Marine veteran faces hearing on discharge status for wearing uniform at protest rally

Still,

All I hear is your speculation, muaddib. Also all I hear is more speculation from cw034. And while I'm not disrespecting your husband, I too have worked around Legal in the Navy - being around Legalman and in a legal office doesn't make you a lawyer. Your hubby didn't tell you anything I already didn't know.

What I'm talking about here is precedence - and nobody has yet to show me a legal precedence that shows ANYONE at anytime being punished for an action such as this while in an inactive state.

I will formaly retract my opinion and admit I was wrong if someone can show me some form of legal precedence. I myself have not been able to find any despite my intense searching.

The Judge Advocate General branch of the Military, just like the civilian world, make rulings and can use those rulings as precedence on other rulings. I have yet to find any such rulings regarding this at all.

Therefore everyone who thinks this marine is in the wrong is just stating opinion - not fact. Instead of repeatedly stating your opinion, why don't you go find some proof.

No Zeeon, all I read are your exagerations.

You claimed he had been discharged already, when he has not served his IRR obligation, he had been "separated" not "discharged". If you are presently a military personel in active duty, you should know the difference.

Here is an example Zeeon... this is not the first time this has happened..

Navy Man Faces Court-Martial For Uniform at Protest
NORFOLK, Virginia - A Navy chaplain on Tuesday pleaded not guilty before a court-martial to a charge of disobeying orders by wearing his uniform at a White House protest started Tuesday.

www.topix.net...

Read also the responses by two military personnel. Well one is a retired officer. The above happened in 2006. i can probalby find more if I searched.

BTW, he was found guilty.

Navy Chaplain Guilty Of Disobeying an Order

By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 15, 2006; Page A03

A Navy court decided yesterday to reprimand and dock the pay of an evangelical Protestant chaplain after finding him guilty of disobeying an order by appearing in uniform at a political protest in front of the White House in March.

www.washingtonpost.com...

You don't seem to be getting the point that he's inactive - with a honorable discharge. the IRR AGAIN as stated for the 50th time is the end of your active duty obligations. You should be able to draw that line if your military. But you keep blurring them.

The VFW and other articles also said the was unpaid, and nondrilling. That is as inactive as it gets - he's not under any obligations.
Both articles you just quoted one was either active duty, and the other was a retiree (retiree's are the exception, because they are still recieving pay and benefits, and thus are subject to the UCMJ in a limited condition).

But Keep trying. I really do applaud the effort, because your the only one to actually try. (no mocking, or joking, seriously)

BTW, here is some more enlightening information. I should have done this last night, but was tired.

This is the DOD Directive on "Guidelines for Handling Dissident and Protest Activities Among Members of the Armed Forces", October 1, 1996"
www.dtic.mil...

It clearly says you have to be out of uniform to attend protests, and remember this Marine is still serving his contract obligation to the military.

Separation (United States military)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
In the U.S. armed forces, separation means that a person is leaving active duty, but not necessarily leaving the service entirely. Separation typically occurs when someone reaches the date of their Expiration of Term of Service (ETS) and are released from active duty, but still must complete their military reserve obligations. Upon separation, they receive form DD214, which indicates their former and future status.

When a person completes their full military obligation, they are discharged and receive a formal certificate of discharge, usually an Honorable Discharge.

en.wikipedia.org...(United_States_military)

Military reserve obligations - "reserve" obligations - and inactive reserve obligations is what we're talking about. And they are not the same as active duty obligations.

I applaud that last post, I thought you had me, until I read "Military Reserve Obligations". As I have read and understand it, inactive reserve obligations, in a non duty, non drilling, non paid, non training status are pretty straightforward - report back to duty if ordered.

You don't get a honorable discharge if you "seperate" into the active reserves. Because your not discharged. I thought you knew that?
The only exception I'm aware of is retirement. Where you are discharged, then are assigned to fleet reserves until 30 years is up, and then you are officially un-obligated. Mind you, that applies to retiree's only, not inactive reserves.

Originally posted by zeeon
I would also like to point out how people like FlyersFan accuses someone of "Misconduct" as if they themselves are saints. Again, hyprocisy at it's finest. How many of you are guilty of something? He who has not sinned cast the first stone!

