If I could take a moment, (shoves Tripler off the soap box)
Don’t drive if you’ve been indulging in ANY chemical refreshment. Yes, this includes you potheads. If you are chemically impaired, you sure as shit shouldn’t be driving. I’m all for DD but hey, I’m really sick of folks saying all they did was smoke pot all night and they are fine to drive.
No, you are not. Nor are you meth heads. Or anyone doing any drug that impairs them in anyway. Everyone gets all bent on alcohol, like, that’s the killer. And it is. But anything that impairs your ability to drive a car, like pot, or meth or X or whatever, don’t fucking drive.
It’s a hell of lot cheaper to call a cab than to have to hire a lawyer to defend you.
And you sure as shit don’t want a bitch like me on your ass.
Byz
(who has lost three to drunks, and one to a meth head.)
Trip - I have no problem if any individual takes it upon themselves to help some one not kill themselves and other people.
I have a bigger problem if it’s an assignment for some one. And an even bigger one if the assignment is coming from a governmental employee.
Solutions that don’t involve paying some one to haul his ijiot ass out of the bar:
Restrict him to base/quarters.
Remove his keys/driving privileges
Make the bar ‘off limits’ to him.
Send him to a treatment program.
All of which, since he’s a member of the armed services, would be
possible, if my ex was correct in what he 'splained to me.
What seems critically wrong is to allow to continue to be on active service a member whom you can’t trust. Frankly if he needs the level of babysitting that you’re putting forth, he should be in treatment and not on active duty.
This is NOT to say that everyone who’s been arrested for OUIL should be sent immediately to treatment. - but if his commanding officers are that concerned that he might ‘do it again’ that they’ve assigned some one to be on call in case he’s seen in that situation, it seems clear to me that the level of problem is serious enough to warrent the options listed.
wring… that’s what they do IF the servicemember gets caught in the first place.
Most of these are kids who are away from home for the first time, have some money in their pocket, and not a lot of common sense about living on their own. Bad combination.
What the Navy does is either send you to see the Captain, which will involve restriction to base or ship, an evaluation by a drug and alcohol counselor, and one of three phases of alcohol education and/or treatment ranging from simple education to full-fledged rehab. Occasionally, there is brig time involved, if the civilian authority has made an arrest. None of this helps if the servicemember isn’t caught. I’ve known people who drove numerous times under the influence and were never caught, even though they should’ve been.
Also, I’ve been to many AA meetings, and there are often people sentenced to meetings as a result of a DUI conviction. The lucky ones are the ones who were “just” driving recklessly. The unlucky ones were the ones who were convicted of vehicular manslaughter after they hit and killed someone else. Did they get shafted? No, they did something stupid and illegal and are expected to accept the consequences of their actions.
Robyn with all due respect, it seemed from the OP that the commanding officer knew about the event, hence the assignment. (there was an accident, a child was injured etc.)
and his driving apparently has been restricted by some one. Why isn’t he restricted from bars? why isn’t he in treatment?
You misstate (generalize incorrectly) who “most of these” are. I have seen commanding officers cover up the event when a commissioned officer is caught DUI on base and the same CO end an enlisted member’s career for a first offense. DUI in the military, just like in the civilian world, has offenders from all the strata.
The OP didn’t really get into any other punishments or treatment besides the need for someone within the command to act as an “on call” designated driver. Chances are, however, if he is restricted from driving on base, he’s also banned from the base club and if the incident happened out in town, the cops probably have him on a VERY short leash. The civilian authority in most military towns tends to do that with military personnel.
and, if all of the above is true, then he wouldn’t need a designated (and ordered) babysitter as described.
I got the impression (and it was only an impression mind you) that the main concern was not necessarily to get him to stop drinking, but rather to insure that should he get drunk again (and they were assuming that he would) and should he attempt to drive while drinking again (and they were assuming he would) that they’d have a plan in place to make sure nothing else bad happened.
while I"m in favor of ‘nothing else bad happening’, I submit that if the risk of it was to the level that his CO had to ‘order’ some one to be on call for him, then the little ijiot needs to be in treatment or in the brig. (see Monty’s point). I do not feel it’s a ‘good’ situation that we have some one on active duty who needs this level of intervention to be ordered.
As I said, my observations are just that. I am well aware that COs will try to keep commissioned officers’ indiscretions under wraps for the sake of the officer’s career. Also, many habitual DUI offenders learn to beat the system when it comes to actually being caught by police, and most of them can make it through an alcoholism screening with no fear of being detected.
