Posted on Feb 1, 2016
With disciplinary action, how is "early retirement" deemed a measure of holding one accountable for their actions?
25.6K
41
45
6
6
0
UCMJ
Command
Authority
Law
Leadership
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 18
11
11
0
Essentially, early retirement in lieu of disciplinary action is firing them while allowing them to retain their benefits. There are many reasons why the military does this.
The Soldier involved has an established record of service to the nation, and disgracing them does not fit the offence.
The Soldier does not support a change in policy or regulation, and chooses to resign instead of following a rule they do not support.
The Army has enough evidence to go to Court Marshall, but both sides agree to early retirement instead of an embarrassing and costly trial.
It has less to do with holding the person accountable and more to do with removing them from the problem in a way that both sides benefit.
The Soldier involved has an established record of service to the nation, and disgracing them does not fit the offence.
The Soldier does not support a change in policy or regulation, and chooses to resign instead of following a rule they do not support.
The Army has enough evidence to go to Court Marshall, but both sides agree to early retirement instead of an embarrassing and costly trial.
It has less to do with holding the person accountable and more to do with removing them from the problem in a way that both sides benefit.
(11)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I agree, it's just frustrating to see, say the ARNG Chief of Staff get walked out of the building in handcuffs for extortion, and while the Feds will be taking care of it, the Guard is simply allowing him to retire. The things like this, which are truly on a larger scale that no doubt could have been caught sooner, and he's not alone in what he did, but still we make no effort to demonstrate the follow through. It's like taking care of kids and saying, "if you do this, I'll do this..." And then it never happens, or when Dad gets home, he ends up having to deal with it, in a more stern way.. <----in this, mom would be the ARNG, and dad would be the Feds. Ha ha. That's another thing, too, General Grass has no UCMJ authority, so the environment at the building is just bad. I truly had no idea the ARNG had such corrupt and underhanded ways about them, especially at the top. For now, I will do what I need to do with the situation, and continue to make every day purposeful, in hopes I am able to be a means to finding courage, change and confidence, as the time to be a Leader is now; our greatest enemy is ourselves...
(1)
(0)
CW4 Craig Urban
Look at rip ward 4 star who claimed reimbursent for his wife's first class travel to Africa. He got demoted to 3 star and forced to retire. I knew him from jhq brussum when was a bg. He was a jerk then too.
(1)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
CW4 Craig Urban - Lots of issues in AFRICOM with this. It wasn't just the CO. Dudes would come down to "safari" on TDY all the time.
(1)
(0)
CPT Lawrence Cable
SSG (Join to see) - The reason that the Services seldom take action against someone's retirement even in a serious court martial is that removing the source of income from the family, which is seen as punishing the family. Look at the case of Navy Capt. Daniel Dusek, who got four years, but didn't lose his pension.
Often allowing some one to retire just removes a problem that may be pursued afterwards. Retirement does not shield one from either Federal or UCMJ actions.
Is Guard Bureau service Title 32? A quick google doesn't answer that question. If he is Title 10 and the personnel their on Federal Duty, he most certainly does have UCMJ powers.
Often allowing some one to retire just removes a problem that may be pursued afterwards. Retirement does not shield one from either Federal or UCMJ actions.
Is Guard Bureau service Title 32? A quick google doesn't answer that question. If he is Title 10 and the personnel their on Federal Duty, he most certainly does have UCMJ powers.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
One mistake should erase everything else they have done? I hope I'm not understanding this question correctly.
(3)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
It absolutely happens, quite often. Read the other commentary below-- you may appreciate the reason I ask a little more!
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Not from a punitive perspective, but I've seen it administratively.
Retirement eligible and can no longer pass their APFT or HT/WT. Their option is to be flagged and voluntarily retire or to process elimination action. Retirement is probably quicker as you don't have to convene a board and they take their leave on their own timeline.
Retirement eligible and can no longer pass their APFT or HT/WT. Their option is to be flagged and voluntarily retire or to process elimination action. Retirement is probably quicker as you don't have to convene a board and they take their leave on their own timeline.
(2)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
That's not the area of concern. I'm referring more towards those who retaliate, harass, make the target of a smear campaign, knowingly disregarding the welfare of Soldiers, falsifying documents, exercising undue command influence, etc. The issues where someone who was entrusted to them directly, or indirectly, blatantly, and intentionally, disregarded the regulations and/or law out of bias, vengeance, or some other unethical ulterior motive.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SSG (Join to see) - Then the hammer should fall.
People that do this either feel that they have top cover (likely) or that they are untouchable (possible). Neither should be true for people that commit fouls, or the situation can spiral out of control.
People that do this either feel that they have top cover (likely) or that they are untouchable (possible). Neither should be true for people that commit fouls, or the situation can spiral out of control.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google