Serious Question!!!

[insanebikerboy]

I don't understand how you riding as the pax in a car can result in you having an ARI. If you weren't driving, you were not underage, and you weren't being an asshole to the cops that busted your buddy, what did you do to get tossed in the drunk tank?

That said, I have heard of cops letting guys sleep off a bender in the drunk tank with no charges being filed just to give them a place to sober up. I just can't see how this is an ARI unless you screwed the pooch somewhere along the way.

 

[KBayDog]

I just can't see how this is an ARI unless you screwed the pooch somewhere along the way.

Simple. This was an "incident" where alcohol was involved.

Like it or not, that's the reality of it.

 

[squorch2]

Along the lines of this, I don't understand being thrown in the drunk tank when you're not charged with anything.

 

[Brett327]

I don't understand how you riding as the pax in a car can result in you having an ARI. If you weren't driving, you were not underage, and you weren't being an asshole to the cops that busted your buddy, what did you do to get tossed in the drunk tank?

That said, I have heard of cops letting guys sleep off a bender in the drunk tank with no charges being filed just to give them a place to sober up. I just can't see how this is an ARI unless you screwed the pooch somewhere along the way.

I don't know if he was charged with anything, but some states have some pretty draconian public intoxication laws they can pull out of their ass when they want to. I agree that unless the guy was falling over drunk (which it doesn't sound like he was), they should have let him call a cab and go on his way. At the end of the day, ARI isn't a charge or legal term of art. It's up to the command how they want to label it and handle it.

 

[707guy]

Boy things sure have changed...I don't even think that would have been an "on-paper" counseling session when I was in.

 

[gotta_fly]

From the detail given your LCPO should be addressing this and thats as high as it really "should" go. You told your LPO and LCPO, no need to tell anyone else anything. Hopefully you have a LCPO that can differentiate between an issue that needs to be elevated and an issue can be handled at his/her level.

I disagree with you here. With the way the Navy is right now, not informing the chain of command about anything alcohol-related is playing with fire. In addition, local law enforcement is involved. There's a chance that the skipper won't want to do anything, but there's also the chance he will. At the end of the day, he's the only one who should be making that decision, not the LCPO, since he's the one liable to big Navy.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

 

[KBayDog]

From the detail given your LCPO should be addressing this and thats as high as it really "should" go.

I agree that the LCPO is as high as it "should" go. It would be nice if things could be kept at the lowest level, but the fact of the matter is that in the 2012 DoN, ARIs tend to be CCIRs that rank right up there with deaths, mishaps, UA, etc. As gotta_fly said, not informing the Chain is a recipe for disaster.

At the end of the day, ARI isn't a charge or legal term of art. It's up to the command how they want to label it and handle it.

Agreed. "ARI" is one of those terms I only started hearing within the past 2-3 years, and I'm not sure anybody knows what it means. It seems like a catch-all term that is designed to discourage us from imbibing at all. Prior to that, it was simple: DWI (then DUI)...everything else was what it was (i.e., a fight, an accident, etc.) However, if you've noticed, most/all of our Flash-type reports have a line that says something along the lines of "Was alcohol involved?"

My ARI post was tongue-in-cheek; is any incident related to alcohol an ARI? If I slam a few pints of Pliny (the Younger ) on an empty stomach and go for a spin, that seems like it's a textbook DUI (or DWI, as we used to call it). However, what if I'm tubing down the river with a few cases of PBR and get attacked by a rabid beaver...is that an ARI? What if I'm grilling and burn my hand with a MGD in the other?

Yes, this "ARI" thing can get absurd...but only because we in the military have a nasty habit of periodically introducing Buzzword Bingo-friendly terms that gain popularity and enjoy widespread usage without most people having the slightest clue what they mean. (Cue Lt Beltbuckle...)

 

[robav8r]

However, what if I'm tubing down the river . . . . .

You mean like this guy ?

 

[jeeplovindad]

To clear this up a little - I'm a DAPA - the Navy defines an ARI as an incident punishable under the UCMJ or civilian law, committed by a servicemember where that servicemember's CO deems that alcohol was a direct factor in the offense. Very broad yet very specific at the same time. My command sent three people up to NJP for the same thing not more than a year ago. All three were awarded punishments as a result. However, they appealed the ruling after the fact and had the decision overturned by the CO's superior. Good luck, but if the COC wants to push forward you may have a bumpy road ahead.

 

[Popo Jijo]

However, what if I'm tubing down the river with a few cases of PBR and get attacked by a rabid beaver...is that an ARI?

Curse those crazy beavers...

 

[Jim123]

Curse those crazy beavers...

It's a crazy world out there!

 

[BackOrdered]

Basically ARI is like a Diet DUI.

 

[phrogpilot73]

Not telling your command ASAP is also one sure way to piss them off. Also, you could forget any chances of them going to bat for you. Bad news never gets better with time.

The guy said his LPO and LCPO are already in the loop.

From the detail given your LCPO should be addressing this and thats as high as it really "should" go. You told your LPO and LCPO, no need to tell anyone else anything. Hopefully you have a LCPO that can differentiate between an issue that needs to be elevated and an issue can be handled at his/her level.

I disagree with you here. With the way the Navy is right now, not informing the chain of command about anything alcohol-related is playing with fire.

I agree that the LCPO is as high as it "should" go. It would be nice if things could be kept at the lowest level, but the fact of the matter is that in the 2012 DoN, ARIs tend to be CCIRs that rank right up there with deaths, mishaps, UA, etc. As gotta_fly said, not informing the Chain is a recipe for disaster.

As much as it pains me to say this, I agree with Brett and Trader on this one.

He HAS informed his chain of command. He's a fucking E-4 for god's sake. His chain of command STARTS with his LPO, then goes up from there. If his LCPO/DivO fails to inform the headshed, that's THEIR balls to get crushed, not his.

Take a step back and think back to when you were an E-4. It's not like you wandered into the CO's office to break some bad news to him regardless of what your LPO/LCPO (NCOIC/SNCOIC) said. You let THEM handle the issue, or you got crushed. As well you should have.

OP - If you've informed your LPO/LCPO, probably the highest you should go to make sure the command knows is your DivO.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

From the detail given your LCPO should be addressing this and thats as high as it really "should" go. You told your LPO and LCPO, no need to tell anyone else anything. Hopefully you have a LCPO that can differentiate between an issue that needs to be elevated and an issue can be handled at his/her level.

I agree with the others, this is not an LCPO issue, or at least not anymore. Let's see how this could go south, sailor has this handled at LCPO level, then a few months later he is under the influence and something happens, COC notified, investigation starts, then it comes out he had the previous issue, questions like "who knew about this", and "why didn't anyone else know" start, as well as "if we would have had him screened by DAPA this may have not happened", basically lots of questions and attention no one wants.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

To clear this up a little - I'm a DAPA - the Navy defines an ARI as an incident punishable under the UCMJ or civilian law, committed by a servicemember where that servicemember's CO deems that alcohol was a direct factor in the offense. Very broad yet very specific at the same time. My command sent three people up to NJP for the same thing not more than a year ago. All three were awarded punishments as a result. However, they appealed the ruling after the fact and had the decision overturned by the CO's superior. Good luck, but if the COC wants to push forward you may have a bumpy road ahead.

I had a CO do the same thing, said you shall not get into a car where you know the driver is impaired, I saw a couple go to NJP, not for ARI, disobeying direct order.