Cadet Suspended from West Point after getting beaten by Singers entourage

[patentesq]

Positively the right approach, bruno.

 

[Christcorp]

aglages; I have way too much respect for you. Please don't read into my post that which is not there. I specifically said that "Suspended with pay", was as close to an EXAMPLE that we could use. Not that the cadet WAS suspended with pay.

I didn't contradict myself at all either. I said that WP made the right decision when they suspended this cadet, based on the information/facts at the time; and based on this cadet's PAST. I also said that with NEW evidence and new facts, that West Point made the right decision to reinstate him. I have not changed my position on that either.

These ARE FACTS. What isn't factual about it??? 1) Cadet had a past. 2) Cadet was involved with another altercation. 3) WP felt they had enough information and evidence to look at administrative action. These are facts.

The only "Speculation" I have is: 1) Had this cadet NOT had a past, WP probably would have given him more of a benefit of a doubt, and possibly punished in another manner, shy of suspension. That is a speculation.

So WHY do I feel this way? Another FACT: The cadet PUBLICLY SAID that he SUPPORTS West Point's position in suspending him. He did not FIGHT IT. He did not CONTEST IT. He did not TAKE IT TO THE MEDIA. etc... He "ACCEPTED" it. This was in his OWN WORDS!!!

Hmmmmmm. Why would he have taken such a position??? You can speculate that he is the MODEL cadet; who has 110% respect for the academy and the military; who would allow himself to be unjustly punished so West Point wouldn't be dragged through the mud; and that he is a TRUE HERO. Ummmmm, yes, you could believe that. I don't. I happen to believe that the reason this cadet publicly said that he supported and respected West Point's position and decision, was because he knew that his past and reputation was such that West Point had every right to have to make such a decision. But that he also felt, that if he was in the right, that he would be able to clear the record and be reinstated.

Who knows. Maybe this was all part of "The Deal". e.g. you've done enough in your past, along with these allegations, to warrant us to suspend you and have you enter active duty service as an enlisted. BUT; if you can provide us additional proof of your innocence, we will readmit you into the academy immediately. If not, you can follow through with the mentoring.

Yes, this is only a theory and example. But it too is based on FACT. The cadet NEVER questioned WP's decision to suspend him. The Cadet's lawyer NEVER questioned WP or took his case PUBLIC. The cadet himself acknowledged that he respected and accepted WP's decision to suspend him.

I don't know about you, but if it were me, and I felt that I was being rail-roaded and unjustly punished, I would have been fighting tooth and nail. Especially with only 2 months to go wit graduation and commissioning. But I guess this cadet is some national hero, who should have a shrine or bust dedicated to him for having so much honor, to lay himself down for WP and his country. Sorry; I don't buy it. I'm glad they resolved everything, but based on the FACTS and information provided, I believe that WP made the right decision all the way around.

 

[aglages]

I also said that with NEW evidence and new facts, that West Point made the right decision to reinstate him. I have not changed my position on that either.

Why do you think that WP made the decision to reinstate him? I haven't read anything other than the "DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY REINSTATES KING TO ACADEMY". I am of the belief that WP comes under the direction of the Department of the Army and the decisions that the Department of the Army makes should not be considered as a WP decision. Do I have this wrong?

These ARE FACTS. What isn't factual about it??? 1) Cadet had a past.

I don't believe that we have disagreed on this fact. What we have disagreed on is whether because of prior mistake(s) this cadet was unworthy of a complete investigation into the facts concerning this incident.

2) Cadet was involved with another altercation.

Do we know that Cadet King was EVER involved in any other "altercation"?
>A noisy argument or disagreement, esp.in public<
If not then this is not a fact. If Cadet King was hit by a bus (not killed) in the same spot and the President of the US's plane was delayed because of it...would it be another altercation or reason for WP to do an inadequate investigation and remove Cadet King from WP? Evidently it doesn't matter whether King did anything wrong or not, it seems that the ONLY thing that matters is something happened and Cadet King was there.

3) WP felt they had enough information and evidence to look at administrative action.

