A problem in the Military ?

[Nick Jade]

Let's get this out fix this problem so hopefully it won't happen when our
soldiers return from Iraq.








December 31, 2002





"The hard right over the easy wrong", "What goes TDY, stays TDY"
, "Screw-up and move up", we have all heard these sayings before but just
how true are they? Well I'd like to tell you a story and let you decide.



A few years ago a women deployed to Bosnia with the 3rd Armored
Cavalry Regiment in support of SFOR7. She was a SPC, an avionics tech,
married and the mother of three children. While in Bosnia she met a man.
He was a CW3, OH-58 pilot, also married with children. They would both call
back every few days to their spouses and say that all was well. But it wasn
't, the SPC and CW3 were having an affair. The affair started not long
after they arrived in Bosnia and lasted almost until their redeployment, 8
months later.

They would eat, watch movies, and go on trips together. They
would also meet in his office late at night, after he finished his night
flights. They spent a lot of time together, so much time that rumors
started. But no one cared to look into the rumors, too much trouble maybe?
When they called their spouses, they would even warn them that rumors were
going about and not to worry, the rumors weren't true.

She was promoted to SGT and even earned her Spurs, while having
an affair with a Chief Warrant Officer. He continued to fly and earn his
flight pay while getting his "Becky fix", a term they used for their private
moments. But, as all things do, the affair was found out.

Not by some one with them in Bosnia, but by her husband. The
rumors where too much and he confronted her. She admitted to her husband
that yes she was sleeping with this pilot, whom he also knew. So the affair
stopped (?) and they returned home to FT. Carson, CO. In time her marriage
ended, but not her career. She applied for and was accepted to the Warrant
Officer Flight program and is now a WO1 attending flight school at Ft.
Rucker, AL. The pilot? He is still flying and is now a maintenance test
pilot. She earned her promotion and her Spurs, but did she disserve them?
Screw-up and move up?

The base in Bosnia was small and everyone knew just about
everyone. So I wonder how their affair was missed. The Army has a policy
about relationships between enlisted and officers. In basically states that
officers and enlisted personnel will not have improper relationships. It
goes on to define "improper" as anything other then professional. I think
eating alone, going to the movies, and going on MWR trips together would
fall under the improper category. One of the duties of a NCO is to know
your soldiers. It's hard to believe that her Squad Leader, Platoon
Sergeant, and First Sergeant did not notice that something might be going on
between her and this CW3. Where they just bad NCO's who didn't care or did
they see the problem and decide it was just too hard to confront? The easy
wrong over the hard right? What about his peers and superiors? Didn't they
notice either? What goes TDY, stays TDY?

What about the command? Well a few months after the 3d ACR
returned to Ft. Carson someone spoke up about the affair and an
investigation was started. The SGT was asked about her relationship with
the CW3 and she said they were just friends and the investigation was
dropped. A short time later her packet for Warrant Officer was approved and
letters of recommendation signed. Maybe the command was just wanted her to
quietly disappear. The "Not my problem anymore" syndrome?

A lot of people who were with them in Bosnia knew about or at
least suspect that they were having an affair. My question is how come no
one said anything about it? Is the Army fostering a climate were actions
like this are ok? Are the soldiers being taught by example that as long as
you don't get caught in the act it's ok? As long as they do their job, no
one cares what they do in their off time? Are our leaders afraid to
confront soldiers about their personal life? Do we expect our soldiers to
follow the Army values or are the Army values just lip service?

I hope that the Army can train its leaders to be more perceptive
and not afraid to approach a problem which may be "touchy" and embarrassing.
To guide and mentor our soldiers to do the right thing and to up hold the
Army values.





This story is true. How do I know? Because the SGT in this
story was my wife, Rebecca Beasley (now WO1 Rebecca Clark) and the CW3 is
Edwin Annis. Now you maybe be wondering why I wrote this story. Maybe it's
because I'm a hurt and angry ex-husband wanting to get back at his ex-wife?
No, it's too late for that. But I am an NCO who has seen a soldier do a
terrible wrong and get away with it and I also have soldiers who have lost
faith in our system because of this. I also wrote this story because I am
tired of living this lie. How can I look my soldiers in the eye and preach
to them about doing the hard right over the easy wrong and following the
Army values when I myself can't do it. I should have said something along
time ago. Now I will retire in a few years and when I do it will be with a
clear conscious. So I wrote this letter for two reasons: as a NCO to
officially inform you of an incident which I believe was wrong and as a man
who must live by his principles.

I also ask that you use this story as a training tool for our
soldiers and leaders. We have all heard stories like this one after major
deployments. I feel something must be done about it. Maybe it's time to
enforce a distinct separation between Officers, NCOs, and the soldiers.
Policies are written which do just that, but are they enforced?

Maybe this story can be re-written so as not to incriminate anyone and shown
to our soldiers as an example of what can happen when we start believing in
terms such as those stated at the beginning of this letter. I have been in
for 20 years now and am tired of hearing "What goes TDY, stays TDY". I hope
this letter helps to show others that that saying is wrong.



Thank you

[fudog50]

You're absolutely wrong, Mr.young old timer,
A Chief Warrant Officer in the Navy is Commisioned from day one. Go to
these 2 websites to get educated on Chief Warrant Officers in the
Navy. Specifically, click on the "history" button.

http://www.bupers.navy.mil/pers211/index.html

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/6711/


You do not know what you are talking about, I do, I am a
"COMMISSIONED" Chief Warrant Officer..


On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 21:37:31 -0800, "Young Old Timer"
> wrote:

>One comment. A Warrant Officer is not an Officer in the sense of the title.
>A Warrant Officer is APPOINTED, not promoted or commissioned. Therefore,
>the crap about fraternization between officers and enlisted do not apply
>here.
>Did you know that there are a lot of enlisted personnel married to officers
>on active duty?? Is there a double standard?? You bet your ass there is.
>Example: LTC Smith (female) is the head nurse of a large military hospital,
>and SP4 Smith is a supply clerk on the same post, not necessarily the same
>unit, but it could be. What do you do in a situation such as this?? COL
>Jones is a Physician - Neuro Surgeon that was given a commission directly to
>the rank of Colonel due to his skills and shortage of it in the military.
>His wife is a Master Sergeant that has been on active duty for 18 years.
>Prior to his commission, he worked in a large research hospital near the
>base where his wife was assigned as NCOIC of Computer Information Services.
>All of these are just examples on how the military system has a double
>standard when it comes to this sort of thing. The REAL problem is when say
>CPT Casey who is the Commanding Officer of Company A is dating PFC
>Dingleberry who is a radio repair(person). THAT's what the military has a
>problem with, especially when the officer has direct supervision or
>influence over the enlisted person's career and advancement. This can also
>work in reverse where CPT Casey gets ****ed and finds a way to give
>Dingleberry an Article 15 for some bull**** offense.
>
>THEREFORE, yes, there is a double standard. I've seen it played all sorts
>of ways and have never personally seen anyone disciplined for it. But it
>has happened and very publicly at that.
>
>As for the situation you post about, yes, the Command should have put a stop
>to it immediately by transferring one of them out of the Command. Instead,
>they let it continue because the spouses were not there, and therefore a
>serious incident wasn't likely to happen.
>
>This goes on daily in the Armed Forces, and as long as men and women are
>deployed together, especially to isolated areas, **** will continue to
>happen, and so will babies.
>
>"Nick Jade" <NickJade(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote in message
...
>> Let's get this out fix this problem so hopefully it won't happen when our
>> soldiers return from Iraq.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> December 31, 2002
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "The hard right over the easy wrong", "What goes TDY, stays
>TDY"
>> , "Screw-up and move up", we have all heard these sayings before but just
>> how true are they? Well I'd like to tell you a story and let you decide.
>>
>>
>>
>> A few years ago a women deployed to Bosnia with the 3rd
>Armored
>> Cavalry Regiment in support of SFOR7. She was a SPC, an avionics tech,
>> married and the mother of three children. While in Bosnia she met a man.
>> He was a CW3, OH-58 pilot, also married with children. They would both
>call
>> back every few days to their spouses and say that all was well. But it
>wasn
>> 't, the SPC and CW3 were having an affair. The affair started not long
>> after they arrived in Bosnia and lasted almost until their redeployment, 8
>> months later.
>>
>> They would eat, watch movies, and go on trips together. They
>> would also meet in his office late at night, after he finished his night
>> flights. They spent a lot of time together, so much time that rumors
>> started. But no one cared to look into the rumors, too much trouble
>maybe?
>> When they called their spouses, they would even warn them that rumors were
>> going about and not to worry, the rumors weren't true.
>>
>> She was promoted to SGT and even earned her Spurs, while
>having
>> an affair with a Chief Warrant Officer. He continued to fly and earn his
>> flight pay while getting his "Becky fix", a term they used for their
>private
>> moments. But, as all things do, the affair was found out.
>>
>> Not by some one with them in Bosnia, but by her husband. The
>> rumors where too much and he confronted her. She admitted to her husband
>> that yes she was sleeping with this pilot, whom he also knew. So the
>affair
>> stopped (?) and they returned home to FT. Carson, CO. In time her
>marriage
>> ended, but not her career. She applied for and was accepted to the
>Warrant
>> Officer Flight program and is now a WO1 attending flight school at Ft.
>> Rucker, AL. The pilot? He is still flying and is now a maintenance test
>> pilot. She earned her promotion and her Spurs, but did she disserve them?
>> Screw-up and move up?
>>
>> The base in Bosnia was small and everyone knew just about
>> everyone. So I wonder how their affair was missed. The Army has a policy
>> about relationships between enlisted and officers. In basically states
>that
>> officers and enlisted personnel will not have improper relationships. It
>> goes on to define "improper" as anything other then professional. I think
>> eating alone, going to the movies, and going on MWR trips together would
>> fall under the improper category. One of the duties of a NCO is to know
>> your soldiers. It's hard to believe that her Squad Leader, Platoon
>> Sergeant, and First Sergeant did not notice that something might be going
>on
>> between her and this CW3. Where they just bad NCO's who didn't care or
>did
>> they see the problem and decide it was just too hard to confront? The
>easy
>> wrong over the hard right? What about his peers and superiors? Didn't
>they
>> notice either? What goes TDY, stays TDY?
>>
>> What about the command? Well a few months after the 3d ACR
>> returned to Ft. Carson someone spoke up about the affair and an
>> investigation was started. The SGT was asked about her relationship with
>> the CW3 and she said they were just friends and the investigation was
>> dropped. A short time later her packet for Warrant Officer was approved
>and
>> letters of recommendation signed. Maybe the command was just wanted her
>to
>> quietly disappear. The "Not my problem anymore" syndrome?
>>
>> A lot of people who were with them in Bosnia knew about or at
>> least suspect that they were having an affair. My question is how come no
>> one said anything about it? Is the Army fostering a climate were actions
>> like this are ok? Are the soldiers being taught by example that as long
>as
>> you don't get caught in the act it's ok? As long as they do their job, no
>> one cares what they do in their off time? Are our leaders afraid to
>> confront soldiers about their personal life? Do we expect our soldiers to
>> follow the Army values or are the Army values just lip service?
>>
>> I hope that the Army can train its leaders to be more
>perceptive
>> and not afraid to approach a problem which may be "touchy" and
>embarrassing.
>> To guide and mentor our soldiers to do the right thing and to up hold the
>> Army values.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This story is true. How do I know? Because the SGT in this
>> story was my wife, Rebecca Beasley (now WO1 Rebecca Clark) and the CW3 is
>> Edwin Annis. Now you maybe be wondering why I wrote this story. Maybe
>it's
>> because I'm a hurt and angry ex-husband wanting to get back at his
>ex-wife?
>> No, it's too late for that. But I am an NCO who has seen a soldier do a
>> terrible wrong and get away with it and I also have soldiers who have lost
>> faith in our system because of this. I also wrote this story because I am
>> tired of living this lie. How can I look my soldiers in the eye and
>preach
>> to them about doing the hard right over the easy wrong and following the
>> Army values when I myself can't do it. I should have said something along
>> time ago. Now I will retire in a few years and when I do it will be with
>a
>> clear conscious. So I wrote this letter for two reasons: as a NCO to
>> officially inform you of an incident which I believe was wrong and as a
>man
>> who must live by his principles.
>>
>> I also ask that you use this story as a training tool for our
>> soldiers and leaders. We have all heard stories like this one after major
>> deployments. I feel something must be done about it. Maybe it's time to
>> enforce a distinct separation between Officers, NCOs, and the soldiers.
>> Policies are written which do just that, but are they enforced?
>>
>> Maybe this story can be re-written so as not to incriminate anyone and
>shown
>> to our soldiers as an example of what can happen when we start believing
>in
>> terms such as those stated at the beginning of this letter. I have been
>in
>> for 20 years now and am tired of hearing "What goes TDY, stays TDY". I
>hope
>> this letter helps to show others that that saying is wrong.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

[Pepperoni]

Throughout its history, the Warrant Officer Program<s> of the various
services have not only differed among the services, but have from time to
time undergone drastic reductions and revisions.

Not only did the commissioning process occur at different times for the
various services, but somewhat differing roles within each service led to
some confusion and benefit differences which was not begun to be
standardized (equalized) until the 1990s.

Pepperoni


**********************************

"The Defense Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year 1986 amended Title 10 of the
United States Code (U.S.C.) to provide that Army Chief Warrant Officers
shall be appointed by Commission. The primary purpose of the legislation was
to equalize appointment procedures among the services. Chief Warrant
Officers of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard had been commissioned
for many years. Contrary to popular belief, the commissioning legislation
was not a TWOS recommendation but a separate Army proposal. Further
clarification of the role of an Army Warrant Officer, including the
commissioned aspect, is found in FM 22-100."
http://www.penfed.org/usawoa/wo_hist.htm


In 1991 the WOMA proposal was considered by the Congress and it was
incorporated into the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 1992. Six
key provisions were enacted based on the Warrant Officer Management Act as
signed by the President in December of 1991, these were as follows:

A single promotion system for warrant officers.

Tenure requirements based on years of warrant officer service.

Establishment of the grade of CW5 with a 5% cap on the number of warrant
officers on each service's active duty list at any one time.

Selective mandatory retirement boards for retirement eligible WO.

Position coding for warrant officers.

Automatic integration into Regular Army at CW3

the actual bill as enacted into law.
http://www.penfed.org/usawoa/downloads/WOMA_HR-36_3Jan91.pdf


The Army Warrant Officer Corps is comprised of approximately 21,300 men and
women of the active Army (53%), Army National Guard (35%) and Army Reserve
(12%). Of these 45% of the Army warrant officers are aviators. Warrant
officers are technical experts that manage and maintain increasingly complex
battlefield systems. They enhance the Army's ability to defend our national
interests, and to fight and win our nation's wars.



Candidates who successfully complete Army Warrant Officer Candidate School
are appointed in the grade of Warrant Officer One (WO1). When advanced to
Chief Warrant Officer Two (CW2), warrant officers are commissioned by the
President and have the same legal status as their traditional commissioned
officer counterparts. However, warrant officers remain single-specialty
officers whose career track is oriented towards progressing within their
career field rather than focusing on increased levels of command and staff
duty positions.



There are five grades within the Army Warrant Officer Corps. A person is
initially appointed as a Warrant Officer (WO1), and progresses to Chief
Warrant Officer Two (CW2) after 2 years. Competitive promotion to Chief
Warrant Officer Three (CW3), Chief Warrant Officer Four (CW4), and Chief
Warrant Officer Five (CW5) occur at approximately six year intervals for
Aviation Warrant Officers and five year intervals for those in technical
fields.




