Sergeant in trouble for Playboy spread

90K

Rookie
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
1,204
Reaction score
65
Points
0
Location
in the back of GW in foggy bottom
An Air Force staff sergeant who posed nude for Playboy magazine has been relieved of her duties while the military investigates, officials said Thursday.
In February's issue, hitting newsstands this week, Michelle Manhart is photographed in uniform yelling and holding weapons under the headline "Tough Love." The following pages show her partially clothed, wearing her dog tags while working out, as well as completely nude.
"This staff sergeant's alleged action does not meet the high standards we expect of our airmen, nor does it comply with the Air Force's core values of integrity, service before self, and excellence in all we do," Oscar Balladares, spokesman for Lackland Air Force Base, said in a statement.
Manhart told Playboy that she considers herself as standing up for her rights.
"Of what I did, nothing is wrong, so I didn't anticipate anything, of course," Manhart, 30, told The Associated Press. "I didn't do anything wrong, so I didn't think it would be a major issue."
Manhart, who is married with two children, joined the Air Force in 1994, spending time in Kuwait in 2002. She trains airmen at Lackland.


Well besides drawing direct attention to the Air Force, She should have known that she has no rights. And anything like privacy on and off the job is not real. Her answer is like an entry level airman,sailor or soldier who doesn't know the system. But for a 13 year veteran on the job this isn't a valid excuse.
It will be interesting how the Air Force handles this situation because if they just discharge her then it didn't address the violations of good order and discipline that all troops are required to uphold. And if they hammer her then the ACLU or somebody will file a lawsuit against the US Air Force claiming her rights she didn't have were violated.
 

theHawk

Registered Conservative
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
32,261
Reaction score
17,099
Points
1,905
Location
Arizona
It will be interesting how the Air Force handles this situation because if they just discharge her then it didn't address the violations of good order and discipline that all troops are required to uphold. And if they hammer her then the ACLU or somebody will file a lawsuit against the US Air Force claiming her rights she didn't have were violated. [/I]
Even the ACLU couldn't be that stupid to even try. A Written contract trumps everything in the court of law. We all signed our life away when we signed that paper...

If you ask me, I think this woman is just an attention whore.
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,122
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
Even the ACLU couldn't be that stupid to even try. A Written contract trumps everything in the court of law. We all signed our life away when we signed that paper...

If you ask me, I think this woman is just an attention whore.
She is definately attractive in a physical sense, but i have a feeling she may be more than just an attention whore... which is sad:(
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
But for a 13 year veteran on the job this isn't a valid excuse.
ITA with this. They've been booting women out of the military for posing nude since the 80s, and it's pretty-much common knowledge.
 

shepherdboy

Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Messages
234
Reaction score
34
Points
16
Location
The occupied zone(CA.)
She new it would get here a General discharge at the least and some money and publicity to further a new career. She took the easy way out instead of living up to her contract with Air Force. Not the best role model for young up and coming girls.
 
OP
90K

90K

Rookie
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
1,204
Reaction score
65
Points
0
Location
in the back of GW in foggy bottom
She new it would get here a General discharge at the least and some money and publicity to further a new career. She took the easy way out instead of living up to her contract with Air Force. Not the best role model for young up and coming girls.
Yes she did take the easy way out. Used to be in the Navy girls would get knocked up so they wouldn't have to stay on the ship or isolated duties. Well finally the Navy got smart and would send them back after the baby to finish up said requirements on that tour.
 
OP
90K

90K

Rookie
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
1,204
Reaction score
65
Points
0
Location
in the back of GW in foggy bottom
Well I found this video clip of this girl who is pushing boots and she thinks it ain't that big of deal. Last time I checked to push boots you kind of have to be squared away and can't be a shit bag. link: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/US/story?id=2792860&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
I find this whole deal very lame and unexcused because you have to kind of know something that this was going o draw negative attention from the employer and positive attention while on liberty.
 

glockmail

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
7,700
Reaction score
436
Points
83
Location
The beautiful Yadkin Valley
She did say that her job training young men should not be compromised. I'd say that is likely true, especially when required to remain erect during Attention.
 

