Female Army SGT Seen Protesting On The Internet Was Discharged 5 Years Ago

[Oddball]

And even more is lost when it is revealed she is not even in the military anymore.

As you said, credibility. And her wearing her uniform and presenting herself as being in the Army as far as I see drastically reduces her credibility.

If I put on my uniform and tried to do the same thing, it would rightfully diminish my credibility as well. My uniforms have not left the closet since I retired, and they will likely remain there. Only a real arse clown would even try to pull something like this as far as I am concerned, and they should not be taken seriously at all.

I actually take stolen valor very seriously, and have been involved in several groups about it for over two decades. And as much as I detest it and call it out whenever I see it, it is still legal.

And if people were honest, any that have been posting this and applauding it should be distancing themselves from her for her dishonestly in presenting herself as something she is not.

Fair enough.

But the average asshole listening to her doesn't know that she's no longer active, and will act as though she is.

 

[Mushroom]

anyone that saw her in uniform would assume she represented the military

Not me. Of course, I also served for over two decades.

I am actually one of those that almost immediately raises their eyebrow when I see somebody in uniform when they should not be, or in trying to present themselves as a Veteran. And I lost count decades ago of the number of "Military Fakers" that I have caught. And to be honest, most of them are laughably bad. Only good at fooling other civilians, those of us who had served generally can tell they are fake within minutes.

 

[Mushroom]

Check 18 USC 702.

WW

And that is primarily only brought up in court if the individual was trying to use that false claim for personal gain. Army v. Blue Fox is an example of that. However, United States v. Alvarez stated that if it is not used for personal gain but as free speech, it is legal.

I can think of two cases involving this, but were decided by SCOTUS. And I have already listed both of them. Blue Fox was somebody falsely presenting himself as a veteran to get a contract, and was convicted of fraud under 18 USC 702. The other is Xavier Alvarez, who presented himself in a political speech as being a retired Marine with the Medal of Honor.

In the second one, that was overturned as it fell under free speech. It is distasteful to lie, but it is not actually illegal to lie.

 

[mudwhistle]

There is no such thing against a civilian.

Uh......I think that's the point of all of this.

She's trying to make the military look bad.

First thing they'll do, since she's not retired, is bring her back on active-duty and court marshal her.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Uh......I think that's the point of all of this.

She's trying to make the military look bad.

First thing they'll do, since she's not retired, is bring her back on active-duty and court marshal her.

#1 I'm not aware of any law that allows the government to involuntarily bring civilians who have completed the period of enlistment contract and associated reserve time back on to active duty.

Care to share what law allows that?
.
.
.
.
#2 It's "court-martial".

WW

 

[mudwhistle]

Not me. Of course, I also served for over two decades.

I am actually one of those that almost immediately raises their eyebrow when I see somebody in uniform when they should not be, or in trying to present themselves as a Veteran. And I lost count decades ago of the number of "Military Fakers" that I have caught. And to be honest, most of them are laughably bad. Only good at fooling other civilians, those of us who had served generally can tell they are fake within minutes.

Sorry, if she had the uniform correct to regulations, you can't tell from just looking at it if she's still active-duty.

When you wear the uniform....and it says US Army on one side and your name on the other, that's supposed to mean you're active duty or reserve.
Now, she can't say she's retired, so she can't wear the uniform anymore, except with special permission, and she doesn't have anyone's permission.
So she's guilty of impersonating an active-duty soldier.
The fact is....if you're going to go around and attempt to embarrass the president, or the military, you'd better not do it in your uniform.

 

[Mushroom]

Uh......I think that's the point of all of this.

She's trying to make the military look bad.

First thing they'll do, since she's not retired, is bring her back on active-duty and court marshal her.

They can not do that. The only time things like that is if the offense was one that was done while they were actually in uniform, or if it involves them revealing classified or other sensitive material when it falls under Espionage.

She has apparently been out for over 5 years, so she is not even under the most remote possible reason I can see her her being recalled. And that is if she was still in the Inactive Reserve as part of her initial 8 year contract. That only extends up to 4 years after somebody gets out, and as she has been out for longer than that it no longer applies.

This is free speech. Does not matter if somebody likes it or not, it is protected. As is her legal right to lie.

 

[Mushroom]

So she's guilty of impersonating an active-duty soldier.

So what? It's not illegal to lie.

However, anybody once they know she is lying should reasonably be dismissing her and anything she says as having no credibility.

Tacky, slimy, foul, and reprehensible, all of those and more. But not illegal.

 

[mudwhistle]

They can not do that. The only time things like that is if the offense was one that was done while they were actually in uniform, or if it involves them revealing classified or other sensitive material when it falls under Espionage.

She has apparently been out for over 5 years, so she is not even under the most remote possible reason I can see her her being recalled. And that is if she was still in the Inactive Reserve as part of her initial 8 year contract. That only extends up to 4 years after somebody gets out, and as she has been out for longer than that it no longer applies.

This is free speech. Does not matter if somebody likes it or not, it is protected. As is her legal right to lie.

Free speech has limits. It also depends on if she's collecting any benefits and the seriousness of the charges.
If she is going to trash the military and the president they can always just give her a different discharge and take away her benefits.
The statute of limitations of 5 years only applies to offenses while on active duty.
They can recall them and bring charges in a military tribunal.
However, if she's committing fraud by making treasonous statements while wearing a uniform she no longer has the right to wear, they can recall her and bring charges against her.
Jimmy Carter had to grant amnesty to draft-dodgers during Vietnam more than 5 years after they defected to Canada. Most of them still faced charges a decade after going AWOL.
This woman committed fraud against the government and misconduct that effects the integrity of the military.