"fudog50" > wrote in message
...
> You're absolutely wrong, Mr.young old timer,
> A Chief Warrant Officer in the Navy is Commisioned from day one. Go to
> these 2 websites to get educated on Chief Warrant Officers in the
> Navy. Specifically, click on the "history" button.
>
> http://www.bupers.navy.mil/pers211/index.html
>
> http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/6711/
>
>
> You do not know what you are talking about, I do, I am a
> "COMMISSIONED" Chief Warrant Officer..
>
>
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 21:37:31 -0800, "Young Old Timer"
> > wrote:
>
> >One comment. A Warrant Officer is not an Officer in the sense of the
title.
> >A Warrant Officer is APPOINTED, not promoted or commissioned. Therefore,
> >the crap about fraternization between officers and enlisted do not apply
> >here.
> >Did you know that there are a lot of enlisted personnel married to
officers
> >on active duty?? Is there a double standard?? You bet your ass there
is.
> >Example: LTC Smith (female) is the head nurse of a large military
hospital,
> >and SP4 Smith is a supply clerk on the same post, not necessarily the
same
> >unit, but it could be. What do you do in a situation such as this?? COL
> >Jones is a Physician - Neuro Surgeon that was given a commission directly
to
> >the rank of Colonel due to his skills and shortage of it in the military.
> >His wife is a Master Sergeant that has been on active duty for 18 years.
> >Prior to his commission, he worked in a large research hospital near the
> >base where his wife was assigned as NCOIC of Computer Information
Services.
> >All of these are just examples on how the military system has a double
> >standard when it comes to this sort of thing. The REAL problem is when
say
> >CPT Casey who is the Commanding Officer of Company A is dating PFC
> >Dingleberry who is a radio repair(person). THAT's what the military has a
> >problem with, especially when the officer has direct supervision or
> >influence over the enlisted person's career and advancement. This can
also
> >work in reverse where CPT Casey gets ****ed and finds a way to give
> >Dingleberry an Article 15 for some bull**** offense.
> >
> >THEREFORE, yes, there is a double standard. I've seen it played all
sorts
> >of ways and have never personally seen anyone disciplined for it. But it
> >has happened and very publicly at that.
> >
> >As for the situation you post about, yes, the Command should have put a
stop
> >to it immediately by transferring one of them out of the Command.
Instead,
> >they let it continue because the spouses were not there, and therefore a
> >serious incident wasn't likely to happen.
> >
> >This goes on daily in the Armed Forces, and as long as men and women are
> >deployed together, especially to isolated areas, **** will continue to
> >happen, and so will babies.
> >
> >"Nick Jade" <NickJade(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote in message
> ...
> >> Let's get this out fix this problem so hopefully it won't happen when
our
> >> soldiers return from Iraq.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> December 31, 2002
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "The hard right over the easy wrong", "What goes TDY, stays
> >TDY"
> >> , "Screw-up and move up", we have all heard these sayings before but
just
> >> how true are they? Well I'd like to tell you a story and let you
decide.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> A few years ago a women deployed to Bosnia with the 3rd
> >Armored
> >> Cavalry Regiment in support of SFOR7. She was a SPC, an avionics tech,
> >> married and the mother of three children. While in Bosnia she met a
man.
> >> He was a CW3, OH-58 pilot, also married with children. They would both
> >call
> >> back every few days to their spouses and say that all was well. But it
> >wasn
> >> 't, the SPC and CW3 were having an affair. The affair started not long
> >> after they arrived in Bosnia and lasted almost until their
redeployment, 8
> >> months later.
> >>
> >> They would eat, watch movies, and go on trips together.
They
> >> would also meet in his office late at night, after he finished his
night
> >> flights. They spent a lot of time together, so much time that rumors
> >> started. But no one cared to look into the rumors, too much trouble
> >maybe?
> >> When they called their spouses, they would even warn them that rumors
were
> >> going about and not to worry, the rumors weren't true.
> >>
> >> She was promoted to SGT and even earned her Spurs, while
> >having
> >> an affair with a Chief Warrant Officer. He continued to fly and earn
his
> >> flight pay while getting his "Becky fix", a term they used for their
> >private
> >> moments. But, as all things do, the affair was found out.
> >>
> >> Not by some one with them in Bosnia, but by her husband.
The
> >> rumors where too much and he confronted her. She admitted to her
husband
> >> that yes she was sleeping with this pilot, whom he also knew. So the
> >affair
> >> stopped (?) and they returned home to FT. Carson, CO. In time her
> >marriage
> >> ended, but not her career. She applied for and was accepted to the
> >Warrant
> >> Officer Flight program and is now a WO1 attending flight school at Ft.
> >> Rucker, AL. The pilot? He is still flying and is now a maintenance
test
> >> pilot. She earned her promotion and her Spurs, but did she disserve
them?
> >> Screw-up and move up?
> >>
> >> The base in Bosnia was small and everyone knew just about
> >> everyone. So I wonder how their affair was missed. The Army has a
policy
> >> about relationships between enlisted and officers. In basically states
> >that
> >> officers and enlisted personnel will not have improper relationships.
It
> >> goes on to define "improper" as anything other then professional. I
think
> >> eating alone, going to the movies, and going on MWR trips together
would
> >> fall under the improper category. One of the duties of a NCO is to
know
> >> your soldiers. It's hard to believe that her Squad Leader, Platoon
> >> Sergeant, and First Sergeant did not notice that something might be
going
> >on
> >> between her and this CW3. Where they just bad NCO's who didn't care or
> >did
> >> they see the problem and decide it was just too hard to confront? The
> >easy
> >> wrong over the hard right? What about his peers and superiors? Didn't
> >they
> >> notice either? What goes TDY, stays TDY?
> >>
> >> What about the command? Well a few months after the 3d ACR
> >> returned to Ft. Carson someone spoke up about the affair and an
> >> investigation was started. The SGT was asked about her relationship
with
> >> the CW3 and she said they were just friends and the investigation was
> >> dropped. A short time later her packet for Warrant Officer was
approved
> >and
> >> letters of recommendation signed. Maybe the command was just wanted
her
> >to
> >> quietly disappear. The "Not my problem anymore" syndrome?
> >>
> >> A lot of people who were with them in Bosnia knew about or
at
> >> least suspect that they were having an affair. My question is how come
no
> >> one said anything about it? Is the Army fostering a climate were
actions
> >> like this are ok? Are the soldiers being taught by example that as
long
> >as
> >> you don't get caught in the act it's ok? As long as they do their job,
no
> >> one cares what they do in their off time? Are our leaders afraid to
> >> confront soldiers about their personal life? Do we expect our soldiers
to
> >> follow the Army values or are the Army values just lip service?
> >>
> >> I hope that the Army can train its leaders to be more
> >perceptive
> >> and not afraid to approach a problem which may be "touchy" and
> >embarrassing.
> >> To guide and mentor our soldiers to do the right thing and to up hold
the
> >> Army values.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> This story is true. How do I know? Because the SGT in
this
> >> story was my wife, Rebecca Beasley (now WO1 Rebecca Clark) and the CW3
is
> >> Edwin Annis. Now you maybe be wondering why I wrote this story. Maybe
> >it's
> >> because I'm a hurt and angry ex-husband wanting to get back at his
> >ex-wife?
> >> No, it's too late for that. But I am an NCO who has seen a soldier do
a
> >> terrible wrong and get away with it and I also have soldiers who have
lost
> >> faith in our system because of this. I also wrote this story because I
am
> >> tired of living this lie. How can I look my soldiers in the eye and
> >preach
> >> to them about doing the hard right over the easy wrong and following
the
> >> Army values when I myself can't do it. I should have said something
along
> >> time ago. Now I will retire in a few years and when I do it will be
with
> >a
> >> clear conscious. So I wrote this letter for two reasons: as a NCO to
> >> officially inform you of an incident which I believe was wrong and as a
> >man
> >> who must live by his principles.
> >>
> >> I also ask that you use this story as a training tool for
our
> >> soldiers and leaders. We have all heard stories like this one after
major
> >> deployments. I feel something must be done about it. Maybe it's time
to
> >> enforce a distinct separation between Officers, NCOs, and the soldiers.
> >> Policies are written which do just that, but are they enforced?
> >>
> >> Maybe this story can be re-written so as not to incriminate anyone and
> >shown
> >> to our soldiers as an example of what can happen when we start
believing
> >in
> >> terms such as those stated at the beginning of this letter. I have
been
> >in
> >> for 20 years now and am tired of hearing "What goes TDY, stays TDY". I
> >hope
> >> this letter helps to show others that that saying is wrong.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thank you
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>

[Ragnar]

IF this story is true, the husband had a clear case of adultery against his
wife. He failed to do anything about it, and only now does he whine.
Pathetic half-a-man.

[Bob230]

"Young Old Timer" > wrote in message >...
> One comment. A Warrant Officer is not an Officer in the sense of the title.
> A Warrant Officer is APPOINTED, not promoted or commissioned. Therefore,
> the crap about fraternization between officers and enlisted do not apply
> here.

In the Army Warrant Officers are commissioned when they are promoted
to W2 and fraternization does apply to all Warrant Officers. About
1999 a message came down specifically about this. It "grandfathered"
existing romantic relationships between officers and enlisted but no
new ones were to be condoned. If an officer and an enlisted wanted to
start a relationship and get married one of them had to separate from
the service. I don't know how rigorously this has been applied
though. I guess it still comes to how lenient the commanders are.

Bob

<snip>

[John W. Hart]

"Young Old Timer" > wrote in message
...
> One comment. A Warrant Officer is not an Officer in the sense of the
title.
> A Warrant Officer is APPOINTED, not promoted or commissioned. Therefore,
> the crap about fraternization between officers and enlisted do not apply
> here.

Wrong answer! Better check up on how things are now, not as they were 30
years ago!

See the below URL:
http://leav-www.army.mil/wocc/whatiswo.htm

"In 1985, the Department of the Army developed a clear and concise
definition which encompasses all warrant officer specialties.
An officer appointed by warrant by the Secretary of the Army, based upon a
sound level of technical and tactical competence. The warrant officer is the
highly specialized expert and trainer who, by gaining progressive levels of
expertise and leadership, operates, maintains, administers, and manages the
Army's equipment, support activities, or technical systems for an entire
career.
(Para 1-7 DA Pamphlet 600-11)

Further clarification of the role of a warrant officer is found in FM
22-100.
"Warrant officers are highly specialized, single-track specialty officers
who receive their authority from the Secretary of the Army upon their
initial appointment. However, Title 10 USC authorizes the commissioning of
warrant officers (WO1) upon promotion to chief warrant officer (CW2). These
commissioned warrant officers are direct representatives of the president of
the United States. They derive their authority from the same source as
commissioned officers but remain specialists, in contrast to commissioned
officers, who are generalists. Warrant officers can and do command
detachments, units, activities, and vessels as well as lead, coach, train,
and counsel subordinates. As leaders and technical experts, they provide
valuable skills, guidance, and expertise to commanders and organizations in
their particular field."
(Para A-3, Field Manual 22-100)"

Retired CW4

[John R Weiss]

"Young Old Timer" > wrote...
> One comment. A Warrant Officer is not an Officer in the sense of the title.
> A Warrant Officer is APPOINTED, not promoted or commissioned. Therefore,
> the crap about fraternization between officers and enlisted do not apply
> here.

Not so for the CWO2-CWO5 ranks. They are all Commissioned Officers, as
discussed recently here.

[BigRedWingsFan]

"Young Old Timer" > wrote in message
...
: "fudog50" > wrote in message
: ...
: > You're absolutely wrong, Mr.young old timer,
: > A Chief Warrant Officer in the Navy is Commisioned from day one. Go to
: > these 2 websites to get educated on Chief Warrant Officers in the
: > Navy. Specifically, click on the "history" button.
: >
: > http://www.bupers.navy.mil/pers211/index.html
: >
: > http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/6711/
: >
: >
: > You do not know what you are talking about, I do, I am a
: > "COMMISSIONED" Chief Warrant Officer..
: >
: >
: > On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 21:37:31 -0800, "Young Old Timer"
: > > wrote:
: >
: > >One comment. A Warrant Officer is not an Officer in the sense of the
: title.
: > >A Warrant Officer is APPOINTED, not promoted or commissioned.
Therefore,
: > >the crap about fraternization between officers and enlisted do not
apply
: > >here.
: > >Did you know that there are a lot of enlisted personnel married to
: officers
: > >on active duty?? Is there a double standard?? You bet your ass there
: is.
: > >Example: LTC Smith (female) is the head nurse of a large military
: hospital,
: > >and SP4 Smith is a supply clerk on the same post, not necessarily the
: same
: > >unit, but it could be. What do you do in a situation such as this??
COL
: > >Jones is a Physician - Neuro Surgeon that was given a commission
directly
: to
: > >the rank of Colonel due to his skills and shortage of it in the
military.
: > >His wife is a Master Sergeant that has been on active duty for 18
years.
: > >Prior to his commission, he worked in a large research hospital near
the
: > >base where his wife was assigned as NCOIC of Computer Information
: Services.
: > >All of these are just examples on how the military system has a double
: > >standard when it comes to this sort of thing. The REAL problem is when
: say
: > >CPT Casey who is the Commanding Officer of Company A is dating PFC
: > >Dingleberry who is a radio repair(person). THAT's what the military has
a
: > >problem with, especially when the officer has direct supervision or
: > >influence over the enlisted person's career and advancement. This can
: also
: > >work in reverse where CPT Casey gets ****ed and finds a way to give
: > >Dingleberry an Article 15 for some bull**** offense.
: > >
: > >THEREFORE, yes, there is a double standard. I've seen it played all
: sorts
: > >of ways and have never personally seen anyone disciplined for it. But
it
: > >has happened and very publicly at that.
: > >
: > >As for the situation you post about, yes, the Command should have put a
: stop
: > >to it immediately by transferring one of them out of the Command.
: Instead,
: > >they let it continue because the spouses were not there, and therefore
a
: > >serious incident wasn't likely to happen.
: > >
: > >This goes on daily in the Armed Forces, and as long as men and women
are
: > >deployed together, especially to isolated areas, **** will continue to
: > >happen, and so will babies.
: > >
: > >"Nick Jade" <NickJade(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote in message
: > ...
: > >> Let's get this out fix this problem so hopefully it won't happen when
: our
: > >> soldiers return from Iraq.
: > >>
: > >>
: > >>
: > >>
: > >>
: > >>
: > >>
: > >>
: > >> December 31, 2002
: > >>
: > >>
: > >>
: > >>
: > >>
: > >> "The hard right over the easy wrong", "What goes TDY,
stays
: > >TDY"
: > >> , "Screw-up and move up", we have all heard these sayings before but
: just
: > >> how true are they? Well I'd like to tell you a story and let you
: decide.
: > >>
: > >>
: > >>
: > >> A few years ago a women deployed to Bosnia with the 3rd
: > >Armored
: > >> Cavalry Regiment in support of SFOR7. She was a SPC, an avionics
tech,
: > >> married and the mother of three children. While in Bosnia she met a
: man.
: > >> He was a CW3, OH-58 pilot, also married with children. They would
both
: > >call
: > >> back every few days to their spouses and say that all was well. But
it
: > >wasn
: > >> 't, the SPC and CW3 were having an affair. The affair started not
long
: > >> after they arrived in Bosnia and lasted almost until their
: redeployment, 8
: > >> months later.
: > >>
: > >> They would eat, watch movies, and go on trips together.
: They
: > >> would also meet in his office late at night, after he finished his
: night
: > >> flights. They spent a lot of time together, so much time that rumors
: > >> started. But no one cared to look into the rumors, too much trouble
: > >maybe?
: > >> When they called their spouses, they would even warn them that rumors
: were
: > >> going about and not to worry, the rumors weren't true.
: > >>
: > >> She was promoted to SGT and even earned her Spurs, while
: > >having
: > >> an affair with a Chief Warrant Officer. He continued to fly and earn
: his
: > >> flight pay while getting his "Becky fix", a term they used for their
: > >private
: > >> moments. But, as all things do, the affair was found out.
: > >>
: > >> Not by some one with them in Bosnia, but by her husband.
: The
: > >> rumors where too much and he confronted her. She admitted to her
: husband
: > >> that yes she was sleeping with this pilot, whom he also knew. So the
: > >affair
: > >> stopped (?) and they returned home to FT. Carson, CO. In time her
: > >marriage
: > >> ended, but not her career. She applied for and was accepted to the
: > >Warrant
: > >> Officer Flight program and is now a WO1 attending flight school at
Ft.
: > >> Rucker, AL. The pilot? He is still flying and is now a maintenance
: test
: > >> pilot. She earned her promotion and her Spurs, but did she disserve
: them?
: > >> Screw-up and move up?
: > >>
: > >> The base in Bosnia was small and everyone knew just about
: > >> everyone. So I wonder how their affair was missed. The Army has a
: policy
: > >> about relationships between enlisted and officers. In basically
states
: > >that
: > >> officers and enlisted personnel will not have improper relationships.
: It
: > >> goes on to define "improper" as anything other then professional. I
: think
: > >> eating alone, going to the movies, and going on MWR trips together
: would
: > >> fall under the improper category. One of the duties of a NCO is to
: know
: > >> your soldiers. It's hard to believe that her Squad Leader, Platoon
: > >> Sergeant, and First Sergeant did not notice that something might be
: going
: > >on
: > >> between her and this CW3. Where they just bad NCO's who didn't care
or
: > >did
: > >> they see the problem and decide it was just too hard to confront?
The
: > >easy
: > >> wrong over the hard right? What about his peers and superiors?
Didn't
: > >they
: > >> notice either? What goes TDY, stays TDY?
: > >>
: > >> What about the command? Well a few months after the 3d
ACR
: > >> returned to Ft. Carson someone spoke up about the affair and an
: > >> investigation was started. The SGT was asked about her relationship
: with
: > >> the CW3 and she said they were just friends and the investigation was
: > >> dropped. A short time later her packet for Warrant Officer was
: approved
: > >and
: > >> letters of recommendation signed. Maybe the command was just wanted
: her
: > >to
: > >> quietly disappear. The "Not my problem anymore" syndrome?
: > >>
: > >> A lot of people who were with them in Bosnia knew about
or
: at
: > >> least suspect that they were having an affair. My question is how
come
: no
: > >> one said anything about it? Is the Army fostering a climate were
: actions
: > >> like this are ok? Are the soldiers being taught by example that as
: long
: > >as
: > >> you don't get caught in the act it's ok? As long as they do their
job,
: no
: > >> one cares what they do in their off time? Are our leaders afraid to
: > >> confront soldiers about their personal life? Do we expect our
soldiers
: to
: > >> follow the Army values or are the Army values just lip service?
: > >>
: > >> I hope that the Army can train its leaders to be more
: > >perceptive
: > >> and not afraid to approach a problem which may be "touchy" and
: > >embarrassing.
: > >> To guide and mentor our soldiers to do the right thing and to up hold
: the
: > >> Army values.
: > >>
: > >>
: > >>
: > >>
: > >>
: > >> This story is true. How do I know? Because the SGT in
: this
: > >> story was my wife, Rebecca Beasley (now WO1 Rebecca Clark) and the
CW3
: is
: > >> Edwin Annis. Now you maybe be wondering why I wrote this story.
Maybe
: > >it's
: > >> because I'm a hurt and angry ex-husband wanting to get back at his
: > >ex-wife?
: > >> No, it's too late for that. But I am an NCO who has seen a soldier
do
: a
: > >> terrible wrong and get away with it and I also have soldiers who have
: lost
: > >> faith in our system because of this. I also wrote this story because
I
: am
: > >> tired of living this lie. How can I look my soldiers in the eye and
: > >preach
: > >> to them about doing the hard right over the easy wrong and following
: the
: > >> Army values when I myself can't do it. I should have said something
: along
: > >> time ago. Now I will retire in a few years and when I do it will be
: with
: > >a
: > >> clear conscious. So I wrote this letter for two reasons: as a NCO to
: > >> officially inform you of an incident which I believe was wrong and as
a
: > >man
: > >> who must live by his principles.
: > >>
: > >> I also ask that you use this story as a training tool for
: our
: > >> soldiers and leaders. We have all heard stories like this one after
: major
: > >> deployments. I feel something must be done about it. Maybe it's
time
: to
: > >> enforce a distinct separation between Officers, NCOs, and the
soldiers.
: > >> Policies are written which do just that, but are they enforced?
: > >>
: > >> Maybe this story can be re-written so as not to incriminate anyone
and
: > >shown
: > >> to our soldiers as an example of what can happen when we start
: believing
: > >in
: > >> terms such as those stated at the beginning of this letter. I have
: been
: > >in
: > >> for 20 years now and am tired of hearing "What goes TDY, stays TDY".
I
: > >hope
: > >> this letter helps to show others that that saying is wrong.
: > >>
: > >>
: > >>
: > >> Thank you
: > >>
: > >>
: > >>
: > >>
: > >
: >
:
: I speak from the Army side, not the Navy side of things. Army Warrant
Offic
: ers ARE NOT Commissioned unless they changed things since I retired.

