DUI arrest but not charged

An arrest isn't a conviction, a conviction is a conviction. Once we start looking at arrests as convictions we've defeated the entire purpose and logic of the legal system.

What would be the difference if the OP had been arrested for murder but then found not guilty at trial? Would he still be denied? If so, on what grounds? I think his spot getting pulled is a load of horseshit. I have a foot to stand on too, I was rolled up in high school and the charges were subsequently dropped and guess what, here I am.

If he's toking, that's not tea.

That statement is way too broad to be accurate. I know a couple of guys who were IN the military, got arrested and 'charged' with a DUI but then had the charges dropped.
Until they were dropped the individuals lost their security clearances so they could not fly until the matter was fully adjudicated.
Once the charges were changed to reckless driving and excessive speed, then they reapplied for their security clearance and got back in the aircraft. (1 was a pilot, one was an AW).
Hell, one guy was IN COMMAND of a squadron and he fought to get it dropped down and was allowed to remain in command.

Before you get your wings however, you are expendable in the Navy's eyes. Until you are qual'd you are just a percentage; how many can we get rid of through various means and still make our production goal?
If you are NOT in the military and get arrested, have the charges dropped but still get rejected, that's tough. There are far more applicants than we have slots open.
It is fair? You can argue that its not, but it is how the Navy operates. They can afford to reject a candidate for one incident because the Navy has the power when your applying. There are plenty of folks with comparable grades, the same test scores and did not get arrested and charged for DUI. So, they Navy will reject candidate A with the police record in favor of candidate B who may be almost exactly the same but have not had a run-in with the law.
Once you get your wings, the dynamics are changed a bit. If the Navy decides to get rid of you then that opens a hole in a unit that Big Navy needs to fill immediately.

Not disagreeing, but casualties is a cost of doing business in combat. Kicking folks out for a civil matter is a bit different.
My use of expendable is as an "admin loss" vice a "combat loss" but I do see your point.

So call me nitpicky- but you FAILED FSTs after two beers?? Where you then asked to blow or taken to the station/hospital for further testing?? What EXACTLY made it a "bad arrest"?? Did he do paperwork wrong or was there some other issue??

(Sorry...I know that post was a bit back...but I usually avoid threads like this because of the heated opinions that normally present themselves.)

The base command chief here (AF) was out with the gate cops one Friday night watching their 100% DUI check for a few hours. During a lull he decided to try the field test. After having been at work 18 hours he failed it stone cold sober.

On the acceptable losses front, there's a huge difference between sending folks into combat knowing they'll be taken out by the enemy and taking them out yourself.

THIS!!

We are very good at applying ORM when the time comes to strap on our birds and break the surly bonds, but I'd argue that we pay lip service to it on the ground. More than a handful of times in CONUS I'd have to show up at work at 1200 to finalize the plans for a 1300 brief, fly until midnight, and then post-flight/debrief until 0300 or later. Even after, say, a 6+ hour LLL division desert CAL flight, the single most dangerous thing I did during that day was drive home after the debrief. (It was even more humorous when I'd have to be in at 0800 for a safety standdown...)

Instead of simply printing out a MarineNet/KNO certificate every year saying that we're ORM ninjas, maybe we need to continue to study the "Limits" section in the Human NATOPS.

I'm an idiot. Teetotaler.

DUI is too easy to focus on. Let's say that the OP had his few beers, met a chick that he thought was hot (obviously the beers talking), then took her home to complete the home run. She isn't wasted and falling all over herself so he thinks nothing of it. She wakes up and cries fowl. He of course is arrested. If the DA finds that there is no evidence of wrongdoing and drops the charges, then why should the Navy hold that against him? I get that there are lots of applicants. If you are found not guilty (or charges dropped), you are not guilty.

Because the Navy's command structure is full of a lot of Holier-Than-Thou's that figure you must have done something wrong to be arrested, even if you beat the conviction.

I was arrested, and led out of my squadron in cuffs and shackles on aggrivated assault and battery charges. Turns out, the ex had beaten herself with a pan in the face to make it look like I hit her, but the age of the bruises didn't jive with when she said I did it, and I was flying/otherwise seen at work without the hour and a half needed to go home, hit her, and drive back when it could have happened. DA dropped the charges.

My CO continued to hammer me for something I was arrested for, even though she admitted to faking it under oath. Because "you must have done SOMETHING" and then gave her everything she wanted under the MILPERSMAN that directed temporary spousal support, giving me NEGATIVE $300 a month to live on (was taking home $4200/mo, he gave her $3500, my student loans and truck payment was $1200 combined, nevermind eating, or a place to live)

So yeah. There are a bunch of holier than thou, arrest = conviction fucktards in charge. CO in question is (or recently was) HSMWINGLANT Commodore.

There was a 2nd Lt at MATSG in Pcola who was the subject of a wrongful arrest. ("Hey, grab the guy in the black jacket by the door!" says the bartender to the cop. He was the other guy in the black jacket) Police admitted fault, bartender admitted wrong guy. Police actually submit a public apology to said 2nd Lt AND the command. CO of MATSG says something similar to above and tries to ADSEP the guy because he wouldn't have gotten arrested if he didn't do anything wrong. 2nd Lt requests mast (against the guidance of the command) and gets it overturned. However they still moved him out of the flight program because it would look bad to every other Marine in this COs command to see his decision overturned. So he got his choice of infantry, arty or tanks. He chose arty.

Brett,
I wouldn't know about it. Every job application I have ever filled out asks for convictions, not arrests. As a matter of fact, there is a push to make it illegal for me to even ask about convictions before hiring someone. I understand the point that you are making, I just don't agree with it.

...except for military and government employment and other applications, which routinely ask if you have EVER been arrested, detained, etc., by any law enforcement entity, even if not convicted or even charged.

Bullshit. If society has changed and is less accepting of DUIs then explain to me why the DUI laws in most states are as absurdly lenient as they are. Why are there people out there racking up four, five, and six DUIs? If our country really had a hard on about fixing the problem, people would be doing jail time - paying HUGE fines, and losing the privilege of driving for years. That is not going to happen though.

for example.....

Six? That's nothing...

Seven
Eight
Nine
Ten
Eleven
Twelve
Thirteen
Fourteen
Fifteen

Gotta love Wisconsin!

What if BUPERS had data showing that people from <insert town/zipcode here> were statistically more likely to become criminals?

This is mostly what I'm getting at. There are a lot of rabbit holes we could go down by saying statistically (insert generalization here) people are a higher risk for us to accept. If the DA can't put it on you, then the Navy shouldn't either.

You think 15 is a lot, how about this:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ts-sentenced-7-years-prison-article-1.1036553

I can say right now the navy is looking for reasons to push application to the side and if there is a single blip it may not be a selection board killer but I would advise one of my applicants to get supporting documentation such as if he was arrested and not charged a letter why not, did a person arrested for DUI actual blow .00 then a letter from the prosecutors office may negate any negative view, but if a person wasn't charged because policy is not to charge someone below .08 then a letter showing they were .06 is still not good.

I can also tell you the selection for SNA is currently very lenient, the last board selected one person with 3 ARI's and quite a bit of MJ use, another I just found out about had 2 DUI's but one was reduced to reckless, these are just ones I have first hand knowledge of.

Nobody has a right to be an officer in any branch of the military. Any service can use any discriminator not barred by federal law or its own internal processes. Brett is correct, fair has nothing to do with it.