Lawmakers move to make domestic violence a crime under UCMJ

A1C Doug Towsley - Always gonna have those. There have been NUMEROUS posts on here over the years of "leaders" finding things not happening, dropping charges, and other questionable actions that had the perpetrator been of lower rank, they would've found themselves on the wrong side of a BCD, dropped from the rolls, or in prison.
In writing this "new" reg, it should keep power with the commanders, yet make it known that if you make the wrong call or botch it so that a "buddy" can retire, not only will your "buddy" be hooked up, you and anyone who helped in your decision making process will join em. With the repeal of DADT and the services having to acknowledge same sex marriages and transgender marriages, it could now allow personal bias to cloud proper judgement. There has been a lot of people against this and here is a shining "new" tool that can remove folks just based on whatever. With any good tool, comes the need for proper oversight, with the ability to revise when needed and not have to wait 50-60yrs for someone (to include legislators) to finally take up the cause.

SFC Kelly Fuerhoff - that's what I was trying to say. When I was a MP, it was NOT uncommon to find that the SM is a male, and he's being physically abused by his wife. Guess who ends up leaving the house? Hint...it wasn't the wife. Most women know there is a lot of men who won't hit them, and they use it to their advantage. They also know that if someone calls the MP's, we can't do anything to her (unless she's a SM also), but can make(will) his life hell, even if he didn't do a damn thing wrong. I don't know of any MP who wants to end a career just because, but once the statements are written, the command is involved, that SM will feel it. Guess who ends up leaving the house? Hint...it wasn't the wife. Had an incident where a wife went off on the on scene MP after they separated the two. She beat the MP to the point where he was medically retired. The MP was a man who wasn't going to hit a woman, but she had no issues going in on him. This will amplify if they leave any "outs" that can be found with this.

With the massive changes the regs HAVE to be all inclusive. I haven't seen this one yet, so I'm shooting blind in my comments, but from past experience, they're written to where it's a mans problem, not a societal one. That's basically setting someone up for failure, when we've changed a LOT from the Old Army, into the New Army(me), and into the Army of today. Hell the changes in the last 10yrs wouldn't have gotten the time of day in the 90's and early 2000's. We may be aa flexible force, but our minds need to reflect the changing of the times even when we don't like it.

SFC Kelly Fuerhoff - There are none, but in application, domestic abuse is seen as the male doing it. We don't exactly help ourselves with that perception, but that's how it seems.
She wasn't. At least not where any of us saw it. If Arlington County took her in, that back then is the last we'd have eyes on it past those responding MP's and the command group. They'd be in court testifying. We saw the MP (SGT), until his last day in service. He was an awesome NCO too. He had those canes that attach to your arms for him to walk.
A societal issue carries on into the military being the military itself is a societal experiment. It's the only place where you can see relatively instant cause/effect and implement change without a ton of oversight if needed. DADT repeal is proof of that.