Changed long ago.


:
:

[Alan Minyard]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 22:12:50 -0700, "Nick Jade" <NickJade(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote:


>
> "The hard right over the easy wrong", "What goes TDY, stays TDY"
>, "Screw-up and move up", we have all heard these sayings before but just
>how true are they? Well I'd like to tell you a story and let you decide.
>
>
>
> A few years ago a women deployed to Bosnia with the 3rd Armored
>Cavalry Regiment in support of SFOR7. She was a SPC, an avionics tech,
>married and the mother of three children. While in Bosnia she met a man.
>He was a CW3, OH-58 pilot, also married with children. They would both call
>back every few days to their spouses and say that all was well. But it wasn
>'t, the SPC and CW3 were having an affair. The affair started not long
>after they arrived in Bosnia and lasted almost until their redeployment, 8
>months later.

If you had been the unit's CO, how would you have *proven* this?? You
cannot take either legal or admin action based on rumors.

Al Minyard

[Leslie Swartz]

Nick and All:

The tragic story related below is the norm, not the exception. The
poisons that flow- continuously- into our system of discipline and morale
from these situations erode unit cohesion, respect, and esprit to a degree
far greater than the leadership ostriches would care to recognize.

I've been in the war since 1978 and situations like this have existed and
transpired at virtually every unit I have ever been assigned to. In every
case, superior-subordinate relationship or not, sexual relations among
servicemembers (married or not) create distrust, feelings of inequity, loss
of respect, and a general sense of what the army types call "Drama."

Even if nobody gets pregnant- even if nobody files a grievance- even if
nobody gets divorced- even if the woman doesn't throw the trump (rape) card-
even under the most "happy ending" of circumstances, these situations (at
best) erode mission effectiveness in incalculable ways.

Is this a hidden cost of gender integration? Is this a natural result of
hormones + stress = sex? Is the problem not the sex, but the reactions of
those not directly involved?

We can't begin to solve this problem until first, we recognize there is a
problem; and second, determine exactly what the problem is. But due to the
questions this problem will inevitably raise, we will never reach the first
step. I have had this conversation with many commanders and colleagues over
the years. Recognizing that there is a problem in the first place is
something the leadership will never be able to stand.


Steve Swartz


"Nick Jade" <NickJade(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote in message
...
> Let's get this out fix this problem so hopefully it won't happen when our
> soldiers return from Iraq.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> December 31, 2002
>
>
>
>
>
> "The hard right over the easy wrong", "What goes TDY, stays
TDY"
> , "Screw-up and move up", we have all heard these sayings before but just
> how true are they? Well I'd like to tell you a story and let you decide.
>
>
>
> A few years ago a women deployed to Bosnia with the 3rd
Armored
> Cavalry Regiment in support of SFOR7. She was a SPC, an avionics tech,
> married and the mother of three children. While in Bosnia she met a man.
> He was a CW3, OH-58 pilot, also married with children. They would both
call
> back every few days to their spouses and say that all was well. But it
wasn
> 't, the SPC and CW3 were having an affair. The affair started not long
> after they arrived in Bosnia and lasted almost until their redeployment, 8
> months later.
>
> They would eat, watch movies, and go on trips together. They
> would also meet in his office late at night, after he finished his night
> flights. They spent a lot of time together, so much time that rumors
> started. But no one cared to look into the rumors, too much trouble
maybe?
> When they called their spouses, they would even warn them that rumors were
> going about and not to worry, the rumors weren't true.
>
> She was promoted to SGT and even earned her Spurs, while
having
> an affair with a Chief Warrant Officer. He continued to fly and earn his
> flight pay while getting his "Becky fix", a term they used for their
private
> moments. But, as all things do, the affair was found out.
>
> Not by some one with them in Bosnia, but by her husband. The
> rumors where too much and he confronted her. She admitted to her husband
> that yes she was sleeping with this pilot, whom he also knew. So the
affair
> stopped (?) and they returned home to FT. Carson, CO. In time her
marriage
> ended, but not her career. She applied for and was accepted to the
Warrant
> Officer Flight program and is now a WO1 attending flight school at Ft.
> Rucker, AL. The pilot? He is still flying and is now a maintenance test
> pilot. She earned her promotion and her Spurs, but did she disserve them?
> Screw-up and move up?
>
> The base in Bosnia was small and everyone knew just about
> everyone. So I wonder how their affair was missed. The Army has a policy
> about relationships between enlisted and officers. In basically states
that
> officers and enlisted personnel will not have improper relationships. It
> goes on to define "improper" as anything other then professional. I think
> eating alone, going to the movies, and going on MWR trips together would
> fall under the improper category. One of the duties of a NCO is to know
> your soldiers. It's hard to believe that her Squad Leader, Platoon
> Sergeant, and First Sergeant did not notice that something might be going
on
> between her and this CW3. Where they just bad NCO's who didn't care or
did
> they see the problem and decide it was just too hard to confront? The
easy
> wrong over the hard right? What about his peers and superiors? Didn't
they
> notice either? What goes TDY, stays TDY?
>
> What about the command? Well a few months after the 3d ACR
> returned to Ft. Carson someone spoke up about the affair and an
> investigation was started. The SGT was asked about her relationship with
> the CW3 and she said they were just friends and the investigation was
> dropped. A short time later her packet for Warrant Officer was approved
and
> letters of recommendation signed. Maybe the command was just wanted her
to
> quietly disappear. The "Not my problem anymore" syndrome?
>
> A lot of people who were with them in Bosnia knew about or at
> least suspect that they were having an affair. My question is how come no
> one said anything about it? Is the Army fostering a climate were actions
> like this are ok? Are the soldiers being taught by example that as long
as
> you don't get caught in the act it's ok? As long as they do their job, no
> one cares what they do in their off time? Are our leaders afraid to
> confront soldiers about their personal life? Do we expect our soldiers to
> follow the Army values or are the Army values just lip service?
>
> I hope that the Army can train its leaders to be more
perceptive
> and not afraid to approach a problem which may be "touchy" and
embarrassing.
> To guide and mentor our soldiers to do the right thing and to up hold the
> Army values.
>
>
>
>
>
> This story is true. How do I know? Because the SGT in this
> story was my wife, Rebecca Beasley (now WO1 Rebecca Clark) and the CW3 is
> Edwin Annis. Now you maybe be wondering why I wrote this story. Maybe
it's
> because I'm a hurt and angry ex-husband wanting to get back at his
ex-wife?
> No, it's too late for that. But I am an NCO who has seen a soldier do a
> terrible wrong and get away with it and I also have soldiers who have lost
> faith in our system because of this. I also wrote this story because I am
> tired of living this lie. How can I look my soldiers in the eye and
preach
> to them about doing the hard right over the easy wrong and following the
> Army values when I myself can't do it. I should have said something along
> time ago. Now I will retire in a few years and when I do it will be with
a
> clear conscious. So I wrote this letter for two reasons: as a NCO to
> officially inform you of an incident which I believe was wrong and as a
man
> who must live by his principles.
>
> I also ask that you use this story as a training tool for our
> soldiers and leaders. We have all heard stories like this one after major
> deployments. I feel something must be done about it. Maybe it's time to
> enforce a distinct separation between Officers, NCOs, and the soldiers.
> Policies are written which do just that, but are they enforced?
>
> Maybe this story can be re-written so as not to incriminate anyone and
shown
> to our soldiers as an example of what can happen when we start believing
in
> terms such as those stated at the beginning of this letter. I have been
in
> for 20 years now and am tired of hearing "What goes TDY, stays TDY". I
hope
> this letter helps to show others that that saying is wrong.
>
>
>
> Thank you
>
>
>
>

[Dave Thompson]

"Young Old Timer" > wrote in message
...
>
> I speak from the Army side, not the Navy side of things. Army Warrant
Offic
> ers ARE NOT Commissioned unless they changed things since I retired.
>

I know it is a shock, but the Army continued after we retired. Warrant
Officers in grades CW2-CW5 are commissioned officers in the Army.

See http://leav-www.army.mil/wocc/whatiswo.htm

--
Dave Thompson
(The Other)

[Tarver Engineering]

"fudog50" > wrote in message
...

Please trim your posts, Dog

[[email protected]]

>I speak from the Army side, not the Navy side of things. Army Warrant Offic
>ers ARE NOT Commissioned unless they changed things since I retired.

Rules have changed. Army Warrant Officers are indeed commission in
today Army

[Fred Seaver]

If I remember right Brave rifles in 1949 was at Ft Meade Md.
The Army then was still segregated . Boon Town was just across
the road. I was on a detail to help maintain the golf course. And going on
Operation Portex from there. winter of 49.

"Nick Jade" <NickJade(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote in message
...
> Let's get this out fix this problem so hopefully it won't happen when our
> soldiers return from Iraq.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> December 31, 2002
>
>
>
>
>
> "The hard right over the easy wrong", "What goes TDY, stays
TDY"
> , "Screw-up and move up", we have all heard these sayings before but just
> how true are they? Well I'd like to tell you a story and let you decide.
>
>
>
> A few years ago a women deployed to Bosnia with the 3rd
Armored
> Cavalry Regiment in support of SFOR7. She was a SPC, an avionics tech,
> married and the mother of three children. While in Bosnia she met a man.
> He was a CW3, OH-58 pilot, also married with children. They would both
call
> back every few days to their spouses and say that all was well. But it
wasn
> 't, the SPC and CW3 were having an affair. The affair started not long
> after they arrived in Bosnia and lasted almost until their redeployment, 8
> months later.
>
> They would eat, watch movies, and go on trips together. They
> would also meet in his office late at night, after he finished his night
> flights. They spent a lot of time together, so much time that rumors
> started. But no one cared to look into the rumors, too much trouble
maybe?
> When they called their spouses, they would even warn them that rumors were
> going about and not to worry, the rumors weren't true.
>
> She was promoted to SGT and even earned her Spurs, while
having
> an affair with a Chief Warrant Officer. He continued to fly and earn his
> flight pay while getting his "Becky fix", a term they used for their
private
> moments. But, as all things do, the affair was found out.
>
> Not by some one with them in Bosnia, but by her husband. The
> rumors where too much and he confronted her. She admitted to her husband
> that yes she was sleeping with this pilot, whom he also knew. So the
affair
> stopped (?) and they returned home to FT. Carson, CO. In time her
marriage
> ended, but not her career. She applied for and was accepted to the
Warrant
> Officer Flight program and is now a WO1 attending flight school at Ft.
> Rucker, AL. The pilot? He is still flying and is now a maintenance test
> pilot. She earned her promotion and her Spurs, but did she disserve them?
> Screw-up and move up?
>
> The base in Bosnia was small and everyone knew just about
> everyone. So I wonder how their affair was missed. The Army has a policy
> about relationships between enlisted and officers. In basically states
that
> officers and enlisted personnel will not have improper relationships. It
> goes on to define "improper" as anything other then professional. I think
> eating alone, going to the movies, and going on MWR trips together would
> fall under the improper category. One of the duties of a NCO is to know
> your soldiers. It's hard to believe that her Squad Leader, Platoon
> Sergeant, and First Sergeant did not notice that something might be going
on
> between her and this CW3. Where they just bad NCO's who didn't care or
did
> they see the problem and decide it was just too hard to confront? The
easy
> wrong over the hard right? What about his peers and superiors? Didn't
they
> notice either? What goes TDY, stays TDY?
>
> What about the command? Well a few months after the 3d ACR
> returned to Ft. Carson someone spoke up about the affair and an
> investigation was started. The SGT was asked about her relationship with
> the CW3 and she said they were just friends and the investigation was
> dropped. A short time later her packet for Warrant Officer was approved
and
> letters of recommendation signed. Maybe the command was just wanted her
to
> quietly disappear. The "Not my problem anymore" syndrome?
>
> A lot of people who were with them in Bosnia knew about or at
> least suspect that they were having an affair. My question is how come no
> one said anything about it? Is the Army fostering a climate were actions
> like this are ok? Are the soldiers being taught by example that as long
as
> you don't get caught in the act it's ok? As long as they do their job, no
> one cares what they do in their off time? Are our leaders afraid to
> confront soldiers about their personal life? Do we expect our soldiers to
> follow the Army values or are the Army values just lip service?
>
> I hope that the Army can train its leaders to be more
perceptive
> and not afraid to approach a problem which may be "touchy" and
embarrassing.
> To guide and mentor our soldiers to do the right thing and to up hold the
> Army values.
>
>
>
>
>
> This story is true. How do I know? Because the SGT in this
> story was my wife, Rebecca Beasley (now WO1 Rebecca Clark) and the CW3 is
> Edwin Annis. Now you maybe be wondering why I wrote this story. Maybe
it's
> because I'm a hurt and angry ex-husband wanting to get back at his
ex-wife?
> No, it's too late for that. But I am an NCO who has seen a soldier do a
> terrible wrong and get away with it and I also have soldiers who have lost
> faith in our system because of this. I also wrote this story because I am
> tired of living this lie. How can I look my soldiers in the eye and
preach
> to them about doing the hard right over the easy wrong and following the
> Army values when I myself can't do it. I should have said something along
> time ago. Now I will retire in a few years and when I do it will be with
a
> clear conscious. So I wrote this letter for two reasons: as a NCO to
> officially inform you of an incident which I believe was wrong and as a
man
> who must live by his principles.
>
> I also ask that you use this story as a training tool for our
> soldiers and leaders. We have all heard stories like this one after major
> deployments. I feel something must be done about it. Maybe it's time to
> enforce a distinct separation between Officers, NCOs, and the soldiers.
> Policies are written which do just that, but are they enforced?
>
> Maybe this story can be re-written so as not to incriminate anyone and
shown
> to our soldiers as an example of what can happen when we start believing
in
> terms such as those stated at the beginning of this letter. I have been
in
> for 20 years now and am tired of hearing "What goes TDY, stays TDY". I
hope
> this letter helps to show others that that saying is wrong.
>
>
>
> Thank you
>
>
>
>

[Warwhore]

You'll find in the Australian army, the WO2's and WO1's are non
commissioned, They get their "Warrant" from the Queen and thats it. To get
to WO1, you have to be a general entry... not an officer.


"Young Old Timer" > wrote in message
...
> "Dave Thompson" > wrote in message
> news:z%wXb.40829$QJ3.27354@fed1read04...
> > "Young Old Timer" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > I speak from the Army side, not the Navy side of things. Army Warrant
> > Offic
> > > ers ARE NOT Commissioned unless they changed things since I retired.
> > >
> >
> > I know it is a shock, but the Army continued after we retired. Warrant
> > Officers in grades CW2-CW5 are commissioned officers in the Army.
> >
> > See http://leav-www.army.mil/wocc/whatiswo.htm
> >
> > --
> > Dave Thompson
> > (The Other)
> >
>
> ****, I had better shut my trap then. Dagnabit anyhow. Guess I'll just
fall
> in here and stand at ease.
>
>

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Sat, 14 Feb 2004 09:48:11 -0800,
Young Old Timer attempted to say .....

>
> I speak from the Army side, not the Navy side of things. Army Warrant Offic
> ers ARE NOT Commissioned unless they changed things since I retired.
>

You are incorrect

A WO1 is appointed.
When advanced to CW2 they receive a commission.


