US Seeks To Imprison Single Mother

[Conspiracist]

Constipationist,

I have no doubt that the most important decision you have ever made in your entire, miserable life is "...what "B-Ball game should I watch today...?" You are the atypical "compassionate" Conservative.

Wow, you got me. My life in a nutshell has been b-ball games.

 

[CurveLight]

Gem, actually, makes your arguments, Curvelight, very, very weak. No, you are not the exemplar of critical thinking skills. Gem has done a far better job of analysis than you.

Lol....wow. Okay. I'm sure your opinion has nothing to do with the coincidence Gem has the same conclusion as you and it's hella convenient the way you ignored the false information Gem presented as facts.

Your appeal to authority (mine) gets you nothing.

If you had analyzed as well and as succinctly as Gem, then I would go with you.

Gem, by far, has the better of the critical thinking skills here.

I never claimed to have any level of critical thinking skills so your invented contest on who does is irrelevant. You respond but refuse to admit Gem's analysis excluded facts and invented facts based on speculation. Like you and others have done. You have repeatedly ignored the fact a mother in Georgia was called for active duty and refused based on her two kids and her husband traveled too much to care for them. The military let her go home and never charged her. Why have you all completely failed to address that? Maybe because it shows the military isn't as consistent and hard nosed as you're pretending to be? That undermines your position and that is why you avoid it. I have not avoided a single aspect of this case be it speculation or fact. If you think I have please point it out so I can address it. If there is new info available I'd greatly appreciate being made aware.

Here is my problem with the case:

She followed the regulations.

She had an approved FCP.

She flew her son home holding her commitment.

Shortly before deployment she learned the FCP did not work and it was through no fault of her own.

She immediately contacted her COC. She never tried to keep it secret and wait until the very last minute.

There is absolutely no reason she could not have been given an extension. Under the circumstances that is more than reasonable.

How do you justify no extension with the fact they waited two months to charge her?

For some reason you keep ignoring that as well. Since I'm obviously void of critical thinking skills I'm asking those who do have them to address what seem to me to be pretty salient points. As I said before, if the military had given her an extension and she failed to find a caregiver I would completely support her being dishonorably discharged. The most important aspect of the case that Gem, and others, have ignored is the military's reaction to the FCP falling through. I'm sure this isn't the first time a FCP had not worked out and I'm sure extensions have been granted. So why is it in this case the draconian approach is okay?

 

[Conspiracist]

Lol....wow. Okay. I'm sure your opinion has nothing to do with the coincidence Gem has the same conclusion as you and it's hella convenient the way you ignored the false information Gem presented as facts.

Your appeal to authority (mine) gets you nothing.

If you had analyzed as well and as succinctly as Gem, then I would go with you.

Gem, by far, has the better of the critical thinking skills here.

I never claimed to have any level of critical thinking skills so your invented contest on who does is irrelevant. You respond but refuse to admit Gem's analysis excluded facts and invented facts based on speculation. Like you and others have done. You have repeatedly ignored the fact a mother in Georgia was called for active duty and refused based on her two kids and her husband traveled too much to care for them. The military let her go home and never charged her. Why have you all completely failed to address that? Maybe because it shows the military isn't as consistent and hard nosed as you're pretending to be? That undermines your position and that is why you avoid it. I have not avoided a single aspect of this case be it speculation or fact. If you think I have please point it out so I can address it. If there is new info available I'd greatly appreciate being made aware.

Here is my problem with the case:

She followed the regulations.

She had an approved FCP.

She flew her son home holding her commitment.

Shortly before deployment she learned the FCP did not work and it was through no fault of her own.

She immediately contacted her COC. She never tried to keep it secret and wait until the very last minute.

There is absolutely no reason she could not have been given an extension. Under the circumstances that is more than reasonable.

How do you justify no extension with the fact they waited two months to charge her?

