What's wrong with the Air Force?

[Guest]

Don't do Blue.  There are no upsides, but there are plenty of potentially negative consequences.

[Azimuth]

3 hours ago, LumberjackAxe said:

Azimuth... Damn dude, that's a whack story.

But seriously, I hope you posting all this in public forums doesn't come back to bite you in the ass. I saw you dropped ranks and names in that reddit post... I too like to live a risky lifestyle, but whew... I hope no one comes running back at you with a defamation or libel lawsuit or anything else that would make your life miserable!

Thanks for your service, thanks for sharing your story and being so candid about getting boned by the AF, and I hope whatever new career you have treats you better! Stay thirsty my friend.

Here's a quote I heard from a JAG.

"I don't go up and tell pilots how to fly when I'm a passenger, I don't know why they keep telling me how to interpret the law."

So here's how libel and slander works.  If I post your OSI interview video, where it's you talking, and then I post your sworn statements showing you lied, you can't be sued for libel or slander.  Why?  You would have the burden of proof to show that for one what I said was a lie (good luck) and then you'd have to proof how it defamed your character.  You gave up the privacy stuff when you made those statements and you made those interviews.  I didn't force you to do that.

Now if you'd like to "open the door" and take me to civil court over this then all of your lies are now admissible.  And there aren't silly rules like Military Rule of Evidence 412 (Military version of the rape shield law) to potentially prevent evidence from coming in, like in a court martial.

[Azimuth]

2 hours ago, ihtfp06 said:

Don't do Blue.  There are no upsides, but there are plenty of potentially negative consequences.

I mean at the time it was fun!

[Disco_Nav963]

Can someone fill me in on what constitutes an unprofessional relationship in a UCMJ sense? An E-7 & an airman they don't supervise counts? If I had bagged a Major from the Med Group when I was a 1LT because maybe I liked cougars at the time, would that have been illegal? Very confused.

[waveshaper]

19 minutes ago, Disco_Nav963 said:

Can someone fill me in on what constitutes an unprofessional relationship in a UCMJ sense? An E-7 & an airman they don't supervise counts? If I had bagged a Major from the Med Group when I was a 1LT because maybe I liked cougars at the time, would that have been illegal? Very confused.

Back in the good ole days (30/40 years ago) these type things would've been handled by my unit bar/kangaroo court (all enlisted/no females).   Charges would've been levied and you would've had a chance to plead your case before being judged/convicted/fined or cleared of all charges. Examples;

- Enlisted banging enlisted: Back in my day this was frowned upon (at least in my AFSC) and you would've been convicted and fined 5 to 10 rounds of cheer.

- Enlisted banging officer: If you were charged with this crime you would not be convicted "ever". Whoever brought these charges against you for this crime would've been convicted for being a clueless dumb ass and fined at least 10 rounds of cheer and placed on standby (No Drinking) for a minimum of two weeks.

[Azimuth]

1 hour ago, Disco_Nav963 said:

Can someone fill me in on what constitutes an unprofessional relationship in a UCMJ sense? An E-7 & an airman they don't supervise counts? If I had bagged a Major from the Med Group when I was a 1LT because maybe I liked cougars at the time, would that have been illegal? Very confused.

Enlisted can't be charged with Art 133 Conduct Unbecoming and Art 134 Fraternization (well just the Air Force, the Navy/Marines can charge their Enlisted with Art 134).  There are three subsections of Article 92:

1 - Violation or failure to obey a lawful general order or regulation.

2 - Violation or failure to obey a lawful order.

3 - Dereliction of duty.  The accused should have known, or reasonably of known, his duty via a treaty, statue, regulation, lawful order, standard operating procedure, or custom of the service.

I didn't technically violate AFI 36-2909 (not the AETC sup one) because I wasn't their direct supervisor, they weren't even in my flight.  Also the AFI states that refer of charges to a court martial shouldn't be done unless it's an extreme case...so you were told multiple times to stop your relationship, received paperwork/Art 15, and continued it anyway.  Also least punitive means should be used to terminate the relationships (which we had terminated ourselves years prior).

I think at the end of the day the panel members just couldn't get over the fact a MSgt was fucking a SSgt and a Amn due to the rank disparity.  I honestly believe that had I been a SSgt, I wouldn't of been found guilty, or possibly even charged, with Art 92(3) Dereliction of Duty.  But I'll never know.

