Should a DUI be a career ender?

SGM Matthew Quick — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 09:16:20 -0500

Two part question -

If a junior enlisted Soldier is convicted of a DUI or the like, should this Soldier be discharged?

If a Leader is convicted of a DUI or the like, should this Soldiers be chaptered? Can a Leader with a DUI effectively lead their section/units?

Response by CH (COL) Geoff Bailey made Jan 24 at 2016 9:17 AM

CH (COL) Geoff Bailey — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 09:17:48 -0500

Absolutely. If an individual is willing to act in a manner which recklessly endangers the lives of themselves and others, they do not have what it takes to lead Soldiers or act with integrity.

Response by SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL made Jan 24 at 2016 9:20 AM

SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 09:20:32 -0500

SGM Matthew Quick I believe in one standard for all, if you drink/drive you should be discharged out the military for all ranks. There is no need for ignorance, when the statistics show devastating ramifications for drinking/driving deaths.

Response by LTC Kevin B. made Jan 24 at 2016 9:23 AM

LTC Kevin B. — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 09:23:04 -0500

Absolutely. Someone who commits DUI obviously puts both their life and the lives of others into immediate danger. In my opinion, that is a serious lapse of judgment that can't be forgiven and is inconsistent with the military values.

Response by MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P made Jan 24 at 2016 9:33 AM

MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 09:33:06 -0500

I can't imagine any servicemember who displays such a profound lack of judgement can be determined fit for duty. I'd even go so far as to say the higher the rank, the heavier the penalty should be (regardless of what infraction). Those in senior positions should know better and have a responsibility to set and example for junior members.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2016 9:36 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 09:36:40 -0500

I'm sick of seeing Sgts and below busted down to private and SNCOs and Officers moved to another billet and allowed to retire. In todays military where they only want to retain the best this should absolutely be a show stopper. Much like the zero tolerance policy towards drugs, we should have a zero tolerance policy towards DUIs. They are completely preventable and show a lack of concern for all life.

Response by CPT Mark Gonzalez made Jan 24 at 2016 9:36 AM

CPT Mark Gonzalez — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 09:36:50 -0500

Under the current system everyone gets a GOMAR, but often the elimination action due to the GOMAR does not occur until two to four years later. This is kind of egregious in my opinion to act several years later as it is extremely inefficient and takes a shit on the concept of grace and the ability to redeem yourself. Commanding generals if they wanted to can initiate elimination action against every single one of these or at least those they deem the most flagrant. So really the question is to them.

Response by SSG Leo Bell made Jan 24 at 2016 9:40 AM

SSG Leo Bell — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 09:40:05 -0500

Though I don't drink and never had a DUI. I believe that if the junior enlisted get a DUI and it's just the first one they should get displine with the correct action that his command see fit. But if he gets a second one he needs to be put out.

Now on the command getting DUI's. I knew a leader who got several and they relived him on his duties and sent him to a different duty station. I felt it was wrong at the time but because of his rank the wanted him to finish up his career.

Response by SSG Byron Hewett made Jan 24 at 2016 10:00 AM

SSG Byron Hewett — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 10:00:16 -0500

No, we have a responsibility to help anyone that has a substance abuse problem because if we discharge them or chapter them what good have we done but to turn them loose on the general on the civilian population where they can do something worse. If we are able to catch it before someone is killed or seriously injured they can get the help they need through their command and put into a program where they can get help before it become an issue that can't be helped, the armed forces has a great support system. Is there going to be a need for disciplinary action? yes. Is there a need to be chaptered out or discharged? no. Is there a need to step in and help our own? yes because we're a family and we shouldn't turn our backs on our own. In the end we can only do so much to help an individual but we can at least be part of a support system and resource of help and as leaders and as soldiers we can be there to our battle buddies.

Response by Craig Hatch made Jan 24 at 2016 10:09 AM

Craig Hatch — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 10:09:59 -0500

Well I have mixed feelings about this. I say this, because we are all human beings and we all make mistakes. With that being said, I think it depends on the severity of the charges. If you killed someone, or you put people in harms way. Then I think you have to take the consequences for your actions. However, most states now consider a DUI to be over anything; that is half or one alcoholic beverage. Some states even have a zero tolerance, meaning it does not matter how many drinks you have. If you blow more then whats allowed under the law; they consider it a DUI. This is why I said I think it depends on the severity of the charges; brought against a person. If its a minor infraction then no, I do not think it should end a persons career. However, if you are intoxicated to the point where you are endangering other people, whether on or off base. Then I think you need take full responsibility for your actions and; suffer the consequences. If that makes any sense, its early on a Sunday morning I am lacking coffee; so please forgive me if I am not being clear enough. I am not advocating for anyone to drive under the influence, my point was one drink should not end anyone's career.

Response by SSgt Jim Gilmore made Jan 24 at 2016 10:14 AM

SSgt Jim Gilmore — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 10:14:32 -0500

Things have changed greatly since my time. I was once too drunk to drive and the highway patrol escorted me to the main gate. I am no tea totaler but I do believe in being responsible and having integrity. If you go have a few too many you should be responsible enough to call someone for a ride or a taxi. If you do not, you show your lack of responsibility and integrity. Officer and enlisted alike should be held to the same standards of conduct. If you can't keep your own affairs in line you cannot be an effective leader...IMO

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Jan 24 at 2016 10:16 AM

SSG Gerhard S. — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 10:16:00 -0500

A question here, for any who come from the zero tolerance perspective. Do you believe politicians, from city council to President should lose their jobs as well if they put lives in danger due to such lack of judgement? Not only limited to DUI, but extended to economic or political decisions that place people in danger? Truly interested in your thoughts.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jan 24 at 2016 10:30 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 10:30:42 -0500

Does anyone not know that it is absolutely unacceptable to Drink & Drive?

Have we not said for the last 20 #^&$(%)( years, if you have too much, if you are in doubt, call your first line, call your PSG, call the 1st Sgt, call the Sgt Maj. Hell Call the the CO. One of us will come and pick you up. Usually with a "No questions asked." Camp Pendleton has a program called the "Arrive Alive Card" which is where EVERY Marine is ISSUED a card where they can call a local taxi company, and will be picked up and be returned to the Barracks. No Questions Asked. No Repercussions.

Now as for "Chaptering" that's a different story. Barred from continuing their career (through Reenlistment/Extension), this falls under "Cardinal Sin" of "You don't do this. There is no excuse." But people do make mistakes, and a singular mistake someone makes when they are 21 shouldn't necessarily haunt them "forever" via being immediately Administratively discharged. Zero Tolerance mentalities breed Zero Compassion ideals. We end up forgetting these are people, and we are leaders.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2016 10:40 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 10:40:44 -0500

If you get a DUI you should be discharged from the military. That simple. Getting a DUI isn't a mistake. It was poor planning and poor choices. If you get a DUI you simply didn't plan ahead for your night of drinking. It is too easy to call a cab/uber these days. I don't care if you are a General or a Private. If you choose to endanger yourself, your passengers, and other innocents you don't need to be in the military. This is especially true since we are downsizing.

Response by SFC Stephen King made Jan 24 at 2016 10:45 AM

SFC Stephen King — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 10:45:30 -0500

"I am the master of my fate and captain of my soul." WH. If you choose to drive under the influence regardless of rank you put others at risk and should be delt with a accordingly. Zero tolerance regardless of Rank and or position

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Jan 24 at 2016 10:53 AM

CPT Aaron Kletzing — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 10:53:13 -0500

Yes, a DUI should be a career ender in the DoD, especially given the current downsizing situation.

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Jan 24 at 2016 10:54 AM

CPT Aaron Kletzing — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 10:54:07 -0500

A leader who gets a DUI cannot credibly tell his subordinates not to drink and drive. None of this "Well, I did it and I made a mistake and I learned, so learn from me" -- no, that's BS here. Sorry.

Response by COL John Hudson made Jan 24 at 2016 10:54 AM

COL John Hudson — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 10:54:11 -0500

Should a DUI be a career ender? Should the married civilian leader of all U.S. Armed Forces be fired for hallway rendezvous with clerical staff? Unfortunately, there is no third choice available here which should offer "Depends." Regardless of personal opinion, each and every instance of such behavior(s) should always be judged on its own merits. Never forget that some breathalyzers fail or are inaccurate; there have been documented cases that the driver's own bodies generated chemical reactions that caused alcohol readings when they had not been out drinking anything and had witnesses to prove it, supported by medical tests in court. And lastly, police are human and prone to mistakes as well. Given all of that, I can't support an automatic 'hit the door.'

Response by SSG Todd Lysfjord made Jan 24 at 2016 11:29 AM

SSG Todd Lysfjord — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 11:29:24 -0500

It is such a sign of irresponsibility that if there was to be a double standard it is the junior enlisted that should get the "pass"...not the leader.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2016 11:40 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 11:40:30 -0500

SGM, I feel this is a loaded question. Reason being is because I have experienced this in my past. My most recent was when I was stationed at FT Bragg. In one years time I watched a CSM who was cited for a DUI and nothing happened and then I personally knew two SFCs who were cited for the same thing and they both are civilians as I type this response. When in a position of leadership there should be no exception to the standard. It really should be that way across the board, but we all know that's not how it goes.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Jan 24 at 2016 11:55 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 11:55:40 -0500

Although I feel that multiple offenses within a given time frame calls for drastic action, consideration should be given as to the track record. My preference would be zero tolerance, but had that been the instance many years ago, I would have been cashiered. I have seen the death and destruction of families that drinking and driving caused by people with more than four offenses. First counselling and explanation of how a career can be destroyed by this action, then do what is necessary to protect the service and citizenry.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jan 24 at 2016 11:58 AM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 11:58:16 -0500

I think it should be on the circumstances and toll of the actions.

Response by SGT S Sharpless made Jan 24 at 2016 12:08 PM

SGT S Sharpless — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 12:08:26 -0500

I think everyone who gets a DUI should be discharged regardless of rank. Matters like that should not be treated lightly due to the fact that innocent people could be killed due to a person's poor decision to drive intoxicated.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Jan 24 at 2016 12:28 PM

COL Ted Mc — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 12:28:52 -0500

SGM Matthew Quick - Sergeant Major; If anyone expects young soldiers (and young officers) to ALWAYS do the right thing both on and off duty, then they need to have their head candled.

It is a fact of nature that "Young __[fill in the blank]__ ALWAYS do 'stupid' things." and ending a person's career because they were unlucky enough to get caught is just one of those 'stupid' things.

Now if you are talking about a (chronic/repeat) offender then you are talking about someone who has demonstrated that their capacity to learn is sub-par and that is a different situation.

