SSG Private RallyPoint Member 1272160 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div> 2016-02-01T00:46:34-05:00 SSG Private RallyPoint Member 1272160

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>

2016-02-01T00:46:34-05:00 2016-02-01T00:46:34-05:00 SGT Private RallyPoint Member 1272175

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I think it's where the personnel dealing out the Disciplinary Action, perceive that someone in that high of stature loves their job and doesn't want to quit until they're personally ready, so if you force them to retire it'll hit them hard and make them wish they'd never done whatever it was that was done.<br /><br />Is forced retirement acceptable for a good amount of the cases it's used in? Probably not.

2016-02-01T01:01:05-05:00 2016-02-01T01:01:05-05:00 1SG Private RallyPoint Member 1272235

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Essentially, early retirement in lieu of disciplinary action is firing them while allowing them to retain their benefits. There are many reasons why the military does this.<br />The Soldier involved has an established record of service to the nation, and disgracing them does not fit the offence.<br />The Soldier does not support a change in policy or regulation, and chooses to resign instead of following a rule they do not support.<br />The Army has enough evidence to go to Court Marshall, but both sides agree to early retirement instead of an embarrassing and costly trial.<br /><br />It has less to do with holding the person accountable and more to do with removing them from the problem in a way that both sides benefit.

2016-02-01T02:52:40-05:00 2016-02-01T02:52:40-05:00 PO1 Rick Serviss 1272269

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>They stand to lose a certain % of retirement pay per year and can cost them a lot over a lifetime plus they suddenly find themselves unemployed.

2016-02-01T04:03:33-05:00 2016-02-01T04:03:33-05:00 PO1 William "Chip" Nagel 1272289

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>It's not but it is Politically Expedient to make the problem go away. You're spot on to annotate it too. In the Private World they call it getting the "Golden Parachute" You're fired but you're high enough up the Food Chain we can't say that or do that.

2016-02-01T05:18:11-05:00 2016-02-01T05:18:11-05:00 SFC Private RallyPoint Member 1272326

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I would say that using this method is less about holding them accountable, and more about containing the issue and eliminating future disruption for the issue. While it may seem like the individual gets a good deal, the military probably benefits more than they would by a costly legal battle that would put a stress on resources that could be better used elsewhere.

2016-02-01T06:08:58-05:00 2016-02-01T06:08:58-05:00 CW5 Private RallyPoint Member 1272339

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>We do plea deals every day. This is just another form of that.<br />Look at it this way. They are out of the service. That goal of achieving that next coveted rank is lost to them. They cannot attain 40 years of service and 100% pay for life. They have to leave knowing that Google will have their disgrace on the top of the search list.

2016-02-01T06:31:17-05:00 2016-02-01T06:31:17-05:00 Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS 1272349

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>In simplest terms "It removes the problem from the equation." <br /><br />A secondary consequence of that is that the individual involved loses immediate income (Pay &amp; Benefits), and LOTS of potential future income (percentage increases from additional years of Service, and corresponding increases in pay from Rank &amp; Longevity).<br /><br />This of course depends on the level of the offense. Some offenses won't survive scrutiny (or is not cost beneficial) at the CM level, and anything below than doesn't make sense. There is also the "needs of the Service" issue at play, which goes back to "removing the problem." Once someone has been separated/retired, it becomes a "not our problem" situation.

2016-02-01T06:54:53-05:00 2016-02-01T06:54:53-05:00 SSG Private RallyPoint Member 1272370

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>One mistake should erase everything else they have done? I hope I'm not understanding this question correctly.

2016-02-01T07:26:50-05:00 2016-02-01T07:26:50-05:00 CPT Mark Gonzalez 1272388

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Not from a punitive perspective, but I&#39;ve seen it administratively. <br />Retirement eligible and can no longer pass their APFT or HT/WT. Their option is to be flagged and voluntarily retire or to process elimination action. Retirement is probably quicker as you don&#39;t have to convene a board and they take their leave on their own timeline.

