Seven (7) USCGA Cadets Discharged

Seeing as the vaccine mandate for all military members is about to be lifted by Congress, I hope these cadets will be welcomed back with apologies and back pay. What a fiasco.
Has there ever been a fiasco like this ever? I am only 50 years old so..... I never remember one like this. I am just amazed by the cadets who stood their ground. My daughter buckled but made a rational decision to get the vaccine because she didn't want to end up like these 7 cadets even though she was adamantly against it.
 
Last edited:
Has there ever been a fiasco like this ever? I am only 50 years old so..... I never remember one like this. I am just amazed by the cadets who stood their ground. My daughter buckled but made a rational decision to get the vaccine even though she was adamantly against it.
My son spoke to someone high up - I will keep anonymous - after a speech.

He looked at my son’s last name and said I recognize your name - you haven’t gotten the booster.

Never mind that he called my son up at a meal to congratulate him for an accomplishment a year ago. Didn’t remember him for that. Just the list of names against the vaccines and boosters.
 
Hopefully if they make that reversal they do the same for all who were kicked out in years prior to don’t ask don’t tell and further modernization of views on alternative lifestyles. Perhaps if they reinstate it sets precedence to reinstate in future any drug dismissals if they legalize in future.
You use "they" a couple of times. Is they the same they in each case? Specifically, who are you referencing when you say "if they legallize in the future?"
 
Is it a non-binary person?
I chose “they/them” to obscure a male or female gender reference in case my identity is known and a linkage is made. That particular specific is not germane to the story. My reason for sharing was to note first-hand knowledge the services did outreach to those separated during DADT and before. I often use that word choice when relating something I know but have no need to share that detail.
 
I chose “they/them” to obscure a male or female gender reference in case my identity is known and a linkage is made. That particular specific is not germane to the story. My reason for sharing was to note first-hand knowledge the services did outreach to those separated during DADT and before. I often use that word choice when relating something I know but have no need to share that detail.
I was trying to get to who is doing the legalizing. As we know it's legal in many municipalities but prohibited by policy I believe. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's permitted. We are in a CGA forum, so are we thinking DHS? What about DOD? Or are we assuming if it's legalized by the government that policy would change? What keeps a USAFA cadet or somebody at the place formerly known as Pete Field or Fort Carson, etc from using? It's intended as a genuine question to understand who is doing the legalizing (not intended to spark a pronoun debate) and where we would go from that point.
 
I was trying to get to who is doing the legalizing. As we know it's legal in many municipalities but prohibited by policy I believe. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's permitted. We are in a CGA forum, so are we thinking DHS? What about DOD? Or are we assuming if it's legalized by the government that policy would change? What keeps a USAFA cadet or somebody at the place formerly known as Pete Field or Fort Carson, etc from using? It's intended as a genuine question to understand who is doing the legalizing (not intended to spark a pronoun debate) and where we would go from that point.
Suggest you read the entire thread. Prior poster referenced congress lifting mandates. Not aware that I needed to prepare a full dissertation or legal brief as intent was to follow the conversation as hopefully our cadets and service members understand that federal law trumps state law regarding drug legalization. In the case of mandate a legal order was given individuals elected to not follow that legal order. One can debate ad nauseoum if that decision was of heroic courage to stand for their belief without consequence or more selfishly a refusal to follow an order which could result in physical harm, which in that case I do not want them defending me, our constitution or our country.
 
I chose “they/them” to obscure a male or female gender reference in case my identity is known and a linkage is made. That particular specific is not germane to the story. My reason for sharing was to note first-hand knowledge the services did outreach to those separated during DADT and before. I often use that word choice when relating something I know but have no need to share that detail.
I absolutely understand your use of "they/their". I grew up in a time when every non-gender specific antecedent pronoun was "his" and there was anything sexist about it. My father was grammar Martinet. I can't stop using his/her or him/her instead of they/their. I was not even thinking of your post, which I read and agreed with your acquaintance's approach. It exemplifies everything I'm railing against.

I plead guilty to trolling, not you specifically. And I'm trolling because I can't get used to the notion that an 18 year old, enabled by his/her parents is going to lecture USAFA, USNA, USCGA or USMA how to run their business. With all the BS flying around in 2020 and 2021 with regard to Covid, someone had to make a decision, the decision was made and the order was given. Full stop. If you can't follow an order, like @jeffinCharlotte 's DD did, or if you think your smarter that those giving the order, then do something else. Once they go active duty, there will be plenty more windmills to fight.