That's bunk.

If the law worked by that principle then the entire country would be in chaos ... 'oh it's okay to break the law because everyone does it and no one is perfect.'

Originally posted by tyranny22
Anyway, as long as all the insignias are removed it wouldn't seem like a problem to me – it'd just be clothing, maybe Military issue clothing, but ....

When in the military you are not allowed to wear the uniform in a manner other than it was intended for. That means you can't wear it 'wrong' and you can't mix it with civilian clothing. For instance - you can't wear blue jeans and a BDU top. Or you can't wear a BDU bottom and a Hard Rock tee shirt. See?

(do they still call them BDU's?? Dunno .. but you get the idea)

Originally posted by cw034
I spoke with my husband who worked Legal in the Marine Corps. He dealt with issues like this all the time. He said no matter active or inactive reserves, until his contract is up and he is completely discharged he is under the laws of the Military. Furthermore, again active or inactive, he can not be in uniform and especially what everyone is calling fatigues. Those are only to be worn on base and during official business during a business day.

I remember this last point as well .. we were never allowed to wear fatigues (BDUs) off post. NEVER. It was against the rules. I have seen people wearing them now .. either the rules changed (which according to cw034 they haven't ) ... or they are breaking the rules.

As already pointed out by cw034 - This guy was totally wrong.

CASE CLOSED.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by zeeon
I would also like to point out how people like FlyersFan accuses someone of "Misconduct" as if they themselves are saints. Again, hyprocisy at it's finest. How many of you are guilty of something? He who has not sinned cast the first stone!

That's bunk.

If the law worked by that principle then the entire country would be in chaos ... 'oh it's okay to break the law because everyone does it and no one is perfect.'

No your bunk. He payed from his "crime" @ NJP - who are you to use it against him now? That was my point. Your painting someone to be a criminal, with a "history" of bad conduct in the past - so gee this uniform thing only makes sense ! Gee Aren't I smart?

When in reality, it's nothing you probably haven't done yourself. I work with two guys who are underage and got caught drinking beers in the barracks. It was a no drinking barracks (they were in their room) and are going to NJP and will most likely loose a rank and get 45/45 restriction / extraduty AND loose a half months pay x 2.

So after all that I would take offense when someone like you would call this man a bad guy and say he's got a history of misconduct for one screw up.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
I remember this last point as well .. we were never allowed to wear fatigues (BDUs) off post. NEVER. It was against the rules. I have seen people wearing them now .. either the rules changed (which according to cw034 they haven't ) ... or they are breaking the rules.

As already pointed out by cw034 - This guy was totally wrong.

CASE CLOSED.

You want this guy to be totally wrong because it probably pisses you off that one of our own would go to an anti-war protest in the first place. The fact that he was in uniform probably only adds fuel to your already irrational and emotional fire.

If your against him going in the first place then so be it, but don't pretend to be more concerned about the "rules" he broke then how you actually feel about it.

Originally posted by zeeon
You don't seem to be getting the point that he's inactive - with a honorable discharge. the IRR AGAIN as stated for the 50th time is the end of your active duty obligations. You should be able to draw that line if your military. But you keep blurring them.

I don't think you've ever served and you certainly don't know what you're talking about, anyway.

If the person holds an honorable discharge, it must be from a prior enlistment, which no one has mentioned, and if that is so, then that discharge can't be changed because it is relative to that enllistment. I don't believe that that is the case, however.

If he is still on inactive reserve status, he has not yet been discharged from the current enlistment, which is the one in question.

If it is found that he violated regulations by attending a demonstration in his uniform, then it could very well influence the character of his service, especially in light of his known history.

Frankly, this discussion is pointless, because the issue is not what should be, but what is.

When you're in the military, you follow orders or else.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

I remember this last point as well .. we were never allowed to wear fatigues (BDUs) off post. NEVER. It was against the rules. I have seen people wearing them now .. either the rules changed (which according to cw034 they haven't ) ... or they are breaking the rules.

As already pointed out by cw034 - This guy was totally wrong.

Ya, the rules are very strict on uniforms. As Aircrew personnel we couldn't even wear our flight suit coveralls if we wanted to take a picture, not even in the base, when off duty.