(If you catch someone driving under the influence, make them do point guard at the next __[fill in the blank]__ road checks (preferably in the rain and/or snow [but blazing heat will do as well]).

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2016 12:44 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 12:44:14 -0500

We all receive the weekend Safety Briefs(that we know and love and make fun of). What is ALWAYS covered? Don't drink and drive. So based off that in theory wouldn't that be considered disobeying a lawful order? Add in the fact you drink and drive you A. Put yourself in danger, and B. Put others in danger.
I have no sympathy for anyone that gets picked up for a DUI. IMO there is no excuse or justifiable reason to do that. I have called a cab a couple of times. We've also had DD's if we're going out in a group.
So yes IMHO they need to see the streets regardless of rank.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2016 1:14 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 13:14:24 -0500

In respect to your question....when you say convicted, your tracking Soldiers are getting chaptered without being convicted currently.
Seconds part, I think besides being reprimanded, they should be reassigned before leading again.
And overall, I definitely don't think 1 DUI should be a career ended....and not just because I received one.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2016 1:21 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 13:21:48 -0500

Wow this is a tough one SGM. I personally feel that Drinking & Driving is a terrible thing for anyone to do regardless of any label (rank, position, etc). However, I recently dealt with this in my platoon and I don't think it as cut and dry as kick them out or keep them. Even excellent Soldiers make mistakes. In my opinion how they learn from their mistake and grow from their mistake is key and this is not something that can be determined if they are kicked out right away.
Here are some thoughts:
1. Why does the Army spend so much money on substance abuse programs if they are not interested in helping Soldiers with dependency issues?
2. If someone is convicted of DWI in the civilian world does it cause them to be fired? Not generally, unless they are a professional driver.
3. There should be repercussions because doing nothing only enables them. There are lots of possible punishments that could be applied for a first time offense and they certainly should be removed if they fail to meet counseled requirements or continue to drink and drive. Reduction, moving to a different position (not a different unit as there will likely be no continuity in treatment and oversight of progress), letter of reprimand, restrictions, loss of pay, suspension, bar to reenlistment, extra duty and many more.
4. Texting and driving has proven to be incredibly dangerous and is outlawed in most states and on bases. People still do it daily and they are of sound mind and judgement (unlike someone who is drunk). They knowingly endanger others, should texting and driving be treated as seriously? (This is only an example for the sake of playing devil's advocate)
5. If there is an incident caused by the drinking and driving event they should be prosecuted in civilian court and as applicable under UCMJ and the resulting conviction should effect the Soldier's status.
6. Wouldn't a Soldier who overcame a DWI conviction and substance abuse issues be an asset to a unit toward helping other Soldiers who are dealing with similar problems because I guarantee that there will always be Soldiers with these issues.

With all that said now it is time for the RP cross exam.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2016 1:22 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 13:22:38 -0500

No, well, maybe IF a fatal accident is involved, but, if not, the consequences should be very serious. A second time is a BCD.

Response by SMSgt Thor Merich made Jan 24 at 2016 1:43 PM

SMSgt Thor Merich — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 13:43:09 -0500

No.

The reason is that a single DUI with no injuries or deaths is not a career ender in many other career fields outside the military. This would include civilian law enforcement and elected officials. Alcoholism is a disease and should be treated as such. If the person honestly seeks treatment and refrains from further activity, there is no reason to lose a otherwise valuable resource to the military.

As a retired, 30 year LEO, I know full well the impacts of drunk driving. But I also know that with the .08 BAC standard, being legally drunk may well be a matter of one drink. Being legally drunk also doesn't mean that you are impaired. I have seen numerous folks pass the Field sobriety Test but yet be only just over or at the .08 limit. All of the devastating DUI accidents that I have seen have all been folks that are over twice the legal limit.

The other issue is that any rule to automatically discharge someone for a single DUI, would have to include officers. Having seen my fair share of senior officers have issues with alcohol, I guarantee that the military will not get relieve officers just for a DUI.

If the person has multiple DUI's, or if they were under the influence of drugs, then I would eject them immediately. But not for a single DUI. It should not be a career ender.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2016 1:47 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 13:47:25 -0500

As leaders, especially T/C/B Commanders specifically, our job in part is to evaluate and mitigate risk to determine if the risk is worth the gain, and make those tough decisions on the battlefield. So, if I can't trust a Leader to know that risking a DUI is not worth risking their own career and the lives of strangers, then I am not willing to trust them to lead Soldiers into harms way and understand the risks involved.

Response by SSG Robert Webster made Jan 24 at 2016 1:49 PM

SSG Robert Webster — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 13:49:39 -0500

NO, NO, and YES. I am also going to add some qualifications that are going to PO a number of individuals.
1. How many of you Zero Tolerance Types have had a drink of either a single alcoholic beverage or taken a drug legal or illegal, within an 8 hour period before driving, riding or whatever? For about 90% of you that answer never are either a liar, a hypocrite, or delusional.
2. How many of you are Zero Tolerance and against suicide? Whether or not you realize it if you are a professor of zero tolerance you are a contributor to the suicide epidemic and a hypocrite to boot.
3. For those of you that are going to vote this statement down - You should take a deep look back into that abyss that you call a soul and look yourself in the face.
4. For those of you that profess to be Leaders, are you a Leader or a Manager? If you are a Leader - FIX the problem. If you are a Manager - GET OUT of my military.

I realized that I should actually add a couple of religious quotes to this one:
1. From John 8:7, there are different version/interpretations but the gist is: "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
2. From Mathew 7:1 : "Do not judge, or you too will be judged."
3. And from Romans 2:1 : "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things."

Response by SSG Michael Hartsfield made Jan 24 at 2016 1:59 PM

SSG Michael Hartsfield — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 13:59:14 -0500

IMHO, with all of the briefs we get regarding drinking and driving and all the people we've known or seen that have been affected by those that chose to drive and drive, their truly is no excuse anymore. We all know the measures put in place if we drink too much and we all know we can call anyone in our Chain of Command if we go overboard so if you get a DUI, it's because you chose to ignore those measures and felt that the standard shouldn't or wouldn't apply to you.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2016 2:11 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 14:11:25 -0500

As with all things, I would take this on a case by case basis. The Soldier's body of work matters, as do the circumstances of the arrest. For example, we have all heard tales of troops getting nailed by civilian police right off post that lurk and target off duty troops, waiting for them to get in their car in the parking lot and then BAM! Off to jail.
I make no excuses for DUIs - a self-inflicted problem if ever there was one - but the circumstances do matter when determining whether to discharge and what punishments to impose.

Response by SGT Jimmy Carpenter made Jan 24 at 2016 2:41 PM

SGT Jimmy Carpenter — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 14:41:40 -0500

I don't think that 1 DUI should result in a discharge. For an E5 or E6 it can be career ender though wether there's a conviction or not if it results in a general letter of reprimand being added to your permanent record. You most likely will not see E7.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2016 2:45 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 14:45:08 -0500

A DUI is a deliberate choice made by the person who did it. It should hurt there career. Every Friday we get a safety brief and are told not to drink and drive as leaders how can we go out and do the same. Now what is the proper punishment for that I will leave up to commanders and the legal community. However I do think that a loss of rank regardless of the rank led is proper.

Response by 1SG David Niles made Jan 24 at 2016 2:48 PM

1SG David Niles — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 14:48:20 -0500

To simplistic of an answer. Should he be discharged? No, but flagged and barred from reenlistment yes. An NCO should hang up the stripes and beat the bricks

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2016 4:52 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 16:52:23 -0500

DUI is an emotionally charged issue, so I think most people will have an easy time saying "yes" on this poll. I have some reservations about making any hard and fast disciplinary rules. We've adopted such a "zero defects" mentality that we often lose good people over a singular mistake. Former CJCS Admiral Mike Mullen, for example, had several "hiccups" in his career. During his first command his tanker hit a channel buoy. If his career had started in today's military I doubt he would have progressed anywhere near what he did. This zero defects mentality also has a bad side affect of creating risk averse leaders. They become so concerned about making a career ending mistake that they lose their ability to make quick decisions.

With that being said, I think Gen. "Chesty" Puller set a good example when addressing leadership misconduct. After a negligent discharge, Gen. Puller fined himself $100. This was 5 times the standard fine of $20. Whether we wear brass or chevrons, we both shoulder a much larger responsibility than our junior enlisted. With that responsibility comes accountability. Once more, standards need to apply to everyone. If we're going to create a policy that all persons convicted of DUI will be discharged, then rank should be irrelevant. If anything, leaders should face a more severe punishment due to the position they hold. Hiding a senior leader in a corner somewhere and allowing them to retire, while simultaneously throwing the book at a junior NCO for the same offense is wrong in my opinion.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2016 5:53 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 17:53:38 -0500

Should the Army change policy on 24hr CQ / Staff Duty shifts in garrison when research supports driving with lack of sleep is like driving with a blood alcohol level above .08 depending on how long one has been awake?

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2016 6:15 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 18:15:14 -0500

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member I agree with the differentiation between Sgts and top levelNCOs and Officers. With that said, DUIs can cost people their lives and there is no respite for people who are killed. But there should be no exceptions. You may get lucky but the DUI Death has no reprieve.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2016 6:49 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 18:49:46 -0500

Here is the debate that have with this. I can get a suitability waiver for someone with ONLY a DUI. They cannot have other issues as well either. What I am getting at is this. If we have one standard, then it HAS to be with ALL members across the board. I do not care of their rank. In fact, the higher the rank the stiffer the punishment in my opinion. A leader, cannot lead once they lose the respect of the people they lead. I have no problem chaptering a moron that cannot do something as simple as not drive after they have been drinking, the same should apply to those that WAY out rank me. They should not treat someone with a diamond or a star differently, unless it is more harsh (I am suggesting, a much faster discharge, removal of rank, etc. Set the standard THROUGH example). It wont happen, but that is my opinion. If you cannot find those that have the courage to do that, then it should not be done to any of them I guess because EVERYONE loses credibility.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Jan 24 at 2016 7:25 PM

SGM Erik Marquez — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 19:25:47 -0500

Yes... If you need more I'll introduce you to the family victims how have had spouses, sons, daughters and brothers taken from them by drunk drivers.

End of the day the Powers to be have said we will have a smaller service.. fine, let the incapable, unwilling, criminals, thugs and thieves lead the way.

Its not lotto that gets you though a 28 year career without a DUI.... its a simply decision to not drink and drive....it isn't that hard.