My son went through SFQC in 2020, before vaccines were available. It was a s******w. Everyone had an opinion and of their opinion mattered more than anyone else's. Training schedules were turned upside down. Many rules were simply ridiculous They would sit 5 feet apart in a classroom only later to be loaded hip to hip in a van. Out of ~100 cadre and candidates in his SERE Phase, ~80 tested positive and got locked up Chinese style for several weeks. I can only imagine how refusal of the vaccine would have gone over with that crew.
 
Suggest you read the entire thread. Prior poster referenced congress lifting mandates. Not aware that I needed to prepare a full dissertation or legal brief as intent was to follow the conversation as hopefully our cadets and service members understand that federal law trumps state law regarding drug legalization. In the case of mandate a legal order was given individuals elected to not follow that legal order. One can debate ad nauseoum if that decision was of heroic courage to stand for their belief without consequence or more selfishly a refusal to follow an order which could result in physical harm, which in that case I do not want them defending me, our constitution or our country.
Not trying to be difficult. Lifting the mandate seems a bit more cut and dry than legalizing drugs, and you're right there are numerous debates on the mandate elsewhere. You piqued my curiosity when you drew a parallel to drugs. My question is meant to be genuine about drugs. If drugs are legal in CO, what prevents service members there from using them? Is it a matter of military policy or federal law? Or both? If the federal government legalizes marijuana can service members use as soon as that law passes? Drugs are a big issue in the military and have been for some time.
 
Suggest you read the entire thread. Prior poster referenced congress lifting mandates. Not aware that I needed to prepare a full dissertation or legal brief as intent was to follow the conversation as hopefully our cadets and service members understand that federal law trumps state law regarding drug legalization. In the case of mandate a legal order was given individuals elected to not follow that legal order. One can debate ad nauseoum if that decision was of heroic courage to stand for their belief without consequence or more selfishly a refusal to follow an order which could result in physical harm, which in that case I do not want them defending me, our constitution or our country.
The legality of that order is very much up for debate. Several courts have said it isn’t legal.
 
Thank God they repralled the vaccine mandate. Now everyone can decide which are good orders and which are bad ones. Military academys should be a hotbed of individual free thinkers.
 
Has there ever been a fiasco like this ever? I am only 50 years old so..... I never remember one like this. I am just amazed by the cadets who stood their ground. My daughter buckled but made a rational decision to get the vaccine because she didn't want to end up like these 7 cadets even though she was adamantly against it.
How is she doing now?
 
Thank God they repralled the vaccine mandate. Now everyone can decide which are good orders and which are bad ones. Military academys should be a hotbed of individual free thinkers.
Not sure everyone can decide which are good orders and which are bad orders. Orders are orders. ;)
 
****** I am prefacing this with these are only my personal opinions and not meant ot upset or anger anyone *******


For those of us following COVID when COVID was THE HOT TOPIC, we should remember the USS Teddy Roosevelt! Ship was not operational for a while because a majority of the crew contracted COVID and the ship was not "Battle Ready". Happened to other ships also, and a lot of other ships had to "stay at sea" to prevent infection. The NAVY was unready to defend the country if war had broken out. Some ships were unable to deploy because of COVID outbreaks. Some Army units were quarantined in both the US and abroad because of infections.

Regardless of your thoughts here, not being a Supreme Court Justice, politics has become forefront. Those members (both officer and enlisted) were ALL given the opportunity to separate without prejudice if they felt they just could not get the vaccine. But no, a lot of members decided to fight the order (many after taking a lot of other vaccines) on the basis of political belief or supposed religious belief. JMHO, but many of the vaccines these same people refused because of religious beliefs contained or were derived from the same scientific methods as vaccines they willingly took.

As for it being "Lawful" as an order, during the Gulf war there was an order to get the Anthrax Vaccine (not fully approved), and failure to get it meant you were "Not Deployable" and hence not duty ready. No lawsuits were file that I am aware of, and no Judge "cherry-picking" occurred as happened during COVID. It would be interesting to get the stats on how many of the lawsuits brought by members were handled by "sympathetic" Judges, most of whom have never served in the military.

