Sailor sits during "Colors" & Intel Specialist loses her clearance over Anthem protests (page 4)

Kicking her out? That's so far over the top I'm a little surprised it's being offered as a plausible solution. I think there's a surplus of emotion in a lot of posts on this topic.

If sailors are facing a QRB, why remove one who wants to remain in service but for X, makes it to the board whereas this "rockstar", who obviously has disdain for her country, gets a pass? If she stays in, she'll one day be in a leadership position.

Since she's at NAS P-cola, she's probably in Aviation. Enjoy that NJP!

This sailor sided with Colin Kaepernick, sat out anthem. | NavyTimes
 
Last edited:
If sailors are facing a QRB, why remove one who wants to remain in service but for X, makes it to the board whereas this "rockstar", who obviously has disdain for her country, gets a pass? If she stays in, she'll one day be in a leadership position.

Since she's at NAS P-cola, she's probably in Aviation. Enjoy that NJP!

This sailor sided with Colin Kaepernick, sat out anthem. | NavyTimes

I didn't say she should get a pass. I said punish her. The reality is that whatever training command she's at is going to be keeping a very close eye on her now, her gaining command will know who she is, and her leadership will not forget what happened. The "if she stays in, she'll one day be in a leadership position" argument holds no water here. The military as a whole is rife with people who have no business being in charge, yet stay in long enough to do just that. Kicking her out makes her a BLM martyr of sorts and would kick this thing into overdrive. You'd have other black sailors who would do the same thing as a show of solidarity. You just gonna kick all of them out? Emotional reactions to minor events drive bigger emotional reactions. With everything else going on, is this really the person who needs to be made an example of? She's young, ignorant, and doesn't understand how the world and the military work yet. Like @amlove21 said, she can be worked with. If she can't, and she continues to disobey rules and regulations, then you do the paperwork each time until you have a legitimate case for an administrative, OTH, or dishonorable discharge.
 
On a side note I can't even count how many times I've seen people run into buildings or wait to walk out to not stand for a few minutes. Plus regs say while in a motor vehicle an individual must get out to salute the flag which never gets done either. We have more of a leadership problem with being afraid to act on punishments or being retrained to carry them out.

(Not trying to justify this girl, she's obviously in the wrong.)
 
Kicked out for BLM affiliation, no but because her intentional and willful act harms good order and discipline, yes. Perhaps this is her sole act of military disobedience and was just a singular act.

But since the issue has been raised: how would military BLM-affiliates answer question 29.5 on a SF-86?

29.5 Have you EVER been a member of an organization that advocates or practices commission of acts of force or violence to discourage others from exercising their rights under the U.S. Constitution or any state of the United States with the specific intent to further such action?
 
True, but in the Air Force/ on AF installation you do need to turn off music and sit at attention in the vehicle, which I can say I turn the music off but don't sit at attention.
 
True, but in the Air Force/ on AF installation you do need to turn off music and sit at attention in the vehicle, which I can say I turn the music off but don't sit at attention.
No, you "should". Plenty of people don't You "should" do those things. And you "should" stand for Taps, and you "shouldn't" gossip. It seems to me that some in this thread that you get NJP for failing to "should".

That's the heart of this issue. We are screaming for NJP for someone not doing what they're highly encouraged to do. Show me the "disrespect of patriotic music, customs, and courtesy" article of the UCMJ, and we have a starting point. Minus points for saying "Well, its definitely article 134!" So is beastiality, bad hygiene, and less than criminal sexual assault.
 
If you boot her, she wins. She becomes a martyr for "the cause" and extends her 15 min. of fame. You'll see her with a Sociology degree and commenting on CNN within 3-5 years as the head of some "Veterans Against xxxxx" think tank/ activist group. You kick her out after this one very visible act and you set a dangerous precedent for others looking for their 15 min. or just a way out of the service. If the mil kicks her out the backlash would be tremendous.

Everyone knows that what she did was wrong. She may even know it in her heart, I don't know. Irrelevant. Extra duty, LOC, and attempt to retrain. Then punt her if she continues her behavior.
Take her down one pay-grad which impacts her Navy career.
 
I'm just throwing this out there: a form of self-righteousness was seen in Berghdal, Manning, Snowden, etc.

Is it better to stop it early or wait and use the behavior pattern to detect future potential offenders?
 