[GlassEmpty]

A caution: Please be careful how much info you tell about these other people in a public internet forum.  Right or wrong, it wouldn't be difficult for an average joe to figure out exactly who all of them are with what you've given...yourself included. (for example, no need to tell who's a swinger and who does camera porn...completely irrelevant to your story).  I know it's your freedom of speech right to do so, but we also have a moral responsibility.  Please don't disregard that.

I think it is valid. The SSgt slept with the TSgt all in the same timeline. Being in the military, being a swinger is irrelevant. SSgt and TSgt are just as guilty of violating the UCMJ. The value of the SO that does Cam Porn is relevant if you've read the other posts and tie his connection to that members security clearance.

Lastly, this attempt was clearly to go nuclear to hold the the system accountable across the board. Az never posted this here, only responded. These posts seem pretty calculated.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ThreeHoler]

At least you're not a felon for being 6 minutes late...

https://www.nj.com/burlington/index.ssf/2017/06/i_am_a_felon_for_being_6_minutes_late_to_a_meeting.html

[Azimuth]

21 minutes ago, ThreeHoler said:

At least you're not a felon for being 6 minutes late...

https://www.nj.com/burlington/index.ssf/2017/06/i_am_a_felon_for_being_6_minutes_late_to_a_meeting.html
 

He isn't either. A court martial is neither a felony or misdeameanor. Depends on the state he decides to live in after. Most consider confinement for more than a year as a felony. However he was convicted for Failure to Go, a military related only offense. Most civilian employers won't care, if a background check even finds it.

[Runr6730]

5 hours ago, Azimuth said:

Here's a quote I heard from a JAG.

"I don't go up and tell pilots how to fly when I'm a passenger, I don't know why they keep telling me how to interpret the law."

So here's how libel and slander works.  If I post your OSI interview video, where it's you talking, and then I post your sworn statements showing you lied, you can't be sued for libel or slander.  Why?  You would have the burden of proof to show that for one what I said was a lie (good luck) and then you'd have to proof how it defamed your character.  You gave up the privacy stuff when you made those statements and you made those interviews.  I didn't force you to do that.

Now if you'd like to "open the door" and take me to civil court over this then all of your lies are now admissible.  And there aren't silly rules like Military Rule of Evidence 412 (Military version of the rape shield law) to potentially prevent evidence from coming in, like in a court martial.

Regardless of the legality, posting the OSI interview videos went too far IMHO. If your intent was to highlight your accuser's inconsistent statements to those in a position to do something about it, then why post the interview videos in a public forum?  You've gained the public's awareness simply by posting your story, but posting the OSI videos makes it look like you're trying to get revenge by dragging their names through the dirt. 

[LookieRookie]

58 minutes ago, Runr6730 said:

Regardless of the legality, posting the OSI interview videos went too far IMHO. If your intent was to highlight your accuser's inconsistent statements to those in a position to do something about it, then why post the interview videos in a public forum?  You've gained the public's awareness simply by posting your story, but posting the OSI videos makes it look like you're trying to get revenge by dragging their names through the dirt. 

A lot of times evidence is needed to gain that public awareness. Otherwise, posts are disregarded.

[Azimuth]

1 hour ago, Runr6730 said:

Regardless of the legality, posting the OSI interview videos went too far IMHO. If your intent was to highlight your accuser's inconsistent statements to those in a position to do something about it, then why post the interview videos in a public forum?  You've gained the public's awareness simply by posting your story, but posting the OSI videos makes it look like you're trying to get revenge by dragging their names through the dirt. 

Maybe I was trying to drag their names in the dirt? They've have drug my name, career, family in the dirt the last 1.5 years. Maybe I was trying to gain public awareness? The "system fairness" wasn't there, nor was it ever going to be.

The government had two complaining witnesses (girls) who both lied saying they never banged me, then the next day one girl said I sexually assaulted her and the other one said I sexually harassed her. They also had a witness who was former friend, who fucked both of them too, claim I raped both of them and I said a bunch of stuff I never did, then tried to testify against me in court to hide the fact he committed adultery and had unprofessional relationships as well.

So the government turned a blind eye to girls making false official statements, all three of them committed adultery. Yet I'm the one who's held to the letter of the law? Nah, it's all or none, not some.

I then had careerist pussy Commanders who really didn't care about fairness, clemency, and actually holding people accountable. They were too concerned with how horrible it would look for their careers (i.e. fired) if they charged "victims" for their collateral misconduct or gave me any clemency. 

Thr Air Force doesn't give a shit about me or my family or if I can pay rent on the first. Why would I care about them? Surely if these girls, former friend, and leadership did no wrong and did everything right, they would be more than happy to have an internal review of their actions.

