Nine CGA Cadets Removed for Cocaine possession etc

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just_A_Mom said:
the light punishment for these Cadets combined with this:
http://cgreport.wordpress.com/2009/...ichael-sullivan-gets-fined-for-using-cocaine/
a Captain who gets fined for using cocaine is puzzling.
Click to expand...



As I have stated on previous posts, be careful of taking unofficial blogs too seriously, the "Coast Guard Report" by "Thomas Jackson" does not represent the Coast Guard, it's people, or the mission. If anything, it attacks the Coast Guard. If you looked closely JAM, (assuming you didn't google "Coast Guard drugs"), CGReport supports the cadet from 2005 that was Court Martialed for sodomy and extorsion.

It's not a credible website, and a captain is far different from a 3/c cadet.
 
BR2011 said:
FYI captains mast at the Academy is not considered NJP, it is administrative action. Also there is technically no obligation for 2/c and above leaving at the Coast Guard Academy so careful before you criticize Luigi.


basically the deal was there was no hard evidence, only confessions. and due to the time it would take to go through with a court martial and the very small chance that they would actually be prosecuted the commandant decided to just get rid of them.
Click to expand...

Thank You BR2011!! Not sure who was criticizing Luigi but he is the one who said in Post #8 that it was an Article 15:
Luigi said:
There weren't any, all 9 cases were handled via Captain's Mast (Non Judicial Punishment, known as Article 15 in the Army and Air Force).
Click to expand...

You have confirmed that my post #30 is indeed correct.
Luigi, LITS, Fleiger, Sandbar and KVH - allow me to explain it to you.......


This was not a Captain's Mast - which is the Sea Services term for an Article 15 and NJP. Article 15 falls under the UCMJ and is overseen by the US Coast Guard and not the USCGA. If it were a Captain's Mast, the Cadets would have right to refusal and the right to a Courts Martial, and present a legal defense to their case. The US CG would have had to make available legal counsel to the accused and they would have had an opportunity to have their day in court.
If a Cadet chooses to accept a Captain's Mast (or NJP) he cannot be separated from the service Captain's Mast. That must come from the Secretary.

The Coast Guard Academy instead elected to keep this in-house and have it remain an Academy matter. The Commandant of Cadet Mast is an Administrative hearing - similar to what other academies call a disciplinary hearing.
Folks need to understand that the Commandant does not have the power to separate but can only recommend. The separation must come from the Superintendent - officially. In cases of involuntary separation, Cadets can still consult with legal counsel but they do not have a right to it and the CGA does not need to provide them with legal counsel.

Cadets and Mids are in a unique situation. When they are accused of breaking the law their case can stay at the Academy or "in-house" as the CGA elected to do in this case OR they can be charged under the UCMJ and their case will be heard by the Service or US Coast Guard in this case.
It is important to understand the differences between the two.

Apologies will be graciously accepted.
 
Just_A_Mom said:
This was not a Captain's Mast - which is the Sea Services term for an Article 15 and NJP. Article 15 falls under the UCMJ and is overseen by the US Coast Guard and not the USCGA. If it were a Captain's Mast, the Cadets would have right to refusal and the right to a Courts Martial, and present a legal defense to their case. The US CG would have had to make available legal counsel to the accused and they would have had an opportunity to have their day in court.
If a Cadet chooses to accept a Captain's Mast (or NJP) he cannot be separated from the service Captain's Mast. That must come from the Secretary.

The Coast Guard Academy instead elected to keep this in-house and have it remain an Academy matter. The Commandant of Cadet Mast is an Administrative hearing - similar to what other academies call a disciplinary hearing.
Folks need to understand that the Commandant does not have the power to separate but can only recommend. The separation must come from the Superintendent - officially. In cases of involuntary separation, Cadets can still consult with legal counsel but they do not have a right to it and the CGA does not need to provide them with legal counsel.

Cadets and Mids are in a unique situation. When they are accused of breaking the law their case can stay at the Academy or "in-house" as the CGA elected to do in this case OR they can be charged under the UCMJ and their case will be heard by the Service or US Coast Guard in this case.
It is important to understand the differences between the two.