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Nice Again]

Shame on you!!

"Nick Jade" <NickJade(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote in message
...
> Let's get this out fix this problem so hopefully it won't happen when our
> soldiers return from Iraq.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> December 31, 2002
>
>
>
>
>
> "The hard right over the easy wrong", "What goes TDY, stays
TDY"
> , "Screw-up and move up", we have all heard these sayings before but just
> how true are they? Well I'd like to tell you a story and let you decide.
>
>
>
> A few years ago a women deployed to Bosnia with the 3rd
Armored
> Cavalry Regiment in support of SFOR7. She was a SPC, an avionics tech,
> married and the mother of three children. While in Bosnia she met a man.
> He was a CW3, OH-58 pilot, also married with children. They would both
call
> back every few days to their spouses and say that all was well. But it
wasn
> 't, the SPC and CW3 were having an affair. The affair started not long
> after they arrived in Bosnia and lasted almost until their redeployment, 8
> months later.
>
> They would eat, watch movies, and go on trips together. They
> would also meet in his office late at night, after he finished his night
> flights. They spent a lot of time together, so much time that rumors
> started. But no one cared to look into the rumors, too much trouble
maybe?
> When they called their spouses, they would even warn them that rumors were
> going about and not to worry, the rumors weren't true.
>
> She was promoted to SGT and even earned her Spurs, while
having
> an affair with a Chief Warrant Officer. He continued to fly and earn his
> flight pay while getting his "Becky fix", a term they used for their
private
> moments. But, as all things do, the affair was found out.
>
> Not by some one with them in Bosnia, but by her husband. The
> rumors where too much and he confronted her. She admitted to her husband
> that yes she was sleeping with this pilot, whom he also knew. So the
affair
> stopped (?) and they returned home to FT. Carson, CO. In time her
marriage
> ended, but not her career. She applied for and was accepted to the
Warrant
> Officer Flight program and is now a WO1 attending flight school at Ft.
> Rucker, AL. The pilot? He is still flying and is now a maintenance test
> pilot. She earned her promotion and her Spurs, but did she disserve them?
> Screw-up and move up?
>
> The base in Bosnia was small and everyone knew just about
> everyone. So I wonder how their affair was missed. The Army has a policy
> about relationships between enlisted and officers. In basically states
that
> officers and enlisted personnel will not have improper relationships. It
> goes on to define "improper" as anything other then professional. I think
> eating alone, going to the movies, and going on MWR trips together would
> fall under the improper category. One of the duties of a NCO is to know
> your soldiers. It's hard to believe that her Squad Leader, Platoon
> Sergeant, and First Sergeant did not notice that something might be going
on
> between her and this CW3. Where they just bad NCO's who didn't care or
did
> they see the problem and decide it was just too hard to confront? The
easy
> wrong over the hard right? What about his peers and superiors? Didn't
they
> notice either? What goes TDY, stays TDY?
>
> What about the command? Well a few months after the 3d ACR
> returned to Ft. Carson someone spoke up about the affair and an
> investigation was started. The SGT was asked about her relationship with
> the CW3 and she said they were just friends and the investigation was
> dropped. A short time later her packet for Warrant Officer was approved
and
> letters of recommendation signed. Maybe the command was just wanted her
to
> quietly disappear. The "Not my problem anymore" syndrome?
>
> A lot of people who were with them in Bosnia knew about or at
> least suspect that they were having an affair. My question is how come no
> one said anything about it? Is the Army fostering a climate were actions
> like this are ok? Are the soldiers being taught by example that as long
as
> you don't get caught in the act it's ok? As long as they do their job, no
> one cares what they do in their off time? Are our leaders afraid to
> confront soldiers about their personal life? Do we expect our soldiers to
> follow the Army values or are the Army values just lip service?
>
> I hope that the Army can train its leaders to be more
perceptive
> and not afraid to approach a problem which may be "touchy" and
embarrassing.
> To guide and mentor our soldiers to do the right thing and to up hold the
> Army values.
>
>
>
>
>
> This story is true. How do I know? Because the SGT in this
> story was my wife, Rebecca Beasley (now WO1 Rebecca Clark) and the CW3 is
> Edwin Annis. Now you maybe be wondering why I wrote this story. Maybe
it's
> because I'm a hurt and angry ex-husband wanting to get back at his
ex-wife?
> No, it's too late for that. But I am an NCO who has seen a soldier do a
> terrible wrong and get away with it and I also have soldiers who have lost
> faith in our system because of this. I also wrote this story because I am
> tired of living this lie. How can I look my soldiers in the eye and
preach
> to them about doing the hard right over the easy wrong and following the
> Army values when I myself can't do it. I should have said something along
> time ago. Now I will retire in a few years and when I do it will be with
a
> clear conscious. So I wrote this letter for two reasons: as a NCO to
> officially inform you of an incident which I believe was wrong and as a
man
> who must live by his principles.
>
> I also ask that you use this story as a training tool for our
> soldiers and leaders. We have all heard stories like this one after major
> deployments. I feel something must be done about it. Maybe it's time to
> enforce a distinct separation between Officers, NCOs, and the soldiers.
> Policies are written which do just that, but are they enforced?
>
> Maybe this story can be re-written so as not to incriminate anyone and
shown
> to our soldiers as an example of what can happen when we start believing
in
> terms such as those stated at the beginning of this letter. I have been
in
> for 20 years now and am tired of hearing "What goes TDY, stays TDY". I
hope
> this letter helps to show others that that saying is wrong.
>
>
>
> Thank you
>
>
>
>

[Abrigon Gusiq]

First Warrented Officer in the Navy, were often private contractors who
were hired to run things like the pursers office and like. They were
given all rights and priviledges of an officer, but were not in the
command structure.

Midshipmen, were sort of a warrented officer, since they did not have a
commission, but were taking time off from the Academy or like. They were
below all other officer in command.

Army Warrents, were designed to do two major things.

Basically be a specialist rank, namely for persons like pilots that have
no real command other than their bird.
Or a way up for enlisted soldier, that had been in for a long time such
as like how the British Sergeant Major is or namely for staff functions.
Much like how a person in an admin skill can after years, become a
warrented officer, cause they are specialist in their field, but they
have limited command authority.

Commissioned, is this also that they are granted it by an act of
congress or some other means? Warrent was much like a commission, just
not as high in status.

Mike
PS: But don't ask for a Warrenty.


Pepperoni wrote:
>
> Throughout its history, the Warrant Officer Program<s> of the various
> services have not only differed among the services, but have from time to
> time undergone drastic reductions and revisions.
>
> Not only did the commissioning process occur at different times for the
> various services, but somewhat differing roles within each service led to
> some confusion and benefit differences which was not begun to be
> standardized (equalized) until the 1990s.
>
> Pepperoni
>
> **********************************
>
> "The Defense Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year 1986 amended Title 10 of the
> United States Code (U.S.C.) to provide that Army Chief Warrant Officers
> shall be appointed by Commission. The primary purpose of the legislation was
> to equalize appointment procedures among the services. Chief Warrant
> Officers of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard had been commissioned
> for many years. Contrary to popular belief, the commissioning legislation
> was not a TWOS recommendation but a separate Army proposal. Further
> clarification of the role of an Army Warrant Officer, including the
> commissioned aspect, is found in FM 22-100."
> http://www.penfed.org/usawoa/wo_hist.htm
>
> In 1991 the WOMA proposal was considered by the Congress and it was
> incorporated into the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 1992. Six
> key provisions were enacted based on the Warrant Officer Management Act as
> signed by the President in December of 1991, these were as follows:
>
> A single promotion system for warrant officers.
>
> Tenure requirements based on years of warrant officer service.
>
> Establishment of the grade of CW5 with a 5% cap on the number of warrant
> officers on each service's active duty list at any one time.
>
> Selective mandatory retirement boards for retirement eligible WO.
>
> Position coding for warrant officers.
>
> Automatic integration into Regular Army at CW3
>
> the actual bill as enacted into law.
> http://www.penfed.org/usawoa/downloads/WOMA_HR-36_3Jan91.pdf
>
> The Army Warrant Officer Corps is comprised of approximately 21,300 men and
> women of the active Army (53%), Army National Guard (35%) and Army Reserve
> (12%). Of these 45% of the Army warrant officers are aviators. Warrant
> officers are technical experts that manage and maintain increasingly complex
> battlefield systems. They enhance the Army's ability to defend our national
> interests, and to fight and win our nation's wars.
>
> Candidates who successfully complete Army Warrant Officer Candidate School
> are appointed in the grade of Warrant Officer One (WO1). When advanced to
> Chief Warrant Officer Two (CW2), warrant officers are commissioned by the
> President and have the same legal status as their traditional commissioned
> officer counterparts. However, warrant officers remain single-specialty
> officers whose career track is oriented towards progressing within their
> career field rather than focusing on increased levels of command and staff
> duty positions.
>
> There are five grades within the Army Warrant Officer Corps. A person is
> initially appointed as a Warrant Officer (WO1), and progresses to Chief
> Warrant Officer Two (CW2) after 2 years. Competitive promotion to Chief
> Warrant Officer Three (CW3), Chief Warrant Officer Four (CW4), and Chief
> Warrant Officer Five (CW5) occur at approximately six year intervals for
> Aviation Warrant Officers and five year intervals for those in technical
> fields.
>
> "fudog50" > wrote in message
> ...
> > You're absolutely wrong, Mr.young old timer,
> > A Chief Warrant Officer in the Navy is Commisioned from day one. Go to
> > these 2 websites to get educated on Chief Warrant Officers in the
> > Navy. Specifically, click on the "history" button.
> >
> > http://www.bupers.navy.mil/pers211/index.html
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/6711/
> >
> >
> > You do not know what you are talking about, I do, I am a
> > "COMMISSIONED" Chief Warrant Officer..
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 21:37:31 -0800, "Young Old Timer"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >One comment. A Warrant Officer is not an Officer in the sense of the
> title.
> > >A Warrant Officer is APPOINTED, not promoted or commissioned. Therefore,
> > >the crap about fraternization between officers and enlisted do not apply
> > >here.
> > >Did you know that there are a lot of enlisted personnel married to
> officers
> > >on active duty?? Is there a double standard?? You bet your ass there
> is.
> > >Example: LTC Smith (female) is the head nurse of a large military
> hospital,
> > >and SP4 Smith is a supply clerk on the same post, not necessarily the
> same
> > >unit, but it could be. What do you do in a situation such as this?? COL
> > >Jones is a Physician - Neuro Surgeon that was given a commission directly
> to
> > >the rank of Colonel due to his skills and shortage of it in the military.
> > >His wife is a Master Sergeant that has been on active duty for 18 years.
> > >Prior to his commission, he worked in a large research hospital near the
> > >base where his wife was assigned as NCOIC of Computer Information
> Services.
> > >All of these are just examples on how the military system has a double
> > >standard when it comes to this sort of thing. The REAL problem is when
> say
> > >CPT Casey who is the Commanding Officer of Company A is dating PFC
> > >Dingleberry who is a radio repair(person). THAT's what the military has a
> > >problem with, especially when the officer has direct supervision or
> > >influence over the enlisted person's career and advancement. This can
> also
> > >work in reverse where CPT Casey gets ****ed and finds a way to give
> > >Dingleberry an Article 15 for some bull**** offense.
> > >
> > >THEREFORE, yes, there is a double standard. I've seen it played all
> sorts
> > >of ways and have never personally seen anyone disciplined for it. But it
> > >has happened and very publicly at that.
> > >
> > >As for the situation you post about, yes, the Command should have put a
> stop
> > >to it immediately by transferring one of them out of the Command.
> Instead,
> > >they let it continue because the spouses were not there, and therefore a
> > >serious incident wasn't likely to happen.
> > >
> > >This goes on daily in the Armed Forces, and as long as men and women are
> > >deployed together, especially to isolated areas, **** will continue to
> > >happen, and so will babies.
> > >
> > >"Nick Jade" <NickJade(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> Let's get this out fix this problem so hopefully it won't happen when
> our
> > >> soldiers return from Iraq.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> December 31, 2002
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> "The hard right over the easy wrong", "What goes TDY, stays
> > >TDY"
> > >> , "Screw-up and move up", we have all heard these sayings before but
> just
> > >> how true are they? Well I'd like to tell you a story and let you
> decide.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> A few years ago a women deployed to Bosnia with the 3rd
> > >Armored
> > >> Cavalry Regiment in support of SFOR7. She was a SPC, an avionics tech,
> > >> married and the mother of three children. While in Bosnia she met a
> man.
> > >> He was a CW3, OH-58 pilot, also married with children. They would both
> > >call
> > >> back every few days to their spouses and say that all was well. But it
> > >wasn
> > >> 't, the SPC and CW3 were having an affair. The affair started not long
> > >> after they arrived in Bosnia and lasted almost until their
> redeployment, 8
> > >> months later.
> > >>
> > >> They would eat, watch movies, and go on trips together.
> They
> > >> would also meet in his office late at night, after he finished his
> night
> > >> flights. They spent a lot of time together, so much time that rumors
> > >> started. But no one cared to look into the rumors, too much trouble
> > >maybe?
> > >> When they called their spouses, they would even warn them that rumors
> were
> > >> going about and not to worry, the rumors weren't true.
> > >>
> > >> She was promoted to SGT and even earned her Spurs, while
> > >having
> > >> an affair with a Chief Warrant Officer. He continued to fly and earn
> his
> > >> flight pay while getting his "Becky fix", a term they used for their
> > >private
> > >> moments. But, as all things do, the affair was found out.
> > >>
> > >> Not by some one with them in Bosnia, but by her husband.
> The
> > >> rumors where too much and he confronted her. She admitted to her
> husband
> > >> that yes she was sleeping with this pilot, whom he also knew. So the
> > >affair
> > >> stopped (?) and they returned home to FT. Carson, CO. In time her
> > >marriage
> > >> ended, but not her career. She applied for and was accepted to the
> > >Warrant
> > >> Officer Flight program and is now a WO1 attending flight school at Ft.
> > >> Rucker, AL. The pilot? He is still flying and is now a maintenance
> test
> > >> pilot. She earned her promotion and her Spurs, but did she disserve
> them?
> > >> Screw-up and move up?
> > >>
> > >> The base in Bosnia was small and everyone knew just about
> > >> everyone. So I wonder how their affair was missed. The Army has a
> policy
> > >> about relationships between enlisted and officers. In basically states
> > >that
> > >> officers and enlisted personnel will not have improper relationships.
> It
> > >> goes on to define "improper" as anything other then professional. I
> think
> > >> eating alone, going to the movies, and going on MWR trips together
> would
> > >> fall under the improper category. One of the duties of a NCO is to
> know
> > >> your soldiers. It's hard to believe that her Squad Leader, Platoon
> > >> Sergeant, and First Sergeant did not notice that something might be
> going
> > >on
> > >> between her and this CW3. Where they just bad NCO's who didn't care or
> > >did
> > >> they see the problem and decide it was just too hard to confront? The
> > >easy
> > >> wrong over the hard right? What about his peers and superiors? Didn't
> > >they
> > >> notice either? What goes TDY, stays TDY?
> > >>
> > >> What about the command? Well a few months after the 3d ACR
> > >> returned to Ft. Carson someone spoke up about the affair and an
> > >> investigation was started. The SGT was asked about her relationship
> with
> > >> the CW3 and she said they were just friends and the investigation was
> > >> dropped. A short time later her packet for Warrant Officer was
> approved
> > >and
> > >> letters of recommendation signed. Maybe the command was just wanted
> her
> > >to
> > >> quietly disappear. The "Not my problem anymore" syndrome?
> > >>
> > >> A lot of people who were with them in Bosnia knew about or
> at
> > >> least suspect that they were having an affair. My question is how come
> no
> > >> one said anything about it? Is the Army fostering a climate were
> actions
> > >> like this are ok? Are the soldiers being taught by example that as
> long
> > >as
> > >> you don't get caught in the act it's ok? As long as they do their job,
> no
> > >> one cares what they do in their off time? Are our leaders afraid to
> > >> confront soldiers about their personal life? Do we expect our soldiers
> to
> > >> follow the Army values or are the Army values just lip service?
> > >>
> > >> I hope that the Army can train its leaders to be more
> > >perceptive
> > >> and not afraid to approach a problem which may be "touchy" and
> > >embarrassing.
> > >> To guide and mentor our soldiers to do the right thing and to up hold
> the
> > >> Army values.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> This story is true. How do I know? Because the SGT in
> this
> > >> story was my wife, Rebecca Beasley (now WO1 Rebecca Clark) and the CW3
> is
> > >> Edwin Annis. Now you maybe be wondering why I wrote this story. Maybe
> > >it's
> > >> because I'm a hurt and angry ex-husband wanting to get back at his
> > >ex-wife?
> > >> No, it's too late for that. But I am an NCO who has seen a soldier do
> a
> > >> terrible wrong and get away with it and I also have soldiers who have
> lost
> > >> faith in our system because of this. I also wrote this story because I
> am
> > >> tired of living this lie. How can I look my soldiers in the eye and
> > >preach
> > >> to them about doing the hard right over the easy wrong and following
> the
> > >> Army values when I myself can't do it. I should have said something
> along
> > >> time ago. Now I will retire in a few years and when I do it will be
> with
> > >a
> > >> clear conscious. So I wrote this letter for two reasons: as a NCO to
> > >> officially inform you of an incident which I believe was wrong and as a
> > >man
> > >> who must live by his principles.
> > >>
> > >> I also ask that you use this story as a training tool for
> our
> > >> soldiers and leaders. We have all heard stories like this one after
> major
> > >> deployments. I feel something must be done about it. Maybe it's time
> to
> > >> enforce a distinct separation between Officers, NCOs, and the soldiers.
> > >> Policies are written which do just that, but are they enforced?
> > >>
> > >> Maybe this story can be re-written so as not to incriminate anyone and
> > >shown
> > >> to our soldiers as an example of what can happen when we start
> believing
> > >in
> > >> terms such as those stated at the beginning of this letter. I have
> been
> > >in
> > >> for 20 years now and am tired of hearing "What goes TDY, stays TDY". I
> > >hope
> > >> this letter helps to show others that that saying is wrong.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Thank you
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >

[Abrigon Gusiq]

I forget what article it is, but yes it is actions unbecomming of an
officer or like terms.