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Jan 24 at 2016 11:22 PM

Capt Jeff S. — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 23:22:27 -0500

Should a person with a Speeding Ticket be chaptered?

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2016 11:25 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 23:25:28 -0500

In short, I would have to answer no. For the simple reason that we currently at present have leaders in our formations with DUIs on record. I know the QMP process is going back through to try to eliminate some of these Soldiers/leaders, but if even one is retained then the answer has to be no. If your not going to start a process from the top down, then youre not setting the right example.

Response by CPO Kenneth Wilkinson made Jan 25 at 2016 12:50 AM

CPO Kenneth Wilkinson — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 00:50:14 -0500

I was in the old Navy pre -1996 and I have seen from Chiefs on down if they want to get help and successfully go through an Alcohol program Yes. Some of our great leaders have drank to much and succeeded in their carriers without treatment. I was a DAPA in Pearl and saw what a successful program can do.

Response by 1stSgt Eugene Harless made Jan 25 at 2016 1:03 AM

1stSgt Eugene Harless — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 01:03:37 -0500

No. It's not something to take lightly but one DUI should not end a career in itself. It should reflect on evaluations just like any other demonstration of poor judgement. It shouldn't be the red flag to bar reenlistment and it damn sure shouldn't be the sole reason for an automatic discharge.
If the sole reason for ending a career is because they committed an act that could have had fatal consequences everyone who has ever had a negligent discharge with a firearm should be given the same treatment.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 25 at 2016 6:00 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 06:00:47 -0500

To use data to answer this question, it would be great if the Army (or DoD, writ large) would tell us how many people with DUI convictions are currently serving in the military. We all know of people that have gotten DUIs and that still continue to serve. While for some Army NCOs and officers the Army has determined that a single DUI is grounds for involuntary separation (say, the stories we heard from the officers separated in the recent Officer Separation Boards and the NCOs separated in the QMP/QSP processes based apparently solely on a DUI), the Army hasn't applied this policy across the board. It is almost guaranteed that there are a handful--if not more--of currently serving general officers, colonels, and lieutenant colonels, and sergeant majors and command sergeant majors, who have DUIs on their records. (I limit it to the upper ranks, because at major and below and master sergeant and below, these involuntary separation processes have likely weeded out those with DUIs.) With this, then, to answer your third question, it would appear that leaders CAN lead their sections/units even though they have a DUI on their record. Whether or not they can be effective is a different question, and not linked solely to the fact that they have a DUI. I think it would be really hard for a leader to stand in front of a formation and tell people not to drink and drive when as a leader they have a DUI on their record. But it happens, and these folks continue to do their jobs and get promoted. (I know the Army will never tell us that a senior officer or NCO has a DUI, but I also know reality strongly suggests that senior folks with DUIs exist).

To answer your second question, in the current Army environment, where we are drawing down, involuntarily separating folks, and seeing all-time low promotion rates, a DUI on one's record should be a discriminating factor. I don't know that chaptering someone is the only or best choice, though, because per the UCMJ and administrative processes, we treat each incident and individual on their own merits. And as others have mentioned, such a zero-defect policy would be difficult to implement. If we did go to automatic involuntary separations for DUIs, this should apply to past offenses, too, right? We wouldn't want to be kicking out folks who got a DUI today or tomorrow but keeping folks that got a DUI yesterday or 15 years ago, would we?

To answer your first question, I think we should judge each case on its own merits. We invest an enormous amount of time and money in training Soldiers; we generally shouldn't throw all of that away based on one mistake. Even for things like failing a drug test, exceptions to "rules" exist.

Overall, though, increasing punishments and consequences for folks who get DUIs only exacerbates the current issue. Everybody knows that getting a DUI is very bad. We're told this all the time, and have been for years. But not everyone agrees that drinking and driving is bad. In the Army, its the getting caught part that is bad. One can be a total drunk, drink and drive all the time, and as long as one doesn't get caught, the Army does not think there is a problem. We're all adults, and as such we can make decisions about what we do, but it is essentially accepted as a cultural norm in the military that drinking heavily and drinking and driving is ok, as long as you don't get caught. Think of all the unit events you've attended, where people come and go with their own vehicles without designated drivers and drink throughout the event, deciding based on some random process when they've reached their limit. As long as they don't get pulled over, they're fine. Or, if the do get pulled over, as long as they aren't actually cited for a DUI, they're fine. Its not the act that the Army has a problem with; its the getting caught.

Want to fix this issue? De-glamorize alcohol. Stop serving it at unit functions. Maybe stop selling it on base (we stopped selling porn on base, so anything is possible). Equate drinking alcohol with doing drugs (it is a drug, after all), and treat it the same as drug use. (Yes, I know this will never happen; as such, alcohol abuse and DUIs will remain a part of military culture.)

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 25 at 2016 6:11 AM

Maj Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 06:11:35 -0500

If "we" are going to say, "Zero Tolerance" then, yes. If the answer is "no" then we should stop with the "Zero tolerance".

Response by SSG Audwin Scott made Jan 25 at 2016 8:45 AM

SSG Audwin Scott — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 08:45:10 -0500

With all the promotion of not drinking and driving going on, soldiers are very much aware of the consequence's of getting behind the wheel of vehicle after drinking. I say yes!

Response by SSG Michael Primm made Jan 25 at 2016 10:40 AM

SSG Michael Primm — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 10:40:13 -0500

Everybody that disagrees with this topic think about if that person kills or maims one of your loved ones...and tell me how feel about it then. A DUI is a choice you make and it's against the law. We just a case in CO where a retired COL killed a state trooper because he was drunk and he will probably spend a lot of time in prison because of his actions.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 25 at 2016 11:51 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 11:51:17 -0500

It depends on the circumstances. IF, and it's a very big IF, the event was a one time occurance/lapse in judgement then I'd say no. However, if it is part of a trend or pattern of poor judgement then yes. Also, and this may or may not be relevant, I think the degree of intoxication should be considered. Did the person just have one too many beers and blew a .08 or were they totally hammered and blew a .2?

Response by PFC Vincent Gwin made Jan 25 at 2016 12:02 PM

PFC Vincent Gwin — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 12:02:51 -0500

This is a tough one, my personal feelings on this is very extreme since I almost lost a great uncle who I'm close to to a drunk driver. Putting that aside I believe that on the first one depending on rank and the individual who is being charged with the DUI and what kind of DUI alcohol or drug the individual should be heavily reprimanded for their actions and receive a maxed out field grade article 15, and attend all substance abuse programs that are offered and if they fail need to be chaptered no matter rank.

Response by PO3 Tina Orberson made Jan 25 at 2016 12:13 PM

PO3 Tina Orberson — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 12:13:02 -0500

Zero Tolerance, no matter what rank you hold.

Response by SSG Keith Cashion made Jan 25 at 2016 12:13 PM

SSG Keith Cashion — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 12:13:20 -0500

I read this and I read all of the responses, and for some reason, this looks more like a question of, "Should we condone Drinking and Driving?". I recall in my 22 years in the Army, the same speech heard every Friday or long weekend...Do not Drink and Drive, call someone if you can't drive, have a designated driver, use the CQ or SDNCO, use the Platoon, Company, Battalion, BCT Drunk Card. Call a taxi, they will get you to your unit or home and you reimburse the Taxi fund.

When I was and still am in a leadership position, I told/tell my Soldiers and Civilians alike, that if you are of age to consume alcohol beverages, then do it, drink till you can drink no more, drink till you fall down if that is what you want to do. If you are going down town, use your cash, credit cards, checkbook, whatever is going to pay for your drink of choice, but before you leave the house (I consider Barracks a Soldiers home as well), make sure you know how you are getting home. Take $20 bucks, and stick it in your shoe...that way at the end of the night pull it out and call a taxi (At that time $20 bucks would get you back to your house). Don't risk your life, the lives of others on a DUI or Possible Prison time over drinking and driving.

I say this because I have been hit by three different drunk drivers (Alone in the car and with my family in the car), and I lost my father to a 6 time repeat offender. I am not a Prohibitionist, I drink, but know whose driving if I go out, and how I am getting back to the house.

It's funny that the Military and even Civilian society is against drinking and driving, but we have people doing it every day. Some in this thread have said it is not a case of bad judgment, but bad discipline, I have to disagree Judgment is defined as: 1.the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions. The person that operates a vehicle after drinking is using bad judgment, and not thinking of the consequences of their actions. The discipline part is bad as well, because we have all been taught the difference between right and wrong.

Should it be a career ender? Who knows, but no matter what a great Leader or Soldier someone is, drinking and driving is never acceptable...period.

Half Nickel of the day....looks more like a full Nickel. Have a great day.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 25 at 2016 12:19 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 12:19:59 -0500

DUI is definitely dangerous and easily preventable. I'm sure most people have been in a situation where they have had two or three drinks over a reasonable period of time, and were not impaired to prevent safe operation of a vehicle. If you were to be breathalyzed, you might read over the legal limit despite not experiencing the effects of alcohol. The test is not completely accurate and the alcohol on your breath may already be out of your blood system. It is not fair to disgrace someone who has done no harm. Obviously someone who has overindulged or has caused harm should be punished appropriately, and the military should take action to prevent and discourage servicemembers from making unnecessary risks. The punishment doesnt fit the crime in most cases, and good people are completely disgraced and their lives are ruined, whether they go on a rampage down the wrong direction of the highway, or they are simply caught speeding with a BAC of .08. The latter is not fair to end a career in dishonor.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 25 at 2016 12:50 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 12:50:30 -0500

Personally I think that no matter what the rank is the soldier should be chaptered out of military, because why keep them if they can't even show the smallest bit of control and professionalism that we all swear to uphold. I am like others who are tired of junior soldiers being destroyed in their military career, while senior leaders can get a slap on the wrist because why ruin their career when they are close to retirement. I maybe a little bias on this because of my job, in today's military we only need the best since we are downsizing, so why would we keep the soldiers who can not be on their best all the time?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 25 at 2016 1:28 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 13:28:50 -0500

This falls into the "it depends" category for me. For those that disagree I offer two situations:
1.) A Soldier meets friends at a bar, drinks, plans to leave car there. Said friends decide to switch bars but he doesn't wish to go with as he had too much. Soldier goes to his car to sleep it off and starts his car for a little bit to warm/cool it off inside. While sleeping a cop comes, wakes him up, and arrests him for operating a vehicle while intoxicated.
2.) Soldier blatantly drinks with no plan and drives home.
Two very different circumstances.

Response by SPC Christopher Morehouse made Jan 25 at 2016 2:01 PM

SPC Christopher Morehouse — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 14:01:12 -0500

If I can not trust your judgment with alcohol I can not trust it with a weapon. If I can not trust you with a weapon, what good are you to the military?

