Lying on DoDMERB

[Gatton18]

To play devil's advocate, Serve, on one hand you have the majority of teens who have experimented with marijuana, and the minority who will admit to it. and on the other hand you have the Uniform Code of Military Justice, of which states that the use of any narcotic, unlicensed prescription drugs, or illicit materials for the use of recreation outside federal law is grounds for immediate discharge.

That may be, but what about the exceptional candidates in the minority that have never experimented with anything and are still waiting to hear from USNA? Then there are also those who might not receive appointments because they were honest enough to give the information to DoDMERB up front. I believe in second chances, don't get me wrong. I am glad I'm not on the board that will have to make the final decision on this matter, because I don't know what the right decision should be. It just bothers me that people receive appointments after lying on parts of the application, when there are thousands of candidates who were completely honest still checking the mailbox each day.

Serve, I respect you for manning up. That is a tough decision and I wish you the best.

 

[kinnem]

To play devil's advocate, Serve, on one hand you have the majority of teens who have experimented with marijuana, and the minority who will admit to it. and on the other hand you have the Uniform Code of Military Justice, of which states that the use of any narcotic, unlicensed prescription drugs, or illicit materials for the use of recreation outside federal law is grounds for immediate discharge.

True, but Serve wasn't subject to the UCMJ at the time so I do not understand your point. I think the outlook for Serve is poor given that he used on 4 separate occasions. But I certainly admire him for coming forward to correct the record. It did take moral courage, as did coming out about it on this board. Frankly I think he's someone who I would want to have in my corner and whatever the outcome I believe he has learned some valuable lessons through this process which will serve (pun intended) him well.

Serge, I hope all works out for you.

 

[Dad]

True, but Serve wasn't subject to the UCMJ at the time so I do not understand your point. I think the outlook for Serve is poor given that he used on 4 separate occasions. But I certainly admire him for coming forward to correct the record. It did take moral courage, as did coming out about it on this board. Frankly I think he's someone who I would want to have in my corner and whatever the outcome I believe he has learned some valuable lessons through this process which will serve (pun intended) him well.

Serve, I hope all works out for you.

+1

 

[Whistle Pig]

To play devil's advocate, Serve, on one hand you have the majority of teens who have experimented with marijuana, and the minority who will admit to it.

Not a good "start point" and/or fundamental assumption, i.e. that most candidates are liars. And I'm not sure I buy the assumption and consequent allegation that the majority of candidates have experimented with mj.

 

[lukepeoples]

I believe I never stated that most candidates, even ANY candidates have experimented with marijuana. I said (and can site) that most TEENS have experimented with it. and MOST TEENS will not admit to it.

Most teens do not apply to Service Academies.
Please read comments before you make a general assumption.

 

[Memphis9489]

Recently, a midshipman with a 3.8+ GPA was being interviewed for submarine service (prior to Service Assignment) and asked if he had ever used illegal drugs. The midshipman confessed to having smoked a joint while on a summer training cruise as a midshipman. The interview was promptly halted and he was separated from the academy - just one semester prior to graduation.

Here's my personal opinion.

The question is an IQ test of sorts. They ask the question because they have to; and you give the "right" answer - and everybody moves on.

If one has regrets for having used illicit drugs and understands the importance of honesty - I think that's good enough. Lesson learned!

Sure, a naval officer has to be a trusted and honest person. But how will you use this honesty in the role of a naval officer if your honesty is the very thing that prevents you from becoming a naval officer?

It's a classical ethical conundrum: Is it acceptable to tell a "white lie" to serve a greater good? Each person has to answer that for themselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPX2cQP8uoI

 

[LineInTheSand]

Yes. I do understand that I lied, but more important, I lied to my country.

Now let's not blow this up... your country doesn't care that you lied on an application. Heck half of your country would lie too.

Doing drugs is wrong. Boom. It's illegal. Boom.

People make mistakes, try things blah blah blah. I agree. And I wouldn't hold it against someone that they tried a drug years ago.

That's not the issue here. If the drug use was recent. That's an issue, maybe, but the MAIN issue here is, given the choice between being honest and not, initially you weren't. That's not going to look great, and it's not like any of the academies are hurting for applicants.

Guilt can eat away at you. I think you did the right thing admitting it. I wouldn't call it admirable, but I do think it was the right thing. It may keep you from being accepted, but in the end, you aren't living with the lie, and it's far easier to like what you see in the mirror each morning if you're honest with yourself.

Fessing up to a lie isn't admirable, but it is right. Making a mistake in the past can be forgiven, lying about it in the present makes that much harder to do.

You were eventually honest, and that's the good thing, but when you are held responsible for your actions, I am more concerned about your inclination to lie than past drug use.

That's just my opinion, so take it for what it's worth.

Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

 

[LineInTheSand]

Recently, a midshipman with a 3.8+ GPA was being interviewed for submarine service (prior to Service Assignment) and asked if he had ever used illegal drugs. The midshipman confessed to having smoked a joint while on a summer training cruise as a midshipman. The interview was promptly halted and he was separated from the academy - just one semester prior to graduation.

Here's my personal opinion.

The question is an IQ test of sorts. They ask the question because they have to; and you give the "right" answer - and everybody moves on.

If one has regrets for having used illicit drugs and understands the importance of honesty - I think that's good enough. Lesson learned!

Sure, a naval officer has to be a trusted and honest person. But how will you use this honesty in the role of a naval officer if your honesty is the very thing that prevents you from becoming a naval officer?

It's a classical ethical conundrum: Is it acceptable to tell a "white lie" to serve a greater good? Each person has to answer that for themselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPX2cQP8uoI

Your example isn't for the greater good. You example is for the good of the individual (which may in fact be worse for the larger population).

What's lacking here is accountability. I know full well I did things, not illegal, but against the rules (oh and not honor-related) that would have forced me out... but I was lucky enough to never be asked. I didn't turn myself in for the conduct, but I always wasn't held accountable. Did I learn from not being held accountable? No. I learned why my subordinate was held accountable for something less severe. I sat there, in his MAST thinking "we'll I'm never doing THAT again... because if this is what he gets for what he did, I can only image what I'd get."

Someone was held accountable, and it wasn't me, but it's what i needed to open my eyes. Simply saying to myself "oops" did me nothing until I saw the pain that comes with making poor choices.

 

[usna1985]

Recently, a midshipman with a 3.8+ GPA was being interviewed for submarine service (prior to Service Assignment) and asked if he had ever used illegal drugs. The midshipman confessed to having smoked a joint while on a summer training cruise as a midshipman. The interview was promptly halted and he was separated from the academy - just one semester prior to graduation.

Not to hijack this thread, but -- on the basis of the facts presented -- this seems a bit . . . .unusual. Let me be clear: I have no problem with the guy being dismissed for what he did. We can't have officers or mids using drugs. You're told that over and over and over from day one and, if you get caught, you know and suffer the consequences.

The problem I have is that this guy wasn't "caught." His honor was essentially used against him and, in my day at least, that wasn't permitted. It sounds as if was asked an open-ended question and his choice was to: admit the truth and be kicked out for a conduct offense or lie and be kicked out for an honor violation. And, this occurred in a situation where there (apparently) was no reason to believe he had done anything wrong.

Now, maybe there was more to the story. But under this theory, one could ask every mid if he/she had ever done anything wrong re conduct and the person either has to confess and face punishment or be dismissed for lying. That doesn't happen outside the SAs other than for certain issues related to security clearances. And in my day, the "Administration" wasn't supposed to set people up this way (different story if there was reason to believe a conduct offense had been committed).

Interesting story. The right outcome but maybe not arrived at in the best way?

 

[Whistle Pig]

Not to quibble, but this may well be an important point in this "what if" discussion.

First, from what has been revealed. It was NOT an open-ended question. The answers were 2. Yes or No. Period.

The Mid chose to make it open-ended, sharing more than he needed to and should have.

We do not know IF the interviewer would then have asked, "Where and when?" We are left to assume.

What we DO know is that students have been admitted having knowingly been in violation of use of illegal drugs. And we also know that that Mids have been retained in light of use of illegal drugs.

And what we are left to wonder is IF this question is asked with pro forma regularity in being considered for submarine service, then candidates must consider that in contemplating this.

I'm guessing there is waaaaaaaay more this story is captured by 2 sentences of explanation.

 

[Memphis9489]

Naturally, I gave the "Reader's Digest" version of this story. I didn't want to put in too many details because it was so recent and I wanted to preserve this individual's anonymity. I didn't even reveal the individual's gender.

Actually - this happened to two midshipmen who were being interviewed for subs. Both were separated. I just happen to know more of the details about one of the midshipmen.

Yes, I left some details out but it pretty much happened as I stated in the abridged version. What I left out was what probably motivated the midshipman to make such an astounding admission.

It did seem that this was a standard question in the interview process - and that no midshipman was being specifically targeted because of some kind of unique suspension they had.

I've seen questions like these on forms. I don't see what difference it makes if everybody answers that question on a standard form or if everybody is subjected to that question during a formal interview.

I'm guessing that it probably would not have made a difference if this midshipman had admitted that he/she smoked a joint when he/she was a sophomore in high school. But this midshipman admitted to doing it while a midshipman - in the not too distant past.

I'll tell you this much - subs was not this midshipman's first choice for service assignment.

 

[kinnem]

I'll tell you this much - subs was not this midshipman's first choice for service assignment.

Well the mid certainly dodged that bullet.

 

[Whistle Pig]

Thanks Memphis for edification and some expansion.

