CGA boots 14 cadets

UCMJ issue?

Are there UCMJ ramifications for these cadets?
 
LineInTheSand said:
They don't. They make up an excuse.... like "I couldn't imagine killing someone" or "I couldn't just follow orders blindly like a robot". Some people believe them. They don't know any better.
Click to expand...

If they are that dishonest with themselves they aren't mature enough to be there in the first place. What a waste of a great opportunity in life
 
pennak said:
If they are that dishonest with themselves they aren't mature enough to be there in the first place. What a waste of a great opportunity in life
Click to expand...

They are as honest with themselves as I am when I get a penalty in hockey (al though, the other guy usually gets away with something and I get caught). My penalties are justified.... for the most part.
 
They all got General Discharges which probably won't look when trying to get jobs in the future
 
General discharge?

I might be in the minority here, but General discharge seems pretty charitable...Isn't an "Honor" violation by nature dishonorable...and wouldn't it then warrant a Dishonorable discharge in this case? (It wouldn't be appropriate for some small violation, but this is a biggie.)

I'm still not clear on whether this "spice" they used is illegal in Connecticut. However, a Cadet is not to use it, regardless of it's civilian legality, but if it is illegal and it is an honor violation, then a General discharge seems like a relatively soft landing. I know that a General discharge is a black mark on any resume and will follow them for life, and a Dishonorable is the kiss of death - heck, way back in the day, when I was in the Army the threat of an "Article 15" was enough to make us quake in our boots with nightmares of "making little rocks out of big rocks" at Fort Leavenworth.

I also thought that a cadet could get busted down to serving out an enlistment as enlisted personnel, but this apparently didn't happen in this case.

I also wondered how this came to light - the CGA uses an Honor Concept and not an Honor Code - so "and does not tolerate those that do" is not included, so did someone turn themselves in or did someone "nark" on their Shipmates? Just wondering.

What a shame...I know a kid who would do almost anything to be there...
 
Last edited:
educ8 said:
I might be in the minority here, but General discharge seems pretty charitable...Isn't an "Honor" violation by nature dishonorable...
Click to expand...

I assume they were not honor violations, they were conduct violations.
 
Article 15 was "minor offense" "non judicial" NJP. Imposed by "Commanding Officer" and considered "Unit Punishment" although it went in your personal military file. Go to next base when hand carried and tear out that page (before computer).:rolleyes: General Discharge: "substantial prejudice in civilian life". Just like discharge "for the good of the service".

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/l/blucmj15.htm
 
educ8 said:
I might be in the minority here, but General discharge seems pretty charitable...Isn't an "Honor" violation by nature dishonorable...and wouldn't it then warrant a Dishonorable discharge in this case? (It wouldn't be appropriate for some small violation, but this is a biggie.)

I'm still not clear on whether this "spice" they used is illegal in Connecticut. However, a Cadet is not to use it, regardless of it's civilian legality, but if it is illegal and it is an honor violation, then a General discharge seems like a relatively soft landing. I know that a General discharge is a black mark on any resume and will follow them for life, and a Dishonorable is the kiss of death - heck, way back in the day, when I was in the Army the threat of an "Article 15" was enough to make us quake in our boots with nightmares of "making little rocks out of big rocks" at Fort Leavenworth.

I also thought that a cadet could get busted down to serving out an enlistment as enlisted personnel, but this apparently didn't happen in this case.

I also wondered how this came to light - the CGA uses an Honor Concept and not an Honor Code - so "and does not tolerate those that do" is not included, so did someone turn themselves in or did someone "nark" on their Shipmates? Just wondering.

What a shame...I know a kid who would do almost anything to be there...
Click to expand...



Not sure we're understanding the true impact of "dishonorable discharge"....something that will follow you around forever.

Here you have 14 cadets who are stupid, smoked something that, while not illegal, is against military regulations. Do we need to put the nail in the coffin of 14 sophomores in college? No.

