Avatar feed
Responses: 4
PO1 H Gene Lawrence
2
2
0
But, but, it was/is just a hobby.
(2)
Comment
(0)
MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D.
MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D.
14 d
Poor choice . . .
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
MSgt Dale Johnson
1
1
0
Edited 14 d ago
My question would be were any of them made functional?

It would not clear him from the charges but to what purpose was he doing this?

Were they just for show souvenirs? Did he insure they could not be actually used (spike the barrels, etc). I would have a whole lot more sympathy for him if that was what he did.

I guess the Devil will be in the details
(1)
Comment
(0)
MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D.
MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D.
14 d
It usually is . . .
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
Lt Col Timothy Cassidy-Curtis
0
0
0
As a retired O-5, myself, I would think that this officer would hold himself to a higher standard. I see numerous comments about "anti-gunners" and each one of them may well be valid. The point, however, is that, as ridiculous as any of it might be, there are authorities who will insist on these things. It is incumbent on those of us who are Sr. Grade Officers to pay attention to the small details. In this case, the article states that items were transported "...without the proper license and authorization..." which implies that it would have been possible to obtain proper licenses and authorizations. Why was that not done?

To be clear, this could, indeed, be an "anti-gunner" setup. In that case, much more sympathy might be possible. If the LTC did make an honest effort to obtain authorizations and licenses, then he might have a defense.

I'll leave it at that; 'nuff said.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close