(USAF) Sergeant In Trouble For Playboy Spread

[geo]

Its not the same because it is not the CF....Its is the USAF.  They have their rules and process just like we have ours.

I agree, it isn't the CF
I was just pointing out that, for a country that provides protection to their Reservists and Guardsmen, the USAF certainly expedited this Sergeant on her merry way right quick.

 

[George Wallace]

Don't forget, the USAF also has very strict Fraternization Regulations, so when it comes down on a member for breaking the Rules of Conduct, it is very severe in dealing out punishment, usually involving a Dishonorable Release.

 

[geo]

... but wouldn't that be part and parcel with the application of the UCMJ... which should have included a summary trial or whatever due process the Airforce uses?

 

[aesop081]

... but wouldn't that be part and parcel with the application of the UCMJ... which should have included a summary trial or whatever due process the Airforce uses?

Who says that due process wasnt followed ?  Are you that familiar with UCMJ/USAF policies that you can outright say that it wasn't ?

 

[niner domestic]

815 Art 15 of the UCMJ allows for a non-judical commandant's punishment in lieu of a court martial.  In 935 Art 135 affords a convening of a Court of Inquiry.  (The member was relieved of her duties while an investigation took place, that was in Jan). 

 

[aesop081]

:

right on.......Now i cant wait until the barrack room lawyers amongst us start coming out

 

[niner domestic]

Well, maybe they can read this: http://sja.hqmc.usmc.mil/JAM/MJFACTSHTS.htm#Discipline%20Options before they type..lol

 

[FredDaHead]

Well, maybe they can read this: http://sja.hqmc.usmc.mil/JAM/MJFACTSHTS.htm#Discipline%20Options before they type..lol

I've watched every single episode of JAG, ever. Why would I need to read an official document?

Seriously though, whatever happened to "you screw up, you pay up"? She disgraced her uniform, that's all we need to know.

 

[geo]

Hey guys,
All I was saying was that there did not appear to have been due process.
There has been enough media coverage of this Playboy issue that I was certain there would have been some coverage of any summary trial / disciplinary action carried out in the settlement of this matter.  I did not read anything in the press that said action has been done.  Does this mean that it wasn`t - not really BUT I would have thought.....

Sorry for thinking

 

[niner domestic]

I doubt very much that the MSM would have found the continuation of this story interesting reading for their public if they had included the details of what ever process the USAF used to come to their decision.  I have only ever seen one journalist, Dominick Dunne, get the legal aspects of a trial down correctly and thus report it to his readership.  The rest of the MSM who attempt to comment on anything remotely legal, ends up either writing the wrong information, or botches the process up so badly, that the readership begins to thinks that the legal system is badly flawed. 

In light of the MSM commenting on her demotion that reads to me, that a process has occurred and a decision was reached by whatever mechanism the USAF has followed.  Considering the media exposure of this subject, I am also fairly certain that the USAF followed what ever process they needed to follow to render such a decision legally.  I doubt the would disregard whatever due process in order to feed the MSM frenzy. (and that term is an unique American term and is one of my small peeves when I hear a Canadian referring to it. We do not have due process here in Canada and yes, I realize that in this instance the subject is an American case but it does somewhat demonstrate the naivety of the layperson in trying to discuss a legal process.  The proper term for Canadians to use is, Administrative Fairness)

I have always found it interesting that when the MSM messes up the detail on say, a tank's identification, that mistake is quickly jumped upon and the MSM is called to task on not knowing what they are talking about.  However, when it appears that the legal system, or any arm of the justice system is at fault, not many call into account the way in which it was reported, but tend to go for the jugular of the system not the reporter that has simply written an erroneous article and perhaps done with the intent to incite rather than inform (another peeve is the ability of the MSM to forget to explain the difference between the judicial review and a parole hearing when reporting a notorious offender's bid for a parole eligibility reduction).  The presumption in this part of the thread is that Manhart did not or perhaps might not have received her day in court therefore it is presumed to be the fault of the system and what has been overlooked is that a report on the proceedings simply doesn't make good inciteful media or even that Manhart isn't being forthcoming with the information that has come from her superiors except she thinks it is unfair or that perhaps there is a bias in the reporting. 

So, I'm going to say it...wow, that was a badly written article that spun a bias to support Manhart and made the USAF look draconian.  The author forgot to mention how they arrived at their decision and what would be Manhart's appeal process. 

 

[geo]

So, I'm going to say it...wow, that was a badly written article that spun a bias to support Manhart and made the USAF look draconian.  The author forgot to mention how they arrived at their decision and what would be Manhart's appeal process. 