For some reason you keep ignoring that as well. Since I'm obviously void of critical thinking skills I'm asking those who do have them to address what seem to me to be pretty salient points. As I said before, if the military had given her an extension and she failed to find a caregiver I would completely support her being dishonorably discharged. The most important aspect of the case that Gem, and others, have ignored is the military's reaction to the FCP falling through. I'm sure this isn't the first time a FCP had not worked out and I'm sure extensions have been granted. So why is it in this case the draconian approach is okay?

The lack of granted extension was probably due to needing her ASAP. The 2 month time frame on setting up charges was probably due to heavy Bureacracy in the military. This really is not a big issue. Just comes down to if the military is gonna play soft ball or hardball. Either way things are not good for her. She's in a bad spot for sure.

 

[CurveLight]

Your appeal to authority (mine) gets you nothing.

If you had analyzed as well and as succinctly as Gem, then I would go with you.

Gem, by far, has the better of the critical thinking skills here.

I never claimed to have any level of critical thinking skills so your invented contest on who does is irrelevant. You respond but refuse to admit Gem's analysis excluded facts and invented facts based on speculation. Like you and others have done. You have repeatedly ignored the fact a mother in Georgia was called for active duty and refused based on her two kids and her husband traveled too much to care for them. The military let her go home and never charged her. Why have you all completely failed to address that? Maybe because it shows the military isn't as consistent and hard nosed as you're pretending to be? That undermines your position and that is why you avoid it. I have not avoided a single aspect of this case be it speculation or fact. If you think I have please point it out so I can address it. If there is new info available I'd greatly appreciate being made aware.

Here is my problem with the case:

She followed the regulations.

She had an approved FCP.

She flew her son home holding her commitment.

Shortly before deployment she learned the FCP did not work and it was through no fault of her own.

She immediately contacted her COC. She never tried to keep it secret and wait until the very last minute.

There is absolutely no reason she could not have been given an extension. Under the circumstances that is more than reasonable.

How do you justify no extension with the fact they waited two months to charge her?

For some reason you keep ignoring that as well. Since I'm obviously void of critical thinking skills I'm asking those who do have them to address what seem to me to be pretty salient points. As I said before, if the military had given her an extension and she failed to find a caregiver I would completely support her being dishonorably discharged. The most important aspect of the case that Gem, and others, have ignored is the military's reaction to the FCP falling through. I'm sure this isn't the first time a FCP had not worked out and I'm sure extensions have been granted. So why is it in this case the draconian approach is okay?

The lack of granted extension was probably due to needing her ASAP. The 2 month time frame on setting up charges was probably due to heavy Bureacracy in the military. This really is not a big issue. Just comes down to if the military is gonna play soft ball or hardball. Either way things are not good for her. She's in a bad spot for sure.

The "needing her asap" as an excuse to not give the extension is......silly. Her MOS is a cook. She was initially given a extension but it was reneged the day before deployment so she was literally placed in a very fucked up sitiation. She could have been charged the day she missed the movement. Filing a charge like that is not exactly F Lee Bailey material. Furthermore, the COC at first said no criminal charges would be filed but they changed their mind. The real kicker is knowing there was a good chance she wasn't going to show up for deployment so they could have prepared for it then.

I'm sorry but I don't see her MOS fitting the "needing asap" excuse and there is no way it would have taken two months to file the charges. Do you know what happens at this point? A lawyer reviews the charge to see if the court martial should happen.

 

[CurveLight]

Does anyone have stats on how often extensions are given versus denied?

 

[Gem]

CurveLight Wrote:

Gem, you got any links to back up your "what we KNOW" part? Could you name a single Vet group that she was offered for help? That list of what we "know" is splotchy and frankly, a poor attempt to justify a position you cannot defend with the facts.

It obvious that you are quite passionate about this debate, Curve, but if you are going to ask for people to continue to debate as you did...you might not want to be quite as hostile to people who do...just a thought.

