Jump to content

What's wrong with the Air Force?


Catbox

Recommended Posts

Well, after Wilkerson was released from confinement due to his court martial conviction being set aside by Lt Gen Franklin a woman came forward saying that he was the father of their kid, unbeknown to his wife. That was the factor for the SECAF retiring him as a Major (last grade served honorably).

I’ve read a few CAAF and branch Appellate Court opinions where the appellee was acquitted of the major charge(s) like rape, sexual assault, child pornography, etc. Only to be convicted, and punitively discharged, for minor military offenses such as Art 92 failure to follow a lawful order like failing to register their personal firearm while on base or Art 134 conduct unbecoming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Disco_Nav963 said:

So from the filing Azimuth posted... The two alleged victims then are presumably the accused's children, and the mother in question is the ex-wife who he has an ongoing custody dispute with and who he accuses of trying to alienate the children from him. That is some pretty significant context that is missing from the USA Today story and the quotes in it from the various members of Congress, Don Christensen (the ex-AF prosecutor that tried to railroad Lt Col Wilkerson at Aviano), and the SVCs.

Not a lawyer... But it appears to me that advocates for the ex-wife, including the AF SVCs, are taking advantage of the fact that the news media has a professional standard of not identifying the alleged victims of sex crimes who don't wish to be identified. They in effect counted on the fact that the press would leave the divorce/custody dispute context out of the discussion to try to win a losing case in the court of public opinion. I don't know if the congressional members quoted knew about that context, but Christensen probably does and the SVCs definitely do. And I kind of have a problem with that.

Prosecutors are supposed to have a professional obligation not to "win," but to see that justice is done. i.e. If a prosecutor finds out that they've probably got the wrong guy, or that their office convicted the wrong guy in the past, they have a professional duty to dismiss the charges or seek to have the previous conviction overturned. How does that work with the obligations of an SVC? Obviously an SVC is supposed to be an advocate for the alleged victim... But in an Air Force that allegedly believes in "Integrity First," surely one has an obligation not to make arguments one knows are specious to try to win in the press when you're losing on the law and might lose on the facts. If this is considered "Okay" by the Air Force, then I have a problem with SVCs as a career field just like I have a problem with OSI. 

At least not as worthless as base SAPR coordinator (actual full time position)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Azimuth said:

This recent Air Force case U.S. v. Vargas shows that the SVC conspired with the Senior Trial Cousnel (lead prosecutor) and the NAF/SJA to have a certain military judge removed from a docketed trial because of how he has ruled unfavorably, in their own opinion, in previous sexual assault case. Then the actual military judge who knew about the conspiracy to remove the previous military judge, was the one who did eventually remove the military judge from the case and then presided over the case himself. He then declined to be deposed by defense counsel to be challenged to be removed fro the case due to his person involvement.

Read the whole thing...what the actual fuck?

Edited by 17D_guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

Read the whole thing...what the actual fuck?

That’s the kangaroo court of military justice. Until 2016, the government could use what’s called “propensity evidence.” Which was eluding to the factfinder that you were guilty of a crime because of all of the various crimes you were charged with, not convicted of. Thankfully the CAAF (highest military court of appeals) overruled that practice since it’s blankly violates an accused’s due process.

U.S. vs. Hills

Edited by Azimuth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Disco_Nav963 said:

So from the filing Azimuth posted... The two alleged victims then are presumably the accused's children, and the mother in question is the ex-wife who he has an ongoing custody dispute with and who he accuses of trying to alienate the children from him. That is some pretty significant context that is missing from the USA Today story and the quotes in it from the various members of Congress, Don Christensen (the ex-AF prosecutor that tried to railroad Lt Col Wilkerson at Aviano), and the SVCs.