As for personal beliefs, anyone is entitled to their own, but when in the military you swear an oath to abide by the orders of those appointed above you, these members failed to do that, rather claiming they were not lawful. I would not want to serve with ANY of these members as their leader because at what point do they refuse one of my orders because they make the decision as to what is "lawful" and refuse to do something that may be needed. This is JMHO, and by no means meant to insinuate anything about people objecting to getting any vaccine, but if you "elect' to join the military (AND it IS voluntary), then in the interest of readiness and good military order I can't condone members questioning orders of their superiors, I just don't feel it is in our country's best interest. If you feel you cannot do what is required (especially knowing it is required) the just don't join!

Sorry, if I am making people angry, I do not mean to imply anyone has thought anything that is wrong, but we are not Korea, Japan or other countries who have mandatory military service and the only avenue to fight something you feel is very wrong is to contest or protest it, military service in the United States is fully voluntary, and if you elect to join knowing certain things, then if you disobey there should be consequences. If the government reinstates all these objectors, then what happens during a conflict if members object to firing on someone else because of a strongly held belief?

My belief is that these same people who rejoice over repealing the mandate, if they get sick, have residuals of COVID, cannot serve but will likely be the first in line to claim veterans' benefits and money because they were injured in the military. JMHO, but military service is different from individual rights in civilian life. When members refuse orders because "they" believed they knew better than those appointed above them my own belief is we lose any semblance of military order and discipline. where do we draw the line as to what should be followed or not, me just not wanting to do it, or being scared, or wanting to make a political or religious point. Most of us on here who served years ago took shots, did things we questioned, and were scared, but we followed orders. Now it seems we have gotten to a point where it is Ok for anyone to question anything in the military without repercussion? Where does that leave our military?
 
Last edited:
For those of us following COVID when COVID was THE HOT TOPIC, we should remember the USS Teddy Roosevelt! Ship was not operational for a while because a majority of the crew contracted COVID and the ship was not "Battle Ready". Happened to other ships also, and a lot of other ships had to "stay at sea" to prevent infection. The NAVY was unready to defend the country if war had broken out. Some ships were unable to deploy because of COVID outbreaks. Some Army units were quarantined in both the US and abroad because of infections.

Regardless of your thoughts here, not being a Supreme Court Justice, politics has become forefront. Those members (both officer and enlisted) were ALL given the opportunity to separate without prejudice if they felt they just could not get the vaccine. But no, a lot of members decided to fight the order (many after taking a lot of other vaccines) on the basis of political belief or supposed religious belief. JMHO, but many of the vaccines these same people refused because of religious beliefs contained or were derived from the same scientific methods as vaccines they willingly took.

As for it being "Lawful" as an order, during the Gulf war there was an order to get the Anthrax Vaccine (not fully approved), and failure to get it meant you were "Not Deployable" and hence not duty ready. No lawsuits were file that I am aware of, and no Judge "cherry-picking" occurred as happened during COVID. It would be interesting to get the stats on how many of the lawsuits brought by members were handled by "sympathetic" Judges, most of whom have never served in the military.

As for personal beliefs, anyone is entitled to their own, but when in the military you swear an oath to abide by the orders of those appointed above you, these members failed to do that, rather claiming they were not lawful. I would not want to serve with ANY of these members as their leader because at what point do they refuse one of my orders because they don't like it?
The questions I am focused on - if the science is revealed that the vaccines don’t work or aren’t safe, or there are/were therapeutics available, or natural immunity is better protection than the vaccines, would leadership admit continuing mandates might not be the best choice, and stop the mandates?

Or will they double down?

Fascinating information is coming out.
 
The questions I am focused on - if the science is revealed that the vaccines don’t work or aren’t safe, or there are/were therapeutics available, or natural immunity is better protection than the vaccines, would leadership admit continuing mandates might not be the best choice, and stop the mandates?

Or will they double down?

Fascinating information is coming out.
The scientific method requires wide spread confirmatory results, under rigorous controls and with acceptance of the majority of the researchers in that field of study. Are you implying you have such a body of work? Probably not. This would likely be the case even if the hypothesis was correct that the vaccine was not effective.
 
Back
Top