Of course I can provide links to what I wrote...I assumed that by page 20 into the debate I would be reinventing the wheel - especially since I wasn't saying anything that couldn't be found or gleaned from any of the previously posted links...but I will list the sources I have read at the end of the post for you.

Here's one article that stated that the military offered alternatives including Veteren's groups:
Army charges mom for refusing to leave infant

I do not have the list of groups...the military has stated that they will not drag the groups into this unless they want to name themselves. You can view that as evidence that there are no groups...but as I said in my original post, either the Army offered her these alternatives and she refused them...or the military is lying, and never offered her any alternatives other than foster care. It seems that YOU are the one who has chosen to believe one of the scenarios instead of the other. I provided both scenarios as plausible options, but stated that based upon my experience as a military spouse I find it hard to believe that the military, having dealt with situations like this before, would simply refuse to help this soldier out of hand.

Like the "her mother" backed out even though that meant her daughter going to prison. Well guess what? Since the military didn't charge here until TWO MONTHS after her deployment date how do you make that claim?

This is common sense, Curve. By refusing to show up for your deployment orders there are going to be consequences. Anyone with half a brain would be able to figure out that you could be charged with being AWOL, refusing to follow orders, etc. This soldier did not need to wait two months to know that she was going to be in trouble if she didn't show up...the fact that her superior officers tried to help her find alternatives so that she could deploy (or, if you do not believe that they did....the fact that they stated they would put her child in foster care so that she could deploy) demonstrates how important it was for her to follow orders and deploy...ergo how severe the consequences might be for NOT showing up and following orders.

With that in mind...both the soldier AND her mother knew that there could be, and most probably would be, severe consequences for disobeying these orders. The soldier knew that being charged with a crime that carries prison time might be one of them..and did it anyway...therefore...her mother, knowing that there would be serious consequences (possibly jail time) for refusing her grandson...did so anyway.

I know this case very well so you better come more prepared and stop trying to pass off speculation as fact. Some people have accused this Soldier of fabricating lies just to avoid deployment when they had absolutely nothing to justify those accusations on.

Again, as I said in my earlier thread...we all are speculating. You are speculating based on your interpretation of the facts. As am I, as are others. I, in looking at the facts that you and others have provided...feel that there are three possible scenarios...

1) The soldier heard "foster care" and ignored all other options offered by the Army.
2) The soldier did not want to deploy, so she and her mother conspired to get out of the military by using her lack of child care as an excuse.
3) The military, who were going to force a woman's child into foster care because they were so desperate to have this cook deploy, now feel that it might look bad if that came to light...so they are deliberately lying about offering her viable alternatives and are charging her with crimes to cover it up.

You seem to feel that Option 3 is most believable...that the military offered Spc. Hutchinson no support or options whatsoever. I, and others here...find that implausible...based upon our reading of the facts as they are currently known.

Yes, I am justified in pointing out that is at odds with the "Support Our Troops" mantra.

Sorry, but it is never justifiable to use a cliched and low smear because someone has the audacity to disagree with you...and its sad that you think it is...but in the end, it really has no bearing on this debate apart from lowering your credibility in it.

I also noticed you ignored the facts the military gave her an extension then reneged. Could you explain why they could wait two months to charge her but not give her an extension to find another caregiver?

Spc. Hutchinson admits that her two plans fell through...the military claims to have offered several others...how many plans does she get to refuse before she is simply guilty of refusing orders? How many options and how much poor planning on a soldier's part is the US military in time of war supposed to accept? Should the official military policy simply be, "Hey..take your time...its not like we're fighting a war or anything...mull over your options, we'll swing back around here next year and see if you're ready to go then...if not, no biggie."

She was supposed to have concrete plans to begin with - thats part of her job. They fell through. She supposedly claims to have come up with another plan that fell through. The military then offered her several other options which she refused. Good grief...seems like the evidence is demonstrating she had her fair share of options and then some.

Additionally, Hutchinson told reporters that after her mother and another option fell through the military told her that foster care was "the only option left." Yet the Army is claiming they offered numerous options and she refused them. It seems that either Spc. Hutchinson or the Army is lying.