Also things depend on:

Was he in her chain of command?
Did the commander of this unit order her to stop or face charges.

Much like that female officer that was doing much the same, like in
1990?
She was ordered to stop having an affair or relationship with an
enlisted solider if I remember right, and she refused. She was brought
up on charges of not following a lawful order and was booted last I
heard?

But, yes, seen it to many times. One of my former units, it became a
problems when the gals got promitions and special treats cause they were
sleeping with one of the officers..

When it becomes to a point that it is degrading the performance of the
unit, the commander if he knows, and does nothing is just as guilty as
the persons who are doing the "dating".. Dereliction of duty I believe
is the term?

Mike
Alaska

Heh, I met my soon to be Major boss, while I a Specialist was making
passes at a female Lieutenent pilot, so was he.. It made working with
him possibly interesting.. This was years ago. Demi Moorse looks damn
good with short hair. More women should cut it that short.





BigRedWingsFan wrote:
>
> "Young Old Timer" > wrote in message
> ...
> : "fudog50" > wrote in message
> : ...
> : > You're absolutely wrong, Mr.young old timer,
> : > A Chief Warrant Officer in the Navy is Commisioned from day one. Go to
> : > these 2 websites to get educated on Chief Warrant Officers in the
> : > Navy. Specifically, click on the "history" button.
> : >
> : > http://www.bupers.navy.mil/pers211/index.html
> : >
> : > http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/6711/
> : >
> : >
> : > You do not know what you are talking about, I do, I am a
> : > "COMMISSIONED" Chief Warrant Officer..
> : >
> : >
> : > On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 21:37:31 -0800, "Young Old Timer"
> : > > wrote:
> : >
> : > >One comment. A Warrant Officer is not an Officer in the sense of the
> : title.
> : > >A Warrant Officer is APPOINTED, not promoted or commissioned.
> Therefore,
> : > >the crap about fraternization between officers and enlisted do not
> apply
> : > >here.
> : > >Did you know that there are a lot of enlisted personnel married to
> : officers
> : > >on active duty?? Is there a double standard?? You bet your ass there
> : is.
> : > >Example: LTC Smith (female) is the head nurse of a large military
> : hospital,
> : > >and SP4 Smith is a supply clerk on the same post, not necessarily the
> : same
> : > >unit, but it could be. What do you do in a situation such as this??
> COL
> : > >Jones is a Physician - Neuro Surgeon that was given a commission
> directly
> : to
> : > >the rank of Colonel due to his skills and shortage of it in the
> military.
> : > >His wife is a Master Sergeant that has been on active duty for 18
> years.
> : > >Prior to his commission, he worked in a large research hospital near
> the
> : > >base where his wife was assigned as NCOIC of Computer Information
> : Services.
> : > >All of these are just examples on how the military system has a double
> : > >standard when it comes to this sort of thing. The REAL problem is when
> : say
> : > >CPT Casey who is the Commanding Officer of Company A is dating PFC
> : > >Dingleberry who is a radio repair(person). THAT's what the military has
> a
> : > >problem with, especially when the officer has direct supervision or
> : > >influence over the enlisted person's career and advancement. This can
> : also
> : > >work in reverse where CPT Casey gets ****ed and finds a way to give
> : > >Dingleberry an Article 15 for some bull**** offense.
> : > >
> : > >THEREFORE, yes, there is a double standard. I've seen it played all
> : sorts
> : > >of ways and have never personally seen anyone disciplined for it. But
> it
> : > >has happened and very publicly at that.
> : > >
> : > >As for the situation you post about, yes, the Command should have put a
> : stop
> : > >to it immediately by transferring one of them out of the Command.
> : Instead,
> : > >they let it continue because the spouses were not there, and therefore
> a
> : > >serious incident wasn't likely to happen.
> : > >
> : > >This goes on daily in the Armed Forces, and as long as men and women
> are
> : > >deployed together, especially to isolated areas, **** will continue to
> : > >happen, and so will babies.
> : > >
> : > >"Nick Jade" <NickJade(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote in message
> : > ...
> : > >> Let's get this out fix this problem so hopefully it won't happen when
> : our
> : > >> soldiers return from Iraq.
> : > >>
> : > >>
> : > >>
> : > >>
> : > >>
> : > >>
> : > >>
> : > >>
> : > >> December 31, 2002
> : > >>
> : > >>
> : > >>
> : > >>
> : > >>
> : > >> "The hard right over the easy wrong", "What goes TDY,
> stays
> : > >TDY"
> : > >> , "Screw-up and move up", we have all heard these sayings before but
> : just
> : > >> how true are they? Well I'd like to tell you a story and let you
> : decide.
> : > >>
> : > >>
> : > >>
> : > >> A few years ago a women deployed to Bosnia with the 3rd
> : > >Armored
> : > >> Cavalry Regiment in support of SFOR7. She was a SPC, an avionics
> tech,
> : > >> married and the mother of three children. While in Bosnia she met a
> : man.
> : > >> He was a CW3, OH-58 pilot, also married with children. They would
> both
> : > >call
> : > >> back every few days to their spouses and say that all was well. But
> it
> : > >wasn
> : > >> 't, the SPC and CW3 were having an affair. The affair started not
> long
> : > >> after they arrived in Bosnia and lasted almost until their
> : redeployment, 8
> : > >> months later.
> : > >>
> : > >> They would eat, watch movies, and go on trips together.
> : They
> : > >> would also meet in his office late at night, after he finished his
> : night
> : > >> flights. They spent a lot of time together, so much time that rumors
> : > >> started. But no one cared to look into the rumors, too much trouble
> : > >maybe?
> : > >> When they called their spouses, they would even warn them that rumors
> : were
> : > >> going about and not to worry, the rumors weren't true.
> : > >>
> : > >> She was promoted to SGT and even earned her Spurs, while
> : > >having
> : > >> an affair with a Chief Warrant Officer. He continued to fly and earn
> : his
> : > >> flight pay while getting his "Becky fix", a term they used for their
> : > >private
> : > >> moments. But, as all things do, the affair was found out.
> : > >>
> : > >> Not by some one with them in Bosnia, but by her husband.
> : The
> : > >> rumors where too much and he confronted her. She admitted to her
> : husband
> : > >> that yes she was sleeping with this pilot, whom he also knew. So the
> : > >affair
> : > >> stopped (?) and they returned home to FT. Carson, CO. In time her
> : > >marriage
> : > >> ended, but not her career. She applied for and was accepted to the
> : > >Warrant
> : > >> Officer Flight program and is now a WO1 attending flight school at
> Ft.
> : > >> Rucker, AL. The pilot? He is still flying and is now a maintenance
> : test
> : > >> pilot. She earned her promotion and her Spurs, but did she disserve
> : them?
> : > >> Screw-up and move up?
> : > >>
> : > >> The base in Bosnia was small and everyone knew just about
> : > >> everyone. So I wonder how their affair was missed. The Army has a
> : policy
> : > >> about relationships between enlisted and officers. In basically
> states
> : > >that
> : > >> officers and enlisted personnel will not have improper relationships.
> : It
> : > >> goes on to define "improper" as anything other then professional. I
> : think
> : > >> eating alone, going to the movies, and going on MWR trips together
> : would
> : > >> fall under the improper category. One of the duties of a NCO is to
> : know
> : > >> your soldiers. It's hard to believe that her Squad Leader, Platoon
> : > >> Sergeant, and First Sergeant did not notice that something might be
> : going
> : > >on
> : > >> between her and this CW3. Where they just bad NCO's who didn't care
> or
> : > >did
> : > >> they see the problem and decide it was just too hard to confront?
> The
> : > >easy
> : > >> wrong over the hard right? What about his peers and superiors?
> Didn't
> : > >they
> : > >> notice either? What goes TDY, stays TDY?
> : > >>
> : > >> What about the command? Well a few months after the 3d
> ACR
> : > >> returned to Ft. Carson someone spoke up about the affair and an
> : > >> investigation was started. The SGT was asked about her relationship
> : with
> : > >> the CW3 and she said they were just friends and the investigation was
> : > >> dropped. A short time later her packet for Warrant Officer was
> : approved
> : > >and
> : > >> letters of recommendation signed. Maybe the command was just wanted
> : her
> : > >to
> : > >> quietly disappear. The "Not my problem anymore" syndrome?
> : > >>
> : > >> A lot of people who were with them in Bosnia knew about
> or
> : at
> : > >> least suspect that they were having an affair. My question is how
> come
> : no
> : > >> one said anything about it? Is the Army fostering a climate were
> : actions
> : > >> like this are ok? Are the soldiers being taught by example that as
> : long
> : > >as
> : > >> you don't get caught in the act it's ok? As long as they do their
> job,
> : no
> : > >> one cares what they do in their off time? Are our leaders afraid to
> : > >> confront soldiers about their personal life? Do we expect our
> soldiers
> : to
> : > >> follow the Army values or are the Army values just lip service?
> : > >>
> : > >> I hope that the Army can train its leaders to be more
> : > >perceptive
> : > >> and not afraid to approach a problem which may be "touchy" and
> : > >embarrassing.
> : > >> To guide and mentor our soldiers to do the right thing and to up hold
> : the
> : > >> Army values.
> : > >>
> : > >>
> : > >>
> : > >>
> : > >>
> : > >> This story is true. How do I know? Because the SGT in
> : this
> : > >> story was my wife, Rebecca Beasley (now WO1 Rebecca Clark) and the
> CW3
> : is
> : > >> Edwin Annis. Now you maybe be wondering why I wrote this story.
> Maybe
> : > >it's
> : > >> because I'm a hurt and angry ex-husband wanting to get back at his
> : > >ex-wife?
> : > >> No, it's too late for that. But I am an NCO who has seen a soldier
> do
> : a
> : > >> terrible wrong and get away with it and I also have soldiers who have
> : lost
> : > >> faith in our system because of this. I also wrote this story because
> I
> : am
> : > >> tired of living this lie. How can I look my soldiers in the eye and
> : > >preach
> : > >> to them about doing the hard right over the easy wrong and following
> : the
> : > >> Army values when I myself can't do it. I should have said something
> : along
> : > >> time ago. Now I will retire in a few years and when I do it will be
> : with
> : > >a
> : > >> clear conscious. So I wrote this letter for two reasons: as a NCO to
> : > >> officially inform you of an incident which I believe was wrong and as
> a
> : > >man
> : > >> who must live by his principles.
> : > >>
> : > >> I also ask that you use this story as a training tool for
> : our
> : > >> soldiers and leaders. We have all heard stories like this one after
> : major
> : > >> deployments. I feel something must be done about it. Maybe it's
> time
> : to
> : > >> enforce a distinct separation between Officers, NCOs, and the
> soldiers.
> : > >> Policies are written which do just that, but are they enforced?
> : > >>
> : > >> Maybe this story can be re-written so as not to incriminate anyone
> and
> : > >shown
> : > >> to our soldiers as an example of what can happen when we start
> : believing
> : > >in
> : > >> terms such as those stated at the beginning of this letter. I have
> : been
> : > >in
> : > >> for 20 years now and am tired of hearing "What goes TDY, stays TDY".
> I
> : > >hope
> : > >> this letter helps to show others that that saying is wrong.
> : > >>
> : > >>
> : > >>
> : > >> Thank you
> : > >>
> : > >>
> : > >>
> : > >>
> : > >
> : >
> :
> : I speak from the Army side, not the Navy side of things. Army Warrant
> Offic
> : ers ARE NOT Commissioned unless they changed things since I retired.
>
> Changed long ago.
>
> :
> :

[Admin]

"Abrigon Gusiq" > wrote in message
...
> I forget what article it is, but yes it is actions unbecomming of an
> officer or like terms.
>
> Also things depend on:
>
> Was he in her chain of command?
> Did the commander of this unit order her to stop or face charges.
>
> Much like that female officer that was doing much the same, like in
> 1990?
> She was ordered to stop having an affair or relationship with an
> enlisted solider if I remember right, and she refused. She was brought
> up on charges of not following a lawful order and was booted last I
> heard?
>
> But, yes, seen it to many times. One of my former units, it became a
> problems when the gals got promitions and special treats cause they were
> sleeping with one of the officers..
>
> When it becomes to a point that it is degrading the performance of the
> unit, the commander if he knows, and does nothing is just as guilty as
> the persons who are doing the "dating".. Dereliction of duty I believe
> is the term?
>
> Mike
> Alaska
>
> Heh, I met my soon to be Major boss, while I a Specialist was making
> passes at a female Lieutenent pilot, so was he.. It made working with
> him possibly interesting.. This was years ago. Demi Moorse looks damn
> good with short hair. More women should cut it that short.

Mike, where you been.

[Sunny]

Here is another, slightly differant post of the original artical that I
found along with some research on the fratrinization thing.....
My research: according to
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/weekly/aa061702b.htm - "Army
fraternization policies are contained in Army Regulation 600-20, Army
Command Policy. (Note: The term "officer" as used below includes both
commissioned and warrant officers). Certain types of personal relationships
between officers and enlisted personnel are prohibited....Dating, shared
living accommodations other than those directed by operational requirements,
and intimate or sexual relationships between officers and enlisted
personnel."
The artical goes into more detail, but I beleave that clarifies that
what they were doing was wrong. I hope that one day the Army can stop
things like this from happening.

Sunny

The artical...


Let's get this out fix this problem so hopefully it won't happen when our
soldiers return from Iraq.

December 31, 2002
"The hard right over the easy wrong", "What goes TDY, stays
TDY", "Screw-up and move up", we have all heard these sayings before but
just how true are they? Well I'd like to tell you a story and let you
decide.
A few years ago a women deployed to Bosnia with the 3rd Armored Cavalry
Regiment in support of SFOR7. She was a SPC, an avionics tech, married and
the mother of three children. While in Bosnia she met a man. He was a CW3,
OH-58 pilot, also married with children. They would both call back every
few days to their spouses and say that all was well. But it
wasn't, the SPC and CW3 were having an affair. The affair started not long
after they arrived in Bosnia and lasted almost until their redeployment, 8
months later.
They would eat, watch movies, and go on trips together. They would
also meet in his office late at night, after he finished his night flights.
They spent a lot of time together, so much time that rumors started. But no
one cared to look into the rumors, too much trouble maybe? When they called
their spouses, they would even warn them that rumors were going about and
not to worry, the rumors weren't true.
She was promoted to SGT and even earned her Spurs, while having an affair
with a Chief Warrant Officer. He continued to fly and earn his flight pay
while getting his "Becky fix", a term they used for their private moments.
But, as all things do, the affair was found out.
Not by some one with them in Bosnia, but by her husband. The rumors where
too much and he confronted her. She admitted to her husband that yes she
was sleeping with this pilot, whom he also knew. So the affair stopped (?)
and they returned home to FT. Carson, CO. In time her marriage ended, but
not her career. She applied for and was accepted to the
Warrant Officer Flight program and is now a WO1 attending flight school at
Ft. Rucker, AL. The pilot? He is still flying and is now a maintenance test
pilot. She earned her promotion and her Spurs, but did she disserve them?
Screw-up and move up?
The base in Bosnia was small and everyone knew just about everyone. So
I wonder how their affair was missed. The Army has a policy about
relationships between enlisted and officers. In basically states that
officers and enlisted personnel will not have improper relationships. It
goes on to define "improper" as anything other then professional. I think
eating alone, going to the movies, and going on MWR trips together would
fall under the improper category. One of the duties of a NCO is to know
your soldiers. It's hard to believe that her Squad Leader, Platoon
Sergeant, and First Sergeant did not notice that something might be going on
between her and this CW3. Where they just bad NCO's who didn't care or did
they see the problem and decide it was just too hard to confront? The easy
wrong over the hard right? What about his peers and superiors? Didn't they
notice either? What goes TDY, stays TDY? What about the command? Well a
few months after the 3d ACR returned to Ft. Carson someone spoke up about
the affair and an investigation was started. The SGT was asked about her
relationship with the CW3 and she said they were just friends and the
investigation was dropped. A short time later her packet for Warrant
Officer was approved and letters of recommendation signed. Maybe the
command was just wanted her to quietly disappear. The "Not my problem
anymore" syndrome? A lot of people who were with them in Bosnia knew about
or at least suspect that they were having an affair. My question is how
come no one said anything about it? Is the Army fostering a climate were
actions like this are ok? Are the soldiers being taught by example that as
long as you don't get caught in the act it's ok? As long as they do their
job, no one cares what they do in their off time? Are our leaders afraid to
> confront soldiers about their personal life? Do we expect our soldiers to
follow the Army values or are the Army values just lip service?
I hope that the Army can train its leaders to be more perceptive and
not afraid to approach a problem which may be "touchy" and embarrassing. To
guide and mentor our soldiers to do the right thing and to up hold the Army
values.
This story is true. How do I know? Because the SGT in this story is
Rebecca Beasley (now WO1 Rebecca Clark) ) and
the CW3 is Edwin Annis ).

