Not like me to start a discussion here, but this seems wrong from so many points of view. The most serious offense is simple, cut and dried; the Sergeant pointed a pistol at another soldier and told them to stop moving so I can get my sight picture. What the hell is that? Well, depending on circumstances, it could be assault. It could be a violation of every rule of teaching and training marksmanship. It's a violation of common sense. I have to wonder what genius decided to allow this soldier to become a Sergeant First Class, possibly in charge of a platoon of 30 or more soldiers, and never bothered to see if they had the tactical sense to pour piss out of a boot before putting it on. (The question of urinating into the boot in the first place and sense is moot, given that first she had to think it was ok to use a subordinate for dry fire. ) The others are silly; if there was malice, counseling or a letter or reprimand or some leadership extra training all would work better than clogging the damned Military Courts System with this crap.
OK, I have issues with the Sergeant's behavior with the pistol. The others are contextual. But, after 23 years in uniform and 20 years doing civilian HR work, I recognize the search for a scapegoat.
Oh, why are SFCs not in line leadership roles being assigned pistols in a forward deployed unit? I carried a M16 as a First Sergeant in Corps Support Group. Secondary weapon, fine -- but if the bad guys are in the wire where this soldier was probably going to be, a M4 would make a lot more sense.