Here's some of the articles I've read on the subject:
- Army mom faces charges
Army mom in trouble with military over involuntary leave back home in Oakland - San Jose Mercury News
US army charges single mom who refused deployment - Times LIVE
Mother charged over delayed military tour - UPI.com
t r u t h o u t | Army Files Charges Against Single Mother
Single mom from Oakland who refused deployment could face court-martial, prison - Inside Bay Area

 

[CurveLight]

(since I'm on a bb the response space is limited. Otherwise I'd quote the entire post)

This is from your first post and much of it has been repeated in your 2nd response. What I highlight below is to show how you try to present speculation as fact in order to justify your total loyalty to the military and utter contempt for the soldier


"3) Her mother backed out at the last minute claiming that she couldn't do it...even though that might mean her daughter would go to military prison"


What reason do you have to say that? Did she tell her mom if she backed out she could go to prison? You hyped up the situation to lay suspicion on her mom.

and

"The idea that her mother would willingly let her child face a court-marshall and jail-time rather than add a bit more work to her already busy schedule just doesn't pass the smell test."

Again, you hype it up without respecting the fact even when she turned herself in they did not state a court martial would happen. Over the past two months there has been a verbal agreement the problem could be solved administratively. Being charged was a surprise.

Then there is

"It seems that if she was serious about remaining in the military and wasn't trying to get out of deployment she would have accepted almost any alternative that was not foster care...and obviously some of these alternatives had to be acceptable (and isn't it odd how she and her lawyer aren't mentioning them at all...only foster care - which sounds terrible and scary to most people?)."


That is flat out ignorance. Her lawyer specifically mentioned the military offered alternatives to foster care and pointed out they failed to specify. Yet, for the clear purpose of trying to raise suspicion you give flat out false information. Also, I never accused the military of lying about offering those alt sources. I simply pointed out your claim her lawyer never mentioned them is pure bullshit.

 

[CurveLight]

I do not agree with option 3. I've never once accused the military about lying on alternative sources. You don't even understand my position yet you are trying to assign one of your dreamed up options to me?

I will try to respond to the new points you made:

Gem
"This is common sense, Curve. By refusing to show up for your deployment orders there are going to be consequences. Anyone with half a brain would be able to figure out that you could be charged with being AWOL, refusing to follow orders, etc. This soldier did not need to wait two months to know that she was going to be in trouble if she didn't show up...the fact that her superior officers tried to help her find alternatives so that she could deploy (or, if you do not believe that they did....the fact that they stated they would put her child in foster care so that she could deploy) demonstrates how important it was for her to follow orders and deploy...ergo how severe the consequences might be for NOT showing up and following orders."


You missed the point of my question. The military waited two months to charge her. They could have done it when she turned herself in. So in respecting the time frame, no, she was not in literal danger of imprisonment at that time. Why did the military wait two months to charge her?




Gem
"With that in mind...both the soldier AND her mother knew that there could be, and most probably would be, severe consequences for disobeying these orders. The soldier knew that being charged with a crime that carries prison time might be one of them..and did it anyway...therefore...her mother, knowing that there would be serious consequences (possibly jail time) for refusing her grandson...did so anyway."


That is not respecting how the events unfolded. That causes huge problems for your motive assignments. When she informed her COC about the FCP failure, which was only a couple of weeks prior to Unit deployment date, they gave her an extension but reneged just before deployment. That is why Hutchinson said they told her she had to find a replacement or her child would go in foster care. They didn't say that when she first informed them of situation, only when they cancelled the extension.


Gem
Spc. Hutchinson admits that her two plans fell through...the military claims to have offered several others...how many plans does she get to refuse before she is simply guilty of refusing orders? How many options and how much poor planning on a soldier's part is the US military in time of war supposed to accept? Should the official military policy simply be, "Hey..take your time...its not like we're fighting a war or anything...mull over your options, we'll swing back around here next year and see if you're ready to go then...if not, no biggie."

