Lying on DoDMERB

Status
Not open for further replies.
lukepeoples said:
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.
Click to expand...

Especially when the statements are obviously false accusations, I think it should remain to yourself on a thread on another topic. I highly doubt that the President is a "chronic user of weed". Sure, maybe he's used in at least once in his life, but it is extremely unlikely he is a user. That's almost as bad as saying he was born in Kenya... He hasn't even mentioned the legalization of marijuana.

He doesn't consider the enforcement of the law in legal states a top priority, but he does not support legalization.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS...sers-high-priority-drug-war/story?id=17946783
 
EDIT: I noticed Whistle Pig's comments above, totally overlooked them earlier. I quickly went from thinking that she was a helpful wealth of knowledge about the US Naval Academy, but I'll openly say that in my short time here, I don't think I can take anything she says seriously.

Admin? Please mark this thread as way off topic.

What needed to be said has been said about the original topic, the only thing left that we're waiting for is what USNA had to say about it from Serve1.
 
Last edited:
usnabgo08 said:
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:
Click to expand...

You wouldn't happen to have the portion of the instruction that supports annonymous posting, would you?
 
usnabgo08 said:
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:
Click to expand...

In fact, in never recommends anonymous posting BUT.... CHINFO does say...

"COMMUNICATE EXPECTATIONS ABOUT ONLINE
INTERACTIONS with your Sailors and personnel. The
Navy encourages Sailors to serve as ambassadors to
online communities. The Navy asks Sailors to live their
core values online, and understand that communication
in social media is both public and international – even
when they think they are just talking to family and friends.
When commenting about Navy matters, Sailors and Navy
personnel need to be transparent about who they are and
should identify themselves and their rank and/or position.
They should also be clear that their opinions are their
own, and do not represent their command or the Navy
when commenting publically on Navy topics."

Straight from the Navy's Social Media guidance from CHINFO. Not a single mention of "anonymous" posting, but there is advocacy for transparency.

Hey, it's not my service... do what you think is right correct or not.

http://www.cnrc.navy.mil/PAO/socialnetwrk/soc_med_hnd_bk.pdf
 
I'd consider an ALNAV (record message) more official (since it goes to every Navy and Marine Corps Command) than what is in the PAO handbook (less distributed). It looks like someone messed up the handbook or message (and I'm betting it is the handbook, since it is rare the SECNAV is wrong), but either way, they do contradict somewhat.

The SECNAV clearly stated "if desired" in his ALNAV, meaning that the discretion is left up to the individual. If it doesn't CLEARLY restrict anonymous posting, then it is allowed. If anonymous posting was not allowed, the policy would have stated that all DON personnel "shall" state their name, rank, position, etc. If everyone was always posting their rank, name, and position, then it would be more LIKELY that anyone (public) reading the correspondence would assume it to be done in an official capacity, to which there is separate guidance.

Now anyone wearing the uniform needs to also realize they can be held accountable for their actions.
 
Last edited:
usnabgo08 said:
I'd consider an ALNAV (record message) more official (since it goes to every Navy and Marine Corps Command) than what is in the PAO handbook (less distributed). It looks like someone messed up the handbook or message (and I'm betting it is the handbook, since it is rare the SECNAV is wrong), but either way, they do contradict somewhat.

The SECNAV clearly stated "if desired" in his ALNAV, meaning that the discretion is left up to the individual. If it doesn't CLEARLY restrict anonymous posting, then it is allowed. If anonymous posting was not allowed, the policy would have stated that all DON personnel "shall" state their name, rank, position, etc. If everyone was always posting their rank, name, and position, then it would be more LIKELY that anyone (public) reading the correspondence would assume it to be done in an official capacity, to which there is separate guidance.

Now anyone wearing the uniform needs to also realize they can be held accountable for their actions.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming because you've been in for awhile that the ALNAV having to do with a PA subject was created through CHINFO. I'm also guessing that the CHINFO guidance has a little more "work" go into it (as someone who had drafted service wide messages, the process of produce a "PAO book" is more involved.

