Old story that seems to have an above board process WRT CNO's actions - retained until the investigation is complete, then fired. Am I missing something?
To Brett: I know it's an old story. It's the same story that led to him having to apologize at a press conference and again in testimony on the Hill.
But apparently only on the CNO staff do you get to keep your job until the investigation is complete...Tell me what fleet O-5 wouldn't have appreciated the same "courtesy" under similar circumstances. CNO mishandled the case from the beginning; those chickens have come home to roost. Whatever communication VCNO had with the dude can be debated and characterized in any number of ways, but I think it's pretty easy for most reasonable adults to conclude it was poor headwork. But, so bad as to lead to the outcome he/we got..?
In general: This is, in a small way, part of a self-induced problem where we use the phrase "sexual assault" in too broad of a sense. Sexaul assault is abhorent and when it occurs it constitutes a grave violation of trust in the ranks. When we throw the term around and use it to describe acts that in ANY other legal setting are not "sexual assault" we create mine fields for ourselves.
I know and anticipate the counter-arguments to that sentiment - cool... As I wrote to a member in a PM, two things (as in most cases) can be true at the same time: sexual assault is stain on the fabric of our service and ethos; and we've gone WAY too far. Both things are true.