5stringJeff

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2003
Messages
9,990
Reaction score
542
Points
48
Location
Puyallup, WA
Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is, other than that she posed as an Air Force segreant. If she wants to pose for Playboy (or some other magazine) as a private citizen, what should the military care?
 
OP
90K

90K

Rookie
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
1,204
Reaction score
65
Points
0
Location
in the back of GW in foggy bottom
Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is, other than that she posed as an Air Force segreant. If she wants to pose for Playboy (or some other magazine) as a private citizen, what should the military care?
You are on the clock 24/7 that is the whole issue. As a private citzen now I can do as I please and as long as it doesn't directly effect my job, well who cares. My friend got a DUI a few years ago and he took vacation to clear until he was bail was set. In the Military it is a different story. Purpose being you work for the people and the Government.
 

5stringJeff

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2003
Messages
9,990
Reaction score
542
Points
48
Location
Puyallup, WA
You are on the clock 24/7 that is the whole issue. As a private citzen now I can do as I please and as long as it doesn't directly effect my job, well who cares. My friend got a DUI a few years ago and he took vacation to clear until he was bail was set. In the Military it is a different story. Purpose being you work for the people and the Government.
I know the deal of being in the military - I was in for five years. Nowhere in UCMJ do I find a prohibition against posing nude for photographers.
 
OP
90K

90K

Rookie
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
1,204
Reaction score
65
Points
0
Location
in the back of GW in foggy bottom
I know the deal of being in the military - I was in for five years. Nowhere in UCMJ do I find a prohibition against posing nude for photographers.
You forgot 134 the general article. It is the loop whole article. I guess I see it as an agenda deal. I was about the job while I was in and I had my issues but overall it is about good integrity.
 

pegwinn

Top of the Food Chain
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
2,549
Reaction score
330
Points
98
Location
Texas
Article 134 and Article 92 both apply

Precedent was set by The Corps in 1980 if memory serves. Twas a Sergeant (E5) stationed in twentynine palms.

Still looking for a confirmation pic. As a public service of course
 
OP
90K

90K

Rookie
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
1,204
Reaction score
65
Points
0
Location
in the back of GW in foggy bottom
Article 134 and Article 92 both apply

Precedent was set by The Corps in 1980 if memory serves. Twas a Sergeant (E5) stationed in twentynine palms.

Still looking for a confirmation pic. As a public service of course
We've allowed the military to become a democracy and it was not meant to be that way.
 

pegwinn

Top of the Food Chain
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
2,549
Reaction score
330
Points
98
Location
Texas
Article 134 and Article 92 both apply

Precedent was set by The Corps in 1980 if memory serves. Twas a Sergeant (E5) stationed in twentynine palms.

Still looking for a confirmation pic. As a public service of course
We've allowed the military to become a democracy and it was not meant to be that way.
Must've just happened. From 1981 to 2003 I don't remember it being a democratic institution at all.
 
OP
90K

90K

Rookie
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
1,204
Reaction score
65
Points
0
Location
in the back of GW in foggy bottom
Must've just happened. From 1981 to 2003 I don't remember it being a democratic institution at all.
You were a Marine senior enlisted; I was on the other hand a sailor E-6 with 13 years when I got out. In the early years of my enlistments things were strict and by the book even for Navy standards. I was attached to MAG 42 det Alameda back in 89-92 and I was going to get out of the Navy to join the Corp. That is how much of a difference the two organizations were. I was an E-5 during that tour and ate up. After strong consideration I didn't and stayed in the Navy. My point initially was more of sarcastic comment. But the rules are becoming watered down compared to my time in the Navy and I’ve been out for over 8 years. I work on a Navy base and the way the troops look in uniform and how they carry themselves is different I’d never looked like that in uniform I took pride in my appearance and kept a squared away look at all times in the public eye. Even on deployment on the flight deck I came to work squared away even though 12-15 hours after flight ops I looked worn out.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top