Army Commander Goes to Trial

bruno said:
Well -yeah we should care because someone who has no personal integrity outside of work shows a propensity for having none at work either. when you walk thru the charge sheet for this guy- not only did he betray his wife- but he betrayed his position (letting contracts to his mistress father in Iraq etc...). Isn't that exactly why we have an honor code? Because the Army believes that you can't really separate your personal code of ethics from your performance.
The flaws in the system that I see is the propensity of some guys to reward lick-spittles and guys who manage up to shine to their boss; without digging deep enough to see what things look like from his peers and subordinates. One "good old boy" who I worked for who became a 4 star used to use the analogy of a camouflage net- he observed that Camo nets work well from above but don't conceal much from the ground level; His point being that leaders have an obligation to look at the performance of those they rate from the peer and subordinate positions as well as from above. But we've all seen raters who reward the suckup who will burn out his people, polish a rock or take credit for the work of others in order to look good to the commander, and be rewarded for it becasue the next level up just wanted a beautiful slide or liked to see guys visibly burning oil all night long to show how committed they are.
Click to expand...


This holds true for any large organization. I see it all of the time in the corporate world, it is all a matter of perspective as to how you view the person or the situation. Those at the top, seldom take the time to see things at ground level, a few do - and those are the great exceptions.
 
scoutpilot said:
Feel free to cite some well-known examples of West Point grads protecting criminal officers.
Click to expand...

I like to think all officer, regardless of the commissioning source, are professional enough to not protect other officers that do illegal things. There is also something called self-preservation. To think that because they went to the same school, someone will cover another officer's illegal activities, knowing that if you get caught you will get punished.

On other hand, know of some West Point grads that did bad things, but that happens regardless of the commissioning source.
 
After I got over laughing at someone actually citing those sites as "proof" of something I became very appreciative. Conspiracy always makes for interesting stuff so that should add a lot to the forum:rolleyes:. Not very reliable it's true, but always entertaining. These sites are the web equivalent of the loons pushing the "Second Shooter" theory or "Area X" UFO/Alien theories. As long as we are going to be treating the conspiracy angle as valid- I've been wondering for a while- is it true that the USG conspired in the collapse of the twin towers ("if you look closely you can find evidence of controlled explosions which brought down the towers") because a war would benefit Halliburton? I mean after all- Halliburton did benefit from contracts with the DoD- so there must be a connection right?

Can we get real here?
 
bruno said:
After I got over laughing at someone actually citing those sites as "proof" of something I became very appreciative. Conspiracy always makes for interesting stuff so that should add a lot to the forum:rolleyes:. Not very reliable it's true, but always entertaining. These sites are the web equivalent of the loons pushing the "Second Shooter" theory or "Area X" UFO/Alien theories. As long as we are going to be treating the conspiracy angle as valid- I've been wondering for a while- is it true that the USG conspired in the collapse of the twin towers ("if you look closely you can find evidence of controlled explosions which brought down the towers") because a war would benefit Halliburton? I mean after all- Halliburton did benefit from contracts with the DoD- so there must be a connection right?

Can we get real here?
Click to expand...


Well said....I share that sentiment, but I was trying to say it in a way that was not quite that...blunt.
 
scoutpilot said:
Yes, that's a well-known crackpot site. Hard to believe their computers work with all that aluminum on the windows.

Nothing from an actual journalist or court martial. Got it. Just tribal lore.
Click to expand...

Before we go any further with this, go back and re-read exactly what I was responding to when I responded to bruno's questions - nothing about "covering up crimes" at all - his questions was:

"how the hell did we keep giving this guy top blocks"? No way did his peers not know that he was a self serving AH- why didn't his bosses ?
Click to expand...

That you chose to ask about "criminal coverups," and I responded was my mistake falling for your bait.

As to "crackpot sites" I suggest you just do a google search on the names and incidents that were linked if you want to see the facts - the ad hominem argument is not surprising. Some posters choose not to accept anything regardless of how many facts they can find.
 
bruno said:
After I got over laughing at someone actually citing those sites as "proof" of something I became very appreciative. Conspiracy always makes for interesting stuff so that should add a lot to the forum:rolleyes:. Not very reliable it's true, but always entertaining. These sites are the web equivalent of the loons pushing the "Second Shooter" theory or "Area X" UFO/Alien theories. As long as we are going to be treating the conspiracy angle as valid- I've been wondering for a while- is it true that the USG conspired in the collapse of the twin towers ("if you look closely you can find evidence of controlled explosions which brought down the towers") because a war would benefit Halliburton? I mean after all- Halliburton did benefit from contracts with the DoD- so there must be a connection right?

Can we get real here?
Click to expand...

As stated above, those who want to learn the truth are welcome to seek it.