Not reporting a conduct violation (aka condoning a class I) is also an offense, but from what I've heard/seen, I haven't heard of anything that screams "honor violation". Conduct violation? Absolutely.

These same kids smoke this stuff on the street, in front of a cop, nothing happens. No need for a "dishonorable discharge".... the discharge "system" isn't there to "make an example". It affects the lives of all.... forever.

I also never liked the "I knew a kid that would kill for that spot" argument. He wants to be there? Tell him to do better than he has. Distinguish himself above a majority of the rest. Spots at a service academy are not charity offerings....they are to be fought for... earned.... not "handed out" to kids who "really want to be there."
 
Thanks for the explanation of the difference between an honor violation and a conduct violation. It is the experience/knowledge of people here on the SAF that make this such a valuable forum.

LITS, are you having a bad day? "I know a kid"...My son has done what you suggested (distinguished himself and is engaged in the "fight" for a spot right now) and is awaiting the determination of the board to see if he has earned an appointment. I in no way suggested that Academy spots are "charity offerings" or are "handed out" to kids who really want to be there. I agree that only the best of the best should be there. That is why you were accepted - and rightfully so.

It is a shame that these kids did such a stupid thing and it will haunt them for a long time. The travesty of it is what they have given up and that they made the decision to risk so much for so little.
 
educ8 said:
......I'm still not clear on whether this "spice" they used is illegal in Connecticut. However, a Cadet is not to use it, regardless of it's civilian legality, but if it is illegal and it is an honor violation, then a General discharge seems like a relatively soft landing.
This can be a very tricky position. "Legal in one place, not in another". Just like when you fill our your applications, when it speaks of conduct, it uses words like "Legal", "Inappropriate", "authorized", etc... A common concern a lot of applicants have is with the "Underage Drinking" policies/questions. Many states; including mine; says that an individual is allowed to drink alcohol below the age of 21 if in the company of and has the permission of their parent. And of course, not in a retail establishment. Remember, it's not a FEDERAL LAW that makes the drinking age 21. It's "STATE's" laws. Just so happens the federal government blackmails the states and wont give them highway funds if they don't have their drinking age at 21. But sometimes an applicant has a problem trying to answer the question, because their parent(s) allow them to drink at home sometimes. Maybe special occasions. Maybe holidays. That's why the rules use words like LEGAL. (It IS LEGAL in many states). "Authorized". etc... As for spice or anything else, the military is allowed to have their own rules. So it doesn't matter what Connecticut says. Just like most cadets who come from states where their parents let them drink at home, will abstain when home on vacation until they are 21 years old. They understand the military has their own separate rules, and that's what they follow.

.....I also thought that a cadet could get busted down to serving out an enlistment as enlisted personnel, but this apparently didn't happen in this case.
Yes, cadets can wind up as an enlisted person to serve out a commitment. However, if the reason the cadet is no longer a cadet, is the same reason an enlisted person would be discharged, then the military is not going to let them become an enlisted person. I.e. Drugs, underage drinking, criminal acts, etc... aren't tolerated for the enlisted either. A cadet is not going to become an enlisted person because they used spice.
Click to expand...
See above
 
educ8 said:
Thanks for the explanation of the difference between an honor violation and a conduct violation. It is the experience/knowledge of people here on the SAF that make this such a valuable forum.

LITS, are you having a bad day? "I know a kid"...My son has done what you suggested (distinguished himself and is engaged in the "fight" for a spot right now) and is awaiting the determination of the board to see if he has earned an appointment. I in no way suggested that Academy spots are "charity offerings" or are "handed out" to kids who really want to be there. I agree that only the best of the best should be there. That is why you were accepted - and rightfully so.

It is a shame that these kids did such a stupid thing and it will haunt them for a long time. The travesty of it is what they have given up and that they made the decision to risk so much for so little.
Click to expand...

No, not in a bad mood. I've just seen a number of "if only someone else would have held that spot it would all be ok." Desire is powerful, but it's not a substitute for years of doing the right thing and in the end, being a good candidate. I'm sure there are many many many kids out there who would not have been as dumb as these 14+ cadets....and any number of them maybe be in the lowest 10% of their school.