What I got out of the OP was not that this “on call” person was designated to one person. What I got was that “because we’ve had problems with DUIs, we’re now going to implement a preventive program to keep members of this unit from driving drunk in the first place.” It’s not the command’s job to take the place of the parent and hold the member’s hand at all times. It IS the command’s job to properly educate its members as to the effects of alcohol and to enforce the regulations that are on the books.
Unless I’m completely misreading the OP, Trip didn’t even get into any additional punishment that the servicemembers got. I suspect that if a child was injured, it was considerable.
It’s so easy to forget, but you know the wording on some packages of medications? “DO NOT OPERATE HEAVY MACHINERY AFTER TAKING THIS MEDICINE” (Or similiar words.) Guess what folks? Your CAR qualifies as HEAVY MACHINERY! (Well, except maybe one of those Mini’s…;)) Yes, you can be arrested for driving under the influcence, if your medicine (cold, flu, whatever) has impared your ability to drive. (Is it just me, or are more places now using a more generic ‘driving while impared’ so that’ll cover more situations?)
In short, if your judgement is impared in any way from anything, find an alternative to driving. If you’re impared from lack of sleep, take a nap. (Just pull into your local Wal-Mart parking lot: they (from what I understand) have an open policy that if you need a place to catch a snooze, feel free to park in their parking lot and catch a few zz’s.) If your driving is impared from medicine, follow the same steps as if you had too much to drink. If your driving is impared because you’re too mad to see straight, just sit there in your car and calm down.
Maybe if you’re convicted of DUI/DWI, you should have to take a tour of a rehab unit, and see the results firsthand of what driving while impared can do…
Sorry, I read it as “the squadron has to keep one person on call each week to give you an option”.
Perhaps he meant it as a general rule for general ijiots, I read it as it was posted.
And my comment stands. If thats the level of babysitting this particular person needs to have, he needs to be absolutely not on active duty at all. Sit his ass in the brig or in treatment, on suspension, I don’t care.
First off: If someone is merely suspected of an alcohol-related offense, either on-base or off-base, his on-base driving privileges are suspended (usually for one year). If the case is dismissed or otherwise concluded in the suspected offender’s favour, then the suspension of driving privileges is rescinded. The base clubs are not placed off-limits to the individual unless the club management (yes, that’s a different group of people than the command structure) issues a ban to the individual for the individual’s misbehaviour in the club system.
Next off: A suspension of on-base driving privileges has no effect whatsoever on the individual’s off-base driving privileges. The civil authorities will suspend someone’s driving privileges within the entire state pursuant to the laws in that state.
Finally: WTF do you mean by “[…]if the incident happened out in town, the cops probably have him on a VERY short leash. The civilian authority in most military towns tends to do that with military personnel?” I can’t even fathom how someone can believe that this is true.
If the incident happened off-base, then the case is in the civilian court system. The police will continue to enforce the laws of said civilian court system, without regard to the person’s military status. (Actually, there is one benny for the military suspect in such matters–they get turned over to the base command instead of camping out in jail until they can make bail–it’s called “courtesy turnover.”) The fact of someone being in the military isn’t always so obvious and thus it’s kind of impossible to being doing the “short leash” thing you postulate.
If the incident happened on-base, it has no bearing within the civilian court system unless the suspect is a family member (formerly known as dependent), in which case the federal court system takes care of it–NOT the state or city courts.
Out of idle curiosity: Do you have any idea of what you’re talking about?
This last query brought to you by your retired PN1, USN, Monty.
Monty, I do know what I’m talking about. having been in the Navy (and associated with various AA and recovery groups therein), and having attended AA meetings in military and non-military towns, I’ve got a very good idea of what happens. I may not know the regulations, per se, but I am willing to believe there is a difference between what the regs say and what really happens.
First of all, the base police department sends a list of people restricted from the base clubs. A lot of these people are on restriction for other offenses, but it does include those who are being punished for alcohol-related offenses. Base clubs are private, but they exist at the sufferance of the base authority. If I were the base police, and I said “keep PN1 Monty out of the club”, they would do so.
Second, many people are dealt with without benefit of legal proceedings. If a servicemember has been identified as possibly having an alcohol problem, they are sent to the Drug and Alcohol Adviser for further diagnosis and treatment. Often, informal treatment is initiated before counseling or formal inpatient rehab. Informal treatment generally consists of x number of AA meetings a week and a weekly meeting with the DAPA. If the servicemember continues to drink or avoid meetings, legal proceedings are initiated, or the member is referred to more intensive treatment. Otherwise, the member goes to meetings, stays sober, and the whole affair is kept reasonably quiet, and possibly off the servicemember’s record. (This is how my own problem was identified and treated. I could’ve gone up for assault charges, since I was accused of threatening to beat someone up, however, it was felt that legal charges would be unnecessary. I was required to attend 4 meetings per week, meet with the DAPA weekly, and have been sober since then.)