And there are those who tend to use ad hominem attacks in some vain attempt to discredit something they don't want to admit or believe.

Take your pick.
 
Luigi59 said:
As stated above, those who want to learn the truth are welcome to seek it.

And there are those who tend to use ad hominem attacks in some vain attempt to discredit something they don't want to admit or believe.

Take your pick.
Click to expand...

I think most of us took our pick a long time ago when it comes to that kind of garbage.

If I wanted to attack you, you'd know it. I just laughed at your crackpot websites some anonymous phony runs to satiate his conspiracy desires.

Unless of course it's your website...:eek:
 
"how the hell did we keep giving this guy top blocks"? No way did his peers not know that he was a self serving AH- why didn't his bosses ?
Click to expand...

Had the unfortunate pleasure of knowing some of these types in my day, problem is, being a self serving AH isn't a crime, as long as they got results they continued to get the top assignments. Sometimes the peel on that rotten fruit got peeled back to expose something that should not be, when that happened all bets were off and the AH came tumbling down.

I don't doubt some had suspicions toward this guy with no way to prove it until the wife came forward and busted it wide open. I'm sure at that point this guy could not count on his closest friends, even those from West Point to cover his butt.

Do people cover for others sometime, sure, happens all the time, but with everything they have their limits, sure doesn't seem like anybody is trying to cover for this guy.

You got to love the internet, you can always find a site that will pander to what ever you believe.

Got to side with Scoutpilot on this one.
 
Jcleppe said:
Had the unfortunate pleasure of knowing some of these types in my day, problem is, being a self serving AH isn't a crime, as long as they got results they continued to get the top assignments. Sometimes the peel on that rotten fruit got peeled back to expose something that should not be, when that happened all bets were off and the AH came tumbling down.

Do people cover for others sometime, sure, happens all the time, but with everything they have their limits, sure doesn't seem like anybody is trying to cover for this guy.

You got to love the internet, you can always find a site that will pander to what ever you believe.
Got to side with Scoutpilot on this one.
Click to expand...


Nicely phrased.
 
bruno and tpg -- good, interesting info.

The wife (ex-wife) already has lost her Tricare coverage and only found out when she went for medical treatment - so she claims in the article below.
I found that troubling because I would have thought she would have been notified her coverage was ended.

Here is a quote from the article - I know it says "May" but it does leave the door open...
“It took me a very long time to make that decision,” said Mrs. Johnson. “I knew the wrongdoing he had done — the fraud, the waste, the abuse — and was he just going to keep doing it more? Who else was going to turn him in?”
Yet if her husband is convicted, she and their two children — ages 16 and 20 — may lose medical and retirement benefits accumulated over his 26-year career.
Click to expand...

Is this another case of Army Times journalistic 'freedom' i.e. making stuff up?
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/...on-iii-bigamy-fraud-adultery-charges-060512w/
 
I don't think the Army normally uses AFIs, but the system is probably similar.
 
tpg said:
I think they took some liberties because they obviously did not research anything.

My wife also corrected me as I said that the "pay" was temporary. According to our friend, because her husband was eligible for retirement, her pay is for life. So I would assume (bad word I know) that this will happen here as well. It is only temporary if the former member was not retirement eligible.

I do not have a link directly ( I am tired and therefore lazy tonight) so google AFI 36-3026. That is the Instruction book for issuing ID Cards and will have the basic benefits that a former spouse under the 20/20/20 rule will have as well as the benefits for an Abused Spouse.

As for pay, Google 10 USC 1408 (G or H). That will tell you the benefits a former abused spouse will get if the member loses his/her rights to retired pay due to misconduct.

If I have made a mistake in any of the numbers above, just let me know and I will look them up tomorrow when my brain housing group wants to function better.

Hope that answers your concerns....personally I hope she gets all she is entitled too and lives a long healthy life while he makes little rocks from big ones.
Click to expand...

This is what came up on my check of AFI's tonight:

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/afi36-3026(i).pdf

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
 
AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 36-3026(I)
ARMY REGULATION 600-8-14
*BUPERS INSTRUCTION 1750.10B
*MARINE CORPS ORDER P5512.11C
COMMANDANT INSTRUCTION M5512.1
COMMISSIONED CORPS PERSONNEL
MANUAL 29.2, INSTRUCTIONS 1 AND 2
NOAA CORPS REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 1,
PART 4
Click to expand...
Well, I guess you learn something every day.

I didn't realize they all went to one document. That actually makes some sense...scary.
 
I sounds like he got off relatively lightly given that the charges were more than just those involving his marital status (along with bigamy& adultry were charges of letting fraudulent contracts and misuse of Gov property): no dismissal, no reduction in grade, no jail time etc...- though a $300,000 fine is not exactly something to sneer at.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top