Defensive Carry banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,830 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
Does that have any affect on his retirement?
When a Sargent on the Pd, I was on was reduced in rank to patrolman rank for this type of offense, he retired, he still received the retirement of a Sgt.. The retirement badge and Id. card stated patrolman.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,376 Posts
The article says it would reduce his retirement pay by two thirds, but it was written by a journalist so it could be right, just as likely wrong
 
  • Like
Reactions: airslot

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
18,506 Posts
"This action may not be appealed. Second Lieutenant Grazioplene will maintain any benefits or privileges authorized for retired officers in the grade of second lieutenant."
The reduction in retired rank means, among other things, that Grazioplene's retirement pay will be slashed by more than two-thirds.
Thats going to be a massive in pay, not more champagne and he might be able to afford a beer or two each week to go along with the rice and bean with the SPAM.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
884 Posts
hmmmmm, I find it interesting that the Army dropped all charges and then implemented a sentence (reduction of rank) based on a civilian conviction.

Not saying that it is right, wrong or anything else, just saying that it seems a bit inconsistent that they Army is saying on one hand that they are not interested in court martialing and punishing him, then on the other hand they are saying that they want to punish him based on the findings of the civilian court's findings. Then they are saying that he has no appeal over a punishment based on a crime that they had already determined to be beyond the statute of limitations.

Seems like they wanted to sweep it under the rug to being with then, after the civilian conviction, decided to backtrack to try to save face.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,648 Posts
hmmmmm, I find it interesting that the Army dropped all charges and then implemented a sentence (reduction of rank) based on a civilian conviction.

Not saying that it is right, wrong or anything else, just saying that it seems a bit inconsistent that they Army is saying on one hand that they are not interested in court martialing and punishing him, then on the other hand they are saying that they want to punish him based on the findings of the civilian court's findings. Then they are saying that he has no appeal over a punishment based on a crime that they had already determined to be beyond the statute of limitations.

Seems like they wanted to sweep it under the rug to being with then, after the civilian conviction, decided to backtrack to try to save face.
It says he retired in 2005, so I don't think the military would still have jurisdiction in the case. Back when I was on active duty the military couldn't touch you once you retired and were no longer on terminal leave. It's possible that they still had jurisdiction because he hadn't served out his inactive duty commitment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,263 Posts
I think he deserves whatever can be done to him for his heinous crimes.

But I don't like the precedent this sets. I think there was a lack of due process here. Charges were dropped by the military, but the military bureaucracy still imposed a sentence. I shudder to think of how else that could get applied by an increasingly leftist military hierarchy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,374 Posts
I seem to recall about 15-20 yrs ago a law was passed to allow the military to take your pension if you are convicted of a felony. This may have been done under that law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: msgt/ret

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,263 Posts
I seem to recall about 15-20 yrs ago a law was passed to allow the military to take your pension if you are convicted of a felony. This may have been done under that law.
According to Military.com, you only lose or have reduced benefits when you are incarcerated for more than 60 days, after a conviction, which does not apply here. Benefits resume once you are no longer incarcerated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,447 Posts
It says he retired in 2005, so I don't think the military would still have jurisdiction in the case. Back when I was on active duty the military couldn't touch you once you retired and were no longer on terminal leave. It's possible that they still had jurisdiction because he hadn't served out his inactive duty commitment.
Enlisted personnel can retire at 20 yrs of service, but they are subject to recall/jurisdiction up to 30 years. Officer retirements are different in that they can be recalled for life and therefore jurisdiction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,872 Posts
I'm not sure she thought this through, at least not from a financial standpoint. Whatever she had coming to her as his daughter, she'll now get nothing, and neither will anyone else associated with him.

That said, justice was certainly done.

But I don't like the precedent this sets. I think there was a lack of due process here. Charges were dropped by the military, but the military bureaucracy still imposed a sentence. I shudder to think of how else that could get applied by an increasingly leftist military hierarchy.
I concur. This is essentially saying members of the military will be held to different standards than everyone else after they retire, and frankly, I do not like that answer for one simple reason: Pensioners from every organization under the sun, including government service, are subject only to civilian laws. While their pensions can be garnished by the courts, they cannot be stopped by the companies who funded them.

