8
8
0
Looks like Secretary McHugh took a stand.
Sexual Assault
UCMJ
SHARP
Adultery
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 15
10
10
0
Based upon what I know from publicly available information, this is an appropriate decision based upon LTC Sinclair's failure to serve honorably at the colonel and brigadier general levels. Actions must have consequences. Reasons for the administration of military justice (I know this was admin not UCMJ) include: punishment, rehabilitation, good order and discipline, and deterrence. I can argue in support of the SECDEF's decision on each of these four points.
(10)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
Col -
I can appreciate how you are willing and able to defend those four points. My experience with sexual predators and their victims lends me to believe that said LTC / BG was probably acting in the ways described long before he made it to the LTC level, albeit in ways that were not so overt. It's a pattern of behavior - plain and simple. Trust me, this guy will do it again in the future.
I can appreciate how you are willing and able to defend those four points. My experience with sexual predators and their victims lends me to believe that said LTC / BG was probably acting in the ways described long before he made it to the LTC level, albeit in ways that were not so overt. It's a pattern of behavior - plain and simple. Trust me, this guy will do it again in the future.
(0)
(0)
COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM
PO1 George, I agree with you but from a due process perspective the SECDEF had to make a decision based upon what could be proven and not what can reasonable be assumed. The court martial was able to prove some of the lesser crimes but not the top count crimes. Some people view this as a failure of the military but I do not. Unless we want kangaroo courts where the outcome is predetermined then our system of justice must be based upon a presumption of innocence and conviction based upon beyond a reasonable doubt.
(5)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
Col Smallfield -
The two of us are in absolute agreement. I fully understand what and why the Court and SECDEF made the decisions. My grandfather on one side of the family was a Judge. On the other side of the family my other grandfather was an officer of the law for over 42 years. My father was one also. I've known and still know many peace officers - from the federal side all the way down to lowly constables. I also know quite a few judges - local to federal. The manner is which the BG/LTC case was handled was classic - "you convict on what you can get a conviction". It's not what is profiled on TV despite that screaming Blonde B&*^%$ on CNN/HLN.
Jurisprudence is what it is...imperfect and fallible. In the same manner, sexual predators are what they are - predators. They start young....and they learn how to play the system to their advantage. They never change their stripes and they never quit.....unless chemically castrated. He'll do it again.
The two of us are in absolute agreement. I fully understand what and why the Court and SECDEF made the decisions. My grandfather on one side of the family was a Judge. On the other side of the family my other grandfather was an officer of the law for over 42 years. My father was one also. I've known and still know many peace officers - from the federal side all the way down to lowly constables. I also know quite a few judges - local to federal. The manner is which the BG/LTC case was handled was classic - "you convict on what you can get a conviction". It's not what is profiled on TV despite that screaming Blonde B&*^%$ on CNN/HLN.
Jurisprudence is what it is...imperfect and fallible. In the same manner, sexual predators are what they are - predators. They start young....and they learn how to play the system to their advantage. They never change their stripes and they never quit.....unless chemically castrated. He'll do it again.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Bill Darling
I can only wonder how politically motivated the decision was though.
There is clearly a tendency of legislators to protest what they perceive as changes in punishment *only* when higher military authorities override lower ones for lesser/no punishment (i.e. when they claim the alleged victim does not get justice) and I expect no word from them now.
And of course, the other guilty part, the alleged victim, as in the USNA case, will walk due to immunity.
There is clearly a tendency of legislators to protest what they perceive as changes in punishment *only* when higher military authorities override lower ones for lesser/no punishment (i.e. when they claim the alleged victim does not get justice) and I expect no word from them now.
And of course, the other guilty part, the alleged victim, as in the USNA case, will walk due to immunity.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
My question is, if he was quilty of the more serious charges, why was he allowed to retire? Predators like him make us all look bad and there seems to be a lot more like him? Not wanting to start a witch hunt...warlock (?) hunt...but these animals need to be rooted out and destroyed. Retiring as a LTC is not being destroyed.
(4)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
I agree 100%. Also if there is a zero tolerance for any behavior such as his, why is he givin any credit at all for his career as a hole enabling him the nobility to retire? If an airmen cant get away with it then why should a general?
(0)
(0)
MSG Brad Sand
SSGT,
I actually look at it in the reverse, I might be willing to cut some little bit of slack for an airman, where I have none for a senior enlisted or officer. One giant problem with the system...they are more likely to punish the dumb kid than the person who is supposed to be there making sure something like this never happens! Throw the book at the airman, throw the bookcase on the if he is guilty of the more serious charges...which seem to have been swept under the rug?
I actually look at it in the reverse, I might be willing to cut some little bit of slack for an airman, where I have none for a senior enlisted or officer. One giant problem with the system...they are more likely to punish the dumb kid than the person who is supposed to be there making sure something like this never happens! Throw the book at the airman, throw the bookcase on the if he is guilty of the more serious charges...which seem to have been swept under the rug?
