Discussion in 'ROTC' started by 7422, Apr 18, 2017.
What are your thoughts about this news article?
I think, with all due respect to my Cyclone friends and neighbors, if the DOD spent $50k a year for tuition and stipend for one midi/cadet at IA State they're nuts.
You're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty so I give him the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, the story does not include enough detail to really know the truth. What it does do is provide tidbits of possible misleading information which does not look good for the cadet. I hope that he's not playing the system because it does hurt others by crying "wolf" if it didn't happen as he says.
We'll never know who is telling the truth on that one... he said, he said. If he is otherwise in good standing I would give him the benefit of the doubt. Not sure I would trust any witness testimony unless the numbers were overwhelming.
Isn't lying about the injury being work related enough to kick him out? Underage drinking, fighting, failure to report a police investigated incident to his commander and then lying about what happened initially.
He was too embarrassed to report the sexual assault at first, but now that his scholarship is on the line he is not? I'm not buying what the cadet is selling.
I had to look twice when I read the payback was "around 100K" for two years.
Taking the OOS tuition for two years and even adding $500 per year for fees plus the book money and the stipend for two years, comes out to total $55,944.00 total for two years. I guess the were being very liberal with that "around" number.
All good points but after reading the article a couple times it's clear that they left out enough facts to make it hard to really make any clear determination.
From what I can gather from the article, the Mid was injured and went to the hospital, it sounds like he made a statement to the sheriff that the injury stemmed from unwanted sexual advance by the other person. Looks like he got stitched up and refused to press charges while the other person involved offered a different account of the events. Since no charges were filed that seemed to be the end of it.
Now the Mid returns to training and states that the injury was work related and was cleared to train. As far as being embarrassed, I can totally understand him not wanting to bring it up to a bunch of future Marines and Sailors. He most likely figured it was behind him at that point.
From the article it seems that the Navy found out from the Sheriff's dept. about the incident and was read in on the details, it sounds like the issue was not brought up by the Mid. Once they found out they confronted the Mid.
It does not sound like he decided at that point to claim the sexual advances/assault but rather ended up defending what he had already claimed earlier to the Sheriff's dept.
In the article the Capt. states that the drinking and a fight would not automatically be cause to remove the Mid from the program, it seems that the claim of sexual assault is what is driving the case. This seems odd because it sounds like it is the Navy that decided to take issue with the claim that was only given to the Sheriff's dept., the Mid never came forward to make that claim to the Navy and the it's the Navy that has now decided to run with it.
This case seem confusing when you read the article. If the fight and alcohol, which the Mid has admitted to, is not enough to remove him, why would the Navy make a determination based on something that is hard to prove, has a witness to support the claim, and no charges were filed.
As always, there is probably more to the story then what was written in the article.
Separate names with a comma.