Again we agree on this fact. What we can't seem to agree on is whether WP did (as they claimed) a thorough investigation before making this determination. Each time the topic comes up you mention why WP had to make a decision quickly (before King commissioned) and I'm still wondering why the investigation could not have continued while King was at WP and why King HAD to commission in two months instead of the ARMY holding his commission until an adequate and thorough investigation could have been completed. Again...is there some rule/law/policy that says all cadets must commission upon graduating from WP....even those under investigation?

Another FACT: The cadet PUBLICLY SAID that he SUPPORTS West Point's position in suspending him. He did not FIGHT IT. He did not CONTEST IT. He did not TAKE IT TO THE MEDIA. etc... He "ACCEPTED" it. This was in his OWN WORDS!!!

Where are these words printed? I've not heard anything like that from HIS mouth. Not that he may not have said it, just that I can't recall ever reading it. I did find this small blurb:
http://www.click2houston.com/news/28167337/detail.html
"King said he was essentially kicked out."It's disappointing," King said. "I've sacrificed so much time and I've put so much effort into the last four months. Now it's like it's gone down the drain."

You can speculate that he is the MODEL cadet; who has 110% respect for the academy and the military; who would allow himself to be unjustly punished so West Point wouldn't be dragged through the mud; and that he is a TRUE HERO.

This is just ridiculous exaggeration. No one suggested anything like this. What I said was that neither of us knows what Cadet King thought or how he handled the dis-enrollment behind the scenes. Perhaps he was told that if he ever wanted to finish his education at WP....not to make a public scene/spectacle about this. Perhaps after he was already beaten by LeBelles bodyguards, the HPD arresting him and now his brothers at WP kicking him to the curb that he just no longer had the will to fight

I happen to believe that the reason this cadet publicly said that he supported and respected West Point's position and decision...
...The cadet NEVER questioned WP's decision to suspend him. The Cadet's lawyer NEVER questioned WP or took his case PUBLIC. The cadet himself acknowledged that he respected and accepted WP's decision to suspend him...

Again I have not seen this interview. And again there may be MANY reasons why Cadet King would choose to take the high road even if he was not guilty of THIS crime. Do you have a link to these statements?

I don't know about you, but if it were me, and I felt that I was being rail-roaded and unjustly punished, I would have been fighting tooth and nail.

I believe hiring an attorney and suing Labelle and company was Cadet Kings way of saying that he was being unjustly punished. Had he not done that would the video ever seen the light of day? Doubtful. Would he be reinstated NOW at WP if he bad mouthed WP instead of being respectful and letting his lawyer handle these issues? Again...IMHO...not likely.

I guess this cadet is some national hero, who should have a shrine or bust dedicated to him for having so much honor, to law himself down for WP and his country.

You might want to lighten up a little on the disparaging tone towards Cadet King. Although the following statement was from his attorney, I think it says something positive about this young man.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7599148.html
Raley said King was "a good soldier and will proudly serve his country wherever he is deployed ... When he completes his 18-month tour of duty, he will reapply to West Point. Richard was honored to be a West Point cadet and, God willing, will be one again."

 

[DHinNH]

Four things, the first of which I've posted at least twice in this thread:

He was going to be a December grad, so "kicked out a couple of months before graduation" is an exaggeration.

The fact that the separation happened after graduation in May should have made that clear.

The fact that the separation happened nearly three months after the incident should also help ease any "there was no investigation" questions.

Separation from West Point does not happen without the Department of the Army saying yes, so...
... if you "blame" USMA for the separation, then you must also blame DA
... if you "credit" DA for the reinstatement, then you must also credit USMA

 

[aglages]

He was going to be a December grad, so "kicked out a couple of months before graduation" is an exaggeration.

Where did you see this information? I believe another poster has indicated that it was important that WP make a decision quickly before King graduated.

The fact that the separation happened after graduation in May should have made that clear.

The article that I read said he was going home for Spring Break when this incident occurred. Are you saying that WP didn't toss him out until June instead of March?

The fact that the separation happened nearly three months after the incident should also help ease any "there was no investigation" questions.

Who said there was no investigation? I must have missed those posts. I certainly saw a few posts questioning the thoroughness of the investigation....but NO investigation....I must have missed that.

Separation from West Point does not happen without the Department of the Army saying yes...