The guidance specifically states, if you are providing advice about the Navy (as is anyone here, talking about the Navy based on their experiences), you should give your name, rank etc.

I didn't follow the CG rules while I was in. I was able to see these things grow, and take their current form. The services also have a bit of a "working group" in DC to somewhat align the policies. While the message does specifically call out anonymous posting in official posts, it does talk about transparency in the unofficial world. I'd say more than half of the users are more comfortable posting anonymously. But it's also clear what the Navy thinks about people who are talking about the Navy, even in an unofficial capacity.

Ones a message, ones a booklet. One has a letter from CHINFO, the other is the typical message. You decide what you want, but I think we both know, deep down how the Navy wants you to act...
 
Last edited:
LITS,

The message CLEARLY states IF DESIRED and this message was also included within the handbook. Handbooks are for guidance, ALNAVs publish the "official" policy -- hence why it is done via record message. And you are right, CHINFO should have chopped the message before being passed to SECNAV staff (or released) and the fact that the term "if desired" was left in meant it would be up to the individual. Since the message was released by SECNAV (even though it might not have crossed his desk), it means that the message is an order from him. I don't care what is in CHINFO's handbook, I am always going to follow a legal order or guidance from someone more senior. In this case, the SECNAV left the discretion to the individual. LITS, you can make the case all you want, but it is in writing from the SECNAV that it is up to the individual by the term "IF DESIRED" (fact). The SECNAV is senior to CHINFO (fact).

I have no qualms, I have clearly identified myself as a BGO (by position). I think it is important for those on the forum to know who the candidates, parents, MIDN, BGOs, etc. are and thus why I have identified myself. I don't think there is any requirement to state our name and rank.

Also there is a big difference in wording from should and shall. "Should" means that there is some discretion up to the individual and "shall" means there is no choice in the matter. If anonymous posting was such a concern, the verbiage would have been different. I think the intent and spirit of "transparency" from CHINFO is to provide some identification on the matter (i.e. on AirWarriors, someone might post as a Navy F/A 18 pilot when talking about F/A 18's...but not state rank/name, which probably isn't a necessity for those reading that forum).

Also, I'm done hijacking the topic.
 
Last edited:
usnabgo08 said:
LITS,

The message CLEARLY states IF DESIRED and this message was also included within the handbook. Handbooks are for guidance, ALNAVs publish the "official" policy -- hence why it is done via record message. And you are right, CHINFO should have chopped the message before being passed to SECNAV staff (or released) and the fact that the term "if desired" was left in meant it would be up to the individual. Since the message was released by SECNAV (even though it might not have crossed his desk), it means that the message is an order from him. I don't care what is in CHINFO's handbook, I am always going to follow a legal order or guidance from someone more senior. In this case, the SECNAV left the discretion to the individual. LITS, you can make the case all you want, but it is in writing from the SECNAV that it is up to the individual by the term "IF DESIRED" (fact). The SECNAV is senior to CHINFO (fact).

I have no qualms, I have clearly identified myself as a BGO (by position). I think it is important for those on the forum to know who the candidates, parents, MIDN, BGOs, etc. are and thus why I have identified myself. I don't think there is any requirement to state our name and rank.

Also there is a big difference in wording from should and shall. "Should" means that there is some discretion up to the individual and "shall" means there is no choice in the matter. If anonymous posting was such a concern, the verbiage would have been different. I think the intent and spirit of "transparency" from CHINFO is to provide some identification on the matter (i.e. on AirWarriors, someone might post as a Navy F/A 18 pilot when talking about F/A 18's...but not state rank/name, which probably isn't a necessity for those reading that forum).

Also, I'm done hijacking the topic.
Click to expand...


Would you say not using your name, as "suggested" by the CHINFO is "disguising" yourself?
 
Folks,

We've gone way OT here. If folks want to continue the discussion of DOD personnel posting, anonymous or otherwise, please take it to the OT forum.

Your friendly mod.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top