Not a lawyer... But it appears to me that advocates for the ex-wife, including the AF SVCs, are taking advantage of the fact that the news media has a professional standard of not identifying the alleged victims of sex crimes who don't wish to be identified. They in effect counted on the fact that the press would leave the divorce/custody dispute context out of the discussion to try to win a losing case in the court of public opinion. I don't know if the congressional members quoted knew about that context, but Christensen probably does and the SVCs definitely do. And I kind of have a problem with that.

Prosecutors are supposed to have a professional obligation not to "win," but to see that justice is done. i.e. If a prosecutor finds out that they've probably got the wrong guy, or that their office convicted the wrong guy in the past, they have a professional duty to dismiss the charges or seek to have the previous conviction overturned. How does that work with the obligations of an SVC? Obviously an SVC is supposed to be an advocate for the alleged victim... But in an Air Force that allegedly believes in "Integrity First," surely one has an obligation not to make arguments one knows are specious to try to win in the press when you're losing on the law and might lose on the facts. If this is considered "Okay" by the Air Force, then I have a problem with SVCs as a career field just like I have a problem with OSI. 

An SVC is supposed to advise their client of their legal rights, however there has been evidence via case law and appellate opinions that have documented SVC’s concealing evidence from the government (which would subsequently require the government to turn over to the defense via discovery), conspire with the government with trial strategy during the court martial, and other unethical actions that are way outside their charged duties. In my case my accuser’s SVC wanted to observe my accuser work with OSI to wire tap me during a phone call while I was deployed. Thankfully I received some life saving advice on how not to fall into that biased law enforcement trap.

At the end of the day court martial convictions and victim saving are OPR bullets for trial counsel and SVC’s, not acquittals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Guardian said:

Sorry. Having a little trouble following what we are talking about. What’s going on?

General Court Martial Convening Authority (2 star in command of AF District of Washington) did his job and opted not to refer a weak sex assault case for an Article 32 hearing. Outside advocacy org of SJWs then data-dumped a one-sided version of the case, including the accused's name/rank/assignment/age/photo, to Congress and outside media to basically ruin his reputation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Disco_Nav963 said:

c. Huge freaking "2" on Christensen being a POS. Now, I strongly suspect Wilkerson was guilty of some kind of collateral misconduct under the UCMJ (i.e. adultery and/or swinging), but the AF couldn't prove that to save their lives, and Wilkerson/Mrs. Wilkerson obviously had a disincentive not to admit to it in their defense because to do so would risk his membership in the check of the month club. Doesn't excuse blatant prosecutorial misconduct. Gen. Franklin is one of my all-time heroes for doing the right thing then and falling on his sword in 2013 on another case.

The fact that so many people, after so much information about this case has been released, still feel this way is incomprehensible to me. Wilkerson had been 100% proven to lie under oath on numerous occasions before and after the trial. He was a proven liar with serious character flaws. I understand doubting the victim in certain circumstances, especially with inconsistencies with the story, but at some point logic dictates that the victim's narrative has more weight than Wilkerson's. Now, with all the additional information that has surfaced about Wilkerson's history of lying under oath, him secretly having another family that he apparently didn't support, once looking into the stall to watch a subordinate's wife urinate in a restroom, and multiple Air Force officers testifying under oath that Wilkerson had serious character flaw... how can you still think that the Air Force was trying to "railroad" Wilkerson? You say the Air Force couldn't prove that Wilkerson was guilty, yet a jury of his peers found him guilty. Do you understand a victim's testimony is evidence?

I get that sometimes people naturally want to give me the benefit of the doubt, but this is too far unless if you think there is some type of conspiracy. Then, to double down and say that Gen. Franklin did the right thing by overturning a conviction and letting a lying sex offender out on the streets shows a lack of understanding on why Congress had to get involved (which only made matters worse). I understand being on Wilkerson's side at the beginning, but now that all the facts are surfaced, it is a shame that anyone in the Air Force still support this guy.    

 

Azimuth,

You have often been a great resource on this forum. When I was enlisted trying to commission you even gave me some great advice that I think helped me get on track...