Thanks for explaining this. I thought that WP made a decision and then DA reviewed the decision AFTER it was made. In this case 4 or 5 months after King was seperated. Are you sure?

... if you "blame" USMA for the separation, then you must also blame DA
... if you "credit" DA for the reinstatement, then you must also credit USMA

This reasoning doesn't make any sense to me. Perhaps you could explain it in simpler terms for me?

 

[Christcorp]

aglages: When you piece apart my entire post, I feel that you're simply trying to find a way to not admit you're wrong. And that's OK. You can believe what you want. I can go back to each of your retorts and prove my "FACTS". But honestly, I don't have that much time to waste. I have done my homework on this. Apparently you missed some things. But: To show that I really did research this, I will provide you with at least one quote (AND LINK) to where Cadet King accepted and respected WP's decision. Oh, BTW. I am in no way disrespecting this cadet. I didn't say HE BELIEVED he was some hero. I was saying that you or others might think he's a hero.

Also; DH is totally correct. King was NEVER SCHEDULED to graduate in May. He was scheduled to graduate in December. He received an extension to play another season of Football. Very common if they were injured early in their college career and it affected school time. I said; many times in pure speculation; that making a decision by May could have been related to his potential commissioning. Remember; I've also said 1,425,646 times, that none of us know the complete story. But I trust WP and give them the benefit of the doubt.

Anyway; here's at least the one quote by king that I promised. You will be expected to find others yourself if you want to prove me wrong. I won't do your homework for you. By the way, this is NOT the only time he is quoted saying this and similar. But I won't list all of them. You can search for them.

Also, when DH says if you blame USMA then you have to blame DA... etc.... That means, the U.S. Military Academy (west point) and DA (Department of the Army) are one and the same. It's not like the academy can do something without the army OKing it. The academy follows ARMY LAWS. So, when we say that the academy let him back in, that means the ARMY let him back in. When we say West Point kicked him out, that means that the ARMY kicked him out. They are one and the same.

The school, he says, is essentially kicking him out because of what happened.

"I respect their decision, that West Point has made. I plan on driving on and giving it my all. Whatever happens from here happens from here," King said.

King is suing and hopes soon that this will all be behind him. He has also requested that Houston Police file charges against two of LaBelle's bodyguards and a woman who also appeared to be involved. In his lawsuit, he claims LaBelle ordered her bodyguards to attack him.

http://www.9news.com/rss/story.aspx?storyid=202478

 

[patentesq]

Why do you think that WP made the decision to reinstate him? I haven't read anything other than the "DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY REINSTATES KING TO ACADEMY". I am of the belief that WP comes under the direction of the Department of the Army and the decisions that the Department of the Army makes should not be considered as a WP decision. Do I have this wrong?

I'll take a stab at explaining what I believe is DHinNH's last point (crediting WP with the reinstatement) with the aim of hopefully moving this thread toward a more collegial exchange as Christcorp has done nicely. Please accept this response as well-intended. I agree with Christcorp about the "time-waster" issue.

ag, I actually think the more reasonable interpretation for the swift reversal in this case was the recognition that exonerating evidence ultimately came to light after the original decision. This placed a duty on West Point officials to re-evaluate its earlier decision, and if the evidence was credible, to urge the DOA to reverse that earlier decision. If the appeal had been contested, I believe the DOA appellate review in this matter would have taken much longer than it did.

It doesn't happen often that exonerating evidence surfaces after a conviction or adverse administrative action. But I have personally seen it occur in a handful of cases. In almost every case where I have seen this occur, it was typically the prosecution or administrative agency urging reversal, not affirmance, at the appellate level. In one case, however, the prosecutor requested a remand but we decided to reverse instead. In the cases where the United States Government urged reversal, disposition of the case was pretty much a no-brainer. But in the cases where the government urged something less (in that case, a remand), the appeal took longer just to be sure (these experiences are from federal criminal and immigration matters appealed to the US Court of Appeals when I worked there as a judicial law clerk (I am not a federal circuit judge), not disciplinary actions originating from West Point, which I believe go to the Court of Military Appeals but under the same basic rules).

In my experience, government officials try very hard to do the right thing. Are there bad actors in government? Yes. But is our government so inherently corrupt and disfunctional that it is probable that West Point actedly inappropriately? I don't think so.