These assholes always love controlling information, much like a dictatorship. They HATE their dirty laundry made public. I took their control over the information away from them, now they're freaking out, only because it could possibly affect their careers, they don't care about anyone else.

Ar the end of the day I fucked up and paid more than my fair share of the price. I'm not asking for my job back, or doing the "man I'm innocent, this is bullshit" whine because it's wrong and not true. But everyone is accountable for their actions and someone needs to stand up for this sexual assault witch hunt the DoD is currently doing.

Edited June 21, 2017 by Azimuth

[BashiChuni]

4 hours ago, ThreeHoler said:

At least you're not a felon for being 6 minutes late...

https://www.nj.com/burlington/index.ssf/2017/06/i_am_a_felon_for_being_6_minutes_late_to_a_meeting.html
 

"It was not about punctuality. It was about this commander sending a message to Mario and punishing him for complaining," said Manago's attorney, Douglas Cody of Hammonton.

 

once again it's usually only d-bags who want to "send a message"

 

[dream big]

Azimuth, wow man.  Sorry you had to go through that.  WTF.  This is one of many reason my peers and I are leaving in droves.  I know countless females in the military that will blatantly lie and desecrate a guy's career if she thinks it will improve her situation.

At an unnamed overseas airlift base..there was a brand new copilot.  Fairly attractive.  Flirting with all the other LTs constantly.  No big deal right?  Well her boyfriend was an IP at another "desired" airlift base......Break break, out of left field she claims she is being "sexually harassed," and claimed two Lt NAVs specifically were sexually harassing her (they weren't.)  She even claimed sexual assault after one of them "touched her shoulder."  Despite 30+ witnesses in their favor, they weren't given an ounce of daylight to tell their side.  Reprimanded/Article 15 without question, grounded for several months and didn't make Captain.  Said female made her way over to the "desirable" airlift base to be with her boyfriend.  

The military justice system is a joke, corrupted by the SJW and political correctness that has infected this once great military the past decade or so.  

[di1630]

Geezus this is depressing to read.

I'm on exchange where there is still porn in the walls, in briefs and trying to bang the enlisted chicks is highly encouraged.

I showed my colleagues some of our USAF SARC stuff and they thought I was joking.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[sqwatch]

Where are you and how do I go there?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[uhhello]

20 hours ago, sqwatch said:

Where are you and how do I go there?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

take the blue pill

[Holden]

On 6/21/2017 at 9:38 AM, Azimuth said:

I mean at the time it was fun!

Hey, everyone. This is my latest troll account. And this is my photo:

Edited June 24, 2017 by gearpig

[Bergman]

On 6/22/2017 at 2:44 AM, di1630 said:

trying to bang the enlisted chicks is highly encouraged.

The Sport of Kings!

[Azimuth]

9 hours ago, Holden said:

Hey, everyone. This is my latest troll account. And this is my photo:

For the record, I didn't buy the jacket. Also I have no idea who's account Holden is.

Edited June 24, 2017 by Azimuth

[GlassEmpty]

Man this place is getting weirder by the day.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Disco_Nav963]

On 6/22/2017 at 7:24 AM, dream big said:

At an unnamed overseas airlift base..there was a brand new copilot.  Fairly attractive.  Flirting with all the other LTs constantly.  No big deal right?  Well her boyfriend was an IP at another "desired" airlift base......Break break, out of left field she claims she is being "sexually harassed," and claimed two Lt NAVs specifically were sexually harassing her (they weren't.)  She even claimed sexual assault after one of them "touched her shoulder."  Despite 30+ witnesses in their favor, they weren't given an ounce of daylight to tell their side.  Reprimanded/Article 15 without question, grounded for several months and didn't make Captain.  Said female made her way over to the "desirable" airlift base to be with her boyfriend.  

Why in the name of all that is holy did they accept Article 15s? The reprimand is probably coming regardless of the outcome given lower standard of proof, why not go to court for your reputation?

[Hacker]

1 minute ago, Disco_Nav963 said:

Why in the name of all that is holy did they accept Article 15s? The reprimand is probably coming regardless of the outcome given lower standard of proof, why not go to court for your reputation?

It isn't that simple.  Going to a C-M, even if you are 100% certain of being totally innocent, is a very risky endeavor.

A C-M doesn't have the same standard of conduct that a civilian court does. In a C-M, charges can be added, changed, or modified at any time during the proceedings, so basically once you open the door up, anything and everything that is discovered during testimony is in play.  You can enter a C-M charged with one thing, and exit convicted of something else entirely depending on what came up during evidence and testimony.