This is w/o a doubt, perplexing, complex, confounding conundrum, it seems.

BLEEPED if you do ... BLEEPED if you don't!

Seems to me, THIS is one area the Navy's commander-in-chief might re-direct this line of questioning in light of his self-professed love and chronic use of weed. Good thing that question wasn't asked of him in any of the debates. He'd likely be "separated" as we speak.

On the other hand, this might well be one of the key strategies for "funding" the upcoming shrinking of our Navy as we once knew it. Get 'em off the boat before they get aboard. Or could it be implicit instruction and recognition of the rewards for fibbing? If so, credit for creativity if cruel.

 

[usna1985]

The bottom line for applicants and others reading this who have used or are contemplating using illegal drugs:

Applicants: It may or may not hurt you. The Character Board will evaluate what you did, when you did it, how many times, what other events were involved (i.e., did drug use lead to another crime, etc.), what you learned or didn't learn from the experience(s), etc.

Mids: Use of drugs as a mid may well wreck your career. You may be cut some slack -- I wouldn't count on it.

Officers: You're doomed. I'm sure there are examples of officers who got caught using drugs and "survived," but you are told over and over and over what will happen -- and it "ain't pretty."

 

[GoSox]

Thanks Memphis for edification and some expansion.

This is w/o a doubt, perplexing, complex, confounding conundrum, it seems.

BLEEPED if you do ... BLEEPED if you don't!

Seems to me, THIS is one area the Navy's commander-in-chief might re-direct this line of questioning in light of his self-professed love and chronic use of weed. Good thing that question wasn't asked of him in any of the debates. He'd likely be "separated" as we speak.

On the other hand, this might well be one of the key strategies for "funding" the upcoming shrinking of our Navy as we once knew it. Get 'em off the boat before they get aboard. Or could it be implicit instruction and recognition of the rewards for fibbing? If so, credit for creativity if cruel.

Any reason you had to inject an anti-Obama remark into a discussion about how USNA and the Fleet handle admissions of prior drug use? You are not a serving member of the armed forces, and perhaps never have been, but I would remind that most reading this board are candidates. I believe that making gratuitously nasty remarks about the civilian leadership of the Armed Services in a post is not setting the best example to those candidates.

 

[lukepeoples]

Sox, there have been a few ad-hominem remarks from Whistle in this thread, I'm pretty sure it's just her way of communicating. I wouldn't take it so strongly. There will always be strong views in any questionable topic. This is the military after all!

 

[LineInTheSand]

This is the military after all!

This is actually a website. If there were the military none of this would be anonymous... but I'm guessing the members of the military here haven't actually reviewed their service's social media policies...

 

[LineInTheSand]

I believe that making gratuitously nasty remarks about the civilian leadership of the Armed Services in a post is not setting the best example to those candidates.

You can believe that, but political discussions do go on about the Commander-in-Chief, in every branch.... and it aint always pretty.

 

[usnabgo08]

If there were the military none of this would be anonymous... but I'm guessing the members of the military here haven't actually reviewed their service's social media policies...

Not true for DON, unofficial internet postings of DON personnel is allowed and encouraged. Furthermore, it is each individual's discretion on whether they want to be identified -- so, it is possible to remain "anonymous."

ALNAV 057/10:

2. PER THE GUIDELINES PROVIDED IN THIS ALNAV, DON PERSONNEL ARE ENCOURAGED TO RESPONSIBLY ENGAGE IN UNOFFICIAL INTERNET POSTING ABOUT THE DON AND DON-RELATED TOPICS.

DON PERSONNEL ENGAGED IN UNOFFICIAL INTERNET POSTING ABOUT THE DON MAY IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS DON PERSONNEL BY RANK, BILLET, MILITARY OCCUPATIONAL SPECIALTY, AND STATUS (ACTIVE, RESERVE, CIVILIAN, ETC.) IF DESIRED. HOWEVER, IF DON PERSONNEL DECIDE TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS DON PERSONNEL, THEY MUST NOT DISGUISE, IMPERSONATE OR OTHERWISE MISREPRESENT THEIR IDENTITY OR AFFILIATION WITH THE DON.

 

[lukepeoples]

This is actually a website. If there were the military none of this would be anonymous... but I'm guessing the members of the military here haven't actually reviewed their service's social media policies...

I think someone is being snyde here. I was merely stating that extreme values and heated discussions are bound to happen in a majority military oriented environment, one of which is comprised of moderates, liberals, and conservatives; all whom have different ideas about questionable subjects.

Not true for DON, unofficial internet postings of DON personnel is allowed and encouraged. Furthermore, it is each individual's discretion on whether they want to be identified -- so, it is possible to remain "anonymous."

ALNAV 057/10:

I really enjoy the instruction quotes. I do it from time to time, they are definitely the end-all be-all of rules! Haha!