Posted on Jun 20, 2023
House Republicans propose banning public access to service members' military records
3.77K
29
18
4
4
0
Supporters claim the ban is needed for veterans privacy. Opponents claim it will hamper attempts to expeditiously check for Stolen Valor.
House Republicans propose banning public access to service members' military records
Posted from nbcnews.com
Republicans
Stolen Valor
Privacy
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
7
7
0
I've never understood the need. We are still citizens subject to the law. There are things, like clearances and qualifications that really don't need to be known to the public, but any violations of the UCMJ should be as visible as any other citizens criminal history.
(7)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
I would agree that court martial convictions should be as public as other criminal convictions. But Captain's Mast and Article 15's are non-judicial and without full due process protections.
Additionally, we all know that service members going in for an Article 15 are presumed guilty. Officially, the Commander presiding is acting as impartial judge. But the Commander is briefed by his advisors (1SG/CSM and PSG/1SG; XO; and/or PL) long before Snuffy ever appears in front of him. At amost ever single Article 15 hearing - and I have been in many, as "defendant," "prosecutor," advisor, and witness - the Commander has decided both guilt and punishment before the Soldier knocks on the Office door. Including those offenses as public information would be inappropriate, IMHO.
Additionally, we all know that service members going in for an Article 15 are presumed guilty. Officially, the Commander presiding is acting as impartial judge. But the Commander is briefed by his advisors (1SG/CSM and PSG/1SG; XO; and/or PL) long before Snuffy ever appears in front of him. At amost ever single Article 15 hearing - and I have been in many, as "defendant," "prosecutor," advisor, and witness - the Commander has decided both guilt and punishment before the Soldier knocks on the Office door. Including those offenses as public information would be inappropriate, IMHO.
(1)
(0)
PO3 Shayne Seibert
Right. Punishment that ends in incarceration should be public. Losing a stripe or pay is more of a morale and welfare of the unit/command and is more of a "get your head out of your a$$" punishment.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
I have no problem with this. I do have a problem with the records release that revealed the sexual assault of a former service woman. Funny how zero democrats military records were let out of the bag. Every one of the SF180's did not have the service person's signature on the form.
(6)
(0)
LTC Trent Klug
SPC Michael Duricko, Ph.D As did the men I served with. I have been lucky enough to have been able to stay in touch with many of the Marines ans Soldiers I served with as I made many mistakes as a leader and wasnt a nice man. Fortunately, they have forgiven my stupidity and we are able to laugh and bust my balls for it. Even though I stayed in and became an officer, we all are brothers first.
Medals and rank second. .
Medals and rank second. .
(1)
(0)
SPC Michael Duricko, Ph.D
Rory Schultz Great narrative, but painful and sad. However, memories last a lifetime. God bless you Rory+
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
I do not remember if it was with you that I had mentioned that I suspected a massive shift in people's personality after obtaining their vaccines for Covid? I posted it some where on here. But I noticed that right after all of the world obtaining their vaccine you could see radical shifts in their logic and reasoning centers of their brain altering their personality. As aforementioned I posted my observation of this on here somewhere and guess what came out today? The News here has not reported the massive amounts of deaths and complications caused from the Covid vaccine Watch this
https://twitter.com/i/status/ [login to see] 94214147
https://twitter.com/i/status/ [login to see] 94214147
Suspended Profile
Remember Albert Hoffman the inventor of LSD in 1938? Well others in the 1960's continued with experimenting with variants in the same way as to create designer drugs for different experiences. Under a microscope LSD has twisted microfibers in it and these will lodge in the brain altering the Brain's perceptions. That was THE ah ha moment with researchers looking for methods in developing nano technology. A method to create the link to attach a receptor which can be actually disrupted by artificial means. The serum that Hoffman created would break down over time eventually neutralize and then be absorbed and flushed out with other by-products of the body. That was why the LSD experience was temporary. Other researchers have been trying to find a method to create a lattice that could remain permanently and not break down be absorbed and flushed away.
I would fear that this lattice would continue to crystallize until it passes a threshold the brain could even function properly. This issue or implied use would be a nightmare if attempted on the populace because there is nothing to alter the damage if it exceeds the threshold. There would be multiple levels of the "zombie effect" before death
I would fear that this lattice would continue to crystallize until it passes a threshold the brain could even function properly. This issue or implied use would be a nightmare if attempted on the populace because there is nothing to alter the damage if it exceeds the threshold. There would be multiple levels of the "zombie effect" before death
1
1
0
Noting NBC and our poster here love to dump on the GOP, I decided to confirm the information. The Hill did a little better job at qualifying what the GOP is trying to do. Specifically:
"Using the House Appropriations Committee’s annual defense spending bill, lawmakers have included a provision that would prohibit any funds from being used to release personal information about current and former service members WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT."
Both articles imply, this would "greatly hamper media outlets and some employers from verifying an individual’s military service." However, I would argue that one, I don't give a crap what hampers the media from accessing my information without my consent and two, if an employer needs my information for employment, I would have no problem giving them my consent. If I say no and the employer decides not to employ me as a result, that's on me.
Those situations in which an individual refuses to grant consent still provide an option through the FOIA request process. The Hill article clarified this point better:
"If those barred individuals do want to know someone’s military history, they would have to file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the service branch in which the person currently or previously served. But that process is well known to be backlogged, with months or even years before a request is fulfilled."
Having overseen the FOIA process, I know for a fact that the easy ones (such as, we have no record of an individual) would not be backlogged.
All of this of course is aimed at the fact that Democrat operatives were provided with unauthorized details of GOP Veterans. While it may have been an innocent mistake by the Air Force/Army, I think we all know it was not a mistake by those operatives, to release information they know they should not have.
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4057636-house-bill-would-severely-curtail-public-access-to-military-records/
"Using the House Appropriations Committee’s annual defense spending bill, lawmakers have included a provision that would prohibit any funds from being used to release personal information about current and former service members WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT."
Both articles imply, this would "greatly hamper media outlets and some employers from verifying an individual’s military service." However, I would argue that one, I don't give a crap what hampers the media from accessing my information without my consent and two, if an employer needs my information for employment, I would have no problem giving them my consent. If I say no and the employer decides not to employ me as a result, that's on me.
Those situations in which an individual refuses to grant consent still provide an option through the FOIA request process. The Hill article clarified this point better:
"If those barred individuals do want to know someone’s military history, they would have to file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the service branch in which the person currently or previously served. But that process is well known to be backlogged, with months or even years before a request is fulfilled."
Having overseen the FOIA process, I know for a fact that the easy ones (such as, we have no record of an individual) would not be backlogged.
All of this of course is aimed at the fact that Democrat operatives were provided with unauthorized details of GOP Veterans. While it may have been an innocent mistake by the Air Force/Army, I think we all know it was not a mistake by those operatives, to release information they know they should not have.
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4057636-house-bill-would-severely-curtail-public-access-to-military-records/
House bill would severely curtail public access to military records
House Republicans want to stop the Pentagon from releasing the service record summaries ofmembers of theU.S. military to the public. Using the House Appropriations Committee’s ann…
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google