Response by PFC Jonathon Luken made Jan 25 at 2016 2:12 PM

PFC Jonathon Luken — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 14:12:20 -0500

I have a different angle to look at it. The military minimum for sleep is 4 hours. This repeated for days will decrease response time similar to drinking and driving. If you are in the field and expected to operate under less sleep isnt this along the same lines of driving while under the influence. Not to say i advocate dnd it is still the stupidest thing you can do i just know that if you are tired enough that you may have the reflexes of a drunk person.

Response by MSG Patrick Quinn made Jan 25 at 2016 2:47 PM

MSG Patrick Quinn — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 14:47:52 -0500

Having served prior to the time of zero tolerance, I have a tough time with the policy. I don't condone drinking and driving, and personally don't drink. One example; SSG Salvatore Giunta got a DUI in Italy before his deployment to Afghanistan where he was later awarded the MOH for his actions there. Even beside and prior to his actions in AFG, he was a solid performer. Should that mistake have ended his career?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 25 at 2016 3:18 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 15:18:56 -0500

The Army has gone overboard with a lot of issues lately, and DUI is one of them. Back in my early days in the late 90s it was not uncommon to hear of a Soldier getting a DUI and just getting a company grade. Now the Army acts like you raped or murdered somebody. Remember a DUI is a misdemeanor. For all leader, I highly doubt that some time in your life you have never driven when you were not supposed to, you were luckily enough to not get caught, and that leads to hypocrisy. I think that if a Soldier get their first DUI than a company grade is sufficient, after that a field grade; than on a third then chapter.

Too many people want the Army to be an institution where we coddle people until they screw up, and once they screw up than it time to kick them out. Why don't we get back to basics punish people for their violations (but not overboard) and move on, and before anyone accuses me; no I have never had a DUI and I rarely drink. I just see a pattern over the past few years of turning the Army from an element that kills our enemies to an organization that is quickly getting out of touch with reality. You can see this in the endless SHARP, MRT, Team Bound and other absolutely worthless training we have to do because our leaders knee jerk react to everything.

Response by CW2 Ernest Krutzsch made Jan 25 at 2016 3:31 PM

CW2 Ernest Krutzsch — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 15:31:51 -0500

Very sticky situation, unfortunately RHIP.I had seen CSM and Officers who received DUI's and it was all hush hush, swept under the rug. They were reassigned with little or no consequence. However, when a junior enlisted member got a DUI. Article 15, career killer. It is exactly why we rehabilitate, but even that in the Army was a joke. A soldier who did drugs or got a DUI would normally be reassigned to another company in the same battalion, where the NCO's talked and when the soldier got to his new unit, he was given the obligatory you are starting over speech, which was BS, he was a marked man!

Response by MSgt Robert Downing made Jan 25 at 2016 3:55 PM

MSgt Robert Downing — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 15:55:19 -0500

No they shouldn't. Allow them to learn from the mistake. If we had, had this one mistake military in the 80's and 90's I personally know several E-8's and E-9's now who would not have had a military career at all. I understand the need for higher standards and all, but also, a little humbling goes a long way to teaching folks a much needed lesson.

Response by SGT Alicia Brenneis made Jan 25 at 2016 4:05 PM

SGT Alicia Brenneis — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 16:05:06 -0500

I voted no due to an experience I went through with a soldier. He got a DUI that was thrown out in court. He left a bar, realized he was too drunk to drive, pulled into a parking lot and started calling for rides. Problem was he turned the wrong way down a one way to get to the parking lot and a cop saw him. Our SFC took his driving privileges on post for a year, 45 days extra duty, and tried to bust him down to a PVT. Within 2 weeks she was arrested for DUI, assaulting a police officer, resisting arrest and lost her shoes in the process (she told us all of this like it was funny ). She was not busted down, she did not have extra duty and she was still driving on post. She refused to give the soldier back his on post privilege even after his was dropped on the civilian side. From the moment she committed the same "infraction " as the soldier she was punishing any "lesson " he might have learned was out the window.

Once soldiers know you've done something like that as a leader, they no longer value you as a leader. They see you as a double standard and hold it against the entire command. All soldiers make mistakes but as a leader you have to be held to a higher standard and that means harsher punishment. Basically. . You should know better

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 25 at 2016 4:22 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 16:22:36 -0500

This is why the UCMJ has commander's decide. It allows not only evidence but a discussion of the person's character as well. This covers the gray area of humanity.
I thought we had a zero tolerance policy for leaders on most posts though and that senior commanders reserved UCMJ authority for DUIs and other substance abuses.

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 25 at 2016 4:52 PM

1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 16:52:53 -0500

I believe that if you are an officer then "yes". If you are enlisted then "no".

I can hear the Mameluke swords rattling.

If you are an officer you have been groomed from entry to be cut from a finer cloth. You are given more responsibility due to your commissioning and oath. You also have the privilege of evaluating enlisted persons, some of who have been a professional since you were in grade school. Because of that you have a few mistakes that you do NOT have the privileged of making. Adultery with an enlisted spouse, drugs, bad judgement that kill your men during training and DUI to name a few. If you "earn" a DUI, you have no place talking about bad judgement or command decisions with me. No matter what rank you are.

Enlisted, well when we are junior, we can chalk up a bad decision or two. Now if you manage to be awarded office hours more than once, then we have an issue. That is a trend. Negative trend setters get discharged.

Just my opinion. It and another $4.00 might get me a coffee at Starbucks.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 25 at 2016 6:00 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 18:00:48 -0500

SGM Matthew Quick Your question is vague in that it does not outline the particulars of the incident. Was the incident on post or off post? Was the individual prosecuted by civilian authorities and found guilty? All of the choices available for handling this matter are not career ending. Here is a some information that might help you.
"Military punitive actions
Punitive actions under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice are available to the military if you are not being prosecuted by civilian authorities, which is typically the case if you were stopped for a DUI while on the installation. The military cannot administer action under the UCMJ for the same offense if you are being charged by civilian authorities. This applies regardless of the outcome of the civilian case. You may still be subject to UCMJ actions for associated misconduct that is not being prosecuted by civilian authorities, such as disorderly conduct or resistance to law enforcement officials.

Nonjudicial punishment - Commanding officers can levy NJP to their service members for minor disciplinary offenses under Article 15 of the UCMJ. Each of the services uses different names for NJP to include "Article 15" in the Army and Air Force, "Captain's Mast" or "Mast" in the Navy and Coast Guard, and "Office Hours" in the Marine Corps. Under NJP, commanders can make an inquiry into the facts surrounding the offenses allegedly committed, afford the accused a hearing and either dismiss the charges, impose punishment under the provisions of Article 15 or refer the case to a court-martial. Under NJP, commanding officers can punish you through a variety of mechanisms, usually dependent on the nature of the offense. These can include an official reprimand, extra duty, restriction to limits, forfeiture of pay and reduction of grade.
Judicial punishment (court-martial) - If you are stopped on the installation, or the civilian authorities are not prosecuting you, you can still receive a court-martial for a DUI under Article 115 of the UCMJ. Article 115 specifically states that any person who operates or physically controls any vehicle, aircraft or vessel in a reckless or wanton manner or while impaired shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. Punishments related to court-marital can include forfeiture of pay, reduction in grade, confinement and dismissal from the military.
Military administrative actions
Regardless of whether you are being charged by civilian authorities or receiving UCMJ action, your commanding officer can take administrative actions against you. These actions may include:

Letter of reprimand - A letter of reprimand is a formal document from your superior (usually a general officer) that details your wrongful actions and the punishment that can be expected. Although letters of reprimand are less severe than a court-martial, they can be career-ending as the letter remains in your record and can have adverse effects on your ability to receive a promotion.
Revocation of pass privileges - Your commander can revoke your ability to go on leave. If you are being charged by civilian authorities, this usually lasts until the civilian court proceedings are complete. If you are facing military punitive actions, this denial of leave typically lasts until your UCMJ punishments are served and complete.
Mandatory referral to a substance abuse treatment program - Your commander can mandate that you enroll in and complete a substance abuse treatment program through your branch of service's respective program.
Corrective training - Your commander may require corrective training if he/she believes you would benefit from additional instruction or practice in a particular area. This training is designed to correct deficiencies and eliminate the need for formal disciplinary measures in the future.
Administrative reduction in grade - Depending on your situation and your rank, your commander can reduce your grade. The rank of the commander who may approve an administrative reduction in grade depends on your rank.
Bar to reenlistment - A bar to reenlistment is a procedure that commanders may use to deny you the opportunity to reenlist after your current service is complete. This procedure is used for those whose immediate separation is not warranted, but whose reenlistment is not in the best interest of the military."

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Jan 25 at 2016 6:14 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 18:14:05 -0500

A DUI in which nobody is injured should not by itself end a military career SGM Matthew Quick. Disclosure I was given a General Grade Article 15 as a young 1LT for DUI in West Germany in the early 1980's. Because of the testimony of my Battalion and Company commanders the Article 15 was placed in my restricted records. Later the commander of post I was stationed at learned about my Article 15 when I requested my drivers license to be reinstated after the one year sentence had passed. Up till then I had solidly great OERs. the BG placed me at his lowest point on his distribution and used words like good on the OER. No bad comment just good comments which was a kiss of death in those days. It took a very long time but I was able to overcome the bad OER well over a decade after I stopped drinking. Thanks for tagging me SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Jan 25 at 2016 7:07 PM

SSG Warren Swan — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 19:07:14 -0500

Yes, and my reasoning will seem harsh. If you knowingly drink and drive, you are not only placing yourself in danger, you're jeopardizing those who are also on the road, and those who are in the car with you. You have a multitude of lives in your hands and you'll risk hurting or killing them to get home? The Army gives safety briefs every Friday and DAMN SURE every long weekend NOT to do it, call someone, anyone in the chain to come get you. It's better to be chewed on than to be buried or look at a battle buried. Hell at most units they gave us cards with ALL the command teams numbers on them, and on the other side, either a cab company to call and get you at the units dime or your supervisors name and number to call. At 1/5 FA at Riley, they gave us key chains with the info on them. There is no excuse to put folks out there like that. Just coming home from deployment. Been there, had my drinking issues and they were bad......NEVER GOT BEHIND THE WHEEL. I'm not the perfect Joe, or NCO, but there were levels to my stupidity, and having a MP background helped. So if a JE, NCO, or Officer decides that drinking and driving is the way to go, knock yourself out. Get caught, and then get out. You REALLY knew the rules going into this one, and you know that if the civilian cops catch you and process you, the MP's are going to do it too when they pick you up. Own your mistakes.

