The main issue I had with your post was calling the "24-year veteran" statement a lie. You know that's not the case. No one who served in the ANG or USAFR goes around putting an asterisk after their years of service. If you want to hold their service in contempt because it doesn't meet your standards, I guess that's your option. The guy served and did so for 24 years. Getting drunk and stepping out with a co-worker doesn't change that.
Originally Posted by
Excargodog
Apparently you are a little late to the party. What he has already admitted to, taking a drunk female subordinate to his room, would have gotten him disciplinary action in every active duty unit I was in.
Ok. Didn't know that. But, still, such a strange way of coming at this on your part. First, he's not in the military. So what may or may not have gotten him disciplined in the military is irrelevant. That also has nothing to do with the value of his military service. Doing something stupid with a co-worker after you're retired from the military doesn't somehow negate your service.
Second, she's not his subordinate. He's not her boss or her supervisor. Not to mention they're both civilians and none of the old fraternization stuff applies.
Originally Posted by
Excargodog
Inferior in quality? Maybe yes, maybe no. Depends on the unit. Inferior in actual hours put in in the course of a year? Most definitely, for all but a few career Reservists.
Mmmkay. Well, you're entitled to your opinion. So, that makes it a lie to say an ANG or USAFR member is a "24-year veteran"?
Originally Posted by
Excargodog
..you know damn well that no senior officer's career would have survived something like this.
Again, who gives a giant, flying sh!t what some imaginary senior officer's career would or wouldn't survive. The actual pilot in question is retired. He's a civilian. What exactly is your point here. He can no longer mention his 24-years of military service because of this event, the complete specifics of which still remain in question?
Originally Posted by
Excargodog
...but you ALSO know damn well the lady lawyer was flag waving the way she presented his military time.
Assume for a moment that these were two consenting adults and the only thing this guy is guilty of is really bad judgement.
He's being accused and already convicted in the public's eyes of some pretty serious stuff. You don't think it's valid to point out his long history of good things and accomplishments over his career, including his military service? He's not a career criminal. He doesn't have anything like this in his history. Those are valid points being made by his advocate in an attempt to balance what has clearly been a very one-sided attack up to now. I guarantee you would be in the minority if you polled a group of veterans about whether it's a lie or someone is deliberately misrepresenting this individuals service by calling him a 24-year veteran.
That's exactly what he is and that really was my only point in responding to you. The rest of this has just become a bit of a twilight zone episode, IMO.