Ayup.... on the assumption that said author was informed of the process that was applied.  The military (both Can & US) have an unfortunate track history of not always explaining things that are, in themselves, quite simple and perfectly acceptable.... unless you happen to be on the receiving end of the decision (in which case, nothing is fair)

 

[Blackadder1916]

For what should be an unimportant story in the grand scale of things, the tale of SSGT SRA Manhart has maintained a certain fascination for some (on this means, if not elsewhere).  Let's face it, if the story had been about a male Air Force NCO who had been suspended from duty and subsequently disciplined because he had another job on his off-duty time, I doubt that over 100 posts would have been made, nor would it have been viewed as many times as it has.  The fact that nudity is involved ratcheted up the titillation (word deliberately used) factor. 

I doubt very much that the MSM would have found the continuation of this story interesting reading for their of  public if they had included the details of what ever process the USAF used to come to their decision.
  ..... that was a badly written article that spun a bias to support Manhart and made the USAF look draconian.  The author forgot to mention how they arrived at their decision and what would be Manhart's appeal process. 

Badly written?  Biased? It probably won't be considered for a Pulitzer this year, but what do you expect from a wire service staffer (perhaps stringer) assigned to crank out a short piece on this story.  As both the original post and the later one were AP pieces, I wondered if there was a different perspective (or information) from other news oulets.  A google of the subject (http://news.google.ca/news?hl=en&ned=&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1113635625) indicated that most had used the AP piece.  Realistically, this is not an important enough story that would entice newspapers or other media outlets to incur the additional expense of sending someone to San Antonio to cover it.  But I did view a couple of the local reports.

San Antonio KSAT http://www.ksat.com/news/11017186/detail.html  (a local tv station, very small piece (but does have a link to a video clip with her, I didn't look at it)

San Antonio Express  http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/military/stories/MYSA021507.1A.AFbunny.17a3888.html

Airman Resigns After Playboy Uproar
Web Posted: 02/15/2007 03:22 PM CST
Sig Christenson  Express-News Military Writer

A one-time Lackland AFB training instructor who posed nude in Playboy magazine says she's quit the service after being demoted from staff sergeant to low-ranking airman.

The trainer, Michelle Manhart, said life on the base became miserable after she appeared in a six-page photo spread Jan.12, sparking headlines around the country.

Manhart said she was taken off active-duty status last Friday and moved to the Iowa Air National Guard after facing disciplinary proceedings that began in the wake of the Playboy shoot.

The Air Force confirmed part of her account but did not elaborate on the disciplinary action or her current status.

In an interview Wednesday, she complained of being shunted to the back of an office while her case crossed the desks of commanders — all because she posed for the men's magazine.

"Obviously it's clear to me that the military has not progressed with life and time, because they're still living in a Stone Age period," Manhart said. "Women are still treated differently than men, women are still judged differently than men."

A SeaWorld-area mother of two whose husband is also in the Air Force, Manhart, 30, said she joined the Air Force in 1994. She worked last spring as a military training instructor, one of the service's elite jobs, when she posed for Playboy. The pictorial, shot at a home in the Dominion, depicts her in various states of nudity.

Lackland pulled her from duty as a trainer after she told superiors she had posed for Playboy. Manhart said a series of administrative actions ensued, and she contended she was ordered to attend media training and not talk with reporters — a claim a base official denied.

"She was never forbidden to speak with the media," said Lt. Col. Dan Epright, a Lackland spokesman, adding that she was "encouraged" to seek media training before more interviews.

Manhart said a series of administrative actions took place as she worked her office job. Both the Air Force and Manhart said she was moved Friday from active-duty to Guard status.

Epright said Manhart came to the base from a National Guard unit for a four-year tour as a military trainer. He said she was sent back to the Guard because she was no longer able to perform that job.

He also confirmed she had received disciplinary paperwork but could not provide documentation because of federal Privacy Act rules.

Manhart did not provide documentation but said she was embittered by her experience, saying she wouldn't want to serve in the Air Force.

"I do support our military troops. I support the government and everything it stands for," Manhart said. "My hat's off to them, but as far as my direct leadership, they've proved to me there are dirty things that go on and you're not protected. So I guess the phrase 'watch your six' (rear) is very important in more than just the desert."

Epright and another Air Force spokesman, Oscar Balladares, were careful in discussing her case. The Privacy Act forbids the military from releasing information in administrative disciplinary proceedings.

While not confirming Manhart's account of the administrative actions in her case, Epright said she had been reduced in rank, saying, "My understanding is that she is a senior airman." He added, "A demotion is not a favorable personnel action."

It is not clear if Manhart is still in the Iowa Guard. Though she said she resigned Friday from the Guard and had received an honorable discharge, Epright had no documentation, saying only that she was given a form for those seeking separation from the service.