Response by Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 25 at 2016 7:37 PM

Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 19:37:23 -0500

I believe that everyone deserves a second chance. Nobody can truly understand what that soldier was going through. I have two situation dependant opinions on this matter. Yes it is a voluntary choice to drink and drive, but in a case where no body is hurt and the it was just a minor car wreck then I would say that they deserve a second chance, but are walking a thin line. Now if it causes a wreck in which people are killed or seriously injured then I would say that is very easy to justify the fate of their career.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 25 at 2016 8:54 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 20:54:19 -0500

I am on the fence on this one. I like the idea of giving second chances, however, I think it should be a consideration on separation boards and promotion boards. Especially on the officer side. I have never had a DUI meaning that I have never had the same lap in judgement that some people have. On a promotion board or separation board, I think I should have an advantage over a person who has had that lapse in judgement. On the last separation board, this was a distinguishing factor in those who were released and those who stayed. If you ever had a DUI (or other serious offense), you went to the top of the list for separation.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 25 at 2016 10:06 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 22:06:09 -0500

No everybody makes mistakes that's the point of growing up we all make mistakes. Today's military wants to keep the best service-members so much one little mistake that wouldn't be a big deal 7 years ago gets you kicked out in today's military. It's forcing our service members to be perfect people with no faults. Making us lose sight that we are still humans and we still make mistakes. Is driving while driving wrong? yea it is however what if that person has a drinking problem,kicking them out isn't solving anything. That's just causing them to continue drinking, once you get kicked out from the service it's hard to find a new job or a good one why ruin someones entire life over a drinking charge or future aspects.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 25 at 2016 10:44 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 22:44:39 -0500

My middle son was hit head on by a drunk driver and was killed. I'm prejudiced, but I think anyone in the military, under the influence of anything, should be booted out. Just because they're in the military doesn't exempt them from being punished for driving under the influence. It's not a mistake. It's a death sentence for the person driving or the person hit, or both. Two people died in the car that killed my son. Y'all can come up with all the what ifs you want to, but it's wrong and against the law. The civilian law, the military law, and the laws of society. If the DUI is an officer or ranking NCO, they know better because that's what they're supposed to be teaching the troops. When I was at Fort Campbell, they had a Mustang at the gates that hit a train. All six soldiers were killed trying to beat the train. They were all drinking. The only way I knew what kind of car it was, was the gas cap. I took my team to the gates and showed them the car. There was still blood in it that couldn't be cleaned out. I told them if they didn't want to end up dead like those six soldiers, they better stop and think about what they are doing. I also warned them that if they got picked up driving drunk, I would see to it they were busted down and lose some pay, if I could do it.

Response by Sgt Jamie Grippin made Jan 26 at 2016 1:52 AM

Sgt Jamie Grippin — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 01:52:15 -0500

My thoughts on this are that a persons frontal lobes do not become fully developed until your early 20's so poor decision make is going to be part of any young persons life (ironically these are the same individuals we primarily give the destructive toys too). Therefore junior enlisted should have to answer to the legal consequences i.e. tickets, fines, damages for the act, but your career remains intact. You get one pass and only one pass and if at any other time your career you cross the line you're gone. Career over. Officers, NCOs and above you had your youth and I hope you enjoyed it but it's time to lead by example and stacking up DUIs is not the example we want our leaders to examplify. Those that want to compare civilian standards are forgetting that the military is the military and not the corporate world. We have a mission goal that is far more important than a corporate botton line. In fact part of that mission is to maintain that same corporate world so we should be holding our people to a higher standard.

Response by SSG James Bigbie made Jan 26 at 2016 5:11 AM

SSG James Bigbie — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 05:11:11 -0500

I think if they are E-1 to E-4, Letter of Reprimand locally. E-5 and up, you're out. 2nd offense for E-1 to E-3, you're out.

Response by SPC Dejan Smaic made Jan 26 at 2016 5:12 AM

SPC Dejan Smaic — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 05:12:16 -0500

While on duty, yes. Off duty, no. As much as I am opposed to drinking and driving, a DUI suggests a larger problem with the individual. Try to fix the broken wheel. If you can't fix it, replace it.

I've read many posts implying unwavering intolerance to DUI. The military is held to different standards than the civilian world. However, members of the armed forces are still people prone to make mistakes. During my life thus far, I have never been exposed to more drug and alcohol abuse than in the Army, and that includes my time in college. Consider the source of the problem.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 26 at 2016 6:58 AM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 06:58:07 -0500

DUI's should result in separation the day immediately following a conviction...no matter the rank. And all the days leading up to the final decision should be filled with painting, pulling weeds, picking up trash, etc. No exceptions.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 26 at 2016 7:05 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 07:05:21 -0500

Honestly SGM, we've gone so far down the path of a 'zero tolerance' organization in the Army that the book answer to your question is yes. It's a career ender. Promote to civilian, they're done.

Now, in my opinion, is this the way we should be looking at or addressing the issue? That also is a resounding NO! Like the 'whole Soldier concept', each situation is unique. Allow me, if you will, to provide an example.

Two Soldiers are out fishing at a lake with no cell reception at different times. The first Soldier has a history of less than stellar decisions and decides to get drunk, then go driving back to the barracks and gets a DUI. The second Soldier, a solid performer, is out fishing with his wife who was his DD. She starts having a medical emergency and the Soldier has to make the decision to get behind the wheel intoxicated and drive his wife to the hospital as there is no cell reception. The Soldier is also charged with DUI.

My question to those that stand and shout, 'one standard, kick them all out' is this: What happened to a leaders ability to have the discretion to see retainibility in a Soldier? I mean, hells bells. Where does this all go? Is DUI a serious offense that should hold serious consequences? Yes. On the other hand, if we continue to simply discharge all of our Soldiers that get in trouble at some point in their careers, not only will we have an NCO / Officer corps that is less resilient, but also one that is incapable of identifying potential problems before they get any larger because they have first hand experience.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 26 at 2016 7:46 AM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 07:46:51 -0500

SGM Matthew Quick Qualified no. Why qualified? Because Zero Tolerance rules are a substitute for thinking, for judgement, and for the possibility of rehabilitation and recovery.

But there has to be a standard, and that standard should be VERY tough. How many days go by before another person is killed by a drunk driver at your post? Let's face it, driving drunk is not unlike walking around drunk with a loaded weapon. Just because someone is not killed every time the gun goes off, doesn't mean everyone's life isn't at risk,

If not discharge, then reduction in rank below supervisory level, i.e. to E-4 or below. I realize that's probably a career ender, for an officer or a very senior NCO, but it could easily be a life ender for the victim.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 26 at 2016 8:05 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 08:05:02 -0500

If a PT test can end your career....a DWI damn sure should do the same.

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Jan 26 at 2016 8:11 AM

SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 08:11:15 -0500

No. They should try to at least have the person, or persons involved take an AA class, or a drug rehab . Make it a mandatory situation, if they don't go then give them the boot, but first find out why they got in this habit.

Response by SSG Kelly Melton made Jan 26 at 2016 8:58 AM

SSG Kelly Melton — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 08:58:22 -0500

A leader with a DUI can be a good leader and can set the example for his/her stubbornness
Coming back from a misstake only builds strength in a person thus can show someone else the in and outs

Response by SSG Floyd Morris made Jan 26 at 2016 9:00 AM

SSG Floyd Morris — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 09:00:42 -0500

I went in the ARMY in 1967, till 1970, then the National Guard, till 1993, 20 years 11months, 7days!!!!! Yes we did drink beer! And we drank together some times, the whole Company, I don't see a thing wrong with it! Yes we where verry colorful at times!!!! However, it brought us closer, to eachother. It reminded us what we were fighting for! Astime went on I see the leaders of today are missing the comradery, and t h e integrity of the mission, all it is a machine, there is so much all your people are missing from their accomplished task an the feedback!!!! Yes in a relaxed atmosphere a leader gets some goofie remarks, but recognition is a good tool!!!!

Response by SFC Dave Joslin made Jan 26 at 2016 9:05 AM

SFC Dave Joslin — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 09:05:41 -0500

There are three questions there and not all get the same answer.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 26 at 2016 9:13 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 09:13:33 -0500

The old saying was when I came up that you couldnt become a SGM without an article 15, a DUI, and an ex wife. I dont subscribe to that thought process, especially in this climate of draw down every soldier, new and seasoned alike should make every decision in their life through the filter of weather that decision could end their carreer. If anyone makes a stupid decision, well, they should pay for that, maybe with their carreer. There are plenty of people with zero marks on their record that are waiting to fill the void.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 26 at 2016 9:58 AM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 09:58:16 -0500

BLUF: Yes it should be a career ender.
Why? Well...its illegal no matter what state you live in. And most importantly because its completely avoidable and well within a persons ability to not get behind the wheel of vehicle after drinking. When you do it shows a lack of planning, lack of respect for yourself, for others, and for the service you represent. In the case of DUI's, you can't use the excuse that you had no other choice but to drive...there is always another option and in this day / age of UBER / LIFT / CELL PHONES you can't tell me that people don't have the resources to avoid getting behind the wheel.

Before I joined the service I would have been inclined to apply the logic that "everyone makes mistakes and deserves a second chance". After having joined I would be without a doubt agree that a DUI should be a career ender whether in the NG, Army Reserve or AC. I joined the Army to be part of the elite group of people that want to be held to a higher standard...and being held to a higher standard comes with harsh consequences if you can't meet the expectations.

However I've been witness to several NG soldiers that have been convicted of DUI's and haven't received anything more then a slap on the wrist or a quite rebuke of their actions....they were in leadership roles which leads me to believe that the application of punishment is not fair across the board.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 26 at 2016 10:46 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 10:46:01 -0500

Yes. Yes. Yes/No. A lower enlisted soldier or a leader getting a DUI doesn't deserve to be in the force, though they could be the best Soldier there is otherwise. LDRSHIP are the core, fundamental values Soldiers are required to exude - if you get busted for something that puts your and others lives at stake, knowing full well it's morally wrong, illegal, and a career-ender, how could anyone then put you in charge of other lives and impressionable men and women? There can really be no debate here - wrong is wrong.

The exception being if someone gets pegged for a DUI if they do the right thing like sleep it off in the back seat and some asshole cop charges them because of technicalities in their state laws the SM didn't know about.

