Well, good thing for him it wasn't an "honor" violation...

Jcc123 said:
That's basically the issue I was trying to highlight, @parentalunit2 , it was not a condemnation of West Point in general. I just cannot fathom how, in the current climate, this cadet was retained when other cadets are cut loose for far less serious transgressions.

As @Jcleppe pointed out, they apparently had to put some effort into being where they were, which indicates at a minimum an intent to do wrong. The DA and court system obviously agree, as the cadet is now convicted of a felony and on probation. Kids can be stupid - I get that. How he is still a cadet is the part I don't get.

Good thing there's no such thing as a sealed record or dismissed charges as far as the Army is concerned. With little chance of receiving a security clearance, hopefully he won't be able to endanger any future troops with his stellar judgement.
Click to expand...

They went down a country road to drink some beer. My God, such intent to do "wrong."

He wasn't convicted of a felony. He's not going to have any record when he completes his community service and short term of probation.
 
My guess having dealt with security clearances and such while being the S-2 in my unit is he will get a clearance. I have seen folks do far more and still get a TS. I had a Marine at one point charged with Manslaughter who still got a Secret. We discharged an officer from my unit because they defaulted on student loans. At my last company we had a stellar employee who was a big metal detector guy. He accidentally (and it was honestly an accident) crossed over onto federal land and was arrested. He received similar type punishment such as completing some community service and his record was clean. It was reported for his security stuff and it was never an issue.
 
NavyHoops said:
My guess having dealt with security clearances and such while being the S-2 in my unit is he will get a clearance. I have seen folks do far more and still get a TS. I had a Marine at one point charged with Manslaughter who still got a Secret.
Click to expand...

WHAT?!

I had a guy lose a TS for a DUI. Incidentally, he needed the clearance to be in the space we was working, so that didn't go over well.
 
Sledge said:
They went down a country road to drink some beer. My God, such intent to do "wrong."

He wasn't convicted of a felony. He's not going to have any record when he completes his community service and short term of probation.
Click to expand...

How do you get that he wasn't convicted of a felony? It clearly states in the article that he was, and that he received 6 months probation as a result.

Also, not sure about the laws in your state, but he broke several in the process of "going down a country road to drink some beer". Seems pretty cut and dried to me, and incidentally, to the DA and judge as well. You don't have to agree that what he did was terrible, but it's pointless to dispute the facts of the conviction and punishment.
 
There is a difference between being charged with a felony and being convicted of a felony.

We understand the justice system, right? Or we can't read?
 
Idk, LITS. We followed the rules, notified the right folks. Their call, not ours. I think if he has an issue with anything it will be the alcohol part of the incident. I think alcohol incidences are looked at much harder. Obviously loan defaults and high debt are the most looked at stuff along with foreign acquaintances. I would imagine if he keeps his nose clean until he graduates and shows he doesn't have an alcohol issue and his chain of command and those listed on his SF-86 state that he doesn't have a drinking issue he could get a TS down the road. I know many folks with DUIs in their past who were able to get TSs. Mostly it was because they were in their past and they showed years of history after that they were not drunks.
 
As a father of a soon to commission AROTC MSIV, I absolutely agree with all the sentiments of disgust at the seeming arbitrariness of the punishment.

Jcc and others, I will defer to your judgments about appropriate markers of future good leadership in post adolescence males. I do, however, think that this one incident isn't "necessarily" a certain predictor of future "bad leadership." Two examples come to mind.

My brother's escapades throughout high school and college were epic. He absolutely benefitted from being the white son of a surgeon in the south. After barely graduating from UNC which included much summer school, he volunteered for the Air Force and Navy during the height of the Vietnam war. More than a few of his buddies, from similar backgrounds, took deferments or received guaranteed spots in the guard, or in one case, became a missionary. My father, who couldn't stomach the dissembling from the Pentagon and White House about what we were doing in SE Asia, wanted to intervene to get him a spot in the guard. Instead, my brother volunteered. In this case, he did not "honor his mother and father."

