US MGen demoted to LCol.....

[Journeyman]

:facepalm: Really? Is your sarcasm detector that broken?

Apparently.    :

I guess the " " was too subtle.

 

[GGHG_Cadet]

Then there was these 2 cases
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2010/11/23/commanders_alleged_afghan_fling_could_lead_to_prison.html

Col Ouellette was wrongly removed from his position, see here-

Over a year after he was brought home from Haiti in disgrace, the Military Grievances External Review Committee ruled his removal was unjustified and said it was aghast at the way he was treated.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-grievance-ouellette-1.3685968

 

[Loachman]

I guess the " " was too subtle.

Well, you ARE world-renowned for your modest subtlety...

 

[FJAG]

Col Ouellette was wrongly removed from his position, see here-

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-grievance-ouellette-1.3685968

Just a point. s29.12(1) of the NDA requires that the CDS shall refer certain grievances and may refer all other grievances to the Military Grievances External Review Committee for their findings and recommendations before he considers and determines the grievance.

s29.13(1) states that the CDS is not bound by the Committees findings or recommendations but under s29.13(2)(a) must state his reasons if he does not act on the Committees findings and recommendations.

s29.11 states that the CDS is the final authority in the grievance process.

The law is quiet clear that the CDS is an adjudicator who relies on his discretion in dealing with a grievance and that the Committee forms an advisory body.

The CF Grievance Authority is an administrative staff for the CDS that: 1 provides advice to lower level initial authorities respecting a grievance; 2 receives and vets grievances going to the CDS as the final authority and refers the appropriate ones to the Grievance Committee; 3 staffs the Grievance Committee's findings and recommendations to the CDS together with it's own analysis.

The issue in the Ouellette Federal Court case is unique in that 1 the CDS had a role in the decision to remove Ouellette from command, 2. Since there was no other initial authority (in that dismissal was signed by comd CEFCOM) there was an issue as to whether the CDS, as next in the chain of command, was acting, in effect, as an initial authority or a final authority (Ouellette had complained that sending the grievance directly to the CDS had deprived him off a review by an initial authority and in fact the CFGA advised him that they were forwarding the grievance to the CDS as an initial authority 3  in the peculiar circumstances of the case the matter (and the previously finding and recommendations given by the MGERC) should be returned to the CDS specifically in his capacity as the final authority.

The court did not rule in any way on the merits of Ouellette's case but solely the procedural issue as to whether or not the CDS was acting in the capacity of an IA or an FA when making his decision. Neither did the court in any way review (much less determine) as to whether or not there was any impropriety in there being an administrative staff in the form of the CFGA. IMHO there is nothing wrong with the CDS having an internal staff review to advise him over and above the statutory role played by the MGERC in particular that if he diverges from the MGERC decision he must state his reasons for doing so and is thereafter is subject to Judicial Review by the courts. I think in this case Ouellette's counsel was just PO'd by the fact that the CDS rejected the MGERC findings and recommendations which he is entitled to fo under the NDA.

http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/120584/index.do

:subbies:

 

[ballz]

"Nobody has heard what I have had to say, and nobody in the chain of command really cared about the way [my case] has been handled," Ouellette told CBC News in an interview.

"I would just like someone to say they are sorry."

Having been the AO and seeing what a s**tshow the grievance process has been for a few of my soldiers and one of my peers, I have to admit it kinda tickles me to see a Colonel getting the same treatment.

 

[cupper]

Most states in the US have a "no fault divorce" rule, so cheating / adultery is a moot point.

That isn't exactly accurate.

http://info.legalzoom.com/states-nofault-divorce-states-20400.html

 

[tomahawk6]

LTC Haight's spouse will get half of his pension and access to TRICARE,which is the military retired healthcare system. That is after she obtains a divorce decree.Of course she may not decide to get a divorce as she may also have participated in the swinging life style. :

 

[Old Sweat]

T6, do you know his substantive rank at the time of the proceedings?

 

[tomahawk6]

Major General and he was on track for a third star.

 

[Old Sweat]

Thanks. That certainly sends a message.

 

[tomahawk6]

Thanks. That certainly sends a message.

The 11 year affair lasted until this year covered the period from when he was a Colonel until this year.

A demotion of three grades is unusual, and is based on Army regulations that require a three-member board to determine an officer's retirement rank when the person has been found guilty of misconduct. The board had to decide whether Haight served satisfactorily in his current rank, and if not, he could be demoted to the last rank in which his service would be considered satisfactory.

The demotion suggests that the board concluded that Haight's misconduct stretched back through his time as colonel and was serious enough to make retirement at the more senior grades not possible.

Under the regulations, "one specific act of misconduct may or may not form the basis for a determination that the overall service in that grade was unsatisfactory, regardless of the period of time served in grade."