Pentagon chief used personal email account until December. Do the rules only apply to the minions?

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Sat, 26 Mar 2016 16:15:02 -0400

Do you think anything will happen....maybe slap on a fine, or maybe just a slap on the wrist?

Who the hell is running the place and who is holding them accountable to the same standards as the rest of us? Whomever is in charge of making sure our leadership is straight needs to be FIRED!

http://news.yahoo.com/pentagon-chief-used-personal-email-account-until-december-154624311--politics.html?nf=1

Pentagon chief used personal email account until December

WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Ash Carter used his personal email account for government business for nearly a year, until December 2015, when news reports revealed the practice, according to hundreds of Carter emails released by the Defense Department.

Response by SP5 Mark Kuzinski made Mar 26 at 2016 4:16 PM

SP5 Mark Kuzinski — Sat, 26 Mar 2016 16:16:26 -0400

Good post. Thanks!

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Mar 26 at 2016 4:24 PM

CPT Aaron Kletzing — Sat, 26 Mar 2016 16:24:07 -0400

My reaction at this point -- with all these personal email accounts -- is that this is an indictment on the processes in place. I think these people were using their personal email accounts in many cases because they couldn't connect to their secure email in an efficient way when they weren't in the office. Whose fault is that? Now, I agree it's on them if they decide to just use a personal account -- that's bad. But did they have an equally effective secure way of conducting their email? Knowing how shoddy and unreliable some of the IT systems are in the DoD, my bet is that some of these systems just downright suck in other govt agencies, so for the user it's a decision of: (a) don't have access to email at all outside of the office, or (b) have access but only through personal means. It's a dilemma.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 26 at 2016 4:31 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 26 Mar 2016 16:31:05 -0400

Seriously, though, what sort of consequence would you recommend for the Secretary of Defense, who would administer said consequence, and who could the SECDEF appeal to? Outside of criminal action--which could be handled by any number of law enforcement entities, how would reprimanding a cabinet secretary work, outside of the President asking for a resignation? Is using a personal email--which, while a requirement, probably doesn't rise to the level of a criminal offense--an action over which a cabinet secretary should be forced to resign?

Do you really think the rest of us---all 2.2 million people in DoD---are held to a standard on this email topic? Do you really think DoD email is always available for everyone? I'd guess here are thousands of people using their personal emails everyday to conduct official business, simply because their official email accounts are so very often not functioning properly.

Response by CSM Charles Hayden made Mar 26 at 2016 5:33 PM

CSM Charles Hayden — Sat, 26 Mar 2016 17:33:59 -0400

CSM Michael J. Uhlig Sergeants Major are needed in many places, other assistants do not always communicate w/ their commander/ leader. (The VA is a great example of not enough information reaching the Sec'y!).

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Mar 26 at 2016 6:21 PM

MSG Brad Sand — Sat, 26 Mar 2016 18:21:33 -0400

You actually asked a lot of questions here. No, the rules apply to everyone, and compliance SHOULD start at the top. Who is running place and holding them accountable...see should above...maybe the buck stops at the man who went to the baseball game while our allies were still pulling victims out their bombed out airport? So who is the first in a long list of people needing to be fired? Well, they will all be fired this time next year and hopefully replaced with someone with character and standards?

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Mar 26 at 2016 8:33 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sat, 26 Mar 2016 20:33:29 -0400

Yes to show what is right, and show what is rightfully done as a punishment.

Response by LTC John Shaw made Mar 26 at 2016 10:20 PM

LTC John Shaw — Sat, 26 Mar 2016 22:20:14 -0400

Lack of holding senior leadership to standards is why we have many problems. If I am a trial defense for a soldier, I will keep showing how different the UCMJ is applied. There is a comms team dedicated to ensure the SECDEF has government comms. Sad to see the excuses.

Response by SPC(P) Jay Heenan made Mar 27 at 2016 12:37 AM

SPC(P) Jay Heenan — Sun, 27 Mar 2016 00:37:57 -0400

Of course rules only apply to minions. Look at how the military runs, the higher rank and position held, the less likely anything will happen to them. Take Abu Ghraib as an example. Not one key person in command decision got into any trouble. The Commander did get a LOR, but that was later pulled from his file. The minions...well, we all know what happened to them. It is an extreme example I know, but we can use Hillary, and nothing is going to happen to her either.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Mar 27 at 2016 8:23 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Sun, 27 Mar 2016 20:23:01 -0400

When I was working full time in the Pentagon beginning shortly after 9/11/2001 every senior government official was issued blackberries to maintain contact be contactable at all times CSM Michael J. Uhlig. From what I read about SEC DEF Ash Carter his communications seem to have been along those lines unlike the uses that the former Secretary of state seems to have used personal communications capabilities for.
Senior leaders are required to be contactable at all times which is why blackberries were used for so long. When the blackberry network crashed a couple times those of us who were tagged more often got a respite from taskers. While the powers that be were frustrated the traditional email [secure and unclassified] still functioned but were not nearly as easy for senior leaders to task us with. :-)
I prefer openness and transparency about how information is being disseminated [not sharing what is highly classified]. I applaud SEC DEF Carter in this instance for being honest