Read John McCain's book "Faith of My Fathers." Yes, I know. Different times, etc. He was the beneficiary on a number of occasions of deference shown to his father and grandfather. He wouldn't have finished USNA without it and the honor code violating loyalty of his fellow mids. When it literally mattered the most, his loyalty to his mates and his country is a case study in leadership. The only special treatment he got was more torture for not taking the early release the North Vietnamese ordered he take.

In no way could one compare my brother's service to that of Sen. McCain. But they did have one thing in common, some adult was constantly reminding them that they were screwing up and acting like idiots. My brother, at age 70, feels nothing lucky, but he never felt entitled.

What I find most upsetting in this case is the DA saying, "If he achieved enough to be in the academy..." He is giving the cadet a pat on the back and deference which has not been earned. IMHO this cadet hasn't achieved by virtue of being in an SA. He got into an SA, whose admissions policies are every bit a arbitrary as there punishments. My DS would still say two weeks before commissioning, that he hasn't achieved anything other than earning an opportunity.
 
I've gone back and forth on this one for a while. There's basically two camps, one and done and second chance. Depending on the "crime" I go back and forth, this one based on what little I know I'm in the second chance camp.

This was a stupid decision but he has a chance to make amends and learn from it, especially if it's first mistake. If he doesn't then I say don't let the door hit him on the way out. Lord knows that I've made lots of mistakes during my life and at key ones if I didn't have the right guidance it could have turned out bad.

As a side note my DS is hard fast one and done camp. There were some underage drinking at Prep about a month ago and he's of the opinion if they're making poor judgements now what happens when they're an officer and their poor judgement cost someone their lives. I counter that if they learn for making a smaller mistake now wouldn't that as well make them an even better officer? I don't know what the right answer is because it's not my job to assess such things I'd have to default to the Academies that have more experience in handling these things.

Just two cent that's worth less than that.
 
Sledge said:
They went down a country road to drink some beer. My God, such intent to do "wrong."
Click to expand...

I think if they had just "Went down a country road to drink some beer", nobody would think much about it. They did a bit more then that.
 
cb7893 said:
. . . IMHO this cadet hasn't achieved by virtue of being in an SA. He got into an SA, whose admissions policies are every bit a arbitrary as there punishments. My DS would still say two weeks before commissioning, that he hasn't achieved anything other than earning an opportunity.
Click to expand...

This young man has accomplish more than most of peers. SAs have about 15K +/- that starts the application process. Most don't finish the application process, most don't get nominations, most don't get academically qualified a,nd etc. Perhaps his parents did everything for him, but getting accepted and staying a cadet/midshipman are accomplishments in comparison what average kids do.

As for admissions policies and punishment being arbitrary, I would argue that on average, they are not aribitrary. They are consistent on average. Our tendency is to focus on exceptions, such a kid getting in with below average academic accomplishments or a cadet not getting kicked out after committing mulplie honor violations. But the norm is only high achievers get accepted into SAs and punishments are pretty much consistent.

Also, SAs can't win, as if they implemented a consistant standard for admissions and punishment, some folks will be crying foul for being inflexible.
 
Boozebin said:
I've gone back and forth on this one for a while. There's basically two camps, one and done and second chance. Depending on the "crime" I go back and forth, this one based on what little I know I'm in the second chance camp.

This was a stupid decision but he has a chance to make amends and learn from it, especially if it's first mistake. If he doesn't then I say don't let the door hit him on the way out. Lord knows that I've made lots of mistakes during my life and at key ones if I didn't have the right guidance it could have turned out bad.

Just two cent that's worth less than that.
Click to expand...



Let me see if I’ve got this right.


Every Cadet who participated in the “naked man” run should be charged and dismissed for public nudity. Furthermore, if there was a minor anywhere in sight, they should also be charged with a sex crime (New York Law) and be required to register as a sex offender.

Every Cadet who participated in stealing the Navy mascot prior to the Army / Navy game should be charged with criminal trespassing on federal property and dismissed from the academy.