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
''The two-grade reduction from major general to colonel should send a very clear, strong signal that there is no place in the Army for this behavior,'' Secretary of the Army Louis Caldera, 1999 when reducing General Maher. Apparently the signal wasn't strong enough.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
I am not privy to all the facts, but it likely a combination of justice served and a politically motivated decision. I wonder if someone has a case of a senior NCO with over 20 being demoted and retaining retirement benefits.
(3)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Here's a case: SMA Gene C. McKinney was entitled to retirement pay based on his former rank as Sergeant Major of the Army, rather than on the rank of master sergeant, to which he was demoted. The Office of General Counsel said it had based its opinion on a law that protects the senior enlisted member of a military branch from reduction in retirement benefits if he is reduced in rank when he retires, regardless of why he was reduced. The law was meant to protect service members who reach top grades before they are ready to retire. He was acquitted of 18 of the 19 charges in the sexual-harassment case against him.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
As it pertains to the law at the time, it was, I don't necessarily agree with it. Since then, the code has been changed which allowed him to keep his benefits at the SMA level. It's almost a sense of protection. If it happened to me as a SSG. I would have been reduced to PVT/E-1, convicted, and probably faced jail time for the obstruction of justice which was the only charge he was convicted of. The question for example, would I be allowed to retire if I had 20+ years as an E-6? The answer is no, I would have lost everything, couldn't pass 'GO' or collect my $200. The protection under that law wouldn't have applied since I would be considered a junior NCO. Just as the Army was trying to demonstrate that it cared about sexual harassment, the McKinney debacle & verdict gave Army women yet another reason to suffer in silence.
(0)
(0)
COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM
A local case just concluded at Fort Leonard Wood where a BDE CSM pled to violations of ART 92 and ART 93 in exchange for more serious charges being dropped. The CSM had 31+ years service. As a result, the CSM will retire as a MSG. Similar conduct charges to LTC Sinclair with what I perceive as similar results.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
So, he remains a Brigadier General until retirement......the article indicates: McHugh said in a statement. “Sinclair displayed a pattern of inappropriate and at times illegal behavior both while serving as a brigadier general and a colonel. I therefore decided there was sufficient evidence and cause to deny him those benefits.”........
A couple questions:
Would a senior enlisted service member have received the same opportunity?
Will he get a General Officer retirement ceremony?
Has anyone heard from the victim?
A couple questions:
Would a senior enlisted service member have received the same opportunity?
Will he get a General Officer retirement ceremony?
Has anyone heard from the victim?
(3)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Sinclair will retire as a LTC, it was posted today in Army times, but in option he should be in jail
(3)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
SSG Garza - yep, he doesn't have to register as a sex offender. You can bet your last 10 paychecks that part of the negotiation his lawyers went through was specific to getting that issue terminated.
(0)
(0)
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
I don't think he was guilty of more serious charges. I am one of those who believe this woman was fully in agreement with this affair and she decided in the end to seek vengeance. My question is will he really retire as a LTC or will he retire with LTC rank and get BG retirement pay? That would really piss me off! At the very least he should feel some impact because his crimes were deserving of some pain! Anyone know for sure?
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
Well, the crime is not a crime in the civilian world so much as a civil offense. I happen to think that it probably light -- three grades would be about right. I remember being in a HR consultant course when McKinney's sentence came down, and while the civilian lawyer and most of the participants (women with no military experience as was she) thought he'd really gotten over, I pointed out the reality. He went from pay equivalent to an O6 as retired SMA to the pay of E8 with 30 years service. He lost a lot of benefits and privileges and also picked up a Federal Conviction. Same thing here except the guy was a freaking General and while not included in the investigation, do either of us think this was a one-person deal. Remember when the two star designee deputy commander of the 24th ID was convicted of a pattern of using his position to sleep with subordinates' wives ever since he was a battalion commander? Insane. Got to retire as a LTC.
I have no pity for these guys; just want it imposed fairly...
I have no pity for these guys; just want it imposed fairly...
(2)
(0)
SFC A.M. Drake
1SG Farrell,
Correction,
Then SMA McKinney did receive his retired pay as SMA, as stated earlier even though he retired as E8, since then the law has been amended to not allow that to happen again. btw there was a case against another 3/4 star about 10yrs ago that was told to stop having a relationship as he was still married (they were separated), does anyone remember that generals name?
Correction,
Then SMA McKinney did receive his retired pay as SMA, as stated earlier even though he retired as E8, since then the law has been amended to not allow that to happen again. btw there was a case against another 3/4 star about 10yrs ago that was told to stop having a relationship as he was still married (they were separated), does anyone remember that generals name?
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
My question is this. What would of happened if he had not pleaded guilty? I think we just lucked out. I mean the guy admitted to it to drop the serious charges. What else could they have done? I don't think they had a choice but to do what they did. What justification would there be for not since he just admitted guilt?
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
That's about what everybody expected! I followed this closely as he was one of my BDE commanders when he was a COL.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google