She was supposed to have concrete plans to begin with - thats part of her job. They fell through. She supposedly claims to have come up with another plan that fell through. The military then offered her several other options which she refused. Good grief...seems like the evidence is demonstrating she had her fair share of options and then some."


Too much hyperbole. I've stated a few times now I would completely with a dishonorable discharge if the military had given her an extension (30-45 days). You keep harping on distinguishing between foster care and other options. That's nonsensical and should be a glaring moot point for all parents. Whether her child went into foster care or another option it makes no difference because they are the same conclusions: complete strangers having possession of her son.

The key difference in the disagreement here is not interpretation of the facts. It is how the situation is examined. I'm looking at it step by step and how the events were effected by one another. You're looking at it without respecting the time change sequences. Since she was told she had an extension it would have understandably freaked her out to be told the day (or even a few days) before deployment her extension was revoked and she faced violating orders or allow her infant to be placed with total strangers.

 

[Yukon]

The lack of granted extension was probably due to needing her ASAP. The 2 month time frame on setting up charges was probably due to heavy Bureacracy in the military. This really is not a big issue. Just comes down to if the military is gonna play soft ball or hardball. Either way things are not good for her. She's in a bad spot for sure.

Is the US mil,itary so hard-up for soldiers that they have stooped to sending women to combat? Do American men need women to do their fighting for them? How pathetic you are and cowardly.

 

[CurveLight]

The lack of granted extension was probably due to needing her ASAP. The 2 month time frame on setting up charges was probably due to heavy Bureacracy in the military. This really is not a big issue. Just comes down to if the military is gonna play soft ball or hardball. Either way things are not good for her. She's in a bad spot for sure.

Is the US mil,itary so hard-up for soldiers that they have stooped to sending women to combat? Do American men need women to do their fighting for them? How pathetic you are and cowardly.

Stooped? Equal rights is not stooping. It's called America.

 

[CurveLight]

Since there has been misunderstanding about my statement on "Support the Troops" let me clarify. It was not directed at those who simply say she should be dishonorably discharged. I can respect different conclusions. That comment was directed at those who vilified Hutchinson and accused her of lying. I can even respect the claim she was incompetent but when people started accusing her of lying with absolutely no credible evidence that crossed the line and showed their conclusions were not fully based on an examination of the facts but also wild accusations.

 

[Gem]

CurveLight Wrote:

You missed the point of my question. The military waited two months to charge her. They could have done it when she turned herself in. So in respecting the time frame, no, she was not in literal danger of imprisonment at that time. Why did the military wait two months to charge her?

You seem to find this two month thing very important and I, simply, do not see it as important at all...which may be why we are having difficulty finding common ground.

2 months is simply not a long period of time in which to complete all of the necessary steps in order to charge someone with a crime. Especially considering that from what I've been reading, the military was highly suspicious of her using her childcare issue as a way to avoid deployment since she had several of her own plans "fall through" and had refused alternate plans.

That is not respecting how the events unfolded. That causes huge problems for your motive assignments. When she informed her COC about the FCP failure, which was only a couple of weeks prior to Unit deployment date, they gave her an extension but reneged just before deployment. That is why Hutchinson said they told her she had to find a replacement or her child would go in foster care. They didn't say that when she first informed them of situation, only when they cancelled the extension.

When did she come up with her 2nd plan that fell through? And when were the alternatives - like the veteran's group mentioned? It seems to me that although the extension was revoked...she had time to come up with an alternate plan of her own (that somehow fell through, like her first plan) and had time to have her commanding officers help come up with several other options.

I understand questioning why her extension was revoked. And I'm sure that the matter will come up when her case is heard. However - the reason the extension cancellation does not, in my opinion, play a major role is because even without the extension she had time to make at least one alternate plan herself...and the military had time to help her with others...and she refused them all (or something 'fell through'). I can see then, how the military would begin to suspect that she was attempting to use her child to get out of deployment - and would begin to investigate.