King's lawyer commented yesterday on the DOA decision: "Nobody from the Department of the Army told me anything," Bowick said. "But I can guess one of the reasons why he was reinstated was based on a further investigation by the Houston police department in which Patti LaBelle's people were charged." http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110819/SPORTS36/108190373/-1/SPORTS

However, what struck me about this statement was the characterization by the person most closely tied to this case -- King's attorney -- that his belief was simply a "guess". If King's attorney does not know, how could any of us here on SAF know? And if know one knows, then no one here can really can win the "I'm right, you're wrong" argument.

Eventually, West Point will be ordered to produce the investigative files to King's attorney (assuming the information is sought in support of or to refute King's damages) and will become public if the civil case eventually goes to trial (a big if, because these cases usually settle). But that's a long time from now.

Admittedly, I was a bit turned off when this thread started to take a "spiteful" turn. I was also reluctant to post here again, because I don't think an argument among folks (including me) who don't have all the facts is really very constructive. I don't think it is right, though, to condemn West Point for its actions based on the "evidence" that it rushed to judgment -- I actually have seen nothing more than assumptions of that.

Sure, am I making the presumption that West Point acted properly? Yes. Have I seen anything to rebut that presumption? No.

Please do not take my belief in this regard as blind support for anyone (I have taken the government to task on many occasions). But as I have tried to explain with this post, simply because the official DOA disposition reads "reversal" does not mean, in and of itself, that West Point actually did not support and even urge that disposition from DOA. I think there is a misunderstanding about what the term "reverse" means.

Technical Legal Edit (before my fellow lawyers here on SAF start beating me up about this): The WP press release is not the actual order. Although reinstatement is the functional equivalent of "reversal" here, the order could also have been in the form of a "remand" with instructions to reinstate.

 

[LineInTheSand]

Which article listed the results of Cadet King's blood alcohol test? I believe that Cadet King was legally of an age to drink.

Interestingly enough, nearly all of the investigations I conducted of crew from my cutter while I was in the Coast Guard had to do with someone intoxicated but of age.

Heck, Ted Kennedy was "of age". Don't need to be a minor to do stupid things under the influence of alcohol. I don't know many people who has one beer and smell like alcohol to the people around them....do you?

 

[Just_A_Mom]

The Superintendent has the authority to involuntarily separate a cadet for deficiencies in academics or conduct.
Any cadet who is involuntarily separated may grieve this separation up the chain of command to the Sec of the Army. The decision by the Sec of the Army stands.

It appears as if this happened. I would also not be surprised if King's congressman or senator got involved. Obviously, the press he received in this case helped his position. This happens but rarely. If you look back at the infamous cheating scandal - Congress and the Sec of Army got involved and a number of cadets who contested their separation were reinstated.

We do not know King's conduct record at West Point. We do not know if he was drunk in public - which may be a conduct violation. I did not read where his BAC was released to the public. No one but a few know the full detail of the facts in this case.

 

[DHinNH]

Where did you see this information? I believe another poster has indicated that it was important that WP make a decision quickly before King graduated.

Answered by Christcorp, although it's not quite right to say that King was NEVER scheduled to graduate in May. He was scheduled to graduate in May when he enrolled at USMA.

The article that I read said he was going home for Spring Break when this incident occurred. Are you saying that WP didn't toss him out until June instead of March?

Yes, the airport incident was in March. Although I cannot prove that the separation decision wasn't also made in March, there is nothing on the internet regarding the separation with a publication date before June. I doubt that the separation of someone who was slated to be a starter on the 2011 football team would not have leaked out earlier.

Also, if he was separated in March, he'd have more than just one semester to complete. In other words, separation in March would push him to a May 2012 graduation.

Who said there was no investigation? I must have missed those posts. I certainly saw a few posts questioning the thoroughness of the investigation....but NO investigation....I must have missed that.

Okay, maybe not in this particular thread (I didn't feel like going back and re-reading everything), but I have heard/read that kneejerk reaction elsewhere.

Thanks for explaining this. I thought that WP made a decision and then DA reviewed the decision AFTER it was made. In this case 4 or 5 months after King was seperated. Are you sure?