Apologies will be graciously accepted.
Click to expand...

A few points that I need to make after someone's google search. First, the Commandant is the top officer in the Coast Guard, so I assume you're talking about the Commandant of Cadets, who is a captain (O-6). I assume that was just an innocent mistake by you. The Commandant of Cadet makes recommendations to a board and the Superintenant.

The Coast Guard Academy CAN in fact hold a true Mast, and considering that the Coast Guard Academy is a base and not just a college, this can be done. Cadets are typically given an administrative equivalent, in which separation is adviced. This doesn't rise to the level of the Secretary of Homeland Security. The results of a mast can be appealled to the Commandant of the Coast Guard.

It is also important to understand that "heard by the Coast Guard" does not mean that CGA is out of the picture. Recommendation for a Courts Martial is given by the Superintendant, and the only Court Martial involving a cadet in 2006 was done at CGA, in Hamilton Hall. "In house" or not, the Coast Guard Academy is a Headquarters unit.

I am still trying to figure out why you brought up the Sullivan case, I would guess just to sling mud.
 
It may also "be important" to repeat that members attached to afloat units to not always have the "right" to opt for a Court Martial instead of a Mast (NJP). Obviously, this is not the case at a shore command like CGA.

No apologies needed.
 
LineInTheSand said:
A few points that I need to make after someone's google search. First, the Commandant is the top officer in the Coast Guard, so I assume you're talking about the Commandant of Cadets, who is a captain (O-6). I assume that was just an innocent mistake by you. The Commandant of Cadet makes recommendations to a board and the Superintenant.
In the context of my post I was referring to the Commandant of cadets at the USCGA. We agree here - he would not have power to dismiss but would make a recommendation to a board and the Supe.

The Coast Guard Academy CAN in fact hold a true Mast, and considering that the Coast Guard Academy is a base and not just a college, this can be done. Cadets are typically given an administrative equivalent, in which separation is adviced. This doesn't rise to the level of the Secretary of Homeland Security. The results of a mast can be appealled to the Commandant of the Coast Guard.
Yes they can but this is not what they chose to do. My point was IF the CGA and USCG had chosen to press charges this is the route they would go.
IF they have a true MAST it would fall under the UCMJ.


It is also important to understand that "heard by the Coast Guard" does not mean that CGA is out of the picture. Recommendation for a Courts Martial is given by the Superintendant, and the only Court Martial involving a cadet in 2006 was done at CGA, in Hamilton Hall. "In house" or not, the Coast Guard Academy is a Headquarters unit.
Again, by 'in-house" I mean at the Academy level - not the UCMJ level.
Not physically, understanding that a Court Martial could indeed be held at the academy.
I am still trying to figure out why you brought up the Sullivan case, I would guess just to sling mud.
Not slinging mud at all. Just making an observation.
When you say the link is not credible are you saying that the story is a fabrication? I can provide a more credible link:
http://coastguardnews.com/senior-co...guilty-of-wrongful-use-of-cocaine/2009/06/17/

If I was going to speculate, I could speculate that is one reason why a Court martial was not sought - seeing the presidence here perhaps the "Powers that be" felt it would be pointless.

I don't know where anyone gets the idea that I am bashing or criticizing the Coast Guard Academy or the US Coast Guard. I am not judging but just pointing out that it could have been worse for these cadets. A point that Fleiger83 made back in post #10 before he piled on me.
To paraphrase Sandbar - "Cool your jets and stop being so combative"

This has been a good discussion with some good information that might help educate some folks - unless you want to turn it into a "shoot the messenger" campaign.
Click to expand...
 
I'm still trying to figure out why Just_A_Mom is so upset that these 9 were dismissed from the Academy and not jailed? Does she see some type of miscarriage of justice here? The then-4th class cadets were accused of using drugs while home on Christmas leave or Spring Break leave (and yes, 2 were accused of using at Leamy Hall during summer school), they were confronted, they admitted the offense, they were discharged from the academy. Why would jail time serve as a better punishment?