Every Cadet who participated in the yearly central area pillow fight should be charged with assault and battery and dismissed from the Academy.

Every Cadet who participated in any spirit activity that resulted in any destruction of Naval property (example: burning “Go Army” in the parade field grass) should be charged and dismissed from the Academy.

Gen. Douglas MacArthur, who smuggled artillery to the top of a campus clock tower, should have been charged with misappropriating federal property and criminal mischief and dismissed from the academy.



I’m also in the “This was a stupid decision but he has a chance to make amends and learn from it, especially if it's first mistake ” camp.
 
sean007 said:
Let me see if I’ve got this right.


Every Cadet who participated in the “naked man” run should be charged and dismissed for public nudity. Furthermore, if there was a minor anywhere in sight, they should also be charged with a sex crime (New York Law) and be required to register as a sex offender.

Every Cadet who participated in stealing the Navy mascot prior to the Army / Navy game should be charged with criminal trespassing on federal property and dismissed from the academy.

Every Cadet who participated in the yearly central area pillow fight should be charged with assault and battery and dismissed from the Academy.

Every Cadet who participated in any spirit activity that resulted in any destruction of Naval property (example: burning “Go Army” in the parade field grass) should be charged and dismissed from the Academy.
Click to expand...

I think you're on to something here.

Just make what happened into one of those annual Academy activities and nobody will ever give it a second thought.

Wait....cadets run Naked?
 
Jcc123 said:
How do you get that he wasn't convicted of a felony? It clearly states in the article that he was, and that he received 6 months probation as a result.
Click to expand...

Article indicates he was Charged, not convicted. Based on they way they described things, it sounds like they did "deferred adjudication" or "pretrial diversion". Which essentially means the charged individual has to follow steps and activities the court proscribes, and stay out of trouble N months. If they do, the charges are dismissed or dropped. If not, the trial proceeds. When the charges are dropped, there is no conviction, no record, etc.

It is very common for courts to do this for first time offenders with (otherwise) good track records.

My eldest had a deferred adjudication for a driving violation. Was busy looking for an address, missed that the left turn signal had turned red, clipped a guy's bumper, and was charged with "Running a red light". Fairly high points.

So in the midst of the DUI's, driving without insurance on the docket, etc... here comes my son, scared to death. College student in the town. No traffic record. Makes good grades.

Judge chats about college, grades. Hometown. Comments it's clear he's not a habitual offender, and asks if he can stay out of trouble 6 mths. DS says yes. Deferred adjudication. At the end of 6 mths, charges dismissed, no record, no points, etc.

Does the Judge factor in the kid's background, track record, etc? Absolutely. You all can decide if the Judge was fair in the cadet's case.

Given the court knew USMA would be imposing additional punishment, their decision was probably reasonable.

Can't comment on what USMA did or did not do, as we don't have details. Just know it's less than separation, and more than confinement & hours.

I don't think separation would have been unreasonable, especially if convicted. For this case, just don't know enough.

It does appear USMA and ROTC have very different approaches. I have thoughts on what might be driving that, but not worth debating as it's conjecture on all of our parts.
 
While reading the article and all the responses, I had to wonder at what point does it go from "youthful stupidity" to "this is the end of your career and your life as you know it?" It seems more and more people expect perfection from a cadet. As if becoming a cadet means these young adults must be perfect at all times, and any and all mistakes are to be treated as a despicable crime with the harshest punishment possible. Something categorized as youthful indiscretion in a "civilian college" is seen as criminal behavior. I expect the bar to be higher at an academy, but at what point is the bar too high?

I am with the lets give him another chance and see what happens crowd. If this was his only screw up due to youthful high jinks, then I don't think tossing him in the midden heap is the proper response. How many of us have done something incredibly stupid when we were younger while drinking and were lucky enough not to get caught or get off lightly because "back in the day when it was hard" adults understood youthful stupidity?