I've stated a few times now I would completely with a dishonorable discharge if the military had given her an extension (30-45 days).

And perhaps this is what the military should have done. However, from what I have read - the military felt that given the options she had, it appeared that she was deliberately refusing options to avoid deployment and they acted accordingly.

You keep harping on distinguishing between foster care and other options. That's nonsensical and should be a glaring moot point for all parents. Whether her child went into foster care or another option it makes no difference because they are the same conclusions: complete strangers having possession of her son.

No mother in her right mind would willingly put her child in foster care...the thought of complete strangers having possession of your child is terrifying - but Spc. Hutchinson is not simply a mom trying to care for her son and rather than playing the emotional game that Spc. Hutchinson's lawyer wants us to play - getting all wrapped up in the sad tale of a mother and her poor little baby. I am looking it as it should be...as all women fighting for equality in the military should be looking at it. As a sad tale of a soldier struggling to do her duty in a difficult situation. Or, (and I hope this isn't the case), the disgusting story of a soldier who is using her child in an attempt to get out of going to war.

Spc. Hutchinson is a soldier. She signed up willingly. She was well-informed as to her rights, duties, and responsibilities. She knew that she needed to provide a plan for what would happen to her child when she deployed. And since (you and I are in COMPLETE agreement on this one), no one in their right mind would want their child with strangers - you would think that she would make damn sure she had a good plan in place. But she didn't...she had one crappy plan in place. Another that fell through...and several others that she refused. I can see why the military is suspicious...and frankly, I am too.

As I stated earlier...I am more than willing to consider that she did not deliberately try to avoid deployment. But I am not willing to concede at this point, based on what I have read, that the military has acted so irresponsibly or inappropriately that she should not be dishonorably or other-than-honorably discharged from service immediately.

 

[Yukon]

Stooped? Equal rights is not stooping. It's called America.

Actually its cowardice. Men sending women to fight for them is the COWARD'S way.

 

[CurveLight]

Gem
"You seem to find this two month thing very important and I, simply, do not see it as important at all...which may be why we are having difficulty finding common ground.

2 months is simply not a long period of time in which to complete all of the necessary steps in order to charge someone with a crime. Especially considering that from what I've been reading, the military was highly suspicious of her using her childcare issue as a way to avoid deployment since she had several of her own plans "fall through" and had refused alternate plans."

Firstly it doesn't take anywhere two months to file charges. This is a similar process to the civilian side of filing charges then having the DA decide if prosecution will happen. I was in the Army and watched how fast charges were filed against others. Have you seen the reports her COC decided to file charges after learning of alleged misconduct? They haven't specified but my point is the same: if they had a window of two months to files charges they certainly had a window of 30 days to give her an extension.


Gem
"When did she come up with her 2nd plan that fell through? And when were the alternatives - like the veteran's group mentioned? It seems to me that although the extension was revoked...she had time to come up with an alternate plan of her own (that somehow fell through, like her first plan) and had time to have her commanding officers help come up with several other options.

I understand questioning why her extension was revoked. And I'm sure that the matter will come up when her case is heard. However - the reason the extension cancellation does not, in my opinion, play a major role is because even without the extension she had time to make at least one alternate plan herself...and the military had time to help her with others...and she refused them all (or something 'fell through'). I can see then, how the military would begin to suspect that she was attempting to use her child to get out of deployment - and would begin to investigate."


When her 2nd plan failed is really irrelevant because it doesn't change the facts it was only a couple of weeks prior to deployment her FCP fell through and the army reneged on an extension. If the military suspected she was using her kid as a scapegoat they would have charged her then. Not two months later.