You've said your son has worked hard and distinguished himself, so I certainly hope your son makes it!

It's good to also remember, the academies need people to drop out or get the boot.... otherwise they would be asking little angels to leave as the max out their total cadet/midshipmen numbers.

Having made stupid decisions as a cadet, I can tell you, some of that "think about the bigger picture" doesn't hit you immediately. After seeing someone kicked out for something you might have done.... it dawns on you. For some, that dawn comes too late. For others it's just in time.
 
wgtg101 said:
According to the Academy's local paper, The New London Day, the Academy said a cadet's education costs $365,500 for all 4 years. How will taxpayers recoup the cost of their education thus far?
Click to expand...

Cadets who have not completed 2 years at the academy have no service or financial commitment. Whether they leave voluntarily or are disenrolled for any reason--grades, conduct, honor, etc--as long as they are 4/c or 3/c they don't owe anything.

1/c and 2/c cadets could (operative word -- could --) be liable for repayment of their education costs, but that "$365k" figure includes many things far and above the coast of their education. They don't always enforce the repayment. The last I heard about any SA cadet or Mid being asked to repay the Govt it was a USNA Mid, the amount was around $90k total for their 2/c and 1/c years. I'm not even sure that the only USCGA cadet ever court-martialed had to repay the Gov after he was convicted.

"Sending them to the fleet" is something I don't think happens anymore. I believe the service simply wants to cut all ties and move on. Disenroll them from the academy, discharge them from the military. Speaking with long time USCG officers, none of them could remember a case in the last 10 years where a discharged cadet was sent to active enlisted duty. I think the Air Force Academy still sends discharged cadets to the enlisted AF, but probably becoming more rare each year.
 
Luigi59 said:
Cadets who have not completed 2 years at the academy have no service or financial commitment. Whether they leave voluntarily or are disenrolled for any reason--grades, conduct, honor, etc--as long as they are 4/c or 3/c they don't owe anything.

1/c and 2/c cadets could (operative word -- could --) be liable for repayment of their education costs, but that "$365k" figure includes many things far and above the coast of their education. They don't always enforce the repayment. The last I heard about any SA cadet or Mid being asked to repay the Govt it was a USNA Mid, the amount was around $90k total for their 2/c and 1/c years. I'm not even sure that the only USCGA cadet ever court-martialed had to repay the Gov after he was convicted.

"Sending them to the fleet" is something I don't think happens anymore. I believe the service simply wants to cut all ties and move on. Disenroll them from the academy, discharge them from the military. Speaking with long time USCG officers, none of them could remember a case in the last 10 years where a discharged cadet was sent to active enlisted duty. I think the Air Force Academy still sends discharged cadets to the enlisted AF, but probably becoming more rare each year.
Click to expand...


I've seen few disenrolled and "sent to the fleet." Feel bad for the fleet when that happens.

Not sure if Webster Smith had to repay the fed. govt. for his time at CGA.... he was separated from the Corps of Cadets in his final year.... maybe the 5 months in Charleston was his "service".... he got out a month early on good behavior. You would be hard pressed for find anyone from his class that still associates with him. Not impossible, but hard pressed.
 
educ8 said:
I might be in the minority here, but General discharge seems pretty charitable...Isn't an "Honor" violation by nature dishonorable...and wouldn't it then warrant a Dishonorable discharge in this case? (It wouldn't be appropriate for some small violation, but this is a biggie.)
Click to expand...

The equivalent of a felony conviction would be overkill, IMO.
 
LineInTheSand said:
15 cadets eh? Looks like USAFA is just trying to "one-up" USCGA.... :wink:
Click to expand...

You know, it is better that they get the boot now, before they are commissioned and may be called on to lead men (and women) in harms way. Sorry that screwed up their lives at such a young age, but, honestly, it is best that they are gone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top