Wearing a silver Playboy necklace and a white T-shirt with the words "I modeled today" and the magazine's bunny logo, Manhart vowed over soft drinks at Audry's restaurant to embark on a modeling and acting career — and would love to pose for a second spread in the magazine.

She spent Valentine's evening judging the finals of a bikini contest at Graham Central Station, a massive nightclub on the city's Northwest Side.

It isn't clear if the second spread will happen. A Playboy spokesman couldn't be reached late Wednesday. Neither Manhart nor Playboy officials has said how much Manhart was paid.

At nightfall Wednesday, she enjoyed her celebrity status by judging the finals of a local nightclub's bikini contest.

"I hope, really hope that Playboy wants to do another photo shoot for many reasons," she said. "I absolutely love working with the Playboy family. The people are so incredible." 

A piece in Army Times did have a little more info re the admin/disciplinary aspects. 
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/02/afplayboy070215/

Airman In Playboy Tossed From Active Duty
By Erik Holmes - Staff writer  Posted : Friday Feb 16, 2007 11:15:59 EST

Staff Sgt. Michelle Manhart, an Air Force military training instructor who posed nude for Playboy magazine, has been removed from active duty, busted down to senior airman and given a letter of reprimand, she told Military Times on Feb. 15.

But things might be looking up for Manhart’s entertainment career, which she said could soon include a reality television series.

Manhart, who appeared both in and out of uniform in a six-page spread in Playboy’s February issue, said her commander notified her Feb. 9 that she was being demoted, removed from “extended active duty” and returned to the Iowa Air National Guard, where she was assigned before going on active duty.

She said she opted to resign from the Air Guard, which accepted her resignation and is processing her discharge.

“I’m actually quite relieved because I’m tired of dealing with their stuff,” Manhart said. “I’m just very displeased with the way things took place. … I have no faith in the leadership.”

Oscar Balladares, a spokesman for Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, where Manhart worked as a basic-training instructor, confirmed that she was removed from extended active duty Feb. 9 but said Lackland did not discharge her.

“She was removed from active-duty status, and thus reverted to National Guard status,” Balladares said. “It is not up to the Air Force — it is not our jurisdiction to discharge her.”

Lt. Col. Greg Hapgood, a spokesman for the Iowa National Guard, told Military Times on Feb. 15 that he had received some — though not all — of Manhart’s separation paperwork and had not yet processed it.

Manhart, 30, said the letter of reprimand issued by her group commander included charges that she violated articles 92 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Article 132 is for failure to obey an order or regulation, and Article 134 is a general article that prohibits, among other things, “conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.”

She appealed to the wing commander, who summarily dismissed the appeal, she said. She plans to appeal the action after her discharge through the Board for Correction of Military Records.

Manhart told The Associated Press that the military’s action against her hinged on the fact that she was pictured in Playboy wearing her Air Force uniform.

She was photographed in uniform yelling and holding weapons under the headline “Tough Love.” The following pages showed her partially clothed wearing dog tags and fully nude. After the pictorial hit newsstands in January, Manhart was relieved of her duties pending an investigation.

Manhart said she understands that some people were offended by her decision to appear in the magazine, but that the fuss the Air Force made far outweighs the seriousness of the issue.

Manhart said she will continue to live in Texas with her husband and two children.

But she said she hopes that the exposure of appearing in Playboy will lead her west to Los Angeles.

“I’m hoping that the right people will see me, and I’ll get some offers to pursue a career out there,” Manhart said.

She is in discussions to appear in a reality television show in the near future, she said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

As for the administrative and disciplinary actions taken against SRA Manhart,  we can only speculate and pontificate (like all good "barrack room lawyers" or "members of the bar" who have no involvement in the case).  For those who want to play that game I'll add a couple of links for your edification.

UCMJ  http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm  the offenses that she was charged with violating are:

892. ART. 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION
Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

934. ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

The Military Commander and the Law  (USAF Publication)  Chapter 3  deals with Non Judicial Punishment
http://milcom.jag.af.mil/  or  http://milcom.jag.af.mil/milcom2006-complete.pdf

 

[armyvern]

Well,

In the guys' defense on this forum. If it was a story about a male air force NCO who had been suspended from duty and subsequently disciplined because he had posed for Playgirl...I'd be reading it; and most likely checking for links. It's human nature.

Unimportant story in the scheme of things? Absolutley. It is the kind of story to pique one's curiosity though.

Vern

 

[geo]

In my present incarnation, I deal with (amongst other things) Grievances for all sorts of issues relating to personal failures AND some fairly serious issues of abusive treatment by superiors....

Understanding the whats & whys is always a good thing