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: A problem in the Military ?
>From: "Sunny"
>Date: 3/4/04 11:43 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Here is another, slightly differant post of the original artical that I
>found along with some research on the fratrinization thing.....
> My research: according to
>http://usmilitary.about.com/library/weekly/aa061702b.htm - "Army
>fraternization policies are contained in Army Regulation 600-20, Army
>Command Policy. (Note: The term "officer" as used below includes both
>commissioned and warrant officers). Certain types of personal relationships
>between officers and enlisted personnel are prohibited....Dating, shared
>living accommodations other than those directed by operational requirements,
>and intimate or sexual relationships between officers and enlisted
>personnel."
> The artical goes into more detail, but I beleave that clarifies that
>what they were doing was wrong. I hope that one day the Army can stop
>things like this from happening.
>
>Sunny
>
>The artical...
>
>
>Let's get this out fix this problem so hopefully it won't happen when our
>soldiers return from Iraq.
>
> December 31, 2002
> "The hard right over the easy wrong", "What goes TDY, stays
>TDY", "Screw-up and move up", we have all heard these sayings before but
>just how true are they? Well I'd like to tell you a story and let you
>decide.
> A few years ago a women deployed to Bosnia with the 3rd Armored Cavalry
>Regiment in support of SFOR7. She was a SPC, an avionics tech, married and
>the mother of three children. While in Bosnia she met a man. He was a CW3,
>OH-58 pilot, also married with children. They would both call back every
>few days to their spouses and say that all was well. But it
>wasn't, the SPC and CW3 were having an affair. The affair started not long
>after they arrived in Bosnia and lasted almost until their redeployment, 8
>months later.
> They would eat, watch movies, and go on trips together. They would
>also meet in his office late at night, after he finished his night flights.
>They spent a lot of time together, so much time that rumors started. But no
>one cared to look into the rumors, too much trouble maybe? When they called
>their spouses, they would even warn them that rumors were going about and
>not to worry, the rumors weren't true.
>She was promoted to SGT and even earned her Spurs, while having an affair
>with a Chief Warrant Officer. He continued to fly and earn his flight pay
>while getting his "Becky fix", a term they used for their private moments.
>But, as all things do, the affair was found out.
>Not by some one with them in Bosnia, but by her husband. The rumors where
>too much and he confronted her. She admitted to her husband that yes she
>was sleeping with this pilot, whom he also knew. So the affair stopped (?)
>and they returned home to FT. Carson, CO. In time her marriage ended, but
>not her career. She applied for and was accepted to the
>Warrant Officer Flight program and is now a WO1 attending flight school at
>Ft. Rucker, AL. The pilot? He is still flying and is now a maintenance test
>pilot. She earned her promotion and her Spurs, but did she disserve them?
>Screw-up and move up?
> The base in Bosnia was small and everyone knew just about everyone. So
>I wonder how their affair was missed. The Army has a policy about
>relationships between enlisted and officers. In basically states that
>officers and enlisted personnel will not have improper relationships. It
>goes on to define "improper" as anything other then professional. I think
>eating alone, going to the movies, and going on MWR trips together would
>fall under the improper category. One of the duties of a NCO is to know
>your soldiers. It's hard to believe that her Squad Leader, Platoon
>Sergeant, and First Sergeant did not notice that something might be going on
>between her and this CW3. Where they just bad NCO's who didn't care or did
>they see the problem and decide it was just too hard to confront? The easy
>wrong over the hard right? What about his peers and superiors? Didn't they
>notice either? What goes TDY, stays TDY? What about the command? Well a
>few months after the 3d ACR returned to Ft. Carson someone spoke up about
>the affair and an investigation was started. The SGT was asked about her
>relationship with the CW3 and she said they were just friends and the
>investigation was dropped. A short time later her packet for Warrant
>Officer was approved and letters of recommendation signed. Maybe the
>command was just wanted her to quietly disappear. The "Not my problem
>anymore" syndrome? A lot of people who were with them in Bosnia knew about
>or at least suspect that they were having an affair. My question is how
>come no one said anything about it? Is the Army fostering a climate were
>actions like this are ok? Are the soldiers being taught by example that as
>long as you don't get caught in the act it's ok? As long as they do their
>job, no one cares what they do in their off time? Are our leaders afraid to
>> confront soldiers about their personal life? Do we expect our soldiers to
>follow the Army values or are the Army values just lip service?
> I hope that the Army can train its leaders to be more perceptive and
>not afraid to approach a problem which may be "touchy" and embarrassing. To
>guide and mentor our soldiers to do the right thing and to up hold the Army
>values.
> This story is true. How do I know? Because the SGT in this story is
>Rebecca Beasley (now WO1 Rebecca Clark) ) and
>the CW3 is Edwin Annis ).
>
>

What! Sex in the military. Terrible. Must be something new. Besides, who cares?



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Sunny]

I agree with Steve on this except one point....We have to do something about
this. I can't accept that it will never get fixed. What I don't know is
what to do. Do we send this story to our military leaders in the hopes that
they will "fix it"? I've seen another version of this story (see my earler
post) and I'm sure there are more like it, so maybe the "word" is out?
I'm all for males and females in the Army, but there has got to be something
that can be done to stop problems like this.

Sunny

"Leslie Swartz" > wrote in message
...
> Nick and All:
>
> The tragic story related below is the norm, not the exception. The
> poisons that flow- continuously- into our system of discipline and morale
> from these situations erode unit cohesion, respect, and esprit to a degree
> far greater than the leadership ostriches would care to recognize.
>
> I've been in the war since 1978 and situations like this have existed
and
> transpired at virtually every unit I have ever been assigned to. In every
> case, superior-subordinate relationship or not, sexual relations among
> servicemembers (married or not) create distrust, feelings of inequity,
loss
> of respect, and a general sense of what the army types call "Drama."
>
> Even if nobody gets pregnant- even if nobody files a grievance- even if
> nobody gets divorced- even if the woman doesn't throw the trump (rape)
card-
> even under the most "happy ending" of circumstances, these situations (at
> best) erode mission effectiveness in incalculable ways.
>
> Is this a hidden cost of gender integration? Is this a natural result
of
> hormones + stress = sex? Is the problem not the sex, but the reactions of
> those not directly involved?
>
> We can't begin to solve this problem until first, we recognize there is
a
> problem; and second, determine exactly what the problem is. But due to
the
> questions this problem will inevitably raise, we will never reach the firs
t
> step. I have had this conversation with many commanders and colleagues
over
> the years. Recognizing that there is a problem in the first place is
> something the leadership will never be able to stand.
>
>
> Steve Swartz
>
>
<snip> see my earlier post for the story...

[Jeff Crowell]

Sunny wrote:
> We have to do something about
> this. I can't accept that it will never get fixed. What I don't know is
> what to do. Do we send this story to our military leaders in the hopes
that
> they will "fix it"? I've seen another version of this story (see my
earler
> post) and I'm sure there are more like it, so maybe the "word" is out?
> I'm all for males and females in the Army, but there has got to be
something
> that can be done to stop problems like this.

Got news for you. As long as boys and girls serve together,
there's going to be hanky-panky going on. Some of said
hanky-panky will involve cases where one or both (or more?)
of the players are married. To other people. Anyone who tries
to stop it will just look like an idiot. You could make it a
capital offense and it would still happen, even if you were
dealing with servicemembers who are not in a life-threatening
environment.

This is a fact of life in our society, it happens in every workplace
today and every day.

And publishing the names of the allegedly involved parties
is scurrilous.



Jeff

[Sunny]

Good points, perhaps you are right. Perhaps it is just Human nature.
As for the names, I agree, but since this posting was already posted (I just
copied it) I felt the "damage" was already done.

Sunny

"Jeff Crowell" > wrote in message
...
> Sunny wrote:
> > We have to do something about
> > this. I can't accept that it will never get fixed. What I don't know
is
> > what to do. Do we send this story to our military leaders in the hopes
> that
> > they will "fix it"? I've seen another version of this story (see my
> earler
> > post) and I'm sure there are more like it, so maybe the "word" is out?
> > I'm all for males and females in the Army, but there has got to be
> something
> > that can be done to stop problems like this.
>
> Got news for you. As long as boys and girls serve together,
> there's going to be hanky-panky going on. Some of said
> hanky-panky will involve cases where one or both (or more?)
> of the players are married. To other people. Anyone who tries
> to stop it will just look like an idiot. You could make it a
> capital offense and it would still happen, even if you were
> dealing with servicemembers who are not in a life-threatening
> environment.
>
> This is a fact of life in our society, it happens in every workplace
> today and every day.
>
> And publishing the names of the allegedly involved parties
> is scurrilous.
>
>
>
> Jeff
>
>

[MAC_Skjulestad]

On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 12:44:08 -0700, "Jeff Crowell"
> wrote:

>Sunny wrote:
>> We have to do something about
>> this. I can't accept that it will never get fixed. What I don't know is
>> what to do. Do we send this story to our military leaders in the hopes
>that
>> they will "fix it"? I've seen another version of this story (see my
>earler
>> post) and I'm sure there are more like it, so maybe the "word" is out?
>> I'm all for males and females in the Army, but there has got to be
>something
>> that can be done to stop problems like this.
>
>Got news for you. As long as boys and girls serve together,
>there's going to be hanky-panky going on. Some of said
>hanky-panky will involve cases where one or both (or more?)
>of the players are married. To other people. Anyone who tries
>to stop it will just look like an idiot. You could make it a
>capital offense and it would still happen, even if you were
>dealing with servicemembers who are not in a life-threatening
>environment.
>
>This is a fact of life in our society, it happens in every workplace
>today and every day.
>
>And publishing the names of the allegedly involved parties
>is scurrilous.
>
>
>
>Jeff
>
Not to mention that many of us would see our name and if it was done
in error would bring slande law suits that would rake in millions.

Or maybe go to the printer and kick their ass.



--
Life is routine punctuated by orgies.

[Abrigon Gusiq]

Don't know where I have been, sort of hazy, no will not have to kill ya,
just it is not much worth remembering..

Mike


Admin wrote:
>
> "Abrigon Gusiq" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I forget what article it is, but yes it is actions unbecomming of an
> > officer or like terms.
> >
> > Also things depend on:
> >
> > Was he in her chain of command?
> > Did the commander of this unit order her to stop or face charges.
> >
> > Much like that female officer that was doing much the same, like in
> > 1990?
> > She was ordered to stop having an affair or relationship with an
> > enlisted solider if I remember right, and she refused. She was brought
> > up on charges of not following a lawful order and was booted last I
> > heard?
> >
> > But, yes, seen it to many times. One of my former units, it became a
> > problems when the gals got promitions and special treats cause they were
> > sleeping with one of the officers..
> >
> > When it becomes to a point that it is degrading the performance of the
> > unit, the commander if he knows, and does nothing is just as guilty as
> > the persons who are doing the "dating".. Dereliction of duty I believe
> > is the term?
> >
> > Mike
> > Alaska
> >
> > Heh, I met my soon to be Major boss, while I a Specialist was making
> > passes at a female Lieutenent pilot, so was he.. It made working with
> > him possibly interesting.. This was years ago. Demi Moorse looks damn
> > good with short hair. More women should cut it that short.
>
> Mike, where you been.

[Abrigon Gusiq]

Question is, why not just instead of making them a Commissioned Chief
Warrent Officer 2, why not just make them a Captain or atleast a 1st
Lieutenant?

Mike

[Abrigon Gusiq]

Me,I am waiting to see what happenes, when women in the Army, have to do
the same things that the males do, and are exposed to the same problems
of the field. Such as ticks, lice, lack of water, and more..

There is a good reason why men have short hair, it is easier to
maintain, as well as easier to keep ticks/fleas and like out. As well as
hard to keep long hair clean when you lack time, water and all.. And god
help ya if you want to do your nails, and all?

True about fraternization, just how it goes, and it can be fun to watch
in a sad way. Intelligent men, suddenly become morons cause of a women..
Or the reverse..

Mike


Leslie Swartz wrote:
>
> Nick and All:
>
> The tragic story related below is the norm, not the exception. The
> poisons that flow- continuously- into our system of discipline and morale
> from these situations erode unit cohesion, respect, and esprit to a degree
> far greater than the leadership ostriches would care to recognize.
>
> I've been in the war since 1978 and situations like this have existed and
> transpired at virtually every unit I have ever been assigned to. In every
> case, superior-subordinate relationship or not, sexual relations among
> servicemembers (married or not) create distrust, feelings of inequity, loss
> of respect, and a general sense of what the army types call "Drama."
>
> Even if nobody gets pregnant- even if nobody files a grievance- even if
> nobody gets divorced- even if the woman doesn't throw the trump (rape) card-
> even under the most "happy ending" of circumstances, these situations (at
> best) erode mission effectiveness in incalculable ways.
>
> Is this a hidden cost of gender integration? Is this a natural result of
> hormones + stress = sex? Is the problem not the sex, but the reactions of
> those not directly involved?
>
> We can't begin to solve this problem until first, we recognize there is a
> problem; and second, determine exactly what the problem is. But due to the
> questions this problem will inevitably raise, we will never reach the first
> step. I have had this conversation with many commanders and colleagues over
> the years. Recognizing that there is a problem in the first place is
> something the leadership will never be able to stand.
>
> Steve Swartz
>
> "Nick Jade" <NickJade(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote in message
> ...
> > Let's get this out fix this problem so hopefully it won't happen when our
> > soldiers return from Iraq.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > December 31, 2002
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "The hard right over the easy wrong", "What goes TDY, stays
> TDY"
> > , "Screw-up and move up", we have all heard these sayings before but just
> > how true are they? Well I'd like to tell you a story and let you decide.
> >
> >
> >
> > A few years ago a women deployed to Bosnia with the 3rd
> Armored
> > Cavalry Regiment in support of SFOR7. She was a SPC, an avionics tech,
> > married and the mother of three children. While in Bosnia she met a man.
> > He was a CW3, OH-58 pilot, also married with children. They would both
> call
> > back every few days to their spouses and say that all was well. But it
> wasn
> > 't, the SPC and CW3 were having an affair. The affair started not long
> > after they arrived in Bosnia and lasted almost until their redeployment, 8
> > months later.
> >
> > They would eat, watch movies, and go on trips together. They
> > would also meet in his office late at night, after he finished his night
> > flights. They spent a lot of time together, so much time that rumors
> > started. But no one cared to look into the rumors, too much trouble
> maybe?
> > When they called their spouses, they would even warn them that rumors were
> > going about and not to worry, the rumors weren't true.
> >
> > She was promoted to SGT and even earned her Spurs, while
> having
> > an affair with a Chief Warrant Officer. He continued to fly and earn his
> > flight pay while getting his "Becky fix", a term they used for their
> private
> > moments. But, as all things do, the affair was found out.
> >
> > Not by some one with them in Bosnia, but by her husband. The
> > rumors where too much and he confronted her. She admitted to her husband
> > that yes she was sleeping with this pilot, whom he also knew. So the
> affair
> > stopped (?) and they returned home to FT. Carson, CO. In time her
> marriage
> > ended, but not her career. She applied for and was accepted to the
> Warrant
> > Officer Flight program and is now a WO1 attending flight school at Ft.
> > Rucker, AL. The pilot? He is still flying and is now a maintenance test
> > pilot. She earned her promotion and her Spurs, but did she disserve them?
> > Screw-up and move up?
> >
> > The base in Bosnia was small and everyone knew just about
> > everyone. So I wonder how their affair was missed. The Army has a policy
> > about relationships between enlisted and officers. In basically states
> that
> > officers and enlisted personnel will not have improper relationships. It
> > goes on to define "improper" as anything other then professional. I think
> > eating alone, going to the movies, and going on MWR trips together would
> > fall under the improper category. One of the duties of a NCO is to know
> > your soldiers. It's hard to believe that her Squad Leader, Platoon
> > Sergeant, and First Sergeant did not notice that something might be going
> on
> > between her and this CW3. Where they just bad NCO's who didn't care or
> did
> > they see the problem and decide it was just too hard to confront? The
> easy
> > wrong over the hard right? What about his peers and superiors? Didn't
> they
> > notice either? What goes TDY, stays TDY?
> >
> > What about the command? Well a few months after the 3d ACR
> > returned to Ft. Carson someone spoke up about the affair and an
> > investigation was started. The SGT was asked about her relationship with
> > the CW3 and she said they were just friends and the investigation was
> > dropped. A short time later her packet for Warrant Officer was approved
> and
> > letters of recommendation signed. Maybe the command was just wanted her
> to
> > quietly disappear. The "Not my problem anymore" syndrome?
> >
> > A lot of people who were with them in Bosnia knew about or at
> > least suspect that they were having an affair. My question is how come no
> > one said anything about it? Is the Army fostering a climate were actions
> > like this are ok? Are the soldiers being taught by example that as long
> as
> > you don't get caught in the act it's ok? As long as they do their job, no
> > one cares what they do in their off time? Are our leaders afraid to
> > confront soldiers about their personal life? Do we expect our soldiers to
> > follow the Army values or are the Army values just lip service?
> >
> > I hope that the Army can train its leaders to be more
> perceptive
> > and not afraid to approach a problem which may be "touchy" and
> embarrassing.
> > To guide and mentor our soldiers to do the right thing and to up hold the
> > Army values.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > This story is true. How do I know? Because the SGT in this
> > story was my wife, Rebecca Beasley (now WO1 Rebecca Clark) and the CW3 is
> > Edwin Annis. Now you maybe be wondering why I wrote this story. Maybe
> it's
> > because I'm a hurt and angry ex-husband wanting to get back at his
> ex-wife?
> > No, it's too late for that. But I am an NCO who has seen a soldier do a
> > terrible wrong and get away with it and I also have soldiers who have lost
> > faith in our system because of this. I also wrote this story because I am
> > tired of living this lie. How can I look my soldiers in the eye and
> preach
> > to them about doing the hard right over the easy wrong and following the
> > Army values when I myself can't do it. I should have said something along
> > time ago. Now I will retire in a few years and when I do it will be with
> a
> > clear conscious. So I wrote this letter for two reasons: as a NCO to
> > officially inform you of an incident which I believe was wrong and as a
> man
> > who must live by his principles.
> >
> > I also ask that you use this story as a training tool for our
> > soldiers and leaders. We have all heard stories like this one after major
> > deployments. I feel something must be done about it. Maybe it's time to
> > enforce a distinct separation between Officers, NCOs, and the soldiers.
> > Policies are written which do just that, but are they enforced?
> >
> > Maybe this story can be re-written so as not to incriminate anyone and
> shown
> > to our soldiers as an example of what can happen when we start believing
> in
> > terms such as those stated at the beginning of this letter. I have been
> in
> > for 20 years now and am tired of hearing "What goes TDY, stays TDY". I
> hope
> > this letter helps to show others that that saying is wrong.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you
> >
> >
> >
> >

[[email protected]]

Abrigon Gusiq > wrote:

>True about fraternization, just how it goes, and it can be fun to watch
>in a sad way. Intelligent men, suddenly become morons cause of a women..
>Or the reverse..
>
>Mike
>
>
Yes, isn't it puzzling...a man can bleed copious quantities of
blood and retain his intelligence but let a small amount shift
it's position in his body and all of his brains seems to turn to
mush :)
--

-Gord.