AR 210-26: Separation authority for cadets who have not yet begun their cow year is delegated to the Supe, but the separation authority for cows and firsties is the Secretary of the Army. The Supe recommends separation, but the authority still lies with the Secretary.

Also, AR 210-26 says "Except in cases where the Superintendent is the separation authority, all documents pertinent to the separation of a cadet from the Academy will be forwarded to Headquarters, Department of the Army, for final action." If I read that right, that means that DA does not automatically review separations of plebes and yearlings.

 

[GoArmyBeatNavy]

Since the USMA Academic Board has to reinstate cadets, by title 10, and I do not believe they did in this case, it means that his separation was not complete yet. Thus, he wasn't reinstated. The Army just didn't complete the separation action, which based on above, has to be done by the SECARMY. Once separated, though, the Academic Board would be the deciding authority in a reinstatement.

"A cadet who is reported as deficient in either conduct or any other element of the COI, and is separated from the Academy, will not, unless recommended by the Academic Board, be returned or reappointed to the Academy (10 USC 4351(a))."

 

[JMC0759]

LITS - I have not read anywhere that the Cadet was intoxicated or under the influence. That is mere speculation on the part of the video viewers. The investigating authority here, the Houston Police Department, after their bang-up investigation at Bush International evidently did not think so. They have not charged him with anything at this point. The intoxication angle is a non-factor.

I get a real kick about reading that this Cadet was such a bad egg at WP and that his prior history at the school was catching up with him. Read Flags of My Fathers, the story of the Honorable Senator John McCain from his days at the USNA to his time as a POW. His record at USNA was less than stellar and the stuff of legends and he turned out kind-of OK!

When you are charged with a crime your prior criminal history is usually barred from being admitted in court (patentesq help me here). So, is it fair for WP to look at his prior history when he has been cleared of all charges by the HPD?

To the moderators - this is the most passionate thread I have seen on SAF since I became a member! It is interesting that a Line in the Sand (sorry, couldn"t resist) has been drawn and that posters either support the Cadet or they don't. There is apparently no middle ground. That will never change.

Kudos to WP for doing the right thing!!

 

[Dixieland]

LITS - I have not read anywhere that the Cadet was intoxicated or under the influence. That is mere speculation on the part of the video viewers. The investigating authority here, the Houston Police Department, after their bang-up investigation at Bush International evidently did not think so. They have not charged him with anything at this point. The intoxication angle is a non-factor.

Some of the first articles out mentioned alcohol:

Houston police responding to the late-night incident outside the airport's Terminal C said King smelled of alcohol.

Raley said the cadet had consumed a few alcoholic drinks on his flight to Houston but was not impaired.

John Raley is Cadet King's attorney. http://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...Patti-LaBelle-s-guards-of-airport-1406723.php

 

[patentesq]

When you are charged with a crime your prior criminal history is usually barred from being admitted in court (patentesq help me here).

Hi, JMC0759! The rules for prior bad act evidence are convoluted and different rules apply in court and administrative hearings. A comment would likely go off topic and detract from your main point.

 

[LineInTheSand]

I've seen much more heated threads than this. You may people are "against" or "for" the cadet because if you are neither, you're probably not commenting. That's how many things work. I'm sure there are people who read it and done care at all...they probably aren't commenting.

Alcohol was mentioned. I have no reason to support a troubled cadet. Didn't appreciate lightning rods at CGA either (most didn't graduate). I owe this WP cadet nothing, and don't feel the need to come to his defense.

Generally administrative proceedings look at the member as a whole. I've been in masts that the lack of progress in a member contributed to a harsher decision. They look at the cadet on the whole. A cadet that has had various honor or conduct issues is not looked at in a vacuum.

 

[JMC0759]

I've seen much more heated threads than this. You may people are "against" or "for" the cadet because if you are neither, you're probably not commenting. That's how many things work. I'm sure there are people who read it and done care at all...they probably aren't commenting.

Alcohol was mentioned. I have no reason to support a troubled cadet. Didn't appreciate lightning rods at CGA either (most didn't graduate). I owe this WP cadet nothing, and don't feel the need to come to his defense.