I'm sure if she googled for more info on military administrative hearings (NJP) at the other SA's, she may in fact see that they also have used "dismissals" as a form of punishment for the guilty cadet or midshipman. Not every case results in jail time under the UCMJ, as she seems to suggest should be the case here.

I am glad to see the process at USCGA is working - an allegation was made, an investigation took place, a hearing was held, and appropriate punishments were administered.

Those who remain in the Class of 2012 can hold their heads high.
 
Luigi59 said:
I am glad to see the process at USCGA is working - an allegation was made, an investigation took place, a hearing was held, and appropriate punishments were administered.

Those who remain in the Class of 2012 can hold their heads high.
Click to expand...

Yep. It's no different from when I was in, both at the Academy and out in the Fleet.

You get busted for using, you're out. Period. It's not like they had it with intent to distribute, in which case they WOULD most likely be nailed under the UCMJ. But just for having used? Nah. Dismissal is enough.
 
Okay - whatever. If you can't explain it there must not be much to it.

Luigi - where would you get the idea that I am upset? I could care less. You are the one who won't allow any discussion or questioning of the CGA. Sure, be loyal to your school but remember you are the first to post "dirt" and question other academies.
I never said the CGA made the wrong decision in failing to prosecute - I have no idea if any of the Cadets were railroaded into confessions or if they were guilty of possession and extremely lucky.

The reality is Cadets at other academies who have faced similar charges have been held for Court Martial. I simply made this observation as did others that they were lucky to have been simply dismissed, it could have been worse.
I suppose instead of admitting that you were mistaken and incorrect in your "correction" it's easier to lower yourself to rude comments and snide remarks.
Par for the course for this forum.
 
Folks: No more posts that reference another posters name in this thread and no more posts with sly digs about any of the other posters. Apparently it is beyond the capability of several of you to disagree in anything approaching a civil manner. Kilovictorhotel's quote is true enough- you should all take his point about tact to heart.

You are all arguing about a case of which you know very little. As in all legal cases there are undoubtedly a lot of mitigating circumstances that were considered before the decision was made on how to process these cadets. It's pretty arrogant to pass judgement on the appropriateness of handling something via one of the legitimate methods available to do so without some basic facts which thankfully are not usually publicly aired. I would presume that the Commandant of Cadets has a fair amount of experience as an O6 commander and gets plenty of advice from his legal staff on how to handle legal cases and without any additional facts what basis does of any one posting here have to second guess that decision?
 
bruno said:
I would presume that the Commandant of Cadets has a fair amount of experience as an O6 commander and gets plenty of advice from his legal staff on how to handle legal cases and without any additional facts what basis does of any one posting here have to second guess that decision?
Click to expand...

Of course. To proclaim these dismissed cadets as "lucky" assumes many facts not in evidence.

Unlike a few of the West Point cadets that were caught in a drug scandal and tried under a court martial, these cadets were not dealing/selling drugs. Their punishment fit their crimes. Unlike the search that occurred at WP, there was no riot in Chase Hall as the search took place. No Coast Guard cadets threw flaming garbage out of the windows or lit any fireworks to protest the drug search, as was the case at West Point's Bradley Barracks in 2006 (as documented in these two news reports):

Cadets Vent at West Point After Drug Searches

Military Matters: Angry West Point Cadets "Riot" After Drug Search

This matter was handled by the USCGA and the CGIS, for the USCGA. No luck was involved, unless you believe that other drug-using cadets are still there and "got away with it."
 
Just_A_Mom said:
Okay - whatever. If you can't explain it there must not be much to it.
Click to expand...



Not at all, it's just I can recognize the road we're going down, because we've been there before...when you don't agree with some things, then you have to be walked step by step, and I don't care to engage that. You have the reference, the Coast Guard Personnel Manual, and you are free to read it to your hearts content. The separation part should be pretty easy to find, using the very easy to find table of contents, nicely labeled "TABLE OF CONTENTS".

There's plenty to it, 1500+ pages of it, but I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you.
 
WOW .... what an entertaining thread.... ROFLMBO...

kudos to the CGA for handling it the way they did.. these kids admitted to it... they got kicked out..... makes sense to me....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top