[Felger Carbon]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes, isn't it puzzling...a man can bleed copious quantities of
> blood and retain his intelligence but let a small amount shift
> it's position in his body and all of his brains seems to turn to
> mush :)

The Big Kahuna gave man a brain and a penis, but only enough blood to
operate one at a time.

[kelly]

Women cheat too it's about boredom and trust issues keeps them leaping like
a dog chasing it's tail. It's just plain stupid. You see them on Jerry
Springer, you know what I'm talking about.

"Felger Carbon" > wrote in message
link.net...
> "Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Yes, isn't it puzzling...a man can bleed copious quantities of
> > blood and retain his intelligence but let a small amount shift
> > it's position in his body and all of his brains seems to turn to
> > mush :)
>
> The Big Kahuna gave man a brain and a penis, but only enough blood to
> operate one at a time.
>
>




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[kelly]

How about this old Air Force saying:
"what goes TDY (temporary duty) stays TDY"
means nobody is to snitch. What do the other branches say?


"Jeff Crowell" > wrote in message
...
> Sunny wrote:
> > We have to do something about
> > this. I can't accept that it will never get fixed. What I don't know
is
> > what to do. Do we send this story to our military leaders in the hopes
> that
> > they will "fix it"? I've seen another version of this story (see my
> earler
> > post) and I'm sure there are more like it, so maybe the "word" is out?
> > I'm all for males and females in the Army, but there has got to be
> something
> > that can be done to stop problems like this.
>
> Got news for you. As long as boys and girls serve together,
> there's going to be hanky-panky going on. Some of said
> hanky-panky will involve cases where one or both (or more?)
> of the players are married. To other people. Anyone who tries
> to stop it will just look like an idiot. You could make it a
> capital offense and it would still happen, even if you were
> dealing with servicemembers who are not in a life-threatening
> environment.
>
> This is a fact of life in our society, it happens in every workplace
> today and every day.
>
> And publishing the names of the allegedly involved parties
> is scurrilous.
>
>
>
> Jeff
>
>




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[[email protected]]

"kelly" > wrote:

>Women cheat too it's about boredom and trust issues keeps them leaping like
>a dog chasing it's tail. It's just plain stupid. You see them on Jerry
>Springer, you know what I'm talking about.
>


Y'know, I sometimes wonder if we humans have got it right yet
after all of this time. We marry one partner and demand fidelity
for the rest of our lives when the natural human tendency is
certainly not monogamous.

Men constantly 'look the field over' and think 'woohoo, lookit
the (xxx) on that'. Women do exactly the same, perhaps it's not
advertised to be as 'strenuous' as with men but I believe that
it's actually every bit so, they just have the _reputation_ of
being less 'tempted', so it's a bit more undercover.

So then, is this 'one partner' for life the way we were meant to
be?...or is it just an affectation forced on us by religion and
civilization?

A husband will berate his gorgeous wife when she gets too cosy
with a male worker at the office party, I think mainly because
he's worried about what his friends will think, while he just
laughs about her avid perusal of the soaps. What up with that?...

Does anyone think that she has only pure clean thoughts about the
gorgeous hunk actors on there?... oooook... :)











>"Felger Carbon" > wrote in message
link.net...
>> "Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > Yes, isn't it puzzling...a man can bleed copious quantities of
>> > blood and retain his intelligence but let a small amount shift
>> > it's position in his body and all of his brains seems to turn to
>> > mush :)
>>
>> The Big Kahuna gave man a brain and a penis, but only enough blood to
>> operate one at a time.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

--

-Gord.

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Wed, 10 Mar 2004 16:38:39 GMT,
Buddy B attempted to say .....

> On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 16:52:57 GMT, "Felger Carbon" > wrote:
>
> >The Big Kahuna gave man a brain and a penis, but only enough blood to
> >operate one at a time.
>
> Sadly true. A known defect in man.

It's a defect ?

I thought it was a feature.....

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[[email protected]]

MAC_Skjulestad > wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 21:43:35 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
>wrote:
>>A husband will berate his gorgeous wife when she gets too cosy
>>with a male worker at the office party, I think mainly because
>>he's worried about what his friends will think, while he just
>>laughs about her avid perusal of the soaps. What up with that?...
>>
>>Does anyone think that she has only pure clean thoughts about the
>>gorgeous hunk actors on there?... oooook... :)
>
>
>The one thing that always disgusted me in the military. You delpoy
>for 6 - 9 months. Married guys are tapping chicks in everyport, put
>if they hear the old lady slipped one time, she's the whore and tramp.

True indeed...seems that we've devised a truly one-sided
mentality, the *only* saving grace of which is the fact that a
woman can conceive and a man can't.

Outside of that one fact there's no difference in the two
situations. (IMO). Mind you, advances in the science of
contraception is reducing that one difference to minuscule
proportions.
--

-Gord.

[Leslie Swartz]

Yes, Gord- but it is also "human nature" to believe in Demons and Spirits
and Magic and Dragons and Faeries and the like as well.

IMNSHO, a key part of being human (as opposed to a lower life form) has to
do with moving beyond our "natural instincts" to something better . . .

Steve Swartz


"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "kelly" > wrote:
>
> >Women cheat too it's about boredom and trust issues keeps them leaping
like
> >a dog chasing it's tail. It's just plain stupid. You see them on Jerry
> >Springer, you know what I'm talking about.
> >
>
>
> Y'know, I sometimes wonder if we humans have got it right yet
> after all of this time. We marry one partner and demand fidelity
> for the rest of our lives when the natural human tendency is
> certainly not monogamous.
>
> Men constantly 'look the field over' and think 'woohoo, lookit
> the (xxx) on that'. Women do exactly the same, perhaps it's not
> advertised to be as 'strenuous' as with men but I believe that
> it's actually every bit so, they just have the _reputation_ of
> being less 'tempted', so it's a bit more undercover.
>
> So then, is this 'one partner' for life the way we were meant to
> be?...or is it just an affectation forced on us by religion and
> civilization?
>
> A husband will berate his gorgeous wife when she gets too cosy
> with a male worker at the office party, I think mainly because
> he's worried about what his friends will think, while he just
> laughs about her avid perusal of the soaps. What up with that?...
>
> Does anyone think that she has only pure clean thoughts about the
> gorgeous hunk actors on there?... oooook... :)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Felger Carbon" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >> "Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > Yes, isn't it puzzling...a man can bleed copious quantities of
> >> > blood and retain his intelligence but let a small amount shift
> >> > it's position in his body and all of his brains seems to turn to
> >> > mush :)
> >>
> >> The Big Kahuna gave man a brain and a penis, but only enough blood to
> >> operate one at a time.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> >http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> >-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
>
> --
>
> -Gord.

[Leslie Swartz]

Speak for yourself.

Steve Swartz


"MAC_Skjulestad" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 21:43:35 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
> wrote:
>
> >"kelly" > wrote:
> >
> >>Women cheat too it's about boredom and trust issues keeps them leaping
like
> >>a dog chasing it's tail. It's just plain stupid. You see them on Jerry
> >>Springer, you know what I'm talking about.
> >>
> >
> >
> >Y'know, I sometimes wonder if we humans have got it right yet
> >after all of this time. We marry one partner and demand fidelity
> >for the rest of our lives when the natural human tendency is
> >certainly not monogamous.
> >
> >Men constantly 'look the field over' and think 'woohoo, lookit
> >the (xxx) on that'. Women do exactly the same, perhaps it's not
> >advertised to be as 'strenuous' as with men but I believe that
> >it's actually every bit so, they just have the _reputation_ of
> >being less 'tempted', so it's a bit more undercover.
> >
> >So then, is this 'one partner' for life the way we were meant to
> >be?...or is it just an affectation forced on us by religion and
> >civilization?
> >
> >A husband will berate his gorgeous wife when she gets too cosy
> >with a male worker at the office party, I think mainly because
> >he's worried about what his friends will think, while he just
> >laughs about her avid perusal of the soaps. What up with that?...
> >
> >Does anyone think that she has only pure clean thoughts about the
> >gorgeous hunk actors on there?... oooook... :)
>
>
> The one thing that always disgusted me in the military. You delpoy
> for 6 - 9 months. Married guys are tapping chicks in everyport, put
> if they hear the old lady slipped one time, she's the whore and tramp.
>
>
> --
> Proud member of Ordnancemen's Local #69, affiliated
> with VA-145 Swordsmen. 1972 - 1976
> NAS Cubi Pt, NAS Moffett Field, USS Midway, Provost
> Marshal Subic Bay, USS Cimarron, USS Bronstein,
> USS Berkeley.
>

[Lord Whiz]

"MAC_Skjulestad" > wrote >
>
> The one thing that always disgusted me in the military. You delpoy
> for 6 - 9 months. Married guys are tapping chicks in everyport, put
> if they hear the old lady slipped one time, she's the whore and tramp.
>
===

Speak for yourself, dunce!

The countless thousands making up the majority of married GI's simply
take their marriages more seriously than evinced by yourself. There is
*always* that 10% like you ... a well-turned phrase at least in my Navy.
After 28 years of service, and 49 years of marriage, one just knows
what is and what isn't happening at home.

[[email protected]]

"Leslie Swartz" > wrote:

>Yes, Gord- but it is also "human nature" to believe in Demons and Spirits
>and Magic and Dragons and Faeries and the like as well.
>
>IMNSHO, a key part of being human (as opposed to a lower life form) has to
>do with moving beyond our "natural instincts" to something better . . .
>
>Steve Swartz
>

I hesitate to reply to this because I'm afraid of losing my
control and telling you what I _really_ think.

However, I'll try. I could start by finding out why you
apparently think so little of 'natural instincts'.
--

-Gord.

[Abrigon Gusiq]

Some recent work in sociology and like sciences, that humans are
actually damaging their gene pool by the idea of monogamy, that humans
for the most part are not meant to be monogamous..

Chimps and like, the Alpha male, lords over things, but often he is so
stressed he can not perform all the time, so the ladies go out and get
some sex from the other males..

Mike


" wrote:
>
> "kelly" > wrote:
>
> >Women cheat too it's about boredom and trust issues keeps them leaping like
> >a dog chasing it's tail. It's just plain stupid. You see them on Jerry
> >Springer, you know what I'm talking about.
> >
>
> Y'know, I sometimes wonder if we humans have got it right yet
> after all of this time. We marry one partner and demand fidelity
> for the rest of our lives when the natural human tendency is
> certainly not monogamous.
>
> Men constantly 'look the field over' and think 'woohoo, lookit
> the (xxx) on that'. Women do exactly the same, perhaps it's not
> advertised to be as 'strenuous' as with men but I believe that
> it's actually every bit so, they just have the _reputation_ of
> being less 'tempted', so it's a bit more undercover.
>
> So then, is this 'one partner' for life the way we were meant to
> be?...or is it just an affectation forced on us by religion and
> civilization?
>
> A husband will berate his gorgeous wife when she gets too cosy
> with a male worker at the office party, I think mainly because
> he's worried about what his friends will think, while he just
> laughs about her avid perusal of the soaps. What up with that?...
>
> Does anyone think that she has only pure clean thoughts about the
> gorgeous hunk actors on there?... oooook... :)
>

[Leslie Swartz]

Gord (and those still following the thread):

Simply put, I think any conclusion based on the proposition that

"We have to accept behavior A because it is the result of 'human nature'"

is weak reasoning, because it presupposes our inability to exercise free
will.

That's the rational basis for rejecting the argument. The personal basis
for rejecting it comes from the experience of hearing the argument raised
over and over again, generally as an excuse to turn a blind eye to and/or
rationalize bad behavior.

Using "human nature" as an excuse to accept bad behavior, taken to it's
logical conclusion, results in the loss of something we have come to know as
"Civilization." This thing called "Civilization" is a burden not to be
discarded lightly.

With respect to sexual relations between military members, involving
infidelity or not, chain of command or not- there is plenty of ill and no
good to come from such behavior. So just because doing the right thing is
"hard," we should not demand it of ourselves and others?

And go ahead Gord- respond with both barrels. The tallest trees catch all
the wind, after all.

Steve Swartz


"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Leslie Swartz" > wrote:
>
> >Yes, Gord- but it is also "human nature" to believe in Demons and Spirits
> >and Magic and Dragons and Faeries and the like as well.
> >
> >IMNSHO, a key part of being human (as opposed to a lower life form) has
to
> >do with moving beyond our "natural instincts" to something better . . .
> >
> >Steve Swartz
> >
>
> I hesitate to reply to this because I'm afraid of losing my
> control and telling you what I _really_ think.
>
> However, I'll try. I could start by finding out why you
> apparently think so little of 'natural instincts'.
> --
>
> -Gord.

[Leslie Swartz]

Excellent. Let's pattern our behaviors after "Chimps and the like."

Now there's a solution.

Steve Swartz

(p.s. "damaging our gene pool by the idea of monogamy!?" Yes, I can see
where some of my colleagues in the "social and like sciences" [sic] would
wish that to be true; however, I would like the cite so's I can evaluate the
study results myself . . .)


"Abrigon Gusiq" > wrote in message
...
> Some recent work in sociology and like sciences, that humans are
> actually damaging their gene pool by the idea of monogamy, that humans
> for the most part are not meant to be monogamous..
>
> Chimps and like, the Alpha male, lords over things, but often he is so
> stressed he can not perform all the time, so the ladies go out and get
> some sex from the other males..
>
> Mike
>
>
> " wrote:
> >
> > "kelly" > wrote:
> >
> > >Women cheat too it's about boredom and trust issues keeps them leaping
like
> > >a dog chasing it's tail. It's just plain stupid. You see them on Jerry
> > >Springer, you know what I'm talking about.
> > >
> >
> > Y'know, I sometimes wonder if we humans have got it right yet
> > after all of this time. We marry one partner and demand fidelity
> > for the rest of our lives when the natural human tendency is
> > certainly not monogamous.
> >
> > Men constantly 'look the field over' and think 'woohoo, lookit
> > the (xxx) on that'. Women do exactly the same, perhaps it's not
> > advertised to be as 'strenuous' as with men but I believe that
> > it's actually every bit so, they just have the _reputation_ of
> > being less 'tempted', so it's a bit more undercover.
> >
> > So then, is this 'one partner' for life the way we were meant to
> > be?...or is it just an affectation forced on us by religion and
> > civilization?
> >
> > A husband will berate his gorgeous wife when she gets too cosy
> > with a male worker at the office party, I think mainly because
> > he's worried about what his friends will think, while he just
> > laughs about her avid perusal of the soaps. What up with that?...
> >
> > Does anyone think that she has only pure clean thoughts about the
> > gorgeous hunk actors on there?... oooook... :)
> >

[Alan Minyard]

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 07:55:05 -0500, "Leslie Swartz" > wrote:

>Excellent. Let's pattern our behaviors after "Chimps and the like."
>
>Now there's a solution.
>
>Steve Swartz
>
>(p.s. "damaging our gene pool by the idea of monogamy!?" Yes, I can see
>where some of my colleagues in the "social and like sciences" [sic] would
>wish that to be true; however, I would like the cite so's I can evaluate the
>study results myself . . .)