Remember that the UCMJ does not include a presumption of innocence, and depending on the charges, has different standards of evidence and conviction than what we're used to in the civilian world.

Plus, a conviction at a C-M is a federal conviction, while an Art 15 isn't anything at all in the outside world.

Add all that up with the witch-hunt environment which we know exists in the USAF with respect to some topics (like sexual assault, particularly), and that is the makings of a potentially very bad situation for someone accused and being offered an Art 15.

During my career, I had the "opportunity" to pay a large chunk of money to two different, very well known and talented former SJAs (and now high profile civilian attorneys) and they both heavily, heavily suggested taking the Art 15 rather than risking a Court-Martial.

[Herk Driver]

It isn't that simple.  Going to a C-M, even if you are 100% certain of being totally innocent, is a very risky endeavor.
A C-M doesn't have the same standard of conduct that a civilian court does. In a C-M, charges can be added, changed, or modified at any time during the proceedings, so basically once you open the door up, anything and everything that is discovered during testimony is in play.  You can enter a C-M charged with one thing, and exit convicted of something else entirely depending on what came up during evidence and testimony.
Remember that the UCMJ does not include a presumption of innocence, and depending on the charges, has different standards of evidence and conviction than what we're used to in the civilian world.
Plus, a conviction at a C-M is a federal conviction, while an Art 15 isn't anything at all in the outside world.
Add all that up with the witch-hunt environment which we know exists in the USAF with respect to some topics (like sexual assault, particularly), and that is the makings of a potentially very bad situation for someone accused and being offered an Art 15.
During my career, I had the "opportunity" to pay a large chunk of money to two different, very well known and talented former SJAs (and now high profile civilian attorneys) and they both heavily, heavily suggested taking the Art 15 rather than risking a Court-Martial.

It may not be that simple as you say, but...

What you wrote as the pitfalls of the system is also not quite that simple.

There is absolutely still a presumption of innocence and the burden of proof is with the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused also get to choose judge only or jury. Charges can be amended etc but that can happen on the civil side as well.

No, I am not a lawyer, but I have sat as a "judge" on a summary court martial and I can absolutely was not influenced one way or the other when it came to the verdict or the sentence.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Azimuth]

8 hours ago, Hacker said:

It isn't that simple.  Going to a C-M, even if you are 100% certain of being totally innocent, is a very risky endeavor.

A C-M doesn't have the same standard of conduct that a civilian court does. In a C-M, charges can be added, changed, or modified at any time during the proceedings, so basically once you open the door up, anything and everything that is discovered during testimony is in play.  You can enter a C-M charged with one thing, and exit convicted of something else entirely depending on what came up during evidence and testimony.

Remember that the UCMJ does not include a presumption of innocence, and depending on the charges, has different standards of evidence and conviction than what we're used to in the civilian world.

Plus, a conviction at a C-M is a federal conviction, while an Art 15 isn't anything at all in the outside world.

Add all that up with the witch-hunt environment which we know exists in the USAF with respect to some topics (like sexual assault, particularly), and that is the makings of a potentially very bad situation for someone accused and being offered an Art 15.

During my career, I had the "opportunity" to pay a large chunk of money to two different, very well known and talented former SJAs (and now high profile civilian attorneys) and they both heavily, heavily suggested taking the Art 15 rather than risking a Court-Martial.

You forgot one major thing, a court martial requires the "beyond reasonable doubt" for standard of proof, not the "preponderance of evidence" for Art 15's, Admin Sep/BOI's, etc.

And sure the government can add (and less likely remove) charges, however it's completely up to the Convening Authority if he/she want to do that. For example my case started with four specifications of Art 92, however the Preliminary Hearing Officer for my Article 32 hearing (if you go to a General Court Martial, you're having a Art 32 hearing unless you waive it) said to throw out one of the specifications because it was bullshit.  Also right before my trial one of the government witnesses was going to plead the 5th if she took the stand, so the CA dismissed the charge with her. So your mileage may vary.

Also Officers ONLY go to a General Court Martial. Summary's and Special Court Martials are for Enlisted. As for the federal conviction thing, no one really cares depending what you're found guilty of. And if it's even found, they ask what it's for. Being found guilty of Military Only Related Offenses, like I was, it either wasn't found, nor listed because it wasn't considered a felony or misdemeanor. I was hired by two major airlines and a computer company.

No Commander, especially in the Air Force, will offer an Art 120 charged offense an Art 15 with the current witchunt with regard to the sexual assault allegations.

Edited June 24, 2017 by Azimuth