violating General Order No. One in the AOR. With this, fraudulent enlistment, these is practically no controversy about what it entails. I don't think that these two are comparable. Your argument is valid, though, and I do not reject it. This is certainly one aspect that is questionable about the UCMJ and one that is very controversial. On a personal level I do see the world in shades of gray, not black and white, but I am duty bound to follow all kinds of regulations that I disagree with. Neither you or I have the power to make the determination as to which regulations to follow and which to ignore. There are very few people with that power in the military and rightfully so. Tell me, as aircrew, how would you feel about maintainers who work on your airplane seeing their tech data in shades of gray, picking and choosing which work steps, Warning and Caution notes to obey and not obey? In maintenance it is necessary to look at the world in shades of black and white. I would hope the same would apply for your organization and its regulations, as well.

---

To view the complete thread and reply, please visit: http://www.wantscheck.org/fontcolor...fault.aspx

Thank you,
Team WantsCheck

=

To piggy back on what Ryno is saying, if everyone was a staunch "black and white" rule follower, as Arc is suggesting, how would we ever make progress in the military or in the world for that matter? Rules are created by who? Man. And guess what... man is an imperfect being that makes many mistakes. Some of the greatest decisions made in the history of our military and in the history of the world were made by people who stood up against rules that were flawed. Where would we be if people like Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, and the Forefathers of our country would have said, "Welp, rules is rules... we better just follow them."

In fact, one of the things they teach in officer training is dissent. The military itself recognizes in its training that it is a fallible organization with fallible leaders, and part of being a good officer is knowing (just like Ryno was saying) which rules/orders to follow and which not to.

I wanted to bump this thread because it's one where Shep agrees with something I said so it should be toward the top.

Whoa, I just got a shiver down my spine reading that thread. Me... agree with Ryno?!