I knew a SSG who got a DUI and was an amazing leader. He barely made it before the BDE policy changed to zero tolerance. I'm glad he made it because he was great, with that one mistake, but at the same time a DUI is unforgivable and unacceptable in our military. Everyone old enough to join knows it's wrong.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 26 at 2016 10:48 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 10:48:33 -0500

There are very few things I personally believe there should be a zero tolerance policy for. Drinking and driving is one of them. It's not something done by accident. It's a person saying that they don't give a single flying fuck about the lives of others. Yes, getting a DUI should absolutely end careers and should in my opinion result in a Other Than Honorable discharge regardless of time in service or rank. You're a Battalion CSM less than a year from retirement and get a DUI? Shouldn't matter. Leaders lead by example. You can't tell me that they're a good leader and that should be weighed against this "mistake" when committing this act in and of itself shows that hey have failed as a leader and cannot lead by example.

I clearly have strong feelings on this matter.

Response by SSG Roderick Smith made Jan 26 at 2016 11:04 AM

SSG Roderick Smith — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 11:04:26 -0500

Absolutely. Everyone keeps saying "everyone makes mistakes." Here's the thing though. We aren't talking "shot the wrong azimuth" mistake, or "forgot to put down a drip pan"mistake. We're talking about, "got rip-roaring drunk, blacked out, and endagered lives" mistake, or "I'm the least drunk/just trying to take care of Soldiers" mistake. At what point do we actually hold grown adults accountable for their actions? We keep talking about how a DUI is a red flag to a QMP board. So why do Soldiers keep getting DUIs? Why do the SAME Soldiers keep getting multiple DUIs? The Army as a whole is incredibly reactive. We'll sweep DUI after DUI under the rug or issue some wrist slaps, as long as no one gets hurt. But once there's an accident or injuris or a fatality, suddenly unit want to start throwing books. If you don't let the snake grow up, you don't have to worry about chopping the head off later.

I'm not even going to indulge the quote that brought me here from Facebook, about how Intoxilyzers screw up and yadda yadda yadda... you want to talk about irrelevant? Whoever said that, with all due respect, message me and I'll be glad to go over the multiple ways that you can be charged with DUI and why. (Spoiler alert: one of the most popular choices for offenders doesn't require a breath test at all!! Yay!!)

Response by SGT William Juarez made Jan 26 at 2016 11:44 AM

SGT William Juarez — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 11:44:38 -0500

DUI's show that fact that you have no regard for your life or anyone else' life. If someone cannot make that judgement when not under duress what makes us think that that person's decision making in combat will not get someone killed. Yes, end that career. You would feel that way if you lost your family because somebody decided to drink and drive when they didn't have to.

Response by SPC David S. made Jan 26 at 2016 12:12 PM

SPC David S. — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 12:12:23 -0500

Drinking and the military have always had an ambivalent relationship - military service will do its best to get you to drink. However I think if you kick all those with a DUI out you're doomed to have repeat offenders as you're also kicking out all examples of culpability. What better way to learn as a PVT to see some SNCO get busted down. There is also the lost in investment to consider - when your horse throws a shoe you don't shoot your horse. Finally, If there is a substance abuse problem it seems like a good idea to try to fix the problem rather than push it off and make it a problem for somebody else. I do believe in one standard with escalating consequences for repeat offenders. A third strike - sure.

Response by CW3 Jim Norris made Jan 26 at 2016 12:23 PM

CW3 Jim Norris — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 12:23:53 -0500

Matt:
DUI is 'reckless endangerment of others'. The number of deaths, maiming and loss productivity due to excessive alcohol consumption is rampant. I sometimes cringe when I see the amount of attention paid to other substance abuse and a 'wink and a nod' given to drunken NCOs, Officers and Warrant Officers. You decide to drive to a party, you decide to consume alcohol, you decide to get back in your vehicle and risk great harm to others....when you get caught, God willing before you kill anyone else, I have no sympathy for your plight at all. Your decisions all along that path had no one choosing for you.....I for one do not want such a poor decision maker carrying a loaded weapon with me anywhere I've ever been.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 26 at 2016 12:40 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 12:40:39 -0500

Here's my opinion. If your an E-5 or above then yes it should end your career. The "knucklehead" should be out of you once you reach E-5. There's no excuse. Same goes for officers.

Response by LT G Paisley made Jan 26 at 2016 1:46 PM

LT G Paisley — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 13:46:54 -0500

I think we can all formulate a scenario where someone could be convicted of a DUI in a setting that should NOT be a career ender (that scenario may be as easy to formulate as to think of oneself being the one convicted.....). I agree with those who have observed that it is too complex to have a simple digital answer--it truly does depend.
Any 'zero tolerance'-type policy sooner or later (usually sooner) results in some logic-defying punishment that the policy was never intended to apply to. That's why 'zero-tolerance' policies are easy to say, but impossible to execute.
We're all paid to use our brains, so we need to use our brains.

Response by Maj Chris Nelson made Jan 26 at 2016 4:04 PM

Maj Chris Nelson — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 16:04:07 -0500

I believe NO is the correct answer....in some, but maybe not all cases. Here are a few of my reasons:
1. I remember when the DUI ribbon should have been authorized on the uniform.... just about EVERY leader NCO/OFFICER had probably had at least 1 sometime in their career, and yet, they bounced back a stronger leader.
2. EVERYONE makes a mistake. Some are small mistakes, some are large mistakes, but don't think of yourself as "bombproof" and unable to make mistakes....
3. On the civilian side, a DUI does not automatically end your job. Why should the military be so different?
4. ZERO TOLERANCE: I am SO sick and tired about hearing "Zero Tolerance" this....or that..... Do you REALLY understand what zero tolerance is?? I will try to put it simply.... (in my opinion): Zero Tolerance is a catch phrase that allows lazy leaders to make a decision without having to think. This also spills into the schools with teachers/staff/students.... There are some events that you NEED to hear all the details. Weigh each punishment on the merit of ALL the details. make the punishment fit the actual crime.... Come on.... if you are a "ZERO TOLERANCE" Flunky, you are lazy, unwilling to think, and overall, not fit to be a leader in my opinion.
5. Don't you think that the punishment of legal fees, Fines, Loss of Drivers license, increase in auto insurance, etc isn't enough punishment? You want to also kick someone out of the military so they can no longer make a wrong a right (paying their bills)? To me, that is being tried for the same crime twice and is against the law....Either let them be charged in court and pay for their offense OR kick them out....but you don't get both.

These are My opinions and many people may not like them (especially #4), but, it is what it is.

Response by SGT Jason Eley made Jan 26 at 2016 5:31 PM

SGT Jason Eley — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 17:31:12 -0500

Depends on the type of soldier he is and his background. If this was his first ever offense I think the proper punishment should be loss of rank at the leaders discretion and put in a drug and alcohol course through ASAP. After that if he receives one more, then he is finished. I am a firm believer of second chances, not all soldiers deserve second chances but everyone at least deserves a shot.

Response by COL Robert Davies made Jan 26 at 2016 5:52 PM

COL Robert Davies — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 17:52:51 -0500

First off from my perspective it shows a lack of maturity. BUT leadership should find out what really happened. In CA you can be ticketed for doing the right thing, if you have too much to drink you sleep in your car? Wrong! There is no correct answer, except you are screwed. You take a cab, public intoxication. Sleep it off in your car, DUI. Use a designated driver, he gets stopped, you get charged. You walk, again public intoxication. Yes I have had that conversation with many a commander and 1SG.
Patterns of misconduct? Okay. Lapse of judgment? Got it. Know your Soldiers? Absolutely. Rank has its privileges, a willingness to go toe to toe for your good Soldiers.

Response by SSG Ronald Rollins made Jan 26 at 2016 7:29 PM

SSG Ronald Rollins — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 19:29:06 -0500

I feel that everyone should be treated the same. I seen an SPC get pulled over and charged with DUI. It was later proved he was not drinking. But before the ink was dry the CO had started chapter paperwork. He fought it but lost. He proved he was not drunk and in fact had no alcohol. He was tired from being on Staff duty runner. He crossed the white line and was pulled over. But during that time we had a SFC who was pulled over and WAS drunk driving and this was his SECOND DWI. Not DUI but DWI. He was reassigned to supply but he was not charged by the unit. There was no chapter paperwork. He had 14 years in. Why was he not treated the same as the SPC? Just because he was a SFC he got off. How does that look to the E5 and below? I personally had no respect for him, the 1SG, Commander or anyone else in the chain of command. I was a SSG. I let the 1SG know (politely) that I would not be under the SFC. He would not be my supervisor and explained why. I was told to follow orders. I requested to retire rather than deal with that.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 26 at 2016 8:22 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 20:22:26 -0500

I've read through many comments and here's my take. It should not be a career ender the first time. Like many have said alcohol is practically encouraged. The safety briefings have become a mantra that goes in one ear and out the other. This being said there is no excuse for drinking and driving. It's not difficult to find a ride if you plan ahead. However i myself have had a beer with dinner and finished it before the food arrived and got a second knowing that it would put me beyond the legal limit. But because impairment happens at different levels for everyone we have to have a legal limit, at least until an accurate method of measuring impairment on the road is developed. The punishment needs to be the same or if anything worse with rank. I have seen a young e5 kicked out on his first DUI that happened between drills and an e6 get promoted after getting a DUI while on title 10 orders. Both were good NCOs in my eyes but the unit lost morale and cohesion because of the double standards. The good ole boy program still exists.
Sorry I kind of bounce around just trying to say everything that is on my mind

Response by SPC Byron Skinner made Jan 26 at 2016 10:24 PM

SPC Byron Skinner — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 22:24:08 -0500

Sp4 Skinner. This is a really tough question. The Army of 50 years was a home for hard core drunks. Many NCO's started drinking at noon at "The Club" and by 2100 were fall down drunk. What is known as a DUI in those day simply didn't exist. If caught driving drunk in an off base boom town the MP's were called if they were not traveling as the second officers in a police patrol car. For most though "The Club" on base was a good enough watering hole. Drinks were usual $.25-$.35, beer was a dime to twenty cents a glass, a pitcher was fifty cents. For the enlisted there was the "Beer Gardens" with the same pricing. If you wanted to party by yourself a fifth of most domestic Bourbons and Rum were $2.50-$3.00 price range, Club Brands of spirits often was sold for a $1.50 a fifth. Scotch like Johnny Walker Black was $5.00. Now of course things have changed. I would think what to do about a DUI would depend on the soldier. If is a good soldier or NCO and it was the first time and there were no other legal issues. Let him/her settle with the civilian authorities, make a notation in his/her 210 file and move on. A second offender, or a chronic drunk, boot his/her six out with a general discharge. For officers its a bit different. The Government usually has a lot invested in even Jr, officers, they are the future of the Army and that should be taken into consideration. Also much of the socializing that an officers has to do as she/he climbs up the ranks almost require drinking. Sometime it gets out of hand. It shouldn't be that way but it is. For Jr. Officers a counseling session and a driving school like the civilian world does, mifgr be enough to to bring him around. He settles with the civilian authorities himself. For Field Grade and Senior Grade officers. You run into the should have known better group. The first time concealing and drop down on the promotion list, second time career over. These are the men an women who are expected to set the example. The sticky thing here is that with most drunks there are always are contributing problems such as their marriage issues, money, parents, a death in the family, problems with a commanding officers or other frustrations that they are having a difficult time coping with. But on the other side of that coin Middle Grade officers are expected to be able to handle and solve problems and not get drunk so they de-facto have shown they are incapable of performing to Army Officers Standards and have to written off as a loss and the Army moves on.

