SNCOIC (Staff Non-Commission Officer In Charge)
SNCOIC (Staff Non-Commission Officer In Charge)
1
1
0
The Founding Fathers made an appropriate choice when they selected the bald eagle as the emblem of the nation. The fierce beauty and proud independence of this great bird aptly symbolizes the strength and freedom of America.
Although we were victorious in aptly making an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, even today the nation is weeping due to civil rights violations. Do we need change in the U.S. again?
A Caucasian officer had an African American NCO eliminated from service, since the NCO had a fight with his boss 10 years prior and therefore,
the Caucasian officer felt this African American NCO didn't belong in his Army.
In the paperwork, the officer claimed that the NCO was a drain on Army resources and was disobedient to his superiors. The paperwork was submitted to the General Court Martial Convening Authority
There was no acknowledgement of this paperwork submitted from the NCO, because the officer arbitrarily entered that the NCO refused to sign.
The GCMCA issued a Show Cause to the NCO, as is the rule. The NCO through the JAG acknowledged receipt of the paperwork and firmly, yet politely informed the GCMCA that the NCO was unfairly denied the opportunity to rebuttal any charges brought against him prior to submission of such paperwork to the GCMCA.
What do you feel eventually happened with this African American NCO?
Although we were victorious in aptly making an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, even today the nation is weeping due to civil rights violations. Do we need change in the U.S. again?
A Caucasian officer had an African American NCO eliminated from service, since the NCO had a fight with his boss 10 years prior and therefore,
the Caucasian officer felt this African American NCO didn't belong in his Army.
In the paperwork, the officer claimed that the NCO was a drain on Army resources and was disobedient to his superiors. The paperwork was submitted to the General Court Martial Convening Authority
There was no acknowledgement of this paperwork submitted from the NCO, because the officer arbitrarily entered that the NCO refused to sign.
The GCMCA issued a Show Cause to the NCO, as is the rule. The NCO through the JAG acknowledged receipt of the paperwork and firmly, yet politely informed the GCMCA that the NCO was unfairly denied the opportunity to rebuttal any charges brought against him prior to submission of such paperwork to the GCMCA.
What do you feel eventually happened with this African American NCO?
Posted in these groups: SNCOIC (Staff Non-Commission Officer In Charge)Staff Officer
Rights
Military Community Awareness (MCA)
Rights Military Community Awareness (MCA)
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
1
1
0
Your narrative to the question is convoluted and full of what appears to be completely irrelevant information. (Founding fathers and eagles, The Constitution).
The decision to enter that the NCO refused to sign the court martial is not "arbitrary." Either, the NCO refused to sign and the entry is factual; or the NCO was not given the opportunity to sign, and the officer has submitted false official statements and should be charged with a violation of Article 107 of the UCMJ.
People don't "FEEL" what eventually happened to the African American NCO, either they know or they do not know. Are you asking us to speculate? Or do you want our opinion of what should have happened?
If you want a informed and logical answer as to what we "feel" SHOULD have happened, you need to write a more informative, logical, and understandable narrative. It also defies military law and the statute of limitations for the possible offense in your narrative.
UCMJ art. 43(a). Offenses without a statute of limitations include: absence without leave, missing movement in a time of war; murder, rape and rape of a child, and any offense punishable by death. In Willenbring v. Neurauter, 48 M.J. 152 (C.A.A.F. 1998), aff’d, 57 M.J. 321 (C.A.A.F. 2002), the Court found that the statute of limitations under Article 43 does not bar trial for rape, as any offense “punishable by death” may be tried at any time without limitation, even if it is referred as a noncapital case. See also United States v. Thompson, 59 M.J. 432 (C.A.A.F. 2004).
The decision to enter that the NCO refused to sign the court martial is not "arbitrary." Either, the NCO refused to sign and the entry is factual; or the NCO was not given the opportunity to sign, and the officer has submitted false official statements and should be charged with a violation of Article 107 of the UCMJ.
People don't "FEEL" what eventually happened to the African American NCO, either they know or they do not know. Are you asking us to speculate? Or do you want our opinion of what should have happened?
If you want a informed and logical answer as to what we "feel" SHOULD have happened, you need to write a more informative, logical, and understandable narrative. It also defies military law and the statute of limitations for the possible offense in your narrative.
UCMJ art. 43(a). Offenses without a statute of limitations include: absence without leave, missing movement in a time of war; murder, rape and rape of a child, and any offense punishable by death. In Willenbring v. Neurauter, 48 M.J. 152 (C.A.A.F. 1998), aff’d, 57 M.J. 321 (C.A.A.F. 2002), the Court found that the statute of limitations under Article 43 does not bar trial for rape, as any offense “punishable by death” may be tried at any time without limitation, even if it is referred as a noncapital case. See also United States v. Thompson, 59 M.J. 432 (C.A.A.F. 2004).
(1)
(0)
Maj John Bell
CPT Gurinder (Gene) Rana - I do not understand the wording of your response. I hope this answers the mail.
