STA- Who wants it?

[k_smittay]

And in phrog's example, that 3rd class made adult decisions, he just lacked the experience in that case. Those are the people we should try to retain, individuals who took precautions and made adult decisions, but still made a mistake. (I'm agreeing with you btw)

A black and white view of all situations does everyone a disservice.

Ok.. I see your point. Now I throw this at you everybody who was bashing me earlier....

We give the DUI guys another chance and a relative slap on the wrist and they have a chance to save their careers....

Why do we not give the good hard workers who smoked pot in the comfort of their homes or maybe at a party a second chance?? Even though chances are, the consequences of their actions would have been much less than if they drive drunk? I ask you that.... if you can give me a solid answer as to why we treat it differently I will change my thought process.

 

[HH-60H]

Why do we not give the good hard workers who smoked pot in the comfort of their homes or maybe at a party a second chance?? Even though chances are, the consequences of their actions would have been much less than if they drive drunk? I ask you that.... if you can give me a solid answer as to why we treat it differently I will change my thought process.

Because there are no adult or responsible decisions that can lead to smoking pot. In phrog's example, the 3rd class made responsible, albeit inexperienced decisions. In your example, experience has nothing to do with it.

Also, the act of drinking is not illegal, but driving under the influence is. In phrog's example, the 3rd recognized and tried to prevent driving under the influence, he just didn't know his body well enough.

The act of smoking pot IS illegal.

 

[BigIron]

Because it's illegal to possess and/or use pot (any illegal drug, actually) in the US.

Alcohol is not illegal or persons 21 or older in CONUS. The Navy wants people of age to use alcohol responsibly. Again, the employer puts the onus on the employee to be a reasonable adult. The Navy has put control mechanisms on alcohol by restricting it for personnel involved in flying and flight deck work.

Interesting blog about it...

 

[k_smittay]

Because there are no adult or responsible decisions that can lead to smoking pot. In phrog's example, the 3rd class made responsible, albeit inexperienced decisions. In your example, experience has nothing to do with it.

Also, the act of drinking is not illegal, but driving under the influence is. In phrog's example, the 3rd recognized and tried to prevent driving under the influence, he just didn't know his body well enough.

The act of smoking pot IS illegal.

Ok.. so we agree that driving under the influence and smoking pot are BOTH illegal. Why the different punishments and different views on them? Shouldn't both have the same punishment if both are illegal?

 

[cyristvirus]

I am not going to read all that, but at least we got our minds off the sta-21 for a bit

 

[HH-60H]

Ok.. so we agree that driving under the influence and smoking pot are BOTH illegal. Why the different punishments and different views on them? Shouldn't both have the same punishment if both are illegal?

Going back to phrog's example, the 3rd class THOUGHT he was ok. He didn't knowingly get on the road under the influence. A little more experience and he might have recognized that he still was under the influence.

Equally important in evaluating his situation is that he demonstrated, by not leaving for an hour, that he was trying to exercise good judgement, it just turned out that he was wrong.

Here's a drug example.... I sat on a ADSEP board where the individual popped positive for a controlled substance. He claimed that he took a couple pills from a friend, but didn't know they were illegal (I can't remember what drug it was).

If that was the whole situation we probably would have voted for retention.

However, it turned out that he thought he was taking a prescription drug, a drug that was prescribed for his friend. Totally different situation....

He put himself into that poor situation AND did not demonstrate that he took any precautions or made any adult decisions. In the end we voted for separation, but not a BCD because of his superior performance and support from his COC.

 

[BigIron]

Also because the Navy has a top down policy called Zero Tolerance for illegal drug use. It's standardized throughout the Navy and gives commanders clear (as clear as the Navy gets) guidance on administering discipline to the accused. Use drugs and you're ADSEP'd out (basically). Hands are tied.

There is no similar policy for DUI. It seems to be left to the regional commanders. When it's left to the region, or even local handling there is always room for interpretation and applying justice based on the merit of the case. Examples:

http://www.navytimes.com/legacy/new/0-NAVYPAPER-2008800.php

http://www.dwi.com/blog/2006-08/navy-cracks-down-on-dui

I can't even remember what the argument is about at this point. I get the impression you want sailors immediately adsep'd for DUI. It's not happening right now. As this becomes more of a hot issue for the Navy, it is my opinion this is where it will probably end up.

Remember, when the judge's (CO) hands are tied, there is nothing he/she can do to save you. Be careful of what you wish for. No one is immune from making bad choices with consequences.

 

[HH-60H]

Use drugs and you're ADSEP'd out (basically). Hands are tied.

Funny that you say that. On that ADSEP board we mentioned, we could have actually voted for retention. I realize that the CO could have overruled up, but I believe there is a little wiggle room, but can't say for sure.

And like you said, be careful what you wish for... imagine if during the ADSEP board it could be shown that the Sailor did take a pill from his buddy thinking it was an OTC painkiller, but turned out to be a controlled substance. Should there be no wriggle room for that? (@k_smittay)

In fact, come to think of it, I personally know a Sailor who beat a drug ADSEP board. The reason I know is because I did the JAGMAN for the second time he got busted with drugs.

 

[BigIron]

I think it means the member will be processed for an ADSEP. What happens during the process maybe a different animal as far as retention or separation.

 

[phrogpilot73]

Our command just came up with a policy that if we go 90 days without an alcohol related mishap, we all get a 96 hour lib. so far its been 70 something days. Positive re enforcement can be a powerful thing.

Interesting tactic, I hope that works, if so it would be a great tool.

Just from my own experience - the carrot (96 hour libs indicated above) work better than the bat (brig time). Had a group CO that was a hard ass and fried every alcohol related incident that came along. New group CO made it group policy that if you went 90 days without an alcohol related incident that we got a 96.

Under the old CO, we had 3 or 4 in about a 6 month window. Under the new CO we went a year and a half without a single incident. Man, those 96's were nice...

 

[DeltaVictorFC2]

So about that 96, apparently, 6 days ago right before we got underway, someone got in trouble with booze. I noticed our counter started over and is at 6 days now, and after we pulled in I heard them announce Captains mast on the 1MC. So much for that 96, still dont know what happened, I hauled ass as soon as liberty was put down. So close, but some just dont care.

 

[The Stoic]

Our command just came up with a policy that if we go 90 days without an alcohol related mishap, we all get a 96 hour lib. so far its been 70 something days. Positive re enforcement can be a powerful thing.

Agree, there's more than one way to skin a sailor. There are consequences and then moral decisions. I feel the answer is somewhere in between the argument. It really comes down to the person, the situation and CO's that can make sound judgment. Some guys should get the boot, some should be reprimanded and allowed to continue. They may just become great leaders who are vital beings.

 

[cyristvirus]

Thats a great idea with the 92 lib. I know it would cut down on DUIs in my command.

 

[HH-60H]

No my sister was killed by a drunk driver. So I have different feelings I guess. Like I said, agree to disagree. To bad you all get so personal. I guess you wont understand.

Yeah, we all took it personally, like when you called me "an arrogant douche bag." Just because you are narrow minded and let your emotions get in the way of seeing the bigger picture don't start attacking us.

You keep emailing/PMing me, telling me not to judge you since I don't know you...

So how many combat hours DO you have? Unless you have more than 1 don't go judging other people's effectiveness in combat, either put up or shut up. :icon_rage

 

[cyristvirus]

I judge you, every single day of your life.