Response by SPC Robert Smart made Jan 26 at 2016 11:05 PM

SPC Robert Smart — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 23:05:26 -0500

SGM Quick, I think everyone deserves at least one mistake. I use the word mistake very loosely. DUI is a serious offence and should be handled with a UCMJ action, but not a discharge for a first offense. If there is a second offence then my opinion is yes the discharge is warranted. As to the leadership, my opinion is , yes the person should be removed from the leadership position until they can prove this offense will not happen again. An effective leader should lead by example and set it.

Response by SFC Marcus Belt made Jan 27 at 2016 8:29 AM

SFC Marcus Belt — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 08:29:53 -0500

Automatic career ender? No. Potential career ender? Sure. One of the issues with zero tolerance is that we've had Soldier's accused, but not found guilty, but lost their careers anyway because of administrative actions.

Response by CPT Jim Schwebach made Jan 27 at 2016 9:24 AM

CPT Jim Schwebach — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 09:24:57 -0500

Discharge them all, let God sort it out. It is, after all, the mark of truly great military leaders to follow all directives to the absolute letter without regard to any unique circumstances affecting the incident. We must remember that how we function in garrison reflects how we will perform in combat. And in combat we always respond to situations exactly as described and directed by our field orders, unit policies, doctrine and the ROI in place.

If anyone is interested I'm thinking of having that first sentence immortalized on a T shirt.

Response by SSgt Michael Cox made Jan 27 at 2016 11:18 AM

SSgt Michael Cox — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 11:18:47 -0500

You should have only asked one question per pole as question one and two I would say kick them both out and then three no because you are expected to lead by example and impossible if you are kicked out. While I was in I had two troops that had DUI's one got his in England with another Airman in the vehicle and two underage local nationals with him. According to British law all four got a DUI since the other three didn't stop him, which is how it should be here also in my opinion. My second Airman received two DUI's and swung at an NCO. He went to out and in treatment before he admitted he had a drinking problem but was kicked out for contributing to a minor after his dept card was stolen and the local police started investigating that. I think at a min the DOD should do mandatory 45 day in treatment for any alcohol related offense and second time give them the boot no matter the rank.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 27 at 2016 12:22 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 12:22:03 -0500

Don't drink and drive regardless of your rank. I know a guy who got a dui as a young captain, but because of OIF/OEF, the Army let him stay in and promoted to major. He is exceptional, effective, and a lethal leader who clearly was aN asset to the Army. The retention board rolls around and he is chosen for separation.

Don't drink and drive, don't drink and drive, don't drink and drive.

Response by MSgt James Mullis made Jan 27 at 2016 1:57 PM

MSgt James Mullis — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 13:57:53 -0500

No! A single DUI, with no additional charges (drinking on duty, vehicular manslaughter) or a prior Article 15, should not be the end of an otherwise excellent career. It is a complete overreaction and waste of the Tax Payers money that has gone into training the member. The main reasons for the current one strike your out policy are Politics and the ready availability of manpower and money.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 27 at 2016 2:29 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 14:29:06 -0500

Yes especially for NCOs. We are leaders. Lead by example.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jan 27 at 2016 2:31 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 14:31:50 -0500

The soldier has to be humble, admit wrong doing, ask for it to be filed in a the local file, maybe promise to write an essay or conduct anti-DUI training.

Response by LTC Eric Coger made Jan 28 at 2016 4:50 AM

LTC Eric Coger — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 04:50:00 -0500

Maybe for an 88M... if you job does not require you to drive then should this really effect your career at all? What about parking tickets? Speeding tickets? Late payments on utilities? Not all DUI/DWIs are the same. If you get stopped without committing any other offenses, and with no accident/damage/injuries, what did you really do? Various States have different laws. What about when you get a GOMOR and then the charges are dropped or you win your case? What happened to presumed innocent? Even if no civil charges are followed through with you can have your career ended. There should be NO black and white policies; every incident and person should be treated uniquely by all of the circumstances and mitigating facts of each case. Should most of these be career enders? Maybe, but all? No way. Let's use some leadership and judgement .

Response by MSgt Wayne Morris made Jan 28 at 2016 10:59 AM

MSgt Wayne Morris — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 10:59:15 -0500

Getting harder to answer this and some cities have set their own levels to the point where 1 drink (literally) can classify you as DWI. I am sorry but being swept up in a checkpoint for 1 drink and blowing a .01 should not end someone's career for sure and if there is no property or injury to persons I myself believe that most of God's children deserve a second chance in most cases. BTW, I am and always been a non drinker.

Response by SCPO Charles Thomas "Tom" Canterbury made Jan 28 at 2016 11:36 AM

SCPO Charles Thomas "Tom" Canterbury — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 11:36:47 -0500

Something as far-reaching as a DUI or DWI with as severe penalties, I ABSOLUTELY think it should be a career-ender. Getting a DUI shows gross incompetence, failure to plan, disregard for the safety of yourself or others. Additionally, it tarnishes the reputation of those who are serving honorably in uniform, especially if there was a crash with injuries.

As I used to tell my Sailors and Marines: When you drink, consider the "Drink at Home Program." You drink at home and avoid going anywhere. A shot of Patron Silver in town averages at about $6. You can buy a whole fifth for much cheaper. Same goes with Beer and Wine. It's much cheaper to buy it yourself and drink it at home - and you can set it up where you have pre-determined limits by buying only a six-pack or bottle of wine or small quantities of liquor. You can plan your evening, cook a good meal, get some good music or hit up the local RedBox and watch movies. For the gamers - you could play games. If you're meeting with friends - people can bring others to mingle and everyone could plan to stay the evening to avoid anyone getting in trouble.

While I like the Designated Driver plan - too often that equates to the "who had the least to drink." Buzzed driving is DRUNK/IMPAIRED Driving, and not worth the risk. If you have a designated driver - TAKE CARE OF THEM! They should eat and drink for free and should not necessarily become the babysitter for the evening. SO, it shouldn't be that you get drunk and stupid and give your DD a mess to clean up after.

Another thing I used to tell my Sailors and Marines was, "If the only way you feel like you can have fun is to get plowed - perhaps you need new friends or activities/hobbies." Don't just hang with folks who's entire goal in life is to minimize their sobriety. They need help, and sometimes that help is more than you have to offer.

I'm a big proponent of the "Drink At Home Program." Bottom line - it's cheaper and the only establishment you potentially wreck is your own.

Stay Responsible My Friends...

Response by SFC Terry Murphy made Jan 28 at 2016 12:26 PM

SFC Terry Murphy — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 12:26:40 -0500

Back when in the 80s, the joke was that you couldn't get promoted to SGM without at least 2 DUIs in your folder! I have seen to many good soldiers have their careers ruined by a couple beers. Now if it is a continuing problem, then yes, but a single bad decision, then no, give the soldier some D and A counseling, and some extra duty and let it go. If the soldier has an accident and someone is hurt or killed, then it is a different story. Look at the civilian laws, most people that get a DUI wont have their career ruined unless they have a job that requires them to drive.

Response by SGT Ronald Bacon made Jan 28 at 2016 1:31 PM

SGT Ronald Bacon — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 13:31:13 -0500

I click yes because there is no "possibly" answer. If my leader is convicted of DUI how am I going to have the faith to trust them going into anything, always doubting their sobriety. A junior enlisted is going to some day being a Leader and then the same thing will happen. Alcohol is a problem because we present it at every event, activity and act as if there is no problem until it is in full view of everyone. DUI was a problem in the 60s its a problem today and in 40 years (unless they remove Alcohol from all bases) we will still have this problem.

Response by SFC Marcus Belt made Jan 28 at 2016 3:43 PM

SFC Marcus Belt — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 15:43:12 -0500

Which answer would mean that I NEVER have to hear another safety brief?

Response by SPC Rob Robinson made Jan 28 at 2016 3:43 PM

SPC Rob Robinson — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 15:43:32 -0500

I drank since I was 15, alcoholically since 18, blacked-out vomiting all over the backseat of my car as my sober girlfriend drove us home. I served in the Infantry in Vietnam but, like the rest of our team, did not drink prior to or during operations. For us, that carried a potential 'grunt-justice' death sentence. Released into civilian life I continued to drink alcoholically. By that I do not mean that I was stumbling around drinking out of paper bags. I graduated college, got married several times, held better and better jobs making more and more money. But, I was not living up to my potential. I was at 80%, let's say. At least two of the marriages would have lasted if I had not drunk so much, for instance. I would not have changed jobs so frequently, etc. etc.

The main ingredient in drinking so much is fear--- fear of failure and fear of success. Drink instead of confront, assess, resolve and execute.

So, to keep the DUI or "launch"? I say keep, IF a AA program is begun by said trooper or commander. Another DUI: launch, if the trooper is in Combat Arms. There is no room for anything that affects you from the neck up in combat.

I am 30 years in recovery in AA as of 07jul15. My sobriety was given to me and is dependent upon a state of grace granted by a Higher Power that I choose to call God. So, I know that a DUI, in and of itself, is no reason to discharge. It IS an indicator, to the individual and his commander, that something is going and it needs to be addressed. Best through AA.

Alcoholism is not a character defect, it is a disease, like diabetes. In either case, you take care of it or you die. It works through one drunk talking to another under a God of the individual's understanding.

My life in recovery is a life beyond my wildest dreams, on the one hand. On the other, I make less money. The trick is, I'm satisfied that it is more than enough. I found a woman who, for the first time in my life, I was able to be honest with. Early in courtship I told her who I was. Not names, dates and grid coordinates but the truth that I was was an alcoholic in recovery, been treated for PTSD, had used violence as a solution in the past had been married before and that they got most of the money.