No, you "should". Plenty of people don't You "should" do those things. And you "should" stand for Taps, and you "shouldn't" gossip. It seems to me that some in this thread that you get NJP for failing to "should".

That's the heart of this issue. We are screaming for NJP for someone not doing what they're highly encouraged to do. Show me the "disrespect of patriotic music, customs, and courtesy" article of the UCMJ, and we have a starting point. Minus points for saying "Well, its definitely article 134!" So is beastiality, bad hygiene, and less than criminal sexual assault.

You're hanging your hat on "should"?.

I disagree and here's what I have:8-)

Source: Rules for Saluting US Flag | Military.com

SEC. 595. MILITARY SALUTE FOR THE FLAG DURING THE NATIONAL ANTHEM
BY MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES NOT IN
UNIFORM AND BY VETERANS.

Section 301(b)(1) of title 36, United States Code, is amended by
striking subparagraphs (A) through (C) and inserting the following new
subparagraphs:
``(A) individuals in uniform should give the
military salute at the first note of the anthem and
maintain that position until the last note;
``(B) members of the Armed Forces and veterans who
are present but not in uniform may render the military
salute in the manner provided for individuals in
uniform; and
``(C) all other persons present should face the flag
and stand at attention with their right hand over the
heart, and men not in uniform, if applicable, should
remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it
at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart;
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Force specific:

Source: http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_cc/publication/afi1-1/afi1-1.pdf

1.6.2. Respect for the Flag. The Flag of the United States is one of the most enduring and sacred symbols of our country. It represents the principles and ideals you have pledged to defend and for which many have made the ultimate sacrifice. Airmen shall treat it with the same respect due to the highest military and public officials. Airmen will never burn (except for reverent disposition of an unserviceable Flag), deface, mutilate, or treat with contempt or any other form of disrespect. (18 U.S.C. § 700; AFI 34-1201).

1.6.2.1. When in uniform, you salute the Flag as it passes in front of you in a procession or parade. Salute six paces before the Flag passes before you, and hold your salute until the Flag has passed six paces beyond your position.

1.6.2.2. National Anthem. You must show respect for the National Anthem and Flag both indoors and outdoors, in uniform and in civilian clothing. (36 U.S.C. § 301).

1.6.2.2.1. Indoor Ceremonies. When in uniform, face the Flag (if visible) or music. Stand at attention at the first note and maintain that position until the last note without rendering a salute. If in civilian clothing, stand at attention and place your right hand over your heart.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also this seems to be U.S Navy specific although the date on the PDF is 1990.

Sailor Faces Discipline After Viral Flag Protest | Military.com

Navy rules state that troops must stand and face the flag when the National Anthem is played. Troops in uniform must salute, while troops not in uniform must stand at attention and place the right hand over the heart. These rules mean that her behavior could fall afoul of Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, failure to obey a lawful general order or regulation.


1205. Procedure During Playing of National Anthem.

1. Whenever the National Anthem is played, all naval service personnel not in formation, shall stand at attention and face the national ensign.


Main Source: http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Publications/United States Navy Regulations.pdf

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
You're hanging your hat on "should"?.

I disagree and here's what I have:8-)

*rest of post*
Ok- so, what, then? People that don't show respect for the flag are discharged after they're served with a felony? What is "respect"? How is that quantified? What's the punishment for "disrespect for the National Anthem and Flag?"

This is going down a ridiculous road here- I will just say that, pragmatically, there is no fucking way to find a way to quantify "level of disrespect" in an individual person and get their commander to recommend discharge via NJP. You're literally arguing about ideology, your personal opinion, and how to manufacture the most comfortable unicorn saddle.
 
Ok- so, what, then? People that don't show respect for the flag are discharged after they're served with a felony? What is "respect"? How is that quantified? What's the punishment for "disrespect for the National Anthem and Flag?"

This is going down a ridiculous road here- I will just say that, pragmatically, there is no fucking way to find a way to quantify "level of disrespect" in an individual person and get their commander to recommend discharge via NJP. You're literally arguing about ideology, your personal opinion, and how to manufacture the most comfortable unicorn saddle.



She made her own choice to sit down, not stand up and as I have shown, not follow proper, lawful order(s). I stated what I thought the punishment should be. It is my opinion. You and I disagree. 8-)

I am not sure how deep to get into this in response to your questions stated in the first paragraph. She is required to stand (she did not), she didn't show the proper respect as required to, (I have outlined in my sources) and I believe the punishment should be a dishonorable discharge. Her getting a felony is on her head.