This Marine is still under military obligation, he shoulnd't have used his uniform, even by removing the insignias and name tag, he is still technically using a military issued uniform.

He hasn't been given an honorable discharge because he is still serving his military term obligation in IRR. When he finishes his IRR term, then he recieves discharge and recieves his honorable, other than honorable, or dishonorable discharge.

Since he wore that military issued uniform for a protest while still serving his military obligation, his discharge could very well change.

[edit on 1-6-2007 by Muaddib]

The original posted article says he was given an honorable discharge.

I'm sorry, but to the person who accused me of not being in the military - whatever dude. I'm a Second Class Aviation Electronics Technician. I've worked on CH-46's, H-60 Sierras, Foxtrots, and Hotels. Now I'm a CASS Technician at Marine Air Station Miramar. So don't question me about being in the military. You wan't proof? I'll take a photo of My ID Card.
Anyway, stop with the accusations.

Secondly, Muaddib - the media article said he had an honorable discharge. lol man, this entire discussion is about a panel deciding wether or not to change his discharge status! You did read the original article, right?

I don't know why we keep debating this. The guy has an honorable. He is in an inactive reserve duty status. His active duty obligations are nill, and it's my opinion, based on legal documentation that represents the complexities dealing with inactive personnel and their associated violations, that he did not violate any ucmj directives because there not applicable to him while in an inactive duty status. Apparently his lawyer agrees with that conclusion.

If you choose not to believe the evidence and common sense presented before you, then don't.

I'm also trying to point how the DOD just wants to nail this guy for making them look bad. If nobody can see the common sense in that, then I guess I'm all alone.

He is not discharged because he is still serving his IRR obligation, after his IRR term is completed, then he is discharged and he is given a discharge status.

At first they don't say so in the article, but if you scroll down you find the following.

Kokesh is part of the Individual Ready Reserve, a segment of the reserves that consists mainly of those who have left active duty but still have time remaining on their eight-year military obligations.

Which is the reason why the military panel is going to decide whether or not his discharge should be changed. Because of cases in the past I would say he is probably going to get his discharge changed to "other than honorable".


[edit on 1-6-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by zeeon
I'm sorry, but to the person who accused me of not being in the military - whatever dude. I'm a Second Class Aviation Electronics Technician. I've worked on CH-46's, H-60 Sierras, Foxtrots, and Hotels. Now I'm a CASS Technician at Marine Air Station Miramar. So don't question me about being in the military. You wan't proof? I'll take a photo of My ID Card.
Anyway, stop with the accusations.

No photo ID needed. What unit are you with? What's your MOS? Rank?

Originally posted by zeeon
Gee Aren't I smart?

No. Not at all.

it's nothing you probably haven't done yourself.

Again .. that's bunk.

Your claim that (paraphrase) 'oh gee, everyone breaks the law so we should just let people go around doing it and not get them in trouble' ... that's endorsing lawless chaos. If that's the kind of life you want, then go find a country like that ... some lawless piece of crap country where no one is civlized and no one obeys the law. Good luck surviving.

AND ... I wore my uniform in the correct manner at all times.
AND ... I never mixed my uniform with civilian clothing.
AND ... I always wore my head gear outside.
AND ... I never wore my BDUs off post.
AND ... I never wore my BDUs to any kind of civilian rally or function off post.

So much for your 'it's nothing that you haven't done yourself'.

I would take offense when someone like you ...

1 - you 'take offense' ?? That's your PERSONAL problem.
2 - someone like me?? Someone who actually obeys the law and follows the rules that I volunteered to follow when I signed up with the Army. This you find offenseive, eh? :shk:

Originally posted by zeeon
I don't know why we keep debating this.

Because YOU keep coming back to this and trying to reargue something that has already been beat to death. You can't understand (or you refuse to understand) that the guy is wrong.

As already pointed out by cw034 (and her MARINE LAWYER husband)
- This guy was totally wrong.

CASE CLOSED.


[edit on 6/2/2007 by FlyersFan]

if one was to think about it some.....isn't it interesting that

just as Cindy Sheehan is departing from the anti-war campaign
that a controversy centering on a veteran-against-the-war-in Iraq
is being made the scapegoat/sacrificial lamb?
the story goes on & on & on ...