Further, civilian authorities tend to keep military personnel on a short leash to begin with, at least when the military person is in the civilian community. In the case of habitual offenders, police are likely to know them and are prepared to take action. I don’t blame them for doing so.
The evidence at hand, your posts here, disproves that notion.
No, you have a good idea of your limited observations. I am maintaining that you are giving your observations (and prejudices) the force of fact, when they don’t deserve that yet.
More bolding brought by Monty. Now, look at it. If you need to, look up the word “believe.” Then you might understand that “willing to believe” does not equal “is.”
Bullshit. The base police send a list, aka “Restricted Men’s Roster,” to the base clubs. That’s because the restricted folks are, get this, restricted. Said restriction includes not being permitted to patronize the club system.
So you do realize that folks get restriction for other things than alcohol-related incidents?
No, they would not necessarily. If I were on the Restricted Men’s Roster, then they would. If I were not on said roster, then I would happily attend a meeting consisting of the base police OIC and the base commanding officer for awarding a punishment without the authority of the UCMJ. A military member who gets a “no driving on base” letter is not restricted from the clubs.
No kidding!
You correctly state the treatment aspects here.
That’s because the individual failed to follow a lawful order. Guess what–that’s a punishable offense under the UCMJ.
No. That’s the way the DAPA program works and is designed to work. It’s nothing about “it was felt.” The program, the regulation itself, provides for not crucifying someone with a treatable problem.
Monty, MsRobyn, go sit in your corners. I don’t intend for this thread to degenerate into a Great Debate, nor a mudslinging festival. You both have points, counterpoints, and incorrect points. Had I been able to post from work, I would have asked ya to take the bickering somewhere else. You both know the Navy, but keep in mind that things may be a little different in the Air Force.
I don’t know exactly what punishment my commander is handing out, partly because it’s none of my business, and partly because I trust him in that he’s doing what needs to be done. I’m sure there’s fines, and there’ll be a few stripes taken away (stripes are much harder to come by in the Air Force, and are much harder to take away, making it a serious thing). We don’t do Correctional Custody too often, but we do prosecute according to the UCMJ as fully as we can. Our 1st Shirt is looking into things, our commander is looking into things, and JAG is looking into things. I like ya both enough not to take sides, but fer chrissake, enough already. . .
wring, the ‘Buddy Ride’ is not a babysitting service. We simply cannot, and will not babysit every airman that is out there. It is a preventative measure, as a last resort, to “disarm the bomb”. It is not meant to discourage legal drinkers from drinking – hell, I’m all for safe, legal consumption of beer – but it is to give those with half a mind a chance to get out the car, and make one last attempt to get help before they do something stupid. This is not a ‘forcible additional duty’, it is strictly voluntary, of which I volunteered for two near upcoming weeks. Take a look at some of the previous posts: Sometimes, even the rockharded livers of the world underestimate their BAL. Well, if you got yourself in a jam, here’s a safe way out. There’s a distinct difference between drinking ones’ self into oblivion, but there’s a completely different ball of wax when the individual thinks he can attempt to drive himself home. In military terms: it’s fine to generate live weapons ‘in training’ (just stay with me), but damn near an act of war to load them on an aircraft and launch a sortie. . .
Putting my OP intent back on course: I am not against drinking heavily. I generally practice this very philosophy every weekend or so. However, I am completely against the suicidal stupidity that someone can have the intent to drive themselves home in such a condition. Now, I’m not talking about the ones that realize they’re a bit tipsy to drive, and hand the keys to their friends - that’s just good ol’ common sense and responsibility. I abhor those that decide to take their chances, and roll the loaded dice at the craps table of stupidity. :mad:
But, I do appreciate the fact that so many others are with me. Thank you.
yes - is this ‘buddy’ service for specifically the guy in your OP???
that’s what seemed to be true. and in that case If and only if, this is being done to save his bloody ass from his specific mistakes, than I again say, toss him in the brig, restrict his ass to base, put him in treatment.
if, as a result of this idiot’s actions, your CO saw the need for a ‘base wide’ idiot patrol, then I remove the objection.
It does make sense in that :
anyone at any point can figure out ‘holy crap I’ve had too much to drink what do I do now?’
anyone with some one who’s had too much to drink can call for that (especially if they hadn’t planned on being a designated driver).
But, if, as it was written (see quote I snipped to Ms. Robyn), it’s just for that nimrod, I am totally opposed to other people taking charge of him when there’s other, better methods (the ones listed above).