The Commanding General's (CG's) office has no authority except that of the Commanding General (CG). When I worked in the CG's office for the 2nd Marine Division, one my duties was to conduct inquiries for the CG, if no criminality was suspected. I went to the subordinate commands and investigated the issue on behalf of the CG. If the matter involved an enlisted Marine, I was accompanied by the SgtMaj assigned to the CG's office. If at some point I suspected there may be criminal conduct, I was to cease my investigation and notify NCIS. [never happened in any of my investigations]
In relation to the investigation, as a captain, I had complete authority to speak with whomever I felt necessary (complete and full response was compulsory to all service members assigned to the division, unless they chose to invoke their 5th amendment rights [once again never happened in any of my investigations]) and to view any evidence necessary. The command was not allowed to speak with any witnesses in relationship to my investigation until after my investigation was complete. I also had authority to temporarily assign anyone in the command to the CG's office if I suspected they may be subject to coercion or reprisal. Once I completed my investigation, I presented the subordinate command and the CG a copy of my investigation report, including findings and recommendations. The Command had 72 hours to respond, or request an extension.
Upon receipt of their response, the CG either directed me to further points of inquiry, or briefed me on his decision. Upon completion of the inquiry, I had 48 hours to draft the CG's response, get his approval of the official response, and deliver it to the command in question.
Courts-Martial and NJP are in and of themselves considered due process. Special Courts Martial, and General Courts Martial are subject to appeal and review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces within the military justice system; and if granted, appeal and review by the Supreme Court.
Administration Separation Boards, and Administrative Reduction Boards are also subject to review. Each branch has a discharge/reduction review board with authority to change, correct or modify discharges/reduction in rank. The board has no authority to address medical discharges or those decisions issued by general or special courts-martial. But the subject of the board must request a review. Notification of the subjects right of review is a compulsory upon the command prior to the convening of the administrative separation or reduction board.
Finally, yes if the determination is that a service member is not performing to standard and requires more than reasonable command attention to reform/rehabilitate thy can be separated for the good of the service.
The Commanding General's (CG's) office has no authority except that of the Commanding General (CG). When I worked in the CG's office for the 2nd Marine Division, one my duties was to conduct inquiries for the CG, if no criminality was suspected. I went to the subordinate commands and investigated the issue on behalf of the CG. If the matter involved an enlisted Marine, I was accompanied by the SgtMaj assigned to the CG's office. If at some point I suspected there may be criminal conduct, I was to cease my investigation and notify NCIS. [never happened in any of my investigations]
In relation to the investigation, as a captain, I had complete authority to speak with whomever I felt necessary (complete and full response was compulsory to all service members assigned to the division, unless they chose to invoke their 5th amendment rights [once again never happened in any of my investigations]) and to view any evidence necessary. The command was not allowed to speak with any witnesses in relationship to my investigation until after my investigation was complete. I also had authority to temporarily assign anyone in the command to the CG's office if I suspected they may be subject to coercion or reprisal. Once I completed my investigation, I presented the subordinate command and the CG a copy of my investigation report, including findings and recommendations. The Command had 72 hours to respond, or request an extension.
Upon receipt of their response, the CG either directed me to further points of inquiry, or briefed me on his decision. Upon completion of the inquiry, I had 48 hours to draft the CG's response, get his approval of the official response, and deliver it to the command in question.
Courts-Martial and NJP are in and of themselves considered due process. Special Courts Martial, and General Courts Martial are subject to appeal and review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces within the military justice system; and if granted, appeal and review by the Supreme Court.
Administration Separation Boards, and Administrative Reduction Boards are also subject to review. Each branch has a discharge/reduction review board with authority to change, correct or modify discharges/reduction in rank. The board has no authority to address medical discharges or those decisions issued by general or special courts-martial. But the subject of the board must request a review. Notification of the subjects right of review is a compulsory upon the command prior to the convening of the administrative separation or reduction board.
Finally, yes if the determination is that a service member is not performing to standard and requires more than reasonable command attention to reform/rehabilitate thy can be separated for the good of the service.
(1)
(0)
CPT Gurinder (Gene) Rana
Maj John Bell, excellent Sir, however, this isn't the case in every branch of service.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
CPT Gurinder (Gene) Rana - Maybe I don't understand the Army's acronym's
_GCMCA - General Court Martial Convening Authority - is that not the Commanding General?
_CG's Office - Not the same as the Army Inspector General's office, but perform's essentially the same function for any command led by a General officer.
Admin Separation Board and Admin Reduction Board all operating under the authority of the commanding general. [In the case of Marines the authority was delegated to Battalion CO's for Private (E-1) to Sgt's (E-5) subject to a 30 day review period by the CG].
All roads point to the same person with stars on their lapel.
This is all covered in DoD Instruction 1332.14 Enlisted Administrative Separations
I excerpted Enclosure (3) Section 7 for you.
7. UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE
a. Basis. An enlisted Service member may be separated when it is determined under the
guidance in section 1 of Enclosure 4 that the enlisted Service member is unqualified for further military service by reason of unsatisfactory performance. This reason will not be used if the enlisted Service member is in entry-level status (see section 5 of this enclosure).
b. Counseling and Rehabilitation. Counseling and rehabilitation requirements are of
particular importance to this reason for separation. Separation processing may not be initiated until the enlisted Service member has been formally counseled concerning deficiencies and has been afforded an opportunity to overcome those deficiencies as reflected in appropriate counseling or personnel records. An enlisted Service member should not be separated when unsatisfactory performance is the sole reason unless appropriate efforts at rehabilitation have been made in accordance with standards prescribed by the Secretary concerned.
c. Characterization or Description. The service will be characterized as honorable or general (under honorable conditions) in accordance with section 3 of Enclosure 4.
d. Procedures. The notification procedure (section 2 of Enclosure 5) will be used.
_GCMCA - General Court Martial Convening Authority - is that not the Commanding General?
_CG's Office - Not the same as the Army Inspector General's office, but perform's essentially the same function for any command led by a General officer.
Admin Separation Board and Admin Reduction Board all operating under the authority of the commanding general. [In the case of Marines the authority was delegated to Battalion CO's for Private (E-1) to Sgt's (E-5) subject to a 30 day review period by the CG].
All roads point to the same person with stars on their lapel.
This is all covered in DoD Instruction 1332.14 Enlisted Administrative Separations
I excerpted Enclosure (3) Section 7 for you.
7. UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE
a. Basis. An enlisted Service member may be separated when it is determined under the
guidance in section 1 of Enclosure 4 that the enlisted Service member is unqualified for further military service by reason of unsatisfactory performance. This reason will not be used if the enlisted Service member is in entry-level status (see section 5 of this enclosure).
b. Counseling and Rehabilitation. Counseling and rehabilitation requirements are of
particular importance to this reason for separation. Separation processing may not be initiated until the enlisted Service member has been formally counseled concerning deficiencies and has been afforded an opportunity to overcome those deficiencies as reflected in appropriate counseling or personnel records. An enlisted Service member should not be separated when unsatisfactory performance is the sole reason unless appropriate efforts at rehabilitation have been made in accordance with standards prescribed by the Secretary concerned.
c. Characterization or Description. The service will be characterized as honorable or general (under honorable conditions) in accordance with section 3 of Enclosure 4.
d. Procedures. The notification procedure (section 2 of Enclosure 5) will be used.
(1)
(0)
CPT Gurinder (Gene) Rana
Maj John Bell, this is exactly what I was leading to Sir; the NCO was not afforded his Due Process under the legal provisions and the NCO was processed for elimination prior to compliance. The superior officer laid it on thick by arbitrarily adding allegations to poor performance, which allegations were totally false. The superior officer added AWOL to the package of accusations against the NCO and falsely claimed that the NCO altered his own Quarters Slip. The NCO was shocked and didn't know how to react to such fake charges. The JAG attorney contacted the Army Medical Treatment Center concerned and got statements, which proved that the NCO had a stomach infection and that the NCO had seen two separate doctors who had provided two independent recommendations for recovery; first recommendation was for 24 hours and the next was for 48 hours. Confused; the Head Nurse had altered the Quarters Slip of the NCO without knowledge of the NCO. The superior officer charged the NCO for altering his own Quarters Slip and for Behavior Unbecoming.
The other charge was that the NCO had a Groggy Appearance, but this charge had no date or other related details. During Inquiry, the superior officer claimed that during the course of recovery of the NCO the superior officer had sent someone to visit the NCO at his home and that someone had reported that the NCO presented a Groggy Appearance. Now, Groggy Appearance is a fancy name for Fatigue. Is Fatigue any reason to eliminate officer or NCO? No.
This is all I am saying Major. We need to have rules to plug such gaps and make sure investigations are done on every Complaint of fake charges in any branch of service - there must be oversight and this oversight authority must be published and presented to all.
I truly appreciate our interaction and looking forward to many more Sir.
The other charge was that the NCO had a Groggy Appearance, but this charge had no date or other related details. During Inquiry, the superior officer claimed that during the course of recovery of the NCO the superior officer had sent someone to visit the NCO at his home and that someone had reported that the NCO presented a Groggy Appearance. Now, Groggy Appearance is a fancy name for Fatigue. Is Fatigue any reason to eliminate officer or NCO? No.
This is all I am saying Major. We need to have rules to plug such gaps and make sure investigations are done on every Complaint of fake charges in any branch of service - there must be oversight and this oversight authority must be published and presented to all.
I truly appreciate our interaction and looking forward to many more Sir.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I'm not tracking your line of thinking here...
Eagles are great, and racism is bad.
Eagles are great, and racism is bad.
(1)
(0)
CPT Gurinder (Gene) Rana
Even though you are not following my train of thoughts CSM, thanks for your support.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
CPT Gurinder (Gene) Rana
Much-appreciated Sir; however, the question is what happened to the NCO following this incident?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google