Generally administrative proceedings look at the member as a whole. I've been in masts that the lack of progress in a member contributed to a harsher decision. They look at the cadet on the whole. A cadet that has had various honor or conduct issues is not looked at in a vacuum.

I am caught in the tractor beam of this thread and can't break loose!

I remember when my son was applying to his SA. We were at a town hall meeting sponsored by several MOC's and somebody asked the candidates to stand up and look around. He said that this is your competition, the smartest, most athletic and well rounded kids around.

So let's just assume that ther Cadet fits into this group. He received his appointment so he must have had something going on for him. He makes it to his senior year at WP and it looks like he is on track to graduate. He survives another bleak upstate New York winter and the dark days of the post holiday season at WP. He has a couple of drinks to celebrate on the plane and runs smack dab into a firestorm upon his arrival in Houston.

He gets the crap beat out of him and some airport cops screw things up and list him as a suspect instead of a victim. Then some overzealous airport employee takes it upon himself to call WP and rat the kid out. I wonder if those airport cops lost their airport job and are walking a beat in the Houston Ship Channel... Lots of mistakes were made that day that were not the fault of the cadet.

So, the kid has some honor code violations at WP. Maybe he was chasing after some general's daughter. Would these violations affect his ability to supervise his troops and lead them into combat? Would they make any less of a leader? The Cadet is still the person he was when he received his appointment. Heck, whatever he had been up to at WP in the last three years might may him a better officer.

I don't know the cadet but I know kids like him. We all do. Will he graduate first in his class? Will he graduate last? Does it matter? Once you walk across that stage whatever you did in the past is forgotten. If I remember right Senator McCain was next to last in his graduating class at the USNA. Here's a good one. What do you call a medical student who graduates last in his class? A doctor.

I will support this cadet until the day I die or when this thread gets pulled. Why? He received his appointment and must be a pretty good kid. Second I don't like bullies and the Cadet was bullied when he exited the airport terminal that day in March.

So was he drinking? I guess he was but he was not jailed or cited so it really doesn't matter and there were lots of people in the airport that day that had alcohol on their breath who did not get beat up.

As I have said from the beginning. If the cadet had not met up with those folks at the airport, if he turned left or right instead of walking straight out of the terminal we wouldn't even know his name. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time and that is the tragedy of this whole episode.

 

[Luigi59]

So, the kid has some honor code violations at WP...... The Cadet is still the person he was when he received his appointment. Heck, whatever he had been up to at WP in the last three years might may him a better officer.

Yeah, what the heck, why have a honor code at all. He's still the same kid he was when he entered, why punish him for what he has become, let's continue to look at him for what he was.

Once you walk across that stage whatever you did in the past is forgotten.

Apparently not, as you contradict yourself with the next sentence:

If I remember right Senator McCain was next to last in his graduating class at the USNA.

I will support this cadet until the day I die or when this thread gets pulled. Why? He received his appointment and must be a pretty good kid.

By that logic, every kid who receives an appointment should never be expelled. Smoking spice, cheating, stealing - they all received appointments and must be pretty good kids too, right?

 

[patentesq]

Luigi59, I don't think JMC0759 is saying that no cadet should ever be punished. I also don't think it is right to condemn Cadet King with "armchair opinions" on an anonymous forum based on incomplete snippets of information found on the Internet. Reporters rarely get it right.

Instead, I think the right thing to do here is to place faith in our justice system and the Army. We should let the investigation run its due course.

 

[Christcorp]

Patent, I think that's exactly what most here have done. The have faith in the army. At the time, with the facts at hand, and the cadet's past, he was justly suspended. With the introduction of additional proof and facts, the cadet was reinstated. Good for the army. Unfortunately, some dont have faith in the army and want to believe that they suspended the cadet without cause. That they were incompetent. That seems to be where the debate has evolved to.

And lits is correct. Just because a cadet received an appointment, doesnt mean anything. There are plenty of people at the academy that.really shouldn't be there. Not saying cadet king is one these. Just that an appointment doesn't mean as much about a person's character as the previous poster wants to believe.

 

[LineInTheSand]

I remember when my son was applying to his SA. We were at a town hall meeting sponsored by several MOC's and somebody asked the candidates to stand up and look around. He said that this is your competition, the smartest, most athletic and well rounded kids around.