Don’t tell me what to do. I’d kind of like to see yet another thread rocket from the Pit to Great Debates.
Please be so kind as to identify what my incorrect point(s) is (are). That’s a request. I already showed MsR’s incorrect “points.”
Last I checked, this is the Pit.
I think I’ve shown that MsR really doesn’t know the Navy. Also, the UCMJ applies the same way in all the Uniformed Services (except for the matter of Article 15 proceedings for Sailors and Marines on Sea Duty–that’s another issue which I’m honestly too lazy to start a thread about).
And the command-supported DD program is part of what needs to be done, evidently. And that preceded the human cruise missile’s stupidity, I’d think. The program existed on every base I was assigned.
The bit about stripes being much harder to come by is a truism, aka incorrect. It all depends on the fields concerned: some fields have more vacancies and thus more promotions, regardless of branch of Service.
Correctional Custody (sometimes fondly known as "Charlie’s Chicken Farm from the intials for Correctional Custody Facility) is a punishment awarded at Article 15 proceedings. “As fully as we can” does not equate to “max the mother * out.” It equates to “charge with the most serious charge warranted by the incident.”
That would be his job, would it not?
That would be his responsibility (thus making him work for that Responsibility Pay), would it not?
That would be their job, of course. And, of course, their job is also to ensure the command follows the UCMJ correctly. Especially to punish the individual concerned when warranted.
Aw, now you got me blushing. Seriously, I like you too. But, especially when it comes to what I like to refer to as “military myths,” I really feel the need to point out that those’re just bullshit. Heck, I have a classmate this semester who says, and quite often, “the military justice system is nothing but lies.”
I snipped the rest because I agree with it!
I’m wondering why the bases just don’t operate a scheduled shuttle service instead of having the duty DD hanging out in the Ready Room? Heck, the command could use it as an MWR fund raiser. Think about it: Ride Tickets for the Late Night Shuttle! Buy yours now and don’t worry about not having cab fare!
p.s. Tripler, you’re all right. So, don’t freak, please, if you feel like I was bristling inordinately at you.
[ul]
[li]Okay, wrong: “The bit about stripes being much harder to come by is a truism, aka incorrect. It all depends on the fields concerned: some fields have more vacancies and thus more promotions, regardless of branch of Service.”[/li]
Nope. We have a Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS). I don’t believe it has much to do with vacancies in fields. Maybe vacancies in pay rates, where the government can afford to pay someone else more, but I’m sure it has nothing to do with an MOS/AFSC.
[li]You lose me here: “That would be his responsibility (thus making him work for that Responsibility Pay), would it not?”.[/li]
This is news to me. I’ve never heard of “Responsibility Pay”, nor seen it on any pay chart. Do you have a cite or a link?
[/ul]
Yep. Thus being said, I retort: Fuck you.
**
We have three options up here already: “Diamond Ride, Airman Against Driving Drunk” and another one I can’t remember the name of. Wring pretty much hit the nail on the head:
Yep. It’s basically a squadron thing, but I’m sure we’d open it up to anyone in need. It is a ride regardless of rank, office, or unit. It’s not to babysit one individual, it’s because we’ve had multiple infractions. We’re giving it a shot, and so far we’ve had a few “saves”.
Nope. I’ve just never had to fight to keep one of my own good threads from getting hijacked. Call it practice.
Tripler
And you’re keeping me on my toes. I respect that more than you know.
I checked http://www.af.mil & then clicked its link to the AFPC and then the link for Enlisted promotions. Looks like it has everything to do with both vacancies in the field and an across-the-board selection.
This is news to me. I’ve never heard of “Responsibility Pay”, nor seen it on any pay chart. Do you have a cite or a link?
[/quote]
Certain positions (such as Commanding Officers of some units) get Responsibility Pay. IIRC, it’s a paltry taxable 50 bucks a month. I’ll see if I can find a link for you, although the DFAS’s site just basically blows, IMHO.
Hey, hey, hey! What’re you doing making me laugh in the Pit?
Snipped because I’m already aware, as I indicated above, of the on-base duty designated driver programs.
I’ll see what I can do to keep you in practice. {Just kidding!}
'Preciate it. And with your being knowledgable and competent military, I bet you feel the same cringing I do every time you hear some moron/jerk/fool/what-have-you mindlessly repeat “Airmen are the property of the government” or “you give up your Constitutional rights when you join the military” or even “if you hurt yourself in the military, that’s destruction of government property” or anything else along those lines. In keeping with this site’s stated purpose, I feel compelled to eradicate such ignorance if’n I can.