There is no place for drunks in the military. There is, however, a place for recovered alcoholics in the military.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 28 at 2016 3:43 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 15:43:44 -0500

It should not be a career ender if it's the first one.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 28 at 2016 9:10 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 21:10:21 -0500

I don't think so. If it happens more than once, then of course, yes. But I've met some men who are hands down some of the best leaders and all around soldiers you'll find in the military, whom have a DUI. A DUI does not define the person in my eyes. We all make mistakes. Some larger than others. But, how many of us have forgotten to shave? Forgot our I.D. Tags? If we're saying soldiers/leaders can be the proper soldier or effectively lead because of a mistake, then we're all just as guilty when we broke those regulations. Things happen, mistakes will occur. It how you act upon it that defines the type of person, soldier, and leader you are to me.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Jan 28 at 2016 11:38 PM

COL Charles Williams — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 23:38:28 -0500

Yes, Again, no need for further comment... SGM Matthew Quick ATW

Response by SFC Edwin Watson made Jan 30 at 2016 3:51 PM

SFC Edwin Watson — Sat, 30 Jan 2016 15:51:45 -0500

I believe the higher the rank, the harsher the punishment. Junior enlisted, take a stripe, give him a bunch of work details, take his post driving privileges for a year, and mandatory substance abuse program ONE TIME ONLY!!! Next time chapter him out. E5 and above (to include 4 star Generals), make 'em civilians, NO EXCEPTION!!!

Response by Maj Jonathon Myers, PMP made Feb 2 at 2016 9:37 AM

Maj Jonathon Myers, PMP — Tue, 02 Feb 2016 09:37:30 -0500

Wow SGM Quick...what a provocative subject. On the surface, my initial instinct is to yell "absolutely." Any time someone drives drunk, they become a threat to the lives of innocents on the road. But a I consider your questions, I realize they beg another question: What constitutes "drunk." Clearly, the law has determined that .08 is the legal limit...does that truly represent impairment? And now there is discussion in some political circles of dropping that limit, which points to a system seeking something--more fines, more control...something. I believe that to your first question, context matters...a .08 is dramatically different than a .20. Thus, the Army (and military as a whole) should be willing to conduct research into this question and establish guidelines that consider all elements associated with the DUI (e.g., BAC, what happened that led to the arrest, was anyone hurt, etc.) and evaluate each case on its own merit. With respect to your second question, we must also consider that our leaders must be beyond reproach. If our troops distrust their leaders, morale and performance suffer. Again, the same considerations made for the first question need to be addressed, but so too must additional consideration be weighed against the impact to the unit.

Very Respectfully,

Jonathon Myers

Response by SSG Phillip West made Feb 2 at 2016 7:02 PM

SSG Phillip West — Tue, 02 Feb 2016 19:02:45 -0500

1st Term soldiers are briefed weekly on the dangers of Drinking and driving. in the past, 1980's (I was in 1983-2004), there were no weekly Friday Safety briefings, and not a lot of awareness for a Designated Driver Program. Today there are many avenues a soldier can take to NOT Drink and Drive, though many choose to do so. When I ran my S-3 shop, I told my soldiers they could call me anytime of the night on any day and I would pick them up no questions asked, but they would repay the favor at a later date. 4 Times in 4 years I got the call, and never had a soldier picked up on DUI, out of 25 subordinates. Drinking and Driving is a conscious choice, and should be a career ender for any leader. Leaders should be able to recognize their soldiers with addictions and make the necessary recommendations for an evaluation by medical personnel BEFORE they get into legal trouble. In 1987 my sister and her husband were killed by a drunk Airman outside of Travis Air Force Base while on their way home from bowling. He was leaving his PCS party and died also. A leader was at that party and let him drive away.

Edit

Response by SFC Russell Shaw made Feb 5 at 2016 6:33 PM

SFC Russell Shaw — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 18:33:17 -0500

The reason I say no is because sometimes the DUI because a person has been caught. How many should have a DUI but never receive one. I worked one place where the First Sergeant would come to work so drunk we couldn't understand him but yet no one would take any action. When I did he went and got cleaned up and came back and was an excellent 1st Sergeant. Many had a new respect for him because of what he had to go through. Respect , trust and credibility are all like change in your pocket every time you trample on them it takes a lot of change and it takes work to get it back. Anyone who will work hard to get to where they need to be can earn a lot of change even though they may be bankrupt at the time. Every leader cannot come back and be credible. It all is according to that person if they truly believe they can, then they will. If they have any doubt people know it and he never will be able to lead, especially at that organization. Why ruin a good soldier or person who has potential. When we look back on our own lives we all find mistakes we had to overcome.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 8 at 2016 7:19 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 07:19:09 -0500

The mechanic of being able to separate a soldier for a DUI is useful to a downsizing organization. Getting a DUI is indicative of character flaws the Army does not want in its soldiers, however, the guaranteed separation also separates good soldiers who made a mistake.

It would make more sense for this to be an actionable offense that, when accumulated with other offenses, could lead to separation. Leaders who receive a DUI should face reduction of rank/pay for sure, but my comments above apply.

Response by SGT Timothy Sowers made Mar 8 at 2016 12:43 PM

SGT Timothy Sowers — Tue, 08 Mar 2016 12:43:13 -0500

I see a lot of people on here saying "lack of judgement". What do a lot of people do when intoxicated? Make bad judgement calls. Like waking up next to that female or male that you otherwise would never give the time of day. Or calling or texting your ex even though they have a restraining order against you. Or the "here hold my beer and watch this". On top of that alcohol doesn't effect everyone the same way. They have done tests on this . some people can drink one beer and be so drunk they cant see straight. Or they can drink a case and still function normally. You can go out to the bar or party with the intention of just having one or two. So you don't arrange for a DD. Then have too many. But the alcohol says "no your fine, you can drive". I don't think anyone says "I think that I am going to go out to the bar, get as drunk as possible and then drive around". And what if there are other soldiers with them at the bar or party? Should they be kicked out also for letting them leave and get behind the wheel? Why or why not. Going by some of the logic i see on here all of them should. Doesn't that mean that those individuals cant lead and/or take care of a fellow soldier? And i am sure that there are individuals on here that are saying "yes kick them out, its uncalled for" have stood by and watched someone too drunk to drive, walk out and get behind the wheel and did nothing to try and stop/help them. And no i did not say EVERYONE. But you and I both know there are some. And then there are some on here that say "I don't drink" or "I only drink once or twice a year". If a soldier or any individual is having a hard time with alcohol, how can you judge them when you have no idea what they are going through? What about people that are depressed. Should they be kicked out also? Studies show that some people who are depressed think about doing harm to themselves and/or others. And a lot of the time it leads to a alcohol/drug dependency. I did my bout with alcohol. I know first hand what it is about and the struggles that come along with it. How about you try to help that soldier. I don't think I would want any of you watching my back. A soldier has an issue and instead of trying to help them you just want to kick them to the curb. What does that say about you as a BB or a leader? Would you kick a friend or family member to the curb for this? Or cancer? Or Alzheimer's ? Get my point? Some of you are just trying to be PC and make yourself look good. What do real leaders do? They LEAD their people down the path they need to go. They help them when they need it. They don't just say "oh he/she has a problem get rid of them". If it is just a one time mistake then good. If it is an ongoing problem then as a LEADER you need to look in the mirror and ask yourself why this is still happening and what can you do to help this person and not take the easy way out and just try to get rid of them.

Response by SSG Trevor S. made Mar 29 at 2016 12:15 PM

SSG Trevor S. — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 12:15:32 -0400

It's not a tough question at all. It is dangerous, it is criminal. Soldiers choose to end their career when they make this deadly - criminal choice.

Response by SrA Shawn Nelson made May 28 at 2016 1:01 AM

SrA Shawn Nelson — Sat, 28 May 2016 01:01:15 -0400

In basic training a captain was giving us the briefing on alcohol. He told us that we were always responsible for our actions. Someone asked what if you blacked out? His response was you are responsible for all your actions if you remember them or not because you chose to continue to drink. Just because you make bad choices when you are drunk doesn't excuse you from the consequences from that bad choice. If instead of DUI it was rape should the person be given a pass?

Response by Sarah Zayas made Aug 3 at 2017 3:48 PM

Sarah Zayas — Thu, 03 Aug 2017 15:48:42 -0400

While DUI is a horrible mistake, "Career Ender" implies that the offender has lost their worth. Should they lose the privilege to lead? Yes. Should they get demoted? Yes. Should they live under scrutiny for a significant period of time? Yes. Should we take away their ability to ever work, earn trust back, and better themselves? NO. I'm sure with a lot of hard work in earning trust back they can lead in situations where they can can't hurt anyone.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Aug 11 at 2017 4:10 PM

SGM Erik Marquez — Fri, 11 Aug 2017 16:10:36 -0400

Yes....

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Mar 13 at 2018 8:04 PM

CW3 Kevin Storm — Tue, 13 Mar 2018 20:04:04 -0400

In todays day and age? Hell yes.

Response by PO2 Mike Vignapiano made Jun 29 at 2021 2:03 PM

PO2 Mike Vignapiano — Tue, 29 Jun 2021 14:03:41 -0400

IMO, if they get stopped by civilian authorities for the first time and their BAC is at (0.08) or slightly above (0.10) I think that penalty is enough punishment. If caught on base, possibly 30 days restriction & half months pay with nothing to affect their advancement. A second conviction should be met with a discharge, unless everything else is exemplary. Then an immediate rehab should be required. If caught after that, then discharged.

Response by SFC Scott Parkhurst made Sep 3 at 2021 12:29 AM

SFC Scott Parkhurst — Fri, 03 Sep 2021 00:29:59 -0400

First offense no and depends on the blood level. Of people you would think I of all people would be a hard ass on this because I lost my natural parents and two family friends to a DUI when I was 8, and I was in the hospital for 11 months. But people screw up and a first time should be at least weigh out…

Response by 1SG Arthur Kristiansen made Apr 1 at 2022 4:11 AM

1SG Arthur Kristiansen — Fri, 01 Apr 2022 04:11:09 -0400

Uhhh, which one is the question here? Given the two sentences, there are 4 possible answers. Anyway, given the fallibility of the human species, I always felt that everyone deserved one big, one small, and one goodbye. The degree of which is left to the soldier’s immediate supervisor. They know best if the person is redeemable - not an inflexible rule that knows no mercy.

Response by CW5 Mark Smith made Apr 26 at 2022 1:03 PM

CW5 Mark Smith — Tue, 26 Apr 2022 13:03:01 -0400

First offense - no. Any more - yes.