So let's just assume that ther Cadet fits into this group. He received his appointment so he must have had something going on for him. He makes it to his senior year at WP and it looks like he is on track to graduate. He survives another bleak upstate New York winter and the dark days of the post holiday season at WP. He has a couple of drinks to celebrate on the plane and runs smack dab into a firestorm upon his arrival in Houston.

He gets the crap beat out of him and some airport cops screw things up and list him as a suspect instead of a victim. Then some overzealous airport employee takes it upon himself to call WP and rat the kid out. I wonder if those airport cops lost their airport job and are walking a beat in the Houston Ship Channel... Lots of mistakes were made that day that were not the fault of the cadet.

So, the kid has some honor code violations at WP. Maybe he was chasing after some general's daughter. Would these violations affect his ability to supervise his troops and lead them into combat? Would they make any less of a leader? The Cadet is still the person he was when he received his appointment. Heck, whatever he had been up to at WP in the last three years might may him a better officer.

I don't know the cadet but I know kids like him. We all do. Will he graduate first in his class? Will he graduate last? Does it matter? Once you walk across that stage whatever you did in the past is forgotten. If I remember right Senator McCain was next to last in his graduating class at the USNA. Here's a good one. What do you call a medical student who graduates last in his class? A doctor.

I will support this cadet until the day I die or when this thread gets pulled. Why? He received his appointment and must be a pretty good kid. Second I don't like bullies and the Cadet was bullied when he exited the airport terminal that day in March.

So was he drinking? I guess he was but he was not jailed or cited so it really doesn't matter and there were lots of people in the airport that day that had alcohol on their breath who did not get beat up.

As I have said from the beginning. If the cadet had not met up with those folks at the airport, if he turned left or right instead of walking straight out of the terminal we wouldn't even know his name. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time and that is the tragedy of this whole episode.

There is so much to respond to in this post.

First, the "best and brightest" aren't the only ones applying. So, for a Congressman to say that, is poor judgement...but I won't hold that against him, he's in Congress after all. I remember waiting for my interview with Sen. Bill Frist's office. I saw a kid I remembered from the previous year at Tennessee Boys' State. Kid asked me "West Point is the one for the Army, right?"....

"OOHHHHH LITS.....certainly you're not saying that this simple question doesn't mean the kid, in a room of other kids, isn't one of the best and brightest" you may say. No no no, I remembered him more because he urinated on a kids face at Boys' State and was kicked out. Is that a "best and brightest candidate"? You tell me. No wait, let the Congressman tell me.

Next, I don't often believe people just "run into trouble"...maybe some get pounced on by a flash mob, but I don't know many who, after "celebrating", just run into trouble. Again, too many experiences with kids not avoiding trouble and getting hit with a nice investigation. Maybe they didn't start it, but they certainly didn't avoid it. Key West brought that out of more than one seaman.

Do I care if an officer has trouble with HONOR? Hmmmm...maybe. If I'm relieving him and he has miscounted our ammunition for two years...yes....if I'm giving him access to a classified space....yes....

We always had a saying.... "You own your honor." It's the only thing you have that can't be taken from you, you have to give it away. Would I trust him? Maybe not. Would I insist his people should? No. There's a reason so much attention is paid to honor....at least at CGA there is.

I have no idea how many cadets were accepted to my class at CGA. I don't know what percentage offered appointments took those appointments. I do know we started with about 320ish, and ended with about 205. That means we lost over 33% of the people who accepted appointments. I know everyone who left. Some left because they couldn't take it. Some left because they didn't want it. And some left because they weren't good people. Even the people who were bad received appointments. That's not an impressive feat for anyone who has been a cadet or midshipman.

"The mission of the United States Coast Guard Academy is to GRADUATE young men and women with sound bodies, stout hearts and alert minds...."

The mission was never to appoints cadets with these attributes.

The kid got an appointment. Congrats, MEANS NOTHING to me. Everyone who graduated also received an appointment. Everyone who couldn't make it received an appointment. Some of them were bad. Some of them could not be trusted with the nation's secrets, gear or people. Sorry, that's just a fact of life. Doesn't mean this WP cadet is among them, but the very fact he was at WP doesn't mean he's a perfect angel and future senator.