As for your last part I'm not quite sure how to respond. Yes it is true I am stating and arguing my personal opinion (aren't we all?). Throughout this thread I am stating my opinion and making my arguments, then using sources to back up my arguments.
 
I am not sure how deep to get into this in response to your questions stated in the first paragraph. She is required to stand (she did not), she didn't show the proper respect as required to, (I have outlined in my sources) and I believe the punishment should be a dishonorable discharge. Her getting a felony is on her head.
Meh, fuck it, let's call it 'for sake of discussion'.

She is required to stand. She didn't. Thank goodness that common sense plays a role and we don't make blanket rules for this reason. She made a bad choice and fell on the wrong side of the black and white. It's up to guys and gals like you and me to decide if this lack of judgement speaks to her character and we get rid of her.

As for your last part I'm not quite sure how to respond. Yes it is true I am stating and arguing my personal opinion (aren't we all?). Throughout this thread I am stating my opinion and making my arguments, then using sources to back up my arguments.
I think something we need to clear up is the difference between "theory and practice". I assume you mean to speak in a hypothetical, "I am the king of the world" sort of way, and you're stating your opinions for the sake of discussion.

Bottom line- to say that those that don't "show respect" for a song or a ritual are due an immediate dishonorable discharge is logistically stupid, wasteful, and nearly impossible to objectively quantify and enforce. It's fine to rail on about on the internet, but in reality it's never going to be a thing we waste our time and effort on and it should not be.

It's a hot button issue on a national stage and we need people to scream "DISCHARGE THAT TRAITOR" and "SHE'S THE REASON WE HAVE OUR FREEDOMS". It's just how our society is now.

But when one of my students does this, I can guarantee you it won't be an immediate dishonorable discharge, and I will 100% bet that it never will be.
We have a myriad of rules in the UCMJ that we routinely interpret to make them work with common sense- the easiest example of this is Article 125. - and making blanket rules with the harshest of penalties isn't a mature way to talk about these issues.

Just my opinion.
 
Meh, fuck it, let's call it 'for sake of discussion'.

She is required to stand. She didn't. Thank goodness that common sense plays a role and we don't make blanket rules for this reason. She made a bad choice and fell on the wrong side of the black and white. It's up to guys and gals like you and me to decide if this lack of judgement speaks to her character and we get rid of her.

That is a good point it is up to us as NCOs and above to decide that.

I think something we need to clear up is the difference between "theory and practice". I assume you mean to speak in a hypothetical, "I am the king of the world" sort of way, and you're stating your opinions for the sake of discussion.

Bottom line- to say that those that don't "show respect" for a song or a ritual are due an immediate dishonorable discharge is logistically stupid, wasteful, and nearly impossible to objectively quantify and enforce. It's fine to rail on about on the internet, but in reality it's never going to be a thing we waste our time and effort on and it should not be.

It's a hot button issue on a national stage and we need people to scream "DISCHARGE THAT TRAITOR" and "SHE'S THE REASON WE HAVE OUR FREEDOMS". It's just how our society is now.

But when one of my students does this, I can guarantee you it won't be an immediate dishonorable discharge, and I will 100% bet that it never will be.

We have a myriad of rules in the UCMJ that we routinely interpret to make them work with common sense- the easiest example of this is Article 125. - and making blanket rules with the harshest of penalties isn't a mature way to talk about these issues.

Just my opinion.


Mmmm....I am stating my opinion but not in a "king of the world" way or....I think you are saying if I was to wave my magic wand and make it so then yes (I think that's what you mean).

I suppose in a way that's true. I can sit here on my laptop and say my opinion, state my arguments, find my sources and back it up.

Bottom line: at the end of the day (or when this issue dies off the front page) you and I will agree to disagree. We both stated our views, opinion and beliefs.

If one of your students did that I bet we can both agree you would put your foot deep in the anal orifice. :D
 
Unless they like that sort of thing then NO WAY I will make them do homework or something else they DONT like.

lol, yeah, no need to agree. We can just disagree- brothers can do that.

Best way to punish a student is not to smoke them. I would make them write essays, then make them read them out loud. A smoke session just doesn't cut it on the really in shape studs. A hand written single spaced 4 page paper will ruin a guys night though.
 
Back
Top