"Social Sciences", now THAT is an oxymoron.

Al Minyard

[[email protected]]

"Leslie Swartz" > wrote:

>Gord (and those still following the thread):
>Simply put, I think any conclusion based on the proposition that
>"We have to accept behavior A because it is the result of 'human nature'"
>is weak reasoning, because it presupposes our inability to exercise free
>will.

Not at all...but neither should it be 'rejected' for that reason
either. I think we should look at it, remembering that it's human
nature, then select or reject it but keeping in mind that it *is*
human nature.

>That's the rational basis for rejecting the argument. The personal basis
>for rejecting it comes from the experience of hearing the argument raised
>over and over again, generally as an excuse to turn a blind eye to and/or
>rationalize bad behavior.
>
>Using "human nature" as an excuse to accept bad behavior, taken to it's
>logical conclusion, results in the loss of something we have come to know as
>"Civilization." This thing called "Civilization" is a burden not to be
>discarded lightly.

Of course not...most of the conditions that make up 'civilized
behavior' are indeed 'human nature'.
>
>With respect to sexual relations between military members, involving
>infidelity or not, chain of command or not- there is plenty of ill and no
>good to come from such behavior. So just because doing the right thing is
>"hard," we should not demand it of ourselves and others?
>

Depends on whether it really is 'the right thing' eh?


>And go ahead Gord- respond with both barrels. The tallest trees catch all
>the wind, after all.
>

Don't be silly Steve...I'd much rather debate it than fight,
wouldn't you?.

>Steve Swartz
>
>

--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

Abrigon Gusiq > wrote:

>Some recent work in sociology and like sciences, that humans are
>actually damaging their gene pool by the idea of monogamy, that humans
>for the most part are not meant to be monogamous..
>

I agree completely with them...how could it be otherwise?

>Chimps and like, the Alpha male, lords over things, but often he is so
>stressed he can not perform all the time, so the ladies go out and get
>some sex from the other males..
>
>Mike
>
>
The gene pool is weakened when sexual opportunities are narrowed
in any animal, and it's strengthened with a widening of those
opportunities. This is a well known fact and cannot be argued by
anyone.

This, of course, makes monogamy a damaging factor for the human
race.
--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

"Leslie Swartz" > wrote:

>Excellent. Let's pattern our behaviors after "Chimps and the like."
>
>Now there's a solution.

We could do worse...matter of fact we 'are' doing worse!... :)

>
>Steve Swartz
>
>(p.s. "damaging our gene pool by the idea of monogamy!?" Yes, I can see
>where some of my colleagues in the "social and like sciences" [sic] would
>wish that to be true; however, I would like the cite so's I can evaluate the
>study results myself . . .)
>

"Wish it to be true"?...you 'know' it to be true Steve...
--

-Gord.

[Leslie Swartz]

You expose some interesting assumptions on your part. Don't ignore that
"monogamy" is hardly identical to "narrowed sexual opportunities;" also
recognize that sexual behavior and breeding outcomes are also very different
things.

1. The initial opportunity sets (mono vs. poly) are identical, but once the
monogamous choice is made, the long term set is narrowed to 1 in the
monogamous case, and remains relatively unrestricted in the polygamous case.
The opportunities for variation are not "1 to 1" vs. "1 to many" as even
monogamous members follow selection and opportunity rule sets.

2. The breeding patterns and sexual patterns mon vs. poly are also not
ceteris paribus. Multiple sexual partners does not equate to multiple
variation in offspring- fertility rates between polygamous (sexual)
behaviors and monogamous (sexual) behaviors are not equal at all.

So the "benefit" [sic] of polygamous sexual behavior is quitre reduced
(particulalry in the human species) fronm the advantages we see among lower
life forms.

This entirely ignores the costs of polygamous sexual behavior, and
polygamous breeding outcomes, that are evident as well.

While I agree that many of my colleagues in the scientific community would
*wish* for certain conclusions to be true (global warming, benefits of
polygamy, equity of socialism, etc.), selective anlysis of certain data
(ignoring other evidence) does not make it so.

Regrettably, even the best mids are willing to be clouded by superstition
and faith.

Steve Swartz


"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> Abrigon Gusiq > wrote:
>
> >Some recent work in sociology and like sciences, that humans are
> >actually damaging their gene pool by the idea of monogamy, that humans
> >for the most part are not meant to be monogamous..
> >
>
> I agree completely with them...how could it be otherwise?
>
> >Chimps and like, the Alpha male, lords over things, but often he is so
> >stressed he can not perform all the time, so the ladies go out and get
> >some sex from the other males..
> >
> >Mike
> >
> >
> The gene pool is weakened when sexual opportunities are narrowed
> in any animal, and it's strengthened with a widening of those
> opportunities. This is a well known fact and cannot be argued by
> anyone.
>
> This, of course, makes monogamy a damaging factor for the human
> race.
> --
>
> -Gord.

[Leslie Swartz]

"You know it to be true" does not, in my discipline, constitute "evidence"
or even a "cite."

When you analyze the data (including the experimental design, which
determines how the data are collected) and are honest about the inferences
that follow from the analysis, many times you see results quite different
from what the authors suggest.

Examples abound. You must be jsut as critical in your reading of peer
reviewed work as you are in your reading of Time, Newsweek, etc.

Studies of the inheritability of traits and eugenics have been notoriously
flawed in hte past; including the recent past.

(Interesting suggestion, Gord, that society or even biology would "benefit"
from less monogamy! Perhaps a return to our idyllic Neolithic past? No?
How about the peaceful Nirvana of the North American continent aboriginal
societies of the 1600s?)

Steve Swartz


"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Leslie Swartz" > wrote:
>
> >Excellent. Let's pattern our behaviors after "Chimps and the like."
> >
> >Now there's a solution.
>
> We could do worse...matter of fact we 'are' doing worse!... :)
>
> >
> >Steve Swartz
> >
> >(p.s. "damaging our gene pool by the idea of monogamy!?" Yes, I can see
> >where some of my colleagues in the "social and like sciences" [sic] would
> >wish that to be true; however, I would like the cite so's I can evaluate
the
> >study results myself . . .)
> >
>
> "Wish it to be true"?...you 'know' it to be true Steve...
> --
>
> -Gord.

[[email protected]]

"Leslie Swartz" > wrote:

>So the "benefit" [sic] of polygamous sexual behavior is quitre reduced
>(particulalry in the human species) fronm the advantages we see among lower
>life forms.
>
Well Steve, you're arguing about the short term
advantages/disadvantages of 'switching' to poly from mono after
centuries of basically mono. Of course the true advantages won't
be felt immediately, but if humans had been taught for all of
that time that mono was 'bad' and poly was good then the full
advantages of the 'variety' to our gene pool would have been
felt.

>This entirely ignores the costs of polygamous sexual behavior, and
>polygamous breeding outcomes, that are evident as well.
>

What costs?


>While I agree that many of my colleagues in the scientific community would
>*wish* for certain conclusions to be true (global warming, benefits of
>polygamy, equity of socialism, etc.), selective anlysis of certain data
>(ignoring other evidence) does not make it so.
>

Ok...I don't know much about any of them really but ISTM that in
one sense at least there's no doubt of the benefit of polygamy
over monogamy.

Mind you, the total overall gain may favour monogamy but who
could argue that 'value to the gene pool' certainly lies with
variety?





>Regrettably, even the best mids are willing to be clouded by superstition
>and faith.
>
>Steve Swartz
>
>

--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

"Leslie Swartz" > wrote:

>
>(Interesting suggestion, Gord, that society or even biology would "benefit"
>from less monogamy! Perhaps a return to our idyllic Neolithic past? No?
>How about the peaceful Nirvana of the North American continent aboriginal
>societies of the 1600s?)
>
>Steve Swartz
>
>
C'mon now Steve...where did I say that anything other than 'The
Gene Pool' would benefit?. I don't know if mankind in general
would benefit but certainly the gene pool would and I would
assume that with better genes we'd be better off overall...
wouldn't we?
--

-Gord.

[Leslie Swartz]

Let's review the bidding:

1) As we stray from the main point, remember that we should at some point
get back to it: to whit, "The use of 'It's Human Nature' to excuse damaging
behaviors without regard to the net effects of those behaviors" which seemed
to set you off so much in the first place. We were, course, discussing it
in the context of military members serving in some active capacity.

2) This current discursion into the issue of sexuality with respect to
"Monogamy vs. Polygamy" has two separable components: Social Behavior (with
effects, both "bad" and "good") and Breeding Behavior (with effects both
"bad" and "good").

3) As to the Social Behavior component of the subset of the discussion,
that appears to be currently tabled. So we are now focusing only on the
Breeding Behavior sub-component of the "Mono/Poly" subcomponent of the
Sexuality subcomponent of the Military sub-component of the Use of Human
Nature to Excuse Behavior issue.

4) To make your side of the argument, you have expanded the discussion to
include "The good of the species with respect to the Gene Pool"

O.K., fine- let's nail that one down a little better at this point.
Remembering, of course, that the larger issues (which started the
discussion) should eventually come into play; ie, How Does This Involve the
Military?

So I reiterate (from a quite recent previous post, which you answered as
shown below):

************************************************** **************************
**

Swartz stated:

You expose some interesting assumptions on your part. Don't ignore that
"monogamy" is hardly identical to "narrowed sexual opportunities;" also
recognize that sexual behavior and breeding outcomes are also very different
things.

1. The initial opportunity sets (mono vs. poly) are identical, but once the
monogamous choice is made, the long term set is narrowed to 1 in the
monogamous case, and remains relatively unrestricted in the polygamous case.
The opportunities for variation are not "1 to 1" vs. "1 to many" as even
monogamous members follow selection and opportunity rule sets.

2. The breeding patterns and sexual patterns mon vs. poly are also not
ceteris paribus. Multiple sexual partners does not equate to multiple
variation in offspring- fertility rates between polygamous (sexual)
behaviors and monogamous (sexual) behaviors are not equal at all.

So the "benefit" [sic] of polygamous sexual behavior is quitre reduced
(particulalry in the human species) fronm the advantages we see among lower
life forms.

This entirely ignores the costs of polygamous sexual behavior, and
polygamous breeding outcomes, that are evident as well.

While I agree that many of my colleagues in the scientific community would
*wish* for certain conclusions to be true (global warming, benefits of
polygamy, equity of socialism, etc.), selective anlysis of certain data
(ignoring other evidence) does not make it so.

Regrettably, even the best mids are willing to be clouded by superstition
and faith.

Steve Swartz
************************************************** **************************
Answered by:

************************************************** *************************
Beeman stated (Swartz in >)

>So the "benefit" [sic] of polygamous sexual behavior is quitre reduced
>(particulalry in the human species) fronm the advantages we see among lower
>life forms.
>
Well Steve, you're arguing about the short term
advantages/disadvantages of 'switching' to poly from mono after
centuries of basically mono. Of course the true advantages won't
be felt immediately, but if humans had been taught for all of
that time that mono was 'bad' and poly was good then the full
advantages of the 'variety' to our gene pool would have been
felt.

>This entirely ignores the costs of polygamous sexual behavior, and
>polygamous breeding outcomes, that are evident as well.
>

What costs?


>While I agree that many of my colleagues in the scientific community would
>*wish* for certain conclusions to be true (global warming, benefits of
>polygamy, equity of socialism, etc.), selective anlysis of certain data
>(ignoring other evidence) does not make it so.
>

Ok...I don't know much about any of them really but ISTM that in
one sense at least there's no doubt of the benefit of polygamy
over monogamy.

Mind you, the total overall gain may favour monogamy but who
could argue that 'value to the gene pool' certainly lies with
variety?

************************************************** *************************

Swartz now rebuts:

The points you raise seem to be restated and quite answerable seri atem (the
points I make that you ignored stand as unchallenged):

1. We would be better off today in some way, unanswerable because we didn't
behave differently in the past.

Alone, this argument is abviously tautological and should be discarded out
of hand. However, I will address the implied point. We have examples today
of societies, cultures, and sub-cultures that practice(d) forms of the
polygamy you seem to recommend. How do those examples instruct us? The
results are out there for inspection. The "experiments" have already been
conducted.

2. Since we haven't really practiced polygamy (see above), there is no
evidence of the "negative consequences" that Swartz suggests.

We have experimented with polygamy in several settings (note re urban North
American family structure, 1970-present) in an environment where the
polygamous and monogamous family structures have coexisted int he same
environment. A "somewhat" direct comparison is available (although cultural
confounds abound, as in any examination of empirical data). Results suggest
several negative social and medical (though not specifically genetic)
undesirable outcomes. That's just one example. Several exist.

3. In my mond no doubt exists that there are undeniable genetic addvantages
to polygamy.

O.K., then why didn't you address the strictly geneitic side of my argument-
the caluclation of opportunity and variety? I wait with baited breath. We
can do the math- you'll find that the increase in variation that results
from the increased opportunity that polygamy provides is somewhat trivial.
You could, of course, increase the amount of variation that results by
selective breeding- do you really ant to go there? Others have- we have
experiment with those issues as well; and the results weren't that pretty.
Increased variation is not necessarily a good thing in gene pools.

We have the related argument that the gene pool has become increasingly
polluted by our failure to remove unwanted patterns fromt he gene pool (as a
negative side effect of better medicine). Care to make a comparison between
policies of, say, forced genetic mixing by state decree vs. the euthanizing
of teh handicapped?

Many unpleasant places to go withjt eh genetic argument. In any case, I
don't believe it will get you anywhere with respect to the issue of "Using
'Human Nature' to Excuse Behavior."


Steve Swartz



"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Leslie Swartz" > wrote:
>
> >
> >(Interesting suggestion, Gord, that society or even biology would
"benefit"
> >from less monogamy! Perhaps a return to our idyllic Neolithic past? No?
> >How about the peaceful Nirvana of the North American continent aboriginal
> >societies of the 1600s?)
> >
> >Steve Swartz
> >
> >
> C'mon now Steve...where did I say that anything other than 'The
> Gene Pool' would benefit?. I don't know if mankind in general
> would benefit but certainly the gene pool would and I would
> assume that with better genes we'd be better off overall...
> wouldn't we?
> --
>
> -Gord.

[[email protected]]

"Leslie Swartz" > wrote:

>Many unpleasant places to go withjt eh genetic argument. In any case, I
>don't believe it will get you anywhere with respect to the issue of "Using
>'Human Nature' to Excuse Behavior."
>
>
>Steve Swartz
>

Steve, this has suddenly become an exercise in untangling English
prose instead of discussing the benefits of one lifestyle over
another.

So, sorry to leave you with a bunch of probably unuseable
baited (sic) breath, but I've lost interest.

Again,

Sorry.
--

-Gord.

[Leslie Swartz]

Yes, I was quite prepared to win the argument over the broader negative side
effects of sexual polygamy behaviors among members serving in the armed
forces . . . the issue which launched the discussion in the first place.

However, you made claims as the genetic benefits of polygamous breeding-
claims which rested on some demonstrably false assumptions on your part.

You seemed to be quite certain that such benefits existed. As are many who
have not really studied the issue.

Are you ceding that point now as well?

Seems like just a little bit of math could make quite a convincing argument
that the increases in genetic variation from polygamous breeding would be
negligable. Perhaps even a net loss, when you consider the costs of the
"unwanted" variation which would then have to be accounted for.

At least that's what the research has shown. And a little bit of math and
reflection would demonstrate the same.

Steve Swartz



"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Leslie Swartz" > wrote:
>
> >Many unpleasant places to go withjt eh genetic argument. In any case, I
> >don't believe it will get you anywhere with respect to the issue of
"Using
> >'Human Nature' to Excuse Behavior."
> >
> >
> >Steve Swartz
> >
>
> Steve, this has suddenly become an exercise in untangling English
> prose instead of discussing the benefits of one lifestyle over
> another.
>
> So, sorry to leave you with a bunch of probably unuseable
> baited (sic) breath, but I've lost interest.
>
> Again,
>
> Sorry.
> --
>
> -Gord.

[[email protected]]

"Leslie Swartz" > wrote:

>Yes, I was quite prepared to win the argument over the broader negative side
>effects of sexual polygamy behaviors among members serving in the armed
>forces . . . the issue which launched the discussion in the first place.
>
>However, you made claims as the genetic benefits of polygamous breeding-
>claims which rested on some demonstrably false assumptions on your part.
>
>You seemed to be quite certain that such benefits existed. As are many who
>have not really studied the issue.
>
>Are you ceding that point now as well?
>
>Seems like just a little bit of math could make quite a convincing argument
>that the increases in genetic variation from polygamous breeding would be
>negligable. Perhaps even a net loss, when you consider the costs of the
>"unwanted" variation which would then have to be accounted for.
>
>At least that's what the research has shown. And a little bit of math and
>reflection would demonstrate the same.
>
>Steve Swartz
>
>

Just to make us even steven...

I seed nothing, and,
you can unbait your breath now.

:)
:)

(most of the foregoing is sic)
--

-Gord.