The female captain didn't even get in trouble even though fraternization is considered criminal in the military. Her leadership swept it under the rug and didn't hold her accountable. She has no integrity, either. She was rewarded an got an assignment to Alaska and took their illegitimate child with her. The enlisted E7 is a deadbeat Dad to his other child he had with another enlisted member, but plays father of the year with the captain's child. The enlisted parent of his first child attempted to have an at home DNA test done, but E7 refused, so enlisted parent got a court order DNA test done to prove he was the child' father. No DNA test done on the Captain' child because it would prove fraternization and they both would get kicked out. The E7 who is about to retire claims the captain's child though.The Captain also got chlamydia from the E7 when she went for her 6 week checkup. Is this trifling or what for a military officer to still be able to serve when she broke the law?
2007-08-21 04:46:42 · 20 answers · asked by ♥♥JDub♥♥ 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
This question was posed not to give a crap about who's sleeping with who, or who had a baby with who, military members are held to a higher standard than regular civilians. When these people work with weapons and a relationship, sexual or otherwise, that should not have started in the first place has an affect on good order and discipline. If you have never been in the military, you would answer the question as who cares or they should get 40 years because civilian lifestyle is NOT military lifestyle. When you're an officer your human male female intuition have to be curbed when you're a horny toad. Your position is weakened and you cannot lead your people when they all know that you were sleeping with an enlisted member. There are rules/laws that military members CHOOSE when they raise their right hand to an oath of enlistment or commission. Your pick of the litter has to fall into those rules when the litter is slim and you go out that circle you are held accountable in MOST cases.
2007-08-21 05:54:51 · update #1
Higher ranks always get away with stuff that junior enlisted get clamped down on for.
2007-08-21 05:02:06 · answer #1 · answered by ThatOneDude 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
How do you know all this, and how can you be sure you even have the whole story? Are you even sure that an O3 and E7 having an affair is considered fraternization?
When SHE broke the law? What about HIM? In cases of fraternization, I believe both parties get in trouble, not just the higher ranking one.
2007-08-21 06:06:10 · answer #2 · answered by littlevivi 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't look for the O3 to make O6. Her career's stagnant, and that's going to be enough for most folks, the scorned woman excepted. Likewise, it's easier to just let the guy retire than go through all the stink, and the problem will go away. And his retirement will be a good source of income to pay child support on the other child.
2007-08-21 05:29:39 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
In my 22 years in a uniform it never ceases to amaze me that the military attempts to legislate morality. Like as soon as you put on a uniform your natural human emotions somehow just magically evaporate. Or as soon as you put on bars you are suddenly repulsive. The Navy put women on ships and then sent those ships to sea for months on end. A lot of women wound up pregnant. Duh! But of course the brass scratches their pointy heads and wonders what happened. It's frustrating to say the least.
If you really want to see some good old fashioned military in-justice go to militarycorruption.com. Their slogan is "different spanks for different ranks." Enlisted get crucified while officers who commit the same crime are promoted and transferred.
2007-08-21 05:05:12 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Just do not move. Just seeing that you're invited, does now not imply that you just have got to attend. The most effective factor to consider is, if making a decision to disregard those "lifestyles occasion celebrations" now, however have your possess sooner or later, what is going round, comes round. Personally, I might by no means have a bath, seeing that I do not consider in them. However, if I am invited to a bath, I would possibly or would possibly not move, relying on my courting with the honoree. But I gave up years in the past the belief that I used to be obligated to wait.
2016-09-05 08:16:04 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your the mother of the E7's other children aren't you?
If they are not in the same command sometimes the other cheek is turned.
I don't think you want to know my opinion of the above
Perhaps if you are seeking more attention maybe call Jerry Springer
2007-08-21 06:18:38 · answer #6 · answered by shvrx 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
In most cases it is frowned upon but if they are not in the same chain of command or one does not to appear to have undue favoritism the military does not do any thing about it.
2007-08-21 05:49:59 · answer #7 · answered by SSGAllan 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would have to say the assignment to Alaska was her punishment--not that that is much of a punishment. Many times they believe that separating the "problems" will erase the possibly of something happening again between these two individuals.
2007-08-21 05:10:49 · answer #8 · answered by Beth 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
So what do you want done ?
40 years in prison?
EDIT:
You never mentioned that they were in the same chain of command, now did you ?
Again, what do you expect to be done ?
You want them court martialed ??
Immediantly separated from the service?
Each case is looked at on a case by case basis.
2007-08-21 04:55:52 · answer #9 · answered by jeeper_peeper321 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
aw geeez, get a life, the 2 had a kid,, the guy shouldnt be a deadbeat dad but thats not the point here, they should go after him for being a deadbeat,, biug deal she had sex,, wow
2007-08-21 06:36:09 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