I just did a search and there are TONS of articles claiming all sorts of things -- most of which are wrong.

The best article addressing the situation is saying this:

  • For those currently serving on active duty, the UCMJ applies.
  • The UCMJ does not apply to veterans who were discharged before reaching 20 years of service and qualifying for a retirement.
  • For reservists, the UCMJ applies only while on active duty or inactive duty training.
  • But for retirees, the UCMJ does apply in some situations — it all depends on how they retired, and even that is being litigated.
The Lt Col reservist, Larry Brock, who entered the Capitol on January 6, will not be tried under the UCMJ: "In a statement to the Military Times, Ann Stefanek, an Air Force spokeswoman, said: “Lt. Col. Larry R. Brock, Jr. retired from the Air Force Reserve in 2014. As a private citizen, we no longer have jurisdiction over him." Because Brock is a retired reservist, he doesn’t fall under the UCMJ. Had he retired from active duty, however, the Air Force could pursue charges against him.

"Though that option has rarely been used in the history of the UCMJ, there have been high-profile cases in recent years that resulted in the prosecution of retirees. Those have led to legal challenges to the practice of charging retirees, which some say is “anachronistic” and some judges have called it “unconstitutional.”

I'm inclined to agree that it's un-Constitutional, and am sorely disappointed with the Supreme Court for refusing to hear any of the many cases appealed to its level.

I think the arguments at the end of the article carry the most weight, particularly about the "pension" which is precisely what it says on my financial documents from the government.

If the crime was committed while on active duty, as was the case with the 1983-1989 actions of the former 2-star and now 2LT, then by all means, yank 'em back in and hang 'em for the offense.

If a crime is committed afterwards, however, that's not on active duty at all, ergo, not subject to the UCMJ.

I think this also raises the double-jeopardy issue, as more than one of these folks have been dismissed at one level only to be hauled back and tried by a completely different authority. The ENTIRE POINT of the prohibition against double-jeopardy is to prevent that.

A very important principle in the military is Unity of Command.

I think it's high time we have United of Justice, as well.

"Vladeck and Vokey note that by allowing prosecutors to go after retirees with UCMJ offenses, the military greatly expands their powers. Vladeck called the move “stunning in its breadth.”

I concur. It's time for SCOTUS to draw a firm line of "active duty" around power and authority of the military. No one except civilian authorities should hold authority over someone who faithfully and honorably discharged his or her duties while on active duty.

The key word here is "discharge" as in "honorably discharged." When you're discharged from an organization, you're no longer either in it or subject to it.

After literally laying our lives on the line for our country, the absolute LAST thing a retiree needs is some Damacles Sword hanging over their heads for the rest of their lives.

NO other pensioner on this planet has that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,648 Posts
I worked for a great Colonel in the AF. He went on to become a general and ran a whole command. He was divorcing his wife of 30 years and she pressed charges for spousal abuse and he was thrown out.

I also worked for a Lt Col who ran a classified program. When he retired he applied to the company where I worked to work on the same program. His ex made claims of spousal abuse and it delayed his security clearance by over a year. He couldn't even enter the work area of the program that he use to run.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,088 Posts
I'm not sure she thought this through, at least not from a financial standpoint. Whatever she had coming to her as his daughter, she'll now get nothing, and neither will anyone else associated with him.
Having read an article with her side of the story, I don't think she ever cared about the financial standpoint. She wasn't even interested in his imprisonment. Her main drive was to get him to admit what he had done, because for most of her life both he and his wife denied it. Later, the mom admitted that she ignored the signs.

The girl now wants absolutely nothing to do with either of them, and I would guess that goes for any financial interest as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,374 Posts
This whole case stinks to high heaven. What I read was the mother caught the father in the act a few times. She should be in jail too. (Yes I know he's not in jail now but he was)

@since9 Regarding honorably serving, the Army determined he was raping his daughter after he made 1st LT therefore 2nd LT was the highest honorable rank he held. I don't agree with that but that's the Army.

I also think he would never have plead guilty if he had known the Army was going to bust him back.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top