Gem
"No mother in her right mind would willingly put her child in foster care...the thought of complete strangers having possession of your child is terrifying - but Spc. Hutchinson is not simply a mom trying to care for her son and rather than playing the emotional game that Spc. Hutchinson's lawyer wants us to play - getting all wrapped up in the sad tale of a mother and her poor little baby. I am looking it as it should be...as all women fighting for equality in the military should be looking at it. As a sad tale of a soldier struggling to do her duty in a difficult situation. Or, (and I hope this isn't the case), the disgusting story of a soldier who is using her child in an attempt to get out of going to war.

Spc. Hutchinson is a soldier. She signed up willingly. She was well-informed as to her rights, duties, and responsibilities. She knew that she needed to provide a plan for what would happen to her child when she deployed. And since (you and I are in COMPLETE agreement on this one), no one in their right mind would want their child with strangers - you would think that she would make damn sure she had a good plan in place. But she didn't...she had one crappy plan in place. Another that fell through...and several others that she refused. I can see why the military is suspicious...and frankly, I am too."


I see your side playing up the emotional strings quite a bit and it's borderline hyperbole. You keep saying things like she should have had a "concrete" plan in place. Impossible standard. The only thing concrete about people is they are never concrete. Given the lack of family it seems her mother was the best choice at the time. Since the child was 10 months and Hutchinson always had him then her mother may not have known what it would take to handle him. If handling him cost her some of the kids in her daycare that could have put serious financial strain on her. Caring for ill relatives is not cheap.

As I've said before it is possible she is just trying to get out but as of right now there is not enough evidence to support that and the last thing single parent soldiers need is a COC that engages in mind reading.

 

[CurveLight]

Stooped? Equal rights is not stooping. It's called America.

Actually its cowardice. Men sending women to fight for them is the COWARD'S way.

That's dishonest as well as sexist. Men aren't sending women to fight for them. Women have volunteered to fight with men. Obviously you have a very low opinion of women thus you do not think they arr capable of fighting. I'd love to see you in basic training in an all female unit. I'm guessing between the academic and physical fitness ratings you fall somewhere in the bottom 20% range. Not all cowards are sexists but all sexists are cowards.

 

[CurveLight]

Here's another similar situation and even though I haven't seen anyone address how Lisa Pagan got discharged and received no charges for refusing to deploy I'm hoping someone will respond to this one. In this case she should have had a courts martial and dishonorably discharged.


"The Army extended her leave briefly three times, but finally refused further extensions and charged her with being absent without leave March 25, then with desertion a month later."



(response from her CO)
"You willingly and knowingly created the situation in which you find yourself" by not following the advice of military lawyers and others, he wrote. "We had you on a plane the very night your E-leave request was authorized. I never stopped trying to support you: I went to bat for you to have your E-leave extended. ... I tried to prevent you from making mistakes you might regret."
www3.whdh.com/news/articles/local/BO54223/


They bent over backwards here. Way way too much imao and it shows in the very least Hutchinson could have been granted a 30 day extension.

 

[Yukon]

CurveLight,

You are a pathetic individual. The US is a sad excuse of what it used to be. Sad, pitiful, and pathetic........

 

[CurveLight]

CurveLight,

You are a pathetic individual. The US is a sad excuse of what it used to be. Sad, pitiful, and pathetic........

What does my being pathetic have to do with you being sexist and treating women as children incapable of fighting?

 

[Yukon]

CurveLight,

You are a pathetic individual. The US is a sad excuse of what it used to be. Sad, pitiful, and pathetic........

What does my being pathetic have to do with you being sexist and treating women as children incapable of fighting?

Never mind CurveLite, you woudn't understand.

 

[CurveLight]

CurveLight,

You are a pathetic individual. The US is a sad excuse of what it used to be. Sad, pitiful, and pathetic........

What does my being pathetic have to do with you being sexist and treating women as children incapable of fighting?

Never mind CurveLite, you woudn't understand.

Then please help me understand. As you pointed out I am a pathetic American so don't you have an ethical obligation to educate the less fortunate? Surely you aren't so selfish you would pass up the opportunity to share your wisdom, are you?