2016-02-01T07:36:51-05:00 2016-02-01T07:36:51-05:00 SSG Private RallyPoint Member 1272469

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>The actions of primary focus, for this discussion, involve incidents where an individual's actions/behavior are clearly outlined as punishable by UCMJ, and to which the action/behavior directly, or indirectly, negatively, and unjustly, impacted a same component service member; such as retaliation, harassment, sexual harassment, anything physical, anything deemed of a quid pro quo scenario, falsifying documents, abuse of authority, undue command influence, making efforts to separate someone- which meets the criteria for a fraudulent separation, false reports, denying a Soldier due process, denying a Soldier appropriate medical treatment, etc. <br /><br />With this, for the sake of this discussion growing so quickly, I will go ahead and eliminate another variable: the medical/PTSD "defense" does not apply here, or for the sake of this discussion, consider the CG has already adjudicated the process to determine if a medical separation would be appropriate or deemed a basis for the actions/behavior in question, and it was determined there was no substantiated medical documentation to afford a medical defense in lieu of administrative measures. (In other words, there are no grounds to suggest that the action/behavior was based on anything other than a sound mind, with enough knowledge and training to have been aware the actions/behaviors were not authorized, appropriate or just.)

2016-02-01T08:29:42-05:00 2016-02-01T08:29:42-05:00 SSgt Dan Montague 1272595

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>This pissed me off about a Snco years ago. He was busted in a court martial to Sgt after being convicted of rape. They allowed him to stay the course for a year so he can retire. What kind of BS is that?<br />In the time of draw down we dismiss too many good Marines because of stupid stuff. If you are an officer or SNCO and commit a crime, you should lose your retirement and all benefits.

2016-02-01T09:42:01-05:00 2016-02-01T09:42:01-05:00 MSgt Private RallyPoint Member 1272925

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>It's not......it's a measure for preventing the military and senior leadership from getting a black eye. Like it or not it is a necessary evil to all the force to continue without being destroyed by the transgressions of a few bad apples.

2016-02-01T12:01:31-05:00 2016-02-01T12:01:31-05:00 MAJ Ken Landgren 1273539

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>How much should one suffer for his/her mistakes?

2016-02-01T16:43:35-05:00 2016-02-01T16:43:35-05:00 Capt Mark Strobl 1273633

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Early retirement allows for one to head out the gate without compromising their future. The penalty lies between the forfeited 1.) benefits earned to date and, 2.) what they likely would have earned. I've seen it done when a subordinate screws up on the penalized watch. e.g. when a sailor drives the ship aground. I can't confirm but, I've HEARD it offered in lieu of NJP. "We can do this... or, I'll accept your retirement." It makes the problem go away with a trip to the S-1 --vice legal shop.

2016-02-01T17:28:12-05:00 2016-02-01T17:28:12-05:00 1stSgt Eugene Harless 1274509

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I personally never witnessed an "early retirement" in lieu of disciplnary action. That is to say I never saw anyone who had not served 20 years get a seperations package with benefits like those who which were offered to military members during cutbacks. <br /> I have seen service members with over 20 years in have "issues" which resulted in them applying for retirement at an earlier date than expected. In my time in once you reached 20 you could apply to retire at any time with a 6 month notice, regardless of your EAS. It had to be command approved all the way up to HQMC. <br /> If the service member had violated the UCMJ for one of the more seriuos crimes (Theft, Sexual assault) they faced charges.

2016-02-02T03:17:09-05:00 2016-02-02T03:17:09-05:00 SCPO Edward Westerdahl 4386445

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>The policy should be “early release from active service.”<br />When I was on Nimitz (CVN-68) there was talk about letting people ‘retire early’ with 15 years service at less than 50% pay.<br />If someone is not doing the job they are supposed to, you do not have to approve their reinlistment request chit. Boot ‘em out, do not send them to be a square peg in another outfit’s round holes !!

2019-02-20T22:28:39-05:00 2019-02-20T22:28:39-05:00 MAJ Ken Landgren 5152754

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Sometimes they lose rank and kill a promising career.

2019-10-21T22:32:05-04:00 2019-10-21T22:32:05-04:00 SSG Jeffrey Harper 5152819

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Early retirement is not punishment, it’s a way to force our someone that the chain of command don’t like.

2019-10-21T22:50:28-04:00 2019-10-21T22:50:28-04:00 2016-02-01T00:46:34-05:00