• Statute of Limitations: For certain military-specific offenses, there may be no statute of limitations. This could potentially expose veterans to prosecution years after an alleged offense.
• Court Composition: Veterans subject to the UCMJ may face a court composed largely of military members, rather than a standard jury of civilians.
• Appeals Process: The appeals process in military courts can differ substantially from civilian courts, often involving military appellate courts before a case can reach civilian federal courts.

 

[Mushroom]

It also depends on if she's collecting any benefits and the seriousness of the charges.

No, benefits do not apply. After all, what benefits could she possibly be getting from the military?

And realize before you respond, any benefits I can think of she would not be getting from the military, but the Department of Veteran Affairs. Which is not the military. Even when I was in the military and using my education benefits, those came from the VA and not the military.

 

[mudwhistle]

Fair enough.

But the average asshole listening to her doesn't know that she's no longer active, and will act as though she is.

That's the point.

She's committed fraud by wearing that uniform and trashing the president and his immigration policies.

I expect more of these assholes to start doing this.

They need to nail her ass to the wall for this.

 

[Zincwarrior]

This little kitten is in a world of trouble.

Yesterday she was seen on X protesting against ICE in uniform.
Problem with that is she's a civilian.
She was discharged from the Texas National Guard 5 years ago.
Seems everything about these protesters is fake.

They're talking about bringing charges against her for impersonating a non-commissioned officer.

Ok that makes sense.

 

[mudwhistle]

No, benefits do not apply. After all, what benefits could she possibly be getting from the military?

And realize before you respond, any benefits I can think of she would not be getting from the military, but the Department of Veteran Affairs. Which is not the military. Even when I was in the military and using my education benefits, those came from the VA and not the military.

Bull shit. The Dept of Veterans Affairs falls under the Pentagon...which falls under the Executive Branch.

If you've ever applied for veterans benefits....your application is conditional on what type of discharge you have.

If they find out your honorable was changed to a BCD or a Dishonorable Discharge....forget about any veterans benefits.

One thing that happened when I applied for veterans disability was they cut my military pension which was 100% taxable, and converted half of it to the Dept of Veterans affairs which changed it to a different tax status. So half of my pension is paid from the Army Department, and the other half is paid thru the VA.

Now what benefits could she be getting?

Are you really this stupid?

She's qualified for a VA loan.
She's qualified for college tuition assistance.
She's qualified for disability payments.

Need I go on?

 

[mudwhistle]

So what? It's not illegal to lie.

However, anybody once they know she is lying should reasonably be dismissing her and anything she says as having no credibility.

Tacky, slimy, foul, and reprehensible, all of those and more. But not illegal.

Lying is the same as bringing discredit to the military.
The only reason she's wearing the God Damned uniform is to give her some sort of authority which she doesn't deserve, because she's a fraud.

 

[GLASNOST]

Lesbians and queers have an agenda and it ain't patriotic.

 

[Mushroom]

#1 I'm not aware of any law that allows the government to involuntarily bring civilians who have completed the period of enlistment contract and associated reserve time back on to active duty.

Oh, that has actually been done multiple times over the decades. But it is an exceptionally rare event.

In 2017, Army Staff Sergeant William Rivers was called out of retirement to active duty for a court martial. The charge in that case was the sexual molestation of his daughter between 2013-2014 when he was on active duty. That was a rare case, and done because it happened in their on-base quarters in both Hawaii and Florida. So the decision was made to let the military prosecute him as it would be less problematic than the battle between two different states in deciding which would get to put him on trial.

Earlier this year Air Force Master Sergeant William Brassfield was recalled to active duty to face charges relating to three counts of rape he committed while on active duty.

Yet another is Army Master Sergeant Timothy Hennis in 2005 for a murder he committed in 1985 while on active duty.

There is actually significant case law that allowed the military to recall an individual to face justice. However, in order to do that the crime has to have taken place while they had been in the military, or in the event it involves espionage where they reveal classified information they acquired while in the military.

But in this situation, I can't think of any case law that would apply as she is no longer in the military.

 

[Mushroom]

Lying is the same as bringing discredit to the military.

But it is not a crime. And she is not in the military anymore.

 

[GLASNOST]

"... allows the government to involuntarily ..."

That's not English.

 

[odanny]

Not me. Of course, I also served for over two decades.

I am actually one of those that almost immediately raises their eyebrow when I see somebody in uniform when they should not be, or in trying to present themselves as a Veteran. And I lost count decades ago of the number of "Military Fakers" that I have caught. And to be honest, most of them are laughably bad. Only good at fooling other civilians, those of us who had served generally can tell they are fake within minutes.

It's amazing how many people get away with it. We had a local "Colonel" who claimed he was in Vietnam and had the uniform with all the medals on his chest. He gave speeches and was a marshall of a 4th of July parade. He sat down with actual veterans, but one day he sat beside the wrong one, whose BS detector immediately went off. He started asking him some innocent enough questions about his service and quickly determined he was a fraud.

He later went to work and verified he never even served. There have been others, too, but he was the most high profile. I think you can be prosecuted now under Stolen Valor, but not sure.

 

[Mushroom]

I think you can be prosecuted now under Stolen Valor, but not sure.

The Stolen Valor Act was tossed out in 2012 by the Supreme Court as it was found to be in violation of the 1st Amendment.

Cases like this however can be prosecuted if the claims involve fraud or making such claims for personal gain.