Also, why in the world was the door left unlocked? Hello! Isn't this a bit of a security issue if entering without authorization is such a security issue and risk to life type thing? I am not saying the unlocked door justifies what they did. I am simply pointing out that if something is so important, perhaps having a lock on the door might be a good idea.

Also, back in the day when it was hard, we were allowed to drink and smoke at 18. Talk about youth and the possibility of endless mischief.
 
I was reminded of a story told by Robert Timberg in his book State of Grace. Timberg was a 1964 graduate of the USNA. He chose to be a Marine and was sent to Basic School in Quantico, Virginia.

******************************************************************************

One Saturday night late in July, it must have been close to three in the morning, Janie and I were heading back to Rehoboth after she finished work at the Bottle & Cork. Our relationship was in one of its down periods. As she was prone to do from time to time, she was explaining to me, in a patient way that drove me crazy, that I was boring. I was getting angry.

"I have no idea what you're talking about," I said.

Just then the town water tower came into view on our right.

"Have you ever thought of climbing that?" she asked.

"Hell, no," I replied.

"See what I mean?" she said.

"Goddammit!" I said, stopping the car, climbing out, slamming the door behind me.

I was nearly to the top when I heard the sirens. Then a spotlight hit me, pinning me like a cat burglar trying to jimmy a tenth-story window. The cops told me to come down. I glanced toward the ground. The cops looked very small. Everything did. I didn't se Janie.

I made it down, far more slowly than I had gotten up. The cops asked me for identification . I passed them my driver's license and my military ID.

"You're a Marine?" one of them asked.

I said I was.

"An officer? You've got to be kidding me."

I assured him that I was not.

"So what the hell were you doing up there? That's as f____ing dumb as it gets."

I started to explain that my girlfriend had dared me to do it, but before I got more than one or two words out of my mouth I realized how stupid I sounded.

Instead, I said, "I'm a Marine."

The cops warned me to stay off the water tower, promised to throw me in jail if the caught me climbing it again. "Semper Fi," one of them shouted out the window of their squad car as they drove away. Janie came out from behind some trees a moment later.

"Sorry," she said, looking sheepish, an expression. I had never seen on her face before.

In early August, there were reports that two American destroyers had been fired on by North Vietnamese vessels in a section of the South China Sea called the Tonkin Gulf. In Washington, President Johnson asked Congress for authority to respond. the so-called Tonkin Gulf Resolution granted him extraordinary powers. It passed the Senate with just two dissenting votes. The House of Representatives passed it unanimously. When the news reached Quantico, thirty miles to the south, one of my lieutenant friends said, gleefully, "We gonna go."

**************************************************************************************************

Timberg apparently changed her opinion of him, since they married later. He is one of my heroes, not because of the dopey prank, but because of what he accomplished after a devastating injury in Vietnam. The story of how he got into the Academy is also one of remarkable perseverance.
 
Last edited:
SAcadets/mids are held to a higher standard than their civilian counterparts. IMHO, they should be as they are going to school at our (the taxpayers') expense. That said, they are human beings and, like all such creatures, make stupid mistakes. Unfortunately for them, their mistakes tend to make the news so it becomes a public debate.

I suspect what all of us want is consistent treatment, especially within a particular SA (i.e., USNA and USMA may treat the same offense differently but it should be treated the same within each institution). The problem is that every situation is unique -- unique individuals and unique facts. And none of us has all of the facts. Thus, a situation may look better or worse to us than it is and the "punishment" likewise.

Here, I would want to know the seniority of the cadet, his record at USNA (i.e., prior conduct issues), how they are viewed by their superiors and professors, etc. In other words, is this basically a good, young guy who did a stupid thing that (apparently) caused no injury to others and no significant property damage? Or is this a guy who is constantly in trouble and this was the proverbial last straw?

Finally, I agree that the article itself did no one any favors. It suggested the cadet had a sense of entitlement without any comments from the cadet involved to support that; rather, the article was quoting someone in the justice system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top