I don't want to get personal, but you bring up your situation often on the forum. Bottom line, if you have a relationship with a subordinate Airman when you are a SNCO or commit adultery, you shouldn't be surprised if the Air Force kicks you out. You are not a victim. I honestly believe your narrative and you very well could have been falsely accused. It doesn't help your narrative when every time there is a headline in the news about sexual assault in the Air Force, your automatic position is the victim is lying and the Air Force is conspiring. This is especially troubling in very clear cases like the Wilkerson case.

 

Full disclosure, this is a topic that is personal to me and I maybe somewhat biased. I had an Airman that I supervised that was raped and I went through the process trying to be an advocate to her as much as I could. When she told me and we had to make the report, it left a lasting impact on me. Then I had to watch her deal with people in the Squadron whispering. Even after the rapist apologized in the court 18 months later, certain people in our community still spread rumors about her lying. It has been almost 15 years later and this situation is always in the back of my mind when situations like this get public attention.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, one1 said:

The fact that so many people, after so much information about this case has been released, still feel this way is incomprehensible to me. Wilkerson had been 100% proven to lie under oath on numerous occasions before and after the trial. He was a proven liar with serious character flaws. I understand doubting the victim in certain circumstances, especially with inconsistencies with the story, but at some point logic dictates that the victim's narrative has more weight than Wilkerson's. Now, with all the additional information that has surfaced about Wilkerson's history of lying under oath, him secretly having another family that he apparently didn't support, once looking into the stall to watch a subordinate's wife urinate in a restroom, and multiple Air Force officers testifying under oath that Wilkerson had serious character flaw... how can you still think that the Air Force was trying to "railroad" Wilkerson? You say the Air Force couldn't prove that Wilkerson was guilty, yet a jury of his peers found him guilty. Do you understand a victim's testimony is evidence?

 

 

 

The fact that you uncritically repeat the "once looking into the stall to watch a subordinate's wife urinate in a restroom" story tells me you don't know what you're talking about. Read the trial record and the clemency package, then come back and we'll talk.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Disco_Nav963 said:

The fact that you uncritically repeat the "once looking into the stall to watch a subordinate's wife urinate in a restroom" story tells me you don't know what you're talking about. Read the trial record and the clemency package, then come back and we'll talk.

I've read every piece of the FOIA and listened to all of the OSI audio as a part of an effort to outline what happened for a non-profit I support. To me, the clemency package didn't illustrate anything other than Wilkerson had many friends. What I took note from the trial were the people that wouldn't have any reason to be for or against Wilkerson that made statements against his character. This includes the emails and testimony of a Colonel and Captain that both observed Wilkerson doing questionable things that bothered them. They had contemporaneous notes that documented some of this. One of those things being Wilkerson peeping on a subordinate's wife in the bathroom. Multiple people, even one person that wrote a letter to support Wilkerson's clemency package confirmed that he did do this. I am not sure if that is normal to you or not, but I find that to be very indicative of someone who has questionable judgment. I know that the clemency letters try to explain away the incident, but did you read Wilkerson's own recollection of the incident or the other people that were questioned?

 

I support an organization called Protect our Defenders and helped put this together... https://www.protectourdefenders.com/point-by-point-rebuttal-of-gen-franklins-18-reasons-for-overturning-col-wilkersons-sexual-assault-conviction/

 

Christensen is a member of the non-profit along with Col Jensen. I don't know either of them personally but I promise you that their goal isn't to frame innocent officers of heinous sex crimes. 

 

If you can read the above link knowing that Wilkerson repeatedly lied under oath, lied on his SF86, didn't support his son, and had a history of misconduct... and still believe that Wilkerson was in your own terms, railroaded... I don't know how to reason with you. On top of everything, the jury actually in the court found him guilty. Maybe you would believe the victim if you knew her or actually sat on the jury yourself. At the simplest level, you can either believe a proven liar's testimony or the victim's.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by one1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all know what Protect Our Defenders is and what their agenda is. I take back what I said, you are familiar with the record... You are just following after Christensen in disingenuously misrepresenting what the "bathroom incident" was, just like he trotted out stories about a piano burn and fighter pilot songs to scare a panel full of MDG officers.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Fuzz said:

Hey I’m just glad to see that the B-52 program is so squared away that this guy can spend all of his time on scraping pennies worth of care package garbage from the dark corners of Al Udeid to help out the USG’s underpaid indentured workers.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jaded said:

I wish there was a way to educate cadets about how the military justice system actually works. They have a right to know what they're getting themselves into. 

Yeah. Stupid college students that don't know how to do research and stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Homestar said:

Yeah. Stupid college students that don't know how to do research and stuff.

There’s “this is how it works” in theory and “this is what actually happens” in practice. The latter being what should be told to young Airmen and Cadets.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Air Force Cuts Pilot Training by 5 Weeks

https://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Air-Force-cuts-pilot-training-by-5-weeks-13040570.php

"Several veteran instructor pilots, speaking on condition they not be identified because of possible retribution, expressed concern that the syllabus makeover is too much, too fast, and could lead to unintended and even deadly consequences."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AMCs “Fly only track” but only for DV platforms, because that’s where we are short on experienced aviators. Just when I thought AMC was at least on a good trajectory they pull this shit.
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2018/August 2018/Mobility-Boom.aspx
 

Weren’t they already a fly-only track with O-4 Snackos and O-5s sitting the scheduling desk?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AMCs “Fly only track” but only for DV platforms, because that’s where we are short on experienced aviators. Just when I thought AMC was at least on a good trajectory they pull this shit.
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2018/August 2018/Mobility-Boom.aspx
 


I had hopes for that initiative too. I can’t really think of a good reason to restrict “fly only” pilots to VIPSAM and keep that talent from the operational MAF.

To be fair, the article also says, “Or, the pilots could become instructors.” If they include the FTU in that category, then at least it’s somewhat viable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, HarleyQuinn said:

Air Force Cuts Pilot Training by 5 Weeks

https://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Air-Force-cuts-pilot-training-by-5-weeks-13040570.php

"Several veteran instructor pilots, speaking on condition they not be identified because of possible retribution, expressed concern that the syllabus makeover is too much, too fast, and could lead to unintended and even deadly consequences."

Link won't go beyond the first sentence for those without subscriptions.

And it wasn't just Veteran pilots who were pissed about it.  The new syllabus has a lot of good chances in it but also a lot of stupid things.  Like the fact that the students aren't taught how to fly ELP's (engine out procedures) anymore.  But hey it's air education and TIMELINE command

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both syllabus changes were accomplished for the sole reason of reducing timeline.  The claim is using the timeline crunch to make "improvements" to training is just leadership continuing to lie to themselves so that when they retire and transition to airlines they can still sleep at night.   If these changes were legitimate we would have had at a minimum several control groups and a study case or two of classes before we whole sale threw out the old syllabus in its entirety for this new abomination.  For what its worth the PIT change is far less dangerous, so at least our instructors will continue to stink at roughly the same level.  The UPT syllabus is an abomination however, and I think we will see people die as a direct result in the next 5-10 years.  The problem is by then they wont be able to identify the root cause, and our instructor force will drop in quality as those guys show up to an already reduced PIT training syllabus.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DirtyFlightSuit said:

Both syllabus changes were accomplished for the sole reason of reducing timeline.  The claim is using the timeline crunch to make "improvements" to training is just leadership continuing to lie to themselves so that when they retire and transition to airlines they can still sleep at night.   If these changes were legitimate we would have had at a minimum several control groups and a study case or two of classes before we whole sale threw out the old syllabus in its entirety for this